BC Chief Medical Officer Dr. Perry Kendall's Letter on Wi-Fi for Schools: Erroneous Representation of Radiation Data.

Using a study sponsored by Wi-Fi Alliance (companies that manufacture and sell Wi-Fi products), medical authorities are assuring parents that Wi-Fi is not dangerous. This study has nothing to do with classroom exposure. The locations measured (coffee shops, train stations, hospitals etc.) were hand-picked by the Wi-Fi Alliance members.

When they measured a laptop, they measured at distances of "1 meter or more" away (3.3 feet or more; did not specify the maximum distance). This does not take into account that children are using laptops, tablets and wireless hand-held devices in close/direct contact with their bodies, and accessing the internet simultaneously in the classroom. Every one of these devices has a client's card which is a live antenna. Actual measurement of the Wi-Fi radiation signals from these devices (see videos below) are magnitudes - up to 700,000 times - higher than reported by the industry study.

Dr. Perry Kendall's letter sent to the Ministry of Education and all the School Districts included a statement that Wi-Fi exposure is "less than 1% [ WRONG ] of what is received during typical cellphone use." http://www.sd62.bc.ca/portals/0/PDFs/IT/WiFi_Letter.pdf

He quoted a study by Foster (2007):
"Foster measured Wi-Fi radiofrequency levels at 53 sites in Europe and the US, and found that levels were below those contributed by other radiofrequency sources (typically including cell phone base stations, FM radio transmissions, and radiofrequency emissions from microwave ovens).
Also, in an interesting comparison with a pre-cell phone world, Foster showed that the median power density measured over 70-3000 MHz was similar to what was measured over 50-900 MHz in 1980 in US cities (Foster, 2007)".

Dr. Kendall's "less than 1%" is inaccurate. Using the Foster study to back up his assurance to school trustees, school administrators and parents makes no sense. 
This is Foster's 2007 study: http://www.medfordumc.org/celltower/wifirfexposure.pdf

P.2 "This study, supported by the Wi-Fi Alliance [companies that manufacture and sell Wi-Fi products]...
"The locations were chosen... in part to benefit from assistance of employees of member firms of the Wi-Fi Alliance to help with local arrangements.

"No attempt was made to provide a statistically valid sample of RF energy from WLANs in all environments in which a person might be located, however that may be defined.

P.7 "If there were a scientific need to obtain a statistically valid sample of all WLAN fields in the environment, that would require a study of different design than the present survey.

Measuring routers: P.3  "an access point [router] could be identified protruding from the ceiling or mounted on a wall, and measurements were made... usually by holding the meter at waist height while standing near the AP. In other cases [how many?]... no APs were visible and measurements were made in a convenient [unspecified] location.

Measuring laptop: P.10 "All of the present measurements were conducted at distances of approximately 1 m  [1 meter / 3.3 feet; maximum distance not specified]  or more from the client card in a laptop computer... The user of a laptop would be exposed to stronger fields than reported here, particularly if the antenna in the client card were close to the user’s body. No attempt was made in this study to assess near-field exposures to a user of the laptop itself.
P.9 "if the AP or client card were transmitting with a high duty cycle, its output would be comparable to that of a mobile telephone in use."

First, this study (survey?) was not conducted with children in mind. 

Second, this study was not done for a classroom scenario** where there are multiple wireless laptops close to students' bodies, where there are iPads in their hands and smart phones in their faces. In the study they measured ONE METER OR MORE FROM A LAPTOP. Obviously our children do not have arms longer than one meter (3.3 feet) to type on the keyboards of their laptops, tablets and iPodTouches. Even adults would not be sitting "1 meter or more" from their laptops/ Laptops and tablets often rest right on their laps.

This is a ridiculous way to measure radiation. While public health officials preach about the need for proper study-design, they seem to have no problem accepting this kind of industry-supported psuedoscience, and cite it repeatedly to the unaware public. Is children's safety really their priority? 

Third, the Foster study only presented "average" measurements. They did not mention any peak level radiation (which can damage cell membrane). This is like saying that driving a car at 200 km/hr for 5 mins every hour is not dangerous, because the "average" speed including when the car is slow and when it stops at the red light comes to only 25km/hr. Similarly, if you stab at someone with a knife, can you claim the force of the knife averaged over 6 mins is low, therefore the harm is negligible? This study is an industry-sponsored and designed study to let the industry advertise that Wi-Fi emission levels are very low. These reported figures are not applicable to the exposure on our children in schools. 

This study was done in 2006 when the use of wireless was a lot less extensive than now, 6 years later. Nowadays, we are not able to predict nor quantify how much the children are touching the devices, how often they load a page or whether they will be streaming videos with non-stop signals, whether they are using laptops or iPad, iPodTouch, smart phones etc. With the Ministry of Education encouraging students to use more tablets and electronic devices in the classrooms ("BYOD" - bring your own device), we need to be realistic that transmission duty cycles are getting higher and higher. 

So Foster said it: "Comparable to that of a mobile telephone in use"!

Dr. Kendall, please correct your numbers.

Here are 2 videos to illustrate the comparison between an iPad on Wi-Fi mode and an iPhone on talking mode:

iPhone on Talking mode:
-Peaked at 19 μW/cm2 (microwatts/cm2)
-Continuous signal, but duration of use likely shorter.
-Phone will be in direct contact with the ear and head (unless handsfree or headset are used).
-Wi-Fi was turned off on this phone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n097VN7KB_A

iPad on Wi-Fi mode:

-Peaked at 70 μW/cm2; several times higher than iphone on talking mode

-Continual signals. Stop and spike every few seconds. 

-Duration of use for iPad is likely longer than talk-mode on cellphone.

-iPad will be in direct contact with the student's hands or/and lap/abdomen.
-Note that there is no Wi-Fi network available. The iPad is not even logged onto any Wi-Fi network and not downloading anything. The signals are simply from the Wi-Fi feature being turned on.
-The iPad is not on airplane mode but there is no SIM card in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVJI-0YogGo
-In this other video, the airplane mode is on and Wi-Fi is turned on. This one peaked at 39 microwatts/cm2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0qU2ov2U1w

N.B. The measuring “probe” of the RF meter is actually inside the middle of the spherical casing, about 1-2 cm away from the interior of the shell (i.e. not "touching" the devices). In real life, the radiation level in direct contact with the devices (like what the children could be doing) would be even higher.

What do the above numbers mean?

Health Canada's exposure limit is at an extremely high level of 1000 μW/cm2, while studies have found at:
0.002 μW/cm2 - Sleep disturbance and fatigue. Altpeter et al. (1995, 1997, 2005)
0.168 μW/cm2 - Progressive decrease in number of newborns and irreversible infertility in
mice after 5 generations exposure. I.N. Magras and T.D. Zenos (1997)
0.32-16.43 μW/cm2 - Attention, memory and motor function of school children significantly affected in comparison to control groups. A.A. Kolodynski and V.V. Kolodynska (1996) 
2.5 μW/cm2 - Damage to blood-brain barrier. Salford et al., (1997)

China/Russia/Italy/Poland have exposure limits at 10 μW/cm2. Switzerland's general limit is 9.5 μW/cm2 and 4.25 for sensitive areas (children, elderly, medically-challenged). The Swiss doctors' group - Physicians for the Environment - recently issued a public statement calling for reduction of their limit by 10 times, i.e. to 0.95 μW/cm2. Luxembourg/Bulgaria at 2.4 μW/cm2. Salzburg Health Department in Austria recommends only 0.001 μW/cm2 for outdoor and 0.0001 for indoor exposure.  http://goo.gl/4pzyE 

Read more:

Minister of Education Promoting Smartphones, Tablets and Other Electronic Devices in the Classroom 

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=dbbb0c19-7993-4170-87f0-d9304f9300c2

iPad iPhone Wi-Fi Radiation and Magnetic Fields
http://www.safeinschool.org/2012/01/ipad-iphone-wi-fi-radiation-and.html

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

iPad User Manual's Safety Warning and Disclaimer. Have You Read It?
http://www.safeinschool.org/2013/04/ipad-user-manuals-safety-warning-and.html

Scientific Studies on the Biological Effects of pulsed microwave radiation:
http://www.safeinschool.org/p/scientific-studies.html


** Out of those 55 locations selected for the study, 35 were coffee shops, fast food outlets, general merchants, tourist visitor center; 6 were homes and hotel rooms; 4 were office areas; 6 were train stations and outdoor environments. Only 4 locations were categorized under a combined heading of  "Hospitals/health care facilities, universities" but no mentioning of classroom at all. This study has absolutely nothing to do with students using Wi-Fi in the classroom, and yet it has been cited by the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, the Chief Medical Officer of BC, the Chief Medical Officer of Richmond and more, as an unfounded reference for the use of Wi-Fi in schools.

Switzerland: Physicians for the Environment (MfE) Calling for the Application of the Precautionary Principle and Reduction in Exposure Limit of Electromagnetic Radiation

March 22, 2012 - Switzerland: Physicians for the Environment (MfE)

Founded 25 years ago, the association of Physicians for the Environment (MfE) joins together around 1,500 physicians in Switzerland.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considers the waves emitted by wireless communication “possibly carcinogenic”.  According to the IARC, the risk of cancer for this type of radiation is thus similar to that of the insecticide DDT, rightly banned.  Physicians for the Environment (MfE) is concerned that the limit values expected to protect the Swiss population, notably vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant women, constitute insufficient protection.  In a communication sent to the Federal Assembly, MfE thus requests strict application of the principle of precaution and – in view of the risk of cancer – lower limit values.

Children’s rooms, housing, trams or offices are experiencing a growing exposure to radiation from diverse sources:  babyphones, mobile telephony, wifi, etc., yet more and more studies warn against the serious health consequences of electromagnetic pollution for human beings and animals.

Cataracts in calves, Alzheimer’s Disease, cancer …

Since 2001, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considered that magnetic fields emitted notably from current lines could be carcinogenic.  A 2008 Swiss study postulates increased risk of contracting Alzheimer’s Disease for residents living near power lines.  Other studies on the risk of brain tumors establish a higher risk for this pathology in the case of mobile phone use.  This is why the IARC, part of the United Nations, considered in 2011 that waves from mobile telephony are “possibly carcinogenic”.  In 2012, the University of Zürich noted a 10 times higher prevalence of blindness from birth (cataracts) in calves during the duration of operation of a relay antenna [i.e cellphone tower] installed on a stable.

Strict application of the precautionary principle, lowering of limit values

“From the medical point of view, it is urgent to apply the precautionary principle for mobile telephony, wifi, power lines, etc.” states Dr. Peter Kälin, President of Physicians for the Environment.  The Austrian Medical Chamber has moreover just formulated the same requirement in regard to smart meters.  In a communication dated 16 March 2012 to the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly, Physicians for the Environment requested to divide the value limits by 10.  Dr. Yvonne Gilli, National Councillor, has repeated the demands of the MfE in requesting the Federal Council, if it has to protect the population, to apply the precautionary principle and to lower limit values.

Contact:

Dr Martin Forter, Bâle, directeur MfE 061 691 55 83

Dr en médecine Peter Kälin, Leukerbad, président Mfe 027 470 21 77

The communication to the Federal Assembly and parlementary intervention of Yvonne Gilli are available in German on www.aefu.ch.

Note that Switzerland currrently has an exposure limit 100 times LOWER than Health Canada's. This new call by the Swiss doctors is to further lower it to 1/1000 times of Health Canada's, which is way below what wireless tablets and phones emit.

Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF related health problems and illnesses (EMF syndrome)

The Austria Medical Association represents 40,772 doctors in Austria - 100% of their medical workforce.

Consensus paper of the Austrian Medical Association’s EMF 

Working Group ( AG-EMF)

Adopted at the meeting of environmental medicine officers of the Regional Medical
Association´s and the Austrian Medical Association on 3rd March 2012 in Vienna.

"Many people are increasingly exposed, to various degrees, to a combination of low and high frequency electric fields (EF), magnetic fields (MF) and electromagnetic fields (EMF) of different signal patterns, intensities and technical applications for varying periods of time, colloquially referred to as electrosmog.

