According to Apple’s product information guide, iPads can emit even more radiation than cell phones.http://manuals.info.apple.com/MANUALS/1000/MA1524/en_US/iPad_Important_Product_Information_Guide.pdf Also, the scientific literature clearly shows that children absorb more radiation than adults.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21999884
According to the scientific evidence itself, in our opinion, it would be reasonable to state that children who use iPads for long periods of time are likely to have a significantly increased risk of developing cancer. Equally worrying is that in my opinion, children may actually suffer severe reproductive harm. So what kind of risk are we talking about? Isn’t that really the question? According to high quality independently funded research by Dr. Lennart Hardell of Sweden:
For every 100 hours of cellphone use, the risk of brain cancer increases by 5%.
So how many hours would children in Fullerton schools be exposed?
175 days x 6 hours = 875 hours per year.
That means after each year of exposure to these wireless devices there would be a 44% increased risk of brain cancer.
After 13 years, this comes to a 572% increased risk of cancer, for adults that is. For children, the increased risk would be much more, as research shows that they have at least double the risk of adults.
So according to these calculations, children would have an 1100% increased risk of brain cancer as a result of using an iPad at school. This does not include time spent doing homework or other extraneous activities. WiFi enabled devices such as tablets and laptops in the classroom possibly emit as much or more high frequency pulse modulated microwave radiation as a cell phone and they are in direct proximity to the children’s sensitive developing reproductive areas.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE LINK BELOW FROM THE LARGEST TRIAL BAR IN THE WORLD AS THEY WEIGH IN ON THE FCC’S RF EXPOSURE GUIDELINES.
13-84 09-03-2013 American Association For Justice 7520942173
FOLKS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OUR CHILDREN HERE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OUR FUTURE. LET’S SHOW THAT WE CARE AND NOT JUST ACT LIKE IT.
#1 by Ray on September 30, 2013 - 7:13 am
Schulze,
We can address the subject of electrosensitiviy, but before you move on to obfuscating another subject, the issue of cell phones and cancer is still waiting.
Please read the Oregon physician’s report so that you and I are able to continue our discussion of the scientific evidence.
http://www.national-toxic-encephalopathy-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Biological_and_Health_Effects_of_Microwave_Radio_Frequency_Transmissions.pdf
#2 by Schulzee on October 2, 2013 - 2:24 pm
Ok, I already adressed this study but you missed it and I can’t find my comments. Not really a study but more of an opinion piece( “Expert” Opinion ). I got to page 9 and stopped as I found what I was looking for. Join me there:
“We have organized this report into six sections:
1. An introduction into some of the issues involved in the “smart meter” Advanced Metering Infrastructure.
2. A review of the scientific research documenting the existence of acute reactions to “non-thermal” levels of RF exposure — reactions which in their most severe form are called electrohypersensitivity syndrome (EHS).”
Notice #2. Thy did not review ALL of the scientific research, rather, they only reviewed that “documenting the existence of acute reactions…”. I wonder why they couldn’t be bothered to review the scientific research that documents the lack of existence of acute reactions, which even Joe admits exists???
So, thanks again for showing us an example of crap science and allowing me to demonstrate how to identify it.
Now to be thourogh, I’m going to look at the studies they cite but I’ll guess they will all be positive. Or, through deceitfull interpretation, will be made to show harm, much like our Interphone study.
Now I’m still interested in your opinion as to why the IARC did not classify EMF as a class 1 or 2A carcinogen.
#3 by Ray on October 2, 2013 - 5:36 pm
Schulze,
I’m sorry, but that will not cut it. We are talking about wireless radiation and brain cancer. The reason I asked you over a week ago to read this scientific report was because it contains a review of multiple cell phone studies including the INTERPHONE project.
Now given that you hadn’t read any of the INTERPHONE research, this is an accessible entry to the science.
So rather than change topics, we are going to stay on the subject of brain cancer. Either put up or shut up. It’s time to read the research. Your games are over.
#4 by Schulzee on October 8, 2013 - 5:16 pm
I wasn’t playing games but I’m glad to see the seriousness with which you approach this. Ok, maybe I was playing games just a bit but its just hard to take all this banter serious.
I will tell you, again, that I have read interpretations if the INTERPHONE study and I have reviewed available data. Again, I have not read the study in its entirety as I have not been able to find it. Though I have asked for a link to it, no one here has been able to supply one. What I’m left to surmise is that you have not read it either.
I have explained to you why that Oregon Physicians report is flawed and therefore I have “put up”.
Now its your turn to put up… Why is EMF not classified as 1 or 2A. Feel free to keep dodging this question for doing so just strengthens my opinion.
#5 by for Schulzee on October 2, 2013 - 6:05 pm
Schulzee,
Just do your homework!!!!