Health fears over wireless networks in schools revealed
 |
| CALL: Sir William Stewart |
A prominent Scots scientist has called for a review of the health effects of wireless computer networks in schools following a BBC investigation.
According to the Panorama programme, the computer systems can give off greater levels of signal radiation than a typical mobile phone mast.
The chairman of the Health Protection Agency, Sir William Stewart - a former president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh - calls for a review in the programme. Sir William told Panorama: "I believe that there is a need for a review of the wifi and other areas. I think it's timely for it to be done now."
Government advice recommends masts are not sited near schools without consultation as children are thought to be more vulnerable to radio frequency radiation emissions than adults, the series states.
But when Panorama visited a comprehensive school in Norwich and measured the radiation signal strength from a classroom wifi laptop, they found its peak was three times greater then the peak signal strength from a mast.
The Panorama report, to be shown tonight on BBC1, will say 70% of secondary schools in the UK already have wifi and nearly 50% of all primary schools do. The programme contacted nearly 50 of these schools and claimed only one had been alerted that there might be possible health risks, while some had been told there was no risk.
| I believe that there is a need for a review of the wifi and other areas. I think it’s timely for it to be done now. | |
|
The government states there is no health risk from wifi and cites the World Health Organisation's view that there are "no adverse health effects from low level, long-term exposure," the programme reported. The government relies on the data supplied by ICNIRP, an international group of scientists, for radiation safety limits.
But Panorama states the body does not take into account the biological effects of radio frequency radiation and bases exposure limits on a thermal effect.
Professor Henry Lai, a biologist from Washington University, reviewed all the experiments on mobile phones. He found health effects at similar levels of radiation to wifi in some of the studies. He said: "I think it's about 50-50; 50% found an effect and 50% did not find an effect at all"
"I think it's irresponsible to just set standards using a thermal standard.
"If you set it just based on a thermal effect you are neglecting a large amount of data."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Chick, Glasgow on 10:32pm Sun 20 May 07
And we were all told 10 years ago that we would all have brain cancer from mobile phones. Hasn't done me any harm yet. I'll let you know.
More to the point, what is with the incessant scaremongering stories in the news lately? Is there no news that is even moderately positive??
And we were all told 10 years ago that we would all have brain cancer from mobile phones. Hasn't done me any harm yet. I'll let you know.
More to the point, what is with the incessant scaremongering stories in the news lately? Is there no news that is even moderately positive??
Posted by: Duncan, glasgow on 11:57pm Sun 20 May 07
Anyone reading this article should also read this one...
http://www.theregist
er.co.uk/2007/04/24/
open_letter/
And the comments to it, here...
http://www.theregist
er.co.uk/2007/04/24/
open_letter/comments
/
Wifi in schools is no more dangerous to children than living in a home with a microwave oven or cordless phone.
Anyone reading this article should also read this one...
http://www.theregist
er.co.uk/2007/04/24/
open_letter/
And the comments to it, here...
http://www.theregist
er.co.uk/2007/04/24/
open_letter/comments
/
Wifi in schools is no more dangerous to children than living in a home with a microwave oven or cordless phone.
Posted by: flying scotsman, glasgow on 12:28am Mon 21 May 07
An interesting [bold]teachers[/bold] debate is running here:
http://tinyurl.com/3
2dwxa
An interesting
teachers debate is running here:
http://tinyurl.com/3
2dwxa
Posted by: Rab The Man, WAS MY UNCLE on 6:51am Mon 21 May 07
None of us know how serious or not this might be...but who is willing to take the chance with THEIR kids??
I don't think for a minute that Sir William is any kind of scaremonger and we'd do well to at least look very carefully at what he says.......I mean......he's hardly gonna say it just for the press attention now is he? Why risk your reputation, unless you're truly concerned??
None of us know how serious or not this might be...but who is willing to take the chance with THEIR kids??
I don't think for a minute that Sir William is any kind of scaremonger and we'd do well to at least look very carefully at what he says.......I mean......he's hardly gonna say it just for the press attention now is he? Why risk your reputation, unless you're truly concerned??
Posted by: Phil McFly, 989-721 on 8:06am Mon 21 May 07
This is hardly a John "beef burger" Gummer moment!
EMR has been with us since the dawn of creation.
The government capitulates to tabloid media all the time surely the Blair years have proven that time and again.
This is hardly a John "beef burger" Gummer moment!
EMR has been with us since the dawn of creation.
The government capitulates to tabloid media all the time surely the Blair years have proven that time and again.
Posted by: Dave, Glasgow on 8:30am Mon 21 May 07
I worry about the children with the Nintendo DS, when they play each other it uses the Nintendo DS's built in Wi-fi.
I got rid of my DECT cordless digital phone because I was worried about it
You just don't know who to believe.
The industry - there not bias they have no financial interest!
The Government - There are no jobs at risk or massive health issues if they decide there is a problem.
Scientists - Are they after a research grant or to build a reputation!
Who would you believe!!!
Dave
I worry about the children with the Nintendo DS, when they play each other it uses the Nintendo DS's built in Wi-fi.
I got rid of my DECT cordless digital phone because I was worried about it
You just don't know who to believe.
The industry - there not bias they have no financial interest!
The Government - There are no jobs at risk or massive health issues if they decide there is a problem.
Scientists - Are they after a research grant or to build a reputation!
Who would you believe!!!
Dave
Posted by: Mark, Edinburgh on 8:40am Mon 21 May 07
There is no physiological way for these radio waves to affect the human body. There is no evidence at all for this. I have absolutely no issues at all having a baby at home and a wireless network.
This is typical uninformed reporting combined with the usual hysteria that surrounds children. Time to calm down and get on with life. If people really want to worry about their kids and their health maybe air pollution would be more suitable.
I'd rather sit my son next to my wifi than walk down Princess Street...
There is no physiological way for these radio waves to affect the human body. There is no evidence at all for this. I have absolutely no issues at all having a baby at home and a wireless network.
This is typical uninformed reporting combined with the usual hysteria that surrounds children. Time to calm down and get on with life. If people really want to worry about their kids and their health maybe air pollution would be more suitable.
I'd rather sit my son next to my wifi than walk down Princess Street...
Posted by: Swilly Tisher, Loch Maree on 9:11am Mon 21 May 07
[quote][bold]Chick[/bold] wrote:
And we were all told 10 years ago that we would all have brain cancer from mobile phones. Hasn't done me any harm yet. I'll let you know. More to the point, what is with the incessant scaremongering stories in the news lately? Is there no news that is even moderately positive??[/quote] I hope you're right. But don't tempt fate , Highland Laddie. Cancer's an insidious, slow-fuse scourge that can take a generation to mutate into something cripplingly horrible and ultimately involving the services of the local undertaker.No , I think we have to take this report seriously. And I continue to step back a few , cautious paces while I microwave my instant meals. As for mobile phones, I'm lucky if I can get any kind of signal up here. Meanwhile, I'm obliged to Herald journalist Martin Williams for the information.
Chick wrote:
And we were all told 10 years ago that we would all have brain cancer from mobile phones. Hasn't done me any harm yet. I'll let you know. More to the point, what is with the incessant scaremongering stories in the news lately? Is there no news that is even moderately positive??
I hope you're right. But don't tempt fate , Highland Laddie. Cancer's an insidious, slow-fuse scourge that can take a generation to mutate into something cripplingly horrible and ultimately involving the services of the local undertaker.No , I think we have to take this report seriously. And I continue to step back a few , cautious paces while I microwave my instant meals. As for mobile phones, I'm lucky if I can get any kind of signal up here. Meanwhile, I'm obliged to Herald journalist Martin Williams for the information.
Posted by: Pax681, Edinburgh on 9:23am Mon 21 May 07
some scientist..LOL more like a moron.
the wavelength is TOO LONG to interact in any way with the body. same with mobiles.
it is yet another example, as stated above of :
A/ scientist scaremongering and trying for a research grant.
B/ The govt happy to try to distract the public by getting them scared by more bullsh!t in the mix,
It's SHEER NONSENSE!!!
on top of being an A+ certified harware engineer i am ALSO a Licensed Radio Amateur so i KNOW from where i speak.
this is complete and UTTER NONSENSE!!!!!!
again as stated above, there is NO WAY FOR WAVEL;ENGTH THIS BIG TO INTERACT WITH THE HUMAN BODY AT ALL.
let your kids play and let your networks run.
some scientist..LOL more like a moron.
the wavelength is TOO LONG to interact in any way with the body. same with mobiles.
it is yet another example, as stated above of :
A/ scientist scaremongering and trying for a research grant.
B/ The govt happy to try to distract the public by getting them scared by more bullsh!t in the mix,
It's SHEER NONSENSE!!!
on top of being an A+ certified harware engineer i am ALSO a Licensed Radio Amateur so i KNOW from where i speak.
this is complete and UTTER NONSENSE!!!!!!
again as stated above, there is NO WAY FOR WAVEL;ENGTH THIS BIG TO INTERACT WITH THE HUMAN BODY AT ALL.
let your kids play and let your networks run.
Posted by: Cpt Sunbeam on 12:57pm Mon 21 May 07
I've studied physics all my life and, forgive me if I'm wrong, but microwave/radio em radiation is not particularly likely to cause any damage. These waves have a longer wavelength and carry less energy than visible light.
Nobody complains about being constantly bathed in visible light. No, people complain about being bathed in ultraviolet light, which carries greater energy than visible light and is therefore ionising radiation, and may cause cancers. If we go even more energetic, to X-rays and gamma rays, the effects are even more profound.
People panic because they know that microwave radiation is efficient at heating water (this is how a microwave oven works; microwaves have a similar wavelength to a vibration mode of water). This is way different to ionisation, and unless anyone's reported their head being sizzled, they shouldn't be worried.
I've studied physics all my life and, forgive me if I'm wrong, but microwave/radio em radiation is not particularly likely to cause any damage. These waves have a longer wavelength and carry less energy than visible light.
Nobody complains about being constantly bathed in visible light. No, people complain about being bathed in ultraviolet light, which carries greater energy than visible light and is therefore ionising radiation, and may cause cancers. If we go even more energetic, to X-rays and gamma rays, the effects are even more profound.
People panic because they know that microwave radiation is efficient at heating water (this is how a microwave oven works; microwaves have a similar wavelength to a vibration mode of water). This is way different to ionisation, and unless anyone's reported their head being sizzled, they shouldn't be worried.
Posted by: Amateur microwave tester, Thinking beside the blender on 4:40pm Mon 21 May 07
[bold]I've studied physics all my life and, forgive me if I'm wrong, but microwave/radio em radiation is not particularly likely to cause any damage.[/bold]
Try telling that to my cat!
I've studied physics all my life and, forgive me if I'm wrong, but microwave/radio em radiation is not particularly likely to cause any damage.
Try telling that to my cat!
Posted by: wee folding bike on 6:04pm Mon 21 May 07
>>Try telling that to my cat!
Erwin Schrödinger... is that you?
>>Try telling that to my cat!
Erwin Schrödinger... is that you?
Posted by: Vince, A very padded room on 7:54am Tue 22 May 07
[quote][bold]Amateur microwave tester[/bold] wrote:
[bold]I\'ve studied physics all my life and, forgive me if I\'m wrong, but microwave/radio em radiation is not particularly likely to cause any damage.[/bold] Try telling that to my cat![/quote] Is your cat barking up the wrong tree on their physiscs thesis?
Amateur microwave tester wrote:
I\'ve studied physics all my life and, forgive me if I\'m wrong, but microwave/radio em radiation is not particularly likely to cause any damage. Try telling that to my cat!
Is your cat barking up the wrong tree on their physiscs thesis?
Posted by: zeno on 12:47pm Tue 22 May 07
One major (and increasing) problem is that journos are generally scientifically ignorant and all they want is what seems to them to be a 'good' story. They couldn't properly evaluate evidence if they tripped over it.
Of course, there are journos that are scientifically literate. One such is Ben Goldacre, who regularly writes for the Guardian. We need more like him. www.badscience.net
One major (and increasing) problem is that journos are generally scientifically ignorant and all they want is what seems to them to be a 'good' story. They couldn't properly evaluate evidence if they tripped over it.
Of course, there are journos that are scientifically literate. One such is Ben Goldacre, who regularly writes for the Guardian. We need more like him. www.badscience.net
Posted by: Rab The Man, WAS MY UNCLE on 7:21pm Tue 22 May 07
[quote][bold]Pax681[/bold] wrote:
some scientist..LOL more like a moron. the wavelength is TOO LONG to interact in any way with the body. same with mobiles. it is yet another example, as stated above of : A/ scientist scaremongering and trying for a research grant. B/ The govt happy to try to distract the public by getting them scared by more bullsh!t in the mix, It's SHEER NONSENSE!!! on top of being an A+ certified harware engineer i am ALSO a Licensed Radio Amateur so i KNOW from where i speak. this is complete and UTTER NONSENSE!!!!!! again as stated above, there is NO WAY FOR WAVEL;ENGTH THIS BIG TO INTERACT WITH THE HUMAN BODY AT ALL. let your kids play and let your networks run. [/quote]
As a layman,I dunno whether you're right or not.
....but are you prepared to say that your medical degree qualifies you to comment ...(you DO have a medical degree, don't you?)..on how and over what timeframe future cancers etc might develop?
I just think that the time to LOOK SERIOUSLY at this is NOW !!
.....and as for a choice as to whether you or a former president of the Royal Society is to be believed........sorr
y mate, you've just lost out !!
Pax681 wrote:
some scientist..LOL more like a moron. the wavelength is TOO LONG to interact in any way with the body. same with mobiles. it is yet another example, as stated above of : A/ scientist scaremongering and trying for a research grant. B/ The govt happy to try to distract the public by getting them scared by more bullsh!t in the mix, It's SHEER NONSENSE!!! on top of being an A+ certified harware engineer i am ALSO a Licensed Radio Amateur so i KNOW from where i speak. this is complete and UTTER NONSENSE!!!!!! again as stated above, there is NO WAY FOR WAVEL;ENGTH THIS BIG TO INTERACT WITH THE HUMAN BODY AT ALL. let your kids play and let your networks run.
As a layman,I dunno whether you're right or not.
....but are you prepared to say that your medical degree qualifies you to comment ...(you DO have a medical degree, don't you?)..on how and over what timeframe future cancers etc might develop?
I just think that the time to LOOK SERIOUSLY at this is NOW !!
.....and as for a choice as to whether you or a former president of the Royal Society is to be believed........sorr
y mate, you've just lost out !!
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (15)
