DOES  THE EPA’S OWN SCIENTIST AGREE? http://thefullertoninformer.com/the-epa-tells-it-like-it-is-will-the-fsd/

I beleive that FSD’s very own Robert Pletka’s wireless classroom safety assurance: http://fsd.k12.ca.us/parent_resources/files/wireless.pdf  is a house of cards ladies and gentlemen.

Lets not forget what is keeping them up at night, and maybe even you too as studies have shown that invisible microwave electromagnetic radiation from WiFi, laptops, tablets and cell phones inhibit the production of a hormone called melatonin.  Melatonin is produced by the pineal gland  in the brain and one of its primary functions is to regulate our sleep cycle. When inadequate amounts of melatonin are produced our sleep cycle is compromised.
Why is this important? If you don’t get into the deeper phases of the sleep cycle at night the body cannot repair itself. Cells aren’t rejuvenated. Sleep is necessary for growth as well this repair process to occur and we all need it, especially our children.

Here is a letter from a local parent sent to all governing authorities involved in this issue:

I am a Southern California mother of three and have a child in a school that is implementing one to one technology in the classroom. It was not until I stumbled upon information regarding wireless radiation that I became aware of the extremely critical health implications of such an environment in which 30+ wireless devices, operating 6 hours/day, 180 days/year for a child’s school career, are emitting an unprecedented amount of radiation on our children. In the process, I discovered a bottomless pit of studies and information that attest to the harms of wireless radiation.

The parents do not know that they are sending their children into an environment, surrounded by a Class 2b Carcinogen, classified as such by the World Health Organization. That is the same classification as lead, DDT, and engine exhaust. In what context would a classroom filled with engine exhaust ever be okay? The parents do not know that medical doctors, scientists, and researchers are identifying the following wireless radiation health effects: ADHD, autism, infertility, DNA damage to human sperm, childhood leukemia, neurological and cardiovascular problems, cognitive disfunction, pain, fatigue, mood disorders, dizziness, nausea, weakness, and skin problems. The question is: what is this wireless radiation doing to the human eggs in our daughters? Additionally, many of these health problems are not immediately evident and manifest themselves years after exposure, which makes everyone think that there are no harms from these emissions. The parents do not know that research into wireless radiation has been going on for decades and has yielded thousands of studies indicating harm: http://www.justproveit.net/content/prove-it-initiative-main
The parents do not know that something that they cannot see, hear, touch, smell or taste is a danger to their children. The parents do not know the numerous websites that have cropped up addressing just the subject of wireless classrooms:

WiFi In Schools, United States
WiFi In Schools, United Kingdom
WiFi In Schools, Australia
Citizens 4 Safe Technology
Center For Safer Wireless
Safe In School
Safe School
School Radiation Dot Com

The time is past due for the FCC to acknowledge the dangers of wireless radiation. Wireless technology has an implied safety that is dangerous and not justified. People, if they were aware of this information, would feel that there is immediate need for the FCC to step in and re-establish guidelines to ensure the public health.

The general population will begin finding out the following facts about the FCC’s role in allowing the unfettered proliferation of wireless radiation on our children and loved ones:


1) The FCC guidelines were last updated in 1996; that was 17 years ago. Why is that?
2) The FCC guidelines are based on thermal exposure and completely ignore non-thermal biological effects. Why is that? Non- thermal effects are the concern with wireless radiation.
3) No long-term studies have been funded on the non-thermal effects of wireless radiation. Why is that?
4) FCC current exposure guidelines allow for hundreds of trillions of times more exposure than our parents were exposed to as children. Why is that?

Parents are unknowingly sending their children back to school this Fall into classrooms filled with wireless radiation and there is no choice in the matter. These decisions are being made for the parents. School districts, when confronted with the harms of wireless classrooms, ignore or discount it because it conflicts with their one to one technology plans. They stand on the FCC’s guidelines and tech industry funded studies as reason for safety and are dismissive of parents raising concerns. Wired technology is known to be safe and a healthy choice for our children. Why take the risk with our children’s health with wireless?

Parents and the general public are trusting in the FCC to be taking care of this and, clearly, with 1996 guidelines, that is not the case. In the schools, knowledgeable parents are caught between administrators who falsely proclaim wireless radiation as “totally safe”, that there is no “absolute proof” of the harms of wireless radiation, resting on outdated FCC guidelines, and, what is now, decades of research that says it is not.

Please consider the application of the Precautionary Principle, as stated by Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director, Center for Family and Community Health, University of California, Berkeley, in a letter dated February 8, 2013, to the Los Angeles Unified School District writes: “The precautionary principle should be applied to this critical policy decision. This principle, developed at a U.N. environmental conference in 1992 states that in the absence of scientific consensus if an action has a suspected risk of causing harm, the burden of proof it is not harmful falls on those taking the action, and all reasonable measures to reduce the risk must be taken.” Our school children should not be in classrooms with wireless radiation until it can be proved that it is safe.

The urgency of this matter cannot be overstated. The health issues of wireless radiation are not going away. Many of these issues, such as dramatic growth rates of autism diagnosis and ADHD, are unaccounted for. The causes have not been identified. Our rate in Orange County CA is now 1 in 63. The FCC has a tremendous responsibility and a great opportunity to step forward and do the right thing. Please, incorporate the Precautionary Principle in the FCC guidelines, now, and call a halt to wireless radiation in our classrooms until it can be proven safe.

Finally, what does it say about us if we, as human beings, do not ensure the safety of our most vulnerable, our children?

Thank you,

Fullerton Mom

  1. #1 by Fullerton Mom on September 3, 2013 - 5:56 pm

    This was sent to the following Federal agencies, all available emails:
    Federal Communication Commission (FCC)
    National Institute of Health (NIH)
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    President Obama, Vice President Biden
    Department of Education

    This was sent to the email contacts for the following state PTAs and state governments:
    New York
    North Carolina
    California (San Francisco, LA)
    South Carolina

  2. #3 by Fullerton Mom on September 3, 2013 - 7:20 pm

    This was also sent to the FSD School Board:
    Dr. Robert Pletka
    Beverly Berryman
    Hilda Sugarman
    Chris Thompson
    Janny Meyer
    Lynn Thornley

    • #4 by Joe Imbriano on September 3, 2013 - 9:54 pm

      Have you heard anything back from any of them?

      • #5 by Fullerton Mom on September 4, 2013 - 7:21 am

        Not a word from any of them. To be fair, FSD was carbon copied (cc:) on the email.

        Nevertheless, it’s pretty sad that our elected school board refuses to engage on this topic. Wireless technology must be more important to them than our children’s health.

      • #6 by Fullerton Mom on September 4, 2013 - 11:31 am

        This is the reponse I received today from the CDC [Center for Disease Control]:

        Subject: RE: CDC-INFO: Inquiry [ ref:_00DU0YCBU._500U08qOXt:ref ]
        Date: September 4, 2013 11:22:56 AM PDT

        Thank you for your submission to CDC-INFO regarding Wireless Radiation.

        Your comments have been forwarded to the CDC appropriate division for their information. They will contact you directly if they have questions.

        Thank you for contacting CDC-INFO. For more information, please call 1-800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) or visit http://www.cdc.gov/info.

        CDC-INFO is a service of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). This service is provided by Verizon and its subcontractors under the Networx Universal contract to CDC and ATSDR.

      • #7 by Fullerton Mom on September 4, 2013 - 11:38 am

        After sending it to all of the California State PTA officers, this is the response I have received. I have responded to this offer of assistance.

        Subject: Re: CAPTA.ORG: Contact Student Involvement
        Date: September 4, 2013 9:52:05 AM PDT

        I think the problem is that you sent it to so many commission, they may all assume that another commission is taking care of this. If you want the Health Commission to look into this, you can start there. After I hear back from you. I will contact The appropriate commission and let them know that they were the commission selected to look into this. They have trained people to check into these matters. So let me hear back from you and I will try to assist.

        • #8 by Anonymous on September 6, 2013 - 9:01 am

          Is the person who keeps posting here under R. Schulze working for the district? Who is this person? It is as if it is some sort of a game. My two daughters attend Raymond and they use the Ipad cart but not all day. I am not a scientist. I don’t understand much of what is being discussed here. Me. Imbriano continues to claim that children are being harmed. Please correct me if am wrong, unless you can demonstrate that something causes no harm, and it is absolutely necessary, then why are we possibly risking the health of the children?

          I have read the handouts from the doctors and they say we shouldn’t be doing this so why are they going ahead with this?

          • #9 by this is how it is on September 15, 2013 - 7:53 am

            Judging by R. Schulze’s wanting to irradiate our children for the sake of wireless technology, you would think that he does work for the district. Wireless technology seems to be a religion for him.
            Yes, why take the risk unless you can prove absolutely that it causes no harm?

            The effort to bring this information to the attention of FSD School Board and principals has been going on for about 6-7 months. They apparently do not want to hear it because they value their technology plans over the health of our children. FSD is making the choice for us about our children’s well being. Once you think about it, it is a very scary situation.

            If we remain silent, our kids’ exposure to wireless radiation in the classroom will continue. Parents need to start attending the FSD school board meetings and speaking up. Here is the district website where you can find the meetings and the time when public comments begin: http://fsd.k12.ca.us/menus/Board/boardcalendar.html

        • #10 by Fullerton Mom on September 15, 2013 - 7:59 am

          Email received from CA State PTA, Vice President for Health, Sept 9, 2013:

          Thank you for contacting the California State PTA to express your concern about possible harm to children’s health from classroom wireless radiation. PTA has a long record of advocating for children for over 110 years and is always concerned about the health of children. Your local school site PTA unit and council in Fullerton would be the place to begin PTA advocacy on this issue. The California State PTA website (capta.org) outlines this process in the advocacy section of the Toolkit.


          Kathy Rabun
          Vice President for Health

          • #11 by Joe Imbriano on September 15, 2013 - 9:46 am

            “PTA has a long record of advocating for children for over 110 years and is always concerned about the health of children.” And for 109 years we never had high powered microwave transmitters on the classroom ceilings and walls and in the kids’ laps emitting spread spectrum, pulse modulated high frequency microwave radiation 6 hours a day 180 days a year.

            Looks like Kathy wants to play kick the can. This is not cute.

      • #12 by FCC response on September 17, 2013 - 9:12 am

        Here is the response I received today, Sept 17, 2013:

        You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.

        Dear Consumer,

        Please see the enclosed fact sheet on Wireless Devices and Health Concerns. Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission.

        This e-mail contains an attachment that is in “.pdf” format. If you are unable to open this attachment, it is most likely because your computer doesn’t have Adobe Reader, which is the program needed to open these types of files. You can install a free copy of Adobe Reader from the Adobe Web site at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.

        Mailout Attachment Name : SAR.PDF (see attachment )
        Representative Number : TSR58

        • #13 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 9:26 am


          “Students have new Google Chromebooks that give them quick access to a wealth….”

          “Sitting on floor mats with Chromebooks in hand, the young researchers navigate….”

          “Children as young as those in Pre-K are using the devices…”


          • #14 by Kua on September 28, 2013 - 10:31 pm

            When you see this you’ll know God’s not helping just yet: Unbelievable. Google just joined ALEC http://bit.ly/1982cw3

    • #15 by infowarrior on February 13, 2014 - 1:28 pm

      Apple just set up a huge campus here in Austin. All the schools here are loaded with wireless technology, even the parochial schools. Something is up with this push for sure.

      Those board members need to all be thrown out of office, especially the Dr.

  3. #16 by Jamie on September 4, 2013 - 8:17 am

    I wish the FSD would take the high road on this, do the right thing, and use the Precautionary Principle.

  4. #17 by amateur night on September 4, 2013 - 8:27 am

    Check out page 5 of the Fullerton Observer:


    Get the balance right? We are getting there.

    • #18 by acacia parent on September 4, 2013 - 8:40 am

      The article stated that Roman works “in the field”? He is a physician. Is he an expert in RF emissions? Why is he not coming to the meetings? Why is he hiding? Is this the go to for the district? Is Roman personally guaranteeing the safety of wireless to all of the children?

      • #19 by mom1 on September 4, 2013 - 9:21 am

        Yes, who is Michele Garden’s husband to assure the whole school about the safety of wireless radiation when there are experts in the field that say it is not?

        I wonder about her husband’s motivation in doing so.

        • #20 by amateur night on September 4, 2013 - 3:16 pm

          Schulzeepoo where are you?

      • #21 by Joe Imbriano on September 4, 2013 - 3:50 pm

        The article does not mention his name. Is Roman Garden her husband?

    • #22 by Joe Imbriano on September 4, 2013 - 10:07 am

      It is nice to see that an honest debate is finally beginning to take shape on this crucial issue.

      The FSD and their wireless crew needs to open their eyes to the fact that it is not about Mr. Imbriano and my assertions, it is about the thousands of peer reviewed studies that clearly warn that wireless does not belong in the classroom.

      My fifth grader at Acacia, is not participating in the bring your own microwave transmitter program. He is using books, pencil, paper and hardwired computers.

      As a result of the repeated wireless network problems and the ridiculous touch screens, he is finishing his assignments, completing calculations, and arriving at answers without ruining his eyes light years ahead of all of the other students that are being encumbered by these tablets and the totally unreliable wireless network, neither of which belong in the classroom. These kids all know how to use an Ipad so dont tell me that they are still in training. They can refer to these so called 21st century learning tools in any manner that they wish. I am not buying it. They simply condemn the children to 24/7 wireless exposure in the classroom, after school day care facilities and then at home to do their homework and finally to play games on the stupid things.

