ONE YEAR LATER AND OUR CHILDREN STILL DESERVE BETTER!
When learning of the issue of WiFi and wireless device health impacts, one of the first thoughts that often cross our minds is: “This can’t be possible that WiFi and these devices are harmful. Surely some governmental or health agency would have prevented this from happening.”
For many of us it just doesn’t make sense, because we assume that they couldn’t be that bad, otherwise “they” would have stopped it. One of the hardest things to realize is that many individuals, groups, and entities are actively blocking the public from learning about very serious health impacts affecting their communities from wireless technology.
Why would people do this? Don’t they realize that they are hurting their own children? Parents are busy, and they can’t spend hours upon hours doing scientific research. They therefore tend to base their decision on information that they consider trustworthy. Perhaps they will go on the web and read an article or two, or they will visit the World Health Organization’s website and read up. Not surprisingly, the most common approach is to ask someone who has a medical background, namely a nurse or doctor. In seems that in every school in which parents bring forth the issue of WiFi and wireless device health risks, certain figures manage to appear who will do everything in their power to block the process, and will fight tooth and nail to insist that wireless technology stays, even if it means presenting distorted and or false information to their communities. Usually this is a tech-savvy school board member, a technological integration specialist, or someone whose motivation is borne of his infatuation with gadgets. Sometimes it’s a school board member who doesn’t want the children to be left behind.
In Fullerton California, it’s a medical doctor named Dr. Roman Schulze.Schulze, rather than actively engage in the scientific evidence, has been actively “war gaming” the issue of WiFi health effects. We know now why – he is defending his PTA wife and friends, so that they may then in turn defend their fundraising and other efforts to bring iPads into Acacia Elementary School.
Fullerton’s Dr. Roman Schulze taking his show on the road
Here he is seated on the far right advising The Glendale Unified School District on how WiFi and WiFi enabled devices are safe for the children.
Roman Schulze pictured here seated at the far right.
Dr. Schulze has two primary weapons that he uses in his war games.
The first is a list of “systematic reviews” that he found at “EMF and Health” , http://www.emfandhealth.com/ a pro-industry website financed and put together by Canadian electronics mogul Lorne Trottier, who went so far as to hire professors and scientists to further his agenda.
Dr. Schulze’s second, and most widely employed weapon is to use diversions to take the focus away from the substantial, compelling, if not irrefutable scientific evidence that shows RF radiation to be unsafe for children. Just look back through the threads at Fullerton Informer, and you will see his almost endless efforts to distract and divert. Again, this is a “sport” for him, according to his very own wife, Michelle Garden. https://thefullertoninformer.com/insert-foot-in-mouth/#comment-25498
Distractions are one thing, but another thing completely is his use of the EMF and Health list of expert reviews. At first, this looks impressive enough (and that’s exactly why wireless industry executives devised it). Little do parents or other community members know how deeply manipulated and misleading it is. Unfortunately it probably fools most parents into thinking that WiFi is safe. Most aren’t experienced enough in the science to see the gaping flaws, and if they are being handed this information from a medical doctor, it would be natural for them to consider it trustworthy.
It’s not. There are so many holes in it so large that you could drive a truck through it.
I’ve been asked several times, what is the “smoking gun” of scientific research that proves wireless radiation to be unsafe. Often is this by moms who would like a way to explain the issue it to their pro-technology husbands.
The short answer is: There are several very large and well designed research projects that have found RF microwave radiation causes damage to DNA and other genetic material.
This is, by itself, very serious and compelling evidence, and enough to say no to placing wireless devices in the laps of children. There are some risks worth taking in life, but genetic mutation is not one of them. Not for a technological novelty. Never.
The first of these research programs was WTR, or the “Wireless Technology Research” project. A 7-year, $28 million dollar program of research conducted in the1990’s, and funded by the cell phone industry, this large scale project was a response to a high profile lawsuit, aired on Larry King Live, alleged cell phones caused the formation of a deadly brain tumor for a businessman.
As part of the WTR project, 200 scientists and medical doctors, under the direction of Dr. George Carlo, found that cell phone radiation caused DNA damage, leakage in the blood brain barrier, and a near tripling in the risk of brain tumors.
http://www.emf-health.com/dr-george-carlo.htm
The second is ECOLOG, a multi-million dollar review of the state of the scientific research funded by T-Mobile in 2000. This review of over 220 peer-reviewed and published papers yielded strong indications that RF wireless radiation was genotoxic, and was able to cause single and double stranded DNA breaks and damage to chromosomes.
