How Young is Too Young?????

[pam]

The same subject came up on another list I'm on and someone posted this link....

http://alternative-doctor.com/blog/c...-bad-as-x-rays

It's worth a look at. I know I no longer have a landline, because I'm in the process of selling the house and moving, but my cell phone stays away from my body most of the time.

[ursassygurl]

hi..my nephews were given christmas presents last year with their first mobile, they are in the 4th grade..but of course the simplest ones..

[Bob.Kerns]

I took a look at this article. Since the statements it makes about the science don't square with the scientific papers I've read, I took a look at one of his references at random. (That's not an adequate analysis, but I think it's a good enough example of how to look at articles like this!)

From his fifth reference,

There is consistent evidence from epidemiologic studies of a risk of childhood leukemia associated with exposure to environmentally high levels of ELF magnetic fields. There is no explanation for this effect from laboratory studies. An increased risk of brain cancer has been investigated in relation to ELF exposures and has been raised particularly in the context of mobile-phone use and the absorption of RF signals by the brain, although there is no convincing evidence suggesting an increased risk.

PEDIATRICS Vol. 116 No. 2 August 2005, pp. e303-e313 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2541)

(Emphasis added by me)

ELF = Extremely Low Frequencies -- which means, basically, AC power lines. Every paper I've seen fails to establish a causal link between ELF and any cancers, although there appears to be a correlation. An example of a possible correlation that would be non-causal would be socio-economic status leading to both living near power lines and increased exposure to second-hand smoke. (That's an illustration I made up of how there can be a correlation without one being caused by the other, NOT an actual explanation).

Mobile phone use is at the other end, extremely HIGH frequency, or RF in the quote above. What the author of this paper is saying is that there IS no convincing evidence -- quite at odds of what the author of the article was saying.

This paper goes on, well, let me quote the abstract:

It also includes an assessment of the potential susceptibility of children to EMFs and concludes with a recommendation for additional research and the development of precautionary policies in the face of scientific uncertainty.

In other words, it's coming up with ideas of how there might possibly be links we haven't found, despite decades of research that did NOT find a link. That's part of the scientific method (forming hypothesis to test), but the fact that someone thought of a way there COULD be a link is NOT evidence that there IS a link.

But the author of the article cites this paper as support of the article's flat statements that children are highly susceptible to RF.

A number of researchers have said to the media that there's reason to be cautious about such exposure. THIS IS NOT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE! This is people with opinions. The basis for these opinions is not evidence, but rather that we can imagine some possible ways phones could have an effect, and we haven't proven one way or another that these ways actually do or do not have any effect.

Three random photos aren't evidence either. He didn't indicate what paper he got them from, so I didn't look at what the paper actually said, but the process shown occurs in cells which aren't exposed to RF radiation as well (including cosmic rays -- flying in a plane would increase your exposure, as do many other activities). For these pictures to have ANY meaning whatsoever, we'd need a statistical analysis, and the author of the article doesn't even MENTION even the most basic statistics.

Here's what we can say about cell phones and kids:

• If there's a problem, it's a very small one, or we'd have seen clear and convincing evidence by now!
• There are lots good, non-medical reasons to want to limit kids use of phones, including land-line, such as cost.
• Time spent yacking on the phone is time that could be spent on other activities, like homework, exercise, piano -- or sleep. The health impacts of phones reducing exercise or sleep are, in my estimation, a much bigger problem.
• Since we can imagine ways there COULD be an effect, it's not unreasonable to limit kids unnecessary exposure, "just in case".

People can say anything they want in an article like this. They can dress it up as scientific by including a few footnotes. If there are footnotes, the author is offering you the opportunity to check up on him. That's good, but often it's a calculated gamble that you won't actually follow through on it. (Who has time?) And often, the the author has simply misinterpreted the reference, or is cherry picking and hoping you don't notice.

Anyway, if you're really interested in this, I'd suggest you look at the references (to evaluate his statements against his references), AND DO YOUR OWN SEARCH -- because the author of the article has chosen these references to support his paper. That's a biased process (inherently, not author's fault) -- a bias a careful reviewer would try to avoid by performing your own literature search.

Also, remember, I only looked at one reference. It raised questions but it would be a stretch to say it, by itself, damns the whole article. I believe a more complete review of references and the literature WOULD do so, but I don't claim to have done so by my investigation.

More than anything, I wish we'd do a better job of teaching children (including those who grow up to be journalists and doctors) how to evaluate evidence, including incomplete evidence where there's uncertainty or conflict.

[Bob.Kerns]

BTW, why do we worry about cell phones and kids, when we have people who put Segways on trampolines, and then justify it by saying the males in their family die young anyway? (What, you value life LESS because it's shorter????)

Or when we talk on our cell phones while on our Segways?

(To put things on topic...)

Or send our kids to school, where there is a very high probability (virtual certainty) that they'll be exposed to, and contract, a wide range of diseases -- viral, bacterial, protozoan, and even parasites?

There are always risks, but we evaluate them against the benefits. I don't skydive, and I stopped doing deep scuba diving, because the risks seem to me large compared to the benefits (both skydiving and deep scuba are things you can only enjoy briefly for each exposure to the risk).

If there's a benefit to a kid using a cell phone, go ahead, let him use it. The incremental risk for each use is clearly EXTREMELY tiny. If there's NO benefit (e.g. it's a waste of time), then don't. And don't sweat the science. The practical/social/time/etc. reasons to regulate cell phone usage far outweigh the medical.

[jcargal]

Originally Posted by Gihgehls

The world is a different place than it was when you were in second grade.

...and we are all the poorer for it.

Believe it.