Tuesday, June 26, 2012

CTV: Flawed Testing & Skewed Data
on Wi-Fi Danger in Schools

It's a shame that CTV – owned by Bell Canada, used a flawed testing protocol to misinform the public about the “low” level of Wi-Fi radiation, in the name of “investigative journalism”.

CTV's reporter, Jon Woodard, requested to speak to parents about this issue and we provided a contact for him, with whom he had made the arrangement to conduct an interview. That parent was informed that the interview was canceled only late today when he tried to reach the reporter.

Perhaps this is just a "programme story" to CTV. To us, parents, this is an important issue about the health of our children. To parents with electrosenstive children, it is a matter of whether the child can attend school at all. 

We strongly protest against this PR piece being presented as “news”.
    Conflict of interest does not only exist at the CTV/Bell level, but also the party conducting the measurements. CTV engaged Planetworks which is a consultant firm serving industry clients. Planetworks is a vendor involved regularly in celltower rental contracts.
    Measuring two schools with Wi-Fi and two different schools without Wi-Fi is a sloppy way to compare. The schools are located in different neighbourhoods.
    The proper way is to measure a number of schools with (a) Wi-Fi on, (b) downloading data/video with 20-30 devices in the room at the same time to represent classroom scenario, (c) measure both the nearfield level - user contact with the devices, and (d) the farfield - ambient levels. Then measure in the SAME schools with the Wi-Fi and all wireless devices (including cordless phones) turned off.
Walking around the school with the RF meter is NOT an accurate way to measure. This kind of measurement does not represent real world usage. Children are using laptops/tablets/smartphones in direct contact with their bodies, either in their hands or on their laps against their abdomens and reproductive organs. This walkaround measurement does not reflect the real radiation level which children are exposed to.

The “scientific studies” which Canadian health agencies cite are even more unrealistic, measuring laptop radiation at 50 cm, 1 meter or other “further distances”. This is done to report a lower reading of microwave radiation and is an example of skewing the data.

    Comparison between inside and outside the school is irrelevant:
    In May 2011 the World Health Organization's IARC (International Agency on Research of Cancer) has classified cellphone/WiFi radiation as 2B Possible Carcinogen. In October, 2011, Health Canada asked parents to reduce children's radiofrequency exposure since "children are typically more sensitive to a variety of environmental agents" and "there is currently a lack of scientific information regarding the potential health impacts of cell phones on children". Just because this type of microwave radiation can be found outside schools does not mean it is safe.
    Homes and schools are the two places where children spend the most amount of time. Parents have the choice to take measures to reduce children's exposure to microwave radiation at home by using wired computers which offer the same educational benefits with better security and speed. However, in schools funded by public money and with a captive audience, children are now FORCED to use wireless laptops and tablets which bear long-term health risks, and they are given no choice to avoid this exposure. Reducing exposure at home and in schools will reduce the majority of cumulative exposure for children.
What do cigarette smoke, asbestos, PCB and DDT have in common?
At one time, all were approved for human consumption, only to have been found harmful to human health later. Safety standards can be slow to change, leading to irreparable harm to human health.

School Districts are constantly complaining about the lack of funding. They should use the funding to improve existing wired networks instead of spending additional money on wireless technology.
See this white paper written by BC ERAC (Educational Resource Acquisition Consortium) which represents BC School Districts' IT Departments.

Wireless Networking for K-12 Education in BC - July 2007
" the majority of school buildings have some or most teaching and administrative areas serviced by wired network connections... with sophisticated router and switching capability for managing traffic and security."
" wireless technologies are not able to provide the type of data speed experienced with wired connections, typically running at 100Mbps or faster. Thus wireless is still not an obvious replacement for a wired environment."
" Many of the risks associated with wireless... Reliability, slow speed of connections, interference from other devices, cost, security, manageability, compatibility, scalability and consistency of technology implementation."

