Randomised Controlled Comparison Of The Health Survey Short Form: Fill & Download for Free

How do electronics affect the human brain?You want a short answer? We don't know for certain.And it depends entirely on what you mean. I presume 'consumer electronics' for the sake of this argument.But on the balance of probabilities, given what we do know, the likely measurable set of clearly harmful effects of an 'electronic' tool in comparison with any reasonable alternatives (including electro-mechanical but also no tool at all) would be both negligible and manageable. As with everything, it's a risk management exercise.It's possible that we just haven't yet revealed the true dangers of non-ionising radiation, despite extensive exploration. And we have indeed looked. More on that later.It's possible also to be ignorant of the behavioural 'dangers', or more or less susceptible to the overuse of electronic devices. They are magical in a sense, in that they grow ever smaller yet pack in more features. They are informational as well as social. They deliver rich content of the type that is often engaging, and are often also designed to entice and entrain you into further use. Sophisticated marketing and content working as one with a colourful, back-lit screen is powerful enough, the fact that you can easily take it with you makes it all the more potent and seductive.In a sense, it's a trap. But you can still be aware of all that, and say no.Without trivialising the topic too much, because it is worthy of investigation, we don't have to "overuse" any tool or "overdo" any activity. We can be cautious and moderate in our behaviours. There is a degree of choice here.However it's also clear that some people are (for a variety of reasons, genetic as well as social or demographic) more inclined towards risk taking. Others, too, are more susceptible (again for a variety of reasons, be they genetic, demographic and social) to certain obsessive and compulsive behaviours.We need to keep that in mind. It's clear also that designers, manufacturers, advertisers and content producers know enough about behavioural psychology to make their product attractive and enticing. That's not the electronics at fault here, that's more a question of morals, ethics and freedom of choice.It just happens that electronics is currently the great magical enabler of our age. But it's not the first one, by any means.We are certainly much better placed to deal with and to understand the impacts of technological change now than say 10 or 12,000 years ago. By that I mean:Did we understand the consequences of a change from a nomadic hunting and gathering lifestyle to a settled, agricultural one? Yes and no.Today we would be questioning not just the severe dietary consequences (largely lacking the ability to digest what we could most easily grow, which must have been obvious enough at the time) but also the possible maladaptive consequences of a move from a changing and stimulating seasonal, rich and diverse migratory hunting and gathering lifestyle (with consequently well developed spatial relationship mapping and a relatively well-developed Hippocampus, etc) to a far less varied and increasingly monotonous if not outright robotic agricultural life.But we made the change anyway, because it must have been worth it overall.Similarly the risk-averse would now hesitate to move from the spoken word to a symbolic representational or written language. Just imagine the 'brain re-wiring' that change would entail! Brain regions would be asked to do the sort of processing they simply weren't evolved for. It's asking for trouble, isn't it? And by no longer having to memorise concepts, being able to store them as a string of symbols instead, raises new issues. Will we lose our ability to remember? (Maybe we did.)But it only got worse when we started the scandalous social experiment that is mass production of pamphlets, books and magazines. If we had concerns about brain region re-wiring and supposed 'hippocampal atrophy' before, they were now multiplied a thousand-fold. People no longer had to remember things! Outrageous!Just think, we used to have to remember everything. Imagine how much 'smarter' we must have been back then ;-)And maps! Why not just explore and memorise your environment, like you are supposed to? What sort of infernal brain-destroying tool is the map, and its diabolical accomplice, the signpost. Can't people think for themselves these days, let alone simply ask a local for directions? It's so much more social to ask, too.But let's not get carried away. Indeed, not all change has proven beneficial and uncontroversial. And we should investigate and maintain standards of health and safety (although there are movements against even those, as well). We have the tools, we can assess a potential impact. And so we should. As long as it is done well, and fairly, there is no issue.That's probably the short answer.Everything we do, every tool we use within our environment "affects" us. Isolating and studying the directly attributable effects of "electronics" or more specifically "consumer electronics" from our complex lives is not easy. Whilst many studies have indeed been done, and they do tell us something, they rarely separate cause from effect. Certainly not in a convincing