Discovery of Video Game-Induced Seizures Transforms a Teen's Health: A Mother's Story

by Victoria L. Dunckley, M.D.

Discovery of Video Game-Induced Seizures Transforms a Teen's Health: A Mother's Story

Mother warns video game-induced seizures may go undetected.

Published on December 30, 2011 by Victoria L. Dunckley, M.D. in Mental Wealth

Some seizures are hard to "see."

This week, I invited mother and medical writer Jessica Solodar to share her story: Jessica's daughter Alice experienced daily seizures triggered by video games, but suffered for years before she was properly diagnosed.  My clinical work and writing often focus on electronic media precipitating nervous system dysregulation, but this case was an eye-opener even for me. 

Removing Video Games Can Transform a Teen's Health
by Jessica Solodar

Volatile behavior, impaired cognitive skills, and poor physical health are not uncommon in young people who spend many hours in front of video games and other electronic screens. These symptoms and others can be the result of hard-to-detect seizures that are triggered by flashing, fast-moving images. Video game seizures are more common than people think-they can happen to anyone, not just people with epilepsy. Although researchers have studied them extensively and game manufacturers provide seizure warnings, there is still little awareness among consumers and clinicians.

The primary reason you don't hear much about these seizures is that many seizures are never noticed or diagnosed. Because seizure events may not be noticed, and their disabling after-effects can linger, it can be hard to pinpoint the cause of disability. This is a serious and largely unrecognized public health problem that is still growing as the pervasiveness of video screens continues to expand.

I learned about video game seizures only after my daughter's health, behavior, and cognitive functioning had suffered for several years. The effects of video games on her health and her daily function were pretty devastating. We didn't fully realize how much she'd been impaired by all of the seizures until she got away from the screen. Fortunately, we were able to restore her health and greatly improve her daily life "just" by helping her eliminate video games from her life.

As a pre-teen Alice was addicted to video games and played several hours a day on weekdays. Weekends were much worse. With a great deal of effort, she finally went cold turkey about four years ago. Like anyone with an addiction, she still has cravings every day. However, she's had only a few brief relapses now that she knows how disabled she becomes from visual overstimulation.

Alice's addictive gaming caused constant friction at home-any limits we set on her screen time never worked. "I just want to play for ten minutes," she'd say, which sounded just like someone pleading for just one drink. Nearly every time, by the time those ten minutes went by, something in Alice's brain had unmistakably shifted. The very sincere promises she'd made to stop the game without a fight no longer were inaccessible to her. I felt I was talking to a different person once she'd been in front of the screen again.

Here's a glimpse of what life was like at home when she was gaming for hours each day. Alice seemed "out of it" a lot. Sometimes at the end of the day after lots of screen time she seemed to be on autopilot, in a dazed state. At times she didn't seem to hear us talking to her. She began showing some odd behaviors that she didn't remember later. Alice was alarmingly volatile, abnormally fatigued, and she struggled to concentrate in class. She missed a lot of school, because many days she couldn't be awakened until the afternoon, despite our vigorous efforts. This wasn't ordinary sleepiness. She was often unresponsive after an hour of constant attempts.

For several years we had absolutely no idea there was any connection between the video games and her health problems. We didn't know that Alice was having multiple seizures every day while gaming. She had no seizure history we were aware of, so we gave no thought to the seizure warnings printed in the game instructions. We didn't notice anything that resembled a seizure, either. We certainly didn't know then that many seizures don't involve a person falling to the floor with convulsions.  

Seizures typically leave behind symptoms such as extreme fatigue, dysregulated moods, memory problems, and poor concentration, often for as long as a couple of days while the brain recovers. These symptoms can be expected after most types of seizures, including those with no convulsions. In Alice's case, she played video games so much that there was no chance for her brain to recover from each seizure before the next one happened.  She was in a chronic post-seizure state. When we found out that she was experiencing seizures every day while gaming, we finally had an explanation for the cause of many of her health issues.

After we explained to Alice that video games were affecting her physical and mental health, she cut back just enough to see a difference for herself. Then it still took about a year until she was ready to give up video games entirely. It was very hard, but she was motivated by the knowledge that she would feel a lot healthier without all the seizures.

We had underestimated the effect of the seizures on Alice's mood, behavior, energy, working memory, and ability to focus. It was exhilarating to see her real personality emerge and blossom. It was also quite frightening to realize how much and how long she had been disabled, and how there must be many other young people with similar situations.

We took Alice for neuropsychological testing before she gave up video games and repeated some of the tests a year later with the same clinician. The neuropsychologist was amazed at the changes in her from one year to the next and said she presented as a different girl. He saw notable gains in her maturity, mood, focus, reading fluency, and working memory. Most important, she was able to work for more than an hour at a time during the testing. In prior testing she had been able to stay focused for 20 minutes at most and needed to take many breaks during testing sessions due to lack of mental stamina.

In short, although it may sound too good to be true, it was possible to restore Alice's health simply by eliminating screen entertainment and without adding medication. The big improvements from a few years ago have endured as long as she continues to avoid exposure to anime and video games. In our house we keep the computers in a locked room, which is the way Alice wants it. If I forget to close the door when leaving the computer room, Alice brings it to my attention. She still needs help to resist the impulse to get in front of the screen. As a precaution we still use cell phones without touch screens, game software, or Internet access.

You can conduct your own experiment at home by removing and (and locking away) video screens. Explain to your child that you want to see if several days without games will lessen fatigue, moodiness, irritability, and struggles with learning. You and your child will probably have to work hard at removing the video games even for a short time. If you do see improvements brought about by abstinence from gaming, you'll need to remain vigilant thereafter in order to protect those gains.

 It's well worth the effort!

Jessica Solodar writes about video game seizures at http://videogameseizures.wordpress.com and www.videogameseizures.org


Dr. Dunckley's note:  Seizure activity can be triggered by intense visual stimuli in some children -- which is simply a more extreme version of electronics-induced overstimulation.  Video game-induced seizures are not as rare as manufacturers claim, and can cause cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and physical health problems, just as overstimulation can. 

For a thorough review on photosensivity and seizures, see Fisher et al, 2005. 
For help with liberating your child from electronic screens, visitwww.drdunckley.com/videogames/ 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201112/discovery-video-game-induced-seizures-transforms-teens-health-mothers-stor

Sun Storms May Affect Radios, Cell Phones

In this handout from NASA/Solar Dynamics Observatory, a solar large flare erupts off the sun in space, June 7, 2011.(NASA/Solar Dynamics Observatory/Getty Images)

By CHRISTINA NG (@ChristinaNg27)

Dec. 29, 2011

Intense solar activity may affect Earth today, potentially disrupting radio and cell phone transmissions.

On Monday, the sun released a coronal mass ejection (CME), which is a "massive eruption of solar plasma," according to Space.com. The blast is expected to affect the Earth through Saturday.

"Coronal Mass Ejections from the last few days may cause isolated periods of G1 (Minor) Geomagnetic Storm Activity on December 28-29," the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Space Weather Prediction Center wrote in an update. "R1 (Minor) radio blackouts are expected until 31 December."

Comet Seen From Space StationWatch Video

Earth Shines in Amazing VideoWatch Video

Northern Lights Seen In Time Lapse From Michigan Watch Video

If the storms are powerful enough, they could temporarily interrupt radio frequencies, GPS signals and cell phone communication, and possibly affect power grids, according to Space.com.

NOAA estimated that there was a 20-40 percent chance of these disruptive polar geomagnetic storms on Dec. 28-29 in response to the impact of one or more CMEs.

Another potential result of these storms is impressive auroral displays, also known as northern lights. Skywatchers at higher latitudes, closer to Earth's poles, are being alerted to the storms and urged to keep an eye out for auroras.

Experts say the sun's increased activity is part of an 11-year cyclical pattern.

The sun had a low rate of activity between 2005 and 2010, but has had several eruptions, powerful flares and CMEs this year.

NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory tweeted on Wednesday that two CMEs occurred within 24 hours earlier this week.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sun-storms-affect-radios-cell-phones/story?id=15249373#.Twcsk5hQZqh

The Economist—and the Truth About Microwave Radiation Emitted from Wireless Technologies

The Economist—and the Truth About Microwave Radiation Emitted from Wireless Technologies

28.12.2011 by emily Category Electromagnetic Health Blog

A Critique by Scientific Experts, Physicians and Oncologists

In its unsigned commentary on September 3, 2011, “Worrying about Wireless”, The Economist makes a number of technical errors and misleading statements about microwave radiation that we write to correct. The governments of more than a dozen nations have issued precautionary advice and policies about wireless devices, including restricting cellphone use by children in France, India and Israel (See Worldwide Advisories at www.saferphonezone.com).  The Economist would do well to consult with experts in these and other tech-savvy nations to learn the science behind these countries’ decisions so that it can provide accurate reporting on wireless safety and health matters.



The Economist states:



“Let it be said, once and for all, that no matter how powerful a radio transmitter–whether an over-the-horizon radar station or a microwave tower–radio waves simply cannot produce ionising radiation. The only possible effect they can have on human tissue is to raise its temperature slightly.” 



This is a red herring.  Of course microwave radiation is non-ionizing radiation.  It has insufficient energy to directly break chemical bonds including mutating DNA. Independent studies show that microwave radiation from cellphones can damage genetic material and disrupt DNA repair without inducing heat.  Microwave radiation from cellphones can also increase the production of damaging free radicals, which can also indirectly damage DNA. ^[1a,b,c]



In 2000 the cellphone companies T-Mobil and DeTeMobil Deutsche Telekom Mobilnet commissioned the ECOLOG report.  This report acknowledged that microwave radiation damages genes, living cells, and the immune system.   Since then, the evidence base suggesting that prolonged cellphone use can harm human health has grown substantially.  In May 2011, after a rigorous review of the evidence, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiation emitted by wireless devices including cellphones as “possibly carcinogenic.”



In addition, scientific studies carried out in Russia in the 1950s and 1960s and corroborated by European researchers more recently show that microwave radiation affects the heart, brain and liver, as well as the production of hormones and male human and animal fertility.



The Economist states:



“In the real world…sources of ionising radiation…are the sole sources energetic enough to knock electrons out of atoms–breaking chemical bonds and producing dangerous free radicals in the process…that can damage a person’s DNA and cause mutation, radiation sickness and even death.”



Growing evidence demonstrates that cancer and other types of illness do not only derive from direct damage to the ionic bonds that hold together our DNA.  Researchers at the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) have shown that 2 out of every 5 known causes of cancer do not directly damage DNA.



In addition, several investigators have shown in animal experiments that microwaves can damage the blood-brain barrier (BBB), a vital biological mechanism for protecting the brain from toxins.  In fact, radiation similar to that of cellphones forms the foundation for important new uses of microwave and other non-ionizing radiation to treat brain, breast and liver tumors.  Given these therapeutic uses of microwave radiation, it would be folly to assume that other exposures have no biological consequences.



Furthermore, a 2011 NIH Study showed that simply placing a phone that is turned on next to the ear for just fifty minutes can significantly increase the metabolism of the brain’s main fuel—glucose.  The long-term impact of this change is not known, but altered glucose metabolism is one hallmark of Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases. ^[2] Other studies show that rabbits exposed prenatally to cellphone radiation produce offspring with damaged brains, liver and skin. ^[3] Experiments have confirmed that cellphone-exposed rodents that have been trained to run mazes lose the capacity to find food or a hidden platform or recognize objects with some speculation that these are form of dementia. ^[4a,b,c] Case-control studies report that those who use cellphones regularly for a decade have increased rates of malignant tumors of the brain, cheek (parotid gland), and hearing nerve (acoustic neuroma)—in areas of the head that receive the highest exposures to cellphone radiation.^[5-6]



Recognizing the scientific foundation for this damage, Austrian workers’ compensation cases have provided remuneration for cellphone-related workplace damages.  An Italian Court recognized that cellphones and cordless phones may cause adverse health effects and awarded full disability to a heavy user of both types of phones.



The Economist states:

“…radio waves do not pack anywhere near enough energy to produce free radicals.  The  “quanta” of energy (i.e. photons) carried by radio waves in, say, the UHF band used by television, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cordless phones, mobile phones,…have energy levels of a few millionths of an electron-volt.  That is less than a millionth of the energy needed to cause ionisation.”



The Economist is practicing the cliché, “Beating a dead horse” by continuing to harp that this is not ionizing radiation.  No one disagrees!  While cellphone signals are weak, their fluctuating nature (highly complex modulation) may explain why they are so biologically active.  Furthermore, long-term exposure to the fields from electrical power distribution frequencies, specifically those associated with the 50 and 60 hertz power grids, have been linked to leukemia and neurological diseases, such as Lou Gehrig’s disease and Alzheimer’s, in scientific studies and in official reports from the states of New York and California. A decade previous to the recent IARC declaration, IARC declared Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields as a Class 2B Possible Carcinogen in 2001. In addition to microwave emissions, cellphones also expose users to these ELF fields from the phone’s battery.  Four milli-Gauss (mG) is linked to a doubling of incidence of childhood leukemia, and a 2005 study of phones on the market found fields of 47 to 146 mG at 5 mm from the surface of the phones. ^[7]



The Economist states:

“A year earlier, after a landmark, decade-long study undertaken by teams in 13 countries, the IARC had reported that no adverse health effects associated with the use of mobile phones could be found.”



In fact, within the 13-country Interphone study organized by IARC, those with the highest use for a decade had a doubled risk of brain tumors.  The study reported no overall increased risk when looking at all those who had made one call a week for 6 months.  But, when researchers reviewed evidence on those subjects who had used cellphones for ten years or more, they found a statistically significant doubling in the risk of glioma (190 cases, OR=2.18, 95 % CI=1.43-3.31) for long-term users in comparison to short-term users who used a phone for 1.0-1.9 years. ^[8] Interphone also reported significantly increased risk for acoustic neuromas and parotid gland tumors. ^[5,9]



The Economist states:

“The Group 2B classification…rates the health hazard posed by mobile phones as similar to the chance of getting cancer from coffee, petrol fumes and false teeth.”



The Economist fails to note that many nations have taken serious regulatory actions regarding other substances placed in this classification, including some pesticides that are banned around the world today such as DDT, engine exhausts, and toxic and persistent brominated or fluorinated flame retardants. There are numerous examples of substances first classified as Class 2B that were later moved into Class 2A (probably carcinogenic) or Class 1 (carcinogenic). Given the short time for which cellphones have been used relative to the induction periods of many cancers, the current evidence base can only hint at the extent of the evidence that will ultimately materialize. In this respect, cellphone radiation is quite unlike coffee (coffee does slightly increase the risk of bladder cancer, while reducing that of colon cancer) or false teeth.



The Economist states:



“…by classifying mobile phones as a Group 2B risk, what the IARC was effectively saying…was that, even if such a health risk exists, there is no way of ever ruling out bias, chance or other confounding circumstance with any reasonable degree of confidence.”



This misreads the intent of the IARC review. The purpose of an IARC evaluation is to anticipate harm and prevent or reduce danger.  In looking at experimental evidence along with human data, IARC indicated that data on long-term incidence of brain cancer will ultimately clarify the nature of the hazard.  In fact, there were relatively few regular cellphone users in the Interphone study (which completed data collection in 2004) who had more than ten years use.  Three other studies have carried out meta-analyses of all published data on people with over ten years of cellphone use ^[10-12].  All of these reported a significant risk in gliomas (cancer of the brain).  One of these also found an approximate doubling of the risk of being diagnosed with a glioma on the same (“ipsilateral”) side of the head as that preferred for long-term (>10 years) cellphone use (118 cases, OR=1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4). ^[11]



If a 2-fold risk occurs in the world’s 5.6 billion cellphone users, this could conservatively result in 250,000 avoidable brain tumors every year.  In addition to the devastating health consequences (half of those diagnosed die within two years) a single case of brain cancer costs nearly $500,000 to treat in one year.  The economic impact of such an illness around the globe could be staggering.  Phone use is expanding rapidly in developing countries that lack personnel, resources and the infrastructure to provide cancer surgery and treatment.



Brain and other cancers are not the sole health impact of concern from cellphones, which have been linked in a number of separate peer-reviewed published studies to serious health problems including reproductive and neurological damage.  The potential social and economic impacts of these other chronic health threats has led many governments and health organizations, including the IARC experts, to advocate sensible cellphone use (e.g. texting holding phone away from lap, use of the speaker mode or a wired hands-free headset, and use of a land-line in the home or office, especially by children, etc.).



The Economist states:



“…the number of text messages sent and received by [older] Americans…rose by 75%…Over the same period the number of phone calls made and received by adults of all ages fell by 25%.”



Many people speak on the phone for durations exceeding those of past years, and while texting is removing the locus of radiation from the brain, data intensive texts create radiation bursts directed at other parts of the body.  People who repeatedly text are getting frequent, intermittent high doses of this radiation.

Adults are not the only age groups using cellphones today.  Children’s use of cellphones has grown dramatically in many nations.  Several peer-reviewed published studies indicate that the risks for children are significantly higher than for adults.  This is not surprising as children’s brains are less well protected (due to thinner skulls and less myelin covering the nerve fibers).



The Economist states:



“The whole brouhaha over mobile phones causing brain cancer is a monumental irrelevance compared with scofflaws who insist on using their handsets to text or talk while driving.”



There is no doubt that texting while driving is dangerous and should be banned.   The personal and economic costs of treating the potential brain tumors and other serious illnesses that could occur from the long-term impact of frequent cellphone use could very well dwarf those of texting while driving.



History is replete with failures to control highly profitable carcinogenic substances, ranging from tobacco to asbestos, until proof of harm became irrefutable.  We can ill afford to go through that same course with cellphones today, given the long latency involved with brain cancer and their ubiquity.  The Economist owes its staff and readers better than to rehash outdated physics and hollow reassurances of safety.



Readers are left to wonder whether the significant advertising revenues generated from cellphones may account for The Economist’s lopsided and misleading editorial.  One analysis of U.S. newspaper advertising conducted by ElectromagneticHealth.org in 2010 showed that print ad space from telecommunications businesses was estimated to be between 1.77% and 11.40% of total print advertising space during the sample period.



How much advertising revenue does The Economist and its related entities receive from telecommunications advertising, and what steps has The Economist taken to ensure balanced reporting on this vitally important industry?



With this unsigned opinion piece (which appeared to be a news article) containing so many technical errors and misleading statements, The Economist has undermined its reputation for independent and probing analysis.   The Economist owes its readers a better accounting of the science on this important public health issue.  The fact that questions remain is undeniable, but to state that all is fine in the face of growing evidence that it is not, fails to provide critical information about this important public health challenge.  We need to promote safer wireless device use and public health policies for our children and ourselves.




In light of the many errors and misstatements in its commentary, The Economist should publish a correction on the issues we have raised.



Very truly yours,



Mikko Ahonen, PhD (public health), Finland – mikko.ahonen[at]uta.fi


Igor Belyaev, PhD (radiobiology), Slovak Republic – Igor.Belyaev[at]gmt.su.se


Martin Blank, PhD (physiology/cellular biophysics), USA – mb32[at]columbia.edu


Michael Carlberg, MSc (statistics), Sweden – michaelrita[at]yahoo.se


Devra Davis, PhD, MPH (epidemiology/toxicology), USA – ddavis[at]ehtrust.org


Alvaro Almeida Augusto de Salles, PhD (electrical engineering), Brazil – aasalles[at]ufrgs.br 


Vicky Fobel (cellphone safety), UK – vicky.fobel[at]mobilewise.org


Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, MSc, PhD Cand. (radiation biology), Greece- madofrag[at]biol.uoa.gr


Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD (neuro-oncology), Sweden – lennart_hardell[at]hotmail.com


Magda Havas, PhD (environmental & resource studies), Canada – drmagdahavas[at]gmail.com


Ronald B. Herberman, MD (oncology), USA – rherberman[at]intrexon.com


Olle Johansson, PhD (neuroscience), Sweden – olle.johansson[ at ]ki.se


Deborah Kopald, MBA (public health advocacy & policy), USA – Deborah_Kopald[at]ymail.com


Donald Maisch, PhD (electromagnetic standards), Australia – dmaisch[at]emfacts.com


Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD (cell biology), Greece- lmargar[at]biol.uoa.gr


L. Lloyd Morgan, BSEE (electronic engineering), USA – Lloyd.L.Morgan[at]gmail.com


Wilhelm Mosgöller, MD (toxicology), Austria – wm[at]scigenia.com


Mona Nilsson (investigative journalism), Sweden – mona[at]monanilsson.se


Eileen O’Connor (public health advocacy & policy), UK – info[at]radiationresearch.org


Alasdair Philips, B.Sc. (Eng), DAgE (electrical engineering), UK – alasdair[at]powerwatch.org.uk


Camilla R. G. Rees, MBA (public health education & advocacy), USA – crgr[at]aol.com


Stephen Sinatra, MD (cardiology), USA – stsinatra[at]msn.com


Fredrik Söderqvist, DMedSc (epidemiology), Sweden – fredrik_soderqvist[at]yahoo.se


Brian Stein, CEO (public health advocacy & policy) – Brian.Stein[at]SamworthBrothers.co.uk


Charles Teo, MD (neurosurgery), Australia – charlie[at]neuroendoscopy.info


Stelios A Zinelis, MD (Hellenic Cancer Society, Cefallonia), Greece – zinelis[at]otenet.gr



Note: Scientists, Physicians and Other Experts Wishing to Add their Names to the List of Signers of “The Economist—and the Truth About Microwave Radiation Emitted from Wireless Technologies” please contact Deborah Kopald, MBA: Deborah_Kopald[at]ymail.com.

Print PDF of Economist Critique

Print PDF of Media Advisory

Literature Cited:



[1a] http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/20110314-cellphone-studies.xls


[1b] Friedman J, Kraus S, Hauptman Y, Schiff Y, Seger R Mechanism of short-term ERK activation by electromagnetic fields at mobile phone frequencies. Biochem J. 2007 Aug 1;405(3):559-68.
[1c] De Iuliis GN, Newey RJ, King BV, Aitken RJ. Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro. PLoS One. 2009 Jul 31;4(7):e6446.


[2]     Volkow N et al., Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism.  JAMA, 2011 Feb 23 (305,8):808-813.


[3]     Tomruk A, Guler G, Dincel AS. The influence of 1800 MHz GSM-like signals on hepatic oxidative DNA and lipid damage in Nonpregnant, Pregnant, and Newly born rabbits. Cellular Biochemistry and Biophysics. 2010;56(1):39-47.


[4a] Fragopoulou AF, Margaritis LH. Is cognitive function affected by mobile phone radiation exposure? In, ” Non Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of interaction between electromagnetic fields and living matter “, European J. Oncology-Library vol.5, pp 261-273, 2010 L. Giuliani and M. Soffritti (eds).


[4b] Fragopoulou AF, Miltiadous P, Stamatakis A, Stylianopoulou F, Koussoulakos SL, Margaritis LH. Whole body exposure with GSM 900MHz affects spatial memory in mice. Pathophysiology. 2010 Jun;17(3):179-87. Epub 2009 Dec 1.


[4c] Ntzouni MP, Stamatakis A, Stylianopoulou F, LH Margaritis LH. Short term memory in mice is affected by mobile phone radiation. Pathophysiology, 18(3):193-9, 2011. Epub 2010 Nov 26.


[5]     Sadetzki S, Chetrit A, Jarus-Hakak A, Cardis  E, et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors- A Nationwide Case Control Study.  American Journal of Epidemiology. 2008 Feb 15;167(4):457-67. Epub 2007 Dec 6.


[6]     Han Y, Kano H, Davis D, Niranjan A, Lunfsord L. Cell Phone Useage and Acoustic Neuroma: The Need for Standardized Questionnaires and Access to Industry Data. Surgical Neurology. 2009 Sep;72(3):216-22; discussion 222. Epub 2009 Mar 27.


[7]     Tuor M, Ebert S, Schuderer J, Kuster N. “Assessment of ELF Exposure from GSM Handsets and Development of an Optimized RF/ELF Exposure Setup for Studies of Human Volunteers” Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society. BAG Reg. No. 2.23.02.-18/02.001778:17. January 2005.


[8]     The Interphone Group.  Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case–control study, Appendix 2. International Journal of Epidemiology 2010;1–20


[9]     The Interphone Group.  Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: Results of the Interphone international case–control study.  Cancer Epidemiology, In-Press August 2011.


[10]   Myung SK, Ju W, McDonnell DD, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 27(33):5565-72.


[11]  Khurana VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M. Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surg Neurol. 2009 Sep 72(3):205-14; discussion 214-5. Epub Mar 2009.


[12]   Kan P, Simonsen SE, Lyon JL, Kestle JR. Cellular phone use and brain tumor: a meta-analysis. J Neurooncol. 2008 Jan;86(1):71-8. Epub 2007 Jul 10.

Note: Scientists, Physicians and Other Experts Wishing to Add their Names to the List of Signers of “The Economist—and the Truth About Microwave Radiation Emitted from Wireless Technologies” please contact Deborah Kopald, MBA: Deborah_Kopald[at]ymail.com.

Print PDF of Economist Critique

Print PDF of Media Advisory

Kids play Wii so doctors can learn more about seizures

Updated: 7:24 PM Oct 19, 2011

Kids play Wii so doctors can learn more about seizures

Treating children with epilepsy can make all the difference, but doctors first need to observe and analyze their seizures. Now, new technology is making that easier for them, and for the kids.

More than 300,000 children in the United States suffer from epilepsy. Seizures can strike out of nowhere and cause dangerous episodes of shaking and convulsing.

Treating children with epilepsy can make all the difference, but doctors first need to observe and analyze their seizures. Now, new technology is making that easier for them, and for the kids.

Logan McKechnie, 6, has spent much of her short life in a hospital room.

Logan has cerebral palsy and has suffered seizures since she was two. She's tried medications, a part of her brain has even been removed but seizures have not gone away.

"She's been having seizures about once a week now," says Logan's mother.

Doctors need to record Logan having a seizure before they can recommend a new treatment. That's been a lot easier with a surprising tool: Nintendo's Wii.

Patients play Wii video games to provoke seizures.

"They need to have seizures for us to determine where they're coming from," says. Dr. Angel Hernandez, the Medical Director of Neurology at the Jane and John Justin Neuroscience Center.

The idea is to play hard.

"The most important purpose is to get them tired. We know that if you're very tired, you're more prone to have seizures," explains Dr. Hernandez.

When they do have seizures, the kids are hooked up to a video EEG. It's a device that monitors brain activity as the seizures happen.

With standard EEG, patients had to sit still while hooked up to long cords. With this system, the kids are free to move around, or just sit and watch TV.

"They keep themselves busy, and we get the information that we need and it's an enjoyable time for them," says Dr. Hernandez.

He says with this wireless technology, his staff has been able to observe seizures in at least 25 percent more patients.
Logan's mom's hopes what doctors learn will help them design a surgery plan to stop the seizures, and let Logan get back to just being a kid.

Experts at Cook Children's Medical Center are working on developing a remote video-monitoring EEG system that kids can wear at home.

About 70-percent of the time, doctors don't know why kids have seizures. Seizures are three-times more common in the first year of life.

Posted: 3:47 PM Oct 19, 2011
Reporter: Maureen McFadden 
Email Address: maureen.mcfadden@wndu.com


http://www.wndu.com/mmm/headlines/New_treatment_for_seizures_132181088.html#.Tv2Fi_mWlfA.email