Do Wi-Fi Networks in Schools Harm Children?

Transcript of Are Wi-Fi Networks Safe for School Children?

We don’t believe in putting (microwave) antennas near schools, so why are we so willing to put antennas inside schools? That’s right, Wi-Fi routers are microwave antennas.

One type of microwave radiation we are all familiar with is the microwave oven. What do microwave ovens and Wi-Fi routers have in common, and how do they differ? Both use the same frequencies, and both have the same wavelength. This is the ideal condition for heating water.

They differ in that Wi-Fi routers use a much lower intensity of radiation. The radiation is not contained, it consists of pulsed waves rather than continuous waves, more about that later, and the Wi-Fi router is on all the time. For these three reasons we should be concerned about placing Wi-Fi routers inside schools, and inside our homes.

Let’s have a microwave cooking lesson – We can bake a potato in a microwave oven set at 100% power within 6 minutes, if we reduce the power to 50% it will take twice as long or 12 minutes to bake the potato. This is called the time-weighted exposure.

Now let’s replace the potato with students, and the microwave oven with a school. Students in school are exposed to microwave radiation for six hours a day, five days a week for 40-weeks each year. That comes to 1200 hours a year of exposure. After 10 years they are exposed to microwave radiation for 12,000 hours.

Let’s put these 12-thousand hours into perspective – The Interphone study was published in 2010. This study showed that adults who used a cell phone for more than 1600 hours over a 10-year period, had a 40% increased risk of developing a brain tumor called Glioma.

How does this exposure compare to Wi-Fi in schools? Interesting, and yet we are told that Wi-Fi in schools is safe.
Scientists have given names to different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that have similar characteristics. At the bottom we have extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields, then we have a band called radiofrequency radiation that overlaps with microwaves, and radar WIFI fits into this category at 2.4 gigahertz.

In even higher frequencies we have ionizing radiation, that is known to be carcinogenic, both radio frequency and extremely low frequency fields are classified as possibly carcinogenic by the World Health Organization.

Light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and microwave radiation has many of the same characteristics as light. For example, light can be transmitted through windows, reflected or focused by mirrors and glass, and absorbed by dark colors.

Similarly, microwaves can be transmitted through buildings, reflected and focused by metal, and they can be absorbed by water and fat. That is why we can cook a potato in a microwave oven, but we cannot cook dry rice.

Test Your EMF Radiation Knowledge

True or false? Levels of microwave radiation in a room are uniform. False.

A filing cabinet as well as other metal objects can either decrease or increase our exposure to Wi-Fi radiation depending on its location relative to you and the router.
Taking a measurement at the middle of the room will not give the same reading as taking a measurement near a metal object near your computer or near the router. Metal objects on or in your body will also reflect, block, or focus microwave radiation.

This is why sensitive people are unable to wear jewelry. A student with a mouth full of braces standing near a router is likely to have higher radiation exposure in the head than a student not wearing braces.

True or false? Natural sources of radio waves are much stronger than man-made sources, so we have nothing to worry about. False

Ionizing radiation is largely absorbed by the Upper atmosphere and very little reaches the Earth’s surface. The same is true for infrared radiation. Both light and radiofrequency radiation reaches the Earth’s surface, so we are exposed to radio frequencies coming from outer space, but these sources are very weak. That is why we need large radio telescopes to detect the energy, these microwaves are like whispers from outer space.

A cellphone within 10-kilometres of one of these receivers is like a shout and would interfere with a signal coming from space. That is why radio telescopes often have an exclusion zone surrounding them to minimize this type of man-made interference.

True or false? Our exposure to microwaves is increasing exponentially. True.

Much of the early research with microwaves was kept top secret. In 1939 we have the first radar exposure of the military. In 1967 the radar range or microwave oven was introduced.

In 1984 we were introduced to cellphones in the cellular antenna system. In 2000 we had our first exposure to campus-wide Wi-Fi. In 2004 we had the first Wi-MAX operating, this is now called LTE, an acronym for long term evolution also for long term exposure.

In 2008 schools began to install Wi-Fi routers, and in 2010 smart meters began to be placed on homes to record electricity water and gas consumption. So, most of our exposure to radio frequency and microwaves in the States dates back about 30-years.

Here are some of the major changes in our exposure – In the past our exposure was intermittent, today it is constant. The radiation is no longer limited to military bases and airports, today we have transmitters inside our home. In the past exposure was limited to a few occupations, today infants and children are exposed on a consistent basis.

We can use the flood analogy to describe the increasing levels of microwave radiation. Low levels have no effect, but as the level rises a few people are adversely affected. Some become electrically hypersensitive, as the level continues to increase more people will become adversely affected.

True or false? Wi-Fi radiation is pulsed, and pulsed radiation is more harmful. True.

We don’t know all the reasons for this, but one reason is the way it’s measured. When we have radiation that is not pulsed, the maximum value and the average value are quite similar.

With pulsed radiation the maximum or peak value is much higher than the average value, and since many health authorities measure only average values, they underestimate exposure considerably.

The intensity of radiofrequency radiation can be measured using power density. Guidelines in various countries differ by orders of magnitude, or by as much as a hundred thousand units. This is unheard of for chemical toxicants and for ionizing radiation where standards globally are quite similar.
The worst guidelines are in the UK, but Canada and the United States are not far behind. Guidelines in Russia and Switzerland are at least a hundred times more protective. Even these guidelines are not effective, because adverse effects occur at much lower levels of exposure.

True or false? Industrial-strength Wi-Fi is used in schools. True.

Indeed this is how some companies advertise their powerful wireless routers.

True or false? Wi-Fi base stations constantly emit radiation. True.

Wi-Fi base stations or routers in the school have multiple antennas, and these antennas emit a beacon signal. The routers are placed at various locations, and each router emits microwave radiation that is always on. With multiple routers the entire school is blanketed with microwave radiation

True or false? The highest exposures occur at the computer and the router. True.

Once the computer is disconnected from the internet the only remaining radiation is from the router. So the placement of these routers is critical, they should be well marked, in plain sight, and as far away from people as possible.

True or false? The more users uploading and downloading information from the internet the higher the levels of radiation. True.

And the closer students are to each other the higher their exposure.

True or false? Long-term low-level exposure to microwaves harms rats. True.

The US Air Force completed a study in 1984 at a cost of 4.5 million dollars, they exposed rats to pulsed radiation at 2.45 gigahertz. This is the same frequency used for Wi-Fi today, and at levels well below federal guidelines, for twenty-one and a half hours daily, for twenty-five months.

The results were published in 1992 and became available on the internet in 2005. The results showed that rats exposed to microwave radiation had more B cells and T cells. These cells are part of the immune system and become activated when the body detects unhealthy bacteria.

The T cells alert the B cells that in turn produce antibodies to attack the bacteria. What is unusual is that this experiment was conducted under sterile conditions and that is one reason it cost so much money.
Even more disturbing results were the effects on tumor growth, three types of tumors were identified in various organs – Benign, primary and metastatic tumors. What were the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of pulse 2.45 gigahertz also known as Wi-Fi radiation?

A 16-percent increase in benign tumors, a 100% increase in metastatic tumors, a 260-percent increase in primary tumors. Plus, it affects the immune system. Is this what we want to expose students and teachers to for six hours each school day?

True or false? Radiofrequency radiation is a possible human carcinogen. True.

The World Health Organization classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans.

They (the WHO) base these conclusions on rat studies and studies of people who use cell phones, as well as studies of people who live near cellphone antennas. In their press release, because they mentioned gliomas and wireless phones, some falsely believe that only cellphone radiation was potentially carcinogenic and that we didn’t need to be concerned about other forms of radiofrequency radiation.

But this is not the case, Wi-Fi radiation is a possible human carcinogen.

Let’s look at other effects of pulsed microwave radio frequency radiation.

True or false? Microwave workers experience heart problems. True.

Studies on the health effects of microwave radiation go back decades, although some of the early studies were classified.
In a symposium preceding published in 1969, the authors write; in the interest of occupational hygiene, many Soviet investigators and at least one US researcher have recommended that cardiovascular abnormalities be used as screening criteria to exclude people from occupations involving radio frequency exposures. In other words, radio frequency radiation affects the heart. Scientists knew this 42-years ago.

True or false? Radiation from a 2.4 gigahertz cordless phone affects the heart. True.

This was a double-blind study that was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

“Subject A was wearing a heart monitor and was exposed for three-minute periods to radiation from a cordless phone or to sham exposure, the heart rate remained relatively constant, 58, 56 and 58-beats per minute, this subject was exposed during the second time interval but did not respond to the provocation, subject A is non-responsive.

Subject B has a rapid heart rate during intervals 3 & 5 which coincide with exposure to the cordless phone, this subject experienced tachycardia, a rapid heart rate and is highly responsive, exposure was less than 1% of Health Canada’s safety code 6.”

True or false? Students are experiencing heart irregularities at school with Wi-Fi routers. True.

Several students have visited their Pediatric cardiologists and worn heart monitors to school. Here are the symptoms they experienced; six year old girl “musical heart”, headaches, dizziness only at school, 12-year old boy tachycardia, 12-year old girl nausea, vomiting, no fever, insomnia, blurred vision, tachycardia only at school, 13-year old boy, heart pounding, insomnia, headaches, he moved away and symptoms have abated.

World-famous cardiologist Dr. Stephen Sinatra explains what may be happening to these students.

Dr. Stephen: What these kids basically have is a non-diagnostic tachycardia. Wolff-Parkinson-white syndrome is not uncommon, it’s found in about 1 in 700-kids, so if you got 50,000 kids in the school district, I mean do the math, you’re going to have some kids with this.

It is an inborn situation where a child has an extra, what we call electrical pathway in the heart, and these hearts can go out of rhythm. They can be triggered by situations that can disturb heart rate variability, and as a cardiologist, knowing what I know now, it’s easy for me to connect the dot that a child with Wolff-Parkinson-white undiagnosed exposed to Wi-Fi could be triggered with an arrhythmia.

Super ventricular tachycardias are what we call SVT’s and adults and kids have these all the time and again because Wi-Fi disturbing a heart rate variability it could be a factor in children.

True or false? 2.4 gigahertz affects the blood. True.

What my blood looks like in a clean electromagnetic environment, a few cells are separate, and a few cells are sticking together. What my blood looks like after I used a cordless phone for 5 minutes, my blood cells are sticking together, this is called Rouleaux formation and shows an unhealthy condition.

The consequences of Rouleaux formation are reduced oxygen transport to cells and tissues and reduced waste removal, symptoms may include headaches, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, numbness, tingling in extremities, dizziness, nausea and weakness, these are the very same symptoms experienced by people who are electrically sensitive.

True or false? 2.4 gigahertz effects sperm. True.

Studies with human sperm cells showed that sperm exposed to Wi-Fi radiation near a laptop computer were much slower and had DNA damage. The authors speculate that keeping the laptops in Wi-Fi mode on the lab near the testes may result in decreased male fertility.

Does Wi-Fi affect female egg cells? We don’t know but if it does exposure of one generation may have consequences on future generations.

True or false? Microwave levels in schools are too low to have any effects. False.

Dr. Tony Muc was asked by the Superintendent of Education to measure two schools in Ontario, the testing was completed in November 2010 and was released February 2011. This report concluded that all the observed levels are far below exposure limits currently established by proposed major international and national agencies, or organizations, for the public – including children or occupational exposure. These conclusions are wrong.

On page 5 of the report from Mountain View school, one reading is 34-percent above Health Canada’s safety code 6 guideline which is 1 milli watt per centimeter squared, the check guideline for post radiation for six hours a day is 0.004 and is much lower than Health Canada’s guideline.

Our study with heart rate variability showed response at 0.003, 43% of the measurements in the school exceeded the values that caused heart problems and adults in our study, disturbingly this is the same school where students complained of heart palpitations and headaches.

Here are results of radiation levels in classrooms – In an Ontario classroom with no routers, no computer, the level of radiation was very low 0.01 microwatts per centimeter squared, with one computer accessing the Internet radiation jumps to 12.5 units and with one cellphone accessing the Internet it jumps to 40-units.

In a classroom with one router, radiation levels are much higher even though no computer is accessing the Internet.

In a Vermont school the levels of radiation were almost the same as the levels 100-meters from a cell phone tower, and levels near the laptop and near the routers were even higher.

Several studies have documented adverse health effects experienced by people who live near cell towers. Some people experience symptoms of electro hypersensitivity, cancer, problems with the immune system, problems with their nervous system and reduced sperm count.

Yet, we are told that levels in the classroom are too low to have any adverse effects and that the guidelines are protecting us.

Cellphone antennas should not be placed near schools and Wi-Fi routers should not be placed inside schools. So, what are the options? The worst option is the one that most schools are using, Wi-Fi everywhere and always on, this is the high tech and low intelligence option. A better option is the modified Wi-Fi, here schools limit the location and the time of use and adjust behavior, the best option is a wired connection which is both high tech and high intelligence.

The Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe agrees in their resolution 1815 on the potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effects on the environment. They recommend for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises.

There are three wired alternatives to wireless – Ethernet, which many schools already have so their Wi-Fi system is redundant. Fiber optics, which is perhaps the best option, but makes sense only if there is fiber optics in the community, otherwise it’s too expensive for most schools to afford.

The third option is the powerline adapter, several makes are available, basically you purchase two adapters one connects to the router the other to the computer. Both have an Ethernet port and both are plugged in to an electrical outlet.

These adapters convert the wiring in a building to an Ethernet connection. Each computer needs its own powerline adapter. This method is faster than Wi-Fi, more secure, more energy efficient, less expensive, and best of all it does not emit microwave radiation.

Wi-Fi radiation is not safe, it promotes tumors in rats, it affects sperm motility and viability, it causes DNA damage, it causes Rouleaux formation of the blood, it contributes to headaches dizziness nausea weakness and concentration problems, it causes arrhythmia and tachycardia, it damages the heart, it may cause heart irregularities in as many as 1 in 700 students.

If half an hour a day exposure to cellphones contributes to brain tumors, can we be so sure that six hours of exposure to Wi-Fi in schools is safe? How much confidence do we have in the system when exposure exceeded guidelines in one school where the students are complaining of headaches and heart problems and nothing has been done about it?

In the end can we afford to make mistakes? If you care about the health of students and teachers, share the video connected to this article, and if you have Wi-Fi at home consider replacing it with a wired connection. Ask your neighbors to do the same.In a classroom with one router, radiation levels are much higher even though no computer is accessing the Internet.

In a Vermont school the levels of radiation were almost the same as the levels 100-meters from a cell phone tower, and levels near the laptop and near the routers were even higher.
Several studies have documented adverse health effects experienced by people who live near cell towers. Some people experience symptoms of electro hypersensitivity, cancer, problems with the immune system, problems with their nervous system and reduced sperm count.

Yet, we are told that levels in the classroom are too low to have any adverse effects and that the guidelines are protecting us.

Cellphone antennas should not be placed near schools and Wi-Fi routers should not be placed inside schools. So, what are the options? The worst option is the one that most schools are using, Wi-Fi everywhere and always on, this is the high tech and low intelligence option. A better option is the modified Wi-Fi, here schools limit the location and the time of use and adjust behavior, the best option is a wired connection which is both high tech and high intelligence.

The Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe agrees in their resolution 1815 on the potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effects on the environment. They recommend for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises.

There are three wired alternatives to wireless – Ethernet, which many schools already have so their Wi-Fi system is redundant. Fiber optics, which is perhaps the best option, but makes sense only if there is fiber optics in the community, otherwise it’s too expensive for most schools to afford.

The third option is the powerline adapter, several makes are available, basically you purchase two adapters one connects to the router the other to the computer. Both have an Ethernet port and both are plugged in to an electrical outlet.

These adapters convert the wiring in a building to an Ethernet connection. Each computer needs its own powerline adapter. This method is faster than Wi-Fi, more secure, more energy efficient, less expensive, and best of all it does not emit microwave radiation.

Wi-Fi radiation is not safe, it promotes tumors in rats, it affects sperm motility and viability, it causes DNA damage, it causes Rouleaux formation of the blood, it contributes to headaches dizziness nausea weakness and concentration problems, it causes arrhythmia and tachycardia, it damages the heart, it may cause heart irregularities in as many as 1 in 700 students.

If half an hour a day exposure to cellphones contributes to brain tumors, can we be so sure that six hours of exposure to Wi-Fi in schools is safe? How much confidence do we have in the system when exposure exceeded guidelines in one school where the students are complaining of headaches and heart problems and nothing has been done about it?

In the end can we afford to make mistakes? If you care about the health of students and teachers, share the video connected to this article, and if you have Wi-Fi at home consider replacing it with a wired connection. Ask your neighbors to do the same.