Shame on Cal State Fullerton’s Dr. Mark H. Shapiro for talking out his pie hole on wireless



Cal State Fullerton’s Dr. Mark H. Shapiro

WHERE DOES ONE BEGIN? WELL FOR STARTERS, AN INTRODUCTION. Last month, the Observer was forced to run an article about how some 120 scientists are all appealing to the World Health Organization and The United Nations to do something about the public health crisis from wireless microwave radio frequency radiation exposure to the general population and school children.

So in response, Shapiro takes it upon himself to write up a hit piece to debunk an article in the Observer that pretty much put the establishment school district irradiators in the proverbial corner.

Professor Emeritus Mark Shapiro should find out why the California Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the Austrian Medical Association, the Israeli Ministry of Education, the German Federal Ministry, the Public Health Department of the Salzburg Region, the European Environment Agency, the Supreme Court of India, among many, many others have all come out to either limit  or eliminate EMF exposure.

Perhaps Prof emeritus Shapiro should argue the science with 190 scientists worldwide that have come together to appeal the World Health Organization for stricter RF-radiation guidelines.

Perhaps Prof Emeritus  Mark Shapiro should argue with the multitudes that are urgently warning governments about EMF health harms.
Perhaps Prof Emeritus Mark Shapiro should talk to France, which just this year passed a new national law.  If he did, maybe he could understand why they took such extraordinary actions to insure their country’s health.  It may be that they understand the health implications of EMF a good deal better than he.
  • WIFI Banned in Nursery Schools.
  • National Radiofrequency Agency Established.
  • Cell Phones Labeled with SAR Values and Ways to Lower Radiation.
  • WiFi Routers Turned Off in Elementary Schools Except When Needed.
  • Cell Phone Ads Must Recommend Phones be Held Away From the Head.
  • Location of Wireless Routers Must be Posted.
  • Government Report To Be Prepared on Electro-hypersensitivity.
Perhaps Prof emeritus should thoroughly review the scientific findings before he injects himself into a discussion on such a hugely significant issue that he has no professional expertise from which to draw.  If he did, he would not confine his opinions exclusively to cancer.  Is he aware that the science shows impacts to heart function, reproductive health, immune and nervous systems?  If so, it is not apparent.
This statement from Prof. Shapiro is astoundingly uninformed:
“The bottom line is that the only risk to the general public from EMR at cell phone frequencies comes from the cell phones themselves, not from the towers, WiFi routers, or smart meters. And, with a little care even that risk can be greatly reduced.
It’s unfortunate that the Professor was allowed to air his personal opinion   and given the opportunity to influence the public on a matter on which decisions and positions are being taken by governments and respected associations clearly contradicting Professor Shapiro’s advice to the general public.  Prof. Shapiro, you might ask yourself:  “What do they know that I do not?”
Among those with expertise in the field the debate is over on EMF exposure and that is becoming more and more evident in the laws, ordinances, and position statements from the medical profession.  It is already happening.  They are not waiting until the dead bodies stack up.   Clearly, they are all on a different page than the CSUF professor.

Well regardless, it looks like our little fan club got nervous and decided to roll out their big gun Dr. Emeritous Shapiro. So in the early June edition of the Foolerton Observer, he states that in his opinion, the information presented in the Health News Column in the Mid-May 2015 Observer regarding the long-term health effects of Wi-Fi and other forms of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation was seriously misleading, because it conflates very low-risk activities such as being in the vicinity of a cell phone tower, using WiFi or smart meters with a much higher risk activity. Namely, talking on a cell phone held to one’s head for long period of time.

The doc goes on to state that “to my knowledge, the only studies that have shown statistically significant increases in cancer rates associated with high-frequency electromagnetic radiation (EMR) were those where relatively high EMR doses were involved. One such study, which was mentioned in the article, showed that people who talked on cell phones for 30 minutes or more daily over a long period of time (10 years) showed a 40% increase in a particular type of malignant brain tumor – glioma.”

Hey doc, does this picture of these poor children dumped off in one of these electronic sardine cans fit that description? HOW LONG DO YOU THINK THESE CHILDREN SPEND ON THESE DEVICES THAT HAVE A HIGHER SAR THAN A  CELL PHONE? MAYBE 5,6,7 HOURS A DAY AT SCHOOL AND AT HOME? FOR HOW MANY YEARS, 12, 18, 20?

unnamed-1-297x300 (1)

Shapiro should know because this is what Cal State Fullerton looks like.


Children are being FORCED TO USE IPADS OR LAPTOPS AT SCHOOL all day-just try getting an education in The FSD without one.

I am glad he understands the Hardell study findings. It is just to bad that he appears to be too stupid to make the correlation between cell phone use which is voluntary and intermittent and iPad use which is forced and chronic. The devices in school have a higher SAR than cell phones. The iPads emit more radiation in WiFi mode than a cell phone that is being used.  I wonder if it ever occurred to Dr Braniac where these kids keep these things all day and night?


