Cell Phones & Children

7/27/2019 Cell Phones & Children

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cell-phones-children 1/6PEDIATRIC NURSING/March-April 2013/Vol. 39/No. 2 65

With new technology,there are typically risksand benefits. Potentialharm is often not real-

ized until years later. At the end of 2011, there were almost 6 billionmobile subscriptions. That is a dra-matic increase from 5.4 billion in

2010 and 4.7 billion mobile subscrip-tions in 2009 (International Tele-communications Union, 2011). Dueto its relatively short-term consumeruse, concerned citizens are still exam-ining the consequences of its radiofrequency (RF) (Walsh, 2010). Threeout of every four children under 12years of age use a cell phone(Fernandez, 2011).

Worldwide, many researchers haveraised the issue of the possible harmconsidering the increased use andcumulative effect of RF (Hardell,

Carlberg, & Hansson, 2009). This is of concern regarding children; becauseof their thinner skulls and developingbrains, they may be more susceptibleto cellular damage. Several countrieshave issued warnings about cellphone use for children, but theUnited States government has not.According to the U.S. GovernmentAccountability Office (GAO), scientif-ic research has not demonstratedadverse human health effects of expo-sure to RF energy from mobile phoneuse, but research is ongoing that may

increase understanding of any possi-ble effects. In addition, officials fromthe Food and Drug Administration(FDA) and the National Institutes of

Continuing Nursing Education

Children are increasingly using cell phones. “Family package” deals make it easyfor parents to obtain phones for their children, and the phones provide parentswith the comfort of easy access to their children. However, cell phones emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation (Bucher & the Committee on Appropriations, 2010).While the government has deemed RF radiation to be safe, there is no currentsignificant research to make this claim. To determine the relationship betweencell phone radiation and brain cancer requires long-term studies lasting decadesand with inclusion of frequent users in the subject pool. Further, to extend the

results of any study to children requires controlling for the differences between juveniles and adults regarding the composition of the head, and bone densityand neural tissue. Dr. L. Hardell of the University Hospital of Sweden noted that“it is necessary to apply the precautionary principle in this situation,” especiallyfor long-term exposure that is likely to affect children (Hardell as cited in Mead,2008, p. 1). There is cause for concern.

Cell Phones and Children:

Follow the Precautionary RoadSuzanne Rosenberg

Objectives and instructions for completing the evaluation can be found on page 69.

Suzanne Rosenberg, MS, RN, is an Assistant Professor, Health Sciences, LaGuardia Com- munity College, Long Island City, NY.

Statements of Disclosure: The author reported no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this continuing nursing education activity.

Additional statements of disclosure appear on page 69.

Health (NIH), as well as experts inter-viewed by GAO, have reached similarconclusions about the scientificresearch. Ongoing research examiningthe health effects of RF energy expo-

sure is funded and supported by feder-al agencies, international organiza-tions, and the mobile phone industry.NIH is the only federal agency GAOinterviewed that is directly fundingstudies in this area, but other agenciessupport research under way by collab-orating with NIH or other organiza-tions to conduct studies and identifyareas for additional research (GAO,2012).

Evidence to support the concernabout RF effects continues to emerge.A trial led by Dr. Nora Volkow,

Director of the National Institute onDrug Abuse, raises further questions.Forty-seven volunteers were asked toundergo two position-emission tomo-graphy (PET) scans, which measuresglucose consumption in the brain, anindication of how cells use energy. Forboth 50-minute scans, the volunteershad a cell phone fixed to each ear.During the first scan, the devices wereturned off, but for the second scan,the phone on the right ear wasswitched on and received a recordedmessage call. The results of the second

scan showed that the regions of thebrain nearest the device’s antenna had

higher rates of glucose consumptionthan the rest of the brain (Volkow etal., 2011).

Increase in glucose metabolism isnormal and occurs as various parts of

the brain are activated during speak-ing, thinking, or moving (amountvaries with activity). What is un-known, however, is whether repeatedspikes in activity due to exposure toelectromagnetic radiation from cellphones can permanently alter brainfunction or result in harm (Park,2011). In a Podcast interview, Dr.Volkow states this study showed thatthe human brain is indeed sensitive tothe electromagnetic radiation emittedfrom cell phones. Because the brainuses glucose when it is activated, Dr.Volkow interpreted this to mean elec-tromagnetic waves in the brain wereactivating the cells. The conclusionsfrom the study state that while noharm was seen immediately, it furtherraises the question of possible damageif the brain is stimulated over manyyears. Concern is raised in regard tochildren and adolescents, whosebrains are still developing, with manyneurological connections being formed.Potential effects this type of radiationmay have on the formation or thedeletion of these synaptic connectionsremains unknown; thus, cell phone

use by children and adolescents is anarea of concern (Volkow, 2011).


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cell-phones-children 2/666 PEDIATRIC NURSING/March-April 2013/Vol. 39/No. 2

The National Cancer Institute(NCI), an agency of the NationalInstitutes of Health (NIH), claimsmore studies are needed to determinethe risk of long-term use of cellphones for children and adolescents.NCI indicates that results from studieshave been “inconsistent and have notaddressed adequately many questionsregarding cancer and other adversehealth effects of cell phone use partic-ularly among children or heavy orlong-term users of cell phones” (NCI,2010, p. 1). NIH is exploring this im-portant exposure and continues to in-vest in research to further the under-standing of the potential health ef-fects of cell phone use.

The American Cancer Societyalso expresses qualms. There is a lackof data on the risk to children, manyof whom start using cell phones earlyin life. The frequent use of cell phonesby young children is of particularconcern because the RF waves fromcell phones reach more brain tissue inchildren than in adults (due to thin-ner cranium). “It is important thatthese issues continue to be studied inchildren, with longer term use, andthrough prospective studies” (Snowden,2010, p. 1).

Electromagnetic Fields,Radio Frequency, andSpecific Absorption Rates

As cell phones make and takecalls, they emit low levels of RF radia-tion. Everyone is exposed to electro-magnetic fields (EMFs) with cellphones or mobile devices and are alsodescribed as radio frequency (RF),which is a waveform found in the EMFspectrum. RF is one of several energyforms, all of which exhibit wave-likebehavior but travel at different rates

through space. EMF has both electrical

different positions on the phone, andthus, would affect the area of thebrain closest to the antenna. Thishigher exposure is caused by differ-ences in anatomical proportions. Theexposed regions inside the brain (test-ed on children 3 years of age and 7years of age) showed higher uptake incomparison to adults. Because of dif-ferences in position (affected by theanatomical proportions) with regardto the ear and brain, regions close tothe surface can exhibit significant dif-ferences in exposure in children(Christ, Goesselin, Christopoulus,Kuhn, & Kuster, 2010). The permissi-ble SAR level is based on the amountof absorption of a standard anthropo-

morphic man who weighs more than200 pounds and has an 11-poundhead; the level is not tailored for per-sons of smaller dimensions (Davis,2010). “These advances in our under-standing have not had any impact onthe way that cell phones are testedand rated” (Davis, 2010, p. 82).

Phone companies are required bylaw to state the SAR on its packagingso RF exposure can be measured (Kohl& Sachdev, 2009). The highest at-earrating for voice calls for the AppleiPhone 4TM, one of the most popularphones available, is l.l7 watts per kilo-

gram. The Apple iPhone 4 safety man-ual states exposure should not exceedFCC guidelines. When using theiPhone for voice call or for wirelessdata transmission over a cellular net-work, Dellorto (2011) recommendskeeping the phone at least 15 mil-limeters (5/8 inch) away from thebody. The FCC’s Web site (see Figure1) provides information regardingSAR of cell phones. Nurses can helpconsumers become aware of and usethis information when selecting cellphones.

and magnetic field components thatoscillate (move) as the energy travels.The EMF spectrum, in order of increas-ing frequency and decreasing wave-length, consists of radio frequency,microwaves, infrared radiation, visiblelight, ultraviolet radiation X-rays, andgamma rays. RF is a slow, low-energymoving wave of EMF and is believedto do little harm, unlike higher energyX-rays, which are also part of the EMFspectrum. RF is non-ionizing; thus,not causing the breakup of ionicmolecular bonds. The concern is thatwireless devices have increased in usein society, especially among children.RF standards set by the FederalCommunications Commission (FCC)

are set at levels too low to cause signif-icant heating of tissue. “Cell signalsare weak, invisible, and as fast as thespeed of light. This low power radiofrequency radiation cannot heathuman tissue, so it is presumed to besafe” (Davis, 20l0, p. 56).

The amount of RF absorbed if thecell phone is in contact with the headis measured in terms of specificabsorption rate (SAR). The FCC hasdetermined it is safe to set phones atRF emissions up to l.6 watts per kilo-gram of body tissue. SAR determina-tion combines information on signal

strength and the type and amount of tissue exposed. The computation forSAR includes how thick the tissueclosest to the antenna is and howmuch the tissue weighs; its massdetermines the absorption (Davis,2010). However, these determinationswere made based on adults. In a studyof SAR exposure to children, resultsshow the locally induced fields forchildren can be significantly higherdue to the close proximity of thephone to these tissues in the area of the head that is close to the antenna

(Baan et al., 2011). Depending on thephone design, the antenna can be in

Cell Phones and Children: Follow the Precautionary Road

Figure 1.Web Sites for Updated Information on Cell Phone Concerns

Organization Web Site

Environmental Health Trust (EHT)Provides information about the concerns of radiation and cellphone usage and what people can do to protect themselves.

http://ehtrust.org/cell-phones-radiation-3/

Environmental Working Group (EWG)A search result within the EWG Web site that providesvarious resources about cell phone concerns, includingradiation.

http://www.ewg.org/search/ewgsearch/cell+phones+radiation

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)Provides information on specific absorption rates for phonemodels.

http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/sar.pdf


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cell-phones-children 3/6PEDIATRIC NURSING/March-April 2013/Vol. 39/No. 2 67

What This MeansFor Children

Radiation exposures are higher forchildren than adults because childrenhave thinner skulls, and their brainshave higher water and higher ion(charged particle) content. All of these

three factors enhance radiation pene-tration. Researchers in the UnitedStates, France, and Japan have report-ed that a child’s brain absorbs twicethe amount of radiation compared tothat of an adult (Environmental Wor-king Group, 2010). Higher exposurecombined with sensitive, developingbrain tissue leave children at a greaterrisk for cell phone radiation (Environ -mental Working Group, 2009).

NCI Director Robert N. Hoover,MD, in a statement before Congresson the effects of cell phone use,reported:

We know that cell phone use isincreasing rapidly among childrenand adolescents. They are a poten-tially sensitive group because their small head size could result in high-er RF exposure, and the young brainmay be more sensitive. While thereare many unanswered questions, thecost of doing nothing will result inmany young people being at in-creased cancer risk (Hoover, ascited in Carpenter, 2010, p. 1).

Reliability of the StudiesBrain tumors from radiation can

take a long time to develop, some-times greater than 10 to 15 years,according to the American CancerSociety (Mead, 2008). A few studieshave investigated the safety of cellphones by evaluating the overallhealth of individuals who have usedcell phones for 10 years or more.Critics express concern that thesestudies are flawed because a) studieshave relied on self-reporting or retro-spective interviewing in determininguse; b) radiation exposure varies withdifferent phone models, how thephone is used, and where the phoneis used; and c) it is nearly impossibleto eliminate exposure to RF fromother sources and study only the iso-lated effects of cell phones (Kohl &Sachdev, 2009).

In sum, studies that do not con-trol for the different variables associ-ated with cell phone use may be unre-liable (Kohl & Sachdev, 2009). Theevaluation of cancer risk factors ischallenging because of cancer’s long

latency. Some studies of longer-termcell phone use found an increased risk

diagnosed with a brain tumor on thesame side of the head as used for thecell phone. Data were gathered fromthe Interphone group studies, whichincluded research from Sweden,Denmark, the United Kingdom,Germany, and Finland from 1995 to2004. Though cell phones have

decreased in size, their SAR remainsessentially the same. Therefore, con-clusions from this study state that inthe absence of timely interventionsand given the increased use of wire-less technology globally, especiallyamong the younger generation, it islikely that the incidence of primarybrain tumors will increase (Khurana,Teo, Kundi, Hardell, & Carlberg,2009).

Most Current Data onChildren’s Health Risks

From Cell Phone UseAn international Swiss case-con-

trolled study (including Denmark,Norway, Switzerland, and Sweden)examined medical records of children7 to 19 years of age with brain tumorsfrom 2004 to 2008 and interviewedthese patients. Children with braincancer (n = 352) were studied along-side a control group (n = 634). Resultsindicated that patients with braincancer were not statistically signifi-cantly more likely to have beengreater users of cell phones than theircounterparts (Aydin et al., 2011).

This study was immediately cri-tiqued. The children’s study, based onself-reported data, has limitations.Participants with brain cancer mayhave compromised recall as to theiruse of cell phones, and the researcherswere not able to use billing recordsprecisely. Subjects had been using cellphones for an average of about fouryears, which might not be longenough to evaluate the cancer risk.Further, the time the children spenton voice calls where the phone was to

the ear was small. Dr. Roosli, one of the Swiss study’s researchers, ack-nowledged that there are limitationsin the research, but because mobilephone usage continues to rise, anypossible health effects in childrenshould be monitored closely (Naik,2011).

According to the InternationalAgency for Research on Cancer, anagency for the World Health Organi-zation (WHO), radiation from cellphones can possibly cause cancer. Theagency now lists mobile phone use inthe same carcinogenic hazard classifi-

cation as lead, engine exhaust, and

of cancer (Hardell et al., 2009).Designing studies using retrospectivebilling records that provide independ-ent evaluations of exposure and in-corporating data on other key po-tential risk factors (such as genetics)from questionnaires could markedlyadvance the effort to evaluate the role

of cell phones in causing cancer (Han,Hideyuki, Davis, Nirajan, & Lunsford,2009).

Dr. Henry Lai, a research professorin the bioengineering department atthe University of Washington, beganstudying the effects of radiation in1980. He found that rats exposed to RFradiation had damaged brain DNA. Hemaintains a database of 400 scientificpapers on possible biological effects of radiation from wireless communica-tions. When categorizing these papersaccording to funding source, he notedsomething of concern. Findings from

67% of those not funded by the wire-less industry indicated possible biolog-ical effects of radiation from cellphone use, but when the fundingsource was the wireless industry, thepercent of studies that linked cellphones and biologic effect was only28% (Stross, 2010).

Ipsilateral Brain TumorAnd Cell Phone Use

Findings from two studies thatinvestigated the health of individuals

following 10 years of cell phone userevealed some harmful effects of RFon the ipsilateal side (same side as thecell phone is held). Dr. L. Hardell of the University Hospital of Swedenand the study team interviewed per-sons with recent brain tumors. Onequestion was, “Which side of thehead is the mobile phone used?”During this time, Dr. Hardell oversawseveral smaller studies on the ques-tion being conducted throughoutEurope. He noted a consistent patternof an increased risk for acoustic neu-roma (benign tumors growing nearauditory and vestibular portions of nerve VIII, but can grow and causecontact with the brain stem) andglioma (a malignant brain tumor) fol-lowing 10 years of cell phone use. Themega-analysis yielded an odds ratio of l.9 and a 95% confidence interval foripsilateral exposure, whereas con-tralateral exposure still produced anincreased risk, but it was insignificant(Hardell et al., 2009).

Dr. Khurana of Australia alsofound evidence of brain tumors withcell phone use. The study concluded

that using a cell phone for more thanl0 years doubled the risk of being



chloroform. This announcement wasmade after researchers at WHO exam-ined peer-reviewed studies on cellphone safety (Dellorto, 2011).

Research Continues onBrain Cancer in Children

And Cell Phone UseThe Centre for Research in En-

vironmental Epidemiology (CREAL) isinvestigating cell phone use and can-cer risk in children and adolescentsthrough the MobiKids program, fund-ed by the European Union. Initiatedin 2010, CREAL is a l6-centered col-laboration to investigate the risk of brain cancer from exposure to RFfields in childhood and adolescencel0 to 24 years of age. Over a period of two-and-a-half to three years, nearly200 young people with brain tumors

will be invited to participate in thisstudy. The study will use a detailedquestionnaire covering demographicfactors, residential history, and riskfactors in the environment, includingthe use of cell phones (CREAL, 2010).Also underway is a 5 million dollarstudy sponsored by the U.S. NationalToxicology Program to assess the riskto 3,000 rats and mice exposed to RFfor l0 hours daily from birth to oldage (Thun, 2010). The U.S. Food andDrug Administration requested thisstudy because a) there is widespreadhuman usage of cell phones, b) currentexposure guidelines are based on pro-tection from acute injury from ther-mal effects (not long-term), c) little isknown about the potential for healtheffects of long-term exposure, and d)sufficient data from human studies todefinitively answer these questionsmay not be available for many years.

Rats and mice will be exposed toradio frequency radiation from thetechnologies that are currently usedin the United States. Cell phone radi-ation will be administered at variousintervals during the day (Bucher &

the Committee on Appropriations,2010). Further, GAO (2012) requeststhat the Federal Communications Com-mission (FCC) should formally re-assess and if appropriate change thecurrent RF energy exposure limit, aswell as mobile phone testing require-ments, particularly when cell phonesare held against the body.

Recommendations

Ten-year longitudinal studies thatare not sponsored in any way bytelecommunication services or manu-

facturers of cell phones need to be

nurses are in a good position to com-municate to older children, teens, andparents about RF emissions from cellphone antennae and what steps canbe taken to reduce this exposure andstill benefit from the technology.Using a Bluetooth or the earpiecereduces the amount of radiation tothe brain; the radiation effect dropsexponentially as the antenna movesaway from the head. Even using aspeakerphone several inches awayfrom the head reduces exposure sig-nificantly. Text messaging is anotheroption because the cell phone is heldaway from the head while in use.Nurses can become politically activeand request their legislators to craftlegislation that provides warnings

and protects children from radiationexposure as France, Toronto, India,and Israel have done. Through theirspecialty nursing associations, nursescan create position statements andsubmit them for publication in pro-fessional journals and lay publica-tions. Nurses can encourage their pro-fessional organizations to advocatefor research on this topic and partici-pate in research if the opportunity be-comes available.

Specific recommendations by theAmerican Cancer Society and theEnvironmental Working Group to

reduce RF exposure are listed in Table 1.

conducted on adults and children tolearn definitively the relationshipbetween RF, cell phone use, and pri-mary brain tumor. These studies haveto be designed to obtain precise datathat include radiation emission fromthe cell phone, amount of time (bothcall length and frequency) the phoneis used, which side of the brain isexposed, age of the subject, and radi-ation exposure. The protocol shouldcontain an ethically sensitive clausethat if early results indicate a connec-tion between RF and brain cancer, thesubjects will be informed, and thestudy stopped to decrease risk to par-ticipants. A trial case study comparingpatients who have cancer withhealthy patients using phone log data

in which only the subject is using thephone is needed (Mukherjee, 2011).Consumers need to be educated aboutthe most recent findings.

Nurses are a particularly valuableresource for educating children andparents about health-related con-cerns. Nurses in clinics and hospitalsattended by parents and children cancreate educational wall posters thatdisplay how RF exposure can bereduced. School nurses can also postinformation about RF on displayboards and be available should par-ents and children request further

information. As trusted professionals,

Cell Phones and Children: Follow the Precautionary Road

Table 1.Recommendations for Minimizing Radio Frequency Exposure

Intervention Commentary

1. Use a wired headset orspeakerphone.

The antenna is the major source ofradiation frequency. Keep away fromhead.

2. Purchase a cell phone with a lowerspecific absorption rate (SAR).

Cell phone companies are required topost SARs on insert literature. Parentscan find information from manufactureron line.

3. Limit children’s use of cell phonesuntil they are 16 years of age.

Parents and schools can limit the timeperiods children may use cell phones bytaking away cell phones when theyreturn to the house and monitoringminutes used.

4. Teach children to switch ears dailyand not to press close to the earuntil connection is made.

Reduces exposure to the same side andreduces accumulation to tissue.

5. Parents might check areas wherethe signal is weak and not allowchildren to use cell phones in theseareas.

Weak areas require increased energyfrom source to reach the antenna; thus,more radiation exposure.

Note: Interventions l and 2 are recommended by the American Cancer Society(Snowden, 2009). Interventions 3, 4, and 5 are recommended by the EnvironmentalWorking Group (2009).


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cell-phones-children 5/6

nal of the National Cancer Institute,103 (16), 1267-1276.

