(i) Beth Pieterson of Health Canada did have the opportunity to obtain information regarding high radiation exposure from Wi-Fi use. Since she is the Director of Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences at Health Canada, she has the authority to conduct activities in order to determine the level of radiation exposure on human health. Beth along with other Directors at Health Canada did have the opportunity to research, assess and manage the negative impacts of radiation exposure on the health of Canadian citizens. With the help of a safety guideline called safety code 6, they have the opportunity to set the limits of human exposure to radio frequency radiation after confirming that there is no scientific evidence that Wi-Fi energy levels are dangerous.

Beth does have the ability to make a sound judgement about the truth of the claim. One can assume that she has the skill to take advantage of the opportunity to discover the truth about the claim. Being a Director at Health Canada, she does have the background knowledge to judge about this matter accurately.

As a Director at Health Canada seeking to refute that Wi-Fi in schools can be dangerous, Beth is not a dependable source of the claim. Health Canada stands to lose much if the claim ends against their favor. Since Health Canada set the standard for radio frequency radiation, their image can be tarnished if Wi-Fi signals are proven to be dangerous in schools. Beth had the opportunity to get the information, but her lack of dependability means she is not a credible source of the claim.

Magda Havas, professor at Trent University did have the opportunity to receive information regarding high