Canadian Schools Ban WiFi Based On Bad Science

from the and-what-are-they-teaching-our-kids dept

A decade ago, we first wrote about some freaked out, clueless parents suing a school district for wanting to install a WiFi network. The parents believed — based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever — that WiFi networks emitted “harmful” electro-magnetic radiation. Since then, we’ve heard of many such stories of people fearing the health impacts of WiFi, despite a near total lack of evidence of any harm at all. Studies have found that an entire year sitting next to a WiFi access point gives you the equivalent radiation of 20 minutes on a mobile phone. And yet, every few years, we hear about parents or politicians freaking out about the issue and trying to get WiFi banned in schools.

Amazingly, they’ve succeeded in some places, including 12 elementary and middle schools up in Canada, which are now being called out by a group called “Bad Science Watch” for making decisions based on absolutely and totally bogus science. You can read the full report here, in which they call out “anti-WiFi activists” who are “spreading misinformation.” It seems they ought to call out schools as well. You would think that places of learning would investigate the actual science.

These claims are not substantiated by the scientific literature and have little acceptance from medical professionals and the scientific community. This activism therefore amounts to nothing more than fear-mongering by misguided special interest groups who are attempting to have these networks removed.

Nevertheless, the media has been all too willing to fan the flames of controversy and has contributed to a growing false uncertainty over the safety of WiFi. As a result many school boards, libraries, and town councils across Canada have been called on by concerned citizens to limit or remove WiFi networks.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Canadian Schools Ban WiFi Based On Bad Science”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
99 Comments
silverscarcat says:

But Mike...

You need to think of the children!

If you give them free wi-fi then the kids won’t have any reason to go to class anymore since they can get all their stuff easily from anywhere.

Now who doesn’t want to go to the class with the annoying teacher who always picks on you for no reason?

*Remembers in high school we didn’t have wi-fi, we had Lan parties to play Descent until the computer teacher uninstalled it from all computers*

Man, that was some fun matches.

alanbleiweiss (profile) says:

Re: But Mike...

“we had Lan parties to play Descent until the computer teacher uninstalled it”

Sadly, I’m much older than you. We had no such things as computers. VCRs had just become fashionable in our school’s AV department, although film reels were still all the rage except for special occasions like taping the high school football games.

So I joined the AV club, and became the student in charge, reporting directly to our advisor. Which meant I was free to skip classes, using “has an assignment to operate film equipment” notes.

alanbleiweiss (profile) says:

“Studies have found that an entire year sitting next to a WiFi access point gives you the equivalent radiation of 20 minutes on a mobile phone.”

As if that’s acceptable ! I’ve been using cell phones since 1996. And as a result, many years ago I began caring about personal freedom, human rights, and fairness in life. Clearly it was the radiation from those cell phones that fried my brain into thinking this way.

So clearly then, we can draw a direct correlation to the notion that the wifi I’ve been using for the past year and a half was responsible for even more of my brain being fried, and thus the reason I became a Techdirt insider. Clearly that decision was not rational or logical, so it must have been the fault of the wifi!

Thank God someone’s thinking logically enough to save the children!

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I remember a study done a few years (decades) back about Radio waves (HF & UHF) and microwave ovens and the like and its true radiation can cause major deaths. They found out, and I tell you this with the full warning it deserves. IF you sat next to a microwave oven for over 100yrs you will most likely die.

The same study found that anyone who had used the Telephone or Telegraph or that dangfangled Marconi device before 1890 is now dead! Dead I tell you!!! and they mostly withered away and got all wrinkled with loss of hair before they died too.

It’s a tragedy. Next I propose an ending to this radiation we are all getting that operates at the dastardly levels of between 380 to 740 nanometres. It not only can cause cancer it burns too!

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

I thought only one person lived nearly 1000 years (957 actually), most lived to be around 500 to 700 or so, humans have only been on the planet for 6000 years or so and nothing about dinosaurs from what I remember.

But, seriously, there are accounts of people back then doing some amazingly crazy things. Where do you think the term “marathon” comes from? From the guy who ran across Greece in less than a day non-stop, over the mountains, across rivers, etc to deliver one message.

Today we think of that stuff as impossible, but, think about it, we have technology to make our lives easier, and yet, people back then built the pyramids and other monuments and scientists today are still trying to figure it out.

Today you’re strong if you can lift your own body weight. Back then children apparently could rip the jaws off of a donkey with relative ease.

Deimal (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Well, how many smart phones are running around in pockets in that school? I can’t think of any smart phone that doesn’t include WiFi as part of the device. How about the computers? Unless they disable WiFi cards in them, they’re constantly searching for networks as well. How about the neighborhood nearby, the local coffee shops. These idiot parents and vastly more idiotic journalists are far more consistently exposed to WiFi on a daily basis then they probably know!

BS Simon (profile) says:

In related news...

The Administratuon is concidering banning dihydrogen monoxide for the following reasons:

is called “hydroxyl acid”, the substance is the major component of acid rain.
contributes to the “greenhouse effect”.
may cause severe burns.
is fatal if inhaled.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
as an industrial solvent and coolant.
in nuclear power plants.
in the production of Styrofoam.
as a fire retardant.
in many forms of cruel animal research.
in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
as an additive in certain “junk-foods” and other food products.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: In related news...

I always thought the whole dihydrogen monoxide thing was meant to be a hoax right from the start. A practical joke meant to cause dumb people to reflexively freak out over the dangers of a substance that is no threat at all just because they don’t stop for two seconds and think about what it is. Hell, the nature of the substance is right there in the name: it’s water!

So, given this, and the theme of the article, I am pretty sure the other poster meant it as a joke…which you kind of, you know, ruined.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: In related news...

” dangers of a substance that is no threat at all”

Yes, it was a big joke and quite a few lolz were had. but are you positive about that statement? Surely, anything can be dangerous in certain circumstances.

Who claimed that carbon monoxide was not bad for you because it is a naturally occurring gas, was it Michele Bachmann?

BS Simon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 In related news...

From: http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

“Every day, about ten people die from unintentional drowning. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. Drowning ranks fifth among the leading causes of unintentional injury death in the United States.”

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: In related news...

“ok.. for those who don’t realise. The chemical formula for is H2O”

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpu26ggu641qj1cg2o1_500.jpg

“Oh dear, this bullshit again”

Stop getting wound up about this. The whole thing is intended to be a hoax, a joke to expose people so reactionary about surface level “threats” that they don’t even look into what they’re getting angry/scared about. As in, you know, people who want to ban wifi without any real evidence of harm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

Anonymous Coward says:

Not to side step the issue, but why is wifi needed in non university level schools? btw, would they be referred to as schools of lower learning?

Maybe it is due to the proliferation of wifi enabled devices which the students are not allowed to have or use while in school. In that case, what do the teachers need wifi for? Furthermore, if it’s only the administration staff that need connectivity, then I’m guessing that hard wiring would be less expensive.

Or, perhaps it is the lucrative telecommunications industry calling for towers on school property for which the school district gets a pittance. This would make more sense as to why folks are getting all upset about it.

This Anonymous Coward EH! says:

Re: Re:

“Or, perhaps it is the lucrative telecommunications industry calling for towers on school property for which the school district gets a pittance. This would make more sense as to why folks are getting all upset about it.”

Really? No these are wireless networks like we put in our homes that they are freaking about up here.

Next time think before you write something down.

Yes we know the parents up here and a bunch of idiots that believe this. The best is that parents are saying that little Johnny or Suzie have headaches at school because of the wifi, but forget to mention that these Headaches only come on the days they have tests.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re:

What if I want to have a security system connected via wi-fi in my school? What if the computers used by the staff are connected via wi-fi? What if the classrooms have audiovisual resources that use a central server, via wi-fi, to recover videos, pictures and other learning material?

Wiring WAS cheaper in the past. Today most computers come with built-in wi-fi capabilities. Also, wireless setups make it much easier to move things around and change layouts. The only real reasoning to use wired connections is 1- security and 2- speed.

Some Other AC (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Well in the case of my oldest child, the district where he attends school issues netbooks to Middle school and High school students. As it would be cost prohibitive to install the required network drops in addition to the additional network gear, using a protected WiFi system was the best and most cost effective solution.
I have assisted in projects at my employer to expand office space and install additional network drops and gear. When you factor the hourly rate for the wiring techs, the cost of cabling and accessories, and the network gear to expand the network to accommodate the expansion, adding just 30 cubes can easily run into tens of thousands of dollars.
Now expand that to a multi-room school and you can see that the cost to wire it would easily reach into 6 figures.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The question was why, not how. I realize there are school districts handing out wifi enabled devices like candy … some districts use them to spy upon the kids eating candy and changing clothes in their rooms at home. Many schools have told the kids to not bing or not use their electronic devices of any kind – they must be missing put on the obvious benefits.

Karim says:

You are so wrong. Here's why.

Mick just hates it whenever copyright law is enforced and Internet is killed real good to prevent DMCA from working where it would not work if there weren’t no pirates, and/but for the children. The law is the law.

Last week I had to give my neighbor money for medicine because he works in an industry which has been killed off by Internet Piracy (carwash).

Mick never even bothered to assume the fact that less Wifi in schools means less child porn creation, and more importantly, tornado clients cannot work on No Internet.

Google just wants Mick to pay him money.

**Copyright 2013. Unauthorized reproduction strictly prohibited**
**This comment is protected by RightClickBeGone 2.23 (trial – unlicensed)

ltlw0lf (profile) says:

Re: Evolution of the species

The process of evolution favors the individuals that breed most.

Evolution did favor individuals that were most intelligent and useful, as they didn’t tend to get themselves killed off before they could procreate. Which is why we are here. We have removed those pressures, which has reduced the need for intelligence and usefulness in order to survive and breed.

We have created the birth of Idiocracy, not evolution. I suspect the problem with Idiocracy is that at some time between now and its fruition, we will lose the ability to keep those pressures removed; they will reintroduce themselves and the process will begin anew (or, we’ll evolve in another, more productive direction.)

PRMan (profile) says:

Not dangerous?

“WiFi networks emitted “harmful” electro-magnetic radiation”

Wifi networks DO emit harmful electromagnetic radiation. It’s in the Microwave band 2.4 GHz, exactly the same as your microwave oven, only (usually, if everyone follows instructions) at a low enough dosage that it doesn’t do anything.

Of course, that didn’t stop the network guys at my old work who purposely bought mismatched giant antennas for the WiFi router and were literally frying the brain of the receptionist sitting underneath with low-dose microwaves. (Some math from a ham radio operator that worked for us proved why she was feeling light-headed every day since they put it in, it was like a 90 watt microwave oven).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Not dangerous?

Wifi networks DO emit harmful electromagnetic radiation. […] only at a low enough dosage that it doesn’t do anything.

Umm – wouldn’t that mean it’s not harmful? You know, like if it doesn’t “do anything”, then (by definition) isn’t causing HARM, and therefor is not HARMful.

Microwave radiation just causes heat – heat in and of itself isn’t harmful – every house in Canada has a furnace that produces way more heat than any Wifi device could put out in a year.

it was like a 90 watt microwave oven

90 watts isn’t an “oven” – 90 watts is barely a lightbulb. If she was feeling lightheaded, it wasn’t because of a 90 watt transmitter near her.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Not dangerous?

You know what “mismatched” (whatever that means in this context) antennae can’t do? Add power to the radio signal. They can only shape it. So, you’re saying that the total power output of that WiFi installation was at least 90 watts.

That’s pretty high. I hope they had an FCC license for it, because they take that sort of thing pretty seriously.

literally frying the brain of the receptionist sitting underneath with low-dose microwaves.

No, it wasn’t. “Literally frying” would be that the receptionists brain was actually being cooked at temperatures that would cause it to sizzle. Low-dose microwaves wouldn’t be able to do anything other than a slight warming.

That entire anecdote sounds incredibly implausible. It’s far more likely that the ransom ham radio operator’s math was wrong.

If there was really a concern, why didn’t somebody rent a meter and directly measure the amount of power in the emissions?

Qyiet (profile) says:

Re: Not dangerous?

The difference in energy release from a microwave and the energy by a human body is 10 DBm. So to go from harmful (putting your hand in a microwave) to harmless (touching another person) that’s a good baseline on an exponential scale.

Now the difference between standing in a wifi zone, and a microwave is ~60DBm. To put it another way, the person standing next to you is emitting the same amount of energy as just over 3000 laptops wifi. If you afraid of wifi, you should be deathly afraid of other people.

Numbers came from here.. any math was my fault 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm#Unit_conversions

Chad says:

Studies show...

Over the years there have been many things thought to be good “based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever” which were later proven to be extremely bad (major drugs like heroine and cocaine as well as smoking or giving your child a bit of alcohol to stop their colic, etc).

The real issue isn’t that it’s good or bad, it’s that there is “absolutely no evidence whatsoever”. Unfortunately in the case of wifi and other similar technologies that are stirring people’s emotions, the complaints are about the long-term effects which we frankly cannot know until it’s been a significantly long-term exposure.

One thing you have to keep in mind to remain completely neutral and unbiased on the subject is that there are advocates on BOTH SIDES that have no information or evidence of what they’re trying to prove.

I just hope that in 30 years when talking to my kids I can tell them that the technology was a huge advancement instead of a huge health hindrance.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Studies show...

“One thing you have to keep in mind to remain completely neutral and unbiased on the subject is that there are advocates on BOTH SIDES that have no information or evidence of what they’re trying to prove. “

Indeed. However, if somebody’s going to start banning things “for the children” based on zero evidence (and while there is certainly evidence that access to it benefits their education), I’d prefer to demand proof. Rolling over just because someone thinks there might be harmful effects is as wrong as merely letting people ban vaccines, videogames, movies, TVs, books, music or whatever else the current nutjob scapegoat of the week is.

The call for banning things just because there’s a fear about them, especially from those who don’t understand them, will never stop. Only the target of that call will change. But, it’s down to them to prove that the ill effects outweigh the benefits. While those things you mentioned do seem obviously bad in hindsight, that’s just a matter of perspective. There are many other things that have mostly positive effects that were called to be banned over the same timescale, and that same hindsight shows them up for the stupidity that those calls were.

People should keep an open mind, but these things should only be happening when there’s a real reason to believe that they are harmful. Until then, you’re probably basing any ban on baseless fears from people who usually don’t understand the thing they’re talking about.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Studies show...

“advocates on BOTH SIDES that have no information or evidence”

Wrong. There have been many studies by scientific, medical and health organisations to gather evidence.

Look up the reports produced by the UK HPA, the National Cancer Institute SEER programme the Interphone study, the CEFALO study, the FDA, the CDC and the FAA.

You will find evidence produced by studying hundreds of thousands of phone users

a_w_young (user link) says:

WiFi is bad because it's WiFi, not because of "health concerns"

I think the real crime is in making kids use inferior connections. WiFi isn’t bad because of some hocus-pocus health issue, it’s bad because it’s wireless. Get faster, more stable, more secure internet for our children in schools. WiFi is improper for professional purposes in a fixed location.

Byte says:

Facts

The only danger to a broadcast signal is its strength. Doesn’t matter if the signal is 900mhz, 10mhz, 100ghz. If no signal is broadcasted at a frequency, guess what? The universe is broadcasting at that frequency! There’s noise on every band known to mankind. Natual noise. But when you broadcast on a frequency, you have to boost your signal to be higher than the noise [an reed-solomon, qpsk, etc. help assure signals].

POINT IS– The danger to a signal is related to HOW CLOSE you are to the broadcast element (stength, not frequency, is what you have to fear). Like with cell phones, if it’s right up against your head you’re bombarding your cells with high signal… just like breaking up a stone in your kidney with ultalow wave lengths. But step a distance away and the signal degrades… becomes harmless.

Dr. B

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Facts

Unless I am much mistaken, simply not true. Some frequencies are more dangerous than others. If the frequency is “non-ionizing” it is probably safer at the same energy density than “ionizing” radiation. (gamma-/x-rays are more harmful than long-wave radio?). Similarly among the non-ionizing frequencies, ones that excite the h-o bond in water (at or close to the resonant frequency or a multiple thereof) are more harmful that ones that don’t, because they couple better with living organic material and transfer more energy, so can cook the recipient at a lower energy density. This is, as I understand it, fairly basic and well-established science.

Jeffrey Nonken (profile) says:

Re: Re:

So do human bodies. Fortunately they’re pretty weak, so all you have to do to remain safe is NEVER GET CLOSE TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. Or any animal.

And for God’s sake, don’t wear clothes, the friction just might generate static electricity. If you do wear clothes, don’t move!

Petting your cat is just asking for trouble!

Remember, everything gives you cancer.

