A Call for Best Practices with Wireless Radiation from Authorities Across the World
compiled by Environmental Health Trust

The above document describes concerns raised by scientists concerning wireless radiation and children’s heWiFi router - Kirlean imagealth and the policy actions taken by international authorities to reduce the risk.

Here are some of the quotes, especially relating to WiFi & children:

“EMF/RFR from WiFi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function. This will make it harder for some children to learn, particularly those who are already having problems in the first place.
Martha Herbert, PhD, MD  Neurologist & Neuroscientist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School

Many bioeffects and adverse health effects occur at far lower levels of RF exposure than those that cause measurable heating; some effects are shown to occur at several hundred thousand times below the existing public safety limits, which are set based on the fallacious assumption that there are no adverse health effects at exposures that do not cause easily measurable heating….
WiFi uses similar radiofrequency radiation (1.8 to 5.0 GHz), although the intensity of exposure in the immediate environment is much lower than what one gets from holding a cell phone close to your head. The difference between a cell phone and a WiFi environment, however, is that while the cell phone is used only intermittently a WiFi environment is continuous. In addition WiFi transmitters are indoors, where people (and in this case, children) may be very close to them…I urge you to not put WiFi in any school. Children should not be put at increased risk of developing cancer.
David O. Carpenter, M.D. Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany

“For children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises.”
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Wi­Fi environments will lead to high microwave exposure for students and teachers which might increase the burden of oxidative stress. Oxidative stress might slow down the energy production especially in brain cells and may lead e.g. to concentration difficulties and memory problems in certain individuals. The Austrian Medical Association recommends Wi­Fi free school environments.”­
Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, Salzburg, Austria, on behalf of the Austrian Medical Association.

“Having done experiments on cellular model systems we have found an effect from electromagnetic radiation from WiFi. I have strongly suggested for years now that they should be used only if absolutely necessary in the home and not at all in schools. There is no reason for having WiFi in schools since there is an alternative ­ wired connections which are safer and faster”.­
Professor Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Cell Biology and Radiobiology, Dept of Cell Biology and Biophysics, University of Athens, Greece.

“To my opinion, which is based on 25­year research of non­thermal effects of microwaves, usage of Wi­Fi and cell/mobile/smart phones in the classroom should be either forbidden or reduced as much as possible. I believe that the majority of scientists with long lasting experience in this scientific field are of the same opinion. “
Dr Belyaev, Head Research Scientist, Cancer Research Institute, Slovak Academy of Science, Slovak Republic;
Associate Professor in Toxicological Genetics, Faculty of Natural Science, Stockholm University, Sweden.

“The concerns raised regarding the unnecessary and prolonged exposure of children to near­field radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF­EMR) from mobile phones, wireless laptops (on their laps), and nearby Wi­Fi transmitters in schools are shared by many. A precautionary approach is realistically achieved without compromising convenience and safety.”
Dr Vini G. Khurana, Asst. Professor of Neurosurgery, Australian National University Medical School

“Wireless technologies have no place in schools. I strongly recommend that where they exist, they be replaced by fiber­optic cable and hard wiring.”
Samuel Milham MD, MPH, Epidemiology and Public Health, Former Washington State Health Dept., USA

“The IARC Monographs classification of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF­EMF) covers the entire radiofrequency segment of the electromagnetic spectrum (30 kHz­300 GHz) including…WiFi stations,..” ­­
Robert A Baan PhD, IARC , 2012

“Even though the radio frequencies that are emitted from current cell phone technologies are very weak they are able to activate the human brain.”
­Nora D. Volkow, M.D., Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health

As a research scientist and physician who studies how microwave radiation affects the outcomes of pregnancy, I am deeply concerned about growing exposures to cell phone and other wireless radiation.”
­ Dr. Hugh Taylor, Chief of Obstetrics at Yale Medical School, 2013

” Three years ago the World Health Organization declared cellphone and other wireless radiation to be a possible human carcinogen, the same category as some pesticides, lead and engine exhausts. Since then evidence has mounted that such radiation can profoundly affect human biology, altering brain metabolism, damaging animals exposed during pregnancy and reducing sperm count. Before blanketing our preschools, kindergartens and middle schools with wireless radiation we need a full life­cycle assessment of economic and health costs and benefits of wireless technology.”
Devra Davis PhD MPH, President of the Environmental Health Trust

“From the medical point of view, it is urgent to apply the precautionary principle for mobile telephony, wifi, etc.” ­
Dr. Peter Kälin, President of Physicians for the Environment, 1,500 physicians in Switzerland.

“Wireless systems such as WiFi routers cannot be regarded as safe in schools, but must be deemed highly hazardous and unsafe for the children as well as for the staff.”
Prof Olle Johansson PhD., Dept of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden

We propose a prudent approach to the use of Wi­Fi, especially where children are present. We recommend an education program regarding the relative safety of Wi­Fi exposure and that appropriate resources be developed to educate the public regarding ways to avoid potential exposure risks of Wi­Fi access points and devices.
Canadian Teachers Federation (200,000 elementary and secondary school teachers)

“I move that UTLA will abide by current National NEA Policy for Environmentally Safe Schools which states that all employees and stakeholders should be informed when there are changes in their exposure to environmental hazards including electromagnetic radiation and that all stakeholders and the public should be notified of any actual and potential hazards.”
United Teachers of Los Angeles (representing 40,000 teachers and staff)

“Voice has advocated that new Wi­Fi systems should not be installed in schools, that existing systems should be turned off when not required and that schools should consider whether they really need to use Wi­Fi, which was developed to facilitate Internet access on the move rather than to be used as a convenient alternative to cables in dedicated IT facilities.”
UK Voice: The Union for Education Professionals (20,000 members)

Scientific data on the biological effects of radiofrequency (RF) indicate the need to pursue a precautionary approach to protect the exposed population. It is clear that RF radiation can cause single and double strand DNA breaks at exposure levels that are currently considered safe under FCC guidelines.
Dr. Martin Blank of Columbia University

Neuronal damage may not have immediately demonstrable consequences, even if repeated. It may, however, in the long run, result in reduced brain reserve capacity that might be unveiled by other later neuronal disease or even the wear and tear of ageing. We can not exclude that after some decades of (often), daily use, a whole generation of users, may suffer negative effects such as autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases maybe already in their middle age”.
Dr. Salford, Dr. Nittby, and Dr. Persson in in Effects of Electromagnetic Fields From Wireless Communication upon the Blood­Brain Barrier in the Bioinitiative Report.

Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent well­known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.”
The 2011 European Commission Resolution 1815

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost­effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
The United Nation’s Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development, 1992.

The proper designation now, if a working group were to meet, would be category 2 … making it a probable human carcinogen … as you increase radiofrequency fields in our environment you will, in fact, increase the hazard.”
Dr. Anthony Miller of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, and IARC Advisor, in his Testimony to the Toronto Council in November 2013.

“The problem is that we’re all accessing cloud services – things like webmail, social networking and virtual applications – over wireless networks. It’s the modern way but wireless is an energy monster, it’s just inherently inefficient. …Our calculations show that, in 2015, the wireless networks we use to access cloud services will command around 90% of the energy needed to power the entire wireless cloud services ecosystem….This is an increase in carbon footprint from 6 megatonnes of CO2 in 2012 to up to 30 megatonnes of CO2 in 2015, the equivalent of adding 4.9 million cars to the roads.
The CEET Report: The Power of Wireless Cloud

In Canada, Safety Code 6 is “an archaic federal guideline that is allowing Canada’s globally envied health care system to ignore our biggest modern health threat… There is nothing less than the future of our children at stake.” ­
Frank Clegg, Former Microsoft Canada President

“The peer reviewed, scientific literature demonstrates the correlation between RF exposure and neurological, cardiac, and pulmonary disease as well as reproductive and developmental disorders, immune dysfunction, cancer and other health conditions. It is better to exercise caution and substitute with a safe alternate such as a wired connection. While more research is being conducted, children must be protected. Wired technology is not only safer, it also stronger and more secure.”
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine

If we want to wait for final proof, at least in terms of cancer, it may still take 20 years and the issue will become that we will not have unexposed population to act as control. We may never have the absolute final proof. But we have enough data to go ahead with a precautionary principle.”
­ Dr Annie Sasco, Director, Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention, INSERM, Formerly International Agency for Research on Cancer, Unit Chief of Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention, Testimony to Canadian Parliament.


Myth versus Fact

MYTH: “Electromagnetic Radiation like this has been around since the Earth began.”
FACT: Our society has never before been exposed to levels even remotely close to the current levels of microwave radiation in our living space today. WiFi emits levels of RF microwave radiation millions of times higher than what our parents and grandparents ever experienced. Wireless routers in classrooms are like bringing mini cell towers into classrooms.

MYTH: “The overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the world show that wireless microwave radiation is not a health risk.”
FACT: When one removes the industry­funded studies, the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows there is a significant problem. There are over 1000 peer reviewed, published papers showing harmful biological effects from microwave radiation exposure.

MYTH: “Considering the number of people using cell phones, we should be seeing an increase in brain tumor incidence, and we are not.”
FACT: There is a long latency period for brain tumors – from five to as long as 50 years. Cell phones have only been widely used in the US for two decades. Despite this, a recent study (Zada et al, 2012), shows an increase in brain tumors in three major cancer registries in the United States. The increase seen is in the frontal and temporal lobes, the two regions closest to where a cell phone is typically held.

MYTH: “The World Health Organization (WHO) classified wireless radiation exposure as a 2B possible carcinogen putting it in the same category as pickled vegetables and coffee.”
FACT: There are 285 Class 2 Carcinogens such as DDT, gasoline and lead. The picking agent for fermenting specific Asian vegetables has been shown to cause lethal esophageal cancer. Studies have shown that heavy coffee drinking is linked to bladder cancer. Would you feed your child coffee nonstop for 6 hours a day? By ridiculing these findings, the industry hopes we will ignore the truth that the WHO classified microwave radiation exposure from cell phones in the same risk category as DDT and lead.

MYTH: “Organizations such as the WHO, NCI, FCC, and ACS say WiFi is safe.”
FACT: Representatives from these agencies do NOT declare that wireless is safe. They say there is inconclusive evidence and that more research is needed. Top scientists within the US National Cancer Institute (NCI), FDA and the Surgeon General insist upon undeniable proof of harm before taking any action. Similar to many other carcinogens, undeniable proof may not be available for decades. No medical organization that we know of has stated this radiation is safe.

Wireless in Schools

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *