Torlakson and Silva just couldn’t do the right thing so they just had the stool pigeon write the apology.
This required more than just her two hands.
I live in Fullerton. My kids attend Fullerton schools. I go to public meetings all the time that pertain to what, when, where and how things are going to affect my community and how those bestowed with the revocable public trust will behave when no one is looking. As a card carrying taxpaying member of the 65th Assembly district, I was invited by my Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk Silva along with all the rest of the 145,000+ residents of Fullerton to attend a little shindig over at the local High School down the street with the top dog Torlakson and all the rest of the education brass who just so happen to be the ones who could pull the plug on this massive forced irradiation exposure of school children taking place in classrooms all over this once Golden State.
So naturally, we RSVPed. The Fullerton Informer showed up with our banner, and set up camp right on the first amendment protected sidewalk right next to the entrance to Troy High School and proceeded to notify the educrats, parents, students and anyone else that pulled in that by their silence on this issue, that they are all possibly complicit in exposing these children and students to unprecedented levels of pulse modulated high frequency microwave radiation trillions of times higher than what our parents were exposed to as children, that could potentially cause reproductive harm, cancer, ADHD and a myriad of other health problems with this wireless agenda. These, by the way, are not simply my assertions: microwave radiation, cancer and infertility. There are thousands of studies out there on this.
After about an hour or so filming the train of cars passing us on the sidewalk, I figured it was time for a little meet and greet, so I decided to mosey on in to the reception to taste some of the fruit and see if they really filter the water. I got to the sign in table and signed in. I went to get my name tag and WHADDAYA KNOW, THEY DIDN’T HAVE ONE FOR ME!
Well, as I stood there, I was greeted by a parent that I have known for some time from little league and she was encountering the same problem. She was not on the list either. She didn’t have a name tag either. As a matter of fact, in the 72 seconds that I stood at the tables, I noticed that many people were not on the list and were being encouraged to fill out their own name tags by the gals working the tables. Not long after I put a lemon slice in my water, Ed Kephart, who was watching me on the sidewalk, singled me out to SRO Kendler. Officer Kendler told me, “because you are not on the guest list, you have to leave.” I advised him that it was a public meeting and that I RSVPed the day before and he repeated, “you have to leave”.
I wonder why they didn’t call in some back up from Anaheim PD to escort the other 50 people in attendance that were not on the list either? Well folks, it is simply because I was the only one in attendance at this public meeting that they wanted the heck out of there. You see, I believe that I was merely singled out solely based on what the meeting organizers thought I might say at the meeting, and as such appears to have been a conscious content-based decision specifically designed to rob me of my ability to exercise my First Amendment rights and observe and participate in that meeting. They did not want me to be permitted to participate in the meeting or hear what the speakers had to say. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that I was going to address the fact that they were all involved in a massive wireless agenda that according to scientific research, has the potential to cause cancer and reproductive harm to school children? Yeah, they didn’t want me asking any questions alright. I wonder if they all pledged allegiance as they plotted.
So instead, I simply chose the high road and allowed myself to be publicly humiliated, and temporarily forgo my First Amendment rights after I was confronted by a man in a black uniform with a gun. Perplexed, I agreed to leave the premises without any further ado. Being disruptive could certainly have been grounds for removal and someone held in the high esteem by these fellows like myself was by no means willing to make myself an occupant of the back seat of a black and white in this town, especially when the air and the company was much better on the sidewalk anyway. You know what they say, you pick your battles wisely.
So I was told to leave a public meeting because I was not on the guest list. This obviously made no sense to me so I proceeded to call Quirk Silva’s local office. The gentlemen on the phone took my number and told me that he would contact her staff to see what was going on. I asked him if it was a public meeting and he told me it was “an RSVP meeting” -(never heard of one of those). I asked him if he could confirm the RSVP list while we were talking and he couldn’t confirm the names on the list. After a period of time on hold, he came back on the line and told me, “your being asked to leave was a matter of campus security and the Assemblywoman, and her staff hadn’t the authority to override a campus security decision or issue.”
What was the problem, now really? How many seats was I going to occupy? By the looks of this room I could have have brought my 8th grader’s entire classes for a civics lesson.
