Ten reasons why handheld devices should be banned for children under the age of 12

307 Responses

1. I am a concerned mom on our District PAC#68 in Nanaimo BC. I have been fighting Wi-Fi in our Schools for about six years now and the Trustees and Superintendent has ignored everything handed to them.

   Could you please send me a copy of this in pdf. so I can hand in yet another package of adverse health effects.

   One day they will listen. I hope.

   Jeanette Pongratz-Doyle

   1. Just sent you pdf.

      I was just on a panel interview with KALW 91 talk radio show in San Fran with Lloyd Morgan, Environmental Control with Calif talking specifically about emf. Good show, lots of info/research discussed.

      http://kalw.org/programs/your-call.

2. Hi Cris, as a physical educator who values the use of technology to engage students in learning I am concerned with the statement you make in the first paragraph of this article which suggests that we should ‘ban the use of all handheld devices for children under the age of 12 years.’ This statement seems to contradict the recommendations which are suggested by The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Society of Pediatrics in your article. Do you believe that there should be a complete ban or just restrictions.

   I agree with you that the greater availability and uses of technology such as ipads can have a negative impact on children, especially in regards to their physical activity levels and their social, mental and emotional well-being, but to ban all technology for under 12’s seems radical and ignorant to the benefits that technology can have. In class I use technology to aid my teaching and consequently students’ learning in a variety of ways. Students can record, analyse and assess their own performance, research rules and new ideas, set up activities themselves, record their achievements etc. To restrict the use of technology is something I can understand and advocate but to ban this technology would be take a lot away from their learning experience.

3. I teach a high school technology class in Dade City, Florida. I saw this article on a link from my Facebook page, and after reading it came up with a way to use it in my classroom. Do I have your permission to duplicate the article and hand out to my kids for a lesson?

   I plan to use Poll Anywhere to have them answer questions about their own personal use of technology, then read the article and afterwards, have a fishbowl debate on the effects of technology on the developing brain, as we view the main points of the article on a Powerpoint slide show.

4. As a child psychiatrist, I see first hand how screen-time (especially interactive) impacts mood, cognition, and behavior by causing hyperarousal and overstimulation, leading to a dysregulated nervous system. In short, screen exposure repeatedly induces a stress response. This is the mechanism behind all the effects, including physical ones such as obesity and metabolic syndrome. (I call screen-related dysregulation “Electronic Screen Syndrome.”) Parents, clinicians, and educators need to be aware that screen-time causes changes in brain chemistry, networks and blood flow, hormones, sleep patterns, and social interactions.

   The first intervention I do with every patients is to take them off all screens for 3-4 weeks, followed by strict restriction or elimination thereafter. This greatly reduces the need for psychiatric medication, improves concentration, reading and math abilities, reduces mood swings, depression and aggression, and supports healthier social interactions–at home and at school. It truly is a panacea.

   I agree with Cris Rowan on this recommendation. We’re only just discovering the effects of so much screen-time on the developing brain, and evidence is mounting to minimize it as long and as much as possible.

   If you need more convincing read my article on screen-time and brain scan research: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201402/gray-matters-too-much-screen-time-damages-the-brain

   Victoria Dunckley M.D.

5. I am the mother of a seven-month-old girl. She is my first child, and I am a stay-at-home mom. I have a few questions:

   What resources do you recommend for a baby my age to enhance her development?

   Also, we don’t have TV service, but we have watched some baby Einstein videos with our baby because they appear to be educational. For the last two months we have watched a 30 minute video two times a week on average. The bulk of our time is spent doing hands-on types of play, reading to her, and just giving her general affection. Given that so little if our time us watching the baby Einstein videos, are they really still that detrimental?

   Once they turn two years old, are their any educational videos or programming that is ok?

   Thank you very much!

