The Independent rounds up non-science, packages it as reliable: There's reasonable cause to want to study Wi-Fi and the whole range of wireless data technology for health effects. No sane person should suggest otherwise, because it's always reasonable to figure out whether your expectations match reality. But the Independent's package of articles that state bluntly "children at risk from 'electronic smog'" don't have enough detail to point any fingers at Wi-Fi, which is acknowledged in just one place operates at a much lower power level than mobile phones.
For instance, "Virtually no studies have been carried out into Wi-Fi's effects on pupils, but it gives off radiation similar to emissions from mobile phones and phone masts." Different specifications are used, the technology is somewhat different, and the signal strength is vastly different.
I guess if you take enough disparate facts, ignore whether they come from peer-reviewed journals or industry sources (there's an anti-electronic-signal industry, remember), and don't include the large amount of science that shows no connection, you've got a great story.
The articles present electromagnetic sensitivity as a given, too.
In previous threads on this topic, and in private email, it has been suggested to me that a large body of evidence exists to back up sensitivity and other health issues related to EMF and wireless voice and data networking. Inevitably, these sources break down to a few people or organizations, and, if any, only a few small peer-reviewed studies (typically focused on lab testing of mobile phones at high signal levels not found on average in usage). One person directed me to Russian studies in the 1920s through 1950s.
The idea of science is that you test, reproduce, and isolate factors. If you can produce the same results in different places without bias intruding based on the same conditions, then you have a conclusion. This doesn't allow you to cast aside all evidence you disagree with that conforms to those standards.
I keep reading the sources, when available, of the folks who promote the notion of electronic smog, because I'm inclined to believe there should be some kind of noticeable health effect. But so far, I haven't found it compelling.