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