It is invisible, but it’s everywhere. You will be exposed to it in today’s workplace, in cafes, libraries, and throughout most buildings, and it may even be in your home. Wi-Fi, wireless radio high frequency signals, connect us to the World Wide Web through a system of routers. Now many of our schools are using Wi-Fi and it’s sparked a recent parent outcry that prolonged exposure is unsafe for kids.
When school opened in September 2010, Ontario’s Simcoe County Public Board found itself thrust into the public eye. (CBC-TV’s The National, September 8, 2010) A vocal and articulate group of Simcoe County parents had succeeded in raising such a ruckus that the local Wi-Fi in elementary schools issue hit the Canadian national media. Local parents, spearheaded by Rodney Palmer and a Safe School Committee, had been claiming, for over 7 months, that wireless internet access was making their children sick. Pupils at Palmer’s own neighbourhood school, Mountain View Elementary in Collingwood, ON, and at 11 others in the County reported health problems ranging from headaches to rashes to dizziness. When the problems subsided over the summer holidays, the group swung into action, demanding the removal of W-Fi from schools until the issue of its impact was satisfactorily resolved.
News of the Wi-Fi concerns in schools spread like wildfire. Ontario Education Minister Leona Dombrowsky reported that the Ministry had received complaints from Peterborough as well as Simcoe County. A Niagara Region teacher, Tay Shiner, proposed a resolution at the Ontario Elementary Teachers’ Federation Annual Meeting in August to remove wireless systems from schools, pending further research. A former Harvard School of Public Health research consultant, Susan Clarke, told parents in Thornbury, ON, that Wi-Fi alters “fundamental physiological functioning” and can cause ” neurological and cardiac symptoms.” Simcoe County parents were also advised that Lakehead University had opted out of Wi-Fi and cellular antennae at both its Thunder Bay and Orillia campuses back in 2006, citing similar concerns.
Alarmed by the rising parent concerns, Health Canada issued a statement in mid-August stating that there was no proven health risk. Such assurances did little to calm the waters. Palmer and the SSCSC countered by hosting a late August public talk featuring British scientist and naval weapons expert , Barrie Trower, who testified to absence of studies the potential risks to children of longer term-exposure. Fears were further stoked by scientists and experts, like Magda Havas of Trent University’s Centre for Health Studies. (The Montreal Gazette and The Barrie Examiner, August 25, 2010)
The Simcoe County Board held its ground and received powerful support from Ontario’s health authorities. On September 16, Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Arlene King, was forced to weigh in on the safety of Wi- Fi in schools. “The use of wireless communications systems, ” she stated, “does not pose a public health risk.” Her declaration was based, not only upon Health Canada standards, but the findings of a recent Ontario Health Protection and Promotion (OAHPP) research review. http://scdsb.on.ca/programs-services/information-and-communication-technology/
Not everyone swallowed the case being mounted by Palmer and his allies. Independent science policy analysts and experts have questioned the validity of the concerns raised by Rodney Palmer and the SSCSC. News reports identified Palmer as being involved with a ” health related business in Collingwood.” It is worth noting that he is also a former CTV News Foreign Correspondent and Bureau Chief with sufficient connections to garner media attention.
Palmer and Professor Havas are well-known for previous campaigns against the hidden dangers of EMFs of every kind –from microwaves to laptops to cellphones. Back in 2007, for example, Palmer addressed the Whole Life Expo on “Our Toxic Marketplace: What Every Family Needs to Know.” Registered nurse Sandy Szwarc of Junkfood Science produces regular alerts about medical claims based upon “pseudoscience” and marketing ventures that respond to health scares. ” Fear sells and unfounded scares, exaggerations and ‘what-ifs?'”, she says, ” are being used to terrify people about their foods, bodies and health.”
The Simcoe County Safe School Group contends that more than 30 pupils have suffered unexplained illness, including a sizable “illness cluster” at Mountain View School. While the group blames Wi-Fi for the illnesses, other possible causes cannot be ruled out., including mould and “sick-building syndrome.”
One possibility is that school life does not always agree with children. The New York Times recently reported that back to school time is also “the return of headache season.” Indeed, often the real issue, according to doctors, is that changes in a child’s sleep schedule, skipping breakfast, staying up late to study, or not drinking enough water can all trigger migraines when the school year starts.
Now back to that Big Question: What’s causing the back-to-school “headaches” in Ontario’s Simcoe County and other schools across Canada? Does the scientific research support the claims made by Rodney Palmer and the SSCSC group and their supporters? If as Health Canada and Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer are right, what might be the real causes of the rash of illnesses? If and when the claims are validated, will school systems be prepared with “precautionary policies” and contingency plans?
Well Paul, my child did two science fair projects winning gold, on the very subject on EMR (electromagnetic radiation). In essence, there has been little in the long-term exposure of EMRs that fall into the radio spectrum of the EM chart, in the research department. There is difficulty, because society has been, still is being bombarded and saturated with the exposure of radio wave lengths. Satellites, radio transmissions, television signals, and other EMRs such as power transmission lines, including the sun….the world is saturated with EMRs. The one concern, and this is being presently studied by scientists, is hydro transmission lines, and transformers. Hydro transformers, and the presence of them near homes, may posed a health risk. At the moment, it is recommended, the transformers are to kept away at the very minimum, 50 feet away from homes. Another concern is cellular phones, and it may be a good thing for children to limit their exposure.
As far as this set of parents raising the alarm bells on wireless, I tell them to read the real science on it. Teach them what is EMR and give them a lesson on invisible EMR, by showing how a florescent tube, put into the ground, under a power transmission line, will light up. Wireless will be the least of their worries. Than I point them to NASA, that are conducting experiments, exposing bacteria to gamma radiation. Interesting results, and that is, the bacteria did not die. That one is sort of hard to wrapped around your head, when we have been told in science classes, that gamma radiation is deadly to all life forms. Lastly, I would direct them to the data of the sun, and how much radiation is bathing earth.
As for the health concerns of the school, I can list a long list, that has nothing to do with EMRs, starting with florescent lighting and ventilation in our schools. There is a shortcut, but even the schools in my area did not avail of it.
