How Safety Standards for Cellphone Severely Neglects Human Biology

Do you know what levels of wireless radiation your phone has to emit to be considered lethal, or at least cause burns?

Sam the Military Man and Microwave Radiation

Let me tell you a story about SAM.

SAM is the specific anthropomorphic mannequin (SAM) meant to represent the standard human head.

But SAM was created in 1989 and he was not made to be average.

He was made to be a representative of the very top 10 percent of army recruits in the US military.

As microwave radiation as a military weapon progressed throughout 1970s and 80s, the military wanted a model to test the effects of microwave radiation on humans that they were observing in real life. So SAM was to be the test mannequin to see how much microwave radiation a body could absorb while making a cell phone call.

SAM became the standard for the specific absorption rate (or SAR) for cellphone radiation in humans.

The Problem with SAM

But some people began to point out that testing mobile phones on a plastic dummy isn't the same as in human body.

For one, the ear of a plastic dummy is not like a human ear of cartilage -- in fact, it is highly absorbant liquid.

SAM’s head size only represents roughly 2% of the human population and 0% of children.

Furthermore, the measurement, ‘SAR’ is still only based on thermal-induced effects (i.e., heating effects) and therefore disregards numerous health hazards, such as the effects on the blood brain barrier (BBB), neurotransmitters and autophagy which have all been well documented.

How do you use your phone? Against your ear?

Where do you actually keep it when you’re out all day — against your hip bone in your pocket? Or tucked in a bra? It goes on and on…

In fact, the phones themselves violate the SAR standard!

SAM was used to test early phone models. The outcome of those early proceedings was that a person cannot absorb more than 1.6 watts of energy per kilogram of body weight.

By now phones are on the 4G of wireless technology.

We Are Not SAM

Now, meet the man whose research inspired the SAM campaign. Professor Om P. Gandhi, Emeritus Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering with the University of Utah, taught courses on biological effects of antennas, RF and microwave electromagnetic fields for over 50 years.

A world expert on how mobile phone radiation penetrates the human brain, Prof Ghandhi was once a consultant to major cell phone companies.

In March 2012, his study was published in the journal Electromagnetic Biological Medicine, it shared how The SAR for a 10-year old is up to 153% higher than the SAR for the SAM model and MRI scans of children between 5 and 8 years of age.

He wrote:

"It was found approximately 2 times higher SAR in children compared to adults. When electrical properties are considered, a child’s head’s absorption can be over two times greater, and absorption of the skull’s bone marrow can be ten times greater than adults."

“It is a fact that humans of all sizes and ages from children to older individuals are using cell phones, and testing for compliance testing for a 220 lb., 6 feet 2 inch tall adult male underestimates the actual energy absorbed by up to a factor of two, thus releasing into the market telephones that would not pass if a proper safety compliance testing method was used.”

He realised these findings were being manipulated...and how the SAM testing standard were an abuse of the SAR ratings.

Prof Gandhi became deeply disillusioned at the unconscionable lack of industry regulation and zero liability of cell tower companies and cell phone makers on human health.  Gandhi refused to work with them any longer.

SAM and SAR Cannot Tell You How Much Radiation You Absorb

The highest SAR was set relative to the heat produced by RF radiation.

Worse, the highest SAR is set well below the level of radiation that would endanger a user’s health.

Prof Ghandi embarked on a mission with other scientists and concerned advocates to share this knowledge. This work sparked the WE ARE NOT SAM movement.

We Are Not SAM movement is not based on opinion - it's backed by thousands of scientific studies and the leading independent scientists from around the world have a lot to say about this testing dummy called SAM.

The SAR specification on a phone can only tell you the highest measurement taken for each frequency reached by the device, and not how much radiation you absorb.

