1. Home
  2. Hobby Electronics Basics
  3. Cell Phone Brain Scan Study

Cell Phone Brain Scan Study

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

formatting link
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI Science with your sound card!

Reply to
Bob Masta
Loading thread data ...

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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

Reply to
Winston

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

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

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

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

By itself a good way to do unbiased measurements..

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

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
Reply to
Jos Bergervoet

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

Reply to
Stretto

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

formatting link

"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

Reply to
Winston

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

Reply to
Stretto

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
Reply to
Jos Bergervoet

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.