    Reporting “average measurements” is a sneaky way to skew data. See these videos: http://www.safeinschool.org/2012/01/ipad-iphone-wi-fi-radiation-and.html Wi-Fi signals spike every few seconds (at levels higher than cellphone transmission). They stop and go, emitting in bursts. Therefore, by averaging the figures, the resulting numbers look ridiculously low. This is similar to telling people that driving at 120 km/hr is not dangerous because when averaging with the time the car stopped at the red light, the "average speed" was only 20 km/hr.
    Reporting only as a % of Health Canada's Danger Code 6 (misnamed as Safety Code 6).
    By reporting a percentage, most of the public would not know how the figure converts to actual units and how it compares to other countries like Switzerland, Luxembourg and China, whose national maximum exposure limits are actually hundred to thousands times more stringent than our “danger” standard. The Canadian guideline is outdated and obsolete, protective of corporations' unrestrained wireless expansion but not protective of human health, especially children. http://goo.gl/4pzyE The European Parliament and the Council of Europe have passed repeated resolutions calling their member states NOT to use Wi-Fi. The truth is, even the lowest national exposure limit is already a million times higher than cosmic background radiation. Human bodies are simply not developed for the constant artificial pulse-modulated radiation from cellphone and Wi-Fi, which is being rapidly deployed all around us. Human bodies conduct electricity and absorb such radiation. Schools are imposing this human conduction on our children without parental informed consent.

Russia is among the earliest countries to have started research on microwave radiation. This week, Russia is calling for the replacement of Wi-Fi with wired networks in schools, out of health concern.

The following is the announcement by Professor Yuri Grigoriev, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, and member of the WHO's International Advisory Committee on “EMF and Health”.

19th June 2012.  Translation from the video:

Programme of the Russian Committee on the protection from non-ionising
radiation with regard to the need to introduce strict regulations on the use
of Wi-Fi in kindergartens and schools.

'I have already been informed that pushy parents are already trying to get
this installed in kindergartens... Everybody sees Moscow... '

Mobile network connections are very popular amongst children of various
ages.  The duration of conversations on mobile phones is higher for children
compared to the adult population.  At the same time electromagnetic fields
and radio frequencies are irradiating the brain every day.
Furthermore, children are constantly subjected to electromagnetic radiation
and radio frequencies from the base stations round the clock.

The problem of preserving the health of children subject to the developing
conditions of wireless radio communications is referred to as a priority by
the World Health Organization.

Electromagnetic radiation from Wi-Fi presents an additional burden to a
child whose body is in a state of development and whose mental activities
are in the formative stage.  During this period children are most
susceptible to negative environmental factors.

WHO, Publication 3, April 2004

Furthermore it is necessary to highlight that the current regulations were
developed without taking into consideration this additional influence of
electromagnetic fields.  We don¹t have these regulations yet.

Our Committee believes it is necessary to:

Firstly, draw the attention of the RF Ministry of Health and of all of the
other organizations responsible for the safety of the population, including
children, to the regulations regarding the use of Wi-Fi in kindergartens and
schools, and to increase the sanitary and epidemiological control over
the use of Wi-Fi, and the development of the relevant regulatory framework.

Secondly, to recommend the use of wired networks and not networks using
wireless broadband access systems, including Wi-Fi, in schools and
educational establishments.


  1. I want to start this by saying I am using my real name and am only speaking in my capacity as a government certified electrical professional with credentials provided by governments. I also lectured the dangers of Wi-Fi in medical education for education credits doctors, nurses, etc require for licensing. I want to be held accountable for my opinion.

    Is CTV owned in whole or part by a wireless provider? The type of journalism displayed here is a great commercial for a very dangerous technology as applied. Planetwork biased but unqualified engineer spoke way outside his area of expertise. His reporting and readings inside as well as outside the schools substantiated the science of people being hurt. Picking up power densities means we are in the wireless circuit and unprotected. The power densities are higher outdoors from smart meter routers, wi-fi and other non directional antennas radiating entire neighborhoods.

    The engineer needs to put the meter aside first and incorporate the frequencies of the routers at billions of cycles per sec interacting with many frequencies of the human body. When you mix frequencies, you get a resultant frequency. To understand the scope of that, ask BC Hydro what would happen if the 60 Hz electrical grid changed by a few Hz?

    We generate electricity by moving a conductor through an EMF. In this application the routers are supplying the EMFs and the children are the conductors. The problem is they already have electricity and Safety Code 6 says it causes nerve/muscle stimulation which is to be avoided.

    The mechanism linking the frequencies to adverse health effects was reported through Canadian Parliament and Health Canada. Furthermore it is now approved and recognized medical education. Furthering that the frequencies as applied affect building code compliance as reprted to Rich Coleman as Minister of BC Bulding Code. They cause high speed vibration of structural components and fire separations at billions of times per second. That will affect the life and occupany of the school.

    Could I possibly request CTV interview the engineer and myself as an objective electrical professional? CTV can include anyone else they like, I am only going to represent electricity, building engineering, medical education, etc. The reason I ask this is because of your reporting.

    I used your article and video today to train professionals. Benjamin, the Grade 9 student wouldn't be qualified to know what is dangerous about Wi-Fi. I showed how Benjamin and the others working on projects together that the frequencies are going through walls and roofs, they are going through the children. With the mechanism found linking the frequencies, genetic mutation of ovaries and reproductive problems for everyone.

    Why does CTV and cable use co-axial cables? To protect from electromagnetic interference except the children aren't wearing protective clothing.

    The frequencies are illegal as applied and violate Safety Code 6 "unintentional stimulation of tissue is to be avoided" It can cause nerve and muscle stimulation. Intentional stimulation of tissue is medical imaging with protective clothing attenuating(eliminating) the frequencies.

    The BC CDC's reporting on safety is inaccurate with the frequencies left out of the equation as is Perry Kendalls.

    Anything less than the science based truth is recklessly endangering the public and much more. There are reasons electrical professionals wire devices.

  2. The segment on Wi-Fi tonight on CTV was disgusting. The sloppy manner in which this company, PlanetWorks, conducted this testing is an embarrassment to their company. That the Vancouver School Board allowed this kind of inaccurate testing to attempt to prove that there is no issue is a neglectful act towards students and employees in their school district. If a non-industry connected company conducted measurements in such a manner District administrators and trustees would be all over it, instead they're likely pleased as punch, just as industry is. Sadly, none will take responsibility for the long term effects this technology has on our population. It's outrageous to learn that CTV is owned by Bell Canada and PlanetWorks is connected to the cell tower industry.

  3. I sent the following comment on the CTV News link at http://bc.ctvnews.ca/wi-fi-danger-in-schools-overblown-ctv-investigation-1.854418#axzz1yyMLGizK:

    "This article and video are dangerously misleading to the public, as described by the SafeInSchool.org website:
    1. Conflict of interest does not only exist at the CTV/Bell level, but also the party conducting the measurements.
    2. Measuring two schools with Wi-Fi and two different schools without Wi-Fi is a sloppy way to compare.
    3. Comparison between inside and outside the school is irrelevant:
    4. Reporting “average measurements” is a sneaky way to skew data.
    5. Reporting only as a % of Health Canada's Danger Code 6 (misnamed as Safety Code 6)."

    CTV claims that they "screen for comments that seek to spread information that is false or misleading", meanwhile they publish dangerous, false and misleading articles and videos, and censor balanced views and comments.

  4. The story re Wi-Fi in schools that aired June 26, 2012, on BCTV was a barefaced abuse of our public airwaves and clearly casts major doubts upon the credibility of this news station re any issue associated with the wireless industry. BCTV, owned by Bell Canada, presented a single technology "expert" in its "investigation" re possible harm caused by wireless devices and completely neglected to interview any health or independent experts who hold no affiliation with the wireless industry. Why is that? The reporter, Jon Woodward, also failed to reveal to the audience that his IT "expert" holds 7 wireless patents in the US/EU and has a vested interest in wanting the public to believe wireless (microwave)technology is perfectly safe. This is highly misleading when the only opinion presented is highly conflicted, with his bread and butter dependent upon the viability of his products and a positive public perception of the wireless industry paramount for growth and profit.

    The radiation emissions from these devices have absolutely been shown to cause serious biological effects at levels far below those reported in this story, and that is if we are to believe the levels determined by an industry rep are even accurate. Any electrical engineer will state there are many factors when measuring 'total' levels of wireless radiation, none of them shared in this story. These routers (microwave transmitters) have been been found to exceed Canada's lax exposure standards for microwave radiation in other testing scenarios. These devices come with warnings to keep safe distances away for a reason, clearly not because they are harmless.

    Leakage of the blood brain barrier, DNA damage, chromosomal aberrations,formation of shock proteins and release of stress hormones, calcium efflux changes in the cell, clumping of red blood cells, decreased ratio of white blood cells, and more, all dismissed by BCTV and their IT "expert".

    This blatant abuse of privilege as a broadcaster cannot be tolerated any longer. Outraged citizens can write to the General Manager of BCTV, the Vice President of CTV HQ in Toronto, the National News Editor at CTV Toronto, the reporter himself, the two news anchors used on the air, and the Senior Editor of BCTV News in Vancouver. Cc your letters to the CRTC and /or write an official complaint to them also.

    When the safety of children is cast aside for the sake of industry profits and modern convenience we know things have gone much too far. This must be corrected now if we hope to see a bright future going forward for our children. Nothing should come before the protection of our future generations- nothing. Let's learn from our mile long list of past mistakes and for once prevent a disaster in the making rather than cleaning up the bodies after the fact. Our children deserve better than this short sighted, one sided, analysis of a technology never proven safe- quite to the contrary. We can only pray those in charge of public media will show some integrity and help raise awareness on this crucial health matter. It is far overdue.

  5. The ineptitude of the reporting was amazing and something for which CTV and Jon Woodward must be held responsible. To have anyone connected with Planetworks demonstrates that either CTV/Woodward didn't care about conflict of interest or were too lazy to find out that one exists. And the reported results are insulting to intelligent people. We are supposed to believe that Wifi modems emit the same level of signals whether on or off! And that in the non-wired schools the radiation levels are higher than those with Wifi! With no explanation about other possible sources? Highly irresponsible and CTV/Woodward should be reported for this sloppy journalism which is worthy of US's Fox News.

  6. Re CTV News Coverage:

    Thanks for this forum on Safeinschool. It gives me a second chance to share my voice after CTV chose not to print my comment in theirs, which smacks sharply of censorship. As well, my vote on their so-called poll has not been counted. How many others are having the same experience? It is yet another example of discrimination and a lack of accountability that is rampant in our mainstream media these days.

    In Jon Woodward’s recent “investigation” entitled “Wi-Fi danger in Schools Overblown,” the Wi-Fi demonstration conducted by Bell Canada’s Planetworks in CTV prime time shows a blatant lack of understanding of the issue, or responsibility for accurately reporting the truth. The tone of this piece is mocking and condescending, and CTV should know better.

    This slanted ‘experiment’ was manipulated, and the report designed to downplay the information that the BCCPAC parents used to make their decision to designate one school at each level Wi-Fi free. Not such a huge request, unless of course there is an agenda to block any kind of comparison that parents might gain from having a contrasting environment in each community. Are Bell Canada and other pro Wi-Fi factions so fearful that their technology will be implicated that they would disallow concerned parents any kind of decision about whether or not their children should be exposed to the radiation emitted by Wi-Fi? One school per district at each level is not an unreasonable request, and it would give parents and children an option to have a less radiated environment available for their learning, and children who are reactive to Wi-Fi wouldn’t be ostracized and denied an education in a safe environment.

  7. Thank you "Anonymous", your comments are very accurate and insightful. I believe you hit the nail right on the head re industry not wanting any comparisons between wireless and non wireless schools. If their products are perfectly safe and conducive to good learning, you would expect the wirless industry to be jumping at the opportunity to 'compare' how much better off students with all the latest wireless gadgets and constant connectivity are to those without. One has to wonder why they are against this option that would at least provide choice to parents and students. Parents should be demanding answers and insisting on full accountability from school officials who continue to insist on Wi-Fi in all schools.

  8. A number of posters here have suggested that their comments at CTV have been censored (prevented from appearing), and yet Safeinschools.org does not have the courtesy to even link to the CTV story in the first place, so your readers can view it for themselves. Have courage! If your position is strong enough, your readership should be able to view the video and read the accompanying text without harm. Here's the link: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/wi-fi-danger-in-schools-overblown-ctv-investigation-1.854418

    1. Not to do with courage, more to do with time and rushing. This is a site managed by parents who have jobs and kids to look after. Thanks for the link.

  9. My letter to BCTV journalist Jon Woodward sent this morning:
    Dear Mr. Woodward,

    I sent a comment to CTV about your story, and it was not posted on the website. Amazing. Here's my comment:

    "I was a life-long university student simply because it's fun to learn new things and meet excited, intelligent people from many countries. In 2007 I couldn't enter the library at VIU because, I thought, they had too many fluorescent lights and I felt itchy, agitated, and my vision blurred. Gradually I found more buildings I couldn't enter for the same reasons although I was okay in "mine" where I was taking website design classes on Mac Laptops (wired). In 2008 we were given wireless laptops, and I never thought about it, just started doing my assignments. Within a semester, I was so agitated and irritable I couldn't stand myself. My vision in that building was so bad I couldn't see the room numbers, never mind what was on my computer screen. I lost about $1,000 in tuition that year. Then I went to a lecture by Dr. Magda Havas at Royal Roads University (see vimeo) about wireless technologies; I thought I would finally learn to use all the stuff kids were so excited about. Instead, I discovered what was causing my problems: electro-hyper-sensitivity, brought on by a high body burden of mercury (thanks to an exterminator who used mercuric chloride inside my house) and ongoing exposure to ever-increasing levels of wireless radiation. Checking back with VIU's IS department, I learned that my symptoms coincided with the rollout of wifi across the campus. Now I can't attend university, and my computer time--wired!--is limited. The CTV story is biased journalism using an industry-paid consultant to mis-measure the radiation. Check Mr. Reardon's credentials on LinkedIn and see for yourself. I find it unlikely that an industry professional will bite the hand that feeds him--unless and until he becomes EHS himself. We can only hope.

    FYI: CPP Disability recognizes EHS."

    I am now 61 years old, and cannot attend community centres, government offices, hospitals, medical clinics, most coffee shops, many restaurants, nor a university anywhere in Canada because of WiFi and cell towers and ignorant people, such as yourself, promoting the use of them. I pay taxes like everyone else and I am denied access to products and services that other Canadians take for granted.

    I used to volunteer at the Islands Folk Festival in Duncan, the Jazz Festival in Nanaimo, Dragonboat Festival, etc. Now I can't because either wifi has been installed in public parks or there are just too many people addicted to their cell phones and i-Somethings. After a few minutes at an outdoor gathering of people, I become nauseated and dizzy and have to leave. It's worse inside.

    I can't even volunteer to help teach TaiChi to at-risk teens and their families at a public high school (Nanaimo District Senior Secondary) because of wifi at the school, the attached Nanaimo Aquatic Centre, and SD 68 office nearby, as well as Rogers & Telus antennas at SD 68 and Vancouver Island University.

    I'm a forced-to-be hermit, Mr. Woodward, and when Hydro turns on the smart grid, I will lose everything I've worked for all my life: living in my own home will be impossible.

    Up to 5% of Canadians are electro-hyper-sensitive, just like me or worse; 8% in Germany already. Sweden recognizes it as a disability/functional impairment, and across Europe, governments have set up EHS refuges. Toronto's Women College Hospital just announced workshops for doctors to educate them about EHS.

    Do yourself--and everyone else--a favour and do some unbiased research. Save your reputation as a journalist while you still can, because you really blew it with this one.


  10. CTV also censored my comment. Not surprising that they would suppress other viewpoints, really, given the propagandistic nature of their piece. Seriously, it read like a CTIA ad...

    Here is what I wrote in response to the post at http://bc.ctvnews.ca/wi-fi-danger-in-schools-overblown-ctv-investigation-1.854418 :

    This article presents a simplistic and biased perspective on a complex topic.

    Thousands of people all over the world experience similar symptoms when in close proximity to wireless devices and infrastructure; common symptoms include headaches, dizziness, nausea, anxiety, depression, tinnitus, sleep disturbance, and skin rashes. Independently-funded epidemiological studies consistently find a higher incidence of such complaints among people living near wireless infrastructure, as well as a higher incidence of certain cancers among regular cellphone users. Laboratory studies of wireless radiation effects find DNA damage, changes in brain function and behavior, and an increase in cancer rates in lab animals.

    With so much at stake for such a powerful and profitable industry, however, people’s experiences are probably generally more trustworthy than “science” on this topic. Meta-reviews of studies on the biological effects of wireless technology (such as the one by Henry Lai of the University of Washington) have found a statistically significant correlation between funding source and study outcome, with, as might be expected, independently-funded studies consistently showing damaging effects and industry-funded studies consistently showing no effect.

    Sometimes your neighbors are more trustworthy sources of information than “experts” who have made a career of “reassuring the public” about such hazards. As the science writer Blake Levitt puts it, "People are experiencing these symptoms all over the globe. It's not likely a transcultural mass hallucination."

    For another perspective than the one given in this article, check out:

    The article "Warning: High Frequency" by Christopher Ketcham. This article appeared in a recent issue of the environmental magazine Earth Island Journal.
    The book "Disconnect" by Devra Davis
    The movie "Full Signal" by Talal Jabari
    The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety
    The Bioinitiative Report
    The Frieburger Appeal

    Links are not allowed in comments on this site, but information about the above topics can be found easily enough with a google search.