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Furthermore, AGAIN, the set limits for radiation in the US are based on outdated science and 1996 devices.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.