[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The gathering brainstorm

[Bill Totten]

It is unregulated, untested, more dangerous than its proponents would
have you believe - and soon to become even more powerful.  On the
inexorable march of Wi-Fi.

by Mark Anslow

Ecologist (December 2007 / January 2008)


In early summer of 1997, computer scientist and former Dutch military
radar engineer Vic Hayes joined the end of a long line of scientists and
smiled at the camera. The shutter clicked, celebrating the official
launch of the first international Wi-Fi standard.

Known officially as IEEE 801.11, what Hayes had created was a
universally accepted way of linking up computers by using high-frequency
microwave radio waves. Once connected, the machines could then share
information, including internet access and email.

Originally designed to connect together cash-registers at checkouts, the
ambitious scientist made no secret of his desires for the new
technology. 'I see Wi-Fi being used for everything eventually', he was
quoted as saying, but not even he could have predicted how widespread
his invention would become.

By 2008, experts predict that there will be 53 million Wi-Fi enabled
devices in Europe alone. One in every five UK adults already owns a
Wi-Fi enabled laptop, and eighty per cent of secondary schools in the UK
have installed the technology throughout their buildings. McDonald's
recently announced that free Wi-Fi facilities would be available in all
its restaurants, and the growing 'Mu-Fi' initiative - where entire
municipalities receive Wi-Fi coverage - has already made Norwich the
UK's first 'Wi-Fi town'.

The technology is sold to the public as the ultimate convenience tool:
it allows you to grab a coffee and check your email on the go, to print
photos without using a wire or listen to music on speakers not even
attached to a computer. In schools, teachers can already give lessons
using Wi-Fi white-boards, and in the near future hand-held Wi-Fi
terminals will enable children to 'interact' with digital lesson. In the
words of the technology's industry group, the Wi-Fi Alliance; 'Simply
put, Wi-Fi is freedom'.

But freedom at what cost?

Wi-Fi appeared on our shelves without having to undergo any tests or
safety checks whatsoever. This was partly achieved because Vic Hayes and
his team developed Wi-Fi to use an unlicensed part of the radio spectrum
- freed-up airwaves designed to encourage more widespread public use of
wireless technology. As long as the technology met basic requirements on
interference and compatibility, consumers were free to buy and use Wi-Fi
devices as they and the manufacturers saw fit. In the UK, the spectrum
used by Wi-Fi (2.4 gigahertz) became available for unlicensed use in 2000.

Denis Henshaw, professor of physics at the University of Bristol, finds
it remarkable Wi-Fi-enabled equipment could have come to market without
having to undergo any trials.

'If you are a drug company marketing a new drug, you have to go through
years of testing to prove your product is safe', he says, 'if you're a
Wi-Fi developer using the 2.4 GHz spectrum, however, you don't need to
prove anything'.

Concerns were first raised about the health effects of Wi-Fi as early as
2000. A report by the British Educational Communications and Technology
Agency (BECTA), the body responsible for the use of IT in schools, noted
that engineers installing some of the first classroom-based systems
complained of headaches at the end of the day. The report was never
published, but was eventually leaked to The Times Educational Supplement
seven years later.

In 2003, concerned parents of children in suburban Chicago filed a
lawsuit against the Oak Park Elementary School on the basis of concerns
over the possible adverse health effects of the school's Wi-Fi network.
The father who made the claim, Ron Baiman, said he acted because 'there
are a lot of experts who say there are potential risks.'

For years, it was left to distressed teachers or parents with children
suffering from repeated headaches to act as unpaid regulators, gathering
together scientific papers and lobbying schools to have Wi-Fi systems
taken down. In 2006, a school in Chichester made headlines after its
headteacher agreed to remove a network at the request of both parents
and teachers. The headteacher told The Times he had acted out of concern
for the parents' views. 'We also did a lot of research', he added. 'The
authorities say it's safe, but there have been no long-term studies to
prove this'.

The case was something of a turning point. National newspapers began to
pay attention to data collected by campaign groups that had long been
fighting the mobile phone industry. The campaigners pointed out that the
type of radiation emitted from Wi-Fi devices, although on a slightly
different wavelength, was essentially the same as that used by mobile
phones and their transmitter masts. Both systems use high-frequency
microwaves that are 'pulsed' rapidly on and off to transmit data.

This pulsed aspect of data transmission is important, because it means
that, although a signal might appear to be low-powered when measured
over a period of time, it could reach 'spikes' of much higher levels
when data is actually being transmitted. Campaigners were also at pains
to show that Wi-Fi was just a part of a whole host of technologies using
the same microwave system, including baby monitors, DECT cordless
phones, and Bluetooth computer devices (see Strength of Microwave
Technologies below).

In May 2007, the BBC's Panorama programme investigated the signal
strengths used by Wi-Fi equipment. Under the guidance of mobile phone
concern group PowerWatch, the programme measured the intensity of
microwaves 150 metres away from a mobile phone transmitter mast, and
half a metre away from a laptop computer - realistic distances at which
everyday exposure might occur. They found that the radiation from the
Wi-Fi-enabled laptop was at least as high, if not higher, than that
measured in the main beam of the mast (see Strength of Microwave
Technologies below).

The programme was fiercely criticised by the telecommunications
industry, partly because it feared the logical conclusion - that the
battery of research built up over the past decade demonstrating very
clear health risks from exposure to mobile phone masts could now be
translated almost exactly into the risks faced by exposure to Wi-Fi
equipment (see Weight of Evidence below).

Concern was further raised by comments made on the programme by the
chairman of the Health Protection Agency (HPA), Sir William Stewart.
Stewart, former Government Chief Scientist under Margaret Thatcher, had
compiled a seminal report on mobile phones in 2000, in which he
recommended that the main beam from a mobile phone mast should never be
allowed to fall on school premises. He told Panorama unequivocally that
both phones and masts could be responsible for triggering cancer,
changes in mental function and damaging effects to the body's cells. He
also said that the approach adopted by the World Health Organisation,
which directly influences UK health policy, was not 'an accurate
reflection' of the current science.

The HPA scrambled to calm the storm caused by its maverick chairman.
Having first tried to deny Stewart had in fact made any claims against
Wi-Fi, the Agency went on to change one of its online press releases;
now, instead of asserting there was 'no evidence' that Wi-Fi could have
an effect on health, it stated there was 'no consistent evidence'. The
current HPA guidelines on Wi-Fi, to which all other UK Government
departments refer, state: 'There is no consistent evidence to date that
Wi-Fi and WLANs [wireless networks] adversely affect the health of the
general population. The 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 internationally
accepted (ICNIRP) guidelines.'

So what exactly is ICNIRP, the institution that determines the maximum
safe radio wave dosage for all UK citizens? The International Commission
on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection was formed in 1992, but has its
roots in an earlier body founded in 1970s.

Alasdair Philips, founder of PowerWatch, describes it as 'an incredibly
conservative organisation': 'ICNIRP grew out of the International
Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), which was founded in 1950s and
primarily staffed by the nuclear industry. Even when it became separate,
ICNIRP retained a strong industry bias. It is highly secretive and
access to the Commission is by invitation only.'

In 1998, ICNIRP published the document by which all countries with a
seat on the Commission - which includes most of Europe and the US -
still set their non-ionising radiation guidelines today. In the section
that examines the relationship between cancer and exposure to
microwaves, the ICNIRP authors cite seven studies to support their
conclusion that radio waves do not increase tumour rates. None of these
was conducted after 1997 - the date when Wi-Fi was first introduced -
and in fact two were conducted before the 1980s.

Three of the studies in the ICNIRP report involve the exposure of
military or civilian personnel to high-power radar systems; another
investigates an incident during the Cold War in which Soviet agents
irradiated the US embassy with microwaves, while another investigates
the effects of old-fashioned cathode ray-tube computer monitors. One
study looks at the effects of radio transmissions, but was later shown
to have drawn seriously flawed conclusions. The authors of the only
study of the seven to have investigated the health effects of mobile
phones admit their research was not designed to show the long-term
impact of handset use, which is where any cancerous effects would be found.

Later analyses of many of these papers show ICNIRP deliberately
misquoted or misconstrued the original authors' conclusions, disguising
evidence of tumours when the research offered a clear link to microwave
exposure. When, later in the same guidelines, ICNIRP dismisses the
evidence for DNA damage by microwaves, it points to papers written by
the UK's National Radiological Protection Board and the World Health
Organization (both of which act on the advice of ICNIRP), as well as a
paper by parent organisation, the IRPA.

ICNIRP appears at the centre of a hub of like-minded bodies determined
to corroborate each other's research.

The flaws in ICNIRP's guidelines did not go unnoticed. The year they
were published, sixteen internationally recognised scientists signed the
Vienna Resolution, which accused the ICNIRP researchers of ignoring the
fact that 'numerous studies published in recent years did show
biological effects below their recommended limit values'. In 1999, when
Australian scientists came to examine ICNIRP recommendations they
concluded that the guidelines 'cannot be said ... to constitute a
precautionary measure'. Australia consequently refused to join the
Commission and developed its own standards.

These substantial concerns, as well as the fact that most of the
research on which ICNIRP's guidelines are based was published before
Wi-Fi had even left the laboratory, have not been heeded by any of
ICNIRP's signatories. The UK's regulators still use and defer to the
1998 guidelines, which set levels designed only to prevent 'thermal
effects' (or heating up) due to microwave radiation. In fact, most of
the negative effects now attributed to microwaves occur at levels far
below those in the ICNIRP guidelines, and are known as 'non-thermal
effects'. These include effects on the blood-brain barrier, an increase
in the production of cancer-causing free radicals, a decrease in bodily
melatonin, and disruptions in intra-cellular communication (see How
Microwaves Affect Us below).

In response to the media outcry, and the public admissions by William
Stewart, the HPA announced in October 2007 that it would launch a
programme of research into the health effects of Wi-Fi. Initial optimism
for the proposal quickly faded when campaigners discovered that the
project would merely 'measure exposures to radio signals from wireless
computer networks', and compare them to 'international guidelines'.

'This research has already been done', says Graham Philips of
PowerWatch. 'To spend GBP 300,000 of taxpayers' money on measuring
exposure to Wi-Fi and then comparing the data to ten-year-old ICNIRP
guidelines is a complete and utter farce'.

If recent cases of research into the health risks of mobile phone
transmitter masts are anything to go by, Philips is right to be angry.
In July 2007, the results of a two-year research project joint-funded by
the Government and the mobile phone industry were published. The study,
run by researchers in a flagship facility at Essex University, had set
out to investigate whether people who claimed they suffered health
effects because of microwave radiation (known as 'electrosensitives')
could tell if a hidden mobile mast was switched on or off at any given
time. At a high-profile launch in London's Science Media Centre - from
which representatives of pressure groups and non-mainstream media were
banned - the researchers told the press that no significant results had
been found and that any electrosensitives who claimed they were affected
by radiation should start to look for other, psychological, causes for
their distress.

Faced with tight deadlines and information from a supposedly reliable
Government research programme, the journalists repeated to their editors
and readers exactly what they had been told at the launch. But the
study, which has been cited worldwide to dismiss health concerns over
microwave radiation, is now mired in controversy.

Basic errors in arithmetic have been found and admitted by the
researchers. The scientists also confess that they failed to recruit
enough participants, and as such the study's statistical power (the
ability of research to predict 'real world' effects) falls below that
considered acceptable in social science. In addition, because so few
participants were found, the researchers were unable to 'screen' them to
see if their symptoms corresponded to the known attributes of
electrosensitivity.

The researchers also began the experiment by spending three months using
equipment designed to simulate a mobile phone mast, which was not
sending out realistic signals. The laboratory equipment was missing a
crucial frequency that exists in real-world mobile mast broadcasts and
is thought to contribute to headaches and other neurophysiological
effects. Alasdair Philips was invited in to correct the equipment, but
data collected using the incorrect settings was still used in the final
analysis.

When the Ecologist challenged one of the paper's lead authors, Professor
Elaine Fox, over why her team had chosen to tell the world's media that
electrosensitivity - a condition medically recognised by the Swedish
government - was a myth, she told us: 'it seems unreasonable to conclude
that there is an effect, when almost 900 sensitive people have been
tested under double-blind conditions (Rubin et al, meta-analysis, 2005;
Regel et al, EHP, 2006, and Eltiti et al, EHP, 2007). These studies are
extremely expensive and it now seems more reasonable to start looking
for other causes, given the growing evidence.'

A fair defence, until examined more closely. Rubin et al's
'meta-analysis', which was published, notably, in the Journal of
Psychosomatic Medicine, is simply a review of 25 studies of varying
quality, of which only seven exposed participants to mobile phone-type
radiation; of these, three studies actually had found evidence of
adverse health effects. Elaine Fox also fails to mention that the Regel
et al study in fact concludes that some subjects were able consistently
to tell whether a mobile mast was switched on or off, and that in its
conclusion, the paper admits that an effect on brain function could not
be discounted.

Moreover, the study run at Essex University had been specifically
commissioned to make up for failings in earlier studies, so then to
defend the study by citing earlier ones seems dubious at best.

Ultimately, however, the HPA's new investigation into the risks of Wi-Fi
will be of little importance. The reason for this lies not in the
airwaves, but in the bundle of data cables that runs beneath your feet.

Internet capacity in the UK is at breaking point. Soaring demand for
video services, internet radio, file swapping and web phone services has
meant that an ageing system of copper wires originally installed only
for telephone calls can no longer cope. In a report by the consultancy
firm Deloitte, it was estimated that 2007 may in fact see the internet
reach 'peak capacity'.

No government, much less one that depends upon the success of a
'knowledge economy' such as the UK's, can afford to let this happen. To
lose speed and capacity on your internet network translates into lost
business, innovation and tax revenue.

Desperate to encourage ways around this bottleneck, the UK's
communications regulator, Ofcom, announced in summer 2007 that it was
planning to auction off a slice of the microwave spectrum around the 2.5
GHz frequency.

The industry nearly fell over itself with excitement. Ofcom knew that
this particular frequency band was perfect for a new type of wireless
broadband service known as WiMAX. Described by the industry as 'Wi-Fi on
steroids', WiMAX uses centrally placed masts (like mobile phone masts)
to transmit high-speed internet across towns and rural areas, thereby
bypassing capacity problems in using BT's old-fashioned copper wires and
the disruption from digging up roads and gardens to lay new cables.

In order to achieve wider coverage, the WiMAX masts are allowed to
operate at power levels significantly above those of conventional masts,
and the receiver units, which Intel is preparing to build into laptops
from 2008 onwards, have been authorised to emit microwaves at up to
twice the power level of conventional Wi-Fi equipment.

By 2008, when the HPA will only be halfway through its 'inquiry' into
the health effects of conventional Wi-Fi, the chief executive of Intel,
Paul Otellini, estimates that 150 million Americans alone will already
be within range of a WiMAX transmitter, and many thousands of will be
using a WiMAX-enabled laptop.

Ofcom is already encouraging WiMAX systems in the UK, allowing telecoms
companies to 'increase power levels' on rural transmitters in what is
described as an effort to 'close the digital divide'. The technology is
now moving far faster than it can be tested or regulated.

When the spectrum auction was first announced, an Ofcom spokesman told
an industry reporter: 'Our whole approach to spectrum management is that
the market is better placed to decide how to use spectrum than the
regulator'.

The German government is advising its citizens to limit their exposure
to Wi-Fi systems wherever possible, and to use wired alternatives. The
local government in Salzburg, Austria, has set legally binding limits
for radiation from masts that is thousands of times below international
standards. The Swedish government officially recognises
electrosensitivity as a medical problem. The Australian government has
rejected the ICNIRP guidelines on microwave exposure as inadequate.

In the UK, however, the final decision on which powerful new Wi-Fi
technologies are allowed into our homes, schools, offices and towns will
rest with a powerful coalition of IT developers, internet service
providers and lame duck regulators.


What Can We Do?

Government needs to: call for an immediate review of the ICNIRP exposure
guidelines, inviting non-industry researches to the table, and require
schools to remove Wi-Fi installations and replace them with wired
alternatives.

Industry needs to: develop wireless devices that operate at far lower
power levels and extensively market wired alternatives to wireless products.

You need to: (1) disable the wireless transmitter on your family's
laptop / computer via the software; (2) remove as many microwave devices
from your home as possible, and investigate wired alternatives; (3)
contact the groups listed at the end of this article for help in
lobbying your children's school or your workplace to remove Wi-Fi
equipment; (4) aim to use your mobile phone for as little time as possible.


Strength of Microwave Technologies

Mobile phone held next to head: 10-150V/m
DECT cordless phone held next to head: 10-80V/m
Microwave oven at 1m: 1-6V/m
Wi-Fi laptop on lap: 1-5V/n
Wi-Fi router at 0.5m: 1-2V/m
Mobile phone mast at 150m: 0.5-2V/m
DECT base unit at 0.5m: 0.5-2V/m
Digital baby monitor 1m from baby 0.3-2V/m
Bluetooth device at 50cm: 0.3-0.7V/m
DECT base unit at 3m: 0.2-0.4V/m
Wi-Fi router at 5m: 0.1-0.2V/m

Source: PowerWatch


How Microwaves Affect Us

There are many different theories on how electromagnetic radiation
interacts with our bodies, but pulsed microwave radiation, such as that
used by Wi-Fi and mobile phones, is thought to affect the body's cells
in a unique way.

Although microwaves oscillate (change direction) many thousands of times
each second, the carrier pulses which convey your voice or emails along
the signal actually oscillate at a much slower rate, only hundreds of
times a second. This slower rate allows the pulses to interact with
protein vibrational receptors, like microscopic hairs, on the membranes
of our cells. The cells interpret this unusual stimulation as a foreign
invader and react as any organism would - by closing down the cell
membrane. This impairs the flow of nutrients into the cell or waste
products on their way out. It also disrupts inter-cellular
communication, meaning that clusters of cells that form tissues can no
longer work as effectively together.

The increase of trapped waste products can lead to an increase in the
number of cancer-causing 'free radicals'. Worse still, a chemical known
as 'messenger RNA' inside the cell passes on this 'learned response' to
daughter cells, meaning that the cell's offspring also learn to
interpret microwaves as an external threat and react in the same way.

This disruption in the cellular processes is thought to lead to the many
and various symptoms of electrosensitivity, and the build-up of free
radicals released when the cell dies could be connected with the
increase in tumours seen in those exposed to frequent doses of microwave
radiation.

Special circumstances can enhance the process even further. The effects
are likely to be worse in people with damaged or developing immune
systems, particularly children, and certain drugs can dramatically
increase the risk of negative microwave effects.


Weight of Evidence

All studies listed below have found adverse health effects from
microwaves at levels similar to those emitted by Wi-Fi equipment:

Santini et al, 2002: 530 people living near mobile phone masts reported
more symptoms of headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability,
depression, memory loss and concentration problems the closer they lived
to the mast.

Oberfeld et al, 2004: 97 people living near mobile phone masts reported
more symptoms of fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss of
memory, visual disorder, dizziness and cardiovascular problems the
higher their level of microwave exposure.

Eger et al, 2004: A three-fold increase in the incidence of malignant
tumours was found after five years' exposure in people living 400 metres
from a mobile phone mast.

Wolf & Wolf, 2004: A four-fold increase in the incidence of cancer among
residents living near a mobile phone mast for between three and years
was detected.

Reflex, 2004: A four-year study on human cells found that, after
exposure to low-power microwaves, they showed signs of DNA damage and
mutations that were passed on to the next generation.

Abdel-Rassoul, 2007: Residents living beneath and opposite a
long-established mobile phone mast in Egypt reported significantly
higher occurrences of headaches, memory changes, dizziness, tremors,
depressive symptoms and sleep disturbance than a control group.

Bortkiewicz et al, 2004: Residents close to mobile phone masts reported
more incidences of circulatory problems, sleep disturbances,
irritability, depression, blurred vision and concentration difficulties
the nearer they lived to the mast.

Hutter et al, 2006: 365 people living near mobile phone masts reported
higher incidences of headaches the closer they lived to the masts.

Stewart Report, 2000: Research conducted by HPA chief William Stewart
advised the main beam of a mobile phone mast should not be allowed to
fall on any part of a school's grounds.

Hecht & Balzer, 1997: A huge review of studies concluded a vast array of
health effects, including insomnia, brainwave changes, cardiovascular
problems and increased susceptibility to infections.

Carpenter & Sage, 2007: Concluded that an maximum outdoor exposure limit
of 0.6 V/m should be set, and that Wi-Fi systems should be replaced with
wired alternatives.

Ecolog-Institut, 2000: Found evidence for increases in immune and
central nervous system damage, and reduced cognitive function.
Recommended an exposure limit 1,000 times lower than current guidelines.

Kolodynski & Kolodynska, 1999: School children living near a radio
location station in Latvia suffered reduced motor function, memory and
attention spans.


For more information:

PowerWatch: www.powerwatch.org.uk
Mast Sanity: www.mastsanity.org
HESE project: www.hese-project.org
Safe Wireless Initiative: www.safewireless.org

_____

Mark Anslow is the Ecologist's senior reporter.


TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/