Cell Phone Use and Children

A recent study from the UK stresses the importance of keeping our children away from cell phones. I must admit that I have fallen victim to allowing my child to hold and talk on a cell phone. The modern world is immersed in a sea of invisible transmissions from a variety of sources- phones, TVs, satellites, radios, WiFi, etc. Time will undoubtedly reveal unknown risks to these transmissions. In the mean time, moderation is a key to almost all things.

Here is the article.

Mobile phone use 'raises children's risk of brain cancer fivefold'

Alarming new research from Sweden on the effects of radiation raises fears that today's youngsters face an epidemic of the disease in later life

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 21 September 2008

Getty

The Swedish research was reported this month at the first international conference on mobile phones and health

Children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones, startling new research indicates.

The study, experts say, raises fears that today's young people may suffer an "epidemic" of the disease in later life. At least nine out of 10 British 16-year-olds have their own handset, as do more than 40 per cent of primary schoolchildren.

Yet investigating dangers to the young has been omitted from a massive £3.1m British investigation of the risks of cancer from using mobile phones, launched this year, even though the official Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Programme – which is conducting it – admits that the issue is of the "highest priority".

Despite recommendations of an official report that the use of mobiles by children should be "minimised", the Government has done almost nothing to discourage it.

Last week the European Parliament voted by 522 to 16 to urge ministers across Europe to bring in stricter limits for exposure to radiation from mobile and cordless phones, Wi-fi and other devices, partly because children are especially vulnerable to them. They are more at risk because their brains and nervous systems are still developing and because – since their heads are smaller and their skulls are thinner – the radiation penetrates deeper into their brains.

The Swedish research was reported this month at the first international conference on mobile phones and health.

It sprung from a further analysis of data from one of the biggest studies carried out into the risk that the radiation causes cancer, headed by Professor Lennart Hardell of the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden. Professor Hardell told the conference – held at the Royal Society by the Radiation Research Trust – that "people who started mobile phone use before the age of 20" had more than five-fold increase in glioma", a cancer of the glial cells that support the central nervous system. The extra risk to young people of contracting the disease from using the cordless phone found in many homes was almost as great, at more than four times higher.

Those who started using mobiles young, he added, were also five times more likely to get acoustic neuromas, benign but often disabling tumours of the auditory nerve, which usually cause deafness.

By contrast, people who were in their twenties before using handsets were only 50 per cent more likely to contract gliomas and just twice as likely to get acoustic neuromas.

Professor Hardell told the IoS: "This is a warning sign. It is very worrying. We should be taking precautions." He believes that children under 12 should not use mobiles except in emergencies and that teenagers should use hands-free devices or headsets and concentrate on texting. At 20 the danger diminishes because then the brain is fully developed. Indeed, he admits, the hazard to children and teenagers may be greater even than his results suggest, because the results of his study do not show the effects of their using the phones for many years. Most cancers take decades to develop, longer than mobile phones have been on the market.

The research has shown that adults who have used the handsets for more than 10 years are much more likely to get gliomas and acoustic neuromas, but he said that there was not enough data to show how such relatively long-term use would increase the risk for those who had started young.

He wants more research to be done, but the risks to children will not be studied in the MTHR study, which will follow 90,000 people in Britain. Professor David Coggon, the chairman of the programmes management committee, said they had not been included because other research was being done on young people by a study at Sweden's Kariolinska Institute.

He said: "It looks frightening to see a five-fold increase in cancer among people who started use in childhood," but he said he "would be extremely surprised" if the risk was shown to be so high once all the evidence was in.

But David Carpenter, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of NewYork – who also attended the conference – said: "Children are spending significant time on mobile phones. We may be facing a public health crisis in an epidemic of brain cancers as a result of mobile phone use."

In 2000 and 2005, two official inquiries under Sir William Stewart, a former government chief scientist, recommended the use of mobile phones by children should be "discouraged" and "minimised".

But almost nothing has been done, and their use by the young has more than doubled since the turn of the millennium.

A Weaning Story

Sorry I've been quiet lately. The fall season brings in more people to keep me busy, plus its high season for my political campaign.

Breastfeeding is a wonderful opportunity to increase the health of both mother and child.Below I'm reposting a wonderful weaning story from the La Leche League website. I'm a strong supporter of breastfeeding and find this story a close mirror to my own. I hope that you are inspired by this touching story.

Letting Go
A Weaning Story

Lu Hanessian
Englewood NJ USA
From: NEW BEGINNINGS, Vol. 21 No. 1, January-February 2004, pp. 4

My son was barely out of my womb when people asked me how long I planned to breastfeed. A year and a half later, people ask when I plan to enroll him in school, whether he throws tantrums, if he's a picky eater, if he's waking up dry yet. Then they find out he still breastfeeds.

"I can't imagine nursing such a big baby," laughs my neighbor.

"Agh! How do you do it with all those teeth?" shudders my friend Jennifer.

People are curious, I suppose. And probably a little concerned about a nursing child who can also feed himself with a fork. "You still have milk?" a girlfriend asks incredulously.

Occasionally, my father-in-law teases me that Nicholas will still be breastfeeding when he's 35. "You're coddling him," he jests. And I kindly remind him that he was nursed until he was four.

"Why?" people ask, half-afraid of the answer. Why nurse him when he can walk? I guess the answer is so simple that it's kind of complicated.

My son loves to nurse. He gets giddy. He takes my hand and pulls me to his favorite Red Flower Chair in the corner of our living room. "Ana nuss, Mah-mee," he declares. Translation? I want to nurse. Yes, at a mere 18 months, the boy knows what he wants. Or rather, he knows what he needs. He plays like a Whirling Dervish, then comes to my lap and asks to breastfeed for a minute, like an Indy 500 race car coming in for a pit stop.

He wakes up from a midday nap, and my husband, Dave, brings him downstairs where I'm writing. He looks at me with his nap hair and pillow-creased cheeks and gasps, "Mah-mee!" And he runs to me from across the room in his superhero way, arms suspended, fists high, eyebrows raised, mouth open, his eyes glistening with anticipation. We spin in my swivel chair, reveling in the moment, both of us wearing silly, sloppy grins of deep, deep satisfaction. And then, he sits up suddenly, like a Pavlovian bell has just rung, and says, "Nuss!" For him, nursing is a tonic, a stabilizer, an elixir, a magic potion. Society tends to find it weird.

Some people think attachment to the breast means attachment to the mother, which means too much dependency on the mother. And too much dependency on mama? Well...we all know what that means.

I suppose some people get nervous because they think that a child who doesn't "learn to soothe himself" will never learn how. I think about that logic applied to anything else a child learns. For example, if you feed a baby, he'll never learn to feed himself. Or, if you dress him, he'll never learn to dress himself.

I'm warned that if I don't wean him early, he'll never wean himself. In other cultures around the world, however, it's not unusual for children to breastfeed as toddlers. And they do, eventually, stop breastfeeding.

Our Western society, however, frowns at the thought of a walking, talking child at the breast, because it's generally perceived as inappropriate. Sexually inappropriate. As if physical arousal was the goal of toddler nursing-or the effect! Maybe people are uncomfortable with the emotional intimacy of nursing a toddler. It's easier to sexualize the breast than to confront and resolve their own intimacy issues. People who find a breastfeeding mother's motives suspect just don't understand that no toddler can be forced to breastfeed against his will. If he doesn't want to nurse, nobody can make him take a breast any more than someone can force him to eat his lima beans.

In my mind, there is absolutely no confusion whatsoever about a toddler's motivation to nurse. At 20 months now, my son's motivation is clear, because he tells me. I can determine by the tone and inflection of his voice, and in what particular context, the actual reason he wants to nurse. He wants to soothe himself. He wants to connect. He wants to meditate. He wants comfort. He wants to gather his wits. He wants to restore himself.

He comes to me and asks, "Mahmee, pleez nuss?" And he whimpers in triplets under his breath like he's bravely trying to stifle a meltdown. And then he adds, "A lidda bit..." He's becoming aware of time and timing. He is beginning to understand the unspoken and spoken dynamics of relationship, and the language of his needs-and mine. "I have to go to the bathroom first, sweetie," I explain. "One, two, fwee, fo…" he counts, rocking back and forth on his little heels.

I am deeply convinced that the only reason he is even half-heartedly able to exhibit this small vestige of patience at 20 months is because I breastfed him whenever his little heart desired until he was old enough to understand "not right now." In other words, I can occasionally and lovingly say "no" to him now as a toddler because I consistently said "yes" to him as a baby.

This was my first blinking "a-ha!" moment that shined a floodlight for me on the very origins of trust. He trusts me, not because I am his mother, but because I am the mother that responds to him.

We breastfeed in silence. We breastfeed in dialogue. We breastfeed asleep. We breastfeed in a chair at the end of the day until all the light is gone from the room. I hold him, knowing, wistfully, that he will never remember this. But somehow, I feel in my intuitive heart that this will have helped shape his perceptions of himself and me, and give him some kind of internal compass that leads him along a path that is always lit even if it's dark.

In spite of my poetic musings about nursing and the call of the human spirit, I still get flak. Lots of flak. When he was a year-and-a-half old, many people thought my son was just too darn old to nurse because he was apparently not a baby anymore.

But he cried when I wiped his nose. (Still does.) He didn't put his fingers in the right glove holes. (Still can't.) He got upset when his hands were sticky. (Right.) He fell apart when his play-date left. (Yup.) Time passes.

Now, at two years old, people really think he's too old to breastfeed because he's a self-sufficient toddler. But he wears a bib when he eats. He wants to play outside without clothes. He wants his scrapes kissed better. He is afraid of velcro.

People at the mall, in the park, on the airplane, at my pediatrician's office, and sometimes in my own home, are upset with me. A friend visiting from out of town counted how many times my boy nursed in a day. "Six," she says. "Like a newborn baby," she adds. As if I've been giving him Coca-Cola every hour, on the hour.

He cries upon my return from an appointment one day, and a friend shakes her head, and mumbles that she's "worried" about his breastfeeding. It seems everything can be blamed squarely on the breast. Any unseemly toddler behavior. International crises. Traffic jams. Inclement weather. If my son is the slightest bit unruly, it's got to be the breast. Clingy? The breast. Anti-social? You got it. Doesn't want to go outside today? Yep, it's because the breast has lulled him into a state of agoraphobia. Wants to play in the park until dark? It's the breast's fault for not setting better limits on his recreation.

Left breast turned off its plumbing? "There are women who nurse on one side," the doc reassures me. "But at this point, it's time for you to wean him," he advises. "There are no medical benefits to nursing at this stage. There are actually no benefits at all, other than maybe psychological. But it's very controversial."

My son, who is strapped in his stroller in the room with me while the doctor states his case, is now crying so hard I can see his epiglottis. The doctor then proceeds to tell me that I've put myself in a "very difficult position" by nursing my child "this long."

"I'm not here for your support of my nursing," I say calmly. "I'm here for a medical checkup."

"Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I don't support nursing. I think nursing is great. I'm your adversary!" he assures, surely meaning to say "advocate."

I don't bother to correct him. Sometimes, I feel like a marathoner hopping on one good leg to the finish line.

It's bedtime. My son and I are in the rocker. He's nursing while doing his version of Cirque du Soleil. My last nerve is frayed. I have little scratches all over my stomach, almost as if I've wrestled a cat. He likes to press his thumb into my navel when he's nursing like it's a milk dispenser. My tolerance is depleted. I feel forsaken for feeling depleted. Resentful for feeling forsaken.

His eyes are wide open. Even in the dark, I can still make out two blinking black pools. I "shhh" him softly. I tell him to close his eyes now. He puts his paw over his eye as if to let me know that even if he won't close his eye, he can at least cover it.

My breast begins to feel sore, and I tell him I can't nurse him anymore right now. He manages to stop long enough to blurt quietly out of the side of his mouth, "No..." He believes he owns my breast.

Sometimes, I wonder if it's really mine. For a moment, I feel a flash of ambivalence. I see how nursing my baby has helped him flourish. I see how comfortable he is in his own skin because he has gotten the kind of comfort he wants. I see how helpful it is to both of us to be able to breastfeed him when he's not feeling well, when we're in the emergency room with croup at 11 pm, and he's feeling hot, scared, and confused.

I see how he finds his peace. Orders his world. I see how blissful it is to sit with him at dawn and nurse him into another day. I see how breastfeeding him for comfort has made him more comfortable in general. More patient. More respectful of my needs. More able to calm himself. More centered. Happy.

I see how it has made me more patient, more centered, able to calm myself. I see the look of deep knowingness in his eye, as if we've been walking the planet together for a couple of hundred years. I see how breastfeeding has become part of our rhythm, our rhyme, our understanding of each other. How it has given our relationship a whole other layer of connectedness. And how that connectedness has influenced my parenting choices, how I perceive him, and how he responds to me.

I can also see how he won't go down to sleep at night with anybody else but me. At least, not at this point. Not now. Not yet.

Sigh. I hear the chorus of friends, strangers, and pediatricians who warned me about becoming a "human pacifier." I can hear the wave of "I-told-you-so" sweeping across the landscape like a hot wind. Is that them-or me?

Two seasons have passed. The trees are barren in anticipation of our first snowfall of the season. My two-and-a-half year old is watching an old Ed Sullivan show on TV, the Beatles' first appearance. My son is sitting cross-legged on the couch mouthing the words. "I wanna hold your hand, I wanna hold your ha-a-and."

We haven't nursed in a long time. Three whole weeks. An eternity. I think he's weaned himself. He has been going to sleep without breastfeeding for months now. My breast is no longer needed for soothing. For sleep. For comfort. For peace.

Gradually, he asks less. His need diminishes in phases. The "gotta-make sure-they're-still-there" phase. The "20 seconds phase." The phase where he asked me if my breasts are "feeling okay." If they're "tired."

The first time we go a full day without. A full week without, The first time I rock him in my arms without nursing. The first time I comfort him without nursing. The first time he sees a friend's baby breastfeeding, watches in recognition, and goes on with his activities.

I used to think of breastfeeding as the essential connection between us. I couldn't imagine, and sometimes worried about, how we would relate to each other after he was no longer breastfeeding. It was part of our language. Our understanding of each other.

Now, in retrospect, I realize that nursing is only one aspect of motherhood. One way of connecting. One way of comforting. On the other side of the nursing journey now, motherhood continues, of course. And, in some ways, for me, it is just beginning again.

In letting my son decide when to stop nursing-when to let go-I have learned about letting go, too. About letting go of one thread while holding on to others. Letting go, letting go, until more threads are loosened, unraveled, untethered, like a dancing kite that has set itself free.

Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a potentially devastating disease that effects many older Americans, both women and men. Many activities done while in the teens and early 20's (like drinking carbonated beverages) can have an impact on whether a person will develop osteoporosis. It is important to live a healthy lifestyle throughout your lifespan. Of course, it is never to late to change your habits to improve your health.

Popping pills is not the answer to stronger bones. The body must be provided with the correct nutrients and specific stresses to build strong bones. As with almost everything in life, diet and exercise are key components to preventing and treating osteoporosis.

The naturopathically based FOOT Plan is focused on optimizing bone density, quality, and micro-architecture. We're discovering just how important proper micro-architecture can be. The convention use of bisphosphonates (Fosamax, Actonel, and Boniva) can cause weaknesses in the micro-architecture leading to bone fractures. This fracture risk is highest after 5 years of bisphosphonate therapy. For more information about this correlation read this article.

Prevention is the best course of action. Eat your vegetables- dark green leafy vegetables contain calcium; enjoy the outdoors- sunlight stimulates vitamin D production; and exercise- which promotes bone density!

Talk with your doctor about your risk factors. Together you can design a plan that will keep your bones healthy and allow you to maintain an active lifestyle.

AANP Response to AMA Resolution 303

The following is an e-mail I received from the AANP. It is in regards to an important issue that I believe all medical practitioners and their patients should be aware of.

The American Medical Association is poised to make a move that could have a huge impact on our ability to call ourselves Naturopathic Doctors.

(Please note: The AANP's formal response to the AMA can be read in full at the bottom of this post)

The AMA House of Delegates is scheduled to vote on Resolution 303 to restrict the use of "Doctor," "Resident," and "Residency" to MDs, DOs and Dentists. The resolution targets the growing number of nurses who are obtaining advanced degrees (including that of Doctor) and specialty training.

Intended or not, resolution 303 clearly excludes naturopathic physicians, along with Doctors of Nursing, from using the title of Doctor, even though they receive their degrees from accredited institutions. It ignores state laws already on the books, discounts federal standards, and ignores a simple and dangerous fact that in unlicensed states anyone can call themselves an ND - regardless of training or a lack thereof.

As many of you know, the AMA is no friend of naturopathic medicine. It has passed previous resolutions opposing licensure of NDs, and the Scope of Practice Policy, which is being used to "evaluate" all state legislation relating to expanding the scope of licensed practitioners - including naturopathic doctors. I think it's fair to say they don't want NDs to be "Doctors" either.

Why is it important for you to know what the AMA is up to? Because the AMA is creating a national agenda to ensure the current hierarchy in health care is maintained - regardless of a shortage of primary care practitioners, the obvious need to transcend from disease management to a wellness-based system, and the rising numbers of consumers who are choosing non-conventional treatment. Our efforts to increase access to naturopathic medicine, delivered by well-trained physicians from accredited institutions is constantly challenged by their well-funded and powerful lobbying efforts. In New York and North Carolina they've actually proposed NDs be redefined and licensed as certified naturopathy practitioners. Enormous personal and financial resources are expended to preserve title and defend the quality of our training. Each and every one of these challenges to our legitimacy from the AMA make our success that much more difficult.

The actions of the AMA are deeply rooted in an old story and worldview that simply does not reflect today's reality. As you know, MDs, NDs and Nurses already work side by side, collaborating on patient care in venues across the country. Several of our professional organizations that share a commitment to a new health care paradigm are engaged in conversation with state and federal policy makers. It's time everyone acknowledges that the key to reform is the consumer. Once the AMA and legislators realize what naturopathic doctors and your colleagues already know - that the patient is primary care give - then we can transform our health care system to one that emphasizes wellness over disease management.
AANP Comments in opposition to AMA Resolution 303 June 11, 2008

The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) strongly opposes the American Medical Association House of Delegates Resolution 303, Protection of the Titles "Doctor," "Resident," and "Residency." Naturopathic physicians are currently licensed as physicians and/or doctors in 15 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Our graduates obtain their Doctorate of Naturopathy from four-year, graduate-level, residential programs that are approved by both programmatic and regional accreditors who are recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. The Council for Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME), the approved programmatic accreditor for naturopathic medicine, also approves naturopathic residencies.

The Department of Education, all licensed jurisdictions, the private sector and consumers across the country recognize the Doctorate of Naturopathy as a degree on par with that of a conventional medical doctor. The Department of Education, through its new degree categories, will now include naturopathic degrees as "Doctor's degree - professional practice." Naturopathic medical students are entitled to the same federal loans as their colleagues in conventional medical school, as evidenced in May of 2005 when the Department of Education expanded access to unsubsidized federal loans to students at CNME approved schools, on par with medical schools. The Princeton Review Best Medical Colleges of 2007 includes the six accredited naturopathic medical schools. The Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Schools, whose membership is restricted to CNME-approved schools, actively participates on the Advisory Council of the National Association of Health Professions Advisors, and the AANP is an affiliate member of the American Medical Student Association. In fact, the AMA itself stands in recognition of the quality of training afforded the profession. In September 2007, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians joined the AMA, the American Association of Medical Colleges, and more than 50 other physician specialty groups and health care associations to petition the Secretary of Education for an increase in the Stafford Loan limits to ensure a "sufficient supply of well educated and trained health professionals to provide quality care for all Americans."

Resolution 303 indicates that title protection is necessary to prevent confusion amongst patients. During the past 88 years of regulation, in any of the states that regulate naturopathic doctors, there is no record of public confusion, or a documented pattern of public harm caused by naturopathic doctors. As opposed to creating confusion, recognition and regulation of naturopathic doctors is absolutely essential for the protection of the public, particularly in unlicensed states where thousands of individuals are able to proclaim the title of Naturopathic Doctor legally despite the fact they are informally trained, obtain degrees from diploma mills, and/or have absolutely no supervised clinical training. The AANP contends that any health care professional who has achieved the highest degree awarded by an accredited institution has the right to utilize the title conferred, in this case "doctor," regardless of medical specialty. Similarly, the naturopathic profession does not own the terms "resident" and "residency" any more than nurses or conventional doctors do. We contend that consumer protection will be achieved through continued demarcation of qualified health care professionals with doctorate-level education and training as determined by the authorized agencies of the U.S. Department of Education. Resolution 303 will only serve to unfairly penalize legitimately trained providers of primary care services from practicing their trades and in so doing deprive consumers of obtaining qualified naturopathic health care. The AANP recommends withdrawal or unfavorable consideration of this resolution.

Respectfully,

Lise Alschuler, ND, FABNO
President, Board of Directors
American Association of Naturopathic Physicians

American Association of Naturopathic Physicians
4435 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 403
Washington, DC 20016
202.237.8150 phone
866.538.2267 toll-free
202.237.8152 fax
Email: member.services@naturopathic.org
www.naturopathic.org

New Location

I want to let everyone know that I will be opening my practice in La Grande shortly, most likely in June. It will be located in the Blue Mountain Academy for the Healing Arts (1405 Washington Ave). I will be taking over the practice of Dr Meg Perry. I'm excited about this opportunity and look forward to serving the residents of eastern Oregon.

Mad Cow/Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease

This is a bit of a follow-up to the downed cattle post from a few months ago. In the US we tend to deny the existence of Mad Cow Disease, and its related illness. One suspected case of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, the human equivalent of MCD, made it into the news recently. I find it odd that it didn't get more coverage on national news, especially since it occurred so soon after the downed cow incidents made the news. I find it more disconcerting that I can't find any follow-up on this story.
Read more about this possible current case in Virginia.

Tips to avoiding CJD:

• Know your food!
• Take action to improve the downer cow situation in the US.
• Avoid eating meat.
  
• Prions pass mainly by ingestion.
  
• Our current agricultural industry often feeds parts of animals to other animals.
  
• Grow your own, or have someone you know raise it. Make sure that the animal is vegetarian fed.
  
• Avoid manure based fertilizer.
• Prions may be able to spread from manure onto food; remember the recent E coli spinach outbreak. This is still a tenuous link, but a possibility. Once again knowing your source is important.

Health Care Industry Lobbying

This entry focuses more on the politics of health care in the US, than on individual actions you can take. I urge you to become politically active to help make the US more friendly to "alternative" medicine. Two major steps that need to be taken are getting naturopathic medicine and midwifery licensed nation-wide. Licensing ensures standards of training and procedure, protecting people from inadequately trained practitioners. To help get these professions licensed nationally please visit the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians and The Big Push for Midwives. Both of these groups are fighting the well funded lobbying efforts of the conventional health care industry.

According to a Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, the health care industry is the top spender among lobbying groups in the US, for the second year in a row. Health insurance companies spent $138 million on lobbying in 2007, imagine how much lower costs would be under a single payer system. All the recent horror stories from the pharmaceutical sector (heparin that was not quality tested, drugs approved without full safety testing, etc) makes me think that they should be spending their lobbying money, $227 million, on identifying the safety of their products. I guess pharmaceutical companies find it more economical to get congress to protect them, rather than fully safety testing their products.

The US needs to realize that it should be protecting its citizens, and not big corporations. We protect the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies, while forbidding women to deliver babies in their homes. The health care industry needs to stay focused on life, rather than profit. Life is an unalienable right, not money.