“However, with regard to the need for precautions, the Health Protection Agency is intending to carry out a research project to measure the effects of radio signals from wireless networks.”

As usual our politicians fail to grasp the nature of the precautionary principle. It doesn’t mean you introduce the technology and then finally get round to looking at its effects: it means you don’t introduce trhe technology until you have shown it to be safe.

“On the basis of research so far, there is no hard evidence of any ill health effects from wi-fi. The signals are very low, in fact there is more wattage coming from the battery.”

It is questionable how long Dr Michael Clark will be able to continue pontificating in his capacity as scientific spokeperson at the HPA. His boss, Sir William Stewart, has noted that, due to exposure,  “there may be changes, for example in cognitive function… there were some indications that there may be cancer inductions… there were some molecular biology changes within the cell and these were issues that we had to bear in mind.”

So there is evidence but Clark has decided its not “hard” evidence. Stewart also believes that children “are more vulnerable to radio frequency radiation emissions than adults. ” This suggests to my untutored mind that both children and adults are vulnerable.

With regard to Clark’s claims that “signals are very low, in fact there is more wattage coming from the battery”,  researchers “working for the BBC’s Panorama programme found the maximum signal strength one metre from a wi-fi-enabled laptop in a classroom in Norwich was three times that measured 100 metres away from a mobile phone mast nearby” So the EM signal coming from a battery is higher than that coming from a mast. Hmmmm?