"Physicians are often confronted with unspecific complaints without clearly identifiable causes (Huss and Röösli 2006). It has been suspected that environmental conditions such as increasing exposure of the population to radio waves, emanating e.g. from cordless phones, mobile phone base stations, cell phones, GPRS, UMTS, data cards for laptop and notebook computers and wireless LAN (WLAN), but also exposure to electric and magnetic fields emanating from power lines, devices and equipment, may play a causal role (Blake Levitt and Lai 2010). For the medical profession, this raises new challenges in diagnosis and treatment. A central issue for the causal attribution of symptoms is the assessment of variation in health problems depending on time and location, which is particularly relevant for environmental causes such as EMF exposure..."

Full text of the Consensus Paper:
http://www.aerztekammer.at/documents/10618/976981/EMF-Guideline.pdf

Environmental Physicians Issue Stern Warning on Biological and Health Effects from Electromagnetic Field Exposures

April 12, 2012 - The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)

Environmental Physicians Issue Stern Warning on Biological and Health Effects from Electromagnetic Field Exposures
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) today issued a position paper on "Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Field Effect on Human Health http://aaemonline.org/emf_rf_position.html ," including wireless technologies and smart meters.

Today's report on electromagnetic fields takes a strong stand that society must acknowledge the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, educate the population about the risks from wireless technologies, and develop safer technologies. The group, AAEM, is an international association of physicians and professionals that has been dedicated to expanding the knowledge of human health in relationship to the environment since 1965, They have been first to recognize many conditions, including Gulf War Syndrome, chemical sensitivity and the role of mold in the development of systemic illness.

In its new report, "Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health http://aaemonline.org/emf_rf_position.html ," AAEM is calling for:

An immediate caution on Smart Meter installation due to potentially harmful RF exposure.

1. Accommodation for health considerations regarding EMF and RF exposure, including exposure to wireless Smart Meter technology.
2. Independent studies to further understand the health effects from EMF and RF exposure.
3. Recognition that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a growing problem worldwide.
4. Understanding and control of this electrical environmental bombardment for the protection of society.
5. Consideration and independent research regarding the quantum effects of EMF and RF on human health.
6. Use of safer technology, including for Smart Meters, such as hard-wiring, fiber optics or other non-harmful methods of data transmission.

The new position paper from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine comes on the heels of AAEM's letter to the California Public Utilities Commission http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/halt-smart-meters/  in January 2012.

12 Highlights from The Science

In the AAEM paper, " http://aaemonline.org/emf_rf_position.html Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health" http://aaemonline.org/emf_rf_position.html , selected highlights of the science showing biological effects from electromagnetic fields included:

• "Multiple studies correlate RF exposure with diseases such as cancer, neurological disease, reproductive disorders, immune dysfunction, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
• "Many in vitro, in vivo and epidemiological studies demonstrate that significant harmful biological effects occur from non-thermal RF exposure and satisfy Hill’s criteria of causality.3
• "Genetic damage, reproductive defects, cancer, neurological degeneration and nervous system dysfunction, immune system dysfunction, cognitive effects, protein and peptide damage, kidney damage, and developmental effects have all been reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
• "Genotoxic effects from RF exposure, including studies of non-thermal levels of exposure, consistently and specifically show chromosomal instability, altered gene expression, gene mutations, DNA fragmentation and DNA structural breaks.4-11
• "Genotoxic effects are documented to occur in neurons, blood lymphocytes, sperm, red blood cells, epithelial cells, hematopoietic tissue, lung cells and bone marrow.  Adverse developmental effects due to non-thermal RF exposure have been shown with decreased litter size in mice from RF exposure well below safety standards.12
• "The fact that RF exposure causes neurological damage has been documented repeatedly.  Increased blood-brain barrier permeability and oxidative damage, which are associated with brain cancer and neurodegenerative diseases, have been found.4,7,15-17
• "Changes associated with degenerative neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) have been reported.4,10
• "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 disruption have been reported to be statistically significant in multiple epidemiological studies with RF exposure occurring non-locally.18-21
• "Nephrotoxic effects from RF exposure also have been reported.
• "RF emissions have also been shown to cause isomeric changes in amino acids that can result in nephrotoxicity as well as hepatotoxicity.25
• "Electromagnetic field (EMF) hypersensitivity has been documented in controlled and double blind studies with exposure to various EMF frequencies.
• "Although these studies clearly show causality and disprove the claim that health effects from RF exposure are uncertain, there is another mechanism that proves electromagnetic frequencies, including radiofrequencies, can negatively impact human health.  Government agencies and industry set safety standards based on the narrow scope of Newtonian or "classical" physics reasoning that the effects of atoms and molecules are confined in space and time.  This model supports the theory that a mechanical force acts on a physical object and thus, long-range exposure to EMF and RF cannot have an impact on health if no significant heating occurs.  However, this is an incomplete model.  A quantum physics model is necessary to fully understand and appreciate how and why EMF and RF fields are harmful to humans.26,27”

The AAEM  position paper concludes:
"These EMF and RF quantum field effects have not been adequately studied and are not fully understood regarding human health. Because of the well documented studies showing adverse effects on health and the not fully understood quantum field effect, AAEM calls for exercising precaution with regard to EMF, RF and general frequency exposure.   In an era of when all society relies on the benefits of electronics, we must find ideas and technologies that do not disturb bodily function."

For over 50 years, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has been studying and treating the effects of the environment on human health. AAEM co-sponsored ElectromagneticHealth.org's program on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in 2010 http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/cc-video/ , along with Citizens for Health, and endorsed the book, "Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution" http://www.amazon.com/dp/1441458794/?tag=bescom08-20 , sent to Congress in 2009, co-authored by Camilla Rees, MBA and Magda Havas, PhD.

