UK fears on Wi-Fi in schools
p2pnet.net news:- Does Wi-Fi give off dangerous radiations, or doesn’t it? It’s an on-again off-again controversy which has been raging for years.
When Canadian school principal Fred Gilbert vowed to ban Wi-Fi until he was sure EMF (electric and magnetic fields) don’t pose a health risk, “particularly to young people,” he was ridiculed.
“It’s obvious that holding a 1/4 watt microwave transmitter (yes, roughly the same frequency range MICROWAVE energy you use to COOK your lunch…) a fraction of an inch over the same patch of living brain tissue for several hours a week every week for years and years is going to eventually cause some problems,” says a p2pnet Reader’s Write, adding, “Better to wear them on your belt so they’re closer to your reproductive organs…”
But Gilbert and, by implication, the p2pnet reader, are wrong, believes Bill Thompson, and Gilbert’s students, “are suffering as a result“.
“While the heating effects of high exposures to electromagnetic radiation can be damaging, the power levels of wireless connections are much lower than the microwave ovens and mobile phones which share the frequency range, and treating them in the same way is the worst sort of scaremongering.”
Now, “Britain’s top health watchdog has called for an inquiry into the use of wireless Internet networks in schools because of concerns they could be exposing children to the risk of cancer,” says the Daily Mail, going on, “The demand came after it was revealed that classroom ‘wi-fi’ networks give off three times as much radiation as a typical mobile phone mast. Guidelines from the Health Protection Agency already state that masts should not be sited near schools because of a possible cancer link and other health risks.”
And, tonight (May 21), the BBC’s Panorama programme (Wi-Fi: a warning signal) will air an investigation which says, “radio frequency radiation levels in some schools are up to three times the level found in the main beam of intensity from mobile phone masts,” states Guardian Unlimited.
However, it says in another story, the investigation into the possible dangers of WiFi technology by Panorama, “has been rejected as ‘grossly unscientific’ and a ’scare story’ by leading scientists.”
Nearly half of UK primary schools and more than 70% of secondary schools have Wi-Fi networks, says Guardian Unlimited, going on:
Campaign groups and some scientists are concerned that the expansion of the technology has happened without adequate research into the effects of Wi-Fi radiation. But most scientists argue that there are no grounds for thinking that Wi-Fi radiation at the power generated by a wireless router or a laptop would have harmful effects. The World Health Organisation says there are “no adverse health effects from low-level, long-term exposure”.
addy Regan, a physicist at the University of Surrey, criticised the experiment at the heart of Panorama’s claims because the measurements of signal power had not been made at equal distances from the mobile phone mast and the Wi-Fi laptop. A spokesman for the programme told the Guardian that the “three times higher” comparison was based on measurements taken one metre away from the laptop and 100 metres away from the phone mast, although material sent to journalists promoting the programme did not make this clear. Dr Regan said: “It’s a basic fundamental of science measurement, that if you are trying to compare things you have to take into account the so-called inverse square law.” To make a fair comparison between two radiation sources the measurements should be taken at the same distance away. The levels measured by the Panorama investigation were 600 times lower than levels considered dangerous by the government. “It does sound like a scare story to me,” said Dr Regan.
However, “Panorama’s spokesman defended the methodology by saying the phone mast measurement was ‘at the point at which the beam was at greatest intensity where it hit the ground’,” adds the story.
Says the BBC on its Panorama WiFi feature:
Panorama contacted 50 schools at random – and found not one had been alerted by the government to any possible health effects.
HOME
