I have never seen such close-minded attitudes as those exhibited by North Americans during debate about wireless technology and whether or not it is harmful to health.

Just listen to the comments:

"Tin foil hat"
"Metal mesh burqa"
"Quaks" (from someone who apparently doesn't even know how to spell the word "quacks")

You all realize (or, perhaps, you don't) that you are merely regurgitating what you've been spoon-fed by the media and by advertising for telecommunications systems, and are reinforcing it by your own stubborn belief that your precious information technologies can do no wrong, right?

Allow me to say this now: I am not "against" technology. It has brought us many helpful devices and has enabled positive change in the world (along with a great deal of negative change, since it allows the physical manifestation of weaponry and other tools of destruction). However, the means by which it - especially when used for communications - operates have been designed with little regard to health.

Take a good look at yourselves. The backlash is incredible. The vast majority of posters here call this man an idiot, paranoid, a moron - because he feels that the way to protect his daughter is to remove her from an environment he considers deleterious to her health.

Is suing a bit extreme? Perhaps. Yet, he has every right to do so.

Now, tell me - how many of you whom have replied with such harsh comments, have taken the time to do independent research on this matter? If this was a room full of people, not the internet, I expect that not more than one of you could honestly raise your hand and explain in simple terms why the "thermal effect" standard which allows regulatory bodies to say that this radiation is "safe", works.

And to "Scorcho" - you may be an RF engineer, but that does not qualify you to say that exposure to high levels of RF such as those found in a school full of wireless access points is "safe" (if that is what you are implying, and if it's not, I apologize). That would be akin to a tobacco representative saying that cigarettes are "safe". Working within an industry that is propelled by hidden evidence and outdated science does not qualify one to speak with authority on the "safety" of its primary product.

Additionally - comparing the sun to WiFi is an old argument that holds no merit. Nor is the argument that wireless uses non-ionizing radiation and therefore it's okay. Please investigate into the fact that it does not have to ionize to be potentially problematic.

I could go on, but to save you all some time - if any of you have the guts to read something contrary to your opinions - I am including some links below:
http://www.magdahavas.com (note the "Zory's Archive" section on the right, which highlights documentation going back *decades*)
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/bias.asp (An interesting observation about how industry bias taints studies on this topic. Who will you trust after reading this?)
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/index.asp (A whole lotta news)
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20110513-counci... (The recent Council of Europe resolution, in which the Council unanimously voted to protect citizens from the irresponsible use of this technology)

Also, in late May, the WHO (World Health Organization) classified radiofrequency radiation as a possible human carcinogen. For anyone who follows the WHO, you will know that they have a history of aligning with industry and being very conservative in making such statements; an official statement such as this is akin to admitting that there may be a serious problem.
http://www.magdahavas.com/2011/06/10/kprd-school-... (ah, and here's a little gem that shows how school boards harshly shut down parents who oppose exposing students to the latest and greatest in-school wireless technologies. Sound familiar?)

The above are the tip of the iceberg. But why, good readers, don't you take the time to dig a little deeper? Or are you content to be fed the "good news" that bathing yourselves with wireless is just fine?

I applaud this gentleman. His method may be extreme, but at the least, it gets the point across. If I'm wrong about this, I'll eat my words - but if the last few or more decades of independent - read, INDEPENDENT, not government or industry funded studies - have even a fifty percent rate of truth, then doing what we can to minimize exposure to wireless, and also push for safer forms of communication (fiber optic deployment, infrared light instead of RF radiation for wireless signal transmission, etc.), is prudent.

And what's wrong with plugging in a cable, anyway? Have you all gotten so lazy?

Peace