Resonance – Beings of Frequency (Documentary)

reply to post by Bedlam


You have it really easy, sitting back in your chair and saying, "Oh, they're schizophrenic" or "Oh, they're faking it," without any need to actually look into the research done on the subjects and the personal accounts given by the psychologists, scientists, military officers, and other highly trained personnel who give testimony to the validity of astral projection and other psychic phenomena.

At the very least, they've seen things they can't explain - things they are PAID to explain, but cannot. Are you able to give answers that they would be satisfied with, when they themselves could not?

Originally posted by Pilot
I didn't think there was anything woo about the film at all, at least the part I was able to watch. I don't understand why this thread devolved into chaos.

Here are a couple examples of nonsense in the video, which you should have heard (The video is on youtube also if you had trouble with that player):



7:10

"The frequency of a wave is measured in Hertz. This refers to the number of oscillations the wave makes each second. Frequencies range from a billionth the size of an atom, to the length of the universe itself."

"a billionth the size of an atom, to the length of the universe itself" aren't frequencies, they are sizes, but they call them frequencies. So after they define frequency, they then confuse frequency and wavelength, by calling wavelength "frequency". Since the whole video is about frequencies, their failure to understand the nature of frequency is NOT a trivial point.

8:20

"(Weaver) discovered that when Schumann Resonance was filtered out of the bunker, the student's physical and mental health would suffer"

The part of the text they highlight also adds that "Electromagnetic fields of extremely low frequency have been shown at a high statistical level to influence circadian rhythms".

So yes they were shielded from external EM, but Weaver was zapping them with ELF waves many times stronger than Schumann resonance. The video tries to imply it was being shielded from Schumann resonance which caused the detrimental effect verbally, but in the text they show the true cause. It's very misleading. They are twisting the facts to try to support an unsupported claim.

Then they say just go outside and see how much better you feel, and show a girl sitting in the sunshine. Gee the sunshine couldn't have any effect in making us feel better compared to being sealed in an underground bunker, could it? Sure it could, so this is woo to infer that it's the Schumann resonance that makes you feel better when you go outside. (And if it's pouring down rain when you go outside, it might make you feel worse, and if there are thunderstorms nearby, that's when Schumann resonance would be the most intense).

I won't cover every leap the video makes between evidence and claim, but it makes a lot of leaps, where the evidence doesn't support the claim, and the claim of the link between the Schumann resonance and circadian rhythm and well-being are just two examples of unsupported claims.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Bedlam

 

You have it really easy, sitting back in your chair and saying, "Oh, they're schizophrenic" or "Oh, they're faking it," without any need to actually look into the research done on the subjects and the personal accounts given by the psychologists, scientists, military officers, and other highly trained personnel who give testimony to the validity of astral projection and other psychic phenomena.

Oh, well, yeah, I have looked into it. Actually, I've been tested for it, can't do it at all. I can juggle the brainwave indicators into position, but then...nothing. Total muggle. I think I've met two, maybe three people who seemed to be any good at RV and weren't also whack jobs, and only one uses the "astral projection" trick. You can get lessons from him as a civilian, though. He even promises to give you Agency-like training, but from what I've seen, it's not exactly true. I do, however, recommend going and visiting Jack Houck, that's always fun if not always useful.

At the very least, they've seen things they can't explain - things they are PAID to explain, but cannot. Are you able to give answers that they would be satisfied with, when they themselves could not?

That's actually why the Army eventually dropped the whole program. Seeing things you can't explain - and that's a hallmark of both RV and "astral projection" , it's not exactly congruent to the real world - wasn't very useful to the military. I heard a fairly highly placed guy once say it tells you something, but it's likely to be the number of nubs on the toilet paper roll holder instead of something you care about. Take the "he's in a tent" fiasco, for example.

Worse, it's a field that attracts humbuggery and freak jobs like a neodymium magnet attracts iron filings.

So yeah, again, pretty much.

reply to post by Bedlam

Oh, well, yeah, I have looked into it. Actually, I've been tested for it, can't do it at all. I can juggle the brainwave indicators into position, but then...nothing. Total muggle. I think I've met two, maybe three people who seemed to be any good at RV and weren't also whack jobs, and only one uses the "astral projection" trick. You can get lessons from him as a civilian, though. He even promises to give you Agency-like training, but from what I've seen, it's not exactly true. I do, however, recommend going and visiting Jack Houck, that's always fun if not always useful.

