Slashdot Log In
Research Finds Effects of GSM Signals on Sleep
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:05 PM
from the get-out-of-my-brain dept.
from the get-out-of-my-brain dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The effects of mobile phone radiation on sleep were studied in Sweden in a laboratory experiment where subjects were exposed either to 884 MHz GSM radiation or placebo.
The study finds that compared to placebo, in the radiation-exposed subjects there was a prolonged latency to reach the first cycle of deep sleep (stage 3). The amount of stage 4 sleep was also decreased. Moreover, participants that otherwise have no self-reported symptoms related to mobile phone use, appear to have more headaches during actual radiofrequency exposure as compared to sham exposure."
Related Stories
Submission: Research finds effects of GSM radiation on sleep by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What placebo? (Score:5, Funny)
Did they give them one of those plastic phones filled with Pez candies?
Re:What placebo? (Score:5, Funny)
Did they give them one of those plastic phones filled with Pez candies?
Parent
Already knew this... (Score:4, Interesting)
I know it sounds nuts but on a windy night even with the trees moving it still seems more quiet but in an almost impossible to define way. Like there is something that you can't put your finger on NOT there.
I always thought it might be either radio singles or high pitch EM radiation from all the fun toys I have around it (yes, including a Wireless Router). So I'm not complaining, and I can sleep fine, but at the same time this study doesn't shock me at all.
Re:Already knew this... (Score:5, Informative)
For example, I live fairly close to a major highway and have for nearly the past 10 years. In the middle of that I spent a couple months living with my parents who are a mile or two from a highway that's not quite as busy (we're still in lower NY so "busy" is relative). The first morning I got up and tip-toed to the bathroom because it was SOOO quiet there.
My point: You were "missing" the noise of a zillion cars, airplanes, garbage trucks, air conditioners, trains, computer fans and hard drives, and what have you. The brain gets used to it and if that noise disappears you feel like something is missing or wrong. I highly doubt this has anything to do with RF waves in your case.
Parent
Re:Already knew this... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Already knew this... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Already knew this... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, there are probably less hard reflective objects bouncing noise around, and more humidity in the air.
Regarding the article, kinda, I always de-tune access points in homes - especially where kids are living - to an appropriate signal strength for the site. This is easily done with a laptop and quick site survey. You don't need to have 100% signal strength all the
Experiment looks doubtful. (Score:4, Insightful)
These are just a few of the questions that pop up in any thorough analysis of this experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we need a whole lot more
Re:Experiment looks doubtful. (Score:5, Funny)
"people are really clever at catching on to subtle clues like experimenter's face"
They must be REALLY clever to be able to do that in their sleep.
Parent
Re:Experiment looks doubtful. (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to the problems you mentioned, I'm worried by the fact that they don't describe in detail what they mean by "placebo." For instance, they mention "two separate rooms" in their experimental section, but don't explain why they have two rooms; if one was "real" and the other "placebo" then the variability could easily be ascribed to minor variations in the rooms (lighting, ambient sound, odor, etc.). The RF transmitter is placed immediately beside the person's head (there is a photo in the article), which worries me because they never mention measuring or accounting for audio effects: a high-pitched whine from a running device could easily explain the differences (it wouldn't even have to be consciously audible to influence the subjects).
Combined with the very large standard-deviations on their results, I'm hesitant to ascribe any significance to this finding just yet. More details, and corroborating independent verification, are definitely necessary before raising any public alarms.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's pretty skinny on quantitative analysis. There's some numbers, and a mention of some preliminary results from a logistic regression. Quite why they've not got some final results from the logistic regression (it doesn't take long, it's not like there's masses of data) is interesting...
Re:Experiment looks doubtful. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are almost never enough details in any experimental scientific paper to know whether the experimenters handled the experiment properly or not.
I'm hesitant to ascribe any significance to this finding just yet
Of course, this result needs to be reproduced and strengthened; that's often the case with results like this.
However, your specific objections against this paper are unwarranted: you're basically accusing the researchers of either gross incompetence or scientific fraud, and there is no justification for that.
Parent
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
A "thorough analysis" of an experiment begins with actually reading the paper!
The original paper is linked to at the top of the page, in PDF format. You'll find your questions answered there. Basically, the study is carefully controlled.
If you have some ideological dislike of the results (as you seem to), perhaps you should try to repeat the experiment yourself and present your results. See, reproducing experimental result is another cornerstone of science.
Parent
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously there are innumerable details with respect to running any experiment, so not every detail can be included in a scientific paper. In particular, "common practice" in the field can usually be described in short hand by using the proper terms (and referencing previous work as needed).