It also found substantial and compelling evidence that RF radiation disrupted other cellular processes, caused teratogenic effects (birth deformities), and caused loss of fertility in animal studies. Wireless radiation was also found to have cancer initiating and cancer promoting effects. Remember, this was from a study commissioned by T-Mobile, a mobile phone company.
http://www.wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/ecolog20001.pdf
The third of these large scale projects was “REFLEX” a $3 million, EU-funded research project conducted from 2000-2004 which studied the effects of wireless radiation on animal and human cells in the laboratory. Summarizing the work of 12 research groups in seven European countries, the end result was that high frequency microwave radiation causes genetic damage.
http://www.wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/reflex.pdf
In summary, three large scale research projects from 1993-2004 that all found RF radiofrequency microwave radiation causes genetic damage. Subsequent research was released and continues to be published that confirms and expands these earlier findings.
The Bioinitiative Report 2012 now lists hundreds of studies that show EMR electromagnetic radiation to cause genetic effects. For those of you unfamiliar with the Bioinitiative Report, there is a reason it is so unpopular with the wireless industry. A group of experts from around the world, many of whom were at the top of their fields, worked together in order to lay out the evidence for the public to see.
Bioinitiative Report: Evidence for effects on Gene and Protein Expression
Bioinitiative Report: Evidence for Genotoxic Effects
So now back to Dr. Schulze’s document from EMF and Health, http://www.emfandhealth.com/Science%20Sources.html which collectively states that there is no credible evidence of harm from WiFi. Taking a closer look, let’s shine the light of the evidence from the above research on this document and see how it stands up.
One of the extractions is of The Swedish Radiation Authority 2008. It states:
“…two studies on genotoxicity report no increase in micronuclei or DNA strand breaks after RF exposure.”
Two studies. Does this sound like a comprehensive assessment of the science of genetic effects? What about the $28 million research project WTR, ECOLOG, or the $3 million REFLEX project, that reported genetic damage? No mention of these of course. This is industrial cherry picking at its finest.
This Swedish Radiation Authority excerpt suggests that two new studies (from pre 2008), somehow negate all the other studies before and after that report RF exposure causes DNA damage. That’s not how science works. Two studies do not “poof” make all the other evidence somehow disappear. EMF and Health, however, would like you to think that it does, and yet the unsuspecting parent would never know this.
Another example is: Radiofrequency Toolkit for Environmental Health Practioners, BC Center for Disease Control. Here’s what the folks at EMF and Health chose to highlight from this report:
“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 impacts on the health of the general population by RF”.”
It would appear from this excerpt that wireless technology was found to be safe, but this is far from the case, as the actual BC CDC document mentions numerous biological and health impacts.
Not mentioned in the Expert Review is that the BC CDC document states that “the epidemiological studies of men assessed for infertility were consistent in demonstrating decreased sperm motility associated with increased use of mobile phones” and “biological effects on sperm motility related to RF Exposure”.
Also left out is that the review panel noted that “oxidative stress seems one of the more plausible mechanisms of RF-induced sperm damage. Mechanisms by which oxidative stress is caused by increased ROS (Reactive Oxygen Species) and decreased antioxidant have been shown to exist in neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.”
Here are several other excerpts from the BC CDC expert review that the folks at EMF and Health failed to share:
Page 75, Section 6B
“For the same emitted power, children and fetuses experience higher SAR.”
Page 62, Section 5
“Whole body exposure at frequencies in the range of 80 to 180 MHZ and 1-4 GHZ to ICNIRP exposure levels may expose children and small persons (shorter than 1.3m) to above acceptable ICNIRP SAR levels.”
Page 138, Section 6B
“Mortality higher in RF-exposed groups than in control groups at SAR 0.5W/kg.”
Page 144-145, Section 6B
“Ferreira and colleagues exposed pregnant Wistar rats to 834 MHz RF signal for 8.5 hours from gestation to birth at SAR values of 0.55 – 1.23 W/kg or sham. At birth, the animals were sacrificed and an increased level of micronucleus formation was seen in the bone marrow of RF exposed versus sham—exposed animals.”