      I call these devices while in use highly addictive to children, dangerous, damaging to the eyes,a health hazard in terms of pulse modulated microwave radiation emission sources effecting physical,cognitive and reproductive health: https://thefullertoninformer.com/what-is-wifi-doing-to-your-daughters/

      I call them a distraction, an impediment to three dimensional thinking and learning, a waste of money, and totally unnecessary. Barring the larger agenda at work at the upper levels, I believe that the problem here at the local level is that we have a technology director who is obsessed with technology: http://www.cue.org/robertemcraven.

      I believe we also have a Superintendent Robert Pletka, that has not done his homework: https://thefullertoninformer.com/april-fools-in-july-the-fsds-emf-rf-classroom-emissions-report/#comment-17926, even though has been personally responsible for having placed thousands of these devices in children’s laps at his previous stints at school districts all throughout the state.

      They both continue to ignore information such as this: http://www.wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html that has been presented to them numerous times. I believe that Robert Craven’s unnatural obsession with wireless technology is extremely dangerous to the children. Obsessions are never inherently healthy especially when what you are obsessed with has thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies showing dangers associated with it. I believe that Robert Pletka’s apparent lack of understanding is unacceptable as well.

      You know folks, our kids already have enough screen time anyway. Wouldn’t you agree? I would like to see nice hardwired desktops all along the walls, with big screens and nice keyboards and end this forced irradiation of school children immediately. Books, pencil and paper are what got us to the moon and I believe that all of this wireless stuff is going to take your children places you will never want to go.Go ahead and criticize my theories and mock them if you so desire.

      If I am wrong about all of this, then you can call me anything you wish. If I am right, and I sincerely believe that I am and I am not alone, then May God Help us.

    • #23 by Jamie on September 4, 2013 - 11:02 am

      Who cares what Michele Garden’s husband thinks; I care what these people think:
      Dr. Martha Herbert, Harvard U
      Martin Blank, Ph.D, Columbia U
      Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Berkeley U
      Dr. Magda Havas, Trent U
      Dr. Devra Davis, founder of the Environmental Health Trust
      Dr. Hugh Taylor, Yale U
      Dr. David Carpenter, University of Albany School of Public Health
      Dr. Olle Johansson, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

      The list goes on . . . .

      • #24 by Joe Imbriano on September 4, 2013 - 3:43 pm

        Ironically what they are all doing is taking a stand against applying the precautionary principle when it involves the most vulnerable segment of the population-children.

      • #25 by Anonymous on September 4, 2013 - 3:54 pm

        Are these people are all against WiFi in classrooms?

        • #26 by Jamie on September 4, 2013 - 9:27 pm

          Yes, they are all against WiFi in the classroom.

  5. #27 by Precautionary Principle on September 4, 2013 - 12:39 pm

    For those still arguing for allowing wireless radiation in our children’s classroom:

    Do you realize that you are arguing against precaution for our kids? Why wouldn’t you want to be cautious with our kid’s health?

  6. #28 by JBeck on September 4, 2013 - 1:27 pm

    That Observer article quoted Dr. Pletka as saying that the wireless classrooms are “totally safe.” How on earth can he make that claim?
    Is that legal for the school district to make the claim that it is “totally safe?”
    I don’t believe that it is.

    • #29 by "totally safe" on September 4, 2013 - 2:56 pm

      Last I knew, the only entity that can legally make the “totally safe” claim is the FDA.

      FDA seems to own that phrase.

  7. #30 by R. Schulze on September 4, 2013 - 5:59 pm

    Oh my, quality reporting as usual. Please tell “Fullerton Mom” that tobacco smoke is not classified as a “2B” carcinogen but rather as a “1” along with solar radiation (sun light), salted fish, and alcoholic beverages. But anyone who has read the IARC publications would know that… So far I see that makes one of us. Lead and DDT are in fact class “2B” but so is coffee. Anyone want to bet me and I will guarantee that if they take 400g of lead they will absolutely never get cancer. So please stop publishing lies, and if it was unintentional please fact check. I imagine some people actually believe what is posted here and though I hate to see cherry-picking, at least have some intellectual integrity and make sure you’re picking facts. I was thinking about addressing her “facts” but it hardly seems worth it when the whole letter is started with lies and misinformation. Finally anyone that claims anything is “totally safe” is lying to you. If you don’t believe me just inhale some water or inject some air and tell me how safe water and air are. Oh, PS amateur night: Call me Schulzeepoo one more time and you will be known as Poo-poo-brain-stinky-face, or maybe just Deficranium for the sake of brevity. Or “DC”???

    • #31 by Jamie on September 4, 2013 - 6:34 pm

      Oh, you’re back and wanting to irradiate the children. Nice doc.

    • #32 by FSD parent on September 4, 2013 - 7:24 pm

      Hey, pal, go easy on Fullerton Mom. From the looks of things, she is just trying to do the job of those that are entrusted to regulate things, but won’t.

    • #33 by amateur night on September 4, 2013 - 9:12 pm

      Looks like the call of the wild got my little Schulzeepoo in touch with his feminine side. After all, we all know that Fullerton Mom has no science background, so why doesn’t the physician pick on someone his own size? Does he really enjoy bullying moms that are trying to do the right thing? I guess any cat that makes fun of God has no boundaries.

      Also why are you so cozy with the Pletka and company’s “totally safe” statement. Why don’t you take it up with him.

    • #34 by Joe Imbriano on September 4, 2013 - 10:05 pm

      The wireless agenda by design ignores non thermal biological effects.

      R. do you understand what that means?

    • #35 by Fullerton Mom on September 5, 2013 - 8:01 am

      Our school children should not be in classrooms with wireless radiation until it can be proved that it is safe.

      R. Schulze, prove that it is safe.

  8. #36 by Ray on September 4, 2013 - 7:00 pm


    The mom made a minor error in her post. Instead of tobacco smoke it should read engine exhaust.

    So to restate it, in May of 2011 IARC classified RF radiofrequency microwave radiation as a class 2B human carcinogen, placing it in the same category as lead, engine exhaust, and DDT.

    Bringing tobacco smoke into this debate is actually extremely relevant, because it shows how long it can take for a harmful product to be labeled as such. Even though research proved tobacco smoke harmful, it took another 40-50 years the government to take action. If a similar process were to unfold with wireless microwave radiation, think for just a second about the magnitude of what that would mean.

    Millions of children would have been exposed to high levels of microwave radiation shown in peer reviewed studies to cause DNA damage, cancer, leakage of the blood brain barrier, reproductive damage, and a myriad of other health impacts.

    You, Schulze are cherry picking when you ignore each and every one of the thousands of studies that report biological and health effects.

    You still haven’t addressed even the first report given to you on the health impacts of microwave radiation.


    There are thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies where that came from.

    This is more than enough evidence to justify parents demanding the removal of WiFi from schools. The facts are there right before us.

    What may I ask compels you to act so blindly? Are you defending wireless radiation on the basis of principle? Are you in the business? Do you have friends on the school board? What dog do you have in this fight?

    Regardless of your agenda, by refusing to examine the evidence you lost your credibility long ago. You are a lost cause, because you can’t even see the facts let alone the forest for the trees. Simply put, children deserve a safe learning environment. If you want to put a WiFi router in your home, office, or under your bed go for it. I won’t stop you.

    It is, however, absolutely unacceptable to force parents to expose their children to be exposed to an agent that has been proven toxic by thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed studies.

  9. #37 by R. Schulze on September 4, 2013 - 10:24 pm

    Ok, I’ll call your bluff. Please cite these thousands upon thousands studies… hell, I’ll take 2000 just too make it easy. Please cite those studies or admit you are lying. Or if, you want, cite one study that shows cell phone use decreases the risk of cancer and explain to me how that is possible. And of course I’m cherry picking. I was hoping to make a point which I knew would be lost. Definitely carcinogenic is a pretty far cry from possibly carcinogenic so that’s not a “minor” mistake. Wait, the government took action on tobacco? They outlawed tobacco and took kids away from parents that smoke? I must have missed that. Engine exhaust is actually classified as “1” for diesel and “2B” for gasoline but I know I can’t bother you with details. Lets go with that Ad Hominem attack and I’ll admit I have no credibility. Fortunately for me, my credibility is not the topic of discussion here. We are discussing possible health affects of EMF radiation so my credibility matters just as much as yours, that is not at all. Yup, nice study. I’m familiar with it and quite a few more like it. I’m also familiar with multiple studies that show a decreased risk of cancer with EMF exposure. We can discuss the merits and errors of each and every one of these studies and then I’ll hit you with the Expert Panel Systematic Reviews anyways. So, can we just skip the individual studies and move on to the Reviews? As for my dog in this fight, well I don’t like bullies and I don’t think its right to scare people with some “monster in the closet” routine. And perhaps most importantly I don’t appreciate the district having to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves against this nonsense. Money that should be going to education. Is that enough?