way.Many otherwise exemplary experiments use doubtful self-assessment tools, are based on small samples or lack control or validity in other ways. You'd never know this without reading them. Only the "good" bits get quoted in the media, often dressed up with wonky scientific terminology to impress and persuade the reader.In studies that investigate broad and ill-defined areas such as "internet addiction" you must wonder about the validity of the tools used and ask questions like:Were the subject group professionally and competently diagnosed as "depressed" or "anxious", or was that a self-assessment?And, was the subject group diagnosed as such before they began to use the internet?Or, was the condition latent and undiagnosed, and could it be generalised to a more specific "gambling addiction" rather than the very broad association with "internet use" as such? And so on.But in time this will change, the blanks will be filled in and we'll have a better, more compelling understanding of the topic.Indeed many aspects of so-called "internet addiction" relate more to the easy online accessibility of habit-forming yet pre-existing activities like gambling rather than the specifics and electronics of computing and the internet. I know what they mean - and understanding how increased accessibility, fewer barriers to entry and increased rate of reinforcement matter - but it's such an annoying misnomer.It's certainly possible that "electronics" affects us, indeed as I said, everything we do leaves a trace as it were. If you used an analogy, it's like training for a sport. As your muscles, skeleton and cardio-vascular system adapts to the load imposed, so does your neurological system. A racing cyclist for example not only gains muscle mass and loses fat as they train, they also adapt their central nervous system to specific muscular recruitment and faster actions. They get better at cycling and it's reflected neurologically. And whilst that's good to know and understand and helps to avoid misdiagnosis, it's not objectively "good" or "bad".Basically we can often tell what you "do" in your life from clues - the effects or adaptations - left behind on or in your body. Callouses, growths, injuries and all sorts of changes leave a mark. So it's no surprise that doing anything - even something as innocent-sounding as book reading - to excess, will leave a mark that may be construed as "abnormal" or "maladaptive" when compared with the larger population.We have, as urban dwellers, left our "natural" lives well behind. What evolved to help and even impel us to survive, like our Reward system and the Dopaminergic pathways, are now "blamed" for our "addictions". Well, yes, that's what they are meant to do (make us do things, I mean). Of course they aren't evil or pernicious, but every step we have taken away from hunting and gathering has left us just a little more exposed to misuse or maladaption.Whatever the ethics and morality may be here, entire industries have been built upon using - or misusing if you prefer - our natural urges. The more we understand about neurotransmitters and human psychology, the more we seem to take advantage of that knowledge to sell new products.So yes, there's a very real issue here that affects our health and overall well being. But is "electronics" the underlying evil, or even the cause? Or just the latest technological leap that further distances us from our ancestors and our evolutionary inheritance?I do respect opposite viewpoints here, but the evidence that "electronics" per se is harmful appears scant and at times of doubtful relevance or validity. We need to study any possible effects and monitor them and their impact on us over time, but also be mindful that we have bigger issues to address.That's the slightly longer answer I guess.Electronics per se may not noticeably affect the human brain at all, or may do so to no more or less extent than any other similar non-electronic tool and device. To increase our certainty or prove otherwise would require many more controlled and validated and probably longitudinal studies involving larger data sets and better analysis. Single studies, small samples, limited validation and beautiful if unconvincing neuroimaging does not a causal relationship make.Just to confuse matters, everything you think, experience or do "affects" - even "rewires" if you like, your brain. Picking apart which changes are due to any one cause is no easy task. And of course whilst it's a cliche, correlation is not causation.Having said all of that, so far there is concern and investigation in some areas. It's worth following the research, yes. And, in particular...There is some concern about possible physical, localised non-thermal RF effects on the brain when using a cellular mobile phone pressed against the ear for around 1 hour per day over about 10 years or more. But nothing negative has been conclusively demonstrated as yet. It's precautionary advice at this stage: just be awareIn terms of behavioural and/or diagnosable psychiatric changes again it's inconclusive, generally. Whilst modern consumer electronics does present new, more accessible and potentially more engaging ways to obsess, to virtualise and to objectify, it remains largely unclear whether such presentational and interactivity-based innovations result in new conditions, facilitate an increase in existing conditions or do nothing at all.Frankly I'd be more concerned about the Electromagnetic Radiation coming from the sun. Overexposure may only be a small dose (just 20mins at midday where I live for example) but it will definitely affect you negatively. Underexposure will also affect you, your brain and your mood. There are multiple, validated studies available to back those assertions up.After solar radiation, and given we are probably looking at largely urbanised countries, I'd rank air quality, nutrition and regular exercise (or a lack of it) ahead of other concerns such as poor urban design in general, before worrying about 'electronics' in general or consumer electronics in particular. Sure, it's worth investigating and following the research, but so far it's not proving to be of immediate concern.I'd also avoid any reliance upon popular science reporting. Confidence is not warranted by consideration of just one or two studies, the most recent press release, or the vividness of the reporting and associated graphics, rather it is gained from carefully assessing a broad range of independent, validated studies.But you knew that already. You also know not to promote scare campaigns, too.Yet the mass media rarely looks at the bigger picture or presents a balanced variety of views. Rather it is too often focused on catching the eye and maintaining the reader's attention. Which is quite different from just reporting the facts, or putting them into a context.Just to highlight that last point, here is an example of how sensationalised media reporting can distort or misrepresent a study:Internet addiction - is it even a thing? (Internet overuse, sure. But that's still very vague.) What exactly can we become addicted to? Is it an addiction to IP addresses or URLs? I doubt it!Or is it simply an 'addiction' to the content? To gambling? To gaming? Or to socialising, that is, chatting online? How awful. As such, does it really have anything to do with the internet itself? Why persist with that tenuous link?By 'addiction' do we really mean a compulsion based on reward, reinforcement and habit, that is not in our overall best interest? Isn't that potentially true of everything we do in life?How do we assess this supposed "addiction" and discern its relative severity? Well, from what I have seen there are a number of tools available, the most popular of which appears to be of a self-assessment Likert scale type consisting of 20 questions. Personally I find the questions posed of dubious merit, but that's just my opinion. Drawing strong conclusions from any such self-assessment tool is always difficult, especially when results commonly vary by demographics and cultural background. Correcting for any such self-assessment biases is challengingThe Reward system itself is already very well documented. Do we need to tie "the internet" in as a startling new factor, or should we see it as a new enabler with a lower friction value (for example you don't have to go to a gambling venue, these days it comes to your screen)?Whilst we may "see" variations or potential maladaptions in some non-invasive brain-scan studies, we can't assume cause and effect. The researchers will often state that quite clearly, that there are assumptions and "potential" rather than demonstrated relationships, but it is rarely reported in the mass media with such qualifying remarks attachedJust to underline that point, if your single-study cohort is self-assessed using a tool that is open to question, and neuro-imaging reveals a consistent and accepted maladapted pattern, can you reliably and with confidence deduce a cause? In fact, no. Indeed further work must be done to establish cause(s) with any confidenceIt is worth considering as well whether any of the studied neurological patterns were previously manifested as some sort of more generalised addictive behaviour, including such habits as buying magazines, books, comics or other artifacts, or subscribing to mailing lists and whatever else (don't miss an issue - get the complete set!)Past 'addictive' or compulsive behaviours may have been simply transferred to an electronic platform. Similarly SMS 'texting' and online "chat-room" activity may have manifested in other, earlier ways, as an 'addiction' to joining clubs and societies, or simply talking for a long time on the telephone. It may not be "new" as such, although if made more accessible then thought must be given to addressing that aspectThat set of quibbles aside, if we overdo anything (get 'carried away') then logically it follows that we aren't doing other things. We suffer an imbalance, a maladaption or whatever you want to call itIf it's socialising, book reading, sport, art or business we are more likely to think of it as a "healthy" obsession, as we value the outcomes, be that individually true or not. (If we have a stated aim, a sporting goal for example, then it's probably OK. If not, be mindful of your overall 'life balance'.)Media reports have highlighted a link between this so-called internet 'addiction' and depression. Research on the subject regularly draws few hard conclusions, yet it almost always seems to get a run in the popular media as "news"Aside from