WiFi via LED Lighting
WiFi evolves from radio waves to beams of light
Smart LED lighting - the use of highly energy - efficient and controllable solid-state light sources both to illuminate a defined space and facilitate optical wireless communication among electronic devices in an office or classroom is now a reality. Professor Thomas Little of Boston University is shipping a new LED-based prototype.
"We now have a working system thats robust enough to send to others to experiment with," said Little, co-principal investigator and associate director of the NSF Smart Lighting Engineering Research Center, a program involving BU, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and the University of New Mexico.
Designed for indoor applications such as illuminating a room and transmitting data among laptops, printers, PDAs, thermostats and other devices, LED-based smart lighting could deliver enhanced electronic communication capabilities at a reduced economic and environmental cost. Requiring far less energy than conventional lighting technologies, such as incandescent or compact fluorescent bulbs, and can integrate ubiquitous communication platforms, such as Wi-Fi.
Much more compact, user-friendly and sophisticated than its predecessors, the current prototype, called Smart Light 1 (SL1), consists of a three-by-six-inch board comprised of two sections-one containing an array of nine high-brightness, white LEDs that transmit data to other transceivers, and the other with an array of three photodiodes that receive data. By keying the light on and off at a very high speed to create a pulsed signal, each SL1 board propagates data to laptops and other electronic devices, and is simply connected using a USB cable.
Toward a Commercial-Grade System
"The prototype demonstrates the viability of using modulated LED light at a useful data rate," said Little. "The next step is to make the system completely self-contained, embedding all functionality within the bulb."
At that stage, each board will serve as an Internet and data communication access point for any electronic device within range, and thus enable multiple devices to communicate with one another. These include high definition video streaming devises like the iPad.
"The goal is to enable any light to be a wireless optical access point, and to do this requires costs comparable to conventional lighting devices," he said. "Future work in the Smart Lighting ERC will drive towards higher data rates and lower integration costs."
The WiFi Blues
by Jeffrey Fawcett
From: "Iris Atzmon"
Tue, 3 Jul 2007
on iddd.de: 5.7.07
Wireless broadband Internet access is all the rage.
The noise is drowning out concerns for this technology's risks.
Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love is going to have it; many in San Francisco want it: wireless broadband Internet access (WiFi)1 seems too good to be true. At relatively low cost, anyone can get on the Internet anywhere in a city. All the city needs to do is install a network of WiFi antennas. An often-repeated argument in favor of citywide WiFi is that it will help close the digital divide, since the poorer you are, the more limited your access to the Internet and its wealth of information resources. Cities like Philadelphia and San Francisco are actively trying to close the digital gap. One option is WiFi.
Yet, in weighing the options, virtually nothing is heard about the potential health risks. Saturating an entire city with WiFi adds to the existing burden of radio frequency radiation (RFR). That burden, called electrosmog2 by some, consists of long-term, low-level exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation in the radio frequency and microwave range from familiar sources like radio and TV broadcast signals, radar, and the ubiquitous cell phone.
Henry Lai, PhD, has been researching the biological and health effects of RFR for 35 years. His research focuses on the effects of RFR in the range used by cell phones and other wireless technologies. His laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle is the single remaining lab in the US that conducts such research. Ten years ago, Dr. Lai's laboratory was one of four.
There is no funding in the United States for research of the biological and health effects of RFR and electromagnetic fields (EMF). No foundation, government agency, or corporation will lay down money to help clarify the science behind concerns about WiFi, cell phones, and other wireless devices. Dr. Lai keeps his lab going by doing cancer research, some of it concerning the use of electromagnetic radiation to treat cancer.
In Europe, there are many well-funded projects in RFR research. Citizens are more organized. Public figures have championed the issue. And the European Union has a much greater public health orientation than the United States. These days we have to rely on the Europeans for the science of wireless technology health risks.3
It was not always so. For example, in the early 1990s, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) came up with $25 million for research into the potential health effects of cell phones. The CTIA is the cell phone industry's trade organization. Their intention was to lay concerns about cell phones to rest. The Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program administered the funds and research program. When the $25 million was spent, the WTR final report submitted in 2000 recommended further study. The CTIA cut a deal with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to spend another $1 million to review further research.4 The money is still there. The FDA has been waiting since 1999 when the deal with CTIA was cut to spend the money. According to the FDA website, "the FDA plans to convene a meeting in the near future to evaluate all completed, ongoing, and planned research, looking at health effects associated with the use of wireless communication devices, and to identify knowledge gaps that may warrant additional research."5
Initially, the WTR found no cause for concern. But in 1995, Dr. Lai and his colleague NP Singh, PhD, found that exposing the brain cells of rats to RFR at a level similar to cell phones produced breaks in strands of DNA. Their discovery was a turning point in the research and in the CTIA's enthusiasm for the project. Dr. Lai and Dr. Singh had uncovered a mechanism that explained how RFR exposure might cause health effects.6
Since 1990, Dr. Lai has maintained a database of research on the effects of RFR on humans, lab animals, and cell cultures. He has amassed over 300 studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. To avoid bias, he excludes his own research from the database. Of these studies, 56% show a biological or health effect7 from exposure to RFR. These effects include the following:
genetic effects, such as to DNA;9
cellular and molecular effects, such as reduction in enzymes critical to the central nervous system;10
changes in electrophysiology, such as reduced activity between nerve cells;11 and
physiological and behavioral changes, such as impairment of peripheral vision.12
An interesting thing happens when the studies from Dr. Lai's database are placed in two stacks: one stack containing studies funded by the wireless industry (30% of the studies), the other stack of independently funded studies (70%). Of the studies that show a biological or health effect from wireless RFR, 14% are industry-funded, while 86% are independently funded. Of studies showing no effect, 49% are industry-funded, while 51% are independently funded.
To make the point another way, of industry-funded studies, only 27% found an RFR effect. Independently funded studies found an RFR effect 68% of the time. This discrepancy is consistent among the effects listed. Of studies that found an effect on cancer, 11% were industry-funded; 47% were independently funded. Cellular and molecular effects: 19% industry, 69% independent. Electrophysiology effects: 33% industry, 77% independent. Physiological and behavioral effects: 57% industry, 83% independent.
If Dr. Lai's research were included in the tally, the percent of studies showing an effect from RFR would be even greater. But when Dr. Lai is asked about these statistics, he often says that 50% of the studies show an effect. And then he points out that 50% is a significant number, significant enough to justify a precautionary approach that minimizes exposures.
The differences between the industry-funded stack of studies and the independently funded stack suggest bias. Bias enters research through the way a study is designed, the methods used in the study, how data is collected, and how results are interpreted. It might be that some independently funded researchers are biased because they are consumed by a burning passion to eliminate RFR exposures or, even more sinister, destroy the wireless industry. They might have consciously or unconsciously designed their studies, chosen methods, collected data, and interpreted the results to show health effects from RFR. However, the rewards for doing so are not great. Many researchers who advise precaution regarding RFR have been ostracized, or their research funding has been slashed. Careers have been stalled and, in some cases, terminated - hardly circumstances that would encourage jumping on that particular bandwagon.13
The rewards for producing industry-friendly results are obvious: funding, professional recognition, a clear career path, and employment opportunities in industry. This is not to say that these researchers are dishonest. It is to say that rewards are more likely as a consequence of producing the "right" answers. In other words, researchers typically aren't corrupted into conducting biased research. More often they're already biased, and the rewards flow to them as a consequence.14
Within each group, whether industry- or independently funded, results don't always agree - some studies show an effect, while others do not, regardless of who did the funding. That difference suggests another kind of problem: scientists don't know enough yet to conduct decisive experiments that can produce something like a professional consensus regarding the biological and health effects of wireless RFR. Many of the scientists who work in this field and who believe that there's ample reason for concern will say that the science is not yet conclusive.15 This drives some activists crazy. Yet it is a true statement about the state of the science.
We should not be surprised that this lack of conclusive science has led the wireless industry to claim that cell phones and other wireless technologies are safe. The FDA is with them, stating that "[t]he available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones. There is no proof, however, that wireless phones are absolutely safe."16 This carefully constructed statement is intended to reassure us. Yet Dr. Lai's database puts the lie to the first sentence: it's simply false. The framework set up for us is that a technology should be adopted, unless there's conclusive evidence that it does harm. Not all regulatory agencies think this way.
