http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/012208HA.shtml
Original: http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3353768.ece


Mobile Phone Radiation Wrecks Your Sleep
By Geoffrey Lean
The Independent UK

Sunday 20 January 2008
Phone makers' own scientists discover that bedtime use can lead to
headaches, confusion and depression.

Radiation from mobile phones delays and reduces sleep, and
causes headaches and confusion, according to a new study.

The research, sponsored by the mobile phone companies
themselves, shows that using the handsets before bed causes people to
take longer to reach the deeper stages of sleep and to spend less
time in them, interfering with the body's ability to repair damage
suffered during the day.

The findings are especially alarming for children and teenagers,
most of whom - surveys suggest - use their phones late at night and
who especially need sleep. Their failure to get enough can lead to
mood and personality changes, ADHD-like symptoms, depression, lack of
concentration and poor academic performance.

The study - carried out by scientists from the blue-chip
Karolinska Institute and Uppsala University in Sweden and from Wayne
State University in Michigan, USA - is thought to be the most
comprehensive of its kind.

Published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's
Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium and funded by the
Mobile Manufacturers Forum, representing the main handset companies,
it has caused serious concern among top sleep experts, one of whom
said that there was now "more than sufficient evidence" to show that
the radiation "affects deep sleep".

The scientists studied 35 men and 36 women aged between 18 and
45. Some were exposed to radiation that exactly mimicked what is
received when using mobile phones; others were placed in precisely
the same conditions, but given only "sham" exposure, receiving no
radiation at all.

The people who had received the radiation took longer to enter
the first of the deeper stages of sleep, and spent less time in the
deepest one. The scientists concluded: "The study indicates that
during laboratory exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of
sleep believed to be important for recovery from daily wear and tear
are adversely affected."

The embarrassed Mobile Manufacturers Forum played down the
results, insisting - at apparent variance with this published
conclusion - that its "results were inconclusive" and that "the
researchers did not claim that exposure caused sleep disturbance".

But Professor Bengt Arnetz, who led the study, says: "We did
find an effect from mobile phones from exposure scenarios that were
realistic. This suggests that they have measurable effects on the
brain."

He believes that the radiation may activate the brain's stress
system, "making people more alert and more focused, and decreasing
their ability to wind down and fall asleep".

About half of the people studied believed themselves to be
"electrosensitive", reporting symptoms such as headaches and impaired
cognitive function from mobile phone use. But they proved to be
unable to tell if they had been exposed to the radiation in the test.

This strengthens the conclusion of the study, as it disposes of
any suggestion that knowledge of exposure influenced sleeping
patterns. Even more significantly, it throws into doubt the relevance
of studies the industry relies on to maintain that the radiation has
no measurable effects.

A series of them - most notably a recent highly publicised study
at Essex University - have similarly found that people claiming to be
electrosensitive could not distinguish when the radiation was turned
on in laboratory conditions, suggesting that they were not affected.

Critics have attacked the studies' methodology, but the new
findings deal them a serious blow. For they show that the radiation
did have an effect, even though people could not tell when they were
exposed.

It also complements other recent research. A massive study,
following 1,656 Belgian teenagers for a year, found most of them used
their phones after going to bed. It concluded that those who did this
once a week were more than three times - and those who used them more
often more than five times - as likely to be "very tired".

Dr Chris Idzikowski, the director of the Edinburgh Sleep Centre,
says: "There is now more than sufficient evidence, from a large
number of reputable investigators who are finding that mobile phone
exposure an hour before sleep adversely affects deep sleep."

Dr William Kohler of the Florida Sleep Institute added:
"Anything that disrupts the integrity of your sleep will potentially
have adverse consequences in functioning during the day, such as
grouchiness, difficulty concentrating, and in children hyperactivity
and behaviour problems."

David Schick, the chief executive of Exradia, which manufactures
protective devices against the radiation, called on ministers to
conduct "a formal public inquiry" into the effects of mobile phones.

On Jan 23, 11:39 am, Lance  wrote:
>
>
> This strengthens the conclusion of the study, as it disposes of
> any suggestion that knowledge of exposure influenced sleeping
> patterns. Even more significantly, it throws into doubt the relevance
> of studies the industry relies on to maintain that the radiation has
> no measurable effects.
>
I don't understand this one. Surely anybody who use a telephone before
sleeping is aware of having done that and that knowledge could affect
their sleeping patterns.

It doesn't seem to demonstrate that radiation is responsible. Wouldn't
they have to provide half the study randomly with identical mobile
'phones that don't emit any radiation to establish that? [I'm not sure
how they'd manage that, but that's another matter]

On Jan 23, 11:51 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On Jan 23, 11:39 am, Lance  wrote:
>
> > This strengthens the conclusion of the study, as it disposes of
> > any suggestion that knowledge of exposure influenced sleeping
> > patterns. Even more significantly, it throws into doubt the relevance
> > of studies the industry relies on to maintain that the radiation has
> > no measurable effects.
>
> I don't understand this one. Surely anybody who use a telephone before
> sleeping is aware of having done that and that knowledge could affect
> their sleeping patterns.
>
> It doesn't seem to demonstrate that radiation is responsible. Wouldn't
> they have to provide half the study randomly with identical mobile
> 'phones that don't emit any radiation to establish that? [I'm not sure
> how they'd manage that, but that's another matter]

They do provide a possible mechanism?

Do you think the results are simply the result of being stimulated by
teh conversation at that time of night?

Lance

On Jan 23, 11:56 am, Lance  wrote:
> On Jan 23, 11:51 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 11:39 am, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > This strengthens the conclusion of the study, as it disposes of
> > > any suggestion that knowledge of exposure influenced sleeping
> > > patterns. Even more significantly, it throws into doubt the relevance
> > > of studies the industry relies on to maintain that the radiation has
> > > no measurable effects.
>
> > I don't understand this one. Surely anybody who use a telephone before
> > sleeping is aware of having done that and that knowledge could affect
> > their sleeping patterns.
>
> > It doesn't seem to demonstrate that radiation is responsible. Wouldn't
> > they have to provide half the study randomly with identical mobile
> > 'phones that don't emit any radiation to establish that? [I'm not sure
> > how they'd manage that, but that's another matter]
>
> They do provide a possible mechanism?
>
> Do you think the results are simply the result of being stimulated by
> teh conversation at that time of night?
>
They haven't eliminated it as a possibility - at least as far as I can
see.

Peter Brooks  wrote:

> On Jan 23, 11:56 am, Lance  wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 11:51 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 23, 11:39 am, Lance  wrote:
> >
> > > > This strengthens the conclusion of the study, as it disposes of
> > > > any suggestion that knowledge of exposure influenced sleeping
> > > > patterns. Even more significantly, it throws into doubt the relevance
> > > > of studies the industry relies on to maintain that the radiation has
> > > > no measurable effects.
> >
> > > I don't understand this one. Surely anybody who use a telephone before
> > > sleeping is aware of having done that and that knowledge could affect
> > > their sleeping patterns.
> >
> > > It doesn't seem to demonstrate that radiation is responsible. Wouldn't
> > > they have to provide half the study randomly with identical mobile
> > > 'phones that don't emit any radiation to establish that? [I'm not sure
> > > how they'd manage that, but that's another matter]
> >
> > They do provide a possible mechanism?
> >
> > Do you think the results are simply the result of being stimulated by
> > teh conversation at that time of night?
> >
> They haven't eliminated it as a possibility - at least as far as I can
> see.

From the report:

"The scientists studied 35 men and 36 women aged between 18 and
45. Some were exposed to radiation that exactly mimicked what is
received when using mobile phones; others were placed in precisely
the same conditions, but given only "sham" exposure, receiving no
radiation at all."

"The people who had received the radiation took longer to enter
the first of the deeper stages of sleep, and spent less time in the
deepest one. The scientists concluded: "The study indicates that
during laboratory exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of
sleep believed to be important for recovery from daily wear and tear
are adversely affected."
"

If you had read this bit you would know that none of those in the trial
actually talked on a mobile and in fact the participants did not know if
they were exposed. The self identified 'electrosensitives' could not
tell if they had been exposed or not. So exactly how would this affect
the results in the way you are proposing? 

