is wireless technology good for our children?

[djshed]

I am posting this to help raise awareness of my condition and to hopefully protect all of our children in the future.

Having recently discovered that i am electro hypersensitive (ehs) i have discovered some very disturbing facts about our children's schools their wifi access and the effect our mobile and wireless communications are having on our children. This includes digital baby monitors.

We all enjoy the convenience mobile technology gives us but there may be serious health risks, especially for children.

A classroom fitted with wi-fi means that the children and staff are exposed to constant low-level microwave radiation. A small number of people are likely to suffer symptoms like headaches as a result.

Everyone is affected cumulatively by this exposure and current evidence suggests that children may be more likely to develop medical problems during childhood, as well as cancers and other serious illnesses later in life.

Low-level microwave radiation has also been linked to problems with cognitive skills, particularly memory, concentration and reaction time. Read more about the health effects...

Of particular significance for children are studies which indicate that children absorb more radiation in the brain than adults which may indicate a greater risk of brain tumours.

I have spoken to my four year old son's head teacher and that very afternoon she started to remove the DECT cordless landline phones from the class rooms, this is a great start but the wifi and mobile phone signals are still there. i want to protect my child, what will you do to protect your's from this invisible pollution??

if you have any information on how we can get the schools to take notice and ado[pt a cautionary approach towards this growing technology please respond, also if you want to find out more then respond and lets all get communicating with our children's schools.

many thanks for reading

"i can understand your scepticism"

This isn't scepticism, this is taking the results of 37 published and peer reviewed studies and and seeing that the current theories of what EHS is and what it implies simply don't stand up to rigourous double blind testing.

"we are all swimming in a sea of bullshit when it comes to what the government and communications companies, who fund the research, tell us about their findings'

So if the science shows no basis for the current theory of EHS then it's been bought off by big business? We can't win here then. Because any study that doesn't give the results that you want you'll dismiss as being biased.

And when throwing around accusations of bias and corruption don't forget to mention that many of the groups cherry picking their studies are involved in the business of selling things to the people who they can convince suffer from EHS. If there's fear of bias and corruption anywhere I'd start off by looking there.

And as to Sweden...

Well it helps to understand how the Swedish do things, if enough people claim to be suffering from something then they recognise that something is going on and set out to help them. There doesn't need to be any scientific proof in order for that help to be given, and that fact has lead to the EHS benefits in Sweden being very controversial amongst scientists.

And like the Swedish Government I'm not claiming that the sufferers of EHS aren't suffering from something, they clearly are.

However there is absolutely no basis to suggest a direct link between electromagnetic signals and the condition.

"i can really do this i can really feel when people have their phones on now"

Well seriously if you can then you can get your hands on a million dollars to help those who suffer with you.

And you'll also expose the WHO, HPA and all those scientists who consistently failed to be able to do that in repeatable double blind tests as either poor scientists or being in the pay of the communications industry.

"because there has never been any tests surveys or studies for children"

Tests for children are very controversial and risky because the involve children.

The current theories put forward for EHS state that both children and adults should be affected, so the scientists have focussed on the adults as that is a far less morally difficult area to work with. You would have to argue why the EHS study would have to be done on children, and when, as said, the EHS supporters claim it affects everyone there's just no justification for doing this.

And the theory has been proven false by many studies.

So if the backers of EHS want to come back with a new theory that explains why it cannot be proven in adults yet would exist in children then that would be something for scientists to work on and test.

But no, the backers of EHS still claim that it does affect adults and accuse the scientists of bias and having a hidden agenda.

please have a good look through this site,

www.es-uk.info/info/index.asp.

i don't think they are selling anything, but they do have a page where sufferers can go to find some products of possible relief. yes there are alot of bullshit products but there is alot of bullshit products everywhere in every walk of life. don't just dismiss the condition based on the unscrupulous actions of some hocus pocus money makers.

if you could feel what i can feel you would have no doubt.

this illness has been studied and documented back as far as 1930's by the air force from exposure to electromagnetic fields.

how can you say there is no basis to suggest a direct link?

we digress anyway, again, this thread is about the safety of wifi in schools. you have not given me any evidence to to proof that it is not worthy of concern..

What backers of EHS are you talking about?

International Scientists Recommend Global Governments Adopt New Exposure Guidelines for Electromagnetic Radiation?Pointing to Biological Hazards and Risks to the Genetic Code from Unchecked Proliferation of Wireless Technologies.

The paper has just been published in the journal, Reviews on Environmental Health. The Seletun Scientific Panel's recommendations are extremely important given the unchecked proliferation of wireless radiation over the past decade, such as from cell towers, wireless networks, wireless routers, and cell phones.

"don't just dismiss the condition based on the unscrupulous actions of some hocus pocus money makers."

No, I'm dismissing the current theory of the condition based upon the vast majority of peer reviewed scientific studies that have shown it to be false.

"if you could feel what i can feel you would have no doubt.'
"

I'm not saying that you feel nothing. What I am saying is that scientific studies have been unable to show that what people like you feel is connected with what they claim causes it.

"how can you say there is no basis to suggest a direct link?"

Because of all those studies, and I'm not alone in coming to that conclusion.

"this thread is about the safety of wifi in schools. you have not given me any evidence to to proof that it is not worthy of concern.'"

It's certainly worthy of interest and concern, which is one reason why those studies were done, and those studies couldn't find any correlation between fields and the reported symptoms.

And as I said right at the beginning I'm more than happy for schools to be reminded that wired communications is an option they should be considering. But what I am not prepared to do is to tell schools that they should not use WIFI or should remove it from where it is used. And that's because all the science shows that there isn't a problem, and I'm not prepared to force that expenditure on schools when this has been looked into and not proven.

"What backers of EHS are you talking about?"

You, for example.

