LOOKY HERE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN BECAUSE THE DEVIL’S IN THE DETAILS


Make no bones about it, the dosage is higher than a kite and it is not what the doctor ordered. Are your kids at risk at school in these wireless classrooms with the schools using commercial or industrial grade routers that broadcast on several frequencies at the same time? You want your kids slouched over an in use wireless radiation emitting cell phone all day? How about at home  or everywhere else with these things right in front of their heads and in their laps all the time? That is exactly what your children are doing at school and at home. These tablet devices are microwave transmitters and emit wireless radiation trillions of times the normal background levels that many of us and our parents were exposed to as children.  

What will it take to get the parents to act. I think that there are many obstacles, not the least of which is them dealing with the fact that they themselves have been irradiating their children since the beginning. So if they acknowledge this as harmful, then they have to deal with their guilt. It is time to deal with reality, swallow the pride and put your children ahead of your fears, the school administrators and your fair weather friends ladies and gentlemen. We are talking about your kids, a trillion dollar industry that doesn’t give a rat’s behind about them, and school administrators that will do whatever they are ordered to do without batting an eye.

 Let us begin.

skull vs ipad basic

 

As, we know, WiFi and wireless devices emit RF radiofrequency microwave radiation.
The question remains: How much radiation are the teachers and children being exposed to in the classroom?
From the very beginning, we have stated that the radiation levels were dangerously high. Here we have proof, as according to Apple’s Important Product Information Guide , iPads emit about the same radiation as cell phones.
The tables above show us that the iPad, using standard WiFi frequencies (2400-2483 MHz), emits an SAR value of 1.19, which is actually higher than comparable iPhones.
This issue deserves careful and methodical analysis.  I believe that for some time now, that we have been more than doing our part in conveying this to both parents and administrators alike.  This evidence shows that we need to do our due diligence.
brain penetration
Children are especially vulnerable to this kind of microwave radiation. This chart shows how much more deeply the radiation penetrates a child’s brain than for an adult. 
So now it has come time to post a blog entry about cell phone science and studies. We have all heard varying reports from the media about cell phone safety.  One story says that they are safe, another says that they are harmful.  These stories leave us with nothing more than confusion, apathy, and little true knowledge.  As with many industries before, such as tobacco, lead, asbestos, plastics, and many other toxic materials, the multi-trillion dollar wireless industry has been proven to obscure science and to create doubt in the general public.  What they would like to obscure is that according to the science, the fact is that all long term, as in over 10 year case-control studies report an increased risk of brain tumors.
The largest of these scientific reports is called INTERPHONE. Completed in 2004, and not released until 2010, this multi-million dollar international research project, funded in part by the mobile phone industry, officially reported that using a cell phone led to a reduced risk of brain cancer! In other words, the public was told that cell phones protect you from brain cancer. Many media sources simply reported that the coast was clear.
Meanwhile, was not reported to the general public was that according to the data itself, “heavy usage”, as in over 30 minutes of use per day, actually lead to a substantial increase in brain cancer risk.  As they say, the devil is in the details.
Cardis, E. Brain Tumor Risk in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case -control study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2010

Glioma and Meningioma Table 3

In this chart, we can see that for those that used a cell phone for over 1640 hours in 1-4 years, meaning about an hour a day, had an OR of 4.8 for developing a meningioma brain tumor and an OR of 3.77 for developing a glioma.

In other words, using a cell phone for over an hour a day, lead to a 5-fold increased risk of developing brain cancer, according to INTERPHONE, the largest cell phone case-control research study ever.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on
use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours
diagnosed in 1997-2003. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2006

Hardell pooled analysis 2006 b (1)

It takes a certain amount of exposure for brain tumors to start to appear.  In this chart by a Swedish team of independent researchers lead by Lennart Hardell, there was only a slight increase in risk from using a cell phone 1-1000 hours. The brain tumor risk really jumped, however, after 1000 hours of usage, and was much higher with prolonged usage.

According to the science, using a cell phone for over 1000 hours leads to an increased risk of brain cancer. According to the manufacturer, iPads emit as much or more radiation than cell phones. According to research, children absorb more radiation than adults.  Given this evidence, what will happen to these children who spend at least 4 hours a day on an iPad at school, followed by another 4 hours at home?  This is at least 2000 hours each and every year, and at least 12,000 hours of exposure in elementary school alone.

The Fullerton School District Superintendent Robert Pletka states that the wireless classrooms are “totally safe for the children” as he proudly displays his ignorance of the science by equating two equally important exposure guidelines that are in reality TEN THOUSAND TIMES APART and he gives it all to you right here in writing with his John Hancock on it:
You want to bank your children’s health and reproductive future on a person with an education degree?
Or do we heed the warnings of top medical and scientific experts, many with direct research experience, who state that this is an unacceptable risk for our children?
I would also like to mention that the 60,000 member American Academy of Pediatrics recently put a letter out to the FCC regarding wireless exposure involving children: http://www.scribd.com/doc/104230961/American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-letter-to-the-FCC
As we know, brain tumors generally take at least 10 years, and in many cases 20-30 years to develop. So these children will be grown up before we know the results of this FORCED IRRADIATION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN. Reproductive harm may not show up for decades either. That’s not the kind of running start into the brick wall and over the cliff, head first dive that we want to give them…..Do we really want to look back and find out that we made a wrong decision, that we ignored scientists and advisories from experts in the medical field, and now one of our children has a brain tumor, some other form of cancer or irreversible reproductive harm? Maybe some of the obstinate, myopic, cowardly school administrators and board members along with their worshipers do, but in the meantime we are certainly not going to sit back and watch these folks carry out what we believe to be the largest forced irradiation of school children that the world has ever known. It is our hope that by informing all of you that you will no longer be able to continue to turn your backs on all of these children.  A  long overdue about face is in order ladies and gentlemen.

Papers finding adverse biological effects such as impaired fertility or damage to health from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz).

Papers listed are only those where exposures were 16V/m or below.  Someone using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer can be exposed to electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m.  Papers are in alphabetical order.  A file of first pages, for printing, can be found here (please pass on to schools).
Wi-Fi:
Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825

Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647
Avendaño C. et al., 2010. Laptop expositions affect motility and induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for Reproductive Medicine 66th Annual Meeting: O-249 http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/laptops+and+sperm.pdf)

Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479077

Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19396408

Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL  part 2.
Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2): 253-266.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675629

Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields.http://www.istanbul.edu.tr/6internatwshopbioeffemf/cd/pdf/poster/WI-FI%20ELECTROMAGNETIC%20FIELDS%20EXERT%20GENDER.pdf

Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915130

Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19637079

Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489926
Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-92.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019785

Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23145464
Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714138
(Wi-Fi alters brain activity in young adults:http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/wifi+brain+July+2011.pdf)
Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23334843
Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360060
 
A few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures (6V/m or below):
(Not comprehensive)
Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769
Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci. 24:111-116.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600821
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika 44:737–741.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10544828
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:29–35.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619445
Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.
Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 162(2):416-428.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19768389
Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 158:126-139.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089649
Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16:263–267.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418
Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29: 219-232.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044737
Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika 43:1132–1333.
Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II. Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:37–41.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619446
Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816647
Panagopoulos D. J.et al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20397839
Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.
Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 25:216-27.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042631
Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the mammalian blood-brain barrier. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:333-355.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.
Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:881-883. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486
Brought to you by 

EMF Refugee: 

The International Coalition for an Electromagnetic Safe Planet (IC-ESP)

http://prd34.blogspot.com/

“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” 

George Orwell

 

“Papers finding adverse biological effects or damage to health from
Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5
GHz).Papers listed are only those where exposures were 16V/m or below.
Someone using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer can be exposed to
electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m. Papers are in alphabetical order.
A file of first pages, for printing, can be found here (please pass on
to schools).Wi-Fi:
Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of
deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves
emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology
9(2): 223-229.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to
internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases
sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1):
39-45.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647Avendaño C. et al., 2010. Laptop expositions affect motility and
induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a
non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for
Reproductive Medicine 66th Annual Meeting: O-249
http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/laptops+and+sperm.pdf)Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced
oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur
Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5):
1695-1700.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479077

Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on
oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from
wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19396408

Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability
shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic
nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:
273-300.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL
part 2.

Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate
variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms
original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2):
253-266.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675629

Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert
gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on
Biological Effects of Electromagnetic
fields.http://www.istanbul.edu.tr/6internatwshopbioeffemf/cd/pdf/poster/WI-FI%20ELECTROMAGNETIC%20FIELDS%20EXERT%20GENDER.pdf

Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker
responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of
print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915130

Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and
selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and
electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol.
85(8): 680-689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19637079

Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative
stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human
leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology
88(6): 449–456.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489926

Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45
GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+)
channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav.
105(3): 683-92.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019785

Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against
oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices.
Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of
print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23145464

Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300
component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task.
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714138

(Wi-Fi alters brain activity in young
adults:http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/wifi+brain+July+2011.pdf)

Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced
Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus
musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23334843

Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative
stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless
devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360060

A few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures
(6V/m or below):
(Not comprehensive)
Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana
temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn.
Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769

Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute
pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci.
24:111-116.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600821
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells
by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika
44:737–741.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10544828
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I.
Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor
production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg.
49:29–35.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619445

Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability
shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic
nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:
273-300.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL
part 2.

Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting
reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
162(2):416-428.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19768389
Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure
effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
158:126-139.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089649
Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk
from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health
16:263–267.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

Maier R. et al., 2004. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on
cognitive processes – a pilot study on pulsed field interference
with cognitive regeneration. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 110:
46-52.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15180806
Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term
exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29:
219-232.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044737
Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor
necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in
vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika
43:1132–1333.

Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II.
Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring
antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg.
49:37–41.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619446
Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of
sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to
radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication
Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816647

Panagopoulos D. J.et al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony
radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna.
Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20397839

Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in
rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication.
Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.
Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in
newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
Bioelectromagnetics
25:216-27.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042631

Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the
mammalian blood-brain barrier. European Journal of Oncology Library
Vol.
5:333-355.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL
part 2.
Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain
after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health
Perspect. 111:881-883. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486

http://wifiinschools.org.uk/30.html

“Two new papers are published in Pathophysiology this fall that may be
of interest to you.

These papers are the same content as the 2012 BioInitiative Report
Chapter 20
by Martha Herbert and Cindy Sage
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec20_2012_Findings_in_Autism.pdf
.
This counters the usual criticism that ‘it isn’t good science’ unless
it is peer-review published.

The US annual cost for autism is reported to be $137 billion.
That compares to the EU annual cost for cancer (105 billion
euros/$147 billion USD)
and to heart disease ((165 billion euros/$227 billion USD).

Staggering costs, and the prevalence of autism now in the US is one
child in 88
(one child in 50 by 2012 estimates that include the 8 yr and younger
cohort).
In 1975, it was one child in 5000. This is a 100-fold increase.

It parallels the explosive rise in wireless technologies and their
pulsed RFR. It should be
considered another possible risk factor for autism, autism spectrum
conditions and ADHD.
http://thefullertoninformer.com/carbonyl-iron-and-orange-county-the-autism-capital-of-the-state/

  1. #1 by Anonymous on October 15, 2013 - 8:12 pm

    How do you argue with this?

    • #2 by amateur night on October 27, 2013 - 7:25 am

      You can’t man. You just close your eyes. Don’t worry, Schulzeepoo will lead the way.

    • #3 by Anonymous on November 18, 2013 - 11:44 pm

      The only acceptable hygienic safety value today that should be used to establish exposure guidelines should equal the natural background levels of radiation period.

    • #4 by Joe Imbriano on May 5, 2014 - 8:00 am

      How do you argue with this?

      In case you never saw the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s 2012 Report on Smart Meters Health Hazards, here it is (Memorandum B). Among other things, the Report contains a useful bar chart showing the radiation exposure one receives from a wifi router and cell phone, and provides recommendations for safe alternatives, such as wired computers, which is what a judge would like to see. The Report is important because it comes from a California-based county government health agency.
      http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/agendas/2012/20120124/PDF/041.pdf

  2. #5 by JGarrison on October 15, 2013 - 8:41 pm

    Parents who cannot stand up for their children are not deserving of them.

  3. #6 by Black mold? on October 16, 2013 - 5:31 am

    In March of 2011 the World Health Organization (I.A.R.C.) classified microwave radiation from Wifi routers a Class 2B Carcinogen, the same category as DDT, black mold, and lead. Again, there was dissent among some of the scientists who were involved as they felt that enough evidence warranted an ‘increased danger’ classification that upgraded from possible, to a Class 2A Probable carcinogen. http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/iarc- rf-carc/

    • #7 by Schulzee on October 16, 2013 - 7:57 pm

      Is it on purpose or out of ignorance that everyone keeps failing to mention that both

      Coffee
      Pickled Vegetables

      Are both class 2B as well

      Or the fact that Alcohol is class 1.

      Or the fact that DDT, Black Mold, and Lead very probably do NOT cause cancer.

      But by all means, feel free to continue to try and scare people by misrepresenting studies.

      Or that a fair number of IARC panel members felt it should be classified as 3….

      • #8 by Ray on October 17, 2013 - 6:03 am

        Schulze, feel free to discuss the topic of this blog entry at any point, which is the cell phone research.

        You said that you were committed to examining the scientific evidence, but your actions very much show otherwise.

      • #9 by who wears the pantalones? on October 19, 2013 - 7:35 pm

        So is HIV, HPV and 283 other things that you wouldn’t put in your cereal.

        http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/

        Joe this guy’s a real tool.

      • #10 by Anonymous on October 19, 2013 - 7:59 pm

      • #11 by Anonymous on October 20, 2013 - 1:07 pm

        Is it out of ignorance or pure evil that you mention coffee and kimchi but fail to mention HIV, HPV or pesticides? Your position and party line lends itself to much suspicion or you are simply a fool.

