These levels are actually not unique. Comparable results have been found in other studies in New Zealand, Canada, the UK and the US. While the resulting numbers vary in the different studies, they were all well below the relevant limits.
In addition, the advice from leading health and safety agencies around the world has been very clear, take Public Health England for example:
“On the basis of the published studies and those carried out in-house, PHE sees no reason why wi-fi should not continue to be used in schools and in other places. However with any new technology a sensible precautionary approach, as happened with mobile phones, is to keep the situation under review so that parents and others can have as much reassurance as possible.
As part of this approach, the Health Protection Agency (now PHE) carried out a systematic programme of research into wireless networks and their use in schools, including measurements of exposures from networks. The project has now been completed and its results support PHE’s view that exposures from wi-fi are small in relation to the ICNIRP guidelines and in relation to exposures from mobile phones.”
And likewise, Australia’s ARPANSA, who conducted the study in Australian schools, says:
ARPANSA’s current advice is that there is no established scientific evidence that the low exposure to RF EME from Wi-fi adversely affects the health of children or the general population.
So for those parents who are concerned about whether there are any health risks arising from the use of Wi-Fi equipment, the results from the studies carried out as well as the advice of the various health agencies should certainly provide some reassurance.
More information:
- Wireless Devices and Children: http://emfhealth.info//docs/eng/MMF%5FVIEWPOINT%5FANSES%5FChildren%2Epdf
- Wi-Fi in Schools: http://www.mwfai.org/docs/eng/MWF%2DViewpoint%2DWiFi%2Din%2DSchools%2Epdf
- Wi-Fi and Health/Safety: http://emfhealth.info//docs/eng/Wi%2DFi%5Fand%5FHealth%5FBrochure%5F2015%2Epdf
What a ridiculous comparison exercise! To compare with the ICNIRP limits set up to protect against damage from acute heating is senseless when we know that biological impacts are found at levels way below. Better compare with the EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses, DOI 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011, which adresses real observed effects and the impact of pulsed microwave radiation which was not adressed by ICNIRP. https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-3/reveh-2016-0011/reveh-2016-0011.xml?rskey=BFhF0Q&result=1
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, who said exposure measured as mean energy levels, as done here, is the relevant measuring stick? It certainly is not. Short strong pulses with nil in between give low means. Also, we now know that extra low frequency radiation, ELF, composed from strong pulses in the microwaves from WiFi etc, are bio-active. For ELF, other reference values should be used. Also, some of them work by resonance, e.g. by folding the collagene molecules, thereby stimulating nevrons to fire. Resonance effects are not much dependant on high power. Resonance works very well at very low powers.
ReplyDeleteThe researchers seem not to have done their homework, or have -
for some reason - used blinders.