Stark Warnings from Medical Doctors Regarding The Risk Of Wi-Fi In Schools | 23Abr2014 15:32:05
(Screen): FREE INTERNET
(Narrator): Across the country these parents, teachers and experts are saying the same thing.
(Screen): CROSSED SIGNALS
(Teacher): There are children getting sick. And I don't think it's worth the risk.
(Parent): I really hate sending her to school, given the environment that she's in.
Wi-Fi is toxic. It's a different form of toxicity, but it's toxic to our bodies.
He would often complain of heart palpitations or chest pains.
I'd start getting headaches, foggy vision, and like just all weirded out.
(Parent): To expose my kids, knowingly, is very frightening for me.
(Parent): For me as a parent I find it incredibly frustrating and scary and sad that no one is even listening to the concerns of the parents.
Narrator: Their concern; That radiation from wireless computers and this little contraption mounted in the hallways and classrooms of schools can make students sick.
William Stewart has a pedigree (it would take a bold politician to ignore.) Chief scientific adviser to Margaret Thatcher and then called upon by the Tony Blair's government in 2000, to examine mobile phones, masts and their impact on our health.
After looking at the evidence for a year, he couldn't rule out the possibility there're may be biological effects.
That means that basically there're may be changes, for example in cognitive function. Secondly there was some indications that there're maybe cancer inductions.
Thirdly there were some molecular biology changes within the cell. And these were issues that we had to bear in mind as one hint in one's broad conclusions.
The report made a raft of recommendations. At the heart of this the question that has been worrying so many; Should our children be exposed to mobile phone masts?
Sir William was concerned enough to recommend what he called a precautionary approach.
(WS): We recommended because (we were sensed of a ?) about children, that masts should not necessarily impact directly on areas where children were exposed.
Screen: The main beam of a cell tower should not fall in an area where there are children
like playgrounds and that.
(Narrator): The government knows Sir William has concerns about sitting masts near schools. Why then are we now placing them inside classrooms, in the form of Wi-Fi mini masts?
They emit the same sort of radiation. So what's its potential impact in the classroom?
Screen: Sir William Stewart explaining the difference between mobile phones and Wi-Fi
(WS): But with a mobile phone that's a matter of personal choice. You can decide wheather you want to use a mobile phone or not.
(screen): Sir WILLIAM STEWART – Chairman, Health Protection Agency
And if you don't want to be radiated you don't switch on your mobile phone. But you have control over the situation. That's a big difference.
(Screen): Calais, Vermont, USA
So here we are, at the 5th and 6th grade classroom, the meter is showing 500. We're approaching the router which is where it's gonna be the highest.
(Screen): These measurements are in millivolts per meter
And as the number goes over 999, it's gonna show a new digit there, (it looked) 6 point something. That means 6000 right next to the router.
Out in the middle of the room it's around 700 or 800, and as we approach the laptops; they themselves have a wireless transmitter in them because they need to be able to communicate with the router accross the room, so it becomes a stronger signal right next to the transmitter which is at the back of the screen.
(Screen): Peak value of 4600 millivolts per meter
Here you can see, close to the front of the laptop where your lap would be, or where the student would be sitting the numbers are several thousand, 2000 to 3000.
(Screen): Classroom Test Results – Center of Room: - 800mV/m – Direct Vicinity of Laptops: -1 V/m or 1000mV/m – Front of Laptop: 2857V/m or 2857mV/m – (All children in the school are exposed to such levels of radiation)
To give you an idea of how high these are, I went and took test readings at a cellphone tower in the area.
And the readings show pretty much the same as what's in the classroom. But nowhere near what the children would be exposed to if they were leaning over their Wi-Fi enabled laptops.
(Screen): Microwave Radiation Comparison – Cell Tower: 800-900mV/m – Classroom: 800-900mV/m – Laptop: 2857mV/m
These laptops and the Wi-Fi network produce 3 times the microwave radiation of a cellphone tower. Most of us would never imagine that this would be the case.
Because it doesn't make sense. It was never explained to us before, and we'd never even know about it if it weren't for a meter.
Would you as a parent, even for a second, consider a cellphone tower on the school grounds? How about one in the classroom?
Or without even knowing it, you consent in to placing one in your child's lap.
What does this mean, in terms of a health issue? I don't even think we know at this point because this is such a new technology.
This is the first generation of humans ever to experience direct and constant microwave radiation.
(Woman narrator): Today schools accross the country are rushing to install it. But these students say the convenience isn't worth the risk.
(Boy student): I had heart racing.
(Girl student): Headaches.
(Boy student): Nauseous.
(Girl student): It's a really weird feeling.
(Boy student): Weak, and I'm really shaky.
(Narrator): And when they're not at school... Does it happen on the weekends?
(Boy student): No.
(Narrator): There's no rhyme or reason to the symptoms. They range from headaches, to nausea, heart palpitations, even rashes.
Dr. Stephen Sinatra
(Screen): Dr. Stephen Sinatra, former chief of cardiology Manchester Memorial Hospital, Connecticut USA
(Dr.SS): What these kids basically have is a non diagnostic tachycardia. Wolf Parkinson White syndrome is a, it's not uncommon, it's about 1 in 700 kids.
So, if you got 50000 kids in the (school ?) district, I mean, do the math. You gonna have some kids with it.
Dr. Sinatra is describing what may be happening to these children
This is an inborn situation where a child has an extra or what you call electrical pathway in the heart. And these hearts can go out of rhythm,
and they can be triggered by situations that can disturb heart rate variability, and as a cardiologist, knowing what I know now, it's easy for me to connect the dot.
That a child with Wolf Parkinson White, undiagnosed, exposed to Wi-Fi, could be triggered with an arrhythmia.
(Woman narrator): Well, 16:9 wanted to test the power of Wi-Fi, so we went to visit environmental scientist Magda Havas from Trent University to do another test.
Professor Havas' subject Martin, who calls himself electrically sensitive, is hooked up to a heart monitor. And Havis sets up a wireless computer.
(MH): What we are going to be doing is we going to be taking Martin and exposing him to microwave radiation from Wi-Fi.
The same type of thing that we have in schools for example. And just monitor his heart to see if his heart reacts to any of the radiation.
He won't know when things are turned on or off so it's going to be a blind study in that regard.
(Narrator): With the Wi-Fi plugged in, Martin's heart rate accelerates in mere moments.
(Martin): Now I can feel something is going through my chest. I feel it down in my legs too.
(Narrator): The closer the router is the greater his reaction.
(Martin): A few seconds ago it was like my chest was actually jumping, here in the middle here.
(Narrator): Then, seconds after the wireless internet is unplugged, just like that, his heart rate slows down.
(MH): Martin, how are you feeling right now?
(Martin): Fine, I don't think there's anything on.
(Narrator): But listen to this; those levels Martin was exposed to, well, they were acceptable according to safety code 6.
So, if they're safe, why was his heart racing? Magda Havas has a theory;
(MH): So, some percentage of the population is reacting to this microwave radiation. At levels well below safety code 6.
(Narrator): But I'm not sick from Wi-Fi and I use it all the time.
(MH): Well, not everyone has the same sensitivity, as we have children who have peanut allergies, we have people who are allergic to pollen, they react to pollen, and it's the same with electrical sensitivity. Only a percentage of the population react.
(Narrator): Still, Health Canada insists it's done its home work, looked at every bit of science, and that level of radiation won't hurt anybody.
(Health Canada): Our safety limits are set. We use a weight of evidence approach. So, there's thousands or articles, thousands of peer review scientific articles on the issue.
(Narrator): 16:9 wanted to take a look at that evidence, so we asked Health Canada for its science. They sent us this, a list of 16 studies entitled “Specific to Wi-Fi.”
(Screen): Specific to Wi-Fi:
(Narrator): So we did our own homework going through every study and not a single one looks at whether Wi-Fi in schools poses a health risk to students.
And while other European countries might not be pulling Wi-Fi, they are taking a stand. In 2007 Germany recommended children limit their use of Wi-Fi, uncertain of its long term effects.
And in Britain a handful of public schools decided independently to remove it.
But back in Canada there's no precautionary approach. Wi-Fi is going up not coming down, leaving students like McKensie (Honning ?) with no good option; go to school and feel sick
(Screen): Former Surrey School District Student
(Student): It's just kind of weird. I felt like my heart kept skipping beats.
(Narrator): Or don't go to school at all
(Student): I noticed that every time I came home for the weekend I'd start to get better and by Sunday I'd feel normal, you know, like headaches or anything like that.
(Narrator): They're concerned that radiation from wireless computers and this little contraption mounted in the hallways and classrooms of schools can make students sick.
It's Wi-Fi. Health Canada says there's no risc from the radiation emited
(Screen): FREE INTERNET - Wi-Fi
Dr. David Carpenter
(DC): That's just simply not true. That's simply not true.
(Screen): Dr. David Carpenter – Director for the Institute for Health and the Environment at U of Albany, New York
(Narrator): Dr. David Carpenter is a world renowned expert in environmental toxins in Albany, New York. And he says the Canadian Government is just plain wrong.
(DC): What we do is look at the weight of the evidence.
(Narrator): But that's what they said they did.
(DC): They didn't! The weight of the evidence demonstrates clearly that exposure to radio frequency radiation, the... causes disease. The evidence is strongest for cancer.
(Narrator): Cancer caused by Wi-Fi emissions? Certainly doesn't add up with Health Canada's insistence that Wi-Fi is safe.
(Narrator): So you're saying that their science is faulty, or their analyses of science is faulty.
(DC): Their science is faulty, and certainly their analyses is faulty.
You can selectively look at literature. But there's been evidence for harmful effects of microwave radio frequency radiation, for 30 or 40 years.
(Narrator): Why choose to ignore that? How does that possibly benefit them?
(DC): When you acknowledge you have a problem, and you are a government agency, you have to do something about it.
(Screen): “When you acknowledge that you have a problem, and you're a government agency, you have to do something about it”
(Narrator): Environmental health expert Dr. Carpenter says it's time we stop turning a blind eye to the risk.
(Narrator): When you look at the guidelines that have been put in place by Health Canada, do they go far enough to protecting Canadians?
(DC): They certainly do not. These guidelines are based on a fallacy.
(Narrator): A fallacy that according to Dr. Carpenter is putting children at risk.
(DC): It's appropriate for parents to demand that Wi-Fi not be placed in school. Not because we have proof, at this stage, that it's harming the children.
(Screen): WORLD'S BEST CLASS
(Screen): WIRELESS LAN CONTROLLER
(DC): But because we have absolutely no evidence that it's safe. Contrary to what any governamental agency says.
(Narrator): And not heeding the warnings of experts like Dr. Carpenter is leading students like Jeremiah feeling helpless.
(Jeremiah): I really am nervous. I don't like school no more.
(SS): Wi-Fi and the heart basically, I mean, clearly more scientific investigation needs to be considered.
Clearly there are children, and adults, out there with undiagnosed cardiac problems.
I mean, even as an adult cardiologist I would see adult people in their 40.s and 50.s who have a hole in their heart.
It was undiagnosed until they went into heart failure.
There was an article in the year 2008 Journal of Epidemiology that looked to 13000 children, and more than 10000 of'm had learning disabilities, behavioral problems, ADD, ADHD, and the culprit was wireless technologies.
So, if you look at some of these wireless technologies and,
Olle Johansson he says cellphones and other wireless are a real danger. And professor Stanford says the largest human biological experiment ever.
I can tell you as a cardiologist I really agree with that and, I resinate with it, because I've seen the damage these things can do.
And the problem is, and Magna said this with, you know, her whole list, the problem is, is that you can't see it, you can't feel it, you can't taste it.
It's like having, you know, an enormous amount of radon, you know, you know, right here, so close to your body.
The problem here is that with children and adults, with these undiagnosed situations, and now you bring'm into an environment that could adversely affect the heart, could anything happen?
So we have to ask that question; Can Wi-Fi or any form of toxic RF set the stage for a life threatening arrhythmia in a vulnerable individual?
(Screen): Can Wi-Fi or any form of toxic RF set the stage for a life threatening arrhythmia in a vulnerable individual?
(SS): That's the question we have to ask.
Now! Do we wanna to wait for decades of research as we did with the tobacco industry?
I mean, the tobacco industry fought that for years, and the (jury came forward ?), is out on that; well ok, tobacco causes, you know, lung cancer.
You know, Radon, everybody is afraid of it. Radon is really big in the Northeast of the United States where I live in Connecticut, as well as Canada.
A lot of houses are built on granite rockier, and everybody gets their homes tested for Radon.
And we know that radon seeps through the earth and into your body. It's a big cause for lung cancer.
Despite the fact that many patients with lung cancer, who were exposed to radon, don't smoke.
So, it took years of research to show that. But when a real estate agent comes to your house and says; you want it to be radon checked? Of course you say yeah I'll have it checked.
Now, radon is like EMF and RF. You can't feel it, you can't taste it, you can't see it, you can't smell it but, it's a silent killer just like RF is.
(Screen): RF = Radio Frequency Microwaves
So we don't wanna wait for decades of research.
So, what do we do now? And my suggestion here is really to use the precautionary principle, (interruption = fix it?)
Under the precautionary principle the threat of plausible serious and irreversible hazards to children from exposure to particular environmental stimuli, justify public policy action to reduce such exposure.
Even though scientific uncertainty or ignorance may preclude findings of a true hazard.
Waiting for such proof may be more damaging to the public health in the long run.
And I embrace this principle. This is the principle that I think you guys should be using in Toronto.
This is the principle that your legislators need to follow.
(Narrator): Health Canada sets the limit at 10 million microwatts per meter squared.
(Screen): 10 MILLION MICROWATTS
(Narrator): Now, that might not mean much to most of us but in 2008 Toronto's Board of Health said it's way too high.
And asked Canada's Minister of Health, in this letter, for much stricter regulations.
(Screen): 100 times more strict
(Narrator): A hundred times more strict.
Health Canada never changed a thing.
Still, no matter what any guidelines say, these parents say they see it for themselves and Wi-Fi is harming their kids.
(Parent): So, she had to hold on to friends in order not to colapse on the floor.
(Parent): She had headaches, and we're not talking just regular headaches. They were extreme headaches where the secretary would call me, and I'd have to come pick her up.
Dr. Jennifer Armstrong
(Narrator): According to this doctor, there's good reason to believe these kids are telling the truth and not just making up some excuse to skip school.
(JA): There is no question in my mind it exists.
(Narrator): Dr. Jennifer Armstrong specializes in environmental medicine.
(JA): The big thing with kids is they're more vulnerable.
(JA): Children are more vulnerable, their skulls are thinner,
(Screen): My Friends
Their bodies are not as strong as ours in general, they're developing, their brains are developing.
So you expose children to radiation and their little bodies don't handle it as well.
(Narrator): And cardiologist Dr. Steven Sinatra agrees.
(SS): As a parent, if I had a young child, would I want to use my child as an experiment to see if it's gonna take 30 years, or 20 years, or 10 years to become sick? No! Not me.
But, and the thing is, we have to sacrifice accelerated education and convenience and,
basically, we have to look at the safety of our children. We have to do it as a society.
(Narrator): (Havis ?) says since Health Canada isn't controlling Wi-Fi, parents are gonna have to.
So, are you suggesting that parents should tell their kids, a 13 year old, 14 year old, who's maybe attached to his laptop or his iPad; you should stop using that?
(MH): It may not go over so well but, you know, when children want to smoke and you are a responsible parent, do you allow your 13 year old child to smoke?
In my mind there's no difference between the two. If anything I think maybe microwave radiation is going to show up to be much more harmful than smoking,
simply because of the amount of exposure that we're seeing in our everyday environment.
(DC): You don't want to wait until you can count the bodies, before you tell the public that there is a serious potential of harm.
And, with regard to the issue of Wi-Fi in schools, this is exactly where we are.