Now recommended no TV at all for under 3's

[Furball]

Just seen on BBC news it is now recommended no TV at all for under 3's but can't find any info about it on their website.

Flumpytina, Im not sure enough to tell you, what I would say is this is just ONE study out of hundreds proving that television is bad for children - surely with this vast amount of evidence, one could not but agree with the findings? Dr. Dimitri A. Christakis is the lead researcher and director of the Child Health Institute at Children?s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Wash and therefore I would be of the opinion that he knows more about the brain than I do, and more about the effects of tv on children, do you think that all the studies have been "made up"?
Back to your original question, as I said, im not entirely sure but I work for the health service and will ask someone for you tomorrow, I did attend a "stroke talk" a few weeks ago but we did not discuss recovery in depth but will get back to you on that though!!

Ds is 2 and can nearly read, count up to 15, repeat all sorts of rhymes and I'm getting a bit bemused by the number of peol who say, 'He's quite... advanced, isn't he?" I shove Cbeebies on when I want a bit of time to cook lunch, read the paper or indeed go on MN He quite likes it but after a while will come stomping into the kitchen to demand eitehr food or that I play with him.
Telly isn't killing him. I also Drank Beer sometimes when I was pregnant. Maybe if I'd been super-organic flash-card wielding mummy he'd now be ruling the world. Already.

BLK, am smiling to myself as you sound a lot like me on a contraversial health thread several months ago! I was convincingly hauled over the hot coals by a seriously smart MNer for talking about vast amounts of evidence proving x,y or z!!

The problem with research is ...not all research is equal. Some of it is very good, some of it is OK and needs more doing before you can conclude anything, and some research is ...well...shite.

When you read anything that claims to be backed up by research you need to look carefully at who did the research, how did they conduct it, no's of participants, who paid for it etc etc. (To be honest it is really boring but necessary before you can say something it catagorically proven).

I have no idea of the 'quality' of the research you are quoting...just that point about neural pathways seems to be at odds with accepted (current) neurological knowledge about how the brain works.

BarbieLovesKen: there's two types of study. There's the kind that demonstrates that doing A almost always leads to B, which can be replicated over and over again (the sort of studies and tests that all this snake-oil alternative medicine crap fails again and again and again) and then there are studies that appear to show something but can't be replicated or haven't controlled for important other factors or have been performed on a tiny little group (ie if I ask three of my friends whether eating eggs induces projectile vomiting and two of the three have an egg allergy that I haven't asked about or controlled for, I'd then state that eating eggs has a 65% chance of causing projectile vomiting. Which would be easily disproved by almost anyone else)
The studies you appear to be referring to here sound even more nebulous: how can you prove what someone might have done or become without comparing them with their identical, identically-reared (apart from the one factor that is the subject for the experiment) twin?

Under no circumstances let a child know that cbeebies is on freeview all day! A big mistake I am going to pay dearly for I think (ds is 18 mo - eek)

I would completely agree with you that some research can be rubbish but imo, there is just way too much evidence supporting this -if there were just one study to say that tv is bad and one to say it was good, I would then certainly be skeptical about the findings but I have found this info everywhere - any time ive googled anything related to children watching tv, effects of same etc.. a huge amount of info has came up - with the majority supporting the original study, any parenting book that I have read has stated same.. (including what to expect..) therefore can it really be untrue?

Studies aside (and I know this may not exactly be a correct comparison but just my opinion) dps nephew is 2 months older than dd - he has watched 4 hours + tv a day since he was 4 months old (or possibley younger), dd has never watched any. I know that this may not be a sufficient arguement to put forward and there possibley could be different reasons (and all children are different) but I and dp are positive that the tv has seriously affected this little boys development - although hes older he spoke an awful lot later that dd (and still does not have much of a vocabulary) - he is not a sociable child - when we would go into his house he would sit glued to the tv, oblivious to his surroundings - he would not take his eyes off the tv, even when called, if you put your hand in front of his eyes when he is watching tv he becomes very aggressive, slaps your hand out of the way and moans (did this since about 8/9 months old). I find this extremely disturbing, he is very inactive and quite "heavy" --- this is far from scientific evidence but just an observation on my part.. I believe that tv has caused problems for this baby.

But BLK don't you think that by googling 'effects of TV on children' you are likely going to find sites supporting 'expert opinions' and 'research' that TV is bad for children?

I'm not sure what to say about the little boy you know. I just wonder if his behaviour when he watches TV is somehow a symptom of an underlying problem rather than the cause?

BLK, a few posters have tried to explain that googling 'TV effects on children' is not, on its own, going to bring up convincing scientific evidence. I've only seen news reports of the studies mentioned so have not enough info to know whether they are particularly well-designed or not. But it's very, very hard to measure the effect that television watching or some other form of behaviour or experience has on a whole population, or indeed any individual.

that is absolutely a possibility - of course (but God I hope not!) but he has had all his checks and nothing has been found, thankfully. I believe his behaviour is all down to his television watching - but of course I could be wrong on this as I have no scientific evidence to support this. No, if I googled something as vague as this, I would expect to find all info - different opinions and pros and cons, yet the majority of everything I have found has stated the downsides to tv. How about all the evidence in books then? I have yet to find a book (there could be some out there, dont get me wrong) that is entitled "tv is great for childrens development" (or in that line) but yet in book stores and parenting books, ive found many to state the dangers of tv? Although not completely the same, its like years ago - some people smoked around their new born babies - the dangers were not known... nowadays, very very few of us (i hope) would dream of smoking on top of our little ones... and why? because of research and studies and because the effects have become known. Yet, (and you'll have it with everything, including this tv debate) my grandmother (73) would still try to tell me that "a bit of smoke wouldnt do dd a bit of harm" ???

BLK, sorry I'm just thinking of CBeebies publishing a book entitled....Beebies the best thing for your baby .

I think pretty much every poster on this thread would agree that putting an infant infront of the tv all day is a bad thing (I'm pretty sure that is common sense speaking rather than research). What the 'pro'-tvers (if you'd like to call us) are saying is that surely a small amount of (supervised) age-appropriate tv for young children is very unlikely to do them harm....decent research pending!!!

Books present arguments, not (generally speaking wrt books aimed at lay audiences) clear scientific evidence such as the results of meta-analyses. I suspect there aren't enough studies of decent quality and scope to confirm or deny one way or the other to do a meta-analysis, tbh. If you look up 'books on parenting' you will find some good advice and many assertions based on eff all evidence (may I cite high-profile parenting gurus who talk absolute rubbish about b/f here?).

As for anecdote, your nephew does sound as if he has a few problems. But my ds has watched more television than I'd have let him were I a Better, Proper, Mummy, and his language development is very good. What I really need is a Cbeebies programme called something like 'Listen to mother'.

I liked this quote at the bottom of the bbc report and thought it summed it up quite nicely:
sociologist Professor Frank Furedi casts doubt on the claims - and says children's television viewing was in decline, as they shifted towards computer games and the internet.

"It seems that every week we get another report that tells us about another threat to our children," he said.

"We seem to have lost the capacity to simply say that it's not a good idea for children to watch too much TV - I think that every parent knows that children should be out playing in the open air.

"But instead of saying that, we have to invent all these negative factors about obesity and autism," Professor Furedi said.

"...the simple act of staring at a bright television screen, regardless of a programme?s content, can damage a child?s health." (Times article).
Substitute computer screen here and this research becomes really scary. Own up, all of us are guilty of that one aren't we? One-handed typing with DC on our knee.

as an additional point I think that young children watching Cbeebies is unlikely to be of great benefit to them (most of the programmes on at the moment are fairly rubbish), but IMO for a short time every day Mummies need some time out from contant entertaining/injury preventing/story reading/arse wiping etc etc their manic rampaging children (esp at 4.30 pm ...see Lentil Weavers thread), and children need a little bit of quiet time themselves. Half an hour of Balamory fits the bill and saves a hell of a lot of fraughtness (is there such a word?) and shouting, well in this house it certainly does!!

It is really a case of another day, another way to put the shits up the parents. As I seem to remember being said on another trhead about something else altogether, people are getting very bad at risk assesment. You see a headline that suggests eating sausages triples your risk of moral incontinence before the age of 45, but what you don;t read (probably because the papers didn't bother to explain) is that it triples your risk from 2 people in 1000 to 6 people in 1000. Like the comment someone made about smoking in front of babies - while it's now fairly conclusively demonstrated that cigarette smoke is unhealthy both for the smoker and anyone within arms' reach of the smoker, occasional exposure to secondhand smoke will not instantly kill LOs. Otherwise there would be far less of a population problem than there is at present.

Oh but Frank Furedi is barking. TV viewing is in decline because kids are moving towards other screen-based entertainment forms, such as playstations, DVD, videos and computer games.

As for finding it difficult to believe that kids watch 4+ hours a day, some people have their TV's on in their homes from the time they get up until the time they go to bed. If children are around at that time, they will be counted as viewers (and of course, to some extent, they are). It isn't just mad TV people who are on the TV audience measurement viewing panel though - they have to have a good mix of light, medium and heavy viewers so that those elusive light viewers can be reached by advertisers. In fact, the lighter the viewer, the keener BARB are to get them on the panel, so that they can keep track of where they can be advertised at. (They are rarer and richer than other target groups.)

Can I ask why mothers/ fathers get their children to watch tv? is it because they believe that tv will benefit their child in some way or is it to get some time to themselves (parent)? genuine question, just always wondered....

I get my kids to watch TV when I want to get on with something else like cleaning up. And also, because I appreciate that they, like me, have stuff they like which is down time. I have Corrie, they have Basil Brush.

Sometimes, I watch TV with them when I want to have fun with them - like watching Pirates of the Caribbean. Never did that when they were younger, because Big Cook Little Cook just doesn't do it for me.

When they were very young, (under 3) I would occasionally let them watch teletubbies for about 15 minutes because the look of wonder and delight and absorbtion was so funny. Draw the line at Tweenies though. And yes, I'm one of those wankers who doesn't let her kids watch ITV. I worked for ad agencies and a TV company before I had kids, and I know just how evil they are.

BLK, I introduced DS1 to Teletubbies at about 12mths. Mainly because he was very whingey when bored and I couldn't do anything without him wanting to be picked up. It gave me 20 minutes peace to get on with stuff.

I soon found that if I left the video running he would lose interest after about 15 minutes anyway, so no hours of being mesmerised.

He, like madamez DS was an early talker, and people have always commented on how well he talks, his sharp memory and his massive interest in books. He will choose stories over TV every time.

He is now 3.6 and will watch between 45-60 mins of TV most days. Sometimes I let him for my benefit, but mostly because he is interested in what he watches and learns from it - he doesn't just mindlessly glare at the screen.

I just feel it's too sweeping to say all television is bad for all children under 3. Yes, there is terrible over use of tv as a babysitter, but scaring responsible parents into believing they are harming their kids is not not the way to solve it.

BLK - your nephew is a boy - it is usual for boys speech and language development to be behind girls. There are some indications that higher levels of testosterone inhibit language development.

I don't have any problems with a report saying that watching 4 hours of TV a day isn't any good for a child. Fine. But triggering autism? What? That complex condition that's probably a collection of different condition anyway. That condition that is known to have some genetic effects, that condition where studies have repeatedly shown that biochemically and phsyiologically many autistic children are very different from their typically developing peers. Triggered turning a TV on? Show me the evidence. Proper evidence- not just "ooh children with autism watch a lot of TV"- of course they do- they find play very difficult.

BLK, I think many people use the television just to get something done themselves. eg at the moment I have a 9 week old. The television is 0ff all day but at 530 ish when I want to feed the baby it is quite a difficult time for the 2 and 3 year old. Usually they are great all day at playing but at 530 I need to have them in sight while feeding or I worry I may find a toothpaste or sudocream massacre upstairs! Doesn't make for a relaxing feed. Half an hour of Eric Carle animation or a bit of Tractor Ted makes for a lovely peaceful little trio before we troop upstairs to bathtime. As my husband is away all week I think I would not cope without this. I don't think I am poisoning my children!

i wonder what length of time posters would consider optimum?
imo the child will pretty soon dictate how much tv it watches
I am a strict Mama and my 14 12 and 10 year old ask me before switching it on
now i KNOW i am in the minority there. how many parents actually truly know how much their children watch?

Having said that, yesterday I didn't put it on. Am saying the report is overplaying things but on the other hand allowed it to make me feel so guilty that I didn't have it on yesterday!!

Firmly of the belief that you can find a study to support anything I did a google - TV is good for kids- and this is what I found - here