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 Schulzee on September 25, 2013 - 8:25 am
Send me Joe cuz we all know how that went in Oregon:
Wireless Waste
Portland schools have had to spend $172,000 fighting a parent’s lawsuit over Wi-Fi.
http://www.wweek.com/portland/mobile/articles/articleView/id:19350
But we know all that since it was 6/2012 right?
#2 by David Morrison on September 25, 2013 - 7:17 pm
When it was over PPS actually spent over 200,000 defending their right to microwave our kids. I spoke to a couple of the school board members and asked if they had ever read the witness declarations and they never did which means they never looked at the science. One of our witnesses, Dr. David Carpenter, was a presenter to the Obama Cancer Panel. The Defense attorney argued that he was just a public health employee. He is the head of the Public Health Dept. at the University in Albany N.Y. read the witness declarations at our website and then tell me there was no substance to our case.
#3 by Anonymous on September 25, 2013 - 8:28 pm
The implication that ionizing radiation can damage DNA is that non-ionizing radiation cannot. This is not correct.
For example, blue visible light absorption can induce damage to both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA of cells, which can result in the death of the cell, or in a substantial increase of radical oxygen species generation and increased levels of oxidative stress.
It can also be easily demonstrated that low level magnetic fields can influence cellular metabolic functioning of any cell with active photoreceptor molecules. This follows from the understanding that biologically significant visible-light induced excitations (which are non-ionizing) are dependent on a change in the spin of the electron in the photoreceptor molecule which has been raised to a higher energy level.
While I have no idea whether there is any health risk from the use of cell phones, I don’t believe that one can dismiss the possibility of harmful effects of radiation on biological systems, which are capable of detecting and reacting differently to (non-ionizing) photons on the basis of the polarization or incident direction of the photon, simply because the energy level of the radiation is insufficient to induce ionization.
#4 by amateur night on September 28, 2013 - 12:36 pm
Hey where are all the Cal State Fullerton science cats weighing in on this cat right here? Ya’ll too busy teaching kids they came from the rocks?
#5 by Veritas on September 25, 2013 - 10:15 pm
A UC Berkeley PhD, one involved in this issue, told me that the school boards will not look at any of the information (science) because once they do look at it, they are liable for having seen it.
#6 by Shanna on September 28, 2013 - 8:38 am
We had the same problem up here in Manitoba. They refused to even look into it. I am glad to see that your group in California is trying to stop this.