From Anne H
Tuesday, 22 May 2007

Related issues to the Mytholmroyd mobile mast on Panorama last night about the possible health risks of wi-fi. I watched it and was not at all convinced by what they were suggesting, but it did question the 'accepted view' and that's not always a bad thing.

But before you make your mind up that we are frying our children's brains, do read at least some of the 400 odd comments (click 'Have your say'), the vast majority of which are disgusted by the biased scaremongering and lack of evidence. The worrying thing is that some viewers will inevitably believe anything the BBC tells them, even if it's about a single individual or study that is contrary to the mass of evidence.

From Oscar
Tuesday, 22 May 2007

As part of my job I install WiFi (Wireless) networks in primary schools including nurseries. Some pregnant teachers also use wireless laptops. Due to my own concerns I consulted the World Health Organisation website which concludes 'Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.'

From Waite
Tuesday, 22 May 2007

I completely agree with the comments posted above and work in the technology field myself. I'm not opposed in any way to the use of any of these technologies per se and agree there is huge amount of scaremongering related to the subject of low level RF transmissions. I've spend some considerable time studying and understanding the very stringent ICNIRP regulations regarding transmitter output.

My only concerns are around the small pieces of information missing from the planning application, such as the exact W/m2 output figures for the transmitter which is in unusually close proximity, as well as what the mobile operators themselves refer to as the "Main Beam."

Here is a quote from the recommended guidelines for placement of the technology put together in 2002 and re-quoted on the BBC website yesterday. I fully appreciate this information may have been revised, but if it has I can't find any reference.

"Sir William recommended to the government in 2002 that the beam of greatest intensity from a phone mast should not fall on any part of the school grounds, unless the school and parents agreed to it."

My point being that I don't know if there's enough information available in this case to form an informed opinion. If you see what I mean. :)

This post is in no way intended to scaremonger or blow things out of proportion. I'm simply interested in what's acceptable in terms of distance vs. power output and what is not. There doesn't appear to be any readily available information that make this point clear.

Posted by Johnny Marascalco
Tuesday, 22 May 2007

Given the vested interests in and the deeply embedded nature of wireless networks, the situation is extremely unlikely to change overnight anyway, even if scientific studies were to indicate health hazards. For comparison, how long has it taken for smoking to be banned in workplaces despite the clear link between smoking and life threatening illness?

There may be no concrete evidence which proves wireless networks cause adverse health effects, but is there any which unequivocally proves they cause none?