Cell Phone Radiation May Affect Memory Performance In Adolescents, Study Finds (sciencedaily.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cell Phone Radiation May Affect Memory Performance In Adolescents, Study Finds (sciencedaily.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday July 21, 2018 @10:34AM from the thinks-like-teen-spirit dept.

dryriver quotes Science Daily: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields may have adverse effects on the development of memory performance of specific brain regions exposed during mobile phone use. These are the findings of a study involving nearly 700 adolescents in Switzerland. The investigation, led by the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, will be published on Monday, 23 July 2018 in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives. The study to be published found that cumulative RF-EMF brain exposure from mobile phone use over one year may have a negative effect on the development of figural memory performance in adolescents, confirming prior results published in 2015.

Figural memory is mainly located in the right brain hemisphere, and association with RF-EMF was more pronounced in adolescents using the mobile phone on the right side of the head. 'This may suggest that indeed RF-EMF absorbed by the brain is responsible for the observed associations.' said Martin Röösli, Head of Environmental Exposures and Health at Swiss TPH.

89 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Cause and effect by arth1 · 2018-07-21 10:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm not too sure that cell phone radiation is the cause, and not just an effect. That kids that use cell phones more are also the ones who aren't training figural memory.
1. Re:Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Oh I'm sure the researchers didn't control for an insanely obvious factor like total exposure time! Wow you've completely invalidated the whole study with your shitty ill-considered judgement!
2. Re:Cause and effect by Kiwikwi · 2018-07-21 11:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That kids that use cell phones more are also the ones who aren't training figural memory.
  Well, according to TFS, it's apparently especially the kids that hold the phone to their right ear that "aren't training" their figural memory. Funny how that works.
  Also curious how the effect was only observed for calls, with one of the referenced articles stating:
  
  No exposure-response associations were observed for sending text messages and duration of gaming, which produces tiny RF-EMF emissions.
3. Re:Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  They are dumb, just like millennials!
4. Re:Cause and effect by fazig · 2018-07-21 11:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That sounds like a strong correlation. But you still have to examine and disprove other factors that could have an influence on the outcome in order to improve certainty.
  Anyway, I suppose it's a good thing that cell phones aren't used as phones that often any more.
5. Re:Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  It's an interesting question: Do I not remember numbers as well because I'm not doing it regularly or am I not doing it because I can't seem to remember them as well as I used to?
  I don't even try these days because it's too hard and I used to be able to. The results of the research would be very interesting.
6. Re:Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. And unless Swiss kids are very different from US ones, kids tend to text, and rarely use the phone as a phone, no matter if they are right or left handed, thus this study might be flawed in this manner. (I didn't see the data, so don't know.)
7. Re:Cause and effect by Ken_g6 · 2018-07-21 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  It took me awhile to "figure" out what figural memory is. I finally found a reference referring to "figural memory (the ability to recall shapes)".
  Given that, I think the emoji generation is training their figural memory just fine.
  
  --
  (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
8. Re:Cause and effect by Ol+Olsoc · 2018-07-21 12:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  No exposure-response associations were observed for sending text messages and duration of gaming, which produces tiny RF-EMF emissions.
  The difference between Near field and far field RF. Far field RF exposure is very minimal, and non-concentrated to boot. Near Field can give you a fair dose of RF. And you're holding the phone right against your ear. Texting is going to be about 2 feet away for most people.
  It is unlikely that Smartphone RF causes cancer. It's just not ionizing radiation.
  But the idea that sticking your head in the near field for long periods of time will have no effect at all is completely ignoring the physical fact that we treat certain conditions with RF. It's called radiothermy or diathermy or radiotherapy.
  Some times for deep heating tissue, radioablation therapy,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiofrequency_ablation some times even as a cosmetic device, as it can cause swelling enough to remove wrinkles. Not the same frequencies, but some countries 4g service is quite close to the frequencies used in microwave ovens.
  So while it is not foolish to say Cell Phone radiation doesn't cause cancer, it is really un.likely that all of the frequencies used for cellular service have zero effect when the user's head is held in the near field of the device. That would take a miracle of physics and a miracle that the phone companies choes those frequencies.
  For years I have said, no metastic effects, but it appears to make perople stupid. The second part of that was a joke, but perhaps I was correct.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
9. Re: Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, its anti science people targeting slashdot. theyve been running bogus stories and weakly researched crud in an attempt to convert nerds. seriously, theyve run financing campaigns in the midwest since 2015 for this bs.
10. Re: Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  Except those procedures are pumping far more radiation into tge body, by orders of magnitude, than you can get from a phone.
11. Re:Cause and effect by arth1 · 2018-07-21 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's an interesting question: Do I not remember numbers as well because I'm not doing it regularly or am I not doing it because I can't seem to remember them as well as I used to?
  Back when, I used to remember everybody's phone number, and if they were connected, their IP address, and in the right demographics, the approximate chest/waist/hip measurements as well. These days, it's not remembered as well, and I personally think it's mostly a case of disuse of the faculties, not that I've been damaged. I don't know, and won't jump to conclusions either way.
12. Re:Cause and effect by rtb61 · 2018-07-21 14:17 · Score: 0
  