READ MORE HERE:http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/aaem-report/

Read Full Position Paper from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine here (PDF) - "Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health" http://aaemonline.org/emfpositionstatement.pdf
AAEM Press Release (PDF)  http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/press-release-aaem-emf-guidelines.pdf

New Studies Show Laptops and Cellphones Adversely Affect Children and Fetuses

USA - Yale University
Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800-1900 Mhz-Rated Cellular Telephones Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice

“Here we demonstrate that fetal exposure to 800–1900 Mhz-rated radiofrequency radiation from cellular telephones leads to behavioral and neurophysiological alterations that persist into adulthood...The significant trend between the groups treated for 0, 9, 15, and 24 hours/day demonstrates that the effects are directly proportional to usage time... ”

http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120315/srep00312/full/srep00312.html

ITALY 
Dept of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Reproduction Medicine, University of Siena.
ASL 7 (Local Health Agency), Prevention Dept Physical Agents Laboratory, Siena.
CNR (Italian Research Council), Institute of Applied Physics (IFAC), Florence, Italy.
Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields From Laptop Use of “Laptop” Computers

Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields From Laptop Use of “Laptop” Computers

“In the LTCs analyzed, EMF values (range 1.8–6 μT) are within International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (NIR) Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines, but are considerably higher than the values recommended by 2 recent guidelines for computer monitors magnetic field emissions, MPR II (Swedish Board for Technical Accreditation)

and TCO (Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees), and those considered risky for tumor development... the power supply induces strong intracorporal electric current densities in the fetus and in the adult subject, which are respectively 182–263% and 71–483% higher than ICNIRP 98 basic restriction recommended to prevent adverse health effects.”

https://docs.google.com/open?id=17Z-BgRE0Ib-YtEnGFLLO5dmOgrudovBj8mfHLFrzzFkbLkZiwV1Lmth_TtxI

RUSSIA
Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection 
Psychophysiological Indicators for Child Users of Mobile Communication. Message 1: Present State of the Problem

Message 2: Results of Four-year Monitoring

"It has been shown that the children’s organism is more sensitive to this kind of exposure than the adult one. We have identified the following major trends of the psychophysiological indicators for child users of mobile communication: an increased number of phonemic perception disorders, abatement of efficiency, reduced indicators for the arbitrary and semantic memory, and increased fatigue. A steady decline of the parameters from high values to bottom standards has been found."

http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/russian-res-children-emf/


GREECE

University of Athens

Brain proteome response following whole body exposure of mice to mobile phone or wireless DECT base radiation (* Note DECT cordless phone bases emits the SAME 2.4 GHz frequency as Wi-Fi routers and devices)

"The observed protein expression changes may be related to brain plasticity alterations, indicative of oxidative stress in the nervous system or involved in apoptosis and might potentially explain human health hazards reported so far, such as headaches, sleep disturbance, fatigue, memory deficits, and brain tumor long-term induction under similar exposure conditions."
Summary: http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/mice-proteome/


Wireless Radiation Damages Fertility
http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/11/wi-fi-decreases-human-sperm-motility.html#uds-search-results
Infertility near doubled since 1992 for couples with women aging 18-44:
http://www.globalnews.ca/pages/story.aspx?id=6442582741

Read more scientific studies on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation:http://www.safeinschool.org/p/scientific-studies.html 

CitizensforSafeTechnology.org

Powerwatch.org.uk

­Wifiinschools.org.uk

Emfacts.com 

MicrowaveNews.com 

EMRabc.ca
Wiredchild.org

Wi-Fi Safety Information: Parents to Parents - Your Right to Know

Parents to Parents - Your Right to Know: Wi-Fi Safety Information 

by Kamloops Concerned Parents Committee:

Health Canada says exposure to Wi-Fi is safe, yet some students in schools with Wi-Fi are complaining of ill health that includes headaches, dizziness, nausea, weakness, anxiety, heart palpitations, memory loss and attention deficit, and auditory and visual distortions. These are all early symptoms of microwave sickness.

To begin with, it must be explained how Health Canada has determined that being exposed to microwave radiation for 1200 hours per year is ‘safe.’ They have used a mannequin, for ‘ethical’ reasons, in a 6 minute test to see if heating occurred in the soapy liquid inside the unit to a level they deem ‘unsafe.’ Health Canada, who prefers to call microwaves ‘energy’, says this: “RF fields will penetrate into biological tissue to a depth that is dependent on the field strength, frequency and orientation of the incident RF field.” Yet, if heating doesn’t occur in their mannequin, they continue to say there are ‘no effects’, ignoring the indisputable effects

of this penetration of tissue. This is like saying cigarettes aren’t dangerous unless they burn you, and this is where their science and reality drift apart.

Wi-Fi transmitters broadcast 2.4 billion cycles of microwave frequency/second. The problem with this is that there are conductors (your children) that absorb these electrical signals, which are not compatible with the body’s natural frequencies. In between the router and computer/device is the child, who by nature is absorbing these unnatural signals which the body MUST obey. Microwaves are used because they penetrate; this is why if you use a cell phone in a building it will work. These signals penetrate concrete, or in this case… your child. This penetration is a problem, because it disrupts the electrical signals that run the entire body, and it will now vibrate the device (your child’s cells) billions of times per second, causing induction and eventual electrical failure. Electrical failure in humans = disease. It should be noted that the majority of children with healthy immune systems will initially show little or no effect from induction as their immune systems are repairing the damage, but over time this gives way as the body’s defenses are weakened and it can no longer repair the damage.

So, because your child’s tissues do not ‘heat’ after 6 min. of exposure, Health Canada is essentially saying “We deem this the safe level to continuously microwave children ” or, “Yes, this will cause induction in their bodies, but as long as they don’t heat up to X level they are ok.”  This is where common sense and science meet; the difference being that they have chosen “heat effect science”, whereas we have chosen “this is causing induction in humans” science.

The World Health Organization, in May 2011, classified radiation emitted from wireless devices as a possible human carcinogen, in the same category as lead and DDT. Health Canada claims to “support WHO recommendations and the findings of the IARC”, yet this classification has not affected Health Canada limits on exposure or School Board policy. They can’t get Wi-Fi into schools fast enough.

The placement of this technology in our schools without informed consent is alarming. Only parents have the legal right to choose what risks our children will sustain. School districts do not have the right to assume this level of risk for our children without a waiver or informed consent, or to subject our most vulnerable population to forced chronic exposure to a recognized class 2B carcinogen.  

The fact that Wi-Fi is in widespread use does NOT mean that it is safe. Wi-Fi is a relatively new, unregulated technology. We have learned from tobacco and asbestos that many of the worst effects of a product are not always immediately evident, but become known after long periods of exposure.

Can we really believe that exposing kids to microwave radiation all day in school is totally harmless?

Health Canada states that it has no long-term studies to provide evidence that microwave radiation exposure is safe for children because it is unethical to do such studies on children.  The WHO has stated that they will not comment on the health effects of wireless technology until 2015.

