Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Industry Canada Wi-Fi Case Study:
Why do the radiation levels look so low?

$ndustry Canada serves the $ndustry. Its mandate is: “to help make Canadian $ndustry more product$ve and compet$t$ve in the global economy”Health concern is not its priority. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_00018.html

Industry Canada conducted a “WiFi case study” in May 2012. This study has been cited by pro-WiFi parties to advertise “WiFi safety” in schools. However, we have found that this study does not provide any meaningful data applicable to the kind and level of radiation which children are subject to in a classroom situation.
  • There is NO near-field measurement of the user's exposure level from a downloading/uploading laptop. Remember: Children in schools use laptops, ipads and hand-held wireless devices in DIRECT contact with their bodies. In the Industry Canada report, there was no clear description of the user's distance from the laptop. They wrote: "RF exposure levels for one laptop connected to AP2 in uploading mode at a preselected measurement location with the tri-axis antenna positioned at a height of 1.25 metres". Their diagram on page10 shows that those preselected measurement locations (named P1-P12) do not correspond to users' seating locations.
  • The only near-field measurement presented was 20cm from an AP (router) and the numbers were high.
    E.g. 8b) RF exposure levels from 5150 to 5350 MHz with the tri-axis antenna positioned at 20 cm from AP1:
    "Average measurement" was 6.679538% of SC6. At this frequency range the SC6 limit is 50 W/m2, i.e. 5000 µW/cm2. The measurement recorded was, therefore, 339.769 µW/cm2 ! The maximum measurement was 10.585600% of SC6 limit, i.e. 529.28 µW/cm2 .
    * See Biological Effects recorded in scientific studies from power density levels of 0.0000000001 μW/cm2 and up: http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/power_density_effects.pdf
  • When this case study report referred to measurements during the uploading/downloading of a certain number of laptops (page 36-37; 5b, 6b, 7b), there was only one preselected measurement location – P7, which was in the middle of the room, not close to ANY particular user (see diagram on page 10).
  • On page 14 it is written: "3b) Spatial- and time-averaged RF exposure levels from 2.4 to 5.825 GHz at the location with the highest levels found from 1b and 2b. Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 states that for situations in which the exposure intensity varies significantly with time within a period of 6 minutes, time-averaging values must be calculated from multiple measurements. Safety Code 6 also states that spatial averaging (from a nine-point matrix) over the projected surface area (flat plane) equivalent to the head and the body region of a person shall be measured if the localized values vary by more than 20%."
    Not only did Industry Canada average out the time exposure, they also averaged out the "spatial" exposure. First of all, the points on that nine-point matrix might not be the points where the microwave beams hit, and if one or two points happen to be where the beams go through, that high level of measurement will be "averaged" down by the other matrix points which have no contact to the beams. This is similar to describing the force of a car that has crashed into another object in the following ways:
  1. Reporting the speed of the car as an average speed over 6 minutes - a combined average speed of the top speed (150 km/hr when the car crashed) and the 0 km/hr speed while the car was stationary.
  2. Reporting the force that the impacted object received, by averaging the force received over a 9-point matrix, including matrix points where the object had actual contact with the crashing car (strong force) AND the points where the object had no contact with the crashing car (zero force).
    The resulting published figures will look extremely low but unfortunately, DO NOT represent the actual level of radiation that students are subject to.
    Most important of all, the data obtained from this case study refer to Health Canada's Safety Code 6 (should be renamed: Danger Code 6). Health Canada's SC-6 is based on short-term acute exposure, and is only concerned about whether the exposure causes a rise in the person's body temperature. (Imagine the health authority announcing that cigarette smoking poses no harm until it rots your teeth. It is that irrelevant.) SC6 is an outdated and obsolete guideline which ignores all the science that has demonstrated biological effects resulting from pulsed RF microwave exposure at much, much lower levels than official thresholds. Health Canada also has no data of long-term health effects resulting from chronic, cumulative exposure, such as what is now imposed on school children for 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, for decade+ in public education.
    Another irrelevant study which the Chief Medical Officer and School Boards erroneously use to demonstrate the “Safety” of WiFi: http://www.safeinschool.org/2012/04/bc-chief-medical-officer-dr-perry.html

Posted By SafeinSchool.Org