Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cell Phone Use Tied To Changes In Brain Activity

Posted by timothy on from the hi-tara dept.

Takichi writes "The New York Times is reporting on research linking cell phone use and increased metabolism, with high statistical significance, in the areas of the brain close to the antenna. The study was led by Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and is published (abstract) in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The impact, good or bad, of the increased stimulation is speculative, but this research shows there is a direct relationship between cell phone signals and the brain that warrants further study."

15 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Unsure by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The impact, good or bad, of the increased stimulation is speculative (...)

    I'm speechless!

    --
    Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    1. Re:Unsure by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a real disconnect between the single picture and the article text. The picture posted in the NYT shows increased diffused uptake, perhaps a predominance on the right side (the side with the active cell phone) but it's anything but obvious. From all of the chatter surrounding the article, I hope to hell that the actual quantitative results are better founded and the picture just isn't very useful.

      TFA claims that the study is high quality and if they can get reasonable results from 47 people, they had to see a substantive difference. Still and all, it's a relatively easy experiment to repeat and I assume that is in progress as we speak. I'd like to see some better controls (both left and right active, a determination of how repeatable the fMRI values are in a given person over a couple of hours just to name two off the top of my head).

      As everyone has been taking great pains to note, this doesn't show anything but a putative effect of putting an active cell phone next to your head - it's neither good nor bad and it's not necessarily due to the radio emissions (that's an assumption).

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Unsure by commodore6502 · · Score: 5, Informative

      >>>It doesn't look like they even used a control group of people doing nothing

      Yes they did.

      >>>people just talking

      Yes they did.

      >>>people talking with the phone on the other side of their head

      Yes they did.
      It helps if you actually READ the article, since the researchers tested the phone on both sides of the head, with the phone turned off, and with the phone turned on, and observed the brain only reactived with the phone turned on (and on whichever side it was located).

      >>>Why are researchers so clueless?

      They are not.
      You however are.
      Sorry but you posted the post, and I'm just responding in kind.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
  2. If you miss this post you'll get brain cancer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The link to not [POPUP] reading this post and getting cancer isn't fully [AD] analyzed and might be actually both ways. Also we're [BANNER] not sure why would a post prevent or cause cancer. Technically [POPUP] we're just at the start. We'd appreciate if someone funds our study into the [AD] posts-cancer link.

    I hope you feel better informed. Thanks for your time.

  3. Meh by lennier1 · · Score: 2

    Why bother?
    With all that electromagnetic pollution our great-grandchildren will be born with at least three arms anyway.

  4. Cell phones are making us smarter! by fezzzz · · Score: 2

    Cell phones are making us smarter and here's the proof! I always knew that first world countries excelled due to an unknown unfair advantage!

  5. Re:Could it be something else? by Zakabog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The call was muted to avoid any issues with the sound causing an increase in brain activity.

    What i'd like to know is how close was the phone to the ear? They said the part of the brain closest to the antenna showed the increase in activity but if the phone is that close to the head then it seems entirely possible that it was affected by the heat ahone generates in a 50 minute phone call.

    I feel like they should redo the experiment, actually do something where the antenna is seperate from the phone body and next to the brain. Also why not test multiple scenarios, left phone on in a call, right phone on in a call, both phones in a call, both phones off, both phones on, etc. This experiment just tested both phones on, both phones off and right phone on. It seems kind of half assed.

  6. "Knowing when its about to ring" by polyp2000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've lost count of the time I've looked at my mobile seconds before it is about to ring.
    This is completely unscientific, but I am convinced my brain has "learned" to recognise the
    electromagnetic interference caused by the phone just before its about to ring or receive a message.

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    1. Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by gTsiros · · Score: 4, Interesting

      and do you count the times where you look at your cellphone without it ringing later on?

      --
      Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
  7. PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by the_raptor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This study involved computer based analysis using PET scan data*. Similar studies have often been shown to have overstated or no real statistical significance**. With only 47 participants this study has, in my eyes, about the same validity as the average undergrad study.

    Unfortunately tomorrow it will be in all the newspapers to prove that cell phones cause cancer (ironically this study was done with ionising radiation, whose cancer causing effects are well known).

    * I am a pysch student and these studies are the ban of my existence. They mostly have the same validity for studying human behaviour as the old method of making shit up based on observation. However they seem much more "sciency" to funding committees.

    ** http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_Are,_Its_Wrong

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    1. Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by Smegoid · · Score: 2

      With only 47 participants this study has, in my eyes, about the same validity as the average undergrad study.

      I'd love to know what kind of experimental psychology you do that typically runs so many hundreds of participants that you see 47 subjects as equivalent to an undergrad project.

    2. Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by CheetoNards · · Score: 2
      I believe the parent was referring to the PET scan used to determine brain activity.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography#Safety

    3. Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by dcollins · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "This study involved computer based analysis using PET scan data*. Similar studies have often been shown to have overstated or no real statistical significance**. With only 47 participants this study has, in my eyes, about the same validity as the average undergrad study."

      I don't think any of those things mean what you seem to think they mean. *

      (1) On PET scan data not having "validity" -- skeptical. Citation needed.
      (2) On the linked article of science paper statistical shortfalls -- there are some good cautionary points in that article. The article does not say that similar studies have been shown to have "no real statistical significance" (in fact, just the opposite). I challenge you to point out specific statistical pitfalls (from your linked article) of which this abstract runs afoul? Because I don't see any.
      (3) 47 participants is perfectly reasonable, since the accepted number for a t-test as done in the study is considered to be 30 or more (hence generating an approximately-normal sampling distribution of sample mean results, per the Central Limit Theorem, assuming no outliers found in the obtained data). The strength of the evidence obtained is reflected in the calculation of P = 0.004 (which is super, super low, i.e., enormously significantly significant), not by your hand waving about what should count "in your eyes".

      * I'm a lecturer in college statistics.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  8. Re:Could it be something else? by spikenerd · · Score: 4, Informative

    They were quite deliberate to point out that they used a phone with the antenna in the mouthpiece, so that it would be separated from sources of heat, and that the the increased consumption of glucose was measured in regions near the antenna, and not so much near sources of heat. They claimed this was a significant point because the FDA's current position is that heat is entirely responsible for all reactions that have yet been measured. (Disclaimer: I'm just repeating stuff from articles about it--I didn't read the actual study.)

  9. Re:Could it be something else? by xded · · Score: 2

    it seems entirely possible that it was affected by the heat ahone generates in a 50 minute phone call [...] they should redo the experiment, actually do something where the antenna is seperate from the phone body and next to the brain.

    The problem would then be that the microwaves themselves will generate heat in the brain, leading to some metabolic perturbation.

    Supposing our body does not contain "rectifying" biological structures (an "organic diode") able to work at nanosecond time constants, can we please stop discovering dielectric heating and investigate whether the heating itself affects our brain?