Cell Phone Brain Scan Study

[Bob Masta]

The media has been making a big to-do about a study showing
a correlation between cell phone use and brain activity:

<well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-changes-in-brain-activity/>

I am completely underwhelmed. Besides the small size of the
reported change (7% near the active phone), I am especially
underwhelmed by the methodology: The subjects had a phone
strapped to each ear, with the control case being both
phones off, and the test case being one phone active. But
"active" in this experiment meant *receiving* a (muted)
50-minute recorded message, not transmitting.

Now, I am surely ignorant about the details of cell phone
protocols, but I would imagine that in the receiving state
there would be minimal transmitter activity by the phone...
maybe some sort of occasional handshake or something, but
basically not much. Is this mistaken?

If I am correct, then this study seems rather strange: Why
not test with the transmitter active? With only the
receiver active, why would we expect any difference compared
to no cell phone at all? After all, we are all being
exposed to normal RF from cell phones and all sorts of
things.

This makes me suspect that the investigators may have been
generally clueless about what they thought they were
investigating.

And if they found a difference when *receiving* a call,
doesn't it sound like this "effect" must be due to something
trivial like added warmth from receiver circuit activity?
(That would cause a small increase in blood circulation,
which would account for the small increase in activity.)

Any thoughts?


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v6.00
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
Science with your sound card!

 

[Winston]

Bob Masta wrote:

The media has been making a big to-do about a study showing
a correlation between cell phone use and brain activity:

well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-changes-in-brain-activity/

I am completely underwhelmed. Besides the small size of the
reported change (7% near the active phone), I am especially
underwhelmed by the methodology: The subjects had a phone
strapped to each ear, with the control case being both
phones off, and the test case being one phone active. But
"active" in this experiment meant *receiving* a (muted)
50-minute recorded message, not transmitting.

Now, I am surely ignorant about the details of cell phone
protocols, but I would imagine that in the receiving state
there would be minimal transmitter activity by the phone...
maybe some sort of occasional handshake or something, but
basically not much. Is this mistaken?

I don't know either, but the tiny amount of reading I've
done on the physical layer indicates that a bidirectional
handshake does occur.

If I am correct, then this study seems rather strange: Why
not test with the transmitter active? With only the
receiver active, why would we expect any difference compared
to no cell phone at all? After all, we are all being
exposed to normal RF from cell phones and all sorts of
things.

As you say, the transmitter does activate to maintain the
link. I find it troubling that they did not document how
the brain responds to the higher microwave energy of a
typical phone conversation.

This makes me suspect that the investigators may have been
generally clueless about what they thought they were
investigating.

They have to be very careful.

It is very brave of them to provide sound scientific proof
of physiological changes in the brain caused by microwave
radiation. Hopefully they will not be punished too harshly.

And if they found a difference when *receiving* a call,
doesn't it sound like this "effect" must be due to something
trivial like added warmth from receiver circuit activity?

"They said the activity was unlikely to be associated with heat from
the phone because it occurred near the antenna rather than where the
phone touched the head."

(That would cause a small increase in blood circulation,
which would account for the small increase in activity.)

Any thoughts?

My first thought is that the increased rate of glucose
metabolism indicates those areas of the brain that are
trying to counter the effects of microwave pulse entrainment.


--Winston

 

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 4/1/2011 4:05 PM, Bob Masta wrote:

The media has been making a big to-do about a study showing
a correlation between cell phone use and brain activity:

well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-changes-in-brain-activity/

They've done that since the 1980's when they found out it sells good!

I am completely underwhelmed.

That is very unfortunate! (But isn't substantially going to change their
rate of success.)

... but I would imagine that in the receiving state
there would be minimal transmitter activity by the phone...
maybe some sort of occasional handshake or something, but
basically not much. Is this mistaken?

What does your cold, heartless observation have to do with it?! Think of
all the children that are at risk!

If I am correct, then this study seems rather strange: Why
not test with the transmitter active? With only the
receiver active, why would we expect any difference compared
to no cell phone at all?

Because technology is bad! (And people are bad. Nature is good!)

.. This makes me suspect that the investigators may have been
generally clueless about what they thought they were
investigating.

By itself a good way to do unbiased measurements..

And if they found a difference when *receiving* a call,
doesn't it sound like this "effect" must be due to something
trivial like added warmth from receiver circuit activity?

If you had it your way, it would be added warmth from transmitted RF
waves. What would it matter?

(That would cause a small increase in blood circulation,
which would account for the small increase in activity.)

Yes. So what you would want to measure is not different from what was
measured here. Turning ones ear towards the central heating would also
have this effect. Or towards the sun, when outside. But in terms of
media coverage, my dear Bob, those things are completely different!

--
Jos

 

[Stretto]

"Bob Masta" <N0Spam@daqarta.com> wrote in message
news:4d95d3c1.1104707@news.eternal-september.org...

The media has been making a big to-do about a study showing
a correlation between cell phone use and brain activity:

well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-changes-in-brain-activity/

Obviously! When your talking to someone else your brain activity is going to
increase, is it not?

 

[Winston]

Stretto wrote:

"Bob Masta" <N0Spam@daqarta.com> wrote in message
news:4d95d3c1.1104707@news.eternal-september.org...
The media has been making a big to-do about a study showing
a correlation between cell phone use and brain activity:

well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-changes-in-brain-activity/


Obviously! When your talking to someone else your brain activity is
going to increase, is it not?

Not if you don't talk and you cannot hear the caller.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-changes-in-brain-activity/

"During one scan, the cellphones were turned off, but during the
other scan, the phone on the right ear was activated to receive
a call from a recorded message, although the sound was turned
off to avoid auditory stimulation."



"Scientists"? Real Scientists? They are joking, yes?:

"Scientists have said repeatedly that there is no known biological
mechanism to explain how nonionizing radiation might lead to
cancer or other health problems."

--Winston

 

[Stretto]

"Winston" <Winston@BigBrother.net> wrote in message
news:in5o0003088@news2.newsguy.com...

Stretto wrote:


"Bob Masta" <N0Spam@daqarta.com> wrote in message
news:4d95d3c1.1104707@news.eternal-september.org...
The media has been making a big to-do about a study showing
a correlation between cell phone use and brain activity:

well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-changes-in-brain-activity/


Obviously! When your talking to someone else your brain activity is
going to increase, is it not?

Not if you don't talk and you cannot hear the caller.

Um, then your not having a conversation with someone are you?

 

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 4/2/2011 6:28 AM, Stretto wrote:

"Winston" <Winston@BigBrother.net> wrote in message
news:in5o0003088@news2.newsguy.com...
Stretto wrote:


"Bob Masta" <N0Spam@daqarta.com> wrote in message
news:4d95d3c1.1104707@news.eternal-september.org...
The media has been making a big to-do about a study showing
a correlation between cell phone use and brain activity:

well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-changes-in-brain-activity/



Obviously! When your talking to someone else your brain activity is
going to increase, is it not?

Not if you don't talk and you cannot hear the caller.

Um, then your not having a conversation with someone are you?

Yes you can, if you are on usenet! You, my dear Stretto, seem to be
thinking too straightforward.. Let "Winston" explain things to you,
he has a more open mind.

--
Jos