The UK's equivalent to the FDA, the Health Protection Agency (HPA), has declared a voluntary moratorium on marketing cell phones to children as a precautionary measure.17 The moratorium has so far been observed by the UK cell phone industry. The HPA opens its discussion of the health risks from cell phones with the following statement:
There is a large body of scientific evidence relating to exposure to radio waves, and there are thousands of published scientific papers covering studies of exposed tissue samples (e.g., cells), animals, and people. It is not difficult to find contradictory results in the literature, and an important role of the HPA Radiological Protection Division (RPD) is to develop judgments on the totality of the evidence in controversial areas of the science.18
Unlike the FDA, the HPA points to contra-dictory science regarding cell phone radiation. The reassurance is that they're paying attention, not that cell phones very likely don't cause harm. The HPA goes on to cite the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which reviews the science and recommends standards. The NRPB, and with it the HPA, explicitly adopt a precautionary standard. With regard to children, the NRPB's 2004 report recommends that " in the absence of new scientific evidence, the recommendation in the Stewart Report on limiting the use of mobile phones by children remains appropriate as a precautionary measure."19
In 2004, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) decided that they would not permit cell phone antennas on firehouses. The decision was made by resolu-tion at the IAFF's annual delegate assembly. The resolution directed the IAFF to review the potential health risks from cell antennas. If the science demonstrated a risk, then the union would oppose the use of fire stations as sites for cell antennas until further science demonstrated that cell antennas are safe.20 The resolution was passed in August 2004. In April 2005, the union's Health and Safety Department completed the review of the science. They found more than ample evidence to conclude that the union should oppose cell antennas on fire stations. The position paper included 49 references and a bibliography of 40 citations.21 Based on that evidence, the resolution cites a wide range of effects experienced by fire fighters:
slowed reaction times,
lack of focus,
lack of impulse control,
Three things are worth noting about the substance of the resolution and the union's official position. First, the firefighters were focused on their ability to do their job. Second, firefighters were involuntarily exposed to a health risk. And third, the firefighters oppose cell antennas on fire stations until they are proven safe.
The decision that the firefighters faced - a decision we all face - is how to evaluate the safety of wireless technologies and decide what level of involuntary risk we are willing to take:23
use it unless there's good evidence that it's harmful,
or don't use it until there's good evidence that it's safe.
So consider this: 47% of independently funded studies found cancer effects, 69% found effects on cell function, 77% found effects on electrical signaling in the body, and 83% found physiological and behavioral effects. Suppose you have several hundred marine biologists study your swimming pool. Forty-seven percent (or 69% or 77% or 83%) of the biologists say you've got a shark in your pool. Would you dive in? Would you let your kids dive in?24
Citywide WiFi is only the latest RFR wireless technology to place us involuntarily at risk. Cell phone networks are the best-known; these include personal digital assistants (PDAs) such as the Blackberry. Wireless networks at home and at the office are newer than cell phones and are another RFR exposure. Even if you don't have one, your neighbor might, and that will expose you. Also relatively new are the Bluetooth technologies used for applications such as hands-free telephone headsets that operate using RFR. The familiar cordless phone is another RFR exposure that might put you at as much risk as a cell phone.25
What these technologies share is reciprocal receiving and transmitting of RFR signals between an end-user device and antennas that link the device to a network. There are three characteristics of these RFR signals that are believed to contribute to the biological and health effects of wireless technologies: signal strength, frequency, and modulation.26
Citywide WiFi uses a signal strength similar to cell phones. Signal strength is measured in watts, a standard unit of energy. Wireless networks for the home and office have less signal strength (although they can be increased with boosters), while Bluetooth devices and cordless phones have even less strength.
All these technologies use roughly the same frequency band: 0.3 to 3 GHz. GHz stands for gigahertz. A hertz is a standard measure of electromagnetic radiation created by sending an alternating electrical current through an antenna that is one cycle per second. A gigahertz is one billion cycles per second. The higher the GHz, the faster the current alternates.
An alternative way of measuring RFR is in wavelength. Wavelengths have an exact and inverse relationship to frequency: higher frequencies correspond to shorter wavelengths. Visible light is electromagnetic radiation with higher frequencies and shorter wavelengths than RFR, with red light having a lower frequency and longer wavelength than blue light.
Modulation refers to whether the signal comes at a constant frequency (as in AM radio and analog cell phone systems) or in pulses (as in FM radio and digital cell phones). All digital wireless technologies are pulsed.
Risk increases with signal strength. The frequencies used by wireless technologies are to some extent "ideal" for affecting our bodies because the wavelengths are at a human scale. Digital (pulsed) signals are of greater risk than analog signals.27
Short-term, high-intensity exposures to wireless RFR have received the most research attention, in particular the acute affects of cell phones. Far fewer studies have looked at long-term effects of cell phone use let alone the use of other wireless devices. Even less-studied are the effects of the low-intensity, persistent exposure to RFR from cell phone and WiFi antennas.
Much of the discussion about RFR health effects is framed as a concern for people who are electrohypersensitive. Unlike immune-mediated hyper-sensitivity that responds to allergens, electrohypersensitivity is a reaction to nonionizing electromagnetic radiation from video display monitors, cell phones, cordless phones, wireless routers, or other RFR source. Characteristic symptoms of electrohypersensitivity can include any of the following:28
localized heat and tingling,
dry upper respiratory tract and eye irritation,
brain fog, headache, and nausea,
swollen mucus membranes,
muscle and joint pain,
heart palpitations, and
progressively severe sensitivity to light.
Critics argue that electro-hypersensitivity is not a physical ailment but a psychological one. Research led by Olle Johansson, MD, at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm identified changes in mast cells in electrohyper-sensi-tives.29 So Dr. Johansson exposed rats to RFR exposures similar to his human subjects, assuming that the rat psyche is not predisposed to produce the symptoms of electrohypersensitivity. The study produced results similar to what he found in human subjects: enlarged mast cells aggregated close to the surface of the skin. Dr. Johansson went further and tested both electrohypersensitive and nonsensitive human subjects in similar exposures. Though the nonsensitives had no hypersensitivity symptoms, the mast cells in their skin showed the same behavior as electrohypersensitives, although the effect was less severe.30 Based on this research, Dr. Johansson and his colleague Shabnam Gangi proposed one mechanism for the health effects of RFR as an immunological response, hypothesizing as to how this mechanism affects internal organs such as the cardiovascular and neurological systems.31
In The Hidden Disease,32 Finnish journalist Gunni Nordström associates electrohypersensitivity with multiple chemical sensitivity and chronic fatigue syndrome. People in Sweden made electrohypersensitivity a public health issue when cathode ray tube-based video display monitors were introduced into offices. The rise of Silicon Valley - both in the original Silicon Valley and the many Silicon Valleys that have developed around the world - gave rise to similar health effects among computer-manufacturing workers. Researchers observed a relation-ship between materials used in products and their synergistic reaction with electromagnetic radiation.33 But both funding for research and data collection on occupational health quickly dried up when these issues came to light.
Electrohypersensitives are not an unlucky few. They are likely harbingers in a complex landscape of environmental risks. Just like any other environmental stressor, RFR affects some people more than others. And as with other environmental stressors, the greater the overall burden, the greater the risk of becoming one of the "unlucky few."
Citywide WiFi adds to the existing burden of RFR.34 Just as burning more fossil fuels adds to the level of smog, adding more RFR adds to the level of electrosmog. You don't have to expose your home or your city to the increased burden created by WiFi. There's a viable alternative: a wired Internet access and network. The hype might make it seem less convenient and more expensive. But what's a good night's sleep - or reducing your risk of cancer - worth?35
1. See the Wireless Philadelphia and San Francisco TechConnect websites: Wireless Philadelphia accessed October 5, 2006 at wirelessphiladelphia.org. and San Francisco TechConnect accessed October 5, 2006 at sfgov.org/techconnect.
2. The term is more familiar in Europe than in the US because of the greater political attention paid to the issue by citizen groups and politicians who support them. Beginning in Sweden in the 1980s, citizens suffering from electrohypersensitivity have been vocal advocates for research into the health risks from nonionizing electromagnetic radiation and for the reduction of electrosmog. See Swedish Association for the Electrosensitive website: Swedish Association for the Electrosensitive accessed October 5, 2006 at feb.se/index_int.htm.
3. Slesin, Louis. EMF Health News. Your Own Health And Fitness. L. Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley, CA. 2006: 60 minutes.
4. Carlo G, Schram M. Cell Phone: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age: An Insider's Alarming Discoveries About Cancer and Genetic Damage. New York, NY: Carroll & Graf; 2001.
5. FDA. Cell Phone Facts: Consumer Information on Wireless Phones. Available at: fda.gov/cdrh/wireless/braincancer040606.html. Accessed July 3, 2006
6. The original Lai and Singh research was published in 1995 (Lai H, Singh NP. Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 1995. 16: 95-104.). The next year they published a paper showing even more alarming effects on DNA: double DNA strand breaks (Lai H, Singh NP. DNA single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to low-level radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation. Int J Radiat Biol. 1996. 69: 513-21.). Subsequent research has confirmed these findings and found that the breaks can persist in cell cultures through multiple mitotic cycles. Gandhi, G. Genetic damage in mobile phone users: some preliminary finding. Ind J Hum Genet. 2005. 11(2): 99-104.
7. The phrase "biological or health effect" is common in this literature. Some research is focused specifically on illness while other research simply looks at effects on the organism which might have a downstream health effect.
8. For example, Hardell L, Carlbert M, Hansson K, Mild KH. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997-2003. Int J Oncol. 2006. 28(2): 502-18.
9. For example, Diem E, et al. Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1800mhz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed Gfsh-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro. Mutat Res. 2005. 583: 178-83 and Gandhi G. Genetic damage in mobile phone users: some preliminary finding. Ind J Hum Genet. 2005. 11(2): 99-104.
10. For example, Barteri M, Pala A, Rotella S. Structural and kinetic effects of mobile phone microwaves on acetylcholinesterase activity. Biophys Chem. 2005. 113(3): 245-53.
11. For example, Xu S, et al. Chronic exposure to Gsm 1800-Mhz microwaves reduces excitatory synaptic activity in cultured hippocampal neurons. Neurosci Lett. 2006. 398(3): 253-7.
12. Langer P, et al. Hands-free mobile phone conversation impairs the peripheral visual system to an extent comparable to an alcohol level of 4-5 G 100 Ml. Hum Psychoparmacol. 2005. 20(1): 65-6.
13. A telling example is described in the November 2005 edition of Microwave News: Slesin, L. When enough is never enough: a reproducible EMF effect at 12 Mg. Microwave News. 2005. 25(2): 1-2. Beginning in 1992, seven separate research projects have demonstrated an effect on breast cancer cell metabolism from extremely low electromagnetic radiation, intensities much lower than current standards and well below intensities that are supposed to have any effect. The effect disrupts cell signaling. Each report was ignored. The original researcher was, as Louis Slesin describes it, "drummed out of the EMF profession." The others have had funding cut and endured other harassments. An even more chilling example is described in Gunni Nordström's The Invisible Disease: The Dangers of Environmental Illnesses Caused by Electromagnetic Fields and Chemical Emissions. (New York: O Books. 2004.) She describes how the once-promising career of Olle Johansson, MD, a leading dermatological researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, has been damaged. With over 400 peer-reviewed publications and major discoveries in dermatology, Dr. Johansson has been refused promotion to full professorship, denied research funding, and denied research facilities for his continued interest in RFR health effects and for his advocacy for electrohypersensitives.
14. The notorious example of how pharmaceutical companies shape medical research and medical practice is described by two insiders: Marcia Angell, MD, a former editor at the New England Journal of Medicine and John Abramson, MD, a professor at the Harvard School of Medicine Angell, Marcia. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. New York: Random House; 2004; and Abramson, John. Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine. New York: Harper; 2005.
15. Dr. Lai's 2005 review article is a good example. It describes the many issues in the field that remain unresolved: Lai H. Biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. In Encyclopedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering. G.L. Bowlin and G. Wnek: Taylor & Francis Books; 2005.
16. FDA. Cell Phone Facts: Do Wireless Phones Pose a Health Hazard? Available at: fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#22. Accessed July 3, 2006.
17. In April 1999, the UK's Ministry of Health formed the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones to evaluate the safety of cell phones. Chaired by Sir William Stewart, the commission of independent scientists (which became known as the Stewart Group) reported in May 2000 that enough scientific evidence existed to be concerned about health risks from "subtle effects on biological functions, especially those of the brain." The Stewart Group noted in particular that children would be more susceptible to harm. See the Stewart Group's report: Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK: National Radiological Protection Board 2000. Available at iegmp.org.uk. Accessed July 3, 2006.
18. Health Protection Agency. Mobile Telephony and Health: Health Protection Advice. Available at: hpa.org.uk/radiation/understand/information_sheets/mobile_telephony/health_advice.htm. Accessed July 3, 2006
19. National Radiological Protection Board. Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK: National Radiological Protection Board; 2004: 11.
20. International Association of Fire Fighters. International Association of Fire Fighters, Division of Occupational Health, Safety and Medicine. 2005.
21. Ibid. pp. 13-38. Dr. Lai's database was used as a resource.
22. Ibid. p. 13.
23. For an excellent discussion of how to evaluate environmental risk, see Mary O'Brien's Making Better Environmental Decisions: An Alternative to Risk Assessment. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 2000.
24. Some might rightfully howl at this analogy. An "exposure" to a shark is nothing like an exposure to RFR. No analogy is perfect. So consider another. Hundreds of microbiologists test your pool water for cholera, and 47% find it. Or hundreds of chemists test your pool water for a powerful toxin with both short-term and long-term effects, something like mercury, and 47% find it at various concentrations. Sharks are just so much more dramatic. And the analogy makes the same point: how much agreement among scientists do you need to be assured that something is safe?
25. Although the signal strength from cordless phones is far less than cell phones, people tend to use them for longer periods of time: exposure per unit time is less for the cordless phone, but the total exposure is equivalent to that of a cell phone. A European study found equivalent cancer risks for cell phone users and cordless phone users (Hardell L, Carlbert M and Mild KH. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997-2003. Int J Oncol. 2006. 28(2): 502-18.)
26. Lai H. Biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. In Encyclopedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering. G.L. Bowlin and G. Wnek: Taylor & Francis Books, 2005.
28. Johansson O. Screen dermatitis and electrosensitivity: preliminary observations in the human skin. In Electromagnetic Environments and Health in Buildings. D. Clements-Croome. New York: Spon Press; 2004: Chapter 20. Nordström G. The Invisible Disease: The Dangers of Environmental Illnesses Caused by Electromagnetic Fields and Chemical Emissions. New York: O Books; 2004. and Swedish Association for the Electrosensitive. Available at feb.se/index_int.htm. Accessed October 5, 2006.
29. A mast cell is a type of immune cell that stores histamine crystals, which are released during an allergic response. The skin of the electrohypersensitives Dr. Johansson examined had an abnormally high concentration of mast cells close to the skin's surface that also had high loads of histamine. In other words, these subjects' immune-mediated responses are in a reactive state.
30. Johansson O. Screen dermatitis and electrosensitivity: preliminary observations in the human skin. In Electromagnetic Environments and Health in Buildings. D. Clements-Croome. New York: Spon Press; 2004: Chapter 20, Johansson O, et al. A case of extreme and general cutaneous light sensitivity in combination with so-called 'screen dermatitis' and 'electrosensitivity' - a successful rehabilitation after vitamin a treatment - a case report. Journal of the Autralasian College of Nutrition and Envrionmental Medicine. 1999; 18(1): 13-6.
31. Gangi S and Johansson O. A theoretical model based upon mast cells and histamine to explain the recently proclaimed sensitivity to electric and/or magnetic fields in humans. Medical Hypotheses. 2000; 54(4): 663-71.
32. Nordström G. The Invisible Disease: The Dangers of Environmental Illnesses Caused by Electromagnetic Fields and Chemical Emissions. New York: O Books; 2004.
33. LaDou J. Occupational health in the semiconductor industry. In Challenging the Chip: Labor Rights and Environmental Justice in the Global Electronics Industry. Smith T, Sonnenfeld DA, Pellow DN. Philadelpha, PA: Temple University Press; 2006: Chapter 3.
34. The total burden of already existing electrosmog goes beyond send-receive wireless technologies like WiFi and cell phones and includes pedestrian technologies like radio and television broadcast signals. Research by Dr. Johansson and his colleague Örjan Hallberg at the Karolinska Institute looked at the incidence of cancer and other 20th Century illnesses in Europe and the US and found a striking association between the increase in certain cancers during the 20th Century and exposure to RFR as measured by radio and TV broadcasts. Hallberg O, Johansson O. Cancer trends during the 20th century. Journal of the Autralasian College of Nutrition and Environmental Medicine. 2002a; 21(1): 3-8; Hallberg O, Johansson O. Melanoma incidence and frequency modulation (Fm) broadcasting. Archives of Environmental Health. 2002b; 57(1): 32-40; Hallberg O, Johansson O. Fm broadcasting exposure time and malignant melanoma incidence. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2005; 24: 1-8.
35. The Your Own Health And Fitness radio show (yourownhealthandfitness.org) has carried several interviews over the past year on RFR health risks and safeguards. Havas, Magda. Dirty Electricity and EMF Health Dangers. Your Own Health And Fitness. L. Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley, CA. 2006: 60 minutes; Johansson, Olle. The Science of RFR Health Risks. Your Own Health And Fitness. L. Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley, CA. 2006: 60 minutes; Johansson, Olle and Doug Loranger. Electrosmog. Your Own Health And Fitness. L. Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley, CA. 2005: 60 minutes; Levitt, B. Blake and Jan Newton. Wireless Public Health Crisis. Your Own Health And Fitness. L. Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley, CA. 2006: 60 minutes, Sage, Cindy. Smart Exposures: Understanding Risks from EMF and RFR. Your Own Health And Fitness. L. Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley, CA. 2005: 60 minutes; Sage, Cindy and B. Blake Levitt. Where You're Exposed and What to Do: EMF and RFR. Your Own Health And Fitness. L. Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley, CA. 2006: 60 minutes; Slesin, Louis. EMF Health News. Your Own Health And Fitness. L. Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley, CA. 2006: 60 minutes.
More Panorama effects
Support for Professor Johansson
[ bad science - junk science ]
I have enclosed an open letter of support for Professor Olle Johansson following the shameful ridicule he has faced following the Panorama programme on Wifi.
BBC News 24 has apparently highlighted news from a Swedish blogger DennisJ who sent news to badscience.net saying that Johansson was the 2004 recipient of the Misleader of the Year award. I would like to know who voted for this award and who funds them.
Read the following quote from Dr Ian Gibson MP taken from Panorama:
'Panorama -How seriously do you think the government is taking the precautionary approach right now, with respect to wi-fi?'
'Dr IAN GIBSON MP Norwich North Oh, I don't think there's any doubt about it, they're not at all. wi-fi are just being rolled out as great big white heat of technology. Industry rules in this area and the precautionary principle and the safety of people who might benefit to some extent from the technology are completely dismissed. It's just it's Wild West country for the companies. They just put them where they want and say there's no evidence. Now, you know, five, ten years from now, as the evidence grows, there's enough now to be worried about it, but as the evidence grows, who knows what it might show? It might show that it's completely unsafe for certain groups of people.'
Professor Johansson's important research is obviously causing problems for the government and industry with regards to wireless communication, mobile phones, phone masts, wifi etc. As you can see in the quote from Dr Ian Gibson MP there is a lack of political will as wireless communication is a huge money making machine for government, you know what the say 'the best form of defence is attack'; we are up against the powerful forces of industry and government and we should defend the very people who are trying to protect public health as Johansson continues to expose the truth through his research.
Professor Olle Johansson continues to work against all odds to expose what I and many people including many doctors and scientists throughout the world now believe is one of the greatest threats to mankind in the 21st century. His work into the effects of low level, EMF/EMR (electromagnetic field/electromagnetic radiation) has lead the way and added strength to the campaign as we have been able to use over 450 pieces of published research produced by Olle Johansson.
The following quote is taken from an article written by UK journalist Kate Figes; she has written about her own sensitivity to wireless technology, this was reported in many UK national news papers. She has also faced ridicule from people who refuse to accept this problem is real.
"The government and the telecoms industry sit happily in each other's pockets and we have no say, no way to stem the tide or voice objection. It is left to a handful of scientists, such as Dr Johansson from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden who has found skin changes under the effects of low-level microwave exposure to fight for finance for his important research. Without any sense that we have a political party or government prepared to take this issue seriously, ordinary people have no choice but to become activists - campaigning against mobile phone masts that have been erected without planning permission in the heart of their communities and lobbying schools not to install Wi-Fi near where their children are supposed to be able to learn."
Please read the enclosed interview with Professor Olle Johansson on "Mystery in Skin"
It details many of Professor Johansson's research papers and he also talks about the difficulties he faces. The BBC and news items that have published the ridicule from Swedish blogger DennisJ on badscience.net should be ashamed for reporting such rubbish against one of the greatest scientists on the planet; Olle Johansson will be remembered in history for alerting us through his research about electromagnetic fields and the dangers to public health.
This man should be awarded the highest honours the world can give including major funding to continue this important research. He should not be ridiculed and starved of funds; for the sake of us all, especially our children the world needs his important work to continue.
The following quote was taken from the Mystery in the Skin interview:
"Mr. Helge Tiainen, former head of the Nokia Consumer Electronics in Sweden, in February 23, 1994, said that "The results of Olle Johansson's research could very well deeply shake the world's electronics industry, but mankind still has to know!"
Trustee - EM Radiation Research Trust
About Panorama on Israeli newspaper's website - we are the champions of disinformation
From: Iris Atzmon
atzmonh <@> bezeqint.net
I was going to sleep when I suddenly saw this on the internet...couldn't resist translating. Unbelievable, did they actually SEE the programme before they wrote it?... I think we deserve the championship of disinforamtion distribution. In addition what you cannot see is that in the hebrew version they made Chalis both male and female throughout the text.
main israeli newspaper's website:
Scientists: the fear of the radiation from wireless internet has no basis. Experts who were interviewed to the investigative programme of the BBC, "Panorama", said there is no evidence that links between the use of Wi-Fi and health damage
( see: hier PANORAMA Wi-Fi: a warning signal RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE )
Experts determined that there is no proof for health damage as a result of exposure to Wi-Fi. Prof Lory Chalis, chairman of the committe of wireless communication and health research, said to the BBC's investigative programme "Panorama", that the exposure to electromagnetic radiation of Wi-Fi is at low doses and the transmitters emit low power and are distant from the body. However, prof' Chalis recommends not to place wireless computers on the knees but on the table, and to prevent children from using mobile phones.
"Panorama" team visited in a school where more than 1000 pupils study, in order to compare the radiation levels between mobile phone and Wi-Fi in a classroom. The results showed that Wi-Fi emits 3 times more than cellular phone, but the radiation data were significantly lower relatively to the standard in Britain.
William Stewart, chairman of the health protection agency, said that there is evidence that even mobile phones that emit low level radiation can have adverse effects on the public. Other experts didn't agree with him.
"The probability that Wi-Fi is a health threat is low", said Chalis last week. Prof' Malkom Sprin, an expert on physics and health, said that the fact that radiation from Wi-Fi was 3 times more than the mobile phones is not relevant as long as there is no proof of health damage.
"Wi-Fi technology uses RF that is 100 times lower in comparison to microwave oven" he said. "..and only high wavelength causes absorption of radiation in tissues and in this case the wavelength is not high".
According to him, the radiation emitted from wireless internet, microwave ovens and cellular phones, heats the body tissues only at very high levels - called "thermal interaction".
According to the Health Protection Agency, a person who is exposed to wireless internet (in the house or pubilc hotspot) during one year, absorbs radiation levels that are parallel to a conversation of 20 minutes on the cell phone.
Radiation measurements that were done by Ynet last year, which included Dect phones, microwave ovens, Wi-Fi and more, yielded similar results.
PANORAMA Wi-Fi: a warning signal RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE
on iddd.de: May 29, 2007
see also exGutachten zur EMVU-Belastung durch das WLAN- Uni Bremen, (.pdf, 1,14 MB)
----- Original Message -----
From: Sarahdacre [ from ] aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:01 AM
Subject: Panorama WiFi transcript
NB: THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT: BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY.
Wi-Fi: a warning signal
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE
JEREMY VINE: Good evening. I'm Jeremy Vine. It's 8.30 and this is Panorama. The jury is still out on whether mobile phone masts can damage your health. The government's chief scientist advises caution. So if parents don't want masts situated close to schools, why are they now being put inside classrooms?
ALASDAIR PHILIPS: Yes, that's quite spectacular.
VINE: Is it?
VINE: There's a revolution going on and it's happening all round us. Wireless communications give us the freedom to use computers in the same way that we use mobile phones. The martini way - any time, any place, anywhere. The British Government is determined to catch this wi-fi wave and is installing the technology in all our schools. But does long-term exposure to wi-fi carry any health effects?
PAUL KENYON: It's the new hi-tech way of connecting to the internet. No wires, no modem, just radio waves, pulsing information through a network of mini masts. Emails, websites, films, crackling through the skies. The explosion in the use of wi-fi means it's fast becoming unavoidable, but there's a catch. Radio frequency radiation! An invisible smog! The question is, is it affecting our health?
PAUL KENYON It's in homes, work places, restaurants, schools, entire cities are becoming what are known as wi-fi hotspots. You might be sitting in one right now even as you watch this programme without even knowing. It's a similar type of radiation to that emitted from mobile phones and masts. They've led to protests and even sabotage from those convinced the radiation is causing harm. And there have been a growing number of scientific studies which appear to back them up. Despite that, the government has been racing ahead. In 2000 it rolled out a new generation of more powerful phone technology and auctioned off the masts to go with it for several billion pounds.
GORDON BROWN: [chats with Tony Blair] This is what we get all the money for. We raised 22 billion from this sale and we were very generous.
SIR WILLIAM STEWART Chairman, Health Protection Agency But a mobile phone, that's a matter of personal choice. You can decide whether you want to use a mobile phone or not, and if you don't want to be radiated you don't switch on your mobile phone, but you have control over the situation, that's the big difference.
KENYON: Sir William Stewart has a pedigree it would take a bold politician to ignore. Chief Scientific Adviser to Margaret Thatcher, and then called upon by Tony Blair's government in 2000 to examine mobile phones, masts and their impact on our health. After looking at the evidence for a year, he couldn't rule out the possibility there may be biological effects.
STEWART: It means that basically there may be changes for example in cognitive function. Secondly there was some indications that there maybe cancer inductions. Thirdly there were some molecular biology changes within the cell and these were issues that we had to bear in mind as one came to one's broad conclusions.
KENYON: The report made a raft of recommendations. At the heart of it the question that had been worrying so many - should our children be exposed to mobile phone masts? Sir William was concerned enough to recommend what he called: "a precautionary approach."
STEWART: We recommended, because we were sensitive about children that masts should not necessarily impact directly on areas where children were exposed, like playgrounds and that.
KENYON: The government knows Sir William has concerns about siting masts near schools. Why then are we now placing them inside classrooms in the form of wi-fi mini masts? They emit the same sort of radiation, so what's its potential impact in the classroom. We went to a school in Norwich to find out. The idea to compare the level of radiation from a typical mobile phone mast with that of a wi-fi enabled laptop in the classroom.
We're about 100 metres away from the mast here.
KENYON: The man who'll take the readings is an electrical engineer called Alasdair Philips. He runs a lobby group called Powerwatch which raises awareness of electromagnetic smog, but he's also taken measurements for industry and helped advise the government.
So we're in the main beam, this is sort of highest radiation, is it?
ALASDAIR PHILIPS Electrical Engineer, Powerwatch Yes, it's where the main beam of radiation comes down to ground, so basically the highest point of the signals, yeah.
KENYON: Okay, so let's measure it then, okay, so let's see how it compares with the school then. Okay?
KENYON: If the level in a classroom is similar to the mast, children are sitting in similar radiation on a daily basis. We chose a comprehensive school nearby with more than a thousand pupils. The school signed up to wi-fi installing it in 9 of its classrooms with plans to expand. It's part of the government's push for schools to go hi-tech. They call it: "A magical system."
KENYON: Right, this is where they sit and they're already all logged on.
