Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Cellphones

Research Finds Effects of GSM Signals on Sleep 319

Posted by CmdrTaco 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Research Finds Effects of GSM Signals on Sleep More

Research Finds Effects of GSM Signals on Sleep

Comments Filter:

  • What placebo? (Score:5, Funny)

    by east coast ( 590680 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @12:08PM (#21867084)
    where subjects were exposed either to 884 MHz GSM radiation or placebo.

    Did they give them one of those plastic phones filled with Pez candies?

  • Already knew this... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Manip ( 656104 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @12:14PM (#21867166)
    Well to an extent I did. I've been out in the middle of nowhere to the extent that you couldn't get a cell phone signal if your life depended on it (and sometimes it does!) and there is an odd sense of quiet.

    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)

      by torkus ( 1133985 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @12:20PM (#21867244)
      Actually you're "missing" background noise that you're otherwise used to hearing and don't notice.

      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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by FroBugg ( 24957 )
      You don't have to resort to some line about 'hearing' EM to explain this. The urban and suburban world are ridiculously full of noise pollution. Traffic noise, air conditioners, appliances, everything is making an actual noise. The cessation of all these low-level hums that you've learned to normally ignore is plenty of explanation for the phenomenon you've observed.

    • Re:Already knew this... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by T-Bone-T ( 1048702 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @12:25PM (#21867312)
      Maybe it is quiet because there is nothing around. Since there is nothing around, why waste money on cell coverage in an area that will see, at most, minimal use? It isn't the gadgets so much as the millions of cars and jets around every major city. I live a few miles away from a city of 100,000 and I can actually hear the rumble of the city.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I don't discount that the absence of HFO is good, but that quieter than quiet feeling that you are describing is probably due to air pressure.

      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)

    by Ancient_Hacker ( 751168 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @12:17PM (#21867186)
    They exposed the subjects to 1.4W/kg? What the **** does that mean? Do they have any idea how deep GSM band signals penetrate human flesh and bone? Did they take out and weigh the left hemisphere of the subjects? Did they use the body weight instead? Did they offer some subjects a tiger-team-style $100 if they could tell the difference between RF and no RF on? Was this a double-blind experiment? People are really clever at catching on to subtle clues like experimenter's face, little clicks, dimming lights, etc. The literature is replete with poorly designed experiments.

    These are just a few of the questions that pop up in any thorough analysis of this experiment.

    • I forgot a few things: Were the rooms checked for possible olfactory clues, such as warm polyethylene (coax), ozone (generated at the high voltage nodes on the coax cable and antenna). How about auditory clues? A little bit of corrosion on a coax connector can demodulate RF signals and generate audible sounds. Or come to think of it, just general warmth from the RF. Those screened rooms tend to have lousy ventilation, so was the ventilation and temperature controlled?

      I think we need a whole lot more

    • Re:Experiment looks doubtful. (Score:5, Funny)

      by trolltalk.com ( 1108067 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @12:22PM (#21867256) Homepage Journal

      "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.

    • Re:Experiment looks doubtful. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kebes ( 861706 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @12:36PM (#21867468) Journal
      The full research article [mit.edu] (PDF) is only 3 pages long. The experimental description and discussion of results are so terse that they are barely informative. There are not enough details to know whether they handled the experiment properly or not.

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Bazman ( 4849 )
        I think one room was where they strapped a black box to your head and either zapped you with RF or Placebo, and the other room had a bed and an EEG for the sleep testing.

        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)

        by nguy ( 1207026 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @01:44PM (#21868336)
        The experimental description and discussion of results are so terse that they are barely informative. There are not enough details to know whether they handled the experiment properly or not.

        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.

    • RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

      by nguy ( 1207026 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @12:42PM (#21867530)
      These are just a few of the questions that pop up in any thorough analysis of this experiment.

      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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by samkass ( 174571 )
        Basically, the study is carefully controlled.

        Actually, the paper doesn't list any of the things that would have been required for it to be "carefully controlled". Noise from the device, whether the rooms were switched, the nature of the "placebo", the reasoning behind the power levels. The paper is only 3 pages long, and doesn't include enough detail to reproduce the experiment precisely, nor to know whether they were measuring EM effects or simply the background noise in their facility in different rooms

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by nguy ( 1207026 )
          the paper doesn't list any of the things that would have been required for it to be "carefully controlled"

          They say they performed a "double blind controlled laboratory study" (2007 is a continuation of the 2006 work). That excludes all the possibilities you raise.

          The paper is only 3 pages long, and doesn't include enough detail to reproduce the experiment precisely,

          It doesn't have to; the authors have given you what they believe is the relevant detail. You'd need to find out additional details only if

          • Re:RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @02:21PM (#21868770) Homepage

            They say they performed a "double blind controlled laboratory study" (2007 is a continuation of the 2006 work). That excludes all the possibilities you raise.
            Negative. That's an appeal to authority. It doesn't matter what "they say" they did. Only an enumeration of the steps taken to make the study double blind is enough to exclude anything. If they overlooked something subtle, yet perceptible, then they would still honestly think they were conducting it double-blind, even though the weren't. That is why the results of scientific studies aren't just taken on the studier's word, but based on the published details. Peer review and all that?

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by nguy ( 1207026 )
              That's an appeal to authority

              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.

              If they overlooked something subtle, yet perceptible, then they would still honestly think they were conducting it double-blind, even though the weren't.

              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", you are going to find it by reproducing

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Dun Malg ( 230075 )

                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

      • >You'll find your questions answered there.

        Uh, no. I don't see the words "double blind". I don't see any detailed description of how they did the placebo business. I don't see any description of how they tested for cheating. If there are two rooms, one for placebo and one for RF, or if the RF generator was in the same room, obviously the whole experiment is bogus.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by nguy ( 1207026 )
          Uh, no. I don't see the words "double blind".

          Then you need to look a bit more carefully.

          I don't see any detailed description of how they did the placebo business. I don't see any description of how they tested for cheating. If there are two rooms, one for placebo and one for RF, or if the RF generator was in the same room, obviously the whole experiment is bogus.

          None of those things need to be in the paper; the presumption in scientific papers is that the authors are familiar with the basic tools and meth

          • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

            by kebes ( 861706 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @01:38PM (#21868246) Journal

            None of those things need to be in the paper; the presumption in scientific papers is that the authors are familiar with the basic tools and methods of their research area. Unless you have a specific cause to doubt that, you have no justification for questioning their results because they did not include those details.
            As a practicing scientist, I can honestly say that this isn't how it works.

            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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 )

      They exposed the subjects to 1.4W/kg? What the **** does that mean?

      W/kg is the unit used to measure SAR. [emctech.com.au] It's measured using a standardized dummy head [sarvalues.com].

      Did they offer some subjects a tiger-team-style $100 if they could tell the difference between RF and no RF on? Was this a double-blind experiment?

      According to the full text, linked from TFA, the experiment was double-blinded, and "Participants were not able to differentiate RF exposure conditions from sham exposures more often than would have been ex

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by arivanov ( 12034 )
        IIRC a mobile phone in the GSM spec has a theoretical maximum power of 5W. They usually operate in the milliwatt range. A BaseStation maxes 20W. Less for the 1800 Band. The cells usually operate at much lower power in urban areas so you can have more of them. On top of that you have the classic inverse square law for power. So realistically there is no way in hell you can get 1.4W per kg of weight unless you sit on several BTS-es powered to the max. In reality you get much much less.

    • Re:Experiment looks doubtful. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @01:23PM (#21868072)

      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.

    • They did say that the subjects were unable to "guess" as to whether the RF was on, which in my opinion invalidates many of your points. This is just the abstract, not the full analysis or procedural documentation; you can't but expect there to be enormous amounts of information lacking in this kind of initial publication. Personally, I have been known to be short with friends who suggest that cell phones have negative health effects, calling them "paranoid," and "sellouts to the mass-media FUD machine," how
      • >They did say that the subjects were unable to "guess" as to whether the RF was on,

        That's swell, but insufficient. Subjects are not immune to social cues. In this case it would not take a genius subject to realize that guessing would not be a good thing. And they'd look dumb if they said they could guess, but could not pinpoint the reason.

        And the mention of "two rooms" is puzzling-- why two rooms? That's an extra dimension of variability that sounds completely unececessary.

        Let's not forget tha

        • Still missed my main point, which is wait for the full study to be released before you dismiss it. If you want to believe that all of the test subjects were autonomously and secretly trying to subvert the results and that all scientific studies are flawed because people make mistakes, then go ahead and miss the 21st century. This has been a hotly contested area of study, filled with FUD and BS papers by underqualified individuals and then intensly magnified by the media. We finally have a real study, done b
          • > If you want to believe that all of the test subjects were autonomously and secretly trying to subvert the results and that all scientific studies are flawed because people make mistakes, then go ahead and ...

            The history of science could be summed up as a long struggle to get beyond believing what we WANT to believe, beyond unduly influencing the experiment, and to scrupulously design an experiment free of uncontrolled variables.

            As a few points of reference, look up "N rays", "Feynman on cargo cul

  • Exposure levels of 1.4W/kg? (Score:2, Informative)

    by spun ( 1352 )
    Uh, does that mean what I think it means? I weigh about 80 kilos, would they beam a 58 watt signal at my head? That seems awfully high...

