You seem to have an axe to grind with the definition of ADHD. Just because a label can be abused doesn't mean there isn't an underlying problem shown in the study.
how ADHD in rats was detected exactly? There is no single word about it in article.
I find plenty of words about it in the article. For example
"we chose to conduct a battery of tests that identify impairments in memory, hyperactivity, anxiety and fear, which are often associated with ADHD."
"To explore fearful behavior we performed the light/dark box test measuring hyperactivity/anxiety and the step down assay assessing fear of exploring the environment."
"The number of transitions between the two compartments was used to determine locomotion and in turn hyperactivity. Anxious behavior is measured by recording the time spent in each compartment"
They also explain their tests on memory.
"The mice were allowed to explore two identical objects for 15 minutes per day for two days and on the third day one object was replaced with a novel object. On day 3 the mice were filmed for 5 minutes exploring the novel and familiar objects."
All the findings showed significant differences between experiment and control
"Overall, the mice exposed in-utero to radiation were hyperactive, had decreased memory and decreased anxiety."
Whether you think ADHD is a valid single diagnosis or not, issues with memory and hyperactivity is a bad thing.
Why all effects of basically just more cautious mice are attributed to cellphone radiation, not just to prescence of object above cage during pregnancy of their mothers?
It turns out these scientists were not retarded, and have proper controls described in the article.
"A control group of forty-two female mice was kept concurrently under the same conditions, however using a deactivated phone. "
I'm not saying this one study is the end all be all, but it's part of a pattern. As you can see in this video there are several studies discussed which point in this direction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWhDOg5ON2Q
Looks like they are even more retarded than I thought.
Full quote from article:
Thirty-three female mice were exposed throughout gestation (days 1–17) to radiation from muted and silenced 800–1900 Mhz cellular phones with a SAR of 1.6 W/kg. The phones were positioned above each cage over the feeding bottle area at a distance of 4.5–22.3 cm from each mouse, depending on the
location of the animal within the cage, and placed on an uninterrupted active call for the duration of the trial. A control group of forty-two female mice was kept concurrently under the same conditions, however using a deactivated phone.
Shouldn't you just say? I see that the control and experiment rats both have the same "scary phone" above them, so that looks like a legitimate control group.
Also you're really hung up on the ADHD label. Whether you think it's a single definable disorder or not, the researchers are measuring different negative cognitive and behavioral outcomes. That's really what matters.
Do you understand how modern smartphones work? There is no single really important detail provided in the description of differences between test and control phones. Not a single one.
Seriously, what do you know about how mobile phones work?
Basically, depending on used standard (2G/3G/4G at the time of study), phone model, direction of a call, method of "deactivating" phone and so on, there will be no any significant differences between "uninterrupted active call" on "silenced" phone and "deactivated phone".
And that 800-1900MHz band... :)
It is like a "study" about "influence of color on the behaviour of fleas" with zero information about color except that it was "popular".
That's really what matters.
Matters in what exactly? They didn't provide any real data about differences in setup between test and control groups. Their experiment is fundamentally unreproduceable.
And reproduceability is the only thing that matters in science.
Your arguments have been more than a bit bizarre and frankly sound a little desperate to try to deny this.
First you posted a paragraph and told me to "guess" rather than being able to show anything. That is pretty suspect.
Now you're upset that you don't know how it was "deactivated"?
there will be no any significant differences between "uninterrupted active call" on "silenced" phone and "deactivated phone"
That doesn't make much sense, no such thing as an active call on a "silenced" phone, so I have no idea what you're saying there. It's not that deep, one phone was making a call, the other was either not turned on or was on airplane mode. It's not rocket science.
800-1900MHz band... :)
What could possibly be your problem with that band? That band includes the standard GSM 900/1800 seen around the world. And your argument is ":)" which I assume is equivalent to "guess" once again.
They didn't provide any real data about differences in setup between test and control groups
Here is where the phones were placed "The phones were positioned above each cage over the feeding bottle area at a distance of 4.5–22.3 cm from each mouse" with a phone of "SAR of 1.6 W/kg"
You can send them an email if you need the exact phone model.
I find it funny with the denialists. If they don't use a phone you'll say "well that machine isn't a real phone, so it doesn't count". Then they do show effects with a real phone making a phone call and it is "800-1900MHz band...:)" and "I need more detail or I'm going to just deny everything".
You seem to have an axe to grind with the definition of ADHD. Just because a label can be abused doesn't mean there isn't an underlying problem shown in the study.
I find plenty of words about it in the article. For example
"we chose to conduct a battery of tests that identify impairments in memory, hyperactivity, anxiety and fear, which are often associated with ADHD."
"To explore fearful behavior we performed the light/dark box test measuring hyperactivity/anxiety and the step down assay assessing fear of exploring the environment."
"The number of transitions between the two compartments was used to determine locomotion and in turn hyperactivity. Anxious behavior is measured by recording the time spent in each compartment"
They also explain their tests on memory.
"The mice were allowed to explore two identical objects for 15 minutes per day for two days and on the third day one object was replaced with a novel object. On day 3 the mice were filmed for 5 minutes exploring the novel and familiar objects."
All the findings showed significant differences between experiment and control
"Overall, the mice exposed in-utero to radiation were hyperactive, had decreased memory and decreased anxiety."
Whether you think ADHD is a valid single diagnosis or not, issues with memory and hyperactivity is a bad thing.
It turns out these scientists were not retarded, and have proper controls described in the article.
"A control group of forty-two female mice was kept concurrently under the same conditions, however using a deactivated phone. "
I'm not saying this one study is the end all be all, but it's part of a pattern. As you can see in this video there are several studies discussed which point in this direction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWhDOg5ON2Q
does not mean ADHD.
So link to ADHD is not proven.
Looks like they are even more retarded than I thought.
Full quote from article:
Guess, what's wrong in that description.
Shouldn't you just say? I see that the control and experiment rats both have the same "scary phone" above them, so that looks like a legitimate control group.
Also you're really hung up on the ADHD label. Whether you think it's a single definable disorder or not, the researchers are measuring different negative cognitive and behavioral outcomes. That's really what matters.
Do you understand how modern smartphones work? There is no single really important detail provided in the description of differences between test and control phones. Not a single one.
Seriously, what do you know about how mobile phones work?
Basically, depending on used standard (2G/3G/4G at the time of study), phone model, direction of a call, method of "deactivating" phone and so on, there will be no any significant differences between "uninterrupted active call" on "silenced" phone and "deactivated phone".
And that 800-1900MHz band... :)
It is like a "study" about "influence of color on the behaviour of fleas" with zero information about color except that it was "popular".
Matters in what exactly? They didn't provide any real data about differences in setup between test and control groups. Their experiment is fundamentally unreproduceable.
And reproduceability is the only thing that matters in science.
Your arguments have been more than a bit bizarre and frankly sound a little desperate to try to deny this.
First you posted a paragraph and told me to "guess" rather than being able to show anything. That is pretty suspect.
Now you're upset that you don't know how it was "deactivated"?
That doesn't make much sense, no such thing as an active call on a "silenced" phone, so I have no idea what you're saying there. It's not that deep, one phone was making a call, the other was either not turned on or was on airplane mode. It's not rocket science.
What could possibly be your problem with that band? That band includes the standard GSM 900/1800 seen around the world. And your argument is ":)" which I assume is equivalent to "guess" once again.
Here is where the phones were placed "The phones were positioned above each cage over the feeding bottle area at a distance of 4.5–22.3 cm from each mouse" with a phone of "SAR of 1.6 W/kg"
You can send them an email if you need the exact phone model.
I find it funny with the denialists. If they don't use a phone you'll say "well that machine isn't a real phone, so it doesn't count". Then they do show effects with a real phone making a phone call and it is "800-1900MHz band...:)" and "I need more detail or I'm going to just deny everything".