Children 'should not use' cellphones

[happy_liberal]

I don't care what denial adults choose to remain in, we owe it to the children to get this information out there.

Remember heavy use was found to increase brain tumors by 40%- heavy use is 30 minutes! When I was a teen I was on the phone 3 hours after I got home from school, and now it is so convenient to use all the time. Many families have even gotten rid of their land lines. Most stories from Europe and Canada are suggesting the new study is showing that cell phones are high risk, but US media is painting the study as showing cell phones are harmless.


"The 10-year international Interphone investigation, backed by the World Health Organisation and involving researchers from 13 countries including New Zealand, has found no increased risk of tumours connected with cellphone use.

However, it said there were suggestions of a greater risk of brain cancers for some heavy users that might be on their cellphones for more than 30 minutes a day, every day, over 10 years or more.

Researchers say given the amount of cellphone use, further studies are essential.

Stewart, Cancer Council Australia's scientific adviser, said insufficient time had passed since the introduction of mobile phones to establish whether they posed a risk to children's health.

"Until there is research into this area, Cancer Council recommends caution in relation to children – they should not use, or minimise their use, of mobile phones," he said.

"Anyone concerned about the harmful effects of electromagnetic energy should reduce their use of mobile phones, or employ hands-free technology."

Stewart said there was no evidence that children were at increased risk of brain cancer.

However, "we thought it was warranted as the next focus of research".

A separate study into the effects of cellphone use on children, who are believed to be more susceptible to the effects of radiation, is planned."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3707798/Children-should-not-use-cellphones

also see:
Cells Phone More Than Half an Hour a Day Could Increase Your Risk of Getting Brain Cancer by 40%
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7733586/Mobile-phone-study-reveals-cancer-concerns-over-heavy-users.html

[napi21]

1. 30 mins a day! Most of the kids I know are on their cells that long

by 10AM on their days off school & certainly that long within an hour after school is dismissed.

[Goblinmonger]

4. If I look at my current usage right now

My daughter, a junior in high school, has used since 4/22 only 91 minutes but sent 1200 texts. I really think the typical kid uses the phone more for other things than talking.

[happy_liberal]

11. I pray you are right

Our children are bombarded with so much toxic crap right now, HFCS, pesticides causing ADHD, toxic air, toxic water...

[Lance_Boyle]

18. But just wait 'til all those thumb tumors start appearing... n/t

[KittyWampus]

27. carpal tunnel syndrome.

[Goblinmonger]

2. Most children don't use their phones for talking anymore

That is very 90s. It is about texting, emailing, and internet access. And listening to music/watching videos.

[madinmaryland]

6. So true. The least use of any thing on a cell phone for a kid is actual telephone calls.

Games, apps, texts, etc are what they use them for.

[Jennicut]

10. It is all about texting, My husband never talks on his either.

He texts all day long...and he is 35!

My kids just pretend with their cell phones, at 4 and 5 they are thankfully not asking for them for real. I survived my childhood and teenage years without one, they were not really popular until I was in college in the mid 90's.

[tammywammy]

15. I've had a cell phone since I was 16 or 17

After I started driving I was given a phone, I rarely used it, but it stayed in my car.

I'm 29 now, and I rarely use my phone for calls, text is where it's at. :)

[madinmaryland]

30. I survived, also. Except there were no pagers or cellphones

in existence at that time. And you actual had to dial the phone and watch the rotary go around!

I have a motorola razr that I have had for three years. I cannot master texting on a telephone dial keypad.

[jberryhill]

13. I doubt my 16 year old knows how to make a phone call with his...

But he goes through keypads texting like a demon.

[happy_liberal]

16. good! You guys are making me feel better...

I am so worried about our future generations, they are just dealing with so much crap with no end in sight, half of it we don't even know about yet.

[TwilightGardener]

21. My older son was just remarking on how he has only gotten one actual call

(as opposed to texts) on his cell the entire month of May thus far. It was from me, kickin' it old school--I'm too slow and impatient with texting.

[seabeyond]

3. neither kids 12 and 15 have cell phones. that is one of four reasons

i have just said no, lol. it hasnt been an issue. they understand the reasons and even agree with the reasons. so nice to have kids that will think things thru. and their whole culture can be the experimental group without kids being a part of it. at least, while they are growing. out of house and out of their pocket is their choice.

my kids even feel kinda good (being different) about it.

[happy_liberal]

9. what are the other three?

My kids are okay with not having a cell phone, but I can always use backup.

