A few years ago there were widespread concerns about microwave radiation emitted from mobile phones. I contacted the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) to find out whether these fears were founded.

Unlike most people in the media, who seemed to be obsessed with the danger of handsets causing brain tumours, I was more interested in whether the widely predicted boom in video calls would trigger an increase in the incidence of eye problems such as cataracts.

The NRPB’s response was noncommittal. I was pointed in the direction of several studies and assured that the organisation is keeping tabs on the situation.

I was reminded of my efforts to protect the nation’s eyesight – which in the end were a waste of time, given the failure of the video phone craze to materialise – by a recent article in the Independent on Sunday about the potential effects of wireless LAN (WLAN) radiation on children. The article prompted the Professional Association of Teachers to write to the Secretary of State for Education, Alan Johnson, requesting an official inquiry into the health risks of WLANs.

The main reason for these concerns is that the frequency of the radiation emitted by most WLANs – 2.4GHz – is the same as that of microwave ovens. However, a statement by the Health Protection Agency (HPA), which absorbed the NRPB on 1 April 2005, pointed out: “Wi-Fi devices are of very low power, much lower than mobile phones… The only firm precautionary advice issued by the HPA is about children’s use of mobile phones.”

Calls for a government inquiry into the effects of 2.4GHz microwave radiation on kids are understandable, but the chances of an inquiry coming up with meaningful insights are slim.

According to Mark Gilthorpe, professor of statistical epidemiology at the University of Leeds, one of the main problems facing researchers is that no one has a clear idea what the potential health dangers are.

“There don’t appear to be any known outcomes that are being suggested as the main risk,” he said. “If there are no identifiable adverse effects upfront, you can’t possibly size or scope a study in the first instance. How would you measure and differentiate the children’s exposure?”

Gilthorpe added that to find children who have been specifically affected by WLAN radiation, the study would need to be very large and last a long time.

There may well be a government inquiry into the harmful effect of wireless radiation on children, but providing statistical proof could be a long haul. I suspect school’s network administrators won’t have to tear out those wireless access points just yet.