Cell Phone Radiation May Affect Memory Performance In Adolescents, Study Finds (sciencedaily.com) 89
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.
Cause and effect (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Better not go out in the sunshine, then.
Re: (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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Cause and effect (Score:5, 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 [sciencedirect.com] stating:
No exposure-response associations were observed for sending text messages and duration of gaming, which produces tiny RF-EMF emissions.
Re:Cause and effect (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, I suppose it's a good thing that cell phones aren't used as phones that often any more.
Re: (Score:2)
I am safe. I have my phone default to "speaker" for all calls, so I never put it up to my ear.
Re:Cause and effect (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re:Cause and effect (Score:4, 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 [cancer.org]). 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It took me awhile to "figure" out what figural memory is. I finally found a reference [thefreedictionary.com] referring to "figural memory (the ability to recall shapes)".
Given that, I think the emoji generation is training their figural memory just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
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 d
Re: (Score:2)
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 b
ELI5? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (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 on
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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.
Irrelevant study (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because they forgot how, due to the radiation!
Deeper concern (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I presume you typed that on a mobile phone :D
Remember this! (Score:2)
Yeah, well when I want to "remember" something, I just take a photo of it with my phone!
location (Score:5, Interesting)
Think of the children! (Score:2)
Impossible (Score:2)
I keep forgetting to bring my cell phone.
FTFY. (Score:2)
This means that screen addiction is GOOD (Score:2)
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.
Original Study (Score:3)
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!!!!!"
Re:Original Study (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, here you go: https://www.swisstph.ch/filead... [swisstph.ch]
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?
Re: (Score:1)
This looks suspiciously like p-hacking.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The news headlines were "European study shows cell phones could cause cancer!!!!!"
The newspaper headlines were right ... the study being wrong notwithstanding. :-)
Adults? (Score:2)
What about adults? :P
Hmm?? (Score:2)
I don't remember reading anything like this before.
Interesting gender stats (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 t