However, no scientist will read a paper and glibly assume that the experimenters "did everything properly" without evidence that this is so (where "evidence" is a combination of reputation, details of procedure, showing raw data, and demonstration that one understands pertinent issues). It is expected (nay, required, for high-quality science) to mention precautions taken, alternate explanations for results, shortcomings in methodology, and so forth. Omitting a critical self-analysis and details of one's procedure makes a paper very suspect. It is the job of the publishing author to convince the community that they are right, and so they must present sufficient evidence (and sufficient experimental detail) to make their case adequately. To do otherwise makes for bad science.
So, in short, while much knowledge can be presumed when writing technical papers, it is never the overriding presumption in science that everyone is doing science properly. We attack each other's work precisely to keep quality high: and if a paper does not provide sufficient detail to back up their claims, the paper is ignored until such time that further credible evidence is brought into the debate.
Parent
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not. I'm not saying that the authors are right, I'm saying that they have done what they are required to do for scientific publishing.
And we're not talking about whether they met the standards for publishing. We're talking about whether the points the poster four levels up have been adressed.
That's a very real possibility, but you aren't going to find it by analyzing "an enumeration of the steps taken to make the study double blind",
Really? And if the steps consisted of "everyone wore blindfolds" is the entirety of their "double blind" procedure? Granted, that's highly unlikely...
you are going to find it by reproducing the experiment, and they have given you a sufficient level of detail for that.
Again, the discussion isn't about whether they're right, but about whether they controlled for the specific points of the poster four levels up. A flat statement of "double blind" is inadequate. Repr
Re:Experiment looks doubtful. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also the publishing effect - namely, articles reporting the effect of cell phone radiation upon some biological system X is so popular now that many, many researchers are examining it. If 20 people perform a study, and 1 finds a result that's statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval, the 1 study gets published...even though 1 such study out of 20 would find that result from a random system.
In the end, as a scientist I'm extremely leery of statistical correlation with no mechanism. What is the specific mechanism by which the specified radiation has the claimed effect? This is especially so with the cell phone/cancer studies, which have the very difficult job of claiming that non-ionizing radiation causes cancer. Because I've seen such bad science, I'm very skeptical of the cell phone studies in general.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exposure levels of 1.4W/kg? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Exposure levels of 1.4W/kg? (Score:4, Informative)
The iPhone, however, is a screaming
Parent
Banana Phone (Score:5, Funny)
Wool it affect me? (Score:2, Funny)
Ok, GSM... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think we sleep well because we're mostly on Verizon...
An average of 1.4 W/kg (Score:5, Informative)
Info on SAR (Watts/kg) (Score:5, Informative)
FCC Page [fcc.gov]
1.4 W/kg is close to the FCC limit of 1.6 W/kg. The EU limit is 2.0 W/kg.
Silly Question (Score:5, Funny)
A woman behind me asked if I had a dog.
On impulse, I told her that no, I was starting The Pal Diet again although I probably shouldn't because I'd ended up in the hospital last time, but that I'd lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care ward with tubes coming out of most of my orifices and IV's in both arms.
I told her that it was essentially a perfect diet and that the way that it works is to load your pants pockets with Pal nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry & that the food is nutritionally complete so I was going to try it again.
I have to mention here that practically everyone in the line was by now enthralled with my story, particularly a guy who was behind her.
Horrified, she asked if I'd ended up in the hospital in that condition because I had been poisoned. I told her no; it was because I'd been sitting in the street licking my balls and a car hit me.
I thought one guy was going to have a heart attack he was laughing so hard as he staggered out the door.
Stupid b*tch...why else would I buy dog food??
Re:Silly Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Silly Question (Score:4, Funny)
So congratulations - your funny story saved you from sex!
Parent
i'm safe from this effect (Score:3, Insightful)
a microwave oven emits less radiation density then the amounts used in this study
Re:i'm safe from this effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, I think you lost a decimal place (or three) there, friend.
Figure a 1000 watt microwave oven with 1 kg (about 2 pounds) of ground beef defrosting. The bulk of the microwaves emitted are absorbed by the food, giving a SAR (specific absorption rate) of 1000 watts per kilogram (W/kg). The average mass of a human head, meanwhile, is about 5 kg [danny.oz.au]; that makes an SAR of 200 W/kg.
The SAR used in this study was an average of 1.4 W/kg. This low level results in minimal local heating, particularly in a well-perfused part of the body like the brain (lots of blood flowing through equals lots of capacity to draw off excess heat to the rest of the body.) On the other hand, if you were to stick your head in the microwave (after jimmying the safety interlocks) I guarantee that you would find the level of local heating to be...uncomfortable.
Parent
Hey! Psuedoscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a layman's synopsis:
1. 36 women and 35 men were selected for a study, and were checked by physicians to make sure that they didn't have any
2. They were then classified into two groups. One, that said they could "detect" the effects of RF radiation, and another that said they could not.
