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?

Youtube is not a scientific reference, fgs!

Sadly, as you may know, many people with such disabilities encounter similar stigma and prejudice

I find this quite offensive to people who suffer from actual disabilities. Please don't categorise made up ones with real ones.

I have a headache from reading this thread . Suspect this proves OP right, yes?

peukpokicuzo: IEI-EMF is (chiefly) psychosomatic in some cases, no question, but please see above in order to help understand that it is also physiological in its basis in many cases, without question. Thank you

underneaththeash: Your subjective value judgements are no different to those made by EMF activists who cite industry interests/funding relating to studies that tend to produce results suggestive of no adverse health effects. Please see the Wireless Wake Up Call TEDx talk above, FYR. Another rather handy research resource, put together by the UK charity for people with this condition is available here:

www.es-uk.info/research-studies.html

We don’t expect anyone to take any particular study as gospel, either way. What we do expect, however, is for families to seek to educate themselves, share, discuss, and weigh the evidence, and make an informed decision as to the merits of a precautionary approach:

digitaldisconnect.org/2015/11/11/environmental

For the time being, sadly, we cannot rely upon bodies like the WHO and Public Health England to have all the answers, or to be willing to risk triggering major social and economic disruption by revealing the full insidious nature and extent of the threat posed by this form of environmental pollution

scaryclown: We’re not aware of big pharma seeking to corner the EHS market. Far from big business engaging with the problem, they’ve spent hundreds of millions trying to make it go away (see above)

FrancisCrawford: For many years the direct link between cancer and tobacco consumption was unproven, and the industry managed for a whole generation to obfuscate the related research and regulatory agenda. We’re witnessing the same thing here, the difference being, this is the 2010s, not the early 20th century, and this particular health hazard is invisible and we have little or no say what we’re exposed to in the built environment/around most others

If you are the kind of person who would have continued to expose your children to passive smoke unless/until the associated link to adverse health effects had gained widespread scientific consensus, then that’s a shame for you. Mercifully, the rest of humanity is unlikely to be so reckless, even if they are becoming increasingly addicted to related device (over)use:

digitaldisconnect.org/2015/11/11/psychological

The burden of proof regarding the safety of any new technology, particularly one that imposes such a ubiquitous burden on society, lies with the innovators and producers. ICNIRP has issued that guidance through gritted teeth. You may chose to disregard it, but must accept that many others either cannot (e.g. the physiologically susceptible) or will not (e.g. the socially minded/far sighted)

karuna9 and Digital Disconnect:

Thank you for your supportive, informative and intelligent posts.

NarkyMcDinkyChops:

Electro-sensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity are recognised as disabilities by the European Parliament. As such they are within the remit of the Equality Act 2010.

Therefore, I ask you to moderate your language when referring to them. This is because your post to mumsnet which reads, “I find this quite offensive to people who suffer from actual disabilities. Please don't categorise made up ones with real ones,” is in breach of this Act.

FrancisCrawford

My previous post neither refers to real physical electro-sensitivity nor to the psychological form of it in the context of the Equality Act. It just refers to electro-sensitivity.

You are correct. Both disabilities are, if they meet the definition of disability as circumscribed by the Equality Act, protected by it. I can confirm that the real physical electro-sensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity which I have been diagnosed with meets this definition.

Are you an Apple lawyer? If you are then I shouldn’t worry. The ICNIRP have already provided Apple and their mates with a get out clause.

I personally wouldn't worry, but I do understand people can worry. Given there is a long history of realising stuff is bad for us a little too late.
I think a few published trials should be done in a few nice journals. Over a period of time .....then this will put some minds at rest.
In any case in Germany they limit wifi in schools because, as a country they are quite hot on radiation issues (I have read).

This might be a bit tedious to read, but it's a direct cut/paste from the ICNIRP web-site, presented without comment:

HF effects on the body and health implications

HF fields have the ability to penetrate into the body (the higher the frequency, the lower the penetration depth), with the main effect of this being a temperature rise in the exposed tissue. The body can accommodate a small increase in temperature, in a similar way excess body heat is dissipated when performing sporting activity. This is because the human body can regulate its internal temperature. However, above a certain level (referred to as the threshold), which depends on the exposure duration, HF exposure and the accompanying temperature rise can provoke serious health effects, such as tissue damage (burns) and heatstroke. In the case of exposure to HF from Wi-Fi, the level of exposure is below this threshold so that body temperature is not affected.

A large number of studies have been undertaken on both acute and long-term effects from HF exposure, such as Wi-Fi, without showing any conclusive evidence of adverse health effects. Much of this research is inferred from the mobile phone and base station literature, as it refers to a similar exposure.

