Your article, "Bluewater Tests Wi-fi Exposure" (web-posted Tuesday, 31 August 2010 10:14), even with its responsible intent, unfortunately reports irrelevancy directly and indirectly.
What is directly relevant is demonstrable biological effect, both from direct experience and scientific observation. Health Canada's so-called Safety Code 6 is precisely at the centre of the controversy. Their acquiescence in lopping off of dissenting science, which would corroborate the effects experienced by some local children, renders appeal to them directly irrelevant.
Indirectly irrelevant is the reliance on mere power density measurement, such as the results noted in the article. To an "electrosensitive", the readings are cause enough for alarm. Self-protection for them requires sometimes even readings from a microwave detector, such as referred to in the article, of more than 6 zeroes to the right of the decimal, as in nanowatt, not a mere 2 zeroes, as in the milliwatt readings reported.
More relevant to grasping the issue is that power density is one of several factors that must be considered in this troubling reactivity of biological beings to manmade radiation like this. The character of the modulation, the pulse rate, biological variability, cumulative exposures, concurrent exposures at non-microwave frequencies, all of these things and more contribute to the boggling enterprise of coming to conceptual terms with what humans have loosed upon the world in its technically brilliant exploitation of electrical energy.
What is not boggling at all, however, is consideration by basic human rationality given to us all of solutions to this terrible dilemma: Shut it off, the problems will go away, there are other sophisticated means for humans to communicate.
Daryl Vernon, Toronto
+ 0 + 1 
