Nearly 2 Years ago Mast Sanity welcomed the announcement from the UK's Health Protection Agency (HPA) that more research was to be done into Wi-Fi^[1]  after Sir William Stewart requested an enquiry into Wi-Fi in schools.^[5]  

However we believed at the time that this ‘Research' was merely a smokescreen, to appear to be doing something without actually doing anything new.

And so it has proved to be.

Mast Sanity asked in 2007^[12]:

1) What is this 'research' going to be about?

Are the HPA only taking measurements of Wi-fi signal levels (as they state in their press release)? Or are they going to look to see if there are any health effects on children [already being exposed to Wi-fi] in schools [across the UK] by taking blood samples, measuring heart rates and brain response (EEG's) and doing health surveys?

We already know what the [microwave radiation] levels emitted from the Wi-fi laptops and routers are. OFCOM (one of the HPA's 'partner' Agencies) has already taken measurements in schools [in Birmingham].^[11]

Powerwatch have already done this [on the Panorama investigation into Wi-fi in schools in 2007] ^[8] as have various campaign groups. It is no mystery.

What the HPA did^[2]:

Scientists at the Health Protection Agency began a research project on wireless local area networks (WLAN) [Wi-Fi] in late 2007. One aspect of public concern over Wi-Fi is its use by children in schools. So as part of its study into the technology scientists set up 15 laptop computers commonly used in UK schools and investigated the strength of the radiowaves [microwave radiation] around them. ... Computer modelling is also being carried out to learn more about how the radio waves are absorbed in the body. [The HPA results concur with those taken by Powerwatch and measured by the other agencies above and yet it took them 2 years and cost the taxpayer £300,000!]

NO real tests carried out on already exposed children for health effects

NO blood samples

NO heart rate measuring

NO EEG measurements taken

IGNORED the constant emissions from the Wi-fi routers also present

IGNORED a request in 2007 to do a proper study from 8 members of the HPA EMF Discussion Group ^[14]

Mast Sanity noted and asked in 2007:

2) The HPA are still going to compare the levels with the outdated ICNIRP guidelines.

We know that the ICNIRP guidelines only protect against short term heating effects and are not appropriate to protect against cancer and genetic [i.e. biological, non-heating] damage over the long-term. This was highlighted in the recent Bioinitiative Report^[3].

Sir William Stewart also said the World Health Organisation (WHO) are wrong in their evaluation of the science behind the guidelines^[5]  and the Stewart report^[4] said that relying solely on the guidelines will not protect people from biological (non-heating) effects that may become apparent.

Mast Sanity spokesperson Yasmin Skelt says "Independent Scientific studies have consistently shown health effects from microwave emissions well below currently allowed levels^[3,6,7] - so what is the point of comparing emissions against these outdated ICNIRP guidelines?"

What the HPA did:

The tests were carried out in a specially adapted laboratory at the HPA's Centre for Radiation, Chemicals and Environmental Hazards in Oxfordshire. The effective powers in the direction of maximum emission were in the range 17 to 57 milliwatts (mW) and well within the 100 mW limit set for Europe [ICNIRP]. Dr Simon Mann ... said: "Our findings are consistent with the HPA position that exposures to the radio waves from Wi-Fi equipment are expected to be well within internationally-accepted exposure guidelines [ICNIRP] and less than levels from mobile phones."

So - This has been a pointless exercise in spin by the HPA at the Tax Payers' expense. All it shows is that the levels of Wi-fi microwave radiation will not greatly heat-up children in their class rooms. We already knew that. We said so 2 years ago.

It does not prove that Wi-Fi is safe.

The following points (and many more) have still not been addressed:-

^·          The Department of Education guidelines state that a school should not be in the main beam of a Mobile Phone Mast.^[4]  The microwave radiation intensity in a classroom with Wi-fi is the same order of magnitude as if the schools were in the main beam of a mobile phone mast.^[2]

^·          Philip Parkin, General Secretary of VOICE, said ^[15]: "I have concerns about the health of both pupils and staff...I am concerned that so many wireless networks are being installed in schools and colleges without any understanding of the possible long-term consequences."

Mast Sanity trustee Yasmin Skelt said back in 2007 "Why is the HPA happy to increase  Wi-fi use in schools when it says it knows little about its health effects - in effect our children are guinea pigs for its own research." This is still the case.

Mast Sanity call for the UK Government to remove Wi-Fi from all UK schools^[13] -

Our children should not be made to be guinea pigs.

I was an amateur radio enthusiast before becoming a professional biologist, but kept my interest in radio throughout a long career as a lecturer at Imperial College London. No one appreciates more than I the wonders of engineering that have gone into even the cheapest cell phone, but equally I know the very real dangers that cell phone signals present to both the user and people living near cell towers.

Unmodulated radio waves are relatively safe

It has been known since the work of Suzanne Bawin and her co-workers in the mid 1970s that pure low power radio waves, of strengths similar to those used by cell phones, are relatively harmless. Pretty much the only damage that can be done by an unmodulated signal is due to the heating effect of the radiation as it passes through the body, and the ICNIRP safety guidelines adopted by many governments are more than adequate to protect you against that.

Modulated radio waves are not safe

Bawin et al. also showed that the situation changes drastically when the signal is "amplitude modulated" so that its strength rises and falls in time with a lower frequency. In particular, they found that signals that were far too weak to generate significant heat, could now drive structurally important calcium from the surfaces of brain cells. Other work showed that pulses with very sharp rise and fall times were even more effective. The loss of this calcium weakens the membrane and makes it more likely to leak and gives unwanted biological effects.

Cell phone signals are modulated

Cell phone signals have to be "modulated" if they are to carry information such as speech and the various control signals needed to make the system work. Most digital modulation systems involve sharp changes in signal strength. These occur over a wide range of frequencies, some of which are biologically active. Furthermore, they occur at radiation levels many orders of magnitude lower than those specified by the ICNIRP guidelines. These guidelines are therefore set far too high to protect us from modulated radiation.

Or: A Very Dangerous Assumption

Dr. Grahame Blackwell, June 2009

It's a well-known truism that nature will exploit every ecological niche, however small and unlikely.  Life is to be found in the deepest darkest trenches of the oceans, the coldest Arctic wastes, the smallest crevices in rocks deep underground.  Even in the most abundant and densely-populated environments, if there is a potential food source or habitat unclaimed then some species will arise or adapt to make the fullest possible use of it.

..............................

..............................

So what of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation?

See Mast Sanity featured in "The Ecologist" magazine's "Take Action - 101 Ways Forward:Resources For A Better World" section under Health.

See here .