"In healthy participants and compared with no exposure, 50-minute cell phone exposure was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism in the region closest to the antenna. This finding is of unknown clinical significance."
The specific finding referred to is localized mean differences in brain glucose metabolism of 2.4 μmol/100 g per minute (a 7% increase).
The linked article is a fluff piece providing "advice" for people wanting to avoid exposure to cell phone radiation. The study makes no claims regarding possible health hazards related to their findings.
The study makes no claims regarding possible health hazards related to their findings.
To do so at this point would be reckless. There's a concern here and certain steps ("advice") seem reasonable.
It could be years, if not a decade or more, before any hazards are clearly known. Better to be safe. We're born with only one brain and neural implants are still a ways off.
> This finding is of unknown clinical significance.
That certainly made me question why the article was trying to project some paranoia around this.
A tangential note: I congratulate NYT for actually linking to the original JAMA report! Hope other journalists follow suit. Does anyone know if NYT has always done this, btw?
Hopefully someone with access to the full article can answer these:
According to the abstract, they tested phones on and muted or off. A phone that is powered on (but not on a call) shouldn't be expected to use the radio much. Is it the case that the only difference was the power being on or off?
Any explanation given for why they compared powered-on vs. powered-off instead of, e.g., airplane vs. non-airplane mode?
Next, every phone I've seen with a mute feature mutes the audio FROM your phone, not TO your phone. Some phones also make a hiss even when they're supposed to be silent. Electronics can themselves hum, sometimes at a high enough frequency that only some people can hear it. Is it possible that there was an auditory difference between the two test conditions?
Cell phones that are off vs. on look different (e.g., screen) and feel different (e.g., heat generation). How was blinding maintained?
Speaking of that, how did they control for one being warmer than the other? Abstract says it was placed on the ear, so assumably the subject could feel that.
When they say that phones were placed on the left and right ears, what do they mean? Hopefully they used a random ear for the "on" phone.
[+] [-] revolvingcur|15 years ago|reply
"In healthy participants and compared with no exposure, 50-minute cell phone exposure was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism in the region closest to the antenna. This finding is of unknown clinical significance."
The specific finding referred to is localized mean differences in brain glucose metabolism of 2.4 μmol/100 g per minute (a 7% increase).
The linked article is a fluff piece providing "advice" for people wanting to avoid exposure to cell phone radiation. The study makes no claims regarding possible health hazards related to their findings.
[+] [-] robg|15 years ago|reply
To do so at this point would be reckless. There's a concern here and certain steps ("advice") seem reasonable.
It could be years, if not a decade or more, before any hazards are clearly known. Better to be safe. We're born with only one brain and neural implants are still a ways off.
[+] [-] aufreak3|15 years ago|reply
That certainly made me question why the article was trying to project some paranoia around this.
A tangential note: I congratulate NYT for actually linking to the original JAMA report! Hope other journalists follow suit. Does anyone know if NYT has always done this, btw?
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] derobert|15 years ago|reply
According to the abstract, they tested phones on and muted or off. A phone that is powered on (but not on a call) shouldn't be expected to use the radio much. Is it the case that the only difference was the power being on or off?
Any explanation given for why they compared powered-on vs. powered-off instead of, e.g., airplane vs. non-airplane mode?
Next, every phone I've seen with a mute feature mutes the audio FROM your phone, not TO your phone. Some phones also make a hiss even when they're supposed to be silent. Electronics can themselves hum, sometimes at a high enough frequency that only some people can hear it. Is it possible that there was an auditory difference between the two test conditions?
Cell phones that are off vs. on look different (e.g., screen) and feel different (e.g., heat generation). How was blinding maintained?
Speaking of that, how did they control for one being warmer than the other? Abstract says it was placed on the ear, so assumably the subject could feel that.
When they say that phones were placed on the left and right ears, what do they mean? Hopefully they used a random ear for the "on" phone.
[+] [-] kordless|15 years ago|reply