Comments on: Ontario Parents Try to Protect School Kids From Dangerous WiFi Rays

By: Tink

Tink — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 03:35:34 +0000

Believe it or not, there is some scientific evidence, both old and new, behind non-thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation: http://www.wireless-precaution.com/main/science.php

The Wi-Fi radiation within a classroom could exceed the Salzburg Precautionary Limits of 2001 established for cell towers and the Bioinitiative Report guidelines. The Wi-Fi routers in classrooms can be even stronger than wireless home routers. Since wireless radiation penetrates further into young children, based on Om Gandhi’s findings, taking precautions, especially for children, is smart.

Governments have recently issued warnings about Wi-Fi: http://www.wiredchild.org/government-alias.html

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:35:13 +0000

Reference: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=116695

The study was published in BMJ by C. Olivera on May 27, 2010. Your assertion about the linking of cause with outcome is incorrect.

The study said:

“After adjusting the data for cardiovascular risk factors such as obesity, smoking, social class, and family heart disease history, the researchers found that people who admitted to brushing their teeth less frequently had a 70% extra risk of heart disease.”

and

“People who reported poor oral hygiene also tested positive for bloodstream inflammatory markers such as fibrinogen and C-reactive protein.”

and

“Poor oral hygiene is the major cause of periodontal disease, a chronic infection of the tissues surrounding the teeth. Thus, gum infections seem to add to the inflammatory burden on individuals, increasing cardiovascular risk, the researchers say.”

By: Quint from Florida

Quint from Florida — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:16:33 +0000

This reminds me of a study I heard of once (but can’t make an accurate reference to) that purportedly revealed that brushing your teeth daily was linked with decreased risk for heart attack. People tried to link that particular cause with that outcome, and that was a mistake. The truth was that ultimately, people that brush their teeth daily also generally take better care of themselves.

There are so many potential causes for a cluster of symptoms – mold, dust, the water, something in the cafeteria… picking WiFi as the source is like taking a car that won’t run to a mechanic and asking him to start replacing parts until he fixes the car. We are daily barraged with EM radiation so if it were the cause for sickness we would all be sick. Do these parents use cordless phones at home? Cell phones? RF remote controls? It’s nice to try to protect your kids, but if there is a real health issue at the school, there should be a more careful investigation and not picking something that ‘may’ be the cause. What if focusing on WiFi as an erroneous source of illness delays finding the actual cause of health problems and eventually leads to increased morbidity?

By: geeta

geeta — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:39:07 +0000

Those high-rise antennas they build for wireless communications are surrounded by high density of EM waves. So if EM waves play bad on living cells, they are bad for people, not just kids. All the not-enough-proof support for wireless gadgets only result in a couple generations of human test specimens. Technophobia is better than technomania for all non-essential technologies that make themselves seem necessities only by repeated usage. Good effort by the parents to protect their children.

By: Brian Too

Brian Too — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:52:42 +0000

Seems unlikely that WiFi is ‘risky’ as the radiation is non-ionizing. Same reason that cell phone usage is not likely a source of harm.

Of course there is little downside to banning WiFi. Wired connections work just fine, are faster and less error-prone, and RJ-45 connectors are a pretty good design. Easy to work with even for children. You just need to have a supply of the cables at the ready.

One does hate to encourage scaremongering like this though.