Wi-Fi in Schools – Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks?
February 7, 2011 | 
Author Author: A.Furtado, Citizen Journalist
You can’t slow progress, right? But as technology changes, a question remains, should schools switch to a wireless connection for internet access in order to keep up with technology?
That question was considered during an information session held on Saturday, January 22 at Lochside School by the nonprofit organization, Citizens for Safe Technology. The group presented an alternative view regarding this controversial issue. Citizens for Safe Technology clarified that they were not “against technology”, but rather they were advocating that parents become fully informed before allowing their schools to use powerful microwave radiation to transmit information throughout the building.
Concerned parent, Karen Weiss, said, “Parents are under increasing pressure to go with this trend. All parents want the best for their kids, but what they don’t realize is that a wireless connection is not going to make them smarter or give any technological advantages over a hard wired connection. In fact, there are many peer reviewed studies emerging that suggest that long term exposure of low level Wi-Fi radiation can cause serious biological effects.” Karen Weiss explained that her son was diagnosed with “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity.”
According to Karen Weiss, Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity is a condition recognized by the World Health Organization and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It causes extreme physiological changes in those individuals exposed to Wi-Fi, with effects including headaches, nausea and increased heart rates. This leaves parents like Karen Weiss wondering where their children might go to school if it becomes blanketed in Wi-Fi radiation.
A January 24th A-Channel news report stated that School District 61 committee chairperson George Ambeault said that Wi-Fi allows flexibility in classrooms as far as the types of equipment that can be used and the various methods of accessing the Internet and other data.
However, the school district’s move is not without “pushback” from concerned citizens. As a result, the school district agreed to hold three public committee meetings to consider a range of information before moving forward on Wi-Fi, the last of which is being held this month.
Some parents cannot understand why the school district would consider such controversial technology when countries like France are removing Wi-Fi from schools and public buildings.
According to the November 2, 2010 minutes of the Arbutus School Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting, it was agreed to spend $10,000.00 on converting Arbutus School to wireless in order to meet the school district’s one-time offer of matching funds for a wireless system. The minutes continue, “that the teachers would have laptop and, potentially, iPad access in classrooms” and that the school district believed the wireless technology was “safe”. The minutes also indicate that a decision had to be made by the PAC before the end of November or risk forfeiting the matching funds.
Many parents and staff have urged the Arbutus PAC to reconsider their support for installing the wireless system and to exercise the “Precautionary Principle”, which states that, “when science has not yet determined whether a product is safe or unsafe, policy should prohibit or restrict its use until it is known to be safe.”
According to electrician and Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) consultant Walt McGinnis, “Canada has lax standards when it comes to protecting the public from electromagnetic radiation such as that emitted from a wireless router. Health Canada allows an exposure level 100 times greater than countries like China, Russia and Italy.” Una St. Clair-Moniz, Executive Director of Citizens for Safe Technology Society, explained during the January 22 meeting that some insurance companies have eliminated coverage of Wi-Fi related claims to avoid future losses.
“Wi-Fi Routers will emit radiation throughout the entire school all day long, just as cell towers do. Something is very wrong when our health authorities allows students and teachers to be exposed to levels of Wi-Fi radiation hundreds of times above what is shown to cause illness,” said McGinnis.
The last public committee meeting about Wi-Fi prior to a decision is scheduled for February 28th, 2011, from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM and will be located at 556 Boleskine road.
A Channels coverage of SD61’s first Committee meeting on Wi-Fi from PM on Vimeo.
Posted in Community News
12 Responses to “Wi-Fi in Schools – Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks?”
Leave a Comment
Thank you for covering this story. People are either just not aware of the harm that can be caused by wireless technology or in denial. We all want to believe in Health Canada, but HC is refusing to take the precautionary approach or having stricter standards as they do in European countries. Children are particularly vulnerable. I am very concerned about the future as there will be more and more people who are electrically hypersensitive as well as more people suffering from cancers and many other diseases. I hope your article inspires folks to get more educated on this subject.