a poor understanding of what 'internet addiction' may actually be, further problems arise from studies based on a very small number of ill-defined 'internet addicts', often a tiny fraction of the total sampleThe overall sample itself may not be randomised or controlled, rather being based on weaker, uncontrolled methodologies including opt-in online surveysContrary to media reports and lurid headlines, I have found no reliable, confirmed or conclusive link or determination that any such study of so-called 'addiction' has led to any diagnosed 'depression'. I'm sure they exist but they are hard to find!It remains possible instead that any such suggested depression may have been pre-existing and led to the 'addiction'. Validation is generally lacking and further studies need to be doneHere's an alternative viewpoint on Internet Addiction and Depression. And an article that asks, Can you really be "addicted" to shopping or using the Internet?And for balance, here's one well-cited report on Internet addiction: Neuroimaging findingsBear in mind that whilst technically interesting, the neuroimaging referenced is typically based on relatively small samples. One cited study (Male Internet addicts show impaired executive control ability: evidence from a color-word Stroop task) involved 17 "internet addicts" and a control group of 17 "normal" college students. Whatever the imaging actually reveals, a lot hinges on your definitions, both of an "internet addict" and of "normal". How much "internet" use is "normal" and when does it become maladapted? And what, if anything, changes over time?I may have answered the question by now. But that won't stop me as I have undiagnosed 'tendencies' towards prolixity. And maybe that's an internet addiction, too?But back to the question. Electronics covers a wide scope of technology that has morphed out of a previous and fairly lengthy Electromechanical era. Are we in retrospect similarly concerned now about that era, during which we didn't seem to draw any significant correlations between the technology and negative effects on "us", or is it just Solid-state electronics that now concerns us?Should we take a look backwards, just in case? Maybe things are getting better, not worse?Given that we have also largely and quite recently shifted our emphasis from a bulkier, mains-powered electrical design to lighter, smaller, lower-powered, battery-operated devices should we be more or less concerned?And should we be concerned for our brain in particular, our central nervous system in general or indeed for our whole body?It all matters, and a lot more besides what I've just mentioned. It's also about perspective and balance. Most of us, in developed countries anyway, are now urban dwellers. It's part of why we have so many electronic devices. Electric power is a given, it's embedded into our lives as well as literally into the walls of our homes and workplaces. It runs overhead and under our feet. Whether that electric power is driving a motor, a light or a computer, the associated human-generated Electromagnetic field is all around us, all of the time.And for most of us it has been for well over 100 years. Well, not personally, I'm not that old, but for a few generations of us, anyway.So, given the steady growth in surrounding ourselves with electromagnetic sources, should we really be so focused on Consumer electronics in particular? Indeed picking out the electromagnetic effects of any one consumer device at certain frequencies at different distances from particular sub-regions of our brain and being certain of our specific results is not easy. Not when we are swimming in that aforementioned sea of electromagnetic signals anyway. Let alone whilst blasted by incoming solar radiation, too. Yes, there may be research that seems to suggest negative biological effects in particular situations, but overall we haven't - yet - reached a negative consensus.There's just no confidence that it causes generalised harm, or that any one electronic device causes particular harm.And yes, I am still writing. Somebody stop me!Similarly any generalised social or behavioural changes are not easy to pick apart from everything else. We are dealing with deeply urbanised homo sapiens and general human psychology. There is a lot going on here. Even without the electronics, few of us are living "natural" lives.So how do we discern which behaviours are due to which device? How confident can we be of the results? What if our conclusions are based on poor assumptions? How would we know? And how do we meaningfully distinguish "good" from "bad" neurological adaptations?As I said earlier, the brain adapts to tasks set. Different regions will (as it were) "bulk up" or "slim down" according to need. This is neither surprising nor new information. It's plasticity at work. We shouldn't really be quite so surprised or excited when neuroimaging shows us what we already know.Yes, if you sit in front of a television all day, your physical fitness will decline. The body adapts itself, it becomes more efficient (if that's the word) at sitting. A similar thing will happen if you read all day. And the brain is much the same. It will do what it needs to do, but unless you request it to do work on some other tasks, even background Default mode