3. The group as a whole was divided into two groups, both to be strapped into the "RF Machine", however, the machine would only be on for the "RF" group, not the placebo group.
4. The study reveals a statistically significant reduction in the time that it takes for one to reach deep sleep (1/3 of an hour for those exposed, 1/4 hour for those not exposed), and that Stage 4 sleep time is also reduced (37.2 min vs 45.5 mins respectively).
5. The study also says that
Remember, this is labelled a "provocation study" that is "We're trying to narrow this down, now pick us apart." It even says that in the Discussion!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
According to the paper: 'Under the RF exposure condition, participants exhibited a longer latency to deep sleep (stage 3, meanRF=0.37, (SD=0.33), mean- Sham=0.27 hours (SD=0.12); F=9.34, p=0.0037)'. But I don't know how they did their statistics.
Be
Re:RF placebo? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:RF placebo? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:RF placebo? (Score:4, Informative)
Only if they said it was a double blind study. Otherwise, the administrator likely knew which were placebo patients. A placebo by it self does not imply ignorance of all parties involved.
Parent
Re:RF placebo? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:they might be on to something here... (Score:5, Funny)
I've noticed I don't sleep as well when I have a small brick under my pillow. Especially if I think it might ring.
Parent
Re:they might be on to something here... (Score:5, Interesting)
- If you don't normally use an alarm clock but a specific need for one to wake up for a specific event, you were possibly preoccupied with the next day's event.
- You may have had an uncomfortably strange lump under your pillow.
- Were you at home, or on the road or in a hotel? Most people sleep "differently" when not in their own bed.
- Does your phone emit an ultrasonic whine?
- You might subconsciously be worried about the RF you believe you are exposing yourself to.
- If you had a hand beneath the pillow while you slept, it might have made contact with the unfamiliar texture of the phone.
There are a lot of very plausible reasons that don't involve a two-second-handshake-pulse-every-9-minutes, emitting a maximum of 600mW of RF energy near your head.You could try your own experiment -- have someone randomly set your phone to either "airplane mode" or "regular mode" while you continue to use it as an alarm clock. In the morning they'd have to restore your phone to regular mode so you wouldn't know which way you slept with it. They would record their settings while you recorded your sleep patterns. After a month or so, correlate the two and figure out if RF made any difference in your sleep.
Parent
Re:Wow high frequency radio waves are harmful! (Score:4, Funny)
</obvious>
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
</obvious>
Just don't call him "Catpain". I hear he hates that almost as much as I do.
Re:"sham" (Score:4, Informative)
While I'm seldom one to flame, you're certainly made yourself look like a right fool to anyone who knows anything about designing a properly controlled and blinded study.
'Sham' treatment, 'mock' treatment, 'placebo' treatment are all synonyms widely used in the scientific literature to describe non-functional imitation treatments given in a blinded (or much better, double-blinded) study. It's called a 'sham' treatment because that's what it is--a fake. A knockoff. Looks the same, but doesn't do anything. The term isn't prejudicial or pejorative; it's only descriptive. Fire up PubMed and you'll find nearly forty thousand scientific papers that use the term 'sham' in their title or abstract. (For comparison, about a hundred thousand use the word 'placebo'.)
I have no comment on whether or not they've done their study correctly. A number of other posters here have identified a number of potential flaws and pitfalls in their methodology. I agree completely that they present insufficient amounts of their raw data. Nevertheless, concluding that they are biased based on the fact that they correctly use scientific jargon seems...careless. Idiot.
Parent
Re:So are the tin-foil hat people right? (Score:4, Funny)
How else am I supposed to mow my hedges? It's a time honored technique handed down from grandpaw lefty and refined by uncle stumpy.
What could go wrong?
Parent
Metal in microwave oven, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know whether it can or not, but I'd like to see that addressed just for once. You know, instead of the "it can't be anything but heating" handwaving. I'd like just once that someone addresses that point, even if to bury it finally, you know?
Second, exactly how do microwaves heat water. If you have one MW photon for each million mollecule
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Second, exactly how do microwaves heat water. If you have one MW photon for each million mollecules of water, the way I remember quantum physics is that they _don't_ get a millionth of it each.
Your ratios are roughly backwards. In a microwave, there's LOTS of photons that hit relatively fewer water molecules. You don't really get an H2O accelerated to huge velocity, you get a bunch of molecules getting a 'nudge'.
What if that one mollecule is a protein?
Not much happens. The frequency of the micr
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just because it doesn't burn, doesn't mean it has no effect. Why does the Blood Brain Barrier become permeable when exposed to standard cell phone EM? Not because it's being over-heated, surely. Apparently there is another mechanic at play. Look up "cyclotronic resonance". Cells respond by nature to electricity in micro quantities. Nobody likes to acknowledge this, but that doesn't make it false. Robert O. Becker [amazon.com] w