Archive for category Forced irradiation of school children

Out-Heroding Herod-Are these blood sisters and brothers in the baby parts business?

DEMONIC ACTIVITY DEFINED:

Nucatola explains, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because
we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

PlannedParenthood

“And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex,” she continues. “So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”

Using ultrasound guidance to manipulate the fetus from vertex to breech orientation before intact extraction is the hallmark of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure (18 U.S.C. 1531).

The love of money is the root of all evil

Read the rest of this entry »

74 Comments

Experts warn of radiation risks to children as ALL FULLERTON SCHOOL OFFICIALS IGNORE THEM

IPADS AND LAPTOPS HAVE A HIGHER SAR RATING THAN A CELL PHONE AND ARE BEING FORCED ON OUR CHILDREN ALL DAY AT SCHOOL.

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

skull-vs-ipad-basic

Lock upwards of 35 children in a room full of them in use all day and see what happens especially when the antenna is on their reproductive organs.

33984_479084712158056_1011868072_n-1-300x2251unnamed-1-297x300 (2)

Read the rest of this entry »

13 Comments

DECLASSIFIED: THE 1976 DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY REPORT ON MICROWAVES

YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN HARMS WAY IN WIRELESS CLASSROOMS. THIS INFORMATION FROM 40 YEARS AGO CONFIRMS THAT NON THERMAL EFFECTS FROM LOW LEVEL MICROWAVE EXPOSURES EXIST. THIS IS SOMETHING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ADAMANTLY DENIES.

 

unnamed (18)

click on the link below to access the report

wp-c…ical-Effects-of-EMF

8 Comments

This aint cute folks

12105914_908480329246405_6459007462812279963_n

Red ribbon week at Acacia Elementary School in Fullerton is in full swing. Yes once again it is time for 5 year olds to learn about and draw pictures of marijuana and paraphernalia.

Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment

Does Fullerton Cares Autism Foundation’s Larry Houser really care?

There is nothing more disturbing than charities propagating the demise of those they ostensibly exist to protect and serve. I believe that is exactly what is going on with the Autism merry go round happy party scam in Fullerton. According to their 990 form, Fullerton Cares Autism Foundation exists to “raise funds for scientific research for a CURE to Autism, to support those individuals with Autism and to carry on activities associated with this goal.”

Read the rest of this entry »

23 Comments

Just another FSD freak show as they all ignore the experts on wireless and your children

1620403_788339891208385_5592146987230243142_n

A FEW TOOLS RIGHT OUT OF THE FSD’S AND PLETKA’S  TOOL CHEST

These folks are just a few of the cast of characters that for almost 3 years, have ignored EVERY WARNING ON THE DANGERS THAT WIRELESS RADIATION IN THE CLASSROOM POSES TO THE CHILDREN.

unnamed-1-297x300 (1)

33984_479084712158056_1011868072_n-1-300x2251

http://ehtrust.org/expert-docs-urge-u-s-secretary-of-education-play-it-safe-with-kids-go-wired-not-wifi/

Expert Docs Urge U.S. Secretary of Education: Play it Safe With Kids—Go Wired Not WiFi

Top medical experts advise schools to stop experimenting on our children. WiFi in Schools is Risky Business that has never been evaluated for safety.

Leading expert scientists and doctors who are advisors of the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) have sent an open letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and incoming acting Secretary John King detailing children’s unique vulnerability to the health risks of wireless technology. The scientists outline specific steps the U.S. Department of Education can take to safeguard children’s health in the 21st century, such as choosing safe corded (non-wireless) technology and creating a national education program for students. The scientists applaud the fact that such efforts are already well implemented in several schools and countries and call on the United States to take a leadership role.

The letter cites how over 20 countries have taken a precautionary approach to the issue of wireless and are educating citizens on how to reduce exposures with many recommending against wireless in schools. Early in 2015, France passed a national law banning wifi from nursery schools and mandating that schools turn off wifi whenever it is not in use, and Israel has established a new national institute to review scientific evidence and recommends wired computers for teachers. In the United States, both public and private schools are taking steps to reduce and remove wireless exposures. EHT maintains an updated list of these policy actions.

In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics wrote to the FCC calling for more protective wireless RF-EMF radiation exposure standards and stated, “Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cellphone radiation. Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children.”

“Considering that no research documents long-term exposure to low-intensity microwave radiation as safe for children, the best approach is precautionary.” The letter references the accumulated scientific research showing that wireless radiation, also known as radio-frequency (RF) radiation or microwave radiation, could increase cancer risk and has been shown to damage the reproductive system and alter neurological development.

The letter cites the research of Yale Professor Dr. Hugh Taylor that showed prenatal exposure resulted in decreased memory and hyperactivity in offspring. This study joins a growing list of experimental research showing neurotoxic effects which has informed the BabySafe Project of over 100 physicians who recommend reduced wireless exposures for pregnant women in order to mitigate the risk of fetal brain damage.

Professor Martha Herbert, MD PhD, a Harvard pediatric neurologist, is quoted: “RF radiation from wifi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function.”

The scientists made the following recommendations to the U.S. Department of Education:

1. Raise school community awareness through new educational curriculum:Students, teachers, and their families should be given information on wireless health risks and simple precautionary steps they can take to protect their health. It is important to teach children how to use technology both safely and more responsibly in order to protect their health and wellbeing.

2.  Install a safe communication and information technology infrastructure in schools to meet educational needs: Solutions exist to reduce exposures to wireless emissions and mitigate the health risk. Low-EMF Best Practices have been developed allowing educational needs to be met with safer hard-wired Internet connections, which are also faster and more secure.

“A 21st century classroom must bridge the digital divide in the safest way possible. The United States of America can thoughtfully integrate safe technology into every classroom while safeguarding the health of generations to come by installing safe and secure wired internet connections.” stated Dr. Davis, President of the EHT and Visiting Professor, The Hebrew University Medical School.

Please download the letter at this link.

In fall 2014, the EHT wrote to several educational organizations—including the National Education Association, the National Association of Independent Schools and the National Parent Teacher Association—informing them of the health risks of wireless installations. Letters are available on the EHT Schools and Safe Technology webpage.

This new letter calls on the U.S. Department of Education to provide leadership on common sense technology steps to safeguard children’s health just as classrooms across the country are upgrading their technology systems. EHT applauds the Collaborative for High Performance Schools Low EMF criteria which provides the detailed steps schools can take to reduce EMF exposures.

Scientists have long been cautioning against wireless networks in schools and, most recently, new letters from scientists to a Massachusetts school were included in a federal complaint filed by parents alleging the school’s upgraded wireless network made their child ill.

In 2014, an independent group of 29 international expert scientists of the Bioinitiative Report wrote a letter to the CEOs of wireless technology education companies such as Google, Dell, Apple, Adobe and Facebook stating that, “It does not reflect well on the ethics of your corporations to encourage the FCC to provide $2 billion dollars for new wireless classroom infrastructure and devices for school children, knowing that wireless emissions have been classified as a Possible Human Carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (2011). To promote wireless technologies in schools is to deliberately and knowingly disregard current health warnings from international science and public health experts.” These scientists have long made clear recommendations for Low-EMF Best Practices in schools based on the published scientific research.

Recently, a group of over 200 scientists (who have collectively published over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on non-ionizing radiation)appealed to the United Nations for immediate action on this issue in order to protect public health and the environment.

Over 20 countries now take a precautionary stance towards wireless radiation. As an example, former Microsoft President Frank Clegg heads a safe technology organization C4ST calling on federal election candidates in Canada to develop an awareness campaign related to the safe use of information and communication technologies in schools after the Canadian Parliamentary Health Committee unanimously voted for 12 recommendations concerning wireless radiation and public health.

ABOUT THE SCIENTISTS

Anthony B. Miller, MD FACE , Professor Emeritus at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, is a physician and epidemiologist specializing in cancer etiology, prevention and screening. He has conducted research on ionizing radiation and electromagnetic fields and cancer, and other aspects of cancer causation. He has served on many expert committees assessing the carcinogenicity of various exposures, including working groups of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Devra Davis, PhD MPH, is President of the Environmental Health Trust, a non-profit scientific and policy think tank. She was the founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council and Founding Director, Center for Environmental Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. President Clinton appointed Dr. Davis to the newly established Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, and she is a former Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Health in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Priyanka Bandara, BSc, PhD, is an Australian researcher/educator in environmental health. She has worked as a clinical researcher at Westmead and Royal Prince Alfred Hospitals and University of Sydney Medicine and as a research scientist (biochemistry and molecular pharmacology) at the University of NSW.

Gunnar Heuser MD PhD FACP, is a practicing physician and clinical toxicologist who has coauthored several books, scientific papers and abstracts with a special emphasis on neurotoxicology and immunotoxicology. He has given expert comments to the EPA and served on advisory committees and testified to the U.S. Congress on toxic chemicals and human health.

Beatrice Alexandra Golomb, MD PhD, is a Professor of Medicine at University of California San Diego School of Medicine. She has worked as Chief Scientist for the Department of Veterans Affairs Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses. She has published numerous scientific research papers and coauthored books with a focus on chemical exposures, toxicity and neurobiology.

Robert D. Morris, MD, PhD, is a physician and an environmental epidemiologist. He has taught at Tufts University School of Medicine, Harvard University School of Public Health and the Medical College of Wisconsin and has served as an advisor to the EPA, CDC, NIH, the President’s Cancer Panel and worked with the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Environmental Epidemiology and with the National Cancer Institute.

Annie Sasco, MD DrPH, has served 22 years as Unit Chief of Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France and served as Acting Chief of the Cancer Control Programme of the World Health Organization (WHO). She specializes in cancer research and epidemiology and holds two Masters plus a Doctoral degree from Harvard University.

ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST

Environmental Health Trust (EHT) educates individuals, health professionals and communities about controllable environmental health risks and policy changes needed to reduce those risks. Currently, EHT is raising health concerns about wireless in schools and recommending safer hardwired internet connection installations. The Environmental Health Trust maintains a regularly updateddatabase of worldwide precautionary policies on wireless related to children and schools. Please visit EHtrust.org and on Facebook.

RESOURCES

Download the October 13, 2015 Letter here http://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Letter-to-U.S.-Secretary-of-Education-from-EHT-on-Wireless-in-Schools-October-13-2015-.pdf

Letters by Scientifc Experts Against Wireless Networks to Fay School Trusteeshttp://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Expert-Letters-Against-WiFi-to-Fay-school-trustees.pdf

Collaborative for High Performance Schools Low-EMF Best Practices http://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/US-CHPS__Criteria_2014_Low-EMF-Criteria102314.pdf

VIDEOS

Dr. Devra Davis and Dr. Sharma Lecture at George Washington University on Wireless and Health June 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNeA26lQTvA

Dr. Devra Davis lectures at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNSztN7wJc

Excerpt from Q and A at George Washington University on the issue of wireless in school https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkcPZV4coQ

12109084_979230815452624_8424081543838715453_n

“Totally safe for the children” FSD superintendent Bob Pletka on wireless

 

22 Comments

The architects of failure of the SB 277 referendum and the self delusion that your children belong in public school

download-32 (1)

If there is one thing that I can say about all of this, it is thank you to all those who so tirelessly gave of themselves to try to defeat this tyrannical edict straight from the pit of hell. We were not successful simply because the churches REFUSED to get involved, plain and simple. This was a religious issue at its very core and we have been betrayed to our very core by the religious leaders at their very core, the clergy bar none, hands down. Yes there were one or two pastors that showed up in Sacramento and a handful of churches that got involved, but by and large, they not only sat this one out, the got in the way.

Read the rest of this entry »

7 Comments

THE COMMON CORE’S TRAP DOOR TAKING YOUR KIDS ON A MAGIC CARPET RIDE ON OVER TO BIG BROTHER’S SIDE

This is a re post of an article originally published on 9-23- 2013-it is more relevant today than ever 

Read the rest of this entry »

48 Comments

Jennifer Fitzgerald- “I move the item”-ANOTHER CELL TOWER NEXT TO A SCHOOL

Folks for the second time in a row, Fullerton City Councilwoman Jennifer Fitzgerald, stepped right up and rammed another dangerous cell tower through the Fullerton city council-this one right next to Parks Junior High School that will penetrate the classrooms and expose all students to microwave RF emissions in addition the the staggering levels already present as a result of FSD’s Robert Pletka’s reckless use of wireless technology in all of its classrooms.

This woman just couldn’t wait to monetize another park and dose the poor kids and neighbors.

JenniferFitzgerald2012sm_1-11-150x150 (1)

Read the rest of this entry »

4 Comments

ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL-PROFESSOR EMERITUS MARK A SHAPIRO ON WIRELESS IN SCHOOLS

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.

Shapiro-150w_400x400

Cal State Fullerton’s Dr. Mark H. Shapiro

WHERE DOES ONE BEGIN? WELL FOR STARTERS, AN INTRODUCTION. Read the rest of this entry »

3 Comments

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

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

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

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

      Ms. King there are competent scientists on both sides of this issue, but in my professional judgement those who signed the letter to WHO misunderstand the actual risk presented by smart meters and wi-fi transmitters mainly because they don’t correctly understand the physics of electromagnetic radiation. The most extensive study of the effects of electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phones and other devices that emit electromagnetic radiation was carried out in the UK over a period of more than a decade, involved hundreds of scientists from several countries who are experts in the field, using careful double blind studies where possible and case-matched epidemiological studies. Scores of papers from this effort have been published in refereed scientific journals. The bottom line from all this work is that no credible definitive evidence of deleterious health effects were observed at the dose levels encountered while using cell phones or other devices including trunked radio transceivers that emit significantly more EMR in this frequency range than cell phones. There were some hints in the data that very heavy cell phone usage might produce slight increases in the rate of certain types of rare brain cancers, though the evidence was at best equivocal. This is why I reached the conclusions I did. The most interesting result from this study in my view came from the double-blind study on people who have complained about “electrosensitive” effects from the use of cell phones or trunked-radio transceivers. When these people were tested against a control group of people who claimed no such sensitivity in totally shielded enclosures with a transmitter that was randomly turned on an off without the knowledge of the participants. There was no statistically significant effect observed. In other words, people who claimed to be electrosensitive reported “effects” at no higher rate when the transmitter was on than when it was off. And in tests when people were asked to determine when the transmitter was on or off depending on how they felt, “electrosensitive” people were no better at identifying when the transmitter was on or off than the control group. Please read the reports from all these studies yourself, and compare them with some of the much less well-controlled studies that report positive effects. As I noted in the article that was printed in the Observer, I think that one should err on the side of caution with regard to very heavy use of a cellphone held to one’s ear given the hint of a positive effect in this study and one other one that I quoted that involve results from a population of radio amateurs (as a radio amateur myself for more than 60 years I have followed this issue carefully since we typically are exposed to much higher levels of electromagnetic radiation than the general public.) I stand by my original conclusions The references for the UK study can be found at: http://www.mthr.org.uk/
    • Penelope Landis Mr. Shapiro, how can you say there is “no Credible evidence?” what do you call this? Effects Of 2.4 Ghz Radiofrequency Radiation Emitted From Wi-Fi Equipment On microRna Expression In Brain Tissue
      Int J Radiat Biol. 2015 Mar 16:1-26.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25775055?dopt=Abstract
    • Penelope Landis Mr. Shapiro, you realized that this radiation damages brains and we are talking about children. Please see this research on low level radiation.https://docs.google.com/…/1xACAlbFUSEwJIF555wlGbMR…/edit
    • Penelope Landis Mr. Shapiro, the research that you quote is incomplete and I do not see you citing current science nor the wealth of science that exists.http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S0006291X15003988
    • Veronica Zrnchik Also, there are many shortcomings to these “detector” studies. They do not take into account that what a person is sensitive to is very different. People are sensitive to all different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. To test everyone with one type of signal is surely going to fail as it may very well be a signal to which they have no sensitivity. In addition Mr Shapiro, they did not take into account the different symptoms and delayed responses to the exposures. Some people get symptoms hours later. Some are affected right way and some have both. Some of those devices were still emiting signals in “sham” mode. The testing with one signal is like testing for food allergies. You would not test for food allergies using only one food. Obviously you would miss lots of allergies that way–would you not. Also, it sounds like you know alot about physics etc. So you might be aware of the fact that there are specific windows of effect for many frequencies in regards to biological effects. There is NOT a linear effect. It is nonlinear. A higher frequency or intensity does not always increase the symptoms. In fact, in some cases, there is no effect from increasing exposures and there is a decrease in effect. Was that taken into account? I’m not sure it was. So those experiements wheer they determine if people are dectors or not were not very scientific AND not being a detector does not eliminate the possibility that you are affected by something. If someone went to a picnic and got an upset stomach from a food–would the fact that he/she could not identify the exact food that made them ill negate the fact that they were ill?? It is a silly test really. And finally, have you seen the studies that document only biological effects and is double blind. Clearly the body has biological reactions in heart rate, blood preasure, blood clumping, iris dialiation etc. These were done with animals and people. Clearly animals cannot be experiencing the nocebo effect from reading about the study in the newspaper!! Those exposure tests or studies are ignorant and just an additiional way to obfuscate the truth by delaying the publics understanding and acceptance of this condition.
    • Joe Imbriano

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

Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments

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, INTRODUCING

Shapiro-150w_400x400

Cal State Fullerton’s Dr. Mark H. Shapiro

WHERE DOES ONE BEGIN? WELL FOR STARTERS, AN INTRODUCTION. Read the rest of this entry »

25 Comments

International Scientists Appeal to U.N. to Protect Humans and Wildlife from Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology

image001-13-300x224

FULLERTON’S DR ROMAN SCHULZE PRESENTING ON HOW SAFE WIRELESS IN SCHOOLS IS

Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment

WAR CRIMINALS IN THE STATE PTA AND SENATE: PTA OFFICIALS AND STATE SENATOR DR. RICHARD PAN VIOLATE UN DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS WITH SB 277

1095078_10151610036504862_359418389_n

California State PTA supports immunization bill

California State PTA has taken a support position on Senate Bill 277 (Pan).

EVEN THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATIONS ON BIOETHICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS DISAGREES WITH DISGUSTING DEMONIC DR. PAN AND THESE BIZARRE PTA LIFE FORMS RUNNING THIS FASCIST NON PROFIT THAT IS SCREWING THE KIDS AS HARD AS THEY CAN-READ THIS:  Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment

DR. PANS DEMONIC DREAM OF FORCED VACCINATIONS AND THE END OF YOUR POSTERITY

images (86)

Is this Dr. Pan praying to lucifer for more of his demonic guidance?

Here’s something to cheer up your day –

Read the rest of this entry »

10 Comments

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