Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by EditorDavid on 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.

10 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. Cause and effect by arth1 · · 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 Kiwikwi · · 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.

    2. Re:Cause and effect by fazig · · 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.

    3. Re:Cause and effect by Ol+Olsoc · · 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.
    4. Re:Cause and effect by delt0r · · 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?
    5. Re:Cause and effect by Kiwikwi · · 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.

  2. location by kqc7011 · · 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
  3. Original Study by JBMcB · · 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 · · 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?

  4. Re:Kids are upwards of 10 hours per day by Luckyo · · 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.