Government accuse wi-fi deceptions

Oct 16 2007 
by Madeleine Brindley, Western Mail

Government accuse wi-fi deceptions

A LEADING radiation expert has accused government scientists of
³deliberately deceiving² the public about the safety of wireless internet
networks.

Biologist Roger Coghill claims that a new Health Protection Agency (HPA)
research programme into wireless local area networks will not address the
real areas of concern.

The safety of wi-fi has been repeatedly questioned by a growing number of
parents and experts after it has been linked to cancer and a condition
called electro-sensitivity.

Independent scientists have also said that wi-fi should not be used in
schools because of the risk of constant exposure to such radiation.
Carmarthenshire Council has expressed its concerns about the safety of wi-fi
and has called for a code of practice to be drawn up.

And the Professional Association of Teachers (PAT) has demanded an inquiry
into the health implications of the current programme to install wi-fi
networks in thousands of schools.

Philip Parkin, the organisation¹s general secretary, said the drive to set
up classroom wireless networks should be halted until the dangers are known.
The HPA last week launched a systematic programme of research WLANs and
their use, which will include measurements of exposures from the wi-fi
network.

Professor Pat Troop, HPA chief executive, said, ³There is no scientific
evidence to date that wi-fi and wlans adversely affect the health of the
general population.

³The signals are very low power, typically 0.1 watt (100 milliwatts) in both
the computer and the router (access point) and the results so far show
exposures are well within guidelines.

³Given this, there is no particular reason why schools and others should not
continue to use wi-fi or other wireless networks.

³However there has not been extensive research into what people¹s exposures
actually are to this new technology and that is why we are initiating this
new programme of research and analysis. We have good scientific reasons to
expect the results to be reassuring and we will publish our findings.²

But Mr Coghill, of Pontypool-based Coghill Research Laboratories, who has
developed a powerful antioxidant to combat the damaging affects of wi-fi
radiation, said, ³We just don¹t have enough research in place to know what
the safe exposure level really is and that¹s the result of the downright
deception of the public by the HPA and power utilities.

³This is misdirected research using people with a negative opinion which
will then be flogged out to the media with spin-doctored press releases.
³The way forward is to accept there is a problem with electromagnetic energy
and to deal with it effectively by educating the public and children to use
these convenient devices in as safe a way as possible and develop stratagems
to neutralise their effects.²

wi-fi is becoming increasingly widely used in homes, schools, offices and
throughout the general working and public environments ­ Wales has the
highest number of wi-fi hotspots per million people in the UK, Germany, the
USA or Japan, according to a report by Ofcom.

The concerns about the safety arise from the fact people absorb the
radiation emitted by WiFi transmitters. A Panorama investigation found the
readings of the signal strength at a distance of 50cm from a wi-fi enabled
laptop were three times higher than the highest reading from a mobile phone
mast.

Even higher readings than these would be found where children are seated
close to the transmitters.

The research into wi-fI follows precautionary advice issued by England¹s
chief medical officer and the HPA discouraging the non-essential use of
mobile phones by children.

Judith Davies, whose 16-year-old daughter is at school in Carmarthenshire,
said, ³The HPA has said it intends to compare the measurements it finds to
international guideline recommendations.

³However, it needs to be realised that these guidelines only cover
short-term heating effects and not the long-term effects from these low
levels of microwave radiation which so many scientists are concerned about.
³These guidelines say they exclude potential long-term effects of exposure,
such as an increased risk of cancer. Such a comparison has no relevance.
³Many scientific studies exist, using levels well below these guidelines,
which give clear indications of such radiation causing adverse health
effects.²