WiFi Dangers.com

This was a great video and really puts it into perspective. Wow!

Thank You, R. Shulze, for presenting that blog entry. It provides excellent examples of
false and misleading information on the biological and health effects of WiFi.

This is exactly the kind of material that school districts distribute amongst themselves, while somehow ignoring the massive amount of scientific and medical evidence that shows WiFi to be a toxic agent that is immensely harmful to human health.

One of the article’s foundational tenets is that WiFi emits 1% of a typical cell phone. This is absolutely false and easily disproven.

A quick look at Apple’s Important Product Information Guide for the iPad WiFi + 3G reveals that the highest SAR value for the WiFi 2.4 GHz is 1.19 W/kg and for the 1800/1900 MHz cell phone network is 1.18 W/kg, which is typical for SAR values of cell phones.
http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/iPad_Important_Product_Information_Guide.pdf

In other words, an iPad emits more radiation than an iPhone.

The article then goes on to say that there is no compelling evidence that cell phones pose a health risk. Again, this is blatantly false. All long term (greater than 10 years), studies on cell phones have found a significantly increased risk of cancer. Even the industry funded studies have reported this, although they tend to bury the data.

Independently funded studies from Sweden have found that children are especially at risk, as their risk of high grade brain cancer increases by 4% for every 100 hours of use.

Now, let’s do the math to get an idea of the increased cancer risk faced by children who use iPads in school.

5 hours per day x 180 days x 12 years = 10,800 hours

10,800 divided by 100 hours of use = 108

108 x 4% = 432% increased risk of high grade cancer.

Certainly these numbers aren’t perfect because they apply to cell phones and high grade brain cancer. iPads aren’t typically held directly against the head, but they are, however, held in very close proximity to the body. Significantly increased cancer risk would therefore be expected, especially given that young children are much more vulnerable.

The article then states “Overall, there is little evidence of cellular effects of RF fields of health significance below current safety limits”. Again, blatantly false. Take a look at the Bioinitiative Report, released in 2007 and 2012, which presents THOUSANDS of peer reviewed studies showing RF radio frequency microwave radiation, at levels less than FCC guidelines, to cause adverse biological and health effects.

I could go on, but please, is it really necessary? Do you really need more evidence?

Aren’t thousands of studies enough?

R. Shulze, what do you say about this?

But first, please do your homework. Just take 5-10 minutes and look over the peer-reviewed science at http://www.wifiinschools.com

Then get back with us.

I just don’t get it. Why would the school district ignore this information? It sounds like they see nothing wrong with any of this and yet this web site has links to all kinds of information that claims wireless is not safe for kids in class. How can there be such a disparity in perceived risk?

Mr. Imbriano, you would be wise to get this video in front of the Fullerton School Board of Trustees at their next meeting as well as in front of the public at the next Fullerton City Council meeting. This information needs to get exposed.

The main reason the school district can ignore this information is that many mainstream websites state that WiFi is safe.

School officials are then typically satisfied after superficially viewing such information, and fail to examine other reports that may conflict with what they want to hear.

Let’s examine a prime example by the World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs304/en/

This outdated 2006 fact sheet makes numerous false statements that can easily be indentified by someone fluent with the body of scientific knowledge.

First it states that cell phone studies have not identified adverse biological or health effects. This is completely false. As stated in an earlier post, ALL long term case control studies on cell phones (over 10 years) have reported a substantial increase in cancer rates. Children are especially vulnerable.

For an overview of cell phone studies, I recommend this presentation by scientist Lloyd Morgan: http://vimeo.com/17265162

Then it erroneously states that no long or short term health effects have been shown to occur from cell towers (base stations). This is blatantly false. Anyone who looks at cell tower studies can see that most of the research reports that these high frequency microwave transmitters cause sharp increases in cancer and neurological issues for those living nearby. (Less than 500 meters)

We have provided this research here: http://www.wifiinschools.com/studiesreports.html

Also, this document is fairly convenient, as it provides 15 pages of abstracts that anyone could read through. Or it can be read aloud to those that would not like to read it themselves.

http://www.wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/epidemiological_studies.pdf

Cell towers studies are especially relevant to the issue of WiFi safety, because they examine whole body, long-term exposure to microwave radiation, much like what will be experienced in concentrated doses within the schools.

The reality is that WiFi technology in schools emits more radiation that either cell towers or cell phones, and given that children are especially vulnerable due to a variety of biological factors, such as undeveloped immune systems, rapidly dividing DNA, and a higher water content, many expert scientists and medical doctors are taking a stand.

Anyone who takes even a brief look at the scientific literature will see that there is substantial and compelling evidence to show that RF microwave radiation is harmful.

The question is if the school board members will even look.

How come R. Schulze won’t answer Ray’s questions in #49?

R. Schulze,

Thank you for responding to my comment regarding your use of a trade group document as a source.

As I look back though your comments, it looks to me as if you simply had a knee-jerk reaction. This is very common, unfortunately. You saw the information on this site stating that WiFi-emitted microwave radiation poses a serious health threat to children, and you did what most people do at first – you tried to prove it wrong.

It makes sense. We already have enough serious health issues to deal with as it is. It would be much easier to believe that microwave radiation doesn’t cause harm to children, or that the government and industry worked side by side to ensure that these devices didn’t emit harmful radiation.

I truly wish that were the case, but the science flatly shows otherwise. It is impossible for something to be safe if thousands of peer reviewed studies show it to be harmful.

We are all entitled to our own beliefs, but not our own facts.

Use your head. As parents and community members, we need to be cautious rather than brazen when it comes to the health and welfare of children. It is said early part of the video, and throughout this site that there is substantial scientific evidence, but in comment #50 you state that you would be willing to look at peer-reviewed research?

You appear to be well-meaning, and not just an industry troll, so why the heck not at least look at the evidence on RF radiation before slinging around your industry quotes?

http://www.wifiinschools.com/studiesreports.html

Perhaps start with #2:

Yakymenko et al. 2011. Long-Term Exposure to Microwave Radiation Provokes Cancer Growth: Evidence From Radar and Mobile Communications Systems.

Ray. Again, nice study but we are beyond individual studies. Find me a systematic review or equal meta analysis supporting your point and we can start a discussion. We are at a Supreme Court level here and I honestly don’t care what some county court thinks. Interestingly enough Percy Spencer, the inventor of microwaves, first came upon it when he steped in front of a magnetron and a chocolate bar in his pocket melted. Imagine this guys exposure working around radar tubes that were essentially open microwave ovens. He thought it was cool to pop corn in a bag in his hand. Died at age 76 of “natural causes”… Who knows, I doubt he had an autopsy.

Joe. I really would prefer wired computers for the kids as well but I think it is a huge cost issue. Especially since the school has to buy Apple. I’m not aware of anyway to hard wire a iPad so that means laptops. I’m not sure but maybe you can help; how much would it cost to wire each room with 32 Cat-6 ports vs. one WiFi router? How much for the whole school? Then how much would a laptop cost per kid, and how much for the whole school? Now extrapolate to the district, county, etc. if you could find a way to divert our tax dollars from defense to support this I would champion the cause. Hell, even raise taxes. I have children in “High Tech” classrooms, yes.

I’m still not even sure how people are allowed to drive cars that spew know carcinigenic and poisonous toxins into the air that my children have to breath. And those chemtrails? Sorry, let’s focus on EMF first.

Joe. Honestly, it is of no help to you or your cause to allow every comment anyone makes to be posted. You and your cause will only be further marginalized and ridiculed by the immaturity exemplified by some of your contributors. When it ceases to be a forum of discussion and starts to be one of ridicule and personal attacks your chances of effecting change dwindle to zero. I, unfortunately, am not surprised but wish you well. I did find another good article about EMF health affects: http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/31625/InTech-Evaluations_of_international_expert_group_reports_on_the_biological_effects_of_radiofrequency_fields.pdf . It is a good review of 33 international expert group reports on multiple health issues in relation to EMF. 3 of the 33 reports indicated that there may be adverse health affects, one of which was the IARC study I suggested. May have been a good discussion.

Shultze, why is it that you are so adverse to peer-reviewed evidence?

How to you sleep at night ignoring thousands of peer reviewed studies, instead cherry picking these industry reports?

Your approach may be popular with the school administration, but it’s unimpressive here on this board.

1. March 2013 Swedish Radiation Safety (SSM) Report:
“together with national cancer incidence statistics from different countries, [recent results are] not convincing in linking mobile phone use to the occurrence of glioma or other tumours of the head region among adults.”

P 5 “Although recent studies have covered longer exposure periods, scientific uncertainty remains for regular mobile phone use for longer than 13-15 years. It is also too early to draw firm conclusions regarding children and adolescents and risk for brain tumours, but the available literature to date does not indicate an increased risk.”

P 5 effects of RF on EEG: “The observed effect is weak and does not translate into behavioural or other health effects. Recent studies suggest that considerable interindividual variation exists in the possible reactivity of the human brain to RF electromagnetic fields. The underlying mechanism is not yet understood,”

From web summary: “there are no radiation protection problems for the general public related to radio waves from sources such as mobile phone base stations, television and radio transmitters or wireless computer networks in home or school environments”.

2. June 2012 Sweden: The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research has published a new report reviewing the past 10 years of research in the area of EMF and Health. The following quotes were taken from the Executive Summary:
“More than 15 provocation studies (single or double blind) have been conducted on symptoms attributed to exposure to RF fields. These studies have not been able to demonstrate that people experience symptoms or sensations more often when the fields are turned on than when they are turned off”.
And
“A considerable number of studies on cancer, and in particular brain tumor, were presented. As a consequence there exist now very useful data including methodological results that can be used in the interpretation of this research. With a small number of exceptions the available results are all negative and taken together with new methodological understandings the overall interpretation is that these do not provide support for an association between mobile telephony and brain tumor risk”.
Click these links for the: Executive Summary, and the Full Report.

3. 2102:3 Norway: The Expert Committee appointed by the Nowegian Institute of Health has published a new report entitled: Low-level electromagnetic fields – an assessment of health risks and evaluation of regulatory practice. The following are quotes from the web page short summary:
“The group found no evidence that the low-level fields around mobile phones and other transmitters increase the risk of cancer, impair male fertility, cause other reproductive damage or lead to other diseases and adverse health effects, such as changes to the endocrine and immune systems.”
And
“The Committee did not find that mobile phones and other equipment can cause health problems such as electromagnetic hypersensitivity”.
Click the following link for a web page short summary of the report.
Click the following to download the PDF of the English version of the report.

4. April 2012 UK: The UK base Health Protection Agency has just released an exhaustive new 348 page expert report on the issue of EMF and Health. The report is entitled: Health Effects of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. The following is the key conclusion of the report: “The quantity, and in general quality, of research published on the potential health effects of RF field exposure has increased substantially since AGNIR last reviewed this subject. Population exposure to RF fields has become more widespread and heterogeneous. There are still limitations to the published research that preclude a definitive judgement, but the evidence considered overall has not demonstrated any adverse health effects of RF field exposure below internationally accepted guideline levels. There are possible effects on EEG patterns, but these have not been conclusively established, and it is unclear whether such effects would have any health consequences. There is increasing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels does not cause symptoms and cannot be detected by people, even by those who consider themselves sensitive to RF fields. The limited available data on other non-cancer outcomes show no effects of RF field exposure. The accumulating evidence on cancer risks, notably in relation to mobile phone use, is not definitive, but overall is increasingly in the direction of no material effect of exposure. There are few data, however, on risks beyond 15 years from first exposure.
In summary, although a substantial amount of research has been conducted in this area, there is no convincing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels causes health effects in adults or children”.

5. EFHRAM European Health Risk Assessment Network D2 Report Risk Analysis of Human Exposure to EMF 2010: “SCENIHR (2009a) reviewed the evidence from the various national studies and pooled analyses from parts of the Interphone study: severe concerns were raised about reporting bias that may exist in these data. Nonetheless, it was concluded that this evidence, combined with the results of animal and cellular studies indicated that exposure to RF fields was unlikely to lead to an increase in brain cancer or parotid gland tumours in humans”.
6. EFHRAM European Health Risk Assessment Network D3 Report on Risks of EMF in vitro and in vivo 2010: P 27 “For the three frequency ranges examined, the conclusions of the 2009 SCENIHR report are still valid in spite of the publication of several positive findings. Many of the new publications originate from laboratories and countries that are new to bioelectromagnetics research. This translates sometimes into unsatisfactory dosimetry or statistical analysis. Health risk assessment to be performed in the coming years (e.g., WHO EMF project) will need to be carried out with strict quality criteria”.
7. ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: ICNIRP is affiliated with the World Health Organization. New report: Exposure to electromagnetic fields, biological effects and health consequences 16/2009. P260: “Recent concern has been more with exposure to the lower level RF radiation characteristic of mobile phone use. Whilst it is in principle impossible to disprove the possible existence of non-thermal interactions, the plausibility of various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low. Concerning cancer-related effects, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at SAR levels up to 4 W/kg. With regard to in vitro studies of RF effects on non-genotoxic end-points such as cell signaling and gene/protein expression, the results are more equivocal, but the magnitudes of the reported RF radiation induced changes are very small and of limited functional consequence. The results of studies on cell proliferation and differentiation, apoptosis and cell transformation are mostly negative”.
8. Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion: Wireless Technology and Health Outcomes: Evidence and Review 2010:
•”…While the most recent review continues to call for additional research to follow up on new findings, after a decade of additional research, there is still no conclusive evidence of adverse effects on health at exposure levels below current Canadian guidelines.’

•Given the experience with other sources of non-ionizing radiation (e.g. power lines) that have been in use much longer than cellphones or Wi-Fi, it is unlikely that all controversies related to potential RF effects will be resolved even after decades of additional research”.
9. University of Ottawa, McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment: Review Panel Reports 2011. This is a collection of quotes from reports by expert groups of the world’s major public health organization assessing the issue of EMF & health. New quotes are added periodically.

10. Swedish Radiation Authority: the Swedish State Radiation Protection Authority (SSI), sets the safety standards for wireless devices in Sweden. The SSI has commissioned a series of expert assessments on EMF and health in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The following statements were extracted from these reports:
•2008 P5: “Six recent studies on carcinogenicity, some with higher exposure levels than previously used, consistently report lack of carcinogenic effects, and two studies on genotoxicity report no increase in micronuclei or DNA strand breaks after RF exposure”.
•2009 P4: “..these results in combination with the negative animal data and very low exposure from transmitters make it highly unlikely that living in the vicinity of a transmitter implicates an increased risk of cancer.”
•2009 P4: “While the symptoms experienced by patients with perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity are very real and some subjects suffer severely, there is no evidence that RF exposure is a causal factor.”
•2010: P4: “Available data do not indicate any risks related to exposure to RF from base stations or radio or TV antennas. Taking into account also the low levels of exposure that these sources give rise to, health effects from transmitters are unlikely”.
11. Latin American Expert Committee: Non-ionizing EMF and its Effects on Human Health 2010: P11 “The induction and promotion of tumors or blood neoplasms by RF exposure in animals as well as the appearance of cellular molecular predecessors of tumorigenesis, etc. has also been investigated. Despite using RF exposures, measured as specific absorption rates (SARs), far above those that people are normally exposed to, and in some cases exposures for the duration of the animal’s lifetime, about 93% of in vivo studies published since 1990 have shown no significant short or long-term effects. Further, the average survival of irradiated groups of animals was not affected in some 96% of studies.

For those willing to look, this is another informative website: http://www.kawarthasafetechnology.org/index.html

and another:
http://www.justproveit.net/content/prove-it-initiative-main

Petition to return to hardwired computers in schools

http://cstorg.wufoo.com/forms/m7x3p9/