Slashdot Mirror


Ontario Teachers' Union Calls For Health-Related Classroom Wi-Fi Ban

New submitter KJE writes "The CBC is reporting that an Ontario teachers' union is calling for an end to new Wi-Fi setups in the province's 1,400-plus Catholic schools. The Ontario English Catholic Teacher's Association (OECTA) says computers in all new schools should be hardwired instead of setting up wireless networks. The OECTA, in its paper (PDF), said the 'safety of this technology has not thoroughly been researched and therefore the precautionary principle and prudent avoidance of exposure should be practiced.'"

35 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. Call your union rep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    On your cellphone

    1. Re:Call your union rep by Niedi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Naaaah, they don't have that, that's too dangerous... Much safer to stick to your good old wireless DECT (6.0) homephone...

    2. Re:Call your union rep by Anomalyst · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its been my experience that educators are the hardest to educate. It amazes me that they manage to dress themselves in the morning.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    3. Re:Call your union rep by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wifi devices generally transmit in the low milliwatt range; compare this with the power used by a typical public safety trunked system (800MHz not 2.4GHz):

      http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/gbtrunk.html
      http://w8msp.com/Oakland.html

      You are probably being hit with plenty of UHF/microwave radiation when you walk near a police station. Not only that, but your body will absorb more energy at 800MHz than 2.4GHz (the specific absorption rate at 800MHz is higher than at 2.4GHz), so you should be more concerned about your exposure to radiation from public safety systems than from wifi.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:Call your union rep by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When I was in year three (That's when I was about eight, not sure what third grade means outside of Australia) I had an amusing argument with my teacher about "geometry". She claimed that if you stood right at the right spot at ground level, you could see all base four corner stones of a square pyramid. The argument ended up with me being sent to the headmasters office because I called her ignorant and facetious, but I did have my sweet moment when the headmaster informed her that she was wrong and that I was right.

      Teachers do think they know it all. I guess that teaching little kids all day every day makes them think they are some sort of fountain of knowledge and information.

      Having said that, I also know a few teachers who are very well informed, intelligent and I would consider all round great people.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    5. Re:Call your union rep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This came to mind: http://www.wtfeck.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/mile-vs-kilometre-detention.gif

    6. Re:Call your union rep by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Firstly, I totally agree with your sentiment, and it is a shame the folks that modded you today forgot to turn on their sarcasm filter.

      Having said that, look at it from the other side. When I hear utterly asinine stories like this, I agree that it makes me angry and frustrated with the state of the world - but at the same time, I look at the bright side. When I have kids, I will bring them up with good education, critical thinking skills and a solid understanding of science and reasoning - then I happily think about how little competition they will have in the real world when their peers are sitting under desks scared of the "eViL WiFI!".

      While it makes me a little sad to see in this day and age these sort of shenanigans still going on, I can't help but think that my offspring will be like wolves amoung the sheep.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    7. Re:Call your union rep by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've never seen a Catholic wearing a tinfoil hat. Can you provide evidence for this claim?

      Whoa! Really? Never seen the pope? Why do you think that friggin' hat is so big, anyway? Yep, totally lined with tin-foil.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    8. Re:Call your union rep by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If my kid came home with a note like that, I think I would ask him/her what he most wanted in the whole world (assuming new computer, gaming station, pony etc) and go out the same afternoon and buy one.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    9. Re:Call your union rep by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Aluminum isnt harmless either. You think its safe to drink from that coke can, but what if it was 5*10^32 kg and exerted a sufficient gravity field to crush your body?

    10. Re:Call your union rep by Sipper · · Score: 4, Informative

      >Yeah, same frequency as WiFi, dude

      No it isn't.
      WiFI 2.4GHz
      DECT 1.9GHz

      Even if the frequency ranges aren't the same, in the context of safety concerns, both of the above frequency ranges are in the same ballpark. Interestingly if you read the IEEE C95.1 report (which is difficult to get a copy of) you'll find that the most concervative levels of concern are somewhere around 5 to 10 W/m^2, and that includes a 10:1 safety margin of the actual power density levels of concern for controled invironments. [If you find the report, see Figures 3 and 4.] However if you want to understand RF exposure, a good place to start that is readily accessible is right at the FCC: http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html

      Also for the Original Article to say that Electromagnetic Radiation hasn't been studied enough is dubious and at best a truism, because it's been studied for 60 years. America, Canada, Japan, and the EU all have their own studies and conconclusions about safe electromagnetic levels broken down by frequency ranges. The only known concern is RF heating, and WiFi can't put out enough power for that to be a concern. Cell base stations put out only a small amount of power per sector antenna (typically about 20 Watts) and these antennas have a "pancake" pattern that focuses at the horizon, so even standing right under the base station isn't unsafe. You have to be three feet in front of the base station antenna before it would be unsafe -- and for that to happen you'd have to be right in front of it on the tower. The cell phone right against the head is a lot stronger amount of RF exposure than a cell phone base station right across the street is.

      There's a LOT of general misunderstanding of "RF exposure", which usually comes out as "we don't understand it enough" in some form. To an extent that may always be true, because it's something you can only measure with equipment and is otherwise invisible to a human being. So for some it's hard to understand that low levels of RF exposure is safe.

    11. Re:Call your union rep by micheas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's next? Banning windows and outdoor recess? Both of those activities subject students to far greater EMF Radiation from the fusion reaction commonly referred to as "the sun" Further more "Cover up" campaigns in Australia aimed at lowering skin cancer rates showed an increase in vitamin D related conditions that far outweighed any health benefits from the campaign.

      This is all over the fact that the cancer rates around high voltage power lines in Colorado in the late 60s and early 70s were far above what would be expected. The moral of that was that maybe you should check if the power company is using agent orange for weed control (they were) before you look like an ass, and create a bunch of junk science about the dangers of EMF radiation.

      There have been hundreds of studies about EMF and none of the studies without major flaws have shown any correlation between EMF radiation and cancer, or any other disease.

      In the 70s and 80s your comments made sense, now it just makes you look stupid and causes people to be dismissive of your overall agenda, which would be good, if you were not chasing something that people instinctively know is wrong.

    12. Re:Call your union rep by aXis100 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whilst there may be a potential transmitter every 1.5m2, they are not all transmitting at the same time. In fact each transmitter spends a majority of it's time sleeping, with the receiver listing for a break so that it can implement collision avoidance.

      You are deeply misinformed on this issue and your post is just scaremongering. The overall spectrum use is limited no matter how many people you have, and even then we're talking about an average power of 30mW on a maximum of 3 channels. No-one is getting cooked.

    13. Re:Call your union rep by Dave+Emami · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Read a theory a while ago (by some psychologist whose name I wish I could recall so I could give proper credit) that stated that fear of things like radiation, chemicals, and germs stems from the same underlying source as the older fear of witchcraft -- people tend to be more afraid of something they can't understand and/or can't see, compared to things which are objectively more dangerous but which they can see and comprehend. Hence things like the fear and revulsion generated by poison gas usage in WW1, even though you were many times more likely to be killed by bullets or shells. In this case of the article, people hear "radiation" and react viscerally without any further thought.

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    14. Re:Call your union rep by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's next? Banning [...] outdoor recess?

      Yes. Recess is dangerous.

    15. Re:Call your union rep by TheRealGrogan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not sorry, chump... the whiners tried that in our district school board (in Ontario) and got put in their place. The same thing will happen here at the provincial level too. It is just not credible. WiFi is not the significant factor here.

      Every kid gets to use a computer now, because they wheel in cartloads of laptops. They can't run ethernet cabling for all of them, everywhere they are to be used on the school grounds. It figures these anal teachers wouldn't be happy until they are back to the stone age. Teachers here are so unrealistic it's not funny... some of the pettiest people I know are teachers.

      The fact that this is a Catholic teacher's union whining on behalf of catholic schools is even more infuriating... because now they suckle the public teat just like the public school system. They still think they get to make their own rules.

  2. Remove all 2.4 GHz emitting devices by DeadSeaTrolls · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Take the microwaves out of the teacher's lounges.

