Formal demand to the Troy PTSA on wireless


joe acaciaimage001-22-300x174

troy joes



 kubotroy joe 5jesse


The faces of two peas in a forced irradiation pod

Formal demand to Troy High School PTSA on wireless radiation

Troy PTSA, Principal Will Mynster, Troy Oracle Advisor Priscilla Cheney, and Anne Sinek, Harvard University interviewer, ignore the Harvard experts.


FJUHSD Board of Trustees, Troy teachers and administrators, ignore the California State PTA Resolution On Wireless FROM 2001 as they ram wireless onto all campuses.

This will be the 3rd communication to this group and there has not been one response acknowledging the harms set forth in these emails, only THE TAKE ME OFF YOUR LIST by Kimberly Blanks, Cecile Guerra, denial and turning their backs on the students and staff.  


PTSA demand notice 12-18-15


fjuhsd parents <> Fri, Dec 18, 2015

Cc: “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, “” <>, Will Mynster <>, Jennifer Williams <>, Laura Rubio <>, Laura Rubio <>, Sarah Saleen <>, “” <>, david morrison <>, Martin Blank <>, “Shawn E. Abrell, Esq.” <>, Robert Hammond <>


The following is a formal demand letter to the Troy High School Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA), Fullerton, California.


Dear Ms.  Kim Cusick,


The wireless classroom environment is comprised of industrial size routers, enough devices for each student, all emitting microwave radiation within the physical confines of a single classroom.  Unless Wi-Fi mode is turned off, radiation exposure will be further increased by students with cell phones and other wireless devices.  Students and teachers will be exposed to radiation for whole school days/weeks/years.

The Troy Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA) has actively and deliberately worked to bring RF-radiation into our children’s school environment, as evidenced by the following:

Fullerton Joint Union High School District meeting minutes of May 5, 2015, Troy High School PTSA donated $ 19,241.29 for the purchase of wireless Chromebooks to be used by students.

The following facts on microwave radiation are submitted to Troy PTSA, followed by demands to remove this health hazard from the Troy High School environment and work to educate students, teachers and staff on how to avoid exposure, in keeping with California State PTA, Section 4.5.64 and California State Constitution Article 1, Section 28(c), and maintain the tacit trust parents, students, teachers, and staff hold in the Troy PTSA.


WHEREAS, in May 2015, over 200 international scientists and engineers made an Appeal to the United Nations, all its’ member States, and the World Health Organization on the matter of wireless radiation, stating that our exposures are resulting in an emerging public health crisis, leading to premature death, damage to our DNA, the emission standards are not protective of human health [i]; and

WHEREAS, U.S. Government publications, going back decades, acknowledge adverse, significant biological effects of wireless radiation exposure:

Naval Medical Research Institute  |  2300 Studies on EMF Health Effects [ii]

Defense Intelligence Agency  |  Declassified 1976 report showing that military personnel exposed to non-thermal microwave radiation experienced “headaches, fatigue, dizziness, irritability, sleeplessness, depression, anxiety, forgetfulness and lack of concentration.” [iii]

U.S.  Air Force, Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Biological Effects and Safety Standards:  A Review | Study confirms existence of non-thermal EMF effects, including alterations to the central nervous system and cardiovascular system. [iv]

NASA, Electromagnetic Field Interactions With the Human Body:  Observed Effects and Theories   |   1981 paper showing numerous health affects from non-thermal electromagnetic fields; and  [v]

WHEREAS, thousands of scientific studies demonstrate that RF-radiation emissions are a significant health hazard:
Powerwatch  | Thousands of studies showing links between EMF pollution and biological effects
Research and Scientific Laboratory, Ford Motor Company  | The Effect of Micro Waves on the Central Nervous System
Just Prove It | Collection of over 6,000 studies showing biological impacts from EMF pollution

WHEREAS, emerging science demonstrates that wireless radiation exposures are carcinogenic.  Included in this science is the work of Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, who concluded that RF-radiation “should be regarded as carcinogenic.  Current guidelines for exposure should be urgently revised.”  Science confirming Dr.  Hardell’s conclusion continues to be published, with at least two additional and significant studies to date; and [vi]

WHEREAS, in 2012, the Italian Supreme Court ruled that a man’s brain tumor was caused by the wireless radiation from his cell phone; and [vii]

WHEREAS, lawsuit “Murray v.  Motorola cell phone cancer lawsuit may cost wireless industry over $1.9 billion dollars”, as reported in the Wall Street Journal; and [viii]

WHEREAS, the U.S. government action lags decades behind the science and evidence in classifying a substance carcinogenic, as demonstrated with asbestos and tobacco, it took many decades before these were acknowledged as carcinogens and parents do not want to find out a decade from now that their children, whose health has been destroyed or life ended, were needlessly and knowingly exposed at Troy High School; and

WHEREAS, in 2011 RF-Radiation was IARC classified as a Group 2B carcinogen and is prohibited from use in schools per California State Education Code Sections 32060-32066 [ix]; Dr. Anthony Miller, cancer epidemiologist, served on a number of research groups for the IARC, in 2013 stated that if RF were classified today, it would have to be classified as a Group 2A probable human carcinogen. [x] However, now, peer-reviewed studies conclusively demonstrate RF to be a Group 1 carcinogen, that is, a “Known Carcinogen”; and

WHEREAS, reproductive harm has been documented in government reports and science: genotoxicity to DNA; damage to sperm, ovarian development and follicles, and reproductive systems leading to cancer, potential infertility and mutations.
“DNA damage caused by microwave radiation is irreparable.  It is passed on from mother to daughter, generation after generation.”  [xi]

WHEREAS, the California Medical Association (CMA) passed a Resolution on wireless in December 2014, finding “significant adverse health and biologic effects on living organisms with exposure to low levels of non-ionizing microwave currently approved and used in wireless communication”; “peer reviewed research has demonstrated adverse biological effects of wireless EMF including single and double stranded DNA breaks, creation of reactive oxygen species, immune dysfunction, cognitive processing effects, stress protein synthesis in the brain, altered brain development, sleep and memory disturbances, ADHD, abnormal behavior, sperm dysfunction and brain tumors”; “CMA understands that existing public safety limits (FCC) for microwave EMF devices are outdated and inadequate to protect public health;” and  [xii]

WHEREAS, Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) “is a condition that has been known since about 1932 and has been called various names in different countries around the world.  The labels include Microwave Sickness, Radio Wave Syndrome, EMF Intolerance Syndrome and Rapid Aging Syndrome.  The most famous person who is EHS is Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland , the former Prime Minister of Norway and former Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO).   Millions of people throughout the world are likely affected yet most do not realize that microwave radiation and electrical pollution are the cause of their symptoms.  EHS is analogous to an allergy and once the body becomes sensitized to sources of EMF pollution, the only known treatment is to significantly reduce exposure. This can have a dramatic impact on one’s life, with some electro-sensitive people giving up their career, their home, social networks and sometimes even their family because it is difficult to live in our modern environment that is now filled with electrical pollution and microwave radiation.  EHS numbers are rapidly increasing with the exponential rise in EMF pollution in our homes and communities.  There have been many suicides around the world related to severe cases of EHS.  Thus, the condition can have devastating effects on individuals and families.  Tens of millions of people will be affected unless society begins to listen to these canaries in the coal mine and implement solutions;” 13   and

WHEREAS, many regions of the world are way ahead of the United States in diagnosis and treatments of EHS, such as the Austrian Medical Association Guidelines For Diagnosing and Treating Patients With Electrohypersensitivity (2012) 14

WHEREAS, the biological damage from microwave radiation is cumulative to the point where the body can no longer tolerate these exposures; mandatory exposure of our children in classrooms all day for their school career will greatly accelerate EHS, severely limiting their future college and career options, all without their informed consent; and

WHEREAS, U.S.  Air Force, Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Biological Effects and Safety Standards:  A Review concluded that RF exposure at the frequency and power levels utilized by these devices caused perturbations in the higher functioning centers of the Central Nervous System; measured RF power levels and frequency of the wireless system deployed in the Troy High School office were shown to sharply increase the heart rates of animals in the study; and

WHEREAS, wireless radiation is being removed/banned around the world, starting in environments dedicated to the youngest; in 2015, France passed legislation banning Wi-Fi in daycare for age 3 and under, wireless access in elementary schools must be disabled when not in use for learning 15; the State of Israel has banned wireless in Kindergarten, restricting hours of use in schools 16; the Italian State of Tyrol is calling for limiting wireless in schools and will begin an education campaign that informs the public on possible health risks; schools in the U.S. have been removing wireless technology, replacing it with wired connections and has begun to limit use of wireless because it is a health hazard; 17  18 and

WHEREAS, the following experts and organizations, in letters to Los Angeles Unified School District, implored LAUSD to use wired connections in schools due to adverse health impacts:  19
Note:  This list does not include all appeals to LAUSD.

Martha R.  Herbert, PhD, MD, Pediatric Neurologist, Massachusetts General Hospital; Neuroscientist Faculty of Harvard Medical School

American Academy of Environmental Medicine, comprised of Medical Doctors, Osteopaths and PhD researchers focusing on the effects of environmental agents on human health.

Martin Blank, PhD, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics

Magda Havas, PhD, Environmental & Resouce Studies, Trent University, Ontario, Canada

Olle Johansson, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.  Karolinska Institute awards the Nobel Prize for Medicine.

Antoinette Stein, PhD, Director, West Coast Program Development, Environmental Health Trust

Joel Moscowitz, PhD, Director, Center for Family and Community Health, University of California, Berkeley

Cindy Sage, MA, Sage Associates, Co-Editor, BioInitiative Report

WHEREAS, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) emission guidelines ar Captured Agency, a report published in June 2015 by Norm Alster and the Harvard University Center for Ethics;20 the science is corrupted by corporate money as per data compiled by Dr.  Henry Lai, University of Washington; 21 Motorola has “war-gamed” the science since 1994; 22 wireless industry attempts to suppress DNA damage research, as explained by scientist Dr.  Phillips;23 comparison of FCC guidelines with other countries and biological impacts;24  and

WHEREAS, children are becoming Electro Hypersensitive from the wireless radiation in school and lawsuits are being filed on their behalf; 25  and

WHEREAS, teachers are becoming Electro Hypersensitive from the wireless radiation in school at Los Angeles Unified School District and elsewhere and reasonable accommodations are being made so that they may teach in a classroom without radiation; 26and

WHEREAS, in 2001, the California State PTA passed a resolution on wireless that reads (in part) as follows:  “RESOLVED that the California PTA supports encouraging schools to use cable lines for all communications services on campus and to avoid the endorsement, purchase or use of wireless local area network systems on campus; and be it further RESOLVED that the California PTA recommend that teachers and students should limit use of cellular phones or other mobile devices on school property to emergencies.”; the Resolution’s narrative reads as follows:  “Until basic questions about the health
and safety of wireless devices and transmitting antennas are addressed by U.S. public health policymakers, we advise precaution. We all want to provide our children with a bright future. We do not want to later learn we acted without enough information and had neglected our children by treating them like guinea pigs in a giant biological experiment;”  and

WHEREAS, Section 4.5.64 Safe School Environments of the California State PTA is as follows:  “The California State PTA believes that every child is entitled to a safe and peaceful school environment that is orderly and empowering.  It is a place in which students and staff are free to learn and teach without the threat of physical and psychological harm.”
“The California State PTA believes that the four essential components that comprise a safe and peaceful school environment are: . . . , the physical setting and conditions in which education takes place.”   Subjecting Troy students and staff to this health hazard is in complete opposition to the California State PTA Section 4.5.64; and

WHEREAS, the California State Constitution, Article 1, Section 28(c) provides the Right to Safe Schools:  “All students and staff of public primary, elementary, junior and senior high schools have the inalienable right to attend campuses which are safe, secure and peaceful”; Troy high school, with active financial support of Troy PTSA, is subjecting their students, teachers, and staff to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, currently IARC classified as a Class 2B carcinogen and which emerging science demonstrates is a Class 1, known carcinogen, can hardly be considered to be a “safe” school; and

WHEREAS, no insurance company will offer insurance for claims made for injury or death from wireless devices; and

WHEREAS, wired Internet connectivity does not carry the health hazards of wireless, is a faster, more reliable and secure connection and provides a suitable alternative; and

WHEREAS, the Parent Teachers’ Association statement:  “The PTA is the largest volunteer advocacy association working exclusively on behalf of all children.  For more than 100 years, we’ve promoted the education, health and safety of children, youth and families”; by extension, this necessitates that RF-radiation emitting technology, a health hazard, not be in our children’s, teachers’, and staff school environment; and

WHEREAS, Troy PTSA, in fundraising for wireless devices, is soliciting/accepting donations to purchase wireless technology from those families, communities, entities that are ignorant of the studies, lawsuits, legislative actions to remove wireless, and are unknowingly contributing to the installation of technology that is a health hazard to their own children, staff and teachers; and

WHEREAS, and in acknowledgement of the CMA Resolution, citing the following learning impairments from RF-radiation:  “cognitive processing effects, stress protein synthesis in the brain, altered brain development, sleep and memory disturbances”; studies continue to be published substantiating these detrimental affects on learning; Troy students’ academic performance will likely be impaired and the very reason they have chosen to attend Troy High School, a known and superior learning institution, will be greatly challenged and compromised; and

WHEREAS, parents, teachers, and adult students are uninformed of these preceding facts on wireless radiation, their human rights are being violated by mandatory microwave radiation exposure at Troy High School; and

WHEREAS, parents who are knowledgeable on the health hazards of microwave radiation will be forced to withdraw their child from Troy High School, access to a healthy, safe school environment will be denied; and

WHEREAS, Troy High School students’ health, well being, and futures must never be yielded to other interests; and

WHEREAS, children and teachers have the right to a safe and healthy school environment, and Troy PTSA has a legal, ethical, moral obligation to support that right; and

WHEREAS, Troy PTSA by funding wireless devices is creating a school environment that makes mandatory the exposure to microwave radiation in order to attend Troy High School; and

WHEREAS, Troy PTSA by funding wireless devices is creating potential legal liability for Fullerton Joint Union High School District (FJUHSD) as lawsuits in the U.S. and around the world are being filed for injury and death; and

WHEREAS, the 200+ scientists in their Appeal to the United Nations and the World Health Organization have declared our exposures to wireless radiation an emerging public health crises, this necessitates that our children, teachers, and staff not be exposed to RF-Radiation emissions at Troy High School.


The following demands are, hereby, made of Troy High School PTSA:

1.     Uphold California State PTA, Section 4.5.64 Safe School Environments; uphold the California State Constitution, Article1, Section 28(c); and

2.     As would be expected of an organization dedicated to the education of students at Troy High School, fully acknowledge, disclose, and respond in accordance to the following facts on microwave radiation exposure:  200 international scientists and engineers have described this as “an emerging public health crisis”; thousands of scientific studies have demonstrated this as a significant, potentially profound, health hazard; legislation passed worldwide on RF-radiation exposures to protect the public and starting with the youngest; lawsuits filed on behalf of victims/survivors; refusal of insurance companies to cover injury/death from exposures; students and teachers becoming sick in wireless classrooms, corruption within the FCC that precludes responsible public health policy denying basic human rights; and

3.     Hardwire all wireless Chromebooks that have been purchased with Troy PTSA funds; and

4.     Immediately withdraw all support, financial and non-financial, of wireless devices and routers; promptly call for the removal of wireless radiation from our children and teachers’ school environment.  Support only wired technology, which does not carry the health harms of wireless radiation; and

5.     Work to fund an education and awareness campaign for students, parents and teachers, educating them on the health affects from wireless radiation, recognizing that those students that utilize these devices deserve to know the least hazardous way of handling wireless technology.  Include in this curriculum the symptoms of microwave sickness, Electrosensitivity (ES), Electrohypersensitivity (EHS); and

6.     Work to support education for staff and teachers, advising them of the science contained in media, websites such as The BabySafe Project, an on-line resource headed by Dr. Hugh Taylor, Professor and Chairman, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University, in which he advises pregnant women to avoid RF-radiation exposures, as the science demonstrates ties to ADD, ADHD, and Autism from exposure to wireless radiation during pregnancy.  Those employees that are pregnant or intend to become pregnant will be appreciative of this information.


Mr.  Joseph Imbriano

[i] 200+ Scientists’ Appeal to U.N. and World Health Organization
[ii] Naval Medical Research Institute
[iii] Defense Intelligence Agency Report
[iv] U.S.  Air Force, Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Biological Effects and Safety Standards:  A Review
[v] NASA, Electromagnetic Field Interactions With the Human Body:  Observed Effects and Theories
[vi] Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Peer-reviewed scientific evidence that wireless emissions need to be classified as carcinogenic—that is, as a Class 1 Known carcinogen.
[vii] Italian Supreme Court ruling links mobile phone use to tumor
[viii] Murray vs. Motorola, Inc., et al.
“WSJ Reports Murray Cellphone Cancer Case May Cost Wireless Industry Over 1.9 Billion Dollars”
[ix] Education Code Section 32060-32066
[x] Dr. Anthony Miller, cancer epidemiologist, served on a number of research groups for the IARC, pointed out last year (2013) that if RF were classified today, it would have to be classified as a Class 2A probable human carcinogen.
[xi] Wireless Networks – Genetic Mutation – t=55
[xii]  California Medical Association Wireless Resolution
14 Austrian Medical Association
Overloading of Towns and Cities with Radio Transmitters (Cellular Transmitters):  a hazard for human health and a disturbance of eco-ethics  (click on “since 1932”)
15 France law bans Wi-Fi in daycares, restricts wireless infrastructure
16 EHT Lauds Israel’s Ban on Wi-Fi in Kindergarten in Schools; Italian State of Tyrol Calls for Limiting Wireless in Schools
17 Schools Worldwide are Removing the WiFi
Saying Good-Bye to WiFi
18  Wi-fi Technology:  Is the Honeymoon Over?
19 Letters to LAUSD from experts
20 Captured Agency
21 Dr.  Henry Lai, University of Washington
22 Motorola has “war-gamed” the science since 1994
23 Industry suppressed DNA damage research, as explained by scientist Dr.  Phillips
24 Comparison of FCC guidelines with other countries and biological impacts
25 U.S.  Family sues Fay School in Southboro, claims Wi-Fi made son ill
26 Los Angeles Unified School District Accommodates Teacher Who Fell Ill After Wireless Installation, Students were bleeding from the ears and nose and no incident reports were allowed by the school, states the teacher who required medical intervention.

Databases containing studies:

Powerwatch  | Thousands of studies showing links between EMF pollution and biological effects

Research and Scientific Laboratory, Ford Motor Company  | The Effect of Micro Waves on the Central Nervous System

Just Prove It | Collection of over 6,000 studies showing biological impacts from EMF pollution
Attachments area

Preview attachment Final PTSA demand.docx

Final PTSA demand.docx



  1. #1 by Anon on December 19, 2015 - 7:54 pm

    Why do you care so much Joe????? You live on “the other side” of Raymond, am I right??? Are you mad because Troy kids kick major arse?

    • #2 by Anonymous on December 19, 2015 - 8:32 pm

      And, your point is?

      You think that kids are not entitled to a safe and healthy school environment? What does it matter where Joe lives? Are the 1,600 kids that do not have Troy residency not entitled to a safe environment? They have no say?

      Actually, why are you against the kids and a healthy school environment?

      • #3 by Anon on December 19, 2015 - 9:12 pm

        If you haven’t noticed the absolutely brilliant Troy High kids within and without the boundaries are currently serving a up an free informative education via Troy High facebook page concerning this article.

        • #4 by Anon on December 19, 2015 - 9:42 pm

          Side note….you can really tell when a school is actually meeting their students needs when the current students are the first to run to the school’s defense. Cheers Troy!!

          • #5 by Joe Imbriano on December 19, 2015 - 9:45 pm

            Yes it is a form of Stockholm syndrome

            • #6 by Anon on December 20, 2015 - 11:08 am

              so true!

              • #7 by Anon on December 20, 2015 - 4:05 pm

                ^^^ Impostor Anon. ^^^

            • #8 by anonymous on February 3, 2016 - 8:06 pm

              Question: This seems to be an attack on a local PTA. When did the PTA get the money or authority to install all this dangerous equipment?

              I think the school board is the government institution that has control. If this was such a big deal, why aren’t you at the school board meetings? I’m there and there is a public comment section and they talk about mundane things.

              Has the EPA been alerted? There’s a gas leak up north and people are getting nervous about government oversite.

              Were there any candidates in the school board elections that supported Joe’s position?

              Fortunately the next elections will be based on geographic location such that the memebers will come from the school site locations.

              Joe, you should run for a board seat, you would win in a landslide.

    • #10 by Fullerton Lover on December 20, 2015 - 9:09 am

      Just as a point of clarification, I included a URL at the bottom of my post, where you’ll notice that Fullerton’s high school system is comprised of the opportunity for students to attend any school that they wish to.

      It’s referred to as “open enrollment”, and it allows each student, along with their parents of course, the opportunity to pick the school that they believe will best fulfill their individual academic requirements.

      I should also note, that this same policy of open enrollment, is also applicable to the elementary and middle schools here in Fullerton.

      • #11 by Mom on December 20, 2015 - 12:36 pm

        Yes, it’s too bad that each and every one of the FJUHSD schools have plans to install wireless throughout.

        If this goes as planned there will be no attending you school of residence, school of choice without all day exposure to wireless radiation.

    • #12 by Anonymous on December 20, 2015 - 10:02 am

      Troy kids maybe able to pass tests but from what I have seen on the feed on the Troy FB page, they shoot from the hip and lack critical thinking skills. Looks like they can only regurgitate what their teachers force feed them and cant deal with facts.

      • #13 by Anonymous on December 20, 2015 - 3:30 pm

        Yes, the students can’t deal with the facts.

        Does their fixation, love of devices exceed their ability to consider information contrary to their tightly held beliefs?

  2. #14 by Troy mom on December 20, 2015 - 8:39 am

    I haven’t even gotten through a fraction of the referenced material. There is no way wireless should be in the kids’ classrooms.

    How did it get this far?

    • #15 by strange dichotomy on December 20, 2015 - 10:23 am

      I agree. Odd how they shut down Sunny Hills High school last week out of an “abundance of caution” over an unsubstantiated threat, yet ignore what clearly constitutes a substantiated threat to the health and safety of the students.

  3. #16 by Silicon Valley Civil Engineer on December 20, 2015 - 1:20 pm

    Jeromy Johnson

    “In 2011, I was on top of the world. Healthy, happy and active with a successful career in Silicon Valley that provided ample time for my wife, who is a medical doctor, and I to travel and pursue our many interests. As a civil engineer and as a manager at a large Silicon Valley firm, I was around multiple computers, Wi-Fi and cell phones nearly 24/7 for over a decade without feeling any ill effects. That all changed when we returned from summer vacation that year.”

    Read more:

  4. #17 by Wireless tech in schools = global epidemic of brain damages on December 20, 2015 - 3:53 pm

    “Finnish education professor’s warning: Wireless technology in schools may lead to a global epidemic of brain damages.”

    “Professor Rainer Nyberg changed his opinion of wireless technology in March 2013. At that time he had been lecturing in Finland and Sweden for many years and had written books about the uses and benefits of online learning. In this interview, for TV-Finland’s Channel, he explains how he found out about the health risks directly linked to wireless emissions from the technology he had assumed would only have positive effects.”

  5. #18 by Anonymous on December 20, 2015 - 5:12 pm

    The Troy students are brainwashed; I do not believe they can objectively look at the science to save their own lives, literally.

    • #19 by Anon on December 20, 2015 - 6:58 pm

      #16 How do you purpose we even begin to take YOUR assessment seriously? Do you know the Troy population personally???? Are we to take you seriously in your “assessment” if you haven’t stated your full name, level of experience and real time interaction within the Troy student population??

      • #20 by Anonymous on December 22, 2015 - 9:29 pm

        Can you read? The prior posting, now gone, was representative of the Troy student population. The FB threads speak for themselves.

  6. #21 by Young industry shill in FB thread on December 22, 2015 - 8:33 am

    This is so sad. Student Zheng Zhu shows early signs of being an industry shill. He’s got the language and arguments down, pat.

    His mind has been completely captured, unable to escape his cognitive dissonance.

    How does that happen in one so young? What a waste.

  7. #22 by Anonymous on December 22, 2015 - 5:43 pm

    Also wanted to add that another medical authority to contact would be Dr. Stephen Sinatra, cardiologist and integrative medicine specialist, who had spoken before on the effects of wireless and Wi-Fi on the heart – headaches, insomnia, lowered melatonin levels, anxiety and depression, high blood pressure, palpitations, tinnitus and hearing loss, ‘unexplained’ cardiac and other symptoms. Because Wi-Fi can cause heart rate variability, it may also trigger heart arrhythmias. One type of arrhythmia, Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome, occurs in 1 out of 700 children. Lots of children and adults with undiagnosed heart problems. Wi-Fi poses a dangerous risk in schools, precautionary principle urged. Dr. Sinatra cautions this exposure is the greatest medical threat of our time.’

    For full details, watch his speech here

    Many medical and aviation safety experts caution against Wi-Fi on flights, including testimonials from pilots and aviation employees who complain of illness from Wi-Fi exposure, including pilots fainting while flying causing an emergency situation.

    After some calc’s/predictions have been done on power density levels to those inside aircraft (pilots) from the balloons, added to the Wi-Fi levels they are already exposed to from inside the plane, cardiologists like Dr. Sinatra should be informed/consulted to see what they think the risk level (odds) of cardiac arrest could be as a result, and this info. given to the FAA (and the aviation authorities of other countries)

    (Most people and politicians may not care if other people get sick from Wi-Fi, but they will care if pilots get heart attacks or faint)

    Also, if any interference should be expected from the 71GHz and 81GHz to aircraft controls (unsure of the frequencies aircraft controls broadcast at) – if so, this is another risk factor that should be included and given to the FAA (and the aviation authorities of other countries)

    We might not be able to get anywhere with the FCC directly, but if other governments (Austria, Germany, France, Russia, China, Switzerland, Belgium, Ukraine, Italy, Poland etc. whose RF radiation limits are much lower than ours) who are more concerned about effects of wireless protest to the US government regarding possible hazards of this project to their citizens and pilots flying over US airspace or even write some articles about it in their newspapers, we would get more attention around this in our country.

    • #23 by Sudden cardiac arrest on December 22, 2015 - 9:32 pm

      Rodney Palmer, Safety Code 6, Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada

      (2:07 min.) “Two children have dropped dead in Simcoe County Schools since Wi-Fi was installed…” ~ Rodney Palmer

    • #24 by Sudden cardiac arrest on December 22, 2015 - 10:15 pm

      This is a recent interview with Dr. Martin Pall in which he talks about sudden cardiac death, starting at approximately 27:30 min. I have transcribed that segment, below:

      “There are life-threatening cardiac effects and I believe that they occur through the effect of these fields on, what are called, the pacemaker cells in the heart. So, there are cells in the heart, in a particular location in the heart, that regulate the heart beat. And, they use these VGCCs (Voltage Gated Calcium Channels) in this process so the VGCCs have very important roles. These pacemaker cells have very high density VGCCs. So, I think pacemaker cells are highly susceptible to this and we’ve had problems where people exposed to these fields develop arrhythmias. They also develop both tachycardia, fast heartbeat, and bradycardias, slow heartbeat. So, things that look opposite but may, in fact, be related to each other. And, arrhythmias, as you may know, are often associated with sudden cardiac death. We’ve had an epidemic of young, apparently healthy, athletes dying in the middle of athletic competition of sudden cardiac death, unexplained. Now, I don’t have any proof that this is explained by the EMF exposures, but I very strongly suspect that is what’s going on. But, you know, it’s just another stunning thing going on and people are just ignoring the obvious connection and it has to stop.”

      Here is the link to the audio interview:

  8. #25 by Brain cancer is #1 cancer killer in children on December 23, 2015 - 8:11 am

    18 November 2015
    Neurosurgeon Dr. Charlie Teo – “(Brain cancer) is the number one cancer killer in children. It kills more children than any other disease and it kills more young adults than any other cancer.”

  9. #26 by Message from Attorney on December 24, 2015 - 9:11 am

    from attorney to ban Wi-Fi in Israeli schools:

    Dafna Tachover
    3 hrs ·
    Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to ALL MY FRIENDS

    “If you bring forth what is inside you,
    What you bring forth will save you.
    If you don’t bring forth what is inside you,
    What you don’t bring forth will destroy you.”

    “Although I’m not Christian, these words by Jesus of Nazareth, have been my inspiration and I think of them often, especially at times when I feel that there is no stop to the wireless tsunami. These words remind me that win or lose I have to bring forth whatever it is in me to do what I think is right. These words are true to every one of us who learned all too well about the not so generous nature of humans.
    Our chance of adding light into a world with much darkness is dependent on each and every one of us doing their best with the talents they have, to make this world a better place. To make people understand that religion is supposed to bring tolerance and kindness not war, hate and death and to dissolve the power of money, a force that creates more destruction than the good it brings.

    I hope that the sky will continue and shower the world with snow, rain and sun, life bringing forces, rather than with RF and Microwave radiation by the various ignorant initiatives to Wi-Fi the world by Google, FB & others. These initiatives are aiming to bring “knowledge” to every corner of the world but ignore the knowledge and the human evidence that this radiation brings instead suffering, disease and death. I think of all the people who already been injured by wireless radiation and cannot be with their families during this holidays season. For too many Electro-sensitives, these are not joyous times but rather, yet another reminder of the unkind nature of this world, where people are obsessing with gift buying and rather than focusing on the meaning and ignoring their fellow children, women and men who are in dire suffering. I dedicate these words to JENNY FRY who committed suicide this year because of the unkind nature of her school staff and country that ignored her suffering from the Wi-Fi in the school. People do not commit suicide because they want to die, but because they want to stop the suffering. I hope Jenny will be the last victim of wireless technology and no other family will have to celebrate the holidays without its loved one under such circumstances. I’ll continue and pray to every and any god and human out there for a kinder, better more enlightened world.”

  10. #27 by Have you recovered? on December 27, 2015 - 8:40 pm

    “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”

    Charles Mackay

  11. #28 by Seneca on January 1, 2016 - 9:34 pm

    ‘timeless wisdom of which there is much of but few seem to seek it because they are too distracted with their iPhones and their other pursuits of personal pleasure.’

    Seneca, 2000 years ago
    “For what prevents us from saying that the happy life is to have a mind that is free, lofty, fearless and steadfast – a mind that is placed beyond the reach of fear, beyond the reach of desire, that counts virtue the only good, baseness the only evil, and all else but a worthless mass of things, which come and go without increasing or diminishing the highest good, and neither subtract any part from the happy life nor add any part to it?”

  12. #29 by Mom on January 2, 2016 - 10:04 am

    Mr. Imbriano,

    Have you had a reply from Troy PTSA to the demand letter?

  13. #30 by "The Zapping of America" on January 2, 2016 - 11:13 am

    Brodeur, P. (1977). The zapping of America: Microwaves, their deadly risk, and the coverup. New York: Norton.

    Written in 1977. Microwave radiation has been used as weapon for several decades by the military, ours and Russia. They, the U.S. government and military, knew the health hazards a LONG TIME AGO.

    . . . and, now, they are ‘deploying’ it in the kids’ classroom. For those that are having a hard time accepting this, you need to WAKE UP AND HELP STOP IT. There is enough evidence and it has been around for decades. You all can’t pretend to care and, yet, stop short on this crime on our children.

  14. #31 by Angie on January 2, 2016 - 5:23 pm

    “Denial is not the sign of a healthy mind.”

  15. #32 by Lawsuit For Student Made Sick in WiFi on January 3, 2016 - 10:48 am

    Lawsuit Update, this is how so-called caring school admin behaves when wireless radiation, the sacred cow of 21st Century Ed, is challenged:

    “The complaint details that the Fay School has engaged in a series of hostile actions toward the boy and his parents. It states the Fay School:
    Refused to make any meaningful accommodations.
    Refused to allow him to be on the Fay campus for any reason, including athletics.
    Refused to consider the medical evidence submitted by the parents .
    Ignored the evidence that G’s symptoms occur only at Fay.
    Refused to meet with the parents and their computer experts over the summer of 2015.
    Banned G’s parents from speaking with the teachers and staff at Fay.
    Threatened G’s Mother that, if she used the Fay email system to discuss this.
    Threatening to dismiss him from school if they speak to his teachers about this.
    Repeatedly demanded that G take drugs to mask but not cure his symptoms despite the serious side effects of those drugs.
    Demanded that G and his parents submit to examinations by doctors of Fay’s choosing even though those doctors stated openly at the outset that they do not believe that Wi-Fi can cause the symptoms G has suffered.
    Forced the boy to submit to a humiliating psychological examination even though he has never manifested any symptoms of any psychological problem.”

  16. #33 by Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Children's Health on January 3, 2016 - 11:20 am

    “Since you love us, why do you radiate us with wireless?”

    ALL of us are affected by wireless radiation; the younger are most affected.

  17. #34 by Troy PTSA? on January 10, 2016 - 5:01 pm

    Why doesn’t the Troy PTSA just do the right thing for the kids and not irradiate them? The CA St PTA resolution says to use cabled lines, not to experiment on the kids.

    These are morally bankrupt parents.

  18. #35 by They ignore Harvard? on January 11, 2016 - 9:05 am

    That doesn’t make any sense. Why would the Harvard interviewer ignore all of the work from Harvard grads?

    Does A Sinek know of this information?

    • #36 by Anonymous on January 11, 2016 - 12:11 pm

      Looks like the emperor has no clothes.

  19. #37 by Wi-Fi Lawsuit Against School on January 19, 2016 - 7:14 am

    Wi-Fi lawsuit against Southboro’s Fay School is headed to trial

    By Scott O’Connell
    Telegram & Gazette Staff

    Posted Jan. 18, 2016 at 7:50 PM

    S0UTHBORO – A lawsuit accusing the Fay School of failing to accommodate a student’s alleged Wi-Fi sensitivity is headed to trial in August, according to court documents.

    The family of “G,” a 12-year-old who attended the Southboro junior boarding school, says the boy suffers from a condition called Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome, which makes him feel ill when exposed to wireless Internet signals. They argue in their complaint, which they filed in August, that the Fay School ignored their pleas to find accommodations for G, who was experiencing dizziness, headaches and other symptoms in class because of the school’s Wi-Fi.
    After a scheduling conference was held Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Worcester, the case is set to go to trial on Aug. 8 before District Judge Timothy S. Hillman, according to court records. The plaintiffs are seeking $250,000.

    “They’re looking forward to having their case presented to a judge,” said their lawyer John J.E. Markham II. “They think there’s a way to work out accommodations, and that there’s a lot to be learned about Wi-Fi and its potential dangers.”

    G’s lawsuit cites medical experts who attested to the validity of the boy’s electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms. But the condition is controversial, and not universally recognized in the medical community.

    Rob Crawford, a spokesman for the Fay School, had no comment about the case Friday. In August, the school said in a statement it had tested its radio emissions and the results were well within the Federal Communication Commission’s safe limits.

    Shortly after G filed the lawsuit, the sides informed the court they had reached a preliminary agreement in the case. Part of that deal involved allowing G’s family to bring an expert to campus to try to find a solution to the Wi-Fi issues.

    “It didn’t work out,” Mr. Markham said. “That’s all I can say. Now we’re back in court.”
    According to an amended complaint submitted by G in early December, the school would only allow the family to take measurements of Wi-Fi activity during what they said would be an insufficient hour-and-a-half block in the afternoon. The family also said the school’s eventual solution was to have G connect to the Internet via an Ethernet cable while sitting a few feet away from other students in class, all of whom continued to use the Wi-Fi.

    When the boy’s symptoms continued, he brought a dosimeter to measure the classroom’s Wi-Fi emissions. The readings from that device showed G’s condition worsened when the Wi-Fi signals were strongest, and subsided when they weakened, the complaint alleges.

    G eventually stopped going to class on Dec. 1, and initially tried to keep up with his studies at home. But his family said the Fay School made that arrangement unworkable, and the boy stopped attending the school altogether in early December.

    “I informed the judge that the student has taken a leave of absence, and is studying at another school until this case can be decided,” Mr. Markham said, adding that if the family’s suit is successful or an agreement with the Fay School is reached, “he will go back.”
    “They’ve spent a lot of money being at that school,” he said.

  20. #38 by PTSA - forced irradiation of Troy students on February 2, 2016 - 2:59 pm

    Amazing that Troy PTSA is forcing the irradiation of other people’s children.

    • #39 by Gwen on February 4, 2016 - 3:33 pm

      Is that Vivien Moreno and Karen Allen? Why are they pictured here?

  21. #41 by anonymous on February 3, 2016 - 7:57 pm

    Hey, I think I now know the reason behind this blog

    Fullerton is the #9 snobbiest city in the US. This is all making sense. You are full of yourself.

    • #42 by Anon on February 5, 2016 - 9:49 am

      If I remember correctly, Fullerton received that rating because of the amount of art galleries, performance art venues, excellent restaurants, educational opportunities and the number of people with college degrees. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? lol

  22. #43 by About science in the U.S. . . . on February 4, 2016 - 7:14 am

    Science for Sale by David Lewis: recommended reading

    February 4, 2016 in -Mailing List, America’s revolving door between govt. Agencies and corporate America, Book reviews/new books of interest, Corporate influence on Science, government and the military by EMFacts
    Following a similar vein as the last blog message,”Report from the Science and Wireless 2015 event in Australia” the 2014 book, Science For Sale by David Lewis PhD is relevant reading. The sub title is:

    How the US government uses powerful corporations and leading universities to support government policies, silence top scientists, jeopardize our health, and protect corporate profits.

    However the title would be just as accurate if it alternatively read: ‘How powerful US corporations use the government’, etc – considering the “revolving door” between corporate America and the government where govt. agencies are effectively given over to corporate control in exchange for large election donations. If it was in a 3rd World country it would be condemned as outright corruption. In the USA however, its just accepted as business as usual.

    In 2015, former president, Jimmy Carter expressed concerns over widespread corporate influence over the American government, which he saw as an Oligarchy. To quote:

    Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody’s who’s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who’s just a challenger.

    So, now to Science For Sale:

    From the fly leaf:

    When Speaker Newt Gingrich greeted Dr. David Lewis in his office overlooking the National Mall, he looked at Dr. Lewis and said: “You know you’re going to be fired for this, don’t you?” “I know,” Dr. Lewis replied, “I just hope to stay out of prison.” Gingrich had just read Dr. Lewis’s commentary in Nature, titled “EPA Science: Casualty of Election Politics.” Three years later, and thirty years after Dr. Lewis began working at EPA, he was back in Washington to receive a Science Achievement Award from Administrator Carol Browner for his second article in Nature. By then, EPA had transferred Dr. Lewis to the University of Georgia to await termination—the Agency’s only scientist to ever be lead author on papers published in Nature and Lancet.

    The government hires scientists to support its policies; industry hires them to support its business; and universities hire them to bring in grants that are handed out to support government policies and industry practices. Organizations dealing with scientific integrity are designed only to weed out those who commit fraud behind the backs of the institutions where they work. The greatest threat of all is the purposeful corruption of the scientific enterprise by the institutions themselves. The science they create is often only an illusion, designed to deceive; and the scientists they destroy to protect that illusion are often our best. This book is about both, beginning with Dr. Lewis’s experience, and ending with the story of Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

    Review by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.:

    “David Lewis has been a beacon of integrity against the apocalyptical forces of ignorance and greed endeavoring to divert science from the noble pursuit of truth and pervert it into a tool that supports the most destructive policies of industry and government.”


    « Report from the Science and Wireless 2015 event in Australia

  23. #44 by Anonymous on February 29, 2016 - 11:07 am

    May you find this educational series helpful when discussing biological effects of dirty electricity.


    L1.1: The Nervous System- Basic Organization of the central and peripheral nervous system

    L1.2: Simple Neural Circuits

    L1.3: Electrical Signals in Cells

    L1.4: Resting Potential of Neuron Membranes

    L1.5: NernstEquation

    L2.1: Chemical Basis- Transient Inward Currents & Delayed Outward Current

    L2.2 Time & Space in Propagating Signals

    L2.3 Ion Channels

    L2.4 Post-Synaptic Receptors

    L2.5: Neurotransmitters and Pathology

    L3.1: Biological Conductors- Electrical Variables in Cells

    L3.2: Core Conductor Model

    L3.3: Observations from Action Potentials

    L3.4: Derivation of the Cable Model

    L3.5: Time-dependent Solutions

    L4.1: Hodgkin-Huxley Model

    L4.2: Ionic Conductances

    L4.3: Derivation of the Hodgkin-Huxley Equation

    L4.4 Insights from Hodgkin-Huxley

    L4.5: Further Insights from Hodgkin-Huxley

    L5.1: Applications of Bioelectricity – Parkinson’s Disease

    L5.2: Epilepsy

    L5.3: Drug Addiction

    L5.4: Targeted Muscle Reinnervation

    L5.5: Optogenetics

  24. #45 by What's the point, Troy PTSA? on March 1, 2016 - 8:34 am

    Why are you pushing for the irradiation of Troy students? ABUSIVE !!!!

    “The entire American education system has become an engine of carcinogenic and teratogenic Wi-pollution. Millions of US students are imprisoned in buildings saturated with microwave energy from Wi-technologies. Wi-Fi transceivers mounted indoors inflict cumulative biological damage equivalent to both X-ray and UV radiation. Many of even the youngest students are compelled to use Wi-devices on or near their radiation-sensitive bodies for hours each day. Outdoor school environments are also badly affected, not only from on-campus Wi-Fi antennas, but also from cell tower antennas strategically located near academic centers. From kindergarten playgrounds to college campuses, most educational arenas have become RF/microwave cesspools.”

    “Chronic microwave exposure is extremely dangerous to human eyes. [45] Because microwaves efficiently produce lenticular opacities, many Wi-irradiated youngsters will likely develop vision problems, including cataracts, years earlier than previous generations. Metal absorbs and re-radiates microwave radiation, creating hotspots. [46] Any closed metal loop within a current develops a voltage of its own. Therefore, kids who wear metal reading glasses in Wi-environments are at special risk for insidious and incremental eye damage, which manifests after a latency period. Yet, neither they nor their parents have been warned by health agencies.”

    ” What good is public education if students are not taught the scientific realities of wireless systems and devices which denigrate their health, endanger their future offspring and afflict their civilization with disease, disability, deformity and premature death? Forcibly exposing young bodies and developing brains to microwave radiation from Wi-devices and Wi-Fi systems is abusive because:

    ♦ Young bodies absorb more microwave radiation than adult bodies. [47]

    ♦ Microwaves clump (agglutinate) blood cells, degrading circulation and heart function. [48]

    ♦ Microwaves open the blood-brain barrier, allowing toxins to enter brain neurons. [49]

    ♦ Microwaves impair memory, concentration and other cognitive skills. [50]

    ♦ Microwaves disrupt sleep cycle hormones, leading to day-time exhaustion. [51]

    ♦ Microwaves incite mood swings and aberrant behavior. [52]”

    • #46 by Joe Imbriano on March 1, 2016 - 9:10 am

      School staff, administrators, board members, Pta’s,teachers unions and the parents ARE ALL TURNING THEIR BACKS ON THE CHILDREN

  25. #47 by Marcos on May 11, 2016 - 11:02 am

    I feel bad now that I read this story even using my laptop at school. I was on my way to Cal State Fullerton this morning and I saw this well dressed man out in front of Troy standing there holding a huge sign that says “WiFi”. The back side of it mentioned infertility and cancer. I think I remember him being there before. He looks very familiar. So, I am thinking to myself, why would he be out there at 6:15 in the morning? Now I understand. I am going to look into this because at Cal State Fullerton we have WiFi all over and all of us use WiFi enabled devices all day. This is really, really all very weird and frightening. I think the Daily Titan needs to cover this.

    • #48 by Fullerton Lover on May 11, 2016 - 12:31 pm


      Joe Imbriano is a sincere person that does this thankless work for absolutely no pay because he’s a person who cares about other people.

      I only wish Fullerton had more like him.

      • #49 by Anonymous on May 11, 2016 - 5:09 pm

        We have enough crazy people, thanks.

        • #50 by Reality Is..... on May 11, 2016 - 8:25 pm


    • #51 by Reality Is..... on May 11, 2016 - 2:53 pm

      LOL it was probably Joe. You should have said hello.

    • #52 by Anonymous on May 11, 2016 - 4:11 pm

      Just because one crazy guy is spreading nonsense in our town does not mean anyone should be afraid.

      • #53 by Fullerton Lover on May 11, 2016 - 7:41 pm

        What I don’t understand is a parent would discipline a child for putting his pet in the microwave oven, yet the same parent has no problem sending their child off to school each day in a classroom full of microwave emissions.

        Now THAT’S crazy!

        • #54 by Anonymous on May 11, 2016 - 11:30 pm

          What’s the wattage of a microwave oven? Now what’s the wattage of a wifi transmitter?

          • #55 by Joe Imbriano on May 12, 2016 - 7:08 am

            1000 to 4 watts -what’s the normal background level at 2.4 GHz? and what is the amount of power required to trigger changes in the smooth endoplasmic reticulum that runs the zona reaction in the human egg?

            An exposure device with a special antenna was used for generating the EMF (5 W peak output power and 1.04 mW/cm2 power density), and the exposure emission was maintained at 900 MHz with a pulse repetition frequency of 217 Hz wiped out 50 percent of rats ovarian reserves after 15 minutes a day for 15 days. You think all this deployment is an accident? Just like many other deniers are probably making a living off of proliferating this stuff and refuse to deal with what you are part of, go ahead and turn your back on the children. I will do no such thing.

            Ask yourself if Roman Schulze ended up in a wheelchair because of his chronic occupational microwave exposure that brought his immune and central nervous system down to the level it needed to get to so that he became susceptible to neuroinvasive encephalitis? Ask Jesse Knowles if his brain tumor was a result of his love affair with wireless devices including the one that he kept clipped to his skull. Go ahead and ask Fullerton’s biggest deniers and pushers of wireless radiation on school children if it is all just a coincidence. Let me know what they tell you.

            • #56 by Anonymous on May 12, 2016 - 11:42 am

              Sure, I could list a lot of unrelated things that show no causality just like you, but I’m not a misguided fear-monger with a poor understanding of the scientific method and logic.

          • #57 by Fullerton Lover on May 12, 2016 - 9:10 am

            How long does it take to fry an chickens egg in a microwave oven?

            How long does it take fry a human egg while sitting in a classroom all day long?

            • #58 by Reality Is... on May 12, 2016 - 2:19 pm

              LOL you guys crack me up. Clearly. When a microwave is turned on and cooking it’s much more dangerous than a wifi hub. Anyone that thinks otherwise isn’t being honest with themselves. The question is still is a wifi system in a place like a school, hospital, city hall, Starbucks, workplace, council chambers, or other public locations dangerous in the long term to your health. Joe says yes. Studies say no and yes. Can we prove it? No. No one can say they got cancer from a wifi hub. Clearly the last 20 years we have much more contact with technology, including cell phones and other electronics. In the last 20 years has cancer increased 10 fold? If so, this is a possibility. Is cancer numbers the same? If so then I say no.

              Let’s party.

              • #59 by Anonymous on May 12, 2016 - 9:13 pm

                I wish that were the case.

                • #60 by rudimentary understanding on May 16, 2016 - 9:07 pm

                  There is plenty of compelling scientific information which clearly warrants the complete removal of wireless systems from all schools. It is simply a matter of dealing with reality which many have proven not capable of doing.

              • #61 by Joe Imbriano on May 13, 2016 - 12:20 am

                WiFi is simply the tool that enables the weapons to be deployed in the laps of school children to sterilize them.


              • #64 by Fullerton Lover on May 13, 2016 - 7:23 pm

                “LOL you guys crack me up. Clearly. When a microwave is turned on and cooking it’s much more dangerous than a wifi hub. Anyone that thinks otherwise isn’t being honest with themselves.”

                …I know you think that this is actually a true statement about microwave ovens being more dangerous than a Wi Fi hub, however you really couldn’t be more wrong.

                A microwave oven ALWAYS employs a Faraday cage which can be partly seen covering the transparent window, to contain the electromagnetic energy within the oven and to shield the exterior from radiation.

                A Wi Fi hub offers no such protection.

                • #65 by Reality Is.. on May 14, 2016 - 2:22 pm

                  We will just disagree again. I encourage the use of technology by our children and my employees. I don’t feel that the use of technology the last 10 years is killing off more people than before. We are actually living longer. Time will tell.

      • #66 by Reality Is..... on May 11, 2016 - 8:26 pm

        Be nice to Joe. He is trying to get a group of followers. I’m sure there are some out there that will support his causes.

        • #67 by Joe Imbriano on May 14, 2016 - 11:34 am

          The truth is my cause RI and it should be everyone’s cause.

          • #68 by Reality Is.. on May 14, 2016 - 2:26 pm

            Not true. Only truth is your opinion. Nothing to do with facts.

          • #69 by Russell on May 15, 2016 - 11:02 am

            You just think your beliefs are truth Joe. There are plenty of us who don’t agree with you, your beliefs or your tactics. You will find out in November.

          • #70 by Anonymous on May 15, 2016 - 1:36 pm

            RI is too low level a life form to grasp any of this.

          • #71 by Anonymous on May 16, 2016 - 1:54 pm

            If the actual truth were your cause, then why are you so obsessed with outlandish conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality?

  26. #72 by CISSP on May 15, 2016 - 12:45 pm

    Your ignorance amuses me. This “industrial power” radiation being “forced upon” the students is completely harmless. There is nothing whatsoever saying otherwise.

    • #73 by Anonymous on May 18, 2016 - 9:10 am

      Go make love to your device.

      Critical thinking is beyond your grasp.

  27. #74 by Z on May 15, 2016 - 1:30 pm

    Joe I gotta hand it to you. You are relentless.

  28. #75 by Joe Imbriano on May 16, 2016 - 9:43 pm

    1986 OMD’s album Junk Culture from cover to cover is rife with insight into what is happening before your very eyes. Look at the Tesla girls which are now upon us.

    • #76 by Anonymous on May 17, 2016 - 7:52 am

      Because electropop albums are worthy of supporting scientific arguments.

      • #77 by Anonymous on May 18, 2016 - 9:08 am

        For those willing to consider it, the science on RF-Radiation as a health hazard was established long ago.

        You are attempting to distract.

        • #78 by Anonymous on May 18, 2016 - 2:57 pm

          Yes, and the actual established science happens to be infinitely less alarming than what Joe and other ignoramuses believe.

      • #79 by Fullerton Lover on May 18, 2016 - 4:15 pm

        In February, insurance market Lloyd’s of London informed schools that it was excluding liability coverage for injuries “resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise”, which means that school officials could be personally liable for exposing children and staff to microwave radiation.

        • #80 by Anonymous on May 19, 2016 - 9:29 am

          That’s fine, because there won’t ever be any injuries from those sources.

          • #81 by Fullerton Lover on May 19, 2016 - 10:34 am

            When the oldest, largest, and best insurance underwriter ( oddsmaker ) on the planet (Lloyds of London) says that they won’t cover your bet, or take your money to provide insurance coverage against a liability, it’s definitely because their actuarial tables tell them they’ll it’s a losing proposition for their shareholders…

   the their shareholders.

            • #82 by Anonymous on May 20, 2016 - 6:51 am

              Two wireless radiation lawsuits in U.S.

              Murray vs. Motorola, claim: cell phone radiation caused brain tumor, $1.9 B per WSJ

              Fay school in MA, claim: wireless radiation in school caused microwave sickness in a student.

              That is just in the U.S.

              Ins. won’t cover it because they know. And, the ignorant folks here continue to deny what they don’t know.

              • #83 by Anonymous on May 20, 2016 - 9:23 am

                Just because a case miiiiight cost that much to the defendant doesn’t prove anything, especially when the case is probably going to be dismissed anyways. Murray v Motorola relies on a really low standard for providing “expert” witness testimony (similar to this website…), and is likely to be thrown in the garbage.

                Also, microwave sickness is not a real physiological thing (maybe a mental disorder, I’ll give it that). Neither are CHEMTRAILS. And the earth is not flat.

                • #84 by Joe Imbriano on May 20, 2016 - 9:28 am

                  Here is what all your exposure guidelines are based on-a dummy’s head. The dummy has no brain and no heart. The case is closed. The exposure guidelines were established based on heating of an inanimate object. Whoever you are, you are defending the indefensible.


                  • #85 by Anonymous on May 20, 2016 - 9:33 am

                    You pasted an incomprehensible google link that is broken.

                    I’d think you were as intelligent as a brick, but that would be an insult to bricks everywhere.

                    • #86 by Joe Imbriano on May 20, 2016 - 10:17 am

                      I fixed it for you. Pull your head out of your rectum and look at what the exposure guidelines are established on, heating of an inanimate object. Whoever you are, you are defending the indefensible.

                  • #87 by Reality Is.. on May 20, 2016 - 9:45 am

                    Joe. Do you have wifi in your house? Do you have a cell phone?

                    • #88 by Joe Imbriano on May 20, 2016 - 10:13 am

                      Hardwired home and a flip phone. Cell phone use is voluntary. No comparison to 35 children locked in a classroom with 35 devices running all day and at Troy high school they have metal walls. Totally illegal and immoral. It amounts to forcing children to remain in a microwave oven.

                  • #89 by Anonymous on May 20, 2016 - 12:09 pm

                    And your fix is just a link to a low resolution picture of a dummy.

                    Kind of fitting.

                    • #90 by Joe Imbriano on May 20, 2016 - 12:48 pm

                      Yes that is the entire basis of the wireless industries’ claims of safety-testing on the head of a dummy

                    • #91 by Anonymous on May 20, 2016 - 2:05 pm

                      You’re missing the point.

                      You are being either deceptive or completely inept at attempting to show anything of value to refute the idea that your claims are anything but bunk.

                      I’m betting you’re just a dummy, not malicious, but maybe you’re getting the benefit of the doubt…

                • #92 by Fullerton Lover on May 20, 2016 - 12:18 pm

                  Then why would Lloyd’s, the world’s largest insurance underwriter, specifically refuse to provide ANY school district in the entire world with protection from damages that may result from their Wi Fi usage?

                  Lloyd’s even went on to specify, that the school administrators and the residents of those school districts, (you the taxpayer) will be the ones on the hook to paying out damages to claimants ?

                  • #93 by Tom Whitney on May 23, 2016 - 5:14 am

                    Ray, this is a good study to take a closer look at – focusing on the data tables. Except for the Hardell references, none of the 95% CIs are statistically significant – and even the Hardell numbers just barely exceed the threshold. Furthermore, the overall occurrence rate (OR) for this study is also not statistically significant. Only when the Hardell data is sliced and diced* without using a multiple comparison correction (i.e. Bonferroni) does a couple of sub-groups exhibit positive results. Since at least 1 false positive out of every 20 tests can be expected at 95% CI – this flaw, along with the other methodological shortcomings – like poor exposure assessment, makes this study and its’ conclusions quite unconvincing.

                    *AKA ‘data dredging’ – details at:

                    • #94 by Tom Whitney = shill on May 23, 2016 - 8:27 am

                      Does it pay well to betray humanity?

                  • #95 by Tom Whitney on May 23, 2016 - 5:19 am

                    Why would they, indeed! The answer is that they have done no such thing. Somebody just made that story up, expecting that nobody would check it out.

                    You can get the facts at these links:

                    • #96 by Joe Imbriano on May 23, 2016 - 6:18 am

                      Tom sites cell towers for a living FYI and Matt Karaffa designs wireless technology. Note the striking resemblance.



                    • #97 by Fullerton Lover on May 23, 2016 - 6:55 am

                      Tom Whitney:

                      Here is ne of the many references available which cite that Lloyd’s, the world’s largest insurance underwriter excludes any damages resulting from EMF caused by any mobile electronic devices.

                      School officials could be personally liable for exposing children and staff to microwave radiation in our schools.

                      School districts, school boards and school medical health officers have been notified that Lloyd’s of London has now excluded any liability coverage for injuries, “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” This would include the microwave radiation emitting from the commercial wi-fi transmitters and wireless devices in our schools.

                      In response to a request for clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s:

                      “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”

                      Lloyd’s of London, one of the world’s largest insurance companies often leads the way in protection by taking on risks that no one else will. At the end of this article there is a copy of a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation.

                      In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) dropped a bombshell on the wireless industry. They designated exposure to wi-fi radiation to be a possible human carcinogen. As well in the 1990s illnesses resulting from asbestos exposure, covered by Lloyd’s at the time, almost destroyed the insurance company. Due to these issues, it appears Lloyd’s is acting fast to avoid another such financial fiasco by not covering illnesses that result from exposure to wireless radiation.

                      With the Lloyd’s of London announcement, parents and teachers are left with this question: exactly who is liable if their child is harmed by wi-fi in their school? Concomitantly, are the individuals who approved the installation of wireless internet networks in our schools to be held personally liable for negligence?

                      School officials and administrators appear to be in a bind as they have refused to acknowledge the 1000s of peer-reviewed, non-industry funded studies by scientists and medical experts that show that wi-fi radiation is harmful, especially to children. Moreover, their dogged allegiance to Health Canada’s now invalidated safety guidelines have left parents with nowhere else to turn other than the courts. It appears that school boards’ intransigent position on the issue may have left board members themselves vulnerable to being personally sued.

                      * Note that Mr. Imbriano has left a digital paper trail with most if not all of those school board members responsible, which should make it extra difficult for them to use the following defense to avoid exposure to the inevitable lawsuits which will be in the near future…

                      Wilful blindness:” (sometimes called ignorance of law, wilful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting him or herself in a position where he or she will be unaware of facts that would render him or her liable


                    • #98 by Tom Whitney = shill on May 23, 2016 - 8:33 am

                      Shill for telecom industry.

                    • #99 by Anon on May 25, 2016 - 9:01 am


                  • #100 by Anonymous on May 23, 2016 - 7:35 am

                    It couldn’t be possible that multiple people think your claims are BS. How could so many people be wrong on the Internet! It MUST be a conspiracy!

                    • #101 by Joe Imbriano on May 23, 2016 - 8:17 am

                      Only those that make their living harming people. What do you do for a living?

                    • #102 by Fullerton Lover on May 23, 2016 - 10:26 am

                      I’m sure that there are multiple people that think that exposure to RF and specifically being constantly bombarded with microwave frequencies is all BS, and I’m perfectly o.k. with that

                      My guess is that they are the progeny of those in the 50’s and 60’s that thought smoking could never cause cancer either, and we all know how that turned out eh?

                    • #103 by Tom Whitney on May 25, 2016 - 8:54 am

                      Fullerton Lover – You are mistaken on a few points. Firstly, the statement you refer to is from one of Lloyd’s thousands of agents – explaining CFC policy regarding Product Liability for A&E clients. It has nothing to do with Lloyd terms whatever. Secondly, Lloyd’s is not an underwriter. It’s an intermediary acting for the thousands of underwriters that set their own criteria of liability acceptance. Lloyd’s has no acceptance criteria of it’s own!


                  • #104 by Anonymous on May 23, 2016 - 9:37 am

                    Hah! I’ll answer that question with as much clarity as you when answering any direct questions here.

        • #105 by Anonymous on May 19, 2016 - 9:31 am

          Correct. Mr. Imbriano’s last statements at the FSD board meeting are very important.

          • #106 by Anonymous on May 19, 2016 - 9:00 pm

            If by “important” you mean laughably ignorant, then sure.

          • #107 by Anonymous on May 19, 2016 - 10:17 pm

            And what may those comments be if I may ask?

        • #108 by Reality Is.. on May 19, 2016 - 9:31 am

          Can we at least buy them some encyclopedias then?

  29. #109 by Reality Is.. on May 20, 2016 - 10:48 am

    Old Skool. At least you are practicing what you preach. Flip phone lol awesome.

    Joe Imbriano :
    Hardwired home and a flip phone. Cell phone use is voluntary. No comparison to 35 children locked in a classroom with 35 devices running all day and at Troy high school they have metal walls. Totally illegal and immoral. It amounts to forcing children to remain in a microwave oven.

  30. #110 by Do your own research on May 21, 2016 - 5:20 am

    There are plenty of sources on the health hazards of wireless radiation and many of them are cited on this blog.

    You choose to make Joe Imbriano the focus.

    Stop being an idiot.

    • #111 by Anonymous on May 21, 2016 - 10:07 am

      And yet no one has linked any credible science, just a picture of a dummy.

      “Do your own research” is the retort of someone who has nothing to back up their argument.

      • #112 by Ray on May 21, 2016 - 1:15 pm

        This is one of many links that have been published on the very issue. You are either terribly misinformed or very evil.

        • #113 by Anonymous on May 23, 2016 - 4:29 pm

          Hardell’s research is far from accepted by the scientific community as anything but a hypothesis, and for sound reasons. The dude doesn’t understand how to do an actual scientific study.

          • #114 by Anonymous on May 24, 2016 - 12:28 pm

            Studies confirming Hardell’s work have come out since then. But you would know that.

            2012 Italian Supreme Court ruled a man’s brain tumor was caused by cell phone radiation

            U.S. Murray vs. Motorola, cell phone radiation causes brain tumor, potential $1.9 B

            But, you know that already. It’s too late for you shills or deniers. People are dying.

            • #115 by Reality Is..... on May 24, 2016 - 2:08 pm

              How could anyone confirm that a brain tumor or cancer is caused by one specific source? I will never believe that. Everything in our lives contributes to things that happen in our bodies. A study just came out saying the acid reflux pill i take causes dementia. Doctor said BS how can anyone say that someone has symptoms of dementia and it’s caused by a pill someone took? Impossible. I get the bias if you are on this bandwagon but the studies can never say that something specific caused that.

              • #116 by Anonymous on May 24, 2016 - 4:57 pm

                The point is the courts are ruling that way, the insurers won’t insure, people are dying. It’s just too late, but you can ignore this for however long you want.

                • #117 by Reality Is.. on May 24, 2016 - 7:31 pm

                  I understand insurance. Just in case they don’t want anything to do with it. Courts I would have to read some USA court decisions and judgements. Send me some.

                  • #118 by Tom Whitney on May 25, 2016 - 8:35 am

                    See this document for one court’s decision on the state of the science:


                    • #119 by Joe Imbriano on May 25, 2016 - 8:43 am

                      Of course in the United States where this trillion dollar sterilization agenda is in full swing, telecom shills like Tom Whitney who makes a living putting cell towers everywhere will defend the indefensible along with all the corrupt politicians, scientists, doctors, laywers all the way down to the establishment sycophants. The children are being intentionally sterilize in schools by wireless. Show me the studies on the human ova. We know wireless sterilizes rats. You would think there would be 1000’s of studies showing that it doesn’t yet the childless wonders defend the indefensible.

                      Tom can I add your photo to this one?

                    • #120 by Fullerton Lover on May 25, 2016 - 9:44 am

                      From what I understood from Tom’s profile, is that he is a real estate broker that was put in charge of procuring land for the cell tower industry.

                      Sounds like he was a pimp for the Canadian telecom industry.

                      No bias there eh?

                • #121 by Anonymous on May 25, 2016 - 7:28 am

                  No one is dying from wifi. And no one will.

                  • #122 by Mary on May 25, 2016 - 11:22 am

                    The federal gov’t just admitted cell phones are carcinogenic: this is a game-changer:


                    This study was commissioned 15 years ago- after Europe had already found that cellphones cause cancer- in their equivalent studies- the REFLEX studies- which were reported out in 2000.

                    The results are late- and after dilly-dallying- the feds are finally acknowledging the obvious, which researchers have known for a long time.

                    The article makes a stunning statement, which echoes what leading researchers have said for a while- that there is enough evidence now to put cell phones into a group 1A carcinogen category which means that public abatement and control would be required.

                    More recent news-

                    1) Argentina has a bill in its lower house to ban Wi-Fi in public (schools, hospitals and cultural institutions)- phones would also be banned from critical areas of hospitals)

                    2) Israel just disconnected Wi-Fi in its 3rd largest city, Haifa (high tech center & home of Technion- which is that country’s MIT). Here in the US, The Onteora NY PTA asked the school board to disconnect the Wi-Fi; a Petaluma, CA parents’ group is circulating a flyer advocating hard-wiring of iPads- with a visual of the “spider-wire” solution.

                    3) The Vienna Medical Association recommended hard-wiring instead of Wi-Fi and restriction of cell phone use and not loading up phones with apps, etc).

                    Today’s big announcement:

                    Microwave News: $25 million study finds cell phone radiation causes cancer in rats

                    Microwave News reports today that the $25 million dollar study conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) has found that exposure to cell phone radiation caused cancer in rats. See Microwave News for more details.

                    The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization should now have sufficient evidence to raise the classification of radiofrequency radiation from “possibly carcinogenic” (Group 2B) to “carcinogenic” (Group 1).

                    The findings of this laboratory study parallel the results of numerous epidemiologic studies in humans which have found that long-term heavy cell phone use increases the risk of brain cancer (or glioma), a malignant tumor in glial cells, and acoustic neuroma, a nonmalignant tumor in Schwann cells in the brain. In the rats, however, the affected Schwann cells were in the heart.

                    The study was proposed by the NTP in 2001. This long-awaited study is the only research on cell phone radiation health effects that our federal government has conducted since the 1990’s. The government should release the study results soon.

                    Rats and mice were exposed to two second generation (2G) cell phone technologies which are still used for voice transmission. Both 2G technologies caused tumors in rats, but not in mice.

                    2G technologies will soon be obsolete because cell phone companies in the U.S. are planning to use 4G LTE for voice transmission. However, recent research on 3G and 4G suggests these technologies, in spite of their lower power densities, may be more risky than 2G.

                    The human studies showing increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma are listed in the references to the article, “Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels?” (Wall Street Journal):

                    Also see:

                    Government Failure to Address Wireless Radiation Risks

                  • #123 by Anonymous on May 25, 2016 - 11:40 am

                    Yeah, that’s what they said about cigarettes 50 years ago. Guess you can wait until it happens to you or someone you love dearly. I feel sorry for you.

                    • #124 by Anonymous on May 25, 2016 - 2:11 pm

                      There are a lot of deniers on this blog.

            • #125 by Anonymous on May 24, 2016 - 4:29 pm

              Could you point to any of these studies? Every one I saw thoroughly discredited Hardell and his meager methodology.

              The Italian Supreme Court is a real scientific authority – always great to consult them when making logical choices.

              And finally, no, Murray v Motorola did not confirm that – it’s still in the court system, and the plaintiff’s sole “expert” witness (who is about as strong a witness as Joe) is probably going to be thrown out because of a lack of real expertise.

              So yeah, try again.

              • #126 by Anonymous on May 25, 2016 - 5:55 am

                Re: Murray vs. Motorola, and for those that can read, it says “potential”, not a done deal.

                No, I will not point out the studies confirming Hardell’s conclusion.

                Refute everything if you want, shill.

                • #127 by Anonymous on May 25, 2016 - 7:26 am

                  Oooh, call anyone that calls out the bullshit here names. That’s a solid way to go through life… if you’re and 8-year-old.

                  And of course it says “potential.” Joe has the “potential” to actually win a seat on city council, but we all know it ain’t gonna happen. Quoting something that has “potential” is a doesn’t support an argument at all. Let’s deal with actual facts.

                  Like those mystery studies supporting Hardell…

        • #128 by Tom Whitney on May 25, 2016 - 6:36 am

          Ray, this is a good study to take a closer look at – focusing on the data tables. Except for the Hardell references, none of the 95% CIs are statistically significant – and even the Hardell numbers just barely exceed the threshold. Furthermore, the overall occurrence rate (OR) for this study is also not statistically significant. Only when the Hardell data is sliced and diced* without using a multiple comparison correction (e.g. Bonferroni) does a couple of sub-groups exhibit positive results. Since at least 1 false positive out of every 20 tests can be expected at 95% CI – this flaw, along with the other methodological shortcomings – like poor exposure assessment, makes this study and its’ conclusions quite unconvincing.

          *AKA ‘data dredging’ – details at:

    • #129 by Reality Is.. on May 21, 2016 - 4:20 pm

      And the whole country is doing it and they all feel it safe except Joe. I see a pattern.

      • #130 by Anonymous on May 21, 2016 - 7:07 pm

        I’m curious as to how much the Fullerton school districts are saving residents each year by using wireless tablets instead of textbooks?

        You don’t think for a minute that they’d be counting those savings as part of the raise that they’re currently asking for, or to make sure their early retirements are funded do you?

        Are they going to lower our taxes with the money that they’re saving?

        • #131 by Joe Imbriano on May 21, 2016 - 7:17 pm

          The only thing wireless will do is lower the population

        • #132 by Reality Is..... on May 21, 2016 - 8:35 pm

          Raises are part of life. Everyone should get a 1-2% raise a year if they are a full time employee and producing as they should. Everyone.

        • #133 by Anonymous on May 22, 2016 - 6:15 am

          In the short term they may believe they are saving money by buying the tech.

          In the long term, the costs to replace the tech, train teachers, repurchase licensed software, etc. continually will more than wipe out any perceived cost savings.

          Of course, that does not even figure in the health care costs and costs to an individual and society in implementing an already FAILED method of education.

          No, they will not lower our taxes.

          • #134 by Anonymous on May 22, 2016 - 10:51 am

            Yes, our education system surely has failed if you and Joe are products of it.

          • #135 by Reality Is..... on May 22, 2016 - 12:32 pm

            I don’t read much that has anything factual on this sight but that is the first thing I’ve read in awhile. Yes, technology costs more money in the long term and is never looked at with the original purchase. Maintenance agreements, replacement of out of warranty products, and upgrading outdated hardware and software. I feel that using new technology is the best thing for our children, but it definitely costs more money in the long run.

  31. #136 by Screens in Ed? on May 24, 2016 - 10:34 am

    Stop Wasting My Tax Dollars on Screens: A Letter to Public Schools (and What I Wish You Would Do Instead)

    “In a major worldwide study (31 nations) linking computer use with test scores, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that students who used computers the most during the school day had lower reading and math scores. Schools which had more technology in the classroom were improving less than schools which had less technology.”

    • #137 by Reality Is..... on May 24, 2016 - 2:09 pm

      Interesting opinion. Technology is slowing our kids down overall. That would make some sense. Nothing like good old books but if you grow up using only books these days, you will be lost in the real corporate or real world once you get out of school. It’s all about computers and gadgets now. Can’t be left behind.

      • #138 by Anonymous on May 25, 2016 - 6:56 am

        “lost in the real corporate or real world”? “Can’t be left behind?”
        You are parroting meaningless tripe.

        Use of Ed Tech has no basis or history to justify it’s use in learning. What they are finding, now that devices are being handed to babies, is that child development is adversely affected because the children are now relating to a screen, rather than socially interacting with people. Children are becoming good little screen swipers and tappers, that is all. There is the addiction to the screens that results in behavioral problems with the kids, eye problems with screen time that will manifest later in cataracts.

        The brain does not process reading off of a screen the same as on paper. College students are discouraged from taking notes on a computer because the word is out there that our brains do not retain the information nearly as well when typed on a keyboard.

        This does not even address the radiation exposure on memory and concentration.

        We are learning a lot in the school of hard knocks. Ed Tech is already an epic failure for our children but that evidence is being drowned out by false accolades promoting education’s Hail Mary Pass, aka “technology.” Ed Tech and Common Core are corporate ownership of education. It is big business, with the tech component financed, in part, by our cell phone tax via E-Rate funding. Isn’t that nice?

        Oh, and the data mining people keeping yapping about? Yes, they are collecting data on every one of our children and that metadata is sold to other corporations. Yes, there is a market for this, another means to generate profit.

        So, when you consider FSD Hilda Sugarcane’s quote in the OC Reg a couple of years ago that she wants the children to have iPads 24/7 it is quite baseless and harmful. When you factor in the wireless radiation exposure to kids, it is devastating. We have quite the Nazi experiment going on and it is on the children.

        Ed Tech essential? No, not even . . . not even close.

        Zone’n Fact Sheet — “A research review regarding the impact of technology on child development, behavior, and academic performance.”

        Parents’ smartphones harming children’s ability to hold conversation, say teachers

        People Are Merging with Their Smartphones

        Sensory Processing Disorder — NACST

        Education: everybody’s got a price. Stand Up and Refuse

        Psychology Today
        Gray Matters: Too Much Screen Time Damages the Brain too-much-screen-time-damages-the-brain
        Dr. Victoria Dunkley

        Neuroscience News
        Electronic Baby Toys Associated with Decreased Quality and Quantity of Language in Infants

        Common Core | Education Without Representation
        Utah and Oklahoma Moms Chat About Data Mining Children Without Our Consent (22:44 minute video) moms-chat-about-data-mining-children-without-our-consent/

        The Wall Street Journal
        Teach Your Children Well: Unhook Them From Technology technology-1451683457
        Naomi Schaefer Riley

        06 January 2016
        Time | Health | Parenting
        Cell-Phone Distracted Parenting Can Have Long-Term Consequences: Study…/cell-phone-distracted-parenting-can-have…/
        Alice Park
        “New research shows how cell phone distraction can deprive babies’ developing brains of crucial developmental signals.”
        This article discusses the recent study by Dr. Tallie Baram, professor of pediatrics and anatomy-neurobiology at University of California, Irvine. See January 2016 newsletter also. Access to the study itself is not available.

        11 February 2016
        Forbes | Education
        Sleepwalking Our Way Into the Teacher-Less Classroom into-the-teacher-less-classroom/print/
        Nick Morrison

        01 November 2015
        Get Wired International EMF Conference | Sponsored by Beneficial Environments Electronic Media and the Brain – Rewiring For Better or Worse? (37 minute video)
        Paula Healy, MSc

        04 March 2015
        The Chronicle of Higher Education
        The Benefits of No-Tech Note Taking Note/228089/?utm_content=bufferff453&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebo
        Carol E. Holstead
        “A year after banning students from taking notes on laptops, a professor reports on the results.”

        03 June 2014
        Scientific American
        A Learning Secret: Don’t Take Notes With a Laptop with-a-laptop/
        Cindi May

        Little Things
        10 Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Give A Child A Smartphone Or Tablet technology/?utm_source=hum
        Elyse Wanshel
        Great illustrations accompany the 10 reasons not to give children a smartphone or tablet.

  32. #139 by Fullerton Lover on May 24, 2016 - 5:50 pm

    Try incorporating a couple of teaspoons of apple cider vinegar into your diet each day.

    Works wonders on arthritis as well, and osts less than $5 at Safeway or Henry’s.

    No harm in trying huh?

    • #140 by Reality Is.. on May 24, 2016 - 7:17 pm

      I’ll try anything once. 🙂

  33. #141 by Show me the bodies -- as public health policy on May 25, 2016 - 7:00 am

    Show Me the Bodies: Monumental Public Policy Failure

  34. #142 by $25 M NTP Cancer & wireless study on May 25, 2016 - 9:03 am

    Cell Phone Radiation Boosts Cancer Rates in Animals;
    $25 Million NTP Study Finds Brain Tumors

    U.S. Government Expected To Advise Public of Health Risk

    May 25, 2016
    The cell phone cancer controversy will never be the same again.

    The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) is expected to issue a public announcement that cell phone radiation presents a cancer risk for humans. The move comes soon after its recently completed study showed statistically significant increases in cancer among rats that had been exposed to GSM or CDMA signals for two-years.

    Discussions are currently underway among federal agencies on how to inform the public about the new findings. NTP senior managers believe that these results should be released as soon as possible because just about everyone is exposed to wireless radiation all the time and therefore everyone is potentially at risk.

    The new results contradict the conventional wisdom, advanced by doctors, biologists, physicists, epidemiologists, engineers, journalists and government officials, among other pundits, that such effects are impossible. This view is based, in part, on the lack of an established mechanism for RF radiation from cell phones to induce cancer. For instance, earlier this week (May 22), a medical doctor in Michigan wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal stating that, “There is no known mechanism by which mobile phones might cause brain tumors.” He went on to argue that there is no need to warn the public about health risks.

    The NTP findings show that as the intensity of the radiation increased, so did the incidence of cancer among the rats. “There was a significant dose-response relationship,” a reliable source, who has been briefed on the results, told Microwave News. No effect was seen among mice. The source asked that his/her name not be used since the NTP has not yet made a formal announcement. The rats were exposed to three different exposure levels (1.5, 3 and 6 W/Kg, whole body exposures ) and two different types of cell phone radiation, GSM and CDMA.

    An Amazing Coincidence?

    Importantly, the exposed rats were found to have higher rates of two types of cancers: glioma, a tumor of the glial cells in the brain, and malignant schwannoma of the heart, a very rare tumor. None of the unexposed control rats developed either type of tumor.

    A number of epidemiological studies have linked cell phones to both gliomas and to Schwann cell tumors. The Interphone study, for instance, found an association between the use of cell phones and gliomas.

    The sheath that wraps around cranial nerves —such as the one that connects the inner ear to the brain— is made of Schwann cells. Tumors of those cells are called acoustic neuromas. That is, an acoustic neuroma is a type of Schwannoma. At least four different epidemiological studies have found an association between the use of cell phones and acoustic neuromas.

    Ron Melnick, who led the team that designed the NTP study and who is now retired, confirmed the general outline of the results detailed by the confidential source. “The NTP tested the hypothesis that cell phone radiation could not cause health effects and that hypothesis has now been disproved,” he said in a telephone interview. “The experiment has been done and, after extensive reviews, the consensus is that there was a carcinogenic effect.”

    “These data redefine the cell phone radiation controversy,” Melnick said. The safety of cell phones has been debated for more than 20 years, especially after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen in 2011.

    “This is a major public health concern because the cells which became cancerous in the rats were the same types of cells as those that have been reported to develop into tumors in cell phone epidemiological studies,” Melnick added. “For this to be a chance coincidence would be truly amazing.”

    The NTP radiation project, which has been underway for more than a decade, is the most expensive ever undertaken by the toxicology program. More than $25 million has been spent so far.

    Another interesting coincidence is that the Ramazzini study of rats in Bologna exposed to extremely low frequency (50 Hz) EMFs also developed a significant increase in malignant schwannoma of the heart.

    NTP Stands By the Study Results

    Because of the importance of these results to public health, the NTP alerted the highest levels of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), where resistance prompted further reviews. No serious flaws in the data or the conduct of the studies were identified.

    Senior managers including Linda Birnbaum, the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) who also serves as the director of the NTP, and John Bucher, the associate director of the NTP, who is in charge of the cell phone study, are standing by the study findings. They see the need to release the results as a public health imperative, according to the source.

    Chris Portier, who once held Bucher’s job, agrees that the NTP is doing the right thing. “I would be adamant that we should share the data with the public as soon as possible,” he said in an interview. The cell phone study was initiated while Portier was serving as the associate director of the NTP. He is now retired, though he continues to work as a consultant.

    After extended discussions, the two federal agencies responsible for regulating exposures to cell phone radiation, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), were briefed on the results last week. It is not clear how these regulatory agencies plan to respond.

    All the various agencies are now in the process of planning the release of the NTP findings. Neither Birnbaum nor Bucher responded to a request for comment on how this will be done.

    Unexpected Findings

    Few outsiders are yet aware of the NTP results. When Microwave News told some of those who have been tracking the study for years what had been found, all expressed surprise.

    Indeed, in an interview published years ago, NTP’s Bucher said that he expected the results to show no association between RF radiation and cancer.

    “Everyone expected this study to be negative,” said a senior government radiation official, who asked that his name not be used. “Assuming that the exposures were carried out in a way that heating effects can be ruled out, then those who say that such effects found are impossible are wrong,” the official said. (The study was designed to ensure that the body temperature of the exposed rats increased less than 1ºC.)

    “This is a game changer, there is no question,” said David Carpenter, the director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany. “It confirms what we have been seeing for many years —though now we have evidence in animals as well as in humans.” Carpenter went on to add, “The NTP has the credibility of the federal government. It will be very difficult for the naysayers to deny the association any longer.” Carpenter’s institute is a collaborating center of the World Health Organization (WHO).

    John Boice, the president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), is one of the leading skeptics. “For most of us, the issue of brain cancer and cell phones is resolved. There is no risk. There is no biological mechanism and no animal study or cellular study that finds reproducible evidence of an effect,” Boice told a reporter for Medscape Medical News earlier this month.

    This view is so deeply held that in the summer of 2014, the NCRP pressured the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to delete precautionary advice from a fact sheet on cell phones.

    Boice was discounting last year’s report from Germany by Alex Lerchl confirming an earlier animal study showing that cell phone radiation can promote tumors in mice that were induced by toxic chemicals. The NTP experiments did not use any agent to initiate cancer cells in the animals.

    With respect to mechanisms, just a couple of months ago, Frank Barnes and Ben Greenebaum, two senior members of the RF research community, announced that they could explain how low levels of RF radiation could alter the growth rates of cancer cells.


    NTP RF Animal Project: Timeline

    1999 FDA nominates RF from wireless devices for testing by NTP

    2001 NTP decides to sponsor RF–cancer studies

    2003 NTP solicits proposals for RF–cancer experiments

    2004 NTP issues second request for proposals

    2005 NTP signs contract with IITRI in Chicago to carry out exposures

    2007 Exposure systems made by IT’IS installed at IITRI

    2009 The lead investigator Ron Melnick retires, Michael Wyde takes over

    2014-15 Exposures of two-year studies completed

    2016 Results in hand


    Further reading:

    —“Institute of Environmental Health Secrets: NIEHS Mum on $25 million RF Animal Project”
    —“NCRP Pressured CDC To Remove Cell Phone Safety Advice”
    — “RF Cancer Promotion: Animal Study Makes Waves”
    — “CDC Calls for Caution on Cell Phones, Then Gets Cold Feet”
    — “Something Is Rotten in Denmark:
    Danish Cancer Society Plays Games with Tumor Rates”
    — “It May Not Be Impossible After All”
    — “Power-Frequency EMFs Promote Cancer in Massive Animal Study”
    — “Will NIEHS Ever ‘Get’ EMFs?”

  35. #143 by Fullerton Resident on May 25, 2016 - 11:04 am

    For someone who claims the web administrator and those that frequently agree with him do not know what they are talking about, Reality Is sure spends an awful lot of time on this site. In fact, I just noted that out of the last 33 comments, Reality Is wrote 13 of them or 40%.

    I think that demonstrates that Reality Is truly believes that this website is really good at getting at the truth concerning the Fullerton High School and Elementary School Districts as well as the City of Fullerton Government.

    I suggest Reality Is changes his name to – “Defender of the Indefensible”.

    • #144 by Reality Is.. on May 25, 2016 - 2:45 pm

      I thought my posts were more like 75%. Disappointing. I think on FFFF I was 60% of the posts. I compare it to a bunch of dudes sitting around circle jerking each other. At least I interrupt your circle jerk sessions and offer a differing opinion. Otherwise all the same opinions and ideas. That’s no fun.

      • #145 by Fullerton Resident on May 26, 2016 - 8:26 am

        Nothing Reality Is says surprises me anymore. He has no class, no dignity and therefore has no filter on his disgusting mouth.

        I think it is time for Joe to remove this individual from this website. He has used this site as his personal bathroom facilities once to often.

        • #146 by Anonymous on May 26, 2016 - 3:54 pm

          Like Joe could even figure out how to do that. Have you looked at this garbage fire of a website?

        • #147 by Reality Is.. on May 26, 2016 - 6:30 pm

          LOL Awesome response. Thanks. 🙂

  36. #148 by Anonymous on May 25, 2016 - 12:16 pm

    1) Argentina has a bill in its lower house to ban Wi-Fi in public (schools, hospitals and cultural institutions)- phones would also be banned from critical areas of hospitals)

    2) Israel just disconnected Wi-Fi in its 3rd largest city, Haifa (high tech center & home of Technion- which is that country’s MIT). Here in the US, The Onteora NY PTA asked the school board to disconnect the Wi-Fi; a Petaluma, CA parents’ group is circulating a flyer advocating hard-wiring of iPads- with a visual of the “spider-wire” solution.

    3) The Vienna Medical Association recommended hard-wiring instead of Wi-Fi and restriction of cell phone use and not loading up phones with apps, etc).

    • #149 by Anon on May 25, 2016 - 5:10 pm

      Yes, it is being removed from schools all over the world. It is no longer a question that it should be removed, except in the United States.

      We are waaaay behind the curve.

  37. #150 by Chief Troy Irradiators on May 25, 2016 - 3:08 pm

    Jesse Knowles, Dist Chair of Technology, Troy Teacher

    Cathy Kubo, Troy parent, Foundation President, Faithful Christian Servant?, works to bring in pulse modulated microwave radiation into the high school. CONTROLLED OPPOSITION OPERATIVE.

    Anne Sinek, Troy parent, PTSA Officer, Harvard Interviewer, works to bring wireless radiation into the high school. Ignores everything.

    Viven Moreno, Fullerton HS parent, PTA, Fullerton Observer reporter that ignores and misstates everything, works to keep the lid on this information so that parents, students and community are misinformed and so that microwave radiation can be brought into the high school.

    Karen Allen, Fullerton parent, PTA, ignores all the information.

    They are ALL turning their backs on the children and fellow parents. Good job Fullerton in keeping this all locked down: school boards, PTAs, newspapers, city council, city commissions, library board . . .

    This won’t be for long. You are all so selfish and evil to participate in this. YOU TURNED YOUR BACK ON THE KIDS!!! YOU SOLD OUT THE STUDENTS!!!!

    Was it worth it?

    • #151 by Anonymous on May 26, 2016 - 6:44 am

      You just listed people that aren’t swayed by the junk science you idiots present to them, so they should be applauded.

      • #152 by anonymous on May 26, 2016 - 8:19 pm

        The science is what it is, denying the reality of this won’t change anything.

        People are dying but you do nothing but parrot the “junk science” mantra. The kids will suffer for your denial.

        It’s a good thing you are not a parent.

    • #155 by anonymous on May 26, 2016 - 9:25 am

      Apparently, it is worth it.

  38. #156 by iPads in Education "a disaster" on May 26, 2016 - 3:21 pm

    Is anyone surprised? Moving to laptops is plain stupid but I guess if they can still make a buck from education dollars while irradiating the kids, why not?

    By-the-way, other countries have already figured out that Ed Tech is no good for learning.

    Also, decades old government reports list memory, concentration, and cognitive processing among the downsides to wireless radiation exposure. The California Medical Association acknowledges this, as well. So, it has no place in our children’s school. I guess it doesn’t matter if the kids’ health is destroyed and they can’t learn in the microwave radiation as long as they have the technology.

    It’s all about the tech.

    Even Apple is acknowledging that the “iPads in education” fad is coming to an end
    Marta Cooper May 24, 2016

    Classroom help or hindrance? (AP Photo/Morry Gash)
    “A disaster.”
    “Largely gaming devices.”
    “Students use them as toys. Word processing is near to impossible.”

    These were the findings from a survey of high school students and teachers in a district in the US state of Maine on how effective iPads were for learning and teaching. Almost 90% of teachers and 74% of students preferred laptops over tablets, according to the Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal.
    Even Apple has bent to the will of students and teachers. Following the poll, the tech giant and Maine’s Department of Education are now offering schools in the state the chance to trade in iPads ordered in 2013 for new MacBook Air laptops, at no additional cost.
    “If we had known how big a transition it would have been [to switch] from laptops to iPads we would have proactively done some good work with teachers to make the transition easier for them,” Mike Muir, the policy director of the Maine Learning Through Technology Initiative, told Quartz.
    Muir said that Apple was “disappointed” by the survey’s results. According to one of the teachers surveyed, tablets provided “no educational function in the classroom.” More than 1,700 laptops will be delivered to two schools in the state later this year. (We have reached out to Apple for comment.)

    Integrating technology and learning has been a bumpy ride. Last year, a school district in Los Angeles, the second-largest in the United States, aborted a plan to hand out iPads to every student and educator in the area. Launched in 2013, the $1.3-billion project was marked by poor planning and technical glitches. Other districts in Texas and North Carolina have also shelved their iPad learning initiatives.
    One teacher in Virginia thought giving her third graders an iPad would enhance their learning, but found that, for all the device’s benefits in terms of adding more varied activities to lessons, it undermined her pupils’ conversation and communication skills.
    It seems the iPad’s fortunes in the classroom are mimicking its fortunes in its shops.
    In what was a record three months for Mac sales, iPad sales dropped to their lowest level since June 2011 in the fourth quarter of last year. Apple CEO Tim Cook hasn’t stopped believing there’s life in the tablet yet—the company launched an extra-large iPad Pro in September (and a 9.7-inch version earlier this year), dubbing it “the biggest news in iPad since iPad.”

  39. #157 by Just a row of dominoes on May 27, 2016 - 3:57 pm

    The destruction of health and death from wireless radiation exposure.

    Think of a row of dominoes. You know that the dominoes are going to fall. It is just a matter of time.

    • #158 by Joe Imbriano on May 27, 2016 - 6:52 pm

      Comments from Joel Moskosowitz

      “Update on National Toxicology Program Study

      Many major national media outlets participated in the teleconference conducted by the National Toxicology Program today. The journalists posed many questions about the study, and NTP staff did their best to answer them.

      Toward the end of the call I asked whether the following observation is appropriate:

      The report indicates that there was a “low incidence” of tumors in the cellphone-exposed groups. However, the report did not assess the overall risk of tumors for both types of tumors studied. By my calculation, thirty of 540 (5.5%), or one in 18 male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed cancer. In addition, 16 pre-cancerous hyperplasias were diagnosed. Thus, 46 of 540, or one in 12 male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed cancer or a pre-cancerous lesion. No cancers were found in 90 male rats in the unexposed control group.

      NTP staff seemed to think my calculations were accurate, but admitted that they had not performed this calculation.

      Many reporters questioned the study’s implications for cell phone users. In response, staff stated that other federal agencies needed to determine the policy implications. After the call, I calculated the overall risk for the male rats in the group exposed to the lowest intensity of cell phone radiation (i.e., 1.5 watts/kilogram or W/kg). Twelve of 180, or one in 15 male rats in this group developed cancer or a pre-cancerous lesion. This latter finding has policy implications as the FCC’s current cell phone regulations allow cell phones to emit up to 1.6 W/kg at the head or near the body (partial body SAR).”

      See the updated post on my EMR Safety website for more details:,

      Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
      Center for Family and Community Health
      School of Public Health
      University of California, Berkeley

      Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

      News Releases:
      Twitter: @berkeleyprc

      • #159 by Fullerton Lover on May 27, 2016 - 8:02 pm

        This was the lead story on tonight’s NBC News.

        A HUGE gamechanger!

        p.s. Blessed is the age when people like Joe Imbriano and Barry Levinson have the courage and the moral conviction to stand and tell the truth even after they have been harassed, bullied, and intimidated by those who visibly don’t like hearing what their doing is not in the best interest of the children that we have been put on this earth to protect.

        God bless men like Joe and Barry.

        • #160 by Anonymous on May 28, 2016 - 6:03 pm

          Yes, this is just more confirmation that RF-radiation is carcinogenic.

          Yes, both Joe and Barry are standing against the harms to children from these exposures, especially at school where it should be a safe environment.

    • #161 by Anonymous on May 27, 2016 - 10:24 pm

      Everyone dies. But wifi has not and never will be the cause.

      • #162 by Joe Imbriano on May 27, 2016 - 10:50 pm

        The report dealt with MALE RATS. The report dealt with continuous wave, not pulsed. The report dealt with exposure distances of varying degrees. iPads are in direct contact with the sensitive developing reproductive systems of children constantly. The report dealt with 9 hours a day for 2 years. Students will be exposed to a lifetime of exposure. The report dealt with cancer of the brain and heart of RATS, not children.

        Notice how the pulsed RF effects on the FEMALE reproductive systems never seems to get addressed except on the site here. This is sterilization agenda. The project inkwell’s aorta of its manifesto demands that the last end connection in school MUST BE WIRELESS.

        This is an agenda. Fiber optic connectivity has been around for 30 years in the schools. The studies on the effects of pulse modulated microwave radiation on the smooth endoplasmic reticulum of the female ovum have been categorized for decades. This is why Apple put the patented slot antenna of the iPads(infertility pads) at the bottom so it will be real close to the ovaries. This is why Apple has spent over 5 billion dollars on its Cupertino headquarters replete with sigils laying out the whole agenda.

        • #163 by Anonymous on May 28, 2016 - 5:27 pm

          Well, that was a lot of words that have no basis in reality. Congrats!

      • #164 by Anonymous on May 28, 2016 - 9:33 pm

        You are such an ignorant fool.

        That’s okay, just stay away from the kids.

        • #165 by Anonymous on May 29, 2016 - 10:07 am

          Sure, because calling people names is a sure fire way to prove your point.

          • #166 by Anonymous on May 29, 2016 - 6:02 pm

            You are a fool because, in light of the evidence, laws, lawsuits, you continue on in denial.

            Stay away from the kids.

            • #167 by Anonymous on May 30, 2016 - 6:01 pm

              The evidence isn’t there. The laws aren’t there. The lawsuits don’t go your way, and they’re eventually going to disallow charlatans to testify.

              So yeah, I’m not the one denying reality here. I’m not the fool.

              • #168 by Anonymous on May 31, 2016 - 7:32 am

                You are in deep denial.

                Stay away from the kids.

              • #169 by Anonymous on May 31, 2016 - 7:49 am

                The facts: laws and court rulings have already taken place to remove this from countries/provinces/cities, starting with environments dedicated to children, such as schools. France, Israel, Italian provinces, Haifa, Israel, Italian Supreme Court, various Waldorf schools in the U.S., the list goes on . . .

                Teachers and kids are getting sick from the classroom exposures to wireless. Two Canadian teachers unions are asking for wireless to be banned from school. A PTA in NY state is asking that wireless be banned from the school. Another NY state parent group served notice of the school board’s legal liability in their decision to bring wireless in. LAUSD teachers are being granted reasonable accommodations to teach in a classroom without wireless radiation because they become sick from the exposures.

                You are determinedly ignorant, you won’t do the research, but continue to deny. The fact is that the U.S. is behind the curve on this. Other countries have already figured or are beginning to figure it out. They are moving to protect people, beginning with the the most vulnerable, the children.

                Stay away from the kids.

                • #170 by Anonymous on May 31, 2016 - 3:27 pm

                  No one has gotten sick from wireless. You guys are having fun just making up facts.

                  • #171 by Anon on May 31, 2016 - 8:30 pm

                    Go make love to your device.

                    • #172 by Anonymous on June 1, 2016 - 7:58 am

                      Hey baby, what are you up to on YOUR computer? Are you holding it in your hand, or is it heating up your lap? Oh, so warm… I can just feel those keys under your supple fingertips… with just a little more pressure they’d fully engage, resulting in a satisfying click. Oh yeah, work it.

            • #173 by Reality Is.. on May 30, 2016 - 8:05 pm

              Him? You mean the whole country right? Because the whole country is doing it. Joe is definitely not the majority, even in Fullerton.

          • #174 by Anonymous on May 30, 2016 - 9:46 am

            The point was proven decades ago. Anyone wanting to research unnatural EMF would have discovered that long ago. I guess you do not. Now, we are just waiting for the dead bodies to stack up so high so that research is, in fact, verified and self evident.

            Not my “point”, stop trying to deflect.

            • #175 by Anonymous on May 30, 2016 - 6:03 pm

              No points were proven. Crappy scientists have made crappy reports and were laughed at by the rest of the scientific community, and yet you wave those around as if they were gospel.

              • #176 by Anonymous on May 31, 2016 - 5:50 am

                You want to remain ignorant. Evil.

              • #178 by Reality Is..... on June 1, 2016 - 12:44 pm

                everyone is crappy or not believable when it goes against your biased, blind agenda. At least in your eyes.

  40. #179 by Fullerton students' health held captive by deniers on May 31, 2016 - 9:42 am

    “These are the classic rationalizations of the addicted. The world has shrunk to the size of a phone. Longer term concerns like health and well-being, even relationships and life quality, perish under the pressure to maintain the dose. And the fact that it is a mass phenomenon means that the addicted can always find others to buttress their habit.

    Nonetheless, inside some portion of these people, a war goes on, and their own awareness of the ill effects are walled off from consciousness. That’s denial. That lumpen middle can be shifted, as they are very vulnerable to social pressures. The tilt simply hasn’t happened yet.”

    Are all these deniers responsible for the wireless in Fullerton schools?
    Is the health and well being of Fullerton students dependent on these THUGS who are vulnerable to ‘social pressure’?

  41. #180 by Cancer phones on June 1, 2016 - 8:07 am

    How Might Cell Phone Signals Cause Cancer?

    An expert answers questions about what could happen at the cellular level after a report links radio-frequency signals to tumors in rats

    • By Larry Greenemeier on May 27, 2016

    The release of a study Friday linking cancer in rats to the type of radiation emitted by cell phones presents some of the strongest implications in more than two decades of research that higher doses of such signals could be linked to tumors in laboratory animals—unsettling news for billions of mobile phone users worldwide. Still missing, however, is a clear understanding of exactly how radiofrequency (RF) radiation used by mobile phones might create cellular-level changes that could lead to cancer.

    The study by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found that as the thousands of rats studied were exposed to greater intensities of RF radiation, more of them developed rare forms of brain and heart cancer that could not be easily explained away, exhibiting a direct dose-response relationship. NTP acknowledges that the research is not definitive and that more research needs to be done.

    This is familiar territory for Jerry Phillips, a biochemist and director of the Excel Science Center at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Phillips conducted Motorola-funded research into the potential health impacts of cell phones during the 1990s while he was with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ Pettis VA Medical Center in Loma Linda, Calif. Phillips and his colleagues looked at the effects of different RF signals on rats, and on cells in a dish. “The most troublesome finding to Motorola at the time is that these radiofrequency signals could interact with living tissues, which is what we saw in the rats,” he says.

    Scientific American spoke with Phillips about the NTP’s announcement, as well as his own experiences trying to understand how RF signals could be causing the DNA damage seen in his lab’s rats.

    [An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

    How is cell phone radiation different from other forms of radiation?

    Cell phone radiation is non-ionizing radiation. X-rays, for example, are ionizing radiation and contain sufficient energy to break chemical bonds. Non-ionizing radiation associated with radiofrequency fields is very, very low-energy, so there’s insufficient energy to break chemical bonds. It was always assumed that because the power being created by the handsets was low enough, there would be insufficient energy for heat production—and without heat production there would be no biological effects [on users] whatsoever.

    What happens to living cells when they are exposed to RF radiation?

    The signal couples with those cells, although nobody really knows what the nature of that coupling is. Some effects of that reaction can be things like movement of calcium across membranes, the production of free radicals or a change in the expression of genes in the cell. Suddenly important proteins are being expressed at times and places and in amounts that they shouldn’t be, and that has a dramatic effect on the function of the cells. And some of these changes are consistent with what’s seen when cells undergo conversion from normal to malignant. These effects vary depending on the nature of the signal, the length of the exposure and the specifics of the signal itself.

    How does the use of rats impact the validity of a study designed to determine whether cell phones are safe for people?

    We try to find the best model system available based on physiology, genetics and what we know about biochemistry. Rats are really a pretty good model for humans. Of course, the question you’ve asked is now what the [wireless device] industry is going to hit on. Their primary rebuttal is that these are rats and not people.

    NTP studied both Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Global System for Mobile (GSM) modulations, which dictate how signals carry information. Why test more than one modulation in a study like this?

    You test those two modulations because both are in wide use today. I don’t know exactly what [the NTP’s] rationale was, but the rationale we used for our study in the 1990s was to find out if signal modulation had an effect on what we were looking at. Part of the problem studying radiofrequency radiation is that we have not a clue what constitutes a dose. If you have a chemical, you can weigh it out and you know what the dose is. But with radiofrequency radiation there are too many parameters—power intensity, carrier frequency, length of exposure, signal intermittency or some combination—and nobody knows what’s most important.

    What has been the prevailing argument against non-ionizing radiation causing cancer?

    It’s a complicated issue. If you look as something as simple as smoking—for so long people had no clue what was in cigarette smoke that caused cancer. You could see when a smoker died that the lungs were different from those of a non-smoker, but at first it was hard to identify the mechanism causing the change in the lungs. It’s been the same sort of argument here—there’s no plausible explanation that something with such low energy could cause significant biological effects that are adverse to human health and development. Those of us working in the area of gene expression saw those effects, but there had been no way to explain them.

    What should people take away from the NTP’s latest study results?

    All this really does is provide a couple of answers but raise even more questions. My guess is that the needle won’t move much at all in this country. If you look at all of the research being done on this, it’s all from outside this country. People want to believe their technology is safe. I do. I would love to believe it, but I know better.

    How do you reconcile your own cell phone use with the potential health hazards?

    I’ll connect the phone to Bluetooth in my car. Or I’ll text. Or I if I have to make a phone call I put it on speaker. But you have to realize that this issue opens up a much bigger can of worms than cell phones. If this radiation, this form of energy can interact with biological tissue then it’s going to reopen a lot of what were supposedly settled issues regarding the safety of wireless communications. If we’re going to be bathed in a whole new electromagnetic environment, how safe is it?

    • #181 by Joe Imbriano on June 1, 2016 - 12:32 pm

      Then why the hell are putting this in all of the schools? I will tell you why-it is an agenda-

  42. #182 by FJUHSD in the Dark Ages on June 10, 2016 - 7:06 am

    Regarding the wireless radiation in Fullerton schools, we are in the Dark Ages, inflicting 21st century harm, while countries, cities, provinces, are REMOVING THE WIRELESS.

    Ashland, MA, school district is the first US school district to limit Wi-Fi in their schools, now considers REMOVING it and replacing it with 100% wired technology.

  43. #183 by "Drunk on Wireless" on June 11, 2016 - 9:28 pm

    “Drunk on Wireless: Public Health Consequences of Cell Phone and Wireless Technologies are Begging for Society’s Attention”

    The children in the schools will pay the price for the exposures.

  44. #184 by Anonymous on August 31, 2016 - 12:55 pm

    Joe, I don’t live within a 1000 miles of Fullerton but I will say this: For all of you that have read these articles and have never stood out on the sidewalks trying to fight this, you are not worthy to be parents.

(will not be published)

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!