Is wireless technology in schools harming children? That was the question posed recently by the Toronto Catholic District School Board. So what gives? We tracked down Tony Moots, PhD, an adjunct lecturer at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto’s faculty of medicine. He has been studying such things since the early ’70s when he started work at Health Canada, looking into the bio-effects of microwaves.
Schools are worried about the health risks associated with Wi-Fi, should they be?
Well, I mean, I think it is reasonable for everyone to be concerned about things they don’t know about. It is quite natural. To me, that’s the basis of science.… The issue comes down, in my opinion, to more of a matter of psychology or sociology, you name it. People either having a willingness or not to accept authority in certain areas. Until they learn, it is not surprising that people may express concerns.
OK, but what is the answer?
There are no health effects. That is the scientific consensus coming from all the agencies across the world that are involved in establishing these guidelines.
Are Wi-Fi and cellphones governed by the same guidelines?
It is the same kettle of fish.
Has anyone studied the long-term, low-exposure risk?
That’s a good question. I guess the short answer is that we don’t know 100 per cent. We have experience of this technology pushing 100 years, if you think of when the radio was first invented.
So over that period of time, scientists would have noticed something if it were there?
It would be similar to X-ray technology at the outset. It wasn’t clear what might be detrimental effects. Very early on, dentists were probably the first major group of people that showed up with detrimental effects, and that led to a better understanding of what consequences of exposure to radiation were. In the beginning, dentists were holding films in the patients mouths with their fingers, and they got overexposed, and that led to cancers and extreme effects of aging of skin tissues akin to sun exposure.
What kinds of research methods are used?
You name it. You look in the literature and it is everything from atomic, molecular, cellular tissue level to population level — all sorts of study over the years. From a scientific perspective, we are just trying to see if there is anything — but nothing has been established.
Can the research keep up to the pace of change?
That’s a good point. I guess it does or it tries to, but it can’t absolutely. Again, back to the X-ray example … it was three or four decades before dentists showed up with the effects they did get.
Do you exercise any caution regarding wireless use?
No, personally I do not. I have grandkids now, and the youngest just turned one, and the oldest is four now. I don’t have the slightest qualm.
What about when the World Health Organization said using cellphone technology could increase the risk of developing certain tumours?
That is another important point. An agency called IARC recently advanced cellphones to, I think, category 2B, and what 2B relates to is possible human carcinogen. But, to give some context, coffee also falls into that same classification. It means that there are studies indicating associations, but the associations are not established.
Do you think people are blowing it out of proportion?
The bottom line is, from a scientific perspective, it is reasonable and gives scientists an indication of where careful research should look more closely. But the fact is that even a heightened awareness to some is deemed to be beyond the pale already.
Is this turning into a ‘don't sit too close to the TV’ kind of thing that is more about rumour than hard evidence?
I truly think so. If you want to do some rooting around, look at some of the websites and what all they are connected with — you’ll find things like crystals and so forth.… To me, I find that kind of distressing, the level of credence those approaches are given.