Flight attendants never forget the first time they see themselves in uniform. It’s one of the most exciting moments of their career, even when the uniform is hideous.


The first airline I worked for was a low-cost carrier: Sun Jet International Airlines. I was 24, which might explain why I thought I looked great in my white button-down blouse, two silver stripes adorning each shoulder, tucked into pleated, navy blue Bermuda shorts with navy blue hose and heels. Let me repeat: pleated shorts. With heels. I loved the ridiculous getup. After all, it showed I was a flight attendant! The snap-on tie didn’t even bother me (until I spotted a woman working at the Nathan’s hot dog stand at Newark Airport wearing the same snap-on). But that’s another story.

Now imagine how I felt a year later when a major carrier hired me as a flight attendant. In training, when I stood in front of the mirror for the first time in the new uniform, I almost pinched myself to make sure I wasn’t dreaming. I nearly broke down and cried, that’s how happy I was. I could have kissed each and every one of my instructors that very moment. Even though they scared me. Even though the cost of the uniform ($800) would be payroll-deducted from my first couple of paychecks.

Flash forward 20 years and imagine how excited I was when American Airlines announced we were getting new uniforms. Oh my gosh, I couldn’t wait.

Well now, five months later, that exciting new uniform is in a garbage bag that’s in a tub that’s in the basement of the building I stay in when I’m in New York to work. It’s marked “Evidence.” Now I wear look-alike pieces made by Calvin Klein, bought and paid for by yours truly.

My uniform makes me sick (literally).

Why? I’m not sure. I have a few theories, but since I can’t prove any of them, I can only say that before the new uniform I felt great. Now I feel horrible every time I go to work. Since the uniform debuted on September 20, I’ve seen more doctors than I’ve ever seen in my life, and I’ve learned things about toxic chemicals I never knew before. Before the new uniform I didn’t know what “sensitizers” were or what “synergy” meant, and I sure as heck would have never dreamed I’d develop multiple chemical sensitivity. Now I’m practically an expert on the subject.

Before the new uniform, I had no idea there was a group at Harvard studying flight attendants in relationship to endocrine disruptors, and if I had, I wouldn’t have cared. Now I beg them to study me. They have a paper coming out focusing on uniforms and flight attendant health next month. I can’t wait to read it.

But let’s talk about what it’s like to wear a uniform. If I were to wear retail clothing the way I wear a uniform, it would fall apart in a year. Uniforms are made to last. That’s why they’re subjected to testing that’s totally different from retail clothing, and why they’re treated with so many chemicals. The chemicals not only make them last longer than retail clothing, but they also make them look good. There’s a reason why I can wipe tomato juice off my skirt and why my shirts barely wrinkle.

The big difference between retail clothing and a uniform is you’re required to wear a uniform to work every time you go to work, which means you wear certain pieces of clothing more in a month than most people wear in a year. This is what makes it easier to pinpoint a problem with the clothing industry.

If I were to wear a sweater on a day off that made me feel sick, I’d just think I might be coming down with something. But with a uniform you realize that you only feel bad when you’re wearing the uniform. You might notice that you have a persistent dry cough at work, but not at home. When the uniform is on, you feel nauseous. But then you take it off and you feel fine. You never get a nosebleed when you’re out of uniform, only when you’re in uniform. Eventually, you connect the dots. You bag up the uniform and bury it in your backyard. Your neighbor’s backyard.

It took me two months to realize my health issues might be related to my new uniform. I don’t know if I would have figured it out so quickly if I hadn’t been reading up on what had happened to the Alaska Airlines flight attendants who had the same issues with their uniforms that were made by the same manufacturer. (They have since been recalled.) After three months in uniform I became positive my health issues were related to what I was required to wear to work.

It started with thyroid issues. After six days in uniform my TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone), which had been stable for years, was out of the normal range. (I get my blood tested every three months.) My doctor upped my dosage of medication and I stopped wearing the official uniform and started wearing my fake Calvin Klein uniform. Problem solved, I thought.

Wrong.

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]Four months after we were issued the new uniforms my heart started racing.[/quote]

Four months after we were issued the new uniforms my heart started racing. At first I wondered if it was anxiety. I wondered what it was that made me feel so anxious as soon as I got to the airport? Was it the fact that I had just started flying more international trips? Was I anxious about my crews? It didn’t make sense because I love flying to Europe and I always enjoy being around the people I work with.

Then I realized my heart was racing—not because I was stressed out or anxious, but because my coworkers in uniform were nearby. I’m not sure if I would have figured that out if the cough hadn’t started at the same time. Nonstop all flight. Away from colleagues in uniform I was fine. Near them I can’t stop coughing.

Respiratory issues followed next. Five months after the new uniform was released,I found myself short of breath at work. My lungs felt like they had shrunk. I ended up in the emergency room in December. I was diagnosed with RAD (reactive airway disease) and was given an inhaler and steroids. In January I broke out in hives. I haven’t been to work since. I wanted to give myself a little time to recover. My first trip is next week. I’m a little scared to see what February brings.

So far, thousands of my colleagues have had a “reaction”. Some have respiratory problems; others have wicked rashes and skin irritations; others have debilitating fatigue.

[quote position=”right” is_quote=”true”]My lungs felt like they had shrunk.[/quote]

Workers’ compensation cases are denied because this is considered an “allergic reaction.” In workers’ comp world, an allergic reaction is personal and, therefore, has nothing to do with the job. Never mind the job requires us to wear a uniform that made us sick. OSHA refuses to get involved because the airline has dealt with the uniform crisis by allowing us to wear the old uniform or our own look-alike pieces. In their minds the problem is solved. I’m here to tell you it’s not. Coworkers who are still wearing the new uniform make us sick.

The company is adamant that can’t happen. And yet it does happen. It is happening. To me and thousands of others. Now some flight attendants (rampers and customer service agents too) are out of sick time and are borrowing money from family or friends. Some are being harassed by managers due to their poor attendance and have been threatened with being fired.

Meanwhile the company continues to remind us they’ve spent over a million dollars to test the new uniform—to prove it’s safe. They’ve tested it three times already, and each time the test result comes back the same: safe. Never mind the 3,000 sick flight attendants. I have no idea how many pilots, customer service agents, or rampers have had reactions. All I know is 1 out of 10 flight attendants have been affected. I should say 1 out of 10 flight attendants have reported they’ve been affected. Many choose to suffer in silence.

I’ve been sharing my story on social media. A journalist sent me a link to a story about the women who painted watch dials with radium — women who worked with and were sickened by radiation. They too were told it was safe — until their numbers made it impossible to deny it wasn’t safe.

Remember when scientists claimed asbestos was safe?

[quote position=”left” is_quote=”true”]Remember when scientists claimed asbestos was safe?[/quote]

That’s the problem with big business. Big brands make a lot of money from cheap clothes. It’s in their best interest to keep the public in the dark, to keep repeating everything is A-ok—even when it’s so glaringly not ok.

“Where’s the data, the proof?” I keep hearing.

I’m the data. I’m the proof. ME. I’m the lab rat. Too bad I’m not enough. Too bad more of my coworkers will have to get sick before anyone will take it seriously. Meanwhile those of us who have already had reactions will continue to get worse.

“I’m not contagious,” I’m always telling coworkers as I cough uncontrollably while at work. “It’s the uniform.” I went through an entire bag of cough drops on my last flight. During the beverage service I had two in my mouth at the same time just so I wouldn’t cough all over passengers when I asked them what they’d like to drink.

Many of my coworkers don’t believe me. They don’t believe it’s the uniform. Even when they’re scratching or coughing or complaining about any of the other numerous symptoms I’ve listed above. I don’t blame them. It’s kind of crazy to think your clothes could be poisoning you.

Meanwhile the chemicals continue to build up in our system. It takes some people longer than others to have a “reaction.” It can be hives or a rash or it can be worse. Some people feel extremely fatigued, others have bloody noses, eye infections, or they become nauseous. Others get terrible sinus infections. After the third round of antibiotics they might connect the dots. It usually takes another reaction on top of the first reaction to figure it out. You see, once you have a reaction you don’t get to have the same reaction. It gets worse as you absorb more chemicals. Then all the chemicals you’ve absorbed begin to affect you on your days off.

Now I get winded walking the dog. I’ve been doing cardio five days a week since college. Walking the dog didn’t bother me until two months ago. Once toxic chemicals build up in your system you become extremely sensitive to chemicals in the environment. Then you develop what’s called multiple chemical sensitivity. Google it. Now I only buy fragrance-free products.

There are so many toxic chemicals in fragrance. Did you know that? I didn’t either … until now.

The other night someone I know started vaping. Right away I began to have the same reaction I have when I’m around coworkers who are wearing the new uniform. My chest felt tight. When I said something to him, he swore it was safe. “It’s only glycerin, steam and fragrance.”

I could tell by my reaction it wasn’t safe. I could tell by my reaction something in the vapor is also in my uniform. I did a little research. Formaldehyde (among other things.)

Formaldehyde is an eye irritant. (It’s also an endocrine disrupter. I’ve learned so much in the last three months). Last night my eye started watering. This morning it was so swollen it looked as if a bee had stung me. I’ve never had a reaction to vaping before — or to a uniform — until now.

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]I shouldn’t have to be a human guinea pig.[/quote]

The point, is the uniform is affecting my life — at work and at home. The uniform has changed me forever. I’ve stopped burning candles and I’m afraid to wear perfume — things I used to love! Now I dread going to work. I love my job, but my job is making me sick.

Mark my words the uniform is going to cause long-term health issues for a lot of people. I pray I’m not one of them. Right now we don’t need lawyers to fight this; we need scientists and chemists to figure out what the hell is going on. I shouldn’t have to be a human guinea pig. Flight attendants shouldn’t have to prove there’s a problem with the garment industry, but we will — by suffering.

Which brings us to that word synergy — and testing. The proof. The data. Maybe one uniform piece tests safe, but all of it worn together is unsafe. Chemicals on top of chemicals. Layers upon layers of chemicals. Then mix in the chemicals we come into contact on the airplane that are in the carpets and seats: flame retardants and more formaldehyde. Remember a flight attendant wears a uniform all day and that day can be 10–12 hours long. Mix in body heat that releases the chemicals and opens the pores so you absorb more chemicals.

Now add in a little recycled air and a flying tube packed with passengers who are warm and wearing their own chemicals. That might explain why flight attendants were quicker to react and to have more severe reactions than other people at my airline, like gate agents, who are wearing uniforms made by the same manufacturer. Or maybe it’s just a batch issue. The uniforms come from multiple countries. Mine were labeled Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka.

The scary part is not knowing what the hell is happening.

[quote position=”right” is_quote=”true”]The scary part is not knowing what the hell is happening.[/quote]

It’s not just my airline. I’ve written about the uniforms before. Since then I’ve received numerous emails from flight attendants who work for other airlines who are having similar issues with uniforms made by the same manufacturer. And I’m not just talking about Alaska Airlines, which faced similar accusations by flight attendants in 2012 who said uniforms were making them sick. I’m talking about regional carriers and a Canadian carrier.

What’s even more frightening is this isn’t just happening to flight attendants. Last week one of the many doctors I’ve seen in the last three months sent me to a lab to give blood. The woman who took my blood wanted to know why I was giving so much blood. I told her about the uniforms. She told me about her lab coat. She said their lab coats were a problem for some of her coworkers who were “allergic” to the chemicals they treat it with to make it water resistant. “So we can wipe things off.”

UPS has had problems too.

This is bigger than us, bigger than a uniform problem. But we can pinpoint a problem easier because we wear these uniforms every day and therefore we’re a little more in tune to how they make us feel.

When I shared a photograph of a flight attendant who had what looked like a chemical burn all over her face on Facebook, an old high school friend I haven’t heard from in 20 years reached out and shared a photograph of her young daughter who had the same reaction on her face. “We were able to narrow the problem down to an outfit because she wore it three times and it happened every time she wore it,” my friend wrote. “We threw it away and she hasn’t had a reaction since. But she has sensitive skin.”

Sensitive skin. Before the uniform I didn’t have sensitive skin. Now I have sensitive skin. Funny how that works.

In a private Facebook group for airline employees, a few coworkers keep saying the uniform is safe simply because it tested safe. I remember when I first heard about the Alaska Airlines flight attendants when they started having reactions and blowing it off. Unless it’s happening to you and you’re following other people’s stories about their reactions and you’ve done a good deal of research, it’s easy to believe the uniform is only a problem for some people.

It’s easy to believe we’re just feeling a little itchy and we should figure out a way to suck it up and deal with it. But it’s so much worse than having to pop a little more Claritin and an entire bag of cough drops. I tried to explain to one of the coworkers that there’s something wrong with the testing, that the environment matters, that the chemicals take time to build up, but she wouldn’t hear it. Finally she said, what are you going to do HEATHER POOLE if they don’t recall the uniform? (She wrote my name in caps like that)

Quit. I’ll have no choice but to quit a job I love.

That doesn’t seem right.

Follow Heather Poole on Medium.

  • Getting outside despite your 9‑to‑5 job can improve your mental health – here’s how to spend time in nature during and around working hours
    Photo credit: Todd Lookingbill Urban parks are great places to soak in the outdoors without planning an elaborate trip.

    The modern workday unfolds largely indoors. Long hours spent commuting, sitting in meetings and staring at screens can make time outdoors feel like a luxury. Finding time for nature in an already packed workday can feel impossible, especially if you think nature only “counts” when it involves hiking boots and camping gear.

    But a growing body of research suggests that nature’s benefits don’t require an exotic vacation getaway or weekend adventure. Even brief, routine interactions with green space can reduce stressimprove mood and promote overall well-being.

    I spent the spring of 2026 teaching and studying urban landscapes in Denmark, a country consistently ranked among the happiest in the world. I expected to find thoughtfully designed parks, courtyards and bicycle paths. I did see those things. But what surprised me was how seamlessly people moved through those spaces as part of their ordinary lives.

    These green spaces weren’t aspirational destinations, reserved for special occasions. They were places to eat lunch, meet friends, walk through on the way home from work, or just pause for a few quiet moments. Getting outside seemed a part of the natural rhythm of the day.

    Denmark‘s outdoor culture stemmed not only from the creation of a meticulously planned network of parks, but also from the way green spaces were fundamentally woven into the routines of everyday life.

    A wooden bench in an outdoor park
    A wooden bench in one of Copenhagen’s forest therapy parks invites people to sit and soak in their surroundings. Todd Lookingbill

    Everyday parks, everyday benefits

    Evidence linking time spent in nature with health benefits has increasingly shaped public policy. In the U.S., for example, the National Park Service’s Healthy Parks Healthy People and ParkRx initiatives reflect a growing recognition that access to parks contributes to well-being.

    For many Americans, however, the word “park” brings to mind iconic national parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Yet visiting parks of all kinds can improve your overall health. The greatest public health value may come not from the parks people visit once in a lifetime but from those close enough to visit again and again.

    My own research on Civil War battlefield parks illustrates this point. These are parks that were established to commemorate historic conflicts that were frequently fought on the fringes of major metropolitan areas. Consequently, many of these landscapes preserve forests, grasslands and trails within easy reach of millions of Americans.

    Because they’re accessible without extensive travel or planning, they can become places people return to repeatedly – such as during a lunch break or after work. Reframing the notion of “park” opens up millions of acres of land for everyday uses.

    Designing for everyday nature

    At the University of Richmond, where I work, a stream restoration projects became an opportunity to rethink how nature fits into campus life. Landscape architects designed an Eco-Corridor, as the project became known. It has walking paths, gathering spaces and seating areas for quiet reflection alongside flowing streams and native vegetation.

    The result was a landscape that supports biodiversity and improves water quality while also creating places for students, faculty and staff to walk between meetings, eat lunch alfresco or spend a few quiet moments outside during the workday. Its ongoing care depends on an army of volunteers who spread mulch, remove invasive plants and tend the community garden. For these volunteers, stewardship between classes and meetings meant another opportunity to interact with nature.

    A group of young people walking along a concrete path lined with trees and shrubbery.
    Students walk through the ‘Eco-Corridor’ at the University of Richmond. Haley Herrmann

    What we learned was that nature doesn’t have to compete with work, studying or everyday responsibilities. Thoughtful landscape design can make spending time outdoors, even if only for a few short minutes, feel like a normal part of the day.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years
    Photo credit: CanvaResearchers found what's preventing us from living longer.
    ,

    New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

    Humans can live much longer if certain barriers are addressed.

    According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest person lived to the ripe age of 122 years old. Such a lifespan is an incredible feat, but what if the average person could beat that record by 34 years? Recent research done in Russia has led scientists to believe that the average human lifespan could be up to 156 years.

    The researchers at Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center developed a mathematical model that allowed them to “switch on” a variety of aging mechanisms. This allowed them to calculate a human’s lifespan where mortality risk never increased with age. After experimenting with different scenarios and conditions, they found the biggest barriers to longevity were caused by non-renewable tissues and somatic mutations.

    What are these barriers against longer life?

    Somatic mutations are DNA changes within a cell. They accumulate over time during a human’s life and cannot be reversed with any existing therapy. These DNA errors that pile up in our cells contribute to the aging process.

    Many human organs like the liver and skin continually replace cells and regrow damaged portions of themselves. However, there are two organs that can’t do this: the brain and the heart. Brain tissue (neurons) and heart tissue (cardiomyocytes) cannot regenerate. This proves to be the most prominent biological limit that shortens our lifespans. This explains why issues like dementia and heart disease are prominent causes of death and morbidity later in life. Since those organs’ tissues don’t replace damaged cells, they’re prone to irrevocably decline over time.

    “The key finding of the study is the discovery of substantial differences between tissue types. Neurons and cardiomyocytes, which lack the ability to divide, turned out to be the main limiting factors: when all other causes of aging are eliminated, somatic mutations alone reduce the theoretical median lifespan from 1,759 years (for a hypothetical non-aging human organism) to 156 years,” said Evgeny Efimov, a research intern at the Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center, researcher at AIRI, and one of the key authors of the study.

    This suggests that somatic mutations and DNA damage is what ultimately prevents humans from living indefinitely, even if our brains and hearts regenerated cells like other organs.

    So what’s next?

    Now knowing these biological limitations, the researchers hope to study other areas of aging impacting the human lifespan that could plausibly be reversed. This includes mitochondrial dysfunction, telomere shortening, epigenetic drift, and loss of proteostasis. 

    The hope is to have a clearer priority list of issues for future therapies to tackle. This is not just to possibly extend life, but to improve lives in general. By developing a fully comprehensive theory of aging, Skoltech hopes to pinpoint which aspects of aging are within our scope to address. After all, thoroughly studying each puzzle piece that makes up human life gives us a better understanding of the whole.

    Of course, other impactful factors in a person’s lifespan can be addressed today. As most know, things like diet, sleep, and exercise are among them. A person’s living environment can also negatively impact their lifespan if it doesn’t have clean air, access to clean water, and so on.

    For now, the best method for living long is to follow instructions from your physician. Whether you make it to 156 years or not, living well is best for whatever time you’re given.

  • Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture
    Photo credit: PeopleImages/iStock via Getty ImagesWhat kids are doing on tablets seems to matter more than how long they use them.

    Concerns surrounding young people’s screen time are widespread.

    Australia became the first country to ban social media for users under 16 in December 2025, and DenmarkFrance and the U.K. have since announced similar restrictions to begin this year.

    In the U.S., as of mid-2026, more than 30 states have passed laws banning or restricting cellphones in K–12 classrooms; in 2023, the U.S. surgeon general issued a formal advisory on social media and children’s and adolescents’ mental health; and bestselling books tell parents that smartphones are “rewiring” their children’s brains.

    These concerns and policies are part of a quickly changing national and international conversation around how young people spend time on screens and its relationship to their overall health and development. My reading of the mounting research on this issue across disciplines is that the popular narrative blaming screens and smartphones for an adolescent mental health crisis runs well ahead of the current evidence.

    I study adolescent digital media use and its influence on social, emotional and academic outcomes. A growing body of research suggests that one-size-fits-all solutions are not the answer and that managing appropriate use of digital media needs to take into account a child’s developmental milestones, how parents and adults around them use media, and the ways kids use it to connect and learn with friends and family.

    Screen time: From monolith to multifaceted

    Wide adoption of digital media and the internet broadened the range of experiences young people could have online. At the same time, the digital age introduced newfound uncertainties. As with the advent of radio, comic books and arcades, adults worried about how children might interact with or be affected by internet use.

    In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics first recommended in 1999 that parents and caregivers keep children under 2 away from screens. In the decades since, professional guidance largely treated children’s media use as a behavior to be mitigated.

    Policies introduced by the academy in 2013 and 2016 continued to advise that school-age kids and adolescents – those ages 5 to 18 – be restricted to no more than two hours of “entertainment” screen time a day. The goal was to curb risks associated with heavy media use, among them disrupted sleep, online safety, cyberbullying and physical inactivity.