Page 260, Section 10
“The investigators found a dose-dependent response for all tested parameters including sperm motility and vitality. Decreased motility and increased levels of ROS were found in exposed specimens …..as a dose-response effect was found, it would seem there is biological and clinical relevance to their findings.”
Page 144, Section 6B
“On examination of brain tissue immediately after exposure, an increase in both single- and double-strand DNA breaks were seen in the animals exposed to pulsed or continuous wave RF compared to sham-exposed rats.”
Page 157, Section 6B
“Research on effects on behaviour and cognition are mixed, with several studies showing that RF exposure has an adverse effect.”
Page 150, Section 6B
“Examination revealed increased permeation of albumin from capillaries into both white and grey brain matter in RF –exposed rats by comparison with sham-exposed animals, suggesting that exposure to pulsed RF fields at around 900 MHz increases permeability of the blood-brain barrier. They also observed an increase in “dark neurons,” indicators of neuronal damage in rat brains in animals exposed to RF fields.”
Page 165, Section 6B
“The results of the two studies, while quite “soft,” suggest that more attention needs to be paid to very long-term effects of RF-EMF. Although it is impossible to suggest a biologic mechanism which might explain the findings, results of both studies described above suggest that lifelong exposure to RF fields may shorten lifespan, perhaps in conjunction with other factors, at least in animals.”
Page 257, Section 10
“Mean sperm motility, viability and normal morphology showed significant adverse effects in the mobile phone user groups, both in men with normal and abnormal sperm counts. A dose-response relationship was found as the assessed semen parameters declined with increasing mobile phone use, independent of the quality of the original sample.”
Page 153 -154, Section 6B
“Analysis of tissue from the several parts of the brain, namely the prefrontal cortex, cerebellar cortex and dendate gyrus at three and 10 days post-exposure indicated elevated levels of GFAP, suggesting that the RF exposure was having a physiological effect, at least on astrocytic cells in the central nervous system.”
Page 152, Section 6B
“Sirav and Seyhan (2011) completed a similar study to their earlier investigation, again in Wistar albino rats, and once again found that the exposure to 900 or 1800 MHZ RF fields for 20 minutes promoted a significant increase in albumin in the brains of male rats by comparison with sham-exposed animals.”
Page 154, Section 6B
“Bas et al (2009) exposed Wistar rats to continuously modulated 900 MHz GSM signal (SAR 2.0 W/kg) or sham for one hour per day for 28 days and found a significant decrease in pyramidal cells in the brain of the exposed rats by comparison with sham-exposed animals. Pyramidal cells are thought to play an important role in cognitive functioning.”
Page 250, Section 10
“Unlike the mixed findings found in occupation health studies of radar EMF exposures, the epidemiological studies of men assessed for infertility ere consistent in demonstrating decreased sperm motility associated with increased use of mobile phones. “
Page 259, Section 10
“Sperm motility and viability were negatively affected by exposure to RF.”
Page 275, Summary, Section 10
“The balance of all evidence, animal and human, is consistent with the assertion that exposure of the testes to mobile phone RF may be associated with decreased sperm count, motility, concentration and altered morphology.”
Adverse Effects identified, Mechanisms of Harm suggested
Page 272, Section 10
“Overall, oxidative stress seems one of the more plausible mechanisms of RF-induced sperm damage. It has been found fairly consistently in human and animal studies on sperm specifically and on other cells in general. Mechanisms by which oxidative stress is caused by increased ROS and decreased antioxidant have been shown to exist in neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimers.”
Page 269-270, Section 10
“Non-enzyme antioxidants, like melatonin, have also been observed to decline after RF exposure 62-65 An additive effect may occur, with alternation not only of sperm cell enzymes but of whole body system antioxidants. Melatonin in particular is known to support antioxidant activity in sperm. 66 A number of recent studies have provided experimental evidence suggestive of an oxidative stress mechanism for the effect of RF on sperm.”
Page 270, Section 10
“It was determined that the ROS were sourced from the sperms’ mitochondria. At a SAR of 2.8 W/kg, the results became statistically significant for mitochondrially produced ROS. They noted specifically that rapid change occurred at low SAR exposures which reached a plateau when about 30% of sperm affected.”