PHILIPS: Oh yes, it's logged onto the network, yes.
KENYON: Take the measurement of these...
PHILIPS: Well make sure this is set on the right scale and we will download player. Okay, yes, that's quite spectacular.
KENYON: Is it?
PHILIPS: Yes. That's about three times what we were getting at that phone mast.
KENYON: It's particularly significant for children. Their skulls are thinner and still forming. Tests have shown they absorb more radiation than adults when using mobile phones, and with the explosion in masts, phones, and now wi-fi, this generation, like none before, will live in it from cradle to grave.
Are you surprised?
PHILIPS: Well yes, I'm very surprised, yes it's higher than I'd expected standing at this distance, which is just at the distance the pupil is likely to be at.
KENYON: I was going to say, that's where a child's head would be around here, isn't it.
PHILIPS: Absolutely, yes that was definitely higher than I expected. It's only there.. not there continuously but it's obviously there quite a lot of the lesson if you're downloading files from the internet.
KENYON: So we took the first measurement here in what's called the beam of greatest intensity from the mast. The advice from Sir William Stewart to the government was that this beam shouldn't fall on any part of a school's grounds, unless the school and the parents agreed. But the levels of radiation inside the classroom were far higher, three times the strength of the nearby mast - not continuously but during downloads. These are controversial findings that must be repeated and verified.
Philip Parkin General Secretary Professional Association of Teachers I think schools and parents will be very worried about it. I'm asking for schools to consider very seriously whether they should be installing wi-fi networks now, this will make them think twice or think three times before they do it.
KENYON: In fact around 70% of our secondary schools already have wi-fi and nearly half our primary schools. Panorama spoke to 50 of them and only one had been warned of possible health effects. But elsewhere concerned parents and teachers at four schools have sent wi-fi packing, asking why not hardwire the classroom instead and be risk-free. And in some schools teachers are complaining the system is making them ill.
PARKIN: The precautionary approach doesn't seem to have worked because it is being rolled out so rapidly and it's out there now. It's a bit like King Canute, you know, we can't stop the tide, and I'm afraid if schools are told that there is a serious health implication for having these networks in their schools it's going to be a very serious matter to say to schools you've got to switch them off.
KENYON: The levels we found in the classroom are well within UK safety limits, even 600 times below, and the government says anything beneath them poses no known adverse health effects. So why are world renowned scientists so concerned they're now speaking out to Panorama? It's because they suspect the whole basis of our safety limits may be wrong, that they're set according to a distorted picture of science.
If you look at the position of our government on this you'd think there's only a small handful of fringy academics anywhere in the world who found adverse health effects with this form of radiation, people whose views can easily be dismissed. But that simply isn't the case.
There have been no studies on long-term wi-fi exposure, but there have been thousands on mobile phones and masts which emit similar levels of radiation. They include work by world leaders in the field. We spoke to some of them via the internet. From the University of Washington Professor Henry Lai, a biologist respected by both sides of the argument. He's found health effects at radiation similar to wi-fi over 30 years of research.
How many studies are there out there?
HENRY LAI: I would say there must be two or three thousand at least.
KENYON: He did his own review of all the experiments on mobile phones to see how many found an effect.
Professor HENRY LAI University of Washington, Seattle It's about 50-50. Fifty percent find effect and fifty percent did not find any effect at all.
KENYON: Doctor Gerd Oberfeld from Saltsburg, a government scientist who is calling for wi-fi to be removed from schools in Austria. He too had found health effects at similar levels of radiation to wi-fi.
Dr GERD OBERFELD Public Health Department, Salzburg If you go into the data you can see a very, very clear picture. It's like a puzzle and everything fits well together from DNA breaks, DNA damage, up to animal studies and up to the epidemiological evidence that shows for example increased symptoms as well as increased cancer rates.
KENYON: And over in Sweden there's the world renowned Karolinska Institute. It's where we met Doctor Olle Johansson. He conducted experiments at lower levels of radiation than wi-fi and found biological effect.
The UK government will say there are no known adverse health effects from this form of radiation. Is it accurate information that they're giving out?
Professor OLLE JOHANSSON Karolinska Institute, Sweden No, no, I don't think so. If you look in the literature you have a large number of various effects like chromosome damage, you have impact on the concentration capacity and decrease in short-term memory, increases in the number of cancer incidences and so on. I mean there is a large number of various areas here.
KENYON: And yet we're told by the authorities in the UK there are no known adverse health effects.
JOHANSSON: Well that's very odd I must say.
KENYON: His pioneering research work has led him to a minority group who appear to become physically ill when exposed to this kind of electro smog. They're called electro-hyper-sensitives.
JOHANSSON: People with electro-hyper-sensitivity generally feel that something is wrong. You and I we don't. And the question then is of course 25 years from now on will we have some form of cancer, neurological disease or something? We don't know.
KENYON: Just because we can't feel it.
JOHANSSON: No, we don't feel it. We don't get the warning signal.
KENYON: One of the possible electro-sensitives he's met lives in Lincolnshire close to a mobile phone mast. She's just participated in an important laboratory study. If she's genuinely affected, a kind of human antenna, then there's potentially generations of people behind her who could also be.
Just try and describe it for us, the feeling.
SILVIA WILSON My head feels hot, burning. My face feels burning. I feel like as if I'm gonna be sick. My stomach feels uncomfortable. Yeah and I just feel a very sharp pain at the back of my head.
KENYON: So what about the lab tests? Well they've only just finished. They were independently funded and carried out by the University of Essex. Participants who were exposed to the levels of radiation typically admitted by phone masts which, as we've seen, can be far lower than wi-fi. Silvia could tell when the mast was on or off two thirds of the time. The rest of the participants' results are still being analysed.
This is where some of the radiation is quite bad, is it?
SILVIA: Yeah, it's very bad.
KENYON: The evidence is still unclear when it comes to Sylvia's results. But she feels she's needed silver foil shielding ever since they moved near the mast.
My goodness me. (foil-lined bedroom) It's like being in a huge oven, isn't it.
SILVIA: It is, yeah. Because people they don't understand that foil actually can stop some of the microwaves. I'm gonna show you what it does to microwaves.
KENYON: Okay. So this is the area where we heard that there was quite a strong signal.
Her radiation monitor converts the signal from the mast into sound.
SILVIA: The foil will block some of the signal.
If Silvia's symptoms are because of radiation, everything changes. It means there can be a biological effect at levels as low as that from wi-fi. It would throw our limits out of the window and put a question mark over the wi-fi revolution.
STEWART: I sympathise with Silvia Wilson very much because I just suspect that there might be something in this.
KENYON: How significant would that be?
Sir WILLIAM STEWART Chairman, health Protection Agency Well the problem is that we simply do not know. I mean it can, as I said, did not necessarily mean disease but it might. I mean it might simply be that it's got no effect but it's not worth worrying about at all or it might be that these are the human canaries of the future.
KENYON: Entire cities in the UK are now wi-fi hotspots, 11 of them in all, and the number is growing. Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh, Brighton, the city of London. Some run by BT, others by a company called The Cloud. And when you're outdoors, the radiation is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid. Five miles outside Norwich and not a sniff of a connection. In the suburbs a flicker of a signal, probably from people's home wi-fi routers, and in the city centre - there you go, it looks like we've got completely cable free connectivity. But others would say this makes Norwich a city of virtual smog.
Norwich was the first UK city to pilot a government funded wireless network. In other cities it's BT and The Cloud charging users. But the government were so keen on wi-fi it launched the Norwich service for free. You can see the mini masts or nodes, 200 of them in all, which sustain the network and create a pool of connectivity. We went around the city centre with a radiation monitor.
Went into the red there. We're getting quite high readings here. They're about three or four times higher than we got on the mobile phone mast in the main beam of it and people are walking up and down here. They won't know it. I mean it could be because of that.. there's a little node up there on the top of the lamppost.
It's something that's made their MP worried. He was a biologist and cancer specialist for 40 years before entering politics, and feels his own party is now ignoring the advice they themselves commissioned.
How seriously do you think the government is taking the precautionary approach right now, with respect to wi-fi?
Dr IAN GIBSON MP Norwich North Oh, I don't think there's any doubt about it, they're not at all. wi-fi are just being rolled out as great big white heat of technology. Industry rules in this area and the precautionary principle and the safety of people who might benefit to some extent from the technology are completely dismissed. It's just it's Wild West country for the companies. They just put them where they want and say there's no evidence. Now, you know, five, ten years from now, as the evidence grows, there's enough now to be worried about it, but as the evidence grows, who knows what it might show? It might show that it's completely unsafe for certain groups of people.
KENYON: But whilst the government races ahead, apparently unrestrained by its own chief adviser, others are more cautious. Switzerland, Italy, Russia, China, all had exposure limits, thousands of times below ours. In Salzburg the government advises against wi-fi in schools altogether, and there's something special happening in Sweden. We've flown in with our electro sensitive Sylvia. Our government doesn't acknowledge her condition, but here it's different. Deep in the Swedish woods the hideaway of another woman called Sylvia.
SWEDISH SYLVIA: Hello, welcome.
KENYON: Can we come and have a look around?
She's an electro-sensitive too, and so are several of her friends. (to Silvia) Can you feel anything here?
SILVIA: I don't feel anything here, all what I feel is just me. Here actually I could just think about the things... you know, just... it's just nice. You know, I feel free.
KENYON: So when did the authorities here start acknowledging the existence of this?
SWEDISH SYLVIA: They did so in 2003. Then they said this is an official disability.
KENYON: A disability?
SWEDISH SYLVIA: Yes.
KENYON: The Swedish government estimates that 3% of the population suffer this disability. Translate that to the UK and it's about 2 million people. Yet as far as our government is concerned, there are none. We set off for Stockholm and Swedish Sylvia's city centre flat. She's plotted a route to avoid all the masts. She wants to show us just how seriously her government takes her condition. Like the UK, this is a place where more and more people are acquiring wi-fi. But there's a key difference.
SWEDISH SYLVIA: Okay Silvia, this is my living room, and today the painter has been here and you see, he has started painting black.
KENYON: And this is anti-radiation paint.
KENYON: It's quite expensive.
SYLVIA: It's very expensive.
KENYON: Anti radiation paint, paid for by the local authority. It shields her from neighbours' wi-fi and from nearby phone masts. So the Swedes have the same scientific evidence but they recognise sufferers. In Swedish schools, even if there's only one person apparently affected by wi-fi the system is removed and the classroom shielded. You'd think our government would base its decisions on the advice of their top man, the one it employed to protect our health, Sir William Stewart, but instead it seems to have turned to others. First the World Health Organisation. It's robust in its language saying there were no adverse health effects from low level long-term exposure.
Is that an accurate reflection of the science do you think?
STEWART: I think they are wrong.
KENYON: How are they wrong?
Sir WILLIAM STEWART Chairman, Health Protection Agency Because there is evidence, and the Stewart Report pointed out some of that evidence.
KENYON: So why do you think it is that the WHO, one of the most influential public health bodies in the world continues to put out that message?
STEWART: I think that they've got to review the statement that they're making.
KENYON: But in your view, not an accurate reflection of the science that's out there?
STEWART: I think it is not an accurate reflection.
KENYON: Then there's this. It's unlikely you'll have heard of ICNIRP but it's an international group of scientist which our government relies on to set our radiation limits. But here's the problem, it doesn't recognise any biological effects so it bases our exposure limits on a thermal effect. In other words, the radiation has to be so strong it heats up your organs before it's restricted. That's why our safety limits are so high.
How responsible do you think it is for governments to set limits for this form of radiation according only to a thermal effect?
Professor HENRY LAI University of Washington, Seattle Well I think it's irresponsible to just set standard using a thermal standard. If you just set it based on a thermal effect you're neglecting a large amount of data.
KENYON: Most countries, including the UK, set their radiation limits according to the ICNIRP guidelines. They can't be wrong, can they?
Professor OLLE JOHANSSON Karolinska Institute, Sweden Well hopefully not, because, as you say, governments and in that way whole countries, the entire populations rely upon them, and I do hope that they deliver the right and correct message.
However, I know also that they are heavily industry influenced and I mean their basic message is that if you are below a certain thermal level then it's alright. And...
KENYON: Are they right to set their guidelines only according to thermal effects?
JOHANSSON: Oh no, no, no, that's just rubbish I would say. You cannot put any emphasis on such guidelines.
KENYON: So why do we? I went to Rome to meet the man our government seems to favour over its own adviser Sir William Stewart. He's a scientist who's responsible for the WHO's position and who founded the standard setting body ICNIRP. He's a controversial character. Doctor Mike Repacholi no longer works for the WHO but he's made decisions which affect all our lives.
When you say on the WHO website: "There are no known adverse health effects" is that really giving people a complete picture of the science out there?
Dr MICHAEL REPACHOLI University of Rome When that statement was put on the website it was meaning that there's no health effects have been established, and when an effect has been established it means it's been repeated in a number of laboratories using very good study techniques.
KENYON: But Henry Lai will say that he's found them, Olle Johansson will say he's found them. I mean there are a number of highly esteemed scientists who'll say they have found them well beneath those levels. Are they wrong?
REPACHOLI: If they've published they are in the mix because every review panel looks at all the studies, along with other studies to see if they're comparable with those studies or point in the same direction, it's called a weight of evidence approach. And if that weight of evidence is not for their being an effect, or not being an effect, that's the only way you can tell whether there's really an adverse health effect.
KENYON: But here's the controversy. Doctor Repacholi used to work for the very industry which helps create this form of radiation. Before working for the WHO he'd been an expert witness for the phone industry, defending their right to site masts in controversial locations.
Are you truly independent do you think as a scientist?
REPACHOLI: Well I don't know how people perceive me. I perceive myself....
KENYON: You know. I think you do know how people perceive you.
REPACHOLI: (laughs) Alright, I do. I've seen the websites, and people can say what they like. I know what I am. I will only say what the science says, and that's.. to me that's an independent view. If people perceive it differently - so be it.
KENYON: You did, didn't you, work for industry before the WHO and ICNIRP.
REPACHOLI: I did.
KENYON: And you worked for them afterwards as well.
REPACHOLI: I did and I challenge anyone to say that I've chanted my mind because of my funder because I sure as hell haven't.
KENYON: So our government has a choice. Follow the recommendations of scientists like Dr Repacholi and the WHO, who effectively say: "Roll it out and don't stop unless someone proves there's a risk." Or follow their own adviser who says: "Hold on, don't rush ahead until we know for sure it's safe." Until that's resolved is it our kids who've become the test bed?
Would you allow your children to sit in front of a wi-fi enabled computer day in day out as they're going to school?
LAI: That's a tough question (laugh) I don't think so. I would limit the exposure to this type of radiation.
OBERFELD: I would recommend to parents to tell the school to remove wi-fi and otherwise I would change the school even.
KENYON: Really, you take it that seriously?
OBERFELD: Yes, very. KENYON: If you had kids who were at a school at the moment and there was wi-fi being rolled out, any concern at all? REPACHOLI: None whatsoever. I'd make sure they had laptops and they could pick it up.
KENYON: What do you think the government should do now when it comes to schools and wi-fi?
GIBSON: I think they should stop and say we're going to do an inquiry into this. It'll take a year or two years and then we'll come back to it. I don't think the nation will grind to a halt if we did that. I think it would convince a lot of people that the government takes health and safety very seriously with new technologies.
KENYON: We asked the government for an interview about all this. It said no and referred us instead to the Health Protection Agency. The Chairman of that is.... hang on a minute - it's Sir William Stewart! The very man who has indicated to Panorama just how uncomfortable he feels about the speed with which wi-fi is being rolled out.
STEWART: I believe that there is a need for a review of the wi-fi and other areas.
KENYON: How important is it to do that swiftly?
STEWART: I think it's timely for it to be done now.
KENYON: If it's not?
STEWART: Who knows?
VINE: Paul Kenyon there and the UK has 3,000 wireless hotspots and 51,000 mobile phone masts and more and more are appearing every week. Next week it's "Married to the Mob" the Manchester woman convicted of helping to run her Sicilian husband's Mafia empire.
Go to the following link to view the Panorama programme again.
with kind regards
Sarah Dacre MSc ACIB
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is intended for the addressee(s) only to help advance knowledge and stimulate further debate and it is not intended to be circulated or reproduced in any medium without previous and express permission from the writer.
Whilst all reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure the validity of the information given, no warranty is given towards its accuracy.
No liability is accepted by the writer for damages arising from its use and interpretation by others.
Wi-Fi radiation: Is it dangerous to your child?
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007
This belief made parents up in arms to protest against the erection of mobile phone masts near the schools. But it looks like they may have been missing a ...
Martin Weatherall, weather (for) golden.net
Wi-Fi: a warning signal
Wi Fi systems are now in 70 per cent of secondary schools
Britain is in the grip of a Wi-Fi revolution with offices, homes and classrooms going wireless - but there is concern the technology could carry health risks.
The Government insists Wi-Fi is safe, but a Panorama investigation shows that 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.
There have been no studies on the health effects of Wi-Fi equipment, but thousands on mobile phones and masts.
The radiation Wi-Fi emits is similar to that from mobile phone masts. It is an unavoidable by-product of going wireless.
In the last 18 months another two million of us in the UK have begun using Wi-Fi.
Entire cities have become what are known as wireless hotspots.
In 2000, Sir William Stewart, now chairman of the Health Protection Agency, headed the government's inquiry into the safety of mobile phone masts and health. He felt the scientific research was sufficient to apply a precautionary approach when siting masts near schools.
During that same year, the government sold off the 3G licences for £22.5bn.
Sir William recalls: "We recommended, because we were sensitive about children... that masts should not necessarily impact directly on areas where children were exposed, like playgrounds and that."
But what about Wi-Fi? The technology is similar to mobile phone masts and in use in 70 per cent of secondary schools and 50 per cent of primary schools.
in Norwich, with more than 1,000 pupils, to compare the level of radiation from a typical mobile phone mast with that of Wi-Fi in the classroom.
Readings taken for the programme showed the height of signal strength to be three times higher in the school classroom using Wi-Fi than the main beam of radiation intensity from a mobile phone mast.
The findings are particularly significant because children's skulls are thinner and still forming and tests have shown they absorb more radiation than adults.
The readings were well beneath the government's safety limits - as much as 600 times below - but some scientists suspect the whole basis of our safety limits may be wrong.
