Cell phone use near babies / near their head

[monarchsmith]

@joinna1 Lol get yourself together. I’m not intimidated by your mockery of a scientific inquiry. I have dealt with dozens of billionaire corporations who said the same damn thing, their products were safe until they were proven otherwise. I’m not really worried about what you think, I’m asking if ANYONE has infant exposure studies and so far, no one does. If you want to keep your cell phone right by your baby’s head, I’m sure you will have loads of support.

 

[monarchsmith]

@reformed Idk I have been specifically looking at cell phones but they seem to be included in a lot of AAP’s communications on wireless radiation. You can download some of their letters on wireless exposure here.%2C%20the%20largest%20US,devices%20that%20emit%20wireless%20radiation)

 

[reformed]

@monarchsmith Thank you for this

 

[monarchsmith]

@reformed For sure — some people mock me for caring about it but I know some others have the same questions and concerns!

 

[reformed]

@monarchsmith I mean it's tough. Like I feel everything damages the kids and we can't do anything right with microplastics and lead and radiation and whatever else. So people opt for what they can and at times mock others for the remaining things on the massive list

 

[monarchsmith]

@reformed I think that’s a pretty decent understanding of the situation. If we came to terms w the microplastics, and the nanoplastics, and the PFAS/PFOA, and the toxic exposures, and the water quality, and the emissions of war on the climate crisis, and the lack of parental support in public health and social structures, and the food systems all the things — the potential harm of wireless radiation might just be more than a lot of folks are willing to even look at rn.

I swear the hours I spent researching every little thing I bought my newborn and still being unable to completely resolve to an ideal scenario and settling on glass and silicone and xyz medium expensive diaper that doesn’t irritate their skin — it’s a different world than earlier generations at least bc we have easy access to info when we had questions. But sadly, it doesn’t surprise me that folks jump on a commonly held mainstream wagon that it’s just whatever. Trying to hold precaution for a baby in 2024 is something else. I think most have just kind of meandered past what they can and relied (hopefully) on large bodies of scientific evidence and when it’s not been studied thoroughly yet — would rather not bother. Unfortunately, it’s just one more thing.

 

[reformed]

@monarchsmith Has anything been said about wifi and wifi modems? Is airplane mode enough?

 

[horatiok]

@monarchsmith EWG is not a reliable source. They engage in fear-mongering. Quackwatch has them on their list and they are so over the top with what they say is harmful- it’s not backed by evidence. They’ve promoted propaganda linking autism and vaccines and so much more. So take anything they’ve posted with a truck full of salt.

Where did you see that the AAP is requesting a review? I see one thing about a doctor who is an AAP fellow writing a blog saying parents should take caution, but that’s not the AAP as an organization requesting a final review. It would also be the AAP that would publish the recommendations if new ones were recommended. Who are “they” asking to review? What regulations are you talking about?

 

[monarchsmith]

@horatiok Personally, I look at EWG as on the more stringent side regardless if I agree w their vaccination positions, but I like knowing they’re critical of everything and seeing what they’re looking at. I know a few good scientists who have come out of EWG, mostly for it being archaic in adopting updated positions rather than it being inaccurate. Moreso bc it was harder to move a big ship on other pressing issues they have sometimes taken their time to come around on. My point is that within the space, EWG is kind of seen as very slow moving but stalwart.

As far as AAP, their request to revise recommendations is pretty easy to find w a quick search but here is one link I have found that aggregated their letters around this circa 2013. I am looking for more recent updates but so far the closest publication date I can find is 2016. Thanks

 

[monarchsmith]

@horatiok Also — wondering if you can speak to any of the studies EWG cites themselves rather than to EWG as the collector? Thanks

 

[horatiok]

@monarchsmith Why would I do that? You’re just on here arguing with everyone who doesn’t think the same way you want them to think. Confirmation bias.

 

[monarchsmith]

@horatiok Literally responded to your questions and provided AAP letters. I would suggest looking for the answers to my questions and questioning the gaps of the research and in responses which fail to address infant exposure research is not arguing, though this flair is tagged for debate. So one would think points and counter points would be made. Although I have called a couple of douche bags w no data jackasses, so, that’s fair! If you have something to say about the studies, say it, but if you don’t have anything to say about the studies, just take care of yourself and relax.

 

[monarchsmith]

I think what’s known is there are huge gaps in the research around this rather than there’s suppressed research about it. They aren’t saying oh there’s no risk bc the research indicates there is none, it is because a lot of research has yet to be done. But enough scientific bodies have raised questions and urged for more research and a revisit of regulations to make me think I would rather have more research to show it’s safe than the absence of that research saying well we really don’t know of any specific risks (because no one has studied it, much less conclusively.)

Some risks seem to be acknowledged by a few bodies like the glioma, meningioma and acoustic neuroma you mentioned. But totally in that research around other things to do w the brain beSIDES tumors and brain cancer have not been done. Just a lot of gaps! I’m not losing sleep over it personally but try to keep both my laptop and cell home as far away from my baby as I Can jic.

Also I have been following AAP reccs for years without realizing it jus bc having a cell phone against my head causes me discomfort and I get headachey so you know, speaker phone and wired headphones have been my go to for some years since I got ride of my air pods which were causing discomfort in use after months of intense adoption. I just don’t think it’s like commonly held sense not to have it RIGHT next to the baby’s head as ppl brush it off as not harmful. Proximity gets mentioned as a side note when one would think that’s the whole center of the convo around infant exposure particularly on such close proximity as holding or breastfeeding.