This is indeed a textbook case of  “relatively high EMR doses being involved” This goes on for hours a day, at school, at home, at the park, in the car, in the plane, in the train, at the restaurant. Ipads and laptops emit more than cell phones and what the heck do you thing this crap is doing to this child with the antenna broadcasting on his zipper? 


dont you worry none

Shapiro tells us err on the side of caution because “Cell phones sold in the U.S. deliver SARs ranging from a low of 0.19 to a maximum of 1.58 Watts/kg. As the study quoted in the Health News column stated Cell phones sold in the U.S. deliver SARs ranging from a low of 0.19 to a maximum of 1.58 Watts/kg. As the study quoted in the Health News column stated exposure to SARs this high on a daily basis over many years appears to raise the risk for gliomas (a type of malignant brain cancer) by about 40% compared to the rate in the general population. While other studies have not been so definitive, we should err on the side of caution and take this particular study at face value While other studies have not been so definitive, we should err on the side of caution and take this particular study at face value.”

That is good advice so why don’t you open your eyes and apply it to the 15,000 children in the Fullerton School district who have to deal with this all day just so they can go to day care and do their homework on their iPad and then at home to finish it-all with WiFi beaming away all day and night.

Dr Shapiro why don’t you mention what we have been screaming from the mountain tops for almost 3 years at every city council and school board meeting? Ipads emit as much or more than cell phones and there is clear scientific evidence that this causes cancer!

Is this guy a circus clown or a monster? He is taking on hundred of scientists and telling us there is nothing to worry about?

images (23)

wireless is safe for the whole family

He then goes on to ignore school technology and warns “Those who talk on cell phones for more than a few minutes a day should choose a cell phone model with a low SAR, and should be sure to use a wired earpiece. OH that is brilliant doc. Metallic wires of the headphones increase the intensity of the cell phone radiation as they act as an antenna. The wired headphones collect radiation from the surroundings. 

He tells us that “The laws of physics dictate that the specific absorption rate (SAR) in Watts/kg of body weight from these sources will decrease approximately as the square of the distance from a point source of radiation – the inverse square law.“‘


looks like this child’s reproductive future is ” inversely square out of luck with point blank microwave exposure”-look where the geniuses at Apple computer put the WiFi antenna-right on his zipper and it ain’t no accident



Look at this industry funded study that showed a decrease in brain cancer with increased cell phone use.

unnamed-10 (1)

So the physics professor tells us not to worry and the industry stacks the deck.

unnamed-16Lets move on.

According to Mr. Professor Shapiro, “numerous other studies of populations exposed to low levels of EMR have shown no statistically significant correlations with cancer rates.”

So I wonder why he is not mentioning some of these studies? He is an expert right? Lets look at some studies on what he claims is safe, that is living near cell towers. You know, the kind that Jennifer Fitzgerald, Jan Flory and Doug Chaffee keep voting to put next to your schools and your homes?

images-86-150x150 FitzgeraldCouncil-115x115images (24)mariah_fea28-195x110






Once again Shapiro states ” Numerous other studies of populations exposed to low levels of EMR have shown no statistically significant correlations with cancer rates.”










There are thousands of studies out there and Prof emeritus SHAPIRO TELLS US THAT –“The electromagnetic radiation problem that should concern us is not the cell towers, WiFi routers, or smart meters — but the cell phones themselves.”

Have you ever seen  30+ children on their phones all day 5 days a week locked in a room? Here is the equivalent AND NOT A PEEP OUT OF THIS CAL STATE FULLERTON PHYSICS PROFESSOR ABOUT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT IS ABOUT TO TAKE A DUMP ON HIM.





Oh but this Cal State Foolerton creature never mentions reproductive harm even though the 200 scientists do in their appeal. Yes he uses his title of Prof emeritus and ignores the real reason this wireless crap is being rammed down our throats while at Cal State Foolerton, wireless is everywhere. It is all about fertility folks.

unnamed-53 (1)


unnamed-54 (1)

unnamed-55 (1)





Ounnamed-56 (1)









Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions

The International Association of Fire Fighters’ position on locating cell towers commercial wireless infrastructure on fire department facilities, as adopted by its membership in August 2004 (1), is that the IAFF oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.

U.S._CanNEW-300x300 (1)




Roman Schulze promoting wireless in schools


Apple Headquarters #3

unnamed (6)



HMS_c161_IVF_1944_Specimen_2 (1)


Newbies at the helm of the FSD

Newbies at the helm of the FSD



byod6-300x225I could go on folks, really. Whats up doc?


  1. #1 by Olle Johansson on June 2, 2015 - 2:41 am

    KI researcher: ‘Kick out politicians who give students hazardous e-readers with unproven educational value Thanks to the so-called PISA* (OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment) survey, in Sweden we now know: student scores in maths, reading comprehension and natural sciences are plummeting. The results are prompting rage in Swedish schools. Something is wrong. The government response is to force all students to go through another school year. In addition, a series of panic measures has been initiated by the authorities. But do not expect schools to be given peace and quiet, so that they may
    be able to figure out how to get things to work while dismantling those gadgets and administrative ‘reins’ that do not.

