Archive for February, 2014


images (3)


The most recent mid Febuary Fullerton Observer hit the stands the other day. I have to give credit to the crew over there as The Observer is the only paper that will touch this wireless classroom issue with a ten foot pole and that is truly commendable. You know there is a lot going on in this town that would qualify under the term of “inconvenient truth”. The fact is, no one cares to deal with inconvenient truths. Sadly, when those two words end up in the same sentence, it’s lights out meatball for logic and hello Dolly for cognitive dissonance.  Read the rest of this entry »


Fullerton’s City wide WiFi proposal-An Agenda 21/NSA trial run Trojan Horse?

images (36)

Folks, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch and every gimmick has a catch. Whether or not you agree with the thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies and researchers that conclude wireless is harmful, the privacy aspect of city wide WiFi is a whole other issue.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, Agenda 21 is a Fullerton thing. Make no bones about it. You all need to be aware that the euphemism “sustainable development” has been whispered into your ear instead of the real deal which is Agenda 21.



Several months ago, I mentioned to the council that building codes should be amended to include RF shielding in multifamily housing units.  Ironically, Jan Flory feebly attempted to mock my Autism/wireless hypothesis and publicly conjure up the notion that my wireless concerns have no business being presented to the council, I politely reminded her that a lot more towers were coming. Well maybe they finally are. Folks you cannot afford to look the other way on this one.>

Wireless  infrastructure and wireless devices are being peddled to us as a benefit. They are being jammed down our children’s throats in the classrooms as a necessity and the infrastructure is creeping ever closer to our homes and businesses disguised as palm trees or literally in plain view. By no means am  I alone in believing the general health, well being, and most importantly, the fertility of us and our children is on the line.

HERE ARE  ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX  Reference Links to Peer-Reviewed Studies re RF Microwave Radiation  RIGHT HERE,28,3376

What Citywide WiFi amounts to is a massive V.I.P. back door entrance to the wireless devices’ trap doors for electronic eavesdropping purposes. They also make the entire matrix including anything connected to it extremely vulnerable to cyber attacks.

Don’t kid yourselves folks, the NSA is as strong as ever and WiFi networks are about as secure as a Brazilian bank account.

Don’t fall for the latest  smoke and mirrors filled theater to get your eyes off of the ball.

Yeah, and next they will tell about the layoffs that are coming at the NSA.
They don’t need the building anymore because they moved to the basement long ago.

images (38)


images (39)


Snowden is leaking because they want you to look at the dinosaur and the outdated building hooked up to the old copper wires. You see, while behind your backs, and under your noses, in your bedrooms,  living rooms, kitchens and classrooms and even in your kids laps, they now potentially have unlimited access. Now they could theoretically just push a button and tap into all of the wireless networks and decide what channel they want to watch. Warrants? What are those? Fusion centers? Are those  Japanese restaurants?

The old copper wire infrastructure used to require several city blocks of  Cray computers and a 10,000 heads to log and keep tabs on us. Well, now with everything wireless, they can take the show on the road, utilize other infrastructure and some of the apparatuses can now fit into a  large van on a street corner with current advances in technology.

City wide WiFi also amounts to a form of forced irradiation at both 2.4 and 5.0 GHz at power levels that are trillions of times the normal background levels in that particular part of the electromagnetic spectrum. For the record, Fukashima is elevating our background levels of ionizing radiation by less than a factor of one. WiFi by a factor of a trillion, so  tell me about all this “low power” nonsense. FCC exposure guidelines green light emission levels below cooking of tissue. They deviously, totally ignore non-thermal effects.

Waves of non ionizing radiation  have energy and in the presence of metals can be amplified tremendously. Stick a fork in a microwave and watch 3 million volts in action come out of a 110 volt appliance.

WiFi is low power compared to what?  A microwave oven?  Long term, the residents will be paying for it in more ways than they can imagine. The RF industry’s irresponsible, reckless, and unabated proliferation of these devices along with their pulse modulated microwave emissions has been given the green light by design. Slick Willy got the Agenda 21 ball rolling in 1993  when he doled out the dough for the APA to write a land use legislative blueprint for every municipality in The U.S. Then he signed the Telecom Act after a night on the town with his Glass Steagall repealing party buddies and set it all in motion. Come to think of it, this was right around the time he mandated the chiva slamming  hooker vaccine(the hepatitis shot) for newborns which is given to babies within minutes of birth. The point is that there are and have been problems at the highest levels for some time now and they have us running on a treadmill chasing our tails while they cook our goose and close the walls in. Oh yeah and the lip service begins while the trojan horse rolls into town.

