Progressive Librarians Guild Statement on WiFi in Libraries and the Precautionary Principle

Progressive Librarians Guild
Rider University Library
2083 Lawrenceville Rd.
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

June 16, 2008

Often unaware of the potential risks to both library staff and the public, libraries have adopted wireless technology as a means to bridge the Digital Divide and in order to fulfill their mission under the Library Bill of Rights.

Research on the health effects of wireless technologies (2.4GHz and 5.0GHz bands and electromagnetic (microwave) radiation indicates wireless technology, among other effects, may cause immune dysfunction, increased risk of brain tumors and acoustic neuromas, childhood cancers, breast cancer, Alzheimer’s disease (European Environment Agency, Bioinitiative Working Group, 2007), and genotoxicity. Research also indicates that public health standards are inadequate in offering guidance on the use of wireless technologies in community spaces.

The Precautionary Principle can act as a policy guide in which to critically debate the risks and benefits of wireless technology. The European Environmental Agency, Bioinitiative Working Group and the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety through the Benevento Resolution have called for the application of the Precautionary Principle in the use of wireless technology. In the United States, the Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle (1998) states

When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically...

Therefore, exposure to wireless technologies in the above bandwidths is a public health issue that library workers should address philosophically as a profession and directly in terms of daily library operations, programs, and services. European library workers have taken steps calling for such an examination based on the current research on health effects of wireless. The Bibliothèque Nationale de France has forgone installation of a public wireless system and the staff of the Sainte Geneviève Library (Paris V) has called for a discussion on wireless technology safety in university and public libraries based in part on the conclusions reached by the European Environmental Agency BioInitiative Working Group (2007,4, 26):

Although this RF target level does not preclude further rollout of WI-FI technologies, we also recommend that wired alternatives to WIFI be implemented, particularly in schools and libraries so that children are not subjected to elevated RF levels until more is understood about possible health impacts. This recommendation should be seen as an interim precautionary limit that is intended to guide preventative actions; and more conservative limits may be needed in the future.

Based on this information, Progressive Librarians Guild recommends that via their professional organizations, information workers address the risks of wireless technology in public spaces, take steps in learning about the risks of wireless in terms of exposure and impact on library services, monitor wireless technology in their facilities critically evaluate and adopt alternatives to wireless technology especially in children’s sections of libraries, create warning signage on risks of wifi throughout their libraries, and act as a community resource in the public education on wireless technologies.


Notes

1. Wireless-B, or “IEEE 802.11b” standard operates on the 2.4 GHz band.Wireless-G, or IEEE 802.11g, using the same frequency band, but capable of higher speeds. Wireless-A (IEEE 802.11a) uses the 5.0 GHz band, a higher data transfer. Wireless-N, using both 2.4 and 5.0 GHz bands, with proposed data transfer capability exceeding wired networks. See “Wireless Standards,” http://compnetworking.about.com/cs/wireless80211/a/aa80211standard.htm.

2. Genotoxic or genotoxicity: capable of causing damage to DNA. See Lai, below, a review of the literature on wireless and genotoxicity.

3. Benevento uses 0 to 300 GHz as a baseline for recommendations.

4. 2400 MHz mentioned in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France press release is synonymous with 2.4 GHz.

5. Inexpensive AC gauss meters which measure 1-5 GHz can be found on the Web at stores such as EMF Safety Superstore.

6. For example, one alternative is the Panasonic HD-PLC power line network adapter uses electrical wiring (power outlet) as a link between a PC and modem. The adaptor is available through amazon.com.

7. Thanks to Carolyn Raffensperger and Ted Schettler at the Science and Environmental Health Network, Rebekah Azen, SJSU SLIS students Abe Ignacio, and Milton John Kleim, Jr. for their comments.

References

American Library Association. Library Bill of Rights. 1948, 1996 (accessed May 29, 2008).

Anders Ahlbom, et al. “Epidemiology of Health Effects of Radiofrequency Exposure: CNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.” Environmental Health Perspectives 112 no. 17(2004): 1741–1754 (accessed May 27, 2008).

Collaborative on Health and the Environment. Consensus Statement on Electromagnetic Radiation Draft, October 10, 2006 (accessed May 22, 2008).

Environmental Research Foundation. Precaution Reporter #67, December 6, 2006 (accessed May 22, 2008).

European Environmental Agency. “Radiation Risk from Everyday Devices Assessed.” September, 2007 (accessed June 1, 2008)


European Environmental Agency, BioInitiative Working Group. Bioinitiative: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) August 31, 2007 (accessed May 22, 2008).

The French National Library Renounces WiFi,” Press Release, April 4, 2008. English | Francaise: “La Bibliothèque Nationale renonce au Wi-Fi,”4 Avril 2008, (accessed May 27, 2008).

Harremoës, Poul, eds., et al. Late Lessons from Early Warnings: the Precautionary Principle 1896-2000. Environmental Issue Report No. 22, European Environment Agency, January 10, 2002 (accessed June 1, 2008).

EEE. “Wireless Fidelity – WiFi”(accessed May 22, 2008).

International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety. Benevento Resolution, Benevento, Italy, on February 22, 23 & 24, 2006 (accessed May 22, 2008).

Labor Institute, NYC. Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs): A Training Workbook for Working People. New York: New York (State). Occupational Safety and Health Training and Education Program, 199?.

