Cell phone use near babies / near their head

@mikki1 Lmao what convictions?!? I’m looking for infant exposure STUDIES and so far I have a guy that no has infant exposure studies, and a guy who references FCC levels based on old ass data and 1996 cell phones. You can go on being a prick but it doesn’t change that the guidance needs updating and revisiting or provide any infant exposure studies. Y’all are some fucking assholes
 
@monarchsmith What you’re looking for (and what’s relevant in FCC regulations) is the Specific Absorption rate (SAR) rating for your phone. The FCC will not allow sale of a phone with SAR above roughly 1.5 W/kg for head exposure. As others have said, cell phone emissions are non-ionizing so the only real risk would be heating due to the cell phone being placed on the side of the baby’s head - that is where the most stringent limit comes from, and the rating applies to the worse case scenario (all emitting devices turned on simultaneously).

The question to ask is not “are cell phones bad” or “do cell phones cause cancer” but “how does using a cell phone near my baby compare to other risks I evaluate for my baby”. For example, if your baby’s head were in direct sunlight, they would get about 10 watts of light exposure, their head is about 1 kg at their smallest, so SAR by this measure is about 10x the average exposure of putting your phone on your baby’s head (why would you do that lol).

Of course, people don’t give babies direct sun exposure. In addition, that’s all absorbed in the skin - cell radiation is absorbed in a much larger volume so the heating/volume is much lower than in the sunlight case. Sunlight penetrates only the very top layers of skin - say 1mm - while SAR penetrates 2-3 cm, so the actual heating rate from the phone is likely at least 1000x smaller than just taking your baby in the sun. Having the phone a foot from the baby cuts this another factor of 100. So if you’re ok having your baby in the sun for about a second, you should also be fine using your phone a foot from your baby literally 24/7.

The take away here is that, because we know very little about long-term exposure to high levels of mm-wave radiation, the existing limits have already been set conservatively in ways that compare to every day exposure from other sources. These restrictions are also why you don’t see, for example, wireless power that extends more than a few mm, because that would be at much higher power levels and we simply don’t understand the effects that has on human anatomy.

As a final note, the amount of heating here is nothing compared to the effects of even a light fever. There’s nothing special about heating from cell radiation, and the heat capacity of a person is large - a change of 1 degree F (keeping in mind a fever is usually 2F above normal) would require much more energy that is dissipated by the phone.

Read more:

https://ifixscreens.com/do-you-know-the-sar-rating-of-cellphone/#

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you
 
Source: I’m a physicist who in a previous life worked on wireless power, and in that startup had the task of understanding safety and regulatory limits of that tech. Also a father of a 2 year old and married to a pediatrician. Worry more about car accidents and falls than about your phone please.
 
@elpocoloco Thank you for an actually scientific response regardless of whether it includes any infant exposure studies. And also, I’m not losing sleep over there being no infant exposure studies and I don’t need to be told to worry more about car accidents and falls — tf? I’m literally just looking for infant relevant studies.
 
@monarchsmith And you won't find any.

Because you obviously embarrassed yourself enough in this "argument" in which you bring zero supporting evidence for your claims. And no, repeated AAP positions of "there is no conclusive harm, but if you're paranoid I guess you can move it 1 inch away like that will do anything special?" will not be counted as evidence in the body of a scientific debate.

Seriously. One peer reviewed, conclusive study about the provable, recorded, and replicable harm that a cell phone causes touching the baby's head vs 1 inch away, please.

Come on, or is it just me and the AAP that believes cell phones are harmless to kids regarding radiation?

No? Just me and the AAP? phew.
 
@ordibaryme Personally I try to hold it away from my baby/their head and switch hands so it’s further away from them, do what I can on airplane mode and download podcasts or shows when doable.
 
@austin900 Yeah I would think most ppl using phone around bb are most likely holding it near their head as they’re being held and napping or eating etc which is why I feel like a wider spread adoption of best practices and precautionary measures to at least keep it X inches away from a baby’s head for ex — would be better than just ppl brushing it off like it’s def not a big deal to hold it less than an inch or X inches from their adult head, much less babies.
 
@monarchsmith There's no evidence supporting that it's harmful and plenty supporting that it isn't (see the responses on this post), so what would be the reasoning for adopting these guidelines?
 
@austin900 “There is no evidence,” in this case indicates that there are large gaps in the research and it has been narrowly focused mostly around brain tumors and brain cancer, not that it can be definitively said because the research has been done.

Other than that things like the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics to keep it off your body and X inches away from your head, limit usage and to use it in airplane mode when possible etc, which also urges regulators to revisit guidelines which are based on outdated devices for thermal effects only (1996), the information provided by the American Cancer Society reflecting the various positions of govt agencies acknowledging the lack of definitive conclusion based on the need for more research, research showing concern around specific types of tumors listed elsewhere in this thread, the classification of cell phone radiation as possibly carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer commissioned by the WHO. Stuff like that for folks who would rather follow the precautionary principle than rely on inconclusive data when more questions are raised than answered. Maybe it’s just me and the AAP!
 
@dcantrell Can anyone find anything more recent from American Academy of Pediatrics or do their recommendations remain the same as 2016? Their reccs are to keep it off the body and at least one inch away from the head. They have some other family safety tips here but I’m looking for anything more recent.

Also this seems like a robust summaryfrom American Cancer Society which acknowledges a good amount of research, risks and the large gaps in research. American regulatory agencies seem largely aware of large vos in research that should be done. Basically I’m going precautionary principle on this one where possible but interested in what others find as well. More questions than answers imo.

Excerpt (sorry for formatting idk how td it)

Based on a review of studies published up until 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. (For more information on the IARC classification system, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.)

More recently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a technical report based on studies published between 2008 and 2018, as well as national trends in cancer rates. The report concluded: “Based on the studies that are described in detail in this report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure and [tumor formation].”

So far, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) has not included RF radiation in its Report on Carcinogens, which lists exposures that are known to be or reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. (For more on this report, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.)

According to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC):

“[C]urrently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better basis for RF safety standards than is currently used.”

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

“At this time we do not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use. Scientific studies are underway to determine whether cell phone use may cause health effects.”
 
@monarchsmith I’d love to see research too. Application wise, I tend to be careful about using my phone near my baby, and definitely try to keep it away from her head (by ~8 inches). Definitely not worth losing your mind over with anxiety, but for me it’s a very easy fix for something we’re not entirely sure is safe. I try not to be on my phone near her too much anyways just because I want her to know I’m present to her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Basic phone for my teenager
Replies
15
Views
118
beth12445
B
G
Taking away phone
Replies
15
Views
162
desiringgod03
D
T
Can't Get My Wife Off of Her D*mn Phone
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
780
kusan
K
K
My 9.5 yo daughter used my laptop & didn’t know I could see her google search on my phone
7 8 9
Replies
164
Views
1K
athanase
A
P
Today, during a phone interview, I breastfed and put my 10 m/o down for a nap
2
Replies
30
Views
230
belaya_zvezda
B
Back
Top