Pros Of Wearing a School Uniform

School uniforms may deter crime and increase student safety. In Long Beach, CA, after
two years of a district-wide K-8 mandatory uniform policy, reports of assault and battery in
the district's schools decreased by 34%, assault with a deadly weapon dropped by 50%,
fighting incidents went down by 51%, sex offenses were cut by 74%, robbery dropped by
65%, possession of weapons (or weapon "look-alikes") decreased by 52%, possession of
drugs went down by 69%, and vandalism was lowered by 18%. [64] One year after Sparks
Middle School in Nevada instituted a uniform policy, school police data showed a 63% drop
in police log reports, and decreases were also noted in gang activity, student fights, graffiti,
property damage, and battery. [25] A peer-reviewed study found that schools with uniform
policies had 12% fewer firearm-related incidents and 15% fewer drug-related incidents than
schools without uniforms. [69] Another peer-reviewed study found that, in schools with
historically higher rates of sexual violence, sexual attacks were less likely if uniform policies
were in place. [26] School uniforms also prevent students from concealing weapons under
baggy clothing, [38] make it easier to keep track of students on field trips, and make intruders
on campus more visible. Frank Quatrone, superintendent in the Lodi district of New Jersey,
stated that "When you have students dressed alike, you make them safer. If someone were to
come into a building, the intruder could easily be recognized." [6] 

School uniforms keep students focused on their education, not their clothes. A bulletin
published by the National Association of Secondary School Principals stated that "When all
students are wearing the same outfit, they are less concerned about how they look and how
they fit in with their peers; thus, they can concentrate on their schoolwork." [15] A study by
the University of Houston found that elementary school girls' language test scores increased
by about three percentile points after uniforms were introduced. [1] Former US Secretary of
State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, advocated school uniforms as a way to help
students focus on learning: "Take that [clothing choices] off the table and put the focus on
school, not on what you're wearing." [30] Chris Hammons, Principal of Woodland Middle
School in Coeur d'Alene, ID, stated that uniforms "provide for less distraction, less drama,
and more of a focus on learning." [70] 

School uniforms create a level playing field among students, reducing peer pressure and
bullying. When all students are dressed alike, competition between students over clothing
choices and the teasing of those who are dressed in less expensive or less fashionable outfits
can be eliminated. Research by the Schoolwear Association found that 83% of teachers
thought "a good school uniform... could prevent bullying based on appearance or economic
background." [91] Arminta Jacobson, Founder and Director of the Center for Parent
Education at the University of North Texas, stated that uniforms put "all kids on the same
playing field in terms of their appearance. I think it probably gives them a sense of belonging
and a feeling of being socially accepted." [5]

Wearing uniforms enhances school pride, unity, and community spirit. A study from
Oxford Brookes University in the United Kingdom found that uniforms "often directly
contributed to a feeling of school pride." [45] Christopher P. Clouet, Superintendent of the
New London, CT school district, stated that "the wearing of uniforms contributes to school
pride." [3] A study of over 1,000 Texas middle school students found that students in uniform
"reported significantly more positive perceptions of belonging in their school community
than reported by students in the standard dress group." [33] Arnold Goldstein, PhD, head of
the Center for Research on Aggression at Syracuse University, stated that uniforms help
troubled students feel they have the support of a community: "There is a sense of
belonging." [31] A peer-reviewed study found that after uniforms were introduced, "Teachers
perceived an increase in the level of respect, caring, and trust... throughout the school" and
said "students are made to feel 'important' and as if they are a part of a team by wearing a
uniform." [20] 

School uniforms may improve attendance and discipline. A study by researchers at the
University of Houston found that the average absence rate for girls in middle and high school
decreased by 7% after the introduction of uniforms. The study also found that "behavioral
problems shift[ed] towards less severe infractions." [1] A Youngstown State University study
of secondary schools in Ohio's eight largest school districts found that school uniform
policies improve rates of attendance, graduation, and suspension. [27] During the first
semester of a mandatory uniform program at John Adams Middle School in Albuquerque,
NM, discipline referrals dropped from 1,565 during the first semester of the year prior to 405,
a 74% decrease. [68] Macquarie University (Australia) researchers found that in schools
across the world where uniform policies are enforced, students "are more disciplined" and
"listen significantly better, there are lower noise levels, and lower teaching waiting times with
classes starting on time." [89] 

Uniform policies save valuable class time because they are easier to enforce than a
standard dress code. Doris Jo Murphy, EdD, former Director of Field Experiences at the
University of North Texas College of Education, stated: "As an elementary assistant principal
in two suburban districts, I can tell you that the dress code took up a great deal of my time in
the area of discipline... I wished many times that we had uniforms because the issue of skirts
or shorts being too short, and baggy jeans and pants on the boys not being pulled up as they
needed to be, would have been a non-issue." [5] Lyndhurst, NJ school district superintendent
Tracey Marinelli had a similar experience before a uniform policy was introduced: "Kids
were spending time in the office because they were not fulfilling the dress code... That was
time away from class." [6] 

School uniforms prevent the display of gang colors and insignia. The US Department
of Education's Manual on School Uniforms stated that uniform policies can "prevent gang
members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school" in order to "encourage a safe
environment." [35] According to a 2017 National Center for Education Statistics report, in
2015, 11% of students age 12-18 said there were gang members at their schools, down from
20% in 2001. [90] Educators in the Long Beach Unified School District have speculated that
the sharp reduction in crime following the introduction of school uniforms was a result of
gang conflicts being curbed. [67]Osceola County, FL School Board member Jay Wheeler
reported that the county's schools had a 46% drop in gang activity after their first full school
year with a mandatory K-12 uniform policy. Wheeler stated that "clothing is integral to gang
culture... Imagine a U.S. Armed Forces recruiter out of uniform trying to recruit new soldiers;
the success rate goes down. The same applies to gang recruitment." [37]

School uniforms make getting ready for school easier, which can improve
punctuality. When uniforms are mandatory, parents and students do not spend time choosing
appropriate outfits for the school day. According to a national survey, over 90% of US school
leaders believe school uniform or formal dress code policies "eliminate wardrobe battles with
kids," make it "easier to get kids ready in the morning," and create a "time saving in the
morning." [32] Tracey Marinelli, Superintendent of the Lyndhurst School District in New
Jersey, credited the district's uniform policy for reducing the number of students running late.
Lyndhurst student Mike Morreale agreed, stating that "it's so much easier to dress than having
to search for clothes and find out that something doesn't match." [6] [7] 

School uniforms can save parents money.Parents can reduce their financial burden when
their children are limited to wearing one simple outfit every day. [13] A study of uniform cost
in the United Kingdom found that uniforms cost parents £88.05 ($128.79) per outfit, while
out-of-school outfits averaged £113.00 ($165.79). [87] A national survey of 517 US school
leaders found that 94% of those surveyed believe "one of the main benefits to parents is that
school uniforms are more cost-effective than regular apparel," and 77% estimated the average
annual cost of school uniforms per child to be $150 or less. [32] Uniform company French
Toast states on their website that the average cost one of their complete school uniforms is
$45 and that most children will only require two sets. [19] Without school uniform policies,
parents may feel pressure to compete with other families by purchasing fashionable clothes
for their children. [71]

Most parents and educators support mandatory school uniforms. A survey by the
National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) and uniform manufacturer
Lands' End found that a majority of school leaders believe their school uniform or formal
dress code policies have had a positive impact on classroom discipline (85%), the school's
image in the community (83%), student safety (79%), school pride (77%), and student
achievement (64%). [32] A poll administered by the Harford County, MD school system
found that "teachers and administrators were overwhelmingly in favor" of introducing school
uniforms. The poll also found that 58% of parents wanted a mandatory uniform policy
instated. [9] 

