Vote YES to BCCPAC Wireless-F
Vote YES !
Dear Parents and Grandparents,
Please support this Wireless-free School of Choice resolution at the upcoming BCCPAC (BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils) Annual General Meeting on May 26, 2012. It has taken hundreds of hours of work and debate at the Safety Committee to advance this resolution to the table. This is a much-needed opt-out solution for children who have negative biological reaction to the pulsed microwave radiation emitted by Wi-Fi and wireless electronic devices in schools. These children are currently suffering physical symptoms while attending classes, or have to be withdrawn from schools because they are unable to take personal measures to avoid such exposure in campuses with Wi-Fi installed.
Votes can be cast by all paid-up BCCPAC member PACs and DPACs, either by attending the AGM or by proxy votes.
Voting Information & Proxy Rules:
Voting Instructions:
Authorized Proxy Vote Form:
Spring Conference Registration & Program:
If you would like to support this resolution, please contact your PAC or DPAC to communicate your concern, and please share the info with other parents and grandparents.
Resolutions # 17
Parent Choice Regarding Exposure to EMF Emissions
from SRC Safety Wi-Fi Subcommittee
Submitted by: BCCPAC Board of Directors
Be it resolved that
BCCPAC calls on each Board of Education to have one public school at each education level (elementary, middle, secondary) that is free of Wi-Fi, cordless phones and cell phones. This school will only be equipped with wired computers and wired telephones for personal, educational and administrative purposes. This will not be required in cases where there is only one school available of that type in that district.
N.B. The above resolution was supported by some members of the Safety committee. Other members of the committee do not consider Wi-Fi a significant health risk and believe there is no need to exclude the use of Wi-Fi in any school until it is conclusively declared as being harmful by Health Canada and the World Health Organization. The committee is divided and consensus was not achievable. We refer this resolution to the membership for their consideration and decision.
Rationale:
In British Columbia, many school districts have installed Wi-Fi in recent years and other schools are now contemplating its use. At the same time, more children are using wireless technology, bringing their own cell phones and smart phones to schools.
In May, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified "Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" "emitted by wireless communication devices" as Type 2B Possible Carcinogen (possible cancer risk to humans). The WHO report concluded that "additional research is important"; and advised the public, particularly young adults and children, to "take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure". This classification also includes Wi-Fi emissions as so affirmed by IARC experts as follows:
“So the classification 2B, possibly carcinogenic, holds for all types of radiation within the radiofrequency part of the electromagnetic spectrum, including the radiation emitted by base-station antennas, radio/TV towers, radar, Wi-Fi, smart meters, etc." ”"This is what the Working Group discussed and decided last year. Of course, because the exposure levels for many of these other devices and exposure situations are so much lower than the exposure to someone who has a functioning cell phone against her/his ear, the risk will be considerably less (although the hazard still exists)." http://www.iarc.fr/en/
Further information and clarifications from the WHO on this classification is here:
In October, 2011, Health Canada encouraged, “…parents to reduce children's RF (radiofrequency radiation) exposure from cell phones since children are typically more sensitive to a variety of environmental agents" and "there is currently a lack of scientific information regarding the potential health impacts of cell phones on children"; (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-
In January, 2012, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine published, "Chronic exposure to wireless radio frequency radiation is a preventable environmental hazard that is sufficiently well documented to warrant immediate preventative public health action... Children are placed at particular risk for altered brain development, and impaired learning and behaviour."
Some parents are concerned about the long-term health effects of wireless devices on children, given the long hours that children spend in schools and the fact that it is not feasible for children to take personal measures to avoid such exposure. These parents prefer to adopt the “Precautionary Principle“ by using proven wired technology solutions. In recent years some students in different school districts have reported adverse biological reactions such as headaches, dizziness, rapid heart rate, fatigue and impaired concentration when exposed to the radiofrequency emitted by Wi-Fi and wireless devices in the school environment. These students currently have no alternative to avoid such exposure while attending schools. The causal relationship of these claims is disputed by some scientists while other scientists are convinced that the symptoms experienced by these patients are valid, and that such exposure should be avoided.
Destination:
Ministry of Education
BC School Trustees Association (BCSTA)
BC Boards of Education
P.2 "This study, supported by the Wi-Fi Alliance [companies that manufacture and sell Wi-Fi products]...
"The locations were chosen... in part to benefit from assistance of employees of member firms of the Wi-Fi Alliance to help with local arrangements.
"No attempt was made to provide a statistically valid sample of RF energy from WLANs in all environments in which a person might be located, however that may be defined.
P.7 "If there were a scientific need to obtain a statistically valid sample of all WLAN fields in the environment, that would require a study of different design than the present survey.
