I'd be interested, but certainly don't go out of your way. I'm in no way involved with the healthcare field, and I should probably be less resolute in my assumptions based on what I hear on TV and movies about oft-misunderstand neurological conditions.

I'm irritated by the studies Wikipedia cites, in that the language it uses seems to treat things like "25% correlation" as "recent suspected root cause."

Also, forgive me if I'm severely skeptical and a bit incensed by the statement that "electronics cause condition X." Trying to put the personal bias aside, it's reminiscent of the "comic books cause moral depravity" / "video games cause violence" / "cell phones are cooking us" arguments that are paranoid, ultimately unfounded, and impossible to prove, serving only to demonstrate misunderstanding of the subject matter entirely on the part of the accusers. I hope I don't have to defend my career to my grandmother in a few months when Dateline skews findings on a study that relates neurological diseases to exposure to computer screens.

Also, you said maybe my coworker's kid has "a fighting chance" at not developing the aforementioned. What do you mean by that? That sounds like these things are epidemics, or that we're rolling the dice every time a kid sits in front of a screen. How then did we, the Nintendo, the Internet generation, grow up to be normal? Well, as normal as we are, I guess.