Refuting the health risks

WiFi is safe. Here are some resources & quotes from public health organizations around the world supporting that. While the quotes are meant to give you a flavour of what the position of each of these organizations is, please do follow the links to see the entire quote in context.

Note that not all articles have direct links or are available on the open web. These are often research articles locked behind academic paywalls and only available to the academic or research community. Where that is the case, I’ve provided an academic citation. You may be able to find these articles through the public library.

First, this video produced by Health Canada on the subject of WiFi in schools.

  • Additionally, Health Canada notes in their 2011 publication It’s Your Health – Safety of Wi-Fi Equipment that, “no precautionary measures are needed, since RF energy exposure levels from Wi-Fi are typically well below Canadian and international safety limits. As with any product, Wi-Fi devices should be operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.”
  • Dr. Richard Stanwick, Chief Medical Health Officer, Vancouver Island Health Authority in a letter to SD 61 board (pdf) dated  July 5, 2011 notes that, “Given the current scientific evidence, the consensus of public health practitioners is that at the current exposure levels these electromagnetic fields do not constitute a threat to the health of the public.”
  • The BC Ministry of Health states that, “There is no convincing evidence that wi-fi exposures constitute a threat to the health of B.C. residents.”
  • The Office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Province of Alberta, in their August 2012 fact sheet WiFi in Schools (PDF) states that, “Based on currently available scientific evidence (August 2012), it is the view of the Chief Medical Officer of Health that the use of WiFi in schools does not pose a health risk to staff or students.”
  • While Dr. Perry Kendall, Chief Health Officer, BC Ministry of Health does provided some recommendations for school districts who wished to limit Wi-Fi, but notes in his  2010 letter to the BC Ministry of Education that the recommendations are “despite a lack of evidence of any adverse health effects related to Wi-Fi and the fact that Wi-Fi exposure constitutes only a small fraction of total radiofrequency exposure.”
  • On their Wi-Fi at a Glance page, Public Health Ontario notes that “Extensive, long-term studies with biological organisms, including long-term animal studies, have been carried out using the same frequencies as Wi-Fi systems. These studies showed no effects at exposure levels within international exposure limits” and “…to date there is no plausible evidence that would indicate current public exposures to Wi-Fi are causing adverse effects on health.”

Moving beyond Canada, there are many public health organizations who have also examined the issue of the health of WiFi and have come to the same conclusions that WiFI does not pose an undue health hazard.