Regardless of whether or not you have health concerns about wireless, you are not alone and this site contains no less than 75 unique posts containing studies and links to thousands of other studies that are sure to get your attention and maybe even prove to you that beyond a shadow of a doubt, at the very least, wireless has no place in our children’s classrooms, much less on the light pole next to your child’s bedroom window. Even if you remain unconvinced of the health hazards, you still would have reason to be gravely concerned over the potential for 4th amendment violations with this technology.

I think what Snowden leaked is just the tip of the iceberg. The technology is decades ahead of what they allow us to be privy too.
If you ever had any privacy concerns, I would say the following article would be worthy of your undivided attention.



CSEC used airport Wi-Fi to track Canadian travellers: Edward Snowden documents

Electronic snooping was part of a trial run for U.S. NSA and other foreign services

By Greg Weston, Glenn Greenwald, Ryan Gallagher, CBC News Posted: Jan 30, 2014 8:59 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 31, 2014 6:38 PM ET

Privacy and security experts on CSEC

Privacy and security experts on CSEC 2:32
MPs face off over CSEC revelations
MPs face off over CSEC revelations 2:59

Airport Wi-Fi used to track Canadians

Airport Wi-Fi used to track Canadians 4:16

About The Author

Photo of Greg Weston
Greg Weston
National Affairs Specialist
Greg Weston is an investigative reporter and a regular political commentator on CBC Radio and Television. Based in Ottawa, he has afflicted governments of all stripes for over three decades. His investigative work has won awards including the coveted Michener Award for Meritorious Public Service in Journalism. He is also the author of two best-selling books, Reign of Error and The Stopwatch Gang.

Related Stories

A top secret document retrieved by U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden and obtained by CBC News shows that Canada’s electronic spy agency used information from the free internet service at a major Canadian airport to track the wireless devices of thousands of ordinary airline passengers for days after they left the terminal.
After reviewing the document, one of Canada’s foremost authorities on cyber-security says the clandestine operation by the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) was almost certainly illegal.
Ronald Deibert told CBC News: “I can’t see any circumstance in which this would not be unlawful, under current Canadian law, under our Charter, under CSEC’s mandates.”
The spy agency is supposed to be collecting primarily foreign intelligence by intercepting overseas phone and internet traffic, and is prohibited by law from targeting Canadians or anyone in Canada without a judicial warrant.
As CSEC chief John Forster recently stated: “I can tell you that we do not target Canadians at home or abroad in our foreign intelligence activities, nor do we target anyone in Canada.
“In fact, it’s prohibited by law. Protecting the privacy of Canadians is our most important principle.”
But security experts who have been apprised of the document point out the airline passengers in a Canadian airport were clearly in Canada.
CSEC said in a written statement to CBC News that it is “mandated to collect foreign signals intelligence to protect Canada and Canadians. And in order to fulfill that key foreign intelligence role for the country, CSEC is legally authorized to collect and analyze metadata.”
Metadata reveals a trove of information including, for example, the location and telephone numbers of all calls a person makes and receives — but not the content of the call, which would legally be considered a private communication and cannot be intercepted without a warrant.
“No Canadian communications were (or are) targeted, collected or used,” the agency says.
In the case of the airport tracking operation, the metadata apparently identified travelers’ wireless devices, but not the content of calls made or emails sent from them.

Black Code

Deibert is author of the book Black Code: Inside the Battle for Cyberspace, which is about internet surveillance, and he heads the world-renowned Citizen Lab cyber research program at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs.
He says that whatever CSEC calls it, the tracking of those passengers was nothing less than an “indiscriminate collection and analysis of Canadians’ communications data,” and he could not imagine any circumstances that would have convinced a judge to authorize it.


