We could send so much info your head would spin. The fact is there is tons of evidence.

Today show just covered the issue fyi
Pediatricians' new warning: Limit children's exposure !!!
http://www.today.com/health/pediatricians-new-warning-limit-childrens-exposure-cellphones-t53541

And how about this
“The IARC 2B classification implies an assurance of safety that cannot be offered—a particular concern, given the prospect that most of the world’s population will have lifelong exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.”

- Dr. Jonathan Samet, physician and epidemiologist, Chair of the World Health Organization’s EMF Working Group 2011.

Dear skeptic (probably paid by the wireless industry)

There are hundreds of scientists calling for action. I did not discover this. Hundreds of scientists aretrying to scream it off rooftops but we people do not want to listen because we love our toys.

got a problem with the head of NIEHS? Read what she staes very clearly.

“If some of the studies turn out to be harbingers of things to come, we may have major health consequences from the nearly ubiquitous presence of wireless equipment.”
-Linda S. Birnbaum, Director, USA National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Read it here http://www.health.gov.il/publicationsfiles/bsv_sviva2014e.pdf

There has been research done, there has been no causal effect attributed to RF! The last thing posted was written a Ed.D and reads like a thesis paper, it's all just theory, if it has ever been peer reviewed and published I can't find it.

You were waving the WHO flag but that has been disproven. Do you REALLY think that on this entire planet with all the scientists and resources that we have available that you, in Maryland have managed to discover something that the entire international scientific community says is not a health issue? Really?

You are pure hysteria with no science.

Safe Tech has a petition with almost 200 signatures.
Petition to MCPS To Explore Solutions that Minimize Wireless Radiation in the Classrooms

Medical doctors are recommending schools use non-radiating hardwired systems and we think Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) should go with these common sense recommendations to minimize wireless radiation in the classroom.
CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE PETITION
http://chn.ge/1HpcHYx

In 2008, the National Academy of Sciences Research Council Report issued “The Identification of Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse Health Effects of Wireless Communications Devices” that called for the critical need to increase our understanding of any potential adverse effects of long term chronic exposure to RF/microwave energy on children and pregnant woman.

Q: Have we done that safety research yet?
A: No.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE PETITION
http://chn.ge/1HpcHYx

If some parents work hard to get safer WiFi for schools, I am all for it. I think there is some validity to their concerns.

However, I do not have the time and energy to be involved in it right now.

-Neutral party.

Lets pull out the key phrases here from the EPA

The author also spoke with Senior Scientist Norbert Hankin, of theEPA Office os Radiation and Indoor Air and Chairman of RFIAWG. The writer discussed possible wireless portable classroom scenarios with Mr. Hankin.

When questioned about the health and safety concerns of the wireless computer in the classroom scenario, Mr. Hankin said: “In my personal opinion, I wouldn’t do it.” (Emphasis added.) He further stated that there are animal studies showing health issues with short-term exposures to non-ionizing RF/MW radiation. Mr. Hankin expressed concern about children who would be close to transmitting antenna(s) (wireless-laptops, work stations, and base stations) and exposed to prolonged low intensity transmissions. He likened it to being in a room of cellphones running all day long.

“In my personal opinion, I wouldn’t do it.”

Lets try this again.
EDUCATE YOURSELF
All wireless devices emit microwave radiation.

Wireless Devices, Standards, and Microwave Radiation
in the Education Environment
By Gary Brown, Ed.D. in Instructional Technologies and Distance Education
from Nova Southeastern University
and
Public School District Educational Technology and Distance Learning Specialist

Introduction
Since there is a shortage of space in schools, many school districts often use portable trailers to serve as classrooms for school students. Up to this point in their technology upgrade program, many school districts have not funded the broad scale deployment of technology within portable classrooms. Schools must decide whether such deployment will utilize the same building wiring standards that have guided efforts within the permanent campus or utilize wireless local area networking technology. To make this decision, public schools are analyzing the feasibility of placing wireless computers into classrooms, especially portable classrooms (portables) used by schools with rapidly- expanding enrollments. Such computers would interact with servers in the central processing site via the proposed Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN). Promoters of wireless technology state that it is less expensive, and can be installed easily and quickly because there is no need to dig trenches or open walls and ceilings to install cables as would be required for hard-wired systems. Another element favoring the utilization of wireless technology is its inherent mobility; that is, devices can more easily be moved and reactivated in other portables or conventional classrooms.
However, on the flip side, there are many negative aspects to “going wireless” in schools related to health and safety. This analysis provides information regarding health effects associated with wireless radiofrequency/microwave (RF/MW) radiation transmitting technologies, specifically the WLAN.
How the Technology Works
Digital Bits – Conduction of Pieces of Information Via Electric Pulses
Technology builds on this foundation. Thus, in principle, the purpose and requirements of the Wireless Local Area Network are like that of Morse code. In this electronic age, instead of mechanically tapping codes, computers use digital bits (electric pulses) that signal: Yes (1), I am carrying data; or No (0), I have nothing. Several million electric pulses (megabits) travel in streams of invisible energy (radio waves) carrying true characters (1) that form words, or spaces (0) that separate words. Morse code consisted of intermittent tapping that produced sound which was transported in slow rolling waves of air particles. But digital pulses of radio waves move fast at the speed of light . They are precise, consistent, and travel along specially engineered waves. Therefore, data moves rapidly and smoothly through the digital system.
Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) – Movement of Data in Air to Remote Devices
Wireless computers rely on transmitters to push data to and through the air, which offers resistance, and are therefore inherently less reliable than wired networks. Computer transformers operate at several thousand volts. In a wireless computer system, transformers send millions of bits of information to transmitters atop the desk or through the lap top antenna. In turn, the data is packaged onto a signal and sent to a microwave antenna that is usually perched on the wall of a room or mounted on doors or on tall structures. The wall antenna downloads the data into its attached waveguide, which channels the information, via outdoor and indoor antennas, to users in the WLAN or to the antenna(s) receiver/transmitter located on the main campus building for further processing. The transmitter’s receiver located on the main campus building is connected to the school’s wired network. Since WLANs would be on during the school day, the RF/MW transmitters attached to these wireless systems are transmitting continuously. Electric pulses in the RF/MW region (radio waves), the band of the electromagnetic spectrum used for communications, can pass through nearly all types of matter, including children.
Standards, Rules, and Guidelines
Commercial wireless products are designed to comply with industry-based standards that are created by industry-appointed professional associations for industry use in achieving uniformity and compatibility in the manufacture and application of wireless communication technologies. These standards are different from government rules that are enforced by the government agency with regulatory authority over signal interference between licensed carriers, i.e., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Since the FCC is only a licensing and engineering agency it does not test, fund, or conduct biological research. FCC does not monitor communications installations to ensure compliance with FCC guidelines governing human exposure to RF/MW radiation. The FCC relies on other agencies to recommend safety standards for wireless technologies.
The organizations responsible for developing RF/MW safety standards include the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) associations. The committee that sets RF/MW exposure standards was first sponsored by ANSI and then by IEEE. It is basically the same group
of people. It is important to understand that industry standards and government guidelines are two different things. The IEEE committee is mainly comprised of engineers and physicists who deal with the non-living sciences. They have traditionally been charged with the task of making these technologies work, not with the understanding of health effects from the technologies’ RF/MW radiation exposures that are within the purview of the living sciences of biology and medicine. The health physicists who serve on these committees have traditionally been active in high intensity (energy) radiation research primarily from defense-related industries. These scientists have conducted research on the ionizing band and are not as knowledgeable about physical and biological effects related to exposure to non-ionizing RF/MW radiation used in wireless technologies. There are many biologists working in the field of bioelectromagnetics, the study of non-ionizing radiation in living organisms. But somehow most of them have left these committee.
FCC Guidelines- Human exposure to Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation
In August 1997, following the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published revised guidelines governing human exposure to RF/MW radiation. These guidelines are difficult to enforce because the FCC lacks the man-power and the necessary funding to carry out monitoring and enforcement from exposure to wireless technologies’ radiation. These guidelines were adopted by the FCC to protect the health and safety of the general public and certain high risk occupational groups, such as telecommunications workers. For example, the guidelines outline the power density exposure level permitted for the general public (1mW/cm2 for 30 minutes) and workers (5mW/cm2 for 6 minutes). The rationale for the difference in permissible exposure levels is that workers are aware of the presence of radiation and can protect themselves, whereas the public is considered to be unaware of radiation, and would not be aware that protection is needed. We add that children would be even less apt to understand the concept of “awareness” when studying or playing near to transmitting signals from a WLAN to wireless classroom computers.
WLAN technologies are regulated by the FCC under Section 47 Part 15 rules. Section 47 Part 15 rules specify compliance with FCC rules regarding RF/MW interference. FCC Part 15 rules for WLAN applications are concerned primarily with RF/MW power output as it relates to the prevention of RF/MW interference with other electronic devices. [See FCC 99-149 pl, sec 2.]
Depending on its intensity, RF/MW radiation can cause heating of body tissues. No heating will occur if theexposed body can compensate for the heat load. In general, the intensity of exposure to radiation from cell phones, cell towers, and WLANs is low and does not cause significant tissue heating.
X-rays are classified as ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation exposures are also regulated by government and industry standards. Unfortunately, when setting guidelines for products emitting RF/MW radiation, industry uses only the thermal level of radiation where the body increases in temperature and would go into shock or burn if over-exposed as a basis for defining adverse biological effects. It is important to note that WLANs
operate in the non-ionizing, RF/MW part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The FCC RF/MW exposure guidelines apply for wireless devices operating in the non-ionizing part of the electromagnetic spectrum which includes devices such as mobile phones, wireless internet, and mobile phone base stations (often called cell towers).
How could the FCC guidelines for wireless devices operating in the non-ionizing, RF/MW spectrum be based upon standards that are not internationally accepted nor proven safe? That question can best be addressed by this statement from the international electromagnetics research and policy publication, Microwave News:
Standard setting bodies do more or less as industry wants. Their members are often current, past, or future employees of the very companies they are supposed to regulate. Meanwhile government agencies have no appetite for confrontation.
While the wireless industry has stated that its standards and the FCC guidelines are safe and do not pose a risk to workers or the general public, many in the wireless community do not agree. Morton Bahr, President of the 600,000-member U.S. Communications Workers of America (CWA), a national union with a membership dominated by telecommunications workers, filed a legal challenge in November, 1997, in the U.S. Court of Appeals against the FCC rules on human exposure to RF/MW radiation. Mark Wilson, CWA's legal representative, stated recently, "The President of CWA is very concerned about protecting the health and safety of our workers who are exposed to wireless radiation on a daily basis." The CWA is objecting to the hazardous radiation exposure levels its workers are subjected to under FCC’s RF/MW exposure guidelines.
A November 30, 1998, letter from David Nghiem, Ph.D., president and CEO of USA Wireless Inc., a manufacturer of mobile phone components, to FCC Chairman William Kennard, raises questions regarding the current industry standard and FCC guidelines. The letter suggests the need for a “much more stringent standard than the established Specific Absorption Rate (SAR).”
Although there is no question that the SAR measurement is important for establishing how much radio-frequency (RF) power is deposited in human\ tissues, the SAR level relates only to the electricfield inside the tissue, and ignores any possible biological effects from the magnetic field. We must take into account, however, that the SAR only relates to thermal effects; it does not take into consideration the possible non-thermal effects.
U.S. exposure guidelines are not universally accepted in many parts of the world. See: http://www.emrnetwork.org/regulation/charts.htm According to the FCC, “Some published exposure limits in Russia and some eastern European countries have been generally more restrictive than existing or proposed recommendations for exposure developed in North America and other parts of Europe.” Russian limits for RF/MW radiation exposures are up to 100 times stricter than those in the U.S. and Western Europe. In January 2000, Swiss health and environmental officials adopted strict rules for public exposures from new sources of RF/MW radiation. Switzerland has
?
one of the most stringent exposure guidelines in the world requiring power levels effectively 100 times lower than those of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and ANSI. Salzburg, Austria’s standard is approximately 5800 times lower than the FCC guidelines forRF/MW base station radiation.
Health officials in Canada are also concerned with regulations governing potentially harmful RF/MW radiation in the air over Toronto. Dr. Sheela Basrur, Medical Officer of Health (November, 1999) urged the Toronto Board of Health to increase the safety margin a hundred-fold. It is recommended, as an added margin of safety, that exposures to the public be kept at least 100 times below Canadian federal exposure limits. Basrur said RF/MW radiation has been demonstrated to have adverse effects on the blood brain barrier, and some evidence suggests a link to leukemia and other cancers. On December 6, 1999, the Board of Health approved the Prudent Avoidance Policy recommended by Basrur. That policy would impose an output limit on cellular base stations 100 times more stringent than the current Canadian Safety Code 6.
The FCC rules suggest that manufacturers of transmitters that have antennas located next to individual(s), as in the application of the WLAN transmitter antennas, provide certain operating and warning usage instructions. Those instructions should be included in the operator’s manual to caution users to maintain a specific distance from the transmitter/antenna. In addition, FCC advises that a warning label should be affixed to the transmitter/antenna to caution users or other persons close to the transmitter/antenna to limit exposure duration and/or maintain certain specific usage conditions.
IEEE 802.11 Standard -- A Boilerplate or Matrix for an Engineering Design?
To ensure the compatibility of electronic systems, the IEEE agreed on specific and uniform criteria, an industry standard, for the design of wireless technology. In the hierarchy of rules for the design of the products in its domain, IEEE assigned Section 802.11 to WLAN components. This section stipulates that WLAN antennas are required to have a certain number of channels; data can move at the rate of a specified number of bits (electric pulses) in each antenna channel. This frequency range is non-licensed, which means that industry is not required to obtain a construction or operation license from the FCC before deploying WLAN systems..
Presentations made by industry to this writer referenced the IEEE 802.11 industry standard. Many industry representatives mistakenly inferred that since their products comply with the IEEE 802.11 standard, their products automatically are safe and without the threat of health issues from RF/MW exposure. This writer also contacted members of the IEEE 802.11 industry standards committee requesting information on the health and safety aspects. This writer specifically requested information pertaining to specific absorption rates (SAR) and power density of WLANs. Mr. Vic Hayes of Lucent Technology and member of the IEEE 802.11 standards committee supplied an IEEE.802.AA document. The second and third paragraphs of the document address the industry’s opinion on health and safety.
No verified reports exist of injury to human beings who have been exposed to electromagnetic fields within the limits of frequency and (specific absorption rate) specified by previous ANSI standards, including ANSI-C95 1-1982. Measurements have shown that routine exposure of users and other persons to low-power portable, mobile-power portable, mobile transceivers, and cellular telephones do not induce rates of radio frequency absorption that exceed any of the maximum permissible rates of energy absorption defined by these guidelines (ANSI/IEEE). Therefore, based on present knowledge, the exposures from low- power transceivers are considered to be without risk for the user and the public."
The August 2000, Volume 37, Number 8 edition of IEEE SPECTRUM online states (See Attachment P) the following: http://www.goaegis.com/articles/ieee_spectrum_0800.html
The body of research is controversial in several respects. It includes many reports of effects of RF fields on cells and animals, sometimes at low exposure levels, which are understood and often not reproducible. It also includes a scattering of reports of human effects from low-level exposure to RF-fields. Standards-setting committees while acknowledging this research, has concluded that it provides insufficient basis for exposure guidelines.
In a letter to the FCC (available on request), Margo T. Oge, Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made the following responses concerning ANSI/IEEE standards, including ANSI-C95 1-1982.
Therefore the generalization that the 1992ANSI/IEEE guidelines protect human beings from harm by any mechanism is not justified. The 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard is based on literature published before 1986, except for a few papers on shock and burn. While studies continue to be published describing biological responses to non-thermal ELF modulated RF radiation, the effects information is not yet sufficient to be used as a basis for exposure criteria to protect the public against adverse human health effects.” (Emphasis added.)
On June 17, 1999, the federal Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group (RFIAWG) issued a RF Guidelines Statement. RFIAWG members come from the U.S. agencies responsible for RF/MW safety policy including: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Radiation Biology Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA )Health Response Team, and the National Telecommunications and Information Adminstration (NTIA)/Department of Commerce. In particular, the RFIAWG emphasized that current RF/MW exposure guidelines:
• Do not take into account chronic, as opposed to acute exposures
• Do not take into account modulated or pulsed radiation (digital or pulsed RF/MW radiation that is employed in WLAN systems)
•
•
Rely on time-averaged measurements that may erase the unique characteristics of an intensity-modulated RF radiation that may be responsible for reported biologic effects
lacked a comprehensive review of current, long-term, low-level exposure studies, neurological-behavioral effects and micronucleus assay studies (showing genetic damage from low-level RF/MW radiation).
This writer also spoke with W. Gregory Lotz, Ph..D., Chief, Physical Agents Effects Branch Division of Biomedical and Behavioral Science (MS C-27) for NIOSH and NIOSH’s representative to RFIAWG. When questioned about the health and safety concerns of the WLAN computer in the classroom environment, Dr. Lotz stated his personal opinion: “While we still don’t have all the answers on this issue, it would be advisable to use the Precautionary Principle.” (Emphasis added.) “The Precautionary Principle is an important guiding principle in handling inevitable scientific uncertainty, especially in situations of potentially irreversible or catastrophic impacts” (UNESCO, 1999). Consistent with the Precautionary Principle, Dr. Lotz also indicated that a hard- wired portable classroom connected to a rooftop antenna would be a safer option than wireless-laptops, work stations, and base stations in a classroom environment.
The author also spoke with Senior Scientist Norbert Hankin, of theEPA Office os Radiation and Indoor Air and Chairman of RFIAWG. The writer discussed possible wireless portable classroom scenarios with Mr. Hankin. When questioned about the health and safety concerns of the wireless computer in the classroom scenario, Mr. Hankin said: “In my personal opinion, I wouldn’t do it.” (Emphasis added.) He further stated that there are animal studies showing health issues with short-term exposures to non-ionizing RF/MW radiation. Mr. Hankin expressed concern about children who would be close to transmitting antenna(s) (wireless-laptops, work stations, and base stations) and exposed to prolonged low intensity transmissions. He likened it to being in a room of cellphones running all day long. Mr. Hankin suggested that the hard-wired portable classroom scenario, connected to a rooftop antenna, was a safer way to go.
In May 2000, the American Cancer Society bulletin stated: "No solid evidence yet exists regarding cell phones and cancer". Cell phone technology is new, "data from large studies are not yet available on long term use." The bulletin also states, "that a scientific panel that was commissioned by the government of Britain to evaluate research to date on health risks of cell phones, warns that children may be at greater risk of injury from cell phone radiation because their central nervous system, including the brain is still developing. The group, The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) contends that: “ While most studies have found few, if any, health risks from cell phones, research has not proven conclusively that cell phones are safe, particularly for children.” (Emphasis added.)
According to the conclusion of Britain's IEGMP Summary & Recommendations- Report -Mobile Phones and Health:
?
We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to
RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without
potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to
justify a precautionary approach. (Emphasis added.) Available at: http://www.iegmp.org.uk/
In February 2000, Russell D. Owen, Chief of the Radiation Biology Branch of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, FDA, commented that there is: “currently insufficient scientific basis for concluding whether wireless communication technologies pose any health risk. . . Little is known about the possible health effects of repeated or long-term exposures to low level RF of the sort emitted by such (wireless communication) devices. . . Some animal studies suggest the possibility for such low- level exposures to increase the risk of cancer...” Although Dr. Owen’s comments appear to be directed primarily to users of cell phones, the same questions are pertinent for long- term RF/MW exposure from antenna sites (Epidemiology: Vol. 1, No. 2, March 2000, Commentary).
A recent federal district court decision in Louisiana opined that FCC and FDA have no programs in place to assure safety. This means that the public cannot depend on either the FDA or the FCC to protect people. Additionally, Dr. David Feible, Chief of FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Effects, stated in his letter dated January 16, 2001, accompanying the fiscal 2000 annual report: "We don't have the money to protect consumers from wireless technology." RCR News, February 19, 200l, “FDA ill- equpiped for health issue,” by Jeffrey Silva.
The National Toxicology Program (NTP), is a part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). NTP has requested comments on whether to add RF/MW radiation to its list of substances to be tested as carcinogens. The FDA made a recommendation to the NTP urging that RF/MW be tested for carcinogenicity (www.fda.gov.us). It is based in part on FDA’s written testimony stating:
Animal Animal experiments are crucial because meaningful data will not be available from epidemiological studies for many years due to the long latency period between exposure to a carcinogen and the diagnosis of a tumor. . . There is currently insufficient scientific basis for concluding either that wireless communication technologies are safe or that they pose a risk to millions of users. . . FCC radiofrequency radiation guidelines are based on protection from acute injury from thermal effects of RFR exposure and may not be protective against any non-thermal effects of chronic exposures.
Further, the FDA notes that for mobile phone users:
The 84 million mobile phone subscribers and the 25,000 that sign up daily translates into a potentially significant health problem should the use of these devices even slightly increase the risk of adverse health effects.”
Areas of Concern
?
Wireless technology is relatively new and many diseases, especially cancer, have latency periods of 6 to 10 years or more before tumors and other symptom surface. Research has demonstrated that biological effects from RF/MW radiation exposure are dependent upon several compounding factors.
1) The first exposure factor is the length of time a person is exposed to RF/MW transmitters. In the WLAN classroom environment, the exposure to children from RF/MW radiation starts the moment the students enter the classroom. The exposure to RF/MW radiation does not end until students leave the classroom or move outside the perimeter of the wireless network of RF/MW radiation antennas and transmitters that most likely extends beyond the boundaries of the classroom.
A child entering the school system in Kindergarten could face the potential for 13 years of RF/MW radiation exposure emanating from WLAN transmitters while attending K-12 schools. Teachers and other school district personnel, many of child bearing age, might have an even longer exposure period resulting from a professional career in a wireless school district environment. Wireless school campuses that are in close proximity to nearby residential areas risk exposing the children and their families to RF/MW radiation in their homes depending on how those wireless networks/antennas and power output are implemented.
2) The second exposure factor of concern is the distance between the transmitters and the person. Exposure and absorption of non-ionizing RF/MW radiation are greatest next to a transmitting antenna. In the wireless classroom WLAN environment, transmitters and antennas can be located on the computer, printer, ceiling, walls, on the outside of the portable classroom, and on the outside of the main campus building. The exposure distances a child might encounter from a transmitting antenna(s) could vary depending on how the classroom environment is designed. A child can be as close as 1.5 feet when operating a wireless computer or when playing near an outdoor omni-directional transmitting antenna.
Outside antennas can also expose children in a classroom to RF/MW radiation even though the antenna is mounted outside. RF/MW radiation radiates through the walls of most structures depending on construction materials. A good example of this fact is the cell phone. In many instances, cell phones can be used within a building because the wireless RF/MW signal radiates through the walls of the building. The U.S. government recommends affixing exposure warning labels to each transmitter and antenna of RF/MW transmitting devices, warning people to keep safe distances from transmitters/antennas. The government also has requested the wireless industry to include information in their owner’s operating manuals about overexposure. Children who would be exposed may not be able to read or follow these instructions.
Dr. Neil Cherry, Ph.D. in Physics, senior lecturer at Lincoln University in Canterbury, New Zealand, and an elected member of the Canterbury Regional Council, has written that studies indicate that non-ionizing RF/MW radiation causes everything from cancer in lab rats to neurological changes in humans. Dr. Cherry describes human beings are
very good conductors of RF/MW transmitted signals. This means that most RF/MW signals radiate through us and are absorbed with very little going to the main transmission point. He further states that wireless technology should be redesigned not to radiate into us, but rather go directly to the main transmission site. Living organisms are themselves electromagnetic instruments of great sensitivity that can support a variety of electrical vibrations; these can be interfered with by external radiation - both at RF/MW and at very much lower (ELF) frequencies - in a number of ways, from which adverse health effects can follow. http://www.nzine.co.nz/thesis.html
3) The third exposure factor is the frequency of the RF/MW radiation. The RF/MW radio signals that are being discussed for classrooms are located in the 2.4 GHz frequency range. The 2.4 GHz frequency is two to three times higher than a cell phone. In some instances, this technology can also operate in the 5 GHz frequency range. Researchers are concerned that these higher radio frequencies compounded with power density, length of exposure, distance from antennas, and absorption rates may produce adverse health effects. The body is comprised of 65% water by weight and has a high absorption rate to RF/MW radiation. Radiation absorption in body tissue is commonly referred to as Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). The rate of absorption of RF/MW radiation into the body increases as the frequency of the radiation climbs. See: http://www.emrnetwork.org/schools/curry_broward.pdf
Research scientists, such as Dr. Martin Blank of Columbia University, are calling for biologically based standards rather than thermally based standards in order to prevent harmful exposure conditions which occur at certain frequencies. According to a study conducted by University of Utah scientist, Om Gandhi published in 1996, greater distribution and penetration of RF/MW radiation was found in the heads of 5- and 10- year-old children using a cell phone than in those of adults using a cell phone. Significantly larger amounts of the radiation were absorbed by children when compared to the absorption rates of adults.
At the University of Washington, researchers Lai and Singh (1996) showed single and double DNA breaks and long- and short-term memory loss in laboratory animals exposed to RF/MW radiation. Lai said, “Because mobile phone RF penetrates deeper into a child's brain, more brain tissue would be exposed.” He added that not all brain cells have been developed in children, with some cells in the cerebellum (in the back of the brain) taking 10 years to develop. Cumulative damages in DNA may in turn affect cell functions. DNA damage that accumulates in cells over a period of time may be the cause of slow onset diseases, such as cancer (Lai letter available on request). The Motorola funded group headed by Joseph Roti Roti was unsuccessful at duplicating Lai's findings when using a different, less sensitive method to measure DNA breaks. However, during his study Roti Roti unexpectedly found an effect from the RF/MW radiation (an oncogene, genes related to cancer development).
Research has shown that exposure to RF/MW emissions from a transmission tower demonstrate significant differences in visual reaction time and reduced memory function in students in a close-by school (Chiang, 1989). Studies by Dr. Lai at the
??
University of Washington (1996, 2000) showed long- and short-term memory loss in rats from exposure to 2.45 GHz RF/MW radiation, the frequency used in WLAN systems.
In 1997, a study conducted by Professor Leif Salford, a Swedish neurologist, stated: ”We saw the opening of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) even after a short exposure to radiation at the same level as mobile phones. We are not sure yet whether this is a harmful effect, but it seems that molecules such as proteins and toxins can pass out of the blood while the phone is switched on and cross into the brain. Within two minutes of exposure, the rat’s brain tissue was found to be opened up to proteins and toxins contained in the blood after the defense mechanism (BBB) was disabled. ” Salford found that the blood brain barrier opened at exposure levels 4,000 times lower than the current FCC guidelines.
4) The fourth exposure factor is the power output levels from the wireless RF/MW radiation devices. The conventional method of measuring exposure is called power density. Power density is defined by the FCC as “power per unit area.” Power density is expressed in terms of milliwatts per square centimeter or microwatts per square centimeter.
When industry vendors, engineers, and marketing officials were questioned during their presentations to this writer, they were unfamiliar with key health and safety aspects of their products. Industry representatives were unaware or confused regarding the standards and guidelines. None of the vendors knew the power density of their products nor were they familiar with the term. One vendor admitted wireless technology was new to him, while another commented that they were aware of health effects but claimed none.
Health and Safety Issues
The wireless industry conducted extensive research on cell phone health and safety risks for six years, under contract with the Wireless Technology Research Group (WTR) in Washington, D.C. Dr. George Carlo, Ph.D., M.S., J.D., former Director of the WTR, a now defunct organization, recently gave an advanced look on his research results in a series of multimedia interviews. A formal report has yet to be released. To the surprise of the wireless industry which funded the $27 million research program, the results indicated health issues from exposure to wireless technologies. The lack of responsiveness by industry to the WTR report caused Dr. Carlo to write to the Chairman and CEO of AT&T, Mr. C. Michael Armstrong.
The following sentences were extracted from Dr. Carlo’s letter dated October 7, 1999:
The rate of death from brain cancer among hand held phone users was higher than the rate of brain cancer deaths among those who used non-hand held phones that were away from their head. Today, I sit here extremely frustrated and concerned that appropriate steps have not been taken by the wireless industry to
protect consumers during this time of uncertainty about safety. The question of wireless phone safety is unclear. Therefore, from a public health perspective, it is critical for consumers to have the information they need to make an informed judgment about how much of this unknown risk they wish to assume in their use of wireless phones.
In October, 1998, seventeen scientists of international standing signed the Vienna EMF Resolution, stating that the biological effects from low-intensity exposures to RF/MW radiation are scientifically established, a statement which undermines the validity of current FCC safety guidelines. http://www.irf.univie.ac.at/emf/
In June, 2000, in Salzburg, Austria, an international conference was convened to discuss RF/MW radiation studies relevant to wireless voice and data communications. Researchers and public policy makers who participated at that conference signed a resolution which included this statement on the biological effects of exposures to RF/MW radiation from mobile phone base stations:
4.
http://www.land-sbg.gv.at/celltower/english/start_e.html
Presently the assessment of biological effects of exposures from base stations in the low-dose range is difficult but indispensable for protection of public health. There is at present evidence of no threshold for adverse health effects.
Recommendations of specific exposure limits are prone to considerable uncertainties and should be considered preliminary.
The Los Angeles Unified School Board as of June 2000, passed a resolution opposing the future placement of cellular telecommunication towers on or adjacent to school property because of the potential health effect. California PUC (Public Utility Commission) issued an advisory on siting towers near schools and residences in 1995 which is not being enforced. http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/board/secretary/html/agendas/mt/mt06-27-00.html Scroll down to Agenda Item IX. Motions and Resolutions for Action
Libby Kelley, former public health policy analyst at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, who now directs the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts, calls for greater caution regarding the introduction of wireless signals and devices near our children. She states: “Until we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that this technology can be safely used by children, we are behaving like irresponsible adults by treating our children as guinea pigs in this uncontrolled experiment.”
Liability and Lloyd’s of London
In an article entitled, “ UK Insurers Balk at Risks of Phones,” Sarah Ryle,a consumer affairs correspondent for The Observer, London, describes concerns about the safety of mobile phones which has prompted a leading Lloyd's of London underwriter to refuse to insure phone manufacturers against the risk of damage to users' health. The move comes amid mounting concern about the industry's influence on research into the long-term
?
effects of using a mobile phone. The London market provides insurance for everything from aircraft to football players' legs. But fears that mobile phones will be linked to illnesses, such as cancer and Alzheimer's disease, have prompted John Fenn of underwriting group Stirling, to refuse to cover manufacturers against the risk of being sued if mobiles turn out to cause long-term damage. New research published last year by Bristol University scientist Dr. Alan Preece showed a 'highly significant' effect from mobile phone signals on brain function. http://www.goaegis.com/articles/observer_041199.html
Another opinion comes from journalist Charles Moore of the on-line Mac Opinion. Mr.
Moore writes software reviews and features for MacToday magazine and does his best to
endorse the Macintosh platform wherever and whenever he can in his writing. In his
December, 1999, column entitled: “How Safe is Wireless Computer Networking?” he
states the following: (Emphasis added.)
http://www.macopinion.com/columns/roadwarrior/99/12/09/index.html
However, I am suggesting that the issue of wireless networking ought to be addressed with a lot more prudent caution than seems to be the case. The thought of classrooms full of schoolchildren using Airport equipped iMacs or iBooks day in and day out, being exposed to radio frequency emissions at close range, makes me distinctly uneasy given the level of ignorance on this issue . . .
And this is the point that pertains most strongly to wireless microwave frequency computer networking. Until there is a lot more research available on this issue from disinterested third parties, my own personal policy of "prudent avoidance" will include prudently avoiding wireless LANs, the same as I refuse to use cellular and cordless phones. Happily, in my case that will not be difficult. For many others who will be exposed in work or educational settings, prudent avoidance will be virtually impossible.
As I said at the beginning of this article, I expect that a lot of people who read it will be annoyed that I brought the topic up. There is understandable enthusiasm for the convenience of wireless technology (for a quite comprehensive resource on the topic, check out this Website -- http://hydra.carleton.ca/info/wlan.html), and getting rid of all those pesky wires.
It could be that I am being hyper-cautious about this, and if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that exposure to low-level radio emissions is safe, I'm willing to listen. However, I want to hear it from sources other than those financed by industry or politically-sensitive government regulatory agencies.
The roll out of WLAN technology appears to be in the early stages of development, hence WLANs have not, at this stage, fully matured. Industry standards for both hardware and software have been under debate for years. Industry standards are still evolving. One example is the frequency hopping/direct sequence ruling process now before the FCC (FCC ET Docket No.99-231) . The FCC will be issuing its ruling on ET Docket No.99-231 on or after June 2000. The ruling will decide the issue of frequency expansion requested by some manufacturers and contested by others. The FCC adopts
??
guidelines for the health and safety aspects of this wireless license-less technology. Please note that guidelines are voluntary.
Presentations made to this writer by industry representatives demonstrated the newness with many aspects of this technology, especially the health and safety aspects. The writer has requested power density and specific absorption rates of each company’s wireless product. The requests were made during and after wireless vendor presentations, phone calls to vendors, and e-mails. So far, all wireless companies have failed to furnish this writer with the requested information.
School District Liability Questions
1. In light of the current scientific controversy surrounding RF/MW radiation, what kind of financial liability would a school district incur if long-term exposure to wireless communications is found to cause cancer or other disorders? See: “CIOs warned of cell phone risks.” http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO47766,00.html
2. If a decision is made to move forward with WLANS, what is the responsibility of the school district relative to disclosing any potential risks to parents, employees, and the public at large?
3. Since the level of risk is yet to be defined, what procedures should be adapted by a school district to integrate this technology into the classroom in the safest possible manner?
4. The issue of exposure of children and others to RF/MW radiation is currently being discussed by those in the legal profession. A plaintiff could request punitive damages on the grounds that the defendants knew or should have known that RF/MW radiation is harmful to human health, and that defendants failed to take affirmative steps to prevent exposure that was at harmful levels. Thus how great could the potential liability for doing nothing be?
5. Are there safer alternatives?
6. On what criteria should the school district base the decision to place wireless technology within its classrooms and schools?
7. If cost savings is the determining factor in this decision, what level of health risk is acceptable and supportable in a broad-scale deployment of wireless technologies in environments populated largely by children who will subjected to long periods of exposure to RF/MW radiation?

From your own document...

An important point is the radiation level. The exposure from cellular phones (personal exposure) is substantially higher and much more focused (usually on the brain) than exposures from radio/tv towers, antennas, or Wi-Fi.


Regarding 2B designation, please read the article titled - Cell phones are as carcinogenic as coffee written by Gopala Kovvali Ph.D, Executive Editor, Journal of Carcinogenesis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3142790/

this is from the article, which specifically addressed the media attention garnered by the 2B carcinogenic designation.

n a serious note, breaking news like the link between cell phone use and cancer made a splash in the media, with little consideration given the fact that the report was a summary of the deliberations of the IARC committee and was not an outcome of any carefully planned study by the IARC. It is not always easy to communicate the intricate details of any study to the public; the philosophical and methodological broodings of an international committee are even less easy to communicate, without causing concern and confusion. In an era when the media looks for material for quick sound bites and sensational news, I believe reports like the one by the IARC must have a ‘media summary,’ just like an executive summary in a complex business report. The purpose of the studies and analyses like the one discussed in this editorial must be communicated clearly to the public, to avoid panic and encourage the public to use caution, and also suggest the limitations of the studies on complex subjects related to human health. The discipline of public health may need to evolve strategies for educating the public in an objective, yet effective manner.


Here is the response WHO gave when asked for clarification of the Robert Baan email that was just posted.

Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 3:31 AM
To: Ellen Marks
Cc: Van Deventer, Tahera Emilie; Osseiran, Nada A.L.
Subject: FW: Please clarify confusion

Dear Ms. Marks,

Your email below regarding WHO's position on health effects from mobile phone use was forwarded to me for reply. A WHO fact sheet entitled "Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones" (N°193) was re-issued in June 2011 to incorporate the new classification of IARC of radiofrequency fields as possible carcinogen (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/index.html).

The Fact sheet states that "To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use", summarizing the current scientific knowledge. IARC classified RF fields from mobile phones as "possibly" carcinogenic (Class 2B). The evidence for an association between radiofrequency fields and adverse health effects was "evaluated as being limited among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate" (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf).

If carcinogenic effects had been established, RF fields would have been classified as "carcinogenic to humans" (Class 1). For further information on the IARC classification, please see http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/index.php.

I hope this clarifies your understanding.
Regards,

Dr. E van Deventer

Dr. T E van Deventer | Team Leader | Radiation Programme | Department of Public Health and Environment | World Health Organization | Tel: + 41 22 791 3950 | Email:vandeventere@who.int |

Educate yourself on wireless radiation. Mobile phones and Wi-Fi emit the same type of radiation.
Try reading.
---Original Message-----
From: Robert Baan
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:47:10
To: connie...@yahoo.com<connieahudson@yahoo.com>
Cc: COM (com@iarc.fr)<com@iarc.fr>
Subject: EMF Class 2B Classification

Dear Dr Hudson,

Thank you for your message, which was forwarded to me, and to which I would like to respond as follows.

The IARC Working Group classified "Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" (RF-EMF) as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).
The information that formed the main basis for this evaluation was found in epidemiological studies on cell-phone use, where a slightly increased risk for glioma (a malignant form of brain cancer) and acoustic neuroma (a non-cancerous type) was reported among heavy users.

There were some indications of increased cancer among radar-maintenance workers (occupational exposure), but no reliable data from studies among, e.g., people living close to base-station antennas, radio/TV towers, etc (environmental exposure).

Although the key information came from mobile telephone use, the Working Group considered that the three types of exposure entail basically the same type of radiation, and decided to make an overall evaluation on RF-EMF, covering the whole radiofrequency region of the electromagnetic spectrum.

In support of this, information from studies with experimental animals showed that effects on cancer incidence and cancer latency were seen with exposures to different frequencies within the RF region.


So the classification 2B, possibly carcinogenic, holds for all types of radiation within the radiofrequency part of the electromagnetic spectrum, including the radiation emitted by base-station antennas, radio/TV towers, radar, Wi-Fi, smart meters, etc.


An important point is the radiation level. The exposure from cellular phones (personal exposure) is substantially higher and much more focused (usually on the brain) than exposures from radio/tv towers, antennas, or Wi-Fi.

I hope this is useful.

Thank you for your interest in our work.

Sincerely yours,

Robert A Baan PhD
The Woprld Health Organization IARC Monographs
IARC, Lyon, FRANCE

Dear Sir. You can attack all you want but the facts are the facts.
Read it all. Click on links. Try reading.

Wi-Fi is neurotoxic.

Akar A. et al., 2013. Effects of low level electromagnetic field exposure at 2.45 GHz on rat cornea. Int J Radiat Biol. 89(4): 243-249. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23206266

Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825

Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647

Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479077

Ceyhan A.M. 2012. Protective effects of ?-glucan against oxidative injury induced by 2.45-GHz electromagnetic radiation in the skin tissue of rats. Arch Dermatol Res 304(7): 521-527. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22237725

Chaturvedi C.M. et al., 2011. 2.45GHz (CW) microwave irradiation alters circadian organization, spatial memory, DNA structure in the brain cells and blood cell counts of male mice, Mus musculus. Prog Electromag Res B 29: 23-42. http://www.jpier.org/PIERB/pierb29/02.11011205.pdf (Full paper).

Chou C.K. et al., 1992. Long-term, low-level microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectromagnetics 13(6): 469–496. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1482413

Ciftci Z.Z. et al., 2015.Effects of prenatal and postnatal exposure of Wi-Fi on development of teeth and changes in teeth element concentration in rats : Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) and teeth element concentrations. Biol Trace Elem Res. 163(1-2): 193-201. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25395122

Cig B. and Naziroglu M. 2015. Investigation of the effects of distance from sources on apoptosis, oxidative stress and cytosolic calcium accumulation via TRPV1 channels induced by mobile phones and Wi-Fi in breast cancer cells. Biochem Biophys Acta.1848(10 Pt B): 2756-2765. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25703814

Dasdag S. et al., 2015. Effect of long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on testes functions. Electromagn Biol Med.34(1): 37-42. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460421

Dasdag S. et al 2015. Effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on microRNA expression in brain tissue. Int J Radiat Biol. 91(7): 555-561. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25775055

Desmunkh P.S. et al., 2013. Detection of Low Level Microwave Radiation Induced Deoxyribonucleic Acid Damage Vis-a-vis Genotoxicity in Brain of Fischer Rats. Toxicol Int. 20(1): 19-24. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23833433

Deshmukh P.S. et al., 2015. Cognitive impairment and neurogenotoxic effects in rats exposed to low-intensity microwave radiation. Int J. Toxicol. 34(3): 284-290. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25749756

Eser O., 2013. The effect of electromagnetic radiation on the rat brain: an experimental study. Turk Neurosurg. 23(6): 707-715. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24310452

Ghazizadeh V. and Naziroglu M. 2014. Electromagnetic radiation (Wi-Fi) and epilepsy induce calcium entry and apoptosis through activation of TRPV1 channel in hippocampus and dorsal root ganglion of rats. Metab Brain Dis. 29(3): 787-799. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24792079

Grigoriev Y.G. et al., 2010. Confirmation studies of Soviet research on immunological effects of microwaves: Russian immunology results. Bioelectromagnetics 31(8):589-602. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20857454

Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19396408

Gürler H.S. et al, 2014. Increased DNA oxidation (8-OHdG) and protein oxidation (AOPP) by Low level electromagnetic field (2.45 GHz) in rat brain and protective effect of garlic. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 90(10): 892-896. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24844368

Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300. http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.

Jorge-Mora T. et al., 2011. The effects of single and repeated exposure to 2.45 GHz radiofrequency fields on c-Fos protein expression in the paraventricular nucleus of rat hypothalamus. Neurochem Res. 36(12): 2322-2332. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21818659

Kesari K.K. et al., 2010. Mutagenic response of 2.45 GHz radiation exposure on rat brain. Int J Radiat Biol. 86(4): 334-343. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20353343

Kesari K.K. et al., 2012. Pathophysiology of microwave radiation: effect on rat brain. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 166(2): 379-388. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22134878

Kumar S. et al., 2011. The therapeutic effect of a pulsed electromagnetic field on the reproductive patterns of male Wistar rats exposed to a 2.45-GHz microwave field. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 66(7): 1237-1245. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21876981

Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields. Paper. http://www.istanbul.edu.tr/6internatwshopbioeffemf/cd/pdf/poster/WI-FI%20ELECTROMAGNETIC%20FIELDS%20EXERT%20GENDER.pdf

Margaritis L.H. et al., 2014. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med. 33(3): 165-189. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915130

Meena R. et al., 2014. Therapeutic approaches of melatonin in microwave radiations-induced oxidative stress-mediated toxicity on male fertility pattern of Wistar rats. Electromagn Biol Med. 33(2): 81-91. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23676079

Misa-Augustiño M.J. et al., 2012. Electromagnetic fields at 2.45 GHz trigger changes in heat shock proteins 90 and 70 without altering apoptotic activity in rat thyroid gland. Biol Open 1(9): 831-839. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23213477

Misa-Agustiño M.J. et al., 2015. Exposure to non-ionizing radiation provokes changes in rat thyroid morphology and expression of HSP-90. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 240(9): 1123-1135. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25649190

Misa-Augustiño M.J. et al., 2015. EMF radiation at 2450 MHz triggers changes in the morphology and expression of heat shock proteins and glucocorticoid receptors in rat thymus. Life Sci. 127: 1-11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25731700

Naziro?lu M. and Gumral N. 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19637079

Naz?ro?lu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489926

Naz?ro?lu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-692. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019785

Oni M.O., Amuda D.B. and Gilbert C.E. 2011. Effects of radiofrequency radiation from WiFi devices on human ejaculated semen. International Journal of Recent Research and Applied Studies 9(2): 292-294. http://arpapress.com/Volumes/Vol9Issue2/IJRRAS_9_2_13.pdf

Ozorak A. et al., 2013. Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz)- and mobile phone (900 and 1800 MHz)- induced risks on oxidative stress and elements in kidney and testis of rats during pregnancy and the development of offspring. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 156(103): 221-229. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24101576

Oksay T. et al., 2014. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia 46(1): 65-72. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23145464

Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714138

Paulraj R. and Behari J. 2006. Single strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells exposed to microwave radiation. Mutat Res. 596(1-2): 76-80. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16458332

Paulraj R. and Behari J. 2006b. Protein kinase C activity in developing rat brain cells exposed to 2.45 GHz radiation. Electromagn Biol Med. 25(1): 61-70. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16595335

Saili L. et al 2015. Effects of acute exposure to WIFI signals (2.45GHz) on heart variability and blood pressure in Albinos rabbit. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 40(2): 600-605. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26356390

Salah M.B. et al., 2013. Effects of olive leave extract on metabolic disorders and oxidative stress induced by 2.45 GHz WIFI signals. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 36(3): 826-834. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23994945

Sangun O. et al., 2015. The effects of long-term exposure to a 2450 MHz electromagnetic field on growth and pubertal development in female Wistar rats. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 34(1): 63-67. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460416

Senavirathna M.D., et al., 2014. Nanometer-scale elongation rate fluctuations in the Myriophyllum aquaticum (Parrot feather) stem were altered by radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation. Plant Signal Behav. 9(4): e28590. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25764433

Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23334843

Shahin S. et al., 2014. Microwave irradiation adversely affects reproductive function in male mouse, Mus musculus, by inducing oxidative and nitrosative stress. Free Radic Res. 48(5): 511- 525. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24490664

Shahin S. et al., 2015. 2.45GHz microwave radiation impairs learning and spatial memory via oxidative/nitrosative stress induced p53 dependent/independent hippocampal apoptosis: molecular basis and underlying mechanism. Toxicol Sci. [Epub ahead of print]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26396154

Shokri S. et al., 2015. Effects of Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) exposure on apoptosis, sperm parameters and testicular histomorphometry in rats: a time course study. Cell J. 17(2): 322-331. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26199911; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4503846/pdf/Cell-J-17-322.pdf

Sinha R.K. 2008. Chronic non-thermal exposure of modulated 2450 MHz microwave radiation alters thyroid hormones and behavior of male rats. Int J Radiat Biol. 84(6): 505-513. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18470749

Somosy Z. et al., 1991. Effects of modulated and continuous microwave irradiation on the morphology and cell surface negative charge of 3T3 fibroblasts. Scanning Microsc. 5(4): 1145-1155. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1822036

Soran M.-L. et al., 2014. Influence of microwave frequency electromagnetic radiation on terpene emission and content in aromatic plants. J Plant Physiol. 171(15): 1436-1443. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4410321/pdf/emss-61504.pdf

Taheri M. et al., 2015. Klebsiella pneumonia, a Microorganism that Approves the Non-linear Responses to Antibiotics and Window Theory after Exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz Electromagnetic Radiofrequency Radiation.J Biomed Phys Eng. 5(3): 115–120. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4576872/

Tök L. et al., 2014. Effects of melatonin on Wi-Fi-induced oxidative stress in lens of rats. Indian Journal of Opthalmology 62(1): 12-15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24492496

Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360060

Yildirim M.E. et al., 2015. What is harmful for male fertility: Cell phone or the wireless internet? Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 31(9): 480-484. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26362961

A few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures (6V/m or below):

(Not comprehensive)

Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769

Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci. 24:111-116. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600821

Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika 44:737–741. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10544828

Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:29–35. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619445

Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 162(2):416-428. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19768389

Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 158:126-139. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089649

Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16:263–267. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

Maier R. et al., 2004. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on cognitive processes – a pilot study on pulsed field interference with cognitive regeneration. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 110: 46-52. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15180806

Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29: 219-232. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044737

Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika 43:1132–1333.

Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II. Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:37–41. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619446

Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816647

Panagopoulos D. J.et al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20397839

Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.

Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 25:216-27. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042631

Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the mammalian blood-brain barrier. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:333-355. http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.

Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:881-883. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486

I'm tired of looking up the references you claim to have. Please provide links, go and actually READ what you cut and paste from the safetechforschools website instead of marching along to the drumbeat of paranoia.

I briefly looked up some of your claims, they all specifically refer to research being called for in the field of mobile phones. I don't think you or the other anti wi-fi nuts grasp that mobile phones are different than wi-fi routers or that the basis of many of the international concerns are about the base stations. Internationally people are much more concerned with the effects of mobile and especially cellular base stations in highly concentrated population areas, for example India. They are specifically concerned about base stations and mobile use in third world countries. To take that and impose it on our first world wi-fi is inane.

Please provide links or just.stop.being.a.shill.

Sorry but ou uninformed and needto become informed.
THE WHO states three is evidence! credible evidence. Get all the links here because i cannot plug them all in. Educate yourself please.
http://safetechforschoolsmaryland.blogspot.com/2015/10/ten-facts-about-what-world-health.html

What Is The World Health Organization(WHO) Position on Wireless and Health?

1. Wireless radiation is classified as a “Possible Human Carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization(WHO).
The WHO/IARC) classified RF-EMF (radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, otherwise known as “wireless radiation”) as a Class 2B Possible Human Carcinogen in 2011 based on credible evidence that linked long term wireless exposure to brain cancer.
Read The Lancet’s published statement by the IARC from 2011 on cancer risk of wireless radiation.
Read the April 2013 Published IARC Monograph on Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields detailing the scientific basis for the classification here.

2. The Class 2B classification includes wireless radiation from any transmitting source such as cellphones, baby monitors, tablets, cell towers, radar, other wifi, etc. It applies to RF-EMF in the range of 30 KHz to 300 GHz emitted from any device. This fact is detailed in The Lancet article and in the related press release in 2011. All wireless electronic devices emit RF-EMF (wireless radiation). It does not matter what type of device is the source. While cell phone use at the head results in highest exposures to the brain, many other devices emit lower levels of exposures that can have a cumulative effect on the whole body.

3. The WHO IARC Monograph states that research shows this radiation is absorbed deeper into children’s bodies than into adults.
The 2013 published Monograph states, “the average exposure from use of the same mobile phone is higher by a factor of 2 in a child’s brain and higher by a factor of 10 in the bone marrow of the skull.” Read these details on page 34 of the World Health Organization’s International Association for Research on Cancer’s published Monograph on Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.

4. The WHO IARC Director Christopher Wild recommended taking measures to reduce exposures until research on long term exposures is completed in light of the risk classification.
The 2011 Press Release by the WHO IARC states, "Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long?term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands?free devices or texting.”

5. In 2010 WHO stated that significantly more research is needed.
The WHO has published a 36-page Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields (Wireless) detailing the critical research that still needs to be done with wireless, calling for research that looks at the connection with neurodegenerative diseases, cognition, and cancer—among other endpoints. Please note the following points made in the research agenda:
The agenda states it a high priority to look at “Prospective cohort studies of children and adolescents with outcomes including behavioural and neurological disorders and cancer”. They recommend a “longitudinal design, thereby allowing the study of several outcomes and changes in technology and the use of mobile phones as well as other sources of RF EMF exposure, such as wireless laptops.”
The agenda prioritizes “Effects of early-life and prenatal RF exposure on development and behaviour “ because “there is still a paucity of information concerning the effects of prenatal and early life exposure to RF EMF on subsequent development and behaviour. Such studies are regarded as important because of the widespread use of mobile phones by children and the increasing exposure to other RF sources such as wireless local area networks (WLANs) and the reported effects of RF EMF on the adult EEG. “
Read the Research Agenda here.

6. WHO IARC scientists continue to publish research and commentary in medical journals detailing that there are no safety assurances with wireless. They state an urgent need for well done directed research.
Dr. Samet, Senior Scientist, Chair of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for the Research on Cancer 2011 RF-EMF Working Group stated, “The IARC 2B classification implies an assurance of safety that cannot be offered—a particular concern, given the prospect that most of the world’s population will have lifelong exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.” in his 2014 Commentary calling for more directed research published in the journal Epidemiology.

7. Many WHO scientists who served as IARC advisors on RF Radiation for the 2011 working group now state that additional scientific evidence indicates that wireless radiation should be re-classified as a “probable human carcinogen.”
“Radiofrequency fields should be classified as a Group 2A ?probable? human carcinogen under the criteria used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Lyon, France).” Read the 2015 published review by a group of scientists that includes World Health Organization EMF Working Group Experts in the International Journal of Oncology entitled Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A) (review) which also advises that the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle be adopted for uses of this technology.
The following experts were part of the WHO IARC’s RF-EMF Review in 2011:
Dr. Chris Portier “A careful review of the scientific literature demonstrates there are potentially dangerous effects from RF,“ stated Portier, a recently retired CDC Director, Center for Environmental Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease in his official call for invoking the precautionary principle with wireless. See also a poster presentation he penned for the conference here.
Dariusz Leszczynski, WHO IARC expert, former Finnish government researcher, lectures widely on the urgent need for the precautionary principle. See slides from a recent lecture in Belgrade, Serbia attended by governmental officials. Read his laypersons article on the need for the Precautionary Principle here.
Dr. Anthony Miller publishes research, lectures, testifies to government officials on the increased evidence of risk from wireless technology, and has four decades of expertise with the WHO IARC. See his testimony to the City of Toronto against cell towers here. Watch his 2014 lecture at Women’s College Hospital here. Read his published research here.
Dr. Igor Belyaev "There are many publications showing health effects of radiofrequency radiations. Approximately half of all published papers show such effects. This apparent discrepancy can be accounted for various conditions of exposure, because non-thermal RF effects are critically dependent on various parameters and also biological variables." Dr. Igor Belyaev is the Head Research Scientist at the Cancer Research Institute at the Slovak Academy of Science in Bratislava, Slovakia. Dr. Belyaev was one of the 30 members of the IARC Working Group tasked with classifying the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation—the Group that produced the 2013 IARC Monograph. Please watch him speak at the National Press Club at this video link.
Dr. Lennart Hardell published research in the International Journal of Oncology entitled Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use concluding, “This study confirmed previous results of an association between mobile and cordless phone use and malignant brain tumours. These findings provide support for the hypothesis that RF-EMFs play a role both in the initiation and promotion stages of carcinogenesis”. Read his scientific blog with a letter to the WHO here.

8. Dr. Hardell is an International Agency for the Research on Cancer expert and now states that wireless “should be regarded as human carcinogen requiring urgent revision of current exposure guidelines.”

Read his 2014 research published in the Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health entitled Decreased Survival of Glioma Patients with Astrocytoma Grade IV (Glioblastoma Multiforme) Associated with Long-Term Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones which determined the use of wireless phones in the >20 years latency group (time since first use) was correlated to decreased survival for those diagnosed with astrocytoma grade IV. The conclusion reads, "Due to the relationship with survival the classification of IARC is strengthened and RF-EMF should be regarded as human carcinogen requiring urgent revision of current exposure guidelines."

9. In 2015 over 200 scientists appealed to the WHO and the United Nations to take immediate action to reduce health risks of wireless radiation and “the emerging public health crisis related to cell phones, wireless devices, wireless utility meters and wireless infrastructure in neighborhoods.”
Read the Medical Doctor and Scientists’ Appeal here.
Read the names of the Doctors and Scientists and their qualifications here.

10. On October 14, 2015, WHO scientists with expertise in wireless radiation wrote a Letter to the U.S. Secretary of Education detailing children’s unique vulnerability to the health risks of wireless technology.
The Doctors and scientists call for educating students on safer ways to use technology and for installing safer hardwired technology in school classrooms.
The letter was penned by top experts in the field including Dr. Anthony B. Miller and Dr. Annie Sasco, who have over 50 years combined expertise with the World Health Organization’s International Agency for the Research on Cancer. Read the Letter HERE.
Read the bios of these scientists in the press release Expert Docs Urge U.S. Secretary of Education: Play It Safe with Kids - Go Wired Not WiFi. Top medical experts advise schools to stop experimenting on our children: WiFi in Schools is Risky Business that has never been evaluated for safety.

http://safetechforschoolsmaryland.blogspot.com/2015/10/ten-facts-about-what-world-health.html