There is no evidence to date that exposure to the RF signals from WiFi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population.

There can be no laboratory evidence that human health is affected by wireless networks because the necessary experiments have not been done, nor have studies been made of chronic exposure of individuals to the radiation from mobile phones. However, several international studies suggest that they pose a significant threat to health.

Also, a number of individuals have presented credible accounts of how they have been personally affected by the introduction of wireless networks and these cannot be ignored.

Any assertion that wireless networks (WLAN) must be safe because not everyone shows obvious physical symptoms, ignores the well-being of those that do. Also, these symptoms could be an early indicator of underlying damage that may eventually affect the remainder of the population.

The signals from WiFi are very low power, typically 0.1 watt (100 milliwatts) in both the computer and the mast (or router) and resulting exposures should be well within internationally accepted guidelines.

Also, the international guidelines are not appropriate. Only acute short-term exposures to unmodulated microwaves are covered. This clearly does not apply to chronic exposure to low-level digital communications as used in wireless networks.

It is also an undeclared assumption in this statement that the only harmful effects of non-ionising radiation are due to heating. Frequency, waveform and quantum effects are completely ignored, even though these are established features of normal bio-electromagnetic responses in living organisms such as humans.

The frequencies used are broadly the same as those from ‘traditional’ RF applications.

‘Traditional’ has no meaning: tradition is a subjective comparison without content, and the assumption is that carrier frequencies are the only relevant parameter. WiFi is indeed part of the IEE 802.11 standard, and the carrier frequencies are similar to those used by mobile phones. The comparison is clearly intended to suggest that everything else has a clean bill of health, and this is not the case.

The frequencies and signals used by WiFi are similar to those used by mobile phones, and recent studies have shown these to be genotoxic, and are associated with an increased risk of cancer and a loss of fertility [see also our EM fields health lists.].

Based on current knowledge, RF exposures from WiFi are likely to be lower than those from mobile phones.

Again this statement is imprecise at best. Current knowledge is not so poor that we do not know what a classroom exposure regime is like. Nor is it a valid comparison to set wireless networks against mobile phones. The comparison is intended to suggest that even if there is a doubt about excessive mobile phone use, there can therefore be no doubt about wireless networks. If there is a doubt about phones (and there is substantial doubt) the underlying assumption is that they can only be harmful on the scale of energy absorption. This is an unwarranted assumption given findings from research into modulation frequency and waveform effects on living organisms.

On the basis of current scientific information WiFi equipment satisfies international guidelines. There is no consistent evidence of health effects from RF exposures below guideline levels and therefore no reason why schools and others should not use WiFi equipment.

It does not take much scientific information to see that the international guidelines for exposure greatly exceed any likely exposure in a classroom. But as shown above, the issue of the relevance of those guidelines must be in considerable doubt.

The ‘consistency of evidence’ is a function of the underlying assumption of experimental conditions (ie, which parameters matter), and of what constitutes a ‘health effect’, not just a physiological response (HPA always cites sight as a harmless EMF bio-response). ‘RF exposures below guidelines’ is an uninformative broad generalisation of what factors have been examined. Some studies do indeed show a highly consistent effect on specific cell physiology, for example, in cases where that effect is highly significant for health effects.

This statement therefore appears to acknowledge that indeed evidence does exist of adverse health effects, somewhat in contradiction of the first point in the HPA statement.

It is a complete non sequitur that there is ‘therefore no reason’ for schools to avoid wireless networks.

h.e.s.e.-UK conclusion:

The evidence is there, the consistency in research is there, the inadequacy of exposure guidelines is clear. And in the face of all this, it is deemed wise to chronically expose children and teachers while discussions continue, and while a perfectly acceptable alternative (wired network points) exists.

If a new drug were to be discovered that caused similar symptoms in even a minority of patients, it would probably be taken off the market and certainly not used for regular mass medication. On this basis, the case for the safe universal use of WiFi in schools has not yet been made and it would be wise to withdraw it pending further independent laboratory trials.

Failure to do this might call into question the mandate of the Health Protection Agency as a truly ‘independent body that protects the health and well-being of the population’.

(h.e.s.e.-UK is represented at the HPA EMF Discussion Group: minutes here.)

Addendum: Since the Panorama programme elicited such a response, including a substantial number of people removing domestic wireless networking, the following was added by the HPA to their statement:

‘However with any new technology it is a sensible precautionary approach, as happened with mobile phones, to keep the situation under ongoing review so that parents and others can have as much reassurance as possible. That is why our Chairman, Sir William Stewart, has stated it would be timely to carry out further studies as this new technology is rolled out. The Health Protection Agency is discussing this with relevant parties.’ [h.e.s.e.-UK remains unclear as to what kind of precautionary approach at all has been adopted with regard to mobile phones.]