The Independent reports Warning: Using a mobile phone while pregnant can seriously damage your baby.
" They found that mothers who did use the handsets were 54 per cent more likely to have children with behavioural problems and that the likelihood increased with the amount of potential exposure to the radiation. And when the children also later used the phones they were, overall, 80 per cent more likely to suffer from difficulties with behaviour. They were 25 per cent more at risk from emotional problems, 34 per cent more likely to suffer from difficulties relating to their peers, 35 per cent more likely to be hyperactive, and 49 per cent more prone to problems with conduct."
Update: Rich has looked into this further.
9 comments:
I wonder if it has to do with the mothers being on the phone after they are born and not paying attention to them.
As the article said: "They add that there might be other possible explanations that they did not examine – such as that mothers who used the phones frequently might pay less attention to their children – and stress that the results "should be interpreted with caution" and checked by further studies. But they conclude that "if they are real they would have major public health implications"."
My thought was they should check Japan for data, as they are constantly on their keitai's
Correlation is not causation.
Yes, that's why I put the ? in the title.
That article incensed me!
The headline reads - "Warning: Using a mobile phone while pregnant can seriously damage your baby" - when it should read - "Danish mother's self-reported use of cell phones during pregnancy (seven years ago) is associated with a possible increase of mother's self-reported behavioral problems of 7 year olds as measured by the Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire from 10% of total children to 14%-22% of total children."
I guess that headline is a little too long and exacting to sell papers or get the links.
It's really the headline that bothered you, not necessarily the article. And yes, the media often does a bad job of reporting science, confusing the latest study with agreed on fact, but I thought this article did ok particularly towards the end, saying...
"The scientists say that the results were "unexpected", and that they knew of no biological mechanisms that could cause them. But when they tried to explain them by accounting for other possible causes – such as smoking during pregnancy, family psychiatric history or socio-economic status – they found that, far from disappearing, the association with mobile phone use got even stronger.
They add that there might be other possible explanations that they did not examine – such as that mothers who used the phones frequently might pay less attention to their children – and stress that the results "should be interpreted with caution" and checked by further studies. But they conclude that "if they are real they would have major public health implications"."
Check your link at the end of the your post. I do not think it links to what you want it to link to.
Thanks. Fixed.
Post a Comment