My child and myself are allergic to all moulds, and symptoms present within 10 minutes in a building that contain toxic mould. This ability or allergic reaction, became extremely sensitive due to long term exposure of toxic mould, and methane gas, at a rental town house. Once more I had to put my knowledge of what I learned in school, and acquired the science on it through research, before I dealt with public health, tenants’ agency, the landlord and the nasty superintendent, and her supervisor. Good thing, that I did get a type of education, that has held me in good stead, when situations like this come up. I ended up with a rebate of six months rental, plus moving expenses and a city order to repair the town house, including and covering the whole town complex, dealing with water and sewer. Even though we brought a home, even than the superintendent just thought I was going to go away, because of our purchased of a home. However, the landlord from Vancouver was quite the opposite, and two days before the show down in tenants’ court, he phoned to discussed the situation and the letter I had sent to him. The deal was made there, and it was a mere formality in tenants’ court. I came away with a smile, much to the dismay of the superintendent and her supervisor. Shortly after my family moved out, the landlord fired both of them. The landlord spent over $100,000 repairing, and at Christmas, I received several bottles of wine, as a note of appreciation from the tenants in the townhouse complex. The tenants were grateful, and apologized for thinking I was a fruit cake, saying there is something wrong with the water, sewer and flow of water, when I only had been living there for less than three months. By the way, our symptoms all disappeared within a week from moving out, but I often wondered, if being exposed to methane gas, and toxic mould was a factor to my child’s delay in speech, and other milestone developments.
Science, another area that the public education system, in my opinion could do a much better job. I received a good foundation in science, that really help me transverse and navigate in society. Even though, students are learning a lot more in science knowledge, there is not a lot of coverage on basic science laws, on gravity, light, force, fiction, and other laws, that may come in handy one day. The parents who do not want wireless in their schools, is a symptom of society, and is a testament to the general downgrading of basic foundational skills and basic knowledge in our schools.
In my opinion it would seem that the true effects of technology on health has yet to materialize to any great scientific degree.
A few years ago farmers and residents in Ontario were being told by their government that wind turbines were a fabulous energy creator so they started shoving those beasts down the throats of Ontario municipalities. Now, there have been all sorts of health related illnesses crop up in humans and livestock because of these great white elephants dotting our landscape.
Similarly we learned this week that using a lap top directly on your legs can cause skin to change appearance and possibly cancer?
For the Minister of Education to dismiss the claims outright will come back to haunt her because so much has NOT been proven.
Safe School Committees (which all schools in Ontario are supposed to have) are set up to err on the side of safety for students. This group of parents did exactly what they were supposed to do.
Look what happened with toxic mold in portables and asbestos YEARS after kids were educated in classrooms ripe with both.
Anything affecting the health of students in the classroom is fair game for the school community to discuss and caution against.
“Anything affecting the health of students in the classroom is fair game for the school community to discuss and caution against.”
Yes, rightly so. I am wondering about the resistance from the educrats, on speaking honestly about safety matters, using outside experts, that actually know a thing or two, about the dangers, long with providing correct information.
I do not know if these exact words were used, “When the problems subsided over the summer holidays”, would lead me that the problems did not go away. This is so unlike problems with mould, that once removed from the source, the health symptoms go away. Why only the summer, and not on the weekends when school was open? Just have a whole host of questions, including have they consider the wireless network within the wider communities?
Here is a link, explaining wireless networks, and their applications.
http://communication.howstuffworks.com/how-wireless-mesh-networks-work2.htm
One may wonder if cutting off wireless off at the schools, is a waste of time, seeing how wireless networks have become very much part of our communities, and lives. What is next, cutting off wireless in our health facilities?
Global TV National News ran with the story of Wi- Fi in Schools ( October 15 and 17, 2010) , siding with the concerned parents.
The Global News Special hosted by Carolyn Jarvis of Global Vancouver focused on the impact of the “invisible threat” to children’s health. The investigative report was based upon research conducted by Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University.
Here is the news clip:
Much of the Global National News Story took its cue from an earlier CHEX-TV Peterborough news report, aired in early September, just before the start of the school year.
Here is that item:
After watching both programs, I am convinced that the issue requires further investigation, for the sake of our school children. We should not accept without question the claims of the scaremongers. On the other hand, school boards should be preparing contingency plans in the event that conclusive evidence surfaces. If and when it does, “precautionary policies” will be required and all wireless networks likely removed from schools.
It should be noted that the Simcoe Safe Schools Committee is not a body of the School Board. The only concerns raised seem to be originating from the schools that the ‘sscc’ has contact with, or those in close proximity of Trent. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions there.
I can assure you that if Health Canada, Industry Canada, The Ontario Ministry of Health, or Ministry of Education deems WiFi to be dangerous, it will be turned off – period.
If WiFi is determined to be dangerous, I would expect it not to be simply banned in schools, but to be banned outright including private homes. It can’t be dangerous in one venue, and safe in another.
The most dangerous wavelengths that people are exposed to are those found in sunlight. I can cite hundreds of peer reviewed studies on that band of the EM spectrum!
Thanks for you work on this story!
I saw the full story on Global, the segment called 16 By 9 – The Bigger Picture.
Part 1 – http://www.globalnews.ca/programs/16×9/WiFi/3670542/story.html
Part 2 – http://www.globalnews.ca/programs/16×9/WiFi/3670543/story.html
I am inclined to agree with Rob, that the most dangerous is in the visible light spectrum and beyond. After seeing the Global clips, I did some research to confirmed once again, the findings in my child’s science fair project, on radio and microwave frequencies, and how they impact plants. I chose Wikipedia, because the language has reduced science jargon.