Students' legal right to free expression remains intact even with mandatory school
uniforms. The US Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community
School District(7-2, 1969), which concerned the wearing of black armbands to protest the
Vietnam War, confirmed that students' constitutional right to free speech "does not relate to
regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing." Wearing one's own choice of shirt
or pants is not the "pure speech" protected by the Constitution. [18] [28] In Canady v. Bossier
Parish School Board (3-0, 2001), the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a school
board's right to implement a mandatory uniform policy, stating that requiring uniforms for the
purpose of increasing test scores and improving discipline "is in no way related to the
suppression of student speech. [Students] remain free to wear what they want after school
hours. Students may still express their views through other mediums during the school
day." [18] [29] In 1995, Judge Michael D. Jones of Maricopa County Superior Court (AZ)
ruled that mandatory uniform policies do not violate students' free speech rights even when
there is no opt-out provision in the school's uniform policy. [34] 

Students dressed in uniform are better perceived by teachers and peers. A 1994 peer-
reviewed study found that students in uniform were perceived by teachers and fellow students
as being more academically proficient than students in regular clothes. The study also found
that students in uniform were perceived by peers and teachers as having higher academic
potential, and perceived by peers as being better behaved. [4] 

Cons Of Wearing a School Uniform

Students can express their individuality in school uniforms by introducing variations
and adding accessories. Junior high school student Amelia Jimenez wrote in her op-ed for
the Pennsylvania Patriot-News website that "contrary to popular belief, uniforms do not stop
students from being themselves. Uniforms do not silence voices. Students can wear a variety
of expressive items, such as buttons or jewlery." The Seventeen and TeenVogue websites list
numerous suggestions for students on how to add their personal style to school uniforms,
including hairstyle options, the use of nail polish, and the addition of colorful accessories
such as satchels, scarfs, and socks. [61] [62] TeenVoguestated that "there are tons of ways to
amp up your standard issue getup." [62] A peer-reviewed study found that 54% of eighth-
graders said they could still express their individuality while wearing school uniforms. [65] 

School uniforms restrict students' freedom of expression. The First Amendment of the US

Constitution guarantees that all individuals have the right to express themselves freely. The
US Supreme Court stated in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
District (7-2, 1969) that "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." [28] [8] In
the 1970 case Richards v. Thurston (3-0), which revolved around a boy refusing to have his
hair cut shorter, the US First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "compelled conformity to
conventional standards of appearance" does not "seem a justifiable part of the educational
process." [39] Clothing choices are "a crucial form of self-expression," according to the
American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, which also stated that "allowing students to
choose their clothing is an empowering message from the schools that a student is a maturing
person who is entitled to the most basic self-determination." [17]Clothing is also a popular
means of expressing support for various social causes and compulsory uniforms largely
remove that option. Students at Friendly High School in Prince George's County, MD, were
not allowed to wear pink shirts to support Breast Cancer Awareness Month. As a result, 75
students received in-school suspensions for breaking the school's uniform restrictions. [11]
School uniforms promote conformity over individuality. At a time when schools are
encouraging an appreciation of diversity, enforcing standardized dress sends a contradictory
message. [63] Chicago junior high school student Kyler Sumter wrote in the Huffington Post:
"They decide to teach us about people like Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony and Booker T.
Washington... We learn about how these people expressed themselves and conquered and we
can't even express ourselves in the hallways." [60] Troy Shuman, a senior in Harford County,
MD, said the introduction of a mandatory uniform policy to his school would be "teaching
conformity and squelching individual thought. Just think of prisons and gangs. The ultimate
socializer to crush rebellion is conformity in appearance. If a school system starts at clothes,
where does it end?" [9] In schools where uniforms are specifically gendered (girls must wear
skirts and boys must wear pants), transgendered, gender-fluid, and gender-nonconforming
students can feel ostracized. Seamus, a 16-year-old transgendered boy, stated, "sitting in a
blouse and skirt all day made me feel insanely anxious. I wasn't taken seriously. This is
atrocious and damaging to a young person's mental health; that uniform nearly destroyed
me." [86] Late satirist George Carlin asked, "Don't these schools do enough damage, making
all these children think alike? Now they're gonna get them to look alike, too?" [40] 

