Cell phone use near babies / near their head
- Thread starter monarchsmith
- Start date
monarchsmith
New member
To all the jerks making rude comments — first off, maybe you’re part of the reason more parents don’t give a damn to be here and learn, second, tobacco companies used to say there’s no evidence of harm either so you lost me there without referencing studies on infant exposure. Third, I actually work for (much less arrogant) scientists translating their regulatory goals into public health policy, some of which are the strongest federal regulations to exist, which I helped pass w bipartisan support under the trump administration — so if you can’t fully answer my questions with a lack of research on infant exposure, good luck with “regular” people and your high horse.
Furthermore, AGAIN, the set limits for radiation in the US are based on outdated science and 1996 devices. Some countries take it significantly further. I am hoping for more current data on something we are generally all exposed to including our kids. I appreciate knowing where some of y’all are originating your opinions, but I am still seeing more cause for concern than open and shut cases.
If everyone is comfortable that due to it being non-ionizing radiation and based on only thermal harm from 1996 devices you have no cause for concern and dismiss any studies showing otherwise — that’s helpful to know.
Otherwise, despite the pile of downvotes on a serious question, a number of people have upvoted it maybe because they too would like these questions answered. And simply saying there’s no research showing harm doesn’t conclude the answer. And so what of the sperm level studies and the gaps of data? I would think people who care for science based parenting would have enough of a grasp of the situation to wonder why that research doesn’t exist and how we might get updated guidance and regulatory standards.
Now I know some of y’all seem to distrust the Environmental Working Group, but imo they have a decent collection of studies showing potential harm from cell phone emissions. If you would like to go through and rebut each of the studies they’ve cited and the points they have raised, please go for it. But personally, I would rather stay on the more stringent side of precautions until harm is disproven. There are enough questions raised that I would like answers and I’m frankly surprised more folks are not advocating for an update on regulations as they are nearly 30 years old and phones and how much we use them has significantly changed since then. Here, see for yourself and go ahead and rebut the studies cited one by one if you don’t find them credible.
Things like DDT, RoundUp, and chlorpyrifos were also touted by their makers as “no scientific evidence of harm,” until enough independent studies were done to show otherwise. There are still folks out there continuing to parrot industry talking points which intentionally rely on studies of a specific chemical and not the formulation of RoundUp, for example. Are you going to expose your infant to RoundUp based on that, with what we know now? It is up to the manufacturers to prove the absence of harm, not the general public to become scientists. That’s why I am looking for again — infant exposure studies that show the absence of harm because again I too, have a cell phone. If it would be unethical to expose infants to cell phone radiation — what does that say?
No, I am not ashamed for giving a fuck about my kid’s exposure levels when enough questions have been raised which expose regulatory and research gaps. Sorry for those of you who are feeling so embarrassed! You should really sit in that but I’m not humiliated to raise these questions and I know I’m not alone in both prioritizing science based parenting and realizing the gaps in information, regulation and research. I have my own private opinions of people who don’t see that.
Furthermore, AGAIN, the set limits for radiation in the US are based on outdated science and 1996 devices. Some countries take it significantly further. I am hoping for more current data on something we are generally all exposed to including our kids. I appreciate knowing where some of y’all are originating your opinions, but I am still seeing more cause for concern than open and shut cases.
If everyone is comfortable that due to it being non-ionizing radiation and based on only thermal harm from 1996 devices you have no cause for concern and dismiss any studies showing otherwise — that’s helpful to know.
Otherwise, despite the pile of downvotes on a serious question, a number of people have upvoted it maybe because they too would like these questions answered. And simply saying there’s no research showing harm doesn’t conclude the answer. And so what of the sperm level studies and the gaps of data? I would think people who care for science based parenting would have enough of a grasp of the situation to wonder why that research doesn’t exist and how we might get updated guidance and regulatory standards.