“Most wireless LAN equipment is designed to work within predefined standards. Wireless access points are also often close to humans, but the drop off in power over distance is fast, following the inverse-square law.[7] However, wireless laptops are typically used close to humans. WiFi has been anecdotally linked to electromagnetic hypersensitivity, e.g., in Toronto, Canada schoolchildren as well as staff workers of France National Library.[8]
The HPA’s position is that “…radio frequency (RF) exposures from WiFi are likely to be lower than those from mobile phones.” It also saw “…no reason why schools and others should not use WiFi equipment.”[3] In October 2007, the HPA launched a new “systematic” study into the effects of WiFi networks on behalf of the UK government, in order to calm fears that had appeared in the media in a recent period up to that time”.[9] Dr Michael Clark, of the HPA, says published research on mobile phones and masts does not add up to an indictment of WiFi.[10]”
I suspect it is the location of the WiFi equipment, inside a school that is causing a build-up of EMR, in certain parts of the school. Although, I am no expert, but while my child became interested in EMR, I also solved the problem dealing with EMR smog. My phones always had static, sometimes they never ring, and other devices going haywire. And this was before I had wireless in the home. Than wireless was introduce, and the problem became worse. So, as I learned the knowledge, I found a solution and now it is only a rare problem. That could be solved by convincing all my neighbours to stop facing their satellite dishes away from my home. I am the only with cable Internet and television.
“In addition, electrical and electronic devices of all kinds emit EM fields around their working circuits, generated by oscillating currents. Humans are in daily contact with computers, video display monitors, TV screens, microwave ovens, fluorescent lamps, electric motors of several kinds (such as washing machines, kitchen appliances [like electric can openers, blenders, and mixers], water pumps, etc.) and many others. A study of bedroom exposure in 2009 showed the highest ELF-EF from bedside lights and the highest ELF-MF from transformer devices, while the highest RF-ELF came from DECT cordless phones and outside cellphone base stations; all exposures were well below International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guideline levels.[11] The highest typical daily exposure, according to a study of 2009, came from cellphone base stations, cellphones and DECT cordless phones, with the highest exposure locations in trains, airports and buses.[12] The typical background power of electromagnetic fields in the home can vary from zero to 5 milliwatts per meter squared.[citation needed] Long-time effects of these electromagnetic fields on human and animal health are still unknown, and most of the studies available have shown no effect. However, the powerful fields produced by radio (and then TV) transmitters have been present for more than 100 years now with no established effects on people’s health.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_electronic_devices_and_health
Here is another link for health concerns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health
“
This comment is typical of those who don’t believe these children. Ignore a Harvard PhD, and head of a university public health school, and instead go with your kids’ school science project and Wikipedia which is updated regularly by the wireless industry selling WiFi products.
In your observations of Global TV’s investigation, did you note that Cisco, the largest WiFi producer selling to schools was invited on to refute any of the evidence and instead chose not to respond?
The story was broadcast on the Gemini Award winning show 16:9 not because it contained rumours from the masses, like this website, but because one of the top investigative reporters in this country researched it for two months, travelled around the world, and conducted her own scientific research. With respect to a child’s science project, please pick a more believable authority if you’re going to refute this news story. Even the company making the WiFi product doesn’t refute it.
In an update, one of the schools in the Simcoe board where the parents raised this issue has agreed to take out the WiFi.
Apparently the school council new how to use its statutory power through motions and channels to accomplish this.
I find it interesting that for almost any other issue, whether it be asbestos, toxic mold, intruders, bullying, the system is quick to err on the side of caution if there’s even a remote possibility that a child could be harmed or hurt.
The quick dismissal by not just the Minister of Education but school boards are reason enough for parents to be concerned.
Look for this to start a domino effect across the country.
we have to remember that on its own WiFi may not be a health hazard, but couple that with cellphones, microwaves, exposure to microwaves outside that we’re not aware of in communities that have gone WiFi and the potential is there for consideration that it’s going to affect some in serious ways.
Looks what happened with the wind turbines. Government and farmers were quick to jump on that bandwagon and now the shine has come off that penny because of reported illness created by the big white elephants.
I believe Rob, because I believe I know Rob and he is someone who would definitely work for what’s best for the students.
heard an update last night that one of the school councils at one of the Simcoe schools motioned to get rid of the WiFi in their school. The motion passed.
I’m encouraged that the school council in this case used its statutory power through a motion to move on an issue that they felt passionate about.
If more school councils could learn how much clout they have they’d be so much more effective for students, their learning and their school environments.
Rodney, I did not say any such thing. What I did say, I am inclined to stay in the position that visible light and beyond is more dangerous. I never did state that I did not believed the children. But I will clear it up that non-ionizing radiation can harm life, but what is not known how much is too much? The research to carry out my child’s science project, came from a notion that I had, on the big hydro transmission lines and reports that my child saw on TV, regarding the dangers of cell phones. My notion, that I had since I was a child – I learned to stay away from them, because I always felt weak and out of it standing under them. Once away from them, I would return to being normal.
As for the children, what was not mentioned by the parents, if they took their children to see a neurologist or a heart specialist to confirmed that there is no underlying condition. The parents made no mention of it, except for an environmental doctor. The reason why is that, in the 80s I suffered from a range of symptoms that were puzzling to my family doctor, and ended up seeing 5 specialists, a number of diagnostic tests, and included seeing a doctor who specialized in environmental medicine. It turned out, that I was entering a stage in my life, dealing with severe allergies, and my symptoms was not the every day garden variety of allergic symptoms, but rather indicated to the family doctor, that I had a serious underlying disease. I breathe a sigh of relief, and took the warning of the specialists to heart – keep my allergies under control.
I have described the above for a reason. Much of the background research for my child’s science fair project was done by me. Reading science research, that was beyond my child’s reading level, but was needed for her experiment, to bring it down to her level of understanding. On the WHO site, I read research, that concluded it is likely that people who are sensitive to EMR , are likely to have allergies. It could very explain why my friends was not affected, and I was standing under the hydro transmission towers. But the one research paper, does not make it a fact. And the real trouble is, the question of how much non-ionizing radiation is too much, still has not been answered. In the science community, there is much research still needed to be done. As a result, my personal opinion is to proceed with caution and become aware of non-ionizing radiation that surrounds us every day, bathing in it compared to 40 years ago.
As for picking Wikipedia, I picked it for a reason because it has less science jargon, and quickly bring people up to speed, for a basic understanding on a subject, that is complicated, as well as needing a basic understanding on electricity, EMR, and a host of other science knowledge that the majority of people do not have. I would certainly expect the investigated reporter to research for two months, as I would any other reporter undertaking an assignment that needs background knowledge, before talking to the experts. And I bet, the reporter would acknowledged that she has still much to learned, to be able to asked better questions when interviewing the experts.
As for 16:9, it was a well-balanced report, compared to other investigated reports. It caught my attention, from the beginning, because she was bringing in the real science in the picture. Often the real science is not brought in, because it would detract from the message, and raised questions. I particularly like the part, of measuring EMR in the classroom, and than in the hallway. From my understanding, it is the placement of the Wi-Fi causing high concentration of non-ionizing radiation in the hallways, where ever the Wi-Fi equipment is placed. But that is true, for other equipment than runs on an electric current, but with Wi-Fi devices, they emit more non-ionizing radiation at a greater concentration than other electrical devices, creating EMR smog inside the school. When I saw the clip, that give me pause, thinking about the local high school and my child’s headaches. At present the school is under renovations, and the students have been relocated to another building for the time being, and I am now thinking her headaches may very well be connected to EMR smog, and not allergies or both. Time to get out the equipment, and start talking to the school about the possibility of concentrations of EMR smog and the implications based on the science.
As for me, I learned a long time ago experts or so-called believable authorities as you have stated, one must be able to confirmed what they are stating is the truth. Often, most people accept the words as being true, without bothering to asked questions or finding out for themselves. On complicated subjects, such as EMR, one needs a wide set of science knowledge to determine and even understand what the experts are talking about. Hence, solutions of removing Wi-Fi out of a school is a standard answer, rather than seeking out solutions to retained the advantages of having wireless devices in the schools. Ignoring the wider problem, that Wi-Fi is found throughout society, and non-ionizing radiation being emitted from all power devices, including power lines contributes to EMR smog or heavy concentrations of EMR or what some call hot spots. What are some countries in Europe doing differently from North America? They know that the science and the knowledge is pointing to the direction that hot spots of EMR can cause harm to life, and are protecting their citizens by coming up with solutions such as the used of fibre-optics technology to keep the advantages of wireless technology. Power lines are shielded to keep the non-ionizing radiation down to a minimum, whereas in North America they are not. Would anyone advocate to get rid of the power lines? No they would not, but the power industry in North America are loath to go to the expense of shielding the power lines, as governments are loath to imposed regulations that imposes costs unto the big industries such as mining, oil and power. The evidence is emerging that non-ionizing radiation can cause health problems, but there is no political will from our politicians to do something about it, and there is powerful concerns that would like the question on how much is too much EMR, go unanswered for a very long time. It is not in their best interests, to do so.
So, once again it is left up to the people to make it an issue that needs addressing. Just like the MS Liberation treatment, where MS patients are lining up for treatment, even though the majority of the medical community raised every possible argument based on the medical knowledge, against the treatment. It is found in other fields as well, especially in the social sciences fields such as education. In education, one only needs to look at the reading wars, to see parents trapped between the sides, seeking help for their children to learn how to read well. As I have found out to my dismay, it was a real struggled to bring in the science on reading, so my child could get the correct help, when the experts that had the authority over what my child received in help, was not based on the science, but on the costs. It was left to me, to provide the proper help and bare the costs and time, since the closest private services was 300 kms away. It is why, I take so-called experts with a grain of salt, and try to determined if they are indeed speaking the truth based on the science, and not a philosophy slant or looking out for their best interests.
I certainly do believed the children, but as I have discovered believing the children is one thing, trying to find the reasons why is a difficult undertaking depending on one’s knowledge and abilities, especially on such subjects as EMR or medicine, that one needs to look at all the facets, to determine the solutions. Difficult to do, without all the science, and I might add, some science that are kept from the prying eyes of the citizens, to divide and push people into polar positions, where I’am right, you are wrong becomes par for the course. The science disappears, and is replaced by a mushed of personal philosophy, dogma and a little bit of science.
The 9:16 program brought in the science, I fully expect an encore from them, exploring the science of EMR and potential harm to life, including solutions without throwing the baby and the bathtub as one of the solutions. I also would like to see reports on the profits being generated in EMR smog, where their is questionable equipment being sold to unsuspecting consumers, or experts coming in homes charging an arm and a leg, for a service that may do little to solved the problem. As I had discover searching for a meter for my child’s science fair project, took me into another world, where there is not only questionable expensive meters, but as well as repair people who do not test for the amount of EMR emitting from our cell phones and other devices. It is kind of hard to do, when they do not have the meters to determined the amount in the first place.
I am not ignoring the experts. On the contrary, quite the opposite, asking questions and bringing up valid points that science either does not have the answers or will not provide more detail, to explain why I am wrong. One really finds this in climate change science where questioning the methodology of climate change science, brings accusations of denying that climate change exists. My child’s science fair projects, showed the link of of EMR affecting plant life. It did not answered the question if it was harmful to the health of the plant. Some of the top science research, came from ideas generated from kids’ science fair projects and other people’s anecdotal experiences, that what is commonly accepted as being true by the experts, may be wrong. It is like the time, when many thought the Earth was flat, and persecuted the people who dare to suggest the Earth is round. I will state again, I believe we must be cautious and aware of EMR, because the science still has not answered the question of how much is too much, concerning non-ionizing radiation.
I think it is our responsibility to pressed the governments to put forth funding, and finally answered the question of how much is too much. I also think, the government could do a much better job on educating our citizens on all facets of EMR, instead of accepting their word as proof. The Canadian government is lax, compared to the American government, who is not at all adverse to supply the information on all facets of EMR, and allow the person to judge for themselves.
Catherine, “I find it interesting that for almost any other issue, whether it be asbestos, toxic mold, intruders, bullying, the system is quick to err on the side of caution if there’s even a remote possibility that a child could be harmed or hurt.
The quick dismissal by not just the Minister of Education but school boards are reason enough for parents to be concerned.”
Yes, I do agree. I distrust any authority that will quickly dismiss concerns from parents. I had my concerns on the environment of the local schools. Of course my concerns were dismissed very easily. The latest example is the local high school, where one month summer job of making repairs to the roof and plumbing, turned into a major job to fixed toxic mold, asbestos removal, and serious electrical repair. Estimate time to returned to the school, by parents – lucky to be finished by the new year. The school authorities, on the other hand just extends the date, which at the present time is the end of November.
