Cell phone use near babies / near their head

[monarchsmith]

Edit: For clarification I added context as I am unclear on why folks would dismiss the positions and responses of the American Academy of Pediatrics bc I usually check their guidelines and positions first.

I am looking for research about this also though from my understanding AAP (edit: this stands for the American Academy of Pediatrics) has been asking for a review and revisit of cell phone radiation (edit: regulations) in regard to kids since at least 2013 and recommends limiting exposure (edit: such as keeping inches away from the head and more than one inch away while talking on phone, use speaker or wired headphones, don’t store on your person, use airplane mode for viewing entertainment, etc).

Since radiation proximity seems to be an indicator, I am wondering what THIS group seems to think. Someone posted about it in /newparents and folks seem convinced it’s of zero risk but I’m not so sure. Last I read, FCC guidelines centered around thermal exposure (ability to heat body tissues) and not radiation, and based on 1996 cell phones. Does anyone have more info on this?

Edit 2: I am copying this explainer from Healthy Children site which is run by AAP and the info therein can be found easily by searching for AAP positions on cell phone radiation. I can’t find anything newer than 2018 from AAP so please lmk if you do. If someone has reasons why AAP should not be trusted please lmk but they’re not exactly a bunch of random hippies so if you believe you know better than AAP, I would like to understand why.

Sorry idk how to format this quoted text below:

Why is more research needed?
Parents should not panic over the latest research, but it can be used as a good reminder to limit both children's screen time and exposure from cell phones and other devices emitting radiation from electomagnetic fields (EMF). Partial findings from studies like this one give scientists reason to look into the issue more. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) supports more research into how cell phone exposure affects human health long term, particularly children's health.

How can we limit cell phone radiation for ourselves and our children?
The AAP reinforces its existing recommendations on limiting cell phone use for children and teenagers. The AAP also reminds parents that cell phones are not toys, and are not recommended for infants and toddlers to play with.

Cell phone safety tips for families:
Use text messaging when possible, and use cell phones in speaker mode or with the use of hands-free kits.

When talking on the cell phone, try holding it an inch or more away from your head.

Make only short or essential calls on cell phones.

Avoid carrying your phone against the body like in a pocket, sock, or bra. Cell phone manufacturers can't guarantee that the amount of radiation you're absorbing will be at a safe level.

Do not talk on the phone or text while driving. This increases the risk of automobile crashes.

Exercise caution when using a phone or texting while walking or performing other activities. “Distracted walking” injuries are also on the rise.

If you plan to watch a movie on your device, download it first, then switch to airplane mode while you watch in order to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.

Keep an eye on your signal strength (i.e. how many bars you have). The weaker your cell signal, the harder your phone has to work and the more radiation it gives off. It's better to wait until you have a stronger signal before using your device.

Avoid making calls in cars, elevators, trains, and buses. The cell phone works harder to get a signal through metal, so the power level increases.

Remember that cell phones are not toys or teething items.

EDIT 3: Ok so some folks have said I haven’t bothered to post whatever studies I’ve been reviewing and the truth is on top of whatever earlier things I pored thru pre-delivery, I’ve sought as much credible info as I could have time to read thru as a single parent in the last day or so. This includes organizations I believe mean generally well in terms of collecting data around these concerns like AAP and EWG. Here is a collection of some of the studies EWG has highlighted, understanding some folks contest the validity of the Environmental Working Group, which (I don’t think anyone would disagree) generally seems to seek reductions of environmental harm.

If you have something to say about why any of these specific studies should be dismissed, please let me know. Otherwise, I am questioning the lack of thorough data around this and personally, following AAP guidance to the best of my ability until someone can show otherwise, that infant exposure at any proximity raises no risk of harm…

And to all my downvoters — bless your hearts, what I’m looking for is infant exposure research and if you don’t have it, just say so, just say if the absence of research is enough for you and move on. For me, I’m wondering if anyone else is paying attn to the fact cell regulations for exposure are based on 1996 devices and nearly 30 years old.

Davoudi M, Brossner C, Kuber W. 2002. The influence of electromagnetic waves on sperm motility. Journal für Urologie und Urogynäkologie 19: 19-22. Semen analysis for 13 male volunteers who carried a cell phone on the belt and actively used it for 5 days. Compared to a period of cell phone use on the belt by the same volunteers, cell phone use was associated with decreased sperm motility. The percentage of highly motile sperm (classified as "rapid progressive sperm") dropped from a mean of 32% to a mean of 26% after the exposure. GSM phone; study participants used phones for at least 6 hours/day.

