C4ST and Frank Clegg Spreading WiFi Fear

volcow et al pic skeptic north

Once more, Frank Clegg and the BC based Citizens for Safe Technology (C4ST) have shown that they will not let science get in the way of scaring children and families.  This past Tuesday, the start of school for most Ontario children, C4ST was positioned outside of a school in Mississauga handing out pamphlets warning children and parents of the dangers of a new policy the Peel School Board has to Bring Your Own Device (BYOD), meaning web-enabled electronics, that uses wireless internet as a delivery device.  My disappointment deepened when the Peel Board, an organization committed to education, decided that instead of educating it would offer only a written statement that said in essence ‘Health Canada says it is safe’.  I could see the hapless grin and feckless shrug even through the quote onscreen.  Finally, even after contacting me through Bad Science Watch, the local CTV health reporter Pauline Chan failed to present any opposing arguments to Clegg and his minions, and was therefore complicit in telling a story based in fantasy and fear.

Clegg, in an on camera interview, made two striking and oft-refuted claims regarding the use of wireless technology: that EMF sources like WiFi have not been tested on children and that any technology should be proven not harmful before being allowed to be deployed.  A quick look at the pamphlet shows the bias inherent in both of these arguments. They link to the BioInitiative Report, a heavily biased and unscientific review of cherry-picked literature designed more to instill fear than inform, and they show a scary looking brain scan diagram, a sure-fire way to fool people, that claims to show the increased absorption of EMF in a child and adult.  The real picture is much different.

Contrary to Clegg’s insistence that wireless tech has not been tested on children, I found 18 studies (listed below), including 3 systematic reviews that largely disagreed with this assertion. The engineers and scientists at Health Canada are no dummies: when reviewing ALL of the information, not just that which confirms our biased assumptions, the evidence shows not only that the absorption of EMF in adults and children, called the SAR, is mostly the same between children over 2 and adults but that wireless technology is safe in the doses demanded by Safety Code 6.  The study from Ghandi that is cited in the paper shows only one side of the argument, and more importantly, was presented at a conference with fringe scientists like Henry Lai and Devra Davis in attendance – a very receptive audience. As well, the journal it was published in was Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, a journal with a very low impact factor, edited by Henry Lai, and probably not very critical of studies that confirm their idea that EMF are inherently dangerous to humans.  Even more, it deals with cell phones, not the emissions from WiFi.

Cell phones we hold to the head or in some cases next to our bodies when using a headset.  WiFi has an emitter tens or hundreds of feet away.  The emission from a WiFi unit is a small percentage of a cell phone, with one recent study showing the absorption in children to be 1% of that of a cell phone.  Clegg obviously does not know how to use a computer – one of the things he is actually qualified to comment on.  Chan made a point of talking about Clegg’s impressive credentials, surely the head of a software company knows about wireless tech.  Well, he may be able to sketch out a system diagram, but he has neither the training nor experience to speak authoritatively on any biological effects of WiFi and Chan should have been skeptical enough to make this distinction: we should expect nothing less from our health and science reporters.

The other galling assertion that any technology should be proven safe before deploying it seems on the surface to be a reasonable request, but it is an argument that you and I ignore on a daily basis. We make decisions about technology based on a different equation.  We make decisions by weighing both the benefits AND risks of any situation. Vending machines kill people every year, and even washrooms pose a danger – 2.3 million toilets were recalled by the manufacturer in 2012 due to a risk of explosion.  Vending machines are convenient, even when they are not selling sugary drinks, and the value of toilets is obvious, despite the injuries they causeScience cannot pronounce any technology safe; it can only say we have found no evidence of harm overall.  The demand that Clegg makes can no more be applied to wireless tech than to the cars or bicycles that take children to school every day.  Wireless tech is convenient and useful and so far the benefits outweigh any identified risks: Clegg is being disingenuous and misrepresenting the truth.

Parents want their child to be safe, however, and this is understandable.  Whenever the C4ST mentions the listing of DDT and lead as possible carcinogens in the same sentence as cell phones it gets our attention.  DDT is harmful to the environment and humans, and Lead is a serious health concern.  But also on the IARC list of possible carcinogens were coffee, pickles, and working in a wood shop?.  Where are the activists asking for condemning coffee, or banning Bicks?  Of course this hyperbole seems silly, and it is. The evidence for all of these items is not equal, obviously, and it is possible that the IARC would have not put cell phone radiation on the list had it just waited for new evidence a few months later that confirmed previous study findings of no increased risk of cancer from long term cell phone use. Clegg and the C4ST should be ignored: leave the science to the professionals and stop misleading the public on the dangers of WiFi.

A quick note: the American Academy of Environmental Health, as mentioned at the end of Chan’s report, is an organisation that regularly reports dubious health claims, including the bogus diagnosis of chronic Lyme disease and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. They are not a recognised medical specialty and a good discussion on why we should not trust their statistics – that up to 30% of the population is experiencing delayed effects from EMF – can be found here

Studies Concerning Cell Phone Radiation and  Children

  1. Anderson, V. (2003). Comparisons of peak SAR levels in concentric sphere head models of children and adults for irradiation by a dipole at 900 MHz. Phys Med Biol 48, 3263–3275.
  2. Bit-Babik, G., Guy, A.W., Chou, C.-K., Faraone, A., Kanda, M., Gessner, A., Wang, J., and Fujiwara, O. (2005). Simulation of exposure and SAR estimation for adult and child heads exposed to radiofrequency energy from portable communication devices. Radiat. Res. 163, 580–590.
  3. Beard, B.B., Kainz, W., Onishi, T., Iyama, T., Watanabe, S., Fujiwara, O., Wang, J., Bit-Babik, G., Faraone, A., Wiart, J., et al. (2006). Comparisons of Computed Mobile Phone Induced SAR in the SAM Phantom to That in Anatomically Correct Models of the Human Head. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 48, 397–407.
  4. Challis, L.J. (2005). Mechanisms for interaction between RF fields and biological tissue. Bioelectromagnetics Suppl 7, S98–S106.
  5. Christ, A., and Kuster, N. (2005). Differences in RF energy absorption in the heads of adults and children. Bioelectromagnetics Suppl 7, S31–44.
  6. Christ, A., Gosselin, M.-C., Christopoulou, M., Kühn, S., and Kuster, N. (2010). Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users. Phys Med Biol 55, 1767–1783.
  7. Findlay, R.P., and Dimbylow, P.J. (2010). SAR in a child voxel phantom from exposure to wireless computer networks (Wi-Fi). Phys Med Biol 55, N405–411.
  8. Gandhi, O.P., Morgan, L.L., de Salles, A.A., Han, Y.-Y., Herberman, R.B., and Davis, D.L. (2012). Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagn Biol Med 31, 34–51.
  9. Joó, E., Szász, A., and Szendrö, P. (2006). Metal-framed spectacles and implants and specific absorption rate among adults and children using mobile phones at 900/1800/2100 MHz. Electromagn Biol Med 25, 103–112.
  10. Keshvari, J., and Heikkilä, T. (2011). Volume-averaged SAR in adult and child head models when using mobile phones: a computational study with detailed CAD-based models of commercial mobile phones. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 107, 439–442.
  11. Kwon, M.S., Huotilainen, M., Shestakova, A., Kujala, T., Näätänen, R., and Hämäläinen, H. (2010). No effects of mobile phone use on cortical auditory change-detection in children: an ERP study. Bioelectromagnetics 31, 191–199.
  12. Lindholm, H., Alanko, T., Rintamäki, H., Kännälä, S., Toivonen, T., Sistonen, H., Tiikkaja, M., Halonen, J., Mäkinen, T., and Hietanen, M. (2011). Thermal effects of mobile phone RF fields on children: a provocation study. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 107, 399–403.
  13. Martens, L. (2005). Electromagnetic safety of children using wireless phones: a literature review. Bioelectromagnetics Suppl 7, S133–137.
  14. Van Rongen, E., Roubos, E.W., van Aernsbergen, L.M., Brussaard, G., Havenaar, J., Koops, F.B.J., van Leeuwen, F.E., Leonhard, H.K., van Rhoon, G.C., Swaen, G.M.H., et al. (2004). Mobile phones and children: is precaution warranted? Bioelectromagnetics 25, 142–144.
  15. De Salles, A.A., Bulla, G., and Rodriguez, C.E.F. (2006). Electromagnetic absorption in the head of adults and children due to mobile phone operation close to the head. Electromagn Biol Med 25, 349–360.
  16. Schüz, J. (2005). Mobile phone use and exposures in children. Bioelectromagnetics Suppl 7, S45–50.
  17. Takahashi, S., Imai, N., Nabae, K., Wake, K., Kawai, H., Wang, J., Watanabe, S., Kawabe, M., Fujiwara, O., Ogawa, K., et al. (2010). Lack of adverse effects of whole-body exposure to a mobile telecommunication electromagnetic field on the rat fetus. Radiat. Res. 173, 362–372.
  18. Wiart, J., Hadjem, A., Gadi, N., Bloch, I., Wong, M.F., Pradier, A., Lautru, D., Hanna, V.F., and Dale, C. (2005). Modeling of RF head exposure in children. Bioelectromagnetics Suppl 7, S19–30.

5 Responses to “C4ST and Frank Clegg Spreading WiFi Fear”

  1. Robert Quickert says:

    You may wish to clarify that DDT and Lead may be harmful, but not because they are are on the Class 2B list: DDT is an endocrine disruptor and lead is a neurotoxin. That is why we ban or them and/or seriously restrict their use.

    I might add that folks like Magda Havas, whose background is environmental pollutants, should know that and should be able to draw the distinction for the general public. That she chooses not to speaks volumes.

    • I was going to make that point in the article – however, there is some suggestion that DDT may increase the chance of breast cancer and lead is mildly mutagenic as well – the point is that the evidence for both of these things is much more solid than the evidence for the mutagenicity of radio-frequency radiation.

      • Robert Quickert says:

        Sorry for late reply. Was on holidays. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. One could point out the items are on the 2B list for a reason, but that the reason we ban them are for the scientifically well-documented reasons that they are a neurotoxin and endocrine disruptor.

    • BironEMF says:

      Dr. Devra Davis has been promoting the bogus DDT analogy including this utterly ridiculous remark below.

      “The IARC expert reviewers reached a similar conclusion about this study and did not rely on it in reaching their conclusion that cell phone and other wireless radiation is a ‘possible human carcinogen’–the same category as DDT and engine exhausts–two agents that children are not allowed to play with and for which regulatory standards exist around the world.”


      Davis ratchets the rhetoric up further with the do-it-for-the-children shtick.

      It’s not surprising that C4ST picked it up.


  • Michael Kruse

    Michael is an advanced-care paramedic in York Region, just north of Toronto, Ontario. A semi-retired theatrical lighting designer as well, he re-trained in 2005 as an EMT-PS at the University of Iowa and as an ACP at Durham College, and is currently working towards a B.Sc at the University of Toronto. Michael is a founder and the chair of the board of directors of Bad Science Watch. He is also the recipient of the first annual Barry Beyerstein Award for Skepticism. Follow Michael on twitter @anxiousmedic. Michael's musings are his own and do not necessarily represent those of his employer or Bad Science Watch.