Here is what our illustrious assembly woman Sharon Quirk Silva had to say about this supposed “invitation only” meeting “I was pleased to invite State Superintendent Tom Torlakson to visit Troy High School. As a former teacher and local elected official it is essential to bring state and local policymakers, students, parents, teachers and administrators to discuss how we can work together and increase student success in California schools.” — huh? Last time I checked, I was a parent— four times over.
My next call was to the Fullerton Police Department dispatch. I briefly explained where I was and what happened and that I wanted to know the specific reason that I was asked to leave. The dispatcher took my phone number and told me that she would have the officer come out and talk to me. So I waited on the sidewalk where earlier in the morning, the SRO and Kephart and Avina were staring at me earlier in the morning, holding up the banner on the sidewalk with my associates. They knew where I was and who I came with and which car was mine. Time had passed and that filtered water got the better of me. I had to make a decision. Do I go into the Troy office and ask to use the restroom where I was now the subject of “a campus security issue” or do I go down the street to Western State to use their facilities? Well, I chose the latter given the circumstances.
Wouldn’t you know, officer Kandler and Kephart came out for a peek, when I was not there for about 10 minutes, walked halfway to the sidewalk where my associates were standing with the banner, and went back inside without asking them where I was. For another hour or so, I waited for a phone call or him to come outside. As it turns out, another mom we know stopped by to chat with us and we told her what was going on and she offered to call officer Decaprio. She did and he offered to send a out a Sargent in about 15 minutes. Well, 15 minutes came and went a couple of times so one of my associates called him again. He said Sargent Williams will be on the way. About 20 minutes later, a cruiser rolls into the parking lot and heads for the office. Officer Williams gets out and goes inside. We remained on the sidewalk but moved to the eastern driveway to show the guests our message as they departed. Close to 11:00 am, Williams emerged from the office with Kandler speaking on the steps. I assumed that since I called dispatch, and 2 calls were made to officer Decaprio, and that I was told to leave the premises, that I was to wait on the sidewalk for them. Well, I waited and around 11:15 or so, Williams starts heading back to his car in what appears to be his attempt to drive away. So, here I stand on the sidewalk exiled from the long since concluded public meeting waiting for an answer from the Fullerton Police officers as to why I was asked to leave watching him about to bail the scene. My associate hurried toward him and flagged him down. I walked over and I spoke with both of the officers and asked why I was asked to leave a public meeting. SRO Kendler told us that Tom Torlakson’s aide gave the order to have me removed. The reason was because I was not an invited guest. I proceeded to remind them that it was a public meeting. Officer Williams explained that it was all a misunderstanding and that SRO Kendler attempted to make contact with me to let me know that I could come back in. I explained that no one called my cell phone from the FPD or Sharon’s office, and no one attempted to make contact with my associates to see where I went for those 10 minutes while we waited on the sidewalk for 2 and 1/2 hours for them to come tell me what I did wrong. I chose not to split hairs and we parted ways. Chalk it up to experience I guess.
Later that day, I sent an email to the FJUHSD superintendent and an email to Tom Torlakson asking for some clarity and who gave the orders to have me removed.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
This afternoon, I received the following email from Jennifer Williams from the FJUHSD:
———- Forwarded message ———-
Date: Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: Meeting at Troy High School with guest speaker California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson 10-23-13.
To: joe imbriano <joeimbriano777@gmail.com>
Cc: George Giokaris <GGiokaris@fjuhsd.k12.ca.us>
Please accept the District’s sincerest apology for initially not allowing you to participate yesterday at the State of the Education event held at Troy High School (TRHS).
We offer this explanation not in any attempt to excuse what happened, but only to possibly assist you in accepting our apology.