Fejes I, Zavaczki Z, Szollosi J, Koloszar S, Daru J, Kovacs L, et al. 2005. Is there a relationship between cell phone use and semen quality? Arch Androl 51(5): 385-93. Semen analysis for 371 men who attended an infertility clinic in 2002-2004. Low-volume cell phone users (less than 15 minutes a day) had a higher percentage of rapid progressive motile sperm (48.7%) than high-volume (more than one hour a day) cell phone users (40.6%). Pattern of use identified by a questionnaire, including duration of phone possession and frequency of daily use.

Kilgallon SJ, Simmons LW. 2005. Image content influences men's semen quality. Biol Lett 1(3): 253-5. Analysis of sperm samples from 52 healthy men aged 18-35. Men who carried a cell phone in a hip pocket or on the belt had lower sperm motility (49.3% motile sperm) than men who did not use a cell phone near the hip (55.4% motile sperm). Questionnaire responses identified men who carried a cell phone in a hip pocket or on the belt, non-users and those who kept a phone elsewhere.

Erogul O, Oztas E, Yildirim I, Kir T, Aydur E, Komesli G, et al. 2006. Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study. Arch Med Res 37(7): 840-3. Semen samples collected from 27 men exposed to cell phone radiation under laboratory conditions. Exposed specimens had a decrease in rapid progressive sperm from 13% to 9%; a decrease in slow progressive sperm from 44% to 34% and an increase in immotile sperm from 36% to 51%. Test specimens were exposed for 5 minutes to GSM cell phone radiation at 900 MHz.

Wdowiak A, Wdowiak L, Wiktor H. 2007. Evaluation of the effect of using mobile phones on male fertility. Ann Agric Environ Med 14(1): 169-72. Sperm parameters examined in a group of 304 males enrolled at an infertility clinic in 2004-2006. 16.7% of regular cell phone users had normal semen morphology, compared to 55.6% of non-users. In 35% of frequent cell phone users, sperm motility dropped by up to a half; only 9% of non-users had comparable decreases in sperm motility. Based on questionnaire responses, 99 participants were classified as cell phone non-users; 157 had used GSM phones sporadically for 1-2 years; and 48 had used cell phones regularly for more than 2 years.

Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J. 2008. Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study. Fertil Steril 89(1): 124-8. Sperm parameters examined in 361 men undergoing infertility evaluation in 2004-2005 Patients who used cell phones more than 4 hours a day had a 42% lower sperm count and 33% lower sperm motility than non-users. The percentage of sperm with normal morphology in high-level users was half that of non-users. Rates of normal morphology were decreased with greater levels of cell phone use. Based on questionnaire responses, cell phone exposure was classified in four groups: no use; less than 2 hours/day; 2-4 hours/day; and more than 4 hours/day.

Agarwal A, Desai NR, Makker K, Varghese A, Mouradi R, Sabanegh E, et al. 2009. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: an in vitro pilot study. Fertil Steril 92(4): 1318-25. Semen samples collected from 23 normal healthy donors and 9 infertile patients were exposed to cell phone radiation under laboratory conditions. Semen samples exposed to cell phone radiation showed a significant drop in sperm motility (52% to 49%) and viability (59% to 52%); nearly doubled production of reactive oxygen species levels; and a decrease in total antioxidant capacity, a measure of oxidative stress. Samples exposed for 1 hour to radiation from GSM cell phone in talk mode at 850 MHz frequency.
De Iuliis GN, Newey RJ, King BV, Aitken RJ. 2009. Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro. PLoS One 4(7): e6446. Purified human sperm from 22 healthy donors were exposed to cell phone radiation under laboratory conditions. Exposed sperm samples showed lower sperm motility and vitality, production of reactive oxygen species and DNA fragmentation. At SAR of 1.0 W/kg sperm, motility decreased from 86% in unexposed sperm to 68%; vitality decreased from 89% to 65%. Samples were exposed to 1800 MHz radiation at a range of SAR values from 0.4 W/kg to 27.5 W/kg for 16 hours, at a constant temperature of 210C to rule out thermal effects.