Lai, Henry.“Evidence for Genotoxic Effects – RFR and ELF DNA Damage.”European Environmental Agency, BioInitiative Working Group. Bioinitiative: A Rationale for a Biologically-Based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields. August 31, 2007. Section 6, 1-43 (accessed May 22, 2008).

Lakehead University. “WiFi Policy.” January 1, 2004 (accessed May 22, 2008).

Lee, S. et al. "2.45 GHz Radiofrequency Fields Alter Gene Expression in Cultured Human Cells. "FEBS Letters (Federation of European Biochemical Societies) 579 no. 21 (2005):4829-36.

Science and Environmental Health Network. The Precautionary Principle (accessed May 22, 2008).

Thatcher, Diana. "Librarians: Keep Public Library Wi-Fi Free. Sante Fe New Mexican June 8, 2008 (accessed June 8, 2008).

WEEP. “French Library Gives up WiFi.” April 7, 2008 (accessed May 22, 2008).

World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Fields. June, 2007 (accessed May 30, 2008).

Wingspread Consensus Statement on the Precautionary Principle, January 26, 1998 (accessed May 22, 2008).

A ticking time bomb?

Philip Parkin

When I wrote to Alan Johnson, then secretary of state for education and skills in April 2007, expressing my concern about the potential effects of Wi-Fi networks in schools, he replied, reassuring me that Becta, the government’s education technology agency, had a responsibility for e-safety and that there was “no consistent evidence of health effects from RF (radio frequency) exposures below guideline levels”, and that “exposures should be well within internationally accepted guidelines”.

Having spent two days in September at the Radiation Research Trust’s conference, EMF and Health A Global Issue, at which scientists on both sides of the debate expressed their views, I find that I continue to have concerns.

I am not a scientist and cannot claim to understand all of the science, but when world-renowned experts in their fields are unable to agree, I understand enough for it to raise concerns with me.

There was general agreement at the conference (including the representative of the mobile phone industry) that two issues are of particular concern.

First, the health effects of long-term use (over 10 years) of mobile phones. Professor Hardell, from Sweden, reported on his research which showed that people who started mobile phone use before the age of 20 had a more than five-fold increase in glioma (a cancer of the glial cells which support the central nervous system).

Second, the use of mobile phones by children and the risk of cancer. There is disregard and ignorance of the current Health Protection Agency guidelines in this country. Clearly the current generation of children is likely to be the first to have used such devices from an early age and to be those who will use them in the long-term. As well as the risk of cancer, there is concern that such exposure, when children’s nervous systems are still forming and their skulls are thin, can affect cognitive development and cell structures.

Dr George Carlo from America stated that: “When a signal is picked up by a cell membrane it is seen as an environmental stressor which increases the permeability of cell membranes.”

Professor David Coggan, chair of the UK Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme, said that he would at some point like to be able to fund a study of cognitive development and symptoms in secondary school pupils.

He also highlighted the need to monitor the incidence of childhood cancers at different ages.

A number of other issues raised also failed to reassure me that there is nothing to be concerned about. Not least that international guidelines are out of date and inadequate and some scientists at the conference made it quite clear that they had little faith in them.

Exposure levels are only half the story; length of exposure being the other half. Long exposures at lower intensity levels may be as damaging as high exposure levels for short periods. Hence my concern about wireless networks in schools and nurseries.

Also, that cell changes caused by electro-magnetic radiation are not regarded as health effects despite them having potentially long-term genetic consequences. I noted that David Carpenter, from America, said that there was an overwhelming body of biological evidence which suggested a need to protect children. This was supported by Russia’s Professor Yury Grigoriev, who said that the potential risk to children’s health was very high and was a completely new problem; and that it was necessary to develop special standards for the protection of children.

And that exposure to mobile phone base stations is not voluntary (unlike the use of phone handsets) and is continuous, 24 hours a day; and that locating in sensitive areas, such as near schools, should be avoided.

I continue to take the view, until someone convinces me otherwise, that there would appear to be enough accumulating evidence to suggest that a precautionary approach to these matters would be wise; and that the potential long-term effects upon children need serious and sustained scientific study.

• Philip Parkin is general secretary of the Voice education union.

Visit www.voicetheunion.org.uk/wifi

The gathering brainstorm

Article in http://www.theecologist.org/
Mark Anslow 13/03/2008


It is unregulated, untested, more dangerous than its proponents would have you believe ?and soon to become even more powerful. Mark Anslow reports on the inexorable march of Wi-Fi


In early summer of 1997, computer scientist and former Dutch military radar engineer Vic Hayes joined the end of a long line of scientists and smiled at the camera. The shutter clicked, celebrating the official launch of the first international Wi-Fi standard.

In early summer of 1997, computer scientist and former Dutch military radar engineer Vic Hayes joined the end of a long line of scientists and smiled at the camera. The shutter clicked, celebrating the official launch of the first international Wi-Fi standard.

Originally designed to connect together cash-registers at checkouts, the ambitious scientist made no secret of his desires for the new technology. ‘I see Wi-Fi being used for everything eventually,’ he was quoted as saying, but not even he could have predicted how widespread his invention would become.

By 2008, experts predict that there will be 53 million Wi-Fi enabled devices in Europe alone. One in every five UK adults already owns a Wi-Fi enabled laptop, and 80 per cent of secondary schools in the UK have installed the technology throughout their buildings. McDonald’s recently announced that free Wi- Fi facilities would be available in all its restaurants, and the growing ‘Mu-Fi’ initiative – where entire municipalities receive Wi-Fi coverage – has already made Norwich the UK’s first ‘Wi-Fi town’.

