tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6870458664232083246.post8054673648059232850..comments2023-09-30T05:01:23.870-07:00Comments on staffroom confidential: Wifi in schoolsTara Olivetreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09113322614914039292noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6870458664232083246.post-59504567878813193742013-04-11T21:12:04.995-07:002013-04-11T21:12:04.995-07:001. The science is complex and most people rely on ...1. The science is complex and most people rely on those with some expertise for advice. Hence the existence and reliance on health regulation bodies.<br /><br />2. As I said, the regulatory bodies have very different standards. There is not "consensus". <br /><br />3. Yes, companies that profit from their products knowingly produce and market harmful substances. The cigarette industry and the pharmaceutical industry are excellent examples about which many people have written extensively. Companies that produce wireless technology products have every reason (profits) to promote the view that the risks of their products are minimal.<br /><br />4. "If research starts to show..." Research is not conducted in a vacuum. It happens in a world in which politics has influence as well as science. Again, take a a look at the pharmaceutical industry and how they "game the stats" with research. <br /><br />5. Being on the pro-tech bandwagon is the easy position and if you want career advancement and grant opportunities, this will be helpful. Universities are now so influenced by corporate research dollars it is harder and harder to find genuinely independent research anywhere.Tara Olivetreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09113322614914039292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6870458664232083246.post-48466177144781879452013-04-10T21:50:21.986-07:002013-04-10T21:50:21.986-07:00To be clear, Tara: you're arguing that a few f...To be clear, Tara: you're arguing that a few folks are the only ones who truly understand how wireless technology works. You're arguing that every international public health body has been somehow corrupted or bought off by industry. More than that, you're arguing that the innumerable companies involved in wireless technology are deliberately harming their users, attacking innocent bystanders, and threatening the future of the human race.<br /><br />I'm a conspiracy fan from way back, but this exceeds anything that I find remotely credible. I'm really pleased that you're so concerned about our children's health, and about the future of education in BC, but on this issue, I'm baffled by the underlying approach.<br /><br />If research starts to show that there are health concerns, then all of us paying attention to this debate are going to start arguing against wifi. I'm one of the "low level of twitter feeds" you mention, and I can say that my friends and colleagues, like me, would shift our positions in a heartbeat if there was credible research, by credible researchers, in anything like the volume necessary to call the overwhelming majority view into question. Most of us have no stake whatsoever in technological research or development, either, so I get really offended at blanket allegations of bias or conflict of interest. But that's a subject for another day.<br /><br />If I might make a suggestion for those who, like you, would like to see anti-wifi science being taken seriously: find credible sources. Martha Herbert, for example, isn't someone you want associated with your position, because of her comments about autism's relationship with vaccination. If the only sciency-sounding, academic-looking publications are coming from suspect writers, there's just no way that their ideas are going to be taken seriously.<br /><br />If you want to take down a consensus, you'll be better off not relying on people whose associations with unrelated conspiracy theories have already come under significant attack.richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04371755412890078678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6870458664232083246.post-6950291856784708232013-04-10T10:22:19.870-07:002013-04-10T10:22:19.870-07:00Tech industry tries to brainwash the public that W...Tech industry tries to brainwash the public that WiFi is the "only" way to "quality education". Their Marketing Depts call wireless devices "SMART" and call classrooms and students "connected" when hooked up with WiFi and individual wireless devices. <br /><br />Connected to who? To electronics but not the teachers and each other. Researcher such as UK's neuroscientist Susan Greenfield (and many more) who are not funded by Ed Tech corporations do not agree with those marketing taglines. In fact, the lack of empathy and reduction in the ability to perceive are among many parameters observed in children and youth with increased electronics and screen time. (Summary here: http://youtu.be/iEc2p8UcFeU)<br /><br />Health is also a pressing concern.<br /><br />Switzerland's leading IT and telecom company, Swisscom, admited 10 years ago in their patent document that WiFi frequency is "genotoxic". http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2004075583&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCTDescription Swisscom provides free fibre-optic wiring to Swiss schools for children.<br /><br />Here in BC, schools are flooded with wireless routers and are stocking up iPads for 21st Century Learning, but little (mostly - no) safety protocol is provided to teachers on how to avoid and reduce radiofrequency exposure from the use of iPads. The manufacturer actually states in their user manual that if the iPads are not "correctly" held, the radiation level will EXCEED governments' exposure limits to humans. Please see these links for further explanation: <br /><br />iPad User Manual's Safety Warning and Disclaimer.<br />Have You Read It?<br />http://www.safeinschool.org/2013/04/ipad-user-manuals-safety-warning-and.html<br /><br />21st Century Learning: Higher Radiation from iPads on WiFi than Cellphones that are Actively Transmitting<br />http://www.safeinschool.org/2013/03/health-canadas-wifi-myth.html<br /><br />Tara, your assessment of the BC Tech Council is absolutely correct. The provincial government treats Education as a gateway for marketing our BC IT industry. There was no consultation with teachers and parents to ascertain actual padagogical values before $millions was spent on wireless "upgrades".<br /><br />Instead of reading studies funded by Smart Tech, Dell or Cisco, or following tweets and suggestions of people whose jobs or employers are predicated on the expansion of wireless, we recommend the advice from these governmental bodies and doctors' associations who looked at the available science critically and upheld Precaution and Avoidance for the safety of children and teachers. http://www.safeinschool.org/2013/02/medical-advisory-wifi-radiation-and.html<br /><br />Thanks, Tara, for your excellent summary of the state of affairs regarding WiFi in Schools.Concerned Parentshttp://safeinschool.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6870458664232083246.post-19297107284358823912013-04-08T22:43:36.401-07:002013-04-08T22:43:36.401-07:00I'm familiar with the "attack" respo...I'm familiar with the "attack" response to anyone brave, or fool enough, to question the health impacts of wireless technologies. "Self-appointed wireless industry attack dogs" are quick to denigrate and dismiss any and all demented enough to question the safety of wireless, especially for youth The World Famous NetMonkeys of Lake Louisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11138106927088523088noreply@blogger.com