Shame on Cal State Fullerton’s Dr. Mark H. Shapiro for talking out his pie hole on wireless-part 2

Hey doc-I handed you a paper on a silver platter that showed rats that had their ovaries exposed for 15 minutes a day for 15 days with pulsed microwave RF exposure that ended up having their ovarian reserves looking like Folsom lake after they drained it for the geo engineered drought photo op. You sent me that publication that showed all kinds of apples and orange comparisons with frequencies and and effects everywhere except where I asked you to look-ovarian reserves and the effects on the female ovum.
The report only had 2 out of 75+ studies that dealt with FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEMS AND THEY BOTH SHOWED EFFECTS. I handed you the plans from Apple that just so happen to have exact replicas of the female reproductive components and fertilized eggs getting electrocuted in their landscape architecture plans who also just so happen to have the exclusive contracts in all the schools.
Look, I am not asking for much from a big shot like you. I just want you to use your noggin for a minute. You think that putting 15,000 iPads in the laps of students in the Fullerton School District when no one can show me one study on the effects at 2.4 GHz on the eggs?
Why is it that according to what you provided me with, in response to what I provided you with, the study admits that research of the female reproductive system is “SCARCE”. Hey professor emeritus, doesn’t that translate to the fact that we need to do more studies before we deploy this crap or does this translate to how an agenda is allowed to proceed under our noses, even the so called smart people like yourself?
How the heck did Dr. Pletka manage to get 15,000 iPads that emit a class 2B carcinogen into the laps of all the boys and girls in the classrooms when NO ONE EVER BOTHERED TO SEE WHAT THE HELL THIS CRAP DOES TO THE GIRLS EGGS OR FOLLICLES while these things will spend years in their laps. THIS IS ALL THE WHILE THAT APPLE SPENDS 5 BILLION DOLLARS ON THEIR HEADQUARTERS WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANS THAT LAY IT ALL OUT LIKE SOME SICK JOKE. What kind of demonic scientific fraud is everyone taking part in? Ok, yeah and you worked for decades as a professor at CSF and you also claim you don’t know anyone over at the school district.  I guess you need to work on your social skills as well as your research skills.
I asked point blank questions and you come back with spin, deflections, mixing up sunlight with microwaves, 60 Hz electricity, power lines, light bulb emissions and sun tans. We are talking about the exact frequency at which the maximum dielectric loss of water begins at power levels trillions of times background levels with slot antenna deployment at point blank range, in direct contact with the sensitive developing reproductive organs of young children for hours on end every day for 15 years for 15,000 children in Fullerton and tens of millions of children nationwide. What kind of scientist are you Shapiro? Are you going to tell everyone that the iPad programs in the schools are totally safe for the children like Dr Pletka said? Or are you going to step back and be honest, and say maybe this isn’t such a good idea and help us rescue these children from these reckless school administrators, brain dead chicken shit board members and scared, ignorant, cowardly, vain, immature parents who are frozen in their tracks. Come on doc.
What kind of scientist are you Shapiro? Are you going to tell everyone that the iPad programs in the schools are totally safe for the children like Dr Pletka said? Or are you going to step back and be honest, and say maybe this isnt such a good idea and help us rescue these children from these reckless, evil school administratobrain-dead, worthless, lackey, evil board members and scared, ignorant, cowardly, vain, immature parents who are frozen in their tracks. Come on doc.
  • Susie-g Neblett-d SHAME on him!
  • Susie Shuff Gapinski How many studies did he reference exactly? I don’t generally read the observer. I did read the one where they reported on the 100 + scientists saying that wifi is bad. And the same article where they took a swipe at the unnamed person who has been bringing this to the FSD’s attention for some time now.
  • Diane King The number of international scientists that say the WiFi is bad is now at 200.
    • Veronica Zrnchik replied · 1 Reply
  • Mark H. Shapiro · Friends with Neal Kelley and 3 others

    Mr. Imbriano I have sent you a private message concerning your personal attacks on me. Please read it.
  • Mark H. Shapiro · 4 mutual friends

    Mr. Imbriano your comments about me are false, defamatory, and potentially libelous. While you certainly have the right to disagree with my scientific conclusions and opinions, that does not give you the right to make false accusations about my qualifications and experience as a scientist, to infer that they were motivated by anything other than a desire to inform the public about the issue under discussion, nor to infer that I am somehow a spokesperson for the Fullerton School District or any other public body or agency. Please remove the comments from your facebook page and website that are just scurrilous personal attacks.
    • Diane King Dr. Shapiro, Please consider rewriting your “opinion” piece, deferring to the findings and knowledge of 200 scientists that are experts in EMF research and health. They have characterized the proliferation of unnatural EMF as a public health crisis. This was not done lightly. THEY KNOW. Please rewrite your letter and yield to the message of these experts. Your position, as it stands, is indefensible.
    • Mark H. Shapiro · Friends with Neal Kelley and 3 others

      Ms. King there are competent scientists on both sides of this issue, but in my professional judgement those who signed the letter to WHO misunderstand the actual risk presented by smart meters and wi-fi transmitters mainly because they don’t correctly understand the physics of electromagnetic radiation. The most extensive study of the effects of electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phones and other devices that emit electromagnetic radiation was carried out in the UK over a period of more than a decade, involved hundreds of scientists from several countries who are experts in the field, using careful double blind studies where possible and case-matched epidemiological studies. Scores of papers from this effort have been published in refereed scientific journals. The bottom line from all this work is that no credible definitive evidence of deleterious health effects were observed at the dose levels encountered while using cell phones or other devices including trunked radio transceivers that emit significantly more EMR in this frequency range than cell phones. There were some hints in the data that very heavy cell phone usage might produce slight increases in the rate of certain types of rare brain cancers, though the evidence was at best equivocal. This is why I reached the conclusions I did. The most interesting result from this study in my view came from the double-blind study on people who have complained about “electrosensitive” effects from the use of cell phones or trunked-radio transceivers. When these people were tested against a control group of people who claimed no such sensitivity in totally shielded enclosures with a transmitter that was randomly turned on an off without the knowledge of the participants. There was no statistically significant effect observed. In other words, people who claimed to be electrosensitive reported “effects” at no higher rate when the transmitter was on than when it was off. And in tests when people were asked to determine when the transmitter was on or off depending on how they felt, “electrosensitive” people were no better at identifying when the transmitter was on or off than the control group. Please read the reports from all these studies yourself, and compare them with some of the much less well-controlled studies that report positive effects. As I noted in the article that was printed in the Observer, I think that one should err on the side of caution with regard to very heavy use of a cellphone held to one’s ear given the hint of a positive effect in this study and one other one that I quoted that involve results from a population of radio amateurs (as a radio amateur myself for more than 60 years I have followed this issue carefully since we typically are exposed to much higher levels of electromagnetic radiation than the general public.) I stand by my original conclusions The references for the UK study can be found at:
    • Penelope Landis Mr. Shapiro, how can you say there is “no Credible evidence?” what do you call this? Effects Of 2.4 Ghz Radiofrequency Radiation Emitted From Wi-Fi Equipment On microRna Expression In Brain Tissue
      Int J Radiat Biol. 2015 Mar 16:1-26.
    • Penelope Landis Mr. Shapiro, you realized that this radiation damages brains and we are talking about children. Please see this research on low level radiation.…/1xACAlbFUSEwJIF555wlGbMR…/edit
    • Penelope Landis Mr. Shapiro, the research that you quote is incomplete and I do not see you citing current science nor the wealth of science that exists.…/pii/S0006291X15003988
    • Veronica Zrnchik Also, there are many shortcomings to these “detector” studies. They do not take into account that what a person is sensitive to is very different. People are sensitive to all different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. To test everyone with one type of signal is surely going to fail as it may very well be a signal to which they have no sensitivity. In addition Mr Shapiro, they did not take into account the different symptoms and delayed responses to the exposures. Some people get symptoms hours later. Some are affected right way and some have both. Some of those devices were still emiting signals in “sham” mode. The testing with one signal is like testing for food allergies. You would not test for food allergies using only one food. Obviously you would miss lots of allergies that way–would you not. Also, it sounds like you know alot about physics etc. So you might be aware of the fact that there are specific windows of effect for many frequencies in regards to biological effects. There is NOT a linear effect. It is nonlinear. A higher frequency or intensity does not always increase the symptoms. In fact, in some cases, there is no effect from increasing exposures and there is a decrease in effect. Was that taken into account? I’m not sure it was. So those experiements wheer they determine if people are dectors or not were not very scientific AND not being a detector does not eliminate the possibility that you are affected by something. If someone went to a picnic and got an upset stomach from a food–would the fact that he/she could not identify the exact food that made them ill negate the fact that they were ill?? It is a silly test really. And finally, have you seen the studies that document only biological effects and is double blind. Clearly the body has biological reactions in heart rate, blood preasure, blood clumping, iris dialiation etc. These were done with animals and people. Clearly animals cannot be experiencing the nocebo effect from reading about the study in the newspaper!! Those exposure tests or studies are ignorant and just an additiional way to obfuscate the truth by delaying the publics understanding and acceptance of this condition.
    • Joe Imbriano

      Write a reply…
  • Diane King Mr. Shapiro, Enough is KNOWN of the biological effects of EMF to remove this from our children’s classrooms. Let it be known that your stance flies in the face of the increasing population that is getting sick (ES) from these exposures, people dying prematurely from RF radiation. How many dead bodies is enough? To proceed ahead, as you are doing, is indicative of a lack of humanity. To proceed ahead in attempting to influence/inform others against thousands of studies that attest to the health harms is unforgivable. As stated previously, your position is indefensible and this is especially true in this context where it involves our children. Only you know your motivation for doing so.
  • Diane King Mr. Shapiro, There may very well be competent scientists on both sides but being competent does not bring with it integrity, honesty, ethics or morality. Enough of the science has been been hijacked/bought off by the industry and continually paraded around, denying the health effects. If you had done your research on this aspect of the ‘science’ you would have an understanding of that. If you did not, you surely would have remembered our history in which it took decades to determine that smoking caused cancer. Smoking didn’t cause cancer until it did. Why did it take decades? Corruption and yielding to industry over the lives and health of the populace. There are no ethics or morality in that. From all appearances, Mr. Shapiro, you are part of this.
    Like · Reply ·



Comments are closed.

Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved. 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!