6. While there may be some value to what is written in this article I find it to be a real concern regarding the mental illness paragraph that claims hand held devices causes autism. It simplifies and incorrectly allows false assumptions to be made and perpetuated. To say to a parent looking for information regarding autism that hand held devices is a cause can turn out to be very cruel and can result in delaying the reality of what autism is and taking the steps necessary to providing our children with the education, medical and social strategies they need. To present any ideas/statements as more than just an opinion with out the study being reproduced with the same results shown then it needs to be acknowledged that is not proof or proven.
   For anyone making a reference to a study as fact they need to provide the direct links to the actual studies. Parents who are new to learning about what is best for their child challenged with autism should be able to read about a professional’s opinion knowing that it is just that an opinion. Parents should be able to read the actual study so they can determine if there is real merit or simply self-interest that influences the study results. Giving false hope is a terrible thing to do to families dealing with this issue. Has nothing been learned from the Andrew Wakefield and vaccine debacle?

   I have 2 adult sons on the autism spectrum and I have seen more individuals challenged with autism and their families harmed by opinion and unproven statements presented as fact. We need to stop harming these families by presenting wishful thinking, or studies that are from self interest instead of proven and provable facts.

   Each family dealing with the challenge of autism needs to know their child and build a network of family, education, medical and legal professionals that know and understand their child and that will be a continually growing asset to that child. Recognizing the uniqueness of each individual on the autism spectrum will bring greater achievement than listening and following “facts” given by people who have never met your loved one.

   1. Please see this article post on Huffington Post which contains direct links.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cris-rowan/10-reasons-why-handheld-devices-should-be-banned_b_4899218.html

      1. I looked at the article from the Huffington post Bristol link. I have been looking at studies, conclusions, results, opinions and participating in studies for 20 years. When results include the words maybe or more likely or suggests then that is a red flag that it isn’t fact. It stated in the Bristol article that it was an opinion that children shouldn’t be exposed to more than 2 hours, did not state how this opinion is based on fact. Someone has that opinion fine but it needs to be made known that it is simply an opinion. Where is the data showing that diet, genetics and environment has been eliminated as cause for the child to have the issues listed in the article? Studies are conducted looking at specific areas so by their very nature are slanted to a specific view. Studies conducted by questionnaire is the most subjective of all because it is depends on the interpretation by the individual answering the question. If someone else fills it out for a person or the question is worded to reflect a view point that also makes the study subjective not fact based. I have filled out many questionnaires that are looking for the same information but because the question is worded differently the answer is not the same. All too often reporting and supporting a specific view fails to make it clear what is fact and what is conjecture.

         1. Actually I do believe the 2 hr recommendation was initially made rather arbitrarily, but since then studies seem to support it. I don’t have the reference at my fingertips but I believe it was Douglas Gentile’s group who conducted a study that found that that less than two hours a day of entertainment screen-time did not seem to affect grades and attention, while more than two hours did. There may be other studies too.

            As Ms. Rowen points out, there are now HUNDREDS of studies implicating screen-time in all sorts of conditions, and some of these show causation–not just association.

            If I find the study I will repost.

7. I would love to read the article YOU sited and I want to share this article WITH my parents. I need to proofread!

   1. Please email us at info@zonein.ca for copies of article.

      Please visit http://www.zonein.ca for Fact Sheet with collated research.

8. I enjoyed this article thank you for sharing it. I would love to read some of the articles your sited. Can you share the reference list? Also are you able to send me a pdf copy in English & Spanish to share wit my parents. Thank you!

   1. I think someone is translating Huffington Post article to Spanish (link below).

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cris-rowan/10-reasons-why-handheld-devices-should-be-banned_b_4899218.html

      Please email us at info@zonein.ca mailto:info@zonein.ca for copies of article.

      Please visit http://www.zonein.ca for Fact Sheet with collated research.

9. This is an extremist point of view that obviously discounts that intelligent, or rather INVOLVED parents are capable of providing reasonable direction or control…

   I think my parents pondered the same sort of sentiment around “bans” for rock music, TV, and slow dancing. It worked about as well as was depicted in the movie Flashdance.

   What is not addressed is the fact that hand held technology can just as easily replace the time that the previous generation spent watching TV and getting themselves epidemically obese [sic]. It also can produce the next wiz kid that dreams of using technology for social good, and becomes the next Elon Musk, or this guy (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/how-to-build-a-successful-silicon-valley-company-by-age-22-1.2561629).

   I appreciate that the author has exposure to many more children (from differing parenting styles) under the age of 12 than I do… but is it possible that it the role of the parents, and their involvement (or lack thereof) that is the issue… and secondarily an obvious balance that needs to come from other forms of entertainment, activity, or practical exposure? Hand held devices are not the problem; disengaged parents are.

   I notice the author lives in a spectacularly beautiful, and rural part of British Columbia, Canada. I live in Singapore, where congestion, competitiveness, technology are at the extreme opposite from the fresh air, laid back lifestyle and spectacle of mountains that Sechelt, BC offers. Commonplace for my children is riding a crowded subway to their elementary school completing their blogs on the marvels of those mountains in BC from space as witnessed by Chris Hadfield. We don’t watch TV, or subscribe to a newspaper.

   I look for opportunity to expose my children to technology and the marvels and opportunity that it presents in many facets of their development… Handheld technology is one small part of that exposure, and necessary its not, but potentially great it is. I expose them to handheld technology, not to turn them into or even prepare them for the life of an SMS/email-crazed or couch-potato grown-up, but rather because there is merit also in being a risk taker, one who embraces change and opportunity and an exposure to the big, bold universe that sits outside of our current placing. I’m conscious of the risks, but convinced that there are great benefits that come from moderation of this exposure.

   But alas, its also an easy tool to put in their hand and make them shut-up, or let me finish what I’m doing, or to keep them entertained as I’m too busy to watch them, or care to watch them. I suppose I could take that view and wait for the government or some other banning authority that the author is lobbying for to try and make me more responsible…. ? But then the outcome would be the government inserting some sort of a mobile chip into my hand so they can tell whether I’m following the ban.

   I think this article could be a great opening to a 2014 sequel/remake to Flashdance.

   1. You present a generalized opinion regarding technology espoused by many parents and educators, one which I’ve termed “The Tech Illusion” e.g. that technology is the new frontier so to speak, the gateway to success and fame which will bring riches and glory to all. Not so my friend, not so.

      Handhelds will never be banned, in fact they will continue in use until the chip implant, maybe with the google glasses somewhere in between. Then we will all be like characters in the Wall-E movie, lying on lounge chairs that move us about, interfacing with each other only in the virtual sense, not even caring any more about exercise, touch, human connection, or nature. Unfortunately for today’s child, the aforementioned 4 critical factors for optimizing child development and learning, are severely compromised by technology overuse. Leaving what? A child who is obese with diabetes and cardiovascular damage, sleep deprived, can’t pay attention or learn, is depressed, anxious, aggressive, violent, sexually depraved, shall I go on?

      This article is intended to entice people such as yourself, to look at the facts, and understand that there are significant downsides to technology, and to also understand that technology overuse is prevalent in our tech obsessed society. Four years ago we didn’t have handheld devices, now we have come to the opinion that even babies can’t live without them. As parent and teachers attach more and more to their devices, they are detaching from their children. In the absence of human connection and attachment, children cannot survive. We know this, yet are compelled to buy more and more devices for our very young and most vulnerable. Children are our future, yet is there a future in virtual reality?

      As a pediatric occupational therapist and biologist, I encourage managed balance, between technology and healthy activity, termed “Balanced Technology Management”. If children get enough movement, touch, human connection and nature, and stay within the recommended guidelines for tech (nothing 0-2 years, one hour/day 3-5, two hours per day 6-18), then the child will likely grow up to be healthy, happy, have meaningful relationships, and a job. If on the other hand, the child is using our national average of 7.5 hours per day, they are likely to have significant problems. I had two children on my caseload this week alone, one 3 and the other 4 years of age, receive diagnoses of Oppositional Conduct Disorder. These are not bad children, and neither do they have bad parents, but they do use 7-8 hours of tech per day, predominantly on their iPads, and they have explosive violence and tantrums that necessitated being suspended from daycare.

