«
»

LOOKY HERE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN BECAUSE THE DEVIL’S IN THE DETAILS


Make no bones about it, the dosage is higher than a kite and it is not what the doctor ordered. Are your kids at risk at school in these wireless classrooms with the schools using commercial or industrial grade routers that broadcast on several frequencies at the same time? You want your kids slouched over an in use wireless radiation emitting cell phone all day? How about at home  or everywhere else with these things right in front of their heads and in their laps all the time? That is exactly what your children are doing at school and at home. These tablet devices are microwave transmitters and emit wireless radiation trillions of times the normal background levels that many of us and our parents were exposed to as children.  

What will it take to get the parents to act . I think that there are many obstacles, not the least of which is them dealing with the fact that they themselves have been irradiating their children since the beginning. So if they acknowledge this as harmful, then they have to deal with their guilt. It is time to deal with reality, swallow the pride and put your children ahead of your fears, the school administrators and your fair weather friends ladies and gentlemen. We are talking about your kids, a trillion dollar industry that doesn’t give a rat’s behind about them, and school administrators that will do whatever they are ordered to do without batting an eye.

 Let us begin.

skull vs ipad basic

 

As, we know, WiFi and wireless devices emit RF radiofrequency microwave radiation.
The question remains: How much radiation are the teachers and children being exposed to in the classroom?
From the very beginning, we have stated that the radiation levels were dangerously high. Here we have proof, as according to Apple’s Important Product Information Guide , iPads emit about the same radiation as cell phones.
The tables above show us that the iPad, using standard WiFi frequencies (2400-2483 MHz), emits an SAR value of 1.19, which is actually higher than comparable iPhones.
This issue deserves careful and methodical analysis.  I believe that for some time now, that we have been more than doing our part in conveying this to both parents and administrators alike.  This evidence shows that we need to do our due diligence.
brain penetration
Children are especially vulnerable to this kind of microwave radiation. This chart shows how much more deeply the radiation penetrates a child’s brain than for an adult. 
So now it has come time to post a blog entry about cell phone science and studies. We have all heard varying reports from the media about cell phone safety.  One story says that they are safe, another says that they are harmful.  These stories leave us with nothing more than confusion, apathy, and little true knowledge.  As with many industries before, such as tobacco, lead, asbestos, plastics, and many other toxic materials, the multi-trillion dollar wireless industry has been proven to obscure science and to create doubt in the general public.  What they would like to obscure is that according to the science, the fact is that all long term, as in over 10 year case-control studies report an increased risk of brain tumors.
The largest of these scientific reports is called INTERPHONE. Completed in 2004, and not released until 2010, this multi-million dollar international research project, funded in part by the mobile phone industry, officially reported that using a cell phone led to a reduced risk of brain cancer! In other words, the public was told that cell phones protect you from brain cancer. Many media sources simply reported that the coast was clear.
Meanwhile, was not reported to the general public was that according to the data itself, “heavy usage”, as in over 30 minutes of use per day, actually lead to a substantial increase in brain cancer risk.  As they say, the devil is in the details.
Cardis, E. Brain Tumor Risk in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case -control study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2010

Glioma and Meningioma Table 3

In this chart, we can see that for those that used a cell phone for over 1640 hours in 1-4 years, meaning about an hour a day, had an OR of 4.8 for developing a meningioma brain tumor and an OR of 3.77 for developing a glioma.

In other words, using a cell phone for over an hour a day, lead to a 5-fold increased risk of developing brain cancer, according to INTERPHONE, the largest cell phone case-control research study ever.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on
use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours
diagnosed in 1997-2003. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2006

Hardell pooled analysis 2006 b (1)

It takes a certain amount of exposure for brain tumors to start to appear.  In this chart by a Swedish team of independent researchers lead by Lennart Hardell, there was only a slight increase in risk from using a cell phone 1-1000 hours. The brain tumor risk really jumped, however, after 1000 hours of usage, and was much higher with prolonged usage.

According to the science, using a cell phone for over 1000 hours leads to an increased risk of brain cancer. According to the manufacturer, iPads emit as much or more radiation than cell phones. According to research, children absorb more radiation than adults.  Given this evidence, what will happen to these children who spend at least 4 hours a day on an iPad at school, followed by another 4 hours at home?  This is at least 2000 hours each and every year, and at least 12,000 hours of exposure in elementary school alone.

