Comments on: Cell phones and ADHD http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/20/cell-phones-and-adhd/ Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:13:33 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Marko http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/20/cell-phones-and-adhd/#comment-1658 Marko Sun, 08 Jun 2008 05:01:59 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=37#comment-1658 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: 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 I am aware of very few studies, one unpublished one in Spain by a German MD (found long lasting effects on brain function of children after only few minutes of use).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, 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: 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. 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.

]]> By: Dawn http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/20/cell-phones-and-adhd/#comment-1600 Dawn Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:12:33 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=37#comment-1600 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 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.

]]> By: daryl clark http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/20/cell-phones-and-adhd/#comment-1544 daryl clark Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:23:07 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=37#comment-1544 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... 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...

]]> By: M. MEADE http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/20/cell-phones-and-adhd/#comment-1477 M. MEADE Thu, 29 May 2008 12:24:54 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=37#comment-1477 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, 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 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

]]> By: shelly kalnitsky http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/20/cell-phones-and-adhd/#comment-1426 shelly kalnitsky Wed, 28 May 2008 12:10:06 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=37#comment-1426 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 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. 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.

]]> By: Sam http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/20/cell-phones-and-adhd/#comment-1416 Sam Wed, 28 May 2008 01:32:39 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=37#comment-1416 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 www.sandseurope.com 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

]]> By: Kris http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/20/cell-phones-and-adhd/#comment-1319 Kris Fri, 23 May 2008 16:32:51 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=37#comment-1319 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. 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.

]]> By: Maria; DC http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/20/cell-phones-and-adhd/#comment-1312 Maria; DC Thu, 22 May 2008 23:58:59 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=37#comment-1312 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. 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.

]]> By: Trystan http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/20/cell-phones-and-adhd/#comment-1311 Trystan Thu, 22 May 2008 23:07:42 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=37#comment-1311 "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. "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.

]]> By: Victoria http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/20/cell-phones-and-adhd/#comment-1294 Victoria Thu, 22 May 2008 11:58:43 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=37#comment-1294 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. 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.

]]>