Concerned about wireless schools

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Oct 14, 2008, 12:42:16 PM10/14/08

My concern about wireless technology in schools continues to grow.  That wireless computer labs and ports are being installed in our schools by our Board of Education without the informed consent of the parents/staff that this is being done, especially without informing them about alternatives for safer technology and without informing them about concerns raised by current (2008) international researchers and scientists is unacceptable.  Consider the following:




When Wifi is installed in our homes, schools and businesses, the Radio Frequency Radiation will extend 300 feet from its port … you will be irradiated whether you want to be or not.


The more data that is transmitted wirelessly, the more radiation is required to transmit it.  WiFi, which can send written data and photos, is more toxic than simple cell-phone messages.  WiMAX, which can handle movies, videos, and huge transfers of written material, is therefore many times more toxic than WiFi.




“The Linn-Wilsonville School Board in Portland, Oregon, unplugs its cell towers and cancels leases for WiMAX.” This school board says it is 'erring on the side of caution.'  It adopted a policy in September 2008 prohibiting commercial microwave technology sites and will oppose those proposed for sites adjacent to school boundaries.   


The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety endorses the Precautionary Principal, which states:  

when there are indications of possible adverse effects, though they remain uncertain, the risks from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action to control these exposures. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it.”


The recommendations from the ‘Benevento Resolution’ 2006 which was signed by a multitude of international scientists/researchers on the effects of EMF (from zero to 300 GHz), endorses the use of fibre optic and coaxial cables, the siting of towers to minimize human/public exposure, informing people through the public review process, protecting workers through shielding and promoting wireless-free zones (such as schools):


6.1 Promote alternatives to wireless communication systems, e.g., use of fiber optics and coaxial cables; design cellular phones that meet safer performance specifications, including radiating away from the head; preserve existing land line phone networks; place power lines underground in the vicinity of populated areas, only siting them in residential neighborhoods as a last resort;

6.5 Protect workers from EMF generating equipment, through access restrictions and EMF shielding of both individuals and physical structures.

6.6 Plan communications antenna and tower locations to minimize human exposure. Register mobile phone base stations with local planning agencies and use computer mapping technology to inform the public on possible exposures.  Proposals for city-wide wireless access systems (e.g. Wi-Fi, WIMAX, broadband over cable or power-line or equivalent technologies) should require public review of potential EMF exposure and, if installed, municipalities should ensure this information is available to all and updated on a timely basis.

6.7 Designate wireless-free zones in cities, in public buildings (schools, hospitals, residential areas) and, on public transit, to permit access by persons who are hypersensitive to EMF.


Further, as an outcome of ‘The Venice Resolution, June 6, 2008’, international scientists who are in the forefront of this research were compelled to confirm the existence of non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter, which seem to occur at every level of investigation from molecular to epidemiological.”  Theirs is the “urgent task … to discover the detailed mechanisms of non-thermal interactions between electromagnetic fields and living matter …New general public and occupational protection standards, [which would take into consideration] various physiological conditions [especially of those most vulnerable such as pregnant women], newborns, children, and elderly people” should follow.  These scientists call for “a world wide application of the Precautionary Principle.”


In terms of my health, I would rather be safe than sorry, and I am sure that most people would err on the side of safety, if given the choice … and there is a viable choice.  That our Board of Education continues to make the choice for us as teachers and for our children/students about the safety of the learning/working environment by installing fiscally viable wireless technology without informed consent is not acceptable in light of the recent Venice Resolution (2008) … that we must embrace the Board’s choice as the terms of our employment and if we want our children to have a public education in this District … or suffer bullying and reprisal as a result … this is not acceptable to me as a Canadian.  


Sincerely, J



Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages