Princeton University Removes Wi-Fi Safety Assurances

Long overdue action, but better late than never. Kudos to Princeton University for removing statements assuring the safety of Wi-Fi from their website that were untrue given scientific studies and medical evidence and that were also severely legally problematic (see also correspondence from parents to Princeton officials and before and after screenshots of website):

http://www.parentsforsafetechnology.org/princeton-university-removes-wifi-safety-assurances.html

The former statements were wishful thinking/ science denial/ fiction and disturbing coming from the intellectual perch of Albert Einstein.  This is a de-facto admission by the administration that parents provided them more scientific knowledge than they had in-house.

Next suggested steps: removal of Wi-Fi from dorms, classrooms and critical areas, and a move towards confining the Wi-Fi to a narrow, optional area of campus per the Access Board guidelines.

 Princeton

Press release:

http://www.prlog.org/12435610-princeton-university-pulls-wifi-safety-assurances.html

Key Excerpt:

By August 2014, Princeton had removed the wireless information.

The now retracted Princeton Position Statement on Wireless was also used by the National Association for Independent Schools (NAIS) as a reference in their 2014 NAIS Non-Ionizing Radiation: Literature Review. NAIS serves over 1,700 schools. Scarato stated that, “I have heard from parents in other states whose children’s schools also referenced the outdated Princeton site to support the WiFi rollout.  Does Princeton realize just how many schools were relying on their site?”

Email to Princeton University documenting science that was misrepresented on their website

other commentary:

In terms of some of the now redacted comments- e.g. 10.9 v^2/m^2, that would translate into 28,872 mcrw/m^2.  If you look at levels of exposure in real-world environments and levels at which harmful bioeffects are seen, you will see many severe biological effects recorded in studies well below the peak levels recorded on the Princeton campus.

Note- that the egregious sentence “We can reasonably say that that the wireless networks present at Princeton University do not present a hazard to persons working or otherwise spending time in University Buildings” was removed.  This statement is not corroborated by the science, not corroborated by people who have developed sensitivity to the radiation (3-5% according to the EU, 3% according to CA Department of health 13 years ago, 3% according to Swedish authorities) or their doctors- and not corroborated by statements in the Access Board/National Institute of Building Sciences 2005 report and recommendations I sent you earlier.

The previous sentence in that paragraph (also removed) was particularly problematic and intellectually dishonest and most unfortunate coming from an institution of Princeton’s stature: “It is the general consensus of the scientific community that the level of RF exposure due to wireless networks is so low compared to the many other RF sources in the modern environment that health concerns from Wi-Fi exposure are not an issue.”  That is like saying in 1950 “it is the general consensus of the scientific community that the level of cigarette smoke in the classrooms is so low compared to many other RF sources in the current environment (like the dining hall or the dorms) that health concerns from cigarette smoking are not an issue.”  (Nobody was denying that Wi-Fi has become fairly ubiquitous of late- but it does not logically follow that the ubiquity makes it safe– it’s as if they were saying- “everyone is doing it, so ipso facto it has been proven safe.”  Furthermore, while some Wi-Fi exposures in the absolute are in fact higher than exposures from a cell phone used with appropriate precautionary guidance, over time, the cumulative exposure from Wi-Fi will exceed most peoples’ exposure from their cell phones (see below).

Another problematic statement, also since removed, was “Due to the close distance between the mobile phone and the head and because of the higher power levels involved with mobile phone use, the level of exposure for frequent mobile phone users is considerably higher than the potential exposure to those persons working in areas in which Wi-Fi systems exist.”  If one considers the Frei study cited here, the people in the study were getting more cumulative radiation from moving in and out of areas with transmitters than they were getting from their mobile phones.  It is true that mobile phone use has escalated since that study (against precautionary guidance), but if the phone is used on speaker, the radiation is much reduced; the continuous nature of the exposure seems to be the factor in terms of tipping people into electro-hypersensitivity or triggering their symptoms once sensitized; the frequency of Wi-Fi has been found to be particularly bioactive; with more and higher-powered transmitters the Wi-Fi exposures have concomitantly risen; with wireless tablets, the exposure has risen both from the number of tablets in an environment and the source at the locus of the device, exposure will vary whether someone is sitting near the transmitter or has the dorm room closest to the transmitters, so the university cannot say that any particular person’s exposure will be higher from their cell phone; the statement also sneakily refers to “frequent” mobile phone users- not everyone is a frequent user, people have some choice in exposure by using a landline over a mobile and again, one is not supposed to be frequently using their phone, and frequent users (as defined in the 90′s- 1/2 hour of use a day for 10 years) already have shown a doubling of glioma risk in the INTERPHONE studies.)

The point here- is you have major institutions and people in authority making statements about microwave radiation that are akin to saying the sun revolves around the Earth- patently untrue, wishful thinking.  It is a major step that Princeton has corrected this (the statements, at least, though not the environment).

Of course the statement, also since removed, “Epidemiological studies by reputable scientists have consistently failed to demonstrate convincing evidence of any adverse health effects from RF exposure below the regulatory limits and guidelines cited below” is patently false.  Princeton now acknowledges that they can no longer assert this statement to be true.

Also to add, the sentence, also since removed, “Many studies have been conducted to determine whether there is a causal relationship between low-level radiofrequency exposure and harmful effects such as cancer and adverse pregnancy outcomes.”  This had been a misrepresentation by omission; not mentioned are studies demonstrating relationships to neurotransmitter diseases, heart rate changes, cognitive effects, neurological effects, sensitization syndrome (Microwave Sickness/EHS/neurasthenia, etc.), etc.

Comments are closed.