The wireless industry position on Wi-Fi radiation
Joel's comments: All too often, scientists with little expertise about non-ionizing radiation and biology or health take a public position about wireless radiation to undermine the opinions of scientists who have considerable expertise about this public health risk.
This article published by the GSMA, an international wireless industry association based in the U.K., relies on an op-ed piece by Faith Davis, a professor and vice-dean in the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta, that was published earlier in the month in the Edmonton Journal.
Despite her impressive c.v., Dr. Davis, a "radiation epidemiologist," appears to be completely unaware of the toxicology research that finds bio-effects from low-intensity, microwave radiation exposure including Wi-Fi. Moreover, she is unaware of the epidemiologic research published since 2011 which finds associations between cell phone use and cancer in humans. Her claim below, "Since then, further research has not found any new associations between cell phone use and cancer in humans." is patently false as several recent epidemiologic studies found significant evidence of these associations. These include new papers from the Interphone Study Group and from the Hardell research group as well as the French CERENAT study.
This article published by the GSMA, an international wireless industry association based in the U.K., relies on an op-ed piece by Faith Davis, a professor and vice-dean in the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta, that was published earlier in the month in the Edmonton Journal.
Despite her impressive c.v., Dr. Davis, a "radiation epidemiologist," appears to be completely unaware of the toxicology research that finds bio-effects from low-intensity, microwave radiation exposure including Wi-Fi. Moreover, she is unaware of the epidemiologic research published since 2011 which finds associations between cell phone use and cancer in humans. Her claim below, "Since then, further research has not found any new associations between cell phone use and cancer in humans." is patently false as several recent epidemiologic studies found significant evidence of these associations. These include new papers from the Interphone Study Group and from the Hardell research group as well as the French CERENAT study.
--
Canadian parents urged to consider the facts in school Wi-Fi debate
Parents in the Canadian province of Alberta have been urged to consider the scientific evidence that Wi-Fi poses no risk to children before they support restrictions on wireless networks in schools.
“There is absolutely no scientific evidence – none at all – that ordinary exposure to Wi-Fi causes any kind of physiological harm. Health Canada, the Royal Society of Canada, U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, the World Health Organization: all agree. There is no perceptible risk from exposure to wireless networks,” wrote Paula Simons in the Edmonton Journal.
“But fear mustn’t trump reason in Alberta classrooms. The real danger to our kids isn’t Wi-Fi. It’s the validation of pseudo-science, which undermines critical thought – and education itself.”
At the Alberta School Council’s Association annual general meeting delegates are considering whether to lobby school boards and the government to introduce measures to limit children’s exposure to Wi-Fi. Such measure include turning off Wi-Fi networks when not in use and even calling for some schools to be completely free of Wi-Fi.
Similar to how mobile phone networks operate, although at significantly weaker levels, wireless routers rely on small amounts of radio frequency energy from electromagnetic fields to send and receive information.
“Wi-Fi equipment, including what is used in schools, emits radio frequency energy at very low levels and the scientific evidence tells us that it is not dangerous to anyone, including children,” Tom Singer, Director General of Health Canada’s environmental and radiation health sciences directorate, told the Edmonton Journal.
Despite the position of Health Canada and numerous other independent health authorities, campaigns exist to raise awareness of, and legislate against, the perceived risks of Wi-Fi networks in schools as well as mobile phones and other forms of radio-frequency radiation.
“There is a lot of confusing, conflicting information about radiation. A quick Google search will put you right in the middle of raging debate about the health hazards caused by radio-frequency radiation – the kind caused by Wi-Fi networks in public schools. People paraphrase their favourite quotes and look for statistics that fit what they believe. Parents feel that if one school is taking action, there must be a good reason to join the cause and take action, too.
“The only problem is there is actually no evidence that ordinary exposure to Wi-Fi causes any physical harm,” wrote Faith Davis, radiation epidemiologist and Vice-Dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta.
Despite the lack of evidence of any harm, Marcey Kliparchuk an Alberta teacher and anti-Wi-Fi campaigner remains convinced, and continues to call for more to be done.
“In 2011, when the frequencies were reclassified in the same category as lead and DDT, they did not inform parents, they did not inform teachers. We owe it to our kids to at least turn it off when we don’t need it.”
In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, the radiation emitted by Wi-Fi and mobile phones, as possibly carcinogenic – the term used when it is not possible to categorically prove that a substance does not cause cancer.
“Proving that something doesn’t exist is tricky at best, and oftentimes impossible. I can tell you that there aren’t any naturally occurring neon-orange horses. While I’m entirely certain that statement is true, I can’t prove it without finding every horse on the planet and showing that they are not orange.
