Saturday, April 25, 2009

Untested technology


Article in http://www.wiredchild.org

Untested technology

Cordless phones, Wi-fi, digital baby monitors and other wireless products have become ubiquitous. While their health effects are largely untested, there have been numerous studies of the effects of the electro-magnetic radiation emitted from these devices. All scientists agree that this radiation is dangerous at high levels but it is hoped that the low levels emitted from these household devices are safe. We are not convinced.

Radiation 24/7

The levels of radiation emitted from mobile and cordless phones on standby, and of wi-fi routers, digital baby monitors and bluetooth are a fraction of those of a mobile or cordless phone in use on a call. But this does not mean they are safer.

The radiation exposure from wireless products is a "chronic" exposure, constantly at a low level rather than short bursts of high power. There is evidence that this type of exposure might be more damaging in the long-term. It is thought that when the body first experiences a new source of radiation, it reacts by strengthening its immune defences, but then the immune system begins to weaken progressively as the radiation exposure continues. Read more at http://www.wiredchild.org/sciencealias/43-what-the-science-tells-us/69-health-effects-.html

There is evidence that long-term chronic exposure to electro-magnetic radiation has a range of health effects. We also know that children are more vulnerable than adults.

The German and French governments have advised against the use of wireless products like wi-fi and cordless (DECT) phones at home. Read more at http://www.wiredchild.org/government-alias.html#Germany

A phone mast in your home?

The clearest evidence that this day-in-day-out low-level exposure might be dangerous is from the studies of the health effects of mobile phone masts. Two studies have shown significantly increased levels of cancers amongst those living within a few hundred meters of a mobile phone mast. Other studies have demonstrated a host of other symptoms linked with exposure to mobile phone mast radiation.  One study has shown directly that wi-fi can affect children's cognitive skills like memory, attention and reaction time.

The radiation exposure from a wi-fi router at 5 meters' distance, a cordless DECT phone base unit at 3 meters' distance, or digital baby monitor at less than 1 meter are all experienced at roughly the same level as a mobile phone mast only 150 meters away. If any of these are closer, for example if you sleep with a cordless phone next to the bed, it is equivalent in radiation terms to being only about 50 meters away from a mast. Read more at http://www.wiredchild.org/parents/58-which-products-are-most-dangerous.html

There is now much annecdotal evidence of people experiencing symptoms in the short term, like headaches, nausea, dizziness and loss of concentration. Read more... For this reason, some government and public bodies have stopped the introduction of wi-fi in some public places and schools.

Read more about the health effects of cordless (DECT) phones at http://www.emfacts.com/papers/dect.pdf...

Wifi may be more damaging to some people than mobile phones...

Cumulative exposure

Even if the power level of one wireless router or computer is small, a child's environment may include many of these devices at once. Radiation exposure from a wi-fi system comes from the router and each of the computers. A cordless DECT phone emits radiation from the base stations and the handsets. A mobile phone on standby, or worse on a call, also adds to the radiation "load". 

At school, a set of wirelessly connected computers in a classroom is known to result in exposures much higher than one computer being used alone. The radiiation level has been found to be equivalent to being in the main beam of a mobile phone mast (which official guidelines state should not fall on school grounds without the consent of parents and the school). In 2007 a BBC Panorama programme found that the readings next to a classroom laptop showed radiation at double the level experienced only 100 metres from a mobile phone mast. This exposure from wi-fi is additional to mobile phones, cordless DECT phones and bluetooth used around the children in schools.

So at any one time a child may be exposed to cumulative levels of radiation much higher than each product emits alone. They may be exposed constantly at school and at home, even when asleep.

Formative exposure

This exposure generally starts young and continues throughout children's lives. Children are now being exposed to wireless products from a very early age and often throughout their developing childhood and teenage years. This is experimental - no-one has any idea of the cumulative effect of such long-term exposure starting at such a formative age.

We know from the scientific studies relating to mobile phones that children are more vulnerable to this type of radiation, absorbing more radiation than adults through their thinner skulls. Given the many studies that show this radiation could be very dangerous, do we not have a duty to protect children from the possibly serious future health effects of this exposure?

Read about the dangers of mobile phones at http://www.wiredchild.org/sciencealias/43-what-the-science-tells-us/66--what-the-science-tells-us-mobile-phones.html

Read more about children's greater vulnerability at http://www.wiredchild.org/sciencealias/43-what-the-science-tells-us/66--what-the-science-tells-us-mobile-phones.html#children

Read more about this global experiment at http://www.wiredchild.org/sciencealias/43-what-the-science-tells-us/59-children-as-guinea-pigs.html

Re: Free wireless Internet plan remains in limbo

Letter by Carl Katz to the Editor in Vancouver Courier on Wi-Fi Projects

To the Editor:
Re: Free wireless Internet plan remains in limbo, April 10

I am astounded that our city councilors are still trying to find a way
to roll out Wi-Fi in pubic buildings without considering the emerging
body of science that is saying that Wi-Fi represents a considerable
health risk.

I have heard those in favour of pubic Wi-Fi cite the World Health
Organization (WHO) and Health Canada (who bases their radiation safety
guidelines on the WHO’s guidelines) and as two public bodies that say
Wi-Fi is safe and falls within their safety guidelines. In reality, Wi-
Fi does fall within these guidelines, however there are the following
important points to consider:

Health Canada’s Safety Code Six is based on thermal guidelines. It
allows human tissue to increase in temperature by one degree Celsius
over a six minute period when exposed to microwave radiation. All the
deleterious health effects from microwave radiation that are
documented in current peer reviewed research occur at levels thousands
of times lower than Safety Code Six. Some of these health effects
include headaches, dizziness, cognitive difficulties, sleep
disturbances and unexplained anxiety. At a biological level, leakage
in the blood-brain barrier, DNA breakage, and disruption in
intracellular communication have all been documented.
If you watch the BBC Panorama episode “Wi-Fi: A Warning Signal” at
mastsanity.org, you will hear Sir William Stewart, U.K.'s top
scientist and former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher and Tony
Blair saying the WHO is wrong about safe levels of non-ionizing
radiation and that the whole basis of their safety limits are
inadequate to protect the population, especially our children.

Ditto for the German government, who in 2007 warned all citizens not
to use Wi-Fi. Then there are Doctors Gerd Oberfeld and Henry Lai, who
are world renowned for their research into electromagnetic radiation
and biological effects - they both said they would pull their children
out of any school that had Wi-Fi. Professor Olle Johansson of the
world renowned Karolinska institute in Sweden, has found biological
effects at radiation levels lower than those associated with Wi-Fi.
In 2002, following research on wireless radiation in the ‘90’s, the
global insurance industry pulled liability coverage for the health
effects from wireless technology. Given that insurance companies
quantify risks and then associate a dollar value on that risk, this
represents a huge liability issue for cities, school boards and anyone
who rolls out wireless technologies – they are virtually uninsured.

Last December, in an effort to improve traffic flow for buses by
wirelessly controlling traffic signals, Translink rolled out a Wi-Fi
network along Main Street from 57th Avenue all the way downtown, with
no public consultation or transparency. This Wi-Fi network subjects
all residents and businesses along Main street to radiation without
their awareness or consent. Now there is serious talk of putting Wi-Fi
into all community centres in Vancouver, which will expose our
children, the employees and the general public - all the while schools
all over Europe are pulling out Wi-Fi based on the aforementioned
warnings. Lakehead university in Thunder Bay has held off on
implementing campus-wide Wi-Fi for the same reasons.

City council and the city of Vancouver must take a step back and look
at independent the body of research that is clearly saying we may have
a huge public health problem in the future. For the sake of our
children and all our citizens, the City of Vancouver must apply the
Precautionary Principle, and hold off on implementing this technology.
Anything less would be irresponsible.


Carl Katz
Vancouver

Thursday, April 23, 2009

電磁波敏感症-生理傷害

文取自:台灣電磁輻射公害防治協會

電磁波過敏症問卷

Posted: 22 Apr 2009 07:55 PM PDT

問卷說明:下面問卷可測試您是否有電磁波敏感症狀,有25題問題,請仔細思考您曾經遭受過這些電磁波過敏症狀,如您有遭受過下列情況症狀,如是—“經常,得2分”, “偶而,得1分”,”不曾,得0分”,把每題得分寫在括號內,統計總分,判定是否有電磁波敏感症狀。

評分標準
( )1.四肢或關節有感到麻木、軟弱或刺痛:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )2.不能從日常生活作息去解釋不正常的疲憊或軟弱:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )3.依據您個人的位置,會影響日常生活的思緒或不能專心:經常--(2分),偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )4.會癢、痛、抽稸或肩膀、手臂、腿、腳、腳踝、手肘、骨盆、等關節附近的肌肉痙孿:經常--(2分),偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )5.頭痛:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )6.緊張:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )7.不安定性,焦慮:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )8.喪失記憶:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )9.睡眠干擾,失眠:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )10.微弱,暈眩,震顫:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )11.會有皮膚紅腫、癢、起疹子 、痛或皮膚乾燥:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )12.胃腸痛、消化系統問題、腸子不規則蠕動:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )13.感覺很熱,會發燒:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )14.刺激性感覺,眼睛感覺刺痛有如一沙子飛入眼中。視野模糊或眼前看東西會閃爍:
經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )15.流鼻血或血壓改變:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )16.心律不整、心悸或胸口痛:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )17.牙痛或神經痛:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )18.易掉髮:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )19.耳鳴 (如 咑咑聲、嗡嗡聲、噓噓聲等聲音)或高頻嗚咽聲:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分)
不曾--(0分)
( )20.對光會過敏,尤其是螢光燈或電腦螢幕。(有罕見的會對陽光過敏) :經常--(2分), 偶而—(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )21.會反覆感到焦躁、憤怒、暴力、破壞力及感到敵對:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )22.甲狀腺問題:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )23.推斷有持續一段急性流行性感冒的感覺:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )24.沮喪:經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)
( )25.漏失時間 (例如不知道自己於的時空) :經常--(2分), 偶而--(1分) 不曾--(0分)

總分:___________ (您的分數高於25,您可能已有電磁波過敏症,如果您的分數介於10 ~15分,您可能是遭受一些程度的電磁波。)

資料來源: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/

電磁波敏感症

Posted: 22 Apr 2009 07:46 PM PDT

翻譯:鄭美莉

How many people suffer from ElectroSensitivity?
有多少人具有電磁波敏感症

瑞典已將電磁波敏感症正式視為一種生理傷害,該國有超過230,000人(佔總人口2.5%)具有電磁波敏感症。

除了瑞典之外,其他國家沒有正式的數據,如果套用2.5%的比例,則英格蘭的電磁波敏感症的人數可能達到一百五十萬人,美國則有六百五十萬人。

在2002年有兩個電磁波敏感症人口的研究,第一個研究[Hillert等人所作] 利用的是隨機寄發問卷的方式(10600份),結果回信的人有1.5%表示具有電磁波敏感症。第二個研究[Levallois等人所作]利用電話隨機訪問2000人,結果有3.2%表示具有此症,而0.5%表示他們高度敏感。

Is ElectroSensitivity recognized by the medical profession and/or the authorities?
醫界或有關當局是否已承認電磁波敏感症?

世界衛生組織WHO 承認電磁波敏感症是一種確實的病症,有時甚至是一種殘障的情況。然而,大多數的政府並未將此症視為一種殘障。遺憾的是,在政治上體認電磁波具有負面健康危害的程度,就如同將這事實當作是一種尚未全面了解的新情形,這兩種程度一樣的低。

目前瑞典是唯一一個將電磁波敏感症正式視為一種生理殘障的國家。

what other names is it known by?
類似的名詞

Electrical HyperSensitivity(EHS) 電磁波高度敏感---最常用的詞,同於ElectroSensitivity.

VDT Sickness -- 描述一群電磁波敏感症患者,這種患者在電腦螢幕前時,會有灼熱感、刺痛感、疼痛感這些電磁波敏感症狀。

Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance (IEI) -- 這是世界衛生組織在2004年提出的詞,但並未取代常用的詞。

其他的詞

Electromagnetic Sensitivity
Electromagnetic Oversensitivity
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
Electrical Sensitivity
Electrical Supersensitivity
Elcetrical Oversensitivity

What can I do to help someone who is affected?
可以為電磁波敏感症患者做什麼?

通常無法尋求正式的幫助或治療,大多數醫生會一笑置之,專家不把這些情形當作一回事,有時甚至朋友或家人會嘲笑這種事,你會覺得非常孤單,但最重要的,當患者說他們對電磁波敏感症的時候,你可以相信他們的話;當患者採取步驟來屏蔽電磁波或避免敏感物時,你可以支持他們的行動。

Have there been any high-profile cases?
有任何備受矚目的案例嗎?

前任挪威總理以及世界衛生組織Director-general Gro Harlem Brundtland 是電磁波敏感症患者,她被選為近二十五年內最有影響力的歐洲人,她名列第四,僅在教宗聖保祿二世、戈巴契夫、柴契爾夫人之後。她對手機和電腦都會敏感。她本身是位合格的內科醫師。

她說 “一開始我感到耳朵附近有溫熱感,之後痛苦加重,轉成強烈的不適與頭痛,只要使用手機就會發生.... 不是只有對聲音有反應,而是對電磁波有反應。我的高度敏感症嚴重到只要離手機不到四公尺就會有反應。”

她接著談到嚴重性”我相信這情形應該認真看待。有些人變得對手機或電腦所發出的電磁波敏感,究竟這樣的敏感性會不會導致健康的負面影響,例如癌症或是其他疾病?我們還不知道!但我認為我們應該遵循預警原則,特別是在牽涉我們的子女的時候。”

1998年,易利信的一家子公司裡,發現在公司屋頂架設手機基地台之後,有60名員工出現電磁波高度敏感症。公司因此試著保密,然而該公司收到一筆來自瑞典基金會的資金,要利用這筆資金 ($1,000,000) 來改善工作環境。現在那些員工中還是有許多人仍然患有敏感症。

Who was the first person to suffer from Electrosensitivity?
誰是第一個患有電磁波敏感症的人?

一般相信,第一名電磁波敏感症患者是 Nikola Tesla 特斯拉,他是發明家,物理學家以及機械工程師,被譽為天才,公認為最偉大的工程科技科學家之一,在他的晚年,他患有嚴重的症狀,這些症狀被認為是因為他一生接觸了高劑量的電磁場所導致的。

特斯拉的傳記曾獲普立茲獎,作者是特斯拉的好友 John O’neill,書中描述:
“有名望的內科醫生表明--醫學幫不了他,其中一種症狀就是他敏銳的感官,一直以來他的感覺就很敏銳,但後來敏銳的程度變得很誇張,效果如同是一種折磨,三間房間之外,一只手錶的指針移動聲,對他而言,就好像鐵鎚敲打在鐵鉆上一樣;車輛經過的震動,透過椅子的傳遞,會讓他的身體感到鼕鼕地震動,因此他需要在床的四根柱子上加裝橡膠墊來消除震動,普通的說話聲在他聽來如同打雷;輕輕的碰觸所造成的生理影響就和拳擊一樣,日光照射在他身上就好像他的身上發生爆炸;即使在黑暗中看不到數呎外的物體,他也能感覺到物體的存在,憑藉的是他前額麻麻的感覺。他全身時常遭受痙癵發抖的折磨;他說,他的脈搏有時每分鐘只微弱跳動幾下,有時每分鐘超過150下,由於這些莫名的症狀使得他極力想要恢復正常。”

在 Electromagnetic Man 這本書中補充提到:
“這麼一位號稱是電機工程之父的人身上,他勢必接收了相當劑量的長期電磁波照射,以他在工作中沉迷於電機工程的程度而言,他是第一個電磁波敏感症的最佳候選人。”

特斯拉逝世於1946年,享年87歲。

Does sensitivity mean allergy?
敏感症就是過敏症嗎?

大多數的情形,答案是否定的,過敏指的是免疫系統對於外侵物的特殊免疫反應,包括抗體。電磁波敏感症的機制還不確定,但是通常與抗體無關。

然而在描述電磁波敏感症時,過敏這個詞有助於理解。

Why is it sometimes difficult for ElectroSensitive’s to work out what they are reacting to?
有時為何難以判斷出電磁波敏感症的反應來源?

很多情況下,當人們找出敏感或過敏物質(例如化學物質或金屬物質)時,往往是經過一系列錯誤嘗試才找出來的。

例如,假設一個人出現蕁麻疹,他們如何得知起因呢? 可能是他們開始對金屬材質的珠寶或新的噴劑起反應,有可能是他們的工作場所開始使用新的清潔化學品,而他們對那種化學品起反應,可能是食物引起的,可能是他們新使用的洗髮精,可能是油漆或地毯釋放出來的化學物質--可能性有無限多種,要找出過敏原可能要花費數月甚至更長的時間。

通常,電磁波敏感症的敏感來源很明顯,然而,高度敏感症患者有時對許多其他事物都會起反應,這種情形下就不容易找出來源,也就要花許多時間才找得出來。此外,

. 有時電磁波敏感性也對一系列的化學品有敏感性,化學品引發的敏感反應和電 所引發的敏感反應一樣。

. 如果對多重事物都會起敏感反應,多重敏感物所引發的反應會比單一敏感物嚴 重。
. 反應可能會延遲一兩天才會發生。

(資料來源:http://www.electrosensitivity.org/qa.htm)

Thursday, April 2, 2009

槟州电磁辐射公害防护联盟等拜会槟州民主行动党主席曹观友行政议员等



槟州电磁辐射公害防护联盟及居民代表一行人拜会槟州行动党主席曹观友(前排右三);左起詹义华、陈瀚威市议员、郭庭恺州议员。

(槟城2日讯)槟州电磁辐射公害防护联盟于日前联同州内多个受电讯塔影响的各区居民代表礼貌拜会槟州民主行动党主席曹观友行政议员,针对州内电讯塔及槟州政府推行中的“全槟无线”计划提呈备忘录及提出建议。

槟州电磁辐射公害防护联盟成员包括发言人温秀枝医疗师、顾问陈奕权医师、顾问林怡保医生、顾问涂仲仪医生、成员王美丽、成员李斯杰、成员蔡昌卫,成员李翠华(丹绒武雅);各地区代表包括来自大山脚的詹义华、日落洞柴埕居协主席李健义及居民、垄尾家乐阁居协主席王海清及居民、亚依淡居民代表张女士、比南利区居民代表雷翠梅。

陪同曹观友出席会者尚包括槟州行动党秘书郭庭恺硕士州议员、财政陈瀚威会计师市议员及曹观友助理。

一行13人在早上11时向也是槟州地方政府委员会主席的曹观友报告了对电讯塔及槟州政府推行中的全槟无线计划潜在的电磁辐射对健康带来的隐忧提呈备忘录;会上也提出优先解决面对电讯塔困扰的受影响地区。对话会在融洽气氛下进行及完成,会上也要求在一个月后能重回桌上针对同样问题再次进行探讨。

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Wi-fi and Wi-max - Why You Shouldn’t Use Them



The hot new craze in Internet access is Wi-Fi and its soon-to-be big brother Wi-Max. Wi-Fi is a wireless connection that allows users to access the Internet without the computer being connected to a cable. And yes, it’s very convenient. Imagine walking from the sofa to the bedroom with your laptop and never loosing your connection. Imagine the freedom and flexibility afforded schools and office workers. No more ugly bothersome cables to tie you down. You’re free to roam the Internet with your fingers while roaming your home, school or office with your feet. Freedom to move and freedom to surf. Perfect for the individual who is on the go and up to date with the latest technology. You can even have free Internet access at your local coffee shop. Same for airports. What a great idea. Or is it?

What exactly is Wi-Fi? Wi-Fi is a common term that stands for ‘wireless fidelity.’ It simply means that a computer can access the Internet without wires or cables. In other words, it allows one to have a wireless connection to the Internet. It’s like taking a cell phone base station and placing it in your home, schoolroom or office area. Wi-Fi is basically the same type of connection as used to operate a cell phone. It’s a product of convenience as it allows one to access the Internet with a desktop or laptop computer without the need for connecting cables. Moving from room to room with a laptop computer and no cables is a nice convenience although it certainly isn’t a necessity.

How does Wi-Fi work? Wi-Fi is really very similar to your cell phone. Radio signals are transmitted from the computer or Bluetooth device to a wireless router, sometimes called a wireless access point (WAP) or wireless local area network (WLAN). The router then sends the signal to the Internet through a cable modem. So this router or wireless access point is really the device responsible for transmitting the harmful radio waves. Any number of computers or devices can be configured to connect to one wireless router to make Internet connections. The workable distance is about a range of 300 feet or more from the wireless access point while most distances for good connections are maintained at about 100 feet. And, of course there are many variables that can affect this connection. Laptop computers and Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) are the most common devices utilizing Wi-Fi technology.

Wi-Fi Emits Radio Frequencies Wireless connections emit radio frequency signals, or radiation, just like cell phones, cell phone towers and other wireless devices. Wi-Fi usually transmits its signal at frequencies in the range of 2.4GHz to 5 GHz. Cordless phones often transmit in the 2.4GHz to 5 GHz range, too, and this often causes the cordless phone to interfere with a wireless internet connection to a nearby computer. The Wi-Fi frequency is considerably higher than the frequencies used for cell phones which operate in the 850 MHz to1900 MHz range. This higher frequency allows more data to be carried. However, as we’ll see later, it is not the frequency of the signal that does the damage to our health. So the higher Wi-Fi frequency isn’t really the issue at all when it comes to health considerations.

Wi-Fi Hotspots Now In Schools Wi-Fi has become popular in the home, office, the airport and coffee shops. Many cities are now installing “hot spots” where one can take a laptop computer and freely access the Internet over the provided network. This is what is known as a “hot spot.” It’s a place to make a wireless connection to the Internet. And they are springing up everywhere. Entire cities are becoming wireless allowing one to connect to the Internet from anywhere in the city. And due to the ease of convenience Wi-Fi connections in schools are now becoming quite popular, too. No longer are computers hard-wired to a connection in a classroom. Connections are now virtual and allow the user, student or teacher, the freedom to connect anywhere in the school without the burden of being restricted by cable connections.

Why Wireless Connections Are Harmful There are two potentially harmful mechanisms in which Wi-Fi users, including school children, may be harmed. The first mechanism involves the exposure to radiation from the distance or proximity of the user to the computer monitor. This form of exposure originates from the electromagnetic field being given off by the monitor itself and has nothing to do with the wireless connection. Electromagnetic radiation is given off by the computer screen regardless of whether the connection is wired or wireless. Any and all computer screens produce electromagnetic radiation. These electromagnetic fields can be substantial in strength and can reach levels much higher than the 1 milligauss (1 mG) threshold level of exposure recommended by experts as being safe. Such a field can easily be measured with an inexpensive instrument called a gauss meter.

The second mechanism of harm comes from the radiation or radio wave itself. The wireless signal, oscillating at 2.4 to 5 GHz, moves much too fast for the body to recognize. So this wave isn’t doing the damage. However, anytime any data or information is transmitted, say through our voice, through text messages or through the sending of information, the data is packaged and “piggy-backed” onto the first wave. This creates a second carrier wave and this wave is called the information-carrying radio wave, or ICRW. It is the information-carrying radio wave that is producing the harm. Here’s how this happens. This second carrier wave, or ICRW, oscillates in a much lower Hertz (Hz) range that is easily recognized by the body. When the ICRW comes in contact with the body the body recognizes this wave and responds to it as if this carrier wave were some type of foreign invader. When this happens certain physiologic changes occur which are very significant. First, at the cellular level, the cell membrane becomes hard and inflexible. This occurs because the active transport channels shut down as the cell goes into a protection mode. This hardening effect of the cell membrane also causes the cell to lose its permeability, meaning needed nutrients can’t get inside the cell where they are needed. In other words, the cell doesn’t get nourished.

Conversely, since the cell membrane is hardened and less permeable, the toxins and free radicals that build up inside the cell, as a natural part of our daily metabolism, can’t get out. The buildup of toxins and free radicals inside the cell causes other problems. These toxic products damage the mitochondria in the cell. If you’ll remember from biology class the mitochondria are where energy for the body is produced. When this energy-producing process is damaged the cell begins to lose its ability to function.

In addition, cells lose their ability to communicate with one another. When one cell can’t communicate with another cell and messages don’t get sent or received the body can’t respond properly to any type of stress, injury, or invasion. Furthermore, the DNA inside the cell becomes damaged. Fragments of DNA break off and form something called micronuclei. Micronuclei are precursors to cancer formation. And when enough energy is lost and when enough malnourishment occurs the cell eventually becomes dysfunctional and dies. When enough cells die the tissues are affected. When enough tissue is affected organs become damaged and don’t work properly. And the cascade of damaging events begin that can lead to a multitude of symptoms and failure of the body’s defense mechanisms to act appropriately.

The Wi-Fi Problem Think of Wi-Fi this way. It’s really nothing more than a small version of a cell phone tower placed in the classroom or office. Or, it could be similar to having a cordless phone in your home with multiple handsets throughout the house. The base station is the access point and all the peripheral phones connect with it wirelessly. The radio frequency radiation being emitted is the same. The information-carrying radio wave is being transmitted continuously 24 hours a day. The connections from the computers and other wireless devices throughout the school, office or home to the wireless access points cause any user around them, (children, teacher, staff, etc.) to be continuously exposed. Everyone in the building is caught in the crossfire of the continual access to the wireless access points. Even non-users are exposed because of the blanketing effect of these wireless access points throughout the building. So no one escapes the exposure.

In understanding the danger of Wi-Fi we must remember that it is not the type of device, in this case a wireless access point or router that is important. Rather it is the type of radio frequency radio waves that are being produced by the device that are significant. Whether from a wireless router, a cell phone, a cell phone tower, or personal digital assistant (PDA), electromagnetic frequencies are produced by all these devices. We must look at the technology being used by these devices and not the device itself as the problem. This should be the primary concern as we evaluate their safety, particularly in the classroom.

Another important aspect of Wi-Fi exposure is that of modulation. Modulation refers to whether or not the signal frequency is constant or pulsed. The new digital cell phones operate on a pulsed frequency, as does all wireless technology. Studies have shown that these pulsed signals are a greater risk than analog, non-pulsed signals. 1

Certainly, by the addition of any type of wireless we are adding to the burden of electropollution we are all currently exposed to. Special consideration should be given to the additional exposure that Wi-Fi technology would bring to those in a classroom, including the instructors, teachers, staff and certainly students.

Children Are More Vulnerable Concern about the increased vulnerability to electropollution by children has valid reasoning. Since the skull bones of the head don’t fully harden until about age 22 the skull bones of a child’s head are softer than that of an adult. A softer head bone translates to easier penetration through the skull and into the head by radio frequency radiation. Furthermore, the head of a child contains more water since the brain is not fully developed. It would make sense then that water will act as a conductor to electromagnetic radiation increasing the possibility of even further damage. And since a child’s brain and nervous system is still developing it only stands to reason that the potential damage would be greater since cells that are in a growing phase are more easily damaged.

And finally, exposing children in the elementary schoolroom will add to both the amount of electromagnetic radiation exposure and the accumulated length of exposure over their lifetime that they will be exposed. No one can argue that the children of today’s generation will be exposed to far greater amounts of electromagnetic radiation and will be exposed to it for a much longer period of time than any generation before. We simply don’t know the consequences of this increased and cumulative exposure. And it’s an experiment that we shouldn’t place our children in. Why set up these networks without understanding any of the long-term consequences? Did we not learn a lesson from the tobacco and asbestos industries?

Effects of WirelessRadio Frequency Radiation Although no studies have been done on Wi-Fi per se there is a generous amount of research that has been carried out on cell phones, cell phone towers and masts. Since the Wi-Fi signal is the same type of radiation (only the frequency is different) one can assume with reasonable assurance that the effects of exposure to Wi-Fi will follow the same pattern of exposure to cell phones and cell phone towers.

Here’s an example of what can happen. Let’s say one works in a schoolroom or office where wireless access, or Wi-Fi, is used. In other words, we are continually exposed to a constant bombardment of electromagnetic radiation waves. Over time, sitting or working in this classroom or office, the cells of the body gradually loose their energy and consequently their ability to communicate. What if the function of a particular group of cells was to maintain the integrity of the blood-brain barrier? The blood-brain barrier is an intricate membrane that keeps harmful substances and toxins from contacting sensitive brain tissue. But what if the cells of the blood-brain barrier can’t communicate or don’t work any longer? The barrier would break down and this would allow harmful substances to enter. Those substances would then come in contact with sensitive brain cells. The result would be injured and damaged brain cells. This is just one example of how a particular group of cells can be adversely affected by electromagnetic radiation. In fact, studies have shown that placing a call on cell phone for just two minutes can disable the blood-brain barrier. 2 The same case could be made for the immune system and any other major “system” of the body since different cellular groups perform different functions to keep us healthy.

There are more than a dozen studies linking an increased risk for brain cancer and acoustic neuroma (tumor of the auditory nerve) to radio frequency radiation from cell phones and cordless phones. 3

Even the World Health Organization (WHO) is concerned about the effects of radiofrequency radiation on children’s health. In a recent WHO publication they wrote:

“The possible adverse health effects in children associated with radiofrequency fields have not been fully investigated.”

“Because there are suggestions that RF(radio frequency) exposure may be more hazardous for the fetus and child due to their greater susceptibility, prudent avoidance is one approach to keeping children’s exposure as low as possible.”

“Further research is needed to clarify the potential risks of ELF-EMF and radiofrequency fields for children’s health.”

Neurobehavioral effects of inhabitants living near a cell phone tower base station have also been studied. The following neuropsychiatric complaints were reported: headache (23.5%), memory changes (28.2%), dizziness (18.8%), tremors (9.4%), depressive symptoms (21.7%), and sleep disturbances (23.5%). 4 In addition, tests of attention and short-term auditory memory were significantly lower in the exposed participants than in control groups.

Obviously, people living close to cell phone towers have an increased risk for developing neurobehavioral problems.

Will We Medicate Our Children Unnecessarily? If indeed neurobehavioral symptoms are produced by radio frequency radiation and these frequencies are continually emitted throughout our schools what might this suggest about the abnormal behavior of students in the classroom? Might parents be inclined and persuaded to medicate their children so that these undesirable symptoms can be controlled? If so, how many of these children would be medicated unnecessarily? Studies now show that the frequencies such as that emitted by cell phones cause abnormal brain hyperactivity. Such artificially induced hyperactivity would cause an unnecessary risk and expense to students who would be placed on some form of pharmaceutical intervention to aid in controlling these symptoms. Many of the drugs used in controlling hyperactivity, such as Ritalin, Concerta, and methylphenidate are in the amphetamine-like class of pharmaceuticals. What a tragedy it would be to find out years later that this form of medication was unnecessary and could have been avoided if we would have chosen precaution over convenience.

Learning Issues As discussed earlier, the mechanism of harm caused by electromagnetic frequencies occurs at the cellular level. The eventual outcome of this harm is disruption of cell-to-cell communication. When the disruption of cell communication occurs cells can’t “talk” to each other. When cells can’t communicate cognition is affected, the ability to learn is affected, the ability to retain information is affected, and behavioral problems can occur.

Makes Kids Susceptible To Other Stressors Radiofrequency radiation is also a stressor to the body. The mere fact that the cells of the body react to these frequencies as discussed earlier indicates that they are harmful. When the stress response occurs from exposure to electromagnetic frequencies the body responds by releasing stress proteins, also known as heat shock proteins, to minimize the ensuing damage. The release of heat shock proteins is just one stress response mechanism that has been identified. Other mechanisms include the triggering of adrenal hormones like adrenaline. Continual stress is not healthy as it can eventually fatigue the adrenal gland, suppress the immune system, and lead to fatigue causing difficulty in concentration. Sleep disturbances may also occur.

Immune System Affected Evidence also exists that radio frequencies produced by such devices as cell phones, Wi-Fi, computers, televisions, etc. can trigger skin reactions.5 Microwave frequencies can trigger the release of chemicals from mast cells. Mast cells in the skin will break open and release chemicals that cause the symptoms of allergic skin reactions. 6 One of the chemicals released by mast cells is histamine. Histamine is often responsible for the symptoms of allergies such as runny nose, watery eyes, inflammation and difficulty breathing. Histamine also constricts the airway leading to or worsening the symptoms of asthma. It is of interest to note that the rate of asthma in children has doubled since 1980 and asthma now affects one in 10 children. The cell phone was introduced in1983 and has seen explosive growth in use in the last decade. Could there be a correlation between the rising rates of asthma, an immune system problem, and the escalating use of cell phones and wireless technology? Certainly, one could anticipate that chronic exposure to these radio waves over time can lead to chronic inflammatory responses.

Electromagnetic Radiation Connected To Autism A recent study has now suggested a direct link between autism and electromagnetic radiation. It appears that EMR may accelerate autistic spectrum disorders. 7 It is noteworthy that the increasing rates of autism parallel the growth of the cell phone and wireless industry. This appears to occur as a result of the trapping of heavy metals within the cell and the inability of the body to excrete the toxic metals present that are often introduced into the body through vaccinations. Heavy metals are neurotoxic. When this excretory process is prohibited these heavy metals, such as mercury, lead, beryllium, and aluminum, damage nerve structures and interfere in inter-cellular communication. This leads to neurological problems and conditions like those found in autism spectrum disorders. This particular study has shown that when electromagnetic radiation is largely eliminated the efficiency of heavy metal detoxification and removal was dramatically increased. In other words, the body was able to excrete and eliminate heavy metals when it had not been able to do so previously. This leads to the suggestion that (1) we need to reduce or eliminate electromagnetic radiation from any child’s environment and (2) measures need to be taken to repair the damage that has already been done by electromagnetic radiation. Although this study looked specifically at autism the same case could be made for attention-deficit disorders and related conditions.

Occupational Hazard For Teachers And School Staff Children will attend school in a particular building for a finite number of years and then move on. For a child the length of time spent in a particular building or location is predetermined. Therefore their exposure levels to this form of radiation will probably change. But what about the teachers and staff members who continue to work in the same building for many, many years? For these workers and teachers the exposure in their building from Wi-Fi networks and radio frequency radiation is continual. What are the effects of this exposure after years and years of time? Will teaching in a Wi-Fi enabled school become an occupational hazard like that of an electrician? These are questions that must and should be answered before, rather than after, any installation of radiation-generating equipment is placed in service.

Wi-Fi In European Schools The European Environment Agency is calling for immediate steps to be taken to reduce exposure to Wi-Fi, cell phones and cell phone towers and masts. Recent international scientific reviews have concluded that electromagnetic radiation safety limits are “thousands of times too lenient” and one official British report came to the conclusion that the development of cancer from cell phone use could not be ruled out.

Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency in the UK, is calling for a formal investigation into the hazards of using wireless networks in schools. He’s asking that students be monitored for health problems from the networks. Joining him in health concerns over Wi-Fi installations in schools, the Professional Association of Teachers are calling for the Secretary of State for Education in the UK to begin an official inquiry into the issue.

Recently, parents of children at an English school have won a major battle in getting a mast tower removed from their school. Parents indicated that both students and staff complained of symptoms such as insomnia, headaches and numbness. It seems 56 percent of children had trouble sleeping, 54 percent developed headaches and migraines, and 46 percent reported dizziness and numbness. 86 percent of staff members had problems sleeping, 59 percent reported headaches, and 95 percent of staff reported fatigue and numbness. Nosebleeds, nausea, and dizziness were also reported. 8

Dr. Gerd Oberfield, head of environmental health and medicine in the province of Salzburg, Austria, calls the installation of Wi-Fi “dangerous.” In fact, the government in Salzburg has been advising schools not to install Wi-Fi for well over a year now and is considering a complete ban on Wi-Fi networks.

Stowe School in Great Britian recently removed its Wi-Fi equipment from its building. One of its schoolmasters who had taught there for 28 years developed headaches and nausea immediately after Wi-Fi was installed.

International Association of Fire Fighters In 2004, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) voiced its opinion on cell phone towers and antennas by opposing the installation of cell phone antennas on or near fire stations until a credible study can be done to establish their safety. In studying the available science the IAFF found over 49 references that led them to conclude that they should oppose the placement of cell phone antennas on fire stations. Some of the effects that have been documented by fire fighters include slowed reaction times, sleep deprivation, severe headaches, lack of focus, tremors, and vertigo. 9

What About Wi-Max The latest development in the world of digital communication is something called Wi-Max. Wi-Max is intended for use as a network for large metropolitan areas. Where Wi-Fi is limited to a range of about 100-300 feet, Wi-Max can provide broadband wireless access up to 30 miles from fixed base stations and 3-10 miles from mobile base stations. It’s been described as Wi-Fi on steroids. It’s used in much the same way as Wi-Fi and will soon become the standard for Internet access. Imagine the implications. Whole metropolitan cities blanketed with Wi-Max wireless coverage. How convenient and “connected” do we really need to be?

Conclusion We currently have no studies that are specific to Wi-Fi. However, when assessing the safety issue we can and should look at technologies that are similar and relevant to Wi-Fi to draw our conclusions. This would seem appropriate since Wi-Fi operates in the same manner as other more heavily studies similar technology and the basic mechanism of harm from all wireless technology is the same.

There are countless reports and studies raising caution signals about the effects on human health from exposure to cell phone radiation, cell phone towers, Wi-Fi, and wireless technology in general. The fact remains that wireless technology is a potential carcinogen. So was tobacco. So was asbestos. So were X-Rays. Like these other hazards, which were all at one time only “potential carcinogens,” wireless technology needs further study before we decide to randomly subject ourselves and our children to the potential harmful effects it seems to cause. How long will we wait for these studies? Another 20 years or more? How many lives will be adversely affected or lost while we take the wait-and-see approach?

What can you do? Don’t let your children use a cell phone. Don’t live near a cell phone tower. Don’t use wireless Internet connections or cordless phones in your home. Provide good nutrition to your children in the form of lots of fruits and vegetables. Everyone needs lots of antioxidants to protect themselves from the free radicals being produced by these high levels of radiation. Good quality water is a must, too.

Get involved in your child’s school. Get on the school board. Ask questions regarding the use of Wi-Fi in the school. Object to the installation of such equipment if and when the possibility is discussed.

School districts today are under ever-increasing financial pressures. Healthy lease money is being provided by the wireless industry to install cell phone antennas on school buildings. Once again, this is an unneeded and unnecessary exposure risk for our young people. Does the extra income provided by the wireless industry outweigh the potential risk to our children? The studies say no and we as parents and responsible citizens need to convey that message to our school boards and legislators.

Two-time Nobel Prize nominee, Dr. Gerald Hyland, a physicist, had this to say about cell phone towers. “Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate. Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by government and industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests.”

For more information on the health hazards of wireless technology, cell phones, Wi-Fi, etc. visit http://www.CellphoneRadiationAlert.com For an ongoing discussion of the latest information on the health hazards of wireless technology visit http://www.CellphoneRadiationUSA.blogspot.com

References

1. Lai, Henry. Biological Effects of Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Encyclopedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering. G.L. Gowlin and G. Wnek: Taylor and Francis Books, 2005.

2. Persson, Salford, Brun. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats expose to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication; Wireless Networks, Vol. 3, Issue 6, Dec. 1997; pg 455-461

3. BioInitiative Report, Aug. 31, 2007

4. Abdel-Rassoul, El-Fateh, Salem, Micheal, Farahat, El-Batanouny, Salem. Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations, Neurotoxicology, 2006, Aug. 1.

5. BioInitiative Report, Aug. 31, 2007.

6. BioInitiative Report, Aug. 31, 2007.

7. Mariea, Tamara and Carlo, George. Wireless Radiation in the Etiology and Treatment of Autism: Clinical Observations and Mechanisms; Journal of the Australian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, August 2007.

8. Independent.co.uk. Apr 22, 2007

9. International Association of Fire Fighters, Division of Occupational Health, Safety and Medicine. 2005

Lynn Quiring is a Registered Pharmacist, Baord Certified Clinical Nutritionist, and holds a degree in naturopathic medicine. He also holds diplomas in homeopathy and hormone regulation therapy. He is an expert in cell phone radiation and EMFs and their health effects on the body. He has practiced in natural medicine for over 10 years. He currently owns and operates Logical Health LLC. He can be contacted by emailing to lynnquiring@msn.com

Monday, February 16, 2009

Medical Director of Paracelsus Clinic in Lustmühle, convinced‘electromagnetic loads’ lead to cancer



Article in www.next-up.org

http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/medical-director-of-switzerland/

February 10th, 2009.

Dr. Thomas Rau, Medical Director of the world renowned Paracelsus Clinic in Lustmühle, Switzerland says he is convinced ‘electromagnetic loads’ lead to cancer, concentration problems, ADD, tinnitus, migraines, insomnia, arrhythmia, Parkinson’s and even back pain. At Paracelsus (www.paracelsus.ch), cancer patients are now routinely educated in electromagnetic field remediation strategies and inspectors from the Geopathological Institute of Switzerland are sent to patients’ homes to assess electromagnetic field exposures.

Of note, Dr. Rau says a strategy to consider for those experiencing ‘electrical
sensitivity’ symptoms is to remove the electromagnetic ‘hot spot’ in the
head created by the presence of metal fillings. Concern is thus not only for
the ‘neurotoxic’ aspect of mercury in fillings, an increasingly understood
hazard, but because fillings themselves act as antennas in the presence of
electromagnetic fields from cell phones and cell towers, wi-fi networks,
portable phones, and other sources of radiofrequency radiation.

Rau says the removal of dental fillings can be an important early step in
reducing electrical sensitivity, allowing some people to live in homes they
otherwise could not tolerate.

Cultures have shown beneficial bacteria grows more slowly in the presence
of electromagnetic fields, says Rau, allowing pathological organisms to
dominate. Thus, a strategy with electrically sensitive patients, or with those
Thomas M. Rau, MD, Medical Director of the Paracelsus Clinic facing chronic conditions, is the aggressive supplementation with probiotics and other Biological Medicine approaches to balance intestinal flora. Many people with chronic infections likely linked to EMF exposures, such as Lyme Disease, are symptom- free after an aggressive microorganism rebalancing program.

Electrical sensitivity—originally known as radio wave sickness—is a sometimes debilitating experience created by these and other disregulating effects of electromagnetic fields. Linked to many acute and chronic illness conditions, electrical sensitivity is a serious emerging public health issue globally and a subject in which most doctors have no training.

A Petition to Congress, created by www.ElectromagneticHealth.org is now circulating on the internet, requesting Congress 1) mandate the FCC lower exposure guidelines to reflect the large body of science showing biological effects at exposures much lower than current standards, 2) repeal Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which rescinded state and local governments right to resist towers on health
or environmental grounds, 3) stop the roll out of the Wi-Max network until Congress better understands the potential health consequences, and 4) accommodate citizens unable to function adequately in high EMF environments, including forbidding cell towers on school properties.

Exposing children in schools to radiation, known to impair brain function and learning, Rau describes as “criminal”. He says, “It is unethical to expose children to electromagnetic load in this way. We know that power stations for electromagnetic waves like mobile phones are hurting the brains of children, so to put such stations into schools is really…very, very, very bad. Rau says, the question is, “Does the school, or does the society, really want to have intelligent, well-educated children, or not?” He says, “If you install mobile phone towers,
which radiate to the children, their intelligence, their brain capacity, decreases. You will have more ADD children, you will have less function of the brain, which in the long term reflects on the intelligence of the children, of the possibility to really teach children, and in the long term, the more this overcomes society, the
more we will have dumb children.”

The reality of the health consequences of electromagnetic radiation eventually will have to be faced, and this will only happen with active pressure on Congress. It is estimated that 3-8% of populations in developed countries experience serious electrohypersensitivity symptoms today, and 35% experience mild symptoms.
With increasing electromagnetic field exposures, these numbers, along with the suffering involved for people who are impacted, and the health care costs involved, are bound to go up.

Monday, February 9, 2009

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).