WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENDING THE FORCED IRRADIATION OF THE HELPLESS CHILDREN IN THE FULLERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, INTRODUCING
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. https://thefullertoninformer.com/the-fullerton-observer-preoccupation-with-the-messengers-ignoring-the-science-and-two-years-of-forced-irradiation-of-fsd-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.
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.
- 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.
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?
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?
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.
So the physics professor tells us not to worry and the industry stacks the deck.
Lets 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?
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.”
https://thefullertoninformer.com/looky-here-ladies-and-gentlemen-the-devils-in-the-details/
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.
O
AND THEN WE HAVE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS
DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND MEDICINE
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.
https://thefullertoninformer.com/fullertons-newest-cell-tower-in-richman-park/
AND OF COURSE THE AGENDA LAID OUT RIGHT HERE- https://thefullertoninformer.com/apple-666-project-inkwell-and-agenda-21-an-expose-with-an-all-star-cast/
MAYBE WE SHOULD ADD HIM TO THE LIST OF THE FSD IRRADIATORS
Roman Schulze promoting wireless in schools
APPLE HEADQUARTER PLANS IN CUPERTINO
A FERTILIZED HUMAN EGG
Newbies at the helm of the FSD
I could go on folks, really. Whats up doc?
#1 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.