TheFullertonInformer.com

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

Meet Jan Weiner

http://ed.fullerton.edu/sped/faculty/jan-s-weiner-ph-d/

Looks like out of all of those in key positions that were in receipt of this email https://thefullertoninformer.com/the-fullerton-five-part-2-for-the-health-of-our-children-can-reason-prevail/, this one was the first to step right up to the microphone. Here is just a little background on her right here – http://ed.fullerton.edu/sped/faculty/jan-s-weiner-ph-d/.

Research Interests: Full Inclusion of Individuals with Moderate/Severe Disabilities (Birth to Death); Adult Transition; Positive Behavior Support (Individual and School-Wide), Single Subject Research Design

Education:

• Ph. D., Education University of California, Santa Barbara
• M.A., Education Administration
• Ed.M., with distinction, Special Education, Boston University
• B.A., cum laude, Psychology, Northeastern University & University of Massachusetts

It sure looks to me like another Psychology major with an Education degree defending irradiating children. Such an eerily familiar ring to Pletka and his cadre of followers (school principals)  in the FSD.

I am still waiting for the C.S.F. physics department to jump into the basket. Michelle Garden said they don’t agree with us either:

https://thefullertoninformer.com/insert-foot-in-mouth/#comment-25498

Why does it seem that it is always the taxpayer funded, establishment on the teat types, who are always the ones stepping on the gas pedal to the common core’s microwave matrix, wireless radiation chambers’ classroom finish line for our kids? I just don’t get it.

Yeah, yeah, sure, sure, the Autism epidemic has nothing to do with wireless or vaccines. Prevention? What the heck is prevention?  The solution seems to be simply more vaccines, petrochemical poison pharmaceuticals and more wireless. It is a brilliant business model but in my opinion, a very immoral one.

https://thefullertoninformer.com/carbonyl-iron-and-orange-county-the-autism-capital-of-the-state/

The solution is not just simply more vaccines, drugs and more wireless. The solution is to stop doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. That is the definition of insanity. A paltry salary with a pension down the line can turn into some real blinders if it befalls the right individuals. How can so many who are ostensibly so well educated be so complicit in the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced? How can people continue on with the blinders as the special ed budgets explode while the Autism rates head straight into orbit?  Is job security, fake fair weather friends, reputation and fleeting prestige really worth it? 

Gotta tow the line so they can eat their bacon in Europe and go wine tasting in the summer. Break rank and its all out the window. Yes but the the onslaught of wireless technologies in the form of microwave towers,  satellites showering the planet with radiation,  Wireless Fidelity (WiFi) ports,  Wireless Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX) antennas — plus all the gadgets they make possible: , tablets, dect phones,  pagers,  Blackberries, cell phones, roving laptops,  wireless electric and water meters, satellite TV and radio,  in-flight internet are totally safe as the vampires run the blood bank at the FCC.  I am referring as well to the electromagnetic weapons,  radiation-emitting stations,  surveillance instruments,  and crowd-control devices military and law enforcement deploy, the rf modules, the microwave ovens, the wireless cameras, baby monitors and of course the extra special mandatory exposure wireless classrooms in the Fullerton School District. But have these always been with us? Have the battery of the 50+ metallic nano tech laden injections which are touted for the greater good? Yeah, and meanwhile the term public health has truly become an oxymoron as a result of all this willful ignorance in the year of the cat. I digress. There are thousands of studies, scientists, accompanied by millions of brain damaged kids and all we get from the community to address this is a special ed teacher? Come on gang. 

Come to think of it, the trillion dollar wireless industry, the lobbyists on the hills, the out of control federal government,the educrat lackeys counting the dollar signs in the CAFR’s, the tech companies’ infestation of the CalPers, the immoral desire to not rock the boat to the detriment of others and the clandestine agenda to affect human fertility all have nothing to do with the price of tea in China now do they?

Right out of the gate, the quack job theme of junk science rises to the surface. Never you mind that she appears to ignore thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies and exchanges it for this. WELL ANYWAY, HERE IS WHAT SHE WROTE which appears to be nothing more than cut and paste RF industry info possibly from Lorne Trottier’s shill cut and paste site promoted by ROMAN SCHULZE.

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Weiner, Jan <jweiner@exchange.fullerton.edu> wrote:

Here is more updated data to add to your information:
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
“Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.”

Quackwatch lists the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) as a questionable organization, and its certifying board, the American Board of Environmental Medicine as a dubious certifying board.[4] They are not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties.[8]

Electromagnetic fields and public health
Base stations and wireless technologies

Backgrounder
May 2006

Mobile telephony is now commonplace around the world. This wireless technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennas, or base stations, relaying information with radiofrequency (RF) signals. Over 1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of third generation technology.