The technology is sold to the public as the ultimate convenience tool: it allows you to grab a coffee and check your email on the go, to print photos without using a wire or listen to music on speakers not even attached to a computer. In schools, teachers can already give lessons using Wi-Fi white-boards, and in the near future hand-held Wi-Fi terminals will enable children to ‘interact’ with digital lesson. In the words of the technology’s industry group, the Wi-Fi Alliance: ‘Simply put, Wi-Fi is freedom.’

But freedom at what cost?

Wi-Fi appeared on our shelves without having to undergo any tests or safety checks whatsoever. This was partly achieved because Vic Hayes and his team developed Wi-Fi to use an unlicensed part of the radio spectrum – freed-up airwaves designed to encourage more widespread public use of wireless technology. As long as the technology met basic requirements on interference and compatibility, consumers were free to buy and use Wi-Fi devices as they and the manufacturers saw fit. In the UK, the spectrum used by Wi-Fi (2.4 gigahertz) became available for unlicensed use in 2000.

Denis Henshaw, professor of physics at the University of Bristol, finds it remarkable Wi- Fi-enabled equipment could have come to market without having to undergo any trials.

‘If you are a drug company marketing a new drug, you have to go through years of testing to prove your product is safe,’ he says. ‘If you’re a Wi-Fi developer using the 2.4 GHz spectrum, however, you don’t need to prove anything.’

Concerns were first raised about the health effects of Wi-Fi as early as 2000. A report by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA), the body responsible for the use of IT in schools, noted that engineers installing some of the first classroom-based systems complained of headaches at the end of the day. The report was never published, but was eventually leaked to The Times Educational Supplement seven years later.

In 2003, concerned parents of children in suburban Chicago filed a lawsuit against the Oak Park Elementary School on the basis of concerns over the possible adverse health effects of the school’s Wi-Fi network. The father who made the claim, Ron Baiman, said he acted because ‘there are a lot of experts who say there are potential risks’.

For years, it was left to distressed teachers or parents with children suffering from repeated headaches to act as unpaid regulators, gathering together scientific papers and lobbying schools to have Wi-Fi systems taken down. In 2006, a school in Chichester made headlines after its headteacher agreed to remove a network at the request of both parents and teachers. The headteacher told The Times he had acted out of concern for the parents’ views. ‘We also did a lot of research,’ he added. ‘The authorities say it’s safe, but there have been no long-term studies to prove this.’

The case was something of a turning point. National newspapers began to pay attention to data collected by campaign groups that had long been fighting the mobile phone industry. The campaigners pointed out that the type of radiation emitted from Wi-Fi devices, although on a slightly different wavelength, was essentially the same as that used by mobile phones and their transmitter masts. Both systems use high-frequency microwaves that are ‘pulsed’ rapidly on and off to transmit data.

This pulsed aspect of data transmission is important, because it means that, although a signal might appear to be low-powered when measured over a period of time, it could reach ‘spikes’ of much higher levels when data is actually being transmitted. Campaigners were also at pains to show that Wi-Fi was just a part of a whole host of technologies using the same microwave system, including baby monitors, DECT cordless phones, and Bluetooth computer devices (see below).

In May 2007, the BBC’s Panorama programme investigated the signal strengths used by Wi-Fi equipment. Under the guidance of mobile phone concern group PowerWatch, the programme measured the intensity of microwaves 150 metres away from a mobile phone transmitter mast, and half a metre away from a laptop computer – realistic distances at which everyday exposure might occur. They found that the radiation from the Wi-Fi-enabled laptop was at least as high, if not higher, than that measured in the main beam of the mast (see below).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How microwaves affect us

There are many different theories on how electromagnetic radiation interacts with our bodies, but pulsed microwave radiation, such as that used by Wi-Fi and mobile phones, is thought to affect the body’s cells in a unique way.

Although microwaves oscillate (change direction) many thousands of times each second, the carrier pulses which convey your voice or emails along the signal actually oscillate at a much slower rate, only hundreds of times a second. This slower rate allows the pulses to interact with protein vibrational receptors, like microscopic hairs, on the membranes of our cells.

The cells interpret this unusual stimulation as a foreign invader and react as any organism would – by closing down the cell membrane. This impairs the flow of nutrients into the cell or waste products on their way out. It also disrupts inter-cellular communication, meaning that clusters of cells that form tissues can no longer work as effectively together.

The increase of trapped waste products can lead to an increase in the number of cancer-causing ‘free radicals’. Worse still, a chemical known as ‘messenger RN A’ inside the cell passes on this ‘learned response’ to daughter cells, meaning that the cell’s offspring also learn to interpret microwaves as an external threat and react in the same way.

This disruption in the cellular processes is thought to lead to the many and various symptoms of electrosensitivity, and the build-up of free radicals released when the cell dies could be connected with the increase in tumours seen in those exposed to frequent doses of microwave radiation.

Special circumstances can enhance the process even further. The effects are likely to be worse in people with damaged or developing immune systems, particularly children, and certain drugs can dramatically increase the risk of negative microwave effects.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The programme was fiercely criticised by the telecommunications industry, partly because it feared the logical conclusion – that the battery of research built up over the past decade demonstrating very clear health risks from exposure to mobile phone masts could now be translated almost exactly into the risks faced by exposure to Wi-Fi equipment (see ‘Weight of evidence’ at bottom).

Concern was further raised by comments made on the programme by the chairman of the Health Protection Agency (HPA), Sir William Stewart. Stewart, former Government Chief Scientist under Margaret Thatcher, had compiled a seminal report on mobile phones in 2000, in which he recommended that the main beam from a mobile phone mast should never be allowed to fall on school premises. He told Panorama unequivocally that both phones and masts could be responsible for triggering cancer, changes in mental function and damaging effects to the body’s cells. He also said that the approach adopted by the World Health Organisation, which directly influences UK health policy, was not ‘an accurate reflection’ of the current science.

The HPA scrambled to calm the storm caused by its maverick chairman. Having first tried to deny Stewart had in fact made any claims against Wi-Fi, the Agency went on to change one of its online press releases; now, instead of asserting there was ‘no evidence’ that Wi-Fi could have an effect on health, it stated there was ‘no consistent evidence’. The current HPA guidelines on Wi-Fi, to which all other UK Government departments refer, state: ‘There is no consistent evidence to date that Wi-Fi and WLANs [wireless networks] adversely affect the health of the general population. The signals are very low power, typically 0.1 watt (100 milliwatts) in both the computer and the router (access point) and the results so far show exposures are well within internationally accepted (ICNIRP) guidelines.’

So what exactly is ICNIRP, the institution that determines the maximum safe radio wave dosage for all UK citizens? The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection was formed in 1992, but has its roots in an earlier body founded in 1970s.

Alasdair Philips, founder of PowerWatch, describes it as ‘an incredibly conservative organisation’: ‘ICNIRP grew out of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), which was founded in 1950s and primarily staffed by the nuclear industry. Even when it became separate, ICNIRP retained a strong industry bias. It is highly secretive and access to the Commission is by invitation only.’

In 1998, ICNIRP published the document by which all countries with a seat on the Commission – which includes most of Europe and the US – still set their non-ionising radiation guidelines today. In the section that examines the relationship between cancer and exposure to microwaves, the ICNIRP authors cite seven studies to support their conclusion that radio waves do not increase tumour rates. None of these was conducted after 1997 – the date when Wi-Fi was first introduced – and in fact two were conducted before the 1980s.

Three of the studies in the ICNIRP report involve the exposure of military or civilian personnel to high-power radar systems; another investigates an incident during the Cold War in which Soviet agents irradiated the US embassy with microwaves, while another investigates the effects of oldfashioned cathode ray-tube computer monitors. One study looks at the effects of radio transmissions, but was later shown to have drawn seriously flawed conclusions. The authors of the only study of the seven to have investigated the health effects of mobile phones admit their research was not designed to show the long-term impact of handset use, which is where any cancerous effects would be found.

Later analyses of many of these papers show ICNIRP deliberately misquoted or misconstrued the original authors’ conclusions, disguising evidence of tumours when the research offered a clear link to microwave exposure.

When, later in the same guidelines, ICNIRP dismisses the evidence for DNA damage by microwaves, it points to papers written by the UK’s National Radiological Protection Board and the World Health Organization (both of which act on the advice of ICNIRP), as well as a paper by parent organisation, the IRPA.

ICNIRP appears at the centre of a hub of likeminded bodies determined to corroborate each other’s research.

The flaws in ICNIRP’s guidelines did not go unnoticed. The year they were published, 16 internationally recognised scientists signed the Vienna Resolution, which accused the ICNIRP researchers of ignoring the fact that ‘numerous studies published in recent years did show biological effects below their recommended limit values.’ In 1999, when Australian scientists came to examine ICNIRP recommendations they concluded that the guidelines ‘cannot be said?to constitute a precautionary measure’. Australia consequently refused to join the Commission and developed its own standards.

These substantial concerns, as well as the fact that most of the research on which ICNIRP’s guidelines are based was published before Wi-Fi had even left the laboratory, have not been heeded by any of ICNIRP’s signatories. The UK’s regulators still use and defer to the 1998 guidelines, which set levels designed only to prevent ‘thermal effects’ (or heating up) due to microwave radiation. In fact, most of the negative effects now attributed to microwaves occur at levels far below those in the ICNIRP guidelines, and are known as ‘nonthermal effects’. These include effects on the blood-brain barrier, an increase in the production of cancer-causing free radicals, a decrease in bodily melatonin, and disruptions in intra-cellular communication (see ‘How microwaves affect us’).

In response to the media outcry, and the public admissions by William Stewart, the HPA announced in October 2007 that it would launch a programme of research into the health effects of Wi-Fi. Initial optimism forthe proposal quickly faded when campaigners discovered that the project would merely ‘measure exposures to radio signals from wireless computer networks’, and compare them to ‘international guidelines’.

‘This research has already been done,’ says Graham Philips of PowerWatch. ‘To spend £300,000 of taxpayers’ money on measuring exposure to Wi-Fi and then comparing the data to 10-year-old ICNIRP guidelines is a complete and utter farce.’

If recent cases of research into the health risks of mobile phone transmitter masts are anything to go by, Philips is right to be angry. In July 2007, the results of a two-year research project joint-funded by the Government and the mobile phone industry were published. The study, run by researchers in a flagship facility at Essex University, had set out to investigate whether people who claimed they suffered health effects because of microwave radiation (known as ‘electrosensitives’) could tell if a hidden mobile mast was switched on or off at any given time. At a high-profile launch in London’s Science Media Centre – from which representatives of pressure groups and nonmainstream media were banned – the researchers told the press that no significant results had been found and that any electrosensitives who claimed they were affected by radiation should start to look for other, psychological, causes for their distress.

Faced with tight deadlines and information from a supposedly reliable Government research programme, the journalists repeated to their editors and readers exactly what they had been told at the launch. But the study, which has been cited worldwide to dismiss health concerns over microwave radiation, is now mired in controversy.

Basic errors in arithmetic have been found and admitted by the researchers. The scientists also confess that they failed to recruit enough participants, and as such the study’s statistical power (the ability of research to predict ‘real world’ effects) falls below that considered acceptable in social science. In addition, because so few participants were found, the researchers were unable to ‘screen’ them to see if their symptoms corresponded to the known attributes of electrosensitivity.

The researchers also began the experiment by spending three months using equipment designed to simulate a mobile phone mast, which was not sending out realistic signals. The laboratory equipment was missing a crucial frequency that exists in real-world mobile mast broadcasts and is thought to contribute to headaches and other neurophysiological effects. Alasdair Philips was invited in to correct the equipment, but data collected using the incorrect settings as still used in the final analysis.

When the Ecologist challenged one of the paper’s lead authors, Professor Elaine Fox, over why her team had chosen to tell the world’s media that electrosensitivity – a condition medically recognised by the Swedish government – was a myth, she told us: ‘It seems unreasonable to conclude that there is an effect, when almost 900 sensitive people have been tested under double-blind conditions (Rubin et al, metaanalysis, 2005; Regel et al, EHP, 2006, and Eltiti et al, EHP, 2007). These studies are extremely expensive and it now seems more reasonable to start looking for other causes, given the growing evidence.’

A fair defence, until examined more closely. Rubin et al’s ‘meta-analysis’, which was published, notably, in the Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine, is simply a review of 25 studies of varying quality, of which only seven exposed participants to mobile phonetype radiation; of these, three studies actually had found evidence of adverse health effects. Elaine Fox also fails to mention that the Regel et al study in fact concludes that some subjects were able consistently to tell whether a mobile mast was switched on or off, and that in its conclusion, the paper admits that an effect on brain function could not be discounted.

Moreover, the study run at Essex University had been specifically commissioned to make up for failings in earlier studies, so then to defend the study by citing earlier ones seems dubious at best.

Ultimately, however, the HPA’s new investigation into the risks of Wi-Fi will be of little importance. The reason for this lies not in the airwaves, but in the bundle of data cables that runs beneath your feet.

Internet capacity in the UK is at breaking point. Soaring demand for video services, internet radio, file swapping and web phone services has meant that an ageing system of copper wires originally installed only for telephone calls can no longer cope. In a report by the consultancy firm Deloitte, it was estimated that 2007 may in fact see the internet reach ‘peak capacity’.

No government, much less one that depends upon the success of a ‘knowledge economy’ such as the UK’s, can afford to let this happen. To lose speed and capacity on your internet network translates into lost business, innovation and tax revenue.

Desperate to encourage ways around this bottleneck, the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, announced in summer 2007 that it was planning to auction off a slice of the microwave spectrum around the 2.5 GHz frequency.

The industry nearly fell over itself with excitement. Ofcom knew that this particular frequency band was perfect for a new type of wireless broadband service known as WiMAX. Described by the industry as ‘Wi-Fi on steroids’, WiMAX uses centrally placed masts (like mobile phone masts) to transmit high-speed internet across towns and rural areas, thereby bypassing capacity problems in using BT’s old-fashioned copper wires and the disruption from digging up roads and gardens to lay new cables.

In order to achieve wider coverage, the WiMAX masts are allowed to operate at power levels significantly above those of conventional masts, and the receiver units, which Intel is preparing to build into laptops from 2008 onwards, have been authorised to emit microwaves at up to twice the power level of conventional Wi-Fi equipment.

By 2008, when the HPA will only be halfway through its ‘inquiry’ into the health effects of conventional Wi-Fi, the chief executive of Intel, Paul Otellini, estimates that 150 million Americans alone will already be within range of a WiMAX transmitter, and many thousands of will be using a WiMAX-enabled laptop. Ofcom is already encouraging WiMAX systems in the UK, allowing telecoms companies to ‘increase power levels’ on rural transmitters in what is described as an effort to ‘close the digital divide’. The technology is now moving far faster than it can be tested or regulated.

When the spectrum auction was first announced, an Ofcom spokesman told an industry reporter: ‘Our whole approach to spectrum management is that the market is better placed to decide how to use spectrum than the regulator’.

The German government is advising its citizens to limit their exposure to Wi-Fi systems wherever possible, and to use wired alternatives. The local government in Salzburg, Austria, has set legally binding limits for radiation from masts that is thousands of times below international standards. The Swedish government officially recognises electrosensitivity as a medical problem. The Australian government has rejected the ICNIRP guidelines on microwave exposure as inadequate.

In the UK, however, the final decision on which powerful new Wi-Fi technologies are allowed into our homes, schools, offices and towns will rest with a powerful coalition of IT developers, internet service providers and lame duck regulators.

For more information:
PowerWatch: www.powerwatch.org.uk
Mast Sanity: www.mastsanity.org
HESE project: www.hese-project.org
Safe Wireless Initiative: www.safewireless.org

What can we do?

Government needs to:

Call for an immediate review of the ICN IRP exposure guidelines, inviting nonindustry researchers to the table, and require schools to remove Wi-Fi installations and replace them with wired alternatives. Industry needs to: develop wireless devices that operate at far lower power levels and extensively market wired alternatives to wireless products.

You need to:

(1) disable the wireless transmitter on your family’s laptop/ computer via the software;
(2) remove as many microwave devices from your home as possible, and investigate wired alternatives;
(3) contact the groups listed at the end of this article for help in lobbying your children’s school or your workplace to remove Wi- Fi equipment;
(4) aim to use your mobile phone for as little time as possible.

Weight of evidence

All studies listed below have found adverse health effects from microwaves at levels similar to those emitted by Wi-Fi equipment:

Santini et al, 2002: 530 people living near mobile phone masts reported more symptoms of headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, memory loss and concentration problems the closer they lived to the mast.

Oberfeld et al, 2004: 97 people living near mobile phone masts reported more symptoms of fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss of memory, visual disorder, dizziness and cardiovascular problems the higher their level of microwave exposure.

Eger et al, 2004: A three-fold increase in the incidence of malignant tumours was found after five years’ exposure in people living 400 metres from a mobile phone mast.

Wolf & Wolf, 2004: A four-fold increase in the incidence of cancer among residents living near a mobile phone mast for between three and seven years was detected.

REFLEX, 2004: A four-year study on human cells found that, after exposure to lowpower microwaves, they showed signs of DN A damage and mutations that were passed on to the next generation.

Abdel-Rassoul, 2007: Residents living beneath and opposite a long-established mobile phone mast in Egypt reported significantly higher occurrences of headaches, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms and sleep disturbance than a control group.

Bortkiewicz et al, 2004: Residents close to mobile phone masts reported more incidences of circulatory problems, sleep disturbances, irritability, depression, blurred vision and concentration difficulties the nearer they lived to the mast.

Hutter et al, 2006: 365 people living near mobile phone masts reported higher incidences of headaches the closer they lived to the masts.

Stewart report, 2000: Research conducted by HPA chief William Stewart advised the main beam of a mobile phone mast should not be allowed to fall on any part of a school’s grounds.

Hecht & Balzer, 1997: A huge review of studies concluded a vast array of health effects, including insomnia, brainwave changes, cardiovascular problems and increased susceptibility to infections.

Carpenter & Sage, 2007: Concluded that an maximum outdoor exposure limit of 0.6 V/ m should be set, and that Wi-Fi systems should be replaced with wired alternatives.

ECOLOG-Institut, 2000: Found evidence for increases in immune and central nervous system damage, and reduced cognitive function. Recommended an exposure limit 1,000 times lower than current guidelines.

Kolodynski & Kolodynska, 1999: School children living near a radio location station in Latvia suffered reduced motor function, memory and attention spans.


First appeared in The Ecologist December 2007

Resolutions, Recommendations and Statements of Concern

Article in http://www.wifiinschools.org.uk

The following organisations, groups and individuals have expressed their concerns about potential adverse health effects for the public, especially children, from the repeated use of wireless technologies.

The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS)

See also 'Precautionary Approach'. ICEMS, in their Beneveto Resolution (2006) and recently in their Venice Resolution (June 2008), have stated their concern for the effects of human exposure to electromagnetic fields on health. Made up of scientists, medical doctors and engineers from around the world, ICEMS ‘are compelled to confirm the existence of non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter, which seem to occur at every level of investigation from molecular to epidemiological.’ ‘We, who are at the forefront of this research, encourage an ethical approach in setting of exposure standards which protect the health of all, including those who are more vulnerable.’ ‘… new standards should be developed to take various physiological conditions into consideration, e.g., pregnancy, newborns, children, and elderly people.'

'We take exception to the claim of the wireless communication industry that there is no credible scientific evidence to conclude there is a risk. Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before, which is a further reason to justify precautions be taken to lower exposure standards in accordance with the Precautionary Principle. We recognize the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity; that this adverse health condition can be quite disabling; and, that this condition requires further urgent investigation and recognition.'

'We strongly advise limited use of cell phones, and other similar devices, by young children and teenagers, and we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant standards are developed to protect against, not only the absorption of electromagnetic energy by the head, but also adverse effects of the signals on biochemistry, physiology and electrical biorhythms.’

European Parliament

See also 'Precautionary Approach'. The European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (2008) has stated that it is greatly concerned at the International Bio-Initiative report (2007) concerning electromagnetic fields. In September 2007 the European Environment Agency advised the 27 member states on the basis of the Bio-Initiative report that they should introduce more effective protection of the general public from electromagnetic fields.

Bio-Initiative Report

See also Precautionary Approach and Bio-Initiative Report sections. Briefly, the International Bio-Initiative report (2007), referred to by the European Parliament, has stated that 'There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us. Until we know whether there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue ''business-as-usual'' deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF* exposures, particularly involuntary exposures'.

*ELF and RF. ELF, extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields from electrical and electronic devices and power lines. RF, radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones, cellular antennas and towers and broadcast transmission towers.

'The consequence of long-term exposures in children whose nervous system continues to develop until late adolescence, is unknown at this time. This could have serious implications to adult health and functioning in society if years of exposure of the young to both ELF and RF result in diminished capacity for thinking, judgement, memory, learning, and control over behaviour'.

'.... we recommend that wired alternatives to Wi-Fi be implemented, particularly in schools and libraries so that children are not subjected to elevated RF levels until more is understood about possible health impacts. This recommendation should be seen as an interim precautionary limit that is intended to guide preventative actions; and more conservative limits may be needed in the future.’

Teachers' Unions

Voice

Philip Parkin, the General Secretary of the Education Professionals Union, Voice, formerly the Professional Association of Teachers, UK, has called for a full investigation into the networks. ‘We continue to be concerned about the possible effects of Wi-Fi. Particularly on children whose brains and bodies are still developing’ he said (2007). Voice is calling for a moratorium on new Wi-Fi networks in schools and the suspension of existing Wi-Fi if possible.

'The proliferation of wireless networks could be having serious implications for the health of some staff and pupils without the cause being recognised'. 'There are huge commercial pressures which may be why there has not yet been any significant action'. Speaking about the announcement of an investigation into Wi-Fi by the Health Protection Agency (measuring emissions from computers in schools to check whether they are within ICNIRP guidelines), Mr Parkin states, 'Whilst we welcome this investigation I do not feel that it goes far enough. It seems to be concentrating on what should be known already rather than on what is not known. It seems to me that the HPA:

- has pre-judged outcomes before they have done the work;

- seems to only be considering the thermal effect of EMR (electromagnetic radiation) and not the potential long-term health risks associated with the non-thermal effects;

- is assessing against the totally inadequate ICNIRPS guidelines which only relate to the thermal effects of EMR;

- does not appear to be doing any health-related investigations amongst children; and

- appears to be concentrating on measuring radiation levels which are already known, or should have been before the technology was allowed to be used in schools.'

Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL)

Mark Langhammer, Director of the education union ATL Northern Ireland, UK, has said 'A safety-first approach would oblige governors and education employers to monitor and report on Wi-Fi provision in schools. It could allow for parents to withdraw their children from Wi-Fi areas of the school and it would oblige government to test and measure, based on biological, as well as thermal criterion' (Belfast Telegraph, 30/10/2008).

GEW

The German teachers' Union for Education and Knowledge (GEW, Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft) has told its members to resist the rollout of Wi-Fi into schools in Germany on safety grounds. The GEW Union in Hesse has proposed 'Due to possible effects on school performance, a healthy school should not only be smoke free, but also allow teachers and students to teach and study in a radiation free environment' (2007).

Austrian Medical Association and Public Health Department of Salzburg
The Public Health Department of Salzburg (2005) has warned that Wi-Fi should not be put in schools or nurseries. The Austrian Medical Association is lobbying against the deployment of Wi-Fi in schools.

Schools in Germany
The Bavarian Parliament has recommended that no schools in the province use wireless LAN networks. The Frankfurt City Government said that it would not install Wi-Fi in its schools until its had been shown to be harmless.

The German Federal Government has recommended that the use of WLAN in the workplace or home should be avoided, if possible. They have stated that conventional wired connections are preferred (July 2007).

Schools in the UK
Several schools in the UK have removed their Wi-Fi systems, due to concerns of adverse health effects from parents (TimesOnline, Nov 20th, 2006; Ulster Star, 28th Aug 2008). Parents in some schools are refusing to let their children use the wireless computers and are campaigning to have alternative wired-up computing facilities available.

Lakehead University, Ontario, Canada
Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada has limited its use of Wi-Fi based on the precautionary principle, due to health concerns. It has comprehensive fibre-optic computer network throughout the campus. Its statement on the use of Wi-Fi includes: ‘There will be no use of Wi-Fi in those areas of the University already served by hard wire connectivity until such time as the potential health effects have been scientifically rebutted or there are adequate protective measures that can be taken’ (2004).

Libraries in Paris
The Bibliotheque Nationale de France has forgone installation of a public Wi-Fi system, and decided to follow the precautionary principle following concerns raised in the Bio-Initiative Report (2007). Wi-Fi has also been switched off in the Sainte Genevieve Library in Paris after a member of Staff complained of adverse health effects from the wireless network.

The Progressive Librarian's Guild
The Progressive Librarian’s Guild in America (2008) recommend ‘that via their professional organizations, information workers address the risks of wireless technology in public spaces, take steps in learning about the risks of wireless in terms of exposure and impact on library services, monitor wireless technology in their facilities, critically evaluate and adopt alternatives to wireless technology especially in children’s sections of libraries, create warning signage on risks of wi-fi throughout their libraries,and act as a community resource in the public education on wireless technologies.’

Individual Scientists
Professor Dennis Henshaw, Professor of human radiation effects at Bristol University has called for an enquiry into the dangers of Wi-Fi wireless internet technology (2007). ‘The research hasn’t been done. Therefore we cannot assume that there are no effects’ he told the Independent Newspaper. ‘This technology is being wheeled out without any checks and balances’.

Professor Johansson at the Department of Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm has sent a letter advising against the use of Wi-Fi to Swedish School Governors (Powerwatch, 2005).

Ian Gibson, MP, a former chairman of the Commons Science and Technology Committee and honorary Professor and former Dean of the School of Biological Sciences at the University of East Anglia, said ‘We need a departmental enquiry into this situation. The Department of Health should be looking into it seriously’ (The TimesOnline, Nov 25th, 2006).

Further quotes from scientists, physicians and health policy experts can be found on ElectromagneticHealth.org, along with audio interviews.

The Stewart Report, UK
The Stewart Report (2000, see also Precautionary Approach) commissioned by the UK Government stated that a precautionary approach should be taken to the use of mobile phone technologies until more detailed information on any health effects becomes available. It recommended that the beam of greatest intensity from mobile phone masts should not fall on any part of a school's grounds or buildings without the agreement of the school and parents. The Stewart Report also advises that children should not use mobile phones for non-essential calls.

Information on WiFi
EMFacts consultancy have a fact sheet on Wi-Fi (2008, file here).

An article on Wi-Fi from the Ecologist, 2008.

Further articles and links about Wi-Fi are listed on the Voice website.

Mobile phones
UK Chief Medical Officers

UK Chief Medical Officers recommend that if parents wish their children to avoid being subject to possible risks, they should not let their children (under the age of 16) use mobile phones (Department of Health Website, 2006).

The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP)

The RNCNIRP have announced their concern about the high risks to children's health from the use of mobile phones (2008, Radiation Research Trust). In a statement by the Chairman, Professor Yury Grigoriev, the RNCNIRP say 'The members of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection emphasize ultimate urgency to defend children's health from the influence of the EMF of the mobile communication systems. We appeal to the government authorities, to the entire society to pay closest attention to this coming threat and to take adequate measures in order to prevent negative consequences to the futute generation's health. The children using mobile communication are not able to realize that they subject their brain to the EMF radiation and their health - to the risk. We believe that this risk is not much lower than the risk to the children's health from tobacco or alcohol. It is our professional obligation no to let damage the children's health by inactivity'.

Russia recommends that mobile phones are not used by children under the age of 18. Russia also recommends that pregnant women do not use mobile phones.

French Government

The French Government has warned that children should limit their use of wireless phones (2002) and is introducing legislation to ban advertising of mobile phones to children (2009).

Finland

The Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) in Finland has recommended restricting the use of mobile phones by children (2009).

Israel

The Israeli Ministry of Health has called for children's use of mobile phones to be limited (2008).

India

The Indian Ministry of Telecommunication has recommended that children under the age of 16 should be discouraged from using cell phones (2008).

Association of Teachers and Lecturers, 2008, Warning signal to schools using Wi-Fi, Kathryn Torney, Belfast Telegraph 30th Oct 2008, http://groups.google.com/group/mobilfunk_newsletter/browse_thread/thread/3b2c06b777eac53d (accessed Dec 2008).

Bio-Initiative Report, 2007. A Rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF). http://www.bioinitiative.org/index.htm (accessed Aug 2008).

Department of Health, 2006. Mobile phones and Health, Leaflet 2883, http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4123979 (accessed Aug 2008).

Ecologist, 13th March 2008, The Gathering Brainstorm, Mark Anslow, http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1179.

EMFacts Consultancy, 2008, Wireless networks (Wi-Fi) Consumer Health and Safety Advice, http://www.emfacts.com/wifi/ (accessed Dec 2008).

European Parliament mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010, Ries F. (2008) (2007/2252(INI)), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/pr/713/713890/713890en.pdf (accessed Aug 2008). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-0260&language=EN (accessed Sept 2008).

Independent Newspaper, 29th April 2007, Scientists demand enquiry over WiFi, Owen, J., http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/scientists-demand-inquiry-over-wifi-446695.html (accessed Aug 2008).

International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS). The Venice Resolution June 2008, http://www.icems.eu/resolution.htm (accessed Aug 2008).

International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS). The Beneveto Resolution September 2006, http://www.icems.eu/resolution.htm (accessed Aug 2008).

Lakehead University, Canada, 2004, General: WiFi Policy, http://policies.lakeheadu.ca/policy.php?pid=178.%20... (accessed Aug 2008).

Libraries in Paris, 2008, SECTION FSU Bibliotheque Nationale de France, La Bibliotheque Nationale de France renounce au WiFi, http://www.robindestoits.org/La-Bibliotheque-Nationale-de-France-renonce-au-WiFi-Avril-2008_a283.html (accessed Aug 2008).

Panorama 21st May 2007, BBC1, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6674675.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6683969.stm (accessed Aug 2008).

Powerwatch, 2005, letter from Professor O. Johnsson, http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/pdfs/20070723_wifi_olle.pdf (accessed Aug 2008).

Progressive Librarian's Guild, Statement on WiFi in libraries and the Precautionary Principle, June 16, 2008, http://libr.org/plg/wifiresolution.php (accessed Aug 2008).

Public Health Department of Salzburg, 2005, WLAN and DECT in Schools and Kindergartens, Open letter from Dr. Gerd Oberfeld MD, Salzburg Region, Public Health Department, Dec. 5, 2005, http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=2%20– (accessed Aug 2008).

Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, 2008, Children and Mobile Phones: the health of the following generations is in danger, http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/rncnirp_children.pdf (accessed Dec 2008).

Schools in Germany and the Union for Education and Knowledge, GEW (2007), http://omega.twoday.net/20070625/ (accessed Aug 2008).

Stewart Report, 2000, Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, http://www.iegmp.org.uk/report/index.htm (accessed Aug 2008).

The TimesOnline, Nov 25th, 2006, News in Brief, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article649578.ece (accessed Aug 2008).

The TimesOnline, Nov 20th, 2006, Health Fears lead schools to dismantle wireless networks, Bale, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article642575.ece (accessed Aug 2008).

Voice, Teacher's Union, Parkin, P., 2007, http://www.voicetheunion.org.uk/index.cfm/page/sections.contentdetail.cfm/navid/11/parentid/0/_sa/17/id/907 (accessed Aug 2008).