Showing posts sorted by date for query user manual. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query user manual. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, November 21, 2013

iPads: How Safe Are Our Children?



TheGreenGazette July-August 2013

In the past few years, iPad has become many adults’ best friend and children’s babysitter. It is used as a computer, eBook reader, camera, video/music player, word processor, communication device, drawing tool, game pad, and more.

Apple says, “Read all safety information below and operating instructions before using iPad to avoid injury.” The safety information provided with purchase is a small booklet of 3 1/4" x 5", with text so tiny it is practically illegible without magnifying glasses. As a result, most people have never read the following:

iPad contains radio transmitters and receivers. When on, iPad sends and receives radio frequency (RF) energy through its antenna. The Wi-Fi and Bluetooth® antennas are located behind the screen to the left of the Home button, and behind the Apple logo... A cellular antenna is located at the top edge of iPad Wi-Fi+3G, when oriented with the Home button at the bottom.”

When ifixit.com dissected a Wi-Fi+3G iPad, they discovered not three but five antennas, including the frame of the LCD screen being a giant antenna.

... to be sure that human exposure to RF energy does not exceed the FCC, IC, and European Union guidelines, always follow these instructions and precautions: Orient the device in portrait mode with the Home button at the bottom of the display, or in landscape mode with the cellular antenna (located under the black edge at the top of the device) away from your body or other objects...”

This means if you don’t handle the iPad exactly as instructed, the RF radiation can exceed governments’ limits for human exposure. Unfortunately, most parents and teachers have no idea about this, and have never communicated the manufacturer’s instructions to children who are using iPads.

The user manual recommends:you can further limit your exposure by limiting the amount of time using iPad Wi-Fi+3G in wireless mode, since time is a factor in how much exposure a person receives, and by placing more distance between your body and iPad Wi-Fi + 3G, since exposure level drops off dramatically with distance.”

RF/EMF: 2B Possible Carcinogen

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by wireless communication devices as Type 2B Possible Carcinogen to Humans. The monograph states: “The general population receives the highest exposure from transmitters close to the body... In children... deposition of RF energy may be two times higher in the brain and up to ten times higher in the bone marrow of the skull than in adult users.” The WHO report concluded that additional research is important and advised the public, particularly young adults and children, to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure.

Comparison between iPad and cellphone radiation

The published radiation level of mobile devices is called Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). An iPad on WiFi/3G has an SAR of 0.76-1.19 W/kg, compared to the SAR of an iPhone on GSM/CDMA at 0.547-1.18 W/kg. Many other cellphones have even lower SAR value than the iPhone.

Governments of some countries including Canada have issued warnings on children’s use of cellphones. With iPad’s radiation level being similar to cellphones, the same caution should be taken. Health Canada, “encourages parents to reduce children’s RF exposure... since children are typically more sensitive” and “there is currently a lack of scientific information regarding the potential health impacts of cellphones on children.”

Health Canada advises the following: Limit the length of cellphone calls; replace cellphone calls with text messages or use hands-free devices; and encourage children under the age of 18 to limit their cell phone usage.

Just as we would not put an actively transmitting cellphone against a child’s head for hours a day, we should not put an actively transmitting iPad against the reproductive organ or other parts of a child’s body for hours a day.

900 blasts of radiofrequency per hour

When the WiFi antenna in an iPad is turned on, it emits a burst of radiofrequency approximately every four seconds. That makes 900 blasts per hour in the child’s hands, on his lap, or at his face. This does not include any additional data signals resulting from uploading and downloading activities. Moreover, the blasts at four-second intervals occur even when the user is not accessing the Internet. In other words, even if a child is only using the iPad to draw or to play a game, he still receives 900 blasts an hour as long as the WiFi antenna is left on.

Between 2008 and 2011, the European Union Parliament and the Council of Europe passed multiple resolutions against the “early, ill-considered, and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves.” Many medical associations in North America and Europe have also issued public statements to warn about the serious health risks associated with using wireless devices. Among them, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine wrote:

In September 2010, the Journal of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine - Fertility and Sterility reported that only four hours of exposure to a standard laptop using WiFi caused DNA damage to human sperm.”
Multiple studies correlate radiofrequency exposure with diseases such as cancer, neurological disease, reproductive disorders, immune dysfunction, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity... Other neurological and cognitive disorders such as headaches, dizziness, tremors, decreased memory and attention, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, decreased reaction times, sleep disturbances, and visual disruptions have been reported to be statistically significant in multiple epidemiological studies with radiofrequency exposure occurring non-locally.”

With the proliferation of the wireless industry, it might not be possible to eliminate all sources of RF radiation. However, a good start is to follow the European parliaments’ advice for an exposure level called A.L.A.R.A. (as low as reasonably achievable). The following resolution was adopted by the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Council this year. While these steps were proposed for schools, they are also useful for reduction of unnecessary exposure at home:

1. to provide on/off switches to WiFi routers; 

2. to establish a protocol of use that 
    (i) WiFi routers and WiFi/3G functions of computers/laptops/tablets are to be turned on only when they are  needed for access to the Internet via the wireless network; and, 
    (ii) Bluetooth function is to be turned on only if it is needed for accessing other Bluetooth-enabled devices. 

3. to observe safety warnings and follow safety instructions in the user manual of iPad by reducing the duration of use under wireless mode and keeping the iPads away from the students’ bodies. 

Note that putting an iPad on airplane mode will initially turn off all antennas on the iPad. However, WiFi and bluetooth antennas can be re-enabled without switching off the airplane mode. Therefore, an iPad showing airplane mode “on” is not a guarantee that all the antennas are off. It is important to check the antennas separately. In addition, when the WiFi function on an iPad shows “Not Connected,” it does not mean the antenna is off. It only means the iPad is not logged onto any available wireless network. To ensure the WiFi antenna is turned off, the WiFi function must read “off.”
Differences between the iPad and an AM/FM Radio
The “radio” frequency emitted by iPad is often confused with AM/FM radio waves. The two actually differ in the following ways: (1) AM/FM radio utilizes analogue signals with a continuous waveform (see diagram below). iPad (via 3G or WiFi) emits digital signals in the form of pulsed microwave, similar to cellphone and DECT cordless phones. Pulsed microwave digital signal has sharp spikes in its waveform. (2) AM/FM radio is one-way transmission, with the listeners at the receiving end only. iPad antennas, on the other hand, work in constant two-way communication. iPad is not only a receiver but also a transmitter of pulsed microwave. The user of an iPad on wireless mode is in direct or close contact with the pulsed microwave signal at its source, which is the strongest.

 Graphic adapted from EMfields.
Reference for this article: http://goo.gl/AHE1Z For more information on wireless radiation, its health effects and scientific basis, and video of RF measurements, please visit the following websites: www.safeinschool.org, www.wiredchild.org, www.citizensforsafetechnology.org
TheGreenGazette
Solutions for living green and achieving self-sufficiency https://interactivepdf.uniflip.com/2/60627/289518/pub/
Lisa Bland, Publisher / Editor-in-Chief:  info@thegreengazette.ca

Download this article in a flyer format: 
http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/uploads/scribd/iPads-are-they-safe-for-children-Flyer.pdf

More Health and Safety Warnings from the iPad User Manual:

Seizures, Blackouts, and Eyestrain
A small percentage of people may be susceptible to blackouts or seizures (even if they have never had one before) when exposed to flashing lights or light patterns such as when playing games or watching video. If you have experienced seizures
or blackouts or have a family history of such occurrences, you should consult a physician before playing games or watching videos on your iPad. Discontinue use of iPad and consult a physician if you experience headaches, blackouts, seizures, convulsion, eye or muscle twitching, loss of awareness, involuntary movement, or disorientation. To reduce risk of headaches, blackouts, seizures, and eyestrain, avoid prolonged use, hold iPad some distance from your eyes, use iPad in a well-lit room, and take frequent breaks.

Glass Parts
The outside cover of the iPad screen is made of glass. This glass could break if iPad is dropped on a hard surface or receives a substantial impact. If the glass chips or cracks, do not touch or attempt to remove the broken glass and stop using iPad. Glass cracked due to misuse or abuse is not covered under the warranty.

Radio Frequency Interference
Radio-frequency emissions from electronic equipment can negatively affect the operation of other electronic equipment, causing them to malfunction... the wireless transmitters and electrical circuits in iPad Wi-Fi + 3G may cause interference in other electronic equipment. Therefore, please take the following precautions:

Aircraft
Use of iPad may be prohibited while traveling in aircraft.
For more information about using Airplane Mode to turn off the iPad wireless transmitters, see the iPad User Guide.

Vehicles
Radio frequency emissions from iPad may affect electronic systems in motor vehicles. Check with the manufacturer or its representative regarding your vehicle.

Pacemakers
The Health Industry Manufacturers Association recommends that a minimum separation of 15 cm (6 inches) be maintained between a handheld wireless phone and a pacemaker to avoid potential interference with the pacemaker.

Persons with pacemakers: Should always keep iPad more than 15 cm (6 inches) from the pacemaker when the wireless device is turned on.

If you have any reason to suspect that interference is taking place, turn iPad off
immediately (press and hold the Sleep/Wake button, and then slide the onscreen slider).

Other Medical Devices
If you use any other personal medical device, consult the device manufacturer or your physician to determine if it is adequately shielded from radio frequency emissions from iPad.

Health Care Facilities
Hospitals and health care facilities may use equipment that is particularly sensitive to external radio frequency emissions. Turn iPad off when staff or posted signs instruct you to do so.

Blasting Areas and Posted Facilities
To avoid interfering with blasting operations, turn off iPad when in a “blasting area” or in areas posted “Turn off two-way radio.” Obey all signs and instructions.

Read more: 

Sunday, April 7, 2013

iPad User Manual's Safety Warning and Disclaimer.
Have You Read It?


Apple: "Read all safety information below and operating instructions before using iPad to avoid injury."

Printed copy of the safety information is provided with purchase. However, the manual is a small booklet of 3 1/4" x 5". The text is so small that they are practically illegible without magnifying glasses. For a legible copy, consumers have to look it up on the internet. Most parents and teachers never read it.

Here's what the manual says:

Exposure to Radio Frequency Energy iPad contains radio transmitters and receivers. When on, iPad sends and receives radio frequency (RF) energy through its antenna. The Wi-Fi and Bluetooth® antennas are located behind the screen to the left of the Home button, and behind the Apple logo. iPad has been tested and meets the SAR exposure requirements for Wi-Fi and Bluetooth operation.

A cellular antenna is located at the top edge of iPad Wi-Fi + 3G, when oriented with the Home button at the bottom. For optimal mobile device performance and to be sure that human exposure to RF energy does not exceed the FCC, IC, and European Union guidelines, always follow these instructions and precautions: Orient the device in portrait mode with the Home button at the bottom of the display, or in landscape mode with the cellular antenna (located under the black edge at the top of the device) away from your body or other objects...

If you are still concerned about exposure to RF energy, you can 
further limit your exposure by limiting the amount of time using 
iPad Wi-Fi + 3G in wireless mode, since time is a factor in how much exposure a person receives, and by placing more distance between your body and iPad Wi-Fi + 3G, since exposure level drops off dramatically with distance.

The manual warns that if a user does not handle the iPad exactly as instructed, the radiation level will exceed governments' exposure limits for humans.

Children are targeted for the marketing of such devices, but the safety warning is buried inside an online manual. Without awareness of the warning, parents let children handle the iPads as below. The iPad is often placed on the children's laps, against their reproductive organs, or in their hands which are touching the antennas.

Instead of treating the iPads as radiofrequency transmitters and receivers as declared in the user manual, parents and children treat them as toys.






As explained in a previous post, iPad exposure should be handled with the same caution as cellphone exposure. SAR (specific absorption rate) between cellphone and iPad are similar. Furthermore, peak level radiation of iPad is many times higher than peak level radiation of cellphone.
http://www.safeinschool.org/2013/03/health-canadas-wifi-myth.html


Similar to what's admitted in the iPad's user manual, the World Health Organization's "Base stations and wireless technologies Fact sheet" states that exposure near the "source" of the radiation "may exceed international exposure limits." 
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html  

Offering a child an iPad for hours a day - with WiFi on, regardless whether the internet is accessed or not - is similar to giving a child an actively-transmitting cellphone (as during voice calls) to handle for hours a day. 

Pushing for the use of iPads in long duration = pushing for similar health consequences as seen from heavy cellphone use, except that it's now on younger and more vulnerable brains and bodies.

The literature from the WHO and Health Canada, on the "safety" of WiFi, only covers low-level background signals of routers "from a distance", it has no provision for near-field exposure to WiFi-enabled devices such as tablets and laptops. This is explicitly stated in the wording of their advice.

