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?

We encourage all grown ups capable of independent thought and not held hostage by suffocating pride/arrogance/intransigence to earnestly engage with the plethora of scientific evidence we have referred users to ITT

Illnesses ranging from depression and burn out, right the way through to terminal cancer, are on the rise and non-ionising radiation is, unquestionably, playing a role: and a major one, we have good reason to believe

Everyone else is free to continue bickering amongst themselves, you're convincing/impressing no-one (except, perhaps, your pals in the communications industry)

Goodness only knows what impact exposure is having on our young, and we see adults turning to pills/staying home more just to get through the day. What we should be doing is turning away from microwave radiation, and certainly NOT rolling out even higher, relatively untested, 5G frequency networks

While I am very happy to accept that different people have different tolerances to all sorts of things (alcohol, sun exposure, stress etc etc) and therefore am equally happy to accept that there are differing levels of tolerance to electromagnetic waves of various wavelengths and yes, certain frequencies are going up due to increased use.
Hoever, lets not forget that the world is full of radiation, that the wavelength varies depending on, say, altitude and that frankly there are so many other things that could ruin my life and my peaceful sleep, that I am content to await some sort of double-blind, placebo controlled peer reviewed study the results of which are replicable.

Disability is a whole other ball game.
Some of the most disabled people I know do not have a condition we know how to quantify or test or prove, but the effect it has on their quality of life is certainly very real.
Equally, some very ill people I have dealings with do have quite a good quality of life as they are blessed with a 'glass half full' attitude, they see what they can do, rather than what they cannot - I think this has little to do with scientifically measurable parameters and much more with personality/coping strategies/I don't know what else.

I do not understand why these kind of threads always become quite confrontational (as do the vaccination ones) - use lots of devices that emit radiation or don't, all fine by me.

PacificDogwod: We're not sure what you mean by "the world is full of radiation". If anyone is in any doubt as to the difference between naturally occurring radiation and anthropogenic electrosmog, please see the following handy introductory guide:

www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/guidetoemfs.asp

'Microwave frequency exposure is a relatively new phenomenon: 100 years ago the background radiation was millions of times lower than it is now, and it is as recent as the mobile phone boom (~1990's) that the modern, digitally pulsed signals have become ubiquitous in the Western world.'

Yes, and in the last 100 years the overall health/longevity of humankind has gone up and up.
One could argue that was because of elctrosmog

While I am happy to keep an open mind about various wavelengths of radiation and what harm they may or may not cause, the lack of understanding on this thread by some posters between the difference of association/causative effect/unfortunate coincidence makes reasoned debate quite difficult.

Who is 'we' Digital?

Oh wait, I see you are representing a lobby group on the issue. Not sure what Mumsnet policy is on that to be honest.

It's the Royal 'We', I think, Infinity

I am going to bring it back down to my level.... you are chatting shit..... or is it the royal 'we'.

I think digital and fried know each other in rl.

Which immunologist at St George's, OP?

I'm likely to see some more of them soon.

PacificDogwod: Life expectancy is now falling among some cohorts in the so-called 'developed world'. Also consider the vastly increased incidence of many (plausibly related) health and developmental disorders, including terminal illnesses like cancer, and among not just the elderly but everyone, including children and young people:

www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/teenagers-and-young-adults-cancers#heading-Zero

Funnily enough, the latest big piece of research news (£25m publicly funded study in the US) on RFR EMR did actually show that the life span of some of the male rats exposed appeared to increase. On the other hand, it also showed an increase in two types of cancer

So because cancer death is on the rise (which it's not, by the way) and stress related illness is on the rise, you're linking that solely to the increased electrosmog?

By that same logic, you can argue that eating bacon causes right wing political thinking and light bulb use causes autism.

Can you tell me exactly where in the developed world life expectancy is falling? I've found nothing to that effect anywhere.

On a wider point here, this is such a fabulous example of post-fact thinking. On the internet now if you make something up that sounds vaguely plausible and you can articulate your point using words of multiple syllobols, you can create an entirely new 'fact' of your very own and people might even believe you. Fortunately MN'ers are largely sensible creatures, but can you imagine if this debate was on facebook??

OP, produce, if you will, a double blind peer reviewed study which explicitly proves the link between low levels of electro-magnetic radiation and illness, then you might have a leg to stand on unless it's rotted off by the electrosmog

"Can you tell me exactly where in the developed world life expectancy is falling?"

It comes up in the news that it's likely to be happening here - and that the longevity of the (lived through rationing) generation is unlikely to be repeated. obviously still working its way through and might or might not actually happen.

But for that, the (tentative) theories about why are all linked to diet and lifestyle (and btw began before wifi was ubiquitous). There might be an indirect effect (long screen time tends to reduce exercise and to increase consumption certain convenience foods/snacks).