Falzone N, Huyser C, Becker P, Leszczynski D, Franken DR. 2011. The effect of pulsed 900-MHz GSM mobile phone radiation on the acrosome reaction, head morphometry and zona binding of human spermatozoa. Int J Androl 34(1): 20-6. Purified human sperm collected from 12 healthy volunteers were exposed to cell phone radiation under laboratory conditions. Cell phone radiation exposure appeared to affect sperm's fertilization potential. Exposed sperm's head area dropped by 50%. Sperm-oocyte interaction was decreased by 28% compared to unexposed controls. Samples were exposed for 1 hour to 900 MHz GSM mobile phone radiation at SAR of 2.0 W/kg.
Gutschi T, Mohamad Al-Ali B, Shamloul R, Pummer K, Trummer H. 2011. Impact of cell phone use on men's semen parameters. Andrologia: 43(5): 312-6. Analysis of semen samples from 2,100 men seen at an infertility clinic in 1993-2007. 68% of the sperm from cell phone users had pathological morphology, compared to 58% of sperm from non-users. Abnormal sperm morphology diagnosed in 45% of cell phone users versus 27.7% of non-users. Retrospective study compared 991 cell phone users and 1,119 non-users

 

[monteviste]

@monarchsmith

These frequencies all fall in the nonionizing range of the spectrum, which is low frequency and low energy. The energy is too low to damage DNA. By contrast, ionizing radiation, which includes x-rays, radon, and cosmic rays, is high frequency and high energy. Energy from ionizing radiation can damage DNA. DNA damage can cause changes to genes that may increase the risk of cancer.

published analyses from this study have shown no increases overall in brain or other central nervous system cancers (glioma and meningioma) related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One analysis showed a statistically significant, although small, increase in the risk of glioma among study participants who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, for a variety of reasons the researchers considered this finding inconclusive (11–13).

association was observed between cell phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 13 or more years

The MOBI-Kids study, a large international case–control study of young people ages 10 to 24 years diagnosed with brain tumors, found no evidence of an association between wireless phone use and the risk of brain tumors

In 2015, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the epidemiologic studies on cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of other cancers of the head and neck region (9). The committee also stated that epidemiologic studies do not indicate increased risk for other malignant diseases, including childhood cancer

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

They can’t definitively say “cell phones don’t cause cancer.” They can’t really say that about much. But if there was a link known, we’d hear about it.

 

[carolhattacob]

@monteviste This is very comprehensive: https://www.emf.ethz.ch/fileadmin/r...externes_material/ICNIRP_effekte_RFReview.pdf

 

[monarchsmith]

@monteviste What do you make of the American Academy of Pediatrics positions then? Obviously some studies have been enough to warrant them issuing precautions and much of the other possible effects have not been studied. It seems there are as another commenter mentioned, a lot of issues around the research methodology and conflicts, and lack of research that would inform as to why it’s not as clear cut.

Are you able to find some additional info as to why AAP would take these positions? Anything more recent than 2016 around this? My opinion of AAP is they are a scientifically robust and reputable reviewer and publisher around pediatric medicine, not exactly radical.

 

[monteviste]

@monarchsmith Link to specific positions, please?

 

[monarchsmith]

@monteviste I just linked one in an edit in the post description but you can also find numerous references by doing a quick web search for AAP position on cell phone radiation. Here is the the most recent summary I’ve found (2018) from their Healthy Children database but it’s referenced a number of places

 

[monteviste]

@monarchsmith

These types of studies in people have not shown clear evidence of an increased cancer risk with cell phone use. While there was a slight increase in a type of brain tumor, called a glioma, in a small group of people who spent the most total time on cell phone calls in one study, other studies have not found this to be true

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) supports more research into how cell phone exposure affects human health long term, particularly children's health

The AAP supports the review of radiation standards for cell phones in an effort to protect children's health, reflect current cell phone use patterns, and provide meaningful consumer disclosure. Providing parents with information about any potential risks arms them with the information they need to make informed decisions for their families. The AAP advocates for more research into how cell phone exposure affects human health long term, particularly children’s health.

Their position is more research. This feels like when someone linked the CDC’s guide to changing diapers. These agencies are always going to err on the side of caution. That doesn’t mean phones are dangerous. They just can’t guarantee they are safe. Their main position is against screen time.

