(Copied to BBC Online Editors and Media Lens)You state : "However there are no reputable studies to demonstrate any adverse effects from the use of wifi and, as I point out in my article, there is no credible model for how such effects could be caused."
Dear Bill,
Re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6583815.stm "Wi-fi? Why worry?"
I found your answer somewhat glib and self-indulgent. I will answer your comments in order of "merit".
Which Studies are you familiar with, and why do you dismiss them?
Is it simply because they aren't explicitly "wi-fi"?
I would argue that there are no credible studies which have actually proved there isn’t a health issue.
Have you read the research personally?
If not, on whom are you relying for the statement that there is "no credible research"?
What exactly are your qualifications for making your statements?
I can safely assume that you have no Biology or Bio-Physics qualifications.
By referring to "credible model" I can see that you are purely referring to the physics aspect. Biologists do not use this type of terminology.
CREDIBLE MODEL
Several highly "credible model"s exist and one such "credible model" has most recently been explained by Dr. Andrew Goldworthy, Honorary Lecturer in Biology from Imperial College, London (his biography is at http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/heseuk/profile.php?id=ag ) - a recent interviewee on the BBC's Newsnight program 2 weeks ago (* see later) - on just this subject. Weak Electromagnetic Fields are precisely what are created when you turn on a wireless LAN in wi-fi - otherwise wi-fi wouldn't work!
In fact he left a comment on the Newsnight part of the BBC website which reads :-
"Next time someone says that there are no known mechanisms by which weak electromagnetic fields can have biological effects, ask them to visit: -
http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/, You will find in it an article that I wrote recently explaining in non-mathematical but science-based terms just how such effects arise. It contains many references to work published in peer reviewed journals and explains most of the known biological effects from risks to fertility to interference with brain function. I don't ask you to believe it; just read it and make up your own mind. Andrew Goldsworthy BSc PhD Honorary Lecturer in Biology Imperial College London"
In his paper entitled "The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields" he explains in simple terms how such a credible model works. In the conclusion of this document (found at http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/goldsworthy_bio_weak_em_07.pdf ) he states "In the latter part of this article, I have explained how weak electromagnetic fields can interact with cell membranes to weaken them and make them more permeable. As with all theories, it will be subject to modification and refinement as time goes by, but some facts are already inescapable. There is undeniable experimental proof that weak electromagnetic fields can remove bound calcium ions from cell membranes. There is also no doubt that bound calcium ions are essential for the stability of these membranes. Consequently, their loss will increase temporary pore formation under the mechanical stresses from pressure differences within the cell and abrasion by its moving contents. This very simple conclusion can account for virtually all of the known biological effects of electromagnetic fields, including changes in metabolism, the promotion of cancer, genetic damage, loss of fertility, deleterious [harmful] effects on brain function and the unpleasant symptoms experienced by electrosensitive individuals."
I have the details of 5 or 6 other "credible model"s which explain other specific mechanisms, but I won't put them all in this reply, if you want them you only have to ask.
I suspect that my reply to you will not be taken seriously since you have stated categorically that there is no evidence to date to show that non-ionizing radiation is any problem at all. This is clearly wrong.
You have clearly decided to discount the large body of evidence on non-ionising radiation just because you don't believe (or have been "encouraged" not to believe) that there is a problem. You appear to have completely ignored years and years of research in one statement just because it suits your lifestyle.
SYMPTOMS
Below are a long list of people who can not enjoy your lifestyle since it doesn't suit them, because it makes them ill. These are people who figure in the many cases of health problems triggered by Wi-Fi installations in school and elsewhere, for example John Fox (Teacher) , Robert Thinker (Home Owner) , Michael Bevington (Teacher) , Tony (Resident in flat) , Kate Figes (Author) , Ryan Warne (Furniture Worker) , Poppy Rhodes (Journalist) , David Dean (Councillor, London) , Sarah Dacre (former TV Executive) , Brian Stein (Chief Executive) ,
As reported by the Times Educational Supplement recently in a BECTA report from 2000, but never published, "some engineers complained of headaches at the end of the working days".
In the Independent on Sunday (13/05/2007) published a letter from yet another sufferer entitled "Wi-Fi headache" it went on to say "I have worked in an IT environment for 20 years, suffering little more than the odd trip-up on trailing cables ("Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi", 29 April). My organisation has used wireless routers on and off for a year. As soon as the device is booted up I sense a searing head pain that can last several hours. Using a mobile also causes headaches. My home network is wired." from David Williams, SALE, CHESHIRE .
Additionally, I personally know of several other examples where people have been made ill by the presence of Wi-fi and have recovered afterwards:-
1. A neighbour always ill in various ways over a long period of time whilst wi-fi was in the house recovered soon after it was turned off.
2.Family friend, also over a long period, often had a migraine when sat by the wi-fi router - he recovered when wi-fi was removed.
3.An ex-colleague who could not stand to stay in his office when wi-fi was introduced - had to give up his work there - his reaction was so severe that he is now electrosensitive and has to avoid all other forms of microwave emissions.
4.Another member under took a straw poll of parents and children leaving local school with wi-fi - 1/3 of children were described as often having headaches, migraines, sleep problems, nose bleeds and mouth ulcers.
None of these symptoms occurred before Wi-fi was installed, and all are commonly associated with findings from research into other comparable forms of microwave radiation.
Also everyone who is registered with the charity electrosensitivity will also not be able to go near Wi-fi.
THE BBC
People think that the BBC employ people who know what they are talking about.
By speaking within the BBC via its website you represent the BBC.
60 years on from the start of research into the effects of non-ionising radiation in the 1940s we DO understand enough about the nature of microwave emissions and weak electromagnetic fields to see how there can be a danger to human (and animal) health and YOU are foolhardy to placate public concern.
As is the BBC in not allowing Scientists with negative views on the technology publicise their views:
(*) Dr. Andrew Goldworthy was apparently given a rough time by the "unbiased" BBC - this is quoted from his e-mail found at ( http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/thisweek.htm )
"I was asked as a scientist to give a recorded interview for a BBC "Newsnight" programme on the safety of Wi-Fi in schools. I was subjected to hostile questioning (which I expected) but I was surprised to find that they were not at all interested in the science. The official line in the UK seems to be that there are no known mechanisms that can explain any deleterious effects on health and they would prefer not to have their views disturbed by scientific facts.
When I pointed out in the interview that there was now firm scientific evidence of serious effects on health and fertility from mobile phones (which share similar technologies with Wi-Fi) and some of this could be related to experimentally proven damage to DNA, the interview was brought to an abrupt end. I was escorted politely to my waiting taxi and advised that very little of the interview would be broadcast.
Instead the bulk of the science slot in the programme was given over to "scientists" offering soothing words about how little danger Wi-Fi presented because the signal level was lower than that from mobile phones. But to say that Wi-Fi is safe just because the signal is lower than that from mobile phones is meaningless unless they can also specify what a safe level is, and they have not established this. Despite this serious omission, they went on to say that any research to discover the health risks from Wi-Fi "should be given a very low priority.
So there we have it, it is down to our non-consenting children to act as guinea pigs to test the technology in the class room. The proposal by Lawrie Challis that the effects on their health may be monitored offers no comfort to their parents. "
Since your editor sees no reason to amend or withdraw the article I demand the right to reply to your article in a reply to your article as prominently as your article on the BBC News Online website.
I hope to hear from you and your editor soon.
Yours Sincerely,
Martin Sharp
Bill Thompson wrote:
Dear Mr Sharp
My editor has passed your comment on to me as I am the author of the column you have complained about and I have discussed the matter with him. It is clear that you and I have very different views on the issue, but it is rare to find that all readers agree with the views I express in my writing, but he sees no reason to amend or withdraw the article, which has been received poisitively by other correspondents.
My columns are clearly labelled as such, and I do not speak for the BBC. However there are no reputable studies to demonstrate any adverse effects from the use of wifi and, as I point out in my article, there is no credible model for how such effects could be caused. I stand by all the views expressed, and I rather hope that people do believe what I have written and check out the research for themselves. At the time of the BSE crisis we understood enough about prion chemistry and the nature of scrapie to see how there could be a danger of cow to human transmission, and Mr Gummer was foolhardy in his attempt to placate public concern. No credible model or mechanism is put forward by those who object to low-power non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, and so I have no worries about my daughter's health - or of mine as I write this on my wireless laptop.
yours sincerely
Bill Thompson
No comments:
Post a Comment