Who says woo is harmless? How’s a school district blowing $172,000 over Wi-Fi “hazards”?

Oftentimes when those of us with a skeptical bent question ridiculous woo like homeopathy, we’re told, “Hey, it’s harmless! Leave it alone, why do you have to ruin these beliefs?”

Were people not putting their trust in things that won’t heal them–or, more importantly, heal their children, who have no say, or even their animals, who can’t talk–maybe we’d not get so riled.

Then again, maybe we would.

Is it ridiculous to believe, in the complete absence of scientific evidence of harm, that a Wi-Fi signal will cause gastrointestinal upset, infertility, and cancer? Sure is! But is it harmless?

Most folks can just say, “I won’t have Wi-Fi in my house,” and that’s that. But one parent decided to sue Portland Public Schools for having Wi-Fi in the public school. So far, his frivolous lawsuit has cost the taxpayers $172,000.

One year ago, the parent of a Portland Public Schools student sued the district with claims a new Wi-Fi network in his daughter’s middle school was poisoning her and potentially harming other students.

As WW reported, there’s no scientific evidence for such claims (see “Wi-Fi Woo-Woo,” WW, July 13, 2011). The parent, David Mark Morrison, who works as a rare-book dealer, is part of a pseudo-scientific movement that claims Wi-Fi and related technologies cause everything from brain cancer to infertility to digestive complaints.

Most studies that adherents cite as evidence haven’t been published or peer-reviewed in reputable scientific journals. Some anti-wireless websites sell literature and protective charms, including amulets and crystals.

Morrison’s case might have been easy to label as frivolous and, it seems, might have been headed for an early dismissal.

Not so. Portland Public Schools officials tell WW they have already spent $172,559 in public money to defend the district against Morrison’s claim that PPS’s Wi-Fi network has harmed his daughter.

The bulk of that cost has gone to investigating and deposing expert witnesses . . . including Morrison’s star (t)witness, one Barrie Trower. Who’s he?

Trower claims he worked on a “stealth” microwave warfare program for the British Navy (noting he had no rank because he refused promotions) and was assigned to a secret British prison housing “spies, dissidents, international terrorists [and] gangland killers.”

Trower claims a bachelor’s degree in physics earned in night classes, has been repeatedly turned down by Ph.D. programs, and says he recently traveled to consult with “the king in South Africa” on Wi-Fi dangers. (South Africa abolished the monarchy in 1961.)

Oh. A loon. Surprise, surprise.

We all know the arguments in favor of helping “the little guy” bring a lawsuit when there is a health hazard or other problem being covered up. Remember Erin Brockovich?

But it’s high time we found some middle ground. Teachers are being laid off and class sizes shrinking, and school districts are defending themselves against “experts” who have delusions about visiting non-existent kings?

I suppose “experts” who visit imaginary kings aren’t that much different from “experts” who have lengthy conversations with their imaginary friends and, instead of keeping it a secret or seeking counseling, instead advertise it as a qualification.

Note: If you’d like to make a donation to Portland Public Schools, visit this link. From there, you can either donate items (computers, school supplies, furniture, clothing, whatever), or cash (via DonorsChoose.org, SchoolhouseSupplies.org, or Greenbucks).

114 Responses to Who says woo is harmless? How’s a school district blowing $172,000 over Wi-Fi “hazards”?

  1. “Remember Erin Brockovich?” Sadly we do.. and her lawsuit & “evidence” has also been found out to be a sham. Who suffered? PG&E shareholders & customers. She’s a fraudster & loon as well.

    • You are talking out of your ass. The evidence was solid and was never found to be a sham.

    • The funny thing, Amanda, is that I just checked the internet and the only one claiming her evidence is a “sham” are the company executives and their apologists. Nothing independent or verified to be found.

      • “The funny thing, Amanda, is that I just checked the internet…” Well, end of that then!

        • If you want to back Amanda’s claim Edward then you should have no problem in finding an independent source that does so. Or perhaps Amanda can do her own legwork and provide that independent source that backs her claim. Because all I found were industry shills..and yeah…obviously biased.

      • avatar Robert Mastragostino

        What about the wikipedia page and associated links? According to Brockovich, everything anyone does is clearly giving everyone cancer, whether or not those pesky scientists find any kind of link. Most of the time there wasn’t even a higher than normal rate in the first place. She’s a prime example of this kind of thing. Should the company have been polluting? No, clearly not, so we should thank her for that. But many of her claims haven’t really stood to scrutiny at all, and she regularly supports complete bogus on the vague idea that some big bad company is responsible for every bad thing that happens to anyone. http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/11/Hillsborough/The_Erin_Brockovich_e.shtml the article is a bit slanted, but the facts are all there.

    • The Council of Europe recommends: “for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections” Resolution 1815, May 27th 2011 http://assembly.coe.int/mainf.asp?link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta11/eres1815.htm

  2. Barry Trower was indeed in South Africa where he consulted with various people – I’m not sure though if they were from Botswana, (which is a different country, but still in Southern Africa). Nevertheless the distinction between chiefs, kings, or ‘Kgosis’ as they are called is rather irrelevant – there are still traditional chiefs/kings, in South Africa and Botswana, and a ‘House of Chiefs’ in Botswana as far as I know. So it seems this writer is just as, if not more ignorant, about Africa as most people here…

      • . . . which has about 40,000 – 50,000 members. If that.

        • Can you tell me how many people are in the member states of the Council of Europe? The Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (Resolution 1815 of 2011) advised its member states to: “…8.3.2. for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections…”?

        • And how many people do you suppose there are in Russia? RUSSIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON NON-IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTION – June 19, 2012 Moscow, Russia Recommendations: “RussCNIRP consider necessary… To recommend the usage of wired networks in schools and educational institutions, rather than a network using wireless broadband systems, including Wi-Fi.” http://international-emf-alliance.org/images/pdf/RussCNIRP%20WiFi%2019-06-12.pdf

      • None of your comments have been blocked or deleted, with the exception of repeats of the same identical comment (the one to which I’m replying came up twice), and no links in comments on this site are clickable to reduce spam.

  3. People aren’t happy about this bs… http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/vhx48/portland_schools_have_had_to_spend_172000/ http://wi-fi-fraud.blogspot.com/2012/06/fight-wi-fi-woo.html

  4. Well, we don’t need evidence for this guy. Our entire planet’s atmosphere is absolutely humming with radio frequencies. Every spoken word, every noise, and every RF broadcast follow the exact same principle. Which is, vibrate the air. Will waves, at any frequency, in water destroy your hand if you stick it in there? If sending and receiving vibrations through the air was something to worry about, we would have never been alive in the first place. It is, after all, our secondary form of communication. We are NOT sensitive to any particular frequency of vibration, only amplitude (intensity or volume) of the frequencies. The amplitude of commercial wifi ‘hotspots’ is negligible. The Swedish Space Agency transferred data over 260 miles with a 6Watt transmitter. As opposed to the (smallish) 10,000Watt FM radio station tower that’s only a few miles from my house. Not to mention the other 100,000Watt FM RF towers located in that same city. The only worries are a high enough frequency with a high enough amplitude can ‘cook’ you (microwaves, thermal damage), a low enough frequency with enough amplitude to shake you apart or crush you (sub-bass and lower, physical compression damage), OR the rest will just shatter your sensitive ear drums (still compression damage). It’s still all about AMPLITUDE. It doesn’t matter what pitch, only what volume. We don’t need a study to prove this dude’s brain has not been wired right. We only need some common sense. I think he should have to personally recuperate every bit of that money spent. Oh, also the Erin thing: http://fumento.com/brockovich/erinwsj.html That took about 6 seconds to find. It’s written by a columnist who is published in big name publications such as Forbes, LA Times, and The Philadelphia Inquirer. This one was published in the Wall Street Journal. Chromium 6 is not actually that dangerous with the way we use it. Which was what the hubbub was all about; chromium 6 toxicity. People get cancer all the time. At the time this was happening, the cancer/death rates for the area were actually LOWER than expected. It CAN cause cancer, but honestly only if it’s inhaled over a long period of time, or absorbed/ingested in relatively massive amounts. There isn’t even a Maximum Contamination Limit (MCL) for it, only for chromium as a whole. I will call ‘big waste of money’ sham on Erin in this rare double-whammy comment in a comment. Read more about Hexavalent chromium toxicity at the WiKi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexavalent_chromium Just my thoughts, -Dan

    • Dan writes: The only worries are a high enough frequency with a high enough amplitude can ‘cook’ you (microwaves, thermal damage), Didn’t the Mythbusters try that once? I seem to recall them trying to cook a turkey using a navy ship’s radar dome and it failed spectacularly. Actually I seem to recall the turkey got colder…

    • Kessler: I don’t fail to do anything except play your game of hurling insults- apparently I don’t have the intelligence to win… You have NO discourse, you show your lack of good faith to everyone reading this blog with your repetitious and blathering insults. But, by your estimation I am ‘dimwitted and mealy-mouthed’; oh, and stupid with ‘crap-like’ utterances. So why would anything I ‘prove’ to you have value? There is an oxymoron in there somewhere. Because there can be no logic in asking an inferior mind, then, to inform your superior intellect. How can that work? My inferior and dim wit can’t possibly reveal anything of interest to your superior position, can it? So why would you ask me, the dim-witted mealy mouth, to impart knowledge to a superior mind? I don’t want to taint your superior-ness with my ignorance so knock yourself out, and Google this simple phrase: Wifi dangers… See below the paste of what Google gave me in about 1/10th of a second to find…. almost 2 million hits….. Obviously, your vastly superior intellect will be able to winnow the chaff from the gold and seize the knowledge you seek from the dimwits out here. Give it up, Kessler, anyone reading this blog will see your strategy… entice people to give you fodder so you can fling insults and claim false conclusions, keep the thread alive… is that the point here? Get enough hits over a fake-hot debate so someone will start advertising on the blog? The google-analytics people will send out an alert to US Marketing giants that Kessler and Daniels or whoever are stirring up a giant pot that everyone is hitting and reading…. and bam!… you get 10,000 hits in a month and some gaming company buys advertising on your site. You getting a cut, Kessler? Or are you just lonely and lost in front of a computer screen, hoping someone will validate your screed by posting information a child could find in .012 seconds on Google? Well, now you’re boring me. Here’s the search for anyone out there that thinks Kessler has anything…. at all… Google Search: Wifi dangers About 1,930,000 results (0.12 seconds) 1. Wi-Fi Health Dangers & Radiation Health Effects http://www.safespaceprotection.com/electrostress-from-wireless-routers.aspx Wireless Internet routers or Wi-Fi modems use dangerous electromagnetic radiation to … We’ll discuss the technologies and the wifi health risks below, and the … 2. Wi-Fi Dangers – Wi-Fi Health Effects on the Human Body – EarthCalm http://www.earthcalm.com/…dangers…/wi-fi-dangers-effects-on-human-bo... by HD it Work Mar 11, 2012 – WiFi health effects on the human body are commonly dismissed because we love the convenience. WiFi dangers? Who wants think about that? 3. WiFi Health Risks | Dangers of WiFi – EarthCalm http://www.earthcalm.com/emf-dangers/the-dangers-of-wi-fi/ The dangers of wifi are big concerns in an age of technology. Many studies claim wifi health risks. But you can safely enjoy wifi, health and convenience. 4. Dangers of Free Public Wifi – CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-501083_162-6657962.html Jul 8, 2010 – The Early Show: Dangers of Free Public Wifi – Consumer Correspondent Susan Koeppen Investigates How Hackers Can Steal Your Info with … 5. The Dangers of Wi-Fi (WiFi, Wifi, WLAN, Electromagnetic Radiation … ► 15:01► 15:01 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiO7ofDGoD8Feb 21, 2012 – 15 min – Uploaded by HealthRanger7 Wi-Fi connects electronic devices to wireless computer networks (wireless LAN) using electromagnetic … 6. WiFi in schools proven dangerous. – YouTube ► 14:32► 14:32 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7VetsCR2IOct 17, 2010 – 15 min – Uploaded by safeschool WiFi causes heart problems, headaches and other neurological disorders in children. Canadian Documentary … 7. More videos for wifi dangers » 8. WiFi radiation? Is it dangerous for health? http://www.physicsforums.com › … › Computing & Technology 13 posts – 9 authors – Jul 17, 2007 It’s not the energy of the photons so much as the number of them! Your microwave is at a similair wavelength ( and photon energy ) to a 2.4GHz … 9. Is Wi-Fi Safe for Children?: LATEST WARNING: Wi-Fi Dangerous to … http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/…/latest-in-scientific-world-on-health.ht... Feb 4, 2011 – LATEST WARNING: Wi-Fi Dangerous to Children and Pregnant Women – Must Read! From the Karolinska Institute (Nobel Prize Institute) … 10. Hidden dangers of free public WiFi | ZDNet http://www.zdnet.com/news/hidden-dangers-of-free-public-wifi/149778 Oct 4, 2006 – Summary: Commentary–On the surface there appears to be nothing wrong with free WiFi but Authentium’s Corey O’Donnell warns of perils … 11. Wi-Fi Danger in School: Real or Imagined? childparenting.about.com/…/wi-fi-danger-in-school-real-or-imagined… Sep 5, 2010 – Does your school have wireless internet access? If so, have you or other parents you know ever worried about the health effects of Wi-Fi on … Searches related to wifi dangers wireless dangers wireless router dangers wifi health dangers wifi dangers 2011 free wifi dangers of using wifi dangers at home wifi dangers to children wifi dangers 2012 1 2

      • Mr. Callahan, I hate to be the one to burst your self-righteous bubble, but Mr. Kessler does not write for or have any stake in this site, which currently brings in far more than 10,000 hits a month and does not have a domain name that a “gaming company” would value. But the fact that you think in such terms, believing that anyone who disagrees with you must have an ulterior motive, speaks volumes to your state of mind and your critical thinking skills. You may also be interested to learn that your discussion with Kessler isn’t driving traffic. It’s pretty much just the two of you. Why, did you think thousands were going to see your posting of a bunch of sites copied from Google? Did you not notice that those sites mostly want to sell you crap to “fix” the problem they say exists? Oh, except the CBS News article, which you clearly didn’t read . . . it’s about identity theft, not brain tumors. Here’s a site for you: pubmed.gov. Medical journal search engine. Go there, find something of value.

        • Finally! Someone not afraid of discourse! It took the business owner to break the ice! Mike, I congratulate your successful business model and your obvious dedication and skill that has brought you the terms of success you describe. Notice I don’t just call you a liar, like my friend Kessler. I confess to have deployed manipulative antagonistic methods. It has always been clear to me that your site was interesting to its own community, layered and deep with good practices. I apologize for any slight or disrespect to your business model that might have been conveyed by my opinions to Kessler. But since I have several friends in this, your business, I know that such things that I mentioned have often occurred. Clearly not here, not on your site. But Kessler’s dialogue is very familiar, as if he is part of some sort of ‘meme’ strategy to infect dialogue sites like yours, a ‘meme’ that is, in my opinion, counterproductive to a growth oriented business strategy. I know as a moderator it is not your part to enter into a discussion and you are not likely to reply. But we weren’t having a discussion, Kessler and I, just a mud-fest where the ‘win’ for Kessler is a dangerously ignorant promulgation of propaganda and false premises. I really don’t involve myself, much, about other people’s beliefs- except when the promulgation of falsehoods slings boatloads of mud that come directly back at me, in my world. That is when I will fight. A person can sling whatever they want, but impunity and no consequences will not always protect those beliefs. If a person wants the womb of protection that no enlightenment offers, then those persons should not throw rocks at fighters. I don’t ask anything more or less than civil discourse and rational evaluation. I won’t even say that everyone on my side of the discourse has every single thing right. But the science is- AT BEST- inconclusive. At worst, it is fully conclusive of the dangers- of some sort- of bathing in cell signals and wifi all day long. Especially for children. So what in the world is the problem with caution and prudence when some kids- maybe not all of them- are suffering from a problem that can easily be fixed? Why is that so scary and dangerous to people like Kessler? Why, as a moderator, do you stand by- or rather, when, as a moderator, do you ask your people to engage in discourse, not mud-slinging? But maybe your site is more for entertainment, and doesn’t need to meet mine, or anyone else’s, standards. Yet, when your site affects other people’s lives in a fundamentally negative manner, it is not entertainment any longer. It is a direct and frontal attack. I hope you’ll understand my position. Now. Here is what I do as a research strategist: I looked on PubMed, as you suggested, and am very familiar with how the site works inside the governance of US policy. I Googled something like WiFi dangers and, yes, found this (below) weak report that should allay anyone’s fears. But I know more about this site than you do. I know that Pub Med administrators can only report very selected items that cannot interfere with Federal Law, which Federal Law (The 1996 Telecommunications Act) DECLARES by fiat- and against a huge body of evidence to the contrary- that Wi-Fi and Cell signals are safe. But what is Pub Med to do? Submit themselves to a lawsuit from the FCC for publishing information that is considered contrary to published law? That is against the law! And it would be discriminatory- and an attack upon- the Trillion dollar industry whose own self-interest is in driving people like Kessler to hold onto his vitriol, and his love of magical and delicious machines. This is the fight I engage in- that Free Speech about the health effects of cell and wi-fi signals is muzzled by our own government, written into a law that was written by, may I say ‘Godless’ (sorry, hyperbole) entities chasing profit at the cost of health and lives? Even still, the Pub Med site study acknowledges that my topic considered ‘high priority’, not as Kessler implies, a bunch of bunk. Yet those same researchers- worthy of Pub Med publication- are engaged in an on-going inquiry. They found out more than is published on the narrow US site. Google, I suggest, the names on Pub-Med and ask yourself why only one of these guys’ articles were published in the US, and not the others. In fact, couple that question with the fact the 1996 Telecommunications Act words have, indeed, made it illegal for any government, State or city agency to speak about cell and Wi-fi signals in any other terms than ‘safe’- as the law decrees by fiat, not science. If you like, I will indeed, provide more cites and proof than just this. I have hundreds, and have been parsing them like philosophical treatises, yes, for three years, for truth, equivocation, violation and support of law, public policy and more. I will, if you ask- or even Kessler, now, provide the cites. For now, just read the below and see contradiction, where that one article indeed says, yes, we found nothing here. But those same researches’ next study said, no wait- we’ve found something a little creepy, here, and we will conduct further research. And, by the way, for the sake of courtesy, it’s Ms. Callahan, not Mr. Here’s the two articles, one on Pub Med, the same researchers on the Web: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22311618 Abstract BACKGROUND: The increase in exposure to the Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) wireless communication signal has raised public health concerns especially for young people. Animal studies looking at the effects of early life and prenatal exposure to this source of electromagnetic fields, in the radiofrequency (RF) range, on development and behavior have been considered as high priority research needs by the World Health Organization. RESULTS: For all test conditions, no abnormalities were noted in the pregnant rats and no significant signs of toxicity were observed in the pre- and postnatal development of the pups, even at the highest level of 4 W/kg… Rat fertility: Influence of exposure to Wi-Fi signals. http://proceedings.ebea2011.org/modules/requestf11d.pdf?module=oc_program&action=view.php&id=5179 Florence Poulletier De Gannes, Bernard Billaudel, Murielle Taxile, Laureline Le Montagner, Annabelle Hurtier, Saliha Ait Aissa, Hiroshi Masuda, Emmanuelle Haro, Yann Percherancier, Gilles Ruffie, P. Dufour, Bernard Veyret, , and Isabelle Lagroye. University Bordeaux, IMS laboratory, Bioelectronics group, ENSCBP, IPB, Pessac, France, Introduction In recent decades, concern has been growing about decreasing fecundity and fertility in the human population [1]. Several studies indicate that semen quality may have decreased, associated with reduced fertility [2], but few potential factors have been identified. Exposures to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields, especially RF fields used in mobile communications, have been suggested as a potential factor. The critical issue seems to be the RF impact on the reproductive process [3]. Numerous studies dealing with this subject have yielded seemingly contradictory results (see Review [4])… Results: No differential effect among groups (coded A to D) could be detected on body weight and food consumption. (Callahan note: this means body weight was not affected) However, macroscopic and histological analyses of sexual organs revealed some differences. A slightly higher implantation number was found in Group D, but early resorptions were similar among groups. Histological analysis of males epididymides and prostates showed slight to moderate inflammation or oedema in all groups, except for Group A. In females, slight congestion of ovaries was occasionally observed in all groups, except for Group B. F…

          • Mr. Callahan, in the future, I strongly recommend you review the studies you pick out before quoting them to support your case. The second study does not contradict the first. First, they are measuring different things; the first, effect of Wi-Fi signal on development of rat fetuses and rat pups, to determine whether cancer or other abnormalities are caused. The second, the effect of Wi-Fi signals on the fertility of adult rats, to determine whether fertility is damaged or altered. Do you understand that these are not the same thing? The second study states it is not complete, but offers this preliminary conclusion:

            Preliminary results suggest that, when detected, differences could not be attributed to one exposure condition. After completion of the experiments and statistical analysis, these data will give complementary insight on the effects of Wi-Fi exposure on rat fertility at WB SAR levels up to the ICNIRP guideline values.

            I suggest you work on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, and stop making a fool of yourself. Good day.

          • Mr. Daniels- This is MS. Callahan replying to you that yes, you are right- the rat study conclusions are not the same thing.Yes, the studies do not contradict each other and I am so glad you read them. In fact, one study, the first- identifies that fetal ‘weight’ is not a problem with exposure. That is a good thing. But the other study probes a new area that has arisen for the investigators, one that causes concern about inflammation of reproductive organs. This is a real problem in fertility, and the avoidance of spontaneous abortion due to toxic exposure to man made elements;like a true Aristotelian discourse- a true Thomas Aquinian dialogue- the answer to one question reveals an interesting query to the other. This answer here, is that something is very wrong. And we ought to look at it. No? But if you do not recognize that the point of the discussion is to find the ‘key’ to the problem, then you will not enjoy reading the rest of the studies I submitted to Kessler. Luckily for us, out here in wasting $172,000-ville- and our open minded inquiry to the possible dangers of wifi to kids in school- the Federal Judge assigned to the case is not so easily exhausted. He found plausible evidence of a valid line of inquiry. That’s why Mr. Morrison’s so called ‘Woo Woo’ case was not summarily dismissed. Had Portland Public Schools been similarly curious- especially in light of their high duty, under Constitutional Law to the care and nuture ‘in loco parentis’ of our children while in school- well, Portland Public Schools would not have had to spend $172,000 trying to rebut a sound argument with amateurish volleys that a first year law school student could unravel. That’s the line of your interest, isn’t it? That you’ve found some tax payer’s ‘waste’. If that’s true,well you have: Portland Public Schools is wasting their money protecting a terrible error done by a bunch of MBAs in thier IT department and their Legal Department who hope to protect their jobs, in my opinion, by pretending they made no error. Instead of protecting our children. Good day, to you, too!

          • Mike: one more add-on… I suppose this phrase means nothing to you: “Exposures to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields, especially RF fields used in mobile communications, have been suggested as a potential factor. The critical issue seems to be the RF impact on the reproductive process [3]” This excites an awful lot of interest in biology circles. And a research paper that can’t answer the question it sought to answer is considered even of higher concern. This ‘non’ seeming conclusion has been hugely concerning in the research world. Read about fifty more of these- on this side of the political divide- and you may see a disturbing trend. So I ask again- are you asking the right questions? If I’m right and you are wrong, how are we to undo 30 years of damage, after all the research is in? Whose kid will you experiment on, whose Grandchildren should be the ones who end that particular family’s healthy line of offspring? I can’t choose- can you? This is the question that was asked of Portland Public Schools. The MBA and Legal departments pretended not to hear it. But if you are right- not me- then no harm no foul, right? This, here, is a fully righteous moral dilemma. I will choose the high ground and be fine that I made a lot of people mad.

      • None of those sources, Callahan, is a peer reviewed credible medical journal nor a peer reviewed credible scientific journal. Hence they are not credible sources. You can quote whatever you want from the web and 99% of it will be biased claptrap of one variety or another. Sorry, if 50 million people believe a foolish thing..it’s still a foolish thing. Meaning something doesn’t gain credibility just because “lots of people believe it.” Lots of people used to believe that the earth was flat? Does that make the earth flat? I asked you for a scientific/medical and peer reviewed source. You consistently fail to provide one. The only conclusion in that circumstance, Callahan, is that you don’t have one. Unless you can provide one now then do us both a favor and shut up because frankly your faux self-righteous blather is starting to bore me. As for the insults..yeah you started that one first. Oh and as Mr. Daniels also said, I have no stake here. I am neither a writer here nor do I own this website or the organization behind it. There is no cahoots that I’m involved in. However, that you resort to conspiracy thinking when you’re faced with someone who doesn’t swallow what you blather hook line and sinker says quite a lot about you and the value, or rather the lack of it, of your position. Provide a credible medical/scientific journal source that backs your position or have the honesty to admit that you can’t. But your bluster and your attempt at bullying does not work on me, Callahan.

        • Kessler: You’re not even reading anything. The first one was from Mike Daniels’ site where he asked I learn something, Pub Med. The first one is, in fact, peer reviewed, by Pub Med. Merely ‘asserting’ a thing is not peer reviewed does not make it ‘not peer reviewed’, when in fact, the publication is authenticated to be peer reviewed. 50 million people don’t have to believe a thing, not even peer reviewed things, as you are showing us. And I never started the name calling, nor participated; I just openly mocked you. Not the same as name calling, though I’ll admit that it is ungenerous of me. Here’s a few more for you to chew on: I have many more, in many way-real time studies, rat studies (the gold standard for pharm and medical research), inadvertent human studies, any way you want them. Notice that the first few ‘google’ searches show up these references as published on Mike’s gold standard the Pub Med site. You just have to know where to look for them. Pub Med does’t offer these up in an easy search on the main site, but the Feds have them, all the same. Kessler, why so angry? Is it so hard to believe I’d question your motives when you’re so mired in your ‘meme’ that you present as a hater? All you’ve done is repeat stuff other people have posted- with no personal verification; hence the mockery over ‘spoon-feeding’. And up until Daniels weighed in with some real discourse you just slugged away with clever quips and assaults. Still are. And maybe you’re right, that I don’t ‘get’ that the real world- your tech/blog world works this way…that you never even ‘hit’ the wifi parent’s site to check out his stuff… you all just repeated stuff someone ‘fed’ you, and waited at the blog/trough for something else to chew on. Don’t any of you have independent gumption to get on a search engine? I never called you a dim wit, or mealy mouthed. I’ll cop to mocking your one dimensional critical thinking, yes. But you’re the one unwilling to produce any intellectual effort, the one who is embedded in a ‘belief’ that can’t seem to be shaken into asking reasonable questions, while just riling people up. But we don’t need to be haters. We’re all humans here, just trying to get along and make good decisions. Try these 10 references, all peer reviewed, all published- some by the opposition, themselves; though IEEE.org wouldn’t call themselves that-even though they are one of the FCC’s primary certification agencies. Even they recognize there are health dangers, here: 1.Cell phones and cancer: what is the evidence for a connection? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10319725Similar by JE Moulder – 1999 – Cited by 144 – Related articles A recent publication in Radiation Research by Repacholi et al. (147, 631-640, 1997) which suggests that exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation may … 2.Sirav B et al. – EMF-Portal Medical/biological Study (experimental study) Effects of radiofrequency radiation exposure on blood-brain barrier permeability in male and female rats. http://www.emf-portal.de/viewer.php?aid=17230&l=eCached By: Sirav B, Seyhan N Published in: … Masuda H et al. (2009): Effects of 915 MHz electromagnetic-field radiation in TEM cell on the… McQuade JM et al. (2009): … 3.Setting Prudent Public Health Policy for Electromagnetic Field – Scribd http://www.scribd.com/…/Setting-Prudent-Public-Health-Policy-for-…Cached – Similar Jul 25, 2008 – VOLUME 23, NO. 2, 2008. Setting Prudent Public Health Policy for … Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, …. These reviews and reports are important because they become the basis for regulatory standards. …. Draper et al /6/ studied rates of leukemia in children in relation to … 4.Cell phones and cancer: what is the evidence for a connection? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10319725Similar by JE Moulder – 1999 – Cited by 144 – Related articles A recent publication in Radiation Research by Repacholi et al. (147, 631-640, 1997) which suggests that exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation may … 5.Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21999884 by OP Gandhi – 2011 – Related articles Oct 14, 2011 – Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Gandhi OP, Morgan LL, de Salles AA, Han YY, 6.Mutagenic response of 2.45 GHz radiation exposure on rat brain. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20353343 by KK Kesari – 2010 – Cited by 17 – Related articles Mutagenic response of 2.45 GHz radiation exposure on rat brain. Kesari KK, Behari J, Kumar S. Bioelectromagnetic Laboratory, School of Environmental … IEEE is not a friend of our side’s; but you can find plenty by searching ‘cell phone’ or ‘wifi’ with non-thermal biological effects… http://www.ieee.org/searchresults/index.html?cx=006539740418318249752%3Af2h38l7gvis&cof=FORID%3A11&qp=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=emf+non+thermal+effects About 89,700 results (0.12 seconds) 7.Microwave radiation has modulation frequency dependent stimulating effect on human EEG rhythms This study is focused on low-level modulated microwave field effects on human EEG theta, alpha and beta rhythms at different modulation frequencies. During the experiment 13 healthy volunteers were exposed to a microwave (450 MHz) with 7 Hz, 14 Hz and 21 Hz frequency on-off modulation. The field power density at the scalp was 0.16 mW/cm2. The experimental protocol consisted of five cycles of the repetitive microwave stimulation at fixed modulation frequencies. Changes in the EEG rhythms energy became evident in the case of modulation frequencies higher than the EEG rhythms frequencies. The changes varied strongly from subject to subject. Microwave exposure caused statistically significant changes in the EEG theta rhythm energy and for occipital channels in the alpha rhythm energy. 8.Numerical Prediction of SAR and Thermal Elevation in a 0.25-mm 3-D File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat The temperature increase in the exposed human eye is predicted for widely used handheld transmitters, such as walkie-talkies, mobile phones and WiFi- … ieeexplore.ieee.org ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/161/4291236/04291313.pdf LabeledIEEE … Another one from IEEE’s site: 9.Biological Effects of WiFi Electromagnetic Radiation ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/6182936/6190479/06190587.pdf?arnumber… ABSTRACT This research is a continuous study from the previous research and concentrates on analyzing biological effects on blood count (hematology) and blood bio-chemistry. Radio signal generator was set to WiFi frequency of 2.4 GHz. This frequency is transmitted and radiated by using antenna towards 30 control samples of white albino mice. The antenna is placed at 1 meter distance to visualize the amount of radiation energy as normal situation for human in receiving WiFi signal. The radiation was exposed to mice continuously everyday for 8 hours and for 6 months period…. The results were categorized into three tests that are Pathology Lab, Blood Count and Biochemistry Lab. From the tests, it’s shown that the degeneration occurs in the cells on some organs through histopathological procedures. 10: 2.45 GHz microwave radiation effects in nonthermal Microwave Conference, 1995. 25th European Date of Conference: 4-4 Sept. 1995 Author(s):SaJin, G Research Institute for Electronic Components, 32B Erou lancu Nicolae St, 72 996 Bucharest, Romania Al, Dinu , Savopol, T ; Roxana, Moraru ; Eugenia, Kovacs Volume: 2 Page(s): 845 – 848 Product Type: Conference Publications ABSTRACT The effect of low level 2.45 GHz microwave radiation on human erythrocite membrane was studied by measuring the induced hemolysis of the exposed erythrocytes at different power densities (0.025 – 10 mW/cm2). A significant increase of the hemoglobin loss by the microwave exposed erythrocytes comparatively to controls was observed. Red blood cells (RBC) count was essentially the same in irradiated and control samples while the mean cellular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC) decreased in the exposed samples. These observations indicate that the the hemoglobin loss from the microwave irradiated cells is due to the membrane permeabilisation of the exposed erythrocites rather than to their lysis.

        • why is it that the name callers and nay sayers always ask us to provide peer reviewed studies and then when we do they say they are not and say the same thing over again. You prove that it is safe, you prove that there is no harm, you provide studies that disprove what has been layed on the table in front of you and everyone else. and don’t give me studies funded by the telecoms. 75% show no effect while the reverse is true for independent studies. prove it. show us the studies.

          • Funny, DM, I never namecalled anyone on this topic until after Callahan insulted and named called against me. Curious how you blithely ignore that fact. THe other curious thing is why people keep on making scientific/medical claims and then expect others to believe them just because the people making the claims wave their hands and shout “Presto!” Sorry, you make a claim on a medical or scientific thing then yeah it’s your job to back that claim with actual scientific and medical evidence. Or what? I should believe Intelligent Designers when they claim that ID is science too? As for Callahan’s latest charge that I didn’t read the first one which is peer reviewed..yeah actually I did read it, Callahan. The reason I didn’t say “By God! You proved your claim, Callahan” is because apparently you didn’t read it in actuality. Because this is the last two sentences of the abstract section at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10319725: The epidemiological evidence for an association between RF radiation and cancer is found to be weak and inconsistent, the laboratory studies generally do not suggest that cell phone RF radiation has genotoxic or epigenetic activity, and a cell phone RF radiation-cancer connection is found to be physically implausible. Overall, the existing evidence for a causal relationship between RF radiation from cell phones and cancer is found to be weak to nonexistent. Hm…to quote…”the existing evidence for a causal relationship between RF radiation from cell phones and cancer is found to be weak to nonexistent.” Are you quite so sure, Callahan, that that study is saying what you think it says? As someone else pointed out a couple days ago..we are innudated with these signals. We are innudated with them from wi-fi, from cell phones, from sattelites, from the radio, from television, from most communication devices of the modern age. unless you’re willing to shut down the world you’re spitting into the wind if what you claim turns out to be true. And so far you haven’t come close to doing that. Plus you’re conveniently ignoring all the other factors and variables that apply to such things as development of cancers. Now by all means..press for further studies. But quit jumping the gun and making declarations before we actually know for sure. And don’t be dingy enough to think that a Youtube video qualifies as scientific proof. Or that it’s true because “millions of people, mom’s, etc” believe it. Argumentum ad populum is still a logical fallacy. And don’t throw hissy fits when someone asks you to show that scientific proof. Better that person show a healthy skepticism then to blindly follow just because someone else told them.

  5. Parents Against Wi-Fi in School. It is nice to say these things but I recently looked into Providing hard wired ports for 30 students in a classroom. The price was in the area of 10 to 15 thousand. Despite my basically thinking the question is still out on the health effects of WIFI and the fact that it is MUCH slower than hard wired when every student is hooked up, We went with WiFi. The real question is why didn’t he just Home school. Better results and less health risks.

    • Homeschooling provides better results? Yeah…maybe 5% of the time. The rest of the 95% it leaves the child stupid, ignorant, prejudicial, biggotted and unable to deal with the world around that child without resorting to paranoid fantasies. But yeah..if someone homeschools their kid because they’re fearful of WiFi then they are at least as stupid as the ones that homeschool their kids because they’re scared of the theory of evolution.

    • The question that none of you ask is what are the costs if the anti-Wi-Fi parent is correct and all of you naysayers are wrong? How will you put that Genie back in the bottle? If after 30 years it is revealed the latency period for illnesses caused by the RF bio-availability and its attendant neurological and cellular overload, what will all of you say? It is clear that not a single one of you has read science study, or has investigated this separately from this free wheeling trash talking. But if you can’t read anything to help yourself, and you are wrong, then the stakes are impossibly high. While you’re young, or don’t have some kind of whiplash or sports injury, you feel safe and invincible- and its scary to think that something so big is out there, and beyond your control; that you are just a sheep that someone more powerful is fattening up for their Telecom-industry consumption. You guys are just eating up their fodder, like Lucky Charms- Wi-Fi and Cell signals are ‘magical’ and ‘delicious’ with cute little tools…. so you chow down without any thought. But what about if tons of people will start just mysteriously being ‘sickly’. You’ll never know that till it is happening to you. Or, what about certain families who will just start getting more cancers, and certain families will start having mostly autistic boys, instead of just ADHD boys… Cellular stress and neurology stress affect every system in the human body, from sleep to growth hormones- the Russians research is the most advanced… (Remember them? They’re the ones who first developed the health effects of EMF- Wi-Fi at stronger ranges- so that they could make US embassy employees sick by broadcasting from routers embedded in the walls of the building…. Russia knows, now, that whatever ‘latency’ illness is in your genome- your family- will no longer be a ‘latency’, but a ‘certainty’ after being irradiated by cell signals and wi-fi at the same levels and frequencies we all experience- yes, all over the world. So each of you look around your family and figure out which ‘grandparent’ disease you’ll be getting- and more debilitatingly- when your 30, or 50- not 70 or 80… Back to the same question- if you are all wrong, what will you say in 30 years? Especially when it was as easy to fix as keeping Wi-Fi out of school, turning off your cell phone and routers at night…. If the fix is this easy, and we ignore it so we can all talk smack about desperately our sad little toys for our shallow little lives, well….well, that’s pretty dumb…

      • Callahan asks: The question that none of you ask is what are the costs if the anti-Wi-Fi parent is correct and all of you naysayers are wrong? And the question none on your side answer is where is your evidence? To quote:It is clear that not a single one of you has read science study, or has investigated this separately from this free wheeling trash talking. And yet…neither you nor anyone else on your side of this argument has provided any credible scientific peer reviewed source to back your side of this argument. So…we should give your side credibility and credence to your side’s claims…merely because you guys say so? Sorry, the real world doesn’t work that way.

        • It is amazing to me that the bulk of you are consistent about wanting to show just how little imagination you have, how little information you have and how giving up your ignorance for just a few minutes would send you into such an identity crisis that would render you unrecognizable to yourselves and your online cronies that descend onto new ideas (to you) like vultures and try to bury them with name calling, ridicule and misinformation that you pull out of the air. It is astonishing that you are not even able to consider information that is not familiar to you and have to back into a dark and comfortable state of mind that requires that you only consider your own ideas. that said, i think half of you are shills paid by the telecoms. i could put half the comments into a computer and have them analyzed and it would tell me that they were from the same writer. get thee to a good book like, Cell Phone Russian Roulette. The link can be found at http://www.wirelesswatchblog.org Download the PDF. When the book came out the telecoms bought every copy and it went out of print immediately. It’s all there folks. Open your minds and stop circling this little track you’re stuck on.

        • o Kessler: I’ve been answering that question for three years. And I’m kicking the butt of the opposition every time I answer that question. Read the legal briefs on the subject, instead of pretending you care. I’m not here to be your coach-you and all your friends are tech savvy, so Google it. Actually, the real world works exactly that way. You’re just so far behind the game that it will bore me to try to teach you such serious material in a blog post. If you think that is the way to go after good knowledge then I have no doubt that in about two paragraphs further than this your eyes will roll up and drool will start forming on your chin. Because blog smarts, like this format, is really just for lazy minds to string smart-sounding smack talk into sentences, so that you can comfort yourself that you ‘get’ it more than the next guy. But as I said, I’m bored, so I’m willing to spar a few rounds, so let’s see what ‘game’ you’ve got. The information data base on the dangers of Wi-Fi and cell signals is massive (have you ever read the fine print on your cell phone user’s manual?)- available to anyone who can type in a search engine’s ‘field’ box. The discourse is raging on both sides of the subject. But just repeating someone else’s sentences won’t score you any points in this cage-fight, here. You got to bring some substance or it will prove my point, that you’re just all WWE show-entertaining, yes- but, any UFC pro can kick your butt. On the two sides of the fight, you can see really easily that the pro Wi-Fi and pro Cell signal crowd is entirely ‘cornered’ by those whose income depends on the technology. They’re industry shills and provocateurs who stir up people on sites like this who’ll just repeat easy phrases just to convince themselves they’re smart. It’s all flash. No moves, no fight; you all are easily ‘gassed’ in the first few seconds of the round. The other side- my side- is made up of people who’ve educated themselves, world-class champions who are experts, activists, Moms, public servants, even Nobel Laureates. But, if you do not have the interest in educating yourself then you’re not worth the effort to step into the cage, you can’t show any decent ‘stand-up’ throw even a few good kicks. And you will just bore me too much to continue. I have a short attention span for ignorant thugs. You ought not feel too proud of using words like ‘credible’ and ‘peer-reviewed’ while asking me to change your hard-wired ‘belief’ in Lucky Charms being magical and delicious. Because without the willingness to listen, to go few rounds where you risk losing in the face of superior strategy and skills, well, even if I send you an avalanche of evidence (that you can find yourself in 90 seconds on Google) you’ll probably just send little slurs my way; you’ll just deliver clever quips or anecdotes about imaginary errors, or you’ll fake up a cool sounding sentence about ‘flawed studies’- even though it’s clear that you likely won’t know what a ‘flawed’ study looks like. Maybe you should prove it to me! Prove to me that you’ve got the chops to interest me in a conversation. Show me that you’ve found any evidence whatsoever that supports your position that Wi-Fi signals are magical and delicious? I love Lucky Charms! I just know it’s a breakfast cereal made my Kellogg’s, and not a heavy industrial technology that’s being fed to me with sugary hype and BS. I am, actually, very familiar with the opposition’s studies that support Wi-Fi, who say that cell signals are OK. And you will find that the opposition’s ‘OK’ is a bunch of equivocations, with slippery wording. In fact, if you find your side’s research (are you tech-enough to Google, maybe Bing, or Mozilla…) it will be filled with weak, half-reported phrases like ‘results are inconclusive’, or data shows ‘no certain link’ and a bunch of other ‘insufficient for negation of causality’ phrases that embed their epidemiology in what is widely regarded across the scientific community as fallacious logic. Big words coming… you may not be able to keep up…fallacious logic… that is, the fallacy of overcoming the ‘Null Hypothesis’. Just so you know, that means if there is an absence of evidence of a thing, you just try to ‘assert’ that the thing- doesn’t exist. And you hope no-one points out how lame that is. Fallacious is a really fun word, isn’t it? I’m sure you’ll find a cute quip to amuse your friends. But, I’m, equally sure, that if you were in the science field this would mean something to you- in fact, being accused of employing a fallacy of logic is a career busting charge in the cell and Wi-Fi ‘peer-reviewed’ science world. I’m having fun, now- are you? You ready to answer the bell for the next round? So why don’t you pull up a few studies on both sides of this question and stretch a few brain cells- I’ll even give you a tip on how to read a ‘peer-reviewed’ study when you’re not a Ph.D in the field; start with the abstract. If it doesn’t make any sense to you, pick another- there’s so much out there you’ll find one, just fine. Then read the Conclusions, same strategy, if its too confusing, pick another. Some scientists write in a user friendly way, others don’t. So knock yourself out- cuz I’m not your Mommy or Daddy to spoon feed you fake, sugary breakfast cereal, or life lessons, or to give you a punching bag to practice your sucker moves on. By the way, this move is called verbal Jiu jitsu. I just did a college wrestling ‘shoot’ on you and took you to the cage wall. I’m gonna guess you’ve got no defense, no sprawl; I can just put in the hooks, stretch you out, and you’ll just ‘go to sleep’. You got anything else?

          • Oh you say you’ve been proving it for years? Really? And yet you still haven’t provided any credible source to back your claims. All you have Callahan is stupid dimwitted mealymouthed attempts at insulting me. Sorry, I don’t have to disprove your claim..you have to prove it. Since you fail to do so and you refuse to even attempt to then your claims are nothing but utter crap. All I’m asking is for you to provide credible scientific peer review sources..and you fail to do so. Do not play games, Callahan, that you simply don’t have the intelligence to win.

  6. From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10319725 And I’m quoting: The epidemiological evidence for an association between RF radiation and cancer is found to be weak and inconsistent, the laboratory studies generally do not suggest that cell phone RF radiation has genotoxic or epigenetic activity, and a cell phone RF radiation-cancer connection is found to be physically implausible. Overall, the existing evidence for a causal relationship between RF radiation from cell phones and cancer is found to be weak to nonexistent. Now some of the other studies you mention show the possibility of a link. And some of the other websites you list simply don’t work though that could because my internet is being screwball. So congratulations, Callahan, you finally did what I asked you to do. It only took you two days of dithering and insulting me to do it. But those studies range from there is no link to there may be a link with nothing definite proven one way or the other. So as there is no smoking gun I’d say that more studies are warranted. Or do you somehow disagree that more studies would be prudent? Next time though, don’t throw YouTube at me in an attempt to scientifically prove anything. IMO, there should be a new logical fallacy named “argumentum ad youtubeum.” And next time don’t try and insult me, it just tends to make me dig in my heels on something and return tit for tat. And don’t engage in silly conspiracy thinking when it comes to me, I speak for I, me and myself and noone else. I have no ties to this organization or well…frankly..any other. At least not in the sense that I’m somehow in a position of authority with any organization. My only tie to the FRFF is a shared annoyance at some of my fellow Christians getting it in their heads that they get to treat the United States like the Christian version of Iran.

  7. Wow – did you say christians? You guys are right up there with the atheists in contempt and vitriol – way to go!

  8. “Evidence is inconclusive” and “More research is needed” are often the lame excuses used by wifi proponents to implement it universally. This is a nonsensical argument because the evidence of harm does exist. If it is not conclusive at this time, it should not be imposed on the entire population, especially children. It is the same line used by the CEO of Phillip Morris: Cigarettes “have not been proved to be unsafe”. “Cigarette smoking is not harmful to babies.” The archived videos of these remarks are available on youtube. Here are some latest PEER-REVIEWED studies published in 2013. Keep dreaming that there is no evidence of biological effects below thermal threshold (as stated by the FCC outdated and obsolete unsafe standard) and keep smoking your cigarettes! 31.01.13: The effect of melatonin on body mass and behaviour of rats during an exposure to microwave radiation from mobile phone. Sokolovic D, Djordjevic B, Kocic G, Babovic P, Ristic G, Stanojkovic Z, Sokolovic DM, Veljkovic A, Jankovic A, Radovanovic Z (2012), Bratisl Lek Listy 113 (5): 265 – 269 “The authors conclude that microwave exposure could cause a body mass decrease and anxiety related behavior. ” 28.01.13: Heart rate variability (HRV) analysis in radio and TV broadcasting stations workers. Bortkiewicz A, Gadzicka E, Szymczak W, Zmyslony M (2012), Int J Occup Med Environ Health: in press “The authors concluded that exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields may affect the neurovegetative regulation of the cardiovascular system. ” 28.01.13: The effects of a 1.8 GHz continuous electromagnetic fields on mucociliary transport of human nasal mucosa. In SM, Kim HJ, Park RW, Kim W, Gimm YM, Park I, Hong S, Hong JJ, Oh JH, Kahng H, Park EY (2012), Laryngoscope: in press “The authors summarize that exposure to a 1.8 GHz electromagnetic field may inhibit the ciliary beat frequency via an “novel protein kinase C” dependent mechanism…”. 23.01.13: Case-control study of paternal occupation and childhood leukaemia in Great Britain, 1962-2006. Keegan TJ, Bunch KJ, Vincent TJ, King JC, O’Neill KA, Kendall GM, Maccarthy A, Fear NT, Mfg M (2012), Br J Cancer 107 (9): 1652 – 1659 “The authors concluded that the results show some support for a positive association between childhood leukemia risk and paternal occupation involving [electromagnetic] social contact. Additionally, the study provided additional evidence for higher occupational [electromagnetic] social class being a risk factor for childhood leukemia. ” 22.01.13: Oxidative stress induced by 1.8 GHz radio frequency electromagnetic radiation and effects of garlic extract in rats. Avci B, Akar A, Bilgici B, Tuncel OK (2012), Int J Radiat Biol 88 (11): 799 – 805 “The authors summarize that the exposure to a radiofrequency electromagnetic field at 1.8 GHz … led to protein oxidation in the brain tissue and an increase in serum nitric oxide level. “ 17.01.13: Electromagnetic fields at 2.45 GHz trigger changes in heat shock proteins 90 and 70 without altering apoptotic activity in rat thyroid gland. Misa Agustino MJ, Leiro JM, Jorge Mora MT, Rodriguez-Gonzalez JA, Jorge Barreiro FJ, Ares-Pena FJ, Lopez-Martin E (2012), Biol Open 1 (9): 831 – 838 “The results suggest that exposure to a 2.45 GHz electromagnetic field may alter levels of cellular stress in rat thyroid gland.” 15.01.13: 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. Naziroglu M, Celik O, Ozgul C, Cig B, Dogan S, Bal R, Gumral N, Rodriguez AB, Pariente JA (2012), Physiol Behav 105 (3): 683 – 692 “The authors conclude that exposure to a wireless device of 2.45 GHz could induce oxidative stress in the dorsal root ganglion [a nodule on the dorsal root of the spine that contains nerve cells] … ”. 07.01.13: Neurodevelopmental anomalies of the hippocampus in rats exposed to weak intensity complex magnetic fields throughout gestation. Fournier NM, Mach QH, Whissell PD, Persinger MA (2012), Int J Dev Neurosci 30 (6): 427 – 433 “These findings suggest that prenatal exposure to complex magnetic fields of a narrow intensity window during development could result in subtle but permanent alterations in hippocampal structure and function. ”

  9. I do not comment, however after looking at a few of the remarks here Who says woo is harmless? How

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>