    Originally created for young people’s engagement with stationary media that tend to be confined to one room or context – for example, watching television – these hourly limits became outdated with the integration of smartphones and other digital devices into everyday life. Compared with watching television, online media was far more difficult to track and define, and more nuanced in its use.

    Developmentally beneficial activities such as educationsocializing and leisure have come to rely on the internet to extend and maintain face-to-face connections. Remote schooling and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic only accelerated this digitization of daily life.

    In my view, adopting strict time limits and restrictions could pose risks to children’s well-beingautonomy and development, for example, by harming adolescent self-esteem.

    The latest guidelines

    In January 2026, the American Academy of Pediatrics retired its decade-old framework that had largely organized its advice around hourly screen limits. The new policy statement on children, adolescents and digital media diverges from this blanket approach. Instead, it suggests parents consider the larger picture in which this media use exists rather than lumping all screen use together.

    Similar to the World Health Organization’s 2019 guidance for children under 5, the American Academy of Pediatrics still advises that parents avoid screen media for children younger than 18 months. This recommendation is largely because extended use by children by themselves can be problematic for many young children, crowding out important developmental milestones.

    Both the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics also recommend that when children under 24 months use screens, they should be limited to content and devices that encourage children and caregivers to interact. For ages 2 to 5, screen time – including TV and interactive apps on devices – may be extended to more solo use, provided it’s high-quality digital media designed around learning goals in mathematics and reading. But recreational use should be limited to roughly an hour per day.

    For school-age children and teens, the newest guidance has begun to step away from fixed screen time limits and asks families to weigh online activity in the context of everyday life.

    Doing so recognizes that a child’s digital experiences are shaped by diverse factors rather than the hours spent online. Current guidelines call on caregivers to distinguish among types of media, from television and social media to video games and interacting with artificial intelligence chatbots. They also call for taking into account a child’s individual characteristics, such as their interests and personality, family members’ own use of screens, and the type of content children are spending time on.

    Rethinking screen time

    Moving beyond strict screen time limits includes questioning the kind of digital activities kids and adolescents participate in. Do the activities encourage time spent interacting with others online, which can help young people develop important skills and competencies?

    Scrolling an algorithm-based, auto-playing video feed likely does not equate to the same opportunities as video-chatting with friends, creating digital art or working with teammates in a multiplayer game. Research suggests these different uses relate to development in different ways and can help kids develop varying skill sets pertaining to everyday life and schooling.

    Indeed, a large review of current research found that young people who take part in a range of digital activities, such as browsing the web, online gaming or interacting on social media, show positive associations with social connection, identity exploration, civic participation and learning.

    A woman and two small children look at tablet screen
    Parental involvement in young children’s screen time has developmental benefits. Cultura Creative/Tetra images via Getty Images

    Using these guidelines at home

    The current evidence suggests parents and caregivers are best positioned to be digital instructors. Cutting children off altogether can carry its own risks for social and emotional development. Caregiver mediation of children’s screen time can produce widely different outcomes and effects, depending on whether the guidance is supportive or controlling.

    Considering your own digital media use is the first step: Are family members engaging in problematic or heavy media use that children in the household might emulate? What applications and uses are most common in the family, and what positive or negative effects might they have, depending on the child’s age? How could these digital activities be safely integrated with other everyday experiences to increase their benefit for children? Conversely, what online time might be better spent on face-to-face experiences?

    The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Family Media Plan tool turns these ideas into concrete questions. For example, it recommends working out what each child needs from digital technology, what activities screens might be crowding out, and where their family or household can build in screen-free time. The recommendation is to talk with each child about why they are drawn to particular apps or online activities, what they encounter while browsing, and what might be lost when kids bring phones to gatherings such as mealtimes.

    The debate over young people’s screen time is not going away. But the most up-to-date guidelines, and the growing body of research behind them, make a strong case for a more holistic approach. The guidelines treat digital media as a complex, diverse and evolving environment that children need to learn to navigate in the digital age. The risks and rewards depend, as with any developmental setting, on the child, the content and what online time might be crowding out.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Health Stories

Research

New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

Health

Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture

Care

ER doctor and mom sets the record straight for parents of kids with e-bikes and e-scooters

Health

May cause joy: The full-spectrum health benefits of dance