dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Additional Canadian Schools Ban Wi-Fi
Despite No Hard Science Proving Health Issues
by Karl Bode 09:08AM Tuesday Dec 27 2011
Despite no solid medical evidence linking Wi-Fi to health problems, last month we noted that a growing number of parents in Canada were fighting in school Wi-Fi, going so far as to hold kids out of school in protest. The Montreal Gazette notes that at least 12 elementary and middle schools in Ontario and British Columbia have imposed bans on classroom Wi-Fi -- either by refusing to have it installed or by removing it completely from their classrooms. "They have a deep-seated belief that it must be true," electrical engineering professor Dave Michelson tells the Gazette. "It becomes a matter of faith, not fact."

view:
topics flat nest 

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Is there a correlation between cold climate & Luddism?

Maybe the cold climate is affecting the brains of Canadian parents and turning them in to Luddites.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Re: Is there a correlation between cold climate & Luddism?

It just like schools in the States they will not stand up to anyone for fear of getting sued. So if a loon comes to the school claiming WiFi turned their darling child into a Republican WiFi is gone.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption
en103

join:2011-05-02
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

1 recommendation

Re: Is there a correlation between cold climate & Luddism?

That can go both ways...
A conservative (- to quote Tom Leykis - 'right wing wacko') would be concerned that WiFi (and the Internet in general) may allow their child to see the world as it is, and not the restricted view that is imposed upon them. 'Might makes right'
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

These are the same parents that own cell phones

Stupidity in the highest order.

Any parent who owns a cell phone and pulls their child out of school because of WiFi should have their kids taken from them and their parental rights stripped.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

1 recommendation

Re: These are the same parents that own cell phones

These are the same people who believe this is true.... Putting the magnetron out of a microwave under the table to pop the popcorn is so dangerous.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEl7QqoPH9c

--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

1 edit

Re: These are the same parents that own cell phones

ROFL!!

And people say there is no evidence!!! What makes you think that video is fake?

Ytsejamer1

join:2008-01-18
Somersworth, NH
These parents held the kids out of school....at home...where they have WiFi broadcasting all over the house. Stupid.

whataname

@iauq.com
said by moonpuppy:

Stupidity in the highest order.

Any parent who owns a cell phone and pulls their child out of school because of WiFi should have their kids taken from them and their parental rights stripped.

I would hazard a guess that most of these people don't own cel phones, or at the very least keep them off the majority of the time.

Not that they aren't crazy nutters, but most people I have seen treat cels as the devil too.

Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org

Despite no evidence it is healthy?

Hmm how about this one? Despite no Solid medical evidence stating Wifi doesn't cause health issues?

MooJohn

join:2005-12-18
Milledgeville, GA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Windstream

Re: Despite no evidence it is healthy?

Have you ever demanded such proof for devices like cordless phones (not cell phones), baby monitors, walkie-talkies, or your TV's remote control? Are these same people harming themselves any time they unlock their car with the key fob remote?

When electricity was new, some people worried about it "dripping" from the unused outlets. After all, there was nothing sealing the opening if no device was plugged in.

Those same children who are now "safe" from the evil wi-fi rays are being bombarded by 10 times more radio waves from space, their local radio TV and radio stations, and even GPS signals. There are more emissions from their school's fluorescent lights than they'd ever get from a puny wireless access point.
--
John M - Cranky network guy

Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org

Re: Despite no evidence it is healthy?

Just saying, all those things you mentioned only became widely used in the past 100 years. The past 20 for most of them mentioned.
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: Despite no evidence it is healthy?

said by Naterator :

Just saying, all those things you mentioned only became widely used in the past 100 years. The past 20 for most of them mentioned.

You are bombarded more by the sun's radiation than any WiFi router.


Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org

Re: Despite no evidence it is healthy?

Yes, but not the same or the same level as the radio and radiation of man made devices (hence your device still works as it is not dampened by the naturally occurring radiation and radio waves.)

Gbcue
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse

Re: Despite no evidence it is healthy?

said by Naterator :

Yes, but not the same or the same level as the radio and radiation of man made devices (hence your device still works as it is not dampened by the naturally occurring radiation and radio waves.)

You're right, the sun is even stronger.

That's why when there's a coronal mass ejection, it can mess up cell phones reception, power grids, etc.

I'd stay away from the sun if I were you. I hear it'll even burn you if you stay in its light for too long.
--
My Blog 2.2

Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org

Re: Despite no evidence it is healthy?

Yes, but only a short burst of static interference. As the sun does not expose you to the same type of radiation and radio waves. Hence your cell phone may be drowned out. Just like you can boil water with radio waves, there are different types and different amounts. 1 short burst, a lifetime of exposure. Just saying...
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: Despite no evidence it is healthy?

said by Naterator :

Yes, but only a short burst of static interference. As the sun does not expose you to the same type of radiation and radio waves. Hence your cell phone may be drowned out. Just like you can boil water with radio waves, there are different types and different amounts. 1 short burst, a lifetime of exposure. Just saying...

Try boiling water with a WiFi router. Let me know how that goes for you.


Gbcue
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
said by Naterator :

Yes, but only a short burst of static interference. As the sun does not expose you to the same type of radiation and radio waves. Hence your cell phone may be drowned out. Just like you can boil water with radio waves, there are different types and different amounts. 1 short burst, a lifetime of exposure. Just saying...

The sun emits radiation of every frequency (from sub-Radio to Gamma+), at high intensities. Why do you think Wi-Fi and cell towers can only cover a specific area and not forever?
--
My Blog 2.2

Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org

Re: Despite no evidence it is healthy?

Not sure what you mean by forever? Infinite, nothing in this universe is infinite. Why do you think Cell Phone and Towers work? Because they emit different then the sun (meaning intensity and level as i may not have been clear or was misspoken in my last post). Just saying.. For a long time people thought smoking was good for you and cured disease.. Red Dye number 9 is so good yumm... That Abestos looks so good it can't be bad.. Just saying long term exposure to things are only measured by time, not theory.

danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

Re: Despite no evidence it is healthy?

What everyone is saying and you keep missing is that yes indeed the sun is in fact more powerful and produces more radiation of stronger intensity that your home router does. Venturing out into the daylight exposes you to far stronger and known cancer causing radiation.

Its called science and its been proven over and over again.

There is no question on this its not theory or hypothesis. The wave lengths in question supplied by your home router and cell phone simply do not harm the human body or any of its tissues.

delusion ftl

@comcast.net
Yeah, you're right. In fact almost everything in our society is different than it was 100 years ago.

Are you throwing a fit that your child's classroom may be artificially lit with light bulbs? Have you seen any concrete proof that artificially radiated light does not cause health issues? I do know of several nut jobs (and some people with real issues) who cannot function in artificial light. Are you suggesting that their experience (or delusion) should dictate what is for the betterment of society as a whole because we all may be horribly affected by artificial light?

Facts are facts. Radiation from wifi is a pittance. It's incredibly small. You don't need a study on wifi because the frequency class and power that it is being used for, have been used for decades and decades by other radio devices without issue. Do you squelch in terror when you realize that decades of FM and AM radio waves often at much higher wattages are penetrating your body, home, car, basements and are virtually inescapable in modern society? Do you marvel at the excellent heath exhibited by societies that have little or no radio waves like north Korea, large sections of the middle east and Africa?

I cant stand ignorant talking points like asbestos, red food coloring, and such even being lumped in to the same conversation. It's a travesty of intellect to even bring them up, and an even worse waste of time to point out to those in the dark with reality why. If you dont know, then you'll *never* understand why wifi is a non issue.

Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org

Re: Despite no evidence it is healthy?

smoking, asbestos, red food coloring once were said to be safe.
markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
said by Naterator :

Just saying, all those things you mentioned only became widely used in the past 100 years. The past 20 for most of them mentioned.

The average life expectancy of someone 100 years ago would have been about 51 (based on US gov't stats - »aging.senate.gov/crs/aging1.pdf) Today it is pushing 80, almost 30 years more or a 60% increase in life expectancy.

Humanity throughout the ages is evolved to die around 40 - 50 years old. Any extra is a bonus. Now we get diagnosed with cancer and other diseases, in the past you would have just died. Of course cancer rates are going to increase under these conditions. Human cells are not designed to reproduce over and over again for 80 years. We can keep people alive longer than nature otherwise would and this makes them more susceptible to breaking down to the variety of natural and man made dangers out there.

We know for a fact (and there are studies that clearly show) diesel exhaust contains many dangerous pollutants which damage the lungs of people. I don't see anyone advocating a change in the kind of school buses we put kids on. Don't see anyone saying we should ban vehicles because they cause cancer and disease. No one is suggesting we have car police ensuring that vehicles are used for only essential purposes as defined by narrow special interest groups. From ages 1 - 24, the most common cause of death is accidents, with auto accidents being the leading cause. Ban cars to save lives no? To some cars are an unnecessary risk, so everyone should be governed by what they think.

Picking on wifi is like putting a bandaid on a paper cut on your finger when your leg has been chopped off and is bleeding. The evidence we have today suggests that it is safe enough and unless we have clear studies showing that wifi radiation itself is causing increased illness there is no reason to ban it.

ahhnold

join:2003-12-04
Orland Park, IL

Ignorance and the herd mentality

Wifi, cellphone and other radio waves are classified as non-ionizing radiation. Its main interaction effect with biological tissues is heat transfer. No peer reviewed scientific studies have shown evidence to the contrary at current usage/exposure levels. The hundreds of millions (now billions) of cellphones and wifi access points in operations throughout the world for the past 10+ years don't contradict those studies either.

This is pretty basic stuff and if people are this easily influenced it makes me wonder how much farther society can advance ...

Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org

Re: Ignorance and the herd mentality

As i mentioned before, there is no measurement of long term exposure only theory until presented with data. In the past ten years wifi and cell use rose a million fold, for every action there is a reaction, a basic law of nature.. What is the reaction of our actions? That is the question that may not be exposed during this lifetime..

On that note, i am sure we are all fine, its the bees i am worried about.

Bor

@telus.net

Re: Ignorance and the herd mentality

said by Naterator :

for every action there is a reaction, a basic law of nature.. What is the reaction of our actions?

It is not a "Law of Nature" it's Newtons Third Law of motion. It is an observation of the way mechanical forces act upon objects. It's not, nor was it ever meant to be, some metaphysical rule about the universe. There in all likelihood will be no measurable or significant "reaction of our actions".

If you have no understanding of science, don't presume to talk about it.

Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org

Re: Ignorance and the herd mentality

So you are dismissing the Laws of Nature? and yes the laws of motion apply, Do you think a wifi signal does not move? Do you think radio waves to not vibrate your eardrums? (heance makes your body move). You dont think protons and atoms move? I think you need to go back to science class. If you want to try to dismantle his proven law then you have alot of work ahead of you.

Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org
On last thing, in all likelihood can you measure a reaction to your actions. flick your cup of coffee.. See what happens. Now flick it harder (3rd grade science buddy)

Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org
O yea ignorance is an assumption.. A little like what you are doing
LucasLee

join:2010-11-26
kudos:1

Re: Ignorance and the herd mentality

for someone crying about the scientific ignorance of others you're rather hilariously in the dark regarding the levels of radiation generated by our sun.

remember, science is used to prove things exist, not their lack of existence. the metaphorical ball signifying the figurative burden of proof regarding the hazardous nature of wifi signals is decidedly in your court.

keep on trollin' sir.

Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org

Re: Ignorance and the herd mentality

Get closer to the sun you get burned. Stand 5 feet next to a TV transmitting tower for 10 minutes tell me how you feel. Your science is flawed by the assumption that i am talking about how powerful one thing is verse another in relative distance and size.

dslcreature
Premium
join:2010-07-10
Seattle, WA
said by ahhnold:

Wifi, cellphone and other radio waves are classified as non-ionizing radiation. Its main interaction effect with biological tissues is heat transfer. No peer reviewed scientific studies have shown evidence to the contrary at current usage/exposure levels.

uv is non-ionizing and it causes cell damage and cancer unrelated to "heating". There is simulation evidence sub-millimeter radiation can cause DNA damage due to "nonlinear resonances". Very very low frequency radiation in thousands of meter bands has shown to be a hazard to the human nervous system due to induced currents.

To the point others are making regarding modern life surrounded by radio signals keep in mind EM signal strength follows inverse square law with distance. The signal strength of the cellular phone up to your ear is hundreds to trillions or more times more powerful than any other radio signals in your immediate environment. Cell phones transmit with a power of a watt or so.. the signals they are able to receive from towers are on order of one quadrillionth of a watt. Proximity to signal more than anything else is critical to understanding the users exposure.

In an isolated classroom environment with 30 transmitters broadcasting a few hundred mw each in close quarters all day is a significant exposure to microwave radiation above and beyond the background environment of typical exposure to radio and tv transmitters.

Finally there are government radiation exposure standards for these devices which assume ridiculous configurations such as holding the phone an inch from your head while speaking or keeping the body several inches from the antenna embedded in the display bezel. (Inverse square law strikes again)

These conditions are routinely and consistently violated by the majority of users who have no idea that their style of use effectively means they exceed government defined exposure limits.

Is it harmful? will it cause cancer? I doubt it. I don't know... Assume it did and the chance was small what would the sample size of the study and the duration need to be to detect the effect in an unambiguous and statistically significant way? My guess the answer far exceeds any effort anyone is willing to put into the question. Given 20% of the worlds population will die from cancer the SNR involved with detecting such a signal assuming it did exist is impossibly high. We were hardly able to detect the cancer signal in survivors as a result of the hiroshima/nakaski atomic bombs.

Obviously you can never prove a negative but all of these inconclusive statistical based studies people are falling back to in my view are worthless. Any research short of attempting to directly observe cellular damage or mechanisms for the same will never produce a positive result even if you flat out assume there was one to be found.

Until positive evidence is found I chose to assume it does not exist or my chance of being harmed is too small that I don't care. I only speak for myself.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
said by ahhnold:

Wifi, cellphone and other radio waves are classified as non-ionizing radiation. Its main interaction effect with biological tissues is heat transfer. No peer reviewed scientific studies have shown evidence to the contrary at current usage/exposure levels. The hundreds of millions (now billions) of cellphones and wifi access points in operations throughout the world for the past 10+ years don't contradict those studies either.

This is pretty basic stuff and if people are this easily influenced it makes me wonder how much farther society can advance ...

While it is true that radio waves are classified as non-ionizing radiation, there are actually MANY peer reviewed studies showing harmful biological effects from sub-thermal levels of exposure. Even the FCC admits this:

said by 'FCC' :
More recently, other scientific laboratories in North America, Europe and elsewhere
have reported certain biological effects after exposure of animals ("in vivo") and animal tissue
("in vitro") to relatively low levels of RF radiation. These reported effects have included
certain changes in the immune system, neurological effects, behavioral effects, evidence for a
link between microwave exposure and the action of certain drugs and compounds, a "calcium
efflux" effect in brain tissue (exposed under very specific conditions), and effects on DNA.

The FCC also admits that they know nothing about the health or safety of RF exposure and it defers the matter to industry groups (IEEE, ANSI).

»transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engin···56e4.pdf

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Yet still serves back bacon to school kids

despite the vasts amount of evidence that it's not very healthy for children.
Q and A

join:2011-12-09
v4s 2m1

Re: Yet still serves back bacon to school kids

This is not real:

»www.youtu.be/watch?v=qusyWeguNu8


If you think it is real, then you need to buy my reality pills, at $8 each ($10 in Alabama and Missisipi).

abc123xyz

@iowatelecom.net

"No solid medical evidence"?!?

Well, I suppose if one doesn't look for 'solid medical evidence' they won't find any. And of course, there's all the "evidence" that wifi/cell usage is NOT harmful (funded and published by 'the industry')...which is as valid as the evidence that smoking was not harmful we read for decades that was funded & published by the cigarette industry.

One could start by reviewing the clinical studies and research of Dr. Magda Havas, professor of Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada who has proven increased heart rate, increase plasma glucose & red blood cell clumping (which significantly & negative impacts oxygen transport, which of course equals an increased heart rate).

The ignorance of some of these comments in defense of cell phones & wifi is both dismal and pitiful. I'd like to think that the average citizen of any country has read enough history to understand that the mass media of every country throughout time has been controlled by those that fund the media...and that has NEVER been valid, independent researchers & scientists.

”There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is condemnation without investigation.” Herbert Spencer

Mr Anon

@k12.il.us

I want to make the best of this.

Are there any Canadian contacts here?

I would like to pickup some of those APs if the price is right!

ACanadian

@rogers.com

Don't be so quick to jump

I've read through all the comments above. Interesting back and forth. A couple of thoughts.

One part is the talk along the lines of "what about all the other exposure already there.. TV remotes, car key remotes.. ". Poor examples perhaps since those aren't the same as WiFi at all. They are directed, momentary signals, not 24/7 constant streams.

I was very impressed with the comment of DSLcreatre and CXM_Splicer. And people attacking Naterator simply because he decided to stop and consider.. "is there something more here?" is completely uncalled for. That guy is just doing what you should all be capable of doing - step outside your bias and ask yourself what do you really know with certainty about the safety of WiFi pounding your head, or the heads of developing children? Are you all research scientists that have already conducted studies into this? No? Then how do you know? Just because "you know"?

History is one of our best teachers, and it's shown us what we were -sure- we knew, had time and again, proven to be painfully wrong. Is it really so far fetched that we may be wrong about the health impacts of dumping new signals into the heads of our kids? Ourselves? I question it. I worry about it. I haven't stopped using my TV remote, or thrown away my cell phone yet. But I do wonder, am I being as foolish as someone lighting up a cigarette who said year after year "well, I've never seen any effects yet, can't be so!" only to come down later with some horrible cancer?

Just don't be so quick to jump the band wagon of all's-well. It is in the utmost interest of those who make the money from this stuff that the technology always be proven safe. Here in Canada, we were embarrassingly selling Asbestos to (India?) even until recent months because it was good money for some dirt bag here. They told their customer is was great stuff and completely safe, knowing it wasn't. History has many other examples. When money comes into play, to hell with public safety.

•••

anonWIFI

@rogers.com

few points

1) until we know where/how cancer comes from - then it's simply ignorant to disregard microwaves as being a possible culprit.

2) government reports can/are paid for by industry. It's happened in the past that reports are skewed.

3) cigarettes, DDT, asbestos, subprime mortgages, ... were all considered safe once upon a time too.