 

[monarchsmith]

@monteviste Do you just not agree w AAP taking a precautionary position or the significant gaps in research, such as none of the studies being on infants with thinner skulls which are more vulnerable to radiation? Are you just kind of hopping over that bit? What about the fact current regulations are based on cell phones from 1996? I’m just not sure why anyone would confidently say there’s no risk when there are such big gaps in the studies, like ofc the American Academy of Pediatrics is going to take the safest possible position, isn’t that the point?

 

[monarchsmith]

@monteviste Sorry, are you ignoring their recommendations about keeping it away from the head and off the body etc? Edit — their position is also reinforcing their guidelines I copied in the post. Let me copy them for you again:

How can we limit cell phone radiation for ourselves and our children?
The AAP reinforces its existing recommendations on limiting cell phone use for children and teenagers. The AAP also reminds parents that cell phones are not toys, and are not recommended for infants and toddlers to play with.

Cell phone safety tips for families:
Use text messaging when possible, and use cell phones in speaker mode or with the use of hands-free kits.

When talking on the cell phone, try holding it an inch or more away from your head.

Make only short or essential calls on cell phones.

Avoid carrying your phone against the body like in a pocket, sock, or bra. Cell phone manufacturers can't guarantee that the amount of radiation you're absorbing will be at a safe level.

Do not talk on the phone or text while driving. This increases the risk of automobile crashes.

Exercise caution when using a phone or texting while walking or performing other activities. “Distracted walking” injuries are also on the rise.

If you plan to watch a movie on your device, download it first, then switch to airplane mode while you watch in order to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.

Keep an eye on your signal strength (i.e. how many bars you have). The weaker your cell signal, the harder your phone has to work and the more radiation it gives off. It's better to wait until you have a stronger signal before using your device.

Avoid making calls in cars, elevators, trains, and buses. The cell phone works harder to get a signal through metal, so the power level increases.

Remember that cell phones are not toys or teething items.

Are there any regulations in place to limit cell phone radiation in the United States?
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decides how much radiation cell phones are allowed to give off in the US. Currently, the FCC limit is at 1.6 W/Kg. The FCC, however, has not revised the standard for cell phone radiation since 1996, and a lot has changed since then.

There are now more cell phones in the United States than there are people.

The number of cell phone calls per day, the length of each call, and the amount of time people use cell phones has increased.

Cell phone and wireless technology have had huge changes over the years. For example, how many cell phone models have you had since 1996?

Another problem is that the cell phone radiation test used by the FCC is based on the devices' possible effect on large adults—not children. Children's skulls are thinner and can absorb more radiation.

Where the AAP stands:
The AAP supports the review of radiation standards for cell phones in an effort to protect children's health, reflect current cell phone use patterns, and provide meaningful consumer disclosure. Providing parents with information about any potential risks arms them with the information they need to make informed decisions for their families. The AAP advocates for more research into how cell phone exposure affects human health long term, particularly children’s health.

 

[monteviste]

@monarchsmith Yes, the same way I ignore the CDC’s advice to sanitize surfaces after every diaper change.

The AAP reinforces its existing recommendations on limiting cell phone use for children and teenagers

Their main skin in the game is limited screen time.

Key points: Cell phones emit low levels of radio frequency energy, a type of non-ionizing radiation.
The available scientific data on exposure to radio frequency energy show no categorical proof of any adverse biological effects other than tissue heating. Public health data show no association between exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use and health problems.

https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/do-cell-phones-pose-health-hazard#:~:text=Key%20points%3A,effects%20other%20than%20tissue%20heating.

 

[monarchsmith]

@monteviste But they still recommend limited exposure due to radiation exposure. Personally, the FDA is not as rigorous as it could be imo so I tend to look at AAP positions first as the most safe. Ok well at least we are on the same page that you’re just ignoring their recommendations lol. Phew! Thank you for answering, I appreciate your time.

 

[monteviste]

@monarchsmith They’re tips for people interested. They’re not saying it like they do safe sleep or feeding the baby every 2-3 hours.

If this was a concern, pediatricians would be sending home fliers to parents. That’s like saying they “recommend” you don’t use wipes for pee.

The overuse of wipes. Believe it or not, not every diaper change requires the use of wipes. This is not only because pee is rarely irritating but also because today's superabsorbent disposable diapers effectively limit the amount of pee that comes into contact with your baby's skin. Reserving wipes for cleaning up poop can save you a considerable amount. Also, keep in mind that a moist tissue, a wet washcloth, or even a quick rinse in the tub may be used in place of baby wipes when convenient.