It actually says the opposite twistandturnme

' • This small study cannot prove that mobile phone signals have no harmful effects on the individual or what these effects may be.
• This was also only short-term exposure; no conclusions can be drawn from these results on what would be experienced if an individual were to live near a telecommunications mast for a large number of years.'

Twistandturnme

Sorry, formatting fail

It's not the royal "we" it's the royal "Wi".

EdithWeston: We encourage you to examine the multiple resources we have provided in this thread. Funnily enough, nutritional status is somewhat linked e.g. neuroprotective and antioxidant substances influences resistance to the ill effects of EMFs

Hesdeadjim: The all cancer incidence rate has increased by 30% in the UK since the 70's

www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence

Virtually all chronic health conditions are in some way "stress related" (e.g. may be impacted via the knock-on effect on neurological, endocrine, and immune status). Social, cultural, vocational, interpersonal, and familial dynamics, and the (d)evolution of related trends, indeed impact the psychology, and hence the health and functioning, of the population over time

However, to suggest that a syndrome which presents with a wide array of (largely non-specific, granted, but also some specific) symptoms is purely psychogenic is not merely insensitive and fairly counterintuitive, but also inconsistent with (psychosomatic) biomedical science

Naturally there are a great many causal/complicating factors involved in illnesses including cancer; nothing in what we have said runs contrary to this (please do not misrepresent fellow contributors). For example, the World Health Organisation’s cancer factsheet lists a number of known risk factors, notably now including non-ionizing radiation

www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/

Regarding an example of a fall in life expectancy, please see the following. Again, the establishment is quick to get in early with the ‘official line’ (excuses/citizen blaming) e.g. that people are committing suicide and dying from overdoses more than they have historically

www.wsj.com/articles/life-expectancy-for-white-americans-declines-1461124861

The problem with asserting that something is "post-fact" is that the onus is on you to show that the assertion is false (innocent until proven guilty). The industry’s spent millions, over the course of many years, paying for and attempting to twist, and undermine, the science in order to demonstrate that wireless radiation is perfectly safe. They have failed

The fact is, there is a risk (demonstrated in thousands of studies) of physiological interference affecting a great many forms of biological life; even the (allegedly compromised) WHO now accept that. What remains debatable is the extent of the risk in different cases e.g. given intensity vs. duration of exposure, and the nature of the subject (child/adult, healthy/sick, etc)

Why was Regina's post deleted? All she did was doff her hat at me?

Why delete that and not the utter ill informed nonsense spouted by digital disconnect?

Who is the rest of 'we'?

(And I'm fine with the resources I already access)

I never bothered. Until a mast was proposed near me. I live in the country. This was something I didnt expect. First I was afraid, then terrified! I asked the company for some data to say how safe etc. They emailed quotes from Sahsu studies stating there was no evidence etc of health risk.
But further down their evidence was .......................
‘Even at low levels of exposure, however, there are theoretical concerns about the effects on children because of relatively greater dose (per kg body mass), the potential greater susceptibility of children compared with adults, and potential effects of lifelong, cumulative exposures. For these reasons, in the UK it has been recommended that exposure of children to mobile telephony should be minimised.'

Some of the evidence they gave was good. But the bottom of their evidence pointed to we simply do not know until more years have passed.

I did find the talk Deevera Davis gave at University of Melbourne interesting but not specific to wifi and masts. I enquired in nearby areas. Out of the 2 areas about 100m from masts there was no problem (barring one household, a young woman not a child). It was not a very scientific search and if you hear of one case it puts you off asking. That is what we need to do. Who would do it? The government. Er, no they make a lot of money from the licences. Some Dr, Emminent, Scientist who wants to save the world. It is not rewarding research. as you can see in Prof Lai interview

But ladies if Dr Teo from Aussie land wants to come over and talk about it I will be first in the queue.

Now, I am not so worried about masts but I am worried that we may be exposing children to what is basically microwave radiation via our use of mobile phones, wi fi cordless phone etc .

Now I apply the same principle to the other 2b Carcinogen on IARC list (the weedkiller one) I will use it for really difficult hard to eradicate weeds, very sparingly. But I will never use it near my veg or fruit that I eat.
We will all continue to use our mobiles and wi fi but human nature is that we will worry more about kids.

So why not take the ‘Precautionary Principle’ to reduce the accumulative effect same as you would do for say sugar etc. Promote Hands Free and text. Challenge that where possible site masts away from residential areas. Hard wire where you can, use Wi Fi less. Would it be so difficult to ban Wi Fi in nursery class and hard wire in other classes as done in France? I mean they should be at desks most of the time.

EdithWeston: We're an awareness raising community group whose mission is to encourage the safe and sustainable use of Digital Age technology. Sorry to hear you're presently closed to new/additional sources of information. All the best