WiFi microwave signal, be it from a router or from a mobile device, does not stop until the router is disabled or the WiFi function of the device is turned off. It does not matter if the user is browsing the internet or not. Parents or teachers often leave the WiFi function on for convenience and hand the tablet or smartphone to children for games and apps that do not require internet connection, not knowing that the radiation continues while the child is just playing games on the device.

Also, as seen in the user manual, there are multiple antennas embedded at the back of the iPad. Children or adults definitely should not place it on their laps.* 

Please take a look at the following videos:

iPad WiFi Radiation with Wireless Router On 
http://youtu.be/snt2uaQd_Ps

Radiation of iPad with WiFi ON but no Internet Connection http://youtu.be/ANH6PEyQSZY

iPad iPhone Laptop Radiation Measurements
http://www.safeinschool.org/2012/01/ipad-iphone-wi-fi-radiation-and.html
* As shown in the video at the bottom of the above page, the measurement of magnetic fields at the back of the iPad (free of WiFi's RF signals) shows that even when the iPad is not on wireless mode, it's not advisable to place the unit on the lap.

Related posts:

Updated Medical Advisory on WiFi Radiation and Children's Health from governmental bodies and doctors' associations:
http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/uploads/scribd/Medical-Advisory-WiFi-and-Children-06.pdf

21st Century Learning: Higher Radiation from iPads on WiFi than Cellphones that are Actively Transmitting

http://www.safeinschool.org/2013/03/health-canadas-wifi-myth.html

Friday, March 15, 2013

Wifiinschools.ca - Industry-Affiliated Website

Promotes WiFi in Schools. Denies Health Risks.



Wifiinschools.ca is a new website set up to promote the use of WiFi in schools: “Because our kids need it!

The author of Wifiinschools.ca, Clint Lalonde, wrote, “I started this site because I have 2 children in the public school system.”

Mr. Lalonde forgot to mention that as the Client Service Manager, Curriculum Services & Applied Research at BCcampus, working primarily on open education projects, his job is predicated on keeping wireless on campuses.

There are grossly untrue statements on Wifiinschools.ca. We'd like to address a few here:

Access to the Internet and Teachers' Unions

Increasingly, I see that [public education] threatened as anti-wifi activists advocate removing access to the internet from our schools – the one place in our society where access to high quality educational learning material is needed the most.

We have not heard of any WiFi opponent asking for “removing access to the internet”. Would like the source. “Access to high quality educational learning material” can be done by wired internet, which is what we support. With his wireless-focused background, Mr. Lalone thinks that “high quality educational learning” is only available from wireless laptops and iPads. However, many teachers do not agree with this theory. 


Here's a recent article written by Ms. Tara Ehrcke, President of Greater Victoria Teachers' Association. Ms. Ehrcke is a highschool Computer and Math teacher.
Why Educators Should Resist Educational Technology

This is a letter published in the BCTF Teachers News Magazine:
Wi-Fi Technology In schools: Is It Time To Reconsider?

And this is the Masters' Thesis of Mr. Tobey Steeves (a secondary school teacher of Social Studies and Communication) about the electronic-focused 21st Century Learning campaign. Mr. Steeves argues that "this relative devaluation of teachers and their work provides a basis for increased school conflicts, contributes to elevated stress among teachers, and may encourage teacher ‘burnout.’" He also sketches "an alternative vision of the role of teachers’ work that is grounded in democratic values and practices." 
(De/Re)-constructing teachers and their work : a discourse analysis of British Columbia's 21st-century policy agenda

On March 16-19, the BCTF (British Columbia Teachers' Federation) will be voting on a few resolutions regarding WiFi in schools. Teachers have started to be aware of the health risks brought by WiFi radiation and are asking for the choice to not be exposed daily, in a high data-traffic classroom situation.

March 7, 2013 - United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), the union which represents over 40,000 teachers and other workers in LAUSD, passed the following motion by a sweeping majority:

I move that UTLA will abide by current National NEA Policy for Environmentally Safe Schools which states that all employees and stakeholders should be informed when there are changes in their exposure to environmental hazards including electromagnetic radiation and that all stakeholders and the public should be notified of any actual and potential hazards. UTLA will advocate for technological solutions that maintain technology upgrades while not increasing employees exposure to electromagnetic radiation.”

Other teachers' unions which have publicly advocated Precaution against installation of WiFi include the The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL, UK) with 160,000 members (2008), the German Teachers' Union (2003), The Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (2012) and the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association (2010).

A recent article published by VOICE UK (The Union for Education Professionals):

In the last few years there has been a great weight of evidence from around the world which suggests that exposure to electromagnetic radiation can have long-term health impacts, particularly on children, and that exposing young children (from birth to 12) to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) can produce changes in cell formation, genetic changes, and potential cancers.

Exposure levels are only half the story; length of exposure is crucial too. Long exposures at lower intensity levels may be as damaging as high exposure levels for short periods hence our concern about wireless networks in schools and nurseries.

It is a considerable concern that in schools we are installing wi-fi systems and we have no clear evidence that they are safe. Our concern is that until they are declared to be safe and proven to be safe we should not be installing them in schools.

The difficulty is that once installed in schools, they are switched on constantly. Whether the children are using them or not, they are exposed to that level of radiation.

Voice has advocated that new wi-fi systems should not be installed in schools, that existing systems should be turned off when not required and that schools should consider whether they really need to use wi-fi, which was developed to facilitate Internet access on the move rather than to be used as a convenient alternative to cables in dedicated IT facilities.”

Recently, five major unions in France which represented workers of the following large corporations and organizations protested to demand reduction of electromagnetic radiation in their work place.

The Bank of France
France Telecom Orange
L'Oréal (Cosmetics giant)
The City of Paris
RATP (Autonomous Operator of Parisian Transports - a state-owned public transport operation)
Geodis (A leading Transport and Logistics company in Europe)
The Bibliothèque Nationale de France (National Library of France)

All these unions are informed about the health risks of WiFi and cellphones and are fighting to protect the health of their adult members in the workplace.

Why would we choose to increase the exposure to school children?


RF/EMF as 2B Possible Carcinogen

Wifiinschools.ca: “”So, let’s cherry pick a couple of other items on the class 2b list, like coffee [which causes urinary bladder cancer], pickled vegetables, coconut oil [Wrong citation. The item is cocamine DEA: a diethanolamide made by reacting the mixture of fatty acids from coconut oils with diethanolamine, not coconut oil], talcum powder, and nickle. When you say WiFi is as dangerous as coffee or pickles, the comparison seems a lot less ominous.”

This is a typical industry tactic to downplay the severity of toxicity. Reason? Not good for business.

First, the above substances are not environmental, involuntary and penetrating like RF/EMF. Secondly, knowing these are classified items, will schools propose force-feeding children with possibly carcinogenic pickled vegetables and coffee every day, or start pumping talcum powder or nickle dust into its ventilation system?

There are 5 classes in the IARC monographs of carcinogens. If the substances have “negligible” carcinogenicity, they would have been put in Group 3 Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans, or Group 4 Probably not carcinogenic to humans - not Group 2.

In industrial safety, items on Group 1 and Group 2 (2A & 2B) of the IARC list are considered hazardous and warrant special handling protocols. The objective is to minimize the risk and the harm, definitely not exponentially increasing the exposure like wireless Ed Tech companies recommend.

54. A pure substance or tested mixture falls into Subdivision A of Division 2 of Class D — Poisonous and Infectious Material if it is listed in...
(b) Group 1 or Group 2 in the IARC Monographs...

Occupational Health and Safety Regulation
5.57 (1) If a substance identified as any of the following is present in the workplace, the employer must replace it, if practicable, with a material which reduces the risk to workers:
(a) ACGIH A1 or A2, or IARC 1, 2A or 2B carcinogen;

In an attempt to understate the 2B warning, Wifiinschools.ca cited a non-peer-reviewed online blog post by Ken Foster and Lorne Trottier, which criticizes the 1,800 peer-reviewed scientific studies presented in The 2012 BioInitiative Report.

We are not surprised that Foster and Trottier dismissed the EMF health risk completely. In 2007, Dr. Ken Foster was hired by WiFi Alliance (companies that manufacture and sell WiFi products) to conduct a study to show that WiFi is “safe”. His study focused on background radiation and averaged out exposure levels, resulting in extremely low and “safe” figures.

Foster measured the radiation of a laptop from nonsensical “distances of 1 meter or more” and stated that “No attempt was made in this study to assess near-field exposures to a user of the laptop itself.” Despite this clear disclaimer, Foster (2007) study has been utilized repeatedly by WiFi promoters as evidence that WiFi is safe for the users – school children!

Mr. Trottier, on the other hand, is a businessman connected to a venture capital operation called MSBi Valorisation which commercializes technological innovations from McGill University. A small part of Mr. Trottier's company Matrox also manufactures supplies for wireless devices. Trottier is an avid attacker of all advocacy against wireless developments. Incidentally, while promoting the Possibly Carcinogenic RF/EMF, Mr. Trottier also owns Oncozyme Pharma, a drug company which specializes in cancer treatment. For more detailed information, please see: http://www.safeinschool.org/2012/04/hpa-no-risk-report-on-rf-emf-hiding.html

The BioInitiative Report


Wifiinschools.ca: “Much of the scientific evidence that underpins the anti-wifi groups comes from The BioInitiaitve Report, a  self-published, non peer reviewed report first published online in 2007 and re-released in 2012.”

Mr. Lalonde might not like the way the BioInitiative Report was written, but he completely twisted the fact and omitted that the scientific studies (3,800 of them in both reports published in 2007 and 2012) presented by the BioInitiative Report are bona fide peer-reviewed studies. Some studies specifically prepared for the report were also peer-reviewed and available on pub-med. We encourage readers to look at the information and decide for themselves:
http://www.safeinschool.org/2013/02/3800-peer-reviewed-scientific-studies.html
More peer-reviewed studies are available here:
http://www.safeinschool.org/p/scientific-studies.html

Wikipedia and More Conflicts of Interest at Bad Science Watch

Wifiinschools.ca uses the Wikipedia article on BioInitiative Report as their reference. We took one look at that article and were astonished at the level of bias presented. Wikipedia promotes a “neutral point of view”, but the Wiki article on BioInitiative Report is hardly neutral. Instead it only shows a landslide of negative criticism. Very strange.

The BioInitiative Report has been adopted and acknowledged by influential bodies such as the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, and the Royal Society of London. The European Environmental Agency not only endorses it, but took part in authoring a chapter in the report, called “Late Lessons from Early Warnings”. However, none of the above notability is included in the Wiki piece.

After some research, we realized that the current one-sided Wikipedia article on BioInitiative Report was admittedly created and heavily edited by Mr. Robert Quickert – founding member of Bad Science Watch. With the user names of Qui1che and papageno, Mr. Quickert and a couple of buddy editors systematically reverted the addition of any positive information that is favourable to the BioInitiative Report. These are documented in the Talk and History pages on Wikipedia website. Qui1che and papageno are regular editors of cellphone and EMF related Wiki articles. While Wikipedia has a policy of disclosing conflict of interest, it does not appear that Mr. Quickert has provided such disclosure.

So who is Robert Quickert? Mr. Q. has a life tenure as Training Manager at Motorola and we wonder if Motorola endorses Quickert's frequent tweets to promote wireless and mock citizens who advocate for precaution. He even created a hashtag on Twitter called #RFscare

In their own cellphone user's manual, Motorola actually admits that “we do not have enough information at this point to assure the public that there are, or are not, any low incident health problems associated with use of mobile phones.



The Cost of Wired Interent

Wifiinschools.ca: “The reality is that devices with ethernet ports are becoming increasingly hard to find on contemporary laptops.

But it is not just computers. Entire new lines of devices, such as tablets, e-readers and smartphones, have come to the market in recent years that also have no physical network connections. Restricting wifi means an entire generation of technology is not useable in classrooms.

Product sales are market-driven. Saying that we have to choose more risky products because safer products are hard to find is hardly logical. Do we let our health and safety decision be dictated by corporate agenda? Or do we as the end users demand safer designs from manufacturers?

Additionally, hard-wiring buildings with physical cables and establishing wired access points is expensive compared to installing WiFi access points.

Expensive? It costs around $60 to purchase 1000 feet of industry standard cat5e ethernet cable with signals as high as 1Gbit / sec, about $1 per keystone jack and $5 for 100 cable ends.

While educational budgets are cut on many fronts, no one (including parents who are taxpayers and "stakeholders") is allowed to question the sacred plans of technological advancement in millions of dollars. Instead of investing to improve the existing safer wired technology, money is being spent on purchasing NEW equipment: $700/pc iPads, thousands of wireless routers (along with licensing fees for apps and newer routers' automatic opt-in cloud computing contracts at $150 per router per year). Also are the cost of energy powering these devices, especially WiFi routers which operate 24/7, and the cost of replacements to feed corporations' planned obsolescence which will occur every few years for decades to come. 

On top of the above, since Health Canada and the World Health Organization have confirmed that they do not have sufficient data to assess the long-term health impact of wireless radiation on children - Should the need arise in future for removing wireless devices and retrofitting school buildings with wired networks for health reasons, the cost will be incalculable.

That doesn't include the cost of healthcare, or the health of children and staff.

Sure, they [wired computers] work. But is that really the best learning environment we can provide for our children?

Yes, wired internet and computers do not emit pulsed microwave radiation all day. It's is a much better learning environment for children.

To fellow parents:

Please consider the advice of these medical doctors and experts instead of EdTech companies whose mission is to $$$ell more wireless products and services - in the name of Education. 

Because our kids don't "need" it.

Epilogue

We received this excellent comment from a reader:

The WHO/IARC has classified electromagnetic radiation as a Class 2B carcinogen. Many on the panel voted to classify it as 2A (probable) based on the plethora of peer-reviewed scientific evidence showing increased risk of cancer from exposure, including chronic exposure to relatively low-level microwave radiation such as wifi.

To encourage the use of a Class 2B carcinogen, forbidden by Work Safe BC regulations where a practical alternative is available, is the height of irresponsibility, especially where children with a higher susceptibility are present. And cancer is only one of the many health risks associated with chronic microwave radiation. Another is leakage of the blood-brain barrier. This is the brain’s last defense against toxins in the blood and is proven to be compromised by wifi radiation given long enough exposure. I am not surprised though to see those with a conflict of interest and financial gain as a result of the proliferation of wifi pretend that the thousands of peer-reviewed studies showing harm from this relatively recent technology don’t exist. I do question how they can feel comfortable knowing that they are party to exposing innocent children with developing nervous systems to this known toxin.

History is full of examples where health authorities were far behind the curve when it came to assessing the real and present danger from what were once ubiquitous toxins, such as lead in paint and gasoline, tobacco, thalidomide, Vioxx, asbestos… the list goes on and on. Unfortunately, the wireless communications industry is the second largest industry on Earth, and therefore has a very strong “persuasiveness” in coercing the public and even so-called “health authorities” to overlook the very real risks. You can recognize this propaganda through phrases such as “scientific consensus.” When you see this oxymoron, you know you’re being snowed, because it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the scientific method.

If you have a thousand studies that show no harm, and only one that shows harm, and is repeatable, the harm has been proven and the correct response is to seek flaws in the protocol of the thousand studies that didn’t show harm, not throw out or ignore the singular one that does show harm. A person unschooled in the scientific method may believe that the “weight of the evidence” or the “scientific consensus” shows no harm.

Another trick is to criticize a publication like the http://bioinitiative.org ‘s Bionitiative Report 2012 as being not peer reviewed. Reports are not peer reviewed, scientific studies are. That this report is not peer reviewed is irrelevant since the studies it references ARE peer-reviewed, and while lower in number than industry sponsored studies showing no harm, they are compelling in their proof that there is biological harm from chronic low-level microwave radiation. In fact, roughly 75% of industry sponsored studies show no harm, while the numbers are reversed for independent studies. This demonstrates a clear bias beyond probable statistical anomaly, i.e., he who pays the piper calls the tune, and the “results” of the “study.” 

Health concerns aside and solely pedagogically speaking, why do the execs of the biggest Silicon Valley schools pay extra money to send their children to not only wifi-free schools, but also computer-free schools? The simple answer is that technology does not equal learning. It can be a useful aid, but it can also be a hindrance and a distraction. It’s ridiculous to suggest that wired internet is inferior to wireless. It is in fact far superior in that the data rates are faster, the networks are more secure, and they are more economical to maintain and equip. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&amp ;
Throwing money and technology at children does not help them learn. Personal interaction with a caring teacher is what’s important. And a caring teacher would forbid wifi in his classroom because he would educate himself on the dangers that it poses to developing bodies and brains.