  Lets also not be fooled by comparing affects when in reality, we are exposed to an aggregate of EMF. Lets no worry about phones because power lines are worse, WTF. You get both, the radition from the phones and power lines and no just you phone were the cunts test one phone at a time but every fucking single phone around you and they have generate sufficient power to reach a tower many kilometres away and hence you get the output from all those phones in that range and of course the tower itself, plus power lines (they do not fucking cancel each other out but compound the impact of EMR), airport radar and radar in planes (don't want to live near an airforce base, their radar and on their planes, cook you double quick time fast), shipping radar if you live near the coast and of whole host of wireless devices as the cheery on top.
  Lets just add in more EMR sources and only look at the one at a time, strap ten phones to your head, it's not a problem if you only check the output of one phone at a time because that is much closer to reality than you expect.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
13. Re:Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 14:50 · Score: 0
  
  Oxidation happens...
  Most of these people that get sick from wifi, fumes, aerosols, and various other things that you'd think are generally safe to be around, are however, generally known to cause oxidation in human cells. I wonder if increasing a person's dietary intake of antioxidants would counter these bad effects.
14. Re:Cause and effect by delt0r · 2018-07-21 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  More often than not. Yea seriously. A heap of studies that really do get publish are literately that bad. Don't assume "experts" or "peer review" changes anything.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
15. Re: Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 15:49 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. These days we don't need to remember certain figures because they are programmed into our mobile devices or easily accessible/searchable. Similarly nowadays no one does trivia anymore (e.g. movie trivia) because they lean on IMDB. So much for Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon.
  I used to have all my BBS numbers memorized... Now I'd be lucky to remember my old home (landline) phone number.
16. Re:Cause and effect by delt0r · 2018-07-21 15:52 · Score: 2
  
  And my hinky meter is off the charts. How many teens talk at all on phones or even more to the point with their phones up against their head.
  
  These studies are so... axe grindy. They start with the premise of finding what they already "know". Often the stats are soo poorly done that i wouldn't let a highschooler get away with it. But it gets publish because this makes impact factors look good. So yea without reading it, would be very very skeptical.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
17. Re:Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  I was going to make the same comment. I think just having a cell phone, with its elephantine memory and Google Search, is training kids these days to not be able to remember anything. In fact, for any parent who's children expect to drive a car, you should make them power their phones off while they're riding, otherwise, they won't know how to drive themselves to somewhere that they've been more that 1000 times. I know this because my girlfriend's daughter has had a cell phone since she was 13, and had been, at the time she started driving, going to the same ballet school 6 days per week, for more than 3 years, however, when she got her learners permit and started driving herself, with me riding shotgun, she didn't know how to get there.
18. Re:Cause and effect by shanen · 2018-07-21 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  You beat me to the punch, though I would have worded it in terms of "correlation is NOT causation". There are two kinds of knowledge in play here. One is the things you carry in your head, and the other is the things you know how to find quickly somewhere else than in your head. The kids that use smartphones a lot are actually learning NOT to remember all sorts of things that they can look up in a few seconds.
  Trying to wrinkle the research around the two hemispheres is cute, but I'm not buying it. I'm not denying that the hemispheres differ, but rather than the complexities of memory are much greater than they seem to appreciate in this research as reported here.
  
  --
  Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
19. Re:Cause and effect by ShanghaiBill · 2018-07-21 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  Also papers with sensational results are more likely to be published and cited than papers with negative results. Nobody wants to read about the null hypothesis being confirmed.
20. Re:Cause and effect by ShanghaiBill · 2018-07-21 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  I am safe. I have my phone default to "speaker" for all calls, so I never put it up to my ear.
21. Re:Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 18:41 · Score: 0
  
  This is interesting because anecdotally I can navigate way better in my home town where I was riding around in the car with my parents all the time than I can where I currently live. These days I know how to get to work, back home, and to a handful of restraunts and shops. Everything else is just maps'd.
22. Re:Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 22:28 · Score: 0
  
  Reading your posts I think there's evidence for at least one person having their brain fried by EMR.
23. Re: Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 22:56 · Score: 0
  
  >may suggest
  So, as in many of these studies, no effect could be scientifically proven. Just a hint that points in a certain direction. This is important to follow up on, yes, but no reason at all to panic right now.
24. Re: Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 23:02 · Score: 0
  
  Well, how many right-handed people participated and how many chose to hold their phones to the left ear?
25. Re:Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 23:14 · Score: 0
  
  You beat me to the punch, though I would have worded it in terms of "correlation is NOT causation". There are two kinds of knowledge in play here. One is the things you carry in your head, and the other is the things you know how to find quickly somewhere else than in your head. The kids that use smartphones a lot are actually learning NOT to remember all sorts of things that they can look up in a few seconds.
  Trying to wrinkle the research around the two hemispheres is cute, but I'm not buying it. I'm not denying that the hemispheres differ, but rather than the complexities of memory are much greater than they seem to appreciate in this research as reported here.
  The study anticipated your objection and already negated it. By comparing left-side users and right-side users, the study shows that the correlation isn't one of memory loss corresponding directly with cellphone use. It's greater with those who use their phones on a particular side of their head. They might be wrong about proximity to the figural 'lobe' being the causal issue, but that's something follow-up studies can examine. They've shown that follow-ups are warranted however.
  You can call it cute, but this isn't something that should be dismissed that easily. Yes, the complexities of memory are much greater than this study encompasses. But it seems fairly clear the study is closer to the truth than your dismissal.
26. Re: Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 23:17 · Score: 0
  
  No, towers have enough power to reach all connected phones. Those phones power down their antenna unless the tower tells them they've got something.
  This reduces power consumption as well as radiation exposure significantly.
27. Re:Cause and effect by thegarbz · 2018-07-22 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, according to TFS, it's apparently especially the kids that hold the phone to their right ear that "aren't training" their figural memory. Funny how that works.
  The rest of the study has some other correlations in it, but before jumping facetiously to conclusions it may be worth remembering that this is a study about the brain's ability, and you've just dismissed a criticism of the study based on a conclusion that was split into two groups of people with fundamentally different brain wiring. There have been countless studies over the years showing many differences in the function of the brain between righties and lefties.
28. Re:Cause and effect by arth1 · 2018-07-22 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well, according to TFS, it's apparently especially the kids that hold the phone to their right ear that "aren't training" their figural memory. Funny how that works.
  Well, given how dextrousness is almost certainly the main cause of which hand is used, and thus which ear[*], and how there are already known correlations between memory problems and handedness, I don't think this "works" all that much, other than to show that there are so many factors at play that suggestions of causality are foolish.
  [*], Except for Billy who holds the phone to his right ear with his left hand.
29. Re:Cause and effect by arth1 · 2018-07-22 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  The study anticipated your objection and already negated it. By comparing left-side users and right-side users, the study shows that the correlation isn't one of memory loss corresponding directly with cellphone use. It's greater with those who use their phones on a particular side of their head.
  
  The most obvious correlation there is that right-handed and left-handed users already have brain hemisphere differences. Inferring a causality on an introduced variable and a presumption that it is a memory loss seems like really bad science.
  Not that it wasn't already, given the non-representative subjects, small sample base, and a lack of a controlled environment that could reduce other factors. With this kind of sampling it's easy to "discover" all kinds of correlations. Using the same test group, I bet that you could also find a link between eating peanut butter and how long they can balance on one leg versus the other leg.
30. Re:Cause and effect by Kiwikwi · 2018-07-22 07:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It is unlikely that Smartphone RF causes cancer. It's just not ionizing radiation.
  I find the argument that non-ionizing radiation can't cause cancer a bit tired. Cancer is a very complex (set of) disease(s), with a multitude of risk factors, of which ionizing radiation is but one.
  RF causes tissue heating, which is linked to cancer in other contexts (e.g. repeated intake of very hot drinks have been linked to esophageal cancer). If the power, frequency and duration of exposure is just right, RF almost certainly can cause cancer. Is cell phone RF anywhere near the "danger zone"? Probably not, but given proliferation of RF sources over the last half a century, I don't mind scientists double checking.
31. Re:Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-22 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  I'm going to suggest to you that you should probably not go outside when the big glowing ball of EMR is out during the day.
32. Re:Cause and effect by Ol+Olsoc · 2018-07-22 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  It is unlikely that Smartphone RF causes cancer. It's just not ionizing radiation.
  quote>
  I find the argument that non-ionizing radiation can't cause cancer a bit tired.
  Do you find it as tireing as I find people saying I said things that I most very clearly did not say? Just in case you didn't read it in either my post or your reply, I'll post it again. I most clearly stated "It is unlikely that Smartphone RF causes cancer. It's just not ionizing radiation." Do you know the difference between "unlikely" and "can't"?
  I'll cue you in - a person saying something is unlikkely is expressing an opinion. A person saying something can't happen is expressing what they thing is a fact.
  Protip - don't turn people who somewhat agree with you into people who dismiss you as a zaelot that anti-vaxxers would be proud of.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
33. Re:Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-22 21:21 · Score: 0
  
  You should stay away from electronic devices then. I suggest you start with that sooner than later.
34. Re:Cause and effect by Kiwikwi · 2018-07-23 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  My apologies.
  You wrote "It is unlikely that Smartphone RF causes cancer [because] it's just not ionizing radiation."
  That is literally making the argument that for RF radiation to cause cancer, it would likely have to be ionizing. Other causes must thus be unlikely. That is the argument I took issue with. (Given that the vast majority of cancers are not caused by excess ionizing radiation, I don't think your antecedent is true.)
  I didn't state anything about your opinion, nor did I claim that you said that the cancer link was impossible. I simply commented on that specific part of your argument, because it's an argument that keeps popping up, and I don't find it sound. I figured that since you're participating in this debate, you might be interested in knowing when your arguments are not convincing, and should perhaps be revised or clarified.
Cause and effect-avoidance. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 10:43 · Score: 0

Basically don't expose fast changing tissues to RF radiation.
1. Re:Cause and effect-avoidance. by phantomfive · 2018-07-21 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  It all gets exposed to RF radiation. All the time.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:Cause and effect-avoidance. by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-07-21 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  You restated the issue pretty well, good job.
3. Re:Cause and effect-avoidance. by Joce640k · 2018-07-21 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  Better not go out in the sunshine, then.
  
  --
  No sig today...
4. Re:Cause and effect-avoidance. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  it's the water, and it's the "frickin" frogs, btw
ELI5? by hwihyw · 2018-07-21 10:45 · Score: 1

Why would a cellphone emit RF into the persons head? Why not shield the face of the phone or have a bunch of directional transmitters and if the proximity detector detects the persons head turn off the transmitters that point towards the face of the phone? It's not going to be 100% effective, but even 10-30% RF reduction is better than nothing.
1. Re:ELI5? by OrangeTide · 2018-07-21 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  so you would have to spin around to improve reception? Somehow I don't think reviews will be favorable for phones that have shitty performance
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
2. Re:ELI5? by Logger · 2018-07-21 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Because line of sight to the tower may be through the caller's head. If you did this, you'd end up with dropped calls/data depending on which way you're facing. Whoops! Don't turn your head that way. Also, that close to the phone's transmitter you'd need the shielding to extend beyond the phone itself.
  If you're concerned, you should use wired earbuds; but BT earbuds also offer significantly lower energy exposure. For example, using an iPhone 8 at your head measures ~1.5 W/kg, whereas a pair of AirPods is only 0.46 W/kg ( source google ). So you're exposing you're brain to 1/3 the energy. And if you're still concerned about using wired earbuds, you probably shouldn't have a portable device with a transmitter in it.
3. Re:ELI5? by arth1 · 2018-07-22 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  If you're concerned, you should use wired earbuds;
  The speaker elements in wired earbuds also produce radiation. Moving a current in a magnetic field always causes some level of induction EMI.
4. Re:ELI5? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-22 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  At 20-20KHz, those are some pretty long waves. They aren't going to interact with the human body in any significant way.
5. Re:ELI5? by arth1 · 2018-07-22 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Likely not, no. Those waves are going to compete with far away lightning strikes, and the only observable effect on the human body that I know of that can be caused by ELF are visual flashes called phosphenes, where receptors on the retina misfire as if struck by a photon. Not a lot of energy needed for that :)
Great by quonset · 2018-07-21 10:47 · Score: 1

Now we'll be hearing from all those people claiming radiation from cell phones gives them headaches, completely ignoring this study is about phones placed an inch or less from ones head, not feet or miles.
So that explains teenagers these days by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 10:49 · Score: 0

I thought it was just poor parenting, but it was the cell phone radiation
Irrelevant study by PhrostyMcByte · 2018-07-21 11:02 · Score: 1

Nobody talks on the phone anymore. Does the radiation affect fingers?
1. Re:Irrelevant study by glenebob · 2018-07-21 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  That's because they forgot how, due to the radiation!
Kids are upwards of 10 hours per day by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 11:11 · Score: 0

Previous standards of exposure don't account for new usage trends, period. Kids are overwhelmingly exposed to massive levels well beyond industry bullshit measurements
1. Re:Kids are upwards of 10 hours per day by Luckyo · 2018-07-21 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  You mean "tiny", because radiation you're exposed to is effectively a function of distance, and it falls off rapidly as distance increases.
  Most of the industry tests are done with emitter literally just outside the skull. Gaming and texting people have the phone half a metre away from their head. So the radiation they receive is a tiny portion compared to what is tested for.
2. Re:Kids are upwards of 10 hours per day by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 14:10 · Score: 0
  
  That's literally where people wear their phones when not in use, which is 90% of the time
3. Re:Kids are upwards of 10 hours per day by Luckyo · 2018-07-21 15:47 · Score: 2
  
  You're either wearing your pants on your head, which would match the initial claim, or you have your brains in your ass. Which is equally matching to your initial claim.
4. Re:Kids are upwards of 10 hours per day by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 17:59 · Score: 0
  
  Your brain isn't the only place that can get cancer, faggot. Try your cavernous assholes, plural. I bet you've lost a few phones in them over the years anyhow.
5. Re: Kids are upwards of 10 hours per day by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 23:10 · Score: 0
  
  Someone here has serious reading comprehension problems. It's not the guy you replied to.
6. Re:Kids are upwards of 10 hours per day by Luckyo · 2018-07-22 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Do tell us, how did you go from "memory performance in adolescents" to "cancer"? What's the link? Or did you pull it out of your ass, while wearing your pants on your head?
7. Re: Kids are upwards of 10 hours per day by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-22 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  This isn't about cancer. But unless you have a graph showing a million percent jump in thigh cancer around 2000, we can safely assume cell phones don't cause cancer.
Re: This doesn't explain Trump's 2 hours of sleep by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 11:13 · Score: 0

You still don't know what that word means.
Deeper concern by manu0601 · 2018-07-21 11:17 · Score: 1

Mobile phones make people stupid even without considering radiation.
1. Re:Deeper concern by easyTree · 2018-07-21 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  I presume you typed that on a mobile phone :D
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
Remember this! by Kohath · 2018-07-21 11:20 · Score: 1

Yeah, well when I want to "remember" something, I just take a photo of it with my phone!
location by kqc7011 · 2018-07-21 11:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

There are very few children that use a phone to talk, with the possible exception of with their parents or grandparents. Now, if there was a connection that showed how the phone's radiation reached from the lap area to the head area, then maybe.

--
Passionately Indifferent
1. Re:location by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 17:45 · Score: 0
  
  If you read TFA, it deals with this objection.
Think of the children! by jfdavis668 · 2018-07-21 11:47 · Score: 1

Won't somebody please think of the children!
Impossible by OrangeTide · 2018-07-21 12:02 · Score: 1

I keep forgetting to bring my cell phone.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
it's not the radiation.. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 12:08 · Score: 0

it's the social media (getting addicted to it, believing whatever is posted, etc) and internet (reliance on it to do previously simple tasks and fact recollection) that's accessible via the phones that's the problem.
FTFY. by grep+-v+'.*'+* · 2018-07-21 12:52 · Score: 1

Cell Phone Use May Affect Memory Performance In Adolescents, Study Finds

--
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
which? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 13:05 · Score: 0

hardware radiation or internet radiation?
This means that screen addiction is GOOD by Applehu+Akbar · 2018-07-21 13:05 · Score: 1

The steady trend is toward gazing at a phone held in front of you, rather than holding it against your head. Okay, so instead of brain cancer, today's smartphone addiction is causing major injuries due to unexpected contact with fast-moving objects.
Wow, slash dot is being targeted by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 13:10 · Score: 0

Iâ(TM)ve heard the anti technology alt rite christian extremists was going to target Slashdot with bull shit posts, but until this weekend I didnâ(TM)t believe it.
1. Re: Wow, slash dot is being targeted by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 17:30 · Score: 0
  
