Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Linkage between Cell-phone Usage and Long Term Memory Loss 220

Posted by Hemos from the when-was-i-born? dept.
sashae writes "Wired is reporting that that scientists at the University of Washington suspect that cell-phone usage causes long-term memory loss after a series of tests involving rats swimming in a pool of milk, attempting to find a platform in the centre of the pool. The rats exposed to cell-phone radiation were unable to find the platform after being exposed. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linkage between Cell-phone Usage and Long Term Memory Loss More

Linkage between Cell-phone Usage and Long Term Memory Loss

Comments Filter:

  • for what it's worth... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The whole thing with swimming in milk sounds like
    a weird thing that Lai pulled out of his butt,
    but it's an old technique used all the time
    in neuroscience for studying memory in rats,
    called "the Morris water maze." Lots memory studies
    have used this, and it seems like
    a pretty good way to get at the ability of rats
    to remember locations. Not that this means that
    the study is correct, just that this technique
    isn't quite as goofy as it might sound.

  • Re:RatHuman Considerations (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And then there's this thing called penetration depth. Electromagnetic waves can't propagate very deep from the surface of the skull inside the brain - at least when comparing the proportions of human and rat skulls, EM waves can penetrate a lot further inside a rat skull than a human skull. Then again, the article wasn't that technical so who knows what they've taken into consideration.
  • Laboratory research shown to cause cancer in rats
  • Has anyone ever done a study on ham radio operators who use handheld 2m and 70cm (146/440mhz) radios all the time? These tend to be far more powerful than any cell phone in terms of watts (usually 3-5), and are held just as close to the head.
    - Daniel N2SXX


    --
  • >>

    Huh? I'm missing something here. Nobody has ever thought that "EM in any strength is completely harmless." It's never been thought that you can stand in front of a 1000w microwave horn to no ill effect, or for that matter in front of a strong laser, or to receive huge quantities of X or gamma rays. People have always known of the tissue-heating safety hazards of both sub (radio/microwave) and supra (UV, X, Gamma) light radiation.


    --
  • The general scientific consensus for years has been that EM in any strength is completely harmless.

    Huh? I'm missing something here. Nobody has ever thought that "EM in any strength is completely harmless." It's never been thought that you can stand in front of a 1000w microwave horn to no ill effect, or for that matter in front of a strong laser, or to receive huge quantities of X or gamma rays. People have always known of the tissue-heating safety hazards of both sub (radio/microwave) and supra (UV, X, Gamma) light radiation.


    --

  • I keep forgetting where I put my mobile phone!
    J.

  • More caffine!

    :-)

  • Ummm....
  • I like the Tin Gallon Hat (despite /.'s mangling of your line "art".) However, I suspect the weight of such an article would produce a high risk of neck injury. I'd suggest incorporating a substantial neck brace into your next design.

    My thoughts are travelling along another road: Suspend the cellphone with a helium baloon, tethered to the user by several metres/yards of microphone/headset cable. Anyone care to calculate the size of balloon needed for this? (Shouldn't be sooo big for a little StarTac should it?)

    The balloon could carry advertising to subsidise the call charges.

    However, I suspect cellphone users will be (even more) unwelcome at the movies.

    Regards, Ralph.
  • > Just keep that antenna away from your skull and you'll be fine.

    Yeah, wear it on your belt and wait for your gonads to "forget" how to produce sperm.

    Seriously, if we buy into the EMR-is-dangerous theory, then where is the safe yet practical place to put that antenna anyhow?

    Regards, Ralph.
  • Remember the cell phone brain cancer scare? I didn't have one then, but I do now. And I keep it in my pocket all day. So where am I gonna get cancer? And what other damage is this going to do to "important parts" down there?

    Andrew Gardner
  • Certainly. However, you attributed to ddwalker some beliefs that he did not state, but could be inferred from what he said by an invalid, but commonly used, form of reasoning.
    --
  • This is probably all a misunderstanding. I interpreted "I find it really weird that you believe radiation in the brain might not cause memory loss, but yet you believe that adding milk will." as "I find it really weird that you believe radiation in the brain could not cause memory loss, but yet you believe that adding milk will."
    --
  • Why my mice keep forgetting to do their chores! It's those cell phones they got! Dang... If I would have know this, I would have insisted on personal 2way radios. Or Maybe CB Raido's...


  • This research confirms my observation that people who talk on cell phones forget how to drive.
  • Lemme guess, you use a cellphone, right?

    --
  • If we had to use cellphones that were as big as we were, I think the radiation might affect us slightly more as well. (I think I'd be a bit confused as well if I had to go swimming round in a pool of milk after talking to my mate on a 6 foot cellphone, too...)

    --
  • Maybe the platform is white too - so could it be that cell phones only cause retinal rod cell damage or some degradation in the ability to distinguish contrast?
  • This reminds me of the study that they did on saccharine (sp?) many years ago.
    Come to find out, the doses they gave the rodents were equivalent to a human
    consuming something like 200 cans of diet soda a day, every day, for seven years .
    Then there was a chance that you might get cancer.


