Cell phones and ADHD

This recent article in Scientific American sheds some light on a biological and physical mechanism to support the epidemiological study on a connection between cell phone usage and ADHD:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mind-control-by-cell

The first study discussed is a double blind study where they measure brain waves during different cell phone operational states and shows an increase in alpha waves. Click through to another Scientific American article linked on the term "mind wandering" and that article happens to mention research showing that people with ADHD have increased alpha wave activity. The second study discussed found that effects lasted long after the actual cell phone usage time.

The wording such as "there is no causal link" used very often in the media is not quite accurate and can mislead some people to think that a possible causation has been disproved or can be dismissed. You cannot state affirmatively that there is no causal link unless you have actually proven that to be the case. What we have here with this epidemiological study is just a lack of evidence either for or against causation, particularly because this type of study can not show whether there is causation or not. Causality was not studied; therefore it is impossible for a causal link to have been established even if it were the case. Lack of evidence is not evidence.

So I will look forward to the science catching up.

I have ADHD, and for me the danger that cell phones cause is other people chattering on them – which is horribly distracting for me. I won't allow passengers in my car to chat on them while I am driving, because that is just as bad as if I am doing the chatting myself.

iam concerned that this same type of radiofrequency is used in telemetry monitoring. i am also a witness to several incidents of workers with tumors,some being cancerous.i am wondering how long it will be before somebody investigates these threats of life.

Um uh I have ADHD. Im 35 and I see a dr at UCLA. I think this study is rediculous. My mother died in the mid 80's she never used a cellphone. I think women need to know that everything they eat drink and do will directly cause a chemical reaction to their baby. I think using a cellphone isnt one of them

I am curious to whether or not the research done was aware of the usage of non mobile phones such as house phones or took into account the use of other mobile devices. If young children are using a wide range of devices at a young age, this may be a more reasonable cause. The study said cell phone users were more likely, but what other devices are being taken into account? It may be waves in the air or it may be just the use of products.

Yes i agree with you what you said in this article. I got the information about cell phones. Thank you for giving this information.

I believe cell phones interfers with short term memory shortage and long term memory retrieval. I use my cell phone 1400 minutes monthly at least. I find myself forgetting information in a few sections and finding it harder to retrieve information. I am going to conduct a little study of my own this summer when I am not working. I am a school teacher, presently. We will see.

Hmmmm...the study is interesting but my soon-to-be 15 year old son was diagnosed at age 4 with ADHD. Guess what 15 years old ago I couldn't afford what we called cell phones back then. I just think it is another concidence in the results. You can make any study and its results confirm your opinion if you like.

thank you Grace, for clarifying...i, for one, have 3 VERY significant personal experiences with cellphone EMR (electromagnetic radiation – funny how, in this country, the government and cellphone companies were instrumental in getting that changed to EMF (frequency) because 'radiation' is too alarming to the american public – everywhere else in the world it is referred to as EMR...
everything from headaches – which i NEVER, EVER have had, an unexplained burning in my frequent -use ear; and the latest experience: irregular, wacky cycles – which again, i have NEVER, EVER experienced...funny how it has begun to normalize over the past 5-6 months since i stopped wearing my phone on my belt or in my pocket...
the cell phone companies have the government in their back pockets just like the big pharma and just like the tobacco companies...

Personally, I think researchers are looking at the wrong source. It would make more sense that cell phone use is symptomatic of the mother's behavior. Someone who's spending two minutes on this task and five minutes on that one, all day long, or who talk on the phone while doing other things, tends to pass those traits on to their children. Isn't that a more logical conclusion than to say that repeated exposure to a certain frequency causes a physiological change in a fetus that leads inexorably to a syndrome where they just happen to behave the same way as their parents?

Even if it is frequency-related, why just cell phone frequencies (which run between 700MHz and 1.9GHz, so it's not like they're very close to the same value to begin with), and not the range of broadcast frequencies from 520kHz (AM) to 6GHz (modern cordless phones) that pass through us all the time? Are these researchers controlling for that at all? It's questions like this that lead me to wonder whether this is just an easy way to get publicity and research money, rather than a real attempt at understanding the root problem.