The only bright spot will be, that it is hope that they will start to listen to parents’ concerns and addressed them when the repairs could have taken place at a much-reduced costs, compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent now.
Every time, I walked into the high school – a headache developed, plus a sore throat. I did not need an air quality test, to know that something was wrong with the school’s environment, but at least the school could have addressed the concerns, by ordering comprehensive environmental testing. I really begin to wonder on the quality of the previous testing that has been conducted in the past, finding no concerns. The toxic mold, asbestos and electrical problems were all hidden from view. Sort of, out of sight, out of mind. What is hidden is of no concern.
The “Ban Wi-Fi in Schools” movement has spread to British Columbia. The provincial group CAUSE, spearheaded by Sharon Noble, was featured on CTV News and is gaining support on Vancouver Island.
Meanwhile, the first Simcoe County School preparing to unplug is in Meaford, Ontario:
Here is the CTV-News Victoria Report (October 18, 2010):
“B.C Groups Join Push to Turn-Off Wi-Fi at Schools”
“The call to get wireless internet technology out of schools is getting louder, as fears grow about the potential dangers the technology poses to children.
A growing number of organizations are pointing to cases and research claiming radiation emitted by Wi-Fi technology can cause a range of health problems, including headaches, an inability to concentrate and heart palpitations.
Sharon Noble, chair of Citizens Against UnSafe Emissions (CAUSE) based in Victoria B.C., says the small convenience Wi-Fi offers is not worth the risk.
“We want wired internet. It’s safe. Parents think [Wi-Fi] is cutting edge technology and it’s not.”
As Noble and other organizations try to get the message out to parents and officials, a public school in Meaford, Ontario has become the first in Canada to shut down wireless internet.
Parent of students at St. Vincent Euphrasia elementary school voted “overwhelmingly” to cut off Wi-Fi, according to a statement released by the school’s parent council on Monday October 18th.”
For the full story, see CTVNews http://bit.ly/ctpBfR
Today, I will be the guest on Dave Dickson’s CFAX 1070 Talk Show (3:35 pm PT ) in Victoria to discuss Wi-Fi in Schools.
Judging from your appearance on CFAX Radio in Victoria, Schoolhouse Consulting is as independent as the Fraser Institute. Nothing but fronts and shills. (How can you sleep at night after a performance like that?)
(EDITED- to remove offensive remarks)
I just heard Dr. Paul Bennett on CFAX radio here in Victoria BC. He claimed that Dr. Magda Havas (a well respected professor at Trent University) was a fear monger. He also inferred she lacked credibility and appealed to paranoid people. In addition, Dr. Bennett contended that there were still no proven health effects associated with Wi-Fi. and that we should continue to assume WI-Fi is safe.
I would like to invite Educhatter to have a discussion regarding his concerns with Dr. Havas on the same radio show he appeared on today. I am sure he must be eager to get her straightened out on this issue.
I expect a quick response from Dr. Bennett, given his grave concerns.
Walt McGinnis
Wi-Fi in Schools is a red hot issue in Victoria, BC. Yesterday, it was a major topic for debate on CFAX Radio, famous for its “Straight Talk” phone-in format.
After Sharon Noble of CAUSE whipped up the radio audience, the phone lines were jammed with callers.
Dave Dickson (CFAX Radio Host) asked me for my comments and so I simply repeated the analysis and commentary offered on this EduBlog gleaned from recent research.
Some of the callers took exception to me raising the serious issue of “pseudoscience” and its prevalence. Sharon Noble even called-in to try to set me straight.
My message was a simple one: raising health concerns is helpful, if it results in securing definitive scientific evidence that it is harmful to kids. I simply raised questions about Dr. Magda Havas’s credibility, given her history of warning us about every type of EMR – from microwaves to laptops to cell phones. I also wondered how parents who “arm” kids with cellphones can possibly worry about low intensity radiation from Wi-Fi networks.
Skepticism is healthy, especially in our Hi Tech World. Scaremongering.. can be detrimental, even for the very kids we are trying to protect.
My CFAX Radio (Victoria BC) comments continue to stir serious discussion. Today, a CFAX listener, Robert Riedlinger, sent me a very poignant e-mail expressing his grave concerns about the impact of W-Fi in schools.
Here’s his response:
“After hearing you on radio regarding WiFi in schools, I feel I must write you to inform you that the radiation we are living with from cell phones and towers is causing more damage to our health than we realize.
Health Canada claims that their Safety Code 6 guidelines protect the public from Radio frequency fields but I can tell you from personal experience as well as 13 years of research that their guidelines are not worth the paper that they are written on.
I lived near a cell tower for one year and was forced to move because of illness I suffered from the radiation. Now that I see children complaining of the same symptoms I realize that this is a very serious problem. By living in that home for one year I developed a hyper sensitivity to EMF from other sources as well as towers and it makes life miserable.
I find that there are many people that are hypersensitive to EMF but Health Canada does not recognize this as a illness . I know some that are having to move from city to country in order to live a normal life.I would recommend you open the Feb Sweden web site (http://www.feb.se/FEB/Links.html ) and see for yourself what has been happening over the past few years.
As for Dr Magda Havas, she knows what she speaks of and people in your position should be taking her advice. Let’s Protect Our Children!!”
Robert Riedlinger
Comment:
We are open to any and all views. Our goal with Educhattter’s Blog is clear and unambiguous: It’s to be genuinely interested in making a constructive contribution to better school policies. Every voice deserves to be heard if we are to tackle issues with an eye on finding solutions.
I just spent the afternoon, surfing through the sites that Paul provided, plus the links on the sites. I had a rather frustrating time to confirm, what was being stated on the sites. The real science. First, any studies conducted by the parties, had no abstract and very few have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Mind you, I did not go through all of them, but it is the norm as I have observed, when links are not provided for the studies. All the WHO studies are presented, but not the ones that shows no link or could not replicate the same results as a study that showed the same link.