There was a miscommunication yesterday between the staff members from Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva’s office, the TRHS Resource Officer (SRO), TRHS administrators, and Dr. Williams. As you are aware, the event was coordinated by Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva’s office with the assistance of the District. The District believed the event was by invitation only. We had assisted the Assemblywoman’s staff members in preparing a portion of the invitation list; and therefore, we knew your name was not on the list. The TRHS administration and the SRO asked if you had been invited and our staff members said you had not. The staff members from Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva’s office thought TRHS administration and the District wanted you to leave and told the SRO to ask you to leave. The District was unaware that Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva’s office had posted an open invitation on their web site. By the time staff were made aware of the misunderstanding and instructed the SRO to go back and find you, you were gone. It is our understanding that SRO Kandler followed up and spoke with you to explain as well.
Again, we sincerely apologize.
Respectfully,
Jennifer Williams, Ed.D.
Director Administrative Services
Fullerton Joint Union High School District
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Did you catch that? Where does one begin? Well, semantics for starters. Let’s begin with “initially”. Jennifer starts out with, “Please accept the District’s sincerest apology for initially not allowing you to participate.“ Last time I checked, initially was defined as of, relating to, or occurring at the beginning. Initially? What the heck? I didn’t find out that I could go back into the meeting until AFTER THE MEETING WAS OVER.
I believe here is the only kernel of truth and husk of honesty in this whole rotten ear of corn. “We offer this explanation not in any attempt to excuse what happened.” Of course they can’t attempt to excuse the fact that they clearly violated my First Amendment rights and treated me like a criminal.
Do they think that I just fell off the turnip truck or something? If this is the sincerest apology they have to offer, I would hate to see what the phony one looks like. Look gang, lets go line by line here. These people are amazing. What happened to me yesterday was downright wrong and unethical. I was singled out from a group of 300+ people just because I want this forced irradiation of our kids to come to an end and I make no bones about our position.
So with the decades of experience that these administrators have in combing through $120 million dollar budgets every other month with a fine tooth comb, an electron microscope and a metal detector and hosting events at sensitive locations such as SCHOOLS, do you think that they knew the difference between a meeting that was open to the public and one that was by invitation only? Ok, let’s assume that they are not lying. I will give the the benefit of the doubt for the next ten seconds. So if the FJUHSD staff really believed that it was an invitation only meeting with State level guests attending, then they would be CHECKING INVITATIONS AT THE DOOR. They were doing no such thing. So what do we make of Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk Silva’s flyers and announcements that invited the ENTIRE 65th Assembly district and just about anyone else that has a pulse on her PUBLIC website and FACEBOOK page? I guess the FJUHSD staff missed those too.
Jennifer Williams goes on to say that the FJUHSD staff “ had assisted the Assemblywoman’s staff members in preparing a portion of the invitation list; and therefore, we knew your name was not on the list“. Wow, so if you prepare a portion of the list then you know who is not on the portion that you didn’t prepare? Clairvoyance huh, Jennifer? So preparing part of an RSVP list gives them the omniscience that ” therefore, we knew your name was not on the list”. Amazing.
“The TRHS administration and the SRO asked if you had been invited and our staff members said you had not.” Ah, the million dollar questions right here folks:
1) WHY WERE THEY ASKING IF I WAS ON THE LIST?
2) WHO DID THEY ASK?
3) WHAT MEMBERS OF THE TRHS ADMINISTRATION ASKED IF I WAS NOT ON THE LIST ?
4) WHY WERE THEY SINGLING ME OUT?
5) WHY WERE THEY NOT GOING AFTER ALL THE OTHERS WITH HANDWRITTEN NAME TAGS?
Oh boy – “The staff members from Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva’s office thought TRHS administration and the District wanted you to leave and told the SRO to ask you to leave.” No – Sharon’s office told me that they didn’t know why I was asked to leave and it “was a matter of campus security and they had no power to override it”. SRO Kendler told us that it was Torlakson’s aide that ordered us to be removed.
This is a real humdinger right here: “The District was unaware that Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva’s office had posted an open invitation on their web site.” Really? Can I schedule a meeting on campus, post invitations everywhere, invite the whole world, and not clear that part with Dr. George? The health and safety of State level officials and a thousand students was potentially on the line when you opened up an in use, fully operational, fully occupied school facility to host a meeting with hundreds of guests and you apparently didn’t understand what the scope and nature of the invitation and announcement process as well as those who will be in attendance were? Got some dough Dr. George? I got some land on the surface of the sun for sale if your are interested.
“ By the time staff were made aware of the misunderstanding and instructed the SRO to go back and find you, you were gone.” REALLY? While my bright, yellow car glistened in the parking lot, my remaining outside for 3 hours, with our repeated calls to the FPD and Sharon’s office with not one return call, and without any attempts to contact me or my associates for 2 1/2 hours including the measly ten minutes that I was gone to the restroom, that is called attempting to make contact with me? There was obviously NO legitimate attempt by SRO Kendler, Sharon’s office, her staff, FJUHSD Staff or the FPD to contact me.
“It is our understanding that SRO Kandler followed up and spoke with you to explain as well.” We expended a massive amount of effort to get someone to follow up and explain why I got the royal treatment, and yes SRO Kendler did explain the most important part of the whole thing – that is who gave the order to run me off. Kendler stated that it was Torlakson’s aide who gave the order.
We cannot overlook Troy High School principal, Dr. Avina’s assessment of yesterdays event from the school website http://www.troyhigh.com/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=367239&type=u:
“We have had a wonderful fall at Troy High School. We had the honor of hosting State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlekson as well as Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, and Orange County Superintendent of Schools Al Mijares this month. This event was attended by local school superintendents, city mayors, PTA presidents, and educators throughout the Fullerton area. Our amazing custodians made the campus look beautiful, and our office staff was pivotal in creating a welcoming environment. The “buzz” of the event was the gorgeous Halloween pumpkins which were hand-painted by students in Mike Thomas’s AP Studio Art class. Many thanks to everyone who made this event special.”
Did you catch that? The staff was staff was pivotal in creating a welcoming environment? Yeah as long as you are a blind supporter of the agenda, you got your very own name tag. Holy smokes! The buzz of the event was the pumpkins? What kind of kool aid were they drinking inside that theater room anyway? They illegally throw me out of a public meeting on my rear end as my associates and I are out on the sidewalk trying to warn every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the joint about the potential for cancer, ADHD, reproductive harm and a host of other maladies that could be staring every kid in the face in the FJUHSD from the common core microwave matrix that Giokaris just green lighted, and it’s all about the pumpkins. As amateur night states so eloquently on this blog -“man alive.” I digress.
Well, let’s get back to the District’s mouthpiece or piece in mouth.
Dr. Williams, I cannot accept an insincere apology from a public servant that willingly chooses to ignore literally thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies that warn against what you and Dr. George have blatantly chosen to do, that is to proceed with the district’s wireless technology plan on the heels of all of the information that you have been personally presented with that you choose to ignore. Instead you have decided to proceed to irradiate every last one of the children in the FJUHSD.
Dr. Williams, I will not accept an insincere apology from a steward of the public trust who in my opinion, cannot be trusted by putting forth such an obfuscation in the form of such a preposterous explanation for my being purposely singled out, publicly humiliated, and removed from an open public meeting solely based on what the meeting organizers thought I might do or say at the meeting. This, as such, appears to have been a content-based decision that was intentionally made to violate and interfere with the exercise of my first amendment rights and to keep me out of that meeting. Once again, I was publicly humiliated and your insincere diatribe speaks volumes as to how you appear to have every intention to continue to do just that by insulting my intelligence with this pathetic spin. And to think I took the high road over the last 7 months with the FJUHSD simply behooves me right now. Can you imagine if my lovely wife was with me while you guys publicly gave me the shaft? You guys are a real class act.
Jennifer, please, save it for later. Let me know when you manage to remove that foot from your mouth, and please try speaking a little clearer next time with a lot more sincerity and a lot less of everything else. As far as the First Amendment goes over at the Troy campus, have your staff review it, would you please? Make sure you include the Harvard trained helmswoman over there with the walkie talkie (Troy High School principal, Dr. Avina). Get ready because the kids are already asking about this wireless stuff. The parents and the teachers will be next. I guess we will see how the First Amendment pans out over on Dorothy behind those gates. It is alive and well on the sidewalk.
In the meantime, The Fullerton Informer will continue our efforts to expose and end the largest forced irradiation of school children that the world has ever known and we hope that all involved will realize that silence on this issue is complicity. Your paltry paychecks are not worth it people. Well, sadly, to some, as we have seen, they just may be.