Perhaps it is the multi-tasking ADD-like life many if us live today. Talking on cell phones and not paying true attention during a conversation with another could be triggering behaviors and stimulating areas of the brain otherwise intended for "natural" tasks. Doing too many things at once (which cell phones and other electronic devices are a part of) may be affecting behaviors which in turn can trigger adverse activity. Radio energy emitting devices have been around for over 100 years. It could take some time, with various power levels, frequencies and use models and technology all ever changing, before any pattern or cause/effect data are realized.

"I think this study is rediculous. My mother died in the mid 80’s she never used a cellphone". Indeed this shows that cell phones are not the ONLY cause of ADHD. This study is just saying there is a relation between cell phone use and ADHD. Then in the future we may find that cell phones are one cause of ADHD. This doesn't imply they are the only cause. e.g. unprotected sex is a cause of HIV, but so is blood transfusion.

I think we were all raised on stories of super heroes and mutant teenage turtles that often started with some kind of radiation poisoning and the technology as we understand it sounds all too familiar especially as the story progresses and we see the characters beam colorful rays into the air sometimes straight sometime curvy like a radio wave that we imagine are coming out of our cell phones so it is not a big leap for us to believe the little bit of correlation between some disease and cell phones. Maybe there is some epidemic that cell phones are causing and science truly hasn't caught up to it or maybe there isn’t. I don't understand how that doctor or anyone else can say (for any case) "there is something we don’t know we just haven't found any proof yet” Isn't there something in the science field about looking at something objectively. I mean that’s not even a hypotheses/educated guess since there is no education to even back it up.

Thank you for writing an article pointing out the methodological limitations of the study linking cell phone use during pregnancy to ADHDin children. The study fails to control for several important factors, such as stress, lack of attention to children by parents, socio-economic status, and so on. Correlation does not mean causation and this is the first article to make that point clear.

The idea that cell phones cause ADHD is absurd. These days, it is way to easy for people to say something causes ADHD. The fact is being hyperactive is simply part of this current world and should not be blown out of proportion like it always is.

I am 54, raising three granchildren, two which have adhd... I was just diagnosed with it myself about four months ago.. I really have a hard time keeping focused. My husband passed very unexpectly Nov 30 2007..Asa matter of fact, I have never performed so poorly on my job as I am now...

just putting in my two cents..

Interesting, but ultimately I think it is much ado about nothing like the living under high tension power lines debate. The truth is we are surrounded and penetrated by electromagnetic waves and fields of all types: man-made, terrestrial, solar, cosmic, your own neurons zipping about. The problems appear when DNA is damaged by ionizing radiation, usually by high-energy UV, X-Rays, and cosmic rays. Regular old radio waves simply don't have the energy to damage your DNA, not to mention that we are surrounded by radio waves from numerous other sources that make the waves from cell phones seem minor in comparison.

While it is always plausible that cell phones can cause problems (some weird resonance similar to the effect produced by a microwave?) unless proven otherwise, there have been enough large scale studies to this point that the chance of any negative health effect is very small and therefore good enough for me. As Laura said, the biggest health risk with cell phones is driving with them. This has been proven much more conclusively than any brain tumor risk.

Regarding the ADHD link, I think it is likely that the people who have the means and desire to use cell phones regularly are much more likely to heavily use many other forms of technology such as the internet, video games, and TV. Whether ADHD would be due to growing up in a fast-paced information saturated environment, the shortening of screen shots in visual media, or some other phenomenon is anyone's guess (but I highly doubt it's radio waves).

Look into the Philip Stein Tasler watches/bands, and they protect the wearer from a certain amount of negative interference from high frequency emissions from cell phones, etc. I am sensitive in general, and
wearing this truly has created more calmness and increased concentration, focus . Check online, google this, but I purchased mine at a jewelry store, and Neiman Marcus carries them. The difference is apparent when I don't have it on. They are pricey, but well worth it!!

