The Anti-WiFi argument

While the primary purpose of this site is to focus on the teaching & learning implications of a school without WiFi, it is impossible to speak about this issue without talking about the health and science behind the claims.

My overarching belief is that we have established systems in place to protect our health, and those should be the institutions we turn to when making health related decisions. Organizations like Health Canada and, regionally, the BC Ministry of Health and the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) have all stated publicly that WiFi is not a health risk. These are the bodies who are tasked with protecting the health of the public and the organizations who should be deciding if the health claims made by the anti WiFi advocates are valid, not local school boards. And the fact of the matter is that no public health body in our region believes that WiFi is a health risk.

  • Refuting the health risks is a list of quotes and links from reputable and trusted health related websites such as Health Canada that show that WiFi does not pose a health risk to our children.
  • The Group 2B Possible Carcinogen page is a list of resources and links to show what that classification means, how it came about and what it might have to do with WiFi.
  • The BioInitiative Report is a report often used by anti WiFi advocates as the basis of their argument. This page has links to organizations that question the validity of this report.
  • The Precautionary Principle looks at the principle and how it is being selectively applied when it comes to the health of our children.
  • Wired vs Wireless argues that wired is not a suitable alternative and represents a pedagogical step backwards in teaching & learning.
7 comments on “The Anti-WiFi argument
  1. dyr2 says:

    re poster points:

    1 is argument against necessity of schooling as it is altogether
    3 backs up 1, dwindling resource commitment should lead to a re-think altogether, above all extracting corporate-financial-etc world from realm of publicly supported education
    2 plainly false about the sci you plainly have not examined, as there’s blind reliance on, yes, blind/corrupted authorities

    blind leading the …

  2. Bob Bichen says:

    Here’s a perfect example of why Health Canada can’t be relied upon to keep our children safe; they don’t even understand the basics of 2-way wifi communication as demonstrated by this quote from their site: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/prod/wifi-eng.php

    “Unlike cellular phones where the transmitter is in close proximity to the head and much of the RF energy that is absorbed is deposited in a highly localized area, RF energy from Wi-Fi devices is typically transmitted at a much greater distance from the human body. This results in very low average RF energy absorption levels in all parts of the body, much like exposure to AM/FM radio signals.”

    They have completely missed that the tablet that the child is using is in his hands or on his lap next to his reproductive organs and actually has a rated SAR value similar to cell phones as shown by Apple’s own product literature. Apple’s “Important Product Information Guide” for the iPad WiFi + 3G reveals that the highest SAR value for the WiFi 2.4 GHz is 1.19 W/kg and for the 1800/1900 MHz cell phone network it is 1.18 W/kg, which is typical for SAR values of cell phones, so Health Canada is completely wrong and irresponsible to be downplaying the intensity of microwave radiation from these devices.

    The following quote form Health Canada when taken together with Apple’s stated signal strength values for the iPad indicates that children should reduce their exposure from wifi enabled devices such as the iPad as well as cell phones:

    “Health Canada also encourages parents to take these measures to reduce their children’s RF exposure from cell phones since children are typically more sensitive to a variety of environmental agents.”

    Furthermore, comparing wifi to AM/FM radio signals is inappropriate as they are much weaker in a building and encoded with steady analog modulation which has a proven different effect on the cells of the human body than wifi’s digitally pulsed modulation which is discontinuous making adaptation and self-protection more difficult.

    • Scott Leslie says:

      Hey Bob, I can’t help but have visions like this come into my mind reading your comment

      ipad by your head

      But maybe that’s just the effects of the wifi in my house talking.

    • Clint says:

      Bob, I should trust your opinion over that of the myriad of medical researchers and practitioners at Health Canada because…..?

  3. Bob Bichen says:

    The head of Belgium’s largest cellphone company bans WI-FI from his offices and tells kids cellphones are dangerous:

    http://www.emfacts.com/2012/12/the-head-of-belgiums-largest-cellphone-company-bans-wi-fi-from-his-offices-and-tells-kids-cellphones-are-dangerous/

    • Scott Leslie says:

      Bob, do you even read the articles you post? “During the day, it is better to use a headset because the GSM, it heats.” IT HEATS!!! While even tat is a dubious claim, at least he’s in the realm of the physically possible.

      • dyr2 says:

        Obsession with heating is a big part of what got us into this mess of wireless danger. Kane, you’re reading I take it, mentions the obvious and ignored unmeasurable microheating. But what might count most is RATE of heating – if temp. goes up by a teensy bit, if it is far to sudden for coping with in bio-situation, maybe that is one pathway to harm.

        Take the example of the accepted phenom. of the Frey effect, microwave hearing. The “accepted” physicists’ description of what is going on, involves thermoelastic expansion somehow conducted to the inner ear. It is far from adequate that account, but they are even then only talking about teensiest temp. increases, but at a phenomenal rate.

        If I am slowly pushed with much force, I can brace myself to a degree to counteract that. But a sudden slap in the face with lesser overall force would hurt more. A loud curse shouted once a day can perturb less than one whispered in your ear all day & all night long. It is easy to think one’s way out of utterly simplistic paradigms your authorities are stuck in.
        Just try.