Wi-Fi scares - schools are missing the point

6. Anyway there should be hard action taken in school area if any thing going wrong then or if not working since there lots of children go to school to learn something new.

All we should help to resolve if we talk about school problem or WiFi missing in School

5. Holness, the resonant frequency/microwave thing's a common misconception: it's not resonance, it's rotation. Heating comes from the combination of frequency and power density, and exposure levels are agreed by the various bodies (WHO, IEEE etc) based on that - so for example the IEEE recommendations have different power levels for different frequencies. Wi-Fi routers deliver milliwatts, microwave ovens hundreds of watts.

Topazg, I'll cheerfully admit I'm not a scientist - which is why I'm not just parroting health scares :)

> Your comment that "...there being no evidence of "considerable" anything." on biological and thermal (sic, should be non-thermal) effects is simply wrong, and demonstrates no effort to read the literature on your part.

Sorry, I disagree - apart from the (sic) bit, which is a direct quote. So the HPA study into exposure is indeed investigating "thermal effects", which is one of the things the group is calling for. And it also addresses another thing that the anti-EMF argues again and again, which is that it's not about power output from individual devices but the totality of the "electronic smog" from multiple sources. So to me at least, it doesn't appear to be a whitewash.

Didn't realise it wasn't close to publication, though, I thought it was due this year.

As for biological effects, while there's an enormous amount of evidence on the thermal effects of RF, which is of course where the exposure levels come from, beyond that there's lots of hypothesis, "weak correlation" and very little hard data. The most convincing thing I've read suggesting non-thermal effects is the EU REFLEX study, but the best it can offer is in vitro experiments which, of course, don't necessarily mean the results are reproducible in people. And REFLEX has been criticised quite strongly, with suggestions that the experiments weren't fully standardised, complete disbelief at some of the described "DNA damage" and some difficulties in reproducing the results.

I completely agree that research needs to be ongoing, not least because many diseases take a hell of a long time to put in an appearance, but I'm an "evidence first then panic" kinda guy.

4. "...it is the lowest exposure levels that do the most damage to the blood-brain barrier..."

If what you are saying is accurate, that lower exposure levels cause more damage and higher levels cause less damage, then these studies have identified (or are at least indicating) an inverse relationship. We should therefore surround children with wi-fi routers until they can barely move, so as not to risk them being subjected to zero exposure, which would presumably be lethal. Let's get those exposure levels up, right now!

There is, on the other hand, the faintest of possibilities that this assertion is, not to put too fine a point on it, bollocks.

A comprehensible scientific review? By all means. I can think of plenty of worse things to spend my taxes on. Hysterical accusations purporting to be science but which, upon closer examination, don't even make sense? No thanks.

3. Microwave radiation in the frequency range of WiFi has been shown to increase permeability of the blood-brain barrier, cause behavioural changes, alter cognitive functions, activate a stress response, interfere with brain waves, cell growth, cell communication, calcium ion balance, etc., and cause single and double strand DNA breaks. many scientific reports including Salford and Persson's most recent paper is showing that it is the lowest exposure levels that do the most damage to the blood-brain barrier. The time has come to call for a complete scientific review in favour of adopting new biological based guidelines.

The question is WHY are we putting our children’s health at risk for the sake of wireless computers? We should use wired connections which are faster and safer anyway.

2. the resonant frequency of water is? humans are how much % water ?

microwaves operating on the same frequency require sealed units and leak checks because?

perhaps it is nothing, but i'll stick with cat6 and homeplugs where needed!

1. Broadly speaking, I agree, there are more important things to worry about. I find it equally depressing however that you have made such a poor job of checking the facts behind your own claims in the article, leaving me with the impression that this is a polarised 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

"there's absolutely no evidence that Wi-Fi is dangerous, and because it's much less powerful than mobile phone communications it's very unlikely that it can be dangerous." The first point is absolutely true, there's no research into WiFi and health at all. The second statement is a scientific fallacy with no justification. The limited information there is on RF EMFs between 900 MHz and 2.5 GHz suggests that if there is an effect, there isn't a linear dose response relationship. Lower exposure does not necessarily equate to lower risk.

You criticise his approach and the "shaky science" behind is views, yet don't cite or reference any of your own, and would equally earn the grade of an "F" for researching your sources.

The study on WiFi you mention is not nearing publication, nor is it assessing WiFi and health, merely exposure levels in reference to ICNIRP guidance levels, which is not designed for the non-thermal effects that are being reported - The study will achieve nothing to confirm risks or otherwise.

Your comment that "...there being no evidence of "considerable" anything." on biological and thermal (sic, should be non-thermal) effects is simply wrong, and demonstrates no effort to read the literature on your part.

If you are going to worry about writing articles on the issues being raised by teaching unions, parents, and other governors, it would be beneficial to research the topic yourself before commenting on areas so far outside of your own expertise. You also I suspect are neither a scientist nor have you consulted any in your article (issues which you derided My Kinney for in particularly), so you kind of shoot yourself in the foot with your standards of adequate research.