Page 263, Section 10
“Most, although not all studies attempting to control temperature, convincingly ruled out a thermal effect.”
Page 273, Section 10
“It is known that RF can induce currents in a cell membrane, and that this may alter the cation (positive ion) distribution (and so charge) in the normally negative membrane. Some evidence shows pulsed RF can dislodge calcium ions (Ca++) from a membrane, resulting in a weaker barrier and leakage, although there is no direct evidence on sperm membranes. However, studies do seem to point to efflux of Ca++ as a factor in altered sperm motility.”
Page 340, Section 13
“The most effective way to reduce total exposure to RF is to avoid the use of RF-emitting devices, especially devices that result in the highest personal exposures such as mobile phones used at the head.”
These biological and health effects are not what I would call safe. As a parent, of course I would want to know if wireless technology was shown to cause DNA damage, infertility, neurological and behavior changes, leakage of the blood brain barrier, and other radiation damage.
I believe that to omit these details is highly misleading if not fraudulent, and although Schulze has been warned of serious errors in this document since September of 2013, he continues to present it to the public, falsely stating that it provides evidence as to the safety of microwave radiation exposure onto their children.
Young children cannot look after themselves. They look to parents, teachers, principals, and other school administrators to make sure they are safe. They expect that medical experts will do their due diligence and protect them from environmental hazards. The last thing they expect is that a local medical doctor could be playing games with their children’s physical, mental and reproductive health.
This is what I believe is on the line folks. Look very carefully at this photo:
So what are the parents of the 15,000 children in The Fullerton School District to do with this information? I believe that you can all answer that question yourselves. They are your children ladies and gentlemen.
So what is Dr. Roman A. Schulze to do with all of this information? Good question. Let’s hear what this IPad, WiFi, wireless radiation defending extraordinaire woman known as his wife, Michele Garden has to say:
“My husband, Roman Shulze, and I, Michele Garden, just plain ol’ don’t agree with your assertions. We, along with a majority of the parents, the Physics Dept. at CSUF, and a WHOLE LOTTA other scientists and citizens think that you are wrong. We are tired of the minority forcing their views on the majority” https://thefullertoninformer.com/insert-foot-in-mouth/#comment-25498
This statement along with her latest email to the Fullerton Informer aside from being absolutely stunning, is a field day in the making for the advocates of free speech and our children’s health and well being. So once again, she tries to make it all about Joe Imbriano and my assertions? Sorry Charlie or should I say Charlette, no cigar.
So what are all these people that she mentions to do with this information? Boy now that’s a tough one. She has certainly put the physics dept over at Cal State Fullerton in the basket now too. I guess they are in good company with the likes of of Robert Pletka, Robert Craven, Karen Whisnant, Greg Dhuyvetter from the Diocese of Orange, the entire FSD school board, and the host of all of the other teachers, principals, and administrators who flat out continue to IGNORE these health concerns we continue to present on this issue who are just rolling this ball right along and REFUSE TO TURN THESE EMISSIONS SYSTEMS OFF and continue to forcibly irradiate the children.
This issue is a big deal ladies and gentlemen, a big big deal. In my humble opinion, there is no larger threat to humanity than this issue. You can choose to ignore it or you can choose to face it head on.
Remember these things?
Like wireless today, advertisements for this so called “necessity” once blanketed the television and radio airwaves, billboards, movies, magazines, and sporting events for decades. They used to be in almost every home, car, plane, train, bus, restaurant, school, hospital, park, mall, airport, backyard, porch, movie theater and everywhere else humans went? Sound familiar?
Remember who told us it was safe?
Acacia PTA, Fullerton parents and the rest of you parents around the world that read this, will we ever learn? Will you still listen when they say “trust me, I’m a doctah” Remember these are our children, that they depend on us for protection and the future depends on them being protected. There will be no future if their reproductive future has been stolen from them. It is foolish to trust people you don’t know, in places so high and far away that you will never meet, about a danger that most people do not understand, that most people would never suspect, with what you and I and the rest of humanity has taken for granted for the last 6,000 years: our and our children’s reproductive capabilities. So many today pharmaceutically and prophylactically attempt control or thwart it. No one that I know, however, is ready to willingly relinquish it, much less surrender that of their children. Do not kid yourself folks. There are those in the highest positions of power that are hell bent on doing just that. It is flat out dangerous to think that the technology has not yet arrived to carry out the most insidious of agendas.
I think it is flat out shameful, to be a parent and to willingly ignore all of this because I believe if you do just that, it spells the beginning of the end of the line for what you and I once were:
Could this spell the end of what our kids will someday assume they were entitled to as a God given right? Will they ask us why we didn’t fight for it and for them? What then will you tell them my friends, what will you look them in the eyes and tell them?
In closing, I would like to state that I believe that of all the sins in the world, that cowardice is by far the worst of them all. It is because of this one that all the rest are allowed to flourish, spread and run their destructive course driving humanity right off the cliff into an abyss. Look at what is happening to our children’s minds with the music, TV, movies, video games and yes even some of the curriculum in the schools. The war for their souls being patently obvious, is already well underway. Right now ladies and gentlemen, this whole kit and kaboodle is on the line and hidden in plain view for all to see. Now is not the time to treat the debate over your children’s physical and reproductive health as some sort of a sport, much less trust anyone who I believe has been publicly identified as one who I believe appears to enjoy doing just that. Thank you.
#1 by Joe Imbriano on September 29, 2015 - 9:24 am
The Fullerton Informer Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Beverly Berryman , Hilda Sugarman , lynn thornley , janny meyer , “Robert J. Feldhake” , Robert Pletka , Brad Dacus , The Fullerton Informer
To: Chris Thompson
Cc: “Shawn E. Abrell, Esq.”
This is a formal demand to immediately turn off all wireless systems and cease the use of all wireless technology in all Fullerton School District facilities pursuant to .CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE SECTIONS 32060-32065
“““““““““““““““““““““““
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=32001-33000&file=32060-32066
>>> start of quote
32060.
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that art supplies which contain toxic substances or which are potential human carcinogens pose a significant danger to the health and safety of school children. The Legislature also finds and declares that school children are not sufficiently protected by present health laws in so far as materials which may be seriously harmful are not so labeled and therefore children are not properly warned as to the dangers inherent in the use of those materials.
(b) The Legislature intends by this article to ensure that elementary school children are protected by prohibiting the sale of these toxic substances to schools, school districts, and private schools for use in kindergarten and grades 1 to 6, inclusive, and that the toxic substances may be purchased by schools, school districts, and private schools for students in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, only if the materials are properly labeled, as described in Section 32064.
32061. “Art or craft material” means any raw or processed material or manufactured product marketed or being represented by the manufacturer or repackager as being suitable for use in the demonstration or the creation of any work of visual or graphic art of any medium. These media may include, but shall not be limited to, paintings, drawings, prints, sculpture, ceramics, enamels, jewelry, stained glass, plastic sculpture, photographs, and leather and textile goods.
32062.
(a) “Human carcinogen” means any substance listed as a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
(b) “Potential human carcinogen” means one of the following:
(1) Any substance which does not meet the definition of human carcinogen, but for which there exists sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals, as determined by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
(2) Any chemical shown to be changed by the human body into a human carcinogen.
32063. “Toxic substance causing chronic illness” means any of the following:
(a) Human carcinogens.
(b) Potential human carcinogens.
(c) Any substance included in the list of hazardous substances prepared by the Director of Industrial Relations, pursuant to Section 6382 of the Labor Code, notwithstanding exemptions made for substances on the list which are used in particular forms, circumstances, or concentrations, if the health hazard presented by the substance is not the subject of label statements required by federal law.
32064.
(a) For the 1987-88 academic year and for each academic year thereafter, no art or craft material that is deemed by the State Department of Health Services to contain a toxic substance, as defined by the California Hazardous Substance Act, Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 108100) of Part 3 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, or a toxic substance causing chronic illness, as defined in this article, shall be ordered or purchased by any school, school district, or governing authority of a private school in California for use by students in kindergarten and grades 1 to 6, inclusive.
(b) Commencing June 1, 1987, any substance that is defined in subdivision (a) as a toxic substance causing chronic illness shall not be purchased or ordered by a school, school district, or governing authority of a private school for use by students in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, unless it meets the labeling standards specified in Section 32065.
(c) If the State Department of Health Services finds that, because the chronically toxic, carcinogenic, or radioactive substances contained in an art or craft product cannot be ingested, inhaled, or otherwise absorbed into the body during any reasonably foreseeable use of the product in a way that could pose a potential health risk, the department may exempt the product from these requirements to the extent it determines to be consistent with adequate protection of the public health and safety.
(d) For the purposes of this article, an art or craft material shall be presumed to contain an ingredient that is a toxic substance causing chronic illness if the ingredient, whether an intentional ingredient or an impurity, is 1 percent or more by weight of the mixture or product, or if the State Department of Health Services determines that the toxic or carcinogenic properties of the art or craft material are such that labeling is necessary for the adequate protection of the public health and safety.
32065. Warning labels for substances specified in Section 32064 shall meet all of the following standards:
(a) The warning label shall be affixed in a conspicuous place and shall contain the signal word “WARNING,” to alert users of potential adverse health effects.
(b) The warning label shall contain information on the health-related dangers of the art or craft material.
(1) If the product contains a human carcinogen, the warning shall contain the statement: “CANCER HAZARD! Overexposure may create cancer risk.”
(2) If the product contains a potential human carcinogen, and does not contain a human carcinogen, the warning shall contain the statement: “POSSIBLE CANCER HAZARD! Overexposure might create cancer risk.”
(3) If the product contains a toxic substance causing chronic illness, the warning shall contain, but not be limited to, the following statement or statements where applicable:
(A) May cause sterility or damage to reproductive organs.
(B) May cause birth defects or harm to developing fetus.
(C) May be excreted in human milk causing harm to a nursing infant.
(D) May cause central nervous system depression or injury.
(E) May cause numbness or weakness in the extremities.
(F) Overexposure may cause damage to (specify organ).
(G) Heating above (specify degrees) may cause hazardous decomposition products.
(4) If a product contains more than one chronically toxic substance, or if a single substance can cause more than one chronic health effect, the required statements may be combined into one warning statement.
(c) The warning label shall contain a list of ingredients that are toxic substances causing chronic illness.
(d) The warning label shall contain a statement or statements of safe use and storage instructions, conforming to the following list. The label shall contain, but not be limited to, as many of the following risk statements as are applicable:
(1) Keep out of reach of children.
(2) When using, do not eat, drink, or smoke.
(3) Wash hands after use and before eating, drinking, or smoking.
(4) Keep container tightly closed.
(5) Store in well ventilated area.
(6) Avoid contact with skin.
(7) Wear protective clothing (specify type).
(8) Wear NIOSH certified masks for dust, mists, or fumes.
(9) Wear NIOSH certified respirator with appropriate cartridge for (specify type).
(10) Wear NIOSH certified supplied air respirator.
(11) Use window exhaust fan to remove vapors and assure adequate ventilation (specify explosion proof if necessary).
(12) Use local exhaust hood (specify type).
(13) Do not heat above (specify degrees) without adequate ventilation. (14) Do not use/mix with (specify material).
(e) The warning label shall contain a statement on where to obtain more information, such as, “Call your local poison control center for more health information.”
(f) The warning label, or any other label on the substance, shall contain the name and address of the manufacturer or repackager.
(g) If all of the above information cannot fit on the package label, a package insert shall be required to convey all the necessary information to the consumer. In this event, the label shall contain a statement to refer to the package insert, such as “CAUTION: See package insert before use.” For purposes of this section, “package insert” means a display of written, printed, or graphic matter upon a leaflet or suitable material accompanying the art supply. The language on this insert shall be nontechnical and nonpromotional in tone and content. The requirements set forth in subdivisions (a) to (g), inclusive, shall not be considered to be complied with unless the required words, statements, or other information appear on the outside container or wrapper, or on a package insert that is easily legible through the outside container or wrapper and is painted in a color in contrast with the product or the package containing the product. An art or craft material shall be considered to be in compliance with this section if Article 6 (commencing with Section 108500) of Chapter 4 of Part 3 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code requires labeling of the art or craft material, and if the material is in compliance with that article. The manufacturer of any art or craft material sold, distributed, offered for sale, or exposed for sale in this state shall supply upon request to the State Department of Health Services any information required by the department in order to perform its duties under this article.