Anonymous Coward says:

it’s more a fear of liability that ‘bad science’,

I also do not agree that decisions are based on ‘bad science’ I do not believe that is such a thing, it is in fact good science, that determined the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation, it is ‘bad politics’ to use good science for the wrong reasons.

yes, you can compare it to some time on a cellular phone, but it would be far better to equate it with a period of time standing in sunshine..

middle of the day you receive 1200 watts per meter square, a wifi would be microwatts.. millions of times less that 1 second in the sun.

ijpelaar says:

Re: Re:

Hi

I think the dirty modulation is the cause of the radiation sickness like i have, or people has heavy metal poisening like fillings without there knowledge, this heavy metal thing should have be investigated , like mercury, lead, cadmium, who react on microwaves special mudulated with pulses.

Pulses in the microwave is nat natural, natural waves are sinusoidal, always, digital signals looks to much as brain waves, special the very low ones, for example in the dect, I can not call with a dect, special the first types, I do fall down.

We have to go cable, or very low wattages like less then 1 milliwatts, and more little transmitters like in modems of every home, then we keep it under the trigger level, but the best is cable, like glass.

anyway,, I sleep in the livingroom to excape the 12 watts ruckus of the nabure who is capable of have a working distance of 15 km.

regards

kees

Lyle Courtsal says:

you are the idiots, hahahahahaha-hahahahaha

Yes folks, it’s true. There is actually serious damage being done to brains and genetic material above 2 milliwatts/sq. cm., especially to young developing children. They’re growing so mutations can definitely creep in, but all you wonks care about is no dropped calls. Try hardwire lines then. Gawd, I hate americans; yes, it does damage, and yes it can be reduced, but not removed. It’s about energy and how it damages genetic material, which it does. Not only that, above certain energy levels, your ears ring massively if you are sensitive to it.

M. Callahan says:

A bunch of no-brain air suckers...

I have never seen such and long list of lemmings blathering about their no brain idiocy. Science that doesn’t get read, doesn’t exist in the monkey pack. Google a phrase, why don’t you; the Google mind will be magic for you guys. Try EMF as a class 2 carcinogen- that ought to lengthen this thread by about 50 ‘missing links’ screeching about the biggest word in their book…. pseudoscience… Wow. You guys are soooo smart! You say such full-of-important things! I wonder why anyone in the International Agency for the Research on Cancer ever read a $10,000,000 grant by any guy with a Ph.D? I’ll bet you guys will tell me what Ph.D means! What kind of stupid label is that? Why waste a dime on a degree to tell us what to do? Gee, I wish all you smart guys were around when I signed up for Nuclear Engineering. I coulda saved some money…. you’re all so smart, with your microwave oven jokes- I don’t get it! Why would a guy sit by an oven for a 100 years… is that funny?

ijpelaar says:

wifi transponder Ruckus wireless.

Hi

I am from holland, I have a nabure who has a wifi antenna on his roof who do deliver 12000 milliwatts max, and sinds this antenna recides there I have trouble with health, I am kwown to be electro sensitive, I have moved here because of gsm radiaton, I was sick 5 years back and here a clean place did make me healthy again, unfortanely my nabure has now again a magnetron on his roof, I believe however that the unnatural signals in the microwave transmitter are the major cause of the problems, digital signals looks to much on body language like brain signals interfere with it.

We need to stop with this terrible dangereus experiment.

Aned never buy a ruckus wireless, she do make dangereus strong signals, the nabure has a child of 2 years olds, it is complete freaken out sometimes, so she don,t want go in the house, she yells terrible and go lay down on the street, this kid sleeps 4 meters from that antenna, I sleep also 4 moters from it, but now in the livingroom because I did go also get to sick because of lack of sleep and pulsing in the head.

regards

kees

Cheryl Khan (user link) says:

Study on the effects of wifi on plants

I read about wifi harming trees somewhere in the UK. They found that trees in urban areas were developing a silvery decay on the bark. It’s kind of scary if you think about it.

http://www.patioproductions.com/blog/gardens/is-wi-fi-killing-your-plants/

Although I haven’t tossed out my router just yet (hope I don’t have to), one has to wonder if this has any truth behind it. There was also another study where routers killed seeds. If that happens to plants, I’m sure it could be causing adverse health affects on humans.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Study on the effects of wifi on plants

Nice of you to spam your own blog link here, though you could have been more honest about it.

At a quick perusal, you seem to have based almost everything on a 3rd party account of a high school experiment (read: not conducted under laboratory conditions) that took place in Denmark, along with a barely correlated claim of similar effects on trees.

A quick Google search will show you a breakdown of the common complaints on the first point. For example:

http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/05/danish-school-experiment-with-wifi-routers-and-garden-cress-good-example-of-bad-science/

Generally speaking, it’s an interesting high school science class experiment, but not something that’s proven. The methodology is poorly set out by profession standards, there’s no blind tests and the study itself seems to have been prone to bias from the outset. I can’t see any direct responses to the debunking outside of the usual “scientific conspiracy” and “you can’t question them because they’re kids” claptrap.

At best, this to take away from this is “we should get some proper research into this kind of thing (which has been happening for years), not “wifi kills plants”.

Unless there’s research under proper laboratory conditions you’re aware of, of course? If this has never been proven – why? Are you in the “there’s a conspiracy” camp, or open to more realistic reasons? Have you even researched this at all, given that much of the debunking predates your blog entry?

“Although I haven’t tossed out my router just yet (hope I don’t have to)”

I wish more people spreading bad science would do just this.

“one has to wonder if this has any truth behind it.”

Yeah, yeah, you’re “asking questions”. Well done on using that particular clickbait tactic on your blog.

“If that happens to plants, I’m sure it could be causing adverse health affects on humans.”

Or, it could be having no effect at all. Or, they interact with their environment differently so the comparison is meaningless. You wouldn’t expect plants to interact with sunlight in the same way as humans, so why do you assume another part of the electromagnetic spectrum has equal results?

That’s what proper scientific research is for, not third hand translated accounts of a claim made by children.

Linda says:

wifi study

Just wondering if you’ve kept up with the latest research, and if you plan to update your article…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertszczerba/2015/01/13/study-suggests-wi-fi-exposure-more-dangerous-to-kids-than-previously-thought/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2466509/wireless/is-wifi-killing-us-slowly.html

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: wifi study

Is that you again Cheryl? If not, weird how 2 people suddenly found this article at the same time after being dormant for 18 months. Strange, huh?

Anyway, I read your links, and you’re rather dishonest aren’t you? The first article links to both of the other 2 links, so there’s only one study to look at (not plural, unless you have some genuine alternative links). It doesn’t matter how much circular commentary you post, there’s still only one thing being referred to.

On top of that, the Science Direct link is not the “latest research”, it’s a review/report posted in 2014 referring to older research.

Where is the new research you claimed?

Linda says:

response

Hi there. Honestly, I was just posting the links I ran across yesterday morning that reminded me of your previous post.

I saw the first link on the Drudge Report early in the am, and I included the other links that were indeed links from w/in the article itself, not trying to be misleading.

I am a mom of 2 in Texas, by no means an expert on anything. I had no notion that there were any potential dangers with wi-fi until until some time ago I came across some videos by Barrie Trower. That prompted me to do some more research, and I actually came across your post back then and bookmarked it. I try very hard to find info on both sides of any issue I’m researching, especially if it’s beyond my expertise.

Forbes being a reputable site, I felt pretty comfortable taking the article as a sort of shift in the mainstream thinking that wi-fi is completely harmless. I guess the main takeaway from my limited knowledge on the health effects of wi-fi is that there is some potential danger to young girls and pregnant women, based on what seems like sound information. As a mom, I take that danger seriously. I don’t promote not using wi-fi or taking any extreme actions, but if there are ways to make it safer in schools, especially since national standards require all public schools to vastly expand wi-fi in the next few years, it’s something we should all take seriously.

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2458948/cisco-subnet/considerations-for-wi-fi-deployments-in-k-12-education-settings.html

Josh says:

wireless

I know is an old thread but I have information to add. I have had sensitivities to wireless for many years. Have spent the last 5 years researching and experimenting on myself to find out what aspect of the signal is causing my health problems. The main thing I found out is that I get sick instantly from wireless in Canada but not in the U.S.A.. From that information I learned it is not the power of the signals/radiation causing the health issues. So safety code 6 is not useful in this case. I believe it has to do with the pulse repetition frequency of the signals. I have come to that conclusion because I do get eyestrain from computer monitors where the pulse width modulation causes the screen to flicker. The symptoms from using a device on wifi and cellular in Canada produces a similar affect. I believe in America the pulsing rate of the signals for wireless is probably at a faster rate or higher frequency. There is no debate on whether the wifi in Canada is harmful to some people. That is a fact.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »