TheFullertonInformer.com

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

WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENDING THE FORCED IRRADIATION OF THE HELPLESS CHILDREN IN THE FULLERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, THEY COULDN’T HAVE ROLLED OUT A BETTER CIRCUS CLOWN THAN THIS CHARACTER.

Cal State Fullerton’s Dr. Mark H. Shapiro

WHERE DOES ONE BEGIN? WELL FOR STARTERS, AN INTRODUCTION.Last month, the Observer was forced to run an article about how some 120 scientists are all appealing to the World Health Organization and The United Nations to do something about the public health crisis from wireless microwave radio frequency radiation exposure to the general population and school children. https://thefullertoninformer.com/the-fullerton-observer-preoccupation-with-the-messengers-ignoring-the-science-and-two-years-of-forced-irradiation-of-fsd-school-children/

So in response, Shapiro takes it upon himself to write up a hit piece to debunk an article in the Observer that pretty much put the establishment school district irradiators in the proverbial corner.

Perhaps Prof emeritus Shapiro should argue the science with 190 scientists worldwide that have come together to appeal the World Health Organization for stricter RF-radiation guidelines.

• WIFI Banned in Nursery Schools.
• National Radiofrequency Agency Established.
• Cell Phones Labeled with SAR Values and Ways to Lower Radiation.
• WiFi Routers Turned Off in Elementary Schools Except When Needed.
  
• Cell Phone Ads Must Recommend Phones be Held Away From the Head.
• Location of Wireless Routers Must be Posted.
• Government Report To Be Prepared on Electro-hypersensitivity.

Well regardless, it looks like our little fan club got nervous and decided to roll out their big gun Dr. Emeritous Shapiro. So in the early June edition of the Foolerton Observer, he states that in his opinion, the information presented in the Health News Column in the Mid-May 2015 Observer regarding the long-term health effects of Wi-Fi and other forms of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation was seriously misleading, because it conflates very low-risk activities such as being in the vicinity of a cell phone tower, using WiFi or smart meters with a much higher risk activity. Namely, talking on a cell phone held to one’s head for long period of time.

The doc goes on to state that “to my knowledge, the only studies that have shown statistically significant increases in cancer rates associated with high-frequency electromagnetic radiation (EMR) were those where relatively high EMR doses were involved. One such study, which was mentioned in the article, showed that people who talked on cell phones for 30 minutes or more daily over a long period of time (10 years) showed a 40% increase in a particular type of malignant brain tumor – glioma.”

Hey doc, does this picture of these poor children dumped off in one of these electronic sardine cans fit that description? HOW LONG DO YOU THINK THESE CHILDREN SPEND ON THESE DEVICES THAT HAVE A HIGHER SAR THAN A  CELL PHONE? MAYBE 5,6,7 HOURS A DAY AT SCHOOL AND AT HOME? FOR HOW MANY YEARS, 12, 18, 20?

Shapiro should know because this is what Cal State Fullerton looks like.

Children are being FORCED TO USE IPADS OR LAPTOPS AT SCHOOL all day-just try getting an education in The FSD without one.

I am glad he understands the Hardell study findings. It is just to bad that he appears to be too stupid to make the correlation between cell phone use which is voluntary and intermittent and iPad use which is forced and chronic. The devices in school have a higher SAR than cell phones. The iPads emit more radiation in WiFi mode than a cell phone that is being used.  I wonder if it ever occurred to Dr Braniac where these kids keep these things all day and night?

This is indeed a textbook case of  “relatively high EMR doses being involved” This goes on for hours a day, at school, at home, at the park, in the car, in the plane, in the train, at the restaurant. Ipads and laptops emit more than cell phones and what the heck do you thing this crap is doing to this child with the antenna broadcasting on his zipper? 

dont you worry none

Shapiro tells us err on the side of caution because “Cell phones sold in the U.S. deliver SARs ranging from a low of 0.19 to a maximum of 1.58 Watts/kg. As the study quoted in the Health News column stated Cell phones sold in the U.S. deliver SARs ranging from a low of 0.19 to a maximum of 1.58 Watts/kg. As the study quoted in the Health News column stated exposure to SARs this high on a daily basis over many years appears to raise the risk for gliomas (a type of malignant brain cancer) by about 40% compared to the rate in the general population. While other studies have not been so definitive, we should err on the side of caution and take this particular study at face value While other studies have not been so definitive, we should err on the side of caution and take this particular study at face value.”

That is good advice so why don’t you open your eyes and apply it to the 15,000 children in the Fullerton School district who have to deal with this all day just so they can go to day care and do their homework on their iPad and then at home to finish it-all with WiFi beaming away all day and night.

Dr Shapiro why don’t you mention what we have been screaming from the mountain tops for almost 3 years at every city council and school board meeting? Ipads emit as much or more than cell phones and there is clear scientific evidence that this causes cancer!

Is this guy a circus clown or a monster? He is taking on hundred of scientists and telling us there is nothing to worry about?

wireless is safe for the whole family

He then goes on to ignore school technology and warns “Those who talk on cell phones for more than a few minutes a day should choose a cell phone model with a low SAR, and should be sure to use a wired earpiece. OH that is brilliant doc. Metallic wires of the headphones increase the intensity of the cell phone radiation as they act as an antenna. The wired headphones collect radiation from the surroundings. 

He tells us that “The laws of physics dictate that the specific absorption rate (SAR) in Watts/kg of body weight from these sources will decrease approximately as the square of the distance from a point source of radiation – the inverse square law.“‘

looks like this child’s reproductive future is ” inversely square out of luck with point blank microwave exposure”-look where the geniuses at Apple computer put the WiFi antenna-right on his zipper and it ain’t no accident

Look at this industry funded study that showed a decrease in brain cancer with increased cell phone use.

So the physics professor tells us not to worry and the industry stacks the deck.

Lets move on.

According to Mr. Professor Shapiro, “numerous other studies of populations exposed to low levels of EMR have shown no statistically significant correlations with cancer rates.”

So I wonder why he is not mentioning some of these studies? He is an expert right? Lets look at some studies on what he claims is safe, that is living near cell towers. You know, the kind that Jennifer Fitzgerald, Jan Flory and Doug Chaffee keep voting to put next to your schools and your homes?

Once again Shapiro states ” Numerous other studies of populations exposed to low levels of EMR have shown no statistically significant correlations with cancer rates.”

There are thousands of studies out there and Prof emeritus SHAPIRO TELLS US THAT –“The electromagnetic radiation problem that should concern us is not the cell towers, WiFi routers, or smart meters — but the cell phones themselves.”  

https://thefullertoninformer.com/looky-here-ladies-and-gentlemen-the-devils-in-the-details/

Have you ever seen  30+ children on their phones all day 5 days a week locked in a room? Here is the equivalent AND NOT A PEEP OUT OF THIS CAL STATE FULLERTON PHYSICS PROFESSOR ABOUT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT IS ABOUT TO TAKE A DUMP ON HIM.

Is this FOOLERTONS TOOL EMERITUS in over his cabeza?

Oh but this Cal State Foolerton creature never mentions reproductive harm even though the 200 scientists do in their appeal. Yes he uses his title of Prof emeritus and ignores the real reason this wireless crap is being rammed down our throats while at Cal State Foolerton, wireless is everywhere. It is all about fertility folks.

O

AND THEN WE HAVE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND MEDICINE

Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions

The International Association of Fire Fighters’ position on locating cell towers commercial wireless infrastructure on fire department facilities, as adopted by its membership in August 2004 ⁽¹⁾, is that the IAFF oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.

https://thefullertoninformer.com/fullertons-newest-cell-tower-in-richman-park/

AND OF COURSE THE AGENDA LAID OUT RIGHT HERE- https://thefullertoninformer.com/apple-666-project-inkwell-and-agenda-21-an-expose-with-an-all-star-cast/

MAYBE WE SHOULD ADD HIM TO THE LIST OF THE FSD IRRADIATORS

Roman Schulze promoting wireless in schools

APPLE HEADQUARTER PLANS IN CUPERTINO

A FERTILIZED HUMAN EGG

Newbies at the helm of the FSD

I could go on folks, really.

June 2 ·

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

WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENDING THE FORCED IRRADIATION OF THE HELPLESS CHILDREN IN…
THEFULLERTONINFORMER.COM

Like Comment
Share

Eileen Calderon Munoz, Diane King and 3 others like this.
1 share

Susie-g Neblett-d SHAME on him!
Like · Reply · 2 · June 2 at 9:12am

Diane King The number of international scientists that say the WiFi is bad is now at 200. http://www.emfscientist.org

Like · Reply · June 5 at 1:09pm

Veronica Zrnchik replied · 1 Reply

Mark H. Shapiro · Friends with Neal Kelley and 2 others
Mr. Imbriano I have sent you a private message concerning your personal attacks on me. Please read it.
Like · Reply · June 12 at 12:53pm

Joe Imbriano post it here please
Like · June 12 at 4:31pm

Mark H. Shapiro · 3 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 yourfullertoninformer.com

website that are just scurrilous personal attacks.
Like · Reply · June 12 at 5:24pm

Veronica Zrnchik replied · 8 Replies

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.
Like · Reply · 2 · June 13 at 7:03am

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 · 2 · June 13 at 7:34am · Edited

Veronica Zrnchik What is happening is that profits ar getting in the way of people using their common sense and looking at the evidence that exists. There are studies going back 50 years documenting the biological effects of this kind of exposure. Our own government has numerous studies on this. There are thousands of research papers on this topic and they show biological effects. To deny this now is ignorant. To deny that people are getting ill from exposure is insane. Instead of recognizing this and studying it and trying to understand why and how people are being damaged by this–they simply choose to ignore it and to call those affected names. The old “Blaming the victim” mentality. WHile sufficient information exists to halt wifi in to classrooms–those who can make money off the sickening and death of our nation’s chlidren move right along their paths. Recentlytly a huge appeal went out by the top scientists who have spent careers researching this asking for a halt to the exposures. The Precautionary Principle should be employed. NO testing was done on this and our chldren are being used as lab rats for an industry. Profits over safety. Lobby money and payoffs over the health of our most vulnerable. Law suits need to happen. There is a huge lawsuit in DC over cell phones and cancer–a billlion dollar law suit–moving forward. How much will it cost the industry when the parents start suing them? How much when parents start suing school boards and principals for forced exposures. It is a class 2b carcinogen–AND should be a Class 2A or higher according to those who know. As the evidence rolls in–those who were informed and did nothing will be held liable. A class action suit needs to be started. Evey parent ofa child with damages fro mthis or sensitivity to this needs to get involved in a suit. To deny that it is making people sick is teh last ditch effort to surpress the trtuh about htis. Those ill now are the canary in the coal mine. It will only get worse as new layers of exposre are added. Please, think with your head and heart–and not your pocket books.
Like · Reply · 2 · June 13 at 7:48am · Edited

Diane King With lab rats you must have a license to test, experiment. With children . . . . nothing. They are using children every day in school in a huge experiment. Actually, it’s not an experiment, they already know the effects.
Like · 1 · June 13 at 7:42am · Edited
Joe Imbriano

Write a reply…

Diane King Mr. Shapiro, It may be that you are as Dr. Roman Schulze. Apparently, he finds arguing this a game of “sport.”https://thefullertoninformer.com/public-health-is-not-a…/

Mr. Shapiro, Is this a game of ‘sport’ for you?
Like · Reply · June 13 at 7:35am

Veronica Zrnchik Those concerned about this are not making a profit or doing it to stop progress. We have litigmate concerns about it adn science bears those concerns out. Please do your own homework and look at nonindustry research. Historically–the industry will put out whatever is favorable to them adn their cause. Only someone with ulterior motives would seek out only industry studies. Go to this website and research what these people have say. Read th BioInitiative Report and see all the studies. Many new ones are not even included in that. DOn’t make sweeping decisions that affect thousands and potentially millions of people without becoming an expert on something. That is the job of any decision maker–and really every parent as well. http://www.emfscientist.org/

Like · Reply · 1 · June 13 at 7:41am

Mark H. Shapiro · 3 mutual friends
Dear Ms. King. Your suggestion that I approach these issues as game of “sport” not only is incorrect, but also is an insult to my personal integrity as well as my scientific integrity. As I noted previously I have been involved in the hobby of amateur radio for more than 60 years regularly using a variety of equipment that has exposed me to levels of electromagnetic at much higher levels than the general public experiences though still within FCC guidelines. If I thought for a moment that these activities presented a significant health hazard for myself or my family, I would not have been involved in them. I also would note that careful studies of the causes of death for radio amateurs show lower overall death rates from cancer than the general public and no significant difference in life expectancy for radio amateurs compared to the general public.
Like · Reply · June 13 at 8:02am

Hide 13 Replies

Diane King Mr. Shapiro, It is not evident to me, through all of this discourse, that you do possess scientific integrity. Neither is it evident to me that you have the ability to discern or apply ethics in your behavior when it comes to acknowledging unnatural EMF harms. If that is true, you can count yourself among the many others that use their credentials to assert evidence and opinions into the public domain creating doubt while human suffering continues. How ethical is that? I believe we have reached an impasse, here. The only honorable action here is for you to understand the science behind the UN appeal as well as the corruption of the science and resubmit a new opinion piece in agreement with the scientists’ message.
Like · 1 · June 13 at 11:20am · Edited

Joe Imbriano This guy sounds just like Michele Garden-“Alright, look here. I’m really tired of hearing from other people that y’all are giving me grief on this blog and maligning my husband’s name. Here is the real deal. My husband, Roman Shulze, and I, Michele Garden, just plain ol’ don’t agree with your assertions. We, along with a majority of the parents, the Physics Dept. at CSUF, and a WHOLE LOTTA other scientists and citizens think that you are wrong. We are tired of the minority forcing their views on the majority. I am dog-tired of picking up the trash you leave on people’s cars from the bushes and gutters around Acacia and Raymond. Stop littering the neighborhood. We have no connection to the school district. My husband just enjoys arguing his well-researched point…it is sport for him. Finally, and most importantly, I really hate that people post on this site without using their real names. Joe seems to be the only person with balls enough to use his real name with what he says. If you are going to say something, then have the balls to attach your real name to it. Stop posting my name here and there in your random blogs. I have worked tirelessy for the school and the district for 7 years now (2 years of it as PTA President) and I’m tired of people talking shit when I am just doing my best and sticking to what I find to be the truth, even if it doesn’t align with your philosophy. I’ve really lost my patience with y’all! Thank you for listening.”https://thefullertoninformer.com/insert-foot-in-mouth/…

Like · 1 · June 13 at 5:22pm

Diane King yes, the foot was inserted in mouth
Like · June 13 at 5:25pm

Joe Imbriano I wonder why this so called professor emeritus doesnt mention to keep the infertility pads during forced school exposure, I mean the iPads away from the childrens sensitive developing reproductive areas all the while he, as a result of the Hardell study findings, advises people to keep their voluntariliy used cell phones away from their fully developed adult heads.
Like · 1 · June 13 at 5:29pm

Mark H. Shapiro · 3 mutual friends
No Mr. Imbriano, I am not a so-called professor emeritus. I am a genuine Professor of Physics Emeritus from Cal State Fullerton, where I taught electricity and magnetism and electromagnetic theory for more than 30 years. My credentials include an A.B. with honors in physics from the University of California, Berkeley, M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in physics from the University of Pennsylvania, post-doctoral work at Caltech and the University of Rochester, and an appointment as a Visiting Associate in Physics at Caltech for more than 25 years. During that time I published more than 100 papers in refereed scientific journals in such areas as nuclear physics, nuclear astrophysics, atmospheric physics, solid earth geophysics, and computational surface physics. That work has been recognized by my election to Fellowship in the American Physical Society. Please Mr. Imbriano tell us your scientific background and accomplishments. Inquiring minds want to know.
Like · June 13 at 6:29pm · Edited

Joe Imbriano Mr. Shapiro,
Here are my credentials but they are meaningless because whole compartmentalized system is rigged doc.- BS Biological Science and BS Chemistry UCI

Look if I stuck my hand over the laser at the checkout stand at Trader Joes, and studied the effects, I wouldn’t find any. If I stuck my eye on it, well, that is a different story.That is how the directed research apparatus works doc. Dont ask dont tell aint just for the marines. Look, you are an accomplished scientist and my and my parents tax dollars made it all possible for you. Now you appear to be using it against the children and that is despicable. The debate is over on wireless, it causes cancer and guess what, it sterilizes little girls pal. I feel sorry for you because it appears that all you care about are your accomplishments. I haven’t heard one peep out of you here, in the observer, or anywhere else about protecting the students who are trapped in these classrooms. I could never hold a candle to your credentials because I chose to live my life in the real world and I have what you will never have doc. I have total academic freedom. So now, lets get the egos out of the room shall we. The iPads when WiFi enabled, have a higher SAR than a cell phone. The Hardell study was clear but maybe that is why I can see reality and you cannot. You spend too much time with your chest puffed out. All for not doc. Look where chronic occupational microwave exposure got another local wifi lover here in town.
Like · 3 · June 13 at 7:14pm · Edited

Joe Imbriano Stop screwing the children over with you bassackwards loyalties to the establishment and their patsies-open your scurrilous eyes to the fact that the thing is rigged and is being turned on all the children doc- “In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source)

#32 by Joe Imbriano on June 13, 2015 – 7:22 pm
Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEJM), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” (source)
Like · 2 · June 13 at 7:24pm

Mark H. Shapiro · 3 mutual friends
Gee Joe, if emr sterilizes little girls how do you explain why the U.S. birthrate hasn’t changed much since 1970? Looks to me that the big drop was between 1955 and 1970, which coincides with the ready availability of contraceptives and was well before the introduction of cell phones, etc. http://www.pewresearch.org/…/chart-of-the-week-big…/

Like · June 13 at 9:50pm

Joe Imbriano http://reason.com/…/us-birth-rate-hits-all-time-low…

Like · June 13 at 9:53pm

Joe Imbriano Hey doc, what planet are you on? Tnfertility is the cats meow in medicine in 2015 only next to autism treatment. It is the fastest growing field of medicine in the nation and the iPads showed up in K-8 classrooms last year. We tried to stop it but Roman Schulze told everyone it was safe. We are already seeing the college grads that cooked their ovaries trying to get a degree over at the college you spent your life working at having major problems conceiving. I dont get it. Why do you only talk about cell phones and ignore the iPads and laptops? I thought you were a scientist? What do you think is up with those photos of Apples corporate headquarters being exact repilcas of the human ovum, follicle and fertilzed egg getting electrocuted?
Like · 1 · June 13 at 10:02pm

Mark H. Shapiro · Friends with Neal Kelley and 2 others
Did you actually read the article Joe. The reason for the low birthrate in that age group has nothing to do with emr, and everything to do with the large number of young women going to college and postponing marriage.
Like · June 13 at 10:07pm

Joe Imbriano Hey doc we have the most sexually active generation in human history with Planned parenthood handing out the weakest birth control on the planet with swiss cheese condoms and the birth rate was at a record low in 2013. The fact remains that the tsunami is coming our way and you are defending it. Hey doc since you are a scientist, find me a study that shows that this is safe-you know the iPads in the laps of little girls that Michele Garden says kids need to succeed? This study concerned me. What are your thoughts?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26043407?dopt=Abstract

Like · June 13 at 10:14pm

Joe Imbriano Since 2007, the fertility rate has declined 10%. When did you put WiFi at Cal State Fullerton?
Like · June 13 at 10:15pm
Joe Imbriano

Write a reply…

Mark H. Shapiro · 3 mutual friends
Ms. King and Ms. Zrnchik please explain why this very careful study found no significant effects.http://www.mthr.org.uk/res…/documents/RUM23FinalReport.pdf

Like · Reply · June 13 at 8:07am

Mark H. Shapiro · 3 mutual friends
Please explain the result of this careful study.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835

Like · Reply · June 13 at 8:11am

Mark H. Shapiro · Friends with Neal Kelley and 2 others
Please explain these results:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2994220/…

Like · Reply · June 13 at 8:13am

Lena Pu The study states the long term effects are still open. Meaning the study conducted may be within a timeframe insufficient for cancers to occur. Remember, tobacco smoke may cause some smokers to develop cancers within ten years, and others forty years! My husband, an oncologist, because of the four decades of research, science and large enough dead body counts in today’s diagnosis have been given the tools to know what to look for regarding lung cancer – it is almost always linked to smoking, even if it was a habit retracted decades from the past. This idea that cancer cases may not show up for another thirty to forty years is applied to all of these studies you quote.
Like · 1 · June 13 at 12:27pm

Wilma Miles Apply the Precautionary Principle.Anyone who cares about the safety of our children would.
Like · 1 · June 19 at 12:03am
Joe Imbriano

Write a reply…

Mark H. Shapiro · 3 mutual friends
Please explain these results: http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7546/883.full

Like · Reply · June 13 at 8:15am

Penelope Landis please update yourself on the more recent studies that have looked at 25 years of exposure to cell phone radiation. brain cancer has a long latency period.http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834888

Like · 1 · June 14 at 3:10pm

Wilma Miles Again Mr Shapiro you ignore the fact that in all these studies the same very important fact is mentioned…. Only future studies will be able to address longer latency periods for the development of glioma.The study you refer to is from 2006….we are now in 2015.Are you unaware of all the studies referred to in the International EMF Scientist’s Appeal?
Like · 1 · June 19 at 12:09am · Edited
Joe Imbriano

Write a reply…

Mark H. Shapiro · Friends with Neal Kelley and 2 others
Please explain these results: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15746469

Like · Reply · June 13 at 8:18am

Penelope Landis hello, this is from 2005. Not only that but one of the authors was of course kicked off the world health organization EM F working group because of his ties to the wireless industry. he also is a former tobacco scientist.http://www.emfacts.com/…/another-dismissive-rf-review…/

Like · 1 · June 14 at 3:04pm
Joe Imbriano

Write a reply…

Mark H. Shapiro · 3 mutual friends
Please explain these results:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17492763…

Like · Reply · June 13 at 8:19am

Penelope Landis sorry. You might want to take the time to read this little study. If you want to talk about hearing loss there is a significant body of research showing hearing loss from this radiation. The research also shows that this radiation changes the brain in the area that deals with hearing. Go to this website and scroll down to the research on hearing. There are several citations for you to review and then perhaps you could explain the results as well.http://ehtrust.org/cell-phones…/read-the-research/

Like · June 14 at 3:06pm

Wilma Miles Again,this study is from 2007…
Like · June 19 at 12:12am
Joe Imbriano

Write a reply…

Mark H. Shapiro · 3 mutual friends
Please explain these results: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19533680

Like · Reply · June 13 at 8:22am

Penelope Landis Mark, This is about worms and involves one parameter. Explain this please A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) Environment International Volume 51, January 2013, Pages 116–140
A Review of 113 studies from original peer-reviewed publications. RF-EMF had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, other organisms and plants in 70% of the studies. Development and reproduction of birds and insects are the most strongly affected endpoints. http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S0160412012002334

Like · 1 · June 13 at 8:52am · Edited

Penelope Landis Speaking of wormshttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25089692?dopt=Abstract

Like · 1 · June 13 at 8:53am

Penelope Landis What about Bees?http://beekeepingtimes.com/index2.php?option=com_content…

Cellphone Radiation Affects Honey Bees – Punjab University Chandigarh Study

Beekeeping Times / Apiculure – News, articles, forums, manuals, expert help
BEEKEEPINGTIMES.COM|BY MANDA CHINA SURYANARAYANA, PHD

Like · Remove Preview · 1 · June 13 at 8:54am

Penelope Landis Ants?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23977878

Like · 1 · June 13 at 8:57am

Penelope Landis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25731700?dopt=Abstract

Like · 1 · June 14 at 3:16pm
Joe Imbriano

Write a reply…

Veronica Zrnchik This is how the dance is played–with tobacco, lead, asbestos, mercury, DDT, antidepressants, and a myriad of other things. THIS IS THE DANCE. It is designed to delay action: to obfuscate the truth. If 76% of all non industry studies show that there are bioeffects (known for 50 years), people are getting ill, and the mechanisms of action are just being discovered–wouldn’t it make sense to NOT expose our children to this until it is PROVEN safe in real, long term studies? Studies are showing tht cell phone use is linked with cancer. Studies show tha nonionizing radiation has effects on memory, learning, and attention. This is a NO BRAINER. The history of tobacco use will clarify all that is happening now–including the telecom industries infamous quote “”We have successfully war gamed the research”. Think about that one!! What about the claim from the telecom industry saying “We never, ever said cell phones were safe”. Wake up people. It is history repeating itself. If you can;t see that, then you have a real problem OR an agenda.http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf

Like · Reply · June 13 at 8:37am · Edited

Diane King Yes and Mr. Shapiro is ONE OF THE DANCERS! He cannot be appealed to because he is a closed-minded denier and refuses, or is unable, to discern. He does not care about your children or mine and appears to be hardened to humanity, despite his protestations to the contrary.
Like · June 13 at 10:08am
Joe Imbriano

Write a reply…

Veronica Zrnchik When industries use the whole weight of evidence thing to keep their products on th shelves–we should take pause. Of course they can commission studies ot say it is safe. it is easy to not find effects if that is what you have set out to do. What about all the studies–thousands of them–that show effects. These effects are not yet well understood. Should we take a chance with ourt children’s health Mr. Shaperio? Should we let a multibillion dollar industry decide if our children are safe or if they should go on making billions of dollars? Does that even make sense to you? What do you think an industry and a CEO are going to do? In this day and age, do you think they will look out for the children or make a few billion dollars? When the children all start getting sick–some now and many in the future–will those same politicians or CEO’s still be around to pay the piper?? Will you? When children are sterile or have cancer or get immune issues–will you take care of them? Will the industry? I’m thinking the answer is no. Think about it Mr. Sharpiro, shouldn’t we make sure it is safe–completely safe–independantly–before we subject every single child to 12 years of constant exposure? Shouldn’t we? If there are alterntives, shouldn’t we use them for now? Shouldn’t we use precaution first?
Like · Reply · June 13 at 8:55am · Edited

Mark H. Shapiro · 3 mutual friends
My point is that there are literally thousands of reports that show no statistically significant effects from electromagnetic radiation in the frequency ranges used for cell phones and similar devices at the power levels commonly used. One of the hallmarks used to determine whether a claimed effect is real in science is experimental reproducibility. The problem here is the lack of reproducibility. Does this mean that there are no possible problems from exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation? Of course not, but the weight of scientific evidence shows that these dangers are dose-related, and that high doses are required to produce reproducible deleterious effects. Like all other technological innovations, cell phones and similar devices bring with them both risks and benefits. We need to rationally weigh the risks and the benefits to decide what is an acceptable level of risk. For example, the risk of dying in an automobile accident is higher than the risk of dying from the types of brain cancers that appear to be associated with heavy cell phone use. Yet we don’t stop driving ourselves or our children in motor vehicles. In fact, we put them on school buses not equipped with seat belts throughout their school years with hardly a concern. In other words we accept the risks associated with modern transportation systems because we perceive their benefits to outweigh the risks. (But people sometimes fail to make rational analyses. When it comes to transportation systems I know people who refuse to travel on commercial airline flights because of the potential danger even though the risk of dying in the crash of a commercial flight are lower than dying in a traffic accident on the way to the airport.) The same analyses have to be made for the use of electromagnetic radiation emitting devices.
Like · Reply · June 13 at 8:53am

Penelope Landis A replication study. Lerchl et al., Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Available online 6 March 2015.

A replication study. “Numbers of tumors of the lungs and livers in exposed animals were significantly higher than in sham-exposed controls. In addition, lymphomas were also found to be significantly elevated by exposure. A clear dose–response effect is absent. We hypothesize that these tumor-promoting effects may be caused by metabolic changes due to exposure. Since many of the tumor-promoting effects in our study were seen at low to moderate exposure levels (0.04 and 0.4 W/kg SAR), thus well below exposure limits for the users of mobile phones, further studies are warranted to investigate the underlying mechanisms. Our findings may help to understand the repeatedly reported increased incidences of brain tumors in heavy users of mobile phones.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S0006291X15003988

Like · 2 · June 13 at 8:58am

Penelope Landis How about all the replication studies showing increased cancer after 10 years of 30 min a day on cell phone. Opps- is that heavy use? really? not today. Kids could be screwed if the parents do not act like adults– and take action. …….”The CERENATfinding of increased risk of glioma is consistent with studies that evaluated use of mobile phones for a decade or longer and corroborate those that have shown a risk of meningioma from mobile phone use. In CERENAT, exposure to RF‑EMF from digitally enhanced cordless telephones (DECTs), used by over half the population of France during the period of this study, was not evaluated. If exposures to DECT phones could have been taken into account, the risks of glioma from mobile phone use in CERENAT are likely to be higher than published. We conclude that radiofrequency fields should be classified as a Group 2A ̔probable̓ human carcinogen under the criteria used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Lyon, France). Additional data should be gathered on exposures to mobile and cordless phones, other WTDs, mobile phone base stations and Wi‑Fi routers to evaluate their impact on public health. We advise that the as low as reasonable achievable (ALARA) principle be adopted for uses of this technology, while a major cross‑disciplinary effort is generated to train researchers in bioelectromagnetics and provide monitoring of potential health impacts of RF‑EMF.” http://www.spandidos-publications.com/…/ijo.2015.2908…

Like · 2 · June 13 at 9:01am · Edited

Penelope Landis Dr Shapiro, Decreased Survival of Glioma Patients with Astrocytoma Grade IV (Glioblastoma Multiforme) Associated with Long-Term Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2014; 11(10):10790-10805.
“Due to the relationship with survival the classification of IARC is strengthened and RF-EMF should be regarded as human carcinogen requiring urgent revision of current exposure guidelines.”http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211006/

Like · 2 · June 13 at 9:08am

Penelope Landis Lots of kids wear braces. Imagine being in a room of ipads, cell phones, a router and a cell tower in the playground. Effect of mobile phone use on metal ion release from fixed orthodontic appliances.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Jun;147(6):719-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.01.023.

CONCLUSIONS: According to results of our study, mobile phone radiation might cause DNA damage indirectly by influencing the release of nickel from fixed orthodontic appliances. Thus, the necessity of studying the effects of this radiation on metal ions released from fixed orthodontic appliances in adjacent tissues seems to be undeniable
According to the outcomes of this study, it can be concluded that mobile phone radiation, regardless of the type of phone, can influence the concentration of nickel in saliva in a time-dependent manner. In addition, this adverse effect of radiation on the release of nickel was more prominent in women because of longer usage times. Future large-scale studies, which should include more parameters such as the effects on the parotid glands or the saliva flow rate, are needed. Mobile phone usage has a time-dependent influence on the concentration of nickel in the saliva of patients with orthodontic appliances.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26038076?dopt=Abstract

Like · 2 · June 13 at 9:10am · Edited
Joe Imbriano

Write a reply…

Veronica Zrnchik Going tit for tat is just insane. We all know that ther exists industries out there who can be hired to do studies to get the results that an industry wants. Doubt is their product–ring a bell?? What ultimately is the best option is to err on the side of safety–for all the children– and not on the side of big industry. If there are thousands of studies showing bioeffects–some from our own militarty–shouldnt we err on the side of caution? How can we take back exposure after it damages the children?? How do yo propose we do that? If we can’t–then it is imparative that we keep the children safe and ensure that exposure is safe. We simply cannot ensure that they are safe and in fact, evidence is leaning to just the opposite o that. Evidence keeps mounting–all the time–that shows this is dangerous. Why ignore this? It can only be for one reason–special interests—$$$$$$.
Like · Reply · 2 · June 13 at 8:58am · Edited

Penelope Landis Doctors have a responsibility to do the full research and take action and speak out. Being silent is causing harm. Waiting for “proof” is causing harm –cause there is enough evidence before us for hundreds of scientists to call for action. Waiting equals dead bodies.
Like · Reply · 2 · June 13 at 9:03am

Diane King Is ‘doubt’ your product, Mr. Shapiro?
Like · Reply · 1 · June 13 at 10:09am

Mark H. Shapiro · 3 mutual friends
No. Is “fear” your product Ms. King?
Like · June 13 at 6:47pm

Diane King Maybe you just enjoy irradiating the children.
Like · June 13 at 10:06pm
Joe Imbriano

Write a reply…

Veronica Zrnchik http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26033310?dopt=Abstract

Like · Reply · 1 · June 13 at 10:58am

Lena Pu Shapiro has absolutely no business making any remarks when it comes to the health of the children. His personal opinion based on his own involvement using amateur radio is beyond weak. This alone speaks of his own pious and deep ignorance. How dare you interject your own ignorance to befall the fate of thousands of developing children and their health. Just like the sensitivities of our taste buds, sense of smell, hearing and sight, we are all built differently, and I can tell you that those who do sense wireless energies find the sensation of these energies painful. I have not heard of one person who is sensitive to these energies find it delivers pleasant feelings to their bodies in any way. These people are the canaries in the coal mine and you can find them in the children who cannot function in those schools who have already installed wifi. You will find them in the radar operators back in the 40’s and 50’s when they called it radar sickness. You will find it in the reports of the tens of thousands of studies and more flooding in by the day. You may still be ‘well’, but are you healthy? Are you on any medications – I almost guarantee you are. Personally, I am not concerned with cancer. That is the last thing on my mind even though it is a devastating disease. But there is a lot that can happen to one’s health from point A to point B. And when you’ve reached point B, that is too far gone in my book to warrant a precautionary approach. We should be utilizing this approach well before we get to point B. And that is covering the children’s health by reducing their exposure to all wireless devices while they are still developing. Instead of doing the bare minimum, let’s work to enhance (a foreign word these days in relation to health) their well being by not reducing their antioxidant capacity and reserve of melatonin and glutathione (which is proven EMR’s reduce in a great capacity). Let’s reduce their poor ion exchange due to these manmade charges so that their blood can flow freely throughout their veins ALL day while at school instead of clumping and coining. With flowing blood they can detox their everyday NORMAL amounts of environmental toxins. With flowing blood, all the capillaries can be reached and tissue will be oxygenated leading to better memory retention, clearer thought, better learning capacity. After all, isn’t a school environment all about learning in the first place? These are parents who have done their homework and are working hard to get the truth out. It is ironic that beyond the lay people (who do not understand this complicated issue involving living biology with manmade electromagnetic radiation), hearing higher education who is in the field of education to embark on another’s territory is criminal.
Like · Reply · 5 · June 13 at 12:58pm

Diane King Dr. Shapiro are you aware that some of the posters here are electrosensitive. If you don’t know what that means, please consult the Austrian Medical Association, they know how to diagnose it. People are suffering, they now have to be careful where they go as their bodies sense these unnatural frequencies and they get sick. They get so sick that they may have to leave their homes to find refuge and recovery. Did you know that? Just last week I came in contact with a high school teacher in whose classroom they installed wireless and she has become sick. She is in her early 50’s, has been diagnosed ES and was told by her principal that they will not accommodate her in a non wireless classroom. She had to quit her teaching job. At the time I talked with her, she was leaving to go camp out in a rural area to recover from the health impacts of wireless radiation. By the way, she also had to move out of her Berkeley apt, which is surrounded by 500 cell towers within a 3 mi radius. I am sharing this with you because this is but one of many stories for which you appear to be denying. Calling “shame on you Dr. Shapiro” doesn’t begin to address the harm of publicly inserting your uninformed opinion.
Like · Reply · 4 · June 13 at 1:02pm

Lena Pu Btw, the tobacco industry had produced the same number of reports that say smoking cannot cause cancer as those reports that say it does. And it took the government forty years to slap on a warning label. Our growing electromagentic radiation pollution if growing astronomically we cannot wait that long to embark on a mission to save our children. It needs to be done today. We cannot afford to wait on this one. This is far far worse than tobacco smoke. Nothing gets in the way of these EMR’s. It leaves a path of complete destruction in it’s wake. Why did you think the military loved i so much? And was so curious to study it as extensively as they did?
Like · Reply · 1 · June 13 at 1:02pm

Ron Kidd https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Electromagnetic…

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a group of symptoms purportedly caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields.[1] A more specific term used in medical literature is idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF). Other terms for IEI-EMF include electrohy…
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · June 13 at 3:34pm

Mark H. Shapiro · Friends with Neal Kelley and 2 others
Ron Kidd it might be instructive to include the introduction to that article here: ….. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a group of symptoms purportedly caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields.[1] A more specific term used in medical literature is idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF). Other terms for IEI-EMF include electrohypersensitivity, electro-sensitivity, and electrical sensitivity (ES). Idiopathic refers to the fact that the cause is unknown.

Although the thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on the body are established, those who are self-described with electromagnetic hypersensitivity report responding to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (or electromagnetic radiation) at intensities well below the maximum levels permitted by international radiation safety standards.

The reported symptoms of EHS include headache, fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances, skin symptoms like prickling, burning sensations and rashes, pain and ache in muscles and many other health problems. Whatever their cause, EHS symptoms are a real and sometimes disabling problem for the affected person. However, there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to electromagnetic field exposure.[2]

The majority of provocation trials to date have found that self-described sufferers of electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to distinguish between exposure to real and fake electromagnetic fields,[3][4] and it is not recognized as a medical condition by the medical or scientific communities. Since a systematic review in 2005 showing no convincing scientific evidence for it being caused by electromagnetic fields,[3] several double-blind experiments have been published, each of which has suggested that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields, suggesting the cause to be the nocebo effect.[5][6][7]……. I don’t want to imply that people who report such symptoms don’t have a real syndrome that in many cases can be debilitating. But in our modern world there are a host of potential physical causes that might be responsible for the symptoms including sensitivity to sound, heat and light (a form of electromagnetic radiation), exposure to chemical and biological substances in our environment and possible psychological causes such as stress. While the effects reported are very likely real, the evidence that electromagnetic radiation in the VHF/UHF/microwave region is a major contributor is weak.
Like · Reply · 1 · June 13 at 6:46pm · Edited

Ron Kidd Unless someone has overturned E = h nu……. it appears the blame belongs elsewhere. Not saying it can’t be overturned, but no evidence of ionization yet…. after almost 100 years of intense attempts …. Occam’s Razor???
Like · June 13 at 8:18pm

Ron Kidd And the anger and ignorance being displayed toward you is repugnant. I don’t always agree with your politics, but to show disrespect for a research physicist when you have no standing in the field of EM theory is a bit more arrogance than i can take. The only reason I even looked at this “page” was to see what you posted. After reading a few posts, I can say, I won’t be back on this page again. Good night.
Like · 1 · June 13 at 8:23pm

Mark H. Shapiro · Friends with Neal Kelley and 2 others
Thanks for the support Ron Kidd. I think what bothers these folks the most is that I’m independent. I’m not aligned with either the cellphone industry or the people who post here. I don’t get anything from either side, and I call ’em as I see ’em.
Like · June 13 at 10:05pm

Joe Imbriano What bothers people doc is that you refuse to address the issue of forced wireless exposure with school issued iPads and laptops and it appears that you penned a hit piece spinning the issue for the school district in attempts to get them out of the proverbial corner that they are in with this issue that is not going away. If you were independent, you certainly would not be behaving this way. You still haven’t mentioned Ipads or children doc. What gives?
Like · 2 · June 13 at 11:14pm

Ron Kidd Joe Imbriano, research E (energy) = h (Planck’s constant) nu (Greek letter signifying frequency). If you can show this is wrong, you’ll make billions proving your case. If you wish to discuss wattage of a Wi-Fi environment, check with Wikipedia FIRST. I’m a retired school teacher living on a pension and have never met anyone on either side of this issue (I am a Facebook Friend of Mark as he used to post as a physics professor complaining about the idiotic California College system), BUT I do understand mathematics. I live in a rural area and have many friends and family with unknown ailments that doctors don’t know how to treat, but I assure you EM waves below the ionization frequency of cesium are not the cause of the problems of people on this site. I AM SORRY, I POSTED, but Mark replied and I accidentally came back here, and it won’t happen again.
Like · June 14 at 9:46am

Ron Kidd Oh, I also have 6 computers, a router with an amplifier, 2 iPads, and 2 smart phones, and neither one in this house has any health issues. Just an apocryphal case here. BYE!
Like · June 14 at 9:48am

Joe Imbriano Ron, what power level does the zona reaction run on during human fertilization? What frequency? How about the neural transmissions in utero? How much current is required to demyelinate in the brains of the unborn?
Like · 1 · June 14 at 12:58pm
Joe Imbriano

Write a reply…

Mark H. Shapiro · 3 mutual friends
And Joe I’m sitting here in my home office with a 4th generation iPad and a Sony Vaio laptop on the desk both with wireless running, and another wireless access point about 3 ft away that is also running. With my trusty wide-band, high-speed, digital RF meter (Cornet ED85EXS) and I measure peak radiation intensity near my head of < 2 mW/m^2 and average radiation intensity of about 1 mW/m^2. At my lap I measure a peak radiation intensity of < 1 mW/m^2 and average radiation intensity of about 0.5 mW/m^2. The strictest exposure limits in the world are the “precautionary” limits imposed by Switzerland, which at these frequencies is 100 mW/m^2 for long-term exposure. The results of my measurements show levels that average about 1% of that limit and at worst only 2% of that limit. I’m sure that if I turned off the laptop and the wireless access point the readings would be even lower. So I’m not worried about my iPad.
Like · Reply · June 14 at 10:28am · Edited

Joe Imbriano I have the same model Rf meter. Really easy to use. What peak readings do you get right on the antenna of the iPad or on the laptop when WiFi enabled and say streaming a video?
Like · 3 · June 14 at 1:08pm

Mark H. Shapiro · 3 mutual friends
And Joe, your accusation that I wrote a hit piece on behalf of the school district is an out-and-out lie. I don’t work for the school district, never have worked for the school district, and don’t know anyone who does. My last connection with the Fullerton schools was more than 25 years ago, when my youngest child was still a student at Troy High School. My article was my own, individual response to the misconceptions presented in the initial Fullerton Observer article.
Like · Reply · June 14 at 10:27am

Mark H. Shapiro · 3 mutual friends
Joe here are the readings while watching youtube videos. Directly over the antenna – < 230 mW/m^2, directly over the center of the screen < 4.4 mW/m^2, directly over side of screen opposite antenna < 2.2 mW/m^2, at the position of my head while looking at the screen Why can’t things be hardwired since that is a valid, workable, and available option? Why are so many people fighting so hard ot get something installed that is thought to be dangerous when alternatives exist. BUT the fight to prevent parents from having a choice is so severe and those who demand exposure are so fixated on one and only one method. Fiber optics is faster and safer. Why not give these people an option. Let history bear out hte results. These shiclren do not get a “do over” for their lives.
Like · Reply · 3 · June 20 at 7:06am

Diane King Yes, why is Shapiro fighting so hard to irradiate the children with wireless, especially when wired connections are superior?
Like · 2 · June 20 at 7:42am

Toni Carl History has shown governments often take decades to act in the interests of public health and safety. They must have conclusive evidence. Asbestos, tobacco, lead, DDT …. All once sold to the public and endorsed by experts as ‘safe’ . There was a known causal link between asbestos and lung cancer in 1955. Phasing out of this extremely unsafe product began in the 1980’s but it was not officially banned until 2001 (Australia). Regarding microwave rf, The Precautionary Principal must be implemented in schools.
Like · 1 · June 20 at 5:28pm
Joe Imbriano

Write a reply…

Diane King Question : What is the safe level of microwave pulsed irradiation on the ovarian follicles for the first 100 days of a pregnant woman?
Like · Reply · 3 hrs
Joe Imbriano

Write a reply…

Joe Imbriano