Everyone that you will see in this video knows about the two sides of this issue. There are many other key players in this saga who are not in this 7 minute damage control piece. Ladies and gentlemen. We all make choices and the choices we make will have to be lived with for the rest of our God given lives. I have no problem with technology. This message was produced and delivered via a hardwired desktop computer. The problem that I have is with the wireless radiation that the district has chosen to spray from wireless access points into the classrooms to bridge the gap from the fiber optic cables in the walls to the students devices. I am not alone. It is the position of many scientific experts in the fields of neurology, physics, biochemistry, engineering, public health, environmental medicine and mainstream medicine that wireless microwave radiation DOES NOT BELONG IN A
CLASSROOM. http://wifiinschools.com Yes this is marketing plain and simple, Madison Avenue style complete with airbrushing. They are candy coating a jawbreaker on this one gang, believe me.
No, what you won’t see here are the stacks of thousands of scientific studies that show wireless radiation is harmful. What you won’t see here are the RF meters picking up wireless microwave radiation emissions whose levels are trillions of times the normal background levels coming off of the district’s wireless access points and wireless devices. What you won’t see here are the impassioned pleas to the board members and staff to stop the wireless proliferation until it has been proven safe. What you won’t see here are the interviews with the scientists whose credentials vastly exceed anyone employed by the district that warn against the very things Robert Pletka is doing with wireless in the FSD. What you won’t see here is Karent Whisnant, and Nancy Regitz at a parent teacher conference refusing to accept peer reviewed scientific literature warning against the forced wireless exposure and the potential for harm to the children. What you won’t see here are the potential biological effects of chronic microwave exposure to the brains and reproductive organs of these students. What you won’t see here is the 100 page electrical contract that the Fullerton Joint Union High School District entered into in order to HARDWIRE ALL OF THEIR COMPUTERS. What you won’t see here are the decisions being made at all of the Fullerton High Schools to put student safety in front of an agenda. What you won’t see here is Acacia Principal Karen Whisnant calling the police on our group as we peacefully handed out literature to parents on the public sidewalk in attempts to warn of the potential irreparable biological harm to students. What you won’t see here, in my opinion, are people who are worthy of their positions.
WHAT YOU WILL SEE HERE IS AN ALL STAR CAST COMPRISED OF THOSE WHO HAVE DECIDED TO IGNORE THE REPEATED WARNINGS AND PARTICIPATE IN THE LARGEST FORCED IRRADIATION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN THAT THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN. What you will see here are children with microwave transmitters in direct proximity to their sensitive developing reproductive areas. What you will see here are students using wireless devices crammed into close quarters all day long being exposed to unprecedented levels of microwave radiation trillions of times the levels that you and I were exposed to growing up. The classroom microwave radiation levels are higher than those of a cell tower 100 meters away. Yes ladies and gentlemen, what you will see here are your children and those who are making the crucial health decisions for them in a manner, in my opinion, which demonstrates callous disregard for the well being of these children as well as current State Law. They sugar coat all this and slickly sell it to you. These are the faces of the irradiated and the irradiators, plain and simple. We are the faces of those who want caution exercised when it comes to something so unnecessary and dangerous as wireless classrooms.
#1 by Anonymous on May 29, 2014 - 9:58 pm
with regard to your public health and safety information re: wifi hot
spots, you have neglected to inform that the world health organization
has now classified these emissions as class 2b carcinogens. you may
not have been aware but this change came into effect may 2011.
the below may also be of interest with regard to wifi providers and
insurance or lack thereof with regard to potential health effects.
“Can an Italian Court Change the Insurance Landscape in America?
By Gloria Vogel | November 29, 2012
Italy’s Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling that allowed
disability payments to a businessman who claimed his brain tumor was
tied to his excessive cell phone use. Can this ruling potentially lead
to future litigation in the U.S. and elsewhere? Can it somehow alter
the insurance landscape? Yes, it can.
Until now, studies conducted over the years attempting to link cell
phone usage to cancer have been inconclusive. The World Health
Organization (WHO) most recently noted that radiation from cell phones
can ‘possibly’ cause cancer, and it listed mobile phone use in the
same carcinogenic hazard category as lead, engine exhaust and
chloroform. But, the definitive causal link between cell phones and
cancer has been missing.
The CTIA-Wireless Industry Association noted that WHO researchers did
not conduct any new research, but rather reviewed published studies.
Notably, most of those prior studies were funded by the wireless
industry itself. However, this Italian court case introduced new
evidence – the case referenced an independent study conducted by a
cancer specialist in Sweden. The court ruling thus broke new ground in
its decision.
While a single case and a single study may be challenged, any ruling
by the Supreme Court of a nation has the potential to be used as legal
precedent for subsequent cases. As such, the Italian court case may
open the gates for future litigation, and its decision may extend
beyond Italy’s national borders, since wireless has such a global
footprint.
The Insurance Factor
The insurance industry is in the business of insuring risk. However,
top and bottom line growth has been sluggish in recent years, hurt by
record catastrophe losses, price competition and slowing economies.
Pressured by low investment yields and the fact that many are not
earning their cost of capital, insurers are attempting to raise
premium rates in order to improve underwriting margins. Hurricane
Sandy might further boost premium rate hikes. But new business remains
a challenge, as slowing economies are still restraining new business
growth.
Moreover, many insurance industry customers are becoming disengaged.
As Michael McGavick, CEO of XL Group plc noted at the annual Monte
Carlo Rendezvous, the insurance industry’s share of global GDP is
shrinking. Insurers are unable to handle emerging risks, to provide
innovative solutions, or to create new products wanted and needed by
its customers. The insurance industry thus appears to be losing its
relevance to the field of risk management, and its top line may be
experiencing structural decline.
New risks are always emerging, and in the past the insurance industry
would work with its clients to try and find solutions to mitigate
those risks. For example, ACE Limited was established in 1985 by a
consortium of 34 Fortune 500 companies to provide hard-to-find excess
liability and directors’ and officers’ liability insurance. In
1986, 68 of the world’s largest companies came together and founded
what is now XL Group to solve complex risks.
Insurance Link to Wireless
The risks of the mid-80s seem simple by today’s standards, and the
industry is at a loss to understand, price and underwrite today’s
emerging risks. No consortium of buyers and/or insurers is coming
together to find an underwriting solution for those difficult risks.
Instead, insurers are taking the easy path by simply excluding
coverage for today’s hard-to-price risks. Solutions to the risk
problems are being left to the businesses themselves. Consequently,
many Fortune 500 companies are setting up captives for self-
insurance. The insurers and reinsurers are losing out in this process
– they aren’t providing needed risk management solutions and they
are thus losing customers.
The big risks insurers face today – major catastrophic loss,
terrorism, emerging risk of RF radiation, cyber security, etc. – are
mostly being left out of the mainstream industry premium picture, with
the expectation that future losses will also be eliminated.
Unfortunately, that is not the most likely case scenario.
Flood from tsunami or storm surge is mostly covered by the government
flood plan, while wind is covered by the private sector. But
determination of wind versus flood as a cause of loss is often open to
interpretation, and applicable deductibles can also create
uncertainty. In addition to property damage, insurers can be faced
with significant business interruption claims from such events.
Cyber attacks sponsored by foreign governments pose a threat to
businesses on many levels, with contingent business interruption risk
most probable. Such interruption can lead to reputational damage
claims, D&O claims, etc. Exclusions in general liability policies will
not necessarily protect the insurers from those other policy claims.
With respect to RF radiation risk, third-party workers performing
their jobs on numerous properties with wireless transmission antennas
are in a position to sue not just the wireless service providers for
bodily injury liability damages, but also the property owners and any
others that facilitated the placement of those antennas without hazard
notification. Indeed, if cell phone usage can be linked to cancer,
then workers who get close to transmitting antennas that are many
times more powerful than cell phones, are even more likely to succeed
with such litigation than the cell phone users. Given the many years
of past exposure and number of workers involved, putting exclusions on
current policies won’t eliminate future claims from prior policies.
Solutions to other emerging risks still need to be developed, but
there is already a readily available no-cost solution for handling
third-party worker over-exposure to RF radiation. While an immediate
solution may not yet be available to protect those exposed to RF
radiation from their handsets, a San Diego-based company, RF CHECK,
Inc., has developed a solution to protect participants in the wireless
ecosystem exposed to RF radiation at the numerous wireless antenna
sites across the country. The wireless ecosystem includes service
providers, and all those property owners hosting antenna sites,
including government entities, healthcare, transportation and
educational facilities. This viable solution will not only protect the
third-party workers from exposure to RF radiation, but will also
preserve a revenue stream for the insurance industry while improving
customer service.
The Italian court ruling could open the floodgates on RF radiation
claims. Without adoption of any solutions, the insurance industry
could be faced with a repeat of its asbestos experience, even as it
avoids writing current coverage via exclusions. That would most
certainly change the insurance landscape.
Gloria Vogel is senior vice president at New York-based Drexel
Hamilton; a service disabled veteran broker-dealer. An adjunct
professor at NYU-SCPS, she has worked at Swiss Re and as an equity
research insurance analyst at several major investment banks,
including Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.”
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2012/11/29/218257.htm