Panorama spoke to a number of scientists who questioned the safety limits and were concerned about the possible health effects of such radiation.
"If you look in the literature, you have a large number of various effects like chromosome damage, you have impact on the concentration capacity and decrease in short term memory, increases in the number of cancer incidences," said Professor Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.
Another scientist, Dr Gerd Oberfeld, from Salzburg is now calling for Wi-Fi to be removed from schools.
He said: "If you go into the data you can see a very very clear picture - it is like a puzzle and everything fits together from DNA break ups to the animal studies and up to the epidemiological evidence; that shows for example increased symptoms as well as increased cancer rates."
The clear advice from Sir William Stewart to the government on mobile phone masts was that the beam of greatest intensity should not fall on any part of the school grounds, unless the school and parents agreed to it.
Norwich city centre is blanketed with a Wi-Fi hotspot
Yet the levels tested in the classroom from Wi-Fi were much higher - three times the highest level of the mast.
Panorama contacted 50 schools at random - and found not one had been alerted by the government to any possible health effects.
Philip Parkin, general secretary of the Professional Association of Teachers said: "I think schools and parents will be very worried about it...
"I am asking schools to consider very seriously whether they should be installing Wi-Fi networks now and this will make them think twice or three times before they do it.
"I think the precautionary approach doesn't seem to have worked because it is being rolled out so rapidly...
"It's a bit like King Canute. We can't stop the tide and I am afraid if schools are told that there is a serious health implication for having these networks in schools, it is going to be a very serious matter to say to schools, you have to switch them off."
At Washington state university, Professor Henry Lai, a biologist respected by both sides of the argument says he has found health effects at similar levels of radiation to Wi-Fi.
He estimates that of the two to three thousand studies carried out over the last 30 years, there is a 50-50 split - half finding an effect with the other half finding no effect at all. But the Health Protection Agency has said Wi-Fi devices are of very low power - much lower than mobile phones.
The Government says there is no risk and is backed up by the World Health Organisation which is robust in its language saying there are "no adverse health effects from low level, long-term exposure".
The scientist responsible for WHO's position is Dr Mike Repacholi*, who headed up the health organisation's research programme into radio frequency radiation.
He was also the founder of the International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
He said the statement of "no adverse health effects" was based on the weight of evidence.
In order for a health effect to be established it must mean it has been repeated in a number of laboratories using very good study techniques. The findings of any published studies had been put in the mix before reaching a conclusion, he said.
"It is called a weight of evidence approach - and if that weight of evidence is not for there being an effect or not being an effect that is the only way you can tell whether there really is an adverse health effect," he said.
Wi-Fi: a warning signal, Panorama, Monday, 21.5.2007, 8.30pm, BBC1.
*"At the bottom of the barrel is the EMF scientist who functions as a brainwasher to deceive the public, innocent young and old alike, into giving themselves cancer and other diseases. There is no purer example of such a man than Michael Repacholi. He is at the end of a historical line of change that must be recognized before science can once again resume its task of finding the best truth possible."
"Repacholi has staged innumerable dramas committees, commissions, meetings, seminars where the experts he appointed said only pleasant things about EMFs and offered reassuring risk assessments. My goal here is to expose Repacholi for the scientific fraud that he is."
from Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
|Hotel Ibis Arcor-Gruppe Sankt-Pauli in Hamburg hat Wi-Fi Anlagen auf dem Dach. Der Gast schläft hier nicht gut.
Gute Neuigkeiten aus dem Vereinigten Koenigreich !
Sir Stewart greift gegen WHO ein!
Nachricht von "Schorpp Volker" <dr.schorpp [@t-] online.de>
22 May 2007
BBC1 Panorama Programm Exposes Wi-Fi Danger
Das BBC1 Magazin Panorama hat heute abend eine hervorragende Dokumentation zum Thema Wi-Fi in Schulen ausgestrahlt.
Der Bericht enthielt ein langes Interview mit Sir William Stewart, dem Chairman der Health Protection Agency, in dem Sir William offen bezeugte, dass seiner Meinung nach die Empfehlungen der WHO falsch seien.
Zum ersten Mal spricht sich ein Vertreter einer nationalen Strahlenschutzorganisation gegen die WHO und ICNIRP Richtlinien aus! Auch zu Wort kommen Prof Henry Lai, Prof Olle Johannson, Dr Gerd Oberfeld .... und Mike Repacholi.
Die Presse lief heute schon den ganzen Tag heiss, viele Zeitungen und Zeitschriften verurteilten den Bericht bevor sie ihn ueberhaupt gesehen hatten. Der Bericht ist allerdings so gut, dass ich der Meinung bin, es wird einfach sein, ihn zu verteidigen.
Sir William hat sich noch nie zuvor in dieser Deutlichkeit gegen einen weiteren Ausbau der drahtlosen Kommunikationstechnik ausgesprochen.
Man kann den Bericht (30 Minuten) hier online ansehen.
The school that took on mobile phone companies
From: "Iris Atzmon"
By Jude Townend
Published: 22 April 2007
Two giant mobile phone companies are to move a mast at a primary school, after parents claimed their children fell sick.
The mast was already in use when St Edward's RC primary school opened in Coleshill, Warwickshire 11 years ago. It is owned by O2, which rents space on it to Orange. An O2 spokesman said "there were concerns from some of the local people that there are health issues" but added that the mast posed no risks to health.
But parents said children and staff suffered from insomnia, headaches and numbness. They conducted a survey of 22 staff who had been at the school for the 11 years, and 59 children who had been pupils for seven years.
Their results showed 56 per cent of the children and 86 per cent of the staff had problems sleeping, 54 per cent and 59 per cent respectively were getting headaches and migraines, and 46 per cent and 95 per cent respectively reported fatigue and numbness. About 45 per cent of teachers and pupils had red eyes; other symptoms included dizziness, nosebleeds, nausea and hearing strange hums and clicks.
The parents have been backed by Warwickshire County Council and their MP, Mike O'Brien, the Solicitor General. Parents and their representatives held talks with O2.
The Wi-Fi British Effect in New Zealand
Concern about Wi-Fi health danger spreads to NZ from British schools
From: "Iris Atzmon"
For the past 16 months, the provincial government of Salzburg in Austria has been advising schools not to install Wi-Fi, and is considering a ban.
A British furore over wireless internet technology - Wi-Fi - use in schools is raising similar concerns here.
Britain's top health-protection watchdog wants the network, which emits radiation, to be full investigated because of the concern for students' health.
Wi-Fi - described by the British Department of Education and Skills as a "magical" system that means computers do not have to be connected to telephone lines - is being taken up rapidly in schools there, with estimates that more than half of primary schools - and four-fifths of secondary schools - have installed it.
But some scientists have expressed fears it could cause cancer and premature senility.
Internet safety watchdog NetSafe executive director Martin Cocker said last night that many primary and secondary schools here used Wi-Fi and the present thinking was that the technology was safe.
"That's our understanding and that's the understanding of New Zealand schools.
"Obviously, if that's not the case that's going to be pretty alarming. It would be of great concern to schools because they have really adopted the technology and many schools have extensive wireless networks."
The cost of wireless transmitters was low.
"Most laptops now come with the capability to receive wireless signals built in. It's a technology that is saturating the education and commercial markets."
Mr Cocker did not have an exact number of schools using the technology but said most larger schools would have some sort of wireless capability.
"If there's any indication that it has any negative effects then we would encourage a more thorough study. We will definitely be interested to know what happens in the UK. If it is damaging to children's health then it is alarming."
Several European provincial governments have already taken action to ban, or limit, Wi-Fi use in the classroom.
This week, the British Professional Association of Teachers is to demand an official Government inquiry.
Virtually no studies have been done on Wi-Fi's effects on pupils, but it gives off radiation similar to emissions from mobile phones and phone masts.
Recent research has linked radiation from mobiles to cancer and brain damage. And many studies have found disturbing symptoms in people near masts.
Professor Olle Johansson, of Sweden's Karolinska Institute, who is concerned about the spread of Wi-Fi, says "thousands" of articles in scientific literature demonstrate "adverse health effects" from Wi-Fi.
"Do we not know enough already to say, 'stop'?"
For the past 16 months, the provincial government of Salzburg in Austria has been advising schools not to install Wi-Fi, and is considering a ban.
- STAFF REPORTER, INDEPENDENT
The British move forward - the public is getting more involved
From: "Iris Atzmon"
"This is UNBELIEVABLE! With the flick of the switch they can significantly degrade the health of my children? This is astounding me that they can get away with this and nobody seems to care around here, or be willing to do anything about it." (Robert Thinker)
Wi-Fi: Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
Revealed - radiation threat from new wireless computer networks. Teachers demand inquiry to protect a generation of pupils
By Geoffrey Lean, environment editor
Published: 22 April 2007
Britain's top health protection watchdog is pressing for a formal investigation into the hazards of using wireless communication networks in schools amid mounting concern that they may be damaging children's health, 'The Independent on Sunday' can reveal.
Sir William Stewart, the chairman of the Health Protection Agency, wants pupils to be monitored for ill effects from the networks - known as Wi-Fi - which emit radiation and are being installed in classrooms across the nation. Sir William - who is a former chief scientific adviser to the Government, and has chaired two official inquiries into the hazards of mobile phones - is adding his weight to growing pressure for a similar examination of Wi-Fi, which some scientists fear could cause cancer and premature senility.
Wi-Fi - described by the Department of Education and Skills as a "magical" system that means computers do not have to be connected to telephone lines - is rapidly being taken up inschools, with estimates that more than half of primary schools - and four-fifths of secondary schools - have installed it .
But several European provincial governments have already taken action to ban, or limit, its use in the classroom, and Stowe School has partially removed it after a teacher became ill.
This week the Professional Association of Teachers, which represents 35,000 staff across the country, will write to Alan Johnson, Secretary of State for Education, to demand an official inquiry. Virtually no studies have been carried out into Wi-Fi's effects on pupils, but it gives off radiation similar to emissions from mobile phones and phone masts. Recent research has linked radiation from mobiles to cancer and to brain damage. And many studies have found disturbing symptoms in people near masts.
Professor Olle Johansson, of Sweden's prestigious Karolinska Institute, who is deeply concerned about the spread of Wi-Fi, says there are "thousands" of articles in scientific literature demonstrating "adverse health effects". He adds: "Do we not know enough already to say, 'Stop!'?"
For the past 16 months, the provincial government of Salzburg in Austria has been advising schools not to install Wi-Fi, and is considering a ban. Dr Gerd Oberfeld, its head of environmental health and medicine, calls the technology "dangerous".
Sir William - who takes a stronger position on the issue than his agency - was not available for comment yesterday, but two members of an expert group that he chairs on the hazards of radiation spoke of his concern.
Mike Bell, chairman of the Electromagnetic Radiation Research Trust, says that he has been "very supportive of having Wi-Fi examined and doing something about it". And Alasdair Philips, director of Powerwatch, an information service, said that he was pressing for monitoring of the health of pupils exposed to Wi-Fi.
Labour MP Ian Gibson, who was interviewed with Sir William for a forthcoming television programme, last week said that he backed proposals for an inquiry
Warnung vor Elektrosmog in Schulen
Stadt Frankfurt lehnt drahtlose Computer-Verbindungen ab / GEW befürchtet Schulversagen durch Funkstrahlung
Sollen Schulcomputer drahtlos oder per Kabelverbindung genutzt werden? Das Frankfurter Schuldezernat und die Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft (GEW) warnen vor Gesundheitsrisiken der Funkstrahlung.
Frankfurt - Sie halten in immer mehr Klassenzimmern in Hessen Einzug: Laptops, die per Funk Daten übermitteln und es Schülern erlauben, ohne Kabelsalat miteinander über den Computer zu kommunizieren oder im Internet zu surfen. Die hessische Landesregierung favorisiert die drahtlose Vernetzung der Computer, das Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN). Das ist zwar billiger als eine Verkabelung, nutzt aber eine hochfrequente elektromagnetische Strahlung im Mikrowellenbereich. Die ist möglicherweise gesundheitsgefährdend.
"Solange die Unbedenklichkeit der drahtlosen Kommunikation nicht geklärt ist, kommt an den Frankfurter Schulen kein WLAN zum Einsatz", sagt Michael Damian, persönlicher Referent von Schuldezernentin Jutta Ebeling (Grüne).
"Wir setzen bereits seit Jahren auf Verkabelung." Ein Standpunkt, den sich Christoph Baumann vom GEW-Landesvorstand auch für andere Schulen in Hessen wünscht. Ein entsprechender Beschlussantrag soll auf der nächsten GEW-Vorstandssitzung diskutiert werden. Darin heißt es:
"Wegen möglicher Auswirkungen auf die Schulleistungen sollte eine gesunde Schule nicht nur rauchfrei sein, sondern den Schülern und Lehrern auch ein möglichst strahlungsfreies Lernumfeld bieten."
Die strahlende WLAN-Karte -siehe z.B. exGutachten zur EMVU-Belastung durch das WLAN- Uni Bremen, (.pdf, 1,14 MB) des Computers befindet sich nahe am Körper. In einer Klasse funken zudem viele Computer gleichzeitig. Kritiker fürchten, dass dies eine nicht unerhebliche Belastung der Schüler mit Mobilfunkstrahlung bedeuten könnte. Hinzu kommen noch die im Dauerbetrieb sendenden "Access Points", die für den Datentransfer in der Schule installiert werden müssen. Zur biologischen Wirkung von Mobilfunkstrahlung liegen etliche wissenschaftliche Studien vor, die einen negativen Einfluss auf den menschlichen Organismus aufzeigen.
Biologe informiert Lehrer
Grund genug für die GEW, Lehrer über die Mobilfunk-Problematik in der Schule zu informieren. Bei ihrer Fachtagung "Elektrosmog im Klassenzimmer" in Frankfurt sagte Siegfried Schwarzmüller, Lehrer und Baubiologe, dass Menschen auf die in der Natur nicht vorkommende Mobilfunkstrahlung in unterschiedlichster Weise reagierten, und das bereits weit unterhalb der gesetzlich festgelegten Grenzwerte.
Bei wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen wurden laut Schwarzmüller etwa Hirnstromveränderungen, Konzentrationsstörungen, negative Einflüsse auf das Hormon-, das Immun- und das Nervensystem, Störung der Zellkommunikation und die Öffnung der Blut-Hirn-Schranke festgestellt.
Ergebnisse der 2005 veröffentlichten europaweiten Reflexstudie zeigten, dass Mobilfunkstrahlung das Erbgut menschlicher Zellen schädigen könne. Für Schwarzmüller ist der Rückzug auf die gesetzlichen Grenzwerte aufgrund der inzwischen vorliegenden Untersuchungsergebnisse nicht länger vertretbar. "Forschungslage und Politik geraten hier in einen immer größeren Widerspruch. Ihn auszusitzen, ist keine Lösung", sagte er. Gerade bei Kindern und Jugendlichen, die noch in der Entwicklung sind, müsse die Gesundheit vorrangig sein. Strahlungsstärken, die nachweisbare Hirnstromveränderungen verursachten, "haben in Schulen nichts verloren". Karen Heinen
Frankfurter Rundschau 7-06-2006
Ausgabe Stadtausgabe Nr. 130, Seite 33
Kabelverbindung für Computer an Schulen
Frankfurt · An den Frankfurter Schulen wird es vorerst keine Funknetze für drahtlose Computernutzung (Wireless Lan) geben.
Das Bildungsdezernat wolle an den Schulen "keinen Großversuch am Menschen", sagte Michael Damian, persönlicher Referent von Stadträtin Jutta Ebeling (Grüne). Bislang lägen "keine eindeutigen Belege vor, dass diese Technik unschädlich ist"
Daher werde einstweilen auf sie verzichtet. Zwar gebe es eine Reihe von Laptops an den Schulen, die würden aber in der Regel per Kabel angeschlossen.
In den vergangenen Jahren sind die Schulen speziell für den Anschluss an das städtische Computernetzwerk mit Kabeln ausgestattet worden. Inzwischen seien vier Fünftel der Schulen verkabelt, sagte Damian. Pro Schule kostete die technische Umrüstung im Schnitt 300 000 Euro.
Information von Michael Meyer
Risiko Mobilfunk Österreich
Plattform Sozialstaat Österreich - Netzwerk Zivilcourage
A - 5165 Berndorf, Stadl 4
Tel/Fax 0043 - 6217 - 8576
Directive from the director of the Salzburg Health Department, forbidding use of WiFi and cordless phones (DECT) in schools
16 Feb 2006
WLAN and DECT in Schools and Kindergardens
Dear Governor/Head Teacher/Concerned Parent,
I was kindly asked by some parents to inform you about health effects from WLAN Networks in schools. I will do this in a very short summary.
WLAN antennas are emitting microwave radiation in the frequency range 2400-2485 MHz - it is the same as used by microwave ovens. The pulses change their amplitude 10 times per second in stand by (10 Hz) with a very sharp rise. The exposure depends on the
distance to the antenna which could be very small in the case of antennas build in the notebook.
Despite the widespread use of WLAN there are no studies available on shortor long-term effects from WLAN exposures. Based on first empirical evidence from sensitive people the signal seems to be very "biologically active". The symptoms seen so far are the same seen in base station studies: headaches, concentration difficulty, restlessness, memory problems etc.
The official advice of the Public Health Department of the Salzburg Region is not to use WLAN and DECT in Schools or Kindergardens.
Dr. Gerd Oberfeld MD
Public Health Department, org., .pdf, 20,7 KB
Rd. 1400 Schüler und Kinder in Bamberg demonstrierten gegen weitere Mobilfunkantennen mit Spruchbändern wie:
"Strahlung satt setzt uns matt"
"Weg vom Dach, sonst krachts"
"Keine Antennen, sonst wird unser Hirn pennen"
"Strahlen soll nur unser Lächeln"
"Ihr kennt vor Kindern keine Gnade"
Fotos: Dientzenhofer-Gymnasium Bamberg, OStR Bertram Wagner
RFID in usa school
CALIFORNIA Town Gives Brave New World an F
When an elementary school required students to wear radio frequency IDs, some parents saw the specter of Big Brother.
Modern torture and control
Mind control in USA
Elektronische - Kuhglocke - findet Kinder
Die ultimative Anwendung für Handys (RFID fit fürs Handy)