Report: Canadian Schools Banning Wi-Fi Based on Bogus Science → No Evidence

Doesn't mean too much. There has been "no evidence" that lots of things didn't cause health problems that were later found to not be so healthy. Not that my router worries me.

I totally agree and considering a Position Paper amounts to little more than squat, this is a non-story. I'm sure the Tin Foil Hat Brigade can cherry-pick their own studies and come up with just the opposite report.

While I think there are many other concerns to worry about (I have lots of friends who live in Ontario and they have no idea of what they are talking about), there are probably other high-priority items to worry about.

My concern follows that w/ LTE advanced and all these new MIMO technologies brewing and focused beams (beamforming), you cell phone is going to become a radio station, and that is when things get interesting w/ orthogonal waves. I know a lot of guys who spent time in front of microwave and radar who have bit the bucket before they were 40 from the big C.

Not far from where I live, there are known cancer clusters in the Buffalo area from the times when "healthy" chemicals weren't all so healthy.

The question is one of cost as it is like always. It's isn't very costly to run Cat cable into a classroom just to be safe. My kids school did it. But I laugh when I see old Asbestos pipe still running around. When I was a kid we used to take the pipe insulation (aka asbestos) and throw it up and let it come down. Now atomizing a lung carcinogen wasn't too swift, the question is if POSSIBLY all these transmitters were are putting on our bodies will come to pass being an issue in 30 years?

Nobody knows why Cancer is happening in higher rates than ever before. Yes we live longer... Well it's because we are swimming in man made chemicals most likely but I can't prove that.

Ask those in China living in air polluted 200x higher than recommended in 30 years how that worked out.

That's right. Those who fear RF radiation point to the "no evidence" phraseology and they're correct. Simply because there is no evidence (and it's implied, no evidence...yet) doesn't mean something doesn't exist. It's just good scientific language. That was the phrasing used in cell phone radiation research until...some evidence started to emerge in bona fide scientific circles that there was a relationship between a certain form of brain cancer--glioma--and cell phone use, which is not to say there is a causal connection however. So, the people who need to be persuaded that the risks are low are still not persuaded and the people who don't fear RF radiation have been reaffirmed (I'm one of them). Zero-sum study.

You are asking that science prove a negative, that Wifi does not cause cancer. Then when a study concludes there is no link between wifi and cancer, you dismiss it stating that because science was wrong before these results don't mean anything. So how on earth do you prove that wifi doesn't cause cancer in your worldview?

The burden of proof rests on those who believe that Wifi causes cancer to prove that claim. If there is no proof, then the claim can be dismissed.

I'm not saying this for myself - I don't believe the harm of RF radiation precisely because the good science doesn't back it up. I'm just stating that this is thinking behind those who object to Wi-Fi, smart meters, power lines, etc. You're not going to convince them with science because science rarely strays beyond the evidence and does not make categorical, unhedged statements beyond what the evidence will say. That leaves wiggle room for those who fear that we just haven't found the evidence yet.

Microwave ovens emit much larger amounts of EMR (even in their enclosures...enough to disrupt Wi-Fi) and those have been around for decades. Surely, the entire western world would be nothing but walking cancer patients if the harm was that great or prevalent.

When you have a party (TEAGOP) that has voted over 84+ times to limit or even kill the EPA, what do you expect.

Boggles the mind that anyone with an IQ higher than a rock, regardless of political views, would be against clean air, clean water, as well as clean, sustainable, and ethical food sources.

Moreover, doesn't see a problem with a businesses dumping waste in the waterways, for example, to save a dime.

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.

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.

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.

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