  • The World Health Organization (WHO) fact sheet on Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health notes that, “Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects” and, “From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF signals produced by base stations. Since wireless networks produce generally lower RF signals than base stations, no adverse health effects are expected from exposure to them.”
  • The American Cancer Society states that, “In general, most experts agree at this time that the evidence of a possible link between RF waves and cancer is limited. This is based on the generally poor quality of studies done so far and the fact that it’s not clear how the low levels of energy in RF waves might cause cancer.”
  • The New Zealand Institute of Environmental Science and Research (part of the New Zealand Health Authority) has a page devoted to the safety of WiFi where they state unequivocally that WiFi is not harmful.
  • The New Zealand Ministry of Health, in their 2014 study on Wifi in Schools concluded, “Exposures to WiFi signals in New Zealand schools, both from the access points and devices, are very low. On this basis WiFi in schools does not pose a health risk to children or staff.”
  • While more research is always a good thing and will continue, one of the arguments used by anti Wi-Fi advocates is that there have been no long term studies on the effects of WiFi. This is incorrect. According to the World Health Organization page What are Electromagnetic Fields there has been extensive research on the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation with over 25,000 published articles on the subject produced over the past 30 years. Notes the WHO, “Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals.”
  • In their 2010 fact sheet, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection states that, “The scientific data available so far do not indicate that low frequency electric and/or magnetic fields affect the neuroendocrine system in a way that these would have an adverse impact on human health.”
  • The UK Health Protection Agency, on their page Understanding Radiation, Electromagnetic Fields state that, “There is no consistent evidence to date that exposure to radio signals from Wi-Fi and WLANs adversely affects the health of the general population. The signals are very low power, typically 0.1 watt (100 milliwatts) in both the computer and the router (access point), and the results so far show exposures are well within the internationally-accepted guidelines from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). On the basis of the published studies and those carried out in-house, the HPA sees no reason why Wi-Fi should not continue to be used in schools and in other places.”
  • On the topic of Wi-Fi exposure of children in schools, Dr. Michael Clark of the British Health Protection Agency stated that, “All the expert reviews done here and abroad indicate that there is unlikely to be a health risk from wireless networks “ and “When we have conducted measurements in schools, typical exposures from wi-fi are around 20 millionths of the international guideline levels of exposure to radiation. As a comparison, a child on a mobile phone receives up to 50 per cent of guideline levels. So a year sitting in a classroom near a wireless network is roughly equivalent to 20 minutes on a mobile” Dr. Michael Clark of the British Health Protection Agency quoted in  Daniels, Nicki. “Wi-fi: Should We Be Worried?” Times London, December 11, 2006.
  • In a 2007 report published in Environmental Health Perspectives, researchers Peter Valberg, Emilie van Deventer, and Michael H. Repacholi concluded that, ” As summarized here, these separate avenues of scientific investigation provide little support for adverse health effects arising from RF exposure at levels below current international standards. Moreover, radio and television broadcast waves have exposed populations to RF for > 50 years with little evidence of deleterious health consequences.”Valberg, Peter A., T. Emilie van Deventer, and Michael H. Repacholi. “Workgroup Report: Base Stations and Wireless Networks—Radiofrequency (RF) Exposures and Health Consequences.” Environmental Health Perspectives 115, no. 3 (March 2007): 416–424. doi:10.1289/ehp.9633.
44 comments on “Refuting the health risks
  1. dyr2 says:

    it seems you are out not to get to the heart of the matter, but to argue from authority, further without examining the structure of that authority, all basically pointing to a single source, icnirp, for its standards and assurances, and all the way down the mainstream line, no one dares to question what is going on

    there are errors above i won’t deal with now, not knowing whether you”ll allow by fair play my comments to remain, which will strongly detract from your presentation, there is a great wealth of contrary material to your what you put

    • Scott Leslie says:

      Dear Daryl, the science underlying the physical impossibility of wifi radiation breaking molecular bonds (which would be necessary for it to cause cellular changes like cancer to occur, given ALL current understandings of biology) is held not only by a select few authorities but by the vast majority of scientists. It is taught in any first year physics textbook where they differentiate between “ionizing” and “non-ionizing” radiation and indeed formed the basis for choosing this particular spectrum not only for wifi but the large number of other devices that share it.

      In your criticism that this site appeals to authority, are you not citing your own set of authorities as counter examples? There are literally thousands of forums in which open, reproducible scientific results can be shared and debated. The experts you cite have inevitably not chosen these forums, or when they have, have not been able to convince their peers. This is inevitably seen as evidence of a great conspiracy, yet literally hundreds of times a day we all (including yourself, unless you live off the grid and grow everything yourself) have no problem placing our trust in other things science has determined are safe. Science leads us to a consensus view of truth based on reproducible results that can and are overturned if compelling evidence to the contrary is presented. There are definitely historical cases in which industries have skewed science in their favour, and if you believe this is the case you need to produce concrete evidence. Simply impugning the whole of science as suspect just doesn’t fly, and it is absolutely NOT the case that this issue has not been studied, extensively, by reputable scientists using open, reproducible methods.

      • dyr2 says:

        how is breaking bonds as you refer to the sole thing of interest to you? you are unaware that the distinction between ionizing & non- for health & enviro. purposes is grossly misleading, as if breaking such bonds is the only way to bring about harmful effects, when both “types” of radiation have overlapping harmful effect

        it is incorrect to state that i am arguing from authority, i am arguing a dissenting position, and it makes a mash of language to claim as you do; further, this dissident examines the literature in some depth, but more importantly pays close attention to the 20th century history of wrongdoing in which patterns are discernable that are being acted out again on giant scale re wireless — why ignore this primary aspect in a public policy debate??

        where do cite any expert here please, as you claim?

        where is my “inevitable” claim about “conspiracy” (which btw means nothing more than at least two people getting together to plan something, and if those two are in very influential positions…)?

        “concrete evidence” must have been put before you by local opponents of wifi etc, you & defenders of wifi etc turn away from examining it, in deference to chosen authority — do you want me to quote “concrete evidence” here? it is likely redundant, but i can overflow your web pages with material

        ” impugning the whole of science” — you are talking as if ‘science’ is some kind of religion; there is plenty of material to overturn the “thermal effects” paradigm that your favoured authorities are clinging to, whereas the underfunded, independent-of-industry-&-abettors researchers who find big trouble with the regnant paradigm, have no satisfactory account of mechanisms of harm — but that is completely unnecessary for public policy purpose, indications of harm are plentiful, the basis of your authorities’ safety claims is thoroughly undermined, the lag in catching up is what is exploited by those who’d push more wireless on you, and Heaven help us all, children

      • Bob Bichen says:

        There is just no end to your misinformation, whether medical or technological: “…biological effects due to RF/MW cannot be attributed only to a change of temperature…cellular stress caused by electromagnetic fields could initiate the changes in cell cycle reaction rates.”

        The particular frequency band that wifi occupies has nothing to do with it being ionizing or non-ionizing radiation, it’s an arbitrarily chosen range of frequencies that has been legislated to be license free in most of the world. You have absolutely no clue what you are writing about.

        There are plenty of reproducible results proving there are negative biological effects from microwave radiation, you just choose not to acknowledge them and in your narcissistic world, that means they don’t exist. You then present ridiculous straw man arguments like “impugning the whole of science.” In fact, almost every study on non-thermal microwave radiation effects has a disclaimer in it stating “more research is necessary.” The trouble is, there’s much more money in showing that it’s harmless than the absence of profit in showing the truth that there are biological effects at non-thermal levels. When you have a multi-billion dollar industry funding its propaganda, it’s impossible for non-industry sources to fund an equal number of studies. The result is ridiculous unscientific statements like “the weight of evidence” shows no harm. Of course it does if the weight of evidence is purposely adjusted to show no harm, and a statistical analysis of results based on funding proves this. Fortunately, real scientists realize this is not how science operates. You only need one reproducible study with correct protocol to falsify a hypothesis, not thousands.

        • Scott Leslie says:

          Hey Bob, sounds like you’ve found the smoking gun. Surely you can convince at least one scientist up at UVic to try to replicate the findings in this paper, and thus begin the process of shifting the scientific consensus on this. Good luck!

          • Bob Bichen says:

            Once again, “scientific consensus,” is an oxymoron. Negative health effects from non-thermal exposure have been proven for decades. The hypothesis that no harm occurs below thermal levels has been falsified. This is not a “consensus,” this is a scientific fact. Here is a declassified document, part of Project Pandora, from the late 60s:


            Just like tobacco, the evidence of harm is proven and available, but powerful lobby groups and those with conflicts of interest with more interest in making money than protecting children’s health have almost succeeded in suppressing the truth through sheer volume of bogus studies, but fortunately people are waking up.

            Surely Scott you can find some of your well funded buddies in the microwave disease industry to fund a “study” that refutes what militaries around the world have known for decades.

            The link below is the entire Project Pandora document from which the excerpt above was taken: (downloadable pdf)


          • Scott Leslie says:

            Bob (if that is your real name, I continue to be confused by the insistance on pseudonyms your group insists on), are you seriously citing a 50 year old document about operators who are sitting inside military radar installations as evidence that wifi in schools is dangerous? If so, I would once again suggest that you are desperately trying to find anything to back up your case, but keep offering up examples that aren’t convincing to anyone.

            You make statements about the “sheer volume of bogus studies” – that’s pretty tough talk. Calling a scientific study “bogus” (def: “Not genuine or true; fake.”) is potentially slanderous if it doesn’t actually try to address it on the terms of the study being set or have some other actual evidence that the study’s author clearly falsified results. So – do you want to point to a SPECIFIC “bogus” study rather than flailing your hands aroud about the “sheer volume” of them but not pointing to specific examples. I would once again suggest that your case can only get stronger by sticking to specifics, having those challenged by people with the competence to do so. So far, you and all of your cronies responding on this site have failed to do that.

          • Bob Bichen says:

            Scott, I can’t reply to your latest nonsense below, so I’ll reply here. Re-read this link:


            Unless you think the “operators who were sitting inside military radar installations 50 years ago” were sub-human primates, you clearly have a comprehension problem or you just refuse to read the evidence. The military research by ARPA linked above has shown with REPEATABLE CERTAINTY that frequencies used for wifi below Safety Code 6 (SC6 – 5 mW/cm2), when modulated, show DISRUPTION OF THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM within 10 to 19 days. These same frequencies, when not modulated, showed no disruption. Many studies showing no harm at sub-SC6 levels were conducted without modulation, so are therefore faulty by design if they were attempting to falsify a hypothesis that wifi is safe. It’s the modulation that causes the disruption, and this has been known for at least 50 years. Do you want YOUR children’s central nervous system disrupted by chronic microwave exposure? I know I don’t want mine irradiated by this proven toxin. I really have to ask what motivates you to violate the obligation to provide a safe learning environment for children for no proven benefit over safe, robust, faster and less expensive wired internet connections.

          • Scott Leslie says:

            What I refuse to do, Bob, is believe YOU or the vast majority of sites you reference. Bring some credible people to the proper table (e.g. Not this one) and have them convince their peers. This has not happened, cry conspiracy as many times as you like.

    • Clint says:

      Yes, dyr2, I choose to argue from authority because I happen to believe that those authorities like Health Canada, my provincial ministry of health and local health authority (who have all unequivocal stated that WiFi is safe) are in the best position and have the most validity to judge what is safe and what is not. I certainly trust their authority more than what I read in the comments section on a website. And so should the people who are on the fence about this issue reading these comments here.

  2. virvine says:

    Another media release for folks to consider:

    Wi-Fi danger in schools overblown: CTV investigation

    • NK says:

      It would be surprising to see other than that conclusion considering that CTV is owned by Bell Canada and Planetworks is a consultant firm serving industry clients. It is unlikely that an industry professional will bite the hand that feeds him – unless and until he becomes EHS himself.

      • Scott Leslie says:

        Right, because EVERYONE who does not buy into the anti-wifi agenda is clearly on the payroll of big business and technology. It must be hard to know who to trust when everyone is out to get you.

        • Bob Bichen says:

          Another Scott Leslie straw man. Where did he write that everyone is out to get him? He didn’t, you just made it up. He merely stated that telecommunications companies that receive funding derived from the proliferation of microwave radiation have an obvious conflict of interest and cannot be expected to destroy their own income stream. To quote Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

          Microwave radiation is an almost exact analog of the history of tobacco with a highly profitable industry conspiring to suppress legitimate science showing harm for decades. Yes it was a conspiracy, and conspiracies for massive profit exist, and a successful $368 billion government law suit proved that in court.

          • Scott Leslie says:

            Prove it. Convincingly. You don’t seem to be able to hear people saying that your “evidence” is not convincing.

        • Shan says:

          Well Scott , when I read this, I immediately thought of you so thought I would pass it on………..

          It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.
          It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
          Mark Twain

  3. I also wonder why anti-wifi advocates often stay anonymous. No avatars, no links to profiles. The PAC member at my kids’ school is our VCPAC representative and he distributed a dozen pages of anti-wifi materials to our PAC and made it appear as if it was from the VCPAC when it was, in fact, distributed by him personally as an individual. It was not appreciated by the members present based on body language and facial expressions.

    So next up I am now concerned about who is representing our school on VCPAC. Obviously someone with strong views against wifi (as his wife asked me to turn off my cell phone which was on the table and then moved away in a huff when I did not). If this situation is repeated across schools… if there is some systematic volunteering of anti-wifi actvitists on school PACs who then request to serve as the VCPAC representative… which is often by acclamation at our school as not all positions are filled… makes me wonder if this VCPAC organization can really be touted as being representative of our parents on wifi. I know the VCPAC rep from my child’s school did not have the support of our PAC or meeting members based on reactions then. Who are the VCPAC members and what are their views on wifi? If the VCPAC is organizing a survey… how is it done? how can it be done in such a way so the results maintain integrity? Threats to integrity might be using proxies or whatever to vote multiple times on one survey or, if paper, to photocopy and submit multiple results. If any survey is being done, I’d like it done by the district.

    To be honest, before throwing corruption attacks at people or organizations, it would be fair to show the profile of those who are in the anti-wifi movement.

  4. Ray says:

    This website is an absolute sham, and selectively ignores a large body of scientific evidence that clearly and consistently shows that RF radiofrequency microwave radiation is connected with a variety of serious health issues.

    It is clear that the makers of this website are either ignorant of the science or intentionally misleading, or both.

    WiFi in schools is like having a cell tower in the classroom. If you’re not familiar with cell and radio transmitter research, then this is a good start:

    • Scott Leslie says:

      Hold on Ray, did you just make the assertion that “WiFi in schools is like having a cell tower in the classroom.” If so, I’m so glad, it just shows how distorted the story you folks spin is. Wifi routers have a signal strength in the 30-500 mW randge. Cell towers in the 10-100W range – e.g. typically 200 times the strength. Surely you meant something like “Based on the Distance and Inverse Square Law of EMF, placing a wifi router in a class is like having a cell tower something like within a KM of a school.” But you don’t say things like this, because you are only interested in scaring people.

    • Clint says:


      I (and, more importantly, Health Canada and numerous other Health agencies around the world) disagree with your assertion that there is “a large body of scientific evidence that clearly and consistently shows that RF radiofrequency microwave radiation is connected with a variety of serious health issues.”

      And I would prefer if you could refrain from name calling with those who disagree with your opinion. Calling people “ignorant” will not be tolerated in the future and I will not post your comments.


  5. Ray says:


    How did you manage to ignore the 15 pages of studies that are sitting right on top of your head? Most if not all of these studies show that RF radiation is harmful.

    Examining the science must be too inconvenient for you.

    It is obvious that you haven’t measured the radiation emitted from cell towers or WiFi.

    I have.

    The radiation levels in a classroom are over 3 times higher than if the children were standing next to a cell tower.

    • Scott Leslie says:

      Ray, this is simply incorrect. The power they work at are magnitudes of order different. At similar distances, the signal strength from a cell tower is very much greater. Thanks for your comment!

      • Steve says:

        Math. How does it work?

        • Scott Leslie says:

          Sorry, how does math work? Or are you asking for the math to support the statement I made?

          It really doesn’t require a lot of math – Ray asserted “The radiation levels in a classroom are over 3 times higher than if the children were standing next to a cell tower” and earlier “WiFi in schools is like having a cell tower in the classroom.” I take Ray’s statements to mean they are “at equivalent distances to both” not, “compare a cell tower at 1Km to a wifi router at 5 meters.”

          As high powered routers work at 500 mW, lower ones 30 mW and cell phone towers transit at between 10 & 100 W, what kind of maths is necessary to demonstrate this is hyperbole. Anyways, last time I looked it up the formula for the power density of signal was


  6. Ray says:

    Now it is really apparent that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

    Many sources have reported the exact same thing I’m saying: the radiation levels are over 3x higher in a classroom than they are near a cell tower. Alasdair Phillips documented this on the BBC Panorama investigative documentary, just to name one.

    Now, according to UK-funded studies, the radiation levels emitted from WiFi laptops are over 20,000 units at a distance of about 3 feet. (uW/m2)

    Levels in direct contact with the laptops can be up to 50,000,000 ( 50 million units )according to the NRW Ministry of Environment.

    Now, I’ll place before you the science of cell towers, which you won’t even review.

    Example #1: Oberfeld 2008. Radiation levels of 1,000 units were associated with 23x increased risk of breast cancer and 120x the risk of brain cancer.

    Example #2: Wolf 2004. Radiation levels of 5,3o0 units were associated with 10x increased risk of cancer for women.