      • #12 by Mary in PDX on August 11, 2014 - 1:19 pm

        Schulzee, the unfettered repeating of a marketing meme intended to misrepresent the facts guarantees those authors of the meme continue to make millions. Sherwin Williams continued a similar line on Lead paint for almost 80 years, even though it made kids sick. Yes, they just were found guilty of fore-knowledge to Lead paint illness in children- the evidence was from their own internal memos unearthed from 1930. So in a move that replicates the early 90s Motorola ‘war gaming’ on the science that warned of wireless cellular devices and cancer- enter coffee, pickled vegetables for the WiFi in schools.
        Yet, it takes about 10 seconds on Google to explain the context for cancer by coffee and pickled vegetables- and that context does not include small children irradiated by an atomic-level radiation that strikes at the dysregulation of cellular level functions.
        Here’s how it works, Schulzee Firstly, if you massively consume Kim Chi, or Chinese pickled vegetables that have carcinogenic mold toxins in them from being buried in the dirt for 6 months, then you might get esophageal cancer. Check for yourself at this US government site. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782753/ No kids, here….
        And secondly, when you have inflammatory bladder disease it is a well-known probability that massive caffeine consumption will likely tip you over into cancer. No kids here, either. Find your own cite on Google, because ignorance and bias rebuttals risk boring me.
        A little piece of political science that might help you- the WHO, in WHO cancer monographs, stands for World Health Organization, not for Only Americans Organization. Not everything that is important is done for you, Schulzee, because you are American. The WHO also includes on its list standard alerts for third world countries that do not have public health standards. Read the cite, above, where the NIH reports China will even gerrymander entire province results for pickle consumption to avoid public health standards- NIH calls this prevarication. What’s your excuse?
        And if you are not prevaricating, then from where did you get your information on Coffee and Pickles? Because if you were thoroughly behind this meme then you must include its original form, this meme’s original third refrain of Baby Powder? But I guess Americans now ‘get it’ that inhaling gypsum into baby lungs might have consequences a few years down- so scratch that doofus analogy.
        So Schulzee- are your fingers broken on the ‘G’ and the double ‘o’? Why are you even bothering to post on this site, since the Fullerton people have given you so much to read and research? Coffee and pickles is all you can come up with? For me, I’ve bothered to post just for you, Schulzee, and you- alone; because when ignorant statements are allowed to stand without rebuttal, ignorance graduates from ‘ridiculous meme’ to ‘enduring meme’. I’m thinking you might know that- or maybe you are just an innocent victim of clever marketing that speaks to your basic desire to be free from fear of something you feel powerless against- there is no shame in that. Nonetheless, I rebut your ridiculousness and even mock it, therefore, zeroing its effect.

        • #13 by Anonymous on August 11, 2014 - 3:16 pm

          Roman Schulze is an MD by the way. He and his wife Michele Garden have been extremely influential at making certain that wireless programs remain in place in Fullerton schools as well as other districts. In addition, they have both been involved in discrediting information intended to warn parents of the dangers of this technology. Shame on both of them!

          Joe did a really good article on him last year-

          http://thefullertoninformer.com/public-health-is-not-a-sport-dont-play-games-with-our-childrens-health/

          • #14 by amatuer night on August 11, 2014 - 10:54 pm

            Oh Schulzeepoo where are you?

            • #15 by Anonymous on August 12, 2014 - 1:47 pm

              That Schulze guy is a tool

  4. #17 by Anonymous on October 16, 2013 - 7:03 am

    FOR OUR CHILDREN: Wireless Education Action’s most unshakeable commitment is to effect the removal of Wi-Fi from public classrooms, and cause the cease of irradiating our children while in the custody of State schools. No safe exposure for, or any certified testing of children has been conducted for, Wireless radiation exposure. FCC has no standards for children, whatsoever. The reason is simple; US Health And Human Services does not allow children to be experimented upon without the permission of their parents. In fact, this testing can now never be done, because in 2011 wireless radiation was classed as a 2B carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf), and as such, it is against Constitutional law to test children by exposure to potential disease causing agent. This Class 2b classification also includes other agents we never expose children to, like lead in paint, DDT, gasoline fumes, and more.

    http://wirelesseducationaction.org/2013/08/05/ban-wifi-in-k-12/

  5. #18 by Ray on October 16, 2013 - 9:56 am

    I normally post scientific citations and rebuttals to industry-funded science, but today I have a different thought.

    I think this really comes down to evil. I don’t necessarily mean a guy on a remote island somewhere stroking his white cat.

    I mean the part of each of us that for one reason or another will look the other way and allow bad things to happen.

    I’m just suprised that parents will look the other way regarding the health and safety of their children. I know that parents are stressed, overworked, and have enough things to worry about, but this is not a time to go into denial.

    The consequences of this experiment will likely be much worse than brain cancer. According to the science, we may be doing irreversible damage to our childrens genes. If that’s the case, you’re not only throwing your child off the cliff, but your entire genetic legacy.

  6. #22 by David Morrison on October 16, 2013 - 4:13 pm

    The schools that have this information are now criminally liable. They have been warned, now it is up to us. Whatever we do is an act of self defense and in defense of our children. How is it possible that school boards across the board seem to be populated with automatons that have no interest in their high duty to protect our children. If this were about an auto repair shop that blew a little too much auto exhaust into a class room they would be all over it but 20,000 studies have no bearing on their desire to protect our children.

    • #23 by Anonymous on October 16, 2013 - 5:59 pm

      “How is it possible that school boards across the board seem to be populated with automatons that have no interest in their high duty to protect our children.”

      That is what makes this whole thing so incredulous. It is inconceivable that these school boards, held in the public’s trust, will not do the right thing for the children. It took quite a while for this sickening reality to sink in. I have sat at the table with them and told them that ALL of the LAUSD letters said the same thing: WIRE THE TECHNOLOGY. I have pointed out that these are other people’s children they are deciding health issues for. Can you ever imagine making health decisions for other people’s children? This IS criminal.

      WAKE UP PARENTS!!!!! These people are MONSTERS!

      • #24 by Anonymous on October 27, 2013 - 8:31 am

        I cannot discern whether or not they are monsters at this point. While it most certainly appears that they are cowards, there remains a vast difference. Mr. Imbrinio, have any of the board members reached out to you, responded to you, gone on record questioning or even admitting they have possible concerns that there may be a problem with the district’s wireless technology program?

        • #25 by Joe Imbriano on October 27, 2013 - 11:27 am

          None have reached out to me. They have only responded to me as a result of persistent appearances at board meetings and multiple emails. Chris Thompson is the only board member that continues to maintain open communication with me, while Beverly Berryman has responded only once, and the other three- Hilda Sugarman, Lynne Thornley and Janny Catlin Meyer HAVE FLAT OUT COMPLETELY IGNORED ME, THIS ISSUE, AND THE SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS’ WARNINGS WITH THE THOUSANDS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES whose links have been provided on this website as well as the documentation provided to them at board meetings.

          None have officially gone on record with a position other than to proceed with the district’s technology program thus far. I believe this last sentence sums it all up thus far.

        • #26 by mom1 on October 27, 2013 - 11:33 am

          When I consider that my child, as well as other innocent children may contract childhood leukemia, end up infertile, have their DNA altered for having been in a wireless classroom, demanded by a school board that will not look at or discuss the health concerns, that is inhuman (monsters).

          That IS inhuman.

    • #27 by Anonymous on October 20, 2013 - 7:41 pm

      You are so right Mr. Morrison. This reeks of some sort of an agenda for certain. No one at the top can be that stupid. It makes no sense otherwise.

  7. #28 by Schulzee on October 16, 2013 - 7:28 pm

    And yet people who actually believe this stuff is harmful continue to submit their kids to it day, after day, after day. Some would argue those are the real monsters failing to protect their own children. I’m not sure if I would agree though…

    • #29 by Joe Imbriano on October 16, 2013 - 9:32 pm

      Welcome back Roman.

      • #30 by Anonymous on October 16, 2013 - 10:00 pm

        Poor Dr. Schulze, he’s so obsessed with irradiating children. He keeps coming back just to try and convince everyone that he knows better than all the experts. One has to wonder why a physician would be so preoccupied with the kids this way; seems really unhealthy and sick.

    • #31 by Schulze & homework? on October 16, 2013 - 10:18 pm

      Dr. Schulze,
      Have you done your homework? Have you called Dr. Martha Herbert from Harvard and told her she is wrong? Remember, it’s put up or shut up, doc.

      ” The experts are all saying to hard wire the technology; Schulze is saying it is not a “concern.”

      Go ahead, Schulze, contact these experts and start telling them that they are all wrong:

      Dr. Martha Herbert, Harvard Medical School, Transcend Phone: 617-966-9766
      Martin Blank, PhD, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, (212) 305-3644
      Dr. Magda Havas, Trent University, Canada Phone: 705 748-1011 ext 7882
      American Academy of Environmental Medicine: (316) 684-5500
      Amy Dean, D.O.
      Dr. Doris Rapp
      Dr. Jennifer Armstrong
      Dr. Allan Lieberman
      Olle Johasson, Ph.D., Karonlinska Institute, Stockholm, Department of Neuroscience Phone 468-52 48 70 58

      and many more . . . .

      It’s time you put up or shut up, Schulze.”

  8. #32 by amateur night on October 16, 2013 - 8:17 pm

    Craven skipped town at a good time. Bother Bob, who’s kickin’ it with you now?

  9. #33 by Joe Imbriano on October 16, 2013 - 10:49 pm

    “EMF induced degenerative oocytes”

    I believe that it is all about affecting fertility, specifically the oocytes in your daughters ladies and gentlemen. Until these eggs are released, they simply remain dormant in their follicle-in a state of suspended animation precariously frozen smack dab in the middle of a cell division. The egg is one of the longest-lived cells in the body, and because a dormant egg cannot perform the usual cellular repair processes, as such, it is the most vulnerable cell type in the human body.

    http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/33785/InTech-Environmental_electromagnetic_field_and_female_fertility.pdf

    Aside from the EMF induced degeneration of the oocyte, there remains yet another more serious concern that I have. Like all microwave irradiated cells in your body, specifically the oocytes in your daughters ovaries, they struggle to protect themselves against the microwave, electromagnetically induced dissonance by hardening their membranes. I believe that in the case of the oocyte, the zona pellucida hardens rendering it impermeable and thus results in human female infertility. This is the mechanism which I believe is responsible for what some consider to be the salvation of the planet: the wide scale, wholesale sterilization of young girls. Ladies and gentlemen, I have just said what no scientist in the world has ever dared to utter. Pray to Almighty God that I am wrong.

    Where is the WiFi enabled tablet tonight? Is it transmitting pulse modulated high frequency microwave radiation trillions of times normal background levels right in your daughters’ laps? Where will it be in the morning and in the afternoon while your child sits in a Fullerton classroom?

    • #34 by Rosary High School? on October 17, 2013 - 7:47 am

      Rosary High School in Fullerton, an all girls Catholic school now has 1 to 1 technology (laptops): http://www.rosaryhs.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=33669&type=d&pREC_ID=393551

      I wonder if they know any of this information. : (

      • #35 by Joe Imbriano on October 17, 2013 - 9:21 am

        Not starred
        new
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Rosary High School – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:18 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Nathan Fletcher – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:16 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Patricia Fields – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:15 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply (13)
        Email delivered successfully! – Hi Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984, Your email to Rosary High School titled wireless device
        11:14 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Wendy Faust – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:14 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Tracy Drummer – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:13 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Diane D’Alba – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:13 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Mayo Crismon – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:13 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply (2)
        Your message to Brian Clough – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:12 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Jill Christensen – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:11 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Frances Chavez – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:10 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Laurie Cantrell – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:10 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Rory Bevins – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:09 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Andrea Barclay – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:09 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Margie Bangs – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:08 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Catherine Ball – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:08 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Nikki Wilson – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:08 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Britt Winslow – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:07 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Katy Wren – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:06 am
        Not starred
        do-not-reply
        Your message to Richard Yoon- Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:06 am

        THEY BLOCKED ME AFTER 13 WENT THROUGH.

        • #36 by Joe Imbriano on October 17, 2013 - 10:17 am

          My own Alma Mater, Mater Dei High School, blocked me as well after about 15 or so went through.

          Not starred
          do-not-reply (25)
          Email delivered successfully! – Hi Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984, Your email to Mater Dei High School titled wireless device
          12:03 pm
          Not starred
          do-not-reply
          Your message to Rick Martinez ’83 – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 12:03 pm
          Not starred
          do-not-reply
          Your message to Allison Bergeron '96 - Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 12:02 pm
          Not starred
          do-not-reply
          Your message to Charisse Kitsinis - Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 12:01 pm
          Not starred
          do-not-reply (2)
          Your message to Reena Burt - Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 12:00 pm
          Not starred
          do-not-reply
          Your message to Kevin Hickman - Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:59 am
          Not starred
          do-not-reply
          Your message to Patrick Murphy - Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:58 am
          Not starred
          do-not-reply
          Your message to Frances Clare - Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:58 am
          Not starred
          do-not-reply
          Your message to Griselda Zamora - Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:57 am
          Not starred
          do-not-reply
          Your message to David Taylor - Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984 11:57 am
          Not starred
          Rinske Colton
          Automatic reply: WIRELESS DEVICE DANGERS IN THE SCHOOL CLASSROOMS IN THE DIOCESE OF ORANGE - I will be out of the office between October 10 thru approximately the end of November 2013. If you
          11:55 am
          Not starred
          me, Mail (2)
          WIRELESS DEVICE DANGERS IN THE SCHOOL CLASSROOMS IN THE DIOCESE OF ORANGE - Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: mm@occatholicschools.org Technical details of
          11:55 am
          Not starred
          do-not-reply
          Your message to Rosary High School – Here is a copy of your email: From: Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984

      • #37 by Joe Imbriano on October 17, 2013 - 10:11 am

        I couldn’t forget the Diocese or Orange:

        from: joe imbriano
        to: mbungcag@rcbo.org,
        Jpham@rcbo.org,
        rcolton@rcbo.org,
        fr.sallot@rcbo.org,
        gdenomie@rcbo.org,
        sgiacomi@rcbo.org,
        fr.bnguyen@rcbo.org,
        amaldonado@rcbo.org,
        sr.eflood@rcbo.org,
        mm@occatholicschools.org,
        gdhuyvetter@rcbo.org,
        Sally Todd ,
        frhoran@rcbo.org
        date: Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 09:55 AM
        subject: WIRELESS DEVICE DANGERS IN THE SCHOOL CLASSROOMS IN THE DIOCESE OF ORANGE
        mailed-by: gmail.com

        • #38 by Joe Imbriano on October 17, 2013 - 10:13 am

          Email delivered successfully!
          Inbox
          x

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:06 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Hi Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984, Your email to Rosary High School tit…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:06 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Rosary High School titled wireless device dangers in the classr…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:07 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Rosary High School titled wireless device dangers in the classr…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:08 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Rosary High School titled wireless device dangers in the classr…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:08 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Hi Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984, Your email to Rosary High School tit…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:09 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Rosary High School titled wireless device dangers in the classr…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:09 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Hi Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984, Your email to Rosary High School tit…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:10 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Rosary High School titled wireless device dangers in the classr…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:10 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Hi Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984, Your email to Rosary High School tit…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:12 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Rosary High School titled wireless device dangers in the classr…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:13 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Rosary High School titled wireless device dangers in the classr…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:13 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Hi Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984, Your email to Rosary High School tit…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:14 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Rosary High School titled wireless device dangers in the classr…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:23 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Rosary High School titled Mail from Rosary High School was succ…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:27 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Rosary High School titled wireless device dangers in the classr…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:56 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Mater Dei High School titled wireless device dangers in the cla…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:57 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Mater Dei High School titled wireless device dangers in the cla…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:57 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Hi Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984, Your email to Mater Dei High School …

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:58 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Mater Dei High School titled wireless device dangers in the cla…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:58 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Hi Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984, Your email to Mater Dei High School …

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 11:59 AM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Mater Dei High School titled wireless device dangers in the cla…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 12:00 PM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Mater Dei High School titled wireless device dangers in the cla…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 12:01 PM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Mater Dei High School titled wireless device dangers in the cla…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com 12:02 PM (0 minutes ago)
          Your email to Mater Dei High School titled wireless device dangers in the cla…

          do-not-reply@edlio.com
          12:03 PM (0 minutes ago)

          to me
          Hi Joe Imbriano Mater Dei class of 1984,

          Your email to Mater Dei High School titled wireless device dangers in the classroom was successfully delivered! You sent this email on Thursday, October 17 at 10:03AM Pacific Time.

          • #39 by Anonymous on October 18, 2013 - 12:37 pm

            You go Joe! Call ‘em out.

        • #40 by Anonymous on October 17, 2013 - 11:45 am

          I sure would be curious to see what their response will be.

  10. #41 by Ray on October 17, 2013 - 6:12 am

    This is to Dr. Roman Schulze, the Fullerton area physician who has been debating the issue of wireless health effects.

    I challenge you openly to put aside your personal beliefs and to openly investigate the issue of cell phone science and brain cancer.

    You have accused us of misrepresenting the science, without actually engaging the science.

    I recommend that you start with the highest quality independent research on cell phones and brain cancer, which is understood to be the work of Lennart Hardell of Sweden.

    I request that, for the sake of your community, you thoroughly examine this body of research spanning over a decade, and report back to us with your findings.

    • #42 by who wears the pantalones? on October 17, 2013 - 12:09 pm

      He cares only about his wife’s little clique over at Acacia. You know the little group fundraising for Ipads for all that ignores every thing on here? Someone needs to let these gals know that High school has been out for at least 20 years, at least the last time I checked anyway.

      • #43 by amateur night on October 18, 2013 - 11:09 am

        Si Senior, my little Schulzeepoo is really just a little lap dog for the honeys.

        • #44 by Jamie on October 18, 2013 - 6:04 pm

          Ohhhhh, that explains a lot. He wants to irradiate the children because it garners favors from the “honeys.” I got it.

          • #45 by Ray on October 19, 2013 - 4:52 am

            If he is that connected with the moms, then he may be providing guidance to parents on this issue. It’s disturbing to think that he would be steering those families wrong with this pro-industry spin.

            It was obvious from the beginning that he was heavily biased, as he wouldn’t address any science that reported health effects.

            How can a physician, in good conscience, ignore thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers?

            I guess it comes back to the honeys.

            • #46 by Jamie on October 19, 2013 - 12:21 pm

              It is very likely that he is “providing guidance to parents”, who look to him as a medical authority and trust his words. Likewise, it is disturbing to think that he is influencing the Acacia parents with the pro-industry spin at the expense of risking their children’s health.

              I think some of us are trying to figure out what would motivate Dr. Schulze to promote throwing caution to the wind and advocate for wireless radiation in the classrooms. Could it be something as banal and infantile as appealing to the honeys?

            • #47 by Joe Imbriano on October 19, 2013 - 1:11 pm

              He claims that he is not providing guidance but merely presenting facts without a bias and allowing people to make up their own minds. Yes read that-close their eyes to the 20,000 studies that show harm.

              What is deeply concerning is that as you know Ray, it takes thousands of hours to get your arms around the studies, the science, the disinformation, the obfuscation, the fraud, and spin put forth at the behest of the wireless industry and the government entities involved, the areas where the studies never go, the areas where the studies flat out lie, and the fact that we are talking about every last child in the entire nation’s physical and reproductive health being on the line. It appears to be clear that in terms of having that amount of hours under his belt on this issue it is impossible for him to be objective as he is new to this issue as evidenced by his behavior and comments here.

              What is so insidious about this is as Roman is a D.O., people will likely swallow his slant at face value and refuse to do their own research because people by nature like to be followers, and for the most part by nature are both lazy and cowardly. It is easy to bury your head in the sand when everyone is doing it too. Acacia was built on an old ostrich farm and it sure looks like one is still in operation over there. On the heels of this campaign to get the wireless out of those rooms at Acacia Elementary which is ground zero in the FSD for the wireless classroom roll out, the Acacia PTA and Foundation are totally ignoring the experts and the 20,000 studies. These folks instead try to make the issue about me by choosing to claim that these are my assertions. They are continuing to ignore my emails, and are proceeding full speed ahead with their ambitious goal of funding the fulfillment of what I believe to be Robert Pletka’s fantasy of placing one of these microwave transmitters in the laps of every last one of the 15,000 children in The Fullerton School District.

              In my opinion, Roman is a hero of the worst kind, championing a cause that he refuses to believe is from the pit of hell. You think he would have learned his lesson from the last rodeo.

              It appears that this guy fell off the turnip truck and rolled into the debate as soon as his wife got wind of what he refers to my intent to “sabotage” the FSD’s technology program.

              I tried to reach out to these groups that Roman is tight with in an email back in July and I tried to call a meeting with the PTA and the Foundation before school resumed to discuss and present this information and they refused. Michelle Knowles told me that that I cant just call them at my beckoning and they didn’t have time to meet with me and yet they had time to all meet during the summer over planning a “DOUGHNUTS WITH DAD” day. Are you kidding me?

              You see this directly interferes with the brownie point program Roman’s clique of gal pals are involved in pandering to parents for all kinds of money when the district is flush with cash, taking showers in cash, living well above and beyond their means and at the same time deficit spending. Look at all of the recent budgets over the last few years rubber stamped by the four union lackey trustees and it will make you sick to your stomach. Not only do they deficit spend with 100 million in the till, leach from the scam ballot initiatives foisted on and passed by the unsuspecting voters, but they play the fiddle for the parents trying to get into their wallets 180 days a year even after they are in the parent’s wallets the other 180 days a year as well. Every time the panda folder comes home they have a handout that has their hands out for handouts. It is really a joke if your eyes are open to it all. These parent groups are hurting the kids by enabling the districts to live beyond their means by being relied upon to provide funding for basic services that should be provided by the district. When you have a family member that can’t live within their means, how long do you keep reaching into your pocket always writing the check for them instead of teaching them to tighten the belt and trim the fat?

              I have no intentions of sabotaging the technology program. My stated goal is simple and that is not to sabotage but to have A MORATORIUM PLACED ON ALL CLASSROOM WIFI USE AND REMOVE ALL WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY FROM ALL THE CLASSROOMS IN THE FSD AND THE FJUHSD.

              I could care less if Obama and Torlakson order this experiment to go forth. They have no right to do this to these innocent children of all of these misinformed and unsuspecting parents. We will simply broaden and continue our quest to end the largest forced irradiation of school children that the world has ever seen. What’s more is that we will never turn our backs on these children even if their own parents and teachers willfully continue to do so. They have all read and will continue to receive flyers, handouts and bookmarks, information on this and other websites and coming soon and even more direct forms of information dissemination. They are and will continue to remain accountable as we will continue to make all involved eternally accountable in every legal manner possible. On that ladies and gentlemen, you have my word.

              • #48 by the oracle on October 19, 2013 - 5:33 pm

                Everyone’s got a price. Here is what the Fullerton teachers are being paid to ignore and refuse to investigate everything you and the scientific experts have put forth to betray the children Mr. Imbriano.

                http://www.myfeta.org/pdfs/FETA_Agreement1208.pdf

                You earlier blog posts stated that you had emailed all district staff, PTA and Foundation members, and placed thousands of flyers on the cars of these parents? What is truly remarkable is the question of what is in it for these parent groups to betray the students? It is really beyond me. Maybe they are just in denial. What if they are just flat out cowards of the worst kind? It is really sickening, it truly is.

                This was a great article Joe. You have really done a great job of amassing facts here.There are many parent groups forming across the country and you have many eyes and ears on this battle in Fullerton. It looks to be the flash point. You have demonstrated the ability and the courage to prayerfully carry this cause. Don’t back down. The kids need people like yourself.

  11. #49 by Malibu HS teacher on October 17, 2013 - 11:19 am

    I have worked at Malibu High School for quite some time. I hope it occurs to all of the teachers and district staff that we are all being subjected to the RF information containing radiation waves as well as the students. I had NO IDEA that this was dangerous. Did the district ask for any of our permission before they flipped the switch? You may want to consider researching the side effects of exposure and contact the union.

    This is horrible.

    The district is in cover up mode up here.

  12. #53 by breaking news on October 17, 2013 - 1:29 pm

    16/10/2013 – Two important new papers show mobile phone use does cause an increase in brain tumours

    Two important mobile phone and cancer papers from Hardell, et al.

    RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones are class 1 human carcinogens

    Using the long-established and respected Bradford Hill criteria for assessing causality, this paper shows that RF-EMF exposure from mobile (and cordless) phones should be regarded as an IARC class 1 human carcinogen (cancel causing agent). Current guidelines for exposure need to be urgently revised.

    Wireless phones, i.e. mobile phones and cordless phones, emit radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) when used. An increased risk of brain tumors is a major concern. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the World Health Organization (WHO) evaluated the carcinogenic effect to humans from RF-EMF in May 2011. It was concluded that RF-EMF is a group 2B, i.e. a “possible”, human carcinogen.

    Bradford Hill gave a presidential address at the British Royal Society of Medicine in 1965 on the association or causation that provides a helpful framework for evaluation of the brain tumour risk from RF-EMF.

    All nine issues on causation according to Hill were evaluated. Regarding wireless phones, only studies with long-term use were included. In addition, laboratory studies and data on the incidence of brain tumours were considered.

    The criteria on strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, and biologic gradient for evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma were fulfilled. Additional evidence came from plausibility and analogy based on laboratory studies.

    Regarding coherence, several studies show increasing incidence of brain tumours, especially in the most exposed area. Support for the experiment came from antioxidants that can alleviate the generation of reactive oxygen species involved in biologic effects, although a direct mechanism for brain tumor carcinogenesis has not been shown. In addition, the finding of no increased risk for brain tumors in subjects using the mobile phone only in a car with an external antenna is supportive evidence. Hill did not consider it was essential, or even very likely, that all the listed criteria were likely to be fulfilled.

    Ref: Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg, Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile and cordless phones, Rev Environ Health 2013-0006, De Gruyter; DOI 10.1515

    Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use

    This new study confirms previous results of an association between mobile and cordless phone use and malignant brain tumours. The findings provide support for the hypothesis that RF-EMFs play a role both in the initiation and promotion stages of carcinogenesis.

    Previous studies have shown a consistent association between long-term use of mobile and cordless phones and glioma and acoustic neuroma, but not for meningioma. When these phones are used they emit radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) and the brain is the main target organ for the handheld phone emissions.

    The International Agency for Research on Cancer(IARC) classified in May, 2011 RF-EMF as a group 2B, i.e.a “possible” human carcinogen. The aim of this study was to further explore the relationship between especially long-term (>10 years) use of wireless phones and the development of malignant brain tumours.

    The researchers conducted a new case-control study of brain tumour cases of both genders aged 18-75 years and diagnosed during 2007-2009. One population-based control, matched on gender and age (within 5 years), was used for each case. Here, we report on malignant cases including all available controls. Exposures on e.g. use of mobile phones and cordless phones were assessed by a self-administered questionnaire. Unconditional logistic regression analysis was performed, adjusting for age, gender, year of diagnosis and socio-economic index using the whole control sample.

    Of the cases with a malignant brain tumour, 87% (n=593) participated, and 85% (n=1,368) of controls in the whole study answered the questionnaire.

    The odds ratio (OR) for mobile phone use of the analogue type was 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.04-3.3,
    increasing with >25 years of latency (time since first exposure) to an OR=3.3, 95% CI=1.6-6.9

    Digital 2G (GSM) mobile phone use rendered an OR=1.6, 95% CI=0.996-2.7,
    increasing with latency >15-20 years to an OR=2.1, 95% CI=1.2-3.6

    The results for cordless phone use were OR=1.7, 95% CI=1.1-2.9, and, for
    latency of 15-20 years, the OR=2.1, 95% CI=1.2-3.8.
    Few participants had used a cordless phone for >20-25 years.

    Digital type of wireless phones (2G and 3G mobile phones, cordless phones) gave increased risk with latency >1-5 years, then a lower risk in the following latency groups, but again increasing risk with latency >15-20 years. Ipsilateral use resulted in a higher risk than contralateral mobile and cordless phone use. Higher ORs were calculated for tumours in the temporal and overlapping lobes. Using the meningioma cases in the same study as reference entity gave somewhat higher ORs indicating that the results were unlikely to be explained by recall or observational bias.

    This study confirmed previous results of an association between mobile and cordless phone use and malignant brain tumours.
    These findings provide support for the hypothesis that RF-EMFs play a role both in the initiation and promotion stages of carcinogenesis.

    Ref: Hardell L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Mild KH. Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use, Int J Oncol. 2013 Sep 24. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2013.2111. [Epub ahead of print]

    • #54 by Anonymous on October 18, 2013 - 9:14 am

      We are being lied to left and right. What the heck is wrong with everyone?

    • #55 by Anonymous on October 20, 2013 - 5:15 pm

      This is a key development.

  13. #56 by Anonymous on October 18, 2013 - 10:52 am

    wow that is breaking news. why isn’t it in the media?

    • #57 by Ray on October 18, 2013 - 5:00 pm

      The media blocks this kind of information from getting to the public. This happens over and over again.

  14. #58 by UK - wireless radiation on October 18, 2013 - 12:07 pm

    UK government controversy on wireless radiation:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=15wNBQ59WAc#t=557

  15. #59 by Anonymous on October 19, 2013 - 2:36 pm

    why does the media block it? they don’t block news of other class 2b carcinogens, do they?

  16. #60 by Ray on October 20, 2013 - 4:52 am

    Here’s a link to one part of the puzzle, which is that 90% of American media is controlled by 6 companies.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

  17. #61 by Veritas on October 21, 2013 - 8:21 am

    Our presentation will be broadcasted live on Ustream (via hardwire)

    Protect Children’s Health and Ours in a WiFi World

    http://www.ustream.tv/channel/protecting-health-in-our-wifi-wireless-world

    Scientist Martin Blank PhD,

    Cardiologist Stephen Sinatra MD, FACC

    Wednesday October 23rd

    4:30 pm – 6:30 pm

  18. #62 by Anonymous on October 22, 2013 - 3:14 am

    http://www.nypolisci.org/ files/ PDF%20FILES/ Chapter%20II_%20the%20global%20media%20giants.pdf

  19. #63 by Veritas on October 22, 2013 - 9:32 pm

    Our Children, Our Future, Our Responsibility
    Wireless Technologies – An Urgent National and Global Emergency

    http://c4st.org/images/documents/Our-Children_Our-Future_Our-Responsibility.pdf

  20. #64 by Willy on October 23, 2013 - 11:18 am

    Does Cell Phone Use Alter Brain Activity?

    A study entitled “Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism” has generated news headlines such as this story in the NY Times. This study purports to show that brain activity (technically glucose metabolism) increased in areas of the brain closest to a cellular telephone. There are a number of potential problems with this study. Some of these are covered in the following article: “Chatting on your cell phone may boost brain metabolism”. The British National Health Service has also published a commentary on this study: Mobiles `increase brain activity’.

    The study used PET scans to produce images of glucose metabolism through a “slice” of the brain. Changes in glucose metabolism were measured with a cell phone on for 50 minutes vs. being off. The size of the glucose increase reported in the study is quite small (35.7 vs 33.3 mol/100 g per minute). The authors report that other studies similar to theirs have had “yielded variable results”. Some have “reported increases, decreases and increases, or no changes in CBF”. Like all preliminary findings, these results must be repeatable to be accepted as real. There is a long history of preliminary false “positive” findings of cell phone EMF on biological processes that failed attempts at replication.

    There are a couple of basic problems with the data underlying this study. The authors misreported the SAR value for this model of cell phone. The authors reported a SAR value of 0.901W/kg, according to the manufacturer’s report the correct value for the right side of the head is 0.769W/kg. More importantly, it is highly unlikely that the cell phone was operating at peak power. Typically, a cell phone will operate at around 1% of peak power. The authors did not make any measurement of the actual SAR for this study. The map of the electric field shown in Fig 1 cannot be correct. The authors state that this was calculated: “using the far-field approximation, of a dipole field”. This is a method that is more than 20 years old and is not considered valid for a cell phone next to the head. Experts in this area use much more advanced models for calculating field strength distribution maps. These deficiencies are indications that this study is poorly designed and that the authors did not consult with any experts in the testing of cell phones.

    The authors of this study note that the increase in glucose activity seen here is actually less dramatic than that seen when the brain goes to work on a visual task. This indicates that the PET scan is very sensitive since even simple visual stimulation can increase brain metabolic activity. It is likely that temperature rise can also influence this activity. Numerical computations indicate that the steady state temperature increase in the brain due to cell phone EMF at the 1.6W/kg limit can be 0.1 C at the highest spot. But during a 50 minute phone call, it has been shown that there is a several degrees Celsius temperature rise on the cheek and ear after a 30 minute call due to the blocking of air circulation and also heating of the cell phone itself due to its internal power consumption. The heat conducted from the phone to the head can be significant. So another possible explanation for this result is that heat directly or indirectly due to the cell phone is what causes the slight change in metabolism.

    The following is from a commentary on this study by the British National Health service: “Any increased activity in the brain cells due to thinking, for example, could have led to this difference, and the wide confidence interval suggests that the difference in metabolism could have been as low as 0.67/33.3 μmol/100 g per minute or 2%.” “It is possible that the participants could tell if the phone was on or off or receiving a call even if they were set to silent. For example, the phone that was turned on may have been warmer. This was not tested or reported by the researchers. This is important because knowing whether the phone was making a call could have influenced the underlying brain activity.”

    The lack of control for heat is another indication of poor study design. The authors should have at least repeated the tests with a heat source that was equivalent to the active cell phone in order to control for this variable. The physics of the effects of cell phone EMF is well understood. Heating is the only plausible effect. The small direct and indirect heating effects from cell phones do not cause harm. The glucose change may simply be the body’s response to this heat. The authors of this study concede that their findings are “of unknown clinical significance”. In other words, assuming that their findings are correct, it is not clear that there are any harmful effects on health.

    • #65 by Joe Imbriano on October 23, 2013 - 9:57 pm

      This is a typical “muddy the waters technique”. Thank you.

    • #66 by Angie B on October 24, 2013 - 9:50 am

      Who is paying you, Willy?

    • #67 by Angie B on October 24, 2013 - 1:20 pm

      Willy, Willy, Willy, are you in the same camp as Dr. Roman Schulze, a physician who advocates irradiating children so that wireless devices can be used in the classroom?

      Are you not wanting to err on the side of caution for our children?

      • #68 by Ray on October 24, 2013 - 3:50 pm

        Doubt is their product.

        What goes through a person’s mind when they ignored 1000’s of peer reviewed studies reporting adverse effects?

        How do they not recognize that this is more than enough evidence to elect a safer option for getting the internet to the computers?

        How does one turn a blind eye to science that shows wireless radiation causes cancer, and other effects?

        As long as the industry can keep the waters muddy, they can keep making a killing.

  21. #69 by Joe Imbriano on October 23, 2013 - 9:34 pm

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: joe imbriano
    Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 7:12 PM
    Subject: Meeting at Troy High School with guest speaker California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson 10-23-13.
    To: Superintendent@cde.ca.gov
    Cc: david morrison ,

    Good evening Mr. Torlakson.

    Please provide me with the name or names of your aide, aides or staff members that gave the order to the F.J.U.H.S.D. to have campus security officer Tim Kandler remove me from the premises at Troy High School this morning while I was peacefully attending a public meeting in my own school district that I pay for with my own tax dollars which was called for by own my Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk Silva’s office.

    I was not disruptive. I was only on campus for about 5 minutes and barely uttered word to anyone. I was immediately asked to leave by officer Kandler with no explanation other than “you are not on the guest list”. I left on my own accord personally choosing not to challenge the campus security officer’s authority and not to be disruptive out of respect for you and your guests. I have phone and print records to prove that I RSVP’d yesterday. There were many in attendance whom I personally know that were NOT on the guest list and were NOT asked to leave. I was singled out, and publicly humiliated.

    In subsequent discussions with Fullerton Police Officers Williams and Kandler, it was conveyed to us that this was all a misunderstanding and that your staff claimed that they were not aware of the format of this meeting being a PUBLIC meeting. They claimed that they thought that it was an invitation only meeting. This was clearly a PUBLIC meeting with an open invitation to the public. http://asmdc.org/members/a65/district/upcoming-events/the-state-of-education-in-california

    I find it insulting and preposterous that as State level representatives, that your staff would even claim such ignorance of such basic meeting protocols and the laws that govern them.

    I will await your response.

    Respectfully,

    Joe Imbriano

    site admin http//:www.thefullertoninformer.com

    • #70 by I was there on October 24, 2013 - 5:29 am

      Mr. Imbriano, whether I may agree or disagree with your positions on the wireless issue in the classrooms is totally irrelevant. You most certainly have a right to attend, observe and participate in public meetings.

      This alleged behavior on the part of the State Superintendent, his aides, Dr. Giokaris and his staff, Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk Silva and her staff and quite possibly, the Fullerton police officers involved convey the impression of being totally unethical, and perhaps outright illegal.

      There are avenues to pursue when public officials and public employees act in such a flippant and egregious manner. Based on my observations of the way you operate, I am sure you are aware of them. Some advice, take the avenues because as a teacher, I can assure you that these individuals do not have the best interests of children in mind.

      By the way, I agree with everything you are doing here. There are other teachers that I know in neighboring districts that do as well.

      • #71 by Joe Imbriano on October 24, 2013 - 12:28 pm

        Thank you for support. No doubt time that the passage of time will bring forth more that care about the kids.

        The whole issue is really a first amendment issue, which I was deprived of exercising. It was ironic as we were rignt next to the JROTC kids who were directing traffic, and the flags, welcome signs, and a North Korean way of dealing with dissidents was just behind the gates.

        I was merely excluded solely based on what the meeting organizers thought I might do or say at the meeting, and as such appears to have been a content-based decision that was made to keep me out. And thus, I was not permitted to hear what the speakers had to say.

        Torlakson’s staff, Sharon’s office, and Giokaris’s crew have nothing to be proud of yesterday. I believe that they are all complicit in having and continuing to educate the civic mindedness right out of an entire generation. Just look at their behavior. It speaks for itself.

        May God help us.

  22. #72 by Joe Imbriano on October 23, 2013 - 9:37 pm

    Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:13 PM
    Subject: Meeting at Troy High School with guest speaker California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson 10-23-13.
    To: GGIOKARIS@fjuhsd.net, Mar Buc
    Cc: david morrison , “info@thefullertoninformer.com”

    Good afternoon Dr. Giokaris.

    Please provide me with the name of the staff member from the F.J.U.H.S.D. who gave the order to campus security officer Tim Kandler to have me removed from the premises while I was attending a public meeting called by Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk Silva’s office? I RSVP’d yesterday and have proof that I did. I was not disruptive. I was only on campus for about 5 minutes and barely uttered word to anyone. I was immediately fingered by Kephart and asked to leave by officer Kandler with no explanation other than “you are not on the guest list”. I left on my own accord personally choosing not to challenge his authority and CHOOSING not to be disruptive out of respect for the guests and Mr. Torlakson. There were many in attendance that I personally know that were NOT on the guest list and were NOT asked to leave. I was singled out. This was not an invitation only meeting, it was a clearly a PUBLIC meeting with an open invitation to the public. http://asmdc.org/members/a65/district/upcoming-events/the-state-of-education-in-california

    I will await your response.
    Regards

    Joe Imbriano

    • #73 by Joe Imbriano on October 24, 2013 - 11:28 pm

      ———- Forwarded message ———-
      From: Jennifer Williams
      Date: Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:04 PM
      Subject: RE: Meeting at Troy High School with guest speaker California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson 10-23-13.
      To: joe imbriano
      Cc: George Giokaris

      Dear Mr. Imbriano,

      Please accept the District’s sincerest apology for initially not allowing you to participate yesterday at the State of the Education event held at Troy High School (TRHS).

      We offer this explanation not in any attempt to excuse what happened, but only to possibly assist you in accepting our apology.

      There was a miscommunication yesterday between the staff members from Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva’s office, the TRHS Resource Officer (SRO), TRHS administrators, and Dr. Williams. As you are aware, the event was coordinated by Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva’s office with the assistance of the District. The District believed the event was by invitation only. We had assisted the Assemblywoman’s staff members in preparing a portion of the invitation list; and therefore, we knew your name was not on the list. The TRHS administration and the SRO asked if you had been invited and our staff members said you had not. The staff members from Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva’s office thought TRHS administration and the District wanted you to leave and told the SRO to ask you to leave. The District was unaware that Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva’s office had posted an open invitation on their web site. By the time staff were made aware of the misunderstanding and instructed the SRO to go back and find you, you were gone. It is our understanding that SRO Kandler followed up and spoke with you to explain as well.

      Again, we sincerely apologize.

      Respectfully,
      Jennifer Williams, Ed.D.
      Director Administrative Services
      Fullerton Joint Union High School District

      • #74 by Anonymous on November 18, 2013 - 1:12 pm

        What a crock!

  23. #75 by Steve Paterson on October 27, 2013 - 6:28 pm

    I started a new website to get the word out to parents about this very problem you are actively sharing with us. After reading all these intense reply’s I am very happy to see that “SOME” people are talking about this wi-fi in school problem.

    I have 3 children and when I started looking for real research I found so many RED-FLAGS. And I just could not figure out why this was being rolled out across America without in-school research.

    I grew up in Southern California and went to Cal State Fullerton. My kids all go to school in,(Post Falls & Coeur d’Alene), Idaho. They have turned the whole school to iPads. Not lap tops, but iPads are now required. And if the parent does not provide an iPad my kids school will provide an iPad. Against my demands.

    I am actively looking for solutions to protect my kids in this wi-fi environment at school. And doing what I can to get this topic discussed by parents.

    The parents I speak too think i’m nuts. They do not believe the school would provide a harmful technology.

    We all need to keep up the fight. And any ideas you can give http://www.iProtectKids.net I will say thank you.

    • #76 by amateur night on October 28, 2013 - 2:56 pm

      “What will it take to get the parents to act. I think that there are many obstacles, not the least of which is them dealing with the fact that they themselves have been irradiating their children since the beginning. So if they acknowledge this as harmful, then they have to deal with their guilt.”

      There it is in bright lights with a ribbon on it. Barf bags available upon request.

      • #77 by Joe Imbriano on October 28, 2013 - 10:51 pm

        I believe the vast majority of parents innately sense the dangers of the proliferation of the wireless technology. They just feel powerless to do anything about it. This is where the denial is birthed.