This is such an important story, and hopefully it will result in people becoming more involved in their schools regarding this topic. Scientists have compared having a WiFi modem to having a mini-cell tower in the classroom. We all know how dangerous cell towers are; think several of these in a typical school. This is not necessary technology, it is only a little more convenient. It allows kids and teachers to use their laptops without plugging in, but don’t they have to plug in for power? Is this convenience really worth risking the health of our children? The answer is clear — let’s demand that schools use only cable connections for internet access until WiFi can be provided in a manner which can be proven to be safe.
There appears to be a concerted effort to prevent information to parents and the public on this issue. There are thousands of peer reviewed studies; policy makers are simply choosing Industry dollars over the health of citizens. Given all the contention and uncertainty, it seems very reasonable to slow down the rush to implement wireless when there is growing evidence of potential harmful effects to children’s well being. The internet can still be accessed via dedicated ‘wired’ systems, what is the problem? I would think school officials would err on the side of caution rather than be responsible in part for students/teachers developing neuro-degenerative diseases or cancer down the line. When the science eventually determines microwave radiation from Wi-Fi is indeed genotoxic and carcinogenic then what? Too little, too late. That is why precaution is warranted NOW. Children are not guinea pigs; the safety record is just not there for multiple industrial Wi-Fi routers and laptops to be used in close proximity for countless hours around our most vulnerable. No- I certainly do not consent as a parent of two young children to Wi-Fi in schools. As a responsible and loving parent, my children’s health and safety is non negotiable- period.
WAKE UP SCHOOL BOARD,
perhaps a few Lawsuits may help get your attention
Wi-Fi radiation needs to be removed from elementary schools immediately, then middle schools and high schools can be focused on. Using an Ethernet cable or 3G is not that hard! Some coffeeshops have chosen to not use WiFi, like “Habit.”
The author quotes Karen Weiss saying “. . . . In fact, there are many peer reviewed studies emerging that suggest that long term exposure of low level Wi-Fi radiation can cause serious biological effects.” I would like to see citations to those peer reviewed studies. It is not enough to mention that there are peer reviewed studies.
Parents who don’t want their children exposed to WiFi can home-school their children, which Canadian law provides for. Citizens should realize that educators and functionaries know much better than the parents do as to what is good and right for these young future citizens, and this includes lowered cerebral functionality, cancer and the other proven benefits from 2.4 GHz electromagnetic radiation. The Japanese government is raising the standards for irradiation from nuclear accidents. This is a step in the right direction because here in North America, our bodies have been continuously exposed to such radiation due to government experiments since the 1950’s, which has resulted in the human system adapting to higher levels of radiation. Europe is behind in this trend, as they have not evolved as quickly as we have, so they have banned WiFi and cell phones in schools (see http://www.robindestoits.org/Angleterre-Allemagne-Autriche-le-wi-fi-interdit-dans-les-ecoles-Le-Parisien-09-02-2008_a270.html and http://www.robindestoits.org/Interdiction-du-telephone-portable-dans-les-ecoles-et-colleges-JT-France-2-13h-08-10-2009_a995.html for examples ).
If you’re still not convinced, here is an article by fellow Canadian Larry Moron on how to make tinfoil hats to protect your children. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-to-protect-yourself-from-wifi.html
Please Glenn,
Do a little reading on your own, do a little homework. Why is it someone else has to convince you that wireless technology is harmful? If you can not tell industry spin from real science no one can help you. Well you can lead a horse to water…………………….
The evidence is overwhelming that shows Wi Fi type radiation is harmful. Gooogle the Bioinnitiative report section 1 or section 17 for starters.. You could browse through the 2000 peer reviewed studies in this report that show various forms of harm also, but I fear that will not be sufficient for you.The main impediments to getting this information to the public are ,
1 corporate control of the research
2 corporate control of our health agencies
3 corporate control of our universities
And after getting around these roadblocks by using this great forum for instance, we are faced with a a society addicted to convenience and especially hooked on wireless technology. I do not use the term lightly as there are real physiological impacts that result from exposure. If you are not hooked to your cell phone prove it to me and stop using it for a week and tell me you did not experience withdrawal. Look at the behavior of the people using this technology, the anger they express when confronted, the denial, the fanatical efforts to discredit people who are only trying to save them and the natural environment. I would say only about 5 % of the public has the brain capacity to think straight, so right now I am making a lot more enemies than friends. But those of us who are conscious of this looming public health catastrophe , who have the courage to stand up and fight we have no choice but to go on. I wish I had the solution to this mess, but I am at a loss. AT least we have the Saanich Voice on Line.
Glenn, come over for a beer sometime. I promise I will not mention the subject.
Walt McGinnis
I have done my homework. I have read the junk science that I have been given. I have also sought out other sources of information. What seems to be completely lacking is actual peer reviewed studies that confirm the dangers of wifi. But there is a lot of junk science and the suggestion that there are peer reviewed studies. What is clear is that there is NO CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that supports the theory that wifi is harmful. The World Health Organization has also reached this conclusion.
But for those that think otherwise, feel free to provide citations to actual peer reviewed studies published in scientific journals. I am open to evidence if it has gone through the right channels.
I would add that unless the Saanich Voice Online has any scientific evidence behind their article, they should refrain from publishing articles that increase public fear in a climate devoid of basic scientific understanding.
The World Health Organization is dead wrong on this point in my opinion. They receive tens of millions of dollars per year from corporations. They were wrong on smoking, thalidomide, asbestos, breast implants, bovine growth hormone, plastics, lead in gasoline, wrong on protecting our blood supply, wrong on flue shots and so on. These are not mistakes in my opinion .
A lot of people closely associated to the WHO made lot of money off the products the WHO kept on the market while many innocent people suffered and died. Any objective examination would show that the Who is not credible on any issue. Their lack of action to protect the public is criminal behavior in my opinion.
The following studies show harm from exposure to EM radiation.WI FI emits EM Radiation, but the research is not specifically on WI Fi. So Glenn is right about that.
The technology is so new and because research is mostly funded by industry and so much of the earlier studies show harm from similar technologies like cell phones the industry is in no hurry to do the research.
There is no scientific reason to believe that the radiation from a WI Fi router would be any safer than the radiation from a cell phone transmitter, as far as I can tell .
I suggest Glenn click on the link http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp.
There are about 1000 studies there showing the hazards of human exposure to electromagnetic radiation.
Please read section 1 http://pdfcast.org/pdf/the-bioinitiative-report-chapter-1
and section 17 http://www.eloverkanslig.se/rapporter/Bioinitiative/section_17.pdf
The peer reviewed BioInitiative Report i contains about 2000 peer reviewed studies showing harm. This is a report by scientists who state the case so much better than I.
If you are looking for absolute proof , as far as I know there is none. I guess you could always question anything. Can this really all be junk science? Is this really all fear mongering? I do not think so.
I think this is a terrifying scenario to contemplate and it is very upsetting. I can understand the urge to shoot the messenger
.
The issue is, at what point do we have enough evidence that something is harmful to the public before we take any precautions. Especially when a huge proportion of the worlds population is being exposed.
This is a 2010 200-page report by the National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer and Environmental Diseases “Bernardino Ramazzini”in Bologna, Italy explaining the different facets of biological effects from electromagnetic fields. Titled “NON-THERMAL EFFECTS AND MECHANISMS OF INTERACTION BETWEEN ELECTROMAGNETIC
FIELDS AND LIVINGMATTER”. These are the biological effects that Health Canada considers not well-established. These are also the same biological effects that EU parliament voted almost unanimously to adopt as basis to tighten EMF exposure standards in their member states.
This is the study funded by T-Mobil in Germany which found strong indication of cancer-initiating and cancer-promoting effects, genotoxic effects, loss of fertility and adverse effects on the central nervous system, blood brain barrier, the endocrine and the immune system from electromagnetic frequencies of cell phone range, among other problems. http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/ecologsum.php
http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/ecolog2000.pdf
Here’s the link http://www.icems.eu/papers/ramazzini_library5_part1.pdf
I have 2 bits information to bring to this debate:
1.If Wifi is safe why are more and more schools removing WiFi from the classroom like the one in Pretty River Academy in Collingwood, Ontario? see http://thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=1034.
2.If you are wondering just how much radiation WiFi emits compared to other sources, then according to tests carried out at Calais school it gives off 3 times as much radiation as a cell phone tower, see http://electricsense.com/2726/wifi-in-schools-gives-off-3-times-as-much-radiation-as-cell-towers/
So, no the benefits do not outweigh the risks.