I suggest you read the report more thoroughly then you won't make ill
informed objections. A generally good lesson. 

I would say that the numbers involved are too small to be definite and I
would exclude any 'electrosensitives' as they are likely to exhibit
anxiety symptoms which potentially skew the results with these sorts of
numbers. 

So I would say 'interesting, more research to confirm this please, leave
out the kooks.'

Peter
-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

On Jan 23, 11:02 pm, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
>
> I suggest you read the report more thoroughly then you won't make ill
> informed objections. A generally good lesson.
>
Thank you for the correction! You're right, I misread the report. My
mistake.

It does look as if there might be an effect. An alternative to
excluding 'sensitive' types would simply to run with a large enough
sample that their effect is negligible.

Peter Brooks  wrote:

> On Jan 23, 11:02 pm, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> >
> >
> > I suggest you read the report more thoroughly then you won't make ill
> > informed objections. A generally good lesson.
> >
> Thank you for the correction! You're right, I misread the report. My
> mistake.
> 
> It does look as if there might be an effect. An alternative to
> excluding 'sensitive' types would simply to run with a large enough
> sample that their effect is negligible.

The other thing is that my physics is not good enough to say anything
about how real world the dose and energy levels were. However in science
you often go higher than real world in this sort of study to try and get
a strong enough signal/noise ratio to see if there is an effect. So that
there is a possible effect might not mean that actual usage is a
problem. I simply couldn't tell from the report which is the case with
this one.

Peter
-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

On Jan 24, 9:56 am, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> Peter Brooks  wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 11:02 pm, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
> > > I suggest you read the report more thoroughly then you won't make ill
> > > informed objections. A generally good lesson.
>
> > Thank you for the correction! You're right, I misread the report. My
> > mistake.
>
> > It does look as if there might be an effect. An alternative to
> > excluding 'sensitive' types would simply to run with a large enough
> > sample that their effect is negligible.
>
> The other thing is that my physics is not good enough to say anything
> about how real world the dose and energy levels were. However in science
> you often go higher than real world in this sort of study to try and get
> a strong enough signal/noise ratio to see if there is an effect. So that
> there is a possible effect might not mean that actual usage is a
> problem. I simply couldn't tell from the report which is the case with
> this one.
>
No, you couldn't. I suppose, to do it properly you'd have to measure
the field inside the head of somebody using one of these devices. I'm
sure that the physics of radio wave penetration of the skull isn't
that simple. If the head responded in a uniform way then things like X-
rays and MRI scans wouldn't work. The penetration would depend on
frequency as well - I'm not sure how much, but cellular technology
uses frequency hopping and varies its intensity depending on the
strength of the nearest mast signal. You'd probably get the worst
effect if you held a cell 'phone to your head in the middle of the
Sahara or on an aeroplane.

that is not man's state.

They inspired feelings of pure littleness, and that is not man's state.

There must be feelings of humility, not from nature, but from penitence, not
to rest in them, but to go on to greatness. There must be feelings of
greatness, not from merit, but from grace, and after having passed through
humiliation.

526. Misery induces despair, pride induces presumption. The Incarnation
shows man the greatness of his misery by the greatness of the remedy which
he required.

527. The knowledge of God without that of man's misery causes pride. The
knowledge of man's misery without that of God causes despair. The knowledge
of Jesus Christ constitutes the middle course, because in Him we find both
God and our misery.

528. Jesus Christ is a God whom we approach without pride and before whom we
humble ourselves without despair.

529.... Not a degradation which renders us incapable of good, nor a holiness
exempt from evil.

530. A person told me one day that on coming from confession he felt great
joy and confidence. Another told me that he remained in fear. Whereupon I
thought that these two together would make one good man, and that each was
wanting in that he had not the feeling of the other. The same often happens
in other things.

531. He who knows the will of his master will be beaten with more blows,
because of the power he has by his knowledge. Qui ju