Now I know some of y’all seem to distrust the Environmental Working Group, but imo they have a decent collection of studies showing potential harm from cell phone emissions. If you would like to go through and rebut each of the studies they’ve cited and the points they have raised, please go for it. But personally, I would rather stay on the more stringent side of precautions until harm is disproven. There are enough questions raised that I would like answers and I’m frankly surprised more folks are not advocating for an update on regulations as they are nearly 30 years old and phones and how much we use them has significantly changed since then. Here, see for yourself and go ahead and rebut the studies cited one by one if you don’t find them credible.
Things like DDT, RoundUp, and chlorpyrifos were also touted by their makers as “no scientific evidence of harm,” until enough independent studies were done to show otherwise. There are still folks out there continuing to parrot industry talking points which intentionally rely on studies of a specific chemical and not the formulation of RoundUp, for example. Are you going to expose your infant to RoundUp based on that, with what we know now? It is up to the manufacturers to prove the absence of harm, not the general public to become scientists. That’s why I am looking for again — infant exposure studies that show the absence of harm because again I too, have a cell phone. If it would be unethical to expose infants to cell phone radiation — what does that say?
No, I am not ashamed for giving a fuck about my kid’s exposure levels when enough questions have been raised which expose regulatory and research gaps. Sorry for those of you who are feeling so embarrassed! You should really sit in that but I’m not humiliated to raise these questions and I know I’m not alone in both prioritizing science based parenting and realizing the gaps in information, regulation and research. I have my own private opinions of people who don’t see that.
ck8sugarbaby
New member
@monarchsmith "If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter"
monarchsmith
New member
@ck8sugarbaby Again, the lack of studies does not prove the absence of harm.
seekhimineverything
New member
@monarchsmith All research is inconclusive and muddied by controversy, conflicts of interest, and poor methodology. Additionally, conspiracy theorists make this even worse making unfounded claims on science they don't understand. All evidence point to the fact that a few inches further away from your head reduces this exposure to almost nothing due to the inverse square law. Take you calls on speaker, or through headphones and you should be completely fine. I am many times more worried about the actual use of phones by children and its impact on their development.
seekhimineverything
New member
I have also yet to see a study that discusses the possibility or tumors not from the radiation of constant phone use, but the effect it has on our brains. Perhaps if the phone was completely free of RF devices, incidence of tumors may still appear.
@seekhimineverything The primary risk with EMF is tissue heating. Radio waves can heat things around them. The is extreme example of this is a microwave oven which is why you can't open them while running. At the same time your phone is putting out WAY less energy than a microwave.
The amount of EMF that we, as regular citizens, can be exposed to legally in the US is tightly controlled and quite limited.
The reality with the advice is that exposure to EMF is unlikely to have health benefits. That's true with most things. That means that while EMF exposure is unlikely to cause harm based on current research, there is no health upside to exposure. That's true of a huge number of things we don't think twice about though.
Personally I would avoid spending many hours every day on a cellphone near my head but that's also just not comfortable. Personally I wouldn't worry about EMF from consumer electronics - but maybe don't let your kid play directly underneath/on high power radio towers for days at a time.
The amount of EMF that we, as regular citizens, can be exposed to legally in the US is tightly controlled and quite limited.
The reality with the advice is that exposure to EMF is unlikely to have health benefits. That's true with most things. That means that while EMF exposure is unlikely to cause harm based on current research, there is no health upside to exposure. That's true of a huge number of things we don't think twice about though.
Personally I would avoid spending many hours every day on a cellphone near my head but that's also just not comfortable. Personally I wouldn't worry about EMF from consumer electronics - but maybe don't let your kid play directly underneath/on high power radio towers for days at a time.
@catlou I don't think of the sun producing a lot of EMF but it absolutely could. A quick Google search around this turns up sites that list EMF as a downside to solar panels. Whether or not that's the case. If solar EMF was that big I would have expected other sites to rank higher. During solar storms I think is true though.
That said the sun produces a lot of energy across a broad range of frequencies and the only one that comes to mind as far as health risks (real or commonly suggested) is UV...
