5 ms·

From the study: "In healthy participants and compared with no exposure, 50-minute cell phone exposure was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism in

From the study: "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 16y ago
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.
- Natsu 16y ago
  We've had cellphones in common use for, what? Two decades or so? Shouldn't we have seen some indication of widespread harm by now, or inexplicable increases in cancer rates and whatnot? I'm not going to claim that it's impossible, just highly unlikely that this causes significant harm.
  - robg 16y ago
    Perhaps, but the technology hasn't been a constant and I have no idea why Volkow's group is just seeing these effects now. If she's on the case, the science will be done right. Moreover, what's the epidemiological study to be done? Every segment of society is using cell phones and the technologies to detect brain cancers are that much more robust today. It could be nothing. The phones could merely excite the brain regions with no long-term deleterious effects. But what's the harm if they're wrong? More people using wired headsets?
  - limmeau 16y ago
    If the harm only consists of something like a permanently reduced ability to concentrate or trouble falling asleep (which I don't claim it does), then we'd only have noticed that people get dumber and pupils don't learn like they used to.
- revolvingcur 16y ago
  So for the authors of the study, claiming health hazards would be reckless, but for journalists, writing a FUD piece in the guise of a science article is just playing it safe.
  - robg 16y ago
    Can you point to any of their recommendations that are clearly wrong or even FUD-worthy? The piece to me reads as bunch of claims that I didn't know: If a headset isn’t feasible, holding your phone just slightly away from your ear can make a big difference; the intensity of radiation diminishes sharply with distance. But today’s ubiquitous smartphones emit even more radiation as they transmit more, and more complex, data. Many cellphones emit the most radiation when they initially establish contact with the cell tower, making their “digital handshake.” To reduce exposure it’s best to wait until after your call has been connected to put your cellphone next to your ear. During the ensuing conversation, it’s advisable to tilt the phone away from your ear when you are talking and only bring it in close to your ear when you are listening. Moreover, your cellphone emits less when you are stationary because when you are moving rapidly — say, in a car or train — it must repeatedly issue little bursts of radiation to make digital handshakes with different towers as it moves in and out of range. Any situation where your cellphone has a weak signal indicates it has to work harder and thus will emit more radiation. I'll leave it to the Google-fu of the HN community to weigh these claims. But the reporter has cited expertise where necessary. That's far beyond what I find on blogs or forums, including this one. In a evolving field of science, isn't that the best we can hope for?
    - GiraffeNecktie 16y ago
      One of my colleagues was telling me yesterday that similar information (e.g. keep the phone away from the ear) can be found buried at the very end of the iPhone manual.
aufreak3 16y ago
> 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?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

robg 16y ago

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.

Natsu 16y ago
We've had cellphones in common use for, what? Two decades or so? Shouldn't we have seen some indication of widespread harm by now, or inexplicable increases in cancer rates and whatnot? I'm not going to claim that it's impossible, just highly unlikely that this causes significant harm.
- robg 16y ago
  Perhaps, but the technology hasn't been a constant and I have no idea why Volkow's group is just seeing these effects now. If she's on the case, the science will be done right. Moreover, what's the epidemiological study to be done? Every segment of society is using cell phones and the technologies to detect brain cancers are that much more robust today. It could be nothing. The phones could merely excite the brain regions with no long-term deleterious effects. But what's the harm if they're wrong? More people using wired headsets?
- limmeau 16y ago
  If the harm only consists of something like a permanently reduced ability to concentrate or trouble falling asleep (which I don't claim it does), then we'd only have noticed that people get dumber and pupils don't learn like they used to.
revolvingcur 16y ago
So for the authors of the study, claiming health hazards would be reckless, but for journalists, writing a FUD piece in the guise of a science article is just playing it safe.
- robg 16y ago
  Can you point to any of their recommendations that are clearly wrong or even FUD-worthy? The piece to me reads as bunch of claims that I didn't know: If a headset isn’t feasible, holding your phone just slightly away from your ear can make a big difference; the intensity of radiation diminishes sharply with distance. But today’s ubiquitous smartphones emit even more radiation as they transmit more, and more complex, data. Many cellphones emit the most radiation when they initially establish contact with the cell tower, making their “digital handshake.” To reduce exposure it’s best to wait until after your call has been connected to put your cellphone next to your ear. During the ensuing conversation, it’s advisable to tilt the phone away from your ear when you are talking and only bring it in close to your ear when you are listening. Moreover, your cellphone emits less when you are stationary because when you are moving rapidly — say, in a car or train — it must repeatedly issue little bursts of radiation to make digital handshakes with different towers as it moves in and out of range. Any situation where your cellphone has a weak signal indicates it has to work harder and thus will emit more radiation. I'll leave it to the Google-fu of the HN community to weigh these claims. But the reporter has cited expertise where necessary. That's far beyond what I find on blogs or forums, including this one. In a evolving field of science, isn't that the best we can hope for?
  - GiraffeNecktie 16y ago
    One of my colleagues was telling me yesterday that similar information (e.g. keep the phone away from the ear) can be found buried at the very end of the iPhone manual.

aufreak3 16y ago

> 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?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]