.
Feedback

Cell Phones and Cancer: Are Our Kids at Risk ?

Since I got my new iPhone the question of a link between children, cell phones, and radiation-caused tumors has weighed heavily.

Last week my smartphone fell in the drink and was never heard from since. Eight out of ten people in this situation would use this as the impetus to finally upgrade from Android to iPhone. Let’s just say I wasn't in the minority here.

Once my new magic Apple hand-computer came home with me, it was instantly a part of the family. My 5-year-old, who leads a largely media-free life as part of her Waldorf schooling, acted as if she’d waited far too long for me to finally come to my senses.

“Do you have Angry Birds?” she asked nonchalantly. Then she showed me how to use one of the camera features two seconds after laying hands on the phone and figuring it out herself. Somebody was going to need a pass code.

Truly, I’m not opposed to her killing a couple of monkeys in the name of bird rescue (yes, I had to Google search 'Angry Birds' to know that’s what it entails). But I do worry about the possible radiation effects of cell phones on children.

Most of the research on whether cell phone radiation leads to cancer is inconclusive. For the last few years there has been much debate (and many sensational headlines) on whether mobile phones increase your risk or not.

Instinctively, I figure this may be something that takes many years to fully study.Recent findings from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concur.

In a May 2011 release, the IRAC, which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO), presented its most recent findings on brain cancer risks associated with cell phone usage. Based on that, WHO changed its position from there being no link to cell phones and brain cancer, to listing mobile phones in the same 'carcinogenic hazard' category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.

That shift came about after a team of 31 scientists from the US and 13 other countries investigated peer-reviewed studies and found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as "possibly carcinogenic to humans." The scientists found that among cell phone users, there was some evidence of an increase in glioma and acoustic neuroma brain cancer — however, they have not been able to draw conclusions for other types of cancers.

"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild in the release. "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐ term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting."

In July of that same year, the results of an unprecedented study published in the Journal of The National Cancer Institute began circulating around the internet: 'Study Sees No Cellphone-Cancer Ties'; 'Cellphones Don't Increase Cancer Risk in Kids, Study Says'; 'Cellphones, Kids and Cancer: Don't Worry, Be Happy?'. But immediately, at least two prominent environmental health groups believe the study is fundamentally flawed.

Both the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) argued that poor data and methodological flaws render the findings problematic. Among the organizations' complaints were the study’s failure to examine the consequences of long-term use and a weak definition of "regular" phone use.

The Apple iPhone 4 safety manual says users' radiation exposure should not exceed FCC guidelines: "When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 millimeters (5/8 inch) away from the body."

So, 5/8 of an inch? Most people I know, and certainly most kids, usually have the thing plastered to the ear! With all the uncertainty in the air, this mom is not very comforted. Too, if the radiation does prove to have long-term consequences, our kids are way more at risk than we are.

According to research published in October in the journal Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, children absorb significantly more cell phone radiation than previously thought. This is because children have smaller heads and thinner skulls than adults, which means their bone marrow can absorb up to ten times the radiation that an adult's might.

From what I understand, a cell phone is most dangerous when held up to your head to talk, so if my kids do use it to speak to friends and relatives, we always use speakerphone. Too, because I’m the cautious type, I’ll keep the game play and other endless distractions of the phone to a minimum with them.

I hope I’m making the right and healthy choice for my family, not going overboard, or doing too little. When I look ahead at little 12-year-olds who carry phones as a lifeline to friends and home, I know I can only limit their use for so long. So I hold my breath and wait for more studies and ever-better technology to emerge. One thing’s for sure: With gadgets this good, we won’t go back — the only way to move is forward.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jodina Hahn Gallo May 21, 2013 at 02:31 pm
Ciao Pam! Grazie per il tuo bel commento! / Thanks for your nice comment! Hope your trip to ItaliaRead More was fabulous. Buona giornata :)
Pam May 21, 2013 at 06:52 am
Took this class before a trip to Italy. Very fun and was able to learn quickly with the way theRead More class was taught. Great instructor and wonderful insights. You will enjoy it if you ever wanted to learn Italian. Caio!
ron ranson May 21, 2013 at 09:34 am
This is wonderful news. Congratulations to the students, their instructors and Academy staffRead More members -- and to the supportive parents. A theatre education is the best!
Daniel Woolfolk (Editor) May 17, 2013 at 03:08 pm
Hi Edward, I didn't hear any reports on the scanner or from sources of crashes, rescues or hardRead More landings.
John E May 20, 2013 at 09:33 am
The public deserves an objective, unemotional, factual public debate on this proposition. So far IRead More am still leaning toward a yes vote, but I am keeping an open mind at least through this month.
Jac Flanders May 21, 2013 at 10:49 pm
Thanks for your comment, Frank. I'm certain you're not the only grownup reader of the blog - justRead More the only one so far. (At first, I thought some guys were putting me on; they have to be kidding.) You're right, of course, some Democrats voted against the E.R.A. for women. Shamefully, they and a majority of Republicans have defeated each attempt to pass the amendment so far. I still find it almost unbelievable that some of our neighbors think women do not deserve equal rights under the law. I thought that kind of thinking existed only in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and some backwoods places in Tennessee.
Status Quo May 21, 2013 at 03:40 pm
'Frank H. Robles', I emplore you from your inference, please quit treating women as 2nd classRead More citizens as your start, toward equal rights and improvement of your relationships to women. This act alone, renders bestowing inordinate Rights or extralegal treatment of women as a group - moot, and aligned with our(American) precepts - as it is wholly unneeded under our Constitution at this time - hopefully, for all time.
Batman May 21, 2013 at 01:04 pm
Women are in a subordinate role to men for a reason. The responsibilty of bearing and caring forRead More children makes it difficult if not impossible for a woman to support herself during that time. It is the man's responsibility to do this. So for good reason women look for reliable men to to take care of them. In the absence of reliable men big government steps in and becomes the husband. Destruction of the family and ultimately our nation is the objective of women's lib. If you don't like The USA try places like Saudi Arabia where women are treated as livestock. (The Saudis and many other Islamic nations would very much like to take over the USA). Leave it to a sick puppy like Jac Flanders to spatter his verbal vomit all over the message boards. And the indecated masses lap it up like candy
Frank H. Robles May 20, 2013 at 11:48 am
Stopped by Sunday to take a Look, very nice homes, good location, fair asking price, should sellRead More well...!!!
Sallie Mazzur January 28, 2013 at 11:39 pm
Well said, Nama. I was speechless to see how many people Uncle Ben had influenced during his life,Read More but it's no wonder. There may be one less Ben Taylor in our lives, but Heaven just got a whole lot more fun!
Daniel Woolfolk (Editor) January 24, 2013 at 06:16 pm
Thanks, Kyle for posting this. I'm not sure how things were in the past, but as a Patch editor, I'veRead More seen that blogging and engaging readers directly is a great way to market a book. Steve Repak, a financial planner with a military-themed personal finance book, blogs regularly on Patch and has recently been featured in National Media. Here's that story: http://oceanside-camppendleton.patch.com/articles/steve-repak-featured-on-npr-fox-friends