    • #38 by Joe Imbriano on September 5, 2013 - 12:02 am

      How much did the district spend on that RF report? How much did they spend on Pletka last year? How about his sidekick? How much did they get out of the wine tasting parties? How much are they going to spend on his blanket statement of total safety? How much do you think this is costing me? I got my chips on the table. The district plays with our money, and plays the fiddle and cries to the parents for more. They just follow top down orders, packem in for the attendance, teach to the test, run a dog and pony show, shorten the work week, the school year, hand out the raises and still stay awash in cash. In my opinion, what they are no longer awash in is trust.

      I don’t think what you appreciate matters here R. What matters here is what is best for these kids and their unsuspecting parents. You can lick their boots all you want because no one is going to stop you.

      • #39 by amateur night on September 5, 2013 - 6:27 am

        The longer he licks, the more laughs he’ll get. Trust me, I’m a docktah!

      • #40 by Patricia on September 6, 2013 - 9:50 am

        Joe, I tend to agree with you. This person is making this into some sort of a sparring match. I love my children and quite frankly, the positions and logic put forth by those who seek to discredit you and this cause are disturbing. They appear to be blind to the humanity of our children. They are our precious little human beings.

      • #41 by Anonymous on September 8, 2013 - 11:18 pm

        As a parent, that would be a very good question to ask. I would put in a public records request with the district. That information is readily available.

    • #42 by Jamie on September 5, 2013 - 7:03 am

      R. Schulze:

      Please consider the application of the Precautionary Principle, as stated by Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director, Center for Family and Community Health, University of California, Berkeley, in a letter dated February 8, 2013, to the Los Angeles Unified School District writes: “The precautionary principle should be applied to this critical policy decision. This principle, developed at a U.N. environmental conference in 1992 states that in the absence of scientific consensus if an action has a suspected risk of causing harm, the burden of proof it is not harmful falls on those taking the action, and all reasonable measures to reduce the risk must be taken.”

      HAVE A NICE DAY, doc!

    • #43 by Jamie on September 5, 2013 - 7:09 am

      R. Schulze, why don’t you take your arguments to those that say wireless radiation is harmful:

      Dr. Martha Herbert, Harvard U
      Martin Blank, Ph.D, Columbia U
      Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Berkeley U
      Dr. Magda Havas, Trent U
      Dr. Devra Davis, founder of the Environmental Health Trust
      Dr. Hugh Taylor, Yale U
      Dr. David Carpenter, University of Albany School of Public Health
      Dr. Olle Johansson, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

  10. #44 by R. Schulze on September 4, 2013 - 10:34 pm

    Joe; Yes I understand what that means but it probably doesn’t mean the same to both of us. In my understanding the “wireless agenda” is ignoring non-thermal effects because the preponderance of the evidence shows that there are NO physiologically important non-thermal effects. But that’s probably not what you meant.

    • #45 by JGarrison on September 5, 2013 - 8:16 am

      Maybe you should take your “understanding” to Dr. Li & the EPA, and tell them there “are NO physiologically important non-thermal effects.”

      As stated by De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, MPH, Senior Research Scientist, Kaiser Permanente, “Therefore, when it comes to non-thermal effects of RF, which is the most relevant effect for public concerns, FCC guidelines are irrelevant and can not be used for any claims of safety unless we are addressing heat damage [thermal].” The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Air and Radiation, states, “The FCC’s exposure guidelines are considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all possible mechanisms. Therefore the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified.”

  11. #46 by R. Schulze on September 4, 2013 - 10:47 pm

    Jamie: Of course I want to irradiate our children. Have you ever been in class with the blinds drawn and the lights out? I mean that’s just silly. I insist children be irradiated by 400 – 800 nm radiation while reading or studying, hell even while playing sports. You don’t?

    • #47 by Joe Imbriano on September 4, 2013 - 11:50 pm

      Your statement proves your ignorance of the heart of this issue. Light energy that we produce with the exception of a nuclear blast, with a halogen, laser, tungsten filament, high pressure sodium, mercury vapor, xenon or led for that matter can never exceed trillions of times normal background from the sun in a hundred million years. The normal background levels of radiation plotted against the frequency ranges and types yield an inverted bell curve which bottoms out at the wireless frequency range and heads back up shortly thereafter. Low power is a very relative term. The frame of reference is crucial. We were not designed or as you would say, we have not evolved, to cope with such a drastic increase in exposure at the frequency like the trillions of times the background at 900 MHz to 5.0 GHz. The results are pouring in-Autism, dead bees, chronic inflammatory conditions, atrial fibrillation and infertility. Can it be proven? Depends on who is doing the studies. With the directed research machines, you get what you pay for. Everyone has their price and and the pay is good inside the compartmentalization system.