    Drink that much soda and you'll need dialysis long before you have anything to worry about from cancer.


    Now if I could just remember...


    --Kit

  • Yeah, I know, offtopic, but every time I see someone driving like an idiot these days it seems like they're jabbering on the phone. Every time.
  • HA! Dallas, actually, so I am familiar with what you're talking about. I should have said 'driving in the top 10 percentile of idiots.'
  • Are you sure that it isn't just your phone getting warm...
  • Have you ever used a Nextel phone whilst near stereo equipment, speakers of any kind, or a cordless phone base? Tick tick tick ticktickticktick TICKTICKTICK! Ever heard that noise?

    Well, if it can do that to electrical equipment, just think of that really thin layer of outer brain that makes you pretty much human going tick tick tick TICKTICKTICK....

    :)

  • I think he means put it on vibrate. I agree; I don't want to hear your phone ringing.
    The day they make me carry a phone OR a pager is the day I change jobs. I might carry one if I got $50 every time it went off.
  • Let's not forget that, with the exception of perhaps certain individuals, human beings are quite different from rats in many ways. Most importantly, our brains and skulls are much larger and quite different from those of rats. The dosage they gave the rats very possibly would be equivalent to a far far greater dosage on people.

    I mean, I'm disappointed that the Wired article does not mention dosage.. it only implies that it's similar to that of normal cell phone usage.. but that would scale to far greater for rats!

    I don't know how they did their study, but if they did the rat equivalent of surrounding a guy with 300 cell phones, the study would be quite worthless.

  • I have a small earpiece for my phone with a microphone that clips to my collar. It makes me look like a secret service guy. At any rate, it keeps the cellphone away from my brain.

    Cellphones aren't going away, so we need to find solutions.
  • Look at http://csep10.phys.utk. edu/astr162/lect/light/spectrum.html [utk.edu] There is a chart showing the divisions of types of radiation (can anyone suggest a better one?). If you examine the user's manual for the Nokia 6000 series phones [nokiausa.com] (big PDF file), you see that this cell phone uses 1.8x10^3-2.0x10^3MHz.

    If you look at the above mentioned chart, you will see that these frequencies fall very low (high?) on the radio spectrum. You will also note that at these frequencies, the total energy is also very low. Also, keep this in mind, the natural frequency of water is in the Microwave spectrum, thus this is bad for you. Above the visible spectrum, the energies get pretty high: this is bad for you too.

    In order to prove problems with cell phones, you have to convince people that listening to your radio (not even listening but just being in an area with a radio station), TV, cordless phones, and you name it, is not dangerous for you.

    If anyone more knowledgable than can expound on this please do.

    ~afniv
    "Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
  • So I screwed up.

    Before someone else corrects me: 1.8x10^3MHz = 1.8x10^9Hz.

    Thus you are on the ragged edge of radio/microwave spectrum. Thus this whole issue does make sense.

    Apologies.

    ~afniv
    "Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
  • I forgot where I put my cell phone last week!

    ~afniv
    "Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
  • > you attributed to ddwalker some beliefs that he did not state

    He said "Milk seems like it would alter the results".

    > but could be inferred from what he said by an invalid, but commonly used, form of reasoning.

    Help me fix my reasoning here. I don't see where I inferred anything at all. He said "milk may have altered the results". He's claiming that the results (which he is not disputing) may have something to do with the milk.

    Assuming you accept the results and that milk is the only thing we're arguing about, there are only two possible theories: "radiation to the brain causes memory loss," or "radiation to the brain + milk causes memory loss".

    I still say that's a freaky argument.
  • The base unit can easily be small enough to fit into your pocket. The ear piece fits over your ear with a little microphone sticking out. It's not only MOBILE but HANDS FREE (save for dialing/answering).
  • Thank you for the correction.

    I agree that much of that story was a bit hyped, and I do have a few issues with some of their "studies" as well. However, even the Time link you gave mentions sensible precautions, like having the antenna pointed away from your head.
  • Although the effects are immediately noticeable in rats, it may take much longer for them to effect humans. Cell phones haven't been around (much less so widely depolyed) long enough for significant amount of harm to be caused to the general population. There really isn't enough data to do good human studies yet.
  • > as someone else mentioned, most rats are lactose intolerant

    They DID use a control... rats that were NOT exposed to the radiation were able to find the platform.

    I find it really weird that you believe radiation in the brain might not cause memory loss, but yet you believe that adding milk will.
  • When you question the methods of a study, one generally posits a counterfactual that would explain the result and that the experiment did not control for.

    In this case, the counterfactual was that it was somehow possible that the milk was responsible for the memory loss (while ignoring that the control rats had no problem in the milk).

    That, I believe, is truly bizarre.
  • Yes, cell phones have only been around for a decade. They haven't always been as popular as they are today, however.

    Now, human life expentancy is in the 80s now. Perhaps 10 years of low-level radiation to the brain isn't so bad. But what about 20-years of radiation?

    Cell phones have, until very recently, been used mostly by adults. They are now being used more and more by youunger and younger people. People who have not finished growing, and may not have, literally, as thick of a skull as the rest of us.

    The effect of THIS experiment showed effects on memory. This can be very subtle. People tend to lose their memory as they age naturally, so the question is really HOW MUCH memory should they have lost. Try and come up with an experiment that compares your memory to what it was 10 years ago, and also what your memory WOULD BE if you hadn't been using a cell phone for 10 years.

    Compare cell phones to tobacco. I don't think ANYONE is trying to argue that cell phone related health problems are as severe as smoking problems, but it's a useful analogy. How many years of smoking did it take for people to be generally aware that smoking was somehow linked to health problems? It's only been in the past year or so that the tobacco companies have begun *admitting* how much they knew.

    Smoking won't kill you after one cigarette. No one knows exactly how many it does take, but I think it's rare to notice the health effects if you've only been smoking for less than 10 years.

    Finally, there is something that you can do (other than giving up your cell phone). Move the radiation away from your skull! They now make cell phones that have a headset that plugs into the base unit. There's no need to keep the antenna next to your brain.
  • ...I don't use a cell phone.

    I have Digital PCS. (c:

    He who has imagination without learning has wings but no feet.
  • I remember waaayy back when, while I was getting my ham radio license, the instructor was discussing the use of his hand-held FM Band radio. He indicated that nobody he knew would hold that damn radio antenna anywhere near their heads. They'd orient the device so the antenna was as far away from their noggins as possible while they were transmitting to keep from getting bombarded by microwaves. If I'm not mistaken, cell phones have a slightly higher frequency range and similar power emissions.

    I have a cell phone. I use it about ten minutes a year. In dire emergencies. I find that I sometimes get headaches after using the thing. I think I'm all set with using cell phones from now on. In addition, it's very rude to get a phone call in public, in a quiet place. Having gone to BU, I know all about rude (usually rich and foreign) students who would get calls in the middle of class! And answer them!
  • it's not like it sounds. i have a nokia 5120, and they sell a little earpiece you can plug into the bottom of the phone, so that you can place or recieve calls without the phone right next to your head.

    i am purchasing one of these things as soon as i can find them somewhere. i think the recent 20/20 piece on cellphone radiation caused a buying spree in this area, because no one seems to have them for sale.

    -pal
  • But... After we spent all that money getting teeny-tiny cell phones for ratty and his pals to use? Not to mention having to teach the little dickens to dial the damn things...
  • I'd use my mobile phone much more. If only I could remember the number to tell people...

  • Many phones disply it briefly when it starts up. Otherwise look for a menu option call NAM (Network access module) this stores your phones network settings, and should have the number in there somewhere.
  • "Later in this talk, I intend to define the universe and give three examples." -- Larry Wall

    Later in this thread, dmd intends to defy the poster and give three (identical) responses. ;-)

  • Actually, it's swimming in the nuked milk that made them dumb.

    So go ahead and use that phone -- but avoid contact with milk while doing so.

    And if you take milk baths, warm the milk the old-fashioned way, not with your microwave oven!

    --
    It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
  • I just want to know who thought up this test.
  • This has convinced me. I am going to immediately take the cell phones away from my pet rats. I never could understand why they had a hard time swimming through the moat of milk around my house. Now I know.
  • What do you call a pile of rats in a bowl of milk? The Low-Carbohydrate Diet.
    • New Test Prove Rats Prefer More Exercise After Cell Phone Use.
    • Test Proves Male Rats Won't Ask For Directions When Lost.
    • What do you call 100 rats in a pool of milk? Rat Cream Soup.
    • What do you call 100 rats in a pool of milk? Target Practice.
    • What do you call 100 rats in a pool of milk? Graduate student physical exercise.
    • Animal Rights Activists Protest Removal Of Platform From Drowning Rats.
    • Dairy Activists Protest Waste of Good Milk.
    • Agriculture Students Thank Biology Department For Milk Fertilizer Shipment.
  • In what way is it detrimental to the health of rats to find a way to get them to get more exercise by swimming around?
  • Electromagnetic waves can't propagate very deep from the surface of the skull inside the brain

    But they seem to penetrate the walls of most builings I use a cell phone in without severe attenuation...Your skull offers very limited protection.

  • GRRR. That's NOT right. WHY does the system try to make itself smarter than I am? And preview works so badly it's impossible to tell what might work without clogging the topic with trash. GRRR.
  • Silly scientists, they didn't consider all the possibilities before jumping to a conclusion.

    99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
    fix one bug, compile it again...
  • Is that you shouldn't swim around in a pool of milk after using a cellphone.

    Rats on cellphone:

    Rat #1: What's up?
    Rat #2: Not much.
    Rat #1: Wanna go swimming?
    Rat #2: 'kay.
    Rat #1: Let's go hang on the platform!
    Rat #2: Nah, let's just swim around...
  • Your skull offers very limited protection.

