Can Wi-Fi harm kids?
by Rob Wipond, March 2011
Hearings on Wi-Fi in classrooms discover large differences in the level of trust of information about health impacts.
It’s not often CBC radio host Gregor Craigie’s soothing voice puts someone on the defensive. But Craigie said he’d heard from many people complaining about the Greater Victoria School District’s (GVSD) decision to appease protesters by holding hearings about the health dangers of Wi-Fi. Since all the science shows Wi-Fi is safe, Craigie posed to school board chair Tom Ferris, “They wonder why [such hearings] would even be considered.”
Eventually, the elected official gave up portraying GVSD’s “investigation” as much more than political flak-catching. “The thinking is that if people don’t have an opportunity to air their views and get some sort of response,” Ferris answered, “then it’s something that may go on and continue to worry parents.”
Maybe that suspect commitment to truly investigating the issues explains the uncomfortable atmosphere later that same day in the GVSD boardroom as a 14-person Wi-Fi Committee commences a series of meetings. The committee includes teachers, parents, principals and several elected trustees, along with GVSD secretary-treasurer George Ambeault and technology director Ted Pennell; there are no health experts or scientists. Ambeault facilitates with grim terseness. Most committee members rarely if ever ask questions of the presenters, while teacher-member Michael Dodd, who’s already announced he’s wary of Wi-Fi, is perpetually lobbing softball questions at the anti-Wi-Fi presenters like, “Could you explain that further?”—to the obvious irritation of Ambeault and others.
Over consecutive Mondays in January and February, we learn from a few presenters like David Bratzer of the new group “Scientific Victoria” (advocating for “the consideration of science in local government decision making”) that the World Health Organization, Health Canada, and BC’s Medical Health Officer have declared Wi-Fi “safe.”
Conversely, a parade of presenters list the many dangers our health authorities failed to warn us about until it was too late, like asbestos, thalidomide, tobacco and DDT. They point to exponentially more stringent electromagnetic field (EMF) safety standards in other countries, and describe expanding Wi-Fi in our schools as “a massive uncontrolled experiment” that’s “short-sighted and dangerous.” (They prefer wired internet.) In verbal submissions accompanied by reams of documentation, they list innumerable studies which they claim demonstrate the possibility of impacts like leakage in the blood-brain barrier, DNA and cell damage, endocrine system disruption, chronic pain, neurological diseases, cancer, impaired memory and sleep disorders. “Electro-pollution,” says one presenter, “is the greatest medical threat of our time.”
Citizens for Safe Technology director Karen Weiss’ voice trembles describing her son’s agonizing pains due to his electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). “I would love to see someone from Health Canada look my son in the eye and tell him their guidelines are safe, and then see their reaction when he can tell them they just got a message on their cell phone that’s in their pocket on silent mode.”
Weiss notes she is often asked permission for her son to go on field trips, “Yet I have not been asked for my informed consent to subject my child to low-level long-term exposure to microwave radiation.”
“I’m really struggling,” pleads school trustee Dave Pitre, “because there seems to be so much conflict on both sides.” He points to one massive report that appears scientifically solid, but which others “debunk.” “What am I supposed to do with that?”
It seems obvious that independent scientific analysts would be needed to help conduct this investigation reasonably. Instead, however, Pennell attacks presenter Tammy Keske’s exposure ratings using numbers he vaguely recalls he “heard” coming from an unnamed “health protection agency.” Keske admits hers came from a television show. And when electrician Walt McGinnis warns about high EMF levels, Pennell expresses skepticism by citing an article from the Medicine Hat News.
Bratzer suggests we all place less weight on “pseudoscience” and “poorly designed research” and instead emphasize “quality, peer-reviewed science.” He then criticizes one famous, peer-reviewed study that claimed to detect heart rates accelerating in response to EMFs. Bratzer argues the researcher erroneously used a heart monitor that itself dramatically reacts to EMF interference. The citation he provides for this attack? A blog written by two engineers.
Seventeen-year-old Jordan Weiss privately tells me about his headaches, burning eyes, poor concentration, and sleep disruption when he’s close to strong EMFs. His mother is right—it’s hard to look Jordan in the eye and suggest he’s merely imagining things. “It’s kind of awkward to tell people at school that I have something like an ‘allergy’ to their cell phone,” he concedes, “because they’re so attached to them.”