And obviously, your limited experiences can answer for the entirety of the test subjects who have successfully completed multiple remote viewing and telekinesis experiments over the course of the last 50 years.

That's actually why the Army eventually dropped the whole program. Seeing things you can't explain - and that's a hallmark of both RV and "astral projection" , it's not exactly congruent to the real world - wasn't very useful to the military. I heard a fairly highly placed guy once say it tells you something, but it's likely to be the number of nubs on the toilet paper roll holder instead of something you care about. Take the "he's in a tent" fiasco, for example.

Just because you can't control it to the point that it can be used against other people, doesn't mean it's bunk. Generally, those type of talents operate on a more central basis - stuff that your subconscious is concerned with, something you're actually interested in instead of some drug lord hiding in the Amazon.

Yeah, I agree with you. It's very tricky, especially since you can't force art. The more naturally it occurs, the more helpful it is to you. Some sergeant gets a little tiffed because he didn't find the location of his prized terrorist - but good news! You know your daughter is happy. Personally, I think that's more important than some politically-driven agenda meant to make a half-crippled branch look good in the public eye just because the war on drugs isn't going entirely well, which might have something to do with our highly classified involvement in manipulating the situation to our advantage so we don't go entire bankrupt and have to sell Texas back to Mexico.

The long and short of it being, these gifts are a means of peace and stability. If you're planning on taking the fast track to becoming a secret agent, don't count on it. There's a certain degree of selflessness and balanced motion required for the efficacy of these practices.

Maybe those experiments were a sign that we shouldn't spend so much time plotting against our own species.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


That isn't what I got out of the underground experiment segment at all. He said that they were shielded from the Schumann resonance underground and felt poor, then were "zapped" with it while still underground and showed signs of improving.

You said:

So yes they were shielded from external EM, but Weaver was zapping them with ELF waves many times stronger than Schumann resonance.

I'm sorry where did you get that from the video? I'd appreciate it.

In general I do think that emf waves from the cell tech can cause harm, but people can and will adapt. This is nothing new. Industry has always and will always cause harm in a percentage of the population. If it's not you, great. Some people have a greater degree of empathy with their fellow humans who suffer the ill effects of industrialization. Others do not. I guess I have a lack of empathy with people who practice denial. For example, if you eat mostly processed foods and sugary drinks and you get sick and suffer, it serves you right. The denial in this case of course is ignoring or remaining unaware of the simple maxim, "you are what you eat." Shame on me for being so cold and not understanding that a deliberate lack of nutritional education may be partly to blame for this.

However, industry serves one purpose and guess what? Human well being is not it. I think that is why it is imperative that people be aware of possible harm that can come to them living near cell masts.

The study you mention is not the most compelling piece of information in the video regarding that topic. The good stuff is toward the end. The critique of the Essex experiment was spot on. It was statistically useless and they made that case very well.

Originally posted by Pilot
You said:

So yes they were shielded from external EM, but Weaver was zapping them with ELF waves many times stronger than Schumann resonance.

I'm sorry where did you get that from the video? I'd appreciate it.

The video doesn't discuss the amplitude and that's part of the reason it's woo. Do some research on the Schumann resonance amplitude, then look up the amplitude used by Weaver in his experiments.

An analogy would be saying that microwaves cause cataracts. Yes, in fact they do, at high enough amplitude.

But I'm constantly exposed to microwaves at low amplitude (as all of us are) and I don't have cataracts. Amplitude makes a difference and they totally ignore that.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Lack of discussion constitutes as being "woo"? Maybe it just constitutes as "get up and do your own research. Prove us wrong. Or, maybe, you might prove us right."

But I'll leave that for you to decide.

Somewhere in the video it gets into Cryptochrome, a sensor/photoreceptor for blue wavelength.

Derived from Vitamin B2-riboflavin.

After that property is introduced, the focus moves to magnetoreception/magnetic orientation.

Not cited, but 2 studies recently published on human cryptochrome -

www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n6/full/ncomms1364.html

Nature Communications | Article Open

Human cryptochrome exhibits light-dependent magnetosensitivity

Lauren E. Foley, Robert J. Gegear & Steven M. Reppert

Nature Communications 2, Article number: 356 | doi:10.1038/ncomms1364

Received 06 April 2011 | Accepted 24 May 2011 | Published 21 June 2011

Abstract

Humans are not believed to have a magnetic sense, even though many animals use the Earth's magnetic field for orientation and navigation. One model of magnetosensing in animals proposes that geomagnetic fields are perceived by light-sensitive chemical reactions involving the flavoprotein cryptochrome (CRY). Here we show using a transgenic approach that human CRY2, which is heavily expressed in the retina, can function as a magnetosensor in the magnetoreception system of Drosophila and that it does so in a light-dependent manner. The results show that human CRY2 has the molecular capability to function as a light-sensitive magnetosensor and reopen an area of sensory biology that is ready for further exploration in humans.