Have you given consent for your child to be exposed to this health risk and be part of this biological experiment?

We are hopeful you take the common sense approach that is backed by thousands of unbiased, non-industry funded research studies that date back to the 1930’s; when microwaves were called microwaves, not “Wi-Fi”, or “energy.” This research substantiates the fundamental fact that each child has his own unique electrical signals that are not to be messed with by electrical experiments like microwave irradiation for 1200 hours/year.

Please visit the following sites for further information, and please also contact the Kamloops Concerned Parents Committee at radiationhurtskids@live.com. We are happy to answer your questions, send you further information/links, or address any concerns.

Thank you for helping to ensure that our kid’s schools are not only allergen, lead, and asbestos free, but radiation free as well. If we as parents don’t demand that our kids’ health comes first, then who will?

Wi-Fi effects on humans and animals:

http://wifiinschools.org.uk/22.html

http://wifiinschools.com/index.html

Cities/Countries/Schools/ that have banned or recommended ban of Wi-Fi:

http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/01/wi-fi-is-removed-from-schools-and.html

Yale Study on Cell Phone exposures:

http://ehhi.org/reports/cellphones/cell_phone_report_EHHI_Feb2012.pdf

Videos for further explanations of science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAnrmJ3un1g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v75sKAUFdc&feature=youtu.be

Insiders making decisions on ‘safety’ for industry benefit:

 http://www.microwavenews.com/RR.html

 http://www.weepinitiative.org/NOBLE.html

Scroll down to find depositions by experts for Permanent Wi-Fi injunction in Portland School District and other info:

 http://www.thermoguy.com/emfeducation.html

Microwave weapons expert on Wi-Fi Effects:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvn-8ITy0oc

International Expert Opinions & Appeals:

 http://www.magdahavas.com/international-experts

The Seletun Scientific Statement:

 http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/the-seletun-statement/

General Information: http://www.thewiredchild.org,  http://www.safeschool.ca

What are School Districts Waiting for if Safety of our Children is really their Priority?

Feb. 16, 2012


Dr. Terry Sullivan
Superintendent, Kamloops/Thompson School District No. 73
1383-9th Ave.
Kamloops, BC
V2C 3X7


Dear Dr. Sullivan:


I realize that WI-FI in the schools is an increasingly controversial and divisive topic, but I trust you will read the following with an open mind, as I write as a concerned parent that has spent many hundreds of hours in the last six months educating myself on the potential hazards of wireless radiation exposure. I don’t consider myself an expert by any means; however I do consider myself to be reasonably informed on this topic.


My concerns about the current situation, with WI-FI currently installed in most of the district’s schools, are many. First and foremost, is the potential health risks associated with prolonged, cumulative radio frequency radiation exposure. Many experts in the field have testified that the Safety Code 6 limits are far too high, do not address biological non-thermal effects, and do not sufficiently measure all potential effects of cumulative microwave radiation exposure. EMF and EMR exposures can cause a wide variety of health effects to the general public. Since Health Canada has approved some “Therapeutic Uses” for specific forms of EMF treatments proven to heal at energy levels far below current public exposure standards, the biological activity of electromagnetic fields cannot be denied.


Regarding current regulations, there are no SAR values for children, pulsed frequencies, or long-term exposure. This is because SAR values are based on a short-term (6-minute average) exposure to protect solely against heating a 6-foot, 200-pound adult male, not a child. Children’s bodies as you know, are much smaller, radiation is more readily absorbed through their thinner skulls, and their immune and nervous systems still developing. During the growth process as cells and DNA multiply, damaged cells and DNA will also multiply. Further, this guideline is based on occupational exposure, not continuous bombardment for 1,200 hours per year, and was never meant to address widespread chronic exposure, exposure in schools, or non-thermal effects.


On May 31, 2011, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Class 2B carcinogen (possibly carcinogenic or cancer causing to humans). They cited biological effects recognized in adult cellular telephone studies for their decision. This categorization by the WHO prompted Health Canada to issue an advisory calling for prudent avoidance of cellular phone use among children and youth, and contrary to what Health Canada has stated, this 2B classification was confirmed by WHO’s Dr. Jonathan Samet to include RF/EMF from ALL wireless devices. A school would never allow DDT or lead to be sprayed or painted on school walls, yet these things are in the same Class 2B category as emissions from WI-FI, which should be treated in the same manner.


There have been no long-term studies of the effect of chronic microwave radiation exposure on children, because, in the words of Health Canada's Beth Pieterson, "there are large ethical issues on conducting studies specifically on children", yet Health Canada condones exposing our children to this relatively new, and insufficiently studied technology. Top medical and radiation experts have repeatedly stated that there is NO safe level of exposure for children.


From the recent O.E.C.T.A. Health and Safety Committee’s report on WI-FI:
“When a WiFi network is turned on, any radiation exposure would be only due to the radiation emitted from the wireless transmitter’s beacon signal, with little or no use of clients on the wireless network. Each wireless device that connects to the network is a new non-ionizing radiation emitter that opens a new exposure stream over and above the beacon signal strength, which will add to the overall exposure of anyone in the nearby field.


Often, testing done to measure the impact of the radiation from the wireless network is done based on the transmitter’s beacon signal only, and does not take into consideration the impact of having multiple clients on the network at the same time. If the long-term goal is to encourage widespread use of the wireless network by personal electronic devices such as iPads, iPods, smart phones as well as notebooks or laptop computers, then exposure levels to this radiation will be unpredictable and higher than simple measurements would imply.


If ‘safe’ implementation is based on emissions being lower than Health Canada’s SC6 TLV of 1000 μW/cm2, then employers must ensure that this limit is not breached through a hazard control program that should include periodic field monitoring.”


Recently I asked SD73 Director of Information Technology, Mr. John Cuzzola “whether any RF radiation has been employed in the schools, and if so in which schools, by whom, by what method(s), and what the results were in regards to whether radiation levels are below Health Canada’s limits set out in Safety Code 6.“


Mr. Cuzzola stated, “We currently do not do any such testing on the equipment. All equipment used has passed CSA inspection and testing.” The CSA, which certifies electrical devices for electrical safety, has stated that it does not do any testing for the safety of microwave exposure from WI-FI. It says that it does not declare that WI-FI is safe. Surely, as persons charged with ensuring the safety of our children you must be aware of this fact and realize the responsibility to accurately test and report is yours?