The second point is, the fuzzy science. Slightly fudging the science laws concerning EMR. Non-ionizing and ionizing radiation differ at this point in what is known in the science, where ionizing radiation can alter and cause cell damage to life, and non-ionizing cannot alter cells. But even here, what is never mentioned is the ionizing radiation that we are exposed to every day. It is called background radiation. “Living things have evolved in an environment which has significant levels of ionising radiation. Furthermore, many of us owe our lives and health to such radiation produced artificially. Medical and dental X-rays discern hidden problems. Radiation is used to diagnose ailments, and some people are treated with radiation to cure disease. We all benefit from a multitude of products and services made possible by the careful use of radiation.
Background radiation is that which is naturally and inevitably present in our environment. Levels of this can vary greatly. People living in granite areas or on mineralised sands receive more terrestrial radiation than others, while people living or working at high altitudes receive more cosmic radiation. A lot of our natural exposure is due to radon, a gas which seeps from the earth’s crust and is present in the air we breathe.”
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ral.htm
Now, I chose this site because it is easy to understand, rather than the science journals I was reading to confirm it. It can also be confirmed by any advance science text book. Background radiation has been widely research. and here is something that is a bit mind-blowing.
“Naturally occurring background radiation is the main source of exposure for most people. Levels typically range from about 1.5 to 3.5 millisievert per year but can be more than 50 mSv/yr. The highest known level of background radiation affecting a substantial population is in Kerala and Madras States in India where some 140,000 people receive doses which average over 15 millisievert per year from gamma radiation in addition to a similar dose from radon. Comparable levels occur in Brazil and Sudan, with average exposures up to about 40 mSv/yr to many people.”
And, “Several places are known in Iran, India and Europe where natural background radiation gives an annual dose of more than 50 mSv and up to 260 mSv (at Ramsar in Iran). Lifetime doses from natural radiation range up to several thousand millisievert. However, there is no evidence of increased cancers or other health problems arising from these high natural levels.”
I explored this line for a while, discovering a lot of studies showing that people who live in areas of high background radiation, have less disease than the people who do not live in areas of low background radiation. The reason being, is our bodies are quite capable of repairing DNA damage caused by background radiation, just like our ancestors thousands of years ago. Once it gets high enough, the naturally occurring radiation,may or will cause disease, depending on the source.
Now back to non-ionizing radiation, from what I have read – studies are difficult to formulate, because of the multitude of variables that impact our health from A to Z, with the combination of our genes and DNA. It seems reasonable to me. I believed transfats are not good for you, and I have eliminated them from my diet. I still eats lots of cheese, butter where natural transfats occurs, and eat far less processed foods, that just love using palm oil. From the research I have read, transfats just do not leave your body, but the natural transfats are broken down by our bodies. Another food is genetically modified foods, and I am not at all crazy about them, nor the chemical companies that are associated with them. Again here, it would take years to find out the effects on transfats or GM foods, because of the multitude of variables that must be considered. Yet our Canadian government and perhaps the people who want Wi-Fi out of the schools, cannot be bother to consider the other variables, and how the variables interact with one another. It very well could be a connection with foods, lead content in your dishes, background radiation to the heating system in one’s home combining with the excess non-ionizing radiation, that is making someone sick.
Is it really fair to shut down W-Fi in a school that affects a small percentage, without the science answering the question how much is too much, when the majority of the children are not suffering any ill effects? I bet you do not like the question being posed! Parents who have children with reading problems and other learning problems, get this question posed to us at least twice in their children’s school life. Here is how is was framed to me, when asking for targeted intensive reading instruction. Is if really fair to take your child outside of the classroom, giving her instruction that no one else receives, when the reading instruction is adequate for the rest of the children? Of course later on, I swung the same question back to them, showing the science was in on reading and asked is it really fair to provide instruction not based on science, when only 60 % of the children become good readers? The reasons for both questions boils down to costs.
So what are the costs in not having Wi-Fi, besides the obvious costs of the equipment and set-up? What happens to the student who have a problem in the writing process, keeping in mind of the new inclusive policies of the public education system? Or the child in the wheel chair that writes better on a keyboard? Or the ADHD child, who can keep track of all his work, because of his poor organization skills? What about the child who has a hearing deficit, and would benefit from a FM system, as well as a lap top, that has certain software that would benefit his learning? Lastly, and I can think of a lot more, is the the child with a severe visual deficit. where a laptop becomes an essential tool, as well as other hand-held devices?
I would like this answered, because no where on the sites, are talk about the ramifications of shutting down Wi-Fi in schools, and the impacts that will certainly harm children who have special learning needs. Is it really fair shutting down Wi-Fi for a fewer percentage of children affecting by non-ionizing radiation, that will impact a larger percentage of children, ranging from 15 % to 20 % who benefit greatly from today’s wireless technology because it helps with their learning?
Or are you advocating for children who have special needs to go to another school? Somehow, that does not seem fair, under the present school policies of equity.
I am so amazed that people can write so well here can be so far off the mark! Parents concerned about Wi-Fi are now against computers or the Internet but simply want schools hardwired, preferably with fibre optics.
Why do people want Wi-Fi? It’s not the way to go in schools. Put 50 kids in a class – tell them to watch a video on You Tube and the video will not play! Now – put gigabit ethernet into the classroom and every kid can watch High Definition video on demand. The future is TV Ontario type training where the students will watch video lessons. That requires broadband ethernet connections.
Switzerland gives free internet to all schools – it’s paid by school taxes – it’s fiber optics!
The only way to have wireless that will work is to fry the kids with hundreds of Wi-Fi base stations! The parents know this – stop researching the effects of radiation and learn about the real world of delivering streaming media to 200 computers, iPads and Wi-Fi cell phones at the same time.
Whoever sold these systems to the schools is not only ripping us off but doing harm to our children. On top of this, eventually it will be proven to be a waste of money.
no where on the sites, are talk about the ramifications of shutting down Wi-Fi in schools, and the impacts that will certainly harm children who have special learning needs.