>>> end of quote
Here is the logical application of CA Education Code
““““““““““““““““““““““““““
California schools and school districts that install and operate wireless devices in elementary school classrooms are not in compliance with CA Educational Code §§32060-32064, if the antennas of these devices are powered on and able to send and receive data wirelessly.
Use of wireless devices, including but not limited to, wireless routers, access points, computers, laptops, netbooks, Chromebooks, printers, tablets, speakers, SmartMeters and any other devices that have their antennas powered on to enable them to send and receive data wirelessly in California elementary schools (K-6) is not compliant with CA Educational Code §§32060-32064. Wired connections via Ethernet or fiber optic cables is the only way to connect these devices to each other or to the internet in a way that is compliant with CA Educational Code §§32060-32064.
If the devices’ antennas for wi-fi, mobile data, blue tooth and GPS are all powered off, the antennas are disabled and cannot send and receive data wirelessly. This is whatCalifornia elementary schools must do to comply with CA Educational Code §§32060-32064. Devices that offer wired connectivity via Ethernet ports or USB-to-Ethernet adapaters can connect to the internet with a wired Ethernet or fiber optic cable and still be compliant with CA Educational Code §§32060-32064, as long as all of the devices’ antennas are powered off and disabled.
In addition, the electronic devices in California schools must be positioned far enough away from students to not expose the students to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields that are beyond a safe level: magnetic flux densities over 1 milliGauss are a problem. A measurement of ambient magnetic flux density of 7 milligauss (contributed by outside power lines) was high enough to force the closure of a school in Oregon and relocate all of the students.
Measurements of magnetic flux density a few inches from many electronic devices yieldreadings as high as 150 milliGauss. The ELF magnetic flux densities fall off exponentially with increased distance from the device, so usually at 18-24″ from the device, the measurements drop below 1 milligauss. These photos visualize the issue for students: https://www.flickr.com/photos/89743379@N06/sets/72157633310156013.
As the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2001 classified ELF magnetic fields as a possible human carcinogen regarding childhood leukemia, California elementary school classrooms must plan and implement technology use carefully to comply with CA EducationalCode §§32060-32064. Laptops and tablets should be used with external keyboards and pointing devices and all electrical devices placed on stands, tables or desks at least 18-24″ from any student. This means hand-holding computers or tablets or placing them in one’s lap is inappropiate for California elementary school students.
Here is the CA Education code that requires this:
1. To educate their students, schools routinely purchase educational materials, including art supplies and other materials. Charged with an even higher duty than parents to protect children while they are in school, the California Legislature found that art supplies containing “toxic substances” or which are “potential human carcinogens” pose a significant danger to the health and safety of school children. EDC 32060(a).
2. In response, the California Legislature prohibited the sale of these toxic substances to schools, school districts, and private schools for use in kindergarten through sixth grade and may only be used in higher grades if the materials are properly labeled. EDC 32060(b); EDC 32064(a) and (b).
3. The California Legislature defined “art or craft material” as “any raw or processed material or manufactured product marketed or being represented by the manufacturer or repackager as being suitable for use in the demonstration or the creation of any work of visual or graphic art of any medium,” EDC 32061, which include “radioactive substances”, see EDC 32064(c).
4. The California Legislature defined “potential human carcinogen” to mean “any substance . . . for which there exists sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals, as determined by the [World Health Organization’s] International Agency for Research on Cancer”. EDC 32062(b)(1).
5. In May 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified exposure to wireless microwave radiation from any source a Class 2B carcinogen as it found “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Wireless microwave radiation is also a “toxic substance causing chronic illness”, EDC 32063, as it is a potential human carcinogen.
6. Many wireless devices, defined above, are “manufactured products marketed and being represented by the manufacturer . . . as being suitable for use in the demonstration or creation” of “visual or graphic art” media. Many other devices are manufactured to enable wireless connectivity to assist in the creation of visual or graphic art. It matters not if the art is a drawing or a graph of scientific or financial data. It’s the use of wireless connectivity, for any purpose, that is dangerous because the wireless signals, from any source, is a carcinogen that has many direct health impacts in addition to its carcinogenic properties.