      This article is a wake-up call for parents, educators, health professionals, government, and technology production corporations to take a look at the research on the impact of technology on children, and curtail usage back to American Academy of Pediatrics and Canadian Society of Pediatric guidelines. Figure out how to do incorporate more movement, touch, human connection, and nature based activities with children. Build better playgrounds and create outdoor family play spaces…nature trails, parks, things that will sustain our next generation, not destroy it, because the current ways in which we are raising and educating our children with technology are not sustainable.

      Flashdance was an excellent depiction of what every parent wants their child to be – full of grit, determination, and will to create change. Today’s child who overuses technology to escape reality, will never even come close to these traits while they are immersed in the virtual world, devoid of everything they need to evolve as a human beings. The de-evolution of the human species has begun, and everyone seems too enamoured with their devices to even notice, much less care. It’s like were all on this “Tech Train”, soaring off into oblivion at 100 mph, and the kids are falling off, but no one seems to notice. A bit melodramatic? I’m not so sure.

      For more information on this topic, please visit the following:

      1) Book “Virtual Child – The terrifying truth about what technology is doing to children” available on Amazon.com, http://www.virtualchild.ca
      2) Website http://www.zonein.ca:
      – Child Development Series Newsletter – free monthly collated research, news, websites, books, courses
      – Fact Sheet – over 250 summarized research links on impact of technology on children
      – Articles – monthly feature on same
      – Video – check out Reality Check, Suffer the Children (problems) and Balanced Technology Management (solutions)
      – Workshops/Webinars
      3) Blog http://www.movingtolearn.ca

      1. Yes, but if a wake-up call for parents, educators, health professionals, government, and technology production corporations is the purpose of your article, then to suggest through your title that a full scale ban should be imposed (and here’s 10 reasons why)… don’t you think that is melodramatic?

         “Balanced Technology Management” however, is a worthwhile cause…

         1. Tech overuse is endemic in our culture now, and requires significant action on the part of parents, teachers, health professionals, government and technology production corporations to reduce the use and get kids back on track.

            For the past decade I’ve taught Balanced Technology Management principles, but check out below link for tech gone too far.

            http://www.fisher-price.com/en_US/brands/babygear/products/78030

            1. I don’t think you’ve addressed the concern I’ve raised with your article. I now understand after a few responses by you that you espouse a Balanced Technology Management principle, but your title (in the very least) is very misleading. Your title suggests that nobody is capable of providing Balanced Technology Management and so a banning authority needs to step in.

               I appreciate that you have done much research on the matter, but all that which underlies your research is lost on your extremist hook: [Ten Reasons] why handheld devices should be banned for children under the age of 12.

               Fisher Price’s product is a reason for concern, and your ten reasons listed above are perhaps reasons why parents shouldn’t buy that product. But because Fisher Price makes these products doesn’t mean that society should have to adhere to a full scale ban of all hand held technology for children under the age of 12.

               I’ve come to understand (only thru your follow-up comments to your original post) that you don’t believe in banning hand held technology. Unfortunately, the attention you’ve gained to this article has been by blatantly calling for a ban, which allegedly you don’t support (but rather a balanced technology management approach).

               You are a credentialed authority who at first glance, and holistic readership of your article is calling for legislative action, without prejudice.

               I suggest you clarify this position to the readers, and potential lawmakers who take your article at prima facie and who would act based upon your expert qualifications and opinion to limit civil liberties as a result.

10. Can you tell us more?

11. Dear Cris,
    thank you for this article. I’m from Germany and wanted to ask you, whether I could translate your article into German. There are only few well-researched resources about this topic in German, so in my opinion your article would be of great value.
    Greetings from Germany
    Klaus-Peter Kluge

    1. Yes…of course! Possibly we could post your translated article to blog? Regarding translations, my book was recently translated by a university in China, and now available in Chinese.

12. I read the comments on your post “10 reasons why handheld devices should be banned …..” and I read the comment interchanges. Wow. Communication technology is really amazing, and can be a great tool for adults. And the use of hand-held devices seems like a major addiction in our world. Some of the comments above seem like denial or rationalizing.
    I am in complete agreement with you Cris – I think children under 9 would be best served to have no/zero/none/nil/zed/zip electronic screen media experiences. It does no good and lots of harm. The only benefit is for the parent who gets to have their child entertained and therefore the parent does not connect with the child (a serous developmental loss for the child) and the parent can spend more time on his or her devices.
    It’s a mess, and we are going against the stream to speak out against technology for young children. We have been sold a bill of goods. It is all about technology companies making money and convincing the buyers that it is a good thing and you can’t live without it. And your children can’t live without it.
    I have been an early childhood educator for 25 years. In my experience and observations, it is totally apparent which children are experiencing a lot screen technology. Their play is not out of their own imagination, and boys especially tend to play more violently and aggressive. The girls tend to put on ‘sassy attitude’ and do more exclusionary play.
    Do you know about ‘The Alliance for Childhood.’ Check out their website.
    Also, ‘Touch the Future.’ Also ‘Hands Free Mama.”
    I am on the ‘no tech for young children’ team because I am all about the primary importance of human connection for the development of the young child. Help children develop the capacities they need to be able to be move freely and think for themselves. Then when they are older they will be ready to use the technology tools, not be used by them. My website is http://chamakanda.com/
    Keep up the hard work Cris!!!
    And THANKS.

    1. Great website Steve, and awesome work! Read you were on the Waldorf Board. Can you share what are the rules for technology use for < 12 year olds in Waldorf Schools?

       1. Most Waldorf Schools don’t have “rules” about it, but they do have suggestions and guidelines.
          I always asked kindergarten parents if they would agree to have no technology for their children on school days, and Sunday after dinner. That was a starting place, and throughout the school year I addressed various topics of what adults can do to foster healthy development on all levels. So at least one Parent Meeting per year was devoted to a discussion about electronic media.

          1. What is the Waldorf philosophy regarding use of handhelds under age 12 years?

13. Just going back to first principles for a moment – the only things that don’t have brains don’t move (think plants etc.). If we don’t encourage our children to move, it can’t be helpful to healthy brain development.

    1. Good point…hence the title of my blog Moving To Learn! Check out another of my endless articles “Children who don’t move, can’t learn”.

       http://www.zoneinworkshops.com/children-who-dont-move-cant-learn.html

14. I spotted something incorrect with this. You mention that grand theft auto 5 has rape in it. I can guarantee to you that this is incorrect, as I have played through the entire game and have played over 150 hours.
    Also, the game is rated 17 and up, so parents shouldn’t even be buying such a game for their children. They should read the rules first rather than assume the game is the problem.

    1. Guess you’re not young enough to find it? See following media story.

       “Schoolchildren as young as SIX ‘re-enacting rape and sex scenes from Grand Theft Auto in playground'”

       http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gta-v-schoolchildren-re-enacting-rape-3136500

       In the UK, Iceland, and Scotland, they have banned internet pornography, and now need to apply for access with government, with Prime Minister Cameron stating “Many children are viewing online pornography and other damaging material at a very young age,” Mr. Cameron said. “The nature of that pornography is so extreme, it is distorting their view of sex and relationships.”

       http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/uk-to-block-all-internet-pornography-unless-you-ask-for-it/article13338711/

       Conversation with Dr. Andrew Doan, author of “Hooked on Games” stated regarding GTA V “You don’t rape. You have sex with prostitute BUT can kill her and take her money after sex. You can also kill all the hookers in the game”. Whew! That’s a relief!

       Parents and teachers are shocked when I tell them that 42% of ten year olds are actively using porn. Anytime a child is given a handheld and not supervised, they can access whatever their imagination leads them toward.

       Humans are very visual, and whatever images children view will be with them forever. When children view violent sexual images over and over, this is what the child becomes. One study I read said that adults who view porn on a regular basis, are three times less likely to view rape as rape. Porn desensitizes very young children to view rape as normal.

15. Fascinating article… As well as the comment section. Chris, I’m wondering what your thoughts are on online public schools, or cyber schools, that are becoming increasingly popular as a homeschooling method?

    1. Very little research here, but PBS documentary on cyberschools in US was very informative e.g. popular, but poor quality. My question for researchers is “In the absence of a teacher, can children learn”?

       http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education-jan-june12-cyberschools_02-23/

16. For a number of years I have been running seminars on understanding and managing children who have learning difficulties and have recommended a drastic cutback in the use of TV/computer games etc. However, recently I have developed an eye exercise iPhone app for use by children (or adults) from about 5yrs of age. The children are required to follow an object on the phone while the phone is being moved. I would appreciated it if you could have a look at it and let me know if you feel that this fits into the negative effects of using hand held technology.
    Thanks.

    1. Sure! Send us more info, and everyone can chime in?

17. What an obscure conceptualization of technology and its influence on children. Undoubtedly there will be unforeseen consequences in terms of health that we should be cognizant of as that information becomes privy to the masses. However, the upfront explanation that because technology has measurably changed the developmental process of children and that this change is intrinsically bad is all together a radical notion.

    Surely the invention of language drastically changed the developmental process in ways that were beyond understanding at its inception. From that, surely the tools of literacy such as chalk, pencils and books also had a profound impact. The experience with the world became a far more cerebral and introspective with out a doubt.

    It would seem to me there is an implicit value judgement being made here that because external language can seem to be delayed, or that children are putting on weight, or having issues socializing that this is purely in correlation to technology. It is not useful or even desirable to detract children’s exposure to the tools they will use to interact with the world their entire lives.

    The focus here needs to be on two things. The first is that technology inherently changes the nature of how we interact with the world, as that is its purpose. To assert that this is happening is redundant. The second is that creating a technological vacuum for children is antithetic to the reason why we develop technology in the first place.

    If a child is developing differently, the greater question of if that development is empirically bad does need to be assessed; questions can be asked that do not assume it is a completely negative experience.

    1. Are there healthier ways to have a child engage with technology that mitigate what you would consider negative effects? If so, are certain technologies more prone to negative effects? Does that change at certain ages? Does gender identity or sex make a difference?

    2. Is it the physical technology that is inducing negative symptoms or is it a behavior that is promoted by the technology in the absence of external factors? That is to say, is leaving a child to their own devices, pardon the pun the cause, or is using the technology the cause.

    3. Does the definition of physical addiction to technology even make sense for children in the context of immeasurable curiosity?

    4. Are physical health issues a direct result of technological advancement or a lack of a counter measure of putting an educational and behavioral emphasis on health and nutrition in general? (We do not teach children in school the importance of being healthy, it is a learned behavior through social experience)

    5. Would it be more useful to be additive with desired outcomes? That is to say, should we gear technology to promote values of physical and mental health. For instance games that require interaction in a meta-game, or that is outside the game. Games that have an element of physical fitness, just for examples.

    6. And many more…

    Studying the impact of how the things we create is important, but it is also important to see that underlying assertion; we made these things, and they can be remade or retooled to an ends we intend. Although there will undoubtedly be negative consequences we cannot predict, it is an evolving process and we can always continue to better the devices and their utilization to constantly improve upon general human well being. Taking the stance that exposure to technology is bad is about as useful as suggesting that we should not give kids books, because they might stay inside and read.

    This is a process of learning to work with what we have created to constantly better our selves not negate our accomplishments because of unintended consequence.

    1. 1. Are there healthier ways to have a child engage with technology that mitigate what you would consider negative effects? If so, are certain technologies more prone to negative effects? Does that change at certain ages? Does gender identity or sex make a difference?

       Definitely, and as many bloggers have indicated, it’s all about moderation. Children now use technology 7.5 hours per day (Kaiser Foundation 2010), and AAP and CPS recommends 1-2. Handhelds were not included in KF 2010 research, so this figure is likely much higher, based on 2013 report by Common Sense Media. Babies, toddlers, and pre-schoolers have now entered into the virtual world, with Fisher Price now distributing iPad mounts for infant car seats, potty seats, and even an iPhone mount inside a teething ring. Duration, frequency and intensity of media exposure for very young children has increased markedly and rapidly. Boys are into video games and porn, girls texting and facebook, and now 1 in 11 children ages 8-18 years are addicted to technology (Gentile D 2009).

