The very Real Dangers of School Wi-Fi to yor Children.

[FriedSheep]

Since the proliferation of Wi-Fi in 2006, I have developed a severe form of real physical electro-sensitivity diagnosed by the NHS. However, the NHS does not fund treatment for this condition. You can see a photograph of the inflammatory effects of electro-sensitivity upon me in my profile.

Leading scientific experts in electro-sensitivity such as Dr Barrie Trower, Prof Olle Johansson and Dr Andrew Goldsworthy have warned the public of the health hazards to the population, in particular of the hazards to children, posed by wireless and microwave radiation.

Wireless radiation and microwaves are not only identified as a class 2b carcinogen but these forms of radiation are linked to numerous diseases. Research has found that foetuses exposed to radiation from mobile phones in the womb are born with less brain cells than foetuses who are not exposed to this radiation.

In addition to this, both Dr Trower and Prof Johansson have warned that these forms of radiation are linked to infertility and that children exposed to it now will sustain injuries to their ovaries and testicles which will raise the incident of birth deformities in their children and their children's children.

The International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection has stated that certain groups of the population such as the elderly, those with chronic health conditions and children may well be sensitive to wireless and microwave radiation. Therefore, it is the legal responsibility of individuals such as head teachers to set wireless radiation in schools at a level below what is accepted as safe. How many head teachers have done this?

In addition to this, the ICNIRP states that if any child in a school sustains an injury, such as damage to her ovaries, from wireless radiation then it is the head teacher who is culpable in law for this and not the communication industry. This is because the ICNIRP warned of the dangers of wireless and microwave radiation to children.

This is also why insurance companies are now refusing to insure clients in the event of prosecution for injuries caused by wireless and microwave radiation. Still skeptical? Then ask Apple and facebook why they have offered to freeze the eggs of their female employees? Are they anticipating lawsuits?

Are you Fried sheep, Karuna?

Pacific has a good point

Hi all,
We'd appreciate it if you could use the same courtesy when posting messages on Talk as you would use when speaking to someone face to face.
The Talk guidelines still apply. www.mumsnet.com/info/netiquette
Thank you.

OP, have you read any of the ICNIRP publications or just bits that have been paraphrased to support claims of sensitivity? I just ask as they're very sensible, evidence-based and peer reviewed documents which I use quite frequently in my work (radiation protection) and I've never read anything amongst them that I think could justify any kind of hysteria around EM radiation.

For what it's worth, EM radiation can be harmful at certain levels. However these levels are not obtainable from a wifi router, for example. They are potentially obtainable around mobile phone masts for example, but only right round the active components (i.e. not in a neighbouring primary school). These fields will be measured as part of the installation of a mast or other source of EM radiation and measures put in place to ensure no one can access the area where the levels are high. Also the new EMF directive is so overly cautious, it requires exposure to be limited to well below levels that there is any (peer-reviewed) evidence to suggest is harmful. It actually causes big issues because it's it's initial drafts it would have prevented staff from going in to MRI scanner rooms when the scanners on! So please rest assured that you are well protected.

SPAM88

The General Approach to Protection against Non- Ionizing Radiation Paper by the ICNIRP states,
“Different groups in a population may have differences in their ability to tolerate a particular NIR exposure. For example children, the elderly and some chronically ill people might have a lower tolerance for one or more forms of NIR exposure than the rest of the population. Under such circumstances, it may be useful or necessary to develop separate guideline levels for different groups within the general population, but it may be more effective to adjust the guidelines for the general population to include such groups.

Some guidelines may still not provide adequate protection for certain sensitive individuals nor for normal individuals exposed concomitantly to other agents, which may exacerbate the effect of the NIR exposure, an example being individuals with photosensitivity. Where such situations have been identified, appropriate specific advice should be developed within the context of scientific knowledge.”
In this paper, the ICNIRP also state,

“The ICNIRP approach to providing advice on limiting exposure to NIR necessarily requires well based scientific date related to established health effects. When, in the absence of sufficient scientific evidence for the existence of a suspected adverse health effect, there are calls for protective measures, a number of approaches to risk management have been applied.

These approaches generally centre on reducing needless exposure to the suspected agent. However, ICNIRP emphasizes the need to ensure that the practical manner in which such approaches are applied should not undermine or be to the detriment of science based exposure guidelines.”

End of Quote

It’s worth mentioning at this point a statement by the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety claims, “The non-ionizing radiation protection standards recommended by the international standards organisations, and supported by the World Health Organisation, are inadequate. Existing guidelines are based on results from acute exposure studies and only thermal effects are considered. A world wide application of the Precautionary Principle is required. In addition, new standards should be developed to take various physiological conditions into consideration, e.g., pregnancy, newborns, children, and elderly people.”

It’s also worth mentioning that in the United States and most Western European countries, the safety limits for exposure of the general population to radio fields is set at a hundred times higher than safety limits in the Russian Federation in addition to most of the former Warsaw Pact allies, China and Switzerland.

Karuna you can't link to a load of non studies, and then studies that DO NOT prove what you assert they do, and think you have shown anyone anything.

There is NO scientific evidence to back up these claims. The available evidence says the exact opposite. Op has a diagnosis from a known quack at a very dodgy clinic.

NarkyMcDinkyChops, I have a diagnosis of real physical electro-sensitivity from an NHS consultant immunologist in an NHS hospital. St. George's Hospital is NOT a dodgy clinic and it's not in the habit of employing "quacks".

If you don't have accurate facts to add to this thread then don't add to it.

Spam 88,

What you have written sounds very reassuring. I wish I could be reassured. But I refer you to the international EMF Scientist Appeal (which you can find, among other places, here: emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal ). In this open letter to the United Nations and World Health Organisation, a group of 200 scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) say that "The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.... It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health."

They also say that "Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life."

So, with respect, I don't believe the situation is as cut and dried as you make out.

The Breakspear is a dodgy clinic full of quacks, and I'm sorry but I simply don't believe that that is the actual diagnosis you have from any decent doctor in an NHS hospital.

If you don't have accurate facts to add to this thread then don't add to it

That's irony. You started a thread with no accurate facts. You've been given some since though.

NarkyMcDinkyChops,

1. Your being unable to access a study on the internet does not make it a "non study". Not all studies are published online.

1. Which studies, exactly, do not prove what I "assert they do"? What do you think I am asserting? I only posed a question, which was (and I quote): "How much scientific evidence is required for people to stop asserting that there is no evidence of harm caused to living organisms by microwave radiation?" I was challenging the assertion, which I hear all too often, that there is NO EVIDENCE of harm. I then offered a couple of links - and to be fair, the second is probably more helpful and useful than the first - which would allow anyone so inclined to examine for themselves some of the scientific evidence suggesting that microwave radiation does indeed interfere with and/or cause harm to living organisms. Here's the link again: www.emfanalysis.com/research/

I freely admit to having not read all of the papers accessed via the link, despite committing a fair bit of time to studying the subject for the past couple of years. But be honest, NarkyMcDinkyChops: how many of them have you read before making your own assertion that "There is NO scientific evidence to back up these claims. The available evidence says the exact opposite"?

3, You use the words "studies that DO NOT prove what you assert they do". I did not, and would never, assert that a study proved anything. Nor would any scientist. Science is empirically based and therefore incapable of proving anything. All it can hope to do is measure the weight of available evidence and arrive at interim judgements of probability. All of the "conclusions" of scientific enquiry are of necessity temporary and must stand aside in the light of fresh evidence to the contrary. Evidence of non-ionising radiation (which is the sort of radiation under debate here) causing biological harm is mounting by the day. For obvious reasons, the telecoms industry is as keen to acknowledge this as the tobacco industry was to acknowledge the link between smoking and lung cancer. And like the tobacco industry, the telecoms industry will spend a lot of money and effort persuading its customers and the relevant regulators that the products it sells us are safe.

4.Whichever side of this debate seems to you more convincing than the other, or if you want to keep an open mind on it, that's your decision. And given the amount of bad news we have thrown at us it's hardly surprising if another piece of bad news meets with furious rejection. But someone, (PacificDogwod), did ask a question of FriedSheep : "What are you looking for from this thread?" That question hasn't been answered, so I can only hazard a guess. Perhaps, just perhaps, FriedSheep wanted to raise the possibility that something in which we are increasingly choosing to immerse ourselves (non-ionising radiation) is damaging us and our children, because she (? - assumption) has been badly injured by exactly that thing, has as a consequence done her research, and now wants to warn others? You might see that as sticking her(?) nose in where it was not requested and is not wanted. Equally, if someone knew something was dangerous and didn't tell anyone, when you were yourself injured by it you might feel very peeved indeed that other people had known about this all along and had said nothing.