School uniforms do not stop bullying and may increase violent attacks. Tony Volk, PhD,
Associate Professor at Brock University, stated, "Overall, there is no evidence in bullying
literature that supports a reduction in violence due to school uniforms." [85] A peer-reviewed
study found that "school uniforms increased the average number of assaults by about 14 [per
year] in the most violent schools." [26] A Texas Southern University study found that school
discipline incidents rose by about 12% after the introduction of uniforms. [14] According to
the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Education Evaluation and Management,
fights in middle schools nearly doubled within one year of introducing mandatory
uniforms. [72] [73] 

School uniforms do not improve attendance, academic preparedness, or exam

results.David L. Brunsma, PhD, Professor of Sociology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University (Virginia Tech), co-authored a study that analyzed a national sample of 10th
graders and found "no effects of uniforms on absenteeism, behavioral problems (fights,
suspensions, etc.), or substance use on campus" and "no effects" on "pro-school attitudes,
academic preparedness, and peer attitudes toward school." [14] [66] Brunsma also found a
"negative effect of uniforms on academic achievement," and later found that uniforms were
equally ineffective on elementary students and eighth graders. [14] A peer-reviewed study
found "no significant effects of school uniforms on performance on second grade reading and
mathematics examinations, as well as on 10th-grade reading, mathematics, science, and
history examinations... [I]n many of the specifications, the results are actually negative." [2]

The key findings used to tout the benefits of uniforms are questionable. The oft-quoted
improvements to school safety and student behavior in the Long Beach (CA) Unified School
District from 1993-1995 may not have resulted from the introduction of school uniforms. The
study in which the findings were published cautioned that "it is not clear that these results are
entirely attributable to the uniform policy" and suggests that the introduction of new school
security measures made at the same time may have been partly responsible. [64] Other
reform efforts implemented alongside the uniform policy included a $1 million project to
develop alternative teaching strategies. [66] 

School uniforms emphasize the socio-economic divisions they are supposed to

eliminate. Most public schools with uniform policies are in poor neighborhoods,
emphasizing the class distinctions that uniforms were supposed to eliminate. According to the
National Center for Education Statistics, 47% of high-poverty public schools required school
uniforms, while only 6% of low-poverty public schools required them. [23] Even within one
school, uniforms cannot conceal the differences between the "haves" and the "have-nots."
David L. Brunsma, PhD, stated that "more affluent families buy more uniforms per child. The
less affluent... they have one... It's more likely to be tattered, torn and faded. It only takes two
months for socioeconomic differences to show up again." [9]According to the Children's
Society (UK), almost 800,000 pupils go to school in poorly fitted uniforms because their
parents cannot afford new items. [93]Uniforms also emphasize racial divisions. Schools with
a minority student population of 50% or more are four times as likely to require uniforms
than schools with a minority population of 20-49%, and 24 times more likely than schools
with minority populations of 5%-19%. [78]

Students oppose school uniforms. Enrollment at Washington High School in South Bend,

IN, has declined 43% since the introduction of school uniforms in 2006; and a 2017 survey
found that 82% of the current students opposed uniforms. [92] A peer-reviewed study by
researchers at the University of Nevada at Reno found that 90% of seventh and eighth grade
public school students did not like wearing uniforms. [25] In the year following the
introduction of mandatory school uniforms to the Long Beach (CA) Unified School District,
81% of middle school students said uniforms did not reduce fights, 76% said they did not
help them fit in at school, 69% said they did not make them feel more connected with the
school community, and 71% said they felt no safer traveling to and from school. [64] 

Uniforms may have a detrimental effect on students' self-image. When students have to

wear the same outfits, rather than being allowed to select clothes that suit their body types,
they can suffer embarrassment at school. Child and teen development specialist Robyn
Silverman told NBC News' Today that students, especially girls, tend to compare how each
other looks in their uniforms: "As a body image expert, I hear from students all the time that
they feel it allows for a lot of comparison... So if you have a body that’s a plus-size body, a
curvier body, a very tall body, a very short body, those girls often feel that they don't look
their best." [21] A study by researchers at Arizona State University found that "students from
schools without uniforms reported higher self-perception scores than students from schools
with uniform policies." [24] Some students also find uniforms less comfortable than their
regular clothes, which may not be conducive to learning. [75] 

Focusing on uniforms takes attention away from finding genuine solutions to problems
in education. Spending time and effort implementing uniform policies may detract from
more effective efforts to reduce crime in schools and boost student performance. More
substantive improvements to public education could be achieved with smaller class sizes,
tightened security, increased parental involvement, improved facilities, and other
measures. [12] [14] Tom Houlihan, former Superintendent of Schools in Oxford, NC, stated
that school uniforms "are a distraction from focusing on systematic and fundamental
transformation to improve our schools." [42] 

The push for school uniforms is driven by commercial interests rather than educational
ones. Americans spend around $1 billion on school uniforms every year. [43] [74] Retailer
J.C. Penney Co. says school uniforms are "a huge, important business for us." [44] In one
year alone, uniform company Lands' End spent $3 million on marketing efforts directed at
public schools and districts. [14] Multiple studies used to promote the effectiveness of
uniforms were partly funded by Lands' End, and at least one of those studies is "so wholly
flawed as to render itself useless," according to David L. Brunsma, PhD. [14] [32] Reuters
reported that retailers were "sensing their opportunity... stepping up competition in the
uniform aisles and online. Walmart has set up 'uniform shops' or temporary boutiques within
some stores." [74]

Parents should be free to choose their children's clothes without government

interference. One of the founders of the Wilson County (LA) Parents Coalition, Richard
Dashkovitz, stated: "It's time we let the government know that we are fed up with this. Quit
dictating to us what my child should wear... [T]he government is intruding into our private
lives, roles as parents and the lives of our children." [16] According to another parents' rights
group, Asserting Parental Rights — It's Our Duty, mandatory uniform "policies trample
parents' right to raise children without government interference." [10]

School uniforms in public schools undermine the promise of a free education by

imposing an extra expense on families. Parents already pay taxes, and they still need to buy
regular clothes for their children to wear when they're out of school and for dress-down days.
The Children's Commission on Poverty (UK) found that over "95% of parents on low
incomes reported difficulties in meeting school-related costs," including uniforms, despite
their children attending tuition-free schools. [94] Anderson, IN, parents Laura and Scott Bell
their children's school over its uniform policy, saying the $641 for their children's uniforms
broke the guarantee of a free public education. [10] In York County, PA, a local NBC
affiliate reported that some children were missing class because their families couldn't afford
to purchase the required uniforms. [84]

School uniforms may delay the transition into adulthood. Adults make their own clothing
choices and have the freedom to express themselves through their appearance. Denying
children and teenagers the opportunity to make those choices may make them ill-prepared for
the adult world. [76][75] Adolescents see clothing choices as a means of identification, and
seeking an identity is one of the critical stages of adolescence, according to the late
developmental psychologist Erik Erikson
Cell Phones are safe to use
Numerous peer-reviewed studies have found that cell phone use is not associated with
an increased risk of brain tumors. An Oct. 20, 2011 study of 358,403 Danish citizens – the
largest study of its kind to date – concluded that "there was no association between tumors of
the central nervous system or brain and long term (10 years +) use of mobile phones." [39] A
July 27, 2011 study found that there was no association between cell phone use and brain
tumor risks among children and adolescents. [50] Numerous other studies published from
2001-2013 have similarly concluded that there is no association between cell phone use and
the development of brain tumors. [1] [41] [42] [45] [46][49] 

Radiofrequency radiation from cell phones is non-ionizing and is not powerful enough
to cause cancer. Ionizing radiation, including x-rays and ultraviolet light, produces
molecules called ions that have either too many or too few electrons. Ions are known to
damage DNA and cause cancer. Cell phone radiation, like radio, TV, and visible light
radiation, is non-ionizing and lacks sufficient energy to add or remove electrons from
molecules, and therefore it cannot ionize and cause cancer. [2]According to the authors of a
2005 peer-reviewed study of 3.7 million Swedish residents, a "biologic mechanism that could
explain any possible carcinogenic effect from radiofrequency radiation has not been
identified." [42] 
Cell phone radiation levels are tested and certified to remain within levels deemed safe
by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC sets the maximum amount
of thermal radiation (heat) that cell phones are permitted to emit. [3] This limit is measured as
the amount of radiation absorbed by a user and is known as the specific absorption rate
(SAR). In 1996 the SAR for cell phone radiation was set at a maximum of 1.6 watts of energy
absorbed per kilogram of body weight. Manufactures of cell phones must test their products
to ensure that they meet this standard. Random tests of phones on the market by FCC
scientists further ensure that radiation levels meet FCC guidelines. [48] 

Studies have shown an association between cell phone use and a decreased risk of
certain brain tumors. According to a peer-reviewed Dec. 2006 study of 420,095 cell phone
users in Denmark, the results showed a "reduced brain tumor risk" among long-term
subscribers. [1]Two other peer-reviewed studies also found that cell phone users had a
slightly decreased risk of developing brain tumors. A July 20, 2005 Danish study [41] found
a "decreased risk for high-grade glioma," a malignant brain tumor, and a 2005 Swedish
study [42] also found a "decreased odds ratio" for developing glioma as well as meningioma,
another type of brain tumor. 

US government agencies conclude there is no scientific evidence proving that cell phones
cause cancer or other health problems. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), [4] US Government Accountability Office (GAO), [5] and the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), [47] have all concluded that there is no evidence in the scientific
literature proving that cell phones cause brain tumors or other health problems. According to
the FDA, "attempts to replicate and confirm the few studies that did show a connection
[between cell phone radiation and head tumors] have failed." [69] 

There has been no rise in the rate of brain cancers despite a massive increase in the use
of cell phones. If cell phones were causing cancer we could expect a significant rise in the
rate of brain and other related cancers. According to the National Cancer Institute, there was
no increase in the incidence of brain or other nervous system cancers between the years 1987
and 2005 despite the fact that cell phone use dramatically increased during those same
years. [6] Between 2004 and 2010 there was still no significant change in the incidence rate
of brain tumors. Between 2004 and 2010 there was a slight increase from 209 cases to 221.8
cases per 100,000 people, but this slight increase was attributed to better tracking and
recording of cases. [43] During the same time period, cell phone use increased 62.7% from
182,140,362 subscribers in 2004 to 296,285,629 in 2010. [44] 

Like cell phones, other devices including radios, televisions, cordless phones, and pagers all
safely transmit signals using RF radiation. Radio has used RF radiation since at least
1893 [77] and television has used it since at least 1939. [78] The safe, long-term use of those
RF-using devices helps prove that cell phones are also safe. 
Cell Phones are not safe to use
Numerous peer-reviewed studies have shown an association between cell phone use and
the development of brain tumors. According to a Mar. 2008 meta-analysis of cell phone
studies there is a "consistent pattern" connecting cell phone use and an increased risk of
developing glioma, a type of brain tumor. [12] A Mar. 31, 2009 study found that long term
cell phone use (10 years +) "approximately doubles the risk" of being diagnosed with glioma
on the same side of the head where the cell phone is held. [51] In Apr. 2013 another study of
Swedish cell phone users also found an association between cell phone use and the
development of glioma and acoustic neuroma - a benign tumor formation on the nerve near
the ear. [52]That study’s conclusions were confirmed by a different study in Apr.
2014. [84] Other studies published from 2005-2013 have similarly concluded that there is an
association between cell phone use and increased risk of developing brain and head
tumors. [13] [53] [54] [55] 

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified cell phone
radiation as a possible carcinogen. On May 31, 2011, the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a press release
announcing it had added cell phone radiation to its list of physical agents that are "possibly
carcinogenic to humans" (group 2B agents). [38] The classification was made after a working
group of 31 scientists completed a review of previously published studies and found "limited
evidence of carcinogenicity" from the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by
wireless phones, radio, television, and radar. [37] 

Due to the relatively recent adoption of cell phones, the long-term safety of the
technology cannot be determined conclusively and caution is warranted. Research on
glioma brain tumors shows the average latency period is 20-30 years. [56] Although cell
phones were introduced in 1983, it was not until 2003 that over 50% of the US population
had a wireless subscription, so the 20 year mark for mass cell phone use has not yet been
reached. [44] [71] The May 17, 2010 INTERPHONE study, the largest study ever to examine
possible links between cell phones and brain tumors, concluded that overall there was "no
increase in risk" for glioma or meningioma brain tumors, [57] but the average user in the
study had less than eight years of cell phone exposure. [56] In his review of the
INTERPHONE study results, Dr. Rodolfo Saracci stated that "none of today’s established
carcinogens, including tobacco, could have been firmly identified as increasing risk in the
first 10 years or so since first exposure." [58] 

Cell phones emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and RF radiation has been shown to
damage DNA and cause cancer in laboratory animals. A peer-reviewed Jan. 2012 study in
the Journal of Neuro-Oncology concluded that RF radiation "may damage DNA and change
gene expression in brain cells" in mice. [61] An Aug. 2009 meta-study found that RF
radiation "can alter the genetic material of exposed cells." [62] A 2004 European Union-
funded study also found that cell phone radiation can damage genes. [63] On May 26, 2016,
the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) released its study on cell phone radiation,
finding an increased incidence of malignant tumors of the brain (gliomas) and heart tumors
(schwannomas) in rats exposed to RF radiation. [85] The NTP researchers also found DNA
damage in the rats exposed to the highest levels of RF radiation. [86] 

Children may have an increased risk of adverse health effects from cell phone
radiation. According to American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Robert Block, when
cell phones are used by children, "the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the
brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull," than for adults. [68] A July 2008
peer-reviewed study shows that children under the age of eight absorb twice the amount of
radiation into their brain tissue as adults due to their lower skull thickness. [17] 

Radiation from cell phones can damage sperm. Cell phone storage in front pockets has
been linked to poor fertility and higher chances of miscarriage and childhood
cancer. [18] According to the Cleveland Clinic Center for Reproductive Medicine, semen
quality "tended to decline as daily cell phone use increased." [19] According to a May-June
2012 meta-study in the Journal of Andrology, "men using mobile phones have decreased
sperm concentration" in addition to "decreased viability" of their sperm. [64] 

Prenatal exposure to radiation from cell phones may increase the risk of ADHD and
other behavior problems in children. According to a peer-reviewed Nov. 2008 study in the
journal Epidemiology, exposure to cell phone radiation while in the womb "was associated
with behavior difficulties such as emotional and hyperactivity problems around the age of
school entry." [65] A Dec. 2010 study replicated those findings. [67] A peer-reviewed Mar.
15, 2012 study found that mice exposed to cell phone radiation in the womb "were
hyperactive and had impaired memory" as adults. [66] 

Cell phone radiation may disrupt the functioning of pacemakers. A 2005 study in
the International Journal of Cardiology found that mobile phones may have "adverse effects"
on pacemaker functions under certain conditions. [59] According to the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), radiofrequency energy from cell phones can create electromagnetic
interference (EMI) that may disrupt the functioning of pacemakers, especially if the cell
phone is placed close to the heart. [21] The American Heart Association includes cell phones
on its list of "devices that may interfere with pacemakers." [60]