    For years schools have undergone a multitude of changes and been given new assignments, including being forced to monitor more grade control data and using new and more administration. Some changes are good, some bad. Changes include an enormous amount of computerized teaching where students via their apps, mobile phones and tablets are supposed to gain new knowledge. Pedagogy innovators have deleted textbooks and pencils, blackboards and pointers, and instead replaced them with new wireless e-readers
    and cell phones. Academics, such as myself, have many times – usually completely unheard – raised a warning finger to the educational establishment.

    Today it is very difficult to be a teacher and take responsibility for teaching in the classroom where students’ cell phones are constantly ringing, text messages are being sent back and forth, and surfing the entire time online or playing games through iPhones and iPads. All this when students really should be working on their school assignments.

    In Sweden, there have been several cases where the teacher was reprimanded because he or she “violated the students’ privacy” after taking cell phones from students, while other teachers have been criticized for being too strict with students for not allowing them to do what they want during school hours.

    Assoc. Professor and Asst., Professor

    Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

    in Neuroscience,
    In Sweden – which has one of the most highly computerized educational systems in the
    world – results have plummeted regarding reading, writing and math skills. Today the
    system can not afford to hire enough staff, no, and it has even been suggested that “tired
    of school” students will not be asked to finalize 2/3 of their secondary education. So the
    new tools do not impress – it just seems like we should be spending money on well-trained
    teachers with old teaching materials. Simultaneously there is a tendency for students in alternative schools such as Waldorf, Montessori and Reggio Emilia, to do slightly better and mature mentally faster; and it’s very interesting because these schools do not use computers to the same degree as
    mainstream schools.

    These new wireless devices are now flooding schools and homes. Examples of such
    sources of microwave radiation are wireless routers, computers with wireless network
    cards, wireless landline phones, tablets (like the iPad), mobile phones, etc. Several years
    ago evidence surfaced that exposure from electromagnetic fields can cause serious
    biological effects and health effects. Against this backdrop, many like myself protested,
    including parents, teachers and school staff in Köping as seen in Bärgslagsbladet (April 18) in 2012 under the headline “No to wireless at school”.

    Children are probably sensitive to pulsed microwave radiation from iPads and routers
    There are now numerous scientific studies that children are likely to be more vulnerable to
    pulsed microwave radiation than adults. New research shows, among other serious effects
    on behavior and learning ability, that there is general agreement among scientists that
    electromagnetic fields penetrate further into the brains of children than in adults because
    the skulls of children are thinner. There is also a broad consensus that children are more
    vulnerable to adverse effects from radiation because their bodies are developing, thus, by
    definition, more sensitive to environmental toxins. Children are not “little adults”!

    The Council of Europe’s Environment Committee has called for strong measures to protect the public against mobile phone radiation. The World Health Organization in 2011 classified electromagnetic fields from wireless sources as possible carcinogens. In its Resolution No. 1815 from May 2011 the Council of
    Europe’s Environment Committee recommended strong measures to protect the public against harmful effects of wireless radiation, including a ban on mobile phones and wireless internet in schools. It also wants to reduce the recommended maximal exposure level of mobile telephony sharply, all this completely in agreement with the Seletun declaration of 2010. In it, an international group of scientists urge on a stop to further expansion of wireless systems and require new guideline limits.

    In February 2010 The Seletun Scientific Panel published a resolution with a wide range of common positions and recommendations, based on a review of the then-available research on the health effects of electromagnetic fields. Since then there have been many more reports …

    The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) misleads Sometimes you see in the debate that someone – usually from a radiation safety organization – claims there is no danger and that “the radiation is so weak”. Weak compared to what?, I wonder. Today there are children in radiation levels that could easily
    be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 times higher than our natural background radiation. So how can the phrase “so weak” be justified? A child using a laptop to download from a wireless Internet connection is exposed to the same amount of radiation (about 1,000 μW/m2 and above) as if he/she were near a cellular base station (50-100 meters away). There are many parents who are not aware of this. The figures are not plucked from the air, but taken from readings in schools in Oslo by the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Agency. Whether it’s about base stations, wireless or cell phones, it is the same type of radiation we are talking about (in the range of 1-2.5 GHz).

    Autism and ADHD-like behaviors A group of researchers in California recently conducted a large study of mobile phone use in pregnant women. They looked at all the kids who were born in Denmark in a given year and interviewed the mothers about their mobile phone use during pregnancy. They also asked about the child’s mobile usage and behavior. To the researchers’ surprise it turned out that the mothers who had used mobile phones the most during pregnancy had the greatest risk of having children with behavioral difficulties. It was about both autism and ADHD-like behaviors. The increase in risk was statistically significant. The risk also increased further if the child himself used a cell phone.[ Divan HA, Kheifets L, Obel C, Olsen J (2008) “Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children”, Epidemiology 2008; 19: 523-529 ]

    Symptoms: headache, abnormal fatigue and irritation Such a study might not be sufficient to conclude that electromagnetic fields are dangerous to children. German researchers wanted to measure the radiation dose that children and adolescents are exposed to in daily life. They asked about 3,000 children and young people in Bavaria to walk around carrying a dosimeter from morning to night. The dosimeters measured the radiation from cell phones, base stations and wireless networks. It turned out that the quarter of the children who were most exposed to radiation had more concentration problems at night than the rest of the kids. The same group also had more headaches and were more irritated than other young people.

    The results of the Bavarian study were again statistically significant.[ Heinrich S, Thomas S, Heumann C, von Kries R, Radon K (2010) “Association between exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields were assessed by dosimetry and acute symptoms in children and adolescents: a population-based cross-sectional study,”

    Environmental Health 2010, 9:75-83 ]

    So the question is what mechanism can explain these symptoms in children and adolescents. Scientists Buchner & Eger in Germany measured levels of stress hormones in 60 residents in an area before a base station was erected. They were measured again after six months and again after one and a half years after the antenna became operational.

    It turned out that people had much higher levels of the stress hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline six months after the base station became operational, and after another year, the situation had not improved. Living with such constant stress to the body is obviously harmful to health. [ Buchner K, Eger H, “Veränderung klinisch bedeutsamer Neurotransmitter unter dem Einfluss modulierter hochfrequenter Felder – Eine Langzeiterhebung unter lebensnahen

    Bedingungen”, Umwelt – Medizin -Gesellschaft 2011: 24 : 44-57. ]

    Do not think this is just about the kids. Even fetuses are affected significantly and in a particularly scary way. Scientists Jing, et al., of the Department of Public Health, Shandong University, China, have studied the impact of mobile phone radiation on pregnant rat fetuses. The researchers measured changes in both neuronal neurotransmitters and effects on antioxidant enzymes which protect our cells from oxidative stress.

    They conclude that mobile phone radiation during pregnancy resulted in damage to the fetal brains! They were born already brain-damaged. What mothers and fathers want that for their children? (Jing J, Yuhua Z, Xiao- Qian Y, Rongping J, Dong- Mei G, Xi C, “The influence of microwave radiation from cellular phone on fetal rat brains,” Electromag Biol

    Med 2012; 31:57-66.)

    Students and teachers more and more frequently report abnormal fatigue in their working environment and you can not dismiss current suspicions that exposure from wireless networks can play a role in this. It is therefore important to ensure that wireless networks in kindergartens and schools are not causing significant and unnecessary risks for the health of our children and their teachers. Academically, the subject is not very complicated but for a layman can seem difficult to assess. The lack of knowledge today is due exclusively to the lack of research resources, not a lack of ideas, hypotheses, theories or interest.

    The Precautionary Principle must be applied Based on the above information the organization Citizens’ Radiation Protection in Norway,, has urged parents to sign a formal agreement where a parent does not consent to the exposure of their children to microwave radiation from
    wireless communication technology either in the classroom or indoors in general. As a parent, you are encouraged to require that the school / preschool exercises precautions to minimize radiation exposure and to demand wired solutions for data networking and telephony indoors. You are also encouraged to demand answers on who is responsible for the child if damaged by radiation exposure. Time is not on our side. We must quickly decide how to proceed. In Sweden the choice seems to be having “artist types” running around in the community – wildly creative but totally impossible to put at the controls of an airplane or be responsible for the safety of a nuclear power plant. Alternatively should we have a population that is completely egalitarian, equipped with all the basics to work in our society? Will the next generation be capable at all of handling the different functions society requires? Do we want a society where we accept math, reading and writing difficulties that are solely due to the teaching
    handled by unauthorized personnel, through strange “apps” and in a computerized educational chaos?

    But our Education Minister Jan Björklund has instead appointed an advisory committee of international experts called “the school commission”. A new agency (an “educational research institute”) is to be established to investigate these issues. In addition, Björklund intends to create a Swedish Education Council. He also talks about various new investigations and new reforms.We do not need more research!

    The only thing needed is a competent staff with good pay who can work in peace without being threatened, harassed or violated. Their work with students shall be in accordance with traditional effective educational models, with proven pedagogical aids, peace and quiet in class, concentration, joy, enthusiasm, teaching instead of gaming and mobile browsing, information tailored to each individual’s ability, and demands on teachers and students in relation to future levels of responsibility. (However, during the public debate I have not heard or read anywhere that one should bet again on the school, the teachers, the educational content or the often poor school facilities and the salmonella-contaminated school lunches. But these are left unattended. Sounds like something out of a New Year’s fun cabaret, right?)

    Peter Kadhammar at the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet notes in his excellent column from January 17, 2014, that” In the knowledge society literacy skills have been lost”. As I have pointed out many times this has happened in spite of (!) the vast amounts of electronic gadgets introduced and now used in our Swedish schools. All iPads, WiFi, “surf the web pages”, computer games, laptops, sending text messages during class, smart phones, etc., do not seem to have done their supposed job of teaching?

    Enough is enough. We need peace and quiet in the classroom. Put away the e-reader and mobile and kick out school politicians who want to spend money on unproven educational gadgets that are also probably merely health hazardous.

    * The latest global PISA education ranking study released in December 2013 pushed Sweden below the OECD average in maths, reading comprehension, and natural sciences.

    Text: Olle Johansson, Associate Professor in Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute,


  2. #2 by CSUF Professor Mark Shapiro on June 2, 2015 - 5:46 am

    I read the Observer article and don’t understand how he could come out and take such a position. He is so very uninformed in his “opinion.”

    The 190 scientists are all saying it’s a “public health crisis” and he advises not to keep the cell phone to the ear!!!! This guy is dangerous and arrogant.

  3. #3 by Appeal Now at 200 signatures on June 2, 2015 - 5:58 am

    More scientists have been signing on to this appeal, there are now 200.

    This Professor Shapiro is very irresponsible. This is just like FSD Supt Pletka stating in the Observer that the wireless radiation is “totally safe for our children.”

    I guess people can spout whatever they want, even total lies, and the Observer will print it.

  4. #4 by Anonymous on June 2, 2015 - 6:44 am

    Who is Bang Lee?

  5. #5 by Anonymous on June 2, 2015 - 10:05 am

    Joe, you and Barry did a great job tonight. I gotta tell you that my wife was laughing her ass off when Flory called your Agenda 21 geoengineering speal Mr. Imbriano’s voodoo. She is such a moron. The stuff is as in your face as you can get. Way to deliver the goods as always Joe. You are light years ahead of these fools.

  6. #6 by Barry Levinson on June 2, 2015 - 11:40 am

    It is really sad that our education systems are run by administrators who apparently have little concern for the well-being of the students they are charged to educate. Since school attendance is mandatory in this country from kindergarten through 12th grade, safety and health should be job number one for every public and private school district. Yet they ignore more and more scientific studies and data that show the health risks of ever increasing EMF exposure. If they were a family business or even a large publicly held corporation they would be negligent to ignore this information. But the government is never held to account. They never have any negative consequences to their monumental screw-ups, so they merrily put their collective heads in the sand. “We the people in order to form a more perfect union….” are more than just words. It is a sacred concept that government was formed by and for the people. Our government at all levels today have totally forgotten those important words.

  7. #7 by she is on June 2, 2015 - 11:43 am

    Why are you giving Sharon a pass on this Joe. She is the one that set up this whole thing. You outed her for covering this whole thing up and now she is trying to debunk her last article to confuse everyone. This guy doesn’t realize what he has just done.

    • #8 by FSD PTA's and parents on June 2, 2015 - 1:22 pm

      Do the PTAs and parents know that France is removing WiFi, do they know that their child could become electrosensitive, do they know that it is not just cancer?

      I don’t understand the behavior. Why isn’t the PTA all over this?

  8. #9 by Who do the students belong to? on June 2, 2015 - 1:26 pm

    It appears that they belong to the school district. I guess the teachers belong to the district too.

    They will continue to be irradiated unless something changes.

  9. #10 by Prof. Shapiro on June 2, 2015 - 3:36 pm

    He is definitely in over his head and grossly uninformed.

    • #11 by Anonymous on June 3, 2015 - 1:41 pm

      and in desperate need of dental work

  10. #12 by Anonymous on June 3, 2015 - 5:40 pm

    You know at first glance, he did a pretty good job of putting the WiFi health concerns to bed until I read this. There are only two possible explanations for what he has done. The first is that he didn’t research the issue extensively enough and as a result, he missed the whole point of the debate. The other is that he carefully crafted his response to intentionally deflect attention from the issue. In either case, considering his qualifications, I am extremely disturbed by the Observer printing his letter as well as lauding his efforts.

  11. #13 by Anonymous on June 9, 2015 - 4:17 pm

    Shame on this man!

  12. #14 by about the Ph.Ds . . . . on June 12, 2015 - 5:29 pm

    maybe this is what Prof. Shapiro’s problem is:

    The Rise of Science and the Death of Philosophy

    By Penny Teal, PhD

    There is a joke, apparently told to most incoming graduate students at most universities, that, “When you get here, you’re given a lobotomy; and 4 years later, when you’re finished with your degree, they cut out your heart – and then you’re ready to be a professor.” This is told by older grad students, of course, not by the professors. It is, unfortunately, true.

    The lobotomy was accomplished, in reality, throughout the years of one’s schooling, during which all young people are taught to compartmentalize their thinking. The process is described succinctly by John Taylor Gatto, lyrically by Jonathan Kozol. It is easily understood by anyone who reads these writers and who has maintained even a shred of self-understanding, after the brutal attempts of modern education to remove self- and all other forms – of understanding from the mind of the unsuspecting student. More than a lobotomy, this process called “education” entails the segregation of all knowledge into virtually hermetically separated areas of thinking, such that one can discuss geography as if it had nothing to do with politics, and science as if it were utterly distinct from ethics.

    The “removal of the heart” is an all too apt metaphor for the removal of most shreds of common decency, such as any concern for the lives of one’s students, and the acceptance of a dog-eat-dog, survival of the pushiest, mentality. Because as a university professor in the sciences, one will compete for grant money, and one must publish several papers per year. The student is constantly reminded of this harsh reality; I was told in my second year as a grad student at UC-Berkeley that I was “too timid” for the field of chemistry, and that I should consider quitting with a master’s degree and finding a more suitable career (which made me, of course, determined not to leave without a Ph.D.) Another student was given the more blunt version: “To be a good scientist, you have to be a mean son of a bitch.”