       2. Is it the physical technology that is inducing negative symptoms or is it a behavior that is promoted by the technology in the absence of external factors? That is to say, is leaving a child to their own devices, pardon the pun the cause, or is using the technology the cause.

       The effects of EMF radiation emitted is unknown at this time, but AAP has approached FCC to look into this. Indirect effect that is most worrisome is neglect. Using devices as soothers is creating significant issues with self-regulation. In the absence of a parent, who is connected to their device, children are attaching to devices as a default. Touch deprivation and detachment are prolific in daycare and preschool settings. Technology in and of itself is not a problem (if EMF checks out ok), as long as AAP and CSP guidelines are followed. Misuse and poor management of technology in homes and schools is a significant problem.

       3. Does the definition of physical addiction to technology even make sense for children in the context of immeasurable curiosity?
       The youngest child I’m working with is 3 years of age, oldest is 10. These children are extremely aggressive and have tantrums and meltdowns to the extent they can no longer attend daycare and school. Talk with teachers or early intervention staff about what they are seeing in the way of problematic child behaviour. This is not immeasurable curiosity.

       4. Are physical health issues a direct result of technological advancement or a lack of a counter measure of putting an educational and behavioral emphasis on health and nutrition in general? (We do not teach children in school the

       Child obesity and diabetes are epidemic, in both Canada and the U.S. Any device activity is sedentary. Take the device away from the child, and they get up and move.

       5. Would it be more useful to be additive with desired outcomes? That is to say, should we gear technology to promote values of physical and mental health. For instance games that require interaction in a meta-game, or that is outside the game. Games that have an element of physical fitness, just for examples.

       Addictions to devices result in a child who is sedentary, isolate, overstimulated, and neglected. Although I’m working with a video game designer presently to include more movement and nature access, the majority of the game is sedentary, but “yes”, this is the way to go. Studies show pro-social media results in pro-social skills, while anti-social media (intentional harm) results in anti-social behaviour. Parents and teachers should adhere to the expert guidelines put out by the AAP and CSP e.g. nothing for 0-2 years (not even background TV, as reduces parent interaction by 90% Christakis 2009), 1 hour per day for 3-5 years, and 2 hours per day for 6-18 years.

       Great questions by the way!

18. I haven’t read all 150 comments to see if this has been addressed, but why would the passive activity of tv watching be given the okay for the same age which the interactive and stimulating activity of a nonviolent, puzzle-solving video game is not? I see very good arguements for taking great care with content and quantity, but outright bans? GOVERNMENT bans?! I don’t get it.

    1. Studies show it’s the content which makes the difference e.g. pro-social content fosters pro-social behaviors, and anti-social contents makes kids anti-social (see below). That said, video games have three factors that TV doesn’t have which make children more prone to addiction: immersion, rewards, and teaming. The immersion factor is worse the larger the screen, and literally, causes children to drop off of reality into the virtual world. Rewards drive human nature, especially boys. Teaming is highly capitalized by game manufacturers who have developed a design concept called the “pee factor” e.g. they want the child to feel obliged to his/her team to stay gaming, that they end up peeing their pants.

       http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/22/0146167213520459.abstract

19. This article is actually… completely insane.

    I have to believe it is a “Troll” article, designed to generate revenue for this garbage site, because I absolutely cannot believe anyone in their write mind would believe, much less publicly say most of the things said on this blog and the things you wrote in your comments.

    there is NO scientific causation (correlation does NOT equal causation, regardless of what you would like to “believe”) whatsoever to back up a single point you made. You should be embarrassed you wrote this and are perpetuating this senseless fear mongering.

    I now expect this comment to be deleted because you don’t like it.

    1. Whilst I agree that the tone if this article and the comments made by the author are slightly alarmist, there is good evidence provided for all of the points made by the author in the article. The link provided contains more than 200 references, none of which I expect you or anyone else disagreeing with the research into this topic will read. That is exactly the problem with publishing health information online, a lot of people will just stick to what they think is right and will not change their minds regardless of how much evidence they are presented with. It’s sad that researchers and practitioners have to resort to the infotainment style to try to get their message across because as you pointed out, science does need to be backed by evidence, but the catch 22 is that most people don’t want to read it, and the general population doesn’t have the skills to be able to interpret it anyway.

       1. I want to cry reading your post. I’ve worked for the past 26 years as a private practice pediatric occupational therapist watching our children slide down a slippery slope, and feel powerless to help parents and teachers see what is happening. A decade ago, after seeing child after child presenting with attention deficit, problematic behavior, poor self-regulation, motor delays, extreme aggression…all diagnosed as something or another, I started collating research on the impact of technology on children and was stunned. This was a decade ago. Since then, my passion has been to decipher what we know, and pose questions about what we don’t know, so parents and teachers can make informed decisions regarding appropriate and responsible technology use for their children. Then came the iPad and iPhones, and it was as if the ground was literally sliding out from under me, and my colleagues. Now, only four years after the inception of the handhelds, everyone is under the assumption that these devices are not only necessary, but that they can’t live even for one day without them. Yikes!

          Check out the new Apptivity Seat by Fisher Price! You can also get an iPotty, or even a teething ring with iPhone mounted in the middle. Don’t forget the car device for movies, and be sure everyone has their own device for going to the restaurant…wouldn’t want to have to share!

          http://www.fisher-price.com/en_US/brands/babygear/products/78030

          1. Your passion for this topic shows through in your work and your comments, however, to quote one of my favorite movies, ‘I only offer the truth, nothing more.’

             In fact, that’s a pretty good motto for scientists to live by now that I think about it.

             1. You should take some consolation in the fact that I just finished the human development unit as part of my Bachelor of Behavioral Science, and all of the information contained in your article is also contained in the course material that new psychologists are learning. So this information is getting out there, maybe just not as quickly as it could.

                And yes, I’m well aware of those new toys from fisher-price. Only a year ago they were producing some of the best toys on the market, and now this. It seems as though they’re experiencing a sudden drop in ethical standards by promoting the use of hand-held gadgets along with their toys when it is well known in the child development field that the use of any type of technology has been proven to be detrimental to very young children.

    2. Someone help YOU…no disrespect, but you are completely ignorant in this area! Please do a little more reading on the subject and of the dangers of wifi in our children’s classrooms…please!!
       Btw…it is right mind…not write mind!

20. Instead of making a case against the use of handheld devices (and I assume fallout goes towards TV and computer use as well), I would like to see more articles addressing the issue of irresponsible parenting, and using technology as a substitute for parenting.

    My son has had exposure to technology since he was 18 months old. He is now 6 years old and he knows how to operate a computer, an iPad, iphone, xbox, etc. Is he developmentally delayed? No. In fact, he is on the ball with his lessons. Is this because of his tech use? I don’t think so. Is he an introvert? No, he loves playdates and making friends.

    What does these “horrible devices” do for him? For one, I am responsible enough to supervise what he can and cannot do on these things. He is multi-national and apps like Freya and Friends or the Winston Show lets him get acquainted with different cultures and provides information from around the world. Does he get lost in his games? On the contrary, he tends to come to us and discuss what he’s seen or done. He has set hours of tech, more than what is recommended but he also has a life outside of “tech”. More so, as parents, we take time to make sure we spend some time with him when he is using technology (eg., xBox, iPad, computer or TV). As a result, instead of embracing violence/sex-filled games or shows, he likes to watch or read National Geographic types of articles, and he cautions his playdates when they turn on the TV and wants to watch a non-age appropriate show.

    I believe it is important, more so than cautioning against the use of technology by young children, to educate parents. These devices are not babysitters. Nor should they replace parental interaction or rule. Blaming technology for children’s behavior gives parents an out for their own behaviors.

    I have seen other parents buying their children iPads at a young age and then leave them to use it as they please. That I do not agree with. Do I believe these kids are more prone to tantrums and bratty behavior because of technology? I am more inclined to agree that these kids I know are spoiled rotten by their parents rather than blame the iPad or iPhone.

    1. So…what would be your ideas for how to address the elephant in the room, irresponsible parenting?