Screen Time and Tech Safety Research
16.4K views | +3 today
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
onto Screen Time and Tech Safety Research!

BabySafe Project // Joint Statement on Pregnancy and Wireless Radiation

BabySafe Project // Joint Statement on Pregnancy and Wireless Radiation | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

"Joint Statement on Pregnancy and Wireless Radiation


We join together as physicians, scientists and educators to express our concern about the risk that wireless radiation poses to pregnancy and to urge pregnant women to limit their exposures.


We recognize that the exquisitely delicate systems that direct the development of human life are vulnerable to environmental insults, and that even minute exposures during critical windows of development may have serious and life-long consequences.


We know that the scientific process demands a thorough and exhaustive examination of the possible impact of wireless radiation on health; however, we believe substantial evidence of risk, rather than absolute proof of harm, must be the trigger for action to protect public health.


We call on the research community to conduct more studies to identify the mechanisms by which a fetus could be affected by wireless radiation exposures. We call on our elected leaders to support such research and to advance policies and regulations that limit exposures for pregnant women. We call on industry to implement and explore technologies and designs that will reduce radiation exposures until such research is carried out.


We affirm our role as health and science professionals to inform the public about the potential dangers associated with early-life exposures to wireless radiation, and invite all professionals engaged in obstetric, pediatric, and environmental health advocacy to join us in our quest to ensure the safety and health of future generations.

See The Signatories:
(Affiliations listed for identification purposes only)

Mikko Ahonen, PhD, Researcher, University of Tampere, Finland

Jennifer Armstrong, MD, Ottawa Environmental Health Clinic, Ontario, Canada

Sinerik Ayrapetyan, PhD, Chair, United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Armenia

Murat Bakacak, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and IVF Center, School of Medicine, Kahramanmaraş Sutcu Imam University, Turkey

Priyanka Bandara, PhDEducator in Environmental Health, NSW Australia

B.D. Banerjee, MD, PhD, MVPH, MBBS, Chairman, Research Project Advisory Committee, University College of Medical Sciences (UCMS) & GTB Hospital, University of Delhi; Former Head, Department of Medical Biochemistry, UCMS, University of Delhi; Professor, UCMS and Lab Incharge, Environmental Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Laboratory, UCMS, University of Delhi, India

Toni Bark, MD, Founder and Medical Director, Center of Disease Prevention Reversal, United States

Carlo Bellieni, MD, Former Secretary, Bioethics Committee of the Italian Pediatrics Society; Neonatologist; Bioethicist, Italy

Igor Beliaev, Dr.Sc., Head, Laboratory of Radiobiology at the Cancer Research Institute, Slovak Academy of Science; Professor, Laboratory of Radiobiology in the Department of Ecological and Medical Problems, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia

Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, New York

Robert W. Boxer, MD, Emeritus Fellow, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, United States

Warren Brodey, MD, Norway

David R. Brown, ScD, Public Health Toxicologist, Environment and Human Health, United States

Lois Brustman, MD, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Specialist, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York

Sarah J. Buckley, MD, General Practitioner Family Physician; Author, Australia

Larry Burk, MD, CEHP, Former President, Rhine Research Center; Co-founder, Duke Integrative Medicine; Founding Board Member, American Board of Scientific Medical Intuition; Integrative Physician and Musculoskeletal Radiologist, United States

David Buscher, MD, Former President, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, United States

Sheila Bushkin-Bedient, MD, Concerned Health Professionals of New York, New York

Marie-Claire Cammaerts, PhD, Researcher, Free University of Brussels, Belgium

Carla Campbell, MD, MS, Associate Teaching Professor, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Drexel School of Public Health, Philadelphia

David Carpenter, MD, Director, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York

Barry Castleman, ScD, Environmental Consultant, United States

Richard Clapp, DSc, MPH, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Health, Boston University, Massachusetts

Aly Cohen, MD, FACR, FABOIM, Founder and Medical Director, Integrative Rheumatology Associates, PC; Founder and Medical Director, The Smart Human LLC, New Jersey,

Marc Cohen, PhD, MBBS, FAMAC, FICAE, Professor, School of Health Sciences, RMIT University, Victoria, Australia

Stephen Scott Cowan, MD, Board-certified Pediatrician, Holistic Developmental Pediatrics, United States

Kerry Crofton, PhD, Co-founder and Executive Director, Doctors for Safer Schools, Canada

Nathan Daley, MD, MPH, Resident of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Florida

Madhukar Shivajirao Dama, MVSc, Professor, Institute of Wildlife Veterinary Research, India

Paul E. Dart, MD, FCA, Allergist and Holistic Medicine Practitioner, Eugene, Oregon

Suleyman Dasdag, PhD, Secretary General, The Turkish Biophysical Society; Professor, Biophysics Department of Dicle University, Turkey

Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, Visiting scholar, University of California at Berkeley, California

Adilza Condessa Dode, PhD, MSc, Researcher, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil

Larysa Dyrszka, MD, Pediatrician, New York

Dagmar Ehling, MAc, LAc, DOM(NM), DIpl OM, FABORM, Founding Partner, Oriental Health Solutions LLC, Durham, North Carolina

Erica Elliott, MD, Family Practice & Environmental Medicine, New Mexico

Dr. Elizabeth Evans, MA, (Cantab) MBBS (London), DRCOG, United Kingdom

Joris Everaert, MSc, Biologist, Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Belgium

Daniel Favre, PhD, Biologist and Apiary Advisor, Association Romand Alert, Switzerland

Aleksandra Fucic, PhD, Biologist, Genotoxicologist and Scientific Advisor, Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Croatia

Goran Gajski, PhD, Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Croatia

Stephen Genuis, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alberta, Canada

Andrew Goldsworthy, PhD, Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College, London

Beatrice A. Golomb, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, California

William B. Grant, PhD, Director, Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center, San Francisco, California

Janet Gray, Ph.D, Director, Program in Science, Technology & Society, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York

Oleg Gregoriev, DrSc, PhD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation, Russia

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden

Magda Havas, PhD, Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada

Lena Hedendahl, MD, General Practitioner, Luleå, Sweden

Martha Herbert, PhD, MD, Pediatric Neurologist and Neuroscientist, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts

Paul Héroux, PhD, Head, In Vitro Toxicology Laboratory, Occupational Health, McGill University, Canada

Gunnar Heuser, MD, Professor Emeritus, University of California at Los Angeles, California

Hiie Hinrikus, PhD, DSc, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

Mae-Wan Ho, PhD, Co-founder and Director, Institute of Science in Society, United Kingdom

Polly J. Hoppin, ScD, Research Professor, University of Massachusetts,  Program Director, Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, Lowell, Massachusetts

Heidi Hutner, PhD, Director of Sustainability Studies, Stony Brook University, New York

Isaac Jamieson, PhD, Architect and Environmental Scientist/Consultant, Biosustainable Design, London

Toril H. Jelter, MD, FAAP, General Practitioner and Certified Pediatrician, Mount Diablo Integrated Wellness Center, California

Olle Johansson, PhD, Researcher of Neuroscience, Karolunska Istitutet and Professor, Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

Dr. Bharti Kalra, Consultant, Department of Gynaecology, Bharti Hospital, Karnal, India

Ellen Kamhi, PhD, RN, The Natural Nurse, Arizona

Süleyman Kaplan, PhD, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey

Maryam Kashanian, MD, Professor, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Akbarabadi Teaching Hospital, Tehran, Iran
David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP, Founding Director, Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, Yale University; President of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut

Kassie Kelln, MD, Faculty of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

Kavindra Kumar Kesari, PhD, Research Scientist, Department of Environmental Science, University of Eastern Finland, Finland

Lisbeth E. Knudsen, PhD, Director, Bachelor and Master Program in Public Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Sianette Kwee, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Medical Biochemistry, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark

Miriam Labbok, MD, Founding Professor and Director of the Carolina Global Breastfeeding Institute (CGBI); Founder and Board Member of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine; Professor of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Thomas LaCava, MD, Medical Director, Francis Holistic Medical Center, Massachusetts

Henry Lai, PhD, Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory, University of Washington, Washington

Bruce Lanphear, MD, Professor of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Canada

Michael Lerner, PhD, President, Commonweal, United States

Celia Lewis, PhD, Former Researcher, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Center for Coastal and Watershed Systems, Connecticut

Luana Licata, PhD, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy

Cynthia Johnson MacKay, MD, Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York

Don Maisch, PhD, Founder,, United States

Victoria Maizes, MD, Executive Director, Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine, Arizona

Erica Mallery-Blythe, MD, Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment, United Kingdom

Lynn Marshall, MD, FAAEM, LMCFP, Former President of the Canadian Society for Environmental Medicine; Faculty Member, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, University of Toronto and Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Canada

Dr. Alfonso Balmori Martínez, Biologist, Human Ecological/Social/Economical Project, Spain

Asish Mehta, MD, MCh, DNB, Neurological surgeon, Mumbai, India

Ron Melnick, PhD, Retired Senior Toxicologist, National Toxicology Program and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, United States

Stella Canna Michaelidou, PhD, President of the National Committee on Environment and Children’s Health, Cyprus, Turkey

Sam Milham, MD, Adjunct Professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, New York

Anthony B. Miller, MD, Professor Emeritus, School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada

Hamid Mobasheri, PhD, Head of Laboratory of Membrane Biophysics and Macromolecules, Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of Tehran, Tehran

Joseph T. Morgan, MD, Fellow and Past President, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Oregon 

SMJ Mortazavi, PhD, President of the Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center (INIRPRC); Professor, Medical Physics, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran

Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director and Principal Investigator, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California

Dr. Joachim Mutter, Physician of Internal Medicine, Germany

Lisa Lavine Nagy, MD, The Preventive and Environmental Health Alliance Inc., Massachusetts

Darcia Narvaez, PhD, Professor of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Illinois

Gary R. Olhoeft, SBEE, SMEE, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Geophysics (Electromagnetic and Environmental), Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado

Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, PhD, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience; Bioelectromagnetics Researcher, Western University, Canada

Dr. Goknur Guler Ozturk, Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine, Biophysics Department, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

Hildur Palsdottir, PhD, New York University School of Medicine, New York

Janet Perlman, MD, MPH, Pediatrician, Bayside Medical Group, California

Claudio Gomez-Perretta, MD, PhD, Researcher, University La Fe, Valencia, Spain

Michael A. Persinger, PhD, Professor, Behavioural Neuroscience, Biomolecular and Human Studies Programs, Departments of Psychology and Biology, Laurentian University, Ontario, Canada

Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Director, Excel Science Center; Professor Attendant, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Colorado

Rangasamy Ramanathan, MD, LAC+USC Women’s & Children’s Hospital, San Francisco, California

William J. Rea, MD, Environmental Health Center, Dallas, Texas

Mary Redmayne, PhD, Adjunct Research Associate, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Rachel Naomi Remen, MD, Clinical Professor of Family and Community Medicine, UCSF School of Medicine, California

Elihu D Richter, MD, MPH, Retired Head of the Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and the Injury Prevention Center, Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Lisa Ridgway, MD, Pediatrician, Victor Med Clinic, Victor, Idaho

Aviva Romm, MD, Private practice, Boston, Massachusetts

Dr. Nader Salama, Professor, Department of Urology & Andrology, Alexandria Faculty of Medicine, Egypt

Timur Saliev, PhD, Lead Researcher, Center for Life Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan

Alvaro Augusto A. de Salles, PhD, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Annie J. Sasco, MD, DrPH, Director of Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention, University of Bordeaux, France

Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, Science Director, Science and Environmental Health Network, United States

Marilyn Schlitz, PhD, Founder and CEO of Worldview Enterprises; President Emeritus and Senior Fellow, Institute of Noetic Sciences;  Senior Scientist, California Pacific Medical Center, California

Gerry Schwalfenberg MD, CCFP, FCFP, Assistant Clinical Professor,  Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Canada

Nesrin Seyhan, BsC, PhD, Director, Gazi Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (GNRK) Center; WHO EMF IAC Representative of Turkey; Professor, Biophysics Department, Gazi University, Turkey

Amit J. Shah, MD, MSCR, Assistant Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Georgia

Kara Sheinart, MD, Neurologist affiliated with Mount Sinai Hospital & Medical Center, New York

Fatih Senturk, MSc, PhD, Faculty of Medicine, Biophysics Department, Gazi University, Turkey

Maya Shetreat-Klein, MD, Pediatric Neurologist and Pediatrician, New York

Stephen Sinatra, MD, FACC, CNS, CBT, Cardiologist, Manchester Memorial Hospital, Connecticut

Narendra P. Singh, PhD, Research Professor, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, South Carolina

Eugene Sobel, PhD, Emeritus Professor, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California

Colin L. Soskolne, PhD, Professor of Epidemiology, University of Canberra, Australia

Ken Spaeth, MD, MPH, Occupational and Environmental Medicine Professor, Hofstra University, North Shore – LIJ Health System, New York

Yael Stein, MD, Physician and Researcher, Hebrew University – Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel

Anne Steinemann, PhD, Professor of Infrastructure Engineering, University of Melbourne School of Engineering, Australia

Hugh Taylor, MD, Chief of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale-New Haven Hospital, Connecticut

Arin Tomruk, MSc, PhD, Faculty of Medicine, Biophysics Department, Gazi University, Turkey

Leonardo Trasande, MD, Associate Professor, Institute of Environmental Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York

Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH, Practicing homeopathic doctor; Guest lecturer; Author and Distributor of Homeopathic Books and Information, California

John Wargo, PhD, Professor of Risk Analysis, Environmental Policy and Political Science, Yale University, Connecticut

Ulrich Warnke, PhD, Professor and Director, Department of Biomedicine, University of Saarland, Germany

Lucy Waletzky, MD, Psychiatrist (private practice), New York

Andrew Weil, MD, Founder and Director of Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine, Arizona

John West, MD, Co-founder and Chairman, Board of the Breast Health Awareness Foundation and General Surgeon, United States

Chris White, MD, Founder an Director, Essential Parenting; Board-Certified Pediatrician, United States

Professor Igor Yakymenko, PhD, DrSc, Principle Researcher, Laboratory of Biophysics, Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology of NAS of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

Jingduan Yang, MD, Director of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Program, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Pennsylvania

*  *  *

Wafaa Aborashed, Executive Director, Bay Area Healthy 880 Communities

Nancy Alderman, MES, President, Environment and Human Health. Inc.

Maxwell Anderson, BSN, RN, Berkeley City Council (retired), California

Mary Beth Brangan & James Heddle, Co-Directors, EON

Giorgio Cinciripini, Co-founder, Italian Network of No-Electrosmog NGOs

Frank Clegg, CEO, Canadians For Safe Technology

Anton Fernhout, Environmental Engineer with MEng Environmental Sciences, Association Romande Alerte aux Ondes Electromagnétiques (ARA), Morges, Switzerland

Debbie Floyd, Executive Director, Klinghardt Academy, Alternative and Naturopathic Treatments for  Lyme Disease, Autism, Chronic Illness, New Jersey

Marjukka Hagström, LLM, MSocSc, Principal Researcher, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Radio and EMC Laboratory, Finland

Desiree Jaworski, Executive Director, Center for Safer Wireless

Tarmo Koppel, Chair of Labor Environment and Safety, Ergonomics Lab at Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia

B. Blake Levitt, Former New York Times contributor, Medical/Science Journalist, Author

Ellen Marks, California Brain Tumor Association, California

Deborah McCutcheon, BScH, MBA, Medical and Government Policy, National Team Leader, Canadians for Safe Technology, Canada

Jean Monro, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FAAEM, DIBEM, MACOEM, Medical Director and Founder, Breakspear Hospital, United Kingdom

L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust

Janet Newton, Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Policy Institute

Carolyn Raffensperger, MA, JD, Executive Director, Science and Environmental Health Network

Camilla Rees, MBA,

Kathleen Riley, ND, Founder and Physician, Eclectic Naturopathic Medical Center, LLC, Connecticut

Cindy Sage, MA, Co-Editor, BioInitiative 2012 Report, Sage Associates

Katie Singer, Author: Garden of Fertility, Honoring Our Cycles, An Electronic Silent Spring, New Mexico, USA

Donna Wolf, RD, CLT, Registered Dietitian/Nutritionist and Certified LEAP Therapist, San Diego, California

Patricia J. Wood, Executive Director of Grassroots Environmental Education and Visiting Scholar, Adelphi University, School of Nursing and Public Health, New York"


No comment yet.
Screen Time and Tech Safety Research
For additional resources and related updates in education, please visit [Links to external site]
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD from Educational Psychology & Technology!

American Academy of Pediatrics Issues New Recommendations On #ScreenTime and Exposure to Cell Phones // EduResearcher

American Academy of Pediatrics Issues New Recommendations On #ScreenTime and Exposure to Cell Phones // EduResearcher | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

"The American Academy of Pediatrics has recently issued two new sets of recommendations on media use for children.  At first glance, popular news headlines suggest elimination of the previous “no screens before age two” recommendations (see NPR’s American Academy of Pediatrics Lifts ‘No Screens Under 2’ Rule and KQED’s American Academy of Pediatrics Says Some Screen Time is Okay for Kids Under Two). However, close examination of the new guidelines reveal nuanced suggestions that maintain a primary focus on limiting tech usage. What appear to be obscured in public discussions are the same AAP organization’s recommendations issued just months earlier, specifically encouraging parents to reduce children’s exposures to cell phone radiation.

For ease of access, both sets of recommendations are provided in this post.

“Healthy Digital Media Use Habits for Babies, Toddlers & Preschoolers
Media in all forms, including TV, computers, and smartphones can affect how children feel, learn, think, and behave. However, parents (you) are still the most important influence.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) encourages you to help your children develop healthy media use habits early on. Read on to learn more.”…

“What About Apps and Digital Books?

Most apps advertised as “educational” aren’t proven to be effective and they don’t encourage co-viewing or co-play that help young children learn. Also, most educational apps target rote skills, such as ABCs and shapes. These skills are only one part of school readiness. The skills young children need to learn for success in school (and life) such as impulse control, managing emotions, and creative, flexible thinking, are best learned through unstructured and social play with family and friends in the real world.

Digital books (“eBooks”) that have lots of sound and visual effects can sometimes distract children, who then “miss the story” and don’t learn as well as they would from a print book.

If you plan to read e-books to your children:

  • Choose e-books that don’t have too many “bells and whistles.”
  • Read e-books with your children (parent-child interaction around books is one of the most important factors to a child’s success at reading and literacy).

Why Limit Media Use?
Overuse of digital media may place your child at risk of:

  • Not enough sleep. Young children with more media exposure or who have a TV,computer, or mobile device in their bedrooms sleep less and fall asleep later at night. Even babies can be overstimulated by screens and miss the sleep they need to grow.
  • Delays in learning and social skills. Children who watch too much TV in infancy and preschool years can show delays in attention, thinking, language, and social skills. One of the reasons for the delays could be because they interact less with parents and family. Parents who keep the TV on or focus on their own digital media miss precious opportunities to interact with their children and help them learn. See Parents of Young Children: Put Down Your Smartphones.
  • Obesity. Heavy media use during preschool years is linked to weight gain and risk of childhood obesity. Food advertising and snacking while watching TV can promote obesity. Also, children who overuse media are less apt to be active with healthy, physical play.
  • Behavior problems. Violent content on TV and screens can contribute to behavior problems in children, either because they are scared and confused by what they see, or they try to mimic on-screen characters.

Other Tips for Parents, Families, and Caregivers

  • Do not feel pressured to introduce technology early. Media interfaces are intuitive and children can learn quickly.
  • Monitor children’s media. For example, know what apps are used or downloaded.Test apps before your child uses them, play together, and ask your child what he or she thinks about the app.
  • Turn off TVs and other devices when not in use. Background media can distract from parent-child interaction and child play, which are both very important in child language and social-emotional development.
  • Keep bedrooms, mealtimes, and parent-child playtimes screen free and unplugged for children and parents. Turn off phones or set to “do not disturb”during these times.
  • Avoid exposure to devices or screens 1 hour before bedtime. Remove devices from bedrooms before bed.
  • Avoid using media as the only way to calm your children. Although media maybe used to soothe children, such as during a medical procedure or airplane flight,using media as a strategy to calm could lead to problems with a child’s own ability with limit setting and managing emotions. Ask your child’s doctor for help if needed.
  • Develop a Family Media Use plan for you and your family.
  • Remember that your opinion counts. TV, video-game, and other media producers, and sponsors pay attention to the views of the public. Let a TV station know if you like a program, or contact video game companies if the content is too violent. For more information, visit the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) website.
  • Encourage your school and community to advocate for better media programs and for healthier habits. For example, organize a “Screen-Free Week” in your town with other parents, teachers, and neighbors.

Additional Information from (American Academy of Pediatrics)

The related recommendations below on cell phone use were issued by the same American Academy of Pediatrics, yet appear to be receiving much less media attention.  American Academy of Pediatrics Issues New Recommendations to “Reduce Exposure to Cell Phones”: Nation’s largest group of children’s doctors responds to new government study linking cell phone radiation to cancer.

“In response to the U.S. National Toxicology Program study results finding exposure to wireless radiation significantly increased the prevalence of highly malignant heart and brain cancers in rodents, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued specific recommendations to reduce wireless cell phone exposure and updated their online resources for parents concerning cell phones and wireless devices.

“They’re not toys. They have radiation that is emitted from them and the more we can keep it off the body and use (the phone) in other ways, it will be safer,” said Jennifer A. Lowry, M.D., FAACT, FAAP, chair of the AAP Council on Environmental Health Executive Committee in the AAPs press release on the NTP Study Results.

“The findings of brain tumors (gliomas) and malignant schwann cell tumors of the heart in the NTP study, as well as DNA damage in brain cells, present a major public health concern because these occurred in the same types of cells that have been reported to develop into tumors in epidemiological studies of adult cell phone users,” stated Ronald L. Melnick, PhD, the National Institutes of Health toxicologist who lead the NTP study design and senior advisor to the Environmental Health Trust. “For children the cancer risks may be greater than that for adults because of greater penetration and absorption of cell phone radiation in the brains of children and because the developing nervous system of children is more susceptible to tissue-damaging agents. Based on this new information, regulatory agencies need to make strong recommendations for consumers to take precautionary measures and avoid close contact with their cell phones, and especially limit or avoid use of cell phones by children.”

The AAP has updated their Healthy Children Webpage on Cell Phones entitled Cell Phone Radiation & Children’s Health: What Parents Need to Know. The webpage reiterated children’s unique vulnerability to cell phone radiation stating, “Another problem is that the cell phone radiation test used by the FCC is based on the devices’ possible effect on large adults—not children. Children’s skulls are thinner and can absorb more radiation.”

The AAP issued the following cell phone safety tips specifically to reduce exposure to wireless radiation:

  • “Use text messaging when possible, and use cell phones in speaker mode or with the use of hands-free kits.
  • When talking on the cell phone, try holding it an inch or more away from your head.
  • Make only short or essential calls on cell phones.
  • Avoid carrying your phone against the body like in a pocket, sock, or bra. Cell phone manufacturers can’t guarantee that the amount of radiation you’re absorbing will be at a safe level.
  • Do not talk on the phone or text while driving. This increases the risk of automobile crashes.
  • Exercise caution when using a phone or texting while walking or performing other activities. “Distracted walking” injuries are also on the rise.
  • If you plan to watch a movie on your device, download it first, then switch to airplane mode while you watch in order to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.
  • Keep an eye on your signal strength (i.e. how many bars you have). The weaker your cell signal, the harder your phone has to work and the more radiation it gives off. It’s better to wait until you have a stronger signal before using your device.
  • Avoid making calls in cars, elevators, trains, and buses. The cell phone works harder to get a signal through metal, so the power level increases.
  • Remember that cell phones are not toys or teething items.

Even though the cell phone manual contains specific instructions that say do not carry the phone next to the body, the US government does not publicize this information nor mandate companies inform the public, leaving most people unaware of potential hazards, unwittingly allowing their young children to play with them like toys,” stated Devra Davis MPH, PhD, president of the Environmental Health Trust pointing to the Berkeley Cell Phone Right To Know Ordinance being challenged in court this month.

In 2012, the AAP published Pediatric Environmental Health, 3rd Edition recommending, “exposures can be reduced by encouraging children to use text messaging when possible, make only short and essential calls on cellular phones, use hands free kits and wired headsets and maintain the cellular phone an inch or more away from the head.”

Since 2012, the AAP has supported the Federal Cell Phone Right to Know Legislation and has written letters to the FCC calling on the federal government to review and strengthen radiation standards for wireless devices in an effort to protect children’s health.

AAP Healthy Cell Phone Radiation & Children’s Health: What Parents Need to Know

AAP responds to study showing link between cell phone radiation, tumors in rats May 27, 2016

2012 AAP Letter in Support of the Cell Phone Right to Know Act

2013 AAP Letter to the FCC calling for a review of RF guidelines





For main post on EduResearcher, see: 

For readers interested in additional updates and research on screen time, development, learning, and health, see here.



No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Silicon Valley parents are raising their kids tech-free — and it should be a red flag // Business Insider

Silicon Valley parents are raising their kids tech-free — and it should be a red flag // Business Insider | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research | 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Health and Safety Research Gaps in Policies and Practices Integrating Emerging Technologies for Young Children 

To download slides, click on title or arrow above. 

Links are as follows in order of the slides: 


The Silicon Valley Billionaires Remaking America's Schools 


Dr. Catherine Steiner-Adair
Clinical Psychologist and Research Associate at Harvard Medical School 


Video link may be viewed at: 


Carter B, Rees P, Hale L, Bhattacharjee D, Paradkar MS. Association Between Portable Screen-Based Media Device Access or Use and Sleep Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA Pediatr. 2016 Oct 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2341. [Epub ahead of print] 


Screen Time Hurts More Than Kids' Eyes 


New Media Consortium / Consortium for School Networking Horizon Report 


"American Revolution 2.0: How Education Innovation is Going to Revitalize America and Transform the U.S. Economy" 


"Preschool is Good For Children But It's Expensive So Utah Is Offering It Online" m/local/education/preschool-is- good-for-poor-kids-but-its- expensive-so-utah-is-offering-it- online/2015/10/09/27665e52- 5e1d-11e5-b38e- 06883aacba64_story.html  


Philanthropy Roundtable's: "Blended Learning: Wise Givers Guide to Supporting Tech-Assisted Learning" (Formerly chaired by B. DeVos)  


CyberCharters Have Overwhelming Negative Impact 


Ma, J., van den Heuvel, M., Maguire, J., Parkin, P., Birken, C. (2017). Is handheld screen time use associated with language delay in infants? Presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting, San Francisco, CA.  


Jonathan Rochelle’s GSV/ASU PRIMETIME Keynote Speech pitching Google Cardboard for children in schools as proxy for actual field trips: 


Scientists Urge Google to Stop Untested Microwave Radiation of Children's Eyes and Brains with Virtual Reality Devices in Schools //  Asus product manual 


Telecom Industry Liability and Insurance Information 


National Association for Children and Safe Technology - iPad Information 


For infant/pregnancy related safety precautions, please visit 


194 Signatories (physicians, scientists, educators) on Joint Statement on Pregnancy and Wireless Radiation 


Article screenshot from France: "Portables. L'embrouille des ondes electromagnetiques


Wireless Phone Radiation Risks and Public Policy 


"Show The Fine Print" 


Scientist petition calls for greater protective measures for children and pregnant women, cites need for precautionary health warnings, stronger regulation of electromagnetic fields, creation of EMF free zones, and media disclosures of experts’ financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions regarding the safety of EMF-emitting technologies. Published in European Journal of Oncology 


International Agency for Research on Cancer Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans (2011)


For more on source of funding research, see: and 


Maryland State Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council // Public Testimony


"Until now, radiation from cell towers has not been considered a risk to children, but a recent study raises new questions about possible long-term, harmful effects." 


For further reading, please see Captured Agency report published by Harvard’s Center for Ethics  or 


Updates/posts/safety information on Virtual Reality: 


Environmental Health Trust Virtual Reality Radiation Absorption Slides 


Healthy Kids in a Digital World: 


National Association for Children and Safe Technology 


Doctors’ Letters on Wifi in Schools// 154 page compilation 


Insurance and Liability Disclaimers/Information from Telecom Companies 


Most of the documents and articles embedded within the presentation above are searchable/accessible on the following page:

Document above is a pdf with live links. They are provided above for easier access. To download the original file, please click on title or arrow above. It is a large file so may take several minutes.  



No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Is 5G Technology Safe? The Debate Intensifies //

Is 5G Technology Safe? The Debate Intensifies // | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |


NEW YORK (WHEC) -- The major cell phone companies promise 5G networks will bring faster internet speeds, better reception and the ability to connect more devices simultaneously but as they ramp up for the rollout, many are wondering whether the technology is safe.


What makes 5G different? 2G brought the ability to text message, 3G laid the groundwork for smartphones and 4G allowed video streaming. 5G is expected to download data 20 times faster and could pave the way for self-driving vehicles but a big question many have is whether the radio frequency waves it takes to do all of that are dangerous to your body and overall health.  


"There are good parts of 5G, I guess, but it has effects, side effects, so I think people should research it really," says Judi Flanders of Penfield.

Flanders currently lives within a mile of a cell phone tower and has long been concerned about how much radiation she's being exposed to but recently that concern grew when she learned Verizon is in talks with the town to upgrade its network to 5G.  


Currently, 3G and 4G service come from regular cell phone towers like the one near Flanders home but 5G works differently. Smaller base stations or antennas are installed all over the community and then networked together with the tower.  

Wireless companies expect to install about 300,000 antennas nationwide which is about equal to the number of cell towers built in the U.S. over the last 30 years. That's why carriers are knocking on the doors of our local leaders.

"We've been approached by a couple of different groups to at least start the conversation," says Penfield Town Supervisor Tony LaFountian.  


LaFountain says he's heard from residents that are worried about whether 5G radiation can cause cancer.


"You get information from the carriers to say it's safe, these are all of our studies and then of course there's an equal amount of information on the other side to say there are health concerns and health risks associated with this," he says.

Dr. David Carpenter is the director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany.


"It's too new for there to be any studies of human health and this is a big issue. Why are we rolling out this new form of electromagnetic radiation without any attention to the question of whether it's safe or not…with regard to 3G and 4G, we have absolutely definitive evidence that excessive use of cell phones, held to your ear, increases the rate of brain cancer," he tells News10NBC. 


But that's excessive, long-term use with the phone to your head. What about proximity to towers and antennas? Most public health experts seem to agree that 5G will increase the levels of RF radiation in the vicinity of the antennas.


"It means that you're not going to be able to walk down the sidewalk without being continuously irradiated," Dr. Carpenter says.  


But the wireless companies installing 5G say the radiation will be low and well within the federal government's allowable standards.


Verizon is interested in upgrading its network here in the Rochester area, so News10NBC reached out to them to ask about this issues.


In a statement, spokesman David Weissmann says, "All equipment used for 5G must comply with federal safety standards. Those standards have wide safety margins and are designed to protect everyone, including children. Everyday exposure to the radio frequency energy from 5G small cells will be well within those safety limits, and is comparable to exposure from products such as baby monitors, Wi-Fi routers, and Bluetooth devices."


The FDA and the FCC say based on the current information available, they believe the safety limits are acceptable for protecting public health. Some governments in other parts of the world disagree though. In Brussels, Belgium, the expansion to 5G has been halted until more research is done. Dr. Carpenter says he'd like the U.S. to slow down the process too.


"There are a lot of factors that go into that [determining what causes cancer] and you can never say that one person's cancer was because of this particular exposure. What we can say with great confidence is that any exposure to radio frequency radiation is going to increase your risk of developing cancer," he says.

So, what happens if you're not comfortable with 5G and don't want an antenna near your house?


You don't have many options to fight it.

The FCC has restricted the ability of cities and towns to regulate 5G infrastructure. Under new rules, local governments have tight deadlines to approve or reject installation of cellular equipment. The rules also limit how much municipalities can charge wireless carriers who to put hardware in public rights of way. The FCC also prohibits cities and towns from rejected an application solely for health concerns."... 


For full post, see:



No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Presentation Slides from Dr. Joel Moskowitz Keynote, Feb. 27th, 2019, Director of Center for Family and Community Health // School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley 

To download, click on title or arrow above. Slides are also available at:

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

What are small cell facilities, and why are they in the public rights-of-way? // Bradley Law

What are small cell facilities, and why are they in the public rights-of-way? // Bradley Law | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

By Vince Rotty

On September 27, 2018, the FCC released a declaratory ruling and report and order (available here). This post has been updated to reflect the FCC’s new regulations.



A small wireless facility (sometimes referred to as a small cell facility) is a cellular network facility capable of delivering high transmission speeds but at lower ranges. Although they are called “small,” this is in reference to their small coverage area, not their physical size. These facilities, due to their heightened transmission speeds and capacities, are critical to the wireless industry’s deployment of 5G services. However, because a small wireless facility, when compared to a traditional macrocell tower, is only able to transmit data at low ranges and is not capable of transmitting through buildings and other structures, many more small wireless facilities are needed to cover the same geographic area that a single, traditional macrocell tower would cover. It is estimated that each wireless provider will need at least ten times as many small wireless facilities as macrocell towers to provide the same network coverage.[1]



Wireless service providers and wireless infrastructure providers will seek to collocate small wireless facilities and construct wireless support structures in a municipality’s rights-of-ways for a number of reasons, but one of the primary reasons is that small wireless facilities require two resources: (1) data via fiber optic cable and (2) power, and both of these resources are often found in a municipality’s rights-of-way.

Additionally, many states have enacted statutes that, among other things, limit rights-of-way and permit application fees that a municipality can collect from a wireless service provider or wireless infrastructure provider and create statutory review periods for small wireless facility permit applications.[2] Often, utility poles and wireless support structures owned by private entities are exempt from these state statutes, further prompting wireless providers and wireless infrastructure providers to prefer to collocate small wireless facilities to existing municipal assets in the municipality’s rights-of-way.[3]


In addition to traditional wireless providers, neutral host and other infrastructure providers are also expected to play a critical role in the deployment of small wireless facilities. Neutral host and other infrastructure providers will often lease their wireless assets to traditional wireless providers. As a result, your municipality might not receive any permit requests of applications for collocating small wireless facilities or constructing wireless support structures from traditional wireless providers such as AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint. Instead, your municipality may be receiving permit requests and applications from neutral host providers such as ExteNet and Mobilitie.


Not all small wireless facilities are created equal. While wireless providers and wireless infrastructure providers may initially propose to construct facilities that are integrated into light poles, monopoles, traffic signals, and other existing rights-of-way structures or assets, the reality is that your municipality should expect that very few small wireless facilities will be constructed in this manner. For example, a light pole with a pole-top antenna and integrated equipment cabinet is shown below. As can be seen in the below image, there are almost no exposed elements or cables, and there is only a minimal intrusion into the rights-of-way. The rights-of-way in the below image appears to be largely undisturbed by the small wireless facility integrated into the light pole.



However, in reality, many small wireless facilities are likely to be collocated on existing wooden utility poles. Because these existing utility poles are almost universally incapable of integrating equipment cabinets within the pole’s base, as is in the above image, wireless service providers and wireless infrastructure providers will instead install equipment cabinets at ground level or mount the cabinets to utility poles in the rights-of-way. These facilities can create safety, aesthetic, and noise issues, including violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“the ADA”).

An example of a non-integrated small wireless facility is shown below. As can be seen in the below image, the small wireless facility extends beyond the wooden utility pole, the cabling is loose, and there are equipment cabinets mounted at the top of the pole.



These rights-of-way impacts and concerns are compounded by the increased number of small wireless facilities necessary to operate a small cell network. Regulating how and when small wireless facilities can be collocated in your municipality’s rights-of-way is key to addressing a municipality’s concerns such as safety, noise, aesthetic, and undergrounding of ground-level facilities.


When a municipality receives a permit request or application to collocate a small wireless facility or construct a wireless support structure, there are three sources of law that must be followed: (1) federal law, (2) state law, and (3) local law.

A.     Federal Law

In 2018, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling and report and order addressing how municipalities must process small wireless facility applications.[4] A small wireless facility application is an application for a permit or other authorization that seeks to either: (1) collocate a small wireless facility on an existing structure or (2) collocate a small wireless facility on a new structure (i.e., construction of a new structure to collocate a small wireless facility).[5] The primary difference between these two types of small wireless facility applications is the number of days that a municipality is allowed to process the application (shown below).

Type of Permit Request Review Period Remedy Collocation on an existing structure 60 days Judicial Cause of Action Collocation on a new structure 90 days Judicial Cause of Action

If a municipality fails to grant or deny an application within either of these review periods, the applicant may appeal the municipality’s failure to act to an applicable court.[6] Unlike Section 6409(a) applications, there is no deemed granted remedy for small wireless facility applications.[7] A deemed granted remedy means that an application is automatically granted if a municipality fails to act on the application.

For more information on the details and impacts of federal law, please consult your legal counsel or the attorneys at Bradley Berkland Hagen & Herbst LLC.

B.      State Law

After determining how to process a permit application or request under federal law, a municipality should next examine their state law. Often, state small wireless facility statutes will reduce review periods, limit the criteria by which a permit can be denied, and limit fees that municipalities can charge. A list of states that have passed small wireless facility laws can be found here. In short, state small wireless facility statutes are rarely, if ever, helpful for local governments. Instead, these statutes almost invariably limit municipal authority. For example, Oklahoma’s small wireless facility statute reduces the 90-day review period in federal law to 75-days and limits fees to $40 per small wireless facility collocated on a municipally-owned utility pole in the rights-of-way.[8] If your state has enacted a small wireless facility statute, it will be important to understand the restrictions and limitations placed on your municipality by state law in addition to federal law.

If your municipality is in a state that hasn’t passed small wireless facility-specific legislation, your municipality should nevertheless look for any processes or requirements that apply generally to wireless towers. These statutes were likely enacted with macrocell towers in mind but are often applicable to small wireless facilities.

C.      Local Law

Finally, your municipality should examine its local law to determine how to process an application. Many municipalities have passed ordinances governing the municipality’s rights-of-way or wireless towers, but some municipalities have passed small wireless facility ordinances as well. While no small wireless facility ordinance “may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service” (i.e., a prohibition on the collocation of small wireless facilities within a municipality), these ordinances do allow a municipality to enact aesthetic and design standards, undergrounding requirements, and other zoning restrictions.[9]

If your municipality has not already enacted a small wireless facility ordinance, please speak with an attorney at Bradley Berkland Hagen & Herbst to discuss how your community’s unique needs and interests can be addressed through an ordinance or other legal mechanisms."


For original post, please see: 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Advertisers Abandon YouTube Over Concerns That Pedophiles Lurk In Comments Section // NPR National Public Radio 

Advertisers Abandon YouTube Over Concerns That Pedophiles Lurk In Comments Section // NPR National Public Radio  | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |


"Editor's note: This story contains content that may be upsetting to some readers.


Big brands are pulling their ads off YouTube over concerns that potential sexual predators are gathering in the comment sections of videos featuring children. In response, YouTube has deleted more than 400 channels and suspended comments on tens of millions of videos as it tries to purge the system of pedophiles.


The controversy emerged after a former YouTube content creator described what he called a "soft-core pedophile ring" on the site. Pedophiles are communicating with each other in the comments and trading links to illegal pornography, Matt Watson said in a video posted this week that has been viewed millions of times.


"They're providing links to actual child porn in YouTube comments," he said. "They're trading unlisted videos in secret. And YouTube's algorithm, through some kind of glitch or error in its programming, is actually facilitating their ability to do this."


Earlier this week, Disney, Nestle and Epic Games — which makes Fortnite — pulled their ads from YouTube, which is owned by Google. AT&T and Hasbro followed suit.


"Until Google can protect our brand from offensive content of any kind, we are removing all advertising from YouTube," AT&T said in a statement, according to AdAge.


The controversy highlights the difficulty that major Internet content companies often have patrolling user-generated content, which can stream in at an incredible pace. A YouTube spokesman told TechCrunch that around 400 hours of video are uploaded each minute. The company has around 10,000 human reviewers who analyze content that's been flagged as inappropriate.


YouTube executives are scrambling to reassure companies that YouTube is doing everything it can to protect children. "Child safety has been and remains our #1 priority at YouTube," YouTube said in a memo sent to major brands, AdWeek reported. YouTube this week suspended comments on millions of videos that "are likely innocent but could be subject to predatory comments," the memo said.


Some of the children in the videos look to be as young as 5 years old, according to a Wired magazine report.


In his video critique, Watson describes how he says the pedophile ring works: YouTube visitors gather on videos of young girls doing innocuous things, such as putting on their makeup, demonstrating gymnastics moves or playing Twister. In the comment section, people would then post timestamps that link to frames in the video that appear to sexualize the children.


YouTube's algorithms would then recommend other videos also frequented by pedophiles. "Once you enter into this wormhole, now there is no other content available," Watson said.


"And of course, there is advertising on some of these videos," he said, showing examples of ads. His video was titled: "Youtube is Facilitating the Sexual Exploitation of Children, and it's Being Monetized."... 


For full post, see: 

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD from Educational Psychology & Technology!

Educator Toolkit for Teacher and Student Privacy // Parent Coalition for Student Privacy 

Educator Toolkit for Teacher and Student Privacy // Parent Coalition for Student Privacy  | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

To download, click on title above or here: 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Stop and Frisk Online: Theorizing Everyday Racism in Digital Policing in the Use of Social Media for Identification of Criminal Conduct and Associations

Stop and Frisk Online: Theorizing Everyday Racism in Digital Policing in the Use of Social Media for Identification of Criminal Conduct and Associations | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

Police are increasingly monitoring social media to build evidence for criminal indictments. In 2014, 103 alleged gang members residing in public housing in Harlem, New York, were arrested in what has been called “the largest gang bust in history.” The arrests came after the New York Police Department (NYPD) spent 4 years monitoring the social media communication of these suspected gang members. In this article, we explore the implications of using social media for the identification of criminal activity. We describe everyday racism in digital policing as a burgeoning conceptual framework for understanding racialized social media surveillance by law enforcement. We discuss implications for law enforcement agencies utilizing social media data for intelligence and evidence in criminal cases." 


No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Expert Forum on Children's Exposure to Wireless Radiation in Schools 

Expert Forum on Wireless Radiation in Schools
Shrewsbury, Massachusetts
March 25, 2019
Cece Doucette, MTPW, Wireless Education
David O. Carpenter, MD, School of Public Health, University at Albany
Martha Herbert, MD, PhD, Harvard Medical School; Massachusetts General Hospital
Ronald Melnick, PhD; retired senior toxicologist, National Toxicology Program
Frank Clegg, former head of Microsoft Canada; Citizens for Safe Technology
Theodora Scarato, MSW, Environmental Health Trust
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD from Educational Psychology & Technology!

Health Research Gaps in the Marketing and Promotion of Emerging Educational Technologies // (Marachi, 2018) Presented at the Digital Media and Developing Minds Conference, New York 

To download poster, click on title above. For resource collections related to the research and including many of the references cited, see:

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

How To Eliminate and Reduce Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure in the Classroom: An Introductory Guide for Schools // Environmental Health Trust

To download, click on title or arrow above.


No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

WiFi in Schools Toolkit // Environmental Health Trust

To download, click on title or arrow above. 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Lawsuit Filed Against Apple, Samsung After Chicago Tribune Tests Cellphones for Radiofrequency Radiation // Chicago Tribune 

Lawsuit Filed Against Apple, Samsung After Chicago Tribune Tests Cellphones for Radiofrequency Radiation // Chicago Tribune  | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

By Joe Mahr

"A group of lawyers has filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Apple and Samsung, citing a Tribune investigation that tested popular cellphones for radiofrequency radiation and found some results over the federal exposure limit.

The lawsuit — filed Friday in California, Illinois and Iowa — alleges that the phone makers “intentionally misrepresented" the safety of their devices, assuring users that the phones had been adequately tested and “were safe to use on and in close proximity to their bodies.”

The complaint, which alleges “negligence, breach of warranty, consumer fraud and unjust enrichment,” seeks an unspecified amount of money and medical monitoring for anyone who bought an iPhone 7, iPhone 8, iPhone X, Galaxy S8, Galaxy S9 or Galaxy J3.

The Tribune commissioned tests of 11 models of cellphones made by four companies, including the six models mentioned in the suit. The newspaper stated that the intention was not to rank phone models for safety and noted it was not possible to say whether any of the devices tested could cause harm.


But the tests, conducted according to federal guidelines at an accredited lab, found that radiofrequency radiation from some models operating at full power measured over the exposure limit set by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC said it would pursue its own testing after the agency reviewed the Tribune’s lab reports.

Before any phone model can be brought to market, a sample must be tested for compliance with the exposure limit for radiofrequency radiation. In one phase of Tribune’s testing, the phones were positioned at the same distance from a simulated human body as the manufacturers chose for their premarket tests — between 5 and 15 millimeters, depending on the model.


In this phase, all three Samsung phones tested measured under the safety limit. Results varied for Apple phones, but several iPhone 7s were tested and all results exceeded the limit.


The Tribune also tested all the phone models at a consistent and closer distance of 2 millimeters, to estimate the potential exposure for an owner using the phone in a pants or shirt pocket.


In that phase of testing, most of the models tested yielded results that were over the exposure limit, sometimes far exceeding it. At 2 millimeters, the results from the three Samsungs and several iPhone models — again, operating at full power — were higher than the standard.


Two days after the Tribune published its investigation, the lawsuit was filed in U.S. district court in San Jose, California, alleging that Apple and Samsung “market and sell some of the most popular smartphones in the world ... as emitting less RF radiation” than the legal limit.



The suit was filed by three firms with lawyers experienced with class-action lawsuits, including Chicago law firm Fegan Scott. One of its lawyers, Elizabeth Fegan, represents alleged victims of disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein and has worked on cases alleging that the NCAA mishandled student-athlete concussions and that the city of Chicago’s work on water pipes has increased the risks of lead poisoning.


Representatives with Apple and Samsung did not return emails seeking comment.


Apple previously has disputed the Tribune’s results, saying the lab used by the newspaper did not test the phones the same way it does. Apple and Samsung both have told the Tribune their phones comply with federal standards.


The lawsuit argues that recent research has shown radiofrequency radiation exposure "affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines.”


“Thus," the suit claims, “defendants’ design, manufacture, and sale of smartphones that far exceed federal guidelines exacerbates the health risks to Plaintiffs and the Classes.”


High levels of radiofrequency radiation can heat biological tissue and cause harm. Less understood is whether people, especially children, are at risk for health effects from exposure to low levels over many years of cellphone use."...


For full story, please visit 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Oregon Wireless Safety Bill (SB 283) Passed Both Houses of Legislature and Awaits Governor's Signature // June 19th, 2019

Oregon Wireless Safety Bill (SB 283) Passed Both Houses of Legislature and Awaits Governor's Signature // June 19th, 2019 | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |
06/19/2019 11:50 AM PDT

Relating to exposure to radiation in schools in this state; and declaring an emergency.
Directs Oregon Health Authority to review peer-reviewed, independently funded scientific studies of health effects of exposure to microwave radiation, particularly exposure that results from use of wireless network technologies in schools and to report results of review to interim committee of Legislative Assembly related to education not later than January 2, 2021.
Specifies requirements for review. Directs Department of Education to develop recommendations to schools in this state for practices and alternative technologies that reduce students' exposure to microwave radiation that Oregon Health Authority report identifies as harmful. Declares emergency, effective on passage. 
Oregon public schools serve approximately 581,000 students in 197 school districts. Oregon law directs school districts to provide opportunities for students to use technology. Oregon law also requires school districts to develop and adopt a Healthy and Safe Schools Plan. The plan must address environmental conditions at the facilities owned or leased by the district or school where students or staff are present on a regular basis. Senate Bill 283 directs ODE to inform schools about potential health hazards of using wireless network technology in schools and to provide recommendations for minimizing exposure to possible harmful effects.
No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

The Challenges of Defining and Studying “Digital Addiction” in Children // Journal of the American Medical Association 

The Challenges of Defining and Studying “Digital Addiction” in Children // Journal of the American Medical Association  | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

"In the 2013 edition, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-5) identified “internet gaming disorder” as “a condition in need of further study.”1 The World Health Organization recognized “gaming disorder” as a diagnosable condition in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11).2 The appellation—gaming disorder—is a misnomer because it does not include social media or nongaming applications. Still the emerging phenomenon of “digital addiction” represents a real and potential widespread problem that defies easy solutions or prevention strategies.

Scientific consensus suggests that addictions arise from a combination of a genetic predisposition and repeated exposure to a specific substrate.3 


In the case of digital addiction, the exposure is ubiquitous, unavoidable, and in some cases the use of digital devices is mandated. Some preschools use iPads in classrooms; many schools require children to use computers for their work; most employers not only rely on internet use during the day but also expect employees to have ready access to digital media outside of work hours. In a recent report of a nationally representative study of sedentary behavior, the estimated prevalence of computer use outside of school or work for more than 1 hour per day or more among children aged 5 through 11 years increased from 43% to 56% from 2001 to 2016, and among adolescents aged 12 through 19 years increased from 53% to 57% from 2003 to 2016.4


For those trying to study the effects of media on child development, this poses vexing challenges. Avoiding digital media is impractical and undesirable. It stands to reason that there is appropriate and beneficial usage, but what might constitute too much of a good thing?

The relationship between biological exposures and outcomes can follow one of many functional forms. Most straightforward is a monotonically linear relationship in which outcomes are directly and proportionately related to exposure, such as with a high-fat diet and weight gain.5 Often, there is a dose-response relationship in which no discernable effect is observed until some critical threshold is crossed, after which there is a clear relationship over a dosage range and when no additional benefits are derived and at even higher doses harm may result. This is usually the case for pharmaceuticals.

Less common, and perhaps most challenging to discern, is the “inverted U” relationship in which both low and high exposure are associated with less desirable outcomes, but for some middle level, outcomes are improved. Such is the relationship between alcohol consumption and health in which those who consume no or very little alcohol appear to have poorer health outcomes than those who consume 7 to 14 units of alcohol per week.6 The nature of this relationship took many years to establish in part because of the odd functional form (U shape). Such is likely the relationship between media exposure and health. A recent meta-analysis7 found that adolescents with heavy and no social media usage have diminished mental health compared with those with moderate usage. Specifically, compared with nonusers, children with 1 hour per day of media use had a 12% reduced risk of depression. With 3 hours they had a 19% increased risk, and at 5 hours it was increased by 80%.7 But the relationship is in many ways infinitely more complex than the one between alcohol and health.

Except for the potentially unique effects of some polyphenols found in red wine, alcohol researchers can distill their exposure of interest—alcohol—into discrete units so that drinkers can easily be categorized without regard to their libation of choice. An analogous approach is being used in most media studies in which usage is defined solely in terms of time spent on various devices (eg, smartphones, computers) or in certain activities (eg, social media or games). Media usage as a predictor variable belies the reality that content drives any observed effects.

It is not as simple as time spent on a device or activity but rather how that time is spent that matters. Therein lies the challenge. Disentangling the complicated effects of media usage to establish guidelines that can inform public policy and industry regulations requires a fine level of granularity. Even drawing distinctions between social media vs passive viewing or gaming is inadequate. For example, 1 hour of social media usage could be spent in an online support group. For an LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) teen, such a community can be an invaluable and otherwise unavailable supportive resource, but for a teen with an eating disorder that social media exposure may normalize and even encourage the behavior.


Traditionally, media researchers have relied on retrospective self-report or contemporaneous diaries to assess exposure. These tools are antiquated and do not capture the many and varied uses of media today particularly given the frequency of multitasking. How can parents of a middle schooler possibly reliably recount their child’s use of recreational screen time given that many children and adolescents carry a device in their pocket at all times and use it to communicate, play games, and do homework? How could teenagers estimate their screen time given the hundreds of times they check their phone during the day even for a few seconds, never mind informing scientists of what precisely they looked at? Coupled with individual characteristics, these data are crucial to further understanding of the true relationship between nature and substrate that define healthy media usage.


While researchers have struggled to find methods to reliably collect these data, industry has been capturing them, using them, and even monetizing them. Facebook has information on what children see, how long they look at it, and even how they feel about it. Apple indicates it does not have data on where children spend their time on its devices (Fred Sainz, director of corporate communications, Apple, email communication, May 21, 2019). Although its “screen time app” collects data on how children spend their time on the device and shares those data with parents, it does not currently facilitate exporting or sharing data with researchers. In fact, Apple has taken the additional step of blocking the third-party screen-time trackers many researchers use since those trackers compete with theirs.8


As media conglomerates face increasing scrutiny by politicians and regulators for their harvesting of data and their dissemination of misinformation, they should consider collaborating with impartial scientists so that they can begin to understand how to mediate media in the best interest of children. If these companies are willing to share data with advertisers, they also should be willing to share them with academic scientists. Without their cooperation, child advocates may never get the answers they need to understand digital media use by children and develop effective measures to prevent and counteract “digital addiction” in children."

For original post, please visit:

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

The Terrifying Potential of the 5G Network // The New Yorker

The Terrifying Potential of the 5G Network // The New Yorker | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

'The future of wireless technology holds the promise of total connectivity. But it will also be especially susceptible to cyberattacks and surveillance. '


By Sue Alpern

"In January, 2018, Robert Spalding, the senior director for strategic planning at the National Security Council, was in his office at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, across the street from the White House, when he saw a breaking-news alert on the Axios Web site. “Scoop,” the headline read, “Trump Team Considers Nationalizing 5G Network.” At the time, Spalding, a brigadier general in the Air Force who previously served as a defense attaché in Beijing, had been in the military for nearly three decades. At the N.S.C., he was studying ways to insure that the next generation of Internet connectivity, what is commonly referred to as 5G, can be made secure from cyberattacks. “I wasn’t looking at this from a policy perspective,” he said. “It was about the physics, about what was possible.” To Spalding’s surprise, the Axios story was based on a leaked early draft of a report he’d been working on for the better part of a year.


Two words explain the difference between our current wireless networks and 5G: speed and latency. 5G—if you believe the hype—is expected to be up to a hundred times faster. (A two-hour movie could be downloaded in less than four seconds.) That speed will reduce, and possibly eliminate, the delay—the latency—between instructing a computer to perform a command and its execution. This, again, if you believe the hype, will lead to a whole new Internet of Things, where everything from toasters to dog collars to dialysis pumps to running shoes will be connected.


Remote robotic surgery will be routine, the military will develop hypersonic weapons, and autonomous vehicles will cruise safely along smart highways. The claims are extravagant, and the stakes are high. One estimate projects that 5G will pump twelve trillion dollars into the global economy by 2035, and add twenty-two million new jobs in the United States alone. This 5G world, we are told, will usher in a fourth industrial revolution.


A totally connected world will also be especially susceptible to cyberattacks. Even before the introduction of 5G networks, hackers have breached the control center of a municipal dam system, stopped an Internet-connected car as it travelled down an interstate, and sabotaged home appliances. Ransomware, malware, crypto-jacking, identity theft, and data breaches have become so common that more Americans are afraid of cybercrime than they are of becoming a victim of violent crime. Adding more devices to the online universe is destined to create more opportunities for disruption. “5G is not just for refrigerators,” Spalding said. “It’s farm implements, it’s airplanes, it’s all kinds of different things that can actually kill people or that allow someone to reach into the network and direct those things to do what they want them to do. It’s a completely different threat that we’ve never experienced before.”...


For full post, see:

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D, UC Berkeley Center for Family and Community Health Keynote on Cell Phones, Cell Towers, and Wireless Safety // UC Berkeley School of Public Health

"On February 27, 2019, Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., delivered the keynote presentation, "Cell Phones, Cell Towers and Wireless Safety" for the "Balancing Technology" series offered by University Health Services (UHS) at the University of California, Berkeley. The event was co-sponsored by the UC Berkeley School of Public Health.
Dr. Moskowitz, director of the UC Berkeley Center for Family and Community Health, has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had more than two million page views by visitors from over 200 countries since 2013.
The presentation was filmed by UHS and by CNBC. The video, slides, and safety tips can be viewed at the following links:

View Video: (72 minute YouTube video)
View Slides: (Supplemental slides can be found at end of presentation.)

Safety Tips
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety: 
California Department of Public Health:"
No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Toddlers on Touchscreens: Immediate effects of gaming and physical activity on cognitive flexibility of 2.5-year-olds in the US // Antrilli & Wang, 2018, Journal of Children and Media, Vol. 12, No. 4

Toddlers on Touchscreens: Immediate effects of gaming and physical activity on cognitive flexibility of 2.5-year-olds in the US // Antrilli & Wang, 2018, Journal of Children and Media, Vol. 12, No. 4 | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

Interactive technologies have become a common play medium for young children; it is not unusual for toddlers to play games on a touchscreen device in lieu of games in the yard. Here, we compared the immediate effects of physical and touchscreen play on 2.5-year-olds’ cognitive flexibility, a key aspect of executive function. For nine minutes, toddlers engaged in touchscreen play or physical play; a third group drew and colored (control group). Next, a sorting task measured cognitive flexibility. The physical-play group outperformed the other two groups. Compared to the control group, toddlers’ cognitive flexibility benefited from physical play, whereas touchscreen play yielded no significant effect. Interestingly, toddlers who played the touchscreen game in a socially interactive way outperformed those who treated gaming as solitary play. Together, the results bear practical implications on whether and how to introduce young children to interactive technologies for play." 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

The Ethics of Virtual Reality Technology: Social Hazards and Public Policy Recommendations // Spiegel, 2018; Science and Engineering Ethics

The Ethics of Virtual Reality Technology: Social Hazards and Public Policy Recommendations // Spiegel, 2018; Science and Engineering Ethics | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

This article explores four major areas of moral concern regarding virtual reality (VR) technologies. First, VR poses potential mental health risks, including Depersonalization/Derealization Disorder. Second, VR technology raises serious concerns related to personal neglect of users’ own actual bodies and real physical environments. Third, VR technologies may be used to record personal data which could be deployed in ways that threaten personal privacy and present a danger related to manipulation of users’ beliefs, emotions, and behaviors. Finally, there are other moral and social risks associated with the way VR blurs the distinction between the real and illusory. These concerns regarding VR naturally raise questions about public policy. The article makes several recommendations for legal regulations of VR that together address each of the above concerns. It is argued that these regulations would not seriously threaten personal liberty but rather would protect and enhance the autonomy of VR consumers." 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Is 5G Worth the Risks?

Is 5G Worth the Risks? | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

By IIshana Artra

"In recent months there’s been a lot of talk about 5G – the next generation of wireless technology. 5G is being touted as a necessary step to the ‘internet of things’ – a world in which our refrigerators alert us when we’re low on milk, our baby’s diapers tell us when they need to be changed, and Netflix is available everywhere, all the time. But what we’re not hearing is that evidence-based studies worldwide have clearly established the harmful effects of human exposure to pulsed radiofrequency radiation from cell towers, cell phones and other devices – and that 5G will make the problem exponentially worse.

Most people believe that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) carefully assesses the health risks of these technologies before approving them. But in testimony taken by Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, the FCC admitted it has not conducted any safety studies on 5G.

Telecom lobbyists assure us that guidelines already in place are adequate to protect the public. Those safety guidelines, however, are based on a 1996 study of how much a cell phone heated the head of an adult-sized plastic mannequin. This is problematic, for at least three reasons:

+ living organisms consist of highly complex and interdependent cells and tissue, not plastic.

+ those being exposed to radiofrequency radiation include fetuses, children, plants, and wildlife – not just adult male humans.

the frequencies used in the mannequin study were far lower than the exposures associated with 5G.


5G radiofrequency (RF) radiation uses a ‘cocktail’ of three types of radiation, ranging from relatively low-energy radio waves, microwave radiation with far more energy, and millimeter waves with vastly more energy (see below). The extremely high frequencies in 5G are where the biggest danger lies. While 4G frequencies go as high as 6 GHz, 5G exposes biological life to pulsed signals in the 30 GHz to 100 GHz range. The general public has never before been exposed to such high frequencies for long periods of time."...


For full post, visit here. 


No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Chinese Facial Recognition Company Left Database of People's Locations Exposed // CNET

Chinese Facial Recognition Company Left Database of People's Locations Exposed // CNET | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

"A Chinese facial recognition company left its database exposed online, revealing information about millions of people, a security researcher discovered.

SenseNets, a company based in Shenzhen, China, offers facial recognition technology and crowd analysis, which the company boasted in a promotional video could track people across cities and pick them out in large groups.


But the company failed to protect that database with a password, Victor Gevers, a Dutch security researcher with the GDI Foundation, discovered Wednesday. The database contained more than 2.5 million records on people, including their ID card number, their address, birthday, and locations where SenseNets' facial recognition has spotted them.


From the last 24 hours alone, there were more than 6.8 million locations logged, Gevers said. Anyone would be able to look at these records and track a person's movements based on SenseNets' real-time facial recognition."...


For full post, see:  

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Association Between Screen Time and Children’s Performance on a Developmental Screening Test (2019) // Journal of the American Medical Association 

Association Between Screen Time and Children’s Performance on a Developmental Screening Test (2019) // Journal of the American Medical Association  | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

  Excessive screen time is associated with delays in development; however, it is unclear if greater screen time predicts lower performance scores on developmental screening tests or if children with poor developmental performance receive added screen time as a way to modulate challenging behavior.

Objective  To assess the directional association between screen time and child development in a population of mothers and children.
Design, Setting, and Participants
  This longitudinal cohort study used a 3-wave, cross-lagged panel model in 2441 mothers and children in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, drawn from the All Our Families study. Data were available when children were aged 24, 36, and 60 months. Data were collected between October 20, 2011, and October 6, 2016. Statistical analyses were conducted from July 31 to November 15, 2018.

Exposures  Media.
Main Outcomes and Measures
  At age 24, 36, and 60 months, children’s screen-time behavior (total hours per week) and developmental outcomes (Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition) were assessed via maternal report.

Results  Of the 2441 children included in the analysis, 1169 (47.9%) were boys. A random-intercepts, cross-lagged panel model revealed that higher levels of screen time at 24 and 36 months were significantly associated with poorer performance on developmental screening tests at 36 months (β, −0.08; 95% CI, −0.13 to −0.02) and 60 months (β, −0.06; 95% CI, −0.13 to −0.02), respectively. These within-person (time-varying) associations statistically controlled for between-person (stable) differences.

Conclusions and Relevance  The results of this study support the directional association between screen time and child development. Recommendations include encouraging family media plans, as well as managing screen time, to offset the potential consequences of excess use."...


For full research study, please see: 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

5G and the FCC: 10 Reasons Why You Should Care // National Resources Defense Council

5G and the FCC: 10 Reasons Why You Should Care // National Resources Defense Council | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

By Sharon Buccino

"As an environmental lawyer for over 25 years now, I have become intimately familiar with the workings of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior. I didn’t have occasion to watch what was happening across town at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Now I do. Here are ten reasons why you might want to also.

1. Created in 1934, the FCC regulates all interstate communications—both wired and wireless—as well as international communications originating or terminating in the United States. In the words of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, the FCC was established to provide “to all the people of the United States, without discrimination . . . a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”  47 U.S.C. § 151.  The law requires the FCC to serve the public interest. 

2. Wireless communication touches every aspect of life. Smart phones are used by billions of people across the globe. As volume of data increases and delay decreases, wireless service is expanding beyond person-to-person communication. The possibility of the “Internet of Things” combined with Artificial Intelligence will impact every aspect of human life including transportation, education and health care.

3. The next generation of wireless technology—5G—is dramatically different from previous versions. Telecommunication is possible through use of the electromagnetic spectrum. 


Electromagnetic Spectrum - Source: General Accountability Office

4. Five Commissioners sit on the FCC. The current Chairman Ajit Pai is pursuing an aggressive deregulatory agendaHe is joined by four other Commissioners—Michael O’ReillyBrendan CarrJessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks. The positions each takes on issues ranging from net neutrality to health standards will shape the development and impacts of wireless technology.

5. In December 2017, the FCC eliminated “net neutrality” rules for broadband. These rules prohibit websites from blocking or throttling traffic, or from selling off “lanes” of traffic that will advantage some content players and disadvantage others. Over 50 parties including 22 states and the District of Columbia have opposed rescission of the rules in court. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument in the case on February 1, 2019.

6. In March 2018, the FCC eliminated environmental and historical review for siting certain cell towers and other wireless facilities (FCC Order 18-30). Despite the license needed to provide wireless services, the FCC determined that there was no federal role in the construction of facilities needed to provide these services. In addition to NRDC, 19 tribes have challenged the FCC’s action along with the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral argument in the case on March 15, 2019.

7. In Order 18-30, the FCC restricted fees tribes charge Sprint and other telecom companies for reviewing the impacts on historic and cultural resources.


8. In September 2018, the FCC restricted fees cities charge Sprint and other telecom companies for siting towers and other wireless infrastructure in their communities. (FCC Order 18-133).  Several lawsuits challenging the FCC’s action have been consolidated before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  (Case No. 19-70146)


9. In addition to restricting fees that cities can charge for building new wireless networks, Order 18-133 limited the time allowed for review of the proposed construction. The FCC imposed a so-called “shot clock” on cities and towns. If the local government has not acted within as few as 60 days on a construction permit, the project is deemed approved.


10. While the FCC has limited the review by others, the Commission at the same time has refused to update its own health and environmental standards. The Commission’s standards date from the 1990's. In 2012, the General Accountability Office found that the existing standards may not reflect current knowledge and recommended that the FCC formally reassess its standards. The FCC’s standards address only one aspect of potential harm from electromagnetic radiation—heat. The current standards do not address other ways in which exposure to increasing electromagnetic radiation from wireless communications can harm human health, as well as the natural systems around us on which all life depends. 


The U.S. National Toxicology Program conducted rodent studies to help clarify the potential health hazards of radio frequency radiation (RFR). According to my NRDC colleague, Dr. Jennifer Sass, the results (which have been subjected to expert peer review and public comment) show that long-term high exposures to RFR used by 2G and 3G cell phones are associated with an elevated risk of cancer, particularly in heart and brain cells (NTP 2018). This is consistent with the previous hazard assessment of the World Health Organization’s cancer experts, which concluded that there was a possible link (Group 2B) to brain cancer in people with RFR exposures (IARC 2011). Both government agencies warn that the public should take pragmatic steps to reduce exposures (IARC Director, May 2011; NTP Fact Sheet, Nov 2018).



For full post, please visit: 


No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

We tested apps for children. Half failed to protect their data. // Washington Post

We tested apps for children. Half failed to protect their data. // Washington Post | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

By Serge Egelman 

"When parents download a learning or gaming app from the “Designed for Families” section of the Google Play store, they likely assume that those apps keep their kids’ data safe. After all, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) prohibits website operators and app developers from tracking or collecting personal data from children under the age of 13.

Yet that assumption could be wrong. More than 50 percent of Google Play apps targeted at children under 13—we examined more than 5,000 of the most popular (many of which have been downloaded millions of times)—appear to be failing to protect data. In fact, the apps we examined appear to regularly send potentially sensitive information—including device serial numbers, which are often paired with location data, email addresses, and other personally identifiable information—to third-party advertisers. Over 90 percent of these cases involve apps transmitting identifiers that cannot be changed or deleted, like hardware serial numbers—thereby enabling long-term tracking.

To test app privacy, we created an automated test bed that allows us to download and install apps to a series of mobile devices, simulate the behavior of users (with limited additional testing by humans), and then monitor the traffic flowing in and out of the devices. By monitoring an app for just 10 minutes, we can tell whether it tracks the user’s behavior, discloses this tracking, or shares personal data directly with third parties. (Our test bed is limited to Android apps for the sole reason that the Android platform is open source.)

Members of my group decided to contact one developer of several apps with particularly egregious practices, all targeted at children under 13. We observed that many of its apps were sending a wide range of persistent identifiers and location data to an advertising and analytics firm. When we reached out to the company, it thanked us and indicated it was previously unaware of the problem. The company said it had removed the advertising firm's computer code from all its games. We reanalyzed several of its apps and confirmed that this was the case. Thus, for at least this developer, it appears as though invasive privacy practices were due to misuse of third-party code.

We suspect that most of the developers whose apps fail to protect data do not have nefarious intent, but rather fail to configure their software properly or neglect to scrutinize practices of the third-party advertisers they rely upon to generate revenue. When building an app, developers import ready-to-use code from many different third-parties, including advertising companies. While this code “reuse” results in time savings and fewer errors, app developers likely do not realize that they are liable for all code included in their apps, regardless of whether or not they were the ones who wrote it."...


For full post, see: 


Serge Egelman is research director of the Usable Security & Privacy group at the International Computer Science Institute and an affiliated researcher at the University of California, Berkeley Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity.  


See AppCensus privacy analysis tool at: 

facebook support's curator insight, July 24, 2018 2:49 AM
Facebook customer helpline for the existing Facebook user who want to recover deactivate account and reset his password. Toll Free Customer Service Number +1-888-940-0444
Rescooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD from Educational Psychology & Technology!

“Our children’s apps aren’t directed at children.” // By Serge Egelman, AppCensus Blog

“Our children’s apps aren’t directed at children.” // By Serge Egelman, AppCensus Blog | Screen Time and Tech Safety Research |

By Serge Egelman

"In our study of kids’ Android apps, we observed that a majority of apps specifically targeted at kids may be violating U.S. privacy law: the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). In response to this revelation, many companies that we named in our paper have responded by stating that they are not covered by the law because either their apps are not directed at children or they have no knowledge that any of their users are children. As a broader issue, we have also noticed that many companies appear to turn a blind eye to COPPA compliance by stating in their privacy policies that their obviously-child-directed apps are not directed at children.

As I’ll explain in this post, these excuses are disingenuous at best and outright lies at worst: for every app that we examined, the developer took proactive steps to market their apps to children under 13, and therefore appear to be subject to COPPA because their apps are “directed” at children."...

For full post, click here: 

No comment yet.