    --

    "There's no scarcity of spectrum any more than there's a scarcity of the color green.", David Reed

    1. Re:Remove all 2.4 GHz emitting devices by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      - make them leave their cell phones in their cars

    2. Re:Remove all 2.4 GHz emitting devices by MDMurphy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't matter if chalk dust causes lung problems, it appears to be enough if the 'safety of this technology has not thoroughly been researched'. The health effects of WiFi signals has more likely been much more heavily researched than graphite dust from pencils, dry-erase marker dust or the liquid that evaporates from them. For that matter any additional un-tested off-brand pens and markers brought in from students.

      I like the comments above from others. If the union is successful then also absolutely prohibit any teacher from bringing a mobile phone on to campus. Remove microwave ovens from the schools as well. If a 600mw WiFi radio on a ceiling is thought to be dangerous, then a powered up phone in a closed metal vehicle should be viewed as reckless. In keeping with standard school policies, a teacher with a powered on mobile phone anywhere on campus, including their cars, be subject to a zero-tolerance policy and result in immediate termination.

    3. Re:Remove all 2.4 GHz emitting devices by ThePeices · · Score: 4, Insightful

      hmm, you have not thought this through I see...

      Sure, the children are learning the same things, letters and numbers. But what pencils and paper do not teach is the use and familiarly of modern technology.

      We want children to grow up around the things that they will be using extensively for the rest of their lives. Insulating them from technology will not help them, it will cause more harm than good.

      Waste of time and money? Absolutely not.

  3. Microwave ovens haven't come to Ontario yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Probably the same reason the word 'nuclear' (as in nucleus') has been dropped from 'MRI'.

  4. Not thoroughly researched? That's precious. by jaskelling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So a Catholic teacher's association is complaining that something isn't fully scientifically researched, documented, and proven? A CATHOLIC association? Galileo Galilei is laughing in his grave right now.

    1. Re:Not thoroughly researched? That's precious. by Lev13than · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh, it gets better.

      In Ontario, Catholic schools are 100% fully-funded public institutions running in parallel with the secular public schools. It's nice to know that my tax dollars are being used to teach kids that gay=bad, safe sex=evil and wifi=devil.

      Other provinces have joined the 21st Century and de-funded religious schools, but all of the political parties in Ontario are too chicken-shit to do the right thing.

      --
      When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    2. Re:Not thoroughly researched? That's precious. by Godai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, I know its not fun to hear, but what you think you know about Galileo & the church is more complicated and less fun. From Wikipedia:

      Earlier, Pope Urban VIII had personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton".[55] This portrayal of Simplicio made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book: an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defence of the Copernican theory. Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[56] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.

      So while, yes, the Church did lock him up and heliocentrism was at the center of it, it was more about Galileo being stupid in how he wrote his book & the hurt feelings of a powerful man (the Pope). Frankly, no one looked good in that mess. The church was actually one of the biggest sponsors of science back then, something that rarely gets recognized because its so much more fun to set it up as religion vs. science, as if they've been in a death struggle since the beginning of time.

      --
      Wood Shavings!
      - Godai
    3. Re:Not thoroughly researched? That's precious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Where's the hypocrisy? I missed that part. The Catholic Church, specifically Catholics, started many of the hospitals we have today. The Mayo Clinic started as St. Mary's and was financed by a nun collecting money. The Church started the university system. The "Big Bang" was first describe by a Catholic monk. Genetics was first explored by a Catholic priest. There are many more examples where the Church not only allowed scientific exploration, but encouraged it.

      I guess I just don't see the hypocrisy except from people like you who don't know history. Yes, Catholic believe sex is for procreation (how that affects this argument, I don't know) and, yes, Catholics respect life. I guess it's just easier to live with your 16th Century view of what Catholicism it than read what is actually true.

  5. Two stories by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's two stories here.

    The 1st one is the exoteric "I'm scared of technology" FUD that frankly works pretty well.

    The 2nd one is the esoteric and totally unpopular "I'm sick of kids playing angry birds in class" and "I'm sick of my boss (principal) and/or family and friends IMing me stupid distracting stuff while I'm trying to teach a class" and "I'm sick of the boss using this to track my every digital action and create utterly meaningless dilbertian machine generated metrics to evaluate me on instead of doing real human observation evals" and "I'm sick of square peg / round hole the silver bullet to all educational problems is just add more internet"

    I send my kids to a recently wifi'd school and also have some teacher relatives and option 2 is the reason why they use option 1 as a weapon against wifi.

    See, option 1 works and thats all they care about in a "ends justify the means" scenario. If blaming witchcraft or the spread of communism on wifi worked better, they'd be trying that angle instead.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  6. I'm Surprised by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Funny

    They didn't also require AC receptacle plug covers installed so electricity doesn't leak out of the wall sockets and give everyone cancer.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  7. The "Precautionary Principle" by JSBiff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly, I think it's time to re-evaluate the usefullness and legitimacy of the "Precautionary Principle". Over and over it's being invoke to deprive people of a known, verifiable *benefit*, in the name of unknown, unverified "dangers" - essentially "We know WiFi/whatever provides a benefit; but *someone* has made the unfounded, not supported by the evidence claim that there might be some risk of health problems, so let's deny people the known benefits in order to avoid unknown risks.

    As far as WiFi - it's not like it's brand new and untested. It's been around for over 10 years now. Wouldn't we have seen (or be starting to see) any problems by now?

    1. Re:The "Precautionary Principle" by couchslug · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Honestly, I think it's time to re-evaluate the usefullness and legitimacy of the "Precautionary Principle"."

      Let's play safe and keep it instead. Think of the children.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  8. Worry about real health risks by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe I'm being paranoid, but personally I'm much more concerned about the ubiquity of old lead pipes in the school buildings around here. Lead leaching into the water supply is a huge risk, especially for children, in whom it can cause learning disabilities. That's right, drinking the water in these schools is, statistically, causing learning disabilities in at least some of the students. But that would cost a whole lot to fix, and so instead we hear unsubstantiated hocus-pocus about wi-fi signals.

  9. Re:Actually sounds reasonable by ThePeices · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why not?

    Because it is pandering to a false belief (that wifi harms people), and its one that *has* been thoroughly researched, unlike what was stated in the article and summary.

    It is a dangerous thing to fold and let this pass, because irrational opponents to radio waves will point to this case to further their fear-based opposition.
    You cant just let them win because its "too hard" fighting irrational beliefs, you have to educate people about the facts so they are not afraid of things they don't understand properly. You have to show everyone that these people are wrong, why they are wrong, and why it is a bad thing to allow such wrongness to win.

  10. It has been researched actually by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Informative

    We've researched it with short wave radio, FM, AM, CB, and even cell phones. We've even researched the health effects of 2.4 and 5.4ghz signals. Wifi falls within this research since it's using the same spectrum and is if anything lower power.

    So... not only is the complaint stupid.... it's also wrong.

    Are they actually upset about this for the stated reason or are they claiming a health reason to justify opposing it for some reason?

    I've dealt with too many of these political issues to take it at face value. There is often something else going on.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  11. Re:Woohoo! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Funny

    Exactly. They have hire people to carry those data-packets around.

  12. Re:As a teacher myself, I find this comment to be. by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I do, however, find that some, if not all, of the "best" teachers are those that are willing to admit they are wrong, learn from their mistakes, and admit that there will always be more that they do not know.

    That's got nothing to do with teachers though. That is a trait that is probably shared by most of the best in any field.

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  13. Re:more union cable pullers by skids · · Score: 5, Informative

    While their reasons are crazy, running wired networks is the better thing to do. Keeps the spectrum clean for devices that actually need to be wireless. A classroom full of WiFi easily saturates to the point where performance degrades, especially when you have a bunch of students all loading material on cue from the teacher. While it's technologically possible to do it right with 5GHz if you control the client hardware selection, that is not what people who try to cut corners using wireless are doing; they chintz on APs as well.

    I've seen a lot of colleges abandon their wire plant in favor of wireless in the dorms and even in the classrooms. Eventually they will end up putting it all back in as PoE is starting to prolifierate, and may make it into laptops as their power envelopes converge with what PoE can offer. At that point, in addition to all the building-integration devices and IP phones, they'll have demand again for wired connections from the end user. Unfortunately by that time, they'll have spent orders of magnitudes more money than a wired plant costs these days into remodeling, during which time they will have unwittingly allowed contractors to cut wires and leave them stranded in the wallboard with no record of where they are situated.

    Wired networks these days are actually pretty cheap. Once you discount the top switches which you need anyway for APs and building integration, access switches can be had for short change.