Affiliations

Department of Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts 01605, USA.

Lauren E. Foley,
Robert J. Gegear &
Steven M. Reppert

Present address: Department of Biology and Biotechnology, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609, USA.

Robert J. Gegear

dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031867

Research Article

Human Cryptochrome-1 Confers Light Independent Biological Activity in Transgenic Drosophila Correlated with Flavin Radical Stability

Jacqueline Vieira 1, Alex R. Jones 2, Antoine Danon 1, Michiyo Sakuma 2, Nathalie Hoang 1, David Robles 1, Shirley Tait 2, Derren J. Heyes 2, Marie Picot 3, Taishi Yoshii 4, Charlotte Helfrich-Förster 5, Guillaume Soubigou 6, Jean-Yves Coppee 6, André Klarsfeld 3, Francois Rouyer 3, Nigel S. Scrutton 2, Margaret Ahmad 1,7*

1 Université Paris VI, Paris, France, 2 Manchester Interdisciplinary Biocentre and Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, 3 Institut de Neurobiologie Alfred Fessard, CNRS UPR 2216 (NGI), Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 4 Graduate School of Natural Science and Technology, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan, 5 University of Würzburg, Biocentre, Neurobiology and Genetics, Würzburg, Germany, 6 Institut Pasteur, Transcriptome and Epigenome Platform, Genomes and Genetics Department, Paris, France, 7 Penn State University, Media, Pennsylvania, United States of America

Abstract

Cryptochromes are conserved flavoprotein receptors found throughout the biological kingdom with diversified roles in plant development and entrainment of the circadian clock in animals. Light perception is proposed to occur through flavin radical formation that correlates with biological activity in vivo in both plants and Drosophila. By contrast, mammalian (Type II) cryptochromes regulate the circadian clock independently of light, raising the fundamental question of whether mammalian cryptochromes have evolved entirely distinct signaling mechanisms. Here we show by developmental and transcriptome analysis that Homo sapiens cryptochrome - 1 (HsCRY1) confers biological activity in transgenic expressing Drosophila in darkness, that can in some cases be further stimulated by light. In contrast to all other cryptochromes, purified recombinant HsCRY1 protein was stably isolated in the anionic radical flavin state, containing only a small proportion of oxidized flavin which could be reduced by illumination. We conclude that animal Type I and Type II cryptochromes may both have signaling mechanisms involving formation of a flavin radical signaling state, and that light independent activity of Type II cryptochromes is a consequence of dark accumulation of this redox form in vivo rather than of a fundamental difference in signaling mechanism.

Received: October 3, 2011; Accepted: January 13, 2012; Published: March 12, 2012

Citation: Vieira J, Jones AR, Danon A, Sakuma M, Hoang N, et al. (2012) Human Cryptochrome-1 Confers Light Independent Biological Activity in Transgenic Drosophila Correlated with Flavin Radical Stability. PLoS ONE 7(3): e31867. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031867

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Because you're not going to do it, right? You're just here having fun and not taking anything seriously, and intentionally posting wrong stuff just to get reactions out of people.

But if you do decide to look into it, why do you think Wever used 10 Hertz when that's not even a frequency of the Schumann resonance, which jumps from 7.83 to 14.3 Hertz?

en.wikipedia.org...

Schumann resonances are the principal background in the electromagnetic spectrum[1] beginning at 3 Hz and extend to 60 Hz,[2] and appear as distinct peaks at extremely low frequencies (ELF) around 7.83 (fundamental),[3] 14.3, 20.8, 27.3 and 33.8 Hz....
The ninth partial lies at approximately 59.9 Hz.

So why was he testing at 10 Hz when that's not even a Schumann resonance frequency?

And why are people trying to draw conclusions from his research about the effect of Schumann resonance frequency on circadian rhythms when he didn't even test at 7.83 Hz or 14.3 Hz?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Because you're not going to do it, right? You're just here having fun and not taking anything seriously, and intentionally posting wrong stuff just to get reactions out of people.