5.The tenor of most of the responses on this thread suggests that nobody wants to hear what FriedSheep is saying. Your choice, of course. But might it be possible to convey that information in a less rude and hurtful manner than many have adopted? On a personal note, I have only just joined Mumsnet and, to be honest, the tone of this debate has left me wanting to leave at once. I have only stuck around because I happened to have information I hoped it might be relevant to share - and because I felt that FriedSheep was being bullied - yes, bullied - think about it - and I didn't want to stand by and just let that happen.

1. This is a plea for compassionate and reasoned debate. We seem to be in a time of heightened polarisation - look at Brexit, Trump, the Ukraine, ISIS... I guess it's a sign that things can't stay the way they have been, because the way they have been wasn't working. And it is fine for opinions to be polarised - but it doesn't follow that we have to reject people for having an opinion different from our own. Trump's supporters and his opponents probably have one thing in common: they want the USA to be ok. Likewise pro- and anti-Brexit voters probably all want the UK to be ok. But we'll none of us be ok if we are at each other's throats. Can we please listen to one another's different opinions with respect and open hearts, looking for what unites us as well as looking, thoughtfully , at the differences?

Thanks for the lecture but as a scientist its unnecessary. You can't have a reasoned debate when you are starting from a position of nonsense and untruths.

I don't need to read them all, as a scientist I know to trust the scientific assessments of other scientists in their fields. And the leading minds on this subject tell me that this is quackery.

Can we please listen to one another's different opinions with respect and open hearts, looking for what unites us as well as looking, thoughtfully , at the differences?

No. These are not things to have opinions on, there are facts and there are non-facts. You can have an opinion on whether tea is nicer than coffee, but this is like trying to have an opinion on whether owls exist or not. This is not something we need opinions on.

And lastly, when you find yourself agreeing with people like those at the Breakspear, the ones selling cures for autism consisting of sugar pills and vitamins, you instantly know you are on the wrong road.

Karuna I googled a few of the UK signatories of that letter. Pretty telling that they appear on various quackwatch websites with a long history of unsubstantiated claims about various issues. Wouldn't fill me full of confidence in the claims made in the letter.

And if you could stop linking to a one man crusader website as if it was some kind of legitmate source, your attempt at presenting "research" might be less laughable.
Especially one that is trying to sell you expensive organic cottons bed canopies to keep the evil wifi rays off you while you sleep. That really is only one step away from the cliched tin foil hat!

Nobody and I mean nobody on this thread have even mentioned the dangers of not fitting your TF hat with a chin strap, please stay safe pp's and always make sure the chin strap is snug and secure

FriedSheep: Thanks for posting. Sorry you have had to put up with the kind of deeply insensitive and unkind ignorance and prejudice on display in this thread. Sadly, as you may know, many people with such disabilities encounter similar stigma and prejudice

A highly pertinent related resource for fellow members of this community who may have their concerns/reservations yet like to keep an open mind and consider all angles when it comes to family health and well-being:

www.babysafeproject.org

CrimsonPermanentAssurance: We suggest you take a broader view regarding the view a great many, and increasing number, of insurers are taking on EMF-related liabilities. The scant available evidence is pretty compelling:

ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Telecom-10-K-Liability-and-Insurance-Companies-Slides-EHT-6-2016.pdf

caroldecker: Albeit that the WHO have just included non-ionising radiation as a risk factor on their cancer factsheet (www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/), they, and their ICNIRP subsidiary, are far from immune from criticism (to put it mildly):

olgasheean.com/who-harm

Wheredidallthejaffacakesgo, ItsAllGoingToBeFine, PleasantPhesant, tinymeteor, Creatureofthenight, Cathelpplease, InfinityPlusOne, Redactio: As others have noted, there are thousands of studies that demonstrate physiological effects, despite special interests doing their best to obfuscate and derail related endeavours (and meeting with some success):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0NEaPTu9oI

Palomb: Most people are exposed to microwave radiation across multiple environments, yes, but no, that’s not “life”. Levels on earth are millions of times higher than they were just a few generations ago and there are plenty of things that families can do to avoid/mitigate exposure:

www.electricsense.com

The world is waking up to the harms, and the risk posed to infants in particular (hence a growing number of countries are banning wireless in nurseries/primaries)

You're free to disregard the cautions of the OP, and may even discount the large and growing body of evidence suggestive of harms, but we would strongly encourage you to consider the merits of a precautionary approach, at least where young ones are concerned:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=H43IKNjTvRM

A slightly longer presentation, from (child) healthcare professionals with related expertise:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ScEwqpaSYE

Badders123: ME/CFS, MCS, and EHS, often go hand in hand:

www.drmyhill.co.uk/wiki/Electrical_sensitivity

PickAChew: There are both objective and subjective (blinded) tests that can be performed, only the willingness to organise these and design them in such a way as to be able to reject the null hypothesis is, shall we say, somewhat lacking

Those that have been attempted historically have been essentially designed to fail, and related research e.g. meta-analyses put together by the same darling psychiatrists that spent the past couple of decades attempting to show that ME/CFS is somehow all ‘in the mind’ (Wessely et al.)

PacificDogwod: This is probably the single biggest direct environmental health threat currently facing the populations of developed economies. Make no mistake, it’s storing up a huge public health pandemic, with those rendered hypersensitive already numbering between 1.5% - 13.5% of the population in countries under study (estimated three million in the UK alone):

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372109

Bananalanacake: Radiation harms are just part of the broader problems posed by child use of technology, yes, also consider psychological harms associated with the misuse of Digital Age tech:

www.screenagersmovie.com

The internet is making me sick...

So I'll use the internet to warn others
I'll also use the internet to research my illness... I'll never stop using the internet...

The internet is so informative... how else would I KNOW I am ill ...

The internet, the internet

I want what you're on OP

It is possible for people to have genuine and utterly debilitating physical symptoms from illnesses that are fundamentally psychosomatic. What is sad is that there is a massive stigma about psychosomatic illnesses that make people think it is OK to ridicule the sufferer. It is not. These illnesses ruin lives and no the person cannot snap out of it and cannot be convinced by reasonable argument about scientific evidence to therefore stop being ill.

The NHS should not and does not ignore the illness of someone who attributes the cause of their illness to a mechanism that is known scientifically to not be the cause. If the person is well enough to lead a more functional life if they restrict the amount if WiFi signal or "chemicals" (excluding H2O, NaCl, C6H12O6 etc obviously) they experience - then that is a good thing for that person.

obviously though we are not going to give up the benefits to wider society of the general proliferation of these things for the sake of the tiny number of people who can't deal with them. Most children are not affected in the slightest by wifi.

I think the other thing that you've failed to grasp is that it not all scientific evidence is of equal worth. Poor scientific process can lead to conclusions being drawn from research as well as bias from the organisation sponsoring that research.

I've just read through your previously linked studies and the majority of the ones I can get into were done at small institutions with poor reputations for their quality of research.

The other way you can get an idea of how much worth a particular study or paper has is if you click on the "cited" link which often appears at the bottom of the page and it will tell you how many times that paper has been cited in other studies.
Three of the ones that you've linked to have not been cited at all or only once.

I'm also very sorry that you're ill and hope you get better soon.

Never has my name change been more appropriate!

I think the problem here is that big pharma is seeking a way both to medicate internet users and to encourage people to stop using wifi to access the internet easily. They do this to stop people learning about their conspiracy to keep people in ignorance so they can sell more illuminati

Those papers are hardly convincing
Where is the empirical data?
Oh, there isn't any!....
ME is shit. I should know. And it would be lovely to find something to blame.
In my case it's the Epstein Barr virus I got at 18
Read some actual medical research done by a well regarded dr and a highly respected hospital or university - Epstein Barr is the root cause of most cases of ME.
Sadly there are many charlatans who prey on the weak, ill and scared.
I would urge the op to see a dr who specialises in ME and to follow a gentle care plan.
I would agree that too many of us spend far too long on screens, whether for work or pleasure, and limiting that may be a bad idea.