Ontario Parents Suspect Wi-Fi Making Kids Sick

The trouble is, their case is based entirely on the presence of symptoms when they are at school, and the absence of these same symptoms when they are at home.  Couple of points: could be something else at the school, and also, how many of these kids have wifi at home?  Lots of them, I'd wagar.

The way to test this is to turn off the wifi without telling anybody (ie, wiring up the computers on a wkend, assuming they aren't using laptops that they roam around with), and see if it makes a difference to the kids' symptoms.  If it doesn't, they'll have to look at something else.  Food in the cafeteria?  The presence of toxic mould?  It needs to be investigated in a systematic way rather than catering to people's fears through speculation.

Personally, I think minimalizing the possibility through ridicule and defamation of a woman speaking out about it being possible, is ridiculous, at best, but I concur with sineed, toxicity samples should be taken for moulds and asbestos to rule them out.

What about asbestos? We mine it here in Canada for use all over the capitalist thirdworld. Or lead in paint? It only took 70 years or so before that was declared dangerous to human health. Nothing was done about tobacco for 50 years due to a lack of scientific connection to cancer and other health problems. [url=http://www.i-sis.org.uk/sapp.php]Precautionary principle[/url] Why not err on the side of human health instead of corporate profit for a change?

remind wrote:

Personally, I think minimalizing the possibility through ridicule and defamation of a woman speaking out about it being possible, is ridiculous, at best,

I think it's important to debunk panic-mongers of all kinds and demand scientific study and proof. Do you realize you can't walk down the street of an urban area without being bombarded by microwaves? Should we "play it safe", as per Fidel, by eliminating technology until there's a 100-year test that proves it's "safe"? What about the electromagnetic fields surrounding hard-wired ethernet cables? "SAFE"? My eye.

But remind, I didn't defame this professional full-time wi-fi opponent. I did ridicule her. If you have a problem with that, spell it out. But I did find it amusing that kids in Barrie are supposedly getting sick because of wi-fi, but nowhere else in the developed world. Or are Barrie parents just endowed with more legendary vigilance than others?

Unionist wrote:

I think it's important to debunk panic-mongers of all kinds and demand scientific study and proof.

Who could argue against that with a straight face?  Too many claims like this are simply asserted as being true.

Sineed wrote:

The way to test this is to turn off the wifi without telling anybody (ie, wiring up the computers on a wkend, assuming they aren't using laptops that they roam around with), and see if it makes a difference to the kids' symptoms.

Would that be like moving 200 people into a new building that's riddled with lead paint and asbestos throughout? And then after a few weeks when it's evident that no one dies or reports so much as a headache, build 50 more just like them for good measure?

Unionist wrote:

What about the electromagnetic fields surrounding hard-wired ethernet cables? "SAFE"? My eye.

There is [url=http://www.infinitecables.com/pr_p5ebl-stp.html]shielded CAT5 cable[/url] Some equipment is capable of utilizing the shielded cable's ground connection while other devices are not capable. I'm not saying EMF from ethernet cable is dangerous by itself - it's not. Some people do desire though to reduce their overall daily exposure to EM fields. We are basically lab rats in modern times. Scientists say that people are now exposed to EM field effects and radiowaves at levels one-hundred million times higher than our grandparents were.

remind wrote:

Personally, I think minimalizing the possibility through ridicule and defamation of a woman speaking out about it being possible, is ridiculous, at best, ...

Not if she's a fear-mongering, opportunistic idiot.  I've observed that they come in both sexes.

Oh dear god, not again.

Fidel, it's bullshit.  Steaming piles of bullshit.  For chrissakes, knock it off!

Timebandit wrote:

Oh dear god, not again.

Fidel, it's bullshit.  Steaming piles of bullshit.  For chrissakes, knock it off!

What is this?  I don't curse and swear at you, so why should you do it with me? Knock it off yourself.

Where's the study that says wifi and cell phones are safe? There isn't one, because the technology is relatively new. We don't always develop lung cancer from smoking or exposure to asbestos inside the same time span that second generation cell phones and wifi cane into widespread use. So why should we conclude that cell phones and wifi are safe for people since just the mid 1990s or so? And people talk on cell phones for longer now than half an hour each day, which is the threshold for heavy cell phone usage in the Interphone study. They actually admit in the appendix of that study to there being an increased risk for gliomas, the deadliest type of brain tumor.

Read the scientific concerns about wifi, and the valid concerns about the recent Interphone study and its design flaws. In the mean time, try to limit cell phone use as much as possible, and consider using ear buds with your cell phone.

Timebandit wrote:

Fidel, that's simply not true.

What's not true? Please provide evidence to support this claim.

Timebandit wrote:

We've been over this in previous threads, so I'm not going to do the whole schmeer over again. This is lunatic fringe nonsense. I don't know why you seem to need to believe that the world is out to get you in such far-out ways - seriously, aren't the credible ones bad enough for you?

 So you're saying there's no need to curse and swear and refer to me in derogatory manner in a lame attempt to bully anyone who opposes your hasty conclusions and to shore up your weak argument at the same time. I see...

Why leap onto this bandwagon when there is no proof? On the other hand, it has been proven that a lot of children get sick when exposed to mold, and it is a known fact that portable classrooms are rife with mold. However, mold is not sexy, or high tech, and the cure is expensive. Furthermore, you are unlikely to make any money in a class action law-suit on the mold issue. Singling out on potential issue that fits with one person's agenda and going to war over it is, quite frankly, stupid. There have been innumerable studies in the potential negative effects of electromagnetic waves of the course of ten years and more. All negative. Remember the computer video flap of the nineties. Why are you people still sitting at your computers is this is a real issue?

Fidel wrote:

Why are there monetary awards given to victims claiming damages after ingesting accutane and phen-phen and other drugs where clinical data was fudged and proper scientific studies just not done?

Victory in a lawsuit is no proof whatsoever that something occurred, or that there is any validity to the allegations made.  For instance, the family of the US medic killed in that grenade explosion the US military attributes to Omar Khadr has won a massive lawsuit against the Khadr family, even though the allegations have not been proven in court and there is evidence of Omar's innocence.

There are also families who have won lawsuits against the Eli Lily company on the basis of birth defects "caused" by a drug called Bendectin.  Although there is overwhelming evidence that this drug is safe in pregnancy, and it has been used safely in Canada for decades (it's called "Diclectin" up here and it consists of a B vitamin and a mild antihistamine), the drug company refuses to market it in the US because of all the legal harrassment.  As a consequence, American women are more frequently hospitalized, compared with Canadian women, for a problem called hyperemesis gravidum, a severe form of morning sickness that can actually bring on a miscarriage (kinda ironic considering how the pro-lifers have so much more clout down there).

Basically, the results of lawsuits prove how the legal system works and nothing more.  And the legal system has only a tangential relationship to reality, at best.

Fidel wrote:

In the mean time, try to limit cell phone use as much as possible, and consider using ear buds with your cell phone.

Abrasion, infection - really bad idea. At best, ear buds will lead to painful swelling - at worst, 50% of studies show they may or may not lead to sterility and stupidity. Unless you have some evidence to support the safe use of ear buds, bud, I'd back right off if I were you before the statements of claim start flooding in. Just some friendly ad-vice.

In other news, parents should also be warned about the dangers of [url=http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html][color=blue][u]dihydrogen monoxide[/u][/color][/url].

What is dihydrogen monoxide?

Quote:

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

Hehe Fidel.  :)

Sven wrote:

In other news, parents should also be warned about the dangers of [url=http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html][color=blue][u]dihydrogen monoxide[/u][/color][/url].

Thanks for that, Sven!  I'm sending it to a couple of other nerds.

I don't know enough about this issue to say which is the kooky opinion - perfectly safe, or dangerous.  However, why anyone with a thinking brain would just assume something is safe because industry says so is beyond me.

Here's a story from today about formerly perfectly safe products that we now realize aren't at all. 

http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/article/848280--study-finds-widespread-bisphenol-a-exposure?bn=1

You could find thousands and thousands of products, practices, chemicals, drugs and so on that we were told were perfectly safe that weren't. Amazing that lay people on a board on the internet can tell the difference without any background. Gotta love the expertise of all of us.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/pre-2007/files/health/iarc/pageone.html]Ge... Carlo[/url] used to be a hired gun for the cell phone industry.

No one said microwaves were "perfectly safe". Some fast talker convinced a group of parents that their kids' symptoms were connected with wi-fi at school. That's dangerous, not only because ignorance is bad for you, but because it prevents looking seriously at possible causes. One way of dealing with obsessive people who preach non-scientific views is ridicule.

Good thing you were around to ridicule those crazy people who suggested that taking mercury to cure many illnesses might not be the best idea- after all they were clearly whackjobs going against the prevailing scientific knowledge of the time. 

[url=http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/99/04/01/EM.html]Get ready for the environmental battle of the next decade: the fight against electromagnetic fields. Cell phones and broadcast antennas are only part of a problem that could threaten us all.[/url]

Quote:

The thing is, we're going to find out about this one way or the other in the not-too-distant future. [b]With 60 million wireless-phone users out there, it won't be too many years before we learn definitively whether a disproportionate number of them get brain tumors, Alzheimer's disease, or just plain confused.[/b]

If nothing happens, then we can probably assume the antennas are safe as well.

But if millions get sick, we're all going to wonder why we were subjected to such a grotesque, irresponsible experiment.

From the [i]Boston Phoenix[/i], April 1-8, 1999.

Oh, read the whole article. Anti-EMF activist Susan Clarke is featured there. The same Ms. Clarke was hired by Mr. Palmer, of the Barrie parents' committee, eleven years later, to come and and plead for the health of the children.

I had this weird wacky teacher when I was a kid.  Learned not to read everything I believe.

That's 1999. It's only 11 years later. Most people exposed to asbestos and other carcinogens take decades to develop cancerous tumors. 2nd gen. cell phones have only been in widespread use since the mid 1990s. Wifi internet and phones have been around for the same or less time. Hint: they haven't done the long term studies, and it's because the long term doesn't exist yet.

What if it was publicly funded doctors wanting to strap some new electronic devices to the heads of twin children in a government lab somewhere in Poland? Would anyone object then?

So Unionist, you're ignoring the history of the tobacco doesn't cause cancer lobby, drinking and driving prevention doesn't save lives lobby, H1N1 is a scam lobby?

Glad you folks are batting 1.000 and have no reasons to ask questions.