A passenger checks his cellphone while boarding a flight in Boston in October. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration issued new guidelines under which passengers will be able to use electronic devices from the time they board to the time they leave the plane, which will also help electronic spies to keep tabs on them. (Associated Press)
The latest Snowden document indicates the spy service was provided with information captured from unsuspecting travellers’ wireless devices by the airport’s free Wi-Fi system over a two-week period.
Experts say that probably included many Canadians whose smartphone and laptop signals were intercepted without their knowledge as they passed through the terminal.
The document shows the federal intelligence agency was then able to track the travellers for a week or more as they — and their wireless devices — showed up in other Wi-Fi “hot spots” in cities across Canada and even at U.S. airports.
That included people visiting other airports, hotels, coffee shops and restaurants, libraries, ground transportation hubs, and any number of places among the literally thousands with public wireless internet access.
The document shows CSEC had so much data it could even track the travellers back in time through the days leading up to their arrival at the airport, these experts say.
While the documents make no mention of specific individuals, Deibert and other cyber experts say it would be simple for the spy agency to have put names to all the Canadians swept up in the operation.
All Canadians with a smartphone, tablet or laptop are “essentially carrying around digital dog tags as we go about our daily lives,” Deibert says.
Anyone able to access the data that those devices leave behind on wireless hotspots, he says, can obtain “extraordinarily precise information about our movements and social relationships.”

Trial run for NSA

The document indicates the passenger tracking operation was a trial run of a powerful new software program CSEC was developing with help from its U.S. counterpart, the National Security Agency.
In the document, CSEC called the new technologies “game-changing,” and said they could be used for tracking “any target that makes occasional forays into other cities/regions.”
Sources tell CBC News the technologies tested on Canadians in 2012 have since become fully operational.
CSEC claims “no Canadian or foreign travellers’ movements were ‘tracked,'” although it does not explain why it put the word “tracked” in quotation marks.
Deibert says metadata is “way more powerful than the content of communications. You can tell a lot more about people, their habits, their relationships, their friendships, even their political preferences, based on that type of metadata.”
The document does not say exactly how the Canadian spy service managed to get its hands on two weeks’ of travellers’ wireless data from the airport Wi-Fi system, although there are indications it was provided voluntarily by a “special source.”
The country’s two largest airports — Toronto and Vancouver — both say they have never supplied CSEC or other Canadian intelligence agency with information on passengers’ Wi-Fi use.
Alana Lawrence, a spokesperson for the Vancouver Airport Authority, says it operates the free Wi-Fi there, but does “not in any way store any personal data associated with it,” and has never received a request from any Canadian intelligence agency for it.
A U.S.-based company, Boingo, is the largest independent supplier of Wi-Fi services at other Canadian airports, including Pearson International in Toronto.
Spokesperson Katie O’Neill tells CBC News: “To the best of our knowledge, [Boingo] has not provided any information about any of our users to the Canadian government, law enforcement or intelligence agencies.”
It is also unclear from the document how CSEC managed to penetrate so many wireless systems to see who was using them — specifically, to know every time someone targeted at the airport showed up on one of those other Wi-Fi networks elsewhere.
Deibert and other experts say the federal intelligence agency must have gained direct access to at least some of the country’s main telephone and internet pipelines, allowing the mass-surveillance of Canadian emails and phone calls.

‘Blown away’

Ontario’s privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian says she is “blown away” by the revelations.
“It is really unbelievable that CSEC would engage in that kind of surveillance of Canadians. Of us.
“I mean that could have been me at the airport walking around… This resembles the activities of a totalitarian state, not a free and open society.”

 Ann Cavoukian

Privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian. (Colin Perkel/Canadian Press)
Experts say the document makes clear CSEC intended to share both the technologies and future information generated by it with Canada’s official spying partners — the U.S., Britain, New Zealand and Australia, the so-called Five Eyes intelligence network.
Indeed, the spy agency boasts in its leaked document that, in an apparently separate pilot project, it obtained access to two communications systems with more than 300,000 users, and was then able to “sweep” an entire mid-sized Canadian city to pinpoint a specific imaginary target in a fictional kidnapping.
The document dated May 2012 is a 27-page power-point presentation by CSEC describing its airport tracking operation.
While the document was in the trove of secret NSA files retrieved by Snowden, it bears CSEC’s logo and clearly originated with the Canadian spy service.
Wesley Wark, a renowned authority on international security and intelligence, agrees with Deibert.
“I cannot see any way in which it fits CSEC’s legal mandate.”
Wark says the document suggests CSEC was “trying to push the technological boundaries” in part to impress its other international counterparts in the Five-Eyes intelligence network.
“This document is kind of suffused with the language of technological gee-whiz.”
Wark says if CSEC’s use of “very powerful and intrusive technological tools” puts it outside its mandate and even the law, “then you are in a situation for democracy where you simply don’t want to be.”
Like Wark and other experts interviewed for this story, Deibert says there’s no question Canada needs CSEC to be gathering foreign intelligence, “but they must do it within a framework of proper checks and balances so their formidable powers can never be abused. And that’s the missing ingredient right now in Canada.”
The only official oversight of CSEC’s spying operations is a retired judge appointed by the prime minister, and reporting to the minister of defence who is also responsible for the intelligence agency.
“Here we clearly have an agency of the state collecting in an indiscriminate and bulk fashion all of Canadian communications and the oversight mechanism is flimsy at best,” Deibert says.
“Those to me are circumstances ripe for potential abuse.”
CSEC spends over $400 million a year, and employs about 2,000 people, almost half of whom are involved in intercepting phone conversations, and hacking into computer systems supposedly in other countries.
It has long been Canada’s most secretive spy agency, responding to almost all questions about its operations with reassurances it is doing nothing wrong.
Privacy watchdog Cavoukian says there has to be “greater openness and transparency because without that there can be no accountability.
“This trust-me model that the government is advancing and CSEC is advancing – ‘Oh just trust us, we’re doing the right thing, don’t worry’ — yes, worry! We have very good reason to worry.”
In the U.S., Snowden exposed massive metadata collection by the National Security Agency, which is said to have scooped up private phone and internet records of more than 100 million Americans.
A U.S. judge recently called the NSA’s metadata collection an Orwellian surveillance program that is likely unconstitutional.
The public furor over NSA snooping prompted a White House review of the American spy agency’s operations, and President Barack Obama recently vowed to clamp down on the collection and use of metadata.
Cavoukian says Canadians deserve nothing less.
“Look at the U.S. — they’ve been talking about these matters involving national security for months now very publicly because the public deserves answers.
“And that’s what I would tell our government, our minister of national defence and our prime minister: We demand some answers to this.”



Jan Weiner speaks

I guess it is a good living making money off of the Autism epidemic and the special education explosion while breathing exhaust fumes next to the 57 freeway.

Meet Jan Weiner

Looks like out of all of those in key positions that were in receipt of this email, this one was the first to step right up to the microphone. Here is just a little background on her right here – Read the rest of this entry »


A tale of two cities and The Glendale Five


Hats off to our northern Agenda 21 city neighbors in Glendale.  These five school board members have proceeded much like the wireless leadfoot Pletka and the Fullerton five as they all step on the gas racing to the Connect Ed, common core, microwave matrix, wireless classroom radiation chamber finish line for our kids.  Read the rest of this entry »


JUNK SCIENCE: 70/30 with some wireless industry dough gets you 50/50 and your kids the shaft in the wireless classrooms.

The following is an excellent article from :

This is must read!

UW Scientist Henry Lai Makes Waves in the Cell Phone Industry

UW scientist Dr. Henry Lai never set out to link cell phones to cancer, but his work—and efforts…

Naomi Ishisaka |   January 2011   |  FROM THE PRINT EDITION

A greeting card on bioengineering professor Henry Lai’s office wall at the University of Washington contains this quotation from Ralph Waldo Emerson: “Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”

This philosophy could well sum up Lai’s work on the effects of low-level radiation on DNA, as well as what he believes should be the guiding principle of science: independent investigation and research leading to discovery for the public good. Yet the soft-spoken scientist’s steadfast belief in that principle has placed his research at the center of a persistent global controversy and created powerful enemies that tried to get him fired and essentially succeeded in drying up the source of funding for the type of research he was doing.

Lai admits that he was naive. He came to the UW in 1972 and earned a doctorate in psychology. Two decades later, as a bioengineering researcher, he studied esoteric scientific topics in relative obscurity. He and a fellow researcher, Narendra “N.P.” Singh, were looking at the effects of nonionizing microwave radiation—the same type of radiation emitted by cell phones—on the DNA of rats. They used a level of radiation considered safe by government standards and found that the DNA in the brain cells of the rats was damaged—or broken—by exposure to the radiation. Ironically, cell phones weren’t even on Lai’s mind when he performed the initial studies. Funded initially by the Office of Naval Research, Lai was investigating how radar, which emits radio-frequency radiation, affects the health of operators. “We did not really pay attention to the importance of this thing,” he recalls. But during his research, cell phone giant Motorola Inc. indicated that someone had told the company about Lai’s unpublished results. Motorola asked to meet with him in his lab and at a meeting in Copenhagen.

After Lai and Singh’s research finding an effect on DNA was published in 1995, Lai learned of a full-scale effort to discredit his work. In an internal company memo leaked to Microwave News, a publication that examines health and environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation, Motorola described its plan to “war-game” and undermine Lai’s research. After initially accepting industry funding for continued research from the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program (created to manage $25 million in research funds), Lai and Singh wrote an open letter to Microwave News questioning restrictions placed on their research by the funders. After that, the head of WTR sent a memo asking then-UW president Richard McCormick to fire Lai and Singh. McCormick refused, but the dustup sent a clear message to Lai and his colleagues.

“This shocked me,” Lai says, “the letter trying to discredit me, the ‘war games’ memo. As a scientist doing research, I was not expecting to be involved in a political situation. It opened my eyes on how games are played in the world of business.”

Thus was launched an epic battle over research and truth. If Lai and Singh were correct about the potential impact on brain cells from radio-frequency radiation, there could be billions of dollars on the line for the cell phone industry in potential liability, leading to significant design changes and lost market expansion.

To the layperson, the science behind Lai’s work, which was largely funded by the National Institutes of Health, and  industry-funded research to contradict it is mind-numbingly complex. Virtually every assertion of risk has a counterassertion of no risk. For every independent study showing damage to DNA and memory, there is a study showing the opposite.

Lai, 61, says this phenomenon could be a direct result of the way science is now funded around the world. “[The U.S. was on] the cutting edge of this whole area for the last 30 years. [But] right now, we’re the Third World country. We’re not doing research at all,” Lai says. With government funding all but nonexistent, the bulk of scientific research is funded by private industry. “The mechanism is funding,” Lai says. “You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. The pressure is very impressive.”
The massive Interphone study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and released in May 2010, exemplifies these challenges.

Purported to be the definitive word on cell phone radiation and brain tumors, Interphone involved 13 countries (all outside the U.S.), $25 million, and thousands of tumor patients and controls. Conducted over 10 years, the widely anticipated study was supposed to at last provide clarity on the risks of cell phone use. Yet, once again, the science was divided. The day after the study’s release, headlines read, “No answer, just fuzz, from cell phone study,” and, “One conclusion emerges from Interphone study: Controversy will continue.”

Why, after so much money and time, were the data so mixed? Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, says there were a number of problems with Interphone. “When we started interviewing the protagonists,” he says, “we realized there was a lot of conflict going on. It was a bitter struggle. It tells you the interpretation of the data is not clear cut in any way.”

For the purposes of the Interphone study, a person who used a cell phone 30 minutes a day for more than 10 years was considered to be subjected to heavy exposure. Today, that level of cell phone use (900 minutes a month) is average. The people defined as the most heavily exposed in the Interphone study now represent the average user.

To illustrate that point, Elisabeth Cardis, head of the Interphone study, was quoted as saying, “In my personal opinion, I think we have a number of elements that suggest a possible increased risk among the heaviest users, and because the heaviest users in our study are considered the low users today, I think that’s something of concern. Until stronger conclusions can be drawn one way or another, it may be reasonable to reduce one’s exposure.”

Lai’s frustration with the increasing body of contradictory research led him to do an analysis in 2006 of the available studies on cell phone radiation between 1990 and 2006, and where their funding came from. What he found was that 50 percent of the 326 studies showed a biological effect from radio-frequency radiation and 50 percent did not. But when he filtered the studies into two stacks—those funded by the wireless industry and those funded independently—Lai discovered industry-funded studies were 30 percent likely to find an effect, as opposed to 70 percent of the independent studies.

Lai says that, while his findings highlight the crucial role industry funding plays in scientific research, the 50-50 split alone should be cause for concern. “Even if you accept all the industry studies, you still end up with 50-50,” he says. “How could 50 percent all be garbage? People always start with the statement ‘Hundreds of studies have been done on this topic, and no effect has been found,’ but this is a very misleading statement. [The statements] come out from the cell phone industry, and people just use it, like the American Cancer Society. People haven’t even gone in to look at the real studies and look at the effects that people have reported. This really worries me, because people come out and say things without the facts.”

Slesin agrees and says Lai’s work is important for the research that does show effects from radiation. “[Lai] is one of the most widely cited scientists in this field,” Slesin says.

The American Cancer Society did not reply to requests for an interview. Its official position on the risks of cell phone use states: “Radio frequency (RF) waves given off by cell phones don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, many scientists believe that cell phones aren’t able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported this theory, finding that RF waves do not cause DNA damage.”

CTIA-The Wireless Association, the cell phone industry trade organization, also declined to comment for this story, but its website states: “To date, global health organizations believe that the available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones. Many studies of low-level RF exposure, such as that which occurs with wireless devices, have not discovered any negative biological effects.”

Dr. Beth Mueller, an epidemiologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, acknowledges that there is not strong evidence linking cell phones to brain tumors. But Mueller warns that the research is difficult and that much more study is needed. “I think [cell phone radiation] would be important to study. There are no studies I know of on the possible impact on children and I think it’s something that many people–including some people here at the Hutch–want to see evaluated. I’m concerned because children are using [cell phones] a lot. It’s something that should be looked at, definitely.”

Katy Rock would agree. The Kirkland resident is an athletic 31-year-old who began having headaches in her late teens. “Headaches became an unwelcome fact of life for me in college,” she says, “at first always after running around on the soccer or lacrosse field. So I assumed for years that it was due to dehydration/nutrition problems or just being out of shape. Eventually, they got worse. I started having them with no explainable cause.”

It wasn’t until a she had a seizure in 2007 that Rock discovered something was terribly wrong. The next day, she underwent an emergency double craniotomy to remove a tumor the size of a small lemon from her right frontal lobe and two tumors the size of large grapes from her right temporal lobe. A biopsy showed the cancerous tumors had been growing for about 10 years. A year of chemotherapy followed.

Rock was an early adopter of cell phones. Given a phone as a gift during college in 1997, she recalls using it about two to three hours a week (about 630 minutes a month). Her usage increased in later years with a job that required her to be on call. She is right-handed, and her tumors were on the right side.

Rock, who recently completed her first 5K run in support of Seattle Children’s Hospital’s Pediatric Brain Tumor Research Guild, would not be surprised to find a link between cell phones and brain tumors. “When I was in college, I used to charge my cell phone at night, and the charger cord ran over a leaf of my philodendron plant,” she says. “Over time, the strip on the leaf where the cord touched turned brown. The small amount of power running through the cord was enough to kill some cells of the otherwise healthy plant.”

While Rock’s tale is merely metaphorical, its suggestive import is not lost on Devra Davis, Ph.D., a huge admirer of Lai’s work to raise awareness about the potential hazards of cell phone radiation. Davis is a longtime toxicologist, public health expert and founder of the Wyoming-based Environmental Health Trust, a group that provides basic research and training on environmental health hazards. Davis’ most recent book, released last October, is Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation. Davis calls Lai a “hero” for his groundbreaking work. “[Lai] has made a tremendous impact on the field in many aspects. Not just on the field of DNA, but on the brain, on receptors. In a fair and just world he would be a serious candidate for the Nobel Prize, because he did foundational research on the way the body responds to electromagnetic and radiofrequency radiation and because he persisted in the face of many challenges. He’s been outstanding and indomitable in the face of opposition that would have overwhelmed most people.”
In her book, Davis describes a disconnect between the general public’s largely unquestioning acceptance of cell phone radiation and the large body of evidence suggesting cause for concern. With Lai’s work as her foundation, Davis demonstrates a pattern of the cell phone industry’s scientific manipulation spanning decades. Davis is particularly concerned because the rate of cell phone use by children is skyrocketing—with three out of four 12-year-olds and half of 10-years-olds in the U.S. now possessing a cell phone. Even more troubling: Lennart Hardell, Ph.D., a researcher in Sweden, found that those who began using cell phones in their teens (such as Rock) had four to five times the number of malignant tumors by their late 20s as those who did not use cell hones as teenagers.