(BTW- I always read your posts on parenting, and I think you are the best parent. I truly respect your opinion and advice)

[seabeyond]

14. wow. thanks. we dont know how it physically effects them

kids today have too many things, we dont play that game, being able to afford doesnt matter. fiscally not responsible. they are being used in inappropriate ways without supervision (this is truly the least and not important reason. i trust the kids and you can get a phone without all the added stuff. i like to throw that out so they understand a responsibility with having). they dont need them.

and btw... both kids want to be treated with respect and given responsibility. both allow me to treat them as learning grown ups. and they want to prove to me that it is warranted i allow them the trust. that makes it SOOOOO much easier. 12 yr old is still young. but looking like he is going same way as his brother.

[seabeyond]

28. another that ranks up on the top son and i have discussed. the continual and always availability

parents have to the children. there is something lost on the independence with the child always being available to the parent. i dont like that today our parent is always around for the older child and think it does something to the independence

[Kutjara]

5. 40% sounds alarming, until you ask, "40% of what?"

In typically sloppy fashion, the Telegraph trumpets the 40% number, without giving a baseline. If the baseline for glioma is, for example, 0.01% of the population, then a 40% increase wouldn't even register. This happens again and again in health reporting: intentional confusion of relative risk with absolute risk, making small risks appear huge.

At least the New Zealand site didn't feel the need to pull figures out of context, but it was pretty confused nevertheless, flip-flopping between "no increased risk" and "maybe some risk for children" to "possible risk for heavy users" to "no risk to children."

The most telling paragraphs, however, concern the data itself: Telegraph: "Yesterday however British scientists played down this risk saying that the research was flawed because the average was pushed up by many users who claimed to be on the phone for more than 12 hours a day – a figure which is considered statistically unlikely." Stuff: "The researchers caution against interpreting this as a cause-and-effect relationship, as there is evidence that it could have arisen from biases in the data."

Anyway, we don't live in a riskless world. What are the risks to a child who is away from home with no means of calling for help? Is this risk, summed across the population, greater or less than that posed by cellphone use? Or what about the likelihood that, when kids are talking to their friends on the phone, they are not engaging in other potentially hazardous activities (such as being driven to said friends' houses in a car - the leading cause of death in children)? Does cellphone use reduce negative outcomes from these classes of activities?

Risk should always be measured in relation to other risks in the environment. It may turn out that something that appears superficially risky actually reduces a number of other, more probable risks, and is therefore safer overall.

So, basically, we know no more than we did before the study. There might well be dangers associated with cellphone use. Or there might not. This study, however, doesn't add much either way, except to say the effects are likely to be relatively limited.

[happy_liberal]

12. History shows we should err on the side of caution

n/t

[Kutjara]

17. Only if we know what "caution" means.

I edited my previous post to add some clarification. Basically, my point is that we react strongly to seemingly alarming relative risks, without considering that the absolute risk may be low. If I said that the risk of being hit by a meteorite from another galaxy just jumped by 1,000%, you might be very alarmed indeed, until you thought about it for a second.

Indeed, it is possible that cellphone use may reduce the incidence of other dangerous activities, so its effect across the population may be positive from a public health standpoint. Until studies are done that encompass all the (foreseeable) effects of a given activity or technology, the question of whether it is beneficial or not can't be answered.

If you really want to ensure your childrens' safety, keep them out of cars. It's still the leading cause of death for children. By a few orders of magnitude.

[NeedleCast]

23. Shhhhhhhhh, real facts will prevent fun knee jerk reactions!

Nah, nevermind, it probably wont.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. LOL

[damntexdem]

8. Precisely the population that will not heed any warnings.

And a population that will get access to the phones, no matter how adults seek to limit it.

[notadmblnd]

19. I never see my son talking on the phone. He's always texting though

Any reports on tumors in the hand?

[NeedleCast]

20. "Stewart said there was no evidence that children were at increased risk of brain cancer"

The article refutes your claim.

[Kutjara]

22. The articles are pretty confused.

The "Stuff" one makes a slightly better job of it than the Torygraph, but the writers of both let their desire to tell a scary story trump their duty to the truth.

[NeedleCast]

24. Yup

and we know why...no one would read it if it didn't really have anything to say. This article is worse than most I've seen on the subject but the basic information that came from the study seems to suggest that there's no evidence of increased risk. However, like most "studies" of this kind, I bet they'll keep looking until they find some, even if what they find (as you mention upthread) is inconsequential.

[arikara]

26. That study, the reason for that statement being

that kids weren't studied in it. Kind of a misleading refutation then. Kids have less dense bone structure and the radiation passes more easily and further into their brains.

[Merchant Marine]

25. If ~3w of microwave radiation can cause tumors, you'd think that most mariners would have cancers

We're regularly being illuminated by the 10kw radars on other ships, often at close range in harbors for hours at a time.

[Odin2005]

29. Hysterical technophonic garbage.

Just like when 10 years ago the "protect the kids" totalitarian dimwits just "knew" that video games turned kids into school shooters and they didn't want to hear any facts to the contrary. :eyes: