'Wi-Fi Illness' Spreads To Ontario Public Schools 663
An anonymous reader writes "Readers of Slashdot might be familiar with Lakehead University's ban on WiFi routers a few years ago in Thunder Bay, Ontario because of 'health concerns,' a policy apparently still in effect. Now it seems a group of concerned parents in a number of communities in Ontario have petitioned the local school boards over similar concerns at public schools, where their kids are apparently experiencing 'headaches to dizziness and nausea and even racing heart rates' — symptoms that appear only when they are in school on weekdays, not on weekends at home. 'The symptoms, which also include memory loss, trouble concentrating, skin rashes, hyperactivity, night sweats and insomnia, have been reported in 14 Ontario schools in Barrie, Bradford, Collingwood, Orillia and Wasaga Beach since the board decided to go wireless ...' Besides Wi-Fi signals, could there possibly be any other logical explanation for kids having more symptoms of illness on school days than at home on weekends or in the summer?"
Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
because stress NEVER causes any of those symptoms...
I don't know.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe kids don't like being in school? I found myself more active and alert when at home as opoposed to school when I was attending.
It's Black Mold (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it's a mold problem in the school. My guess is stachybotrys. Look It up, the symptoms match perfectly.
Re:It's Black Mold (Score:1, Interesting)
Do you think WIFI radiation could encourage stachybotrys growth? After this, therefore because of this.
------
Some users are furious at Microsoft for rolling out a
buggy product without fully testing it first. [el reg]
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4, Interesting)
What about caffeine? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Mod the summary funny (Score:1, Interesting)
I was fine all throughout primary and secondary school, but since coming to college I've noticed that I feel physically sick in the lectures, it was enough to make me stop attending lectures almost entirely (maybe I'll do better next year).
Admittedly it's a lot easier in college because attendance isn't mandatory and you can get up and leave with nothing more than a disappointed look, I can't imagine how I would've coped in secondary school (although not attending lectures isn't really "coping" I know, but I read the notes and so far have consistently been near the top of my class in most subjects so for now it'll do).
I think that on the off-chance the kids aren't faking it (and really, who hasn't done it at some time in their youth) their parents are doing them a disservice by simply trying to blame it on WiFi.
Re:Does this happen on Test Days (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm...who would post such a leading question?? (Score:0, Interesting)
Do the donkeys on slashdot ever stop to think they are being manipulated by corporate interests? Anonymous reader posts link to an anti-wifi story with a leading question at the end of this comments. Hmmm...I smell a corporate rat. BULLSHIT ON YOU.
They banned WiFi on a floor of my last workplace (Score:5, Interesting)
Spectral evidence is irrefutable! (Score:3, Interesting)
Wi-Fi is the obvious culprit. The spectral evidence is clear and this apparently isn't the first time it's caused problems in children...
http://www.salemweb.com/memorial/chronology.shtml [salemweb.com]
Re:WiFi at home? (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. The rf spectrum is at full capacity and signals at every frequency are being constantly broadcast. WiFi only represents a fraction of this and it is ridiculous to link the symptoms of these children to it. It might be interesting to build a Faraday cage around the schools and see if symptoms go away.
Commercial FM broadcast signals are usually the worse [ezinearticles.com].
Re:Whats wrong with the children? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't have the references handy and i can't be bothered looking them up. But a few high profile cases have turned out to be total BS because one partner assumed, led the child on, and got the courts rolling on it. However there would be physical trauma related to the accusations. There was none. It never happened.
Re:Mod the summary funny (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Mod the summary funny (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mod the summary funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, indeed you don't get a difference (and practical implications for everybody) between "someone" and "large enough part of the society"...
Re:Mod the summary funny (Score:5, Interesting)
You will notice he also said "various biological agents" and "that's just for starters". I agree that minerals are certainly normal in the water, but only when present in normal levels. There are plenty of examples all over the world where some minerals are present in dangerous levels, and some pretty unhealthy minerals like Arsenic.
There are also the example of where the fuel additive MTBE has greatly contaminated many water sources in the US and has affected the trust we have in our government to provide clean water. Then there is also the case of fluoride being added to the water supply and the mind control conspiracies that go along with it. Personally, I don't think the government needs to add fluoride to the water I drink, regardless of conspiracies about its purpose. I am an adult, if I think I need fluoride supplements I will take them. By their logic why not infuse the water with various supplements and vitamins as well? Perhaps a fat government contract with the fine folks that provide us Vitamin Water?
What about the biological agents? That is a real developing problem. Metabolized psychiatric and other drugs are present in water supplies all over the developed world. It is affecting fish species as we speak. If you are drinking tap water you ARE consuming some of these compounds, albeit in very small amounts they "deem" to be safe. Of course, there isn't exactly an abundance of data and studies yet that show us the real dangers either and what is really safe levels.
As full disclosure I will say I have zero faith in the FDA and any of those cocksucking regulators either. I *never* knew that Tuna sold in the US had levels of mercury in it, in whatever amounts. As an effort to lose weight I went on an all Tuna diet with a lot of vegetables (not corn, or peas, but salad type vegetables) and got a really nice case of mercury poisoning. Later on I found out that powers that be let small amounts of mercury be sold in the fish and don't exactly bend over backwards to test it either. Probably because of dollar bills that keep falling out of the fish industry executive's pockets. Quite a nuisance I am sure. If there was even the smallest disclosure on the can that said there might be levels of mercury in it, I would have never eaten it at all. I miss Tuna quite a bit, but it is not safe to eat in any amounts whatsoever. Why? The recommended daily allowance of mercury in your diet is ZERO. Of course the allowed daily allowance is non-zero. Go figure.
I know that the GP might have sounded a bit tin-foil-hattish to you, but there are plenty of justified reasons to not fully trust the people responsible for keeping our food and water supplies safe.
Water quality is a particularly serious issue and the various municipalities and engineers responsible have not exactly instilled me with an abundance of faith in their efforts. As a result, I don't trust any water that has not directly gone through my own water filtration systems and I tend to take water with me during the day. That does not leave me with very many beverage options to be sure, but most of the crap out there is full of high fructose corn syrup, chemicals, and other super healthy additives. It is quite easy for me to abstain.
Re:Mod the summary funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Because unguided independent study by an uneducated person doesn't work for the overwhelming majority of people.
True, and this is where family members (immediate or extended), friends, clergy, and others can help a child learn the self-direction and discipline to learn on his own. Do you really think the best way to raise a child is by bussing him to some dreary warehouse where he'll be placed under the arbitrary authority of some adult stranger for 8 hours a day? Please.
You should check out this book. The author (an award-winning elementary school teacher who has since renounced compulsory schooling) has put it up online, free as in beer. Underground History of American Education [johntaylorgatto.com].
Re:Mod the summary funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, growing up is an excellent alternative, which government schooling tries to retard as much as possible. They reward docility, and penalize initiative and independence.
From my niece's point of view, as 4th grade teacher (I keep thinking she teaches 5th, where they seem to less animal AND less human:
docility - mistaking discipline for docility is wrong.
penalizing initiative - well, in 4th grade, initiative is usually going to interfere with class discipline, but offering to get the water for painting class is initiative. Asking where the water is when standing NEXT TO THE SINK, that's 4th grade.
penalizing independence - generally correct in 4th grade. But not always. Students that can put their supplies at least on the table, good for independence. Students that insist on screaming out their current emotion, not so much indendence. See discipline.
Now in high school, good traits. Same caveats, different examples.
I don't think my school experiences were marked by docility, lack of initiative, and independence. But that was long before the liberals took over schooling in America. We didn't need standardized tests back then. We had midyears and finals. In elementary school, we either passed, or repeated the grade. That doesn't seem to happen today.
Re:Mod the summary funny (Score:1, Interesting)
Or the other easy way - switch the wifi off and not tell them, and watch how the complaints continue nevertheless. (I believe a cellular network provider did exactly this when faced with a neverending stream of complaints. Switched the site completely off but the 'symptoms' kept continuing and getting worse. There was a bit of an about-face once the network provider announced that fact..)
Belief is stronger than facts (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of people believe that EM spectrum radiation is harmful in many different ways.
We can either fight them on every front they raise or we can agree with them that there MIGHT be such a danger. People have believed this since the introduction of electricity, so thinking that someone we are going to convince these people they are wrong just isn't going to happen. It has nothing to do with ignorance or some peculiar regligious belief - it is just a belief in something beyond current knowledge.
Besides, how the heck does anyone really know what we don't know yet? The real answer is nobody knows. It is unlikley, even incredibly unlikely, but there is no way to convince people that it couldn't be happening.
We aren't talking about WiFi routers alone. Every source of EM radiation is suspect, down to the level of detectability. If it can be detected, then it is possible that it is having some kind of unknown effect. Probable? No. But just barely possible. And it doesn't necessarily have to affect everyone, just those that are somehow sensitive.
What needs to be understood is until this is dealt with on a human (not just scientific probability) level, it is going to continue to prevent construction of EM-emitting objects. Like power transmission lines. And cell towers. And there will be complaints about every device like a WiFi router.
How would such proof be managed? I don't know. But I do know that fighting individual battles over Wifi routers, cell towers, radio stations, power lines and every other sort of EM-emitting device is pointless. The non-believing majority will lose out to the minority that believes. As Mr. Obama said just recently, we are a country of religious freedom and it would be wrong to unfairly oppress a religious minority that believes WiFi is harmful. At least without absolute proof that they are wrong.
Instant dismissal no less ignorant (Score:2, Interesting)
Being one of the techies in my 34 household community, I was asked by a couple of member to look into the potential dangers of WiFi. It was actually pretty interesting.
Spoiler: In the end I recommended we do very little to change our WiFi network.
For those interested in a more detailed exploration of the topic than a variant of the trite "Oh those rascally kids... always trying to get out of school" dismissal of the idea, there's a great set of research on the potential dangers of WiFi and similar EMF available through the bioinitative (google it). Sadly, what once was a free site now charges $2 (with the weak excuse that this is to cover costs.... in which case a $0.05 charge per user would likely do).
The report gave summaries of several hundred experiments to determine potential risks from a variety of signals ranging across the EM spectrum. Quite a few of the conclusions gave good grounds for further research.
The problem is that most of these studies are still in the early stages - hundreds of experiments into different aspects of the potential dangers, with very little duplication as of yet. It may turn out that there is legitimate cause for concern, but at present it all comes down to how one uses the precautionary principle.
I think the bottom line is that when we listen carefully to such concerns, do the research, and use a reasonably scientific approach, the results are better than a pat answer.
Those who jump on the "Someone says WiFi must be dangerous so it clearly IS" bandwagon are no more or less ignorant or reasoning in their approach than those jumping on the "I've never heard of WiFi being dangerous and its handy, so clearly these people are crazy" bandwagon.
Those claiming kids faking sickness to get out of school is nothing new might want to find out:
- Is there a spike in the reported symptoms? (after all... kids can fake the flu anytime)
- Does the spike coincide with a change in the wifeless, or with a change in the wireless being known about by the kids... or with a spike once the first kid went home sick?
It could be kids playing hookie. It could be other environmental factors. It could be a placebo effect (particularly with all the hype). But dismissing it off the bat is no more sensible than refusing to look through Galileo's telescope because you already KNOW there can't be any moons there....
Or in knowing a historical event happened because some folks said it did - http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-refused-to-look-through-galileos.html
Could be the water (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't speak for all schools, but my old middle school had horrible water. I actually did a side-by-side microscope comparison of fresh-from-the-tap to mudwater, and the school had more bacteria. Less sediment, but still more bacteria.
First time a teacher regretted me actually doing my homework.
Re:Mod the summary funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Living in Ontario, I heartily agree. I'll be however, that if you look at most of the schools you'll find one of a few things. Either they have new or recent construction and made airtight(trapping fumes). The buildings are full of toxic mold, which is pretty common around here(again probably renno'd and then made airtight). Or, you may have a school built on one of a variety unique places, like garbage dumps, or some type of toxic gas outlet-which isn't being vented properly. Again that's pretty damn common around here. Or you could be dealing with one of several other dozen things.
One thing I've noticed living in Ontario for a long time is people here really go through states of sickness in groups here. Why, I don't know but it hits everyone around the same time. The day before, everyone is alright the following day part of the office is feeling bleh, down, and nauseous. That of course is just observation, but having lived here for 25 years and spent a few years in other places.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, food allergies seem to be a symptom of lack of breastfeeding and using formula instead. Obviously, virtually everybody breastfeeds in third world countries.
It's not obvious at all that everyone breastfeeds in third world countries. In fact, efforts such as the Nestle boycott [wikimedia.org] came about precisely because of companies successfully pushing the use of infant formula in developing countries.
I have a simpler explanation for the lack of food allergies in developing countries. In places where even normal people have trouble procuring adequate nutrition, children who have fatal allergies tend to die quickly. That's why you never encounter severe allergies in developing countries -- the ones who were born with them are already dead.
Re:I they are feeling ill NOW, (Score:3, Interesting)
wait till we turn the equipment on!
This has actually happened (IIRC some 10 years ago in Germany, but I can't find a reference on the web). A GSM base station was put up somewhere, and people immediately began to get sick (headaches, insomnia etc.). When people started demanding to remove it, it turned out that only the tower had been erected, but the radio equipment hadn't even been installed yet. That's the power of the mind...
Re:Mod the summary funny (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, yes. It was noted in some of the earliest writings on hydroponics that dirty water made plants grow better than clean filtered water.
Re:Mod the summary funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mod the summary funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mod the summary funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Distilled water and tap water basically will have the same effect with regards to depletion of minerals.
That's simply not true.
Water is a natural solvent. It will also bond, by various means, with many things. Water which already is "full" of minerals will strip the body of fewer minerals simply because it can hold fewer "new" minerals. On the other hand, distilled water will naturally absorb the body's minerals, causing them to be urinated out.
As a result, measuring mineral content in urine will likely so similar results but for completely different reasons. In one case, the minerals are there because they were already present in the water. In the second case, the minerals will be there because they were removed from the body. This is true for all naturally occurring water and is why minerals are present in water in the first place. Why would you believe water magically works differently inside the body than it does outside the body?
Supporting anecdote (Score:1, Interesting)
I design and program wireless networks for water infrastructure, and I can say that these types of symptoms are spot on. I once tested a radio comm network in the 900mhz range, 40 radios each outputting 5 continuous watts (spread spectrum radios constantly talk to each other even when DTE transmissions are minimal) and after a couple of hours I would get sick to my stomach and a severe headache. Of course an 802.11x router isn't going to put out 5 watts and you're not likely to have to share a small room with 40 of them, but if a person was hyper-sensitive I could see this as a real concern.