Are there any secondary schools without wi-fi?

[raisinsgalore]

Does anyone know of any secondary schools in the UK without wi-fi? I'm looking for one for my son. I'm even prepared to move if it means that he will be in a non-wireless environment.

wtf? surely this is scaremongering.

any other more scientific evidence?

What, specifically, do your medical qualifications say about the danger of Wifi? Is there a scientific hypothesis?

I have got a nice nifty portable device which takes mobile phone 3g reception and turns it into wi-fi for up to 5 devices.

I'm afraid that some of us have this and it will only take half a minute to expose your kids to wifi even in school. The school doesn't have any money for wifi but some of us use it instead so i'd say don't be too sure when you are told there isn't any. If there's 3G, there's likely to be wifi. Maybe you could start or join a campaign to raise awareness over here as well. Good luck with your search.

You are right that there needs to be a campaign to raise awareness in this country. Allegedly the Dept of Trade and Industry stopped the Dept of Health from publicising the Stewart advice on the need for a precautionary approach re the dangers of mobile phones to children. Namely, that children and young adults should only use mobile phones in a genuine emergency, because their skulls are thinner and their brains still developing, so their brains are more vulnerable to tumours.

That is still the official government advice; it's just that not many people know it.

Many partners of people who have developed brain tumours believe that mobile phones were responsible, partly because of where the tumours developed, ie right where they used to hold their mobile phone. It's not scaremongering; people need to be aware of the economic drivers behind what is a very recent technology.

Everyone is free to take risks with their lives, but they need to have some awareness of what those risks are. I'm really shocked by how low awareness is of the potential harm of mobiles to children, given the amount of press coverage there has been - in spite of the vast economic significance of the mobile phone industry, which funds most if not all of the research.

First point.

The health issues, if there are any are quite different between WiFi and mobiles. This is due to two factors. Mobiles use a different wavelength to WiFi, so what could apply to one would not apply to the other. Second there is a thing called the inverse square law which says that if you double the distance you quarter the intensity, so if you have a mobile jammed to your ear the intensity of exposure at the skull will be large compared to it being even a couple of feet away.

Second point.

The amount of energy in WiFi is trivial. If it were not then the electricity bills of everyone with a router would be immense. and you do not jam a router to your ear.

Third point.

The official government precautionary advice is that young children should not use mobiles for any extended periods, not because of evidence of harm, but it is clear that an adult skull will block most mobile radiation a child's skull will not, and a child's brain still growing. So why take the risk?

Fourth Point

WiFi everywhere; there are eight networks reachable by my computer now. School wiFi neither here nor there.

The statement that male sperm can be affected by radio waves is, I have to say, in general, nonsense. Tight underpants would have a bigger effect.

Yours in loose fitting boxer shorts.

Where's Ben Goldacre when you need him??

To the OP, honestly, would you really uproot your entire family just to avoid wifi? That seems totally bizarre to me.

Our position is similar to that of aviatrix.

With wifi in schools, the laptops emit, so kids should at best keep the laptops on a desk, not on their laps. A laptop on the lap near the gonads is like a mobile phone next to the brain. Any evidence of possible harm is certainly vigorously countered by the industry; naturally; it's very big business, on a global scale. That's why campaigning is a pretty thankless task. It's not that hard to reduce individual risk, though.

Also, the point about cafes etc having wifi is that if you don't use a laptop there yourself, then you are not that close to the source of emissions. (I would agree with nlondondad about proximity.)

And most people don't spend hours and hours in cafes. There is a certain irony, as the OP indicates, in sending your kids to school to be subjected to emissions which may not be good for them. Of course they used to put loads of asbestos in schools (and hospitals etc), and that was considered a very good thing because it would prevent the children being harmed in a fire.

Do you exercise, Avia? Or have central heating, or holiday in the Sun.

Really, your body is very able to control its own temperature.

Not that there is enough energy in Wifi signals to heat up a human to any measuring extent.

I would suggest that you keep away from paranoia websites. They are worse for your health than all the background electromagnetic radiation you are unwittingly exposed to in a lifetime.

You must know that radiation does more to your body than heat it up, MRWB! Does radiotherapy have the same effect as sunbathing? Are they both equally good for you?

Thanks for that link, aviatrix. Hadn't seen that site before. I've been looking for ways to access other European countries' stuff on this, since they seem to be ahead of us, especially France and, rather oddly, Russia.

Radiotherapy uses ionising radiation. Wifi does not.

Thank you to all who have mentioned counties where secondary schools don't use wi-fi, I will chase them up.

The distance from the transmitter matters. If you are sitting close to a wireless laptop and its transmitters you are exposed to higher radiation than if you are in a wi-fi cafe and not close to a phone or laptop. You can also choose not to go in cafes, but children need to go to school. The heating thing is not the issue, damage to the body occurs at levels far below those which heat tissue, and at the exposures that someone using a laptop will be exposed to. A school's duty of care means that they need to be providing a safe environment even if wi-fi is present outside of school. With many epidemiologists now saying that there is strong evidence for a link between mobile phones and cancer, there is the possibility that wi-fi will increase the risk of tumours too. Following the crowd doesn't mean that something is safe, it just means that a lot of people could be affected.

raisinsgalore that is scaremongering. Where do many epidemiologists say there is strong evidence for mobile phones causing cancer? Which meta studies and peer reviewed journals?

Some teaching unions have called for the renoval of wi-fi from schools to prevent cancer

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168547/Wi-fi-networks-removed-schools-stop-children-getting-cancer-teachers-insist.html

'Researchers for the BBC's Panorama programme visited a comprehensive in Norwich and measured the strength of a radiation signal from a classroom wi-fi laptop.
They found that the maximum signal strength was three times higher than that of a typical mobile phone mast.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-456534/The-classroom-cancer-risk-wi-fi-internet.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039235/Suspend-wi-fi-schools-says-union-chief-following-reports-causes-ill-health.html

There are also mobile phone mast fears at 1 in 3 schools

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-335175/Mobile-mast-radiation-fears-1-3-schools.html

Turn off your telly
and your radio
and the lights
and the microwave
and thunderstorms
and the sun
and the earth
as they all emit or receive radiation on the EM spectrum.
North Pole - Aurora Borealis is a pretty spectacular of high energy electromagnetic fields.

You missed off turning off the Galaxy, because of all those extremely high energy cosmic rays that zap through you, your house and the earth every few seconds...

wouldn't it be simpler to turn off the wi-fi?

that's what the teachers in the news reports are asking for.

Claig
Can you find a link in OTHER than the Daily mail?
A Government website or a reputable science journal would be good.

Duck that neutrino.

No other source reports the truth. The rest is all spin.