The likely reason for little discussion of this point is that Wi-Fi in schools is still very much the exception, not the rule. The Toronto District School Board is the largest in the country, and it has only one fully-Wi-Fi school (the new secondary school in North toronto). Of its roughly 600 schools, approximately 70 have some Wi-Fi installed — usually in only one area of the school, such as the library or computer lab, and all of these, AFAIK, are secondary schools.
Most school systems have networked Internet capabilities, not Wi-Fi, and access to Internet for students with learning challenges is, and will be for the foreseeable future, a challenge. The Ontario Ministry of Education funds a “Special Equipment Allowance” for students with identified learning needs that require assistive technology to access the curriculum. However, in many cases the equipment sits in boxes because there is no access to the network in the student’s class or classes. Each “drop” (where you plug into the network) costs hundreds of dollars to install; classrooms rarely have more than 2 — at most 4 — such “drops” and if 6 or 8 students in the class require a connection to use their special equipment, it is obviously not going to happen.
Adequate access to technology for identified special education students is still at the baby-steps stages. Few students have enough access to develop fluent use of the skills needed to make the technology a meaningful part of their everyday learning. Wi-Fi is not even on the horizon anywhere in many schools, so the prospect of Special Needs students losing their access to technology by withdrawal of Wi-Fi is an issue that affects very few. We are not yet at a point where the needy students even HAVE access to lose.
Even staff may not have the access needed to do their jobs. With web-based IEPs and reports required, teachers need access to the network to work on these documents. Since I do not have access to the network during the school day, I can only do these after school, in the staffroom, where there is a computer for staff to use. Adequate technology access for both students and staff is, and remains, a huge obstacle.
You’re right TDSB. I seem to recall in the early goings and coverage of this issue that it was said that Simcoe was one of the only boards in the province where all schools had WiFi.
I also agree with you that technology and its usage isn’t as widespread as we’d like to believe.
Heck, we still have some pockets in our region that have dial-up, and many families still don’t have a PC at home.
During the Global show last weekend I was stunned as they panned that one classroom that had the whole class outfitted with laptops and Wifi.
“Despite the widespread availability of ICT infrastructure and high rates of connectedness in schools, maintaining current systems and infrastructure can be challenging. Indeed, one of the biggest concerns among school principals was the cost of technology. Slightly more than two-thirds of principals reported that getting sufficient funding for technology was an extensive challenge to using ICT in their school. While at least threequarters of principals in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick felt that ICT funding was a major area of concern for their school, less than half of principals in the Yukon, Saskatchewan and Manitoba reported that such funding was an extensive challenge.
Notwithstanding the perceived financial challenges, more than nine principals out of ten agreed that ICTs are worth the investment. Now, more than ever, these measures for infrastructure and reach need to be followed by data on the use and impact of ICT in education. Moreover, issues such as ICT training and development for teachers need to be further explored to ensure the effectiveness of such technology for student learning.”
From Stats Canada: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/56f0004m/2004011/section1-eng.htm
Published in August, 2009.
As for wireless, it depends on where one is in Canada. But I also suspect there is other variables at play, pitting wireless against political considerations of not only the provincial education system, as well as the profits of the big guys. Where one school has everything, and the other school down the road, is still working with computers that have outdated systems, to rendered them useless in classroom applications.
As for access to technologies for special needs is in the infancy, depends on which facet one is looking at. In many cases, it is the education system catching up to the technology, and the costs associated with them.
Here is a link that provides a great number of papers, citing the good and the bad.
“WIRED AND WIRELESS NETWORKS IN SCHOOLS
Information on wired and wireless communications networks in K-12 schools, including standards, design, security, testing, performance, interoperability, and future adaptability. ”
http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/wireless.cfm
I like this line from a minister of education: “Benefit to Education.
Where to from here?
Placing the learner at centre of the education system (personalising) is a radical notion……. It’s about a flexible system where teachers, schools, communities and other groups identify the needs of learners and be provided with the tools and support to meet those needs within the broader curriculum.
……..Our challenge as we examine how to make a difference (that is how to ensure equal opportunity in education) is to reorient our system away from the organisation to the learner.”
http://raumatiedublog.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html
Where I lived, no matter what income level – technology is part of our lives. Once upon a time, assistive technology was an expensive undertaking by the parents. Not so today, and with the advent of wireless technology, the schools are now dealing with rules that were created when the technology was taped books and braille. One had to go through a bureaucratic maze, seeking permission for access and the use of taped books for their children who were having great difficulties in reading. Today, parents are bringing in the technology, seeking permission to have their children used it in the classroom, by-passing the rule of seeking permission to used the school board’s assistive technology. The students of all stripes, are coming in with their various tech gadgets, such as note books, cell phones with internet capability, e-readers (Kobo reader), PDA devices, and even software that helps them to learn in the classroom.
And yet as TDSB has expressed, ” Even staff may not have the access needed to do their jobs. With web-based IEPs and reports required, teachers need access to the network to work on these documents. Since I do not have access to the network during the school day, I can only do these after school, in the staffroom, where there is a computer for staff to use. Adequate technology access for both students and staff is, and remains, a huge obstacle.”
It appears to be more of a bureaucracy problem that is loath to change their thinking, and methods that are more in keeping with the beginning of the 20 century, and not the 21st century. When an educator is denied access to the network during the school day, for IEP information and data, and than keep the access to one computer in the staff room, is more telling of the upper bureaucracy to make their lives easier. In the end it causes delays for children who have IEP, and puts the educator at the school level in a very difficult position, dealing with the needs of the child and the demands of the parents.
It may appear to be a huge obstacle to some educators, but it should not be used as an excuse to remain helpless. If that was the case for the NWT or NL, many schools would be without the wired and wireless technology. There was political will to overcome the costs, and vision of our governments to overcome the major obstacles of using wired and wireless technology in schools’ classrooms. Of course it helps when the big players such as Rogers or Telus has no interest in small populated areas, that are scattered across a wide geographic landscape. Not enough profit for them, and this may explain why the big guys ignored the pockets of heavy populated areas that still rely on dial-up, or no access to the Internet, because the costs and the number of households will not generate a profit for years to come. The government of Ontario, should make it a priority for the education system, and bring it into the 21st century. for all children.
