Wi-Fi safety concerns slammed as melodramatic
/v3-uk/news/1953386/wi-fi-safety-concerns-slammed-melodramatic
22 May 2007, Rob Jones , V3
Debate over the safety of wireless networks has been reignited after Panorama claimed last night that a school using Wi-Fi recorded radiation that was three times as high as that coming from a mobile phone mast.
Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency, claimed in the programme that there was evidence that low-level radiation coming from devices such as mobile phones and Wi-Fi could damage health.
He said there should be a review of Wi-Fi, which is now used in many homes, schools and in some areas being rolled out in towns and cities.
The claims are similar to those that have dogged mobile phones, although to-date there has been no conclusive evidence that they are a health risk.
Some scientists poured scorn on Stewart's comments, pointing out that Wi-Fi uses radio waves, which have been around for over a century without damaging people's health.
Ben Goldacre, a medical doctor who runs the Bad Science website, stated that the programme makers had made melodramatic, misleading television instead of an informed documentary.
"In 28 minutes of TV you could have given a good summary of the research evidence so that people could make their own minds up. But that would not get you as many viewers," he said.
Goldacre explained that there had been over 30 double-blinded studies looking at people who believe they have symptoms caused by 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity'.
In these studies, subjects were told that they were being exposed to electromagnetic signals without knowing when the signal was switched on and told to say when they felt the effects.
These studies have consistently shown that there is no relationship between symptoms and the presence of an electromagnetic signal.
There was also no specific reason to believe that Wi-Fi was different or more dangerous than other familiar signals, such as those from radio or TV. "Wi-Fi is also just next door to CB radio and police radio," said Goldacre.
If problems such as cancer can occur, the incidence will be rare because prolonged exposure to radio and TV signals has yet to produce cancer clusters, he added.
Professor Olle Johansson, of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, told Panorama: "If you look in the literature, you have a large number of various effects like chromosome damage, you have impact on the concentration capacity and decrease in short-term memory, and increases in the number of cancer incidences."
Johansson has long been warning of the damaging effects that electromagnetic signals can have on people.
Professor Lawrie Challis, chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research programme management committee, told the BBC that it was unlikely that Wi-Fi would "pose any risk to health".
"Wi-Fi exposures are usually very small," he said. "The transmitters are low power and some distance from the body."
But Professor Challis did suggest that people use laptop computers on a table rather than their lap.
Some schools are now coming under pressure from parents and teachers to stop using wireless networks until it is known whether or not the low-level radiation can damage children's health.
Do you agree?
Wifi Concern
Congratulations to Panorama, Sir William Stewart and all the other scientists who have the guts to stand up for people who are truly suffering.
Sir William?s interview on Panorama is the most important and ground breaking point of the wireless debate. The Chairman of the HPA has spoken and the UK Government ignore him, WHY? This is the question we should be asking our representatives in Parliament. They should be putting our health before wealth.
Sir William is not alone in his call for the Precautionary Principle he is backed up by world leading scientists, take a look at the Benevento Resolution
What sort of society are we living today? By encouraging the proliferation of wireless devices, society has created an invisible under-class who are denied the opportunities available to everyone else. ES victims are often unable to use their talents and capabilities to earn a living through denial of access to transport and places most people take for granted. With other forms of disability, society has taken the view that such a situation is unacceptable and as legislated to ensure equal access and equal opportunity. It is offensive, inhumane and wholly unacceptable to allow this sort of discrimination.
How can anyone allow our children to be used as part of an experiment surrounding them in a sea of microwaves using untested and unregulated technology exposed 24/7 to wifi, wimax, mobile phone masts, dect phones, microwave baby alarms etc? I fear for the futures of our children and one day we will look back to Sir William Stewart?s comments on Panorama and no one can say that they hadn?t been warned.
Eileen O'Connor
Posted by Eileen O'Connor, 23 May 2007
Missing piece of science
There are two points that people seem to be missing. First is the question raised is that we are still waiting for cancer around TV masts. This a very good point until you look at a some of the latest studies which were recently described by Dr George Carlo (who ran the US mobile phone industries? health research program during the 1990s) at Westminster in February of this year. Here he claimed that the carrier wave, be it radio or microwave is indeed harmless at these low levels. However as we all know the carrier wave needs to be modulated in order to carry data or voice information. The difference between TV/radio signals and Wi_Fi /mobile phones is the frequency and type of this modulation. In TV and radio the modulation is the modulation is of a high frequency that (as far as we know) passes straight through living tissue without any affect. However with Wi-Fi and mobile phones (and other recent wireless technology) the modulation contains components that are much lower in frequency. Mobile phones have a 217 Hz and a 17 Hz component for instance. Proteins in the cell membrane detect these lower frequencies and cause the cell to react defensively as if against an unknown threat. This hardens the cell membrane which inhibits nutrient intake and also stops the cell from expelling waste products - toxic free radicals with build up inside the cell eventually attacking the chemistry of the cell, causing amongst other problems, double strand DNA breakages - a direct cause of cancer. Dr Carlo backed up his talk with references to several published papers. The other important point is that the government has explicitly ignored the head of their own health protection agency in this mater.
Posted by Simon Densley, 23 May 2007