Presenter-parent Robert Jeske finally digs to the root of the differences: lack of hard evidence on any side.
Jeske describes the fragile nervous systems and brain tissue of growing children and states, “There have been zero pre- or post-marketing safety studies on chronic exposure of Wi-Fi radiation specifically in children...You can’t say it’s safe and you can’t say it’s unsafe; there are no studies.”
He cites the World Health Organization’s 2010 “Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields.” It identifies a number of “high priority” areas for research, like “behavioural and neurological disorders and cancer” in kids, because “little research has been conducted in children and adolescents.”
Bratzer believes the WHO is responding more to public worries than scientific ones. And, in fact, that same paper suggests researching communications efforts, too, because, “The public often appears to demonstrate considerable misunderstanding of scientific evidence, especially when there is a lack of conclusive evidence about potential health hazards, as is the case with RF EMF exposure.”
That statement seems an apt explanation for why these debates keep coming down not to particular studies or evidence, so much as to differing levels of trust in media reports, government regulators, established health authorities, and mainstream science as a whole.
And there are certainly good reasons for increasing distrust. Most government regulators are former and future wireless industry insiders. Most studies of possible negative side effects are industry-funded. And many are being published in the same journals that have been struggling for years to overcome the epidemic of conflicts of interest in health and medical research. Meanwhile, a staggeringly vast profit-making machinery is building Wi-Fi infrastructures everywhere. High-powered “mini-towers” are poised to replace cell phone towers and spread ubiquitously on streetlights and hydro poles; the popularity of wireless devices looks like an advancing armada.
Notably, some of us really are feeling it, too. Research consistently shows a subset of the population can indeed reliably detect the presence of EMFs. Exactly how isn’t known, any more than we understand how migrating birds and fish orient by detecting Earth’s magnetic poles. But this intriguing and unsettling reality is often downplayed amongst mainstream EMF researchers. They instead highlight two connected findings: Many of the people who can reliably detect EMFs don’t suffer from EHS. And many EHS-sufferers cannot reliably detect EMFs. Emphasizing these latter facts helps paint EHS-sufferers as hypochondriacs, and helps diminish most people’s concerns about EMFs.
The cultural pervasiveness of this tendency to belittle the protesters makes me wonder, regardless of what the truth proves to be in the end, how many people will even care? After all, we’ve long known urban air pollution kills thousands of people annually. So if we ultimately discover that EMFs do actually torture 1 percent, 2 percent, or 5 percent of the population, will that stop cell phones, iPads and Blackberries? Why or why not? Ultimately, that may be the most important Wi-Fi question we could be collectively exploring.
Rob Wipond posts a few links for your reference -- and for what it's worth...
WHO Research Agenda 2006 and 2010
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/rf_research_agenda_2006.pdf
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241599948_eng.pdf
GVSD Wi-Fi Committee
http://www.sd61.bc.ca/wifi.aspx
A widely-quoted meta-analysis study that "debunks" EHS, but subtly glosses over the evidence of electrosensitivity in some humans
http://iddd.de/umtsno/emfkrebs/rubin2005emf.pdf
Canadian federal Senate Committee Report on Health Impacts of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4834477&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&File=27
The bottom line
It doesn't matter how many studies prove or disprove the harm it causes. I can feel the harm when I turn on 3G on my iPhone, or when I turn on wi-fi. The hair salon I visit stopped wi-fi because the staff complained of headaches. All public libraries in Paris have stopped wi-fi after the staff complained of health issues.
To me, all these real-world examples say far more than complex studies. Whether or not these examples are scientifically valid doesn't matter to me. Be street-smart. When people tell you it harms them, it harms them.
If you need 100% proof before you make every decision you are pretty naive. That's not how the real world works. Ever thought of using the right side of your brain too?
Conspiracy Theory
Rob Wipond thinks that is a wordwide conspiracy to cover up the effects of EMF on health is plausible. He cites the FDA to back up his claim. Well the FDA must be part of this conspiracy which involves virtually all of the world's most prestigious public health organizations. The following quote was taken from the FDA's web site: "While some researchers have reported biological changes associated with RF energy, these studies have failed to be replicated. The majority of studies published have failed to show an association between exposure to radiofrequency from a cell phone and health problems". See the FDA website: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsa...
I have a web page with links to expert reports from most of the world's leading publice health organizations concerning the safety of wireless technology at: http://www.emfandhealth.com/Science%20Sources.html
er, "cites the FDA"
Mr. Trottier: You still seem to be having some difficulties in understanding the basic arguments I have been making.
I wrote, "The U.S. FDA has been engaged in hearings before Congress about how these same conflicts of interest have nearly gutted the abilities of health regulators, too."
So what I am saying here is that, when pushed by intense Congressional questioning and investigation, EVEN the U.S. FDA has (at times) essentially admitted to the enormous and problematic conflicts of interests going on within the health science industry, and within its own walls as health regulator. And, for example, one of the results of those hearings was that the U.S. government began to work with industry to establish protocols for all experiments and studies to be registered. A study registry, it was hoped, would help prevent the plague of companies conducting a study, finding results that they didn't like, and simply suppressing the entire study instead of publishing it (a growing custom that neuters regulators as much as the general public). That protocol, unfortunately, is still primarily voluntary and dysfunctional. Some of these academic journals I listed are now requiring registration of studies before they occur, or else they will not consider publishing the final results of the study. But it still seems neither the majority of elected politicians, nor the majority of academic researchers, nor the majority of gov't health regulators, nor the majority of industry players are particularly keen on enforcing this or any requirements which might help get the problems under control. Don't you ever wonder why?
"Preposterous"
The perspectives of a number of posters seems to be well summarized by Mr. Trottier's statement that, "This suggestion of a massive conspiracy, involving virtually all the world's most prestigious health science organizations, is simply preposterous."
This was in response to my statement that, "Most government regulators are former and future wireless industry insiders. Most studies of possible negative side effects are industry-funded. And many are being published in the same journals that have been struggling for years to overcome the epidemic of conflicts of interest in health and medical research."
Actually, the facts of that "conspiracy" are, in my opinion, the least debatable facts in this article. And this notion that those facts are nothing more than laughable is disturbing, and to me indicates that the "debunkers" on this issue are at least as clouded if not more clouded by emotion as the so-called "alarmists" they decry.
In fact, choosing one specific area of example, all of the world's most renowned medical journals have been locked in a battle for over a decade now to get control of the epidemic of conflicts of interest in the health science field. I refer to NEJM, AMAJ, CMAJ etc. These journals have gone public frequently with their concerns, at times stating that over 90% of the studies they see have been clearly manipulated to produce positive results in support of drugs, treatment safety etc while the evidence, when independently reviewed, is pointing in the opposite direction. This has been widely reported, written about and discussed, in both the mainstream media and the scientific literature. When NEJM began its anti-conflict of interest campaign, their editorial decried that they could not find any qualified person to write the editorial who did not also have too many conflicts of interest! The U.S. FDA has been engaged in hearings before Congress about how these same conflicts of interest have nearly gutted the abilities of health regulators, too. Various proposals have been tested, like requiring full disclosures, requiring registering of all experiments before they occur (so they cannot be hidden afterwards) etc, but so far nothing has stuck or really solved the problems.
And then we have to listen to utterly uninformed people suddenly tell us all that the very notion that this is occurring is "preposterous", and that we are simply imagining it all.
With an irony beyond ironies that would be humorous if not written with such righteousness, another poster tells us to "follow the money", as if Wi-Fi critics like Magda Havas and her ilk are bigger players to be wary of in this regard than the biggest profit-making industries on the planet.
Some facts about Wi-Fi and reality...
It is a shame that proper research is no longer done by writers before they publish alarmist stories, simply repeating extremist statements without checking the validity of these activists’ claims.
Let me begin by making it clear that the appropriate venues for questioning health standards in Canada are Health Canada and Industry Canada – not a school board. And further, that these two federal government organizations have reviewed the claims by these extremists, several times now. And dismissed them all. The countries of the world respect and listen to The World Health Organization (WHO), another excellent venue for raising any health issues.
So, a little background and some definite facts:
1. The Microwave radio frequency band in which Wi-Fi is found has been in use since 1886. Yes, over 100 years. Just because you use a truck to move something you just made does not mean the truck cause cancer. Trucks have been used since before WWI to move things.
2. The radio frequency spectrum divides at about the visible light range into those frequencies above visible light which ionize and those frequencies below which can’t ionize cells. “Ionize” means to damage cells.
Ionizing frequencies include X-ray radiation, Gamma radiation, Ultra-Violet and such. These are the nasty ones. Anyone ever had a sun burn? Notice that doctors tend to limit your X-Ray exposure at the dentist office, or when doing a specific procedure at the hospital? Darn right they do.
Non-ionizing frequencies include Infra-red, FM radio, TV & such. These are unable to damage cells. Notice the wording: “unable”. Not “can when I say they can in my special study that no one else in the world can replicate” but simply cannot. These radio frequencies lack the energy. You can check this out with a simple Google search if you want to verify this fact. Ever had a sun-burn from listening to Kool-FM or TV?
3. Physicists, chemists and biologists have known this fact for decades. Not weeks, or months, or even years. But decades. Again, a simple Google search would verify this fact as well.
4. This is a biological effect found when the human body, or anything else biological, is exposed to microwave radio frequencies. At a certain power level, you would experience heat. The “thermal effect” as it is known by the medical & scientific community.
No other effect has been found. None. Zip. Nada. There is consensus, that is to say, agreement, by thousands and thousands of medical studies to this fact. By the entire medical and scientific community of 100+ countries.
5. 1-off studies. These are studies that state a conclusion but that conclusion cannot be repeated by any other group, anywhere else in the world. Similar but slightly different studies also cannot repeat or support such a conclusion. The original conclusion may have “picked up steam” in the media but the subsequent proper research which invalidates the initial conclusion tend not to be repeated. “No news, film at 11…”.
Meta-Studies are studies that compare the method, the quality and the conclusions of similar studies. The meta-studies can further re-enforce results by supporting a conclusion found by one study by conclusions found by 5, 10, 50, or more studies.
6. EHS. No study has ever been able to make a connection between a source of radio frequencies and someone claiming to suffer from EHS. Ever. And a lot of very concerned & ingenious science and medical specialists have tried to do so. Something is creating these symptoms. But not Microwaves in general and certainly not Wi-Fi specifically. This is fact. Again, a simple web search would have turned up reference to 47 studies done to date that state this. In fact, here is a statement from the World Health Organization:
Conclusions
EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.
Physicians: Treatment of affected individuals should focus on the healthsymptoms and the clinical picture, and not on the person's perceived need for reducing or eliminating EMF in the workplace or home.
There are no people who can reliably detect RF or EMF frequencies. There certainly are people with symptoms – often severe and debilitating ones. But making such claims about RF & EMF is simply a bad thing to do to them. It prevents them from continuing to search for what is really the underlying cause of the symptoms.
7. “A blog written by a couple of engineers.” Wow. Deep research here. How about a B. Eng and a M. Eng.? How about Ph.D’s (multiple, not one)? How about awards from the Royal Society of Canada? How about being the Director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society? What a slam job by the author. Why didn’t he do a little research before trying to belittle when he could have informed? What does the author have to hide? What are his qualifications to make such statements?
8. Who benefits? Why would anyone make such radical and unsupported claims? Well, I always like to follow the money. Who sells paint to protect you from EMS? Who is on the lecture circuit making money speaking on this subject? Who is trying to sell you products?
9. Reference sources. It would not have taken much effort to have listed a few. Feel free to Google these yourselves:
- The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) report (2009)
- The Danish Institute of Cancer Epidemiology (2007)
- That many school boards have also had these extremists concerns raised, evaluated and dismissed. Check out Edmonton School Board Trustee’s, Medicine Hat Catholic Schools, Campbell River School District, Bluewater District School Board, and the famous Simcoe Country District School Board, just to name a few.
- How about the BC Ministry of Education or the Ontario Education Minister? What is their position?
- How about the Elementary Teacher’s Federation of Ontario?
- And what about B.C.’s Chief Medical Health Officer, Dr. Perry Kendall? Or Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Arlene King? What do they have to say regarding using Wi-Fi in schools, or anywhere else?
In summary:
There are literally thousands of studies over 60+ years, involving 100+ countries, all having consensus that use of Wi-Fi at Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 levels of use, is harmless to humans (babies, children, pre-teens, and adults).
There are many, many meta-studies confirming these findings. One such is found at: http://www.emfandhealth.com/Science%20Sources.html.
There is no reason, or cause, for concern about the use of Wi-Fi in schools. Anyone who tries to tell you different probably has a hidden agenda.
Why Wi-Fi is harmful
Since about 2008 most involved scientists have accepted that there are some harmful effects from sub-thermal microwave radiation. In fact the USSR and US military have used sub-thermal microwave effects for over 40 years. Although there have been no human or child-based long-term studies on the adverse health effects of Wi-Fi, since it has been in use for only ten years or so, there are likely long-term adverse effects and recent studies on rats point in this direction.
Kesani KK et al (2010) found significant brain damage at 2.45 GHz, the Wi-Fi carrier frequency, exposed at only 0.11 W/Kg for 2 hours per day for 35 days. Gumral N et al (2009) found oxidative stress in blood from 2.45 GHz. Hao Y et al (2010) found 2.45GHz activates microglia cells, involving the STAT3 signalling pathway. Saygin M et al (2011) found reduced fertility after 60 minutes' exposure per day for 28 days and although this was at a high level it fits with the established evidence of reduced fertility from cellphone usage.
The omens do not look good for children irradiated long-term in school.
Why Wi-Fi is harmless
<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <! /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} --> <!--[endif]-->
The consensus of virtually all the worlds’ public health organizations is that there is no credible scientific evidence that Wi-Fi and other forms or wireless communications are harmful to health. The European SCENIHR has stated: “It is concluded from three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, animal and in vitro studies) that exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans”. These conclusions are shared by expert groups from more than 30 countries (see http://www.emfandhealth.com/Science%20Sources.html). The statement in the article that: “Most government regulators are former and future wireless industry insiders. Most studies of possible negative side effects are industry-funded”. This suggestion of a massive conspiracy, involving virtually all the world's most prestigious health science organizations, is simply preposterous.
Alarmists and a minority of scientists, whose work is not recognized according to established standards, point to some studies that have shown evidence for harm. However studies showing harm have not been replicated in follow up studies, and have been strongly refuted by far more comprehensive and rigorous studies. In many cases, serious flaws have been found with studies that show harm. This article cites a perfect example of such a “study” with the statement: “one famous, peer-reviewed study that claimed to detect heart rates accelerating in response to EMFs”. I am one of the “two engineers” who debunked this “study” in an article posted on our web site: http://www.emfandhealth.com/EMF&Health%20EHS%20Poor%20Studies%206.html. Any amateur fitness buff will tell you that the heart rate chart featured in this “peer reviewed” article is physiologically impossible. We confirmed this with a couple of cardiologists as well as the person who designed the heart rate monitor used in the “study” (we spoke with the manufacturer). They confirmed that the chart is full of artifacts that cannot be real.
The “journal” in which this “peer-reviewed” article was published has one of the lowest rankings. This “journal” has the impressive sounding name “European Journal of Oncology”, but it has been cited only 5 times in the past 3 years: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=29765&tip=sid, as compared with the respected European Journal of Cancer, which has been cited 4,743 times: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=29761&tip=sid&clean=0.
Science can never absolutely disprove a negative. Science cannot prove with absolute 100% certainty that Wi-Fi cannot cause cancer any more than it can prove this about your breakfast cereal. The physics of the effects of EMF on biological systems has been well understood for decades. Heating is the only known effect. The World Health Organization has stated: "In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields."
For more information on the issue of EMF and health, see the web site: www.emfandhealth.com.
WiFi harm - migrating birds and fish
The way migrating birds and fish perceive the earth's magnetic fields is becoming increasingly clear. The journal Current Biology on February 24, 2011, has a study by Wu and Dickman of Washington University revealing the third magnetic locator found in pigeons. This is in the inner ear, which also reads gravity and thus tilt. The previously discovered ones were in the eyes and upper beak.
The same issue of Current Biology also reports the research of Dr Kenneth Lohmann of North Carolina University revealing the final piece of the puzzle as to how sea turtles migrate, showing that they can read geomagnetic fields to determine longitude as well as latitude. They seem to have magnetic receptors connected to the central nervous system.
It looks to me like the WHO
It looks to me like the WHO document linked below the article does not state that WiFi is safe. Rather it says that more studies are needed and much is unknown. How can an "unknown" be regarded as proven safe? It isn't logically possible. All of the science does not show wifi is safe. Here is what the US FCC admits and lists right on their own website: "many published reports in the scientific literature concerning possible biological effects...
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf
"There are many published reports in the scientific literature concerning possible biological effects resulting from animal or human exposure to RF energy...Several years ago publications began appearing in the scientific literature, largely overseas, reporting the observation of a wide range of low-level biological effects......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....Further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health. In the meantime, standards-setting organizations and government agencies continue to monitor the latest experimental findings to confirm their validity and determine whether alterations in safety limits are needed in order to protect human health."
Are we comfortable exposing our kids long-term while they set up their experiments and try to draw conclusions? The cart is before the horse, People.
Here is what happens when you
Here is what happens when you expose rats for 2 hours a day. Think about it. http://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/adang_ieee_o.pdf Abstract-This paper summarizes the results of experimental research on biological effects induced by electromagnetic exposure to low-level microwaves. We exposed four-month-old Wistar albino rats during 21 months to two different microwave frequencies and exposure modes, 2 h a day, seven days a week. In order to assess possible biological effects of microwaves, we selected among others the following parameters: leucocytes, erythrocytes, monocytes, eutrophils, lymphocytes, hemoglobin, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, and mortality rate. After 14 and 18 months of exposure, we observed a significant increase in white blood cells and neutrophils of about 15% and 25%, respectively. Lymphocytes fell down after 18 months of exposure with about 15% compared to the sham-exposed group.... ...The most obvious effect we detected is the increase in mortality rate.
http://www.magdahavas.com/w
http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Blake_Levit-Henry_Lai.pdf
However, according to the Scientific Committee on
Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR)
Health Effects of Exposure to EMF, released in January of
2009:
. . . recent studies of whole body plane wave exposure of
both adult and children phantoms demonstrated that when
children and small persons are exposed to levels which
are in compliance with reference levels, exceeding the
basic restrictions cannot be excluded [Dimbylow and
Bloch 2007; Wang et al. 2006; Kuhn et al., 2007; Hadjem
et al., 2007]. While the whole frequency range has
been investigated, such effects were found in the frequency
bands around 100 MHz and also around 2 GHz. [2 GHz is in the WiFi range]
For a model of a 5-year-old child it has been shown that
when the phantom is exposed to electromagnetic fields at
reference levels, the basic restrictions were exceeded by
40% [Conil et al., 2008]. . ..
rom the same document:
7. Biological effects at low intensities
Many biological effects have been documented at very low intensities comparable to what the population experiences within 200 to 500 ft (*60–150 m) of a cell tower, including
effects that occurred in studies of cell cultures and
animals after exposures to low-intensity RFR.
Effects reported include:
genetic, growth, and reproductive; increases in permeability of the blood-brain barrier; behavioral; molecular,
cellular, and metabolic; and increases in cancer risk.
Some examples are as follows:
Dutta et al. (1989) reported an increase in calcium efflux
in human neuroblastoma cells after exposure to RFR at
0.005 W/kg. Calcium is an important component in normal
cellular functions.
Fesenko et al. (1999) reported a change in immunological
functions in mice after exposure to RFR at a power density
of 0.001 mW/cm2.
Magras and Xenos (1997)...etc, more examples follow
"The average SAR of these studies at which biological effects occurred is 0.022 W/kg a finding below the current standards. Ten years ago, there were only about a dozen studies reporting such low-intensity effects; currently, there are more than 60. 13. Discussion People are reporting symptoms near cell towers and in proximity to other RFR-generating sources including consumer products such as wireless computer routers and Wi-Fi systems that appear to be classic "microwave sickness syndrome," also known as "radiofrequency radiation sickness." First identified in the 1950s by Soviet medical researchers, symptoms included headache, fatigue, ocular dysfunction, dizziness, and sleep disorders. In Soviet medicine, clinical manifestations include dermographism, tumors, blood changes, reproductive and cardiovascular abnormalities, depression,irritability, and memory impairment, among others.