Wireless Access Points and Radio Waves

[Admiral208]

Hi all,

 

We have here two trollies full of 32 laptops for our students to use. until recently, they were unusabe because there was no wireless on site. The Governors have decided that we are allowed two access points in one classroom as long as they are situated 1 meter above the height of the ceiling! their argument is that they are worried about any 'waves' or 'radiation' coming from them and making the children grow a 2nd head!!!

 

I have suggested that it would be a good idea to attach an access point to each of the trollies to allow them to be fully mobile.

 

My question is this... is there any information that i can give them or is there a way of measuring something to show that these access points are safe and that we wont be creating the next generation of X-men??

 

Cheers

 

James

[farmerste]

I may have more information for you.

 

firstly to assume that non-ionising radiation ( such as wifi, and mobile phones ) does not damage cells, or dna etc is incorrect. Lots of studies have been done showing just that.

However the amount of damage done depends upon exposure time, and getting into perspective the 'damage done' compared to other things , e.g CRT monitors etc.

 

The thing to ensure that worries are reduced, is to have the ability to switch off the wireless access point when they are not being used. ( although evidence shows that damage is mostly done when data is being transmitted ) This then further limits any exposure to the radiation.

 

I'm afraid there is masses of information telling you that wifi, and mobile phones are safe, and equally as much saying that they are not. I hope you will take the time to read both sides of the argument, and draw your own conclusions.

[contink]

I'm afraid there is masses of information telling you that wifi, and mobile phones are safe, and equally as much saying that they are not. I hope you will take the time to read both sides of the argument, and draw your own conclusions.

 

The bottom line is that there is too much opinion and not enough definitive data one way or the other without someone calling the other a nutjob so the proof that you will be wanting simply won't exist I'm afraid.

 

It will come down to a judgement call as to whether the school feel that any assumed, proposed and so far unproven (long term) risk exists and/or worth it.

 

Putting them on trolleys and in a situation would obviously provide the best of both worlds... putting them in the ceiling though is pointless and counter productive...

[westy]

Hi,

 

We have dealt with a parent query about this. The World health organisation is a great resource. Here is a good place to start :-

 

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health

 

Bottom line I believe, is using a microwave for 2 mins exposes you to more radiation than a network point would for x months or something like that. So there is more chance of them growing 6 toes from warming up your baked beans than accessing the web.

 

We of course compromised and our AP's shut down over night.

 

Thanks,

 

Andrew

[rogerblue]

shut down overnight, how does that help? is it a boarding school!

[westy]

shut down overnight, how does that help? is it a boarding school!

 

Correct. The concern related to a point close a dormitory!

[ccs]

Or purchase Access Point/Router that has variable power output and set it to the lowest setting.

With it being on your portable trolly in the classroom you should not have reception problems.

Good luck, when people are convinced of the "radiation" thing they have a tendency to not think rationally.

[localzuk]

Another good site, with it being the UK's health advice agency, is the HPA - Wi-Fi page.

[farmerste]

i would always apply a cautionary approach, especially with the above mentioned links , as they are both 'business friendly' which i assume means revenue and profit firstly before people.

 

If you like to fashion your own foil hats like me i'd try

 

Home - WiFiinschools.org.uk

Mast Sanity

 

mybe even

 

TETRA: ‘thousands of times below recommended levels’ from the national research-based TETRA Airwave safety campaign

 

here are some scientific papers published on the effects :-

 

Powerwatch - Scientific Papers

 

please read the intros on each page.

 

I hope this will help illustrate that there is indeed a great deal of work being done into the effects of radiation from mobiles, and wi-fi etc, and it is not just being done by 'nutjobs' .

[localzuk]

i would always apply a cautionary approach, especially with the above mentioned links , as they are both 'business friendly' which i assume means revenue and profit firstly before people.

 

Sorry farmerste, but your 'cautionary' approach seems to simply mean 'i think that all the evidence that wifi does no harm is no use'. Every post you make on the subject starts with you saying you are being balanced, followed by a bunch of anti-wifi stuff.

 

The HPA is a government agency, aimed at providing information to everyone - the NHS, education, businesses, and home users. Same with the WHO. Stating they're 'business friendly' as in 'lying' is simply fearmongering.

 

If you have any evidence (read scientific studies proving it is harmful (just noticed you've included one link, which I shall have a look at when i'm not about to fall asleep), and not sites which were set up specifically to call wireless technologies evil and try and get them removed from all public parts of life) please provide them but if not, please stop spouting nonsense!

 

Add in the fact that whatever people say now, wireless devices will not disappear. They will not become less pervasive in society - they are too convenient.

Edited October 15, 2009 by localzuk

[farmerste]

the only 'nonsense' spouted is done by the business funded so-called independent agencies, this nonsense is then repeated by those who simply like, or are hooked on this technology.

It is like questioning someones religious beliefs !, i don't know your own reasoning, but i have come from the viewpoint that 'all this is rubbish' to one where i think it is not, but it has been made to look rediculous though speculation, and fear-mongering to quote yourself. if you can be bothered to sort the nonsense out from the science i think you may change your viewpoint.

bedtime reading perhaps ? :-

 

Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research

 

perhaps i have had my faith in the HPA, and the WHO dashed somewhat over the years, as the HPA did an amazing cover up over the 'mad cow/CJD' links a few years ago, and the WHO is currently spending far too much on anti-smoking, instead of dealing with aids, and malaria in the developing world, because of politics.

The uk government (and others) makes billions from the mobile phone industry, and is currently exercising restraint in scientific research, because of this.

 

if you actually bothered to read my comments, you might see that the way i would deal with any such fears is to ensure that you switch off WAP's if possible when not in use. This idea could be applied to phone masts in the same way, and most could be off during the night, and some could be on and off on a schedule.

 

i hope my faith in the HPA, and WHO will return someday.

[SimpleSi]

Its a no-win scenario as its usually very tricky to prove that something doesn't cause harm in the long term - my dad used to say that breathing in air will eventually do you in and who's to say he wasn't right!

 

Ask the governors if they have any data to show that putting them in the roof would be better for the long term health of the pupils

 

regards

Simon

[localzuk]

Ok, now that I've received neg-rep for this, I thought I'd speak again...

 

There are a grand total of 3 papers regarding wifi on the site you listed farmerste. Of those, 2 of them come to no conclusion (according to that site, but I can't confirm as they both require subscriptions to actually read them), with one coming to the conclusion that nearly all situations result in RF strengths approach the limits (ie. still under those limits, set in Switzerland), with one conclusion stating that at very close range to a device, you could exceed those limits - and the only one that actually does is one where they've had to extrapolate a result for async transmission mode with a DECT base station, not wifi). If you look at the international levels set by the ICNIRP, *all* results were well below.

 

Looking specifically at that rather bizarre summary paper, the results for wifi come in at a max E-Field strength (at 20cm) of 3.9V/m - with ICNIRP limits of 61 and ONIR limit of 6V/m (with the note that the ONIR limit is actually for fixed transmitters with ERP of >6W (and if you might note, 6W is a very strong transmitter!!!)).

 

So, again, I ask you for any scientific evidence that wifi is dangerous.

[SimpleSi]

neg-rep

 

How do you get neg-rep on this forum?

 

regards

 

Simon

[localzuk]

How do you get neg-rep on this forum?

 

regards

 

Simon

 

By clicking the little weighing scales in the bottom left of a post, and choosing the option.

[synaesthesia]

Speaking from a purely logical point of view, these governers/people need to face up to the real world.

They're perfectly happy to let the little darlings glue a microwave to their face to speak to someone 20 feet further down the room, run around in the street sucking on exhaust pipes and be in the same vicinity of overhead mains cables which do unmentionable things to the brain, but 6 feet away from a WiFi point and they're going to die.

 

Enough said. This is an argument that will go on for years with tit-for-tat theories. And that's all they are, without the proof, there's no evidence of either way. If they'd like their children to learn anything, face up to the truth and get the wireless sorted. Otherwise, put the laptops away, waste god knows how many thousands of pounds and let their education suffer.

 

Any older folks around? Remember the theories of what your TV set would do to your brain? Or a bit more recently your microwave oven?

[nicholab]

If you got to do this use Ruckus as I would think there advanced technology would work.

[torledo]

Hi all,

 

We have here two trollies full of 32 laptops for our students to use. until recently, they were unusabe because there was no wireless on site. The Governors have decided that we are allowed two access points in one classroom as long as they are situated 1 meter above the height of the ceiling! their argument is that they are worried about any 'waves' or 'radiation' coming from them and making the children grow a 2nd head!!!

 

I have suggested that it would be a good idea to attach an access point to each of the trollies to allow them to be fully mobile.

 

My question is this... is there any information that i can give them or is there a way of measuring something to show that these access points are safe and that we wont be creating the next generation of X-men??

 

Cheers

 

 

our drop ceiling isn't even 1 metre deep in places so someone would have to go back to the drawing board if they asked me to do that. in your case did they enquire whether putting the AP's a metre above the ceiling height was feasible or practical ?

 

Or did 1 metre just sound like a safe distance, and they are stuck to this arbitrary distance until someone with half an argument says otherwise. couldn't you put the onus on them to provide the justification for this one metre above the ceiling requirement ?

[INeedAUsername]

Our LEA are in the process of creating a wireless cloud - installing masts and the like in schools, high tower blocks, and any other council owned building to enable students and their famalies to connect their laptops to the citys secure and filtered network.

 

This is part of the laptops for children scheme i may add.

 

I am sure feasibility studies have been carried out for this to be deemed 'safe', If this works for the city, then it may show a more open minded approach by other LEA's around the UK

 

The other side to the argument here may be that some people will think that wifi signals and the like will interfere with their minds/brain cells etc. (a teacher here thinks so - she hasnt realised that we have 28 AP's around the school one outside her room ) but if you are in a large city wireless cloud, you may not have a choice.

 

STariq

[matt40k]

I find it funny that they worry, do they ban mobile phones?

[topazg]

Ok, now that I've received neg-rep for this, I thought I'd speak again...

 

There are a grand total of 3 papers regarding wifi on the site you listed farmerste. Of those, 2 of them come to no conclusion (according to that site, but I can't confirm as they both require subscriptions to actually read them), with one coming to the conclusion that nearly all situations result in RF strengths approach the limits (ie. still under those limits, set in Switzerland), with one conclusion stating that at very close range to a device, you could exceed those limits - and the only one that actually does is one where they've had to extrapolate a result for async transmission mode with a DECT base station, not wifi). If you look at the international levels set by the ICNIRP, *all* results were well below.

 

Looking specifically at that rather bizarre summary paper, the results for wifi come in at a max E-Field strength (at 20cm) of 3.9V/m - with ICNIRP limits of 61 and ONIR limit of 6V/m (with the note that the ONIR limit is actually for fixed transmitters with ERP of >6W (and if you might note, 6W is a very strong transmitter!!!)).

 

So, again, I ask you for any scientific evidence that wifi is dangerous.

 

Hiya, being the author of the Powerwatch studies page, it makes sense to make some comment here

 

In reality, it is very unlikely that you will be exposed to electric field strengths from WiFi even approaching ICNIRP levels. In our experience, somewhere between 1 and 1.5 V/m is typical, and this is supported from dosimetry work by both the HPA and IT'IS.

 

The concern is that this exposure is associated with a fairly broad range of health effects from the very limited research into mobile phone base stations (If you want chapter and verse on some of these, let me know): It's very similar in frequency, and both signals are amplitude modulated as most modern digital communication signals are. These levels are far below ICNIRP guidance levels, but those are only designed at RF frequencies to protect against tissue heating and burns - there is a huge amount of published literature that is suggestive that this is only a very small part of the picture of RF-induced biological effects. Compliance with ICNIRP is rather falsely seen as a "safety standard", when even they themselves (ok, Paolo Vecchia, chairman of ICNIRP's words anyway) state that this is a misuse of their guidelines.

 

This is by no means "proof" of harm (I dislike the idea that science will ever conclusively "prove" something negatively - because that's not technically possible anyway - or positively - because proof implies 100% certainty which isn't feasible either), but it's evidence that suggests harm is at least a possibility, and limiting exposure (for example, carrying access points on the trolley with the laptops instead of having them permanently installed in rooms) seems just common sense to me.

 

I for one would dearly love to see some proper epidemiology on WiFi, but it may not even be possible now. How can you honestly carry out a case / control study when there are no controls due to mobile phones, DECT phones, mobile phone base stations etc exposing pretty much the entire country on a daily basis?

[localzuk]

Hiya, being the author of the Powerwatch studies page, it makes sense to make some comment here

 

In reality, it is very unlikely that you will be exposed to electric field strengths from WiFi even approaching ICNIRP levels. In our experience, somewhere between 1 and 1.5 V/m is typical, and this is supported from dosimetry work by both the HPA and IT'IS.

 

The concern is that this exposure is associated with a fairly broad range of health effects from the very limited research into mobile phone base stations (If you want chapter and verse on some of these, let me know): It's very similar in frequency, and both signals are amplitude modulated as most modern digital communication signals are. These levels are far below ICNIRP guidance levels, but those are only designed at RF frequencies to protect against tissue heating and burns - there is a huge amount of published literature that is suggestive that this is only a very small part of the picture of RF-induced biological effects. Compliance with ICNIRP is rather falsely seen as a "safety standard", when even they themselves (ok, Paolo Vecchia, chairman of ICNIRP's words anyway) state that this is a misuse of their guidelines.

 

This is by no means "proof" of harm (I dislike the idea that science will ever conclusively "prove" something negatively - because that's not technically possible anyway - or positively - because proof implies 100% certainty which isn't feasible either), but it's evidence that suggests harm is at least a possibility, and limiting exposure (for example, carrying access points on the trolley with the laptops instead of having them permanently installed in rooms) seems just common sense to me.

 

I for one would dearly love to see some proper epidemiology on WiFi, but it may not even be possible now. How can you honestly carry out a case / control study when there are no controls due to mobile phones, DECT phones, mobile phone base stations etc exposing pretty much the entire country on a daily basis?

 

I can see your point on the whole safety standards thing - they are being abused slightly. However, I would say that the evidence as presented, from the studies undertaken, has been inconclusive, random and in some cases downright stupid. As you rightly say, we can't prove a negative.

 

The idea that we can 'limit' exposure is also not really possible either. Having access points on laptop trolleys is all well and good, until you require site-wide availability for on the move education (eg. things like teachers wandering around the school doing things). DECT is in the same situation - you can't carry a base station around with you.

 

The end result is simple - we have a lack of conclusive evidence showing that this form of wireless technology is 'bad', we also have a lack of evidence showing it is 'not bad'. The only thing we can do is use it within the current international and national guidelines and get on with our lives without fearing that we're all being cooked...

[topazg]

I can see your point on the whole safety standards thing - they are being abused slightly. However, I would say that the evidence as presented, from the studies undertaken, has been inconclusive, random and in some cases downright stupid. As you rightly say, we can't prove a negative.

 

The idea that we can 'limit' exposure is also not really possible either. Having access points on laptop trolleys is all well and good, until you require site-wide availability for on the move education (eg. things like teachers wandering around the school doing things). DECT is in the same situation - you can't carry a base station around with you.

 

Not sure about "random" but yeah, certainly the evidence is inconclusive. For me, the failing is that the evidence that has been collected so far is not widely disseminated. The HPA and the WHO both give the implied impression that "a fair amount of research has been done, and it's not really found anything". This is frustrating to me because it feels like a rather misleading impression of the evidence. On WiFi, the honest answer is "the research hasn't been done, at all" regarding WiFi exposure on health. On similar chronic exposures, such as mobile phone base stations, considerably over 50% of the epidemiology is showing statistically significant signs of adverse health effects. The research on base stations is still very limited and there is no denying that any possible mechanism of action is almost entirely not understood (though there are some speculative papers on this regard), but it does exist and it is consistent even when limited to just the published peer-reviewed literature. I see no reason why this can not be adequately spelled out, with the caveat that this does not necessarily mean that there will also be similar findings with WiFi.

 

The end result is simple - we have a lack of conclusive evidence showing that this form of wireless technology is 'bad', we also have a lack of evidence showing it is 'not bad'. The only thing we can do is use it within the current international and national guidelines and get on with our lives without fearing that we're all being cooked...

 

Ah, but a lack of conclusivity doesn't mean that action is unwarranted. There is no conclusive evidence that driving without a seatbelt is going to save me from harm in a car crash. I have been driving happily for the last 10 years with no accidents, so I cannot see how wearing seatbelts for those 10 years would have helped me. Despite this, and ignoring the fact it is against the law, I still choose to wear one "just in case" of a bad accident in the future. In the case of WiFi, there are the beginnings of evidence that, while not being conclusive, is definitely suggestive of a sensible reason for concern. If there are alternatives or ways of minimising and potential risk that there may be, it is hard to argue against that being sensible to do. Arguing purely that "within current international guidelines is the best we can do and hope" feels ever so slightly like a head in the sand approach, it's not like it's hard to choose to read up on the science directly and make a decision from a basis of being more informed

 

I also feel that WHO statements such as "While RF energy can interact with body tissues at levels too low to cause any significant heating, no study has shown adverse health effects at exposure levels below international guideline limits." give me very little faith in their statements. "No study has shown adverse health effects" is simply a fallacy - it's obviously just not true. It may be perfectly reasonable to look at the literature and find it unconvincing, but it's another thing entirely to claim it doesn't exist. Their own EMF Project database shows about 70% of all their base station epidemiology showing adverse health effects. I believe strongly in the freedom to choose the most appropriate action as an individual or (in the cases of schools) as an institutional policy, but I think these decisions should be made from a position of being as informed as possible. If people rely purely on the HPA, FDA/FCC, WHO etc they are not been adequately informed of up-to-date scientific data on RF EMF and health issues. I find this very depressing, as their roles are supposed to cover these issues in detail.

Edited November 9, 2009 by topazg

[matt40k]

Really wish people did actually worry about WiFi damaging there health. Means my Wifi at home won't keep overlapping.

 

You take a laptop out around town\city and see how many wifi points you pick up. You'll be suprised. Every "expert" agrees mobile phones are worse, yet, we have mobile towers on top of hospitals, we all have a mobile, we all have wifi at home..

 

At the end of the day, no expert wants to be proved wrong 20 years down the line so they say, wifi is ok, but... we're not 100% sure.

 

bah... rant over.

[mattx]

It's all witchcraft I tell you Witchcraft...............