“The government of Ontario, should make it a priority for the education system, and bring it into the 21st century. for all children.”
I think the decision needs to rest with local school communities. Individual schools, admin. and teachers know their school needs best.
Trusting the gov’t of Ontario to do anything will continue to tie new ideas and programs up in to knots of bureaucracy.
In my experience, in my local school, when effective teachers and principals work together with the parents they can move mountains and IF that included moving to more technology to improve learning it can be done locally.
Let’s not forget there was once a time where it was considered acceptable to let children make asbestos sculptures in art class and have kids sit in moldy portables.
“I am so amazed that people can write so well here can be so far off the mark! Parents concerned about Wi-Fi are now against computers or the Internet but simply want schools hardwired, preferably with fibre optics.”
That is a tall order for fibre optics, since many forces that are a lot more powerful and wealthy, would rather keep the status -quo in creating more profit. Here is a series of links that will tell you the whys in North America. It is political will from our governments is the necessary ingredient. Besides monies’ concerns, there needs to be an attitude shift among our politicians where policies built around corporate needs, may not address the needs of their citizens adequately and may actually cause more harm to society. In the case of fibre optics, and government policies – the policies always fall in line with the corporate’s needs, and their best interests, while citizens pays the piper in high rates for access, and outdated technology because they do not want to front the costs on providing fibre optics. Take a good look on your cellular, telephone and internet billing, and than compare it to other countries……get back to me on your thoughts.
Why Fiber Optics Can’t Solve Today’s Broadband Shortage – Technology Information
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BRZ/is_1_21/ai_77057991/?tag=content;col1
Although the above link is for 2001, there has been little improvement in fibre-optic technology. It also will give a good background information as well.
High-speed Net expensive, slow: Report
http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/643388
High-Speed Internet Access in Canada: It’s Expensive & Slow
http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f303/high-speed-internet-access-canada-its-expensive-slow-97187.html
Broadband Infrastructure Investment in Stimulus Packages: Relevance for Developing Countries
Click to access Broadband_Investment_in_Stimulus_Packages.pdf
How connected are canadian schools?
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/56f0004m/2004011/section4-eng.htm
And this is just a sampling on the whys.
“Whoever sold these systems to the schools is not only ripping us off but doing harm to our children. On top of this, eventually it will be proven to be a waste of money.”
It is not the fault of the suppliers of Wi-Fi systems, but rather our government policies and the lack of political will. Just try to demand credit from your Internet provider, for lack of speed for the past week or so? It is an exercise of frustration on the lack of power that a consumer has.
Individual schools, admin. and teachers know their school needs best.
Indeed, that is frequently the case. But the individual school may not have the resources, personnel or financial means of acting on meeting those needs. That is what the decentralization in New Zealand has clearly shown. Schools serving poor and aboriginal communities are severely disadvantaged and however activist their staff and parent community, are unable to raise funds to even begin to narrow the gap.
We have a less extreme divide here, but it is still real and difficult to address. One very low income school I worked in (where the mean family income was under $20 000), had very involved parents and staff; students and parents worked like fiends to raise money for basics (pencils, paper, books) — never mind computers or library (the school had computers only in the office, and the most recent library books were more than 30 years old). After months of work, the net revenue was……$700. Our Vice Principal at the time sighed and shared how she had dropped in at the school fun fair in her North Toronto neighbourhood the previous weekend. They were averaging net receipts of $6000 per hour at their fundraising events. Their school council raised so much money it invested in GICs and money market accounts. Needless to say, they had all the latest techno-wizardry in every classroom.
To address the needs for internet connectivity and Special Needs students, the Ontario “Special Equipment Allowance” could be reconfigured to include costs of connectivity and access, such as the expense for installing “drops” in a middle-school student’s rotary classrooms (something that could easily add up to $2000 per student — well beyond the ability of a low-income school to address). Considering that the SEA package averages around $12 000 per student — an amount that can be entirely wasted if the student is unable to use the equipment — it is a small change in dollar amount, but a large benefit to the student and the school, especially a low-SES school where the discretionary funds for such things simply do not exist and cannot realistically be raised by the community.
Involved communities can move mountains, but they cannot print money. In some communities there simply is not enough income to tap into, however good or popular the cause. While the media and pundits would have you believe that low-income students are arriving at school with BlackBerries, iPods, Nintendo DS and other expensive toys (while their parents watch plasma-screen 40-inch televisions at home), the reality is far different. In three separate TDSB low-income schools, I have found that few students have access to computers (much less Game Boys, Wii, iPod Touch and other gadgets); most do not have cell phones– their family may not even have a home telephone — and internet access at home is a rare anomaly. Surveys in two of the three schools showed that fewer than 10 percent of families had a PC at all and only a small percentage of those families had internet access.
I’ve surveyed parents of my own students for the last 5 or 6 years re internet access at home (with the objective of assigning relevant web-based homework or skill-building practice) and every year only one or two parents have had available resources. We are still a long way from the Wired World where students can routinely use technology as a learning tool although in some communities (and schools) this may already be the case.
I want to comment as an ICT provider on this issue. Wifi to me should be in public places where mobile devices are coming in and out of coverage area but that should never be the classroom.
Wifi and the big brothers of Wifi Access Points and Wi Max have no practical reason for being in the classroom other then IT staff laziness or utterly bad excuses like this old school is not wired for ICT. There are Ethernet communications products out their at every tech shop or big box electronics store that allow internet and data transmission via the power lines in a building. You simply plug the internet router into these devices and then plug a connection device into any class room Electric outlet.
Here is a page that is one of four with these devices
http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/category/category_slc.asp?CatId=211&name=Powerline
There is a little bit more expense then Wifi but one thing is for sure wired Ethernet transmission is less likely to later have our children in a Thalidomide disability situation in the future because we don’t know what the long term effects of Wifi exposure are.
With the employment of Ncomputing x series the cost of wiring with powerline devices would go down hugely . 3 host computers for 30 possible computers in a class would only have the need for 3 powerline devices.
[…] https://educhatter.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/wireless-schools-and-student-health-whats-causing-the-hea… […]