You claim it affects adults, yourself. So therefore there is no need for a trial specifically aimed at children. If EHS works according to how you say it does then the studies aimed at adults should have picked it up. They didn't. Time after time they didn't.

But again if you can do this then prove it.

Right now you could, without wishing to be rude, be anybody.

The scientists who have said that there is nothing to this have put their names to it and are betting their professional life on the studies being honest.

So who should schools listen to?

But you could fix this if you can do what you say you can.

Go to your University, find the physics or biology departments, find a research student looking for a research project and put yourself forward.

If you really can do this then you can change the world here and save children from harm. And how often can people do that?

You could be the subject of a proper peer reviewed study that could break new ground over this. Why don't you?

you will have to hit the translate button if your Hebrew is a bit rusty.

www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1100555.html

www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/electrosmog_dangers.pdf

I'm really glad to see this on here. I haven't got time to read the whole thread now, but will come back to it.

At the very least we should be taking a precautionary approach where children, babies and pregnant women are concerned.

Inevitably this makes heavy mobile users feel very defensive, but that doesn't negate the case for a precautionary approach.

www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/goldsworthy_bio_weak_em_07.pdf

"At the very least we should be taking a precautionary approach where children, babies and pregnant women are concerned."

We can't go taking precautionary approaches with every theory and possibility that gets put forward. We'd never leave the house or do anything if we did.

And we certainly shouldn't go taking overly precautionary approaches with something that hasn't just not yet been proven but has been proven false time and time again.

And above all else we certainly shouldn't be overly precautionary when rather than try and argue the science the proponents of EHS have to do things like this...

www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/gold sworthybioweakem07.pdf opens with the quote...

"What the power and telecoms companies would prefer us not to know"

So rather than try and scientifically explain what's wrong with all of those studies that cannot prove the link between the claimed causes of EHS and the symptoms they have to try and insinuate that it's all a big cover up.

Once again, if anyone can do what you claim that you can do then don't you have a responsibility to make yourself available to prove it?

Good lord OP - you know that anyone can post anything they like on the internet, they don't have to have any proof?

In past lives I regularly read electronics journals, and so have seen peer-reviewed studies from authenticated sources (ie. not people on the internet) showing no link.

You realise that pretty much everything kicks out a field? Ever put a washing machine near a TV for example (in the old, non-digital days) - does the hoover cause you tingling?

Thank you badgerspaws, that is a terrific idea, i know it won't be read this evening but i have just sent an email to the bioscience department of reading university, so watch this space.

"Thank you badgerspaws, that is a terrific idea, i know it won't be read this evening but i have just sent an email to the bioscience department of reading university, so watch this space."

Brilliant.

I'm not saying for certain that there's nothing in the theory EHS.

What I am saying is that the majority of the peer reviewed science has failed to find any backing for it.

And yes you claim that you can do it, but you could be anybody so I, and most other organisations, will trust the scientists who have put their name to their work and detailed not just their findings but exactly what they did to get those findings.

However get yourself into a scientific study and prove you can do what you say you can and the whole game changes.

djshed, I've just done a quick look at www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/electrosmog_dangers.pdf. In the section about electro hypersensitivity it referred to a study by by Eltiti et al (trosmog_dangers.pdf here) that it purports demonstrated a link with skin conductance.

Have you actually read the Eltiti paper? First, and contrary to what Andrew Goldsworthy's "The Danger of Electromagnetic Smog" paper suggests, the Eltiti paper clearly makes the point that an increase in skin conductance can simply be a nervous reaction to stress and may not have anything to do with physiological differences. Skin conductance is, after all, one of the factors that lie detectors measure to detect if the person being tested is showing signs of stress and hence could be lying.

More interestingly, the Eltiti paper's results show very clearly that there was no significant evidence that the "sensitive" people were be able to detect mobile phone signals in a double-blind trial. It was only when they were told that the signals were present did they reliably have symptoms. Interesting, no?

I find it curious that Goldsworthy picked that paper to try to bolster his arguments while carefully ignoring what the overall message of that paper was. And this is just one citation that Goldsworthy made that I bothered to look up. I don't have a lot of faith that the rest of his references are any more reliable.

Bugger, I cocked up the link. The Goldsworthy paper is here. It refers to the Eltiti paper which is available here.

i am not saying cover up just open up your eyes and see the invisible pollution that is around us, we cannot escape it but can we without answers one way or the other allow our children to be subjected to it for horus and hours everyday?

yes correct everything electrical does kick out emf's that is the point we should be more aware of the health effect of electromagnetic fields whether they are from wireless devices or electrical devices in the home or office and maybe change the way we do things and use things. and hey what can it hurt, we reduce the carbon footprint and maybe prevent some horrible health epidemic in the future!

would you stand right in front of your microwave while it is cooking?

have you seen any peer reviewed studies which show a link between power lines and childhood leukaemia? or between cancer clusters and mobile phone masts?

how about the makers of the iphone actually warning you not to use the thing within one inch of your body? what is that about? if they are not basing that information on science then what?

you can carry on nuking yourselves but should i let my son go to school where there are such high wifi frequencies?

There is lots of evidence out there which points to the need for a precautionary approach. Obviously the mobile phone companies put out tons of counter info because it's not in their interest for us to take a precautionary approach. Simple economics.

I can't see why anyone would object to a precautionary approach where a foetus is concerned. They are pretty vulnerable.

And in particular the skull of a foetus is pretty thin.

Snorks, no i have not read the eltiti report, and yes the results you mention amaze me as, i can feel emf's and there are reports that emf's do make people sick not just cause the development of electrohypersensitivity.

there is a biological effect which is of concern. check out the BioInitiative Report.

What larks [fashions tin foil hat]

I think a few posters on here could do with one of those

www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/news.php

For the nutters out there