work, it will "slim down" to the job at hand. There's no point in wasting resources on things you don't use, after all.But is it objectively "bad" for us?You may believe that reading is better for the brain because it requires you to "imagine" the visuals, forcing the brain to adapt to higher workloads. Well you may read like that, but I don't. I just read the words, thanks. And I like to read the subtitles whilst I watch television, too. Am I getting some sort of extra workload here, or not? Does it matter?And all of that not-so-newfangled 'jumpy' editing, surely that forces you to think about what you are looking at, to almost smell the subtext. Apparently not, instead it leads to "increased rates of ADHD and a shorter attention span".. or so some may say. Proving such assertions may take a much longer attention span. Presumably researchers don't watch much TV. (Now there's a study just begging to be done!)Choosing to watch television, and presumably which programs you choose to view, will impact your brain's adaptation 'choices'. I would hope that watching insightful, thought-provoking TV programs may keep things cognitively 'ticking over' a bit better than reading trashy novels, but who knows. I suspect that watching TV with a tablet or smartphone at hand, searching up cast lists or exploring plot points may amp things up a bit, too.Perhaps it's not the electronics, it's what you do with them.And if you are having trouble sleeping, do you blame your television, your e-reader or your room lighting? Or do you try using a lower brightness setting, or taking a break from artificial lighting before bedtime? We have diverged a long way from a natural sleeping pattern, true, but blaming any one "thing" is to choose to ignore everything else. A rousing adventure or horror novel will probably not help you. It's not necessarily about the electronics.What about maps? How would we determine that vehicle-based GPS devices are neurologically "bad" for us? It remains optional, after all. And it also happens that some people like to drive, others to navigate. Some people memorise maps and routes easily. Others don't. If by automating the role of the human navigator we are doing ourselves some harm, in what sense would that be?Why is it preferable for self-navigating drivers to struggle with maps whilst driving? Is that safer, or less safe? Even if we demonstrated a neurological difference between practiced drivers and navigators, as I'm sure would exist, surely we wouldn't enforce navigational training and practice upon everyone because it's somehow "better" for our brains?And computer games, are they universally "bad"? Could we be certain for example that the nature and specific imagery of a 'violent' computer game is 'causing' increased rates of anxiety or violent outbursts amongst study participants, rather than instead be the result of the frustration caused by increasingly difficult levels of game play?Our assumptions and preconceptions can shape our "results". And then there's sample size, control groups and so on. And on.Consider that we are closer than ever before, packed like sardines into our cities, divorced from the natural world, but more distant from each other at the same time. We crave social connectedness but can't always do it in a more personal face-to-face tribal sense, so we have built it into our mobile electronic devices instead. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? Are we factoring that in?If there are negatives, do we blame a particular device, or our lifestyle, or our overall level of technological integration? We could go back to public phones on street corners. Or even no phones at all. Perhaps we need to go back to a pre-agricultural lifestyle, just to be sure? OK, I'm going to extremes, but there are real issues here of convenience, efficiency, practicality, cost and utility that have to be balanced against risk.Frankly, there's a risk with anything we do. Thousands of people die and tens of thousands more are injured every year in most developed countries just moving from point A to point B. We wrap ourselves in personal steel cages and build in explosive air bags rather than strap on harnesses or wear helmets (or catch public transport) as we want to sell as many of these individual transport utilities as we can. (If we make it look too dangerous we may actually think about any risks and change our behaviour.)Many more people die or grow sicker from the air pollution and lack of exercise, and those who are left on the footpaths have to put up with dodging these ever-faster and more numerous deathtraps for the sake of economic utility and personal convenience.But do we wonder about what motor cars are doing to our health? A bit, sure. Not so much as we'd actually stop people from killing themselves. Sure, we fiddle around the edges but essentially we allow utility to balance the risk.Now death and injury are readily apparent on our roads. But instead of addressing that, or obesity, or whatever, are we more worried instead about what electronics may be doing to our brains?Is it because we have read about Non-ionizing radiation and understand the science, or is it just a misunderstanding of the word "Radiation" itself? Are we jumping to unwarranted conclusions?Or is it the fact that the electromagnetic "radiation" is invisible? (Perhaps we should colour it, if that would help.)OK, there are studies that point to some doubts. However the World Health Organization has only classified radio frequency electromagnetic radiation as "possibly carcinogenic", along with other possible carcinogens with weak evidence, including coffee. That's possibly, not probably. The majority of epidemiological studies looking for a relationship between mobile (cell) phone use and brain cancer have been inconclusive. There is no recognisable "smoking gun" as it were.So should we take any precautions, just in case? Should we keep our personal communication devices but shield them more comprehensively, or wear the shielding ourselves? Or just use them less?It's really hard to say. There are many studies that purport to show negative effects of this and that and they tend to get the most publicity. One "bad" report will grab the headlines and then disappear, or be quoted endlessly as if it was the final decision on the matter. Some of them are soundly based and deserve follow up studies; others are refuted immediately, or the results are never repeated or they don't stack up methodologically. But we don't hear or read about any of that, unless we read the journals ourselves. And that can be hard.There are also studies that show no significant correlations and guess what, they usually don't get a mention at all in the popular media. Overall, it may be that the jury is still out on this one.If you stepped back a bit and looked at the electromagnetic spectrum in general, we have been bathed in the stuff throughout human history, and our ancestors before us.Some of it is ionising, some isn't. The RF transmissions from our cell phones and WiFi is non-ionising. Generally, that's safe, although some studies have hinted at some associated localised neurochemical changes.Some EMR also comes from truly powerful sources like the sun, of course. And it does do damage. So that should be banned, obviously.It's complicated.Rather than ban phones and computers from my life, I am mindful of possible if hypothetical negative consequences and minimise use, especially really close to my head. However I am also mindful of the great benefits these devices can bring. It's a balance.I do have a feeling that genetic endowment, diet and exercise are bigger risk factors, and I would deal with those first.Watching TV all day, being on the computer all the time, cell phones. How do these negatively affect the human brain?The positives spring to mind firstly, to be honest. But if you must look for the darker side, so be it.For many reasons, don't "watch TV all day". It's not good exercise and there's an opportunity cost: you simply don't get anything else done. Similarly, don't read books all day. There's no flickering screen (unless you use an e-book) but even so, it's not natural to be focused on small print all day like that. Who knows what all of those words are doing to your brain, too. There's precious little evidence on the safety of book-reading. Don't risk it. Get out, do other stuff.Similarly, don't "be on the computer all day". It's also not good exercise and there's still that pesky opportunity cost. It's probably better than TV, though, depending upon what you actually do with the computer. Mix it up, do different stuff. Be creative. On the positive side it's possibly better than reading books all day. It's more interactive, up to date and varied in its functionality. You still need to get out, do other stuff.Cell phones are already covered in the above rave. They operate at different frequencies and you occasionally press them against your head. I'd moderate the use, but I understand that some people find it hard to avoid.In general, you can say "no", at least sometimes. Mix it up, vary things. Moderate use. Be creative. Don't just sit there, absorbing; get involved instead.But don't worry too much about the dire consequences of "reprogramming your brain". You do that anyway, no matter what you do. Reading will do it. Watching TV. Listening to music. Playing music. Being creative. Everything you do will shape your brain!In any case we are well down the track of civilisation now, the horse may well have bolted. We reprogrammed our brains (and our bodies) when we moved from hunting and gathering to agriculture. We did it again when we industrialised. It all has an effect, be aware of that, and try to do as many varied things as you can. Be diverse.And stop worrying so much, you are making me anxious.Further reading:The largest international study to date into mobile phone use has found no evidence that normal use of mobile phones, for a period up to 12 years, can cause brain cancer. Read more: Mobile phone radiation and healthSome studies have found a link between EMF exposure and a higher risk of childhood leukemia, but other studies have not. Other studies have not found proof that EMF exposure causes other childhood cancers. Studies in adults did not prove that EMF exposure causes cancer. With regard to radio-frequency energy (RF), a form of electromagnetic radiation, more research on this is required. Check out Electromagnetic radiation and health and Electromagnetic Fields: MedlinePlusEven more balanced reading on Electric & Magnetic Fields