    Sadly, most (but certainly not all) of my colleagues in grad school were willing to go along with this demand. One, an incredibly intelligent man with (in a better world) great potential as a musician or poet, actually stated with great relish that he couldn’t wait till he was a professor, so that he could be the tormentor rather than the tormented. Afterward, he was one of the most successful graduates of my class. Professionally, at least. It’s impossible to claim success with that kind of an attitude.

    For my own part, I left academia the instant I had my doctorate in hand. I would love to have taught, but in the modern world even 4-year, liberal arts colleges require that their professors publish several articles per year. The one college at which I bothered to interview made it clear that an incoming prof would be expected to work at least 80 hours per week, and most of that in the lab. Obviously, that leaves very little time for keeping informed about the condition of one’s world, even with regard to the real-world impacts of one’s own research. Obviously, that is not merely by hazard.

    The main reason I left, though – or rather, that I didn’t consider going back (because at graduation time I was pregnant with my first child, and determined to be at home with her during her childhood) – was due to the pervasiveness of military involvement in my chosen field. I should have known before getting to grad school that such would be the case, but I was unbelievably naive. I thought that, since I was interested in theoretical chemistry, I would be working on abstruse problems with no possible applications for the defense industry.

    Excuse me while I pound my head on the desk…

    The reality is that even research funded by the National Science Foundation is directly linked to defense work, and that all research projects will be scrutinized for their applicability. Bernard Eastlund may have been whitewashing when he said he hoped his HAARP prototype would be used for beneficial and strictly peaceful ends; but regardless of his intentions, HAARP would never have been allowed to function otherwise, had it had any utility for those who tirelessly strive to dominate the masses.

    Funding is only half of the problem with university-level science. There is also the ironic fact that an education in science actually stunts one’s ability to think clearly.

    Teaching was not only devalued at Berkeley, it was despised. One veteran professor was overheard telling an incoming prof, “Don’t worry about teaching; they don’t care at all about that here.” The nicest professor I met, by far, at Berkeley (who was, not coincidentally, one of the most popular teachers) was denied tenure.

    At all so-called elite universities, undergraduates are taught mostly by grad students, who are expected to spend as little time as possible on teaching. Which means, in perfect harmony with modern education objectives, that students are left to memorize and regurgitate material. Helping them understand it would take time away from research, you see. Grad students are there to promote their advisor’s career first, to gain credentials second, and to take and teach courses as a distant afterthought.

    I wrote the above, not because I am wallowing in resentment about the way we were treated in grad school (that would be giving the tormentors power over me even after the fact, as well as being a monumental waste of time). Rather, I hope that it will convey to readers who had the good fortune not to choose a career in science some idea of the digestion process via which the “scientific experts” of the world are excreted. Humaneness is not compatible with success.

    Does that sound like a good way to produce scientists who have the well-being of the community, or of anyone at all, in mind?

    Of course, one can be a consummately dislikable person, or a total misanthrope, and still be honest, ethical, and decent. But fear not, the academic system has ways of effacing those qualities as well. First and foremost is the fierce competition for funding, which is not by any means guaranteed just because one has been hired by a university. Second is, indirectly, the sources of funding. When a microbiologist knows that the paycheck is coming from a pharmaceutical company, the incentive to find a new drug safe and effective is immense. Data might be reported honestly, but the interpretation thereof, and conclusions drawn, will favor the source of funding. Even Wikipedia admits to the prevalence of confirmation bias in academia.

    Lack of understanding may seem like a minor flaw in science, as long as one can solve the exam questions and obtain good results in the lab. But the inability to reason beyond the mechanical level is a major contributing factor to the way in which, for example, an engineer can fail to grasp the environmental impact of the products of his or her research. The combination of years of indoctrination and compartmentalisation in school, with the pressure to ingest facts devoid of comprehension at the university level, results in a debasing of science from the joyous pursuit of understanding of the universe to a factory-like cranking out of “products”. Worse, it results in researchers who have not the slightest inkling of, or (often) concern for, the abuses of their work by the paymasters.

    Here is one incident for which I still harbor some rancor. In my third year at Berkeley, my advisor was offered a great deal on a laser (typical cost: several tens of thousands of dollars; typical energy waste per second: don’t even ask). The deal entailed his helping the laser manufacturer to produce a lengthy commercial for their product. My adviser happily accepted that condition… and decided for me that I would take part in this project. I objected, and even refused, but was effectively bullied into going along. The worst of which was that only a couple of my fellow grad students thought that I was justified in feeling exploited and deprived of my rights. Which goes to show that most people can rationalize almost anything when they want to be given a job.

    If the easily corrupted scientists are the branches (and the university the trunk), the sources of funding are, of course, the root of the problem in academic science. The Department of Defense, the pharmaceutical-medical monolith, Monsanto, Google, et alia: it goes without saying that these entities do not exist to make our world more livable or pleasant or good.

    So why are they the ones deciding which research projects will get funded? Sadly, a huge part of the problem is that the general public has been convinced that science is “hard” and is best left to the “experts”. Scientific illiteracy is a modern day crisis, the most tragic aspect of which is that it is absolutely unnecessary, not to mention indefensible.

    When I say that scientific literacy is necessary, I most definitely do not mean that every one of us needs to go to university and get a degree in some science-related field. Quite the contrary, as that would mean getting trained not to think, and that in just one minute area of the whole realm of knowledge called science. All I mean is that people need to develop and rely on their innate ability to reason, to apply their inherent (but often repressed) curiosity to examining the world around them, and to take responsibility for struggling through as many readings as it takes to understand the facts in front of them.

    I assume that everyone who is reading this website has mastered all of the aforementioned skills; thus, our task is to convince others that they can and must do the same.

    Many people, though, even within the geo-engineering community, are afraid to present themselves as experts. If I have accomplished nothing else in writing this article, I hope that at least I have convinced you that the supposed experts are not really the best-qualified to speak on any given issue. What is a qualified scientist? A qualified scientist is one who looks up, and wonders, and eventually understands. Someone who has far more authority to speak out than a mere credentialed scientist.

    Do you think you hate math? Then you have been brainwashed. The human mind is designed to think mathematically. Was science a drag for you? Only by design (the design of an educational system which wants more than anything to control you). Watch any child (in a natural environment) playing with dirt and plants, and you will see that they are experimenting.

    maybe Shapiro suffers from this:

    We are so very much more than we have been told! More intelligent, more creative, more capable… And it is vital that we accept the fact that we are experts, that we don’t need to play second fiddle to those who have a (mostly meaningless) degree. We need to assert ourselves. For the sake of all those life-forms that can’t articulate their understanding in ways that most humans can grasp.

  13. #15 by Joe Imbriano on June 16, 2015 - 8:56 am

    Hey doc-I handed you a paper on a silver platter that showed rats that had their ovaries exposed for 15 minutes a day for 15 days with pulsed microwave RF exposure that ended up having their ovarian reserves looking like Folsom lake after they drained it for the geo engineered drought photo op. You sent me that publication that showed all kinds of apples and orange comparisons with frequencies and and effects everywhere exceptt where I asked you to look-ovarian reserves and the effects on the female ovum. The report only had 2 out of 75+ studies that dealt with FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEMS AND THEY BOTH SHOWED EFFECTS.I handed you the plans from Apple that just so happen to have exact replicas of the female reproductive components and fertilizled eggs getting electrocuted in their landscape architecture plans who also just so happen to have the exclusive contracts in all the schools Look, I am not asking for much from a big shot like you. I just want you to use your noggin for a minute. You think that putting 15,000 iPads in the laps of students in the Fullerton School District when no one can show me one study on the effects at 2.4 GHz on the eggs? Why is it that according to what you provided me with, in response to what I provided you with, the study admits that research of the female reproductive system is “SCARCE”. Hey professor emeritus, doesn’t that translate to the fact that we need to do more studies before we deploy this crap or does this translate to how an agenda is allowed to proceed under our noses, even the so call smart people like yourself. How the heck did Dr. Pletka manage to get 15,000 iPads that emit a class 2B carcinogen into the laps of all the boys and girls in the classrooms when NO ONE EVER BOTHERED TO SEE WHAT THE HELL THIS CRAP DOES TO THE GIRLS EGGS OR FOLLICLES while these things will spend years in their laps. THIS IS ALL THE WHILE THAT APPLE SPENDS 5 BILLION DOLLARS ON THEIR HEADQUARTERS WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANS THAT LAY IT ALL OUT LIKE SOME SICK JOKE. What kind of demonic scientific fraud is everyone taking part in? Ok, yeah and you worked for decades as a professor at CSF and you also claim you don’t know anyone over at the school district. Dude I guess you need to work on your social skills as well as your research skills. I asked point blank questions and you come back with spin, deflections, mixing up sunlight with microwaves, 60 Hz electricity, power lines, light bulb emissions and sun tans. We are talking about the exact frequency at which the maximum dielectric loss of water begins at power levels trillions of times background levels with slot antenna deployment at point blank range, in direct contact with the sensitive developing reproductive organs of young children for hours on end every day for 15 years for 15,000 children in Fullerton and tens millions of children nationwide. What kind of scientist are you Shapiro? Are you going to tell everyone that the iPad programs in the schools are totally safe for the children like Dr Pletka said? Or are you going to step back and be honest, and say maybe this isnt such a good idea and help us rescue these children from these reckless school administrators, brain dead chicken shit board members and scared, ignorant, cowardly, vain, immature parents who are frozen in their tracks. Come on doc.

  14. #16 by Come on, Shapiro on June 16, 2015 - 11:28 am

    Do the right thing. Answer Joe’s questions. This is impacting thousands of Fullerton students.

  15. #17 by DR. SHAPIRO PART OF THIS? on July 13, 2015 - 11:11 am

    Corruption at ICNIRP

    This paper has been prepared in order to demonstrate the existence of numerous conflicts of interest among the members of the international organization ICNIRP (International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection), that despite its private nature, is recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as reference entity to set limits of exposure for people of non-ionizing radiation in order to prevent such radiation affect your health.
The fact that the members of the organization engage in various conflicts of interest, being related to companies interested in the development of telecommunications and new technologies, undermines the impartiality that should govern the regulation of limits on non-ionizing radiation people.
It’s incomprehensible that an international organization such as WHO, which has numerous and qualified public resources to establish adequately these limits, has delegated to a private organization issues affecting public health of all humanity.
The information contained in the work presented below was obtained from searches of reliable publicly available sources on the Internet, which can be checked by anyone who has an interest in this topic.
It would be very interesting by any natural or legal person interested in this topic assumes as its own this report (AVAATE authorized fully to do so) and send it to the authorities of the United Nations, of the International Labor Organization and of the World Health Organization.

  16. #18 by Joe Imbriano on December 2, 2016 - 7:26 am

    People get what they deserve. Fullerton gets corrupt leaders once again all the way from the lowly council to the state legislature, all the way to Congress. Everyone that was elected HAS BEEN EXPOSED to this information, some, for years and all HAVE TOTALLY ignored it including most if not all of you.I have personally placed thousands and thousands of multiple page fliers loaded with scientific references and warnings on cars and at doorsteps over the years. Some have even made fun of it all. Your children will thank you for saving them the trouble of having to use birth control. Of course the sterilized children for remaining silent on the issue of our time is your door prize for sitting this one out. I personally know so many wireless deniers who are so involved in mindless trite preoccupations, and a really special one who lives across the street from a young person who had to be removed from school because of the physical effects the classroom microwave exposure was having on the child. Of course, everyone just sits back and lets this nightmare continue as they all turn their backs on the children. The effects on the reproductive systems cannot be felt, only discovered-AFTER it is far too late. For all of you that like to make jokes about this, the joke is on your children, not Mr. Imbriano ladies and gentlemen. Tin foil hat jokes about me will not solve the problem your children will have when they realize that their eggs have been damaged by what you all used to make fun of. You know you idiots elected an Assemblywoman whose platform was almost all about killing unborn children. Sterilizing children with wirleless is par for the course in lala land. So have a beer, a diet joke, go get your nails done, go watch a movie, go jogging, go shopping, watch the ballgame, and sit back and relax as the iPad and laptops cook the eggs to order. -Just the way the eugenicists like it because even though 95 percent of the United States is rural open space, your children are being programmed to believe that we need to reduce the population by the very people carrying out the sterilization-the school districts-specifically the teachers- Don’t forget to suck up to them and give them a Christmas present this year. for going on almost four straight years of turning their backs on the children.

    • #19 by Danny Boy on December 2, 2016 - 12:45 pm

      Joe. You made bro? You got whooped in the election. Let it go.

      • #20 by Anonymous on December 4, 2016 - 3:03 pm

        Did you mean mad?

  17. #21 by Anon on December 2, 2016 - 2:14 pm

    Shapiro was provided contact emails for at least three EMF experts that he disagrees with.

    Did he contact any of them? I would say “no”, probably not. He wants to continue to reassure people w/his lies. When you are not honest in your writing, it is a lie. And, he does not want to understand the experts.

    The fact is that he does not have the credentials, ethical integrity, yet he continues to inject himself into this topic, disagreeing w/experts.

  18. #22 by Anonymous on December 4, 2016 - 12:34 pm

    Excellent article Mr. Imbriano. The problem with the physics professors like Dr. Shapiro is they are only versed in the physical science discipline and not in the life sciences. There are experts who are schooled in the disciplines of both. This is an excellent video of one such scientist. Dr. Pall is Professor Emeritus School of Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University.

    • #23 by Anonymous on December 6, 2016 - 5:57 pm

      The dogma on which the entire foundation of his worldview is based is over 50 years old. We now know much of that to be mere theories unproven and backed only by conjecture. I would put money on him actually believing that we went to the moon too. Shapiro is a tired old fool looking for relevance in a world in which he has none.

  19. #24 by Anonymous on December 10, 2016 - 10:32 am

    For the first time in more than two decades, life expectancy for Americans declined last year (Warning: may be paywalled; alternate source) — a troubling development linked to a panoply of worsening health problems in the United States. Rising fatalities from heart disease and stroke, diabetes, drug overdoses, accidents and other conditions caused the lower life expectancy revealed in a report released Thursday by the National Center for Health Statistics. In all, death rates rose for eight of the top 10 leading causes of death. The new report raises the possibility that major illnesses may be eroding prospects for an even wider group of Americans. Its findings show increases in “virtually every cause of death. It’s all ages,” said David Weir, director of the health and retirement study at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. Over the past five years, he noted, improvements in death rates were among the smallest of the past four decades. “There’s this just across-the-board [phenomenon] of not doing very well in the United States.” Overall, life expectancy fell by one-tenth of a year, from 78.9 in 2014 to 78.8 in 2015, according to the latest data. The last time U.S. life expectancy at birth declined was in 1993, when it dropped from 75.6 to 75.4, according to World Bank data. The overall death rate rose 1.2 percent in 2015, its first uptick since 1999. More than 2.7 million people died, about 45 percent of them from heart disease or cancer.

  20. #25 by Anonymous on May 3, 2017 - 10:52 am

    Shapiro is a foolish old man in search of relevance. His march for science was a bunch of anti Trump rally idiots that had absolutely no audience whatsoever. The march was observed by no one and was an absolute waste of time. Shapiro needs to be jailed for his public position on this issue and his employer should be sued.

(will not be published)

Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved. 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!