That said the sun produces a lot of energy across a broad range of frequencies and the only one that comes to mind as far as health risks (real or commonly suggested) is UV...
monarchsmith
New member
@seekhimineverything Yes, one review of studies I read said most research is done specifically around brain tumors and cancers but that other studies about its potential affects on other functions of the brain and body are not yet done.
seekhimineverything
New member
@monarchsmith There was a moment in my life where I realized that almost everything nowadays is bad for you in some way or another. I'm of the opinion that if you eat healthy, exercise, keep healthy relationships and do what your doctor says, much more effort to maintain health is kinda futile. Planes still use leaded fuel, many communities still have leaded pipes, forever chemicals and microplastics are everywhere and doing god knows what. And yet, smokers born in the 30's who lived downwind of nuclear tests and ate from uranium glazed plates and were given sedatives to keep them from crying as babies often lived long lives. I do what I can to stay healthy but I spend the most effort trying to live my life as fully as possible, the genetic lottery will call the shots for me.
seekhimineverything
New member
I feel I should note that however you chose to live your life is perfectly valid, I reread this and felt I didn't make that clear, Just trying to give a different perspective.
@seekhimineverything Good perspective!
There is a lot of luck involved in how long we live and how well. So many risks in life also, good to try to optimise to some degree but also just make the most of whatever hand we are dealt. So much we cannot control at all.
There is a lot of luck involved in how long we live and how well. So many risks in life also, good to try to optimise to some degree but also just make the most of whatever hand we are dealt. So much we cannot control at all.
@monarchsmith This is a false flair. There is no debate here, clearly you have already decided. Many people have responded backed by their research and you disagree. Sometimes research is not 100% conclusive. This is more soapboxing than actual discussion.
Keep your phone away from your baby's head and leave it at that, don't shame the people that use their phones near their babies, simple
Keep your phone away from your baby's head and leave it at that, don't shame the people that use their phones near their babies, simple
monarchsmith
New member
@arodrewe How is asking for infant exposure research or more info relevant to specifically infant exposure, a false flair? I generally would rather err on the side of caution where I Can which is why I generally follow AAP recommendations, since I could not find any updated infant exposure research, I asked here to see if anyone else had relevant research and so far I see one study on 10-24 year olds and a bunch of leaning on the absence of studies rather than studies showing it’s not harmful to infants. If anyone has a greater authority than AAP or studies about infant exposure, I would like to see them.
I am also legitimately questioning if regulations are reasonable when they are based on 1996 devices and adult exposure. Some folks have offered good analysis, some folks have eventually explained they just ignore AAP recommendation. All of this is helpful to me in understanding that so far, no one seems to have INFANT exposure research informing of safety, and at least one person just doesn’t take the AAP recommendations seriously and disregards them. Others would like the same I am looking for — perhaps mine is not the mind that is already made here…
I am also legitimately questioning if regulations are reasonable when they are based on 1996 devices and adult exposure. Some folks have offered good analysis, some folks have eventually explained they just ignore AAP recommendation. All of this is helpful to me in understanding that so far, no one seems to have INFANT exposure research informing of safety, and at least one person just doesn’t take the AAP recommendations seriously and disregards them. Others would like the same I am looking for — perhaps mine is not the mind that is already made here…
monarchsmith
New member
@arodrewe Also I am not shaming anyone by asking if anyone has research on infant exposure, so if you feel shamed — that is seriously not about me. Literally looking for if anyone has additional research relevant to infants and so far, I’m not seeing it. Hoping some will come up! As I too, have a cell phone.
@monarchsmith Awww bb girl. I was in my 20s once, too. But your convictions, based on your ignorant understanding of what radiation is (especially ionizing vs non ionizing), are super cringe.
This is why the scientific community is plagued by the public when trying to publish studies. There's just no way to explain to the uneducated what they mean with their specific jargon. There are readability editors for this purpose, but it only helps so much.
Although- trolls gonna troll. Bravo.
This is why the scientific community is plagued by the public when trying to publish studies. There's just no way to explain to the uneducated what they mean with their specific jargon. There are readability editors for this purpose, but it only helps so much.
Although- trolls gonna troll. Bravo.