Baan, R., Grosse, Y., Lauby-Secretan, B., ElGhissassi, F., Bouvard, V., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., … Straif, K.: the WHOInternational Agency for Research onCancer Monograph Working Group.(2011). Carcinogenicity of radio fre-quency electromagnetic fields. Lancet

Oncology, 12 (7), 624-626.Bucher, J., & the Committee on Appro-

priations. (2010). The health effectsof cell phone use [S.Hrg.111-348].Washington DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office. Retrieved from http:// appropriations.senate.gov/htlabor.cfm?method=hearings.view&id=15611855-77a8-49f2-bbdae23a5a 5653a3

Carpenter, D.O. (2010). Electromagneticfields and cancer: The cost of doingnothing. Reviews on Environmental Health, 25 (1), 75-80.

Centre for Research in EnvironmentalEpidemiology (CREAL). (2010). Mobi- kids – Risk of brain cancer from expo-

sure to radiofrequency fields in childhood and adolescence. Retrieved fromhttp//www.creal.cat/Mobi-kids.

Christ, A., Gosselin, M.C., Christopoulus, M.,Kuhn, S., & Kuster, N. (2010). Age-dependant tissue-specific exposure ofcell phone users. Physics in Medicine &Biology, 55 (7), 1767-1783.

Davis, D. (2010). Disconnect. New York, NY:Dutton.

Dellorto, D. (2011). WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk.Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/ 2011HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html

Environmental Working Group. (2009). Cell phone radiation, science review on cancer risk and children’s health. Retrievedfrom http://static.ewg.org/reports/2012/ cellphones/2009cellphoneradiation.fullreport.pdf

Fernandez, T. (2011). Do cell phones cause cancer? Retrieved from http://www.greenamerica.org/pdf/gam82.pdf

Han, Y., Hideyuki, K., Davis, D., Nirajan, A., &Lunsford, L.D. (2009). Cell phone useand acoustic neuroma: The need forstandardized questionnaires and ac-cess to industry data. Surgical Neuro- logy, 72 , 216-222.

Hardell, L., Carlberg, M., & Hansson, K.(2009). Epidemiological evidence for anassociation between use of wireless

phones and tumor diseases. Patho- physiology, 16 , 113-122.

International Telecommunications Union.(2011). The world in 2011: ICT facts and figures. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/facts/2011/material/ ICTFactsFigures2011.pdf

Khurana, V.G., Teo, C., Kundi, M., Hardell, L.,& Carlberg, M. (2009). Cell phones andbrain tumors: A review including thelong-term epidemiological data. Sur- gical Neurology, 72 (3), 205-214.

Kohl, D.R., & Sachdev, S. (2009). Cell phonesand tumor: Still in no man’s land. Indian Journal of Cancer, 48 (l), 5-l2.

Mead, N. (2008). Strong signal for cell phone

effects. Environmental Health Pers- pectives, ll6 (10), 422.

Nurses have the opportunity to postand promote these recommenda-tions.

Conclusions

Several studies are in process thatwill give valuable information regard-

ing the safety of exposure to radio fre-quency. When available, these datawill contribute to the scientific data-base and guide governmental agen-cies to better determine public policywith regard to cell phones. Manynoteworthy scientists and public safe-ty agencies have requested additionalresearch because at present, notenough information exists on whichto base conclusions and make recom-mendations about long-term effectsof cell phone radiation, especiallywith regard to children.

Clinical conditions caused byenvironmental exposure often devel-op over a prolonged period of time;the exposed person might not exhibitany symptoms. The dangers of asbes-tos and cigarettes were not knownuntil after years of exposure andresearch. Given the new informationon the possible dangers of RF and thelimitations of previous studies, a pre-cautionary principle should be imple-mented. Informing parents and chil-dren about the recommendation toreduce RF exposure through monitor-ing SARs, and using devices and

strategies to decrease exposure mayprevent damage to children. The wire-less industry is unlikely to initiate thispolicy, but nurses are in a position toinform consumers of the findings.Safeguarding children can occur if nurses are facilitators in their work-place and can disseminate informa-tion, which would result in a “precau-tionary” approach until findings areconclusive.

Nurses can keep themselves andthe public informed by monitoringvarious Web sites that update infor-mation on cell phones (see Figure 1).

Nurses are health advocates, and thus,responsible to keep the public inform-ed of scientists’ concerns about thelong-term effects of exposure to RF. Byteaching parents and children how tominimize exposure, yet enjoy thebenefits of wireless technology, nursescan promote the health and well-being of families.

