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.

Any responsible adult knows that hours and hours of TV is not good for anyone because as my DH says, it is a time thief if not used judiciously. If kids are overweight, in 99.9% of cases, it is because they are not getting enough exercise as they are obviously ingesting more calories than they are using. If a 2 or 3 year old has speech development problems, maybe they are late developers or maybe, their parents need to speak to them more.

The fact that this person claims that TV can cause autism (remind me again, in which peer review journal did he publish is emperically proven scientific findings?), is enough for me to not even read the report. As a scientist and someone with an autistic brother and nephew, I feel confident in my abiliites to state categorically and with conviction that his claims are complete and utter rubbish.

I wonder what this numpty says about kids using computers? Turns them into incoherent drones no doubt

Ottergavebirthonvalentine - I bet you don't know exactly what your 14yo gets up to all the time.

Interesting too how he uses TV to sell himself!

Hmmmmm
That article actually says kids watch an average of four hours a day
If thats what you are happy with - 28 hours out of every week..lets see thats nearly 20% of their life

No its wrong
Childhood is too short and setting boundaries when they are young or at least controlling it WHILE YOU CAN is imo a step in the right direction

Why is it wrong???? When I wa a kid I either watched TV (and not good children't TV) or had my nose in a book. I lived on a remote farm with few people around and no playgrounds. My parents had no time to play with us so we found our own entertainment.

More evidence that TV can in fact be good for you here

Thing is yo know your child, you know yourself, you know your life and you make judgements based on the realities of life.

Ds is watching a lot of TV at the moment as he's stuck indoors feeling miserable with chickenpox. Anyone think I should turn it off and force him to do some painting? (He's already used up all the playdoh - has now decided he likes leaving it to get hard as it's akin to baking.) I did take him out yesterday -we were heading for the park but bumped into a friend and ended up playing at her house. Tbh I was unsure about the park because he's so tired, but just wanted to get him into the fresh air.

He's 3.5 btw.

I don't restrict tv viewing (apart from when I find it annoying). However, I have found that left to their own devices my children will get bored after a while and go off and do other things. My eldest ds(19) watched endless Thomas the Tank engine videos. He spoke sentences at 19m and is now studying Astrophysics at Uni. I watch my children and if I saw signs that tv was harming them in any way I would step in. However, I have not seen any evidence in my children that tv is harming them so see no need to change what we do. My 3yo only tends to watch her favourite programs. My teens (19,17,15,14) do not sit and watch tv ad nauseum and are not restricted. They freely admit that most of the stuff on tv is rubbish. They managed to work that out for themselves. As regards adverts we talk about them and most of my children see through them and joke about them when the toy ads increase before christmas etc.
Perhaps I've been lucky and my family is unusual but I don't think so. So, I have to say that my experience with my children doesn't tie in with this report.

Barbielovesken parents of girls always think that their male peers are backwards/socially delayed/aggressive

that's what boys are like

but they are v. good at kicking balls

link{http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/faculty/profiles/Waldman/AUTISM-WALDMAN-NICHOLSON-ADILOV.pdf\here's the paper about autism and television}

OK so the authors first decided that in counties where is rained a lot then the kids must be watching more TV. Therefore if autism was caused by watching TV, then there must be more autism in counties where it rained a lot. And there is. Ergo TV watching must be causing autism.

Hmmmmm, actually- if it could be shown that there is more autism -defintiely- ie problems with dx in different areas could be accounted for etc-not convinced they have even been considered in this study, although I admit I haven't read it all- then I would be very interested if it is true that there is more autism in counties where it rains a lot, as there is so much work needed into environmental triggers. My first question would be what's in the rain?