    That's precisely why, if I get a cell-phone, I'll be breaking out my tin foil hat collection.

    What is the frequency, Kenneth?

  • Actually, this quote makes me wonder:

    "We have to be careful extrapolating the results to humans," Slesin said. "But the amount of energy going into these animals is really small and not all that different, potentially, from a cell phone."

    It sounds suspiciously like they were using actual cell-phone levels of radiation.

    This reminds me of the lab test they used to show that some artificial sweetener caused cancer by given the rats a dose equivalent to something like a cup of the stuff (that's probably a exaggeration; but it was a *huge* amount of sweetener). Basically guarantied that the rats would die of *something*. Then one call to the FDA....
  • Hmmm, I'll have to remember not stop at any gas stations where a kid is wearing those blinking shoes, either... even more dangereous, since the gas fumes are heavier than air, and all that blinking has got to cause an explosion, right 8^)

    I still advocate the use of ground-ground missiles for resolving traffic issues caused by cell-phones... causes a little mess, but we'd all be better off in the long run - (I tried to extend this argument to any vehicles with simulated wood paneling, but I got outvoted there) 8^)

  • Unlike cigarettes, I can't tell if the person in the room next to me ate a Twinkie or a Big Mac the next day (aside from poor waste management), but I can smell that burnt crap for the rest of the week in the carpet, furniture, etc...

    I suppose cellphones don't quite qualify for the 'health of innocent bystanders' part, unless you count all the morons who try to drive when talking on a cell phone. They make hands-free models, people!!! Get one or don't talk!!!

    oh well... just had to vent...
  • Instead of the Pied Piper of Hamilin or exterminators, let's just give every rat a free cell phone and a hunk of cheese. Good-bye disease bearing vermine. Or better yet, let's give them all internet accounts with a link to Slashdot. They will never reproduce, never produce anything of value, and the rest of us can lead happy normal lives away from the dehumanization of technology. At least the rats won't post as anonymous cowards. To all you flame baiters, this was just a joke.
  • Why would scientists use milk instead of water,

    IIRC, they used milk instead of water so that the rats could not see the platform, they would have to remember where it was.


    George
  • How did they deliver the Microwave radiation? Any chance there were distracting harmonics only audible to the rats that might have polluted the study?

    Get a sharp hole saw for your drill, and cut an inch and a half diameter hole in your microwave front.

    Insert rat's head.

    Cover rest of hole with foil.

    Try 2 minutes on high.

    Get many wet paper towels and clean up.

    Try 10 seconds on low.

    And apologies to David Foster Wallace.

    George
  • Sorry, but this reminds me of The Simpson's episode when they caught the school serving the kids ratmilk in their school lunches. Eeewwww.
  • My take on this is that the radiation made the rats smart enough to refuse to play the game any more!
  • All the research that has been done on electromagnetic radiation has been mostly inconclusive. 'They' have shown that at very high levels it may affect the brain of most mammals, but they really don't know why or how. They have pulled magic values out of their hats for regulatory purposes (ie, handheld phones can only emit x watts since the antenna is y millimeters from the head, while car and attache phones can emit x*10 watts since the antenna is located further away)

    Therefore there are two forces affecting the regulations: The phone and semiconductor companies (ie, motorola) and the regulatory forces who are trying to be cautious. You can think of it a little like the tobacco industry in that when a negative report comes out, the corporate organizations tout other positive reports and ignore the bad reports (or make them go away if possible). If a report comes out inconclusive or positive, these organizations push it out into the open.

    But then, if you've ever had an MRI then you have experienced magnetic radiation that far surpasses that emitted by a cell phone, though at a different frequency, and with different effects.

    Then we could go into the radiation emitted by your monitor, computer, keyboard, mouse, etc. Not as great, but many people are sitting in front of them for longer in one day than they would use a cell phone in a month's time.

    I wouldn't be too concerned about it, unless you can change your habits. The only thing that is certian is that you should spend only as much time in such fields as you need to...

    -Adam

    A Klingon programmer's top 12 phrases:
    #6 Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Our software does not coddle the weak.
  • Actually, there may be more truth to that than you realize!

    Check out what The Register has to say [theregister.co.uk] about cell phones and bowel discomfort! True story...
  • I'm afraid I can't agree with you here; the electromagnetic spectrum contains much nastiness, from gamma rays all the way down to sunburn.
    Absolutely.
    The problem isn't the frequency; it's the energy that is pumped through the device and how much is absorbed by the brain.
    I can't tell if you mean frequency isn't the problem in general, or just in the case of the cell phones. In general, frequency is by far the larger problem. High-frequency radiation means high-energy photons. High energy photons do a lot of damage, such as ionizing molecules in your body and causing all sorts of nasty chemical reactions. If the molecules happen to be DNA, that can be bad.

    Even in the case of the cell phones, if this turns out to be real, I think we'll find that the frequency is key. For example, we get bombarded with a lot of radiation every day in the form of visible light at much higher energy levels and (although no one's done a controlled experiment -- I hope), it doesn't seem like that causes memory loss. Maybe the skull is more transparent to microwaves than to visible light, or maybe something in the brain responds differently to microwaves.

    You are posing an interersting thought experiment. I happen to think that, yes, if Slashdot's colour scheme turned out to rot the brain one day, Cmdr Taco should end up in the dock for it. However, damages should suit the crime: if there was no knowledge that it could call damage at the time, if there was no malice and no negligence, then damages should reflect that.

    That Big Tobacco knew of and withheld evidence on the deadliness of tobacco was certainly an aggravating circumstance, but it wasn't the basis for the charges. When Big Tobacco started producing cigarettes which would eventually kill people, they were liable; when they found out it was deadly but decided to go on marketing it, they were malicious or negligent.

    No, the original poster was correct. It isn't enough that the product causes harm -- you must prove negligence or worse. That's why the tobacco companies managed to get by for so long without losing a lawsuit (that, and employing a lot of lawyers).
  • Firstly, the evidence for tobacco causing cancer is statistical and epidemiological. When you deal with discrete cases, it's very hard to pin it on a single causal factor. Lawyers know this; expert witnesses know this, and they can team up and rip great big holes in a study-based argument. (This is why it was such a big jump for a tobacco executive to concede that tobacco could cause harm a couple of years ago; it was their collective policy to deny, deny, deny)
    Agreed, but a big part of the reason for denying is that acknowledging that their product was harmful in itself would increase their liability. The really bad case for tobacco company liability would be (1) the companies knew the product was harmful (2) the customers didn't (3) the companies lied to the customers. Note that they went from saying their product wasn't harmful to the customers knew the risks and thus took it on themselves. The nail in the coffin was in the form of leaked reports on the harmfulness of tobacco and the addictiveness of nicotine. IANAL, but based on the cases I've read about, it would seem that if the tobacco companies had recalled all of their product when the first evidence of its harmfulness came to their attention, there would not have been much of a case against them.

    Granted, just about any company other than a tobacco company would settle lawsuits out of court to save money, so even if a company was not negligent, they could still lose a bundle from lawsuits. Futhermore, jury trials are highly unpredictable, and they have a tendency to rob Goliath to pay David, even when David's case is weak. But I stand by my claim the the original poster was correct -- the company must be found negligent.

    Secondly, big tobacco decided to play the hardest of all hardball and did so very well for decades, both inside and outside a court. They also played it on the political arena; tobacco was up there with aerospace and defense industries when it came to political donations in the eighties. This bought influence paid off handsomely. When the government turned against big tobacco, OTOH, that was the beginning of the end.
    That was my point about employing a lot of lawyers. I should have mentioned lobbyists as well.
  • they used milk so the rats couldn't see through it and would have to remember where the platorm was

  • All hand waving and qualitive results.

    I want to know the method and intensity of irradiation, the number of rats used in the study etc.

    One suggested method to alleviate this problem, would be to have the ariel (sp?) on the bottom of the 'phone. It'd still work, but be further from sensitive brain cells, but the obvious solution is handsfree equipment. Give us decent voice recognition and we're sorted. "Phone bob... *click*click* hi bob, i'm stuck in traffic..." etc.

    I think I'll wait for NewScientist [newscientist.com] Coverage.

  • They should make separate roads for the morons who insist on rummaging around in their cars, putting on makeup, talking on the phone, eating, or changing their CDs while driving. That way, they can all kill themselves off and leave the rest of us the hell out of it.

    There are several studies on the 'net that prove pretty conclusively that driving is impaired (and accident rates, consequently, rise) when people are distracted. (Yes, I know, that seems pretty common sense, but, hell, so does waiting until you get home to make a phone call.)

    Stupid people piss me off.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

  • I wouldn't be able to swim to a platform in a pool of milk either.
  • I think that it is fair to make companies liable ex post facto (after the fact). Even if no malice is present, their product did cause damage through normal operation. It's the same argument where tobacco companies would be liable for cancer deaths (which they are) and Ford would be liable for exploding Pintos (which it was).

    I don't know about this. The idea is that Tobacco Companies knew and intentionally withheld evidence of the deadliness of tobacco, and Ford either knew or was negligent in not knowing that their cars went boom.

    The general scientific consensus for years has been that EM in any strength is completely harmless. The concept that it might not be is rather alien.

    Imagine if Slashdot's color/font choices caused breakdown in mental stability in some portion of the population. Should CmdrTaco be liable?

    Yours Truly,

    Dan Kaminsky
    DoxPara Research
    http://www.doxpara.com

  • Rats do possess much, much thinner skulls.

    That being said, one has to wonder about the structure and function of this type of memory, if ostensibly harmless frequency exposure can cause this kind of damage.

    Is it fair to make companies liable ex post facto, incidentally? If I have no knowledge that my behavior could cause serious problems, and I make a good faith effort to both discover problems and handle the problem as best I can be expected, should I be liable?

    How did they deliver the Microwave radiation? Any chance there were distracting harmonics only audible to the rats that might have polluted the study?

    Yeah, this is pretty worrisome.

    Yours Truly,

    Dan Kaminsky
    DoxPara Research
    http://www.doxpara.com

  • I find it really weird that when someone questions the methods used in a study, they are often accused of believing the opposite of what the study's results show.
    --
  • This is what really annoys me about science. Rats swimming around? I guess at some basic biological level we have certain similarities talking on cell phones with rats swimming. But the truth is is that cell-phones haven't been around long enough for any sort of long-term study (on humans), and they're really just freaking everyone out for no reason.
    --
    "Some people say that I proved if you get a C average, you can end up being successful in life."
  • I just saw cell phones covered on Dateline (I think... one of those shows). They pointed out that while cell phones are required to keep their radiation levels within specified safety limits, the manufacturers get to do all the tests themselves and no one (not even the FCC) confirms the results... so Dateline did.

    Depending on HOW you hold the phone, many phones far exceeded the safety limits. Moving the mouthpiece a little closer to your chin will vary the orientation of the antenna and can dramatically increase or decrease your exposure.

    They also mentioned that one manufacturer (don't reacall who) had created a headset that plugs into the phone. The phone itself (and all its potentially harmful radiation) is kept far away from your noggin.

    Just keep that antenna away from your skull and you'll be fine.
  • ... maybe they should've phoned for directions.
  • Once again, evil RF radiation comes in to destroy our minds, give us brain cancer, and generally mess up our bodies.

    This is crap science reporting. (Since I haven't read the scientific paper, I can't judge the science). It is possible that low level RF from cell phones had an effect on the rat's ability to find the platform in the middle of the milk, but I don't see how one can conclude that memory is what was affected. How about directional sense or motor coordination?

    I still maintain that standing in sunlight complaining about radiation from your cell phone is like calling your neighbor during a hurricane to complain that his cat is breathing on your trees.

    Until you have an etiology whereby RF causes harm to your brain, you can't say RF is the cause.

    The effects of RF at thes power levels and distances from your neurons is so miniscule. Until you show me a physiological change in brain tissue exposed to RF, I just don't buy it.

    Boo! Raaayyydiayyyytion! Boo!

    What's hitting you when your turn on a light? Radiation! What's hitting you when you stand in the sun? Radiation (really broadband radiation, too, from DC to daylight)! Radiation is nothing but energy in motion, either in photons (RF, aka "light") or in massive particles (alpha and beta particles, protons, neutrons, or electrons moving at high speeds).

    Radiation can really only affect you in a few ways. It can raise your temperature, it can break chemical bonds, or it can cause nuclear change. The first effect is the most common and happens at lower energies (like those in cell phones). The second is an electron effect and happens at higher energies. The third is a nuclear effect at happens at really high energies where neutrons are forced into atomic nuclei making, possibly, unstable isotopes out of stable ones. This last one is quite rare and I don't think any terrestrial RF source has that kind of energy (I'm not a physicist, can this happen at cosmic ray energies?). The second and third effects just don't happen at energies this low. (Actually, I would guess that the second could happen VERY RARELY through some phonon effect or somesuch -- can an educated person help me out here?)

    Anyways, I still think this is way overhyped. You get more harmful radiation working in a granite building. If you're really scared, get a mag mount antenna (if you double the distance between your head and the antenna, your reduce the dose to 1/4th, triple it, 1/9th, and so on -- inverse square law, remember?) and keep your calls short.
  • Erm, yeah. I have, erm... what's that number after one... two, in fact ;)

    No, the real problem was using Konqueror as a browser (kfm) to post an article with a broken < in it rather than &lt; or something like that. Woops :)
  • I heard it on local radio many years ago (watching them use them :)
  • Sorry folks, something got lost there.

    What I meant was: I heard it on local radio some years ago (before 1995; it must be true!) that doctors in Australia had identified a problem amongst users of mobile phones. The mysterious neck ailment was apparently not caused by the phone, however, but by users turning round to make sure someone was *watching* them use them ;)
  • I have read of at least one study, maybe two, that showed the RF leakage up the headset wire was roughly equivalent to that in the antenna, so this probably only creates the illusion of distancing the hazard. (I'll see if I can find the URL - I think I have it in my bookmarks list at home, which is separate because it had over 1200 entries tha last time I synchronized my bookmarks - ack!)

    Besides, who's to say your liver or something isn't even more at risk than your brain? We just don't know or understand much about these effects yet...
  • Well, a few people have suggested tinfoil hats, but these can just reflect the radiation back down into your head if they don't cover the sides, or produce anoying RF nulls if they do cover the sides of the head.

    Herewith, then, is the ultimate engineering solution to the problem as only a True Texan could devise it - the Tin Gallon Tin Hat with clever central radiation device.

    (Copyright and all patent rights reserved in case anyone is actually silly enough to build it :-) )

    (Rob: Why can't I include at least a small image here? I hate ASCII art!)

    Note antenna safely up above tin hat
    (Central position assures optimum
    | signal strength!)
    |
    (((( | )))) -- dangerous radio waves
    _|_
    |[ ]|--- Cellphone plugs into convenient
    |...| receptacle in top of hat
    _|...|_
    / |___| \
    | |---Tin Gallon Tin Hat
    ____|_______|____ (Brim protects body from
    | _/ \_ harmful radiation)
    |(. 0 0 .) -- Happy talker with long term
    | [ .. ] memory intact
    \ \ /
    " \ YAK / Note microphone hanging from hat!
    -----

    This is the true answer to your question of, "where is the safe yet practical place to put that antenna anyhow?" Of course it comes in sizes (taller users get shorter antennae) to ensure doorway clearance. Oh yeah, and this should be a good reason for the rest of you to realize why it's important to drive a pickup truck, something we've known in Texas for a long time!

    (and yes, i can say that, since my family has been here for several generations. That said, I prefer the Ferrari to the truck, but it's important to also have a good tow vehicle if you own "a furrin sports car that looks like a shark"...)
  • Yes, it was an attempt at humor. No offense was intended to those gastrointestinally impaired or otherwise sensitive to such a subject.

    Obviously someone else with moderator points didn't get it either ... that's why it's "over-rated" now ... or maybe THEY didn't read my post and simply moderated down due to other's not getting it. We are all sheep at one time or another I guess.
  • It's not the cell phone's microwaves that cause the problems, it's that most mice are lactose intolerant and they are swimming aimlessly around due to the gas the milk is giving them.

    If you've ever attached a balloon to a small boat, put it in water, then let it go you'll understand what I'm saying and why the mice swim in circles.
  • The article points out that this radiation is not exactly the same as cell-phone radiation; I'd be interested in seeing what the differences are.

    Let's also not get too worked up about one study; the results of just one study are not definitive (in either direction).
  • Just remember: To make up for any damage from cell-phone radiation, just eat more mashed potatoes.

  • That's why the tobacco companies managed to get by for so long without losing a lawsuit (that, and employing a lot of lawyers).

    Actually, IIRC, they managed to go so long without losing a lawsuit for two reasons:

    Firstly, the evidence for tobacco causing cancer is statistical and epidemiological. When you deal with discrete cases, it's very hard to pin it on a single causal factor. Lawyers know this; expert witnesses know this, and they can team up and rip great big holes in a study-based argument. (This is why it was such a big jump for a tobacco executive to concede that tobacco could cause harm a couple of years ago; it was their collective policy to deny, deny, deny)

    Secondly, big tobacco decided to play the hardest of all hardball and did so very well for decades, both inside and outside a court. They also played it on the political arena; tobacco was up there with aerospace and defense industries when it came to political donations in the eighties. This bought influence paid off handsomely. When the government turned against big tobacco, OTOH, that was the beginning of the end.

    --

  • Re:Hmm (Score:2)

    by twit ( 60210 )
    There is a credible body of experimental work which links acetylcholine to memory (consolidation and retrieval). However, you're correct, the article does not successfully link in the experiment with the pre-existing evidence - although he tries hard to insinuate it.

    --

  • "The general scientific consensus for years has been that EM in any strength is completely harmless."

    I'm afraid I can't agree with you here; the electromagnetic spectrum contains much nastiness, from gamma rays all the way down to sunburn. The problem isn't the frequency; it's the energy that is pumped through the device and how much is absorbed by the brain.

    On a similar note, not so way back when I was studying psychology, experimenters used low-frequency RF (I believe somewhere in the AM or microwave band) to destroy areas of the brain in order to simulate lesions. They localized the damage by introducing it with probes, although I'm sure they could have fried a brain from outside the skull given enough power.

    You are posing an interersting thought experiment. I happen to think that, yes, if Slashdot's colour scheme turned out to rot the brain one day, Cmdr Taco should end up in the dock for it. However, damages should suit the crime: if there was no knowledge that it could call damage at the time, if there was no malice and no negligence, then damages should reflect that.

    That Big Tobacco knew of and withheld evidence on the deadliness of tobacco was certainly an aggravating circumstance, but it wasn't the basis for the charges. When Big Tobacco started producing cigarettes which would eventually kill people, they were liable; when they found out it was deadly but decided to go on marketing it, they were malicious or negligent.

    Saying that a lack of maliciousness and negligence excuses the ill is the ultimate "I didn't mean to" defense. It doesn't, so to speak, wear well.

    --
  • All we have to do is make tinfoil hats a fashion statement and we will be fine.
  • I just saw cell phones covered on Dateline (I think... one of those shows)

    Actually, it was 20/20.

    Depending on HOW you hold the phone, many phones far exceeded the safety limits.

    Their report was based on science that is, at best, dubious. Here are a few URLs you may want to review if you are interested in the topic:

    http://www.wow-com.com/respons e/sar/german_intro.cfm [wow-com.com]
    http://iago.lib.mcw .edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.html [mcw.edu]
    http://www.pathfinder. com/time/personal/19991101/health.html [pathfinder.com]

  • Wait, I don't ever remember swimming in milk! Have they stumbled upon a conspiracy of amnesia?

