Athletes weren’t included in the comparison for two reasons. One is because although they’re on TV often, they don’t have video evidence that can easily be viewed years after it was made. The second reason is more complicated. Almost all professional athletes, even ones as young as 18 or 19, qualify as adults, but from a physical standpoint professional athletes aren’t average people. Of all the males in the world between the ages of 18 and 45 only one of every hundred thousand or more is a good enough athlete to play big-league professional sports. There are rare exceptions to the child for life rule, and every now and then a young male actually qualifies as a man, some have even matured into as good examples of fully grown men as we've ever seen, so it makes sense that these young men would have an advantage over young boys when competing for jobs in professional sports. Or maybe the connection is more direct. Maybe the biological reason that these young males were able to develop into such incredible athletes is also the reason that they were able to avoid the syndrome and physically mature into adulthood. Abnormally high levels of something or other. Either way, actors and actresses, and musicians are a good cross-section of humanity in terms of physical maturity, but pro athletes aren’t, to say the least.

Models weren’t included in the comparison for the same reasons. Just like athletes, they don’t have video evidence that can easily be viewed years after it was made. And just like athletes, they aren’t a good cross-section of humanity in terms of physical maturity. Models are chosen based on the way they look, and since there are rare exceptions to the child for life rule, modeling agencies might decide to select these young women instead of young girls. Even if only 1% of young females matured into womanhood, 100% of famous young female models might be women. Although this actually isn’t the case - not all young models qualify as women. Some are like 26 year old Gisele Bundchen, who has been a stunning example of womanhood for years, but others are like the girls from “America’s Next Top Model”, a reality TV show that’s always made up strictly of child models. If models were the only people in the celebrity comparison they would support the existence of the syndrome, but it would seem as though people were being affected less frequently than is the reality. It would give a false impression, one that shouldn’t really be looked at as a perfect representation of humanity, since it’s subject to the influence of the aesthetical tastes of the modeling industry.

The celebrities who make up the TV personalities and everybody else categories are a good cross-section of humanity in terms of physical maturity, just like the actors and actresses, and musicians, but just like the athletes and the models they don’t have the right video evidence to be included in the celebrity comparison. They’re on TV all the time, but they don’t have much video evidence that can be viewed years after it was made, which makes it hard to compare someone who is 25 now to someone who was 25 10 years ago.

So for these reasons the celebrity comparison had to be limited to actors and actresses, and musicians. Which is fine, since there are more than enough of them.

The cause of the child for life syndrome can only be guessed at, but based on everything that’s known about the syndrome that guessing can be educated.

The simplest theoretical cause would probably have to be poor nutrition, but although poor nutrition can prevent people from physically developing properly, there a number of different reasons why it’s unlikely to be the cause of the syndrome. The problem is too common, it’s too wide spread, it’s too severe, and it comes on too suddenly.

The syndrome is so common that almost every person in the celebrity comparison born after 1976 has failed to physically mature into adulthood, so if a nutritionally poor diet was responsible it would have to be equally common. The diet would have to be very widespread throughout the world, since the celebrities affected by the syndrome come from all corners of the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia. The diet would also have to be extremely nutritionally poor, since the syndrome is extremely dramatic. The physical difference between those who are affected and those who are unaffected is so huge that a minor change in diet couldn’t possibly be the cause. And most importantly, the diet would have to have come on extremely suddenly. 42 celebrity comparison people were born from 1946-1965, and every single one of them physically matured into adulthood. Then, in a period of just 10 years, the syndrome goes from its first victim to a point where nearly every celebrity failed to mature to adulthood.

Taking all of these different factors into consideration, it seems more than just a little improbable that poor nutrition is to blame for the syndrome.

Another, more plausible guess would be the microwave oven. This explanation works on most levels. Microwaves are widespread throughout the world, they’re common enough, they increased in popularity very quickly, they appeared on the scene at the right time, and it doesn’t seem all that impossible for the microwave to be the cause of such a drastic affect. The only problem with this theory comes from the fact that the syndrome is so uniform among the people that I know personally. These people, all from the same area of the same city, show a strong connection between their year of birth and to what degree they’re affected. Usually people are slightly less affected than those born in the following year, until about 1980 where the syndrome appears to level off. Microwaves increased in popularity quickly, but not so quickly that almost every family bought one in the same year. So based on the affected people from the celebrity comparison, who don’t show much of a connection between birth year and the degree that they’re affected, the microwave seems like a prime suspect. But if the people that I know personally are factored into the equation, the microwave theory isn’t such a perfect fit.

      To account for the syndrome’s uniformity among the people that I know, the cause would need to be something that came into contact with those who lived in the same area at the same time. One way for this criteria to be met is if the cause was found in food. A good place to look for the cause among food possibilities is in meat and dairy. Studies have shown that meat and dairy often contain many man-made substances such as synthetic hormones, anti-biotics, and endocrine distruptors. Some studies have also shown that these substances can interfere with the normal hormonal processes in the body, as well as cause a wide range of other negative health affects. By many, including some, but not all, scientists, it's believed that at least one of these substances is causing young children to begin the process of puberty earlier than ever before. Of these three types of substances, the one most likely to cause to the syndrome seems to be the one that’s the least well known - the endocrine disruptors. Endocrine disruptors are substances that stop the production or block the transmittion of hormones in the body. Though sometimes natural, usually they are man-made chemicals, ones which are often found in pesticides and plasticizers. They get into the meat and dairy, mainly, by getting into the food supply of the animals. A substance that stops the production or blocks the transmittion of hormones in the body sounds a lot like a substance that could potentially prevent people from finishing the process of physical maturation. Synthetic hormones, anti-biotics, and endocrine disruptors were all being found in meat and dairy long before 1966, but the specific types of these substances, as well as the amounts, that are found today may be different from what was being found 40 years ago. There may have been a change along the way that could possibly be responsible for the syndrome. People who live in the same city seem more likely to get the same contaminants in their meat and dairy than people who live in different cities, and such a high percentage of people, especially growing children, consume meat and dairy that this seems like a good way for almost all of those who live in the same area to be exposed to the syndrome’s cause at the same time. The problem with the food theory, be the food meat, dairy, or something else, is the fact that the syndrome started at approximately the same time over such a huge area of the world, then progressed to the point where nearly every single person throughout this area was affected. It seems unlikely that the exact same syndrome causing contaminant would begin showing up in food at roughly the same time in so many different places, and then quickly become so common throughout such a wide range.

      Another way that a high level of uniformity among people who live in the same area would be possible is if the syndrome’s cause was a substance found in drinking water or in the air. Many man-made chemicals are commonly found throughout the world in the drinking water and in the air, and some of these are endocrine disruptors. A routine way for endocrine disruptors to get into the drinking water is by pesticides draining off of lawns and farmers’ fields, then entering the water supply. Factory emissions, frequently the smoke from burnt plastics, is a common way for endocrine disruptors to pollute the air. Either possible means of spreading the syndrome’s cause, drinking water or air, would produce an even higher level of uniformity among those living in the same area than if the cause was found in food, as everybody in the same area breathes the same air, and almost everybody drinks at least a little of the same tap water. Both possibilities also seem somewhat more likely than the food theory to produce such similar affects, in terms of the starting point and the progression of the syndrome, over such a huge area of the world.

      The cause of the syndrome being something found either in the drinking water or in the air seems like the most plausible theory given so far, but there’s one theory remaining that’s an even better fit. It’s wide spread throughout the world, it increased in popularity at both the right time and at the right speed, it came into contact with everyone who lived in the same area at the same time, and it doesn’t seem all that unlikely to be the cause of such a drastic affect. That possible cause is the cell phone. Not the use of a cell phone, as 10 years ago there were too many young people that didn’t own one, and not everyone bought their first cell phone in the same year, but cell phone waves penetrating the body by the phone calls of other people flying through the air. Cell phones are extremely common in, among other places, the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia and South Africa, a range covering the places of birth of everyone in the celebrity comparison. The high water mark for cell phone use world wide is in Europe, where it was reported in 2003 as being at 83%.

     The beginning of the cell phone boom also coincides with the beginning of the syndrome. 1985 was the year the cell phone really started its rise in popularity - 19 years after the birth of the syndrome’s first victim from the celebrity comparison. That victim is a male, Michael Imperioli, and most 19 year old males still have at least a little further to go in the process of physical maturation. So in all likelihood there was time in 1985 to interfere with Michael’s physical development. Also remember that the youngest great example of an alpha male actor is Russell Crowe, who was born in 1964. This means the cell phone boom didn’t start until he was 21, and many, if not most males have completely finished physically maturing by that age.

      Not only did the cell phone boom start at the right time to be the cause of the syndrome, but it also increased at the right rate. From 1985-2002 the number of cell phone subscribers in the U.S. grew steadily from 350,000 to nearly 150,000,000. Over that same period of time cell phone use in Europe, Canada, Australia and South Africa followed very similar rates of increase. The celebrity comparison’s child/adult ratios grew in the same way. The number of syndrome victims from the celebrity comparison also exploded, doing so at a very consistant rate of increase.

The cell phone wave theory also works perfectly when considering the syndrome’s uniformity among the people that I know personally. Cell phone waves came into contact with everyone that lived in the same area at the same time. There’s no way to escape them.

Whether or not cell phone waves penetrating the body can actually hinder a person’s physical development is unknown, but it’s not an illogical idea. Cell phone waves are a type of radio wave, but they’re a different length and are at a different frequency from AM and FM radio waves. Radio wave is a broad term for a certain length of electromagnetic wave, a term that also includes the waves used by wireless computers, cordless phones, garage door openers, and hundreds or even thousands of other wireless technological devices, as well as some of the electromagnetic waves given off by the sun. Just because one type of radio wave doesn’t prevent people from physically maturing properly doesn’t mean that none of them do. Cell phone waves might affect the human body in a unique way.

Although maybe cell phone waves affect the human body in the exact same way as every other type of radio wave, and the cause of the syndrome isn’t cell phone waves specifically, but just an overall increase in the total amount of radio wave activity in the environment. Of which cell phone waves are a major contributer. Cell phone towers, which receive and transmit cell phone signals and emit massive amounts of radio waves into the environment, now outnumber radio stations in the U.S. by more than 10 to 1. On smaller scales than that of the cell phone boom, there have also been explosions in the popularity of many different types of wireless devices over the past 20 years, all of which spew radio waves into the space that we inhabit. In 1978 the Environmental Protection Agency did a study on the amount of radio wave activity in the U.S., and when these findings are contrasted with analysis on the amount of radio wave activity in the U.S. in 2005 it shows an increase of more than 1000 times. Increasing the total volume of radio wave activity that people are constantly being exposed to by more than 1000 times seems just like the kind of thing that might cause one or two negative health affects.

The cell phone wave/radio wave theory is the best educated guess at the cause of the syndrome. But it’s just a theory. The cause might be one of the other possibilities given, or it might be something else entirely. Proving the cause definitively is something that can’t be done here. But whatever the specific cause, it really shouldn’t come as any big shock that something done by mankind has accidentally had this significant of an affect on human health. With all of the different man-made chemicals in our air, water and food, and all of the different technological devices that we’re surrounded by, it almost seems inevitable that eventually something would be the cause of a health problem of this magnitude.

The cause of the child for life syndrome can’t be proven beyond any doubt here and now, but that the syndrome exists can - and it has. The evidence is undeniable to anyone with any knowledge of the appearance of celebrities.