We refer to the letters Focus on the real ‘killers’ in Penang , Don’t throw Wi-Fi baby out with bath water , CAP, stop harping on Penang’s Wi-Fi move , Wi-Fi – Penang gov’t doing the right thing and Wi-Fi has more pros than cons .

There is no room for misjudgment, bias and empty rhetoric in an important matter like Wi-Fi, where right thinking is crucial in protecting society from impending and unnecessary harm. Frivolous polemics and faulty thinking are no solution to the matter and only serve to bend the truth and distort the real picture on Wi-Fi.

A rational and socially beneficial discourse on the matter must thus centre on good research, and must involve a thorough analysis of the evidence at hand, with public health and safety in mind – something the above writers have failed to deliver.

They should invest some time studying the Wi-Fi issue in a serious way instead of delivering bad scientific and shallow arguments on the matter. Their actions will not only confuse the public, but also erode their own credibility.

Allow us to put some of the erroneous contentions on Wi-Fi raised into proper perspective in order to clear the fog generated over the issue.

Fallacy 1: There is no conclusive evidence of Wi-Fi threat, so we don’t need to be cautious with the technology – ie, the precautionary principle is not necessary.

Fact: Recent scientific evidence based on more than 2,000 studies, presented in the Bio-Initiative Report (Aug 31, 2007), by many world experts from the fields of cancer, immunology, public health and environmental policy, indicate otherwise.

According to the report (for which the European Environmental Agency, Europe’s top environmental watchdog, has issued a statement of support), although the effects of long-term exposure to wireless technologies are still not conclusively known, ‘the body of evidence at hand suggests that bio-effects and health impacts can and do occur at exquisitely low exposure levels’.

This finding alone warrants caution with Wi-Fi technology. But there are other logical reasons for taking precautions. According to the UK’s Institute of Science in Society, a non-profit organisation that promotes social accountability and ecological sustainability in science:

‘The precautionary principle is actually part and parcel of sound science. Science is an active knowledge system in which new discoveries are made almost every day. Scientific knowledge is always incomplete and uncertain. The responsible use of scientific evidence, therefore, is to set precaution.’

Dr Peter Saunders, professor of Applied Mathematics at King’s College London, has written an article (‘Use and Abuse of the Precautionary Principle’) which shows how the precautionary principle is codified common sense that people have accepted in courts of law, and mathematicians have adopted in the proper use of statistics.

According to him, what the precautionary principle amounts to is this: ‘If one is embarking on something new, one should think very carefully about whether it is safe or not, and not go ahead until reasonably convinced it is. It is just common sense.’

The precautionary principle, he explains, is also not a new idea. ‘It already appears in national legislation in many countries (eg, the US) and in international agreements’ on some public safety matters.’

Unfortunately, in the case of the Penang Wi-Fi project, to borrow Professor Saunders’ words: ‘Too many of those who fail to understand or to accept the precautionary principle are pushing forward with untested, inadequately researched technologies, and insisting that it is up to the rest of us to prove them dangerous before they can be stopped.’

Fallacy 2: Wi-Fi hazards would be minimal compared to other devices like mobile phones, TV or radio.

Fact: According to Canadian scientist Magda Havas, a leading researcher on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, ‘If we compare Wi-Fi antennas to cell phone or broadcast antennas, Wi-Fi has the weakest signal and the shortest range of coverage (generally less than 500 feet) and if they were placed on top of tall towers our exposure would be minimal.

‘But these antennas are placed on street lamps and on the side of buildings and our proximity increases our exposure. Since the effects of exposure to microwave radiation are likely to be cumulative, this does not bode well for the future when most cities will be Wi-Fi zones.’

Professor Havas, who is an Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University in Ontario, Canada, also warns that: ‘Those who live or work near Wi-Fi antennas may develop E-sensitivity (electrohypersensitivity) in high Wi-Fi traffic zones and possibly cancer.’(Source: ‘ A Tale of Two Pollutants: Dirty Electricity and Wi-Fi ’).

Electrohypersensitivity is a genuine health condition, which according to the WHO, affects 1.5-3% of populations. In Sweden, where about 3% of the population has the condition, it is recognised as a disability. In the UK, where up to 5% of the population suffers from it, the authorities have acknowledged it to be a real syndrome. In Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has approved a policy on Environmental Sensitivity which includes electro- hypersensitivity as a disability.

Fallacy 3: Major cities of the world now use wireless, as such it’s a trend worth emulating.

Fact: Wireless may be the craze in many countries of the world today, but it is foolhardy to blindly follow suit in light of increasing world concern over the dubious technology, and without proper consideration of its potential threats to health.

Firstly, it should be remembered that electromagnetic radiation (which wireless technologies also contribute to) is one of the most pervasive environmental exposures in industrialised countries today. We don’t need to create the same hazardous scenario here.

Secondly, and for the record, even technologically-advanced countries are viewing the technology with extreme caution. Germany, which has about 9,000 public wireless hot-spots, advocates returning to basics – the German government has recently advised its citizens to use wired Internet connection instead of Wi-Fi (and landlines instead of mobile phones). (Source: The Independent , UK, Sept 9, 2007)

For an ethical rationale for not jumping on the Wi-Fi bandwagon, one need look no further than this recent statement issued by the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (Icems), a scientific organisation composed of concerned scientists worldwide: ‘

For the past several years, the entire world has been transformed by the new ‘information age’ that increasingly relies upon wireless communications for voice, data and media transmissions. However, in spite of the clear economic and social benefits these technological innovations offer, government and industry has yet to provide the assurances, through independent sustained research programs, that wireless technologies are safe.’ (Source: Icems press release, June 6, 2008)

Fallacy 4: Wireless technology equals progress and development.

Fact: ‘Progress’ and ‘development’ are controversial catchwords in the context of large-scale Wi-Fi implementation in Penang. Overall socio-economic development is basically a primary determinant of health development. Hence for the Wi-Fi technology to translate into real development for the state, public health should be an integral part of the equation.

In the Penang Wi-Fi situation, the aspect of public health is totally obliterated from this process of ‘development’. While there may be good economic, social – and political – reasons to implement state-wide Wi-Fi in Penang, this does not annul the more important questions: How safe is the technology for everyone? What assurance is there that it will not pose harm to the public?

According to the Bio-Initiative Report, ‘The evidence reasonably points to the potential for serious public health consequences (and economic costs), which will be of global concern with the widespread public use of, and exposure to such emissions.

‘Even a small increase in disease incidence or functional loss of cognition related to new wireless exposures would have a large public health, societal and economic consequences. Epidemiological studies can report harm to health only after decades of exposure, and where large effects can be seen across ‘average’ populations; so these early warnings of possible harm should be taken seriously now by decision-makers.’

True development is development that brings mutually beneficial long-term gains for both the state and its citizens, and results in real improvement in quality of life. Such development, or sustainable development, requires well-researched and cautious planning – a sorely missing feature in the current managing of the Penang Wi-Fi project.

British scholar and novelist CS Lewis says it well: ‘We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in this case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.’

In retrospect, change is not always growth just as movement is not always progress, as the wise saying goes.

From the above facts, it is clear that there is a propensity for harm where wireless technology is concerned. Given this, the suggestion that CAP ‘should work to educate and inform consumers on how to make use of conveniences (including Wi-Fi) in ways which won’t harm them’ is totally null and void.

The admonition that CAP should not be ‘bickering over something as inconsequential and unproven as the health risks of Wi-Fi’ doesn’t hold water in the light of all the stark facts and expert recommendations stated above. What is inconsequential is petty nit-picking which doesn’t benefit the public at all.

The notion that NGOs and Penangites should ‘focus on the real ‘killers’ in Penang’ and ‘just let the Wi-Fi issue ease off a bit’ is ironic as currently, the one emerging major public threat of concern in Penang is Wi-Fi. The writer’s condescension in deciding for Penangites what are the real issues and what are not is an insult to all Penangites.

Faced with imminent harm, the last thing Penangites need now is patronising pundits passing callous comments, intended not to truly educate but to trivialise the whole Wi-Fi threat issue.

As for the suggestion that CAP limits its voice to run-of-the-mill consumer issues like ‘helping eradicate poor service deliveries, food safety issues and help people obtain justice after getting ripped off by unscrupulous companies’ instead of complex state matters like Wi-Fi, we would like to point out that the Wi-Fi issue is fundamentally a consumer issue that will affect not only some people in Penang, but all Penangites.

There should be no barriers to consumer protection, which covers a wide scope – from product safety, services and money matters to public and environmental issues that affect people’s well-being, health and basic rights.

The role of a consumer body is to ensure that the interests (including health interest) of consumers and their views are taken into account. In the Penang Wi-fi project, for which there was no prior dialogue with the people, concerns raised by consumers were rejected point-blank and their health interests are not considered. Any public representation, by CAP or other independent NGOs, on the matter is thus fully justified.

As a public interest organisation, we will continue to speak up on Wi-Fi and other consumer- related issues without fear or favour and we are prepared to be vilified for doing so.

Where state-wide Wi-Fi is concerned, CAP’s stand is clear: The Penang government can sell Penang to investors by all means, but it must not sell out Penangites’ well-being to a new wireless technology which is untested for health and safety.

Public health is not a commodity.

The writer is president, Consumers Association of Penang.