    "After a glass of 2% I just forget all my complaints about the government, its very relaxing. Have some, its bliiiisssss..."

  • Hmm.. I now know why people on the freeway seem to forget how to drive the moment the cell-phone touches their ear.

  • Only thing I am worried about is that every time I read from somewhere that *insert some energy source* causes cancer/memory loss/brain damage/hemorrhoids, lots of rats have been fried with radio transmissions/x-rays/ion cannons for no good reason at all. Human race is going far in abusing all other creatures on this planet.

    Meanwhile, my cell phone and brains work ok, but memory loss and symptoms of radiation sickness are observed after alcohol consumption.

  • Skeptical (Score:3)

    by James Lanfear ( 34124 ) on Thursday November 04, 1999 @05:27AM (#1564031)
    To be honest, I'm more than a little leery about trusting science news from Wired (or any other 'news' source, for that matter). It would have been nice to have some more info of the experiment.

    Now speculation.

    The big problem, IMO, with applying these results to humans is that we shouldn't have to. If cell-phone use results in memory loss, cell-phone users should have noticed something a long time ago (or people studying cell-phone users, anyway). And conversely, it should be simple enough to verify the results by studying cell-phone users. Considering that lab rats seem to be vulnerable to everything known to man, I'm not really convinced.

  • Hmm (Score:3)

    by twit ( 60210 ) on Thursday November 04, 1999 @05:36AM (#1564032) Homepage
    I'm not one to disparage the scientific method, but the more important fact is what particular mechanism in RF exposure to the brain might be causing the acetylcholine deficit.

    We can start the process of generalizing and extending theories when we know the how and why of the subject. Alone, this experiment is scientific trivia: not uninteresting, but unattached to the greater body of knowledge.

    I'd think that knowledge of this mechanism would be important for a fair bit more than cell phones - think about all the things that we use which give off some kind of signal. This makes further research in this vein quite relevant and necessary.

    Likewise, we should consider the nature of the study data. Is it replicable to humans, most importantly. Although ethics considerations may preclude testing directly, evidence of a long-term memory deficit could possibly be teased out of an epidemiological or statistical study.

    In any case, my own cell phone is staying where it usually does: in my coat pocket and turned off.

    --

  • Re:Skeptical (Score:4)

    by Falsch Freiheit ( 7780 ) <freiheit.gmail@com> on Thursday November 04, 1999 @06:16AM (#1564033) Homepage
    If the effect of cell-phone use is fairly small, I'd expect that we wouldn't notice anything.

    In particular, there's a 3-way correlation that would make it very hard to study memory loss problems on cell phone users without actually setting up a proper experiment with a control, etc.

    1) Cell<->Stress.
    People with busy (therefore stressful) lives tend to be much more likely to carry cell phones. (Or you could say that cell phone users are the people more likely to be leading stressful lives -- whatever.) I only have anecdotal evidence, but I suspect it could be found to be more general with a little bit of research. Also, Cell phones can be stressful. Either way, increased usage would tend to be associated with increased stress.

    2) Stress<->Memory Problems.
    There is research indicating that stress has a negative effect on memory. (And I've noticed this personally, too)

    3) Cell<->Stress<->Memory Problems.
    So, people with cell phones are likely to have memory loss problems without it being caused by the cell phone. (Instead both cell phone use and memory loss stemming from a stressful lifestyle)

    And, note: I don't mean to say that all cell phone users are stressed. Personally, I find that once things like cell phones are recognized as being solely for the convenience of the person carrying it (and therefore it's ignored if inconvenient to answer it or the caller-id shows that it's an annoying person, people that abuse it are beaten until they stop, etc.) a cell phone is a handy convenience.

  • What the research shows (Score:4)

    by jabber ( 13196 ) on Thursday November 04, 1999 @06:28AM (#1564034) Homepage
    The research is sound and valid. It clearly shows that:

    Yuppies who use cell-phones in their endless effort to win the rat-race while buoyed up by the milk of human kindness, tend to forget the ethical platform, their veritable solid ground in a shifting, fluid sea of corporate mentality, and become wife-beating dead-beat dads and absentee fathers who do not contribute to society in the slightest.

    Actually, we need to remember (hard to do, since we use cell-phones) that dairy products are high in fat, which is bad for you.

    If I was forced to swim around in a pool of milk, I'd have a hard time remembering things as well.

    Reminds me of an old joke about a Russian scientist experimenting with flies.

    1. Remove fly wings so it doesn't escape, and place fly on table.
    2. Move hands towards fly: Observed that fly walks away.
    3. Remove a leg from the fly.
    4. Place fly on table.
    5. repeat steps 2 thru 4 as needed.

    Conclusion: After the removal of all legs, the fly becomes conditioned not to fear hands.

Slashdot Top Deals

IOT trap -- core dumped

Close