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by nguy ( 1207026 )
      The exposure refers to the standard way in which cell phone exposure is defined:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health [wikipedia.org]

      Basically, you compute the average over small cubes of tissue, and the maximum of all those averages is 1.4mW/g.

    • Re:Exposure levels of 1.4W/kg? (Score:4, Informative)

      by autocracy ( 192714 ) <slashdot2007@sto ... m ['emo' in gap]> on Monday December 31, 2007 @01:03PM (#21867828) Homepage
      That number is the "Specific Absorption Rate." Google it, and you'll get the very basic idea (wiki article is kinda useless). Cell phone handsets are regulated to 1.6W/kg in the US, 2W/kg in the EU. Anyway, a quick check of Nokia models shows a maximum exposure typically under .5W/kg, with variations per model (8800, .5; N-Gage, .35).

      The iPhone, however, is a screaming .97W/kg ;)
      • Ok, so did the experiment irradiate subjects with that dose at the surface of their skull?

        I don't sleep with my GSM phone on my head, not even under my pillow. In fact, it's about 9 feet away.

        So what would the dosage be then? Oh, let me guess. Miniscule compared to being in contact with the antenna.

        Just so you know, I'm getting tired of these poorly-done Scandinavian cell-phone danger studies. I guess they have a bunch over there that can't sleep at night, what with a significant local technological ind

  • Banana Phone (Score:5, Funny)

    by Prysorra ( 1040518 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @12:23PM (#21867276)
    Whoever applied that tag needs to die. I hate you. Can't get it out of my HEAD.
  • I wonder if this will have an effect on any of my sweaters. Oh, SLEEP, I thought it said SHEEP.
    • I must need more sleep too. I swear it said sheep too, until I got the point of them reporting headaches which set of my WTF meter.

      Well, off to count cellphones in my head until I get the rest I truly need.

  • Ok, GSM... (Score:5, Funny)

    by techpawn ( 969834 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @12:40PM (#21867510) Journal
    But what about us CDMA users?

    I don't think we sleep well because we're mostly on Verizon...

  • An average of 1.4 W/kg (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jimmy_B ( 129296 ) <jim@jimrando m h . org> on Monday December 31, 2007 @12:45PM (#21867578) Homepage
    In the abstract, it mentions that they were exposed to an average of 1.4 W/kg. That's several orders of magnitude more powerful than anything you'd encounter outside the laboratory, which is less than 1W total. Unless you have a kilowatt tower on your nightstand, you have nothing to worry about.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by poopdeville ( 841677 )
      Yes and no. In short, you don't know what you're talking about. (I don't blame you -- I didn't know what it was either and assumed it was a typo)

      The US Government limits phones to 1.6W/kg SAR. This unit is known as the "Specific Absorption Rate", and is a human tissue density normalized version of W/kg. The energy used was commensurate with a modern cellular phone.
    • it's that old inverse square law nipping at your heels - yes the transmitter is about a watt give or take a watt - but you hold the thing *next to your head* so that the exposure is typical- for the region being irradiated. The region is again, your head, so i'd say you haven't sleuthed this one out quite yet. /just pointin' it out

  • Info on SAR (Watts/kg) (Score:5, Informative)

    by Orgasmatron ( 8103 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @12:46PM (#21867596)
    Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31, 2007 @12:47PM (#21867610)
    I have 2 dogs & I was buying a large bag of Pal at Big W and standing inline at the check out.

    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)

      by FredMenace ( 835698 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @01:43PM (#21868326)
      I think you have encountered a phenomenon that some people find very mysterious. It is usually referred to, by those who profess to understand its meaning, as a "conversation starter".

    • Re:Silly Question (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31, 2007 @02:35PM (#21868934)

      A woman behind me asked if I had a dog.
      As FredMenace said, this is indicative of someone wanting to start a conversation with you. This is also known as "making the first move", which is common when a woman finds you attractive and wants to let you know. It can lead to relationships.

      So congratulations - your funny story saved you from sex!

      • Well, this is SlashDot.

        BTW, I have heard that joke before, and I thought it was funny.

        InnerWeb

  • Use CDMA or TDMA phones, or your landline.
  • i sleep with my head in the microwave oven

    a microwave oven emits less radiation density then the amounts used in this study

    • Re:i'm safe from this effect (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Idarubicin ( 579475 ) on Monday December 31, 2007 @03:04PM (#21869202) Journal

      a microwave oven emits less radiation density then the amounts used in this study

      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.