So now you know, there is zero biological science behind mobile phone safety testing. You are exposing yourself regularly to harmful levels of wireless radiation every time you use a wireless device. It is now in your hands to share about this knowledge and protect yourself and your loved ones.

https://www.instagram.com/wearenotsam/

References and Notes:

• https://www.instagram.com/wearenotsam/

• You can read Prof Gandhi’s paper here. Gandhi OP, Morgan LL, de Salles AA, Han YY, Herberman RB, Davis DL. Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagn Biol Med. 2012 Mar;31(1):34-51. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2011.622827. Epub 2011 Oct 14. PMID: 21999884.

• Prof Gandhi was a fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering in 1997. He was the Chairman of the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Utah, from 1992 to 1999, the President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society from 1992 to 1993, the Co-Chairman of the IEEE SCC 28. IV Subcommittee on the RF Safety Standards from 1988 to 1997, and the Chairman of the IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation from 1980 to 1982.

Study: Relationship Between Heavy Metals and Autism

What do autism and spectrum disorders in tiny children have in common with older people suffering with dementia? Their brains are chockful of heavy metals. These heavy metals be may exist in our environment naturally, or as impurities introduced through raw materials that are used in the production process -- of anything from cosmetics, household materials like paint, to the water you consume.

What Are Heavy Metals?

By definition, heavy metals are elements that can elicit adverse effects on the central nervous system and cognitive function. It is a huge and growing concern with far-reaching implications for human health, especially for the development of young children.

The most common heavy metals are elements, such as lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), and chromium (Cr), which can exert toxic effects on living organisms at even very low exposure levels.

When you are poisoned by heavy metals, you suffer severe and long-term consequences on the brain, resulting in cognitive impairment. Chronic exposure to heavy metals may interrupt the development of physical, muscular, and neurological conditions, that look a lot like diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disorders.

The Study: The Relationship between the Level of Copper, Lead, Mercury and Autism Disorders: A Meta-Analysis

We know about the likelihood of a possible relationship between the concentrations of copper, lead, and mercury and autism. Researchers in this study wanted to review various studies to determine the relationship between the concentrations of these elements and autism by meta-analysis.

They eventually chose 18 out of 95 selected studies, involving 2–16-year-old children from different countries from 1982 to 2019.

The Results

The results were significant.

In these 18 studies, 1797 patients (981 cases and 816 controls) aged 2 to 16 years were examined. Concentration of the samples (blood, hair, and nails) for both case and control groups was evaluated. There was no significant relationship between copper concentration and autism (SMD (95% CI): 0.02 (− 1.16,1.20); I2=97.7%; P=0.972); there was a significant relationship between mercury concentration and autism (SMD (95% CI): 1.96 (0.56,3.35); I2=98.6%; P=0.006); there was also a significant relationship between lead concentration and autism (SMD (95% CI): 2.81 (1.64,3.98); I2=97.8%; P=0.000).

These heavy metals were found in various parts of the children through tests, especially in their blood plasma and nails. You can check out the concentrations of copper, mercury and lead in samples of hair, nails, and plasma of the children with autism and a control group in studies— the results of the meta-analysis are presented in Table 1 of the study.

Due to the chemical properties of certain metals, excessive metal exposure can cause brain abnormalities.

The study was published in Pediatric Health Medicine.

Why is this study important?

The review examined multiple studies and found a very strong link between lead and mercury concentration and autism.

Yet, are you aware of just how pervasive these toxic heavy metals are in our environment? It's found in things from cosmetics, interior decor and materials like paint, down to our water supply and quality of air.

Compared with adults, children are more exposed to environmental toxic elements and also absorb them at a higher rate.

On the other hand, the chance of warding off elements’ toxicity in children is less than adults.

Evidence of mercury’s toxicity has been growing for decades, and in recent years is focused on the metal’s association with neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Brain health is what makes us happy, creative, vital individuals. We can build all the muscle we want and look good on the outside, but it is our super powerful computing system that powers how we live every day. If you are serious about averting neurological crises and general degeneration, prioritise eliminating every source of heavy metals in your own home.

References & Notes:

• Jafari Mohammadabadi H, Rahmatian A, Sayehmiri F, Rafiei M. The Relationship Between the Level of Copper, Lead, Mercury and Autism Disorders: A Meta-Analysis. Pediatric Health Med Ther. 2020;11:369-378
  https://doi.org/10.2147/PHMT.S210042 Link: https://www.dovepress.com/the-relationship-between-the-level-of-copper-lead-mercury-and-autism-d-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-PHMT

• Mercury is a risk factor for autism. Mercury is considered as a risk factor for autism since, according to previous studies, it has been recognized as a neurotrophic toxin. Check out the study here.

What is YOUR standard against wireless radiation?

In the digital era of the 21st century, we are not exposed to one Wi-Fi transmitter antenna. One typical office place or school classroom might have dozens of radiation streams from dozens of transmitting antennas: 30 laptops, 30 cell phones, a wireless printer, a wireless security system, an overhead internet access point and a cell tower located in line of sight outside the window.

You enter a mall and you’re exposed to multiple sources of wireless devices and antennas around you.

Do I Need to Worry About Radiation From WiFi and Bluetooth Devices?

Here’s what is known about the potential risk from routers and wireless devices

As of 2011, radiofrequency (RF) radiation is classified as a Group 2B Possible Human Carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer at the WHO.

There is a large number of studies establishing a concern that exposure to even low level electromagnetic fields causes adverse health effects. Studies showing possible health effects, that are corroborated as more research is done.

In 2018, the US National Toxicology Program embarked on an ambitious a 10-year, $25 million government study in rodents. It provided evidence that wireless radiation can cause cancer—but the abrupt termination of the study left a lot of key questions unanswered.

Professor James Lin from the University of Illinois in Chicago discussed the US National Toxicology Program’s (NTP’s) decision to close its radiation research program and what that means for us all.

‘In 2018, NTP published the final report on its US$30 million laboratory research showing “clear evidence” that lifelong exposure to low-level RF radiation caused cancers in rats.

‘The statistically significant findings showed that both GSM- and CDMA-modulated 900-MHz RF radiation had led to the development of malignant schwannoma, a rare form of tumor in the hearts of male rats. Furthermore, an independent analysis of the NTP data for overall cancer incidence detected in any organ or tissue inside the animal showed that rats exposed to GSM and CDMA cellphone RF radiation had significantly higher overall or total primary tumor incidence than the concurrent controls.’

Just recently, in 2023, the NTP declared on its 2023 fact sheet that it would perform follow-up studies on the effects found in the long term animal studies. 

So what happened? 

Have the follow-up studies been completed already?

Working with Swiss national engineering and U.S. government experts, the NTP had devised small-scale systems for exposing animals experimentally to controlled levels of wireless radiation.

Yet results from these exposure systems have neither been publicly shared nor published.

You can learn more about the NTP cellphone study in another post.

What Are the Existing Standards on Wireless Digital Technology (Radiofrequency Radiation)?

There Are No Safety Standards.

There are no national or international bodies who have “standards” for safe levels of the radiation emitted by wireless or microwave devices.

It is important to know that different countries have different standards and approaches to the current thermal (heat) RF exposure standards. The biologically toxic (oxidative/membrane) RF exposure levels, shown to produce harm at non-thermal levels.

This is an alarming concern as many countries rush towards 5G (i.e., device to device in the Internet of Things).[2]

So we are clear that nobody is watching out on your behalf:

Any “safety standard” by the telecommunications industry and the Big Tech sector, related industry associations, regulators on both sides of the Atlantic, and standards bodies such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are focused exclusively on thermal effects ONLY.

This means “standards” are pushed to whether you get literally burnt or fried. Any non-thermal biological effects are either ignored or denied.

Different Countries Have Different Exposure Standards

However, in just the last 20 years, more than 20 position papers and resolutions regarding EMF and health have been adopted by esteemed EMF researchers and physicians.

Building Biology Standards

Standards for EMF exposure in Building Biology is based on the precautionary principle and lowest biological harm for sleeping areas. It is informed by reports by the BioInitiative Working Group. In August 2007 and December 2012, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of 29 experts with different competences, published two groundbreaking reports “BioInitiative 2007/resp. 2012 – A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)” edited by Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter, calling for preventive measures against EMF exposure based on the available scientific evidence.

The BioInitiative report 2012 includes sections on the evidence for effects on: gene and protein expression, DNA, immune function, neurology and behavior, blood-brain barrier, brain tumors and acoustic neuromas, childhood leukemia, melatonin, Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer, fertility and reproduction, fetal and neonatal disorders, autism.

Now let’s have a look at some of these new actions:

In Europe, the EU in its Council Recommendation of 1999 adopted the ICNIRP recommendations. However, this does not consider long-term non-thermal effects. It also does not consider non-thermal bio effects.

Many individual EU countries are choosing stricter regulations against wireless radiation levels.

Austria

has one of the strictest standards. Since 2007, the Highest Health Council of the Ministry of Health in Austria has recommended to take preventive action by reducing exposure levels from RF devices of at least a factor of 100 below the guideline levels of the European Commission!

South Korea

In Korea, you will find many websites for public and nonpublic institutions that provide information aiming to improve public awareness and EMF knowledge [19-22]. This information includes large amounts of data on human limitation levels, EMF measurements of electronic products, base station information, general safety guidelines, and false beliefs.

France

The first low-EMF zone was established at Drôme, France in July 2009.[10]

After two long years of debate, on January 29th 2015, France adopted a law which limits the spread of WiFi radiation and establishes basic rules of precautionary principle related to health risks from radio frequency waves.

It also promises a fine of 75 000 Euros if any cell phone advertisement fails to mention recommended use of EMF protection products.

On 8 July 8, 2015, a court in Toulouse, France, ruled in favor of a woman with the diagnosis “syndrome of hypersensitivity to electromagnetic radiation” and determined her disability to be 85% with substantial and lasting restrictions on access to employment.[9]

Italy

The Italian Supreme Court confirmed a previous decision by the Civil Court of Appeals of Brescia (no. 614 of 10 December 2009) that ruled that the National Institute for Workmen’s Compensation (INAIL) must compensate a worker who had developed a tumor in the head due to long-term, heavy use of mobile phones while on the job.[11]

Russia

Russia set strict standards and has not loosened these. In contrast to the ICNIRP guidelines, the Russian safety standards, are based on non-thermal RF effects, which were obtained by several research institutes in the former Soviet Union during decades of studies on chronic exposures to RF. It is interesting to find that Russian researchers  looked at RFR exposures and immune dysfunction over 2 decades ago and because of these robust studies which were replicated in 2006-2009 they set their upper limit of RFR at 10 μW/cm2.

Canada

EMF Exposure Guidelines in Canada are under the jurisdiction of Health Canada who has not independently established guidelines for magnetic field or electric field exposure. When pressed, they will state that Canada follows the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection “ICNIRP” guidelines of 830 mG or 83,000 nT (Magnetic Field) or 5000 V/m (Electric Field) for a 24-hr period. Since these guidelines are based on short-term acute exposure we still do not have guidelines that protect the public from long-term low level exposure.

The Canadian Teachers' Federation (which represents over 200,000 teachers across Canada (2013)) recommends “prudent use of Wi-Fi” whenever possible including the recommendation to limit consistent exposure in schools by turning off wireless access points when not in use.

The Elementary Teacher's Federation of Ontario - over 76,000 teachers (2013) adopted resolutions:
 "That ETFO study the impact of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, including the possible implications for schools and members, with a report with recommendations.

The British Columbia Teachers' Federation (41,000 public school teachers (2013) adopted resolution to protect teachers' health: "The BCTF supports members who are suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity by ensuring that their medical needs are accommodated in the workplace."

The Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association - 37,000 teachers (2012) recommends pulling plug on Wi-Fi in schools, schools should practice “prudent avoidance of exposure” given the mounting evidence against WiFi exposure especially on children.

May of 2012: To accommodate children with EHS and to provide choice for parents who want to heed health warnings to reduce exposure for children who are most vulnerable, the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils (BCCPAC) called for a moratorium on Wi-Fi in schools, and for a minimum of one school in each district at each level to be free of Wi-Fi.

What Are Your Personal Standards against Wireless Radiation?

• How often do you use WIFI hot spots? Regular surveys often find many places where the level of public exposure substantially succeeds that generally observed at the national scale.

  While, say the National Frequency Agency (AFNR) in France in this moment considers a hotspot to be atypical if the levels of radiation exceed 6 V/m (9.5 µW/cm2). It is not uncommon that WiFi radiation on hotspot peaks above 10 V/m. It takes time for network operators, often some months, before an excessive hotspot is recalibrated.

• Do you set clear boundaries against wireless radiation in your home?

  From nurseries and daycare centers are common places that ban wireless devices; this is where very small children under 3 yrs spend their time. Do you permit wireless devices for “digital educational activities” and “lifestyle and entertainment”? Otherwise, wireless access to internet can be disabled, eliminating one common source of high levels of wireless radiation.

• Are you aware of the EMF-spreading installation (antennas, towers etc)?

  Any such installation typically has to first approved by local government, because it may breach location rules, if indeed the area has any. Installers typically must submit necessary documentation about EM fields it will create and emit. This information may not be available to the public, however. In fact, the entire process may be obscured. This means it is up to you, the individual, to be able to detect, measure, and mitigate against EMFs in your environment.

• Do you use EMF protection? And are you regularly up to date on the various types of EMF product quality? For example, the most common products promise they reduce exposure of the head to wireless radiation from mobile device.

• If you have children, do you consider their more vulnerable needs? EMF protection products for kids consider their lower body weight to mass ratio.

Are you concerned about the levels of electromagnetic pollution in your home? Do you work with wireless devices? Check out my full guide to the regulations that institutions are enacting in response to citizens’ concern around the world.

For a full list of EMR exposure guidelines go here

References

• 1. http://www.safeinschool.org/

• 5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them. (2018) Martin L. Pall, PhD. Discusses SCENIHR and ICNIRP (International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection – ICNIRP, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) Guidelines for RFR and robust scientific literature on adverse health effects which are both considered and not considered in their deliberations.   https://einarflydal.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/pall-to-eu-on-5g-harm-march-2018.pdf

• 2. Oberfeld G. Precaution in Action – Global Public Health Advice Following BioInitiative 2007. In Sage C, Carpenter DO, editors. BioInitiative Report 2012: A Rationale for a Biologically based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), 2012. Available at: http://www.bioinitiative.org.

• 3. Havas M. International expert’s Perspective on the Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and ElectromagneticRadiation (EMR) [Internet]. Peterborough, ON, (CD): 2011 June

• 11 (updated 2014 July). Available at: http://www.magdahavas.com/international-experts-perspective-on-the-health-effects-ofelectromagnetic-fields-emf-and-electromagnetic-radiation-emr/.

• x. https://ehtrust.org/singapore-policy-recommendations-cell-phones-wireless-radiation-health/; https://www.imda.gov.sg/user-and-set-up-guides/mobile-and-broadband/mobile-phone-base-stations-and-radiofrequency-radiation

• [9] Première reconnaissance d’un handicap dû à l’électrosensibilité en France. Le Monde fr avec AFP | 25.08.2015. Available at: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2015/08/25/premiere-reconnaissance-en-justice-d-unhandicap-u-a-l-electrosensibilite_4736299_3244.html.

• 10. Abelous D. France has its first radiation-free refuge in the Drome [Internet]. EURRE/Drome (FR): Agence France Presse (AFP), 2009 Oct 9. Available at: http://www.next-up.org/pdf/AFP_France_has_its_first_radiation_free_refuge_in_the_Drome_09_10_2009.pdf.

• 19. Seoul (Korea): EMF; c2005. Electromagnetic field (EMF) [Internet] [cited 2019 Oct 5]. Available from: http://www.emf.or.kr/ [Google Scholar] [Ref list]

• Naju (Korea): Korea Electric Power Corporation; c2019. Korea Electric Power Corporation [Internet] [cited 2019 Oct 10]. Available from: http://home.kepco.co.kr/kepco/KO/D/A/KODAPP001.do?menuCd=FN050401/ [Google Scholar] [Ref list]

Blue Light Can Shorten Your Lifespan and Harm Your Brain

Blue light can cut your lifespan. We already know too much blue light from too much screen use has been linked to mitochondrial issues such as obesity and psychological problems. But did you know blue light can cut your lifespan short? 

What Is Blue Light?

Blue light is very high-energy short-wave light. Vibrating within the 380 to 500 nanometer range, it has the shortest wavelength and highest energy.

In Nature, the only source of blue light is from the Sun, but it always comes balanced with other colour spectrums. So is any blue light coming from traditional heat based lights. 

Artificially, however, fluorescent bulbs and LEDs, mobile phones, computer screens, and flat screen televisions emit high amounts of blue light. 

Check out the colour spectrum from the Sun — it offers the full spectrum of colours of the rainbow. Heat-based light bulbs provide a warm glow with relatively balanced light and almost no blue light. See the colour spectrum from a standard LED. It is practical nothing but blue light.

The image shows comparative spectra for different types of light.

Blue Light Accelerates the Biological Aging Process in Fruit Flies

A problem with LEDs and many of the screens and devices we are surrounded by is that they have a blue spike. I've read various articles on the biological effects of too much isolated blue light on people

One huge study discovered how blue light emitted by phones, tablets, televisions, and other gadgets can substantially accelerate the biological aging process in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster). 

They found specific metabolites (cell essential chemicals) become altered in the cells of fruit flies exposed to blue light. 

One metabolite they found was that the levels of the metabolite succinate were increased, but glutamate levels were lowered:

“Succinate is essential for producing the fuel for the function and growth of each cell. High levels of succinate after exposure to blue light can be compared to gas being in the pump but not getting into the car,“ said Giebultowicz. “Another troubling discovery was that molecules responsible for communication between neurons, such as glutamate, are at the lower level after blue light exposure.“

These specific metabolites – essential chemicals for cells to work correctly – have the same function in humans, so if you are looking at good anti-aging strategies, avoiding excessive blue light exposure is a simple but powerful idea. 

Artificial Blue Light Is Detrimental to Cell Function

Blue light given off over long periods at short distances from electronic screens could meddle with normal cellular processes and disrupt our natural circadian rhythms.

Blue light from everyday devices, such as TVs, laptops and phones, has been observed to produce detrimental effects on practically every type of cell in our body, from skin and fat cells, to sensory neurons. 

These days you’ll notice plenty of skincare companies claiming their products can protect you from the effects of blue light. They probably don’t; blue light can activate genes associated with inflammation and photoaging (skin damage) and typical sunscreens do not block high-energy blue and visible light damage.

Most of Us Are Living in a Pervasive Blue Light Environment

If you’re not using your devices much and spending most of your time outdoors, where your cells are synced with the natural circadian rhythms of the Sun, you probably don’t have much to worry about in terms of whether your lifespan is getting cut shorter and shorter.

But if you’re like most folk, you’re living and working under LEDs, using screen devices, and spending most of your time indoors. Screens are everywhere, and people worldwide already spend an average of 6 hours and 37 minutes looking at them daily.

(Note that this is far more than the 2 hours limit recommended by The recommended screen time worldwide is 2 hours a day for adults and children.

80% of American adults who use digital devices do so more than two hours per day (according to the Vision Council). Nearly 67% use two or more devices at the same time. Fifty-nine percent have symptoms of digital eye strain, which is a marker for high oxidative stress in your retinal cells.

If you hadn't thought about blue light and its effect on your life before, perhaps now you can picture how living under the wrong type of light can literally cut your lifespan short.

STUDY: Flame Retardants Linked to Lower IQs, Hyperactivity in Children

Polybrominated diphenyl ether, PBDE, flame retardants are now a world-wide pollution problem reaching even remote areas. But the most common exposure is more personal that you might think. It is most commonly found at home in household products, furniture, and even clothing.

Research is finding that exposure in the womb to fire-beating chemicals in furniture and carpet pads may hinder child development. One new study found that spikes in the levels of one class of flame retardant, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) is correlated with behavior and cognition difficulties during early childhood.

What are behavior and cognition difficulties?

First, let’s clarify this catch-all term that is becoming a catchphase in many childhood issues.

Behavior and cognition difficulties can refer to any behaviours that create problems with social interactions, such as: disorders of attachment, disruptive behavior disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety and mood disorders, and disorders of self-regulation of sleep and feeding in children younger than 6 years.

When children have such difficulties, it can greatly interfere with not only how they play and interact with others, but also harm parent–child relationships, physical safety, their ability to participate in child care, and school readiness at later ages.

It is a huge concern because these cognitive behaviours are linked to measurable abnormalities in brain functioning and persistent emotional and behavioral problems.

The study

Researchers investigating the health impacts of prenatal exposure to flame retardants collected blood samples from 309 pregnant women early in their second trimester.

The researchers tracked children through the first five years of their lives, looking at a battery of tests for IQ and behavior. They found that children of mothers who had high PBDE levels during their second trimester showed cognition deficits when the children were five years old as well as higher rates of hyperactivity at ages two to five.

the findings

If the mother’s blood had a 10-fold increase in PBDEs, the average five-year-old had about a four-point IQ deficit.

“A four-point IQ difference in an individual child may not be perceivable in…ordinary life. However, in a population, if many children are affected, the social and economic impact can be huge due to the shift of IQ distribution and productivity,” —lead author Aimin Chen, an assistant professor of environmental health at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine.

The researchers did not track the children’s PBDE blood levels after they were born, so the deficits could also have resulted, at least in part, from the additional exposures to the chemical that the children encountered directly after they were born. However, although the lack of blood level data in the children is a limitation, other researchers have measured both mother and child PBDE levels and found similar deficits, strengthening his conclusions.

The team also found that association of PBDEs and child IQ and behavior did not result from the mother’s blood levels of lead, a well-known neurotoxic metal.

exposure to flame retardants is linked to lower IQs

The findings are similar to what two recent large U.S. studies found, showing that the greater the prenatal exposure to flame retardants, the greater the developmental deficits and the lower of IQ of the child.

children are most vulnerable

Children are at high risk of encountering this poison because they spend so much time close to the floor and often put their hands in their mouths.

They are also being exposed during critical windows of development in utero and in the early years of childhood. If you mess up development when brain structures or neuropathways are forming there may not be an ability to repair them later on.

Products treated with PBDE are usually not labeled. You can take precautions to reducing exposure by having children wash their hands to diminish dust ingestion, and by replacing old furniture and changing old carpet padding.

Toxic home exposure

Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDEs) flame retardant chemicals, used in the manufacture of furniture, infant products, and electronics, are ubiquitous in most.

For example, did you know your infant car seat may contain such hazardous PBDEs?

Unfortunately, the side effect of fire safety regulations mean that many clothing, household products are made to “resist fire”. For example, California’s Technical Bulletin 117 (TB 117)—a fire safety law promulgated in the 1970s requires that furniture, baby, and other household products resist open flame (California Department of Consumer Affairs 2000; Zota et al. 2008). The unintended consequence is that PBDE concentrations in California children are now among the highest measured worldwide (Eskenazi et al. 2011).

Babies all the way through toddlerhood want to explore everything and you’re setting yourself up for a near-impossible task to police what they put into their mouths! The best policy for such environmental toxins is to reduce and eliminate the sources AT HOME as much as you can.

References & resources

1. Chen’s findings are similar to two recent large U.S. studies that showed associations between prenatal exposure to flame retardants and developmental deficits and reduced IQ. One of those earlier studies, from the University of California, Berkeley, looked at children and PBDE levels through age seven, and was published online last fall in Environmental Health Perspectives. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1205597

2. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), which are used as flame retardants, have been found to be higher in residents of California than of other parts of the United States.