In closing, because the antennas of wireless devices, when powered on, transmit data wirelessly that is both a “toxic substance causing chronic illness” and defined as a “potential human carcinogen”, the use of these devices, with its antennas powered on are in all schools, public and private makes the schools not compliant with §§32060-32064 and these antennas must be powered off immediately. All contracts relating to equipment that require antennas to be powered on for the devices to be operational must be cancelled, as these contracts are null and void as they are not compliant with EDC §§32060-32064.
FYI, the following text from Apple Inc.’s web page (http://www.apple.com/education/ipad/teaching-with-ipad/) says “With iPad and these powerful free apps, students write, analyze data, and present their work in engaging ways. In Pages,students make term papers anything but ordinary with photos, videos, and graphics. For data-rich projects, Numbers helps them express ideas in tables, charts, and graphs that go way beyond a mere spreadsheet. And in Keynote, students create presentations with stunning transitions and effects. Students can shoot and edit their own HD video with iMovie,create a visual journal with iPhoto.”
It is Apple Inc.’s proprietary business decision to require wireless signals in order to connect the iPad to a computer network or the internet. Because Apple Inc. does not provide a software driver to enable the use of a USB-to-Ethernet adapter, the iPad is one of the least-compliant with EDC §§32060-32064 products on the market. Nearly every other computer, laptop, netbook, Chromebook or tablet sold to schools offers a USB-to-Ethernet wired connectivity option, the use of which is required to comply with EDC §§32060-32064.
Finally, here are informative video slices that are quick to view and easy to understand; you will find more more at
http://rfemf.com/background.html#clarke
http://rfemf.com/presentation/index.html#/1
http://rfemf.com/science.html (especially Dr. Martin Pall’s 9/16/13 Presentation to Portland City Schools re: RF/EMF Microwave Radiation
http://rfemf.com/links.html (especially Dr. Leif Salford, RF/EMF & the Blood Brain Barrier)
http://rfemf.com/news/2013-1214.html
http://rfemf.com/news/2014-0112.html
Dr. Barrie Trower series of 1-2 minute videos
http://rfemf.com/news/2014-0201.html
Dr. Martin Paul 1:12 – 5:15
http://youtu.be/E-nYxZHak6I?t=1m12s to 5:15 duration 4:15
Dr. Paul Dart
Ham Radio Operators
http://youtu.be/E-nYxZHak6I?t=28m21s to 29:15 duration 0:55
Sperm Drop
http://youtu.be/E-nYxZHak6I?t=35m02s to 36:04 duration 1:02
No Wi-Fi in Schools
http://youtu.be/E-nYxZHak6I?t=42m47s to 43:30 duration 0:40
No Wi-Fi in Kreshes
http://youtu.be/E-nYxZHak6I?t=44m19s to 44:41 duration 0:22
Dr. Paul Dart
Wi-Fi Management
http://youtu.be/E-nYxZHak6I?t=48m50s to 49:24 duration 0:35
Dr. Martin Paul
Wi-Fi in Schools
http://youtu.be/E-nYxZHak6I?t=47m00s to 47:45 duration 0:45
Laptop & Tablet Shielding
http://youtu.be/E-nYxZHak6I?t=45m28s to 45:50 duration 0:22
Dr. Martin Pall & Merry Callahan
http://youtu.be/HCAyPMVuJHY?t=2m49s to 6:45 duration 4:00
Dr. Paul Dart
Russian Exposures
http://youtu.be/aRn113m1Dkg?t=4m27s to 6:00 duration 1:30
Calcium Channels
http://youtu.be/aRn113m1Dkg?t=26m21s to 27:30 duration 1:10
Damage DNA Chronic basis
http://youtu.be/i6TxAzXndCg?t=4m19s to 5:13 duration 0:55
Fertility and WiFi
http://youtu.be/i6TxAzXndCg?t=12m30s to 14:25 duration 1:55
Sperm Drop
http://youtu.be/i6TxAzXndCg?t=18m28s to 19:30 duration 1:02
Melatonin
http://youtu.be/aRn113m1Dkg?t=20m14s to 21:08 duration 0:50
http://youtu.be/aRn113m1Dkg?t=21m53s to 23:08 duration 1:20
Population Control & Microwave Radiation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LvSGYU_kG0 duration 7:30
Attachments area
Preview YouTube video Dr. Martin Pall & Dr. Paul Dart, M.D. Oregon House of Rep. Health Committee Presentation