My studies have lead me to believe that the world is composed of vibrations. The less they move, the less heat and energy and malleability. It grows cold, and dense, because it has very low energy, from very low vibrations. Everything can freeze. And everything can burn, as well. You just have to channel enough energy to knock their molecules their molecules apart. Their condition depends on the energy, which depends on vibrations. Heat is energy in motion. Heat means molecular activity.

And so, vibrations from outside can have damaging or helpful effects, as I have already stated. Considering our bodies' elements use electromagnetic frequencies to communicate....anyway, I'll leave you to your opinions.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

So you are saying the film was intentionally misleading and the filmmakers misrepresented the study? That seems odd that they would make such an easily traceable mistake.

Really I'm more interested in the potential danger of cell towers and cell phones. All this resonance/frequency talk is beside the point. Are you not cautious with your own cell usage and that of younger loved ones?

Originally posted by Pilot
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

So you are saying the film was intentionally misleading and the filmmakers misrepresented the study? That seems odd that they would make such an easily traceable mistake.

The film is targeting woo-woos. These aren't exactly known for adherence to critical thinking.

reply to post by buddhasystem

The film is targeting woo-woos. These aren't exactly known for adherence to critical thinking.

Critical thinking is hindered by subjective experience. No matter how many times you look at it, there's always someone who sees it differently. And their point can be just as valid as yours.

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo


Kind of not in-depth summary, supplement to cryptochrome studies posted; scepticism to many points is not defensible for the level of available published evidence.

-Schumann Resonance similarity with biological activities, from brain to neuronal activity.

Cites Montagnier's research on DNA waves; one essential element is Schumann Resonance (and some others not covered in the documentary).

Gives background on Rütger A. Wever's study as used by other investigators to build evidence for Schumann.

Ankermüller and König are 2.

arxiv.org/abs/1012.5166

DNA waves and water
L. Montagnier, J. Aissa, E. Del Giudice, C. Lavallee, A. Tedeschi, G. Vitiello
(Submitted on 23 Dec 2010)

Some bacterial and viral DNA sequences have been found to induce low frequency electromagnetic waves in high aqueous dilutions. This phenomenon appears to be triggered by the ambient electromagnetic background of very low frequency. We discuss this phenomenon in the framework of quantum field theory. A scheme able to account for the observations is proposed. The reported phenomenon could allow to develop highly sensitive detection systems for chronic bacterial and viral infections.

Comments: Invited talk at the DICE2010 Conference, Castiglioncello, Italy September 2010
Subjects: Other Quantitative Biology (q-bio.OT); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:1012.5166 [q-bio.OT]
(or arXiv:1012.5166v1 [q-bio.OT] for this version)

(...)

The technical
conditions for EMS induction is summarized by the following list:
- Filtration: 450/100 nm for bacterial DNA, 450/20 nm for viral DNA
- High dilutions in water
- Mechanical agitation (Vortex) between each dilution
- Excitation by the electromagnetic background of extremely low frequency (ELF), starting
very low at 7 Hz. The excitation is not induced when the system is shielded by a mu-metal cage
The stimulation by the electromagnetic background of very low frequency is essential. The background is either produced from natural sources (the Schumann resonances [4] which start at 7.83 Hz) or from artificial sources.


(...)

-Cryptochrome as magnetic sensor in animals and leaves the human question open (not cited, but in 2011-2012 studies preliminarily show yes, humans can sense magnetics aided by cryptochrome)

Children tested before 10-11 years of age showed good compass directional detection. After 10-11 years, accuracy curve start to fall.

-Melatonin levels disrupted by EMF fields. Evidence range from short-term to long-term and both suppresses and elevates melatonin. Men more susceptible than women. Circadian contribution may fully or partially explain the disparate results published so far.

This is the pineal gland area that received mock jokes...

-Cancer clusters and/or cancer already present, death occur sooner; near cell phone masts/towers/base stations

-Electrosensitivity, only country on earth to support sufferers is Sweden.

As Pilot posted, example of Essex study; isn't the best, some symptoms downplayed.

Premise that acute on/off symptoms would show instantly as a rule, when there is an individual gradient; funded by industry.

-Reality of threatening and growing Electrosmog.

The trend is toward elimination of a practical control group if one would choose a blinded or not randomised trial design. (Rütger A. Wever from Max Plank Institute - style shielded bunker used for the circadian, atmospheric and Schumann study is too competitive for today's grants market)

-Already ample discussion of child vs. adult skull when testing Specific Absorption Rate S.A.R. for cell phones.

The consumer manuals for iPhone, Blackberry and a leaked T Mobile internal document already admit to the cell phone role in brain cancer development.

-In the European Union the S.A.R. level is decimal points higher than the US.(Flip side, not covered, but a few EU countries on their own set the masts/towers/base stations levels lower[US and Canada have numbing high limits for masts/towers/base stations levels], so this is a ?balancing? variable not much emphasized in discussions)

-ICNIRP, the limit setting body, discard a wide body of evidence that would force the limits to come down.(This ties into IEEE and the 2007 BioInitiative report)

-In 2011 WHO's IARC upgraded the level of evidence to 2B - possibly carcinogenic.

-In the end, the member of the UK branch of the industry body said : "It is not the priority of industry to fund studies that look into the melatonin mechanism"

Originally posted by Pilot
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

So you are saying the film was intentionally misleading and the filmmakers misrepresented the study? That seems odd that they would make such an easily traceable mistake.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. They said frequency is measured in Hertz and in the same breath they said frequency can be as large as the universe, when they probably meant wavelength or something. It doesn't get more easily traceable than that. The size of the universe is not measured in Hertz.

Really I'm more interested in the potential danger of cell towers and cell phones. All this resonance/frequency talk is beside the point. Are you not cautious with your own cell usage and that of younger loved ones?

Here's a real fact. It turns out that according to the inverse square law, mashing your cell phone up against the side of your head when you talk elevates the signal strength going into your head compared to keeping the phone a short distance away from your head...and guess what? Many cell phone owners manuals actually specify what this minimum distance from your ear to your cell phone should be, so you should look it up for your phone. Personally, if not using a headset for short calls, I try to keep maybe two centimeters (~0.8 inch) distance from my ear to the cell phone, which meets and exceeds the owner's manual minimum distance recommendations. For longer calls, the headset is more comfortable anyway, and I don't have to worry about the 2cm distance, so I often use a headset for those.

Here's a FAQ sheet that's slightly alarmist, however the statements are measured and not really woo, though they do include an abundance of caution. There's nothing wrong with some caution:

www.ewg.org...

9. What are the best ways to reduce my exposure to cell phone radiation?

EWG's researchers have developed six simple safety tips to help you reduce your exposure to cell phone radiation. Among the most important — use your phone in speaker mode or with a headset, hold the phone away from your body when you're using it, and make phone calls only when the connection is good.
...
11. Are wireless or wired headsets better for reducing cell phone radiation exposures?

The jury is out — but either type of headset is preferable to a phone held to the ear.

I think it's a good idea to follow the owners manual and hold the phone at least the specified distance from your head. (I see countless people not doing this by the way. They either didn't even read the owners manual, or if they did, they ignored the advice about pushing the phone against the ear, something I might even do briefly if trying to hear in a noisy location). I agree with this faq that either version of headset is probably better than holding the phone close to your head without a headset, though even that probably isn't too risky for occasional cell phone users. From what I've seen, the few studies that do show increased risk associate it with "heavy users"; you know, the people who walk around with phones glued to their heads for hours and hours each day. While I acknowledge the possibility these folks may *possibly* face some risk, it really doesn't deter me from casual cell phone use. But the heavier your cell phone use, the more concerned you should be about measures to mitigate risk like using a headset.

An analogy that comes to mind is apple seeds. Eat enough of them and they will make you very sick and may even kill you (They contain arsenic). But eat one or two once in a while, and nothing bad will happen as a result.

I'm not afraid of casual cell phone use at all, but I wouldn't mash my phone against my ear for hours a day based on the data I've seen, which is usually in violation of the owner's manual instructions anyway.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arb, apple seeds contain cyanide, not arsenic. Just saying this in the interest of accuracy, it doesn't matter much.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

And obviously, your limited experiences can answer for the entirety of the test subjects who have successfully completed multiple remote viewing and telekinesis experiments over the course of the last 50 years.

You said I hadn't looked into it - I have. And if it could be done reliably, repeatably, and with consistent accuracy, you'd see it being investigated in the open. But it's not, because it just doesn't work well, if at all.

Just because you can't control it to the point that it can be used against other people, doesn't mean it's bunk. Generally, those type of talents operate on a more central basis - stuff that your subconscious is concerned with, something you're actually interested in instead of some drug lord hiding in the Amazon.

