Report: Canadian Schools Banning Wi-Fi Based on Bogus Science

Pretty much sums it up. Lack of evidence does not mean in the clear.

That said, WIFI is low power.

The cancer rates in English nations speak for themselves. As does the rate of cancer for Americans located near farms or factories.

However, I don't see how low power radio-waves would be an issue under most normal usage, considering we are bombarded by them through space anyway.

Over here, you scenario has become the norm. However, other English countries do not have the same legal rules as we do.

For starters, one cannot just sue anyone abroad and if the legal system does allow a case to proceed and they loose, then they are automatically forced to pay all of their legal costs.

So how on earth do you prove that wifi doesn't cause cancer in your worldview?

Easy. You don't.

The people who believe this aren't looking for proof. They already have all the "proof" they need (in the form of "This is what I think" opinion). Thus, if a scientific study proves them right, they'll tout it as iron-clad proof that they were right all along. However, if a hundred scientific studies find no link, they'll claim the link is there and science just hasn't found it yet.

That is correct.

Anyway, if it's safe as they claim than they should be able to prove it unequivocally and they can't. So caveat emptor. All radiation is dangerous, it's a question of how much.

So only "English" nations have high cancer rates? Seriously? Care to cite a study or do we have to take your word for it? I guess no one in Europe uses microwave ovens either.

Bingo. Until there's widely-accepted proof, (if there ever is) I'm going to err on the side of caution and limit the EMR that my kids are exposed to. Can I eliminate it entirely? Not easily. Can I reduce it? Yes, fairly easily.

Will it improve their health? I might find out in 20-30 years.

Did you read the part where I wrote "However, if a hundred scientific studies find no link, they'll claim the link is there and science just hasn't found it yet."?

Study after study has found no link. If no link is found repeatedly, how is assuming the link is there and science just hasn't found it yet "erring on the side of caution"? Using that reasoning, you could claim that people shouldn't eat apples since they can cause cancer (science hasn't found a link yet, therefore the link is there waiting to be found), people shouldn't drink water or they'll get diabetes (no link found = be cautious), or people should keep tin foil hats on their heads to protect against solar flares (science says there's no danger and that tin foil hats would do nothing even if there was, but this just means they haven't found the connection yet).

So, no apples or water, and buy more Reynold's Wrap?
Gotcha.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· RJT5fjdc

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· LHJj6aLo

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· SAhj8VPY

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· CTaSG2-U

How much Research have you actually done?
Let me guess if a corporation says something you will buy it.

There actually is alot of evidence that WiFi is harmful.

There are now thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers showing biological effects from RF radiofrequency microwave radiation.

There are dozens of papers that have reported genetic effects. Two recent studies have found damage to DNA and the reproductive system from WiFi.

WiFi emits levels of RF that are more than high enough to cause health issues. There is tremendous variability in radiation levels, and this can be confusing for those who haven't studied or measured it.

A router emits very high levels right next to it, as do iPads and laptops. The further away from the source, the lower the level. At 10 feet away from a router, the radiation levels are similar to having a cell tower down the street.

I have tested this extensively, and I provide the facts at:

www.wifiiinschools.com