My question to you Mr. Sullivan is: Why is this testing not being carried out to ensure compliance with Health Canada’s regulations? If each personal device accessing the network is emitting its own additional field of radiation, along with the radiation from the WI-FI routers, how can you possibly know, and prove, that radiation levels in the schools are in compliance and “safe”?


I have heard the school board repeatedly refer to Health Canada and local Health Units. I find this to be quite contradictory. If the District does in fact follow Health Canada’s safety guidelines regarding radiation exposure levels, as you have indicated previously in interviews with the local newspaper, it would seem that encouraging and enabling the use of personal wireless devices to be a stark contradiction in governing policy. How is it that when it comes to WI-FI safety you heed Health Canada’s guidelines, but yet don’t heed their advice on cellular phone use by children? I don’t believe that education health and safety policies are put in place only to be cherry-picked according to a school board’s whims and desires.


Health Canada's repeated reference to "the weight of evidence" offers me no comfort. Using a "weight of evidence" approach, 40% of the studies being done could demonstrate adverse health effects to WI-FI, yet "the weight of evidence" would still favour using the technology. Dr. Henry Lai, University of Washington did a study on industry funded science which showed that only 25% of industry funded science found biological effects, whereas 75% of independently funded science found biological effects.


Reputable and conscionable scientists that publish positive effect findings are being discredited by industry-funded scientists failing to “replicate the results” by using questionable methods and subtle differences in methodology that are indiscernible to anyone but their peers. Scientists who have formerly conducted industry funded studies have stepped forward with statements attesting to the fact that their (positive effect) findings have been suppressed. These same scientists soon found their research careers over; their funding cut off, and their reputations viciously attacked.


This is not the scientific community working together to establish factual data. This is industry manipulation to obtain results that it desires and the sabotage of legitimate scientific evidence; and these are not new tactics. As with asbestos, DDT and lead, related industries also attacked the researchers that published positive findings showing harm from these things; things that among others, Health Canada assured us were safe. Health Canada is not infallible, and has been wrong many, many times in the past, sometimes with disastrous results. We would be naïve to believe that there is not interference with science by an industry with so much at stake financially. Consequently, Health Canada's seal of approval is insufficient for me.


Allow me to use fetal alcohol exposure to illustrate a huge duality in Health Canada's risk management approach. Given the knowledge available at this time, I think everyone would agree that both fetal alcohol exposure and radiation exposure are harmful. The question for both is how much is safe, and how much is harmful? With fetal alcohol exposure, Health Canada's message is clear: "If you are pregnant, or planning to become pregnant in the near future, do not drink alcohol. No amount or type of alcohol is considered safe." Yet, in the face of mounting evidence that WI-FI exposure in children may not be safe in the previously accepted "dosage", Health Canada does not see fit to adopt the same cautious approach, and in fact, supports exposing our kids to even more microwave radiation than ever before.


The Precautionary Principle is, in the words of Health Canada's Beth Pieterson, "a public policy approach for risk management of possible, but unproven, adverse health effects". It should be invoked "when there is only some evidence, and it's not conclusive" that something is harmful. The Precautionary Principle was the reason for bisphenol A plastic being pulled from store shelves a few years back.


Well in fact, there is evidence that WI-FI exposure is harmful. True, some of it is anecdotal, and there is evidence supporting both sides of the argument, but there is an increasing body of published scientific evidence that suggests there is cause for concern regarding WI-FI exposure. This would seem to fit the criteria for the Precautionary Principle, yet strangely, Health Canada has still not seen fit to invoke it.


Health Canada has shown itself to be extremely slow to change its stance, even in the face of mounting evidence. As an example, at this time, Health Canada still approves the use of many pesticides that many communities have collectively decided to discontinue.


There are many conflicts of interest that exist within Health Canada and other government health agencies, with wireless industry affiliated people making “safety” decisions for Canadian citizens. I urge you to undertake true consultation with scientific and medical experts working in the field who are not affiliated with any industry or government organizations. I realize and respect that you are a busy person and that proper investigation with due diligence is a time-consuming and daunting task. In that, I would be more than happy to provide you with links to valid and impartial scientific publications, along with those scientist’s academics and employment positions, as well as evidence and statements of the afore-mentioned suppression of scientific findings and conflicts of interest.


My second major area of concern surrounds the issue of informed consent. There is a major difference between an exposure that an individual chooses to accept and one that is forced on an individual who can do nothing about it, especially a child. Parents have a fundamental right to choose, in light of a well-known controversy, what environmental toxins his child is exposed to, within reason. Limiting their child’s exposure to WI-FI, which is a recognized 2b carcinogenic, is well within reason. Compulsory and involuntary exposure to both WI-FI and personal wireless devices in a public educational environment where children are captive, is a violation of both children’s and parent’s rights and a violation of district policy 406.1.2 which states: “At no time will the use of any personal electronic device invade or infringe upon the privacy or safety of any member of the school district community.”


I have worked in the field of health care for many years, and I quite literally cannot get a patient out of bed without their informed consent. A technician most certainly could not do a CAT scan on a patient without their informed consent, nor could a surgeon perform surgery (and please note that "informed" means that the patient must be informed of the benefits and the risks associated with that particular test/procedure/therapy). Similarly, I think most people would agree that no one has the right to expose non-smokers to second hand cigarette smoke without the non-smoker's consent, because of the health risks involved. Why does that same need for consent not apply to WI-FI exposure? I find it curious that the school/school board cannot publish my child's picture, cannot teach them sex ed., cannot take them on a field trip without my consent.... yet the board appears to feel that it has the right to expose my children to pulsed microwave radiation without my consent.


The Nuremburg Code of 1947 was designed to guide researchers by determining some ethical guidelines. One might argue that it does not apply in this case, as we are not talking about official "research"; but I maintain that it does, as the use of WI-FI in schools, with no previous research to support its safety in this context, is in fact an experiment. In 2008, the European Parliament wrote to its 27 countries urging them to ignore WHO guidelines and set exposure limits at lower levels. In response, the WHO (which only began studying microwave radiation effects on children in 2009) stated they will not comment on microwave radiation effects on people until 2015, when it will be able to establish effects on human beings.


