-
Website
http://www.mobileindustryreview.com/ -
Original page
http://www.smstextnews.com/2008/08/mobile_phones_and_eight_year_olds.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
While I'm not giving either of my children phones until they can earn the money to pay for them e.g. a paper round etc, I'm not overly fussed by the social angle. Every generation thinks new stuff is bad for the kids. Novels were once thought to be the work of the devil that would rot young minds...
How many 8 year olds actually need a phone? Probably close to none. Does it pose a risk to them? I doubt that phones are any more personally risky than fancy shoes. What dangerous activity can someone get up to on a mobile - even with their peers egging them on to do risky things? Uncontrolled private access to the internet on a mobile phone by peer groups of children and teenagers is a different story.
On the question of novels. Most early novels were extremely racey. In fact the parallels between the growth of the internet through porn and the growth of the novel is widely commented on. Moll Flanders (published in 1720 somthing) goes through men at a startlling rate in eye popping detail although she does repent on the second to last page. As an early novel its detailed review of immorality is typical. As you might expect the normal charges apply in that the story is weak and characterisation is non existant (remind you of anything on the net these days?). I doubt if any 8 year olds have read it and been corrupted by it - ever.
- The unknown health risks - I'm going to go a little more indepth with this next week.
- The fact that mobiles/MP3 players are the most stolen objects off of young people; and by young children having them, surely they are being put at risk of having their property stolen?
I think by putting your children into these risks, when there is absolutely no need for it, is just a little absurd. Then again, that's purely my opinion.
It's good to share opinions to be able to see the different points of view.
I also agree that fastfood is terrible, violent TV is slightly different, and say ten year olds playing Grand Theft Auto is just wrong.
Samantha.
Re 'health risks', there is only one discussion you can have - do you believe in the principle of the weight of evidence?
There are many things in life people hold as being dangerous, when the evidence very clearly points otherwise. Cycling, for example, is safer than walking - but there's a major industry around selling helmets/scaring parents into getting children off bikes and inside to play video games. Why does no-one suggest walking helmets?
For every 'study' claiming to find a causative link between mobile emissions and illness, there are a hundred independent, peer-reviewed studies finding nothing. The idea of a conspiracy involving researchers, manufacturers and governments is laughable - the numbers of people involved who would need to be hiding evidence - and thus putting their careers, reputations and indeed personal freedom at risk is in the hundreds of thousands. They can't all be on the take.
There is simply no comparison between mobiles and the 50's/60's smoking work, at all. In the 50's/60's, the industries paid for the research by their own staff, and thus could hide it. There was little to no independent work. When universities started doing their own work, the truth came out. Mobiles are starting from the other end - the independent institutions are the ones doing the work, with much larger sample sizes than smoking research ever had.
Maybe you could look at how many lives have been saved due to mobiles being to hand. This number must measure in the millions by now.
To me, anyone who buys into mobiles being harmful is in the same loony basket as global warming skeptics. You deny weight of evidence (or lack thereof) on this scale like you deny gravity or a curved earth.
Having a reasonably solid grasp of non-ionising radiation, RF propagation theory, the dB scale of power measurement, relativity of power levels etc is also highly recommended. Not to be elitist, but unless you do it's hard to sustain any discussion as the truth gets swamped in emotion. For example, the average 3G mobile antenna puts out about as much power as a decent lightbulb. The tiny, tiny levels of RF power that modern mobiles use is truly amazing. 3G mobiles work at just above the ambient noise floor, using many hundreds of times less power than 2G mobiles. You get the equivalent of a lifetime's worth of mobile emissions from one hour at the beach, under a 2KW/m2 sun...
<edit>
Thinking further on this, over the last 15 years in this wonderful mobile industry, I've worked with many hundreds of genuine, honest people, many with families, small children, etc. This topic has come up often - indeed, every time there's a scaremongering headline, the RF engineers would be dissecting the methodologies used of the study etc etc. Often the non-technical staff would come to us for advice along the lines of "So is there really a risk?" "Should I let my child talk to grandma / dad etc on my phone?". Always, the unequivocal advice has been that there is nothing to worry about. These were people whos job it was to be on top of this sort of thing - RF PHD engineers required to testify in court hearings on the matter, where objections to masts were based on health concerns. Literally liable to go to jail if found guilty of perjury. And let's not forget the massive damages MNO's would face, should they be found to be covering up evidence of any ill-effects. The size of any such class action would be measured in the Billions. It would utterly bankrupt any MNO or trade body implicated. Look at what happened to Big Tobacco in the 90's. I will not accept that all these people I've known have offered the 'Mobiles are safe' opinion because they were afraid of their jobs or wanted to protect their stock options.
If I thought for a nanosecond that there was anything at all to be actually concerned about I wouldn't let my children or wife use one - just like we used to avoid taking our children to pubs/places that allowed smoking. If I thought the company I worked for was hiding evidence of health effects I'd not only resign on the spot, I'd blow the whistle so loud you'd hear it on the moon. But there is no such peer-reviewed, causative published evidence for mobiles at all.
</edit>
/m
Where I think the discussion is woeful and I would really appreciate a new perspective is the subjective dangers which are in all senses more real than the radio frequency debates.
The real problems are social not physics but theft, mis-use of time, contacting people away from parents supervision (children love to secretly conspire and not always about wise things), running up big bills senslessly or taking stupid photos that everybody will live to regret when they come to their senses.
These are the big questions I want asked by someone who is close to the problem and you have raised many of them. HOW should mobiles be used for the biggest benefit. That is what this site specialises in asking and the under 15s are a big group. Would google maps help the large number of kids who get lost not that far from home or in shops? Would it help their parents feel comfortable. Would it be good if PARENTS could create a walled garden for their under 10s (both web and voice)?
I just gave my 9 year old brother my old super-tweaked 6600. All he does with it is play games.
He never called anyone besides my parents, and that's very rare. No kid of that age needs a phone. All they do is play with them and listen to music. And yes, it's all about peer pressure and sometimes jealousy. "If my brother who is 2 years old than me has it, why can't I". That's what he says when referring to my other brother.
It's the family that has to stop this, it will save them money, and their children won't become sedentary. They will be active like children should be.