  Soyboy, fix your keyboard settings. It makes you look foolish.
  Slashdot is where the men who actually run the internet go to talk. We don't need any half-educated hipsters lecturing us on "duh science!!!1!!".
  You have faith in (the semi-official media-approved image of) "science" the same way religious fundamentalists have faith in their chosen deity. Most of us here are (small-s) skeptics. We doubt your faith in scientism just like we doubt fundies' faith in received religion.
  As the alt-left likes to say: educate yourself. Read some history books. Lots of them. Including some that are old enough to be unaffected by our contemporary politics.
  Understand that throughout history men have claimed to know the TRUTH with unshakable certainty, because God told them so. "Science" is your God. Understand that all those men who claimed without doubt to know the truth, were WRONG.
  Cultivate intellectual humility. It's good for the soul. And it will make you a far more effective debater.
  And remember one last thing: skepticism doesn't have to be nihilism.
Original Study by JBMcB · 2018-07-21 13:27 · Score: 2

I would *really* like to see the original study. Roughly 75% of the time, when a news article talks about one of these studies, when you go read the original summary:
1. It doesn't make the same conclusion the article says it does
2. Says there may be a correlation but it is incredibly small, or
3. The study has some fundamental flaw, like not publishing p-values or confidence intervals
This was the case with the comprehensive European study on cell phone usage a few years ago. Out of the hundreds of groups studied, ONE showed a weird increase in a specific type of brain tumor that couldn't be explained (that no other group had.) The paper basically said it was probably experimental error. The news headlines were "European study shows cell phones could cause cancer!!!!!"

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
1. Re:Original Study by imidan · 2018-07-21 15:28 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I would *really* like to see the original study.
  Okay, here you go: https://www.swisstph.ch/filead...
  The effects are small, but apparently significant in a 95% CI. They are clear about not knowing the cause.
  They did the study with two groups of young people, one a couple of years later than the other. The later group showed lower performance almost across the board. Their study conclusion is based upon the aggregate of both groups. My question is, what if they split the groups out and showed test performance for each? I wonder if what they've measured is only significant because of the performance of the later group of students?
2. Re:Original Study by thegarbz · 2018-07-22 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  The news headlines were "European study shows cell phones could cause cancer!!!!!"
  The newspaper headlines were right ... the study being wrong notwithstanding. :-)
3. Re:Original Study by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-22 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  This looks suspiciously like p-hacking.
4. Re:Original Study by imidan · 2018-07-22 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  I notice that they seemed to perform a lot of tests in this study, and I didn't catch any mention of adjustment for multiple comparisons. And a couple of the significant results are significant by a tiny margin, so something like a Bonferroni correction could render all or most of the results insignificant.
Pfizer doesn't want you to know! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 13:49 · Score: 0

Cell phone radiation gave me an erection.
Obvious. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 14:49 · Score: 0

I'm not too sure that cell phone radiation is the cause, and not just an effect. That kids that use cell phones more are also the ones who aren't training figural memory.
Yes. This is an obvious possible hypothesis, and is probably also set forth in the paper as a possibility along with "the need for more research is clearly indicated"
flawed, biased, science by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 14:52 · Score: 0

These must be the same "scientists" who tell us global warming is real and that mankind is related to monkeys. Correlation is not causation, you morons!
Adults? by antdude · 2018-07-21 15:16 · Score: 1

What about adults? :P

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Phone? you mean these things can be used to talk? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-21 18:45 · Score: 0

When was the last time you saw an adolescent make a phone call. These things don't go near their heads.
Hmm?? by beheaderaswp · 2018-07-21 19:50 · Score: 1

I don't remember reading anything like this before.

--
Another consultant who stuck it out.

"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Interesting gender stats by ET3D · 2018-07-21 19:56 · Score: 1

The stats in the article show that it's almost only girls who use the phones for gaming, and boys use them a lot more than girls for social.
Or..... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-22 00:46 · Score: 0

Just hear me out.....
Maybe it's the fact that they have cellphones that have access to a digital ocean of information at all times. Which has trained them that they never have to remember anything because all the information they could ever need is just a search bar away.
1. Re:Or..... by arth1 · 2018-07-22 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  What scares me is that if there's a major long term power outage, a significant portion of the population risk dying because of things they require power for. And, worse, they don't know and can't find out how to achieve things without power, without having power to look it up.
  How to fire up and connect the generator? They tossed the manual because the manual is online should they ever need it...
  Even when there's an encyclopedia in the family book case, a fair amount of people probably wouldn't know how to use a written index.