American Academy of Pediatrics calls for reassessment of cell phone safety

[pnwmom]

and "meaningful consumer disclosure."

All those pediatricians must just be purveyors of woo, right? Because the scientific establishment has declared for all time and circumstances that cell phones are completely without risk ...




http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941318

As radiation standards are reassessed, the AAP urges the FCC to adopt radiation standards that:

• Protect children’s health and well-being. Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children. It is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes.

• Reflect current use patterns. The FCC has not assessed the standard for cell phone radiation since 1996.

Approximately 44 million people had mobile phones when the standard was set; today, there are more than 300 million mobile phones in use in the United States. While the prevalence of wireless phones and other devices has skyrocketed, the behaviors around cell phone uses have changed as well. The number of mobile phone calls per day, the length of each call, and the amount of time people use mobile phones has increased, while cell phone and wireless technology has undergone substantial changes. Many children, adolescents and young adults, now use cell phones as their only phone line and they begin using wireless phones at much younger ages. Pregnant women may carry their phones for many hours per day in a pocket that keeps the phone close to their uterus. Children born today will experience a longer period of exposure to radio-frequency fields from cellular phone use than will adults, because they start using cellular phones at earlier ages and will have longer lifetime exposures. FCC regulations should reflect how people are using their phones today.

• Provide meaningful consumer disclosure.

The FCC has noted that it does not provide consumers with sufficient information about the RF exposure profile of individual phones to allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. The current metric of RF exposure available to consumers, the Specific Absorption Rate, is not an accurate predictor of actual exposure. AAP is supportive of FCC developing standards that provide consumers with the information they need to make informed choices in selecting mobile phone purchases, and to help parents to better understand any potential risks for their children. To that end, we support the use of metrics that are specific to the exposure children will experience.

The AAP supports the reassessment of radiation standards for cell phones and other wireless products and the adoption of standards that are protective of children and reflect current use patterns. If you have questions, please contact Clara Filice in the AAP’s Washington Office at 202/347-8600.

[uppityperson]

1. Researching the changes in technology is an ok thing to do. The results will result in further

changes, either in technology or in the minds of those who fear the technology.

[immoderate]

2. And do something about those chem trails...

--imm

[Yo_Mama]

12. It's not woo any more.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834888

Long-term use of both mobile and cordless phones is associated with an increased risk for glioma, the most common type of brain tumor, the latest research on the subject concludes.

The new study shows that the risk for glioma was tripled among those using a wireless phone for more than 25 years and that the risk was also greater for those who had started using mobile or cordless phones before age 20 years.

"Doctors should be very concerned by this and discuss precautions with their patients," study author Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, professor, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

http://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680%2814%2900064-9/abstract?cc=y

It's also showing up as much more of a risk factor for younger people.

The Nordic countries can do better studies due to having very high quality complete data. Also they had a control drawn from the same source that filled out the same questionnaires. This is important because the big question always has been when asking a group of just cancer victims about cell phone use - does recollection change when it is considered to be a disease factor?

It's probable that the population most subject to these types of cancer is genetically determined, with exposure to EMF being far more risky for certain people.

It's really hard to do these studies well because introduction of better imaging skews the long term incidence rates, and introduction of esp. MRIs kind of overlaps with the introduction of cell phones. Further, the data suggests that glioblastoma multiforme and acoustic neuromas are the most associated with exposure to EMR from mobile phones.

They believe they have found the physiological mechanism.

Note that the Swedish study is a very high quality study that really could only have been recently performed. The very high participation rate and the controls used tend to rule out study errors.

[Trillo]

14. Was it ever woo? NT

[Yo_Mama]

15. Until there's data, it's woo from a scientific perspective.

Many things might be true. Many things are plausible. Many things make sense.

Science limits itself to what can be proven because something about the human brain forces us to see patterns that might not be there, and the discipline of requiring proof before one believes something is a powerful way to expand knowledge.

[Trillo]

16. Proof of danger?

Or proof of safety?

[aikoaiko]

3. Do kids actually use cell phones as phones anymore?

I thought it was all texting and social media.

[hollysmom]

9. a number of teen age girls had gotten breast cancer recently and they kept

their phones in their bras. I swear phones have gotten so big again, I can't fit them in my pocket and even have a hard time getting them into my purse. So I just don't carry them around any more, leave them home.

[KT2000]

4. many naysayers of further research and

taking precautions about environmental assaults on children's health are parents. If pediatricians had the vocal support of most parents this would be a different world and cancer centers might not be a growth industry. (cancer rates for children are increasing as are hierological disorders that result in behavior issues, learning disabilities etc. - but it is not a big issue to even investigate.)

[jberryhill]

5. Can you explain what you mean by this?

"All those pediatricians must just be purveyors of woo"

How many people do the pediatricians claim are being killed by cell phones?

Have they put out any recommendation that people stop using them? If not, why not?

This seems to be a call for study and for updating the manner in which standards were promulgated. Where is the "woo"?

[pnwmom]

6. The "woo" is in the minds of some people who regard the current state of scientific research

as permanently settled fact.

My own statement utilized the sarcasm smilie because I don't believe the AAP is purveying woo -- but some will because some have very broad definitions of woo.

[jberryhill]

7. I doubt anyone would

Because you seem unclear on the concept.

Conclusions of scientific inquiry are not "settled fact", they are the best available model - preferable to any other. Of course they are subject to change.

What alternative conclusion is the AAP peddling here? None.

They are simply saying that the exposure model on which the standards are based may no longer be valid because of changes in behavior. Yeah, that's probably true, but you want to know what else has changed more dramatically? The RF emissions of cell phones.

Be that as it may, what conclusion of fact is this group pushing? None.

What recommendation are they making in relation to cell phone use? None

What change in action are they suggesting anyone take relative to cell phone use? None

[pnwmom]

11. I never said that conclusions of scientific inquiry are "settled fact." Science is a process, and

small and large-scale scientific revolutions can and do occur.

However, many of those who throw around the word "woo" do so because they have a view of science as a body of established facts, not as a process.

[JaneyVee]

8. my cellphone manual actually came with a case study

Saying that cell phones do increase the chance of brain tumors.

[3catwoman3]

10. When I fisrt read about...

...the cell-phone-in-the-bra thing, I found it very odd that anyone would think of carrying one there. I never wear anything low cut enough for that to be convenient. Seems a bit exhibitionistic to me.

[Yo_Mama]

13. Leggings, skin-tight pants, etc.

Fashion is king at that age.