Topic: Anti Wi-Fi hysteria continues in Peterborough, Ontario

[bahead]

Wi-Fi opponents confront education director at school board public meeting
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3190012

Magda Havas, the Wi-Fi alarmist who works at Trent University in Peterborough, has stirred local parents into a frenzy about Wi-Fi in schools.  I can't pick up the local paper without reading about some community meeting against Wi-Fi or some letter to the editor from a parent who's convinced that school boards are "experimenting" on children.  Havas is behind it all.  She spends less time researching than she does speaking about her shoddy research into the effects of non-ionizing radiation.  She always presents herself as "Dr. Magda Havas", as if she's an authority on radiation, but her PhD is in botany, not physics or medicine.   

Just my luck to live in a city that hosts the major crank against non-ionizing radiation.   If you have any doubt, read this story
http://www.magdahavas.com/2011/05/11/pick-of-the-week-26-cn-tower-edgewalk-thrill-seekers-may-get-more-than-they-paid-for/

Bruce

[EMF_Lorax]

>>She spends less time researching than she does speaking about her shoddy research into the effects of non-ionizing radiation. <<

1 The professor in question has had a very relevant double blind study published where she provoked heart arrhythmia in several individuals using a DECT cordless home phone. One subject experienced an instantaneous doubling of heart rate.

2. Many of the parents who are objecting to Wi-Fi are electrohypersensitive (EHS) and are trying to protect ALL of the children who will be exposed to Wi-Fi - they have first hand experience. These parents have every right to be angry as the school district is not listening to them or the world renowned independent scientists who are sounding the alarm bell.

3. In a "blind" study which was featured on national TV program on the safety of Wi-Fi in schools, she was able to provoke a significant increase in heart rate of a grown man by exposing him to Wi-Fi radiation and the subject was able to reliably tell when the Wi-Fi was on or off. Health Canada is aware of this study. Why are they not attempting to replicate it using a "double blind" protocol?

I am a senior IT Tech in BC who became electrohypersensitive over four years ago. I have a very deep understanding of what happens from a biological standpoint and also technical standpoint from exposure to Wi-Fi or any other kind of non-ionizing radiation. Make no mistake - EHS is real, from someone who has had first hand experience. There is a clear temporal/spatial relationship to exposure and symptoms.

How interesting it is that Health Canada, who has  in the past cited studies on low level electromagnetic radiation from the the World Health Organization (WHO) that support it's "Wi-Fi is safe" position  refuses to change it's stance, despite the fact that though the WHO classified low level electromagnetic radiation as a 2B (possible) carcinogen at the end of May 2011.

[Desert Fox]

How can you have a double blind with a cordless phone? What is your exact methodology as far as the test?

[EMF_Lorax]

Power was controlled outside the testing room. Neither the blindfolded subject or the person observing the heart variability monitor knew when the phone base was plugged in/unplugged.

[Rocket Man]

Is there a known or theorized mechanism to how EHS might affect someone biologically and if so how is it strong enough for you to have a conscious response to it?

EDIT: also can we get some links to the mentioned studies?

[Caffiene]

Perhaps you could cite which study youre talking about? Critisisms of the methods she uses are apparently very easy to find, but less easy to look into that particular study without knowing which study it is.

I will say though that your other points about anecdotal evidence are far from convincing. The most commonly cited symptoms of EHS are the sort of common ailments with varied and subtle causes that are particularly ripe for misattribution and misunderstanding. High quality studies, if they exist, are definitely necessary since the claimed symptoms are almost archetypal examples of the sort of things that fall prey to logical fallacies.

[edit: spelling]

[ConspicuousCarl]

I am a senior IT Tech in BC

What exactly does that mean?  Does "senior IT tech" have some kind of official definition up there, or do you just tell other people how to hook up routers?

I have a very deep understanding of what happens from a biological standpoint and also technical standpoint

Could you explain your "deep understanding"?  How does it work, and why do only some people experience severe symptoms while most people are completely unaffected?

[Unlimited]

What's the mechanism that causes symptoms for someone who is "electrohypersensitive"?

[superdave]

Heart rate can change for thousands of reasons, heart rate variability, which is the mathematical derivative of heart rate, can also change for many reasons.  It would be very difficult to control such an experiment and get meaningful results.

[mindme]

>>She spends less time researching than she does speaking about her shoddy research into the effects of non-ionizing radiation. <<

1 The professor in question has had a very relevant double blind study published where she provoked heart arrhythmia in several individuals using a DECT cordless home phone. One subject experienced an instantaneous doubling of heart rate.

http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/11/magda-havas-new-ehs-study-has-serious-flaws/

The experimental setup in the Havas study completely ignored all these warning about electrical interference producing artifacts in the heart rate measurements. This includes the specific warning about keeping “transmitting devices” at least 10 feet away, and especially the warning that “artifacts are easily seen on a graph which plots the IBI values over time as sudden very high rises or very low drops”. This is precisely what is seen in the Havas charts!! The cordless phone base unit – which is a transmitting device – was located only 30 – 50 cm (1 – 2 ft) from the sensitive Nerve Express/Polar equipment. All this strongly suggests that simple electrical interference was responsible for the sudden changes in heart rate “measurement”.

Sorry Mr. EMF. She does shoddy research.

[Joe B]

In case you are impatient for EMF Lorax to show up, here's a conversation in the comments of a news story with someone using the same handle and an almost identical argument.

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/reportcard/archive/2010/08/26/more-warnings-about-wi-fi-in-schools.aspx

[mindme]

In case you are impatient for EMF Lorax to show up, here's a conversation in the comments of a news story with someone using the same handle and an almost identical argument.

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/reportcard/archive/2010/08/26/more-warnings-about-wi-fi-in-schools.aspx

I like his claim: Health Canada is aware of this study. Why are they not attempting to replicate it using a "double blind" protocol?

Because the paper is flawed and it's the job of the original researcher to fix her controls and re-run the study.

[c60Unit]

Ooooo!   I wonder if its too late to start a store there selling Faraday cages?

But seriously, I grew up not far from a 50,000 watt FM transmitter which was just about on top of a college dorm.  Wouldn't being anywhere near a TV or radio tower be hazardous?   What's the ambient RF environment in a home like these days, without having any transmitters (wireless/cell phones, wi-fi, etc.) active in the home?

[Rocket Man]

It looks like we lost EMF_Lorax, I really wanted this to become something.

[Shibboleth]

Did you ever think that Wi-Fi might be responsible for the hysteria? Did we have issues with Wi-Fi hysteria when we only had dial up? No, we did not.

This proves that Wi-Fi is causing hysteria and needs to be stopped. Plus it is creating super bees because it is only killing the weak bees.