Or they're self delusion. If it worked ALL THE TIME, and actually worked to the point of being reliable, consistent and accurate, it would be in use for many things. It isn't. Because it's not.

Yeah, I agree with you. It's very tricky, especially since you can't force art.

Yeah, you can't get a Mona Lisa out of DaVinci every day - but DaVinci didn't oscillate back and forth between Mona Lisa and drawing XKCD either.

There's a certain degree of selflessness and balanced motion required for the efficacy of these practices.

Or they just don't work well, or at all. Only one guy was good enough at it that you could say "Holy crap, let's get this guy in a lab", unfortunately, he ended up doing something really odd and fatal.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Arb, apple seeds contain cyanide, not arsenic. Just saying this in the interest of accuracy, it doesn't matter much.

Thanks, I stand corrected.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

The film is targeting woo-woos. These aren't exactly known for adherence to critical thinking.

Critical thinking is hindered by subjective experience. No matter how many times you look at it, there's always someone who sees it differently. And their point can be just as valid as yours.

Well, critical thinking is often described as relying on evidence and facts. This is manifestly NOT what is called "subjective". It is quite true that interpretation of data is difficult, and requirements are typically reproducibility by a different group of people, and consensus which allows to weigh the factors potentially at play in the experiment.

And in the movie we see a violation of all these principles. First off, they openly lie about the exact value of frequency used by Luc Montagnier, and as noted already, the Schumann resonance is quite variable and can't be described as a magic constant that the stupid movie just does. Second, the description of the Montagnier experiment in the movie is quite simply a lie as well. The best part, mind you, is that the woo-woos do not care a bit, and all they can say is that "their point can be just as valid as yours". Nuh.

There's always a segment one forgets...

The documentary isn't unscientific, what I see here by the more grounded and not derogatory posts is complaints that it didn't go into enough depth for every topic presented.

I forgot that it had an interview with Nora D. Volkow, MD, a National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH researcher/author that showed increased glucose consumption by neighboring cells surrounding the cell phone area.

Her study from JAMA

jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=645813

Preliminary Communication | February 23, 2011

Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism

Nora D. Volkow, MD; Dardo Tomasi, PhD; Gene-Jack Wang, MD; Paul Vaska, PhD; Joanna S. Fowler, PhD; Frank Telang, MD; Dave Alexoff, BSE; Jean Logan, PhD; Christopher Wong, MS

Author Affiliations: National Institute on Drug Abuse, Bethesda, Maryland (Dr Volkow); National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Bethesda (Drs Volkow, Tomasi, and Telang and Mr Wong); and Medical Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York (Drs Wang, Vaska, Fowler, and Logan and Mr Alexoff).

JAMA. 2011;305(8):808-813. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.186.

Context The dramatic increase in use of cellular telephones has generated concern about possible negative effects of radiofrequency signals delivered to the brain. However, whether acute cell phone exposure affects the human brain is unclear.

Objective To evaluate if acute cell phone exposure affects brain glucose metabolism, a marker of brain activity.

Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized crossover study conducted between January 1 and December 31, 2009, at a single US laboratory among 47 healthy participants recruited from the community. Cell phones were placed on the left and right ears and positron emission tomography with (18F)fluorodeoxyglucose injection was used to measure brain glucose metabolism twice, once with the right cell phone activated (sound muted) for 50 minutes (“on” condition) and once with both cell phones deactivated (“off” condition). Statistical parametric mapping was used to compare metabolism between on and off conditions using paired t tests, and Pearson linear correlations were used to verify the association of metabolism and estimated amplitude of radiofrequency-modulated electromagnetic waves emitted by the cell phone. Clusters with at least 1000 voxels (volume >8 cm3) and P < .05 (corrected for multiple comparisons) were considered significant.

Main Outcome Measure Brain glucose metabolism computed as absolute metabolism (μmol/100 g per minute) and as normalized metabolism (region/whole brain).

Results Whole-brain metabolism did not differ between on and off conditions. In contrast, metabolism in the region closest to the antenna (orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole) was significantly higher for on than off conditions (35.7 vs 33.3 μmol/100 g per minute; mean difference, 2.4 [95% confidence interval, 0.67-4.2]; P = .004). The increases were significantly correlated with the estimated electromagnetic field amplitudes both for absolute metabolism (R = 0.95, P < .001) and normalized metabolism (R = 0.89; P < .001).

Conclusions 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.