By Nicholas Wallace

“Several steps in these procedures require scientific judgment, e.g., on reviewing the scientific literature and determining appropriate reduction factors.” — ICNIRP (2002)

In classrooms across Canada, invisible radiation fills the air—Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, laptops, and now phones. It may feel normal, but normal is not the same as safe.

For over two decades, Health Canada has relied on guidelines written by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Its 2002 publication “General Approach to Protection Against Non-Ionizing Radiation” defines how national exposure limits are set.

Buried in that document are statements every parent should read twice:

1. “ICNIRP provides general practical information… it recognizes the need for further technical advice on special exposure situations,”
2. “Different groups in a population may have differences in their ability to tolerate NIR [non-ionizing radiation] exposure. For example, children, the elderly, and some chronically ill people…”
3. “It may be useful or necessary to develop separate guideline levels for different groups within the general population, but it may be more effective to adjust the guidelines for the general population to include such groups.”
4. “Because adverse consequences of NIR exposure can vary from trivial to life-threatening, a balanced judgment is required before deciding on exposure guidance.”

Those statements disclose risks concealed from the public: existing radiation exposure limits were not built for children and may be very unsafe. They address short-term tissue heating and ignore biological risks that occur well below heating levels. They also ignore slow biological changes, mutagenic effects, and neurological disruption—issues independent researchers have flagged for decades.

Children on the Front Line

Teachers report what parents already see: soaring rates of distraction, irritability, memory lapses, and hyperactivity. These are labeled as ADD or ADHD and “treated,” while the environment remains unexamined.

The myelin sheath—the protective layer around nerve fibres—needs 22 years to mature fully. A child’s skull is thinner, and their tissues are far more conductive; studies show they absorb up to ten times more radiation energy than adults. Yet the ICNIRP model is based on the physiology of a healthy, full-grown man and is useless for kids.

Wireless induces constant pulses and weak currents into the brain (body & embryo) that can disrupt calcium channels and mitochondrial energy production. Prolonged exposure translates into cognitive and behavioural instability and influences cell growth and survival. Electromagnetic fields induce currents—that is the basis of electromagnetism.

A Question of Fertility and Future

Animal and human studies revealed very high miscarriage and infertility rates in the first generation of the constantly exposed group. This impacts billions of girls.

We regulate food, drugs, and the environment; yet classrooms dense with radiation-emitting devices escape scrutiny—not because they’ve been proven safe, but because they weren’t tested on the vulnerable.

Regulation is intended to prevent widespread harm. But here, liability was quietly downloaded to the decision-makers who accepted wireless in their schools.

The Regulatory Blind Spot

ICNIRP, a private, self-appointed body, issues “advisory” limits that the World Health Organization and national agencies, including Health Canada, have adopted. ICNIRP lists its critical omissions, and it seems school boards ignored—or didn’t read—them:

• No consideration of children, the elderly, or electro-sensitive individuals.
• No evaluation of long-term biological effects, only thermal ones.
• Reliance on users’ “scientific judgment” to determine appropriate radiation reduction levels.

That alone should disqualify ICNIRP’s limits as a safety benchmark for schools. Using the guideline does not shield a school board if it has not done what was required of it. If a safety guideline clearly dismisses children’s risks, it isn’t protection—it’s a “belief system.”

A Call to Conscience

This isn’t fear; it’s understanding and love. We needn’t abandon technology—just make it as safe as its youngest child requires. Hard-wired connections are faster, stable, and radiation-free. European pilot programs proved that low-EMF classrooms improve focus and calm.

The Petition

A growing network of parents is demanding transparency and a full review of school wireless policies. The petition¹ also offers a free downloadable book containing local help for measuring home nurseries, and a three-minute film² with referenced studies and support.

Our Responsibility to the Next Generation

Each generation gets one chance to protect its children. And one day, they’ll have to protect their children. Let’s not kick the can to them. ICNIRP’s own words reveal that those guarding children from wireless harms are blind to their vulnerability.

We need a review—and we need it now. Compassion begins with understanding, and the courage to see clearly and act.

1. c.org/KGJzyZHfMQ
2. youtu.be/9qW1-l0UAfQ