ReferencesAydin, D., Feychting, M., Schuz, J., Tynes, T.,

Andersen, T, Schmidt, L., … Roosli, M.(2011). Mobile phone use and braintumors in children and adolescents:A multicenter case-control study. Jour-

Instructions For

Continuing Nursing Education

Contact HoursCell Phones and Children: Follow

the Precautionary Road

Deadline for Submission:April 30, 2015

PED 1303

To Obtain CNE Contact Hours1. For those wishing to obtain CNE contact

hours, you must read the article and com-plete the evaluation through Pediatric Nursing ’s Web site. Complete your eval-uation online and your CNE certificatewill be mailed to you. Simply go towww.pediatricnursing.net/ce

2. Evaluations must be completed onlineby April 30, 2015. Upon completion ofthe evaluation, a certificate for 1.4 con-tact hour(s) b.

Fees – Subscriber: Free Regular: $20

ObjectivesThis continuing nursing education (CNE)activity is designed for nurses and otherhealth care professionals who care for andeducate patients and their families regard-ing the implications of cell phone use in chil-dren and adolescents. For those wishing toobtain CNE credit, an evaluation follows.After studying the information presented inthis article, the nurse will be able to:1. Describe the concern of radio frequency

and its specific absorption rate mayhave on long-term users of cell phones.

2. Explain why children who use cellphones may be at greater risk forradiation exposure than adults.

3. Discuss the need for additionalresearch on radiation from cell phoneusage based on current study findings.

Note: The Pediatric Nursing EditorialBoard members reported no actual orpotential conflict of interest in relation tothis continuing nursing education activity.

This independent study activity is provided

by Anthony J. Jannetti, Inc. (AJJ).

Anthony J. Jannetti, Inc. is accredited as aprovider of continuing nursing education by theAmerican Nurses Credentialing Center's Com-mission on Accreditation.

Anthony J. Jannetti, Inc. is a providerapproved by the California Board of RegisteredNursing, Provider Number, CEP 5387.

Licenses in the state of California mustretain this certificate for four years after the CNEactivity is completed.

Accreditation status does not implyendorsement by the provider or ANCC of anycommercial product.

This article was reviewed and formatted for

contact hour credit by Hazel Dennison, DNP,RN, APNc, CPHQ, CNE, Anthony J. JannettiEducation Director; and Judy A. Rollins, PhD,RN, Pediatric Nursing Editor.

PEDIATRIC NURSING/March-April 2013/Vol. 39/No. 2 69



Mukherjee, S. (2011, April 13). Do cellphonescause brain cancer? The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17cellphones-t.html?page-wanted=all&_r=0

Naik, G. (2011, July 28). European study seesno mobile phone-cancer link. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904800304576472232980823392.html

National Cancer Institute (NCI). (2010). NCI statement: International study shows no increased risk of brain tumors from cell phone use. Retrieved from http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromn-ci/2010/Interphone2010Results

Park, A. (2011). Mobile threat? A study findsthat cell-phone emissions can changebrain activity. Time Magazine, 117 (9) 22.

Snowden, R. (2009). More research on cell phone safety needed. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cancer.org/Cancer/news/NAews/more-research-on-cell-phone-safe-ty-needed-experts-say

Snowden, R. (2010). Major study complicates debate over cell phone use and cancer risk. Retrieved from http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/news/News/major-

study-complicates-debate-over-cell-phone-use-and-cancer-risk

Stross, R. (2010, November 13). Should yoube snuggling with your cellphone? The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14digi.html?_r=0

Thun, M.J. (2010). Jury still out on cell phone-cancer connection. Cancer, 116 (9),2067.

U.S. Government Accountability Office(GAO). (2012). Exposure and testing

requirements for mobile phones should be reassessed. Retrieved fromhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-771

Volkow, N.D. (2011, February 22). Dr. Nora Volkow to discuss JAMA paper, “Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism.” [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from

www.drugabuse.gov/newsroom/pod-casts/20110222.html

Volkow, N.D., Tomasi, D., Wang, G., Vaska,P., Fowler, J., Telong, F., … Wong, C.(2011). Effects of cell phone radiationradiofrequency signal exposure on brainglucose metabolism. JAMA, 305 (8) 808-813.

Walsh, B. (2010). Cell-phone safety, yourmobile emits a tiny amount of radiation.Is that safe in the long run? Time Magazine, 175 (10), 47-49.

Documents

Cell Phones & Children