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/baby/diapers-clothing/Pages/A-Word-on-Wipes.aspx

It’s just information for those who have an interest in it. I’m still going to use wipes on my baby when she pees and I don’t view that as “ignoring the AAPs recommendations.”

 

[monarchsmith]

@monteviste Tips for people who are interested, like parents seeking scientific guidance from a body of pediatricians, people like me.

Personally, I’ve had multiple pediatricians for my child in multiple countries who haven’t mentioned a lot of things that have come up and only when I raised it with them did they elaborate. Maybe it has not made its way into all mandated information or every office’s well visit paperwork, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a body of pediatricians who professionally analyze these things and come up w a position. My child’s current pediatrician also advises keeping the phone away from the baby’s head and using in airplane mode when possible, limiting their close range exposures.

So knowing that so far, no one has provided studies showing infant exposure is safe, none that I can see, and there are large gaps on the studies, AAP has guidance for “people who are interested,” and urged regulatory bodies to update guidance for today’s devices and usage — i guess it come down to personal choice. But for me, that is based more on the lack of data than its presence. Personally — I’m going w the body of pediatricians with more qualifications than I have on this one.

 

[monarchsmith]

@monteviste Aside from their reccs I added in the OP edit 2, they also mention some things I find of interest on how the regulations we are under now, were created and why that’s flawed:

Are there any regulations in place to limit cell phone radiation in the United States?
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decides how much radiation cell phones are allowed to give off in the US. Currently, the FCC limit is at 1.6 W/Kg. The FCC, however, has not revised the standard for cell phone radiation since 1996, and a lot has changed since then.

There are now more cell phones in the United States than there are people.

The number of cell phone calls per day, the length of each call, and the amount of time people use cell phones has increased.

Cell phone and wireless technology have had huge changes over the years. For example, how many cell phone models have you had since 1996?

Another problem is that the cell phone radiation test used by the FCC is based on the devices' possible effect on large adults—not children. Children's skulls are thinner and can absorb more radiation.

Where the AAP stands:
The AAP supports the review of radiation standards for cell phones in an effort to protect children's health, reflect current cell phone use patterns, and provide meaningful consumer disclosure. Providing parents with information about any potential risks arms them with the information they need to make informed decisions for their families. The AAP advocates for more research into how cell phone exposure affects human health long term, particularly children’s health.

 

[monteviste]

@monarchsmith The FDA gives similar advice while also claiming there’s no link.

Current scientific evidence does not show a danger to any users of cell phones from radio frequency (RF) energy, including children and teenagers. There are also simple steps that anyone, including children and teenagers, can take if they would like to reduce RF exposure

study concluded that there was no evidence of a link between cell phone use and brain tumors in young people.

https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/children-and-teens-and-cell-phones#:~:text=Current%20scientific%20evidence%20does%20not,like%20to%20reduce%20RF%20exposure.

Content current as of:
11/03/2022

I’m vegetarian. I’ve read a lot of articles on meat and whether it’s harmful or not. Those articles usually have tips on how to avoid meat, even if they conclude meat is a healthy, nutritious food source.

All studies have limitations. It’s good of the AAP to note them. But that’s not the same thing as them saying “phones are dangerous and the studies showing otherwise are useless.”

 

[monarchsmith]

@monteviste Also that study does not address infant exposure when the skulls are thinner and was done on:

A large epidemiological study of the effects of cell phones in young adults aged between 10 and 24 was completed across 14 countries in Europe (the MOBI-KIDS study). The case-controlled study was conducted "to evaluate whether wireless phone use (and particularly resulting exposure to radiofrequency (RF) and extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields (EMF)) increases risk of brain tumours in young people."

 

[monarchsmith]

@monteviste Question — Who said phones are dangerous and the studies showing otherwise are useless?

 

[monteviste]

@monarchsmith So what are you saying?

 

[monarchsmith]

@monteviste I am asking for more research and info relevant to cell phone use specifically near babies and their heads and trying to establish whether folks have additional info in regard to infant safety or if simply choosing not to follow AAP recommendations on this one in lieu of some higher authority or personal choice.

 

[lidalulu]

@monarchsmith I have dropped my phone on my baby's head but she was ok.