      I believe that in a limited number of tightly held circles what is widely known is all of the horrible things this does and is proliferated by design in accordance with a much larger plan.

      I also believe in the majority of circles like the ones Pletka, Craven, you and your colleagues occupy, that have a very limited understanding of what I just pointed out to you and a very limited understanding of just how evil some people can be, this whole idea seems ludicrous. This is the insidious arrogant nature of all involved. There are those that know and laugh at those that don’t. Then there are those that refuse to believe it and laugh at those that are trying to point it out. The whole time, the eugenecists’ balkanization program allows for the plan to continue unabated.

      R. this whole wireless thing is the perfect crime. I find it odd that you split hairs, delve into semantics, won’t read my Autism article because it is not peer reviewed, while your friends and family have autistic children, and yet you will skinny dip in industry studies and government regulatory agency doublespeak. I find that odd for someone of your intellectual caliber.

      Why do you refuse to accept the fact that we simply have not been able to prove what I am alleging because of the massively powerful entities that have a vested interest far beyond a financial one in keeping this wireless expansion inescapable all the way down to the classroom?

      Those tablets are a joke, the networks are crap, the kids screw around with them at the first chance they get, they ruin their eyes, and they emit a high frequency pulse modulated square wave every few seconds right at the reproductive areas of these kids. Now we have a once quiet and productive after school day care provider that used to be a place where the kids could get their homework done. Now, with WiFi installed and Ipads everywhere, overnight it is has become an out of control arcade with a juke boxes playing music and all kids eyes glued to these things. Thank Pletka for that one too. Because of Pletka’s program, we now have infants being irradiated all day in the day care center over there just so kids can ostensibly do their homework on those things. LAUSD after dumping 500 million now realizes that the have to purchase keyboards and retrofit their tablets?

      What is being accomplished with that 0.5 watt wireless access point in the classroom is trillions of times the normal background level of emissions at 2.45 GHz. Like I said before, we will know in 10 years. You sound like you are willing to take that chance. Now with your help, Pletka is now upping his ante to another 15,000 kids with the decisions he is making to go along with the State and the Feds. He doesn’t have to. He is choosing to. Why are you helping him and not siding with the precautionary principal?

    • #48 by Jamie on September 5, 2013 - 7:00 am

      R. Schulze:

      Please consider the application of the Precautionary Principle, as stated by Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director, Center for Family and Community Health, University of California, Berkeley, in a letter dated February 8, 2013, to the Los Angeles Unified School District writes: “The precautionary principle should be applied to this critical policy decision. This principle, developed at a U.N. environmental conference in 1992 states that in the absence of scientific consensus if an action has a suspected risk of causing harm, the burden of proof it is not harmful falls on those taking the action, and all reasonable measures to reduce the risk must be taken.”

      HAVE A NICE DAY, doc!

  12. #49 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 1:09 am

    Well, you have me there, I can’t wrap my mind around it. You say that “light energy that we produce… can NEVER exceed normal background radiation” and then you give 8 examples (not including a magnifying glass) of how we can exceed normal background radiation. So if we have differing opinions on what “never” means then we may never agree. Now, the first radio broadcast was around 1906 or so and thus I think that we have over 100+ years of experience with people working and living around EMF fields. Now the first case of autism was diagnosed in 1943 or there about so its just odd that we have almost 40 years of EMF exposure without one case of autism. In forty years not one kid was born and raised close to a radio tower? And honestly I haven’t looked at anything regarding autism at all because I’m still on cancer. I don’t move on to other topics unless the first one is resolved. Once we come to an agreement on EMF and cancer than we can move on otherwise what’s the point… Since we can’t agree on cancer let’s move on and not agree on autism… no thanks. And stop with the “precautionary principal” stuff, it’s as ridiculous as Pascal’s Wager. Kids are killed and injured in car accidents therefore the precautionary principal dictates that you should not put your child in a car. Kids are killed and injured in bike accidents therefore the precautionary principal dictates that you should not put your child on a bike. Kids are killed and injured in drowning accidents therefore the precautionary principal dictates that you should not put your child in water. Should I go on? So I would propose that if you have ever gotten into a car that you are willing to ignore the precautionary principal as well. I have to say as a eugenics program its pretty laughable. I would venture to say that EMF exposure increases with education level and socioeconomic status in general. Thereby you are targeting the exact opposite group of that which most eugenics programs would. Its a sad world indeed when the powers that be can’t even get eugenics right.

    • #50 by Anonymous on September 5, 2013 - 8:28 am


    • #52 by Joe Imbriano on September 5, 2013 - 8:48 am

      Sit under an umbrella sized magnifying glass all day at the beach and see what happens with a magnification power of 5X. How about one that has a trillion times?