“Current science on Wi-Fi exposures tells us there are unlikely to be moderate, large or fatal effects, but we can’t say there are no effects. Yes, the unknown is scary but, with science, we learn to balance risks. The problem with Wi-Fi in public spaces is that we do not have any evidence that it is harmful,” explained Davis.
http://bit.ly/1EK4Ybj
--
Opinion: Online debates about Wi-Fi stir fears without proof
Faith Davis, Edmonton Journal. Apr 6, 2015
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website: http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/SaferE
News Releases: http://pressroom.prlog.org/
Twitter: @berkeleyprc
“There is absolutely no scientific evidence – none at all – that ordinary exposure to Wi-Fi causes any kind of physiological harm. Health Canada, the Royal Society of Canada, U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, the World Health Organization: all agree. There is no perceptible risk from exposure to wireless networks,” wrote Paula Simons in the Edmonton Journal.
“But fear mustn’t trump reason in Alberta classrooms. The real danger to our kids isn’t Wi-Fi. It’s the validation of pseudo-science, which undermines critical thought – and education itself.”
At the Alberta School Council’s Association annual general meeting delegates are considering whether to lobby school boards and the government to introduce measures to limit children’s exposure to Wi-Fi. Such measure include turning off Wi-Fi networks when not in use and even calling for some schools to be completely free of Wi-Fi.
Similar to how mobile phone networks operate, although at significantly weaker levels, wireless routers rely on small amounts of radio frequency energy from electromagnetic fields to send and receive information.
“Wi-Fi equipment, including what is used in schools, emits radio frequency energy at very low levels and the scientific evidence tells us that it is not dangerous to anyone, including children,” Tom Singer, Director General of Health Canada’s environmental and radiation health sciences directorate, told the Edmonton Journal.
Despite the position of Health Canada and numerous other independent health authorities, campaigns exist to raise awareness of, and legislate against, the perceived risks of Wi-Fi networks in schools as well as mobile phones and other forms of radio-frequency radiation.
“There is a lot of confusing, conflicting information about radiation. A quick Google search will put you right in the middle of raging debate about the health hazards caused by radio-frequency radiation – the kind caused by Wi-Fi networks in public schools. People paraphrase their favourite quotes and look for statistics that fit what they believe. Parents feel that if one school is taking action, there must be a good reason to join the cause and take action, too.
“The only problem is there is actually no evidence that ordinary exposure to Wi-Fi causes any physical harm,” wrote Faith Davis, radiation epidemiologist and Vice-Dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta.
Despite the lack of evidence of any harm, Marcey Kliparchuk an Alberta teacher and anti-Wi-Fi campaigner remains convinced, and continues to call for more to be done.
“In 2011, when the frequencies were reclassified in the same category as lead and DDT, they did not inform parents, they did not inform teachers. We owe it to our kids to at least turn it off when we don’t need it.”
In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, the radiation emitted by Wi-Fi and mobile phones, as possibly carcinogenic – the term used when it is not possible to categorically prove that a substance does not cause cancer.
“Proving that something doesn’t exist is tricky at best, and oftentimes impossible. I can tell you that there aren’t any naturally occurring neon-orange horses. While I’m entirely certain that statement is true, I can’t prove it without finding every horse on the planet and showing that they are not orange.
“Current science on Wi-Fi exposures tells us there are unlikely to be moderate, large or fatal effects, but we can’t say there are no effects. Yes, the unknown is scary but, with science, we learn to balance risks. The problem with Wi-Fi in public spaces is that we do not have any evidence that it is harmful,” explained Davis.
http://bit.ly/1EK4Ybj
--
Opinion: Online debates about Wi-Fi stir fears without proof
Radiation is a scary concept. The word evokes images of yellow hazardous waste symbols. We know for a fact that high levels can cause cancer, yet we use radiation as a diagnostic and treatment tool, and it has helped save many lives.
As a radiation epidemiologist and professor with the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta, I acknowledge the dangers of radiation. I minimize my family’s and my own exposure to harmful types and amounts of radiation whenever possible. I ensure any medical procedures involving radiation are absolutely necessary. I have argued to regulate the use of tanning beds because of proven cancer risks to clients. I also take advantage of the technological benefits of Wi-Fi for work and communication because the advantages outweigh my concerns.
There is a lot of confusing, conflicting information about radiation. A quick Google search will put you right in the middle of a raging debate about the health hazards caused by radio-frequency radiation — the kind caused by Wi-Fi networks in public schools. People paraphrase their favourite quotes and look for statistics that fit what they believe. Parents feel that if one school is taking action, there must be a good reason to join the cause and take action, too.
The only problem is that there actually is no evidence that ordinary exposure to Wi-Fi causes physical harm.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorized radiofrequency as a possible carcinogen. This was based on scientific research that existed at the time: primarily two human studies of cellphone use that showed a correlation with cancer for long-term users, while studies in other exposure settings did not. “Possibly carcinogenic” is a term the IARC uses when there isn’t enough evidence to draw a definite conclusion. Since then, further research has not found any new associations between cell phone use and cancer in humans.
Proving that something doesn’t exist is tricky at best, and oftentimes impossible. I can tell you that there aren’t any naturally occurring neon-orange horses. While I’m entirely certain that statement is true, I can’t prove it without finding every horse on the planet and showing they are not orange.
Current science on Wi-Fi exposures tells us there are unlikely to be moderate, large or fatal effects, but we can’t say there are no effects. Yes, the unknown is scary but, with science, we learn to balance risks. The problem with banning Wi-Fi in public spaces is that we do not have evidence that it is harmful.
A 2012 study in London split participants into two groups. The first watched a TV report on the negative health effects of Wi-Fi, while the second group watched an unrelated film having nothing to do with Wi-Fi. After viewing, each group received a fake “exposure” to Wi-Fi signal for 15 minutes and then reported any symptoms they felt. The first group, having been primed with scary (but false) information about Wi-Fi, reported more negative symptoms such as headaches than the second group who were not told Wi-Fi was dangerous.
The fear that Wi-Fi had adverse effects caused those very effects to be felt, even though there was no Wi-Fi present to physically trigger anything. This type of feeling, caused not by Wi-Fi but by our brain’s fear and expectation, is called a “nocebo effect” and needs to be better understood.
As a radiation epidemiologist and professor with the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta, I acknowledge the dangers of radiation. I minimize my family’s and my own exposure to harmful types and amounts of radiation whenever possible. I ensure any medical procedures involving radiation are absolutely necessary. I have argued to regulate the use of tanning beds because of proven cancer risks to clients. I also take advantage of the technological benefits of Wi-Fi for work and communication because the advantages outweigh my concerns.
There is a lot of confusing, conflicting information about radiation. A quick Google search will put you right in the middle of a raging debate about the health hazards caused by radio-frequency radiation — the kind caused by Wi-Fi networks in public schools. People paraphrase their favourite quotes and look for statistics that fit what they believe. Parents feel that if one school is taking action, there must be a good reason to join the cause and take action, too.
The only problem is that there actually is no evidence that ordinary exposure to Wi-Fi causes physical harm.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorized radiofrequency as a possible carcinogen. This was based on scientific research that existed at the time: primarily two human studies of cellphone use that showed a correlation with cancer for long-term users, while studies in other exposure settings did not. “Possibly carcinogenic” is a term the IARC uses when there isn’t enough evidence to draw a definite conclusion. Since then, further research has not found any new associations between cell phone use and cancer in humans.
Proving that something doesn’t exist is tricky at best, and oftentimes impossible. I can tell you that there aren’t any naturally occurring neon-orange horses. While I’m entirely certain that statement is true, I can’t prove it without finding every horse on the planet and showing they are not orange.
Current science on Wi-Fi exposures tells us there are unlikely to be moderate, large or fatal effects, but we can’t say there are no effects. Yes, the unknown is scary but, with science, we learn to balance risks. The problem with banning Wi-Fi in public spaces is that we do not have evidence that it is harmful.
A 2012 study in London split participants into two groups. The first watched a TV report on the negative health effects of Wi-Fi, while the second group watched an unrelated film having nothing to do with Wi-Fi. After viewing, each group received a fake “exposure” to Wi-Fi signal for 15 minutes and then reported any symptoms they felt. The first group, having been primed with scary (but false) information about Wi-Fi, reported more negative symptoms such as headaches than the second group who were not told Wi-Fi was dangerous.
The fear that Wi-Fi had adverse effects caused those very effects to be felt, even though there was no Wi-Fi present to physically trigger anything. This type of feeling, caused not by Wi-Fi but by our brain’s fear and expectation, is called a “nocebo effect” and needs to be better understood.
Health Canada’s position states that science does not show that Wi-Fi radiation produces adverse effects. German authorities assert that “risk perception is linked to media coverage” (a troubling thought considering the actual harm caused by a nocebo effect), while some countries take a more neutral stance.
I’m not saying that I fully support Wi-Fi in public schools — I have concerns about possible decreases in attention and focus caused by constant connection to the Internet. If you really want to learn, you have to be paying attention. This is hard enough without constant access to the Internet.
There are many problems facing public education today. Let’s focus on improving the education children receive while making informed choices about the environment in which they learn. When it comes down to it, the only scary thing about Wi-Fi radiation is fear of the unknown because what we do know is reassuring.
Faith Davis is a University of Alberta professor and the vice-dean at the School of Public Health
http://bit.ly/1KoAXwnI’m not saying that I fully support Wi-Fi in public schools — I have concerns about possible decreases in attention and focus caused by constant connection to the Internet. If you really want to learn, you have to be paying attention. This is hard enough without constant access to the Internet.
There are many problems facing public education today. Let’s focus on improving the education children receive while making informed choices about the environment in which they learn. When it comes down to it, the only scary thing about Wi-Fi radiation is fear of the unknown because what we do know is reassuring.
Faith Davis is a University of Alberta professor and the vice-dean at the School of Public Health
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website: http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/SaferE
News Releases: http://pressroom.prlog.org/
Twitter: @berkeleyprc
No comments:
Post a Comment