        Most are just simply afraid to speak up for fear of reprisal or just plain embarrassment. I don’t understand how a mom can carry a child for 9 months to term and close their eyes to this. As a man I do not understand that particular component of these women’s thought processes. My wife is baffled as well. I can only merely speculate that it is indeed cowardice. When I watched the several hundred mothers walk their children to the muffins with mom event at Acacia today, I continue remain as perplexed as ever.

  24. #79 by Nausea from "gadgets?" on October 29, 2013 - 4:49 pm

  25. #80 by JGarrison on October 30, 2013 - 8:01 pm

    Good basic information: Smart Meters/Cell Phones/Microwave Radiation
    Video by Brian Thiesen

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qqg2kXgWSc&list=PL2aFc11FbMkmlU0mGEliwqMKPVgQgpCIJ

  26. #81 by Anonymous on November 2, 2013 - 4:41 pm

    Satire on wireless radiation risks:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C-bDxKEINs#t=127

  27. #82 by News from Belgium on November 2, 2013 - 6:02 pm

    Children’s mobile cell phones are banned in Belgium.

    Belgium Adopts New Regulations to Promote Cell Phone Radiation Safety
    http://www.prlog.org/12231532-belgium-adopts-new-regulations-to-promote-cell-phone-radiation-safety.html

  28. #83 by Anonymous on November 2, 2013 - 6:52 pm

    “Scientists provide an update on latest (peer-reviewed) scienc of prenatal cellphone radiation exposures of tested mammals finding damage to their brains and their offspring. Also presentation on findings that cellphone radiation exposures cause human sperm damage.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnn6gNyRU7g

  29. #84 by Joe Imbriano on November 2, 2013 - 7:44 pm

    Now do you understand why the Catholic schools are TOTALLY IGNORING THIS INFORMATION and are wireless ladies and gentlemen? Looky here: http://www.workwithhope.net/?p=567

    From his twitter page-Check who is following him around-yes good old Barry boy broadband Obama.

    Greg Dhuyvetter
    Greg Dhuyvetter
    @GDhuyvetter
    Superintendent of Catholic schools in Orange County, CA.
    ÜT: 33.797338,-117.868887 · workwithhope.net
    8,372
    TWEETS
    313
    FOLLOWING
    813
    FOLLOWERS User Actions
    Follow
    Barack Obama Christine Olmstead George Somers
    Followed by Barack Obama, Christine Olmstead, George Somers and 13 others.

    Yes folks, this is truly a TOP DOWN AGENDA.

    • #85 by Catholics: Got Fertility? on November 2, 2013 - 8:26 pm

      From Mr. Duyvetters page:

      “For Catholic or Church-based Schools

      To Tech as Jesus Did: Gospel Values for Technology Planning and Instruction
      “Would Jesus Own a Mac or a PC?” Raising students to live in our technology-rich society presents opportunities and challenges for all educators. Catholic school administrators are further challenged to plan, implement, and use technology in ways that are faithful to their mission. This workshop will examine the Gospel values and practical choices that can help schools to build and use technology systems that complement their Catholic identity. Technophiles and technophobes are invited to find the face of Jesus in the world of Web 2.0.”

      Mr.Dhuyvetter asks ‘would Jesus own a Mac or a PC?’
      I believe Jesus would say neither if it is not HARD WIRED!
      Jesus would not like Mr. Dhuyvetter, in essence, making health decisions for His children. Jesus would not like him ignoring information that says wireless radiation emissions impact fertility and fetuses, and a myriad of other serious health implications. God wants us to have children and this wifi agenda is the antithesis of what the Catholic teachings are all about. This is impacting a heck of a lot of the students that have been using one to one technology for many years: Servite, Rosary, etc.

      Do we all believe that learning is impossible without a wireless device? How about if they hard wire the tech now, so if in later years these studenyts can make up their own mind if they want to destroy their fertility instead of it being made up for them?

      • #86 by Anonymous on November 2, 2013 - 11:23 pm

        He was hand picked for sure.

        • #87 by amateur night says irradiate the kids on November 5, 2013 - 10:37 pm

          Me thinkest Greggy drools and falls all over himself over this wireless crap.

          Get a load of this- http://www.workwithhope.net/

      • #89 by amateur night on November 8, 2013 - 9:17 pm

        This cat’s a tool too.

  30. #90 by Anonymous on November 5, 2013 - 2:42 pm

    Not too long ago, the discovery channel ran a program that showed the death of human sperm, plant life and inactivity of ants due to wireless radiation. It’s nuts to think this invisible power can’t hurt us. It is everywhere now.

  31. #91 by Switzerland on November 5, 2013 - 6:05 pm

    Microwave radiation dangers in your home

    Video by Dr. Magda Havas, BSc, PhD

    October 21, 2010. While the rest of the world rushes onwards with the wireless revolution, Switzerland – the country that invented the World Wide Web – and the largest telecom provider – SWISSCOM – have decided to light up the public school’s wired networks using fiber optics FOR FREE!

    But there is one catch – the schools must use LAN – local area networks. Specifically, the Swisscom application documentation states that the schools pay for the internal wiring and connect their devices (PC, printer) via an Ethernet LAN/10BaseT/RJ45 and then connect it to a Swisscom AG’s CISCO router on site. Swisscom then brings the Fiber optic connection to the school.

    Most schools in North America are opting for a WiFI wireless local area network (WLAN) that allows computers and laptops to be connected to each other without wires.

    Click here to read more about Swisscom’s offer.

    We produced a short video that I hope will provide some insight as to why the Swiss government is so forward thinking in matters related to children’s health and education. After you watch the video – explore the links to the Swiss Office of Public Health website. No need to read between the lines, just pay attention to the bold text.

    Microwave radiation dangers in your home

    (5:47 min)

    If WiFi Was Bad – Why Don’t They Tell Us?

    So – why no WiFI in schools? Could it be that there are health problems related to the technology? Judging by the warnings from Switzerland’s Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) website, it seems that the Swiss health officials might have some insider information – possibly from the World Health Organization that is also based in Switzerland. The WHO is the clearing house for microwave research – right? If the WHO’s scientists, who live and work in Switzerland, find something is wrong, they will surely want to tell their own citizens and protect their family and children – right? Is this the reason why they have one of the better microwave safety standards in the world?

    Show Me The Proof

    Critics who say there is no proof that low level non-ionizing microwave radiation is harmful only need to look to Swisscom, the government owned telecommunications provider that owns a patent for a method to completely eliminate the radiation caused by the WiFi base station when not in use. Same goes for DECT portable phones. Swisscom now provides low radiation DECT cordless phones.

    But here is the most revealing part of the patent application. Swisscom, documented that the radiation was harmful by including studies conducted by scientists at the World Health Organization!

    So, next time someone points to the World Health Organization to say there is no proof of harm from electromagnetic radiation – you might want to offer them a clue and point them to the “Real World” Health Organization.

    And for those of you who like cartoons – in the Simpsons you will often hear “Won’t somebody please think of the children!” If you use a baby monitor, you will want to read this page on the Swiss Public Health website. The VOICE ACTIVATED baby monitors that they describe are not commonly found in stores in North America.

    Thank you Switzerland for the English translations of your website. Our crew loved filming in your country and I highly recommend your country as a vacation destination or even as a second home.

  32. #92 by fertility? on November 17, 2013 - 4:35 pm

    With exposure to wi-fi at school ‘you may or may not deliver a healthy child’
    ‘Imagine you are five years old, in school and sitting with a wi-fi laptop near your abdomen. Theoretically, your ovaries can become irradiated until you leave school at aged 16-18 years old. When you become pregnant, every one of your follicles (to become eggs) will have been microwaved. Hence, you may or may not deliver a healthy child.

    ‘Should you become a pregnant as a student, your embryo (for its first 100 days – if it is female) is producing approximately 400,000 follicles (within its ovaries) for future child-birth.

    ‘The problem is that these developing follicle cells do not have the cellular protection of mature adult cells. Consequently your ‘Grandchild’ may have had every single follicle cell irradiated and damaged prior to its conception.

    Therefore when your child becomes an adult (with its irradiated follicles) there is a greater likelihood of its child (your Granddaughter) suffering the ailments previously mentioned, during conception / embryonic and foetal development stages.’

    This is an extract from an article by Barrie Trower entitled ‘Wi-Fi – A Thalidomide in the Making. Who Cares?’ You can read and download it here.

    Peter Limbrick writes: While the article has relevance for every one of us, I offer it here as essential reading for school governors, head teachers, staff, parents and older pupils.

    Source: http://www.teamaroundthechild.com/allnews/researchsurveys/1187-with-exposure-to-wi-fi-at-school-you-may-or-may-not-deliver-a-healthy-child.html

    • #93 by Anonymous on November 18, 2013 - 11:40 am

      This is rather frightening indeed.

  33. #94 by Anonymous on November 21, 2013 - 2:14 pm

    the calm before the storm . . . .

  34. #95 by Anonymous on November 25, 2013 - 11:46 am

    Please, open your eyes:

    Resonance: Beings of Frequency

    http://documentaryheaven.com/resonance-beings-of-frequency/

  35. #96 by Anonymous on November 27, 2013 - 11:19 am

    When I first started noticing that pain it didn’t feel like any kind pain I remember experiencing before in my life. It was sort of an infrequent pulsating pain above and forward of my ear and just below the surface. This location on my head happened to be in line of site to where the routers were mounted on the wall. It was as if little tiny pins were poking between my skull and the skin on the side of my head. The feeling would come and go with a pulsating wave like sensation. The pulsating pin like pain would move from above the ear and then about an inch up the above that point and covering a portion of the side of my head. I thought it would go away in a few days or in a week but it just seemed to become something I noticed more frequently that increasingly aggravated me over time. Early on I even wondered whether I was imagining this or if in reality there really was a prickling pain I was experiencing. At first I dismissed the possibility of being associated with the wireless broadcasts but as the pin needle pain became more frequent my suspicions increased.

    Once again I can’t say if the wireless signals were the source of this pain for sure but one would have to consider it as a strong possibility. Purposely turning the 2.4Ghz broadcast power down and then later moving one of the two modems to another room correlated directly with the pain going away. During the worst of this it was really weird and uncomfortable to the point that it’s something I don’t think anyone would want to experience. You have to wonder why more people don’t talk about this as an issue. There are probably all types of symptoms that most people would never attribute to being related to 2.4Ghz and other frequency broadcasts that might be effecting their health. I have used a cell phone for years but I never remember experiencing any problems using them. I use the speakerphone or a Bluetooth ear piece with my cell phone when possible.

  36. #97 by Anonymous on November 27, 2013 - 12:46 pm

    I had DSL and cable internet connections going into the room where my desktop computer is located. The most convenient place to have the routers was in the corner and wall mounted next to the DSL and cable modems. It’s about three feet from my desk and 4-5 feet from where I sit. Many people put routers on their desk next to their monitor. Many wireless routers don’t default at 80mw but default to 40-60mw. One router broadcasting 2.4Ghz band at 80mw might not have been a problem. Having two routers with external antennas broadcasting at 80mw on two different channels in the 2.4Ghz band at a line of sight distance of 4-5 feet from where I sit for up to eight hours a day could be a problem. The sharp needle pain just below the surface but on the outside of my head was something that gradually came on during the weeks and months after I changed to the newer routers with the 80mw broadcasting. When I suspected that the 2.4Ghz wireless broadcasting might have been the source of the problem I simply turned down the 2.4Ghz wireless broadcast power for those routers. Within the next days, weeks, month the pain seemed to fade away to the point of not being noticeable.

    It was either a strange coincidence caused by some other condition (for example…an ear infection in that one ear that I didn’t realize I had but suddenly went away at the exact time I turned down the power on the routers…or something else, etc.) or the pain in my head was in fact caused by the 2.4Ghz broadcasts from two routers. I don’t ever remember experiencing that kind of feeling above my ear and near the surface of my head ever before and that kind of pin needle pain has not returned since this incident. I would recommend everyone to be careful not to place 2.4Ghz wireless routers too close to where you sit for long periods and if possible put them in an area or other room of your residence where you don’t spend as much time. Use the 5Ghz band when you can and preferably run Ethernet cable instead of using wireless.

    Many brands let you regulate the wireless radio broadcast power. Most use a default of between 40-60mw. Some use the default at 80mw. There isn’t much difference between 60mw and 80mw but having two routers broadcasting on different channels in the 2.4Ghz spectrum at 80mw or greater obviously could be a problem if you are sitting only 4-5 feet away for up to eight hours a day for a few months. This was really not a good experience at all for me. The pin like needle pain on that side of my head that crept up over the weeks and months really made me wonder about my health. I had no idea at first what was causing it. If the wireless radios caused this pain on the side of my head then you really have to wonder how much all the environmental electronic noise that we are experiencing all the time in our world is effecting our brains, bodies, nervous systems, cells, DNA, etc..

  37. #98 by Ray on November 28, 2013 - 9:16 am

    Be careful.

    Electrosensitivity symptoms, once they occur once, tend to be brought on with less and less exposure. The end result can be a severe disability. I know many people who can’t go into a WiFi environment after the onset of this condition.

    It’s best to reduce the exposure as much as possible.

  38. #99 by whatz going on in LA? on November 30, 2013 - 12:28 pm

    iPad software licenses expire in three years, L.A. Unified says

    Renewing licenses could cost $50 to $100 per iPad, about $60 million annually, despite earlier statements that the district would own the software permanently. “At the end of three years, that content is going to disappear or we’re going to be violating something by attempting to use this content?”

    http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-1120-lausd-ipads-20131120,0,429771.story#tugs_story_display

  39. #100 by Anonymous on November 30, 2013 - 6:16 pm

    Radiofrequency Radiation – Hidden Health and Environmental Effects by B. Blake Levitt

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M43AWNFq8Xs&list=FLVFPg7-9kG2W2RV11SQ12Dg&index=6

  40. #101 by Joe Imbriano on December 2, 2013 - 8:28 pm

    Look what a local medical group http://www.caduceusmedicalgroup.com/ has linked up on their website: http://sammesez.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/doctors-warn-of-breast-cancer-link-to-keeping-cell-phone-in-bra/

    I guess it is not ok to keep your cell phone in your bra but it is ok to keep the Ipads which emit more radiation than a cell phone in the kids laps in school and at home? What is wrong with all of us?

    • #102 by Anonymous on December 3, 2013 - 3:11 pm

      “What is wrong with all of us?”

      Some of us are ignorant of the information and others are in total denial.

  41. #103 by EMF on December 2, 2013 - 10:36 pm

    Mobile phones to be banned for children:

    In Belgium, at least, which is a start. The sale of mobile phones specifically designed for young children up to the age of 7 will be banned.

    In February 2013, the Belgian Public Health Minister, Laurette Onkelinx announced that mobile phones sale to under 7s will be banned in shops and on the Internet, because of the dangers of radiation. The 2012 report of the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization (WHO) considers that RF exposure (such as from mobile phones) is “possibly carcinogenic for humans”. “If a risk exists, protection is necessary,” declared Laurette Onkelinx, to RTBF. This is her initiative, along with that of her colleague in charge of consumer protection, Johan Vande Lanotte.

    It is not easy to see how this will be enforced, as the sales will obviously be made to adults, and will only remove the phones that are being sold especially aimed at the very young end of the market. Adults will still be able to buy phones for the under 7s.

    Adverts during children’s programmes on TV, radio and the Internet will be banned. This is a practical possibility, and could easily be done in other countries.

    Research shows that in Belgium two out of three children under 10 years have a mobile phone. At 12 years they nearly all have one.

    The Minister for Health has also announced the drafting, between now and the end of the year, of another legislative measure aimed at rendering obligatory the sale of a headset with mobile phones.

    Source: Expatica.com

  42. #104 by Joe Imbriano on December 3, 2013 - 12:15 pm

    joe imbriano
    12:08 PM (5 minutes ago)

    to nnahabedian, mboger, gkrikorian, cwalters, agharpetian, Audria.Amirian, dsheehan, pishisaka, ELueck, KSavarani, info, david
    The following information is crucial to your understanding of this issue. Please research it for yourselves. I believe you are all involved in an unmitigated public health disaster in the making.

    http://thefullertoninformer.com/looky-here-ladies-and-gentlemen-the-devils-in-the-details/
    Thank you,

    Joe Imbriano

    site admin-WiFidangers.com

    The Fullerton Informer.com

    Recipients

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: joe imbriano
    Date: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:08 PM
    Subject: Wireless device deployment in the GUSD
    To: nnahabedian@gusd.net, mboger@gusd.net, gkrikorian@gusd.net, cwalters@gusd.net, agharpetian@gusd.net, Audria.Amirian@yahoo.com, dsheehan@gusd.net, pishisaka@gusd.net, ELueck@gusd.net, KSavarani@gusd.net
    Cc: “info@thefullertoninformer.com” , david morrison

    The following information is crucial to your understanding of this issue. Please research it for yourselves. I believe you are all involved in an unmitigated public health disaster in the making.

    http://thefullertoninformer.com/looky-here-ladies-and-gentlemen-the-devils-in-the-details/
    Thank you,

    Joe Imbriano

    site admin-WiFidangers.com

    The Fullerton Informer.com

    Send

    joe imbriano
    12:12 PM (1 minute ago)

    to JBuhl, BGould, MAvagyan

    joe imbriano
    12:13 PM (0 minutes ago)

    to FSchlueter, VMitchell

    • #105 by amateur night on December 6, 2013 - 6:40 am

      They get back to you yet Joe?

      • #106 by Joe Imbriano on December 16, 2013 - 11:18 pm

        No they all completely ignored it like the 5 on the board in Fullerton.

  43. #107 by Thanks Fisher Price on December 5, 2013 - 7:01 pm

    “Controversy over childs seat with a mounted ipad”

    http://www.myfoxny.com/story/24139537/controversy-over-childs-seat-with-a-mounted-ipad

    The title states child, when it is really designed for INFANTS!

  44. #109 by widely known on March 8, 2014 - 12:11 pm

    All frequencies have a penetration depth, and typically, in water, you will hit 100 percent attenuation at one half wavelength. For a 1 GHZ signal, this will be approximately 7 inches. Most people will write that when microwaves hit water they turn into heat. But there is another step, that description is too simplistic. In reality, when any electromagnetic wave gets absorbed into a conductive medium, it does so by turning into electricity, which shorts itself out in the conductive medium, and the resulting current flow is what causes the heating. A radio antenna is tuned to approximate the frequency that is most expected and therefore rather than short out within itself, it passes the frequencies to the tuner amplifier.

    So now we know how an electric current can be induced into the brain via a 1 GHZ radio signal, which will fully absorb at a depth of approximately 7 inches. Obviously then, higher frequencies with shorter wavelengths can be used, because you do not need 7 inches of penetration depth. For practical application, the frequency range is between 500 MHZ and 3 GHZ.

    We have not yet answered the question of how such a high frequency can interface with the brain. It cannot. However, there are different types of modulation you can put on a wave form, and the two most common are AM and FM. For the purpose of interfacing with the brain, we will be discussing AM.

    Amplitude modulation involves the use of a fixed frequency wave form called a carrier, which has its intensity increased and decreased. An amplitude modulated wave form appears to change it’s height on an oscilloscope while maintaining it’s frequency. If you have a very low frequency AM modulation on a high frequency carrier you can watch the amplitude of the carrier go to max on an oscilloscope, and then drop, all the way to flatline before returning to maximum if the modulation is strong enough and the modulating frequency is low enough to not just look like a blur.

    So earlier, I established how you can use a radio wave to deliver electricity. Now, take that ghz wave form from a cell tower, which will penetrate approximately seven inches into the skull and put unintelligible high frequency electricity there, and modulate that unintelligible frequency with an ELF frequency the brain can interface with. Bam – o, you get cell phone tower induced mind control. And it’s a piece of cake, it works better than any other method, you see,

    If you transmit an ELF wave form by itself, it will need a many miles long antenna to pick it up properly, it will not interface with the body very well because your body is not a big enough antenna for the ELF wave to efficiently “short out” in. You would need a really intense signal to do anything. But if you can take that ELF frequency and use it to modulate a super high frequency carrier, that carrier will drop all of it’s energy directly into your skull, and let the modulation of that energy do the rest. Of course, there are other factors, like a single side or asymmetric carrier, but to avoid getting too complex I have said enough here to give you the idea and certainly enough to put an evil genius on the right path.

    The following video shows this being done to some test monkeys a little way in. Obviously in this case, the power levels are very high. Unfortunately the video has a bit of a crazy aspect to it, and it is very outdated, which is to be expected with anything of this nature that is actually allowed to stay online.

    Now onto WHY ON EARTH American cell towers have so much juice going to them.

    This is a serious topic.

    In America, computer wifi is limited to 20 milliwatts transmit power and often even with that tiny amount you can connect from hundreds of feet away with no special antennas or hardware. Your cell phone can transmit 300 milliwatts. That’s well over 10 times the power, and the range of your cell phone is that much better. All that is needed to make a great cellular node is a 10 watt transmitter (to make sure it gets real good penetration into the surrounding buildings,) and a receiver that is more sensitive than the one in your cell phone because you are talking back with a lot less than 10 watts.

    10 watts is 500 times as strong as your wireless N router that comes in perfect everywhere. A lucky neighbor might snag your unsecured router with only 20 milliwatts of output from over a block away with just a cheap netbook. Why then, since 10 watts will clearly do the job, are there these ENORMOUS out in the open giant goose invading “cell towers” in America that are obviously capable of pumping many thousands of watts?

    It’s because the cell towers in America have a totally different purpose than stated. Sure, the tower does indeed accomplish the job of supporting cell phone service, but it is not needed at all for that purpose. They are there to hide something clandestine right in the great wide open.

    My reader stated: “My company also erected many cell towers, and I always wondered why they had us bring so much electrical power to these cell towers.” He NAILED IT. As a technical type, I paid attention to the cell towers, and noticed that they always seem to have a 400KVA or bigger transformer feeding them (I never actually walked up and looked at the data plate). 400KVA is approximately 400,000 watts. And I never really thought about it, why on earth they always got fed so much juice. Sometimes you just need to wake up and start thinking. Mexico confirms this – cell technology is totally passe’ and a perfectly functional legitimate node can be stuck in a yard decoration powered by less juice than needed by an average Ipod dock.

    Another comment came in stating that American cell towers in fact only get anywhere from twenty thousand to sixty thousand watts, complete with verified documentation that that is “all it is”. Ok, Fine then. WLS in Chicago broadcasts with 50,000 watts, and with a good radio you can hear it anywhere in the world when conditions are right. To sometimes pump even more than that into a single American neighborhood via the local tower which is serving only a two mile area is far beyond suspicious. It is case proven. Those cell towers ARE NOT WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD and I am certain that even 60,000 watts would be a conservative estimate for many of them.

    Why pump so many watts?

    The antenna arrays on the cell towers are highly directional. That’s obvious. So since the signal from them is confined to a zone, rather than going out omnidirectionally, whatever is in that zone will get extremely high R.F. levels. Maybe you need that much for mind control, but I seriously doubt it. With such an ability to confine the signal to within a zone, I would expect a mind control beam to not need more than a couple thousand watts. Where is the rest of that power going?

    My guess, is Japan, Hurricane Katrina, or Chiapas Mexico. Whatever earthquake or disaster “they” need to accomplish a political objective. And there is something you need to know about radio wave propagation – it can be steered. So just because a cell tower appears to only be able place all it’s RF output within a confined zone, it does not mean that signal cannot be diverted and sent elsewhere. This is because a neighboring cell tower can be synchronized in such a way that it steers the output from surrounding towers to a new remote area. And that is how Haarp works, BET ON IT.

    American cell towers then, I believe in this order, have multiple purposes. The first is EMF mind control. Ever wonder why on some mornings EVERYONE seems to be happy, and on others EVERYONE seems to be grouchy? People don’t just naturally fall into a mold like that, yet you see it all the time. And you never used to. This is a new phenomenon. Back in the 70’s and 80’s moods were totally random. Not anymore. There are happy days when everyone is happy, and grouchy days and indifferent days. If you have not noticed this, start paying attention. People’s lives are random, and there should be absolutely no reason for their moods to all be similar for any reason other than outside manipulation. The second purpose is an occasional one – I believe that occasionally the towers will be switched up to full output to eat a nuclear reactor in Japan via a phony earthquake scenario, or to make good and sure a hurricane is useful for a social experiment in New Orleans. But you cannot have them humming away at full output all the time without it becoming obvious, so the ability is likely saved for special occasions. Furthermore, with as many as there are around, it probably does not take more than a few percent of them at any one time to pull off something big. And this is exactly why, as my reader also stated, “Later, the Army Corps of Engineers would install frequency amplifiers connected with HXXrp. I believe they can control the weather.” Why, pray tell, would the Corps of Engineers show up and install something in a “civilian” cell tower? Think about that. We all know the “elite” can trigger earthquakes. We all know they can tweak the weather. The question is then, since there is no GIANT UFO in the sky doing it, where is their system located?

    And the third purpose is B.S. – “cell phone service”. That’s as close as it can get to a lie, because any telephone pole, attic, or yard decoration would do the job as well. Mexico PROVES IT.

    I also received the comment: “how do the elite prevent themselves from getting beamed”? That answer is easy. The elite live in tight little enclaves that are pretty much set apart from the rest of society. Keeping the happy ray off them is as easy as simply not having the local cell tower deliver it to their isolated little pocket. To find out where YOU can live and get away from it all, pick up the phone book and move RIGHT TO THE CENTER of where all the synagogues are, that is, IF you can get in there. If you are not one of “them”, count on paying a price 4x higher than the community average. Their communities are insanely expensive for outsiders, and yet even the poorest one of them can not only live there, but get ahead while doing so.

    Audio noise modulation, and “poppers”

    During the Iraq war, America seized control of all the Iraqi transmitters, and started broadcasting propaganda. Normally, people would reject it outright. But America knew this, so under every broadcast they put a layer of noise. They did nothing to the audio people listened to, but they modulated the background noise prevalent in any radio signal (and in these broadcasts the injected noise was higher than usual, but not extreme,) and to get the Iraqis to accept what was being broadcast, even though often it was an obvious lie, the injected noise in the radio signal was modulated with a waveform that put people’s brains into a mode of acceptance, and it worked spectacularly well.
    But that was not enough to satisfy American desire, so,

    they dropped AM modulated microwave transmitters called “poppers” onto the rooftops and into various areas where they were not likely to be discovered. Soldiers were usually put in place to guard them. If the “poppers” were discovered, and anyone tried to de-activate them they would be shot. These worked even better than the noise modulated radio signal, and the Iraqis, who had never been exposed to such manipulation knew something was up and absolutely hated them. They figured out that the “poppers” emitted a mind control beam. But after long enough exposure, because they would be killed if they messed with the devices, they eventually succumbed and complied.

    So I have covered here three different ways frequencies can be used to manipulate the mind. The first is through the manipulation of a video signal. The second is manipulation of an audio signal, and the third, and worst, is to beam it straight into your head. And the psychological warfare is extremely cruel surrounding this as well. “tinfoil hat” has been used as a phrase to designate “crazies”. Let me ask you, WHY?. “they are beaming me, and putting thoughts in my head” has been used to define “crazy”. Let me ask you WHY? I will tell you why, and it is because uncovering any great conspiracy HAS TO BE DEFINED AS “CRAZY” or the game is up. As long as people who know the truth are successfully designated as whack jobs, the truth will remain in an isolated pocket and reality will then successfully smash everyone who is deemed “sane”.

    I am sure a few people will respond, saying that cell tower frequencies have a limited range. This is bogus – it is common for microwave frequencies to link at distances over 50 miles. That’s a lot more than what is needed for mind control beams, when the nearest cell tower is usually less than 2 miles away.

    And I can easily see that the antennas on these cell towers are not limited to high frequencies alone. Their size is suspicious, and all it would take is a coil of wire inside one of those arrays to drop the transmit frequency WAY DOWN, into a more effective range for weather modification and other nasties, and the antenna would not need to be physically large at all.

    For reference, the longest possible antenna needed for ANY cell activity in the U.S. is around 20 inches, for the lowest possible cell related frequencies. More common would be 9 inch antennas. Why then are the antennas which adorn cell towers up to eight feet long? you can easily make a high powered coil antenna suitable for low MHZ frequencies with that much room to work with. Perhaps you should ask the Corps of Engineers why the size of the arrays does not match the stated function, because the Corps of Engineers has no legitimate business on a civilian tower yet is prevalent everywhere according to one of my readers who worked with this stuff and happened to know the name of a military protocol only an insider would know.

  45. #110 by Anonymous on March 8, 2014 - 5:55 pm

    bioinitiative report of course allmost all quack paranoic side have this in reference one guy good describe this http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/picking-cherries-in-science-the-bio-initiative-report/

  46. #111 by Anonymous on March 29, 2014 - 2:01 am

    Hardell found that for people who started using cell phones as children, their brain cancer risk increased by at least a factor of five after a decade.

    After two or three decades, the numbers are way higher. His data was also compiled when there was much lower uses of cell phones, fewer cell towers and almost no WiFi, etc.

  47. #112 by Mollie on April 16, 2014 - 5:27 am

    Mr. Imbriano, I would like to applaud your sincere efforts. Children are a heritage of the Lord. They deserve our best efforts to adequately protect them. I have repeatedly driven by and seen you on the sidewalk holding your banners in front of schools, watched you at the council meetings, witnessed you handing out fliers at the soccer and baseball games and have heard that you also attend both school district board meetings as well. Such tenacity!

    Fullerton’s establishment is very tightly knit and is not very welcoming. Your techniques are very unconventional, but you are becoming effective. To get this debate out into the open is no small task, but it appears as if you have begun to do just that. Case and point is the latest Fullerton Observer edition and the letters contained in it regarding the wireless issue.

    Dr. Robert Pletka stated in the District’s response that he “fundamentally rejects” the idea that the classrooms present a danger to the children. My question is on what basis does he make that statement when he is not a scientist? I have read through many of the links provided on this site and there is ample evidence to warrant calling for an immediate ban on the district’s wireless technology program. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Stephenson and the AAEM.

    Another question is how can the five board members ignore this information that you have repeatedly presented to them as well?

    There is just too much information out there to ignore.

    • #113 by Joon on April 16, 2014 - 12:31 pm

      Science is not exact. Two sides to issue is common. Kids needs to coming first before money.

  48. #114 by T.E. on April 16, 2014 - 12:36 pm

    Hey Joe, nice work last night.

  49. #115 by wireless industry bias on May 3, 2014 - 12:15 pm

    Breaking News: Industry bias exposed in SCENIHR’s scientific assessment
    May 1, 2014 in -Mailing List, Corporate influence on Science, Tobacco science and the art of spin by EMFacts
    From Eileen O’Connor, UK Radiation Research Trust

    Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) member Dr Kjell Hansson Mild has exposed control of science within the SCENIHR group. SCENIHR excluded many studies from the latest scientific review, including five studies by the Hardell Group, published in 2013. Dr. Mild was a co-author with Dr. Hardell. At the same time SCENIHR excluded Dr. Hardell’s and Dr. Mild’s key scientific papers, they promoted Dr. Mild’s participation in SCENIHR as giving balance and transparency to this process. These studies from the Hardell Group are the longest studies on mobile phones and brain cancer. Of even greater significance is Hardell’s conclusion that the proof of mobile phones causing an increase in gliomas — the deadliest of brain tumours, and acoustic neuromas tumours on the auditory nerve.

    The SCENIHR Report fails to do a thorough review of hundreds of papers on non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biological health effects, and excludes literally hundreds of papers containing new information in the field concerning adverse EMR impacts.

    In addition, Lukas Margaritis, Professor Emeritus from the University of Athens and Dr. Adamantia Fragopoulou, forwarded a report to SCENIHR including references to superb research highlighting studies working with everyday use of wireless devices demonstrating serious impacts on oxidative stress induction, learning and memory deficits, fertility reduction and cell death in animal models. These studies are published in high quality peer reviewing journals yet they are still excluded from the SCENIHR report.

    Dr Fragopoulou said, “We have pointed out serious omissions of publications from the SCENIHR opinion during the hearing in Athens on March 27-28 as well as on the uploaded file to SCENIHR. We are expecting to see much more references in the final form of the report.”

    The UK Radiation Research Trust and the Bioinitiative Working Group have raised complaints directly with the Acting Director at the EU Commission and are calling all politicians to raise this issue at the highest level as many lives are at risk and the public has a right to know.

    See letters of complaint from the UK Radiation Research Trust (below) and the Bioinitiative Work Group to John Ryan, Acting Director of the Public Health Directorate at the EU Commission .

    Eileen O’Connor
    Director
    EM Radiation Research Trust

    **********************************************************************
    28th April, 2014
    John F. Ryan, Acting Director
    Public Health Directorate,
    Health and Consumers Directorate General
    European Commission,
    L – 2920 Luxembourg

    SCENIHR Report on Potential Health Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)
    Sent via email

    Dear John

    Thank you for your response via email on 22nd April. I appreciate your support for SCENIHR, however this group along with other bodies such as ICNIRP, IEEE and Public Health England are failing to acknowledge and accept peer-reviewed research if it does not meet with their approval or understanding.

    I have engaged with all sides of the debate for many years in the hope that we can find a way forward together. However, the division between both sides of the debate is becoming greater and leading to stronger opposition from both sides. It is an impasse that leaves private citizens at risk, and we must make every effort to root out undue influence from the industry whose profits are affected by decisions made by committee’s like SCENIHR. A body is not truly “independent” if financial ties can be made by the affected industry to committee member(s). There should be no place for financial influence in science, but sadly there is, and with potentially devastating long-term consequences for our citizens.

    I was pleased to see Dr Kjell Hansson Mild as a member of the EMF working group and realise he is the co-author of the Hardell papers. However, I am sure you will agree that his appointment to SCENIHR is only worthwhile if his opinion and work is taken into account and I question if that was the case as it was clear during the event in Athens that the important Hardell 2013 papers were rejected by SCENIHR. I therefore call on the EU Commission to investigate whether there has been any misuse of authority when selecting and rejecting important papers for review.

    One scientist does not promise true “independence” for the group as a whole. The independence of SCENIHR has been brought into question for many years by members of the public, doctors, scientists and politicians. I would like to highlight several examples.

    Please see attached a recent report from the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation. This report clearly states that SCENIHR provided false, inaccurate, misleading and biased information and is claiming scientific fraud with a call for the report to be revised and submitted to a new group of experts that are capable of presenting an objective and accurate report of what science has shown about health risks.

    Serious allegations of corruption need to be investigated as a matter of urgency. We appear to be wasting public money on biased reports and delaying urgent action to implement the precautionary warnings that are urgently needed to protect public health.

    I would also like to draw your attention to questions raised on 16th March, 2009 by Christel Scaldemose to the Commission. These questions raise concerns regarding
    the Independence of experts on the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. The Commission is challenged on whether these experts,
    who were involved in establishing the limits values working with ICNIRP, can be regarded as impartial and independent. Christel Scaldemose also asked what
    measures will the EU Commission take to find a better balance between critical and uncritical researchers. Download here:
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=P-2009-1843&language=EN

    In addition, Dr Caroline Lucas launched an Alternative Resolution to the 2009 Ries Report on “Heath concerns associated with EMFs.” The Greens/EFA group raised
    the urgent alternative motion (see attachment) as the Ries Report was forced to include a late amendment calling for SCENIHR to review the scientific adequacy of
    EMF limits. The Green Party therefore submitted the Alternative Resolution, deleting the paragraph calling for SCENIHR to undertake the review. There was no
    doubt that this controversial last-minute amendment giving SCENIHR such authority would override excellent recommendations and precautionary measures
    contained within the Ries Report due to the predictable and biased nature of reporting from SCENIHR. Sadly it was too late and the Reis Report containing the
    controversial amendment calling for the review was put forward and adopted by MEPs with 559 voting for and 22 against and 8 abstentions. Download the report
    with the late amendment listed as number 1 within the following Text. Download here:
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2009-0216

    I feared that we would face the current situation that we are seeing today as a result of that late amendment and we are now witnessing another publicly funded biased report by SCENIHR at the cost of wasted money, but more importantly at the possible cost of many lives.

    Displays of arrogance, biased, misleading and scientific fraudulent reporting as highlighted by the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation is not acceptable. I would like to remind the EU Commission of the opening address in Athens from Marian Harkin MEP expressing the need for a review of up to date evidence and the need for accountability. She stressed importance of openness towards lobbying and diverse opinions and the need for transparency and inclusion of all stakeholders. She reminded the EU Commission and SCENIHR that public consultation should not simply be a box ticking exercise and that consultation is only meaningful if addressing negative outcomes along with reports that have positive outcomes. Furthermore and perhaps most profoundly, she gave the stark reminder that 500 million citizens are relying on SCENIHR’s review.

    I have no doubt that Marian Harkin along with many MEPs and millions of citizens throughout the EU and the world will be disappointed to hear that SCENIHR failed with this task and their responsibility towards accurate reporting. Yet greater than my concern about the disappointment of many is my profound fear about the potential adverse health effects for all that will continue to be visited upon our 500,000,000 citizens as the Precautionary Principle in Europe becomes nothing but a weak phrase with no meaning and no protection for citizens who have absolutely no idea of these back room dealings. These good people depend on the EC and its committees for truth, not cover-up, and the money flowing to scientists who tell them all is well is a crime against each and every one of them.

    The five studies by the Hardell Group published in 2013 demand RF – EMF be classified a Group 1 carcinogen. Hardell himself states this in the conclusion of one of his most compelling epidemiologist studies. If it were almost any scientist but Lennart Hardell, one might imagine it is easy to dismiss a single scientific group or individual. To do so with Hardell’s science would be the height of scientific hypocrisy. Why? Lennart Hardell’s epidemiological studies, prior to his five papers published in 2013 were ignored by SCENIHR, when half the basis for IARC’s call in May 2011 for everything on the RF – EMF Spectrum to be classified a Group 2B carcinogen. If Hardell’s earlier study were good enough for IARC in 2011, then can SCENIHR please explain why the additional five studies of even longer duration and more specificity deemed “unworthy” by SCENIHR IN 2014? There is no answer, and it is a reason that should bring shame to SCENIHR and by association, to the European Commission itself.

    I call on the Commission to listen to truly independent/knowledgeable doctors, scientists and members of the public and take advice from the appeal contained within the Greens Alternative Motion calling for the European Group on Ethics in Science and new Technologies (EGE) to be given the additional task of assessing scientific integrity in order to help the Commission forestall possible cases of risk, conflict of interests, or even fraud that might arise now that competition for researchers has become keener.
    Thank you for your attention in this urgent and serious matter.

    With respect,
    Eileen
    Eileen O’Connor
    Director
    EM Radiation Research Trust
    http://www.radiationresearch.org
    The EM Radiation Research Trust is an educational organisation funded by donations. An independent Charity Registered No. 1106304 © The EM Radiation Research Trust 2003-2004
    Cc: via email
    Mike Bell
    Joe Benton MP
    Severine Bernard
    Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe
    Laurent Bontoux
    Bill Esterson MP
    Jill Evans MEP
    Susan Foster
    Giulio Gallo
    Dr Ian Gibson
    Dr Lennart Hardell
    Marian Harkin MEP
    Dr Caroline Lucas MP
    Donata Meroni
    Dr Kjell Hansson Mild
    Steve Miller
    Andrew Mitchell MP
    Cindy Sage
    Stefan Schreck
    Brian Stein
    http://www.radiationresearch.org

  50. #117 by Anonymous on May 3, 2014 - 5:03 pm

    Oh my…what’s in WiFi?
    When the school district rolled out the Ipads this year, Aiden Fitchett noticed something new; as he did when seated near the wireless projector any time a teacher used one for a presentation: headaches. Bad ones. Bad enough that the 8-year-old second grader would come home crying from the pain.

    http://www.tricitytimes-online.com/Articles-News-i-2014-04-02-218015.112113-Oh-mywhats-in-WiFi.html

  51. #118 by Marlena on June 3, 2014 - 9:27 pm

    Are you saying that we should remove the wireless from schools completely?

    Where do I start, with the principal?

    Can’t they make these tablets safe?

    Next year both of my children’s schools will be using them as they recently were awarded a grant for technology specifically earmarked for tablets. What do we do since they already bought them?

    • #119 by a mom on June 4, 2014 - 1:03 pm

      ALL school technology should be WIRED.

      There are tablets that can be wired, with an ethernet cord.

      Please visit: National Association For Children and Safe Technology

      http://www.nacst.org

  52. #120 by Lorraine Felix on August 9, 2014 - 7:34 am

    Looks like we may be seeing the beginning of class action lawsuits taking shape.

    http://www.pharmiweb.com/PressReleases/pressrel.asp?ROW_ID=96815#.U-bzDvldUzq

  53. #121 by Lorraine Felix on August 9, 2014 - 7:54 am

    A Facebook friend sent me this and it amazes me just how corrupt our own government is while they tell us all how corrupt and backwards Africa is. There are many reasons they refuse our corn. They know what many Americans simply refuse to believe.

    A deputy director, Department of Posts and Telecoms, Federal Ministry of Communication Technology, Ngozi Ogunjiofor, had identified cancer as one of the health hazards associated with the use of mobile phones.
    Ms. Nkanga said the director’s stance was not consistent with that of the Federal Ministry of Communication Technology.
    She urged Nigerians to disregard the caution by the director on the use of mobile phones, as various researches conducted by international organisations on the safety of mobile phones use till date remained inconclusive.
    https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/166306-nigerian-minister-disowns-director-over-mobile-phones-claim.html

  54. #122 by Anonymous on August 13, 2014 - 5:32 am

    Mr. Imbriano, I would like to personally thank you and your colleague for opening our eyes to what I never imagined. Your presentation was riveting to say the least. May God richly bless your endeavors and may He protect you in your walk toward awakening others.

  55. #123 by insert Ipad for Google Glass on August 13, 2014 - 9:39 pm

    Google Glass Alert: Potential health risks from wireless radiation

    The Google Glass emits more wireless radiation than most cell phones on the market, but unlike cell phone users, Glass users may be wearing this device on their heads for more than 12 hours a day putting their health at risk.

    PRLog – Apr. 15, 2014 – BERKELEY, Calif. — The Google Glass emits both Wi-Fi and Bluetooth radiation. Although the Glass official web site, http://www.google.com/glass/start/, contains information warning consumers about the device’s potential interference with radio or television reception, the site provides no safety information to consumers.

    As a body-worn, microwave-emitting device, Google is required by Federal law to test the Specific Absorption Rate or SAR of the Glass. This is a measure of the maximum microwave radiation absorbed by the user in 6 minutes averaged over one gram of tissue. Although Google did not post the SAR information on its web site, the Glass test reports can be found on the FCC’s web site at https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm by entering “A4R” in the Grantee Code field. The FCC ID for the current version of the Glass is X1.

    The official test report indicates that the SAR for the Glass is much higher than the SARs for the iPhone 5, the Samsung Galaxy S5, or most cell phones on the market.

    During the last year, Google improved the antenna on the Glass which resulted in an increase in the SAR from 1.11 to 1.42 watts/kilogram (W/kg). In contrast, the Samsung Galaxy S5 has a head and body SAR of 0.57 and 0.64 W/kg, respectively. The Apple iPhone 5 has a head SAR of 1.17 and a body SAR of 1.18 W/kg.

    In the U.S. no personal wireless device can have a SAR that exceeds 1.6 W/kg. The SAR standard, however, was developed several decades ago in the U.S. primarily by physicists and engineers to protect users from the acute effects of the heat generated by microwave radiation. The standards do not protect users from the non-thermal effects of cell phone radiation which have been associated with increased brain cancer risk among long-term cell phone users and other health problems in the short term including electrosensitivity, sperm damage and infertility, and reproductive health risks in children.

    Just because these devices are legal does not mean they are safe

    Although many health researchers, including myself, have questioned the utility of assessing only a device’s SAR, currently that is all governments measure and regulate. Governments want consumers to believe that all legally marketed wireless devices are safe, and that the SAR level does not matter as long as it meets the legal standard. Yet no study has proved that exposure to low-intensity microwave radiation is safe, and thousands of peer-reviewed, published studies have found biologic effects from such exposures. The research suggests that governments need to adopt more stringent, biologically-based, standards to protect consumers’ health.

    Medical and public health professionals should call on Google to end this experiment on Glass users or at least fully inform consumers of the potential long-term health risks from wearing this device.

    Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
    School of Public Health
    University of California, Berkeley

    For more information about wireless radiation health risks: http://www.saferemr.com/.

    Contact
    Joel Moskowitz
    ***@berkeley.edu

    — End —

  56. #124 by Joe Imbriano on August 19, 2014 - 6:59 am

    I Think Robert Pletka needs to really do some soul searching on his next fishing trip. I think Roman Schulze needs to look at himself in the mirror and face what he has participated in. Ipads emit more radiation than cell phones and yet Pletka still rolls out his forced irradiation program to all school children in The FSD. I think the parents need to open their eyes to how they are being duped and their kids are potentially being irreparably harmed.

    http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report-use-of-cell-phones-increases-cancer-risk-2011557

    Dr Dariusz Leszczynski, Adjunct Professor, Division of Biochemistry and Biotechnology at the University of Helsinki and a member of a working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries constituted by World Health Organization (WHO) that classified cellphone radiation as possibly carcinogenic, in conversation with Maitri Porecha, reveals how leading cell phone operators and manufacturers are withdrawing funding for research, leading to closing down of laboratories studying effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields as emitted by cellphones and cell towers. Excerpts -

    1. How was cell phone radiation categorized as group 2B carcinogen, based on increasing risk of Glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and WHO?

    The number of mobile phone subscriptions is estimated at 5 billion globally. With rising concerns over adverse health effects, in 2010, IARC invited thirty one experts to evaluate evidence involving carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation. The experts assembled at IARC headquarters in Lyon, France, in a meeting that lasted for twelve days in 2011. Experts shared the complex task of tackling the exposure data, the studies of cancer in humans, the studies of cancer in experimental animals, and the mechanistic and other relevant data. Groups worked separately and together sifting through many hundred research studies. After intense deliberations, we agreed upon the group 2B classification.

    2. On one hand, cell tower operators and industry stake holders say that cell phone radiation does not cause cancer, on the other hand the residents or activists posit a precautionary stand point by saying that it may cause cancer. Why there is no clarity?

    The IARC-WHO classification of cell phone radiation is misrepresented by the industry. Classification of cell phone radiation as ‘a possible carcinogen to humans’ means that there are enough studies indicating that it might cause cancer and that we urgently need more research to clarify this issue. The strongest evidence that it might be causing cancer comes from three epidemiological studies. In 2011, two sets of studies were available – EU’s Interphone study and a series of studies from Lennart Hardell’s group in Sweden. Recently, CERENAT study from France published in 2014, similarly indicated that persons using cell phones for more than ten years and for half hour per day are at a higher risk for developing brain cancer. In fact now the evidence is sufficient to consider cell phone radiation as a probable carcinogen – Group 2A in IARC’s scale of carcinogenicity.

    3. Could you describe your work on cell phone radiation? Did you discover that it has ill effects on human health and if yes, in what way?

    Our research has shown that human cells exposed in laboratory to cell phone radiation activated series of biochemical reactions in them known as ‘stress response,’ which means that the living cells recognize cell phone radiation as a potentially harmful agent. Stress responses are signals that intend to protect the living cell from any potential damage. In the 2008 study conducted by us, a small area of human forearm’s skin in ten volunteers was exposed to GSM signal for one hour. After that, pieces of the radiation exposed skin and unexposed skin were collected and used for ‘proteomic analysis.’ In it, all proteins from the skin samples were extracted and amounts of different kinds of proteins in exposed and unexposed skin samples were compared. After the analysis of nearly 580 proteins, we identified eight proteins which were statistically significantly affected. We determined that the amounts of several proteins were changing after the exposure. After acquiring this result in the pilot ten-volunteer-study, we intended to conduct a larger study with 100 volunteers from 2009 onwards. This study did not start due to lack of funding and opposition from the telecom industry stakeholders.

    4. Why did the government did not sanction funds? What happened?

    My laboratory studies on effects of cell phone radiation to human health began in 1999. My lab, which was government-run, was closed down in 2013 due to lack of funding as certain cell phone manufacturers and network operators in Finland were opposing the large scale human studies. We receive grants from government to conduct studies but in spite of making positive headway on research our funding was stopped. We were cut off from funding as the telecom industry was against it.
    While majority of the funding for such research projects consists of tax payers money and industry pumps in only a part of the money, the advice of industry is highly valued during sanctioning of funds by the government.

    5. How much funding was expended during the last 15 years and how much more funding would be required to require to bring your studies to a proper conclusion?
    I was working on cell phone radiation effects for the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. My research group has expended over the 15 years period well over one million euros. Some persons in the Finnish bureaucracy decided that basic research should be done in universities and thus basic research labs in government-run institutes were closed in a bid to save money in 2013. The 2009 study was planned to last about three years and entailed enrolling 100 human volunteers. There was a very real possibility of securing such funding from the EU research program but my research group was not permitted to do it. In order to continue the abruptly stopped study on humans, we would require some quarter million euros in funding. Industry provides jobs for people and therefore research policy decisions are taken by the government are influenced by it. The industry denied funding. To conduct that kind of human volunteer study, qualified personnel, laboratory space and sufficient funding is needed, of which I have none currently.

    6. Do you believe that the standards set by the Indian Telecommunications Ministry in September 2012 at 450 milliwatts/square meter (900MHz) for Electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation which is one tenth of what is prescribed by International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) enough when the government admitted in September 2012 that 95% of the mobile tower antennae were below the revised norms of 450 milliwatts/square meter radiation? Also, when most towers are well below those permissible limits, what is the logic behind Telecom ministry’s bringing down the levels from 4500 mW/sq m to 450 mW/sq m?
    ICNIRP is an organization of scientists, claiming that they are independent in their scientific opinions. However, there is a major problem – ICNIRP selects members in fashion resembling “private club” practices. The current members of ICNIRP select new members. This model leads to situation where all ICNIRP members have the same opinion on the dangers of cell phone radiation. When all ICNIRP scientists have the same opinion there is no need for scientific debate – there is a prior, existing consensus. This was not the case in the WHO’s IARC evaluation, where scientists with diverse, often opposing opinions were invited.

    ICNIRP safety standards for radiation emissions from cell phones and cell towers may not be sufficient to protect people. The IARC classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen invalidates the protective claims of the current ICNIRP safety standards. In epidemiological case-control studies evaluated by IARC (Interphone and Hardell) and published after IARC evaluation (CERENAT), adult participants used regular, off-the-shelf, cell phones. These cell phones were built to fulfill ICNIRP safety standards. However, avid use of such “ICNIRP-safe phones,” for period of over 10 years, led to an increased risk of brain cancer. This means that the current safety standards do not protect sufficiently users of cell phones and this also casts a doubt over the validity of safety standards set for cell towers.

    Of what I have seen from the pictures of India, as also what I have seen while visiting India, there are numerous situations where there are too many antennas located en masse, in huge clusters. Whether such clusters fulfill the current Indian safety standards should be examined. It is up to the local politicians and government to make sure that safety standards are met and to determine if present safety standards are questionable.

    7. Certain Australian schools are banning Wi-Fi, what is the rationale behind taking such steps?
    There is a discussion in Australia, Canada, US, Europe about the possibility of harm caused by Wi-Fi. Some school principals are banning Wi-Fi, due to pressure from parents of the children. Grass root movements of parents concerned with Wi-Fi in schools is, in some cases, very strong. Wi-Fi radiation is similar to that emitted by cell phones and cell towers, which have been classified as a ‘possible’ carcinogen.
    We can be legitimately concerned about what might happen to children, who are very young and spend seven to eight hours continuously exposed to Wi-Fi radiation. It is a responsible precautionary measure to ban Wi-Fi in schools. There are places where providing wired internet is not possible, like in railway stations or airports, but in schools wired internet is possible to install. There is no real need for Wi-Fi for schools.
    In other places, where the wired internet is not feasible, is also possible to introduce precautionary measures. In airports or railway stations, there are enclosed spaces where people can gather and smoke tobacco. Others are not exposed to smoke.
    A similar thing can be done for providing Wi-Fi connectivity. There could be provided enclosed areas, with walls built of materials not allowing Wi-Fi radiation to go outside, where Wi-Fi access would be provided without unnecessary exposing everyone.

    8. WHO is working on a new report summarizing the health risks of radio-frequency fields, to be published next year? What is the researchers’ fraternity expecting out of the report? As also, do you think there is now evidence enough after the release of French epidemiological study in 2014 that classification of cell phone radiation should be shifted from Group 2B to Group 2A or Group 1?

    The yet to be released WHO report has been delayed for ten years. They were waiting for the results to see if the Interphone project was finalized and, later, for the IARC evaluation of carcinogenicity. The WHO report will analyze all effects of radiation possibly fertility in humans and other health issues, not only cancer.
    ICNIRP scientists are involved in the WHO report and, therefore, one cannot expect that it will substantially differ from what ICNIRP is saying.
    The recent French CERENAT epidemiological study provides, together with Interphone and Hardell studies, is an evidence sufficient to consider cell phone radiation as a probable carcinogen – Group 2A in IARC’s scale of carcinogenicity.

    9. Recently the industry has started a campaign stating that radiation from mobile towers and mobile phones is not hazardous. They have brought in researchers like Dr Mike Repacholi, the ex co-ordinator of the radiation and environment health unit of WHO, who has claimed there are no health hazards from mobile towers/phone radiation. Do you agree with his statements?

    The industry likes to call on scientists who will endorse their product and say that it is safe. Hence, Dr Repacholi visited India and spoke publicly about the safety of cell phones as well as cell towers. I disagree with Dr Repacholi. He says that we don’t have and we will not have in the future health problems due to cell phone and cell tower radiation. In my opinion the scientific evidence is still insufficient to say that cell phone radiation is harmless. We need both better research and, for the time being, implementation of the European Union’s Precautionary Principle until there is further clarity.

    (Dr Dariusz Leszczynski also blogs at – http://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com)

    • #125 by Callum Thames on August 19, 2014 - 3:33 pm

      There is no need for WiFi schools because hardwired internet is very easy to implement. Here in the UK, schools are doing the opposite of what you are doing in the US. This just further supports the theory that there is an agenda of sorts involved there with Apple being a key player.

      I don’t have any children by choice but I can’t help but really wonder about all that is presented here being spot on. It is pretty damn frightening.

      The only thing that could end up being be more frightening is Mr. Imbriano being correct. Given what he is privy to and publicly lays out, a day in his shoes would be hard spot to fill. His must be a very troubled soul.

      Cheers.

(will not be published)


Copyright © 2013 TheFullertonInformer.com. All rights reserved. TheFullertonInformer.com is the legal copyright holder of the material on this blog and it may not be used, reprinted, or published without express written permission. The information contained in this website is for entertainment and educational purposes ONLY. This website contains my personal opinion and experience based on my own research from scientific writings, internet research and interviews with doctors and scientists all over the world. Do not take this website, links or documents contained herein as a personal, medical or legal advice of any kind. For legal advice, please consult with your attorney. Consult your medical doctor or primary care physician for advice regarding your health and your children’s health and nothing contained on this website is intended to provide or be a substitute for medical, legal or other professional advice. The reading or use of this information is at your own risk. Readers will not be put on spam lists. We will not sell your contact information to another company. We are not responsible for the privacy practices of our advertisers or blog commenters. We reserve the right to change the focus of this blog, to shut it down, to sell it, or to change the terms of use at our discretion. We are not responsible for the actions of our advertisers or sponsors. If a reader purchases a product or service based upon a link from our blog, the reader must take action with that company to resolve the issue, not us. Our policy on using letters or emails that have been written directly to us is as follows: We will be sharing those letters and emails with the blogging audience unless they are requested to be kept confidential. We will claim ownership of those letters or emails to later be used in an up-and-coming book,blog article,post or column, unless otherwise specified by the writer to keep ownership. THE TRUTH WILL STAND ON ITS OWN AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE-SEEK IT AT ALL COSTS!