Measuring routers: P.3 "an access point [router] could be identified protruding from the ceiling or mounted on a wall, and measurements were made... usually by holding the meter at waist height while standing near the AP. In other cases [how many?]... no APs were visible and measurements were made in a convenient [unspecified] locat
Measuring laptop: P.10 "All of the present measurements were conducted at distances of approximately 1 m [1 meter / 3.3 feet] or more from the client card in a laptop computer... The user of a laptop would be exposed to stronger fields than reported here, particularly if the antenna in the client card were close to the user’s body. No attempt was made in this study to assess near-field exposures to a user of the laptop itself.
First, this study (survey?) was not conducted with children in mind.
Second, this study was not done for a classroom scenario** where there are multiple wireless laptops close to students' bodies, where there are iPads in their hands and smart phones in their faces. In the study they measured AT LEAST ONE METER FROM A LAPTOP. Do our children have arms longer than one meter (3.3 feet) to type on the keyboards of their laptops, tablets and iPodTouches? Even adults would not be sitting "at least 1 m" from their laptops, which often rest right on their laps. This is a ridiculous way to measure radiation. While public health officials preach about the need for proper study-design, they seem to have no problem accepting this kind of industry-supported psuedoscience, and cite it repeatedly to the unaware public. Is children's safety really their priority?
Third, this study was done in 2006 when the use of wireless was a lot less extensive than now, 6 years later. Nowadays, we are not able to predict nor quantify how much the children are touching the devices, how often they load a page or whether they will be streaming videos with non-stop signals, whether they are using laptops or iPad, iPodTouch and smart phones etc. With the Ministry of Education encouraging students to use more tablets and electronic devices in the classrooms ("BYOD" - bring your own device), we need to be realistic that transmission duty cycles are getting higher and higher.
BC Chief Medical Officer Dr. Perry Kendall's Letter on Wi-Fi for Schools: Erroneous Representation of Radiation Data.
Dr. Perry Kendall's letter sent to the Ministry of Education and all the School Districts included a statement that Wi-Fi exposure is "less than 1% [ WRONG ! ] of what is received during typical cellphone use." http://www.sd62.bc.ca/
He quoted a study by Foster (2007):
"Foster measured Wi-Fi radiofrequency levels at 53 sites in Europe and the US, and found that levels were below those contributed by other radiofrequency sources (typically including cell phone base stations, FM radio transmissions, and radiofrequency emissions from microwave ovens).
Also, in an interesting comparison with a pre-cell phone world, Foster showed that the median power density measured over 70-3000 MHz was similar to what was measured over 50-900 MHz in 1980 in US cities (Foster, 2007)".
Dr. Kendall's "less than 1%" is inaccurate. Using the Foster study to back up his assurance to school trustees, school administrators and parents is more than inappropriate.
Also, in an interesting comparison with a pre-cell phone world, Foster showed that the median power density measured over 70-3000 MHz was similar to what was measured over 50-900 MHz in 1980 in US cities (Foster, 2007)".
Dr. Kendall's "less than 1%" is inaccurate. Using the Foster study to back up his assurance to school trustees, school administrators and parents is more than inappropriate.
This is Foster's 2007 study: http://www.medfordumc.
P.2 "This study, supported by the Wi-Fi Alliance [companies that manufacture and sell Wi-Fi products]...
"The locations were chosen... in part to benefit from assistance of employees of member firms of the Wi-Fi Alliance to help with local arrangements.
"No attempt was made to provide a statistically valid sample of RF energy from WLANs in all environments in which a person might be located, however that may be defined.
P.7 "If there were a scientific need to obtain a statistically valid sample of all WLAN fields in the environment, that would require a study of different design than the present survey.
Measuring routers: P.3 "an access point [router] could be identified protruding from the ceiling or mounted on a wall, and measurements were made... usually by holding the meter at waist height while standing near the AP. In other cases [how many?]... no APs were visible and measurements were made in a convenient [unspecified] locat
Measuring laptop: P.10 "All of the present measurements were conducted at distances of approximately 1 m [1 meter / 3.3 feet] or more from the client card in a laptop computer... The user of a laptop would be exposed to stronger fields than reported here, particularly if the antenna in the client card were close to the user’s body. No attempt was made in this study to assess near-field exposures to a user of the laptop itself.
P.9 "if the AP or client card were transmitting with a high duty cycle, its output would be comparable to that of a mobile telephone in use."
First, this study (survey?) was not conducted with children in mind.
Second, this study was not done for a classroom scenario** where there are multiple wireless laptops close to students' bodies, where there are iPads in their hands and smart phones in their faces. In the study they measured AT LEAST ONE METER FROM A LAPTOP. Do our children have arms longer than one meter (3.3 feet) to type on the keyboards of their laptops, tablets and iPodTouches? Even adults would not be sitting "at least 1 m" from their laptops, which often rest right on their laps. This is a ridiculous way to measure radiation. While public health officials preach about the need for proper study-design, they seem to have no problem accepting this kind of industry-supported psuedoscience, and cite it repeatedly to the unaware public. Is children's safety really their priority?
Third, this study was done in 2006 when the use of wireless was a lot less extensive than now, 6 years later. Nowadays, we are not able to predict nor quantify how much the children are touching the devices, how often they load a page or whether they will be streaming videos with non-stop signals, whether they are using laptops or iPad, iPodTouch and smart phones etc. With the Ministry of Education encouraging students to use more tablets and electronic devices in the classrooms ("BYOD" - bring your own device), we need to be realistic that transmission duty cycles are getting higher and higher.
So Foster said it: Comparable to that of a mobile telephone in use!
Dr. Kendall, please correct your numbers.
Here are 2 videos to illustrate the difference between an iPad on Wi-Fi mode and an iPhone on talking mode:
iPhone on Talking mode:
-Peaked at 19 μW/cm2 (microwatts/cm2)
iPhone on Talking mode:
-Peaked at 19 μW/cm2 (microwatts/cm2)
-Continuous signal, but duration of use likely shorter.
-Phone will be in direct contact with the ear and head (unless handsfree or headset are used).
-Wi-Fi was turned off on this phone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
iPad on Wi-Fi mode:
-Peaked at 70 μW/cm2; higher than iphone on talk mode, but use-duration of iPad is likely longer than cellphone.
-Wi-Fi was turned off on this phone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
iPad on Wi-Fi mode:
-Peaked at 70 μW/cm2; higher than iphone on talk mode, but use-duration of iPad is likely longer than cellphone.
-Continual signals.
-iPad will be in direct contact with the student's hands or/and lap/abdomen.
-Note that there is no Wi-Fi network available. The iPad is not even logged onto any Wi-Fi network nor downloading anything.
-The iPad is not on airplane mode but there is no SIM card in it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
-In this other video, the airplane mode is on and Wi-Fi is turned on. This one peaked at 39 microwatts/cm2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Health Canada's exposure limit is at an extremely high level of 1000 μW/cm2, while studies have found at:
0.002 μW/cm2 - Sleep disturbance and fatigue. Altpeter et al. (1995, 1997, 2005)
0.168 μW/cm2 - Progressive decrease in number of newborns and irreversible infertility in
mice after 5 generations exposure. I.N. Magras and T.D. Zenos (1997)
-Note that there is no Wi-Fi network available. The iPad is not even logged onto any Wi-Fi network nor downloading anything.
-The iPad is not on airplane mode but there is no SIM card in it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
-In this other video, the airplane mode is on and Wi-Fi is turned on. This one peaked at 39 microwatts/cm2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Health Canada's exposure limit is at an extremely high level of 1000 μW/cm2, while studies have found at:
0.002 μW/cm2 - Sleep disturbance and fatigue. Altpeter et al. (1995, 1997, 2005)
0.168 μW/cm2 - Progressive decrease in number of newborns and irreversible infertility in
mice after 5 generations exposure. I.N. Magras and T.D. Zenos (1997)
0.32-16.43 μW/cm2 - Attention, memory and motor function of school children significantly affected in comparison to control groups. A.A. Kolodynski and V.V. Kolodynska (1996)
2.5 μW/cm2 - Damage to blood-brain barrier. Salford et al., (1997)
China/Russia/Italy/Poland have exposure limits at 10 μW/cm2. Luxembourg/Bulgaria at 2.4 μW/cm2. Salzburg in Austria recommends 0.001 μW/cm2 for outdoor and 0.0001 for indoor. Switzerland's general limit is 9.5 μW/cm2 and 4.25 for sensitive areas (children, elderly, medically-challenged). The Swiss doctors' group - Physicians for the Environment - recently issued a public statement calling for reduction of their limit by 10 times, i.e. to 0.95 μW/cm2. http://goo.gl/4pzyE
2.5 μW/cm2 - Damage to blood-brain barrier. Salford et al., (1997)
China/Russia/Italy/Poland have exposure limits at 10 μW/cm2. Luxembourg/Bulgaria at 2.4 μW/cm2. Salzburg in Austria recommends 0.001 μW/cm2 for outdoor and 0.0001 for indoor. Switzerland's general limit is 9.5 μW/cm2 and 4.25 for sensitive areas (children, elderly, medically-challenged). The Swiss doctors' group - Physicians for the Environment - recently issued a public statement calling for reduction of their limit by 10 times, i.e. to 0.95 μW/cm2. http://goo.gl/4pzyE
Minister of Education Promoting Smartphones, tablets and other electronic devices in the classroom
iPad iPhone Wi-Fi Radiation and Magnetic Fields
** Out of those 55 locations selected for the study, 35 were coffee shops, fast food outlets, general merchants, tourist visitor center; 6 were homes and hotel rooms; 4 were office areas; 6 were train stations and outdoor environments. Only 4 locations were categorized under a combined heading of "Hospitals/health care facilities, universities" but no mentioning of classroom at all. This study has absolutely nothing to do with students using Wi-Fi in the classroom, and yet it has been cited by the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, the Chief Medical Officer of BC, the Chief Medical Officer of Richmond and more, as an unfounded reference for the use of Wi-Fi in schools.
http://www.safeinschool.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment