Slashdot Mirror


Cell Phone Use Tied To Changes In Brain Activity

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."

4 of 191 comments (clear)

  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: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.)

  3. 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.
  4. 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