For a condition such as autim the interesting thing would be how long babies are watching TV anyway rather than toddlers/children. The condition can be screened for at 18 months, ie autistic children show recognisable differences at 18 months, so the damage must already have been done. Would rainfall affect the amount off TV a baby watched???

here's the paper about autism and television

Flumpytina,

have just discussed with a guy here about last nights subject - he said that in his opinion, no, the brain cannot reginerate itself, if a patient recovers from a stroke, the part of the brain which has been damaged, is damaged permanently but that the other brain cells can compensate and contribute towards recovery - its like excessive drinking - the brain cells killed, will not regenirate themselves but a persons' "left" cells will compensate (central nervous system). He said it could possibley be confused because some nerves can be regenerated and heal themselves (in hand etc)- he put this an awful lot better than I am, but the general gist....

You are talking at cross purposes, Barbie. First you were talking about neural pathways being laid down, now you are talking about reversing brain damage (injury). Noone has suggested watching TV actually causes brain injury AFAIK. Your suggestion was that it impairs brain development, which is something quite different.

BLK, you are right. The brain doesn't regenerate (or replace brain cells that have died).

What it does if forge new connections. It does this all the time, when we learn a new skills, and after brain injury. The term I was taught is neuroplasticity, ie the brain is plastic (in the context of it being adaptable/flexible etc, not made of polypropaline obviously).

I commented on this after you post saying

'Between the age of 0 and 3, we develop neural pathways to the brain.. after the age of 3 this stops so those 1st 3 years are crucial for the best brain development possible. When a child is "mesmerised" watching tv, these pathways are not being created.. surely thats scarey? '

I just don't believe that this statement is true, as 'neural pathways' are made throughout our lifetime....how else could we continue to learn beyond the age of 3 if your statement was true?

Jimjams I just read the conclusion where they seem to admit that their findings do not definitively support their fear that TV triggers autism but that there is a possibility that it might so why take the chance. They also recognise the possible criticism of do kids watch TV cos they are autistic or are they auristic because they watch TV.

Not the most convincing thing I have ever read.

Edam, I know that noone suggested that watching tv causes brain injury... I posted this info because flumpytina wrote "It's been a while since I did any neuro physio but I distinctly remember that patients recovery after stroke or head injury is due to the brain being able to forge new neural connections. If this happens in an 82 year old its sure as hell not stopping when a child reaches 3. Any neuro bods out there please come forward and assist me!!"

and I said.."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!!"

Sorry, it probably is off topic but since it was brought up....

I still cannot understand the motive behind encouraging a child to watch tv.. from the replies, what I understand (and please feel free to correct me - could be wrong)is that its to free up time for the parents? (surely, encouraging child to participate in other activities could do this? or if these other activities do not have the same effect as tv, in the respect of kids being completely glued and yes,"mesmirized" (too much so to get up to anything) does this not prove something?)
anyway, in conclusion, from the replies, would it be right to say yes, the tv is used as a babysitter or 3rd(or 2nd) parent?
Im just trying to understand cos I dont get it!
(God sorry, soooooo long winded )

BLK: do you think that all activity not undertaken for a demonstrable educative purpose is immoral or something? Watching TV is one of a variety of things kids might be left to do for a while while their parents cook a meal, read the paper or go on MN. It won't kill them.
As to the studies cited here, they look like rubbish. How many kids have been sampled? What controls are in place? WHo sponsored the studies in the first place?

To give any scientists the benefit of the doubt, it's possible that all the people who did whatever this study was actually published was: there's some possible faint pattern that more autistic kids watch more TV but we're not sure which is cause and which is effect - but that it has been reported as "Watching TV Fries Kids Brains". Just like the utter rubbish talked about the Gay Gene...

I tend to side with Juuule, my DD watches certain shows everyday - namely Dora, Backyardigans and Thomas. She also goes off to play very well by herself and when a show finishes she can be heard up in her room or where ever acting it out. Ever had a 3yr old come up to you and sat "Hey Dude, you know where Tikki beach is?"

She has train sets which are not branded but she has named certan engines afer Thomas characters.

And she often speaks Spanish words to us - in the correct context like "open the door - say Abre" "Hurry up daddy, vaminos" all of which has been picked up from Dora. I love this as I studied Spanish at school and like to teach her more words as well.

We dont have TV on all the time and also have garden play weather permitting and put CD's on when drawing, play dough, cooking or just to dance to in princess costumes etc.

And we have pretty much done this since she became active. DS is only 10 weeks, but if DD is watching TV and he is due a nap I will let him lie in his chair with the TV in the background.

DD also has a good DVD collection and is allowed to watch one film a day. In total she probably watches the TV screen about 3.5 hours a day - less if she has pre-school or w go out. I think like everything else, moderation is the key.

Autism existed long before TV was invented.

Are kids who sit and read books all day socially disabled and overweight because they are not interacting with others or moving around?

Why are phony scientists like this guy, MckKeith and the other quacks allowed so much air time so that their non-emperically based postulates are reported as credible research?

BLK, you ask why do parents allow their kids to watch TV? Well you may as well ask:
why allow them to use toy computers?
why allow them to read books that are not written by literary giants like Dickens/Shakespeare etc?
why allow them to eat shop bought biscuits instead of making it yourself like a good mummy should?
why allow them to listen to the radio where they can hear suggestive lyrics in modern tunes?
why why allow them to use any of the modern recreation tools that we have available in the 21st century?

We do so because we can and the majority of us do so responsibly so we do not have to justify our actions to anyone.

It's not that kids are encouraged to watch TV it's just that they can and often do. My DS (7) loves TV and reading and to be honest it is not a problem. He is very bright and quite frankly TV can answer questions I cannot. For example I have NOOOOO interest in natural history programmes (growing up on a farm I feel I came close enough to nature) but my son has. I could never satisfy his quest for knowledge on this nor would I want to. TV fills this gap. He likes watching the Channel 4 news as well as ceebebees.

He is a bit like me in that he needs his brain stimulated by external means whether that be TV, computer, reading, playing, sport or talking (which he does non stop).

I just think that some people believe TV is bad and outdoors life is good and life is that simple. I disagree!!!

Oh I saw this

autism is a possible consequence of too much TV

another stick to beat us ASD parents with

course it couldn't be that ASD kids sget so obsessed and also ASD parents are desparate for ANYTHING that will safely entertain their kids for 5 mnutes so they can do such ridiculous things as take a bath?

No, must be the fault of the aprents

Perhaps the BBC should start a "blackout" time for CBebbies?

Nick Jr does this in the States I think, which is more aimed at getting children to do something active outside.

'I still cannot understand the motive behind encouraging a child to watch tv.. from the replies, what I understand (and please feel free to correct me - could be wrong)is that its to free up time for the parents?'

you do not live in my world clearly##I am lucky to get a bath a week in the holidays, my hair gets washed every couple of weeks unless Dh has days off- why? because my asd boys have no sense of danger and cannot be left doing another activity- if there was one for them to go to anyway! In actuality the TV is off now, but yes they do watch it- so that I can make a meal / wash / just do ANYTHING without worrying they are killing each other / jumping off the banisters etc etc etc

And we're largely housebound becasue as soon as DS1 started nott o do bunks everywhere (although still melts down in tesco) DS3 started.
Actually its not TV they like- its DVD's. Because they can repeat them ad nauseam, classic ASD behaiour. More's the broing pity.

BLK, I'm sorry if I have dropped a spanner in the works by mentioning brain injury. It is quite obviously not relevant to this discussion.

However, if you write emotive statements such as the one about neural pathways that I quoted from your first post, you have to expect that someone will come along and disagree strongly with you. Especially if they think what your are saying doesn't make any scientific sense.
I brought up recovery post sroke as an example of the (amazing) way the brain tries to repair itself after injury. In hindsight it was a silly example as a much better one is just 'we continue to learn and develop throughout our lifetimes'. The brain does not cease to form new neural pathways at the age of 3. If you can give me a good explanation of how it does then I will shut up!!