#1 by Schulzee on October 30, 2013 - 2:23 pm
Ha ha ha, that cinched it. I have it on good authority that Joe is also posting as “Anonymous” and possibly others. Makes sense now.
I called all the “specialist” that we’re listed and they all laughed and said you were wrong so, there’s that.
Ray. Certified by what board?
Joe. Still sending your kids to be radiated on a daily basis?
1. Radiofrequency Toolkit for Environment Health Practioners, BC Center for Disease Control
This report was prepared by the Center for Disease Control in the province of British Columbia Canada. On the whole, this document is quite good considering that it was written by outsiders to the field. The report notes that “several recent international reports” such as “the UK Health Protection Agency (2012) and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (2012), among others, have published major reviews of RF and its potential effect on health; both agencies concluded that there is little evidence of adverse impacs on the health of the general population by RF”.
However, in its analysis of the BioInitiative Report, which deviates widely from the mainstream scientific consensus, the “Tookit” fails to do any critical analysis. The two editions of the Bio-Initiative Report have been widely criticized by mainstream scientists. The “Toolkit” also fails to mention the new studies that seriously undermine the weak evidence used in IARC classification of cell phones as Category 2B- a possible carcinogen. These are serious weaknesses that mar an otherwise good quality report. The full report can be found here.
2. March 2013 Swedish Radiation Safety (SSM) Report:
“together with national cancer incidence statistics from different countries, [recent results are] not convincing in linking mobile phone use to the occurrence of glioma or other tumours of the head region among adults.”
P 5 “Although recent studies have covered longer exposure periods, scientific uncertainty remains for regular mobile phone use for longer than 13-15 years. It is also too early to draw firm conclusions regarding children and adolescents and risk for brain tumours, but the available literature to date does not indicate an increased risk.”
P 5 effects of RF on EEG: “The observed effect is weak and does not translate into behavioural or other health effects. Recent studies suggest that considerable interindividual variation exists in the possible reactivity of the human brain to RF electromagnetic fields. The underlying mechanism is not yet understood,”
From web summary: “there are no radiation protection problems for the general public related to radio waves from sources such as mobile phone base stations, television and radio transmitters or wireless computer networks in home or school environments”.
Click here to get the summary, click here to get the full report.
3. June 2012 Sweden: The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research has published a new report reviewing the past 10 years of research in the area of EMF and Health. The following quotes were taken from the Executive Summary:
“More than 15 provocation studies (single or double blind) have been conducted on symptoms attributed to exposure to RF fields. These studies have not been able to demonstrate that people experience symptoms or sensations more often when the fields are turned on than when they are turned off”.
And
“A considerable number of studies on cancer, and in particular brain tumor, were presented. As a consequence there exist now very useful data including methodological results that can be used in the interpretation of this research. With a small number of exceptions the available results are all negative and taken together with new methodological understandings the overall interpretation is that these do not provide support for an association between mobile telephony and brain tumor risk”.
Click these links for the: Executive Summary, and the Full Report.
4. 2102:3 Norway: The Expert Committee appointed by the Nowegian Institute of Health has published a new report entitled: Low-level electromagnetic fields – an assessment of health risks and evaluation of regulatory practice. The following are quotes from the web page short summary:
“The group found no evidence that the low-level fields around mobile phones and other transmitters increase the risk of cancer, impair male fertility, cause other reproductive damage or lead to other diseases and adverse health effects, such as changes to the endocrine and immune systems.”
And
“The Committee did not find that mobile phones and other equipment can cause health problems such as electromagnetic hypersensitivity”.
Click the following link for a web page short summary of the report.
Click the following to download the PDF of the English version of the report.