Don't forget the cell phone towers, which have a much higher output (400W or more) than a typical cell phone itself (<1W). Even if you don't use or own a cellphone, we're surrounded by towers, and those have been around for years.

A similar point has been made about EM radiation from high-tension power lines and radio station transmitter towers. Notice how birds will never nest on these, nor on cell towers.

i think more will be revealed . . . thanks for the story and the great comments. i'm curious, but not paranoid.

I wonder – if you look at the lifestyle of a family where parents are frequently using cell phones and where young children are frequenly using cell phones – if the general lifestyle would contribute more to ADHD than the actual cell phone. For examples, families who frequently talk on cell phones allow themselves to be interrupted by phone calls and/or allow their attention to be divided by multitasking while on a cell phone. Families who set aside lengths of time (such as dinner time, "family time," etc.) and block out interruptions (such as not answering phone calls during dinner or while driving, etc.) are trying to teach their children about directing their focus to what one considers important. Does a family live with constant interruption and allow their focus to be divided or do they try to organize their time such that there is a time for work, a time for play, a time for meals, etc.

When using a cell phone, one is usually multi-tasking. The behavior of mulit tasking means something isn't getting full attention; hence
ADHD. Sadly, what is lost is not only detail, but the everyday joys of life such as smelling a beautiful flower, listening and watching our children, looking up at the sky and seeing all of G-d's wonders.

As for the potential harmful side effects of cell phones, it is too early to know. It took years for cigarette makers to acknowledge the harmful effects of smoking and only in time will we really know the answer about cell phones.

So, I suggest that folks get off the phone, take a breath, and really pay attention to their loved ones and surroundings. Turn off the phone and resist the temptation to check voice mail, text messages and the internet. Get some fresh air, take a walk, start that hobby you've always talked about – you'll be glad that you did.

I think it would do us all well to remember that there was a time when shoe stores had x-ray machines in the store as a novelty item. Obviously, no one thought that was harmful at the time(!)

What's the harm in being more careful?

It must be just a personality trait. Full-time cell users just refuse to focus on where they physically are. Watch that turn, drivers.

Another short note. I have more than one child with ADHD. They are grown-ups now. I did not use a cell phone. There were no cell phones. I knew when the baby was in the womb that there was something special, and so did my doctor. A lot of kicking. Doctor was certain there were at least two of them. The whole family is like that. Gifted, but distracted, and they lose things all the time too. If the head were not solidly attached to the body, they would leave it somewhere. It runs in the family. With all that, though, they manage to keep several balls up in the air, without dropping even one of them.

ADHD is genetic, not caused by the environment. Why can't we research how to treat ADHD instead of trying to blame everyone and everything. I have a son who has ADHD and I wish researchers could find other helps besides medication. Many of those diagnosed with ADHD are brilliant and researchers have suggested that their brains work differently. Let's research how to help these individuals, who learn so differently, function in the school system.
As for those who think how a parent raises their child causes ADHD, I have 6 children, and only one has ADHD. I do have a brother that has ADHD and my Father in Law also has it. They both were born way before cell phones! GENETICS

I am not sure about the ADHD possibilities, only because I have a child with ADHD and have read recently all these things that could cause it during pregnancy, i.e. diet; cell phones, non of these pertain to me. Although, about three months ago I did start using a ear piece, after listening to a report about the possible side effects of cell phone use. I decided to err on the side of caution, and to my surprise I actually like the ear piece better.

"study found women who used cell phone two to three times a day while pregnant had children that were 54 percent more likely to develop ADHD and other behavioral problems"

Rather than looking a direct physiological links that may explain this, I think it's far more likely that chronic cell phone use is correlated with higher stress lifestyles, and that it is this higher level of stress that causes brain differences in the developing fetus rather than a direct correlation with any sort of radiation. A number of studies have provided evidence that stress may relate to brain atrophy in adults.

My next question would be, what do we know about these ear pieces? How do they work? I know of two cases where two teenage boys were diagnosed with brain tumors this year, and they had no identifiable risk factors. The only thing they shared was constantly using those blue tooth headsets. This is not a scientific study, but two unrelated seemingly healthy teenagers getting brain tumors is enough to make you wonder what's going on.

