iPhones and Cell Phones May Have Potentially Deadly Side Effects for Kids
by Jennifer Chait, 10/28/10
Where do you stand on kids’ cell phone use?
Cell phones have a long history of health concerns. So many concerns that other nations such as Russia, the UK, Canada, Belgium, Israel, Finland, Germany and India have discouraged the use of cell phones by children and France has now banned the sale of phones to children. In the USA, most health organizations note that more research on cell phone dangers is needed, but most agree that we just don’t know all the risks for sure and kids’ cell phone use should be limited. Another point – if you’re not going to stop or limit your child’s cell phone use, at least make sure you choose a safer cell phone.
Remember, smoking wasn’t considered that bad back in the day. Now of course we know that smoking kills. Before the 90s, the dangers of BPA, pesticides, vinyl and cleaning chemicals were practically unheard of, and not discussed much, yet now we’ve got adults running around with long-lasting environmental toxins in their bodies. If you allow your child to use a cell phone maybe nothing bad will happen. On the flip side, some very terrible health issues could occur. Is it fair to make your child the guinea pig for cell phone hazards? Maybe a good old fashioned book, stuffed toy or sing-a-long is a better, safer choice when it comes to entertaining your child.
+ EWG’s Guide on How To Limit Your Exposure To Cell Phone Radiation
Great article, Jennifer. I am really glad that this information is making its way into the mainstream, as *SO* many children are now being entertained with iPhones, and iPads, and so many tweens have their own cell phones. This research has prompted my husband and I to stop letting our three year-old play with our iPhones. While some of the games are educational and interesting, it’s not worth the risk to her health and development. So, it’s back to playing good old-fashioned games like “In My Grandmother’s Trunk!”
Anyone who has an iPhone can and should put their phone on Airplane mode, simple as that. Toddlers aren’t using the phone. Most adults I know with an iPhone actually don’t use it as a phone much at all. (reception issues?) This article seems high on the scare tactic without much to back it up. You talk about kids using phones, specifically toddlers, and give examples of cancers that are obviously from talking on a cell phone. What 3 year old spends hours on a cell phone talking? As for iPads, yes some have cell phone antennas, but most are powered by wifi. Give me something that supports what I’m supposed to be worried about.
They are great learning tools. My son is learning how to read because of interactive books that highlight each word as it reads to him. It’s far more precise than my finger, but I read to him everyday as well. He inherited my old iPhone when I upgraded, but it’s now just like an iPod touch since it can’t make calls.
@mrscobra actually, iPhones and smart phones and droids and such do emit radiation too, not just old school cell phones, as you can see in this best and worst of phones list – http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone.
Research shows that phones emits radiation when you talk or text, but not when you’re listening to messages. AND as you pointed out, kids don’t talk as much as they use apps. However, I’ve seen plenty of kids under ten who are super attached to a cell and who do text often. My friend’s daughter is always grabbing my friend’s phone, and she’s just three. Plus, she’ll turn it on without knowing it or call people up using speed dial. That said, according to most research, the main question at hand with regards to radiation is how radiofrequency radiation from cell phones affects biological tissues and cells. We don’t know. If we’re not sure, then in my mind it’s not safe to hand over a potentially dangerous phone to a small child.
It’s not simply how much you use a phone, but for how long. If kids are starting to use phones as toddlers, it’s a bigger issue because they’ll be on phones for a longer span of life than adults today, so it’s only later that we’ll see the negatives (or not) of this.
Lastly, it’s not just radiation issues.many cell phones contain toxins such as arsenic, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc, brominated flame retardants and more, which kids could be easily exposed to. In the past some phones have been shown to leak these chemicals.
I get that they’re useful, but so are regular old books and toys, but without all that screen time. Since there are other options, why not use books and toys we know are safe vs. cells and iPhones that are only maybe safe?
I know this may be shocking for you, but there is something called non-ionizing radiation.
Cell phone radiation has not been proven to have adverse effects on people’s health.
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html
Ask yourself: would you rather wait for contrary evidence from the 25,001st published
study or would you prefer the comfort and security (emergency calls without a landline)
of having a cell phone?
Whether or not children should have their own phone can be debated on other grounds,
such as financial, whether they are media conscious enough or become attentionally
or emotionally distracted. Health concerns from radiation should not be one of them.
This is the same kind of nonsense that got celphone use banned at gas stations, there has never been a gas station fire started by a cell phone and they simply have never had the power to make it happen. Ever case of people claiming side effects from cell phones have later been linked to other conditions such as alcohol, drugs or smoking. Show me the study that proves anything you state in your article, it’s all paranoia with no sound basis, you know how I can state that, it is because these devices havn’t been around long enough for a proper study to be done. Of course you can’t sue a school for you child doing acid or pot but you can sue them for wireless signals so instead of study, people create these rediculous and unfounded claims, then spread them around enough so they can use them as a basis to sue someone.
Why do people keep falling for this, frankly it sickens me.
This strikes of fear mongering, plain and simple. Dr. Davis believes cell phones are bad for everyone, but has no evidence to back it up.So she coats her beliefs in fear and sells them in a book.
This article: http://www.skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia108.html
points out some solid facts. Namely, that the research done on cell phones failed to prove, again, any links between cell phones and brain cancer.
Quote,
“Overall, no increase in risk of glioma [malignant brain tumor] or meningioma [benign brain tumor] was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.”
In other words, the disconnect that concerns Davis is that the scientific data does not support beliefs based on anecdotes.”
END Quote.
The basic science has to do with ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is what causes cancer. Non-ionizing radiation does not, as far as any scientific study has shown, cause any health problems much less cancer. Ionizing radiation has a very very high frequency, above 80 gigahertz (GHz). All cell phones use frequencies below 4 GHz.
Don’t let fear rule your lives, and the lives of your children. I am a father. I have worked with cellular network equipment. If I thought for a second I was in danger I would have found a new career.
When Dr. Davis can point to a valid scientific study which proves any sort of link between cell phones and health problems, I’ll be paying very close attention to it.
I personally think that sticking anything against your head that emites radiation is probably not a great idea–especially for children. It has been scientifically proven that their heads aren’t as thick, protected, and apparently buffered by all manner of biases as ours. My daughter is almost three and loves the iPad, our Android phones, and, well, almost any other portable video-based device. But I sure don’t let her use it as a phone, nor will I for years to come I hope. That said, I’m constantly impressed by watching my daughter use these devices and I think it is absolutely foolish to not let your kids get comfortable with current technology–and continue to do so as the technology advances. If you’re in my age group (mid-30′s-40′s), we are the middle ground generation between two generations of incredible technological disparities. My parents use computers, but will never feel comfortable with them. I grew up during the creation of the whole technological landscape that my daughter will simply accept as how things have always been. So, saying that you should just read them books or play boring car games instead of getting them used to and entirely comfortable with the bounty of awesome new tech toys/devices/tools could simply be a bias against advancing that you’re throwing onto your children–which could be just as harmful as any other issue here. I read to my baby girl every night (yes, real books), my wife and I are voracious readers–we have tons of “real” books, a Kindle, and Kindle apps on everything. My daughter loves reading, but she also adores picking her favorite app on the iPad and drawing, practicing letters and counting, making frogs jump, doing virtual puzzles, and a ton of other things that in my childhood would have taken a crate of disconnected toys to provide. Be sensible about technology–your kids will need it their whole lives to get by and be connected with the world. There’s no point grasping at straw biases simply because you might personally feel some distain to technology. On the same token, there really shouldn’t be any reason whatsoever that your toddler needs to actually be using the phone as, well, a phone… Apps are great, but parents should still be in control of how much outside communication their kids have.
Cite sources please…. when talking about this things, you HAVE to cite all your sources. I.E.
“A recent Danish study shows that cell phone users are at an increased risk for neurological symptoms such as migraine and vertigo.” – Who? Waht study? Were two danish old-men at a bar? c’mon, be serious.
“A study from the University of California, Los Angeles found a correlation between prenatal exposure to cell phone radiation and behavioral problems in children.” What study? what’s the title of the investigation?
And here’s a little tip to you all: Cell phone EM Radiation is Omnidirectional, if the cellie radiation really affects human tissue, we’re doomed as a whole because being in line of sight from a cell phone will give us the same amount of radiation as having it engraved on our skulls.
Grow a concience, but don’t grow fear of the tech, if the EMR was so bad they wouldn’t use it to scan your brain for tumors… duh!
Relating the PFOA, i cite from wikipedia:
“Exposure is most consistently associated with increased cholesterol and uric acid levels, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that PFOA exposure results in adverse health effects in people.”
There’s a wealth of sources there (127 sources) and a lot of studies ongoing to determine if it is really that terrible. All in all, there’s still no evidence of it being toxic, not even nocive, to the human.
Can’t keep reading all this…. why do people vote on “no”?
Here, read this article (i’m not related to the linked site in any way).
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/31/ipod-foils-potential-kidnapping-attempt-in-the-hands-of-quick-th/
That’s a reason why you SHOULD give your kids a cellie. Kidnapping is a real problem, cell phone radiation isn’t.
I agree, it’s so much easier to believe that there is no dancer in cell phone radio waves… and thats why it’s so easy for the cell phone industry to try and convince you of that.
First of all, non-industry-funded studies are rare.
In 350 studies, it was found that about half showed bioeffects from EM radiation emitted by cell phones. But when taking into consideration the funding sources for those 350 studies, the results changed dramatically. Only 25 percent of the studies paid for by the communications industry showed effects, compared with 75 percent of those studies that were independently funded.
The history is right there….
- Big Tobacco hid the dangers of smoking and the addictiveness of nicotine, supporting its position with countless deceptive studies.
- Asbestos manufacturers hid evidence that the mineral was dangerous even as tens of thousands of workers died from exposure.
- the makers of DDT and Agent Orange stood behind their products even as it became clear that the herbicides caused cancer.
The cell-phone industry posts revenues in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year. They have an incentive to shut down research showing the dangers of cell-phone use.
Just look at the motives here – if cell phones are dangerous wireless companies will have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to find and implement a safer frequency in which to operate. If they aren’t dangerous, those who say they are will have caused us to look more critically at what IS causing the raised rates in Alzheimer, tumors, and the technology in why we’ve built our society on.
Just ask yourself WHY it might be more profitable to look the other way…
http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation
*Sigh*
An astounding number of people still do not realize that cell phone radiation is non-ionizing, and thus cannot break molecular bonds.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-you-hear-me-now
It uses microwaves with less energy than an actual microwave. It’s about as close to harmless as anything else in the world.