5. April 2012 UK: The UK base Health Protection Agency has just released an exhaustive new 348 page expert report on the issue of EMF and Health. The report is entitled: Health Effects of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. The following is the key conclusion of the report: “The quantity, and in general quality, of research published on the potential health effects of RF field exposure has increased substantially since AGNIR last reviewed this subject. Population exposure to RF fields has become more widespread and heterogeneous. There are still limitations to the published research that preclude a definitive judgement, but the evidence considered overall has not demonstrated any adverse health effects of RF field exposure below internationally accepted guideline levels. There are possible effects on EEG patterns, but these have not been conclusively established, and it is unclear whether such effects would have any health consequences. There is increasing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels does not cause symptoms and cannot be detected by people, even by those who consider themselves sensitive to RF fields. The limited available data on other non-cancer outcomes show no effects of RF field exposure. The accumulating evidence on cancer risks, notably in relation to mobile phone use, is not definitive, but overall is increasingly in the direction of no material effect of exposure. There are few data, however, on risks beyond 15 years from first exposure.
In summary, although a substantial amount of research has been conducted in this area, there is no convincing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels causes health effects in adults or children”.
6. EFHRAM European Health Risk Assessment Network D2 Report Risk Analysis of Human Exposure to EMF 2010: “SCENIHR (2009a) reviewed the evidence from the various national studies and pooled analyses from parts of the Interphone study: severe concerns were raised about reporting bias that may exist in these data. Nonetheless, it was concluded that this evidence, combined with the results of animal and cellular studies indicated that exposure to RF fields was unlikely to lead to an increase in brain cancer or parotid gland tumours in humans”.
7. EFHRAM European Health Risk Assessment Network D3 Report on Risks of EMF in vitro and in vivo 2010: P 27 “For the three frequency ranges examined, the conclusions of the 2009 SCENIHR report are still valid in spite of the publication of several positive findings. Many of the new publications originate from laboratories and countries that are new to bioelectromagnetics research. This translates sometimes into unsatisfactory dosimetry or statistical analysis. Health risk assessment to be performed in the coming years (e.g., WHO EMF project) will need to be carried out with strict quality criteria”.
8. ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: ICNIRP is affiliated with the World Health Organization. New report: Exposure to electromagnetic fields, biological effects and health consequences 16/2009. P260: “Recent concern has been more with exposure to the lower level RF radiation characteristic of mobile phone use. Whilst it is in principle impossible to disprove the possible existence of non-thermal interactions, the plausibility of various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low. Concerning cancer-related effects, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at SAR levels up to 4 W/kg. With regard to in vitro studies of RF effects on non-genotoxic end-points such as cell signaling and gene/protein expression, the results are more equivocal, but the magnitudes of the reported RF radiation induced changes are very small and of limited functional consequence. The results of studies on cell proliferation and differentiation, apoptosis and cell transformation are mostly negative”.
9. Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion: Wireless Technology and Health Outcomes: Evidence and Review 2010:
“…While the most recent review continues to call for additional research to follow up on new findings, after a decade of additional research, there is still no conclusive evidence of adverse effects on health at exposure levels below current Canadian guidelines.’
Given the experience with other sources of non-ionizing radiation (e.g. power lines) that have been in use much longer than cellphones or Wi-Fi, it is unlikely that all controversies related to potential RF effects will be resolved even after decades of additional research”.
10. University of Ottawa, McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment: Review Panel Reports 2011. This is a collection of quotes from reports by expert groups of the world’s major public health organization assessing the issue of EMF & health. New quotes are added periodically.
11. Swedish Radiation Authority: the Swedish State Radiation Protection Authority (SSI), sets the safety standards for wireless devices in Sweden. The SSI has commissioned a series of expert assessments on EMF and health in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The following statements were extracted from these reports:
2008 P5: “Six recent studies on carcinogenicity, some with higher exposure levels than previously used, consistently report lack of carcinogenic effects, and two studies on genotoxicity report no increase in micronuclei or DNA strand breaks after RF exposure”.
2009 P4: “..these results in combination with the negative animal data and very low exposure from transmitters make it highly unlikely that living in the vicinity of a transmitter implicates an increased risk of cancer.”
2009 P4: “While the symptoms experienced by patients with perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity are very real and some subjects suffer severely, there is no evidence that RF exposure is a causal factor.”
2010: P4: “Available data do not indicate any risks related to exposure to RF from base stations or radio or TV antennas. Taking into account also the low levels of exposure that these sources give rise to, health effects from transmitters are unlikely”.