The Fullerton School District Superintendent Robert Pletka states that the wireless classrooms are “totally safe for the children” as he proudly displays his ignorance of the science by equating two equally important exposure guidelines that are in reality TEN THOUSAND TIMES APART and he gives it all to you right here in writing with his John Hancock on it:
You want to bank your children’s health and reproductive future on a person with an education degree?
Or do we heed the warnings of top medical and scientific experts, many with direct research experience, who state that this is an unacceptable risk for our children?
I would also like to mention that the 60,000 member American Academy of Pediatrics recently put a letter out to the FCC regarding wireless exposure involving children: http://www.scribd.com/doc/104230961/American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-letter-to-the-FCC
As we know, brain tumors generally take at least 10 years, and in many cases 20-30 years to develop. So these children will be grown up before we know the results of this FORCED IRRADIATION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN. Reproductive harm may not show up for decades either. That’s not the kind of running start into the brick wall and over the cliff, head first dive that we want to give them…..Do we really want to look back and find out that we made a wrong decision, that we ignored scientists and advisories from experts in the medical field, and now one of our children has a brain tumor, some other form of cancer or irreversible reproductive harm? Maybe some of the obstinate, myopic, cowardly school administrators and board members along with their worshipers do, but in the meantime we are certainly not going to sit back and watch these folks carry out what we believe to be the largest forced irradiation of school children that the world has ever known. It is our hope that by informing all of you that you will no longer be able to continue to turn your backs on all of these children.  A  long overdue about face is in order ladies and gentlemen.

Papers finding adverse biological effects such as impaired fertility or damage to health from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz).

Papers listed are only those where exposures were 16V/m or below.  Someone using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer can be exposed to electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m.  Papers are in alphabetical order.  A file of first pages, for printing, can be found here (please pass on to schools).
Wi-Fi:
Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825

Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647
Avendaño C. et al., 2010. Laptop expositions affect motility and induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for Reproductive Medicine 66th Annual Meeting: O-249 http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/laptops+and+sperm.pdf)

Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479077

Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19396408

Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL  part 2.
Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2): 253-266.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675629

Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields.http://www.istanbul.edu.tr/6internatwshopbioeffemf/cd/pdf/poster/WI-FI%20ELECTROMAGNETIC%20FIELDS%20EXERT%20GENDER.pdf

Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915130

Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19637079

Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489926
Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-92.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019785

Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23145464
Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714138
(Wi-Fi alters brain activity in young adults:http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/wifi+brain+July+2011.pdf)
Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23334843
Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360060
 
A few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures (6V/m or below):
(Not comprehensive)
Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769
Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci. 24:111-116.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600821
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika 44:737–741.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10544828
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:29–35.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619445
Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.
Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 162(2):416-428.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19768389
Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 158:126-139.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089649
Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16:263–267.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418
Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29: 219-232.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044737
Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika 43:1132–1333.
Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II. Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:37–41.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619446
Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816647
Panagopoulos D. J.et al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20397839
Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.
Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 25:216-27.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042631
Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the mammalian blood-brain barrier. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:333-355.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.
Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:881-883. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486
Brought to you by 

EMF Refugee: 

The International Coalition for an Electromagnetic Safe Planet (IC-ESP)

http://prd34.blogspot.com/

“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” 

George Orwell

 

“Papers finding adverse biological effects or damage to health from
Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5
GHz).Papers listed are only those where exposures were 16V/m or below.
Someone using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer can be exposed to
electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m. Papers are in alphabetical order.
A file of first pages, for printing, can be found here (please pass on
to schools).Wi-Fi:
Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of
deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves
emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology
9(2): 223-229.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to
internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases
sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1):
39-45.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647Avendaño C. et al., 2010. Laptop expositions affect motility and
induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a
non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for
Reproductive Medicine 66th Annual Meeting: O-249
http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/laptops+and+sperm.pdf)Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced
oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur
Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5):
1695-1700.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479077

Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on
oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from
wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19396408

Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability
shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic
nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:
273-300.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL
part 2.

Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate
variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms
original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2):
253-266.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675629

Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert
gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on
Biological Effects of Electromagnetic
fields.http://www.istanbul.edu.tr/6internatwshopbioeffemf/cd/pdf/poster/WI-FI%20ELECTROMAGNETIC%20FIELDS%20EXERT%20GENDER.pdf

Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker
responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of
print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915130

Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and
selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and
electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol.
85(8): 680-689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19637079

Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative
stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human
leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology
88(6): 449–456.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489926

Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45
GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+)
channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav.
105(3): 683-92.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019785

Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against
oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices.
Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of
print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23145464

Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300
component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task.
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714138

(Wi-Fi alters brain activity in young
adults:http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/wifi+brain+July+2011.pdf)

Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced
Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus
musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23334843

Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative
stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless
devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360060

A few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures
(6V/m or below):
(Not comprehensive)
Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana
temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn.
Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769

Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute
pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci.
24:111-116.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600821
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells
by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika
44:737–741.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10544828
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I.
Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor
production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg.
49:29–35.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619445

Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability
shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic
nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:
273-300.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL
part 2.

Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting
reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
162(2):416-428.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19768389
Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure
effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
158:126-139.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089649
Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk
from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health
16:263–267.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

Maier R. et al., 2004. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on
cognitive processes – a pilot study on pulsed field interference
with cognitive regeneration. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 110:
46-52.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15180806
Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term
exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29:
219-232.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044737
Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor
necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in
vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika
43:1132–1333.

Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II.
Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring
antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg.
49:37–41.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619446
Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of
sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to
radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication
Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816647

Panagopoulos D. J.et al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony
radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna.
Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20397839

Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in
rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication.
Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.
Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in
newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
Bioelectromagnetics
25:216-27.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042631

Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the
mammalian blood-brain barrier. European Journal of Oncology Library
Vol.
5:333-355.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL
part 2.
Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain
after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health
Perspect. 111:881-883. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486

http://wifiinschools.org.uk/30.html”

“Two new papers are published in Pathophysiology this fall that may be
of interest to you.

These papers are the same content as the 2012 BioInitiative Report
Chapter 20
by Martha Herbert and Cindy Sage
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec20_2012_Findings_in_Autism.pdf
.
This counters the usual criticism that ‘it isn’t good science’ unless
it is peer-review published.

The US annual cost for autism is reported to be $137 billion.
That compares to the EU annual cost for cancer (105 billion
euros/$147 billion USD)
and to heart disease ((165 billion euros/$227 billion USD).

Staggering costs, and the prevalence of autism now in the US is one
child in 88
(one child in 50 by 2012 estimates that include the 8 yr and younger
cohort).
In 1975, it was one child in 5000. This is a 100-fold increase.

It parallels the explosive rise in wireless technologies and their
pulsed RFR. It should be
considered another possible risk factor for autism, autism spectrum
conditions and ADHD.
https://thefullertoninformer.com/carbonyl-iron-and-orange-county-the-autism-capital-of-the-state/

This entry was posted on April 15, 2014, 7:22 am and is filed under Forced irradiation of school children. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  1. #1 by Mollie on April 16, 2014 - 5:27 am

    Mr. Imbriano, I would like to applaud your sincere efforts. Children are a heritage of the Lord. They deserve our best efforts to adequately protect them. I have repeatedly driven by and seen you on the sidewalk holding your banners in front of schools, watched you at the council meetings, witnessed you handing out fliers at the soccer and baseball games and have heard that you also attend both school district board meetings as well. Such tenacity!

    Fullerton’s establishment is very tightly knit and is not very welcoming. Your techniques are very unconventional, but you are becoming effective. To get this debate out into the open is no small task, but it appears as if you have begun to do just that. Case and point is the latest Fullerton Observer edition and the letters contained in it regarding the wireless issue.

    Dr. Robert Pletka stated in the District’s response that he “fundamentally rejects” the idea that the classrooms present a danger to the children. My question is on what basis does he make that statement when he is not a scientist? I have read through many of the links provided on this site and there is ample evidence to warrant calling for an immediate ban on the district’s wireless technology program. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Stephenson and the AAEM.

    Another question is how can the five board members ignore this information that you have repeatedly presented to them as well?

    There is just too much information out there to ignore.

    Reply Quote

    • #2 by Joon on April 16, 2014 - 12:31 pm

      Science is not exact. Two sides to issue is common. Kids needs to coming first before money.

      Quote
1 … 51 52 53 54 55 … 69
(will not be published)


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