Among all of this research, the risk of tumors in close proximity to the ear where the phone is held, e.g. brain tumors, has been the focus of numerous epidemiological studies. A few of these epidemiological studies have reported a small increase in risk of some brain tumors for the small group of long-term and heavy mobile phone users (read more). These findings may be explained by reporting biases and weaknesses identified in the studies. Several studies have not reported any increase in brain tumors with mobile phone use. Also, experimental studies on animals and cells have failed to confirm the epidemiological studies, and there is no biophysical mechanism that could explain carcinogenicity at such low exposure levels. In addition, the increased risk observed in some of the epidemiological studies is inconsistent with the stable frequency of occurrence of these tumors in the population. That is an important consideration, given the widespread and significant increase in the use of mobile phones in the general population during the last few decades.

In particular, a considerable amount of research has now been conducted on the relationship between HF fields and outcomes such as headaches, concentration difficulty, sleep quality, cognitive function, cardiovascular effects, etc. To date, this research has not shown any such health effects. The only consistently observed finding is a small effect on brain activity measured by electroencephalography (EEG). The biological implication of these small changes is, however, unclear. For example, they have not been shown to affect sleep quality or to be associated with any other adverse health effects.

The overall evaluation of all the research on HF fields leads to the conclusion that HF exposure below the thermal threshold is unlikely to be associated with adverse health effects.

Francis Crawford.

Well, Francis, you seem to want to have an unproductive argument over semantics with me or you are just trolling me. Probably the latter. However, unfortunately, I neither have the time, inclination nor health to accommodate you, my dear.

May I correct myself: In the United Kingdom functional impairment or disability caused by Electrosensitivity comes under the Equality Act of 2010. There happy? I included "functional" just for you.

In the meantime, maybe you'd like to listen to this talk by Dr Andrew Goldsworthy on the biological mechanisms involved in electro-sensitivity. Ciao ciao.

electrosensitivityuk.podbean.com/2009/10/09/dr-andrew-goldsworthy-es-conference/

Yes, I do understand the Equality Act, Francis. If I didn't then I wouldn't have been able to successfully sue people in the past using it in

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/protected-characteristics/showing-you-re-disabled-under-the-equality-act/

It seems to me that your objective in your troll of me is to try and portray me as a mumsnetter who is posting misinformation in general and, thereby, undermine my case for health hazards associated with wireless and other forms of domestic radiation. Unfortunately for you, Apple and friends, I've primarily posted information to this thread that is already out there in the electro-sensitive community. A lot of it sourced from ElectroSensitivity UK.

Therefore, if you have a problem with the accuracy of the information I've provided, please take it up with the trustees of ElectroSensitvity UK and the scientists who have provided it.

wannabestressfree:

RE: Your comment to me:

"You have neither the 'time nor the health' and yet you go on to spout utter bollocks....You do NOT have a disability. It's offensive to those of us that do. You need help and that's not the first time I have said that this afternoon.
Why come here to spout this shit?"

Have you heard of disability hate crime, wannabestressfree? Being disabled yourself doesn't exclude from being culpable of perpetrating it. Choose your words to me in future very, very carefully.

OP is clearly looking for trouble here.

I think everyone should just leave her to it.

I am..... reported.

wannabestressfree whether or not someone has a disability is an entirely separate question from whether it is caused by [insert some pseudoscientific claptrap here] or whether it is autogenous and psychosomatic.

Compare for example with the experience of a severely agoraphobic person who genuinely feels that the weight of the sky is crushing when they step outside their home and that they cannot move or breathe. In its severest presentation that can be a true disability despite the fact that to a non agoraphobic person it us self-evident bollocks, the sky will not crush them nor is there anything preventing them from moving or breathing normally on a physical level. Yet there is no point asking them to snap out of it or rationalise their physical symptoms away.

Electrosensitivity has an awful lot of poorly researched, biased and ridiculous stuff written about it by people with a very shakey understanding of how to build a scientifically rigorous study. That does not mean that someone in the grip of a severe case can just decide that they are now healthy.

The World Health Organisation says:

EHS is not a medical diagnosis

Sorry.

For the time being, sadly, we cannot rely upon bodies like the WHO and Public Health England to have all the answers

We can certainly rely on them more than the Breakspear Hospital and the randomers on YouTube that you have confused with scientific evidence!

Is depression a "real" disability? Is it "physical"? Is stress-induced asthma? Alcoholism? I'm always astounded by the strangely overconfident way people proclaim on the distinctions between physical and mental. I think you'd find that even (especially?) world renowned experts cannot make such clear delineations.

How do you deal with cars? With thunder storms, with putting on a woolly jumper?

All of these things create significant EM spikes/ongoing EM interference.

I've never seen any even slightly convincing research that anyone can tell when a wireless system is running (well, except at uni once where they had a high powered one that cooked a couple of seagulls slightly)

peukpokicuzo - I like that comparison a lot.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity

Hope the link works....

So no one who has the opinion that what you're talking about is nonsense is breaking the Equality Act.

Those who disagree with you are allowed their opinions just as you are allowed yours.

It doesn't mean you should take offence or accuse people of breaking Acts. The Human Rights Act allows us all to have our opinion. I could accuse you of breaking that Act....