Wi-Fi Is Not A Danger To You Or Your Kids
Is it safe to have Wi-Fi in the classroom? The short answer is: yes. For the long answer you will have to read the rest of this post.
Let’s start with a common misconception. Wi-Fi is not a new technology; rather, Wi-Fi is a new twist on an old technology: transmitting information via the radio frequency (RF). Humans have been broadcasting radio and microwave transmissions across the planet for over a century.
As for health studies, according to the World Health Organization, approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years on the biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation. RF is just another form of non-ionizing radiation.
Anti-Wi-Fi activists will point out that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) investigated radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans. The IARC Monograph on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans provides a comprehensive examination of the topic and the IARC classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Group 2B possible carcinogen. The critical thing to understand is that Group 2B compounds are, by their very definition, not known to be carcinogens.
Group 2B is a category used when a causal association looks like it might be possible, but when other factors cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.
Group 2B is, thus, a placeholder for compounds that haven’t been shown to cause cancer, but are of further interest for study. Some of these compounds, like acetaldehyde and benz[a]anthracene, will likely be determined to cause cancer, but others like coffee, pickled vegetables and talc-based body powder, are much less likely to do so.
It’s a known fact that scientific research uses as its gold standard the 95 percent confidence interval (p<0.05). What this means is that if you replicate a study 100 times, about five times you will get a false positive (i.e. saying that a compound causes cancer when it really does not). So given the approximately 25,000 articles published on the topic, the absence of any toxicologically problematic outcomes would be statistically improbable.
What is important is to look at the number and types of positive studies when compared to negative ones. A careful examination of the handful of positive studies shows that almost everyone involved a particularly rare type of cancer and a minimal effect. This is the ideal scenario for a false positive. Population statistics break down when sample sizes are small and, in the cases of most of these studies, the number of affected individuals is infinitesimal with respect to the population exposed to RF.
In addition to the copious body of literature that says that Wi-Fi is safe, consider that in the last 70+ years billions of humans worldwide have been exposed to varying concentrations and doses of microwave and radio wave radiation.
Just look at your cell phone right now: almost anywhere you go, you are in range of a Wi-Fi router and you are almost always in range of a radio signal. The fact is, we have not seen spikes in any of those rare cancers purportedly related, via these questionable studies, to exposure to RF.
The results are categorical: RF is not a serious human health risk.
The article was written by Blair King, who is a resident of the Township of Langley, B.C. and a practicing environmental scientist. He has an academic background in chemistry, biology and environmental studies and an interest in the use of scientific data in environmental decision-making. Blair blogs about topics that cross the interface between science and decision-making at A Chemist in Langley.
You can read the original article on Huffington Post.
Image Source: DNA India