Other wireless networks that allow high-speed internet access and services, such as wireless local area networks (WLANs), are also increasingly common in homes, offices, and many public areas (airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base stations and local wireless networks increases, so does the RF exposure of the population. Recent surveys have shown that the RF exposures from base stations range from 0.002% to 2% of the levels of international exposure guidelines, depending on a variety of factors such as the proximity to the antenna and the surrounding environment. This is lower or comparable to RF exposures from radio or television broadcast transmitters.

There has been concern about possible health consequences from exposure to the RF fields produced by wireless technologies. This fact sheet reviews the scientific evidence on the health effects from continuous low-level human exposure to base stations and other local wireless networks.

Health concerns

A common concern about base station and local wireless network antennas relates to the possible long-term health effects that whole-body exposure to the RF signals may have. To date, the only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has been related to an increase in body temperature (> 1 °C) from exposure at very high field intensity found only in certain industrial facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature increases are insignificant and do not affect human health.

The strength of RF fields is greatest at its source, and diminishes quickly with distance. Access near base station antennas is restricted where RF signals may exceed international exposure limits. Recent surveys have indicated that RF exposures from base stations and wireless technologies in publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals) are normally thousands of times below international standards.

In fact, due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body absorbs up to five times more of the signal from FM radio and television than from base stations. This is because the frequencies used in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in TV broadcasting (around 300 to 400 MHz) are lower than those employed in mobile telephony (900 MHz and 1800 MHz) and because a person’s height makes the body an efficient receiving antenna. Further, radio and television broadcast stations have been in operation for the past 50 or more years without any adverse health consequence being established.

While most radio technologies have used analog signals, modern wireless telecommunications are using digital transmissions. Detailed reviews conducted so far have not revealed any hazard specific to different RF modulations.

Cancer: Media or anecdotal reports of cancer clusters around mobile phone base stations have heightened public concern. It should be noted that geographically, cancers are unevenly distributed among any population. Given the widespread presence of base stations in the environment, it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near base stations merely by chance. Moreover, the reported cancers in these clusters are often a collection of different types of cancer with no common characteristics and hence unlikely to have a common cause.

Scientific evidence on the distribution of cancer in the population can be obtained through carefully planned and executed epidemiological studies. Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published. These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base stations and wireless networks.

Other effects: Few studies have investigated general health effects in individuals exposed to RF fields from base stations. This is because of the difficulty in distinguishing possible health effects from the very low signals emitted by base stations from other higher strength RF signals in the environment. Most studies have focused on the RF exposures of mobile phone users. Human and animal studies examining brain wave patterns, cognition and behaviour after exposure to RF fields, such as those generated by mobile phones, have not identified adverse effects. RF exposures used in these studies were about 1000 times higher than those associated with general public exposure from base stations or wireless networks. No consistent evidence of altered sleep or cardiovascular function has been reported.

Some individuals have reported that they experience non-specific symptoms upon exposure to RF fields emitted from base stations and other EMF devices. As recognized in a recent WHO fact sheet “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity”, EMF has not been shown to cause such symptoms. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize the plight of people suffering from these symptoms.

From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF signals produced by base stations. Since wireless networks produce generally lower RF signals than base stations, no adverse health effects are expected from exposure to them.

Protection standards

International exposure guidelines have been developed to provide protection against established effects from RF fields by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 1998) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE, 2005).

National authorities should adopt international standards to protect their citizens against adverse levels of RF fields. They should restrict access to areas where exposure limits may be exceeded.

Public perception of risk

Some people perceive risks from RF exposure as likely and even possibly severe. Several reasons for public fear include media announcements of new and unconfirmed scientific studies, leading to a feeling of uncertainty and a perception that there may be unknown or undiscovered hazards. Other factors are aesthetic concerns and a feeling of a lack of control or input to the process of determining the location of new base stations. Experience shows that education programmes as well as effective communications and involvement of the public and other stakeholders at appropriate stages of the decision process before installing RF sources can enhance public confidence and acceptability.

Conclusions

Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.

WHO Initiatives

WHO, through the International EMF Project, has established a programme to monitor the EMF scientific literature, to evaluate the health effects from exposure to EMF in the range from 0 to 300 GHz, to provide advice about possible EMF hazards and to identify suitable mitigation measures. Following extensive international reviews, the International EMF Project has promoted research to fill gaps in knowledge. In response national governments and research institutes have funded over $250 million on EMF research over the past 10 years.

While no health effects are expected from exposure to RF fields from base stations and wireless networks, research is still being promoted by WHO to determine whether there are any health consequences from the higher RF exposures from mobile phones.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized agency, is expected to conduct a review of cancer risk from RF fields in 2006-2007 and the International EMF Project will then undertake an overall health risk assessment for RF fields in 2007-2008.

Further Reading

ICNIRP (1998) www.icnirp.org/documents/emfgdl.pdf
IEEE (2006) IEEE C95.1-2005 “IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz”

Related links

Base stations & wireless networks: Exposures & health consequences
Fact sheet: Electromagnetic fields and public health: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
WHO handbook on “Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic Fields”
2006 WHO Research Agenda for Radio Frequency Fields
pdf, 100kb
For more information contact:

WHO Media centre
Telephone: +41 22 791 2222
E-mail: mediainquiries@who.int

Here is the WHO fact sheet.
EMF fields from electrical wiring is likely more of an issue.

Electromagnetic fields and public health
Exposure to extremely low frequency fields

Backgrounder
June 2007

The use of electricity has become an integral part of everyday life. Whenever electricity flows, both electric and magnetic fields exist close to the lines that carry electricity, and close to appliances. Since the late 1970s, questions have been raised whether exposure to these extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields (EMF) produces adverse health consequences. Since then, much research has been done, successfully resolving important issues and narrowing the focus of future research.

In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International Electromagnetic Fields Project to investigate potential health risks associated with technologies emitting EMF. A WHO Task Group recently concluded a review of the health implications of ELF fields (WHO, 2007).

This Fact Sheet is based on the findings of that Task Group and updates recent reviews on the health effects of ELF EMF published in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), established under the auspices of WHO, and by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in 2003.

ELF field sources and residential exposures
Electric and magnetic fields exist wherever electric current flows – in power lines and cables, residential wiring and electrical appliances. Electric fields arise from electric charges, are measured in volts per metre (V/m) and are shielded by common materials, such as wood and metal. Magnetic fields arise from the motion of electric charges (i.e. a current), are expressed in tesla (T), or more commonly in millitesla (mT) or microtesla (µT). In some countries another unit called the gauss, (G), is commonly used (10,000 G = 1 T). These fields are not shielded by most common materials, and pass easily through them. Both types of fields are strongest close to the source and diminish with distance.

Most electric power operates at a frequency of 50 or 60 cycles per second, or hertz (Hz). Close to certain appliances, the magnetic field values can be of the order of a few hundred microtesla. Underneath power lines, magnetic fields can be about 20 µT and electric fields can be several thousand volts per metre. However, average residential power-frequency magnetic fields in homes are much lower – about 0.07 µT in Europe and 0.11 µT in North America. Mean values of the electric field in the home are up to several tens of volts per metre.

Task group evaluation
In October 2005, WHO convened a Task Group of scientific experts to assess any risks to health that might exist from exposure to ELF electric and magnetic fields in the frequency range >0 to 100,000 Hz (100 kHz). While IARC examined the evidence regarding cancer in 2002, this Task Group reviewed evidence for a number of health effects, and updated the evidence regarding cancer. The conclusions and recommendations of the Task Group are presented in a WHO Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) monograph (WHO, 2007).

Following a standard health risk assessment process, the Task Group concluded that there are no substantive health issues related to ELF electric fields at levels generally encountered by members of the public. Thus the remainder of this fact sheet addresses predominantly the effects of exposure to ELF magnetic fields.

Short-term effects
There are established biological effects from acute exposure at high levels (well above 100 µT) that are explained by recognized biophysical mechanisms. External ELF magnetic fields induce electric fields and currents in the body which, at very high field strengths, cause nerve and muscle stimulation and changes in nerve cell excitability in the central nervous system.

Potential long-term effects
Much of the scientific research examining long-term risks from ELF magnetic field exposure has focused on childhood leukaemia. In 2002, IARC published a monograph classifying ELF magnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. This classification is used to denote an agent for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals (other examples include coffee and welding fumes). This classification was based on pooled analyses of epidemiological studies demonstrating a consistent pattern of a two-fold increase in childhood leukaemia associated with average exposure to residential power-frequency magnetic field above 0.3 to 0.4 µT. The Task Group concluded that additional studies since then do not alter the status of this classification.

However, the epidemiological evidence is weakened by methodological problems, such as potential selection bias. In addition, there are no accepted biophysical mechanisms that would suggest that low-level exposures are involved in cancer development. Thus, if there were any effects from exposures to these low-level fields, it would have to be through a biological mechanism that is as yet unknown. Additionally, animal studies have been largely negative. Thus, on balance, the evidence related to childhood leukaemia is not strong enough to be considered causal.

Childhood leukaemia is a comparatively rare disease with a total annual number of new cases estimated to be 49,000 worldwide in 2000. Average magnetic field exposures above 0.3 μT in homes are rare: it is estimated that only between 1% and 4% of children live in such conditions. If the association between magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia is causal, the number of cases worldwide that might be attributable to magnetic field exposure is estimated to range from 100 to 2400 cases per year, based on values for the year 2000, representing 0.2 to 4.95% of the total incidence for that year. Thus, if ELF magnetic fields actually do increase the risk of the disease, when considered in a global context, the impact on public health of ELF EMF exposure would be limited.

A number of other adverse health effects have been studied for possible association with ELF magnetic field exposure. These include other childhood cancers, cancers in adults, depression, suicide, cardiovascular disorders, reproductive dysfunction, developmental disorders, immunological modifications, neurobehavioural effects and neurodegenerative disease. The WHO Task Group concluded that scientific evidence supporting an association between ELF magnetic field exposure and all of these health effects is much weaker than for childhood leukaemia. In some instances (i.e. for cardiovascular disease or breast cancer) the evidence suggests that these fields do not cause them.

International exposure guidelines
Health effects related to short-term, high-level exposure have been established and form the basis of two international exposure limit guidelines (ICNIRP, 1998; IEEE, 2002). At present, these bodies consider the scientific evidence related to possible health effects from long-term, low-level exposure to ELF fields insufficient to justify lowering these quantitative exposure limits.

WHO’s guidance
For high-level short-term exposures to EMF, adverse health effects have been scientifically established (ICNIRP, 2003). International exposure guidelines designed to protect workers and the public from these effects should be adopted by policy makers. EMF protection programs should include exposure measurements from sources where exposures might be expected to exceed limit values.

Regarding long-term effects, given the weakness of the evidence for a link between exposure to ELF magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia, the benefits of exposure reduction on health are unclear. In view of this situation, the following recommendations are given:

Government and industry should monitor science and promote research programmes to further reduce the uncertainty of the scientific evidence on the health effects of ELF field exposure. Through the ELF risk assessment process, gaps in knowledge have been identified and these form the basis of a new research agenda.
Member States are encouraged to establish effective and open communication programmes with all stakeholders to enable informed decision-making. These may include improving coordination and consultation among industry, local government, and citizens in the planning process for ELF EMF-emitting facilities.
When constructing new facilities and designing new equipment, including appliances, low-cost ways of reducing exposures may be explored. Appropriate exposure reduction measures will vary from one country to another. However, policies based on the adoption of arbitrary low exposure limits are not warranted.
Further reading
WHO – World Health Organization. Extremely low frequency fields. Environmental Health Criteria, Vol. 238. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2007.

IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1: Static and extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. Lyon, IARC, 2002 (Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, 80).

ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Exposure to static and low frequency electromagnetic fields, biological effects and health consequences (0-100 kHz). Bernhardt JH et al., eds. Oberschleissheim, International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, 2003 (ICNIRP 13/2003).

ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (1998). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74(4), 494-522.

IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 28. IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to electromagnetic fields, 0-3 kHz. New York, NY, IEEE – The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2002 (IEEE Std C95.6-2002).

For more information contact:
WHO Media centre
Telephone: +41 22 791 2222
E-mail: mediainquiries@who.int

Jan S. Weiner, Ph.D.
Department of Special Education
California State University, Fullerton
CP 570

“Cowardice asks the question, is it safe?  Expediency asks, is it polite?  Vanity asks, is it popular?  But conscience asks the question, is it right?  And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor polite, nor popular — but one must take it because it’s right.”   Martin Luther King, Jr

————————————————————————————-

Thank you for stepping forward Jan. There are two sides to this debate. On one side are extremely powerful vested financial, compromised scientific and nefarios political interests. On the other side are countless brain damaged children, many others unaware that their wombs will someday be barren. It is along side those that we stand in the gap. In the middle are the willfully ignorant leaders, scientists, educators, and elected representatives that stand in the way of putting an end to an agenda that I believe is straight from the pit of hell.

Thank you for summarizing the very nature of The Fullerton Informer and our quest to end the largest forced irradiation of school children that the world has ever known with your quote from Dr. King. I couldn’t have expressed the very nature of our mission in a more forthright and compelling manner.

There is nothing like owning an alignment shop in a town full of potholes. Life is good at special ed central as long as the machine keeps turning them out and no one pops the bubble. The atmospheric chemistry inside that bubble cannot remain in equilibrium because the equation is shifting to the right side of things now folks. We can no longer afford to ignore the explosive Autism epidemic, the infertility crisis unfolding as we speak and the ongoing pruning of our children’s mental faculties taking place right before all of our very eyes with our tacit approval and complicit silence.

Please don’t join the ranks of those who have sold out and turned their backs on the children. 

Thank you.