The Nuremburg Code states, among many other things, that voluntary consent of the research subject is essential, and that the subject must be informed of any potential risks associated with the research. Yet parents have not been informed, and my right to deny consent for my children to be exposed to wireless radiation is not being considered, despite the words of Health Canada's Beth Pieterson: “I think parents have to make decisions all the time about the safety of their kids and the well-being of their families. I think they have to seek good information, talk to their health care providers, and get information from all sources. Science isn't black and white. There are always going to be different sides. They need to make their own decisions."


The fact of the matter is, that installing WI-FI in schools and allowing the regular and widespread use of personal wireless devices by students and then watching to see what happens to our children IS an experiment, one for which I do not consent to the use of my child.


My third major area of concern is around the issue of information. The school district has not been forthcoming with either their plans to install WI-FI, nor with any information to educate parents about the potential risks. I have received numerous notices home about the switch to reverse lunch hours, the change in bell times, FSA testing, and most recently, the change in report cards since the teachers’ strike. None of these posed any potential risk to the health of my children, yet the school and the school board extended quite an effort to keep me informed. In contrast, I have not seen any information sent home by the school board regarding either the installation or use of WI-FI, or any of the question marks or concerns surrounding its safety.

In fact from what I have seen, when questioned about WI-FI, the school board tries to convey the message that it is entirely in Health Canada’s hands to decide and that the school board has little to do with it. I find this deceiving and unethical, and it certainly appears to me that the school board is trying to put one over on the public. Parents are not protesting this technology plan because quite simply, the vast majority of them know little about it.


My fourth and final area of concern is that there is quite literally no need to install WI-FI in the schools, particularly given the Oct. 2011 cell phone advisory. Firstly, there is no need to provide wireless internet for personal devices because the use of them by children has been advised against by the agency you claim to follow. Secondly, despite the potential risks to their health, WI-FI will not allow children to access technology at school that they cannot do with safe, hardwired computers.


WI-FI is not mandatory or essential in any sense, it is voluntary. It is a proprietary choice, and those educators that are charged with a duty of care to provide a safe, toxin-free learning environment have the obligation to uphold that duty and make informed, unbiased decisions that prioritize the health and well-being of the children in their care. Have we really reached the point where unnecessary technology and exciting “partnerships” take precedence over children’s very lives?


I have heard the arguments that “radiofrequency radiation is all around us, so it is silly to think that WI-FI in the schools would make any significant difference to my child’s health.” That argument is akin to saying that because there is air pollution all around us, I might as well smoke. Or that since a person is overweight he/she may as well order the large platter of wings. Just because there are hazards and threats to my child’s health that I cannot control does not mean that I should passively accept those that I can control. I can control her exposure to microwave radiation. I do so in my home, and I am asking you to help me do so in her school environment, by removing WI-FI until we know more about the long-term safety of the technology and can prove, without a doubt, that exposure to this technology is indeed safe.
Just because we can install WI-FI does not mean that we should. Schools and public buildings in this country and others are now removing WI-FI because of health concerns. Can we not learn from their mistakes, rather than repeat them?


There are simply too many question marks around the safety of WI-FI and much new scientific evidence that must be considered in order to prevent a situation of negligence. Without concrete evidence of its safety I strongly feel that we must, for the sake of our children, proceed with extreme caution, rather than pursuing "progress" at any cost.


Dr. Sullivan I look forward to your response as soon as possible, outlining how you plan to address this issue with parents. When controversial, untested and potentially harmful technologies are utilized to deliver education and these tools are not mandated by any educational or health agency, the responsibility to address concerns and provide accountability lies with the person who chooses to utilize the technology - not the health agencies.


Sincerely,
A Parent (name removed)

Infertility in Canada has almost Doubled since 1992

In the news last week: Infertility in Canada has almost doubled between 1992 and 2010, not just among women who got married older, but among young women in the 20's as well.

http://o.canada.com/2012/02/15/infertility-rates-rising-for-canadian-couples/

Here is a list of studies linking electromagnetic fields (including Wi-Fi frequencies) to loss of fertility:
http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/11/wi-fi-decreases-human-sperm-motility.html

More infertility studies on birds, insects, frog, rats and chicken under "cell tower" studies on this page:
http://www.safeinschool.org/p/scientific-studies.html

Health Canada's "Weight of Evidence" is Non-Sensical

These are the scientific studies listed on our website: http://www.safeinschool.org/p/scientific-studies.html We post the source links for all of the studies and we link to full-text as in the publications wherever such links are available.

It is important to list the studies which clearly state that EMF (at Wi-Fi and cell phone frequencies) can cause adverse biological effects, because Health Canada often makes blanket statements that there is no evidence of such effects.


Health Canada's “Weight of Evidence” Approach

Health Canada's "Weight of Evidence" approach (which they use to justify their claim that EMF doesn't cause any harm) is nonsensical. They are saying that if the number studies that don't show harm is more than the number of studies that show harm, then there's no harm, or harm is not proven - who has "more" evidence wins!


Genetic Differences

First of all, when live subjects are used, genetic differences between individuals or between groups need to be taken into consideration. Just like in the general population, not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. Similarly, one study on chicken might yield different results compared to another study of the same substance, but conducted on another batch of chicken. However, the difference in outcome does not NEGATE the fact that the substance has caused harm on the first batch, (even though it didn't cause the same harm on the second batch). This is especially important when the concerned substance is mandated for all.

Thalidomide

Here is a U.S. Congressional Briefing by Dr. Theodore Litovitz, Professor Emeritus, Physicist, research scientist http://youtu.be/MCe0rqqyBcw. Dr. Litovitz talked about the drug Thalidomide which underwent pre-market testings in the labs. Some tests showed harm and some didn't. The health agencies approved it for sale anyway.The result - more than 10,000 babies in 46 countries were born with severe birth defects because of this drug. AND... "Canada was the last country to stop the sales of the drug, in early 1962. It is not known exactly how many worldwide victims of the drug there have been, although estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. In 1962, the United States Congress enacted laws requiring tests for safety during pregnancy before a drug can receive approval for sale in the U.S. Other countries enacted similar legislation, and thalidomide was not prescribed or sold for decades." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defects

"Weight of Funding” affecting Research Outcomes

Secondly, "Weight of Evidence" is also heavily affected by the "Weight of Funding". Wireless and utilities industries and their trade associations have a lot more money to fund studies than other independent sources. As a result, industry-funded studies always out-count non-industry-funded ones. Industry funding influencing science outcome is not a conspiracy theory, it is a well-known phenomenon. Here are excerpts from the Harvard Health Policy Review.
Profit and the Production of the Knowledge: The Impact of Industry on Representations of Research Results
Harvard Health Policy Review Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2007
"In Canada , for example, most of the national funding agencies explicitly encourage collaborations with industry. Even the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the primary public funding agency for biomedical work, has embraced this trend. In fact, the federal legislation that created the CIHR has declared “commercialization of health research” and “economic development through health research” to be central goals of the agency... As a result, many of the relevant players are acting as expected and as market forces would dictate."
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hhpr/currentissue/07spring/051-060.pdf


Impact of the Commercialization of Biotechnology Research on the Communication of Research Results: North American Perspective
Harvard Health Policy Review Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2007
"Evidence demonstrates that academic biotechnology research has become increasingly commercial in the last twenty years in Canada and in the US . This obvious realization does not only carry negative implications. Private funds have helped American universities remain on the cutting edge of scientific research and provide the best learning environment for their students. However, it would seem that this increasing emphasis on research commercialization has also created situations where university teachers and researchers could now find themselves in conflict between their traditional academic duties and the new commercial imperatives. This situation is especially worrisome in that it could lead researchers to delay the communication of important findings over substantial periods of time in order to protect commercial interests.
In our article, we first demonstrated the existence of a significant correlation between commercialization and withholding of information in the biotechnology research field in Canada and in the US . We then set out to find where and how, in the commercialization chain, the free dissemination of information was put in jeopardy. We conclude that policy changes may be required to improve the free flow of information."
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hhpr/currentissue/07spring/071-084.pdf

Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies

Anke Huss1, Matthias Egger1,2, Kerstin Hug3, Karin Huwiler-Müntener1, Martin Röösli1
Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, United Kingdom, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Basle, Basle, Switzerland

Public or Charity-funded studies have  over 9 times the probability of reporting at least one statistically significant biological effect, compared to industry-funded studies.

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.9149

“Radiation Research” and The Cult of Negative Results

Most non-industry funded studies found biological effects. Most industry-funded studies found no effect.

http://www.microwavenews.com/docs/mwn.7-06.RR.pdf

The Effects of Mobile Phones Electromagnetic Fields on Brian Electrical Activity: A Critical Analysis of the Literature.

“Overall, the doubt regarding the existence of reproducible mobile‐phone EMFs on brain activity.. it [the mobile phone industry] funded, partly or wholly, at least 87% of the reports. From an analysis of their cognitive framework, the common use of disclaimers, the absence of information concerning conflicts‐of‐interest, and the industry’s donations to the principal EMF journal, we inferred that the doubt was manufactured by the industry... Of the 48 studies supported by the MPI (mobile phone industry) 30 were positive and 18 were negative (38% negative)... all 7 studies not funded by the MPI were positive. Although the industry‐funded studies were significantly more likely to be negative... no two positive studies reported the same effect... Thus the apparent message of the studies dovetailed well with the MPI position that there are no reproducible biological effects, and did so without denying the existence of EMF‐induced bioeffects, which was the tactical error made by the electric power industry thirty years ago. If the investigators funded by the MPI had published only negative studies, the industry research program would not have passed the laugh test... Sixty‐two percent positive served to both protect the interests of the industry and still sustain the appearance that its position was based on scientific experiments... The legitimization process had the hallmark of a well‐designed legal strategy. Any peer‐reviewed report claiming to have shown that mobile‐phone EMFs affected brain electrical activity, particularly a report funded by the MPI, is potential evidence in a court case on behalf of a party adverse to the industry. Inclusion of a disclamatory statement in the original publication is a strategy that tends to blunt such uses by a plaintiff. Of the 30 MPI‐funded studies that were self‐designated as positive, 22 contained a disclamatory statement... From a scientific perspective the disclamatory statements were puerile, and it would be naive to suppose that so many investigators spontaneously decided to include them. More likely, the disclaimers were explicit or implicit requirements of the funder, with or without the agreement of the authors.”

http://andrewamarino.com/PDFs/CellphoneEMFs-Review.pdf

Excess Risk of Brain Cancer with 5 Years or More and/or Cellphone Use on Same Side of Head as Tumor Location or, Combinations of Wireless Phone Use: Interphone Results Versus Swedish Team Results

Independently-Funded Research (BLUE diamond) overwhelmingly found increasing risk of Brain Cancer, while Cellphone Industry-Funded Research found decreasing risk mostly.

On the original webpage, you can click on points on the graph to get the reference information.

Industry Funded Cell Phone Study Ignores Evidence, Whitewashes Results http://truthonmedecine.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/industry-funded-cell-phone-study-ignores-evidence-whitewashes-results/

Read more on Industry Funding influencing EMF Safety Standards
http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/02/world-health-organization.html

SafeinSchool: Children are Not Safe with Wi-Fi in Schools

SafeinSchool.org is a website set up by Parents for Parents, with the objective of raising awareness about the health risks associated with non-discretionary deployment of wireless technology in schools, which immerses children in microwave radiation 6 hours a day, everyday, for many years.

Our priority is to take precaution for the protection of our children.

SafeinSchool.org was set up at the beginning of 2011 when parents in Richmond, BC started asking questions about why our School Board would risk children's health for a convenience which was not even essential in the education of younger kids. Since then, numerous parents in Canada and around the world have visited our site and many have shared the non-industry-funded science and information on our webpages with others.

As of yesterday, we were made aware that a few days ago, an anonymous person has registered two domains of the same name as our "SafeinSchool", except with different extensions. This person has posted in our name at parents' forums and on Twitter, intentionally confusing the public while spreading mis-information. As well, he resorted to libeling and created fake dates for his posts to pretend that the website has been around for a few years, even though it has existed for - about 3 days.

Parents beware.