Where do they get funding for this sort of rubbish? Were they specifically looking for bad behaviour in kids or did they just look at a bunch of statistics until they found something they could publish?

... don't treat children with the attention and nurture they require to become well-adjusted members of society.

More at 11.

I call BULLPOOP and TESTICALS.

Why can't people do stats?

30% of accidents are caused by alcohol - therefore you're safer if drunk ('cos 70% of accidents are caused by sober people)

Of course that's not true - 30% is an over representation of a sample of people.

The number of factors in ADHD is huge - My guess is that the HPA has got this one right, Mums to be who spend lots of time on their mobiles might continue to do so after they give birth. This might even mean shouting "SHUT UP WAYNE, sorry I'm on the train - NO THE TRAIN"

Even PH could figure that one out

There seems to be an "Art form" these days to linking something to something.

How about a common sense suggestion about this link:

Women who talked on a handset between two and three times each day AFTER pregnancy AS WELL were more likely to have kids that felt ignored which caused them to behave like attention seeking brats.

Because im sure these women didnt just suddenly stop using the phone after they gave birth.

I would also like to know HOW LONG they talked on the handset as well. If they talked for something like an hour a phone call (After they gave birth) then my hypothosis may be a tad correct.

It can also be noted its possibly been through the Daily Mail "Outrage and shock" filter so what we may be reading may be nothing like the actual report. The report may state there is marginal evidence till the tabloids got their hand on it.

I will stop ranting.........now.

Another "Blame anyone but the parents" study, 'cos their kids are high on sugar and additives. Sorry to have to *POP" burst that bubble, but kids pick up their behaviour traits from carers and guardians, they also need help to stay on the right track, they don't just pick up good behaviour automatically in one shot and stick to it! My parents were always nagging me about my manners and behaviour, I do the same to my kids now.

It's another example of stats being used to prove something irrelevant. Has nobody considered that they type of people who spend all day chatting on their mobiles might be benefit-scrounging scum who can't manage to control their kids?

Articles like these are the reason I have lost respect for statisticians as a whole.

Nowadays, the scientific process seems to be "Find any two measurable values, show the correlation is not zero, and publish." Of course, you can make more noise if the values are hot topics. And sure, you can put somewhere in the article that maybe there are other factors. Once people are already reading your article, why not admit it is crap?

So we had a study from the 80's showing that people using their cell phone a lot were more stressed. Never mind that in the 80's, people using a cell phone a lot were business people fearing they were losing millions on the stock market.

So we have a study linking the results at school of children are better if they were breast-fed.

So we have a study linking the behavior in kids to the cell phone use of their parents.

Those examples seem benign, because it is easy to see other factors, like the fact that parents using their cell phone a lot might spend less time with their children. But too often, such results are used by politicians as "scientific studies", "proving" that cell phones are dangerous.

Those who believe these articles have scientific value would do well to read the one correlating the diminution of childbirths in northern France with that of storks.

Paris, because even she knows how children are made.

This means that in a short while, the entire first world will consist of ill-behaving, emotionally challenged fuckups, with Africa and China chiming in with only a few years delay. Honestly, I doubt anyone will notice much of a change.

It's been said already but it's worth repeating.

There is a world of difference between "correlation" and "causation".

Once upon a time there were no Sky dishes and no HIV/AIDS. Now there's a lot of both.

The statistical correlation is evidenced by my advanced research awaiting funding for publication, but there is of course no direct evidence of a direct causal link between the two.

Put another way: chav parents will probably have chav kids, and you don't need a research statistician to work that one out.

Mine's the check hoodie one with the logo I can't pronounce, and the keys to the Saxo in the pocket.

I'd say it has more to do with the parents spending too much time chatting on the mobile than spending time with their children. I distinctly remember one time my StarTAC went into some crazy "wiretap" mode where it started listening other people's conversations. One of those calls we heard was a 30-minute "conversation" about 2 braindead women talking about a farkin' soap opera!

Of course, this behaviour is pretty much the same as those pointless get-togethers of the wives talking nonsense, except they now do it on cellphones, and spend even less time with the kids.

Seriously, some people really need to lay off the handsets.

people who spend that much time on the phone during pregnancy are already proving they have issues...they're probably loud obnoxious folks who think their conversations are more important than the sanity of those around them-i.e.-showing they carry the genetic predisposition towards sociopathy and general @rseholeism.

If self centered dweebs, sociopathic antisocialites, and exhibitionist poseurs were drawn towards brightly colored hats with feathers, then we'd be seeing a report that "something" in the hats' manufacture or feather content was causing children to come out a lot like their folks. The nut doesn't often fall far from the tree.

To blame the phones themselves seems rather Lamarckian to me.

There's something called the Scientific Method.

First you postulate a theory. Then you design an experiment to prove it. You forecast the results, then you perform the experiment.

The downside of course is that this means hard work, not sitting in an office playing with a spreadsheet.

Frankly, as soon as I get to the part of an article which says "data was collected from..." I stop reading, mutter "Junk Science" and move on. After all, next week another chair warmer will publish contrarian "results".

Mine's the one with the lab keys in the pocket.

Science is very boring stuff that only white coats get turned on by.

To get government funded reasearch grants, you need to come up with some trumped up study proposal that aattempts to show some correlation between some disadvantaaged persons (poor dumb kids, poor criminals etc etc) and some potential cause.

There is no need to follow scientific methods (and indeed such boring practice is discouraged). It has to be grockable by some social sciences type person.

Perhaps the Chavvettes (??chav girls??) can blame the phone for making them preggers too? After all, most of them only got pregnant after using a phone.

But, being fair, even keen medics, who really want to make a difference, have insufficient statistical training to make proper cause and effect studies.

ADHD is increasing in numbers these days because:

a) we now have a name for it so doctors can diagnose it.

b) it's a very quick and simple tag to throw onto kids that are annoying.

I highly doubt mobile phones are the cause of this. As has been said, it's usually the parents.

A similar study could prove mobile phones brought on high petrol prices. Seems petrol prices skyrocketed around the time mobiles became popular.

When oh when oh when will these people just give it up ?

Stop using pointless statistics in an attempt to scapegoat a particular device or medium as the sole cause of kids being little assholes.

It's about time you woke up and took a big long smell of the coffee and face up to the fact that if a person is an asshole, chances are any kids they have will be assholes too.

Bring back mandatory sterilisation. "you want children ? Ok pass this test and get a license, then once you proove you can be a fit parent, then you can have them"

As in "this is a load of". Just another thing to blame instead of poor parenting and a slowly collapsing society.

Here's a research project for you, and I'd like a grant of a couple of million to properly err.....look into the facts. It centres around bullshit research projects being a waste of everyones time. I'd like to prove that this sort of research has the same actual value as Lindsay Lohans liver.

It's more likely to be parents who are more interested in yacking on their mobiles rather than actually being parents to their children.

Assuming that the data can be repeated and is statistically significant then it may be possible that the use of the telephone is associated with misbehaviour. However there may be equally feasible causes.

Consider this. It is known that the emotional state of the mother during pregnancy can influence infant behaviour. Not only that but an anxious young mother can also promote adverse behaviour in her baby. Given that the same anxious mother may use the mobile phone more often, you have a link. And not the one that is sought by the researcher.

This is poor science.

Grumpy Old Git

Again, the only reliable statistic is the resounding 100% lack of faith that we put in statistics. Myself, I lost respect for statisticians by gaining a degree in maths (with statistics) and have tried to avoid them at all cost.

The best statistic I ever came across was specifically a 1960's - 1990's inverse correlation between the length of (mini)skirts and economic prosperity (growth in the economy). That is, the shorter the skirt, the greater the growth... mmm - that reminds me.

The study did *not* say that there was a causative link between mobile phone use and later behavioural problems, it said that there was a correlation.

I think you'll find it is the fine upstanding members of the fourth estate who have invented causation where none exists.

The stats are fine - it's the reporting of the stats which is the problem.

Good point, and well made. Where's "ze Frenchman" when we need him?

On a lighter note, is it okay to persecute 99% of reporters.

How about this instead: parents who spend to much damn time on the phone and not enough time taking care of their kids are bad parents, and bad parents raise bad kids.