12. Latin American Expert Committee: Non-ionizing EMF and its Effects on Human Health 2010: P11 “The induction and promotion of tumors or blood neoplasms by RF exposure in animals as well as the appearance of cellular molecular predecessors of tumorigenesis, etc. has also been investigated. Despite using RF exposures, measured as specific absorption rates (SARs), far above those that people are normally exposed to, and in some cases exposures for the duration of the animal’s lifetime, about 93% of in vivo studies published since 1990 have shown no significant short or long-term effects. Further, the average survival of irradiated groups of animals was not affected in some 96% of studies.
13. The following is a compilation of 68 statements from Expert Groups over the years 2000 – 2010 attesting to the fact that there is no credible evidence of harm from EMF.
Previous Reports from Expert Groups
1. World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO is the world’s largest and most prestigious public health organization. It was established by the United Nations to monitor and report on international pubic health issues. The WHO has published an excellent overview of EMF and health entitled “About Electromagnetic Fields”. The following is a link to fact sheets containing documents on Base stations and wireless networks, Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and Exposure to extremely low frequency fields. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/.
2. The American Cancer Society. This site has good articles on cellular phones and cellular phone towers and health: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/cellular-phones
3. The US FDA this page contains a statement by the FDA to the effect that there are no known problems from the use of cell phones: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/default.htm
4. US National Cancer Institute. The page summarizes the results of studies to date on cellular telephone risk and cancer risk. The results of the majority of studies are negative. A handful of “positive” studies suffer from “recall bias”. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones and this update.
5. US Centers for Disease Control. This fact sheet is a basic Q&A on cell phones and health. The CDC indicates that studies to date do not indicate a significant association between cell phones and health problems. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/factsheets/cellphone_facts.pdf
6. European Commission: Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) has written a comprehensive report entitled: Health Effects of Exposure to EMF. This report was issued in Jan. 09. They found no significant link between various forms of EMF and health. The main 83 page report is entitled Health Effects of EMF. The following quote is from P 8: “”It is concluded from three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, animal and in vitro studies) that exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans”.
7. EMF-NET is a scientific consortium of 41 participants from various countries funded by the European Commission to investigate the issue of EMF and health. None of their investigations has found any significant link between EMF and health. The following is a link to their documents: http://web.jrc.ec.europa.eu/emf-net/efrtdocuments.cfm
8. The COMAR committee of the the IEEE has written an excellent Review Paper published in the Oct. 2009 issue of Health Physics on many of the studies cited by alarmists, and in particular the Bio-Initiative Report. From the COMAR paper:
“A major weakness of the BIR is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.
9. The Health Council of the Netherlands published an updated 124 page report (1st half Dutch, 2nd half English) dated Mar. 2009 on EMF and health. The following is a quote from the cover letter to the Minister: “… the Committee concludes that there is no scientific evidence that exposure to environmental levels of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields causes health problems.”
10. U.K. Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) (2000), “Mobile Phones and Health,” Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones,” c/o National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, Didcot,” Oxon, UK. UK Independent Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP),
11. U.K. National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation (AGNIR) (2004) “Review of the Scientific Evidence for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (0 – 300 GHz),” Documents of the NRPB, Vol. 15, No. 3, NRPB, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire, U.K.
12. UK Institution of Engineering and Technology, Biological Effects Policy Advisory
Group on Low-level Electromagnetic Fields (2006): Link
13. French Environmental Health and Safety Agency (AFSSET) Communiqué on cell phone towers
14. French Academie Nationale de Medecine. “Les risques des antennes de téléphonie mobile”.
15. German Research Centre Jülich, Programme Group Humans, Environment,
Technology (MUT) (2005) This program brought together 25 leading experts from
Germany and Switzerland in a risk dialogue to assess the results of recent scientific
studies on mobile phones and base stations Mobile Phones and Health
#2 by Jamie on October 30, 2013 - 4:11 pm
Still working so diligently to irradiate the children, huh, Dr. Roman Schulze?
Kinda sick. . . . .
#3 by Anonymous 2 on October 30, 2013 - 4:49 pm
You are aware that EMF is much safer than sunlight which is a class 1 carcinogen, right???
#4 by Joe Imbriano on October 30, 2013 - 6:28 pm
I am aware that exposure to sunlight amplified to a trillion times the normal background levels can kill you on the spot.
Your frame of reference with respect to quantity needs to be examined by your physics buddies over at the wife’s office Roman. Bring them on board and let them publicly join the debate seeing as how your wife has just gone on record stating their position. The more the merrier. 15,000 children just in Fullerton K-8 alone. Add the FJUHSD and what CSF and FJC is doing as well with their wireless programs. The stakes are tremendous.
#5 by Schulzee on October 31, 2013 - 3:27 pm
You do realize that sunlight, without amplification, Can cause melanoma and kill you? Oh, and lead moving at 2,000 fps will kill you too but it will not cause cancer. Yet lead is 2B and solar radiation is 1. Which would you rather be exposed too? I’ll take the class 1 carcinogen, thanks.
#6 by Joe Imbriano on October 31, 2013 - 3:51 pm
Sunlight exposure cannot cause cancer unless the person is deficient in nitrilosides, a partaker in a highly acidic diet, with elevated sugar levels, low tissue oxygenation and other factors, most of which are simply rooted in irresponsible behavior. The sun was hung in the sky by God for our benefit and survival. Heck the WHO has got aloe vera leafs on that list and now the medical establishment has turned everyone inward away from the source of vitamin D, health and vitality by freaking them out. Now they slather toxic sunscreen all over their bodies, utilize UV blocking contact lenses and glasses virtually ensuring vitamin D deficiency in every last one of us, cram the non-absorbable synthetic form into the school lunch toxic milk, chlorinate the bodies production of viatmin D emolient with the tapwater shower after exposure, and seat everyone under a 2700k mercury vapor light all day staring at screens because Simon Says So. Roman, the fact is that we were designed by God to withstand and benefit from sun exposure. WE WERE NOT DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND AND BE EXPOSED TO TRILLIONS OF TIMES THE NORMAL BACKGROUND LEVELS OF MICROWAVE RADIATION. Even the healthiest and most vibrant among us will succumb. Your worldview is a major impediment to your logic and thought processes. Sadly it appears that you are in good company.
#7 by Anonymous on October 31, 2013 - 4:04 pm
Mr. Imbriano, you are so right on so many fronts. When one removes The Creator from the equation, there is no limit to the vastness of their error. You are a very wise man. This Schulzee person demonstrates knowledge but clearly lacks wisdom. He is a troubled soul.
#8 by Jamie on October 31, 2013 - 7:54 am
still workin’ it, huh, Schulze?
#9 by Joe Imbriano on October 30, 2013 - 10:31 pm
The irony of your position is that it literally is dovetailing your lineage right into your very own worldview.
The wisdom of a fool is folly Roman. To think that all of the intelligence God has blessed you with is being used to attempt to thwart His will for His children and to serve those whose stated goal is to interfere with His stated plan and command to be fruitful and multiply. Yes Roman-I believe that the goal is to adversely impact human fertility. Maybe your worldview really lends itself to that and as such, surreptitiously, that could be your motivation.
Roman, I believe that the Fullerton School District and the wireless industry could care less about you or your children. The school district is an insatiable quasi-municipal corporation and the wireless industry a ravenous beast offshoot of the military. In my opinion, they are both ruthless and the children to them are merely chattel property, a means to an end and an end to a means. Open your eyes.
#10 by Ray on October 31, 2013 - 7:58 am
Another cut and paste from Schulze’s go-to source for industry-spun obfuscation.
Schulze, your lack of integrity continues to be made evident by your repeated cut and paste from http://www.emfhealth.com, a website financed and put together by electronics industry mogul Lorne Trottier, who went so far as to hire scientists and professors to push his agenda.
We’ve been through these reports with you before, and found that they are either outdated, cherry picked, or are easily disproven by the scientific evidence itself. This represents most of your game, and yes you and your wife have now both admitted that this is a game for you, is to continue to use material that has already been falsified.