Isn't possible that people who are ADHD tend to spend a lot of time on their cell phone adn playing with other gadgets, and maybe there are some genetics at play that increase the chances of their children having ADHD? I think the technology in our society (ipods, PDAs, cell phones, etc.) promotes ADHD like behavior-short attention spans, never completing a task, etc. We are never able to just sit and relax for a moment. For someone who has ADHD, they probably handle all of this technology pretty well.

I am wondering if these findings are definite. Every year, there seems to some sort of report stating the effects of cellphones or some other product and then later these will be disproof by another scientist.

Sam
http://www.sandseurope.com

The Danish study on cell phones was totally flawed, paid for by the cell phone industry.They took 10,000 people who used cell phones for 10 years, said no one got a brain tumor thus cell phones are safe.They did not tell you the 10,000 people they took for the study used a cell phone ONCE A WEEK !
Go to http://www.cprnews.com. Under world news there are over 150 studies that support the fact that cell phones and cordless phones are potentially very dangerous. Also on the show last night you said to use a wired headset. Studies have shown they increase radiation into the ear by as much as 3 times . VERY DANGEROUS ! As are bluetooth headsets.

Dr. Gupta,
I am glad someone has disabused readers of the notion that the Danish study told us anything substantial about cell phones and tumors. There were a number of flaws in the study, and as Dr. George Carlo has stated on his website, http://www.safewireless.org, the authors of that study had already approached the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program he led in the 90's looking for funding and had been rejected at that time. Knowing that WTR was being funded by industry sources, the author of the study, according to Dr. Carlo, had actually touted its likelihood of showing nothing harmful as a reason for WTR to fund it! Once rejected, he took it directly to the industry and got it funded there.

As for the ADD study, the interesting thing to many in the know is that one of the lead authors , L. Kheifitz, would be one of the least expected to come out with these results, as she has been a paid industry consultant for several years. I have not read the study myself, but a respected scientist and trailblazer in this field has said it is actually a well done study. Let me caution your readers that it is dangerous to make assumptions about a study just based on news reports. The devil is always in the details. And based on my experience in reading news reports on studies in the last few years, especially the few that make it to the public here in the US, I would say the news reports are very likely to be inaccurate about the true results of the study.

Finally, I would like to make two observations...one is that many children now are going to schools (K-12 and up) that have antennas emitting radiofrequency/microwave radiation all day, every day, dotting the hallways and classrooms of their buildings. This is to support the growing use of wireless internet in the schools. In view of all the studies showing this radiation to be bioactive, this can't be good.

The other observation that people rarely seem to think about is that mothers of infants are using cell phones while holding their infants-sometimes propped on their shoulders right next to the cell phone. This exposes the baby to just as much radiation as the cell phone user. So one does not have to wait to even age three to begin the equivalent of cell phone use. It can begin with birth, and possibly even before.

MM

How far away are the friends that you are talking to on your cell phone? Don't you think some scientists should have two sets of phones, with a set being half a mile away, a mile away, maybe two miles away. The first set should be receiving phone calls in different rooms of the science lab from the "far away" cell phones. You'd have to keep both sets of phones on and open for several days in a row, or weeks even. Some lab people could measure the electrical signals or "bad stuff" that is being picked up right at the cell phone, half inch away, a foot away, with and without the antenna and the ear piece on a 30 inch wire, etc. But you'd have to have some real people (or scientists !) take turns talking into the phones from the far distances, because if you used recorded voices or TV or radio voices, it wouldn't be the same as live voices like you hear on a cell phone. This is to simulate the hours each day that teenagers and people in their 20s spend using their cell phones. Should we assume that scientists have already done such "experiments" hundreds of times to investigate the "bad vibrations" that are going into your head and face and hand when you talk on a cell phone for such a long time? Why is there a controversy? Don't you think scientists would be able to determine right now if there were obviously harmful rays, magnetism, electrical impulses, particle vibrations, alien beams, etc., being received and transmitted by our cell phones?? Don't you think by now there would be an increase in brain, head, face, or neck cancer? When is this going to get straightened out ?? Hold on - I'm receiving another call...