    Example #3: Cherry (Sutro Tower). Radiation levels of 650 units were associated with 5x in creased cancer risks.

    These are just some of many studies that clearly show that this is a really high risk situation. These kids are in this environment (but at least they’re moving around, right Valerie?) for 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, for year after year.

    You are clueless about the actual science Scott, and you’re too biased to admit you’re dead wrong.

    • Scott Leslie says:

      Ray, clearly you are an expert and indeed no doubt imminently more qualified than I. A PhD? MD? In any case, I’m sure when you publish the results of your studies that irrefutably make your case, that people will sit up and take notice. Please let us know when these come out.

  7. Ray says:

    Stop being evasive and address the science before you.

    This refutes the misleading information that is the basis for this poorly researched excuse for a website.

    You are being held accountable. Either dismiss the science or remove your false claims.

    • Steve says:

      Horseshit. I’ll defer to the 25,000 studies over the many years, and the conclusions of the WHO, Health Canada, the Norwegian Institute of Health… and every other public health agency rather that some cherry picked study of known quality. Not all science is created equal, a so called Canadian professor comes to mind for example.

    • Scott Leslie says:

      Ray, the reason no one is scouring the websites YOU host and asking you to remove “the misleading information that is the basis for this poorly researched excuse for a website” is that 35,000 studies over 25 years have led the vast majority of people qualified to speak on the subject to conclude that the risks are either non-existant or minimal when compared to all of the other existing risk factors we face everyday. They have been dismissed already. The claims we were making were only these, that body after body which has looked at this hasn’t accepted the claims. You can dismiss this site because we aren’t willing to engage you on the science you offered. I am not a scientist. As far as I know, neither are you. But YOU are the ones bringing all of the “scientific” claims to this site. If you look in all of the pages here, we do not try to argue these, simply point to existing authorities whose JOB IT IS to research and maintain these standards, ad who don’t agree with you.

  8. Ray says:

    It is irresponsible to ignore large numbers of scientific studies that report adverse effects.

    Scientific inquiry is not a sporting event. You don’t pick a side and blindly root for it.

    I am challenging you to do a review of cell tower research, which is one of the most relevant sources of radiation, in that it is whole body, chronic exposure at so called low levels.

    Yes, that would involve doing some thinking.

    Let’s go beyond what the organizations say, and get down to the actual studies.

    Yes, this is a challenge to you and your fowl mouthed friend.

  9. Scott Leslie says:

    I wonder what proponents of “electrohypersensitivity” make of studies like this one which show a strong correlation between media warnings and EHS complaints. This is one of the reasons its important to counter this misinformation campaign on the part of anti-wifi proponents, as it actually stokes fears which have real effects on people’s health (in the form of the “nocebo” effect.)

  10. Ray says:

    How slippery. Why move on so soon, Scott?

    Do you have too short of an attention span to do the actual research?

    Or are you afraid of what you will find?

    • Scott Leslie says:

      Yes Ray, afraid and…wait, what did you say? I got distracted by the blinking lights on my router.

  11. Ray says:

    Closing one’s eyes and ears to the science that reports adverse effects not acceptable.

    Your approach to science is like telling your child to cross the road without looking.

    You and others may have been entranced by their technology so much that they can’t see straight, but many of us still have the ability to detect and discern unacceptable health risks.

    WiFi is not safe. It is impossible for something to be safe if thousands of studies show it to be unsafe.

    If there were a chemical in your water that thousands of studies showed to cause DNA damage, cancer, leakage of the blood brain barrier, and a large number of other issues, would you still give it to your child?

    If you still answer yes, fine, but don’t force it on our children.

    • Clint says:


      Numerous health agencies around the world disagree with your assertion that WiFi is not safe. This page is meant to show that those who are actually charged with protecting public health and contain doctors and scientists disagree with your assessment of the risks.

  12. Ray says:

    Clint, maybe it’s time to update your picture as well as your perception of risk.

    Many scientific and medical organizations say that WiFi is NOT safe.

    They include some of the top researchers in the world, thousands of medical doctors, and public health physicians.

    Here are quotes from some of the top researchers:

    That in and of itself is enough reason to not install WiFi in schools.

    • Scott Leslie says:

      So why is no one listening to you Ray? Why, with all of this uncontestable evidence, do health bodies accept that the current standards are safe? Oh, right, the massive conspiracy to suppress this.

      Clearly you are an impressive citizen scientist, so why don’t you collate all of these studies into a comprehensible format & present them to the public health officers in as many jurisdictions as you can. Get them on record stating they will not investigate this further not because the science is dubious but for other reasons. There’re ways to move your agenda forward, if indeed it deserves to, but lobbying school boards is not it.

    • Clint says:

      Ray, you say it is, Health Canada says it isn’t. I believe Health Canada.

      The document you link to is from a website that, as far as I can tell, is anonymous. I can’t even find a name associated with it in the domain registration records ( Who owns The site doesn’t pass the first critical literacy test of the web – if it doesn’t have a name, don’t believe it. I would expect that you would be a tad more critical about your sources, Ray.

  13. Ray says:

    Some wish to see the evidence and some don’t. Your website is an example of those that prefer to remain blind to the facts.

  14. Ray says:

    Clint, you have it wrong on all counts.

    First of all, it’s not me vs Health Canada. It’s these and other experts and the science vs Health Canada.

    Second. The source is right at the bottom of the document – open your eyes.

    Third, you have now made it painfully clear that you have never looked at the actual research, as those experts names would be familiar to you if you had.

    But, if you still don’t believe it, why don’t you contact those top level scientific and medical experts and ask them if they really advise against the use of WiFi in schools?

    Maybe while you’re at it you could learn something.

    Let us know what you find out.

    • Clint says:

      You missed my point about source. I see the source is But if I go to that site and try to see who is behind the site, I find nothing. How can that be a credible document when it comes from a website that doesn’t have a person or organization associated with it?

      Second, I have read enough of the research to satisfy me. I have read Carpenter & Sage, Magda Havas & Dr. Milham. I have also read many criticisms of all of their work. They are highly controversial figures within the established science and medical communities.

      With respect to Dr. Carpenter (the first name I see on that list), I do acknowledge the work he has done with the Mohawk nation in Akwasasnee in their fight to have General Motors clean up polluted hunting and fishing lands. But his area of research is PCB’s and not WiFi. He himself has admitted that he has never done any research on WiFi, and that his BioInitiative Report was never peer-reviewed but self published on the internet with a hand picked group of authors.

      Finally, if the evidence is so convincing, then why has Health Canada not been convinced?

  15. Ray says:

    Clint, you continue to disclose how little research you’ve done before launching your website.

    You are exhibiting classic signs of selective bias. You can’t find a name associated with a domain name on a website and somehow that is a bigger issue than the 20 expert medical doctors and scientists who wrote, in very clear terms, that WiFi is not safe in schools?

    That kind of irrationality is fine at home, but unacceptable in the realm of a public health issue.

    If the only “research” you’ve looked at is from Sage, Carpenter and Milham, but if Carpenter and Sage haven’t published research on RF radiation, and Milham focuses on a different subspecialty, you really have only looked at reports, but no actual science. That explains it.

    That’s unacceptable. You have a website that claims to refute the science, but you haven’t even looked at the science.

    Clint and Health Canada, perfect together.

    • Clint says:

      Ray, how are you qualified to speak to health issues? Are you a doctor? A scientist? What are your credentials? Why should I pay any attention to what you are saying and ignore actual health professionals?

      There have been close to 25,000 studies done on this issue over the past 30 years ( If the issue is so clear cut, then why have health officials refused to act? They have had 30 years and 25,000 studies to do so, yet they remain unconvinced. So do I.

      I am getting tired of going around in circles here. I am enabling moderation on the comments. I feel I have been pretty generous with giving you guys a soapbox to air your views. You (and your companions Shan, dyr2 and NK) have had your say. And, I am sure, have your own websites with which to continue the discussion. Oh yeah, most of the websites run by anti-wifiers don’t actually allow comments or discussion.