While Davis would argue that there is a proven, causal link between cell phones and tumors, Lai does not. What he does say is that there is enough reason for concern, and that a “precautionary principle” should be embraced, as France has done in warning against cell phone use by children, and as San Francisco has done in mandating information on “specific absorption rates” of radiation on cell phone packaging.

“European countries generally believe you need some kind of precautionary approach,” says Lai, who does not own—or use—a cell phone. “What else can we do? Obviously, we don’t know the answer at all. But, then, there is a cause for concern. We need to take some kind of precautionary action.” For now, however, Lai will continue to do research on the drug artemisinin—long used by Chinese herbalists—for applications in cancer treatment, because there is no longer any independent funding available for his research on the effects of nonionizing radiation.

Meanwhile, Davis, who uses a cell phone but only with a headset or as a speakerphone (she never keeps it close to her body), hopes that by the time the public realizes the importance of the path Lai has been on, it won’t be too late. In Disconnect, she wonders how our grandchildren will answer these questions: “Did we do the right thing and act to protect them? Or did we harm them needlessly, irresponsibly and permanently, blinded by the addictive delights of our technological age?”








I am really excited this morning.
I will look for the news in English, and pass it on. I will check The Guardian, The Independent, and the Huffington Post to see if they will cover it in the coming days. will, but it may take some time. We can expect there will be the regular mainstream media black out here, because the industry really does not like that new development and will do everything to stop coverage. 
Such a law raises the awareness of the French people on the health impacts of EMR, The green party and the Socialist party members did many compromises to make sure the law passes. But it is a huge step; they got their foot in the door. It will also have repercussions in other countries.
The new law is now sent to the Senate to be ratified and I just called my cousin in France to get his take on what it means and will keep you posted.
A few points off my head:
Acting and education based on the precautionary principle
Transparency & Coordination with local authorities with mayors and departments given back powers to legislate
Ban of WiFi in kindergartens & PRESCHOOLS (for 3 years old and less)
Study of impacts in schools and favor wired connections
Advertising prohibited to all children under 14
Study mandated on Electro Hyper Sensitivity and the creation of low RF radiation zones particularly in cities with results due in one year
Checking transmission levels to make sure that levels do not go over the average determined to be in France at 6V/m or around 100,000 uW/m2, the level of protection most eastern Europe, Italy, Russia, China have set.  
(Although France has set the protection standards at 10,000,000uW/m2 like here, the average measured in 16 communes by COPIC is under .7V/m (about 1,200uW/m2) and up to 10 V/m (+300,000uW/m2) in 10% of the cases. The industry will have a set deadline time to adjust those higher levels. Here in the US , according to the Institute of Building biology, although base stations antennas are supposed to transmit with signal strength of no more than 100 Watts or 100,000,000uW/m2 (?) I have to confirm those numbers), but the point is they often go much higher than this and we have no COPIC here to monitor the levels.)
This has wide implications for us-some of them I suggest here:
1- We can use this law as an argument to the Health Committees  –
If France does it, it means there has to be something real about the health dangers of microwave technology. We will not get legislation happen in Fullerton until more representatives are becoming aware of the problem.
2- We can use this for another press release to all media, but this time with follow up calls to make sure they just do not discard it, but that it is their responsibility to publish it as journalists.
3- I was planning to write to all private preschools and kindergarten schools principals and teachers, and union representatives.
Maybe we should do it to all schools, private and public, quoting the New French Law as a proof that something needs be done to protect our children.
For those who can read French or can manage with Google translate:
And (much longer-a full analysis-fornt page of Le Monde to-day)






 It’s where we are folks.

……..and the band played on WHILE THE RESULTS CAME TUMBLING IN.  Read the rest of this entry »


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!