The etiology of adhd is multifactorial. Heritability is estimated at .76 (76%). However, the expression (phenotype vs genotype) & severity of associated symptoms (impulsivity, risk-taking, inattention) is very much influenced by environment (diet, exercise, environmental exposures). One study found that Japanese teens using cell phones actually improved in their ability to attend. My primary concern with cell phone use is the increased risk of brain tumors, the incidence of which has been increasing in recent years for reasons yet unclear. We do not have the long-term data yet especially for the child/ teen who has frequent, repeated exposure to this type of radiation. Re: brain/body effects of cell phone use, prudent caution is advised-most especially for developing brains.

The central issue at stake here appears to be/should be children' health now and in the near future.

International Association for Fire Fighters has a clear opinion related to GHz range communications devices due to complex health symptoms their members have reported. They have a huge 40 page full of links to key international research, and appear to have a clearly precautionary approach with/oppose new cell towers, basestations etc near firestations:

http://www.iaff.org/HS/Resi/CellTowerFinal.htm

Considering all the worries and discussion about possible behavioral effects of MW radiation on children, ADHD, autism, their thinner skull, more stem cells in their system and still developing nervous system, I find it extremely disturbing that while IAFF is very concerned about effects of MW radition and opposes cell phone towers nearby fire stations:

A) Cell phone basestations/towers can be freely erected extremely close (50ft) to children's playgrounds, such as in New York City's Union Square, while in Europe much more strict regulations are in use with distance to playgrounds and schools.

B) The amount of research concentrating on children and cell phones is very minimal, due to the natural related ethical complexities and liabilities etc. I am aware of very few studies, one unpublished one in Spain by a German MD (found long lasting effects on brain function of children after only few minutes of use).

The situation is not definitely good. In my humble opinion, it is absolutely irresponsible to just study adults, short term or occational users, people using cell phones only a few times a day, and meanwhile let children use cell phones without restrictions. In this area, the recent Danish study was skewed, not representing what is really going on. Sometimes it is also very interesting to dig a bit deeper to see who exactly has funded a specific study.

Researchers should gather their energies further and get to the bottom of it before there are more bad signs, and there should be serious discussion about banning cell phone by children under specific age, and/or at least making it a requirement that children would use a wired headset to minimize the MW radiation by keeping the phone away from their heads.

It is essential to understand clearly that these technologies have not been proven to be safe, and that there are growing signs to the contrary. Large insurance companies, such as Lloyds do not want to insure cell phone companies anymore.

As much as I find the below study interesting,
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/health-risk-of-longterm-mobile-phone-use-to-be-studied-by-scientists-842489.html

Unfortunately time is running out, and more drastic nearterm measures need to be taken in the research field, such as using realtime brain scanning of changes in brain electrochemistry of existing users and also nonusers who start using a cell via devices such as the Finnish/Swedish Neuromag device, which is likely to be able to reveal interesting results. There are tools, but the problem might be a bit related to who has the guts and funding to use them, be among the first to be a messenger of bad news, and not get "shot".

Related to a more realtime approach (vs. a huge 10 year slow study), I find the latest Finnish studies on HSP27/heat shock proteins groundbreaking, study clearly indicated changes in 8 different proteins in the skin after cell phone proximity:
http://www.stuk.fi/stuk/tiedotteet/en_GB/news_481/

Similarly interesting are Dr. Olle Johansson's mast cell/immune system boost findings at Karolinska Hospital in Sweden experimental dermatology dept.

Furthermore, studies utilizing supercomputer physical models, such as in predictive weather patterns should be conducted, in order to create computer models which warn us NOW, rather than in 10 years when it is too late to save our children. I have heard of one such larger scale physical modeling study in UK, which, based on what I understand, found alarming results, and then lost its funding. No time for politics and money games anymore, the matter is too burning.