  • First of all, this is NOT a double-blind, placebo controlled study. Sure they used a placebo, but if it was double-blind they sure as heck would have mentioned it in the abstract. That means that the results are based more on the opinions of the people carrying out the study, since they would have known weather or not the subjects were receiving treatment or placebo. Second, unless you are equipped with sensitive antanai and receiving curcuitry, your body is quite incabaple of being affected by light with
    • 884 Mhz has a wavelength of just over a foot. There's not really such thing as an untuned radio... the radios are tuned to a frequency, they're just on one with a very low Signal to Noise Ratio. Finally, I still wouldn't stand too close to a 160 meter antenna that was transmitting over 1kW, even if that's 1/3 the height of the Sears Tower.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ChadAmberg ( 460099 )
      Wow, how many of you people are going to miss the part where they say...
      "At the previous PIERS meeting in Cambridge, MASS, USA, 2006 we presented the design and methodology of an ongoing double-blind controlled laboratory study with the objective to estab- lish whether RF during mobile phone use had any direct effects on: ..."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kebes ( 861706 )
      I also have complaints about the present study, but I'd like to note some mistakes you made in your post:

      your body is quite incabaple of being affected by light with a wavelength bigger than a volkswagen beetle. (devide the speed of light by the frequency to see how large these waves really are)

      c/(884 MHz) = 33 cm
      which is smaller than a human body. But moreover your implication that objects smaller than the wavelength of EM-radiation cannot interact with that radiation is completely false: they do indeed interact with it (though the exact nature of the interaction does indeed depends on sizes and distances in relation to the wavelength, e.g. see near-field vs. far-field [wikipedia.org]). For instance, light

  • This is actually something that has started worrying me since I got my iPhone. It's not really anything I used to notice, but the iPhone has a habit of interfering with any and all electronic devices within I'd say a 3 foot radius. I'm not kidding, at work I sometimes have to make it sit in the far corner because it makes my business landline almost incomprehensible. Other times, I'll be standing at the reception desk with it in my pocket, only to hear the speakers on the other side of the desk start to
    • Well, once I was talking to my mom on the landline, and my iPhone rang. The landline got static noises, and the static quit after I directed the iPhone call to my voicemail.

    • Honestly, the fact the I carry it in my pants pocket is what worries me the most--I'd like to have children some day...
      Honestly, you should look up the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing raiation.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 )
        Honestly, you should look up the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing raiation.

        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

    • This happens both due to the way GSM communication is done, and due to crappy shielding on your equipment. GSM uses TDMA (Time Division Multiplexing) so the radio is basically turning on and off rapidly, each time sending a spike. The communication slots are timed out in a range that is audible to humans, thus you hear the GSM 'buzz.'

      This particular interference happens only with GSM technology, or TDMA technology, before 3G, the 3G GSM system uses an adaptation of CDMA, which continuously transmits, wh

  • This is the same grade of science that declares otherwise harmless things to be harmful to human health. They overdose the subject and declare that it's all harmful. Look, if I take twelve Tylenol, I'm going to bork my liver, but that doesn't mean that the FDA should take it off the market!

    And GSM is no different than CDMA or TDMA. If the protocol was harmful, the we'd all be dead anyway because it saturates the atmosphere. It's the exposure to the high powered radio frequency that is harmful. It cou

  • Of Course! (Score:2, Funny)

    by jcaldwel ( 935913 )

    Apparently Tim Rifat, the world's leading expert in psychic spying (who knew there WAS such an expert. Where do you take certification tests for THAT honor?) reported in 1998 that the 884 MHz frequency is being used for govt mind control. [mindcontrolforums.com] Of course the sneaky bastards can also alter your sleep patterns! It's all a part of their plan to turn us all into zombies!

    ... Off to make my tinfoil hat.

  • Does three hours really count as "prolongued exposure", as the abstract explains?

  • Hey! Psuedoscience? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vegeta99 ( 219501 ) <rjlynn@gmai3.14l.com minus pi> on Monday December 31, 2007 @02:43PM (#21869012)
    Why is this tagged psuedoscience?

    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 /other/ conditions that would, well, cause them to have trouble sleeping.

    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 /preliminary/ results show that those who SAID they could detect symptoms of RF exposure had increased headaches during exposure than those that did NOT say they could detect the symptoms of RF exposure. However, it does not give a statistical analysis.

    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)

      by Viadd ( 173388 )
      Each of the 71 subjects had one night of practice ('habituation') followed by either a night of real RF then a night of fake RF ('sham'), or vice-versa. Double-blind means that neither the subjects nor the scientists knew which one they were getting at the time.

      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
  • ... oh, _sleep_! I thought it said "sheep".

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close