      Radio waves are not 2.45 GHz. The fact is these emissions have only been on the nightstand or in the lap for the last 15 years or so. Also, last time I checked, pregnant women didn’t sleep on Mount Wilson next to the radio broadcast towers. Now we have pregnant women sleeping next to them, using them in their laps and now we have kids sitting under them and have them in their laps in the classrooms, and at home.

      Eugenics is being implemented worldwide. These individuals are no respecter of persons, nor do they hide their intentions. Ironically, the most affluent are the ones they have in the cross hairs and these yuppies with their vain pursuit of status and trinkets are taking it hook line and sinker, with the nano tech EMF reacting injections, poisoned packaged fake foods, wireless TVs on very wall whacking out the kids, microwave emitting gadgets up the gazoo, TMJ inducing, root cracking orthodontic antennae arrays, frankenstein bone dissolving beverages, Vitamin D deficiency inducing behavior such as avoiding the sun like the plague with the toxic spf potions and UV blocking contact lenses, and chasing the dollar dragon with their eyes wide shut to reality in a bubble made out of a form of Dizzyneyland denial. The plan is for all the children R. , yours and mine. The goal is to get into the bloodstream and the airwaves and get the eggs R. The school districts are the enforcement arms. Sperm keep coming back. Female ovum are gone when they are gone. The antidote is 2 bucks a month. It’s called carbonly iron. It’s a 2 letter word-NO to the nano tech injections. It takes 2 fingers to shut off the microwave transmitters. It also will take more than 2 bit leadership to get these things out of the classrooms. It will take the 2 of us to get this issue front and center stage. Welcome back R.

      Precaution to the wind? Toss it, go ahead but I will keep raising the alarm as long as they keep raising the stakes which you are helping to do.

      I appreciate your candor. We are on opposite sides of this issue and this is precisely what we need to get the debate rolling. Will you be at the next school board meeting?

    • #53 by Ray on September 5, 2013 - 12:14 pm

      Schulze, you are obfuscating the issue with your endless excuses.

      The precautionary principle as applied to children and automobiles would be to use seatbelts and other protective devices.

      The precautionary principle as applied to children and bicycles would be to keep them off of busy roads and highways and to give them helmets.

      The precautionary principle as appled to children and water would be to teach them how to swim and to have an adult keep their eye on them.

      The precautionary principle as applied to children and microwave radiation would be, like in the other examples, to limit their exposure to unnecessary risks through prudent measures.

      Much like helmets and seatbelts, the solution here is to give the children computers that are hardwired. Big deal.

      • #54 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 12:47 pm

        Well I would disagree. My 3 examples were all of definite harm to children. My understanding of emf is that it is “possibly” harmful, if that. I would liken it to saying, ‘based on the precautionary principal a microwave should not turn on if the door is open’ (based on known risk of thermal injury). Another example of possible harm would be, ‘it is easier for aliens to abduct children if they are outdoors, therefore the precautionary principal dictates that you don’t let your kids outdoors’ (based on the possibility that aliens exist). There, I like that better, now were comparing apples to apples. Referring to extraterrestrial aliens, not Canadians of course.

  13. #55 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 1:28 am

    Oops I almost missed it, the claim that I work for “them” and lick their boots. I was expecting that to have been thrown out during our last exchange (well it was but not by you) and was kind of disappointed. I pride myself in predicting that these exchanges go how I expect and was kind of let down… better late than never.

  14. #56 by Anonymous on September 5, 2013 - 9:51 am

    With WiFi, the power of the signal is a concern but also the specific frequency.

    The fact that not only will WiFi hop around the 2.4 GHz band to avoid interference but it is also not a constant power strength like the cordless phones due to WiFi’s pulsing.

    This is where I believe we get the biological effects – the constant on/off, changes in strength, and changes in frequency, the pulse modulations if you will. The only we know for sure is there is so much that we don’t know.

    I believe the author is correct in her precautionary approach. I side with the scientists that warn not to proceed.

  15. #57 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 10:31 am

    Hey progress. Ok based on your statement we can agree that radio waves have not been proven to be harmful is that correct? And yes, there actually have been studies relating illness to distance of residence from nearest radio tower and radar sites (Mt. Wilson is not the only radio tower in the world). I just feel you should know this, I don’t want to be the only idiot here who actually read the literature here.

    Jamie: If I give you twice as many names of people who agree that there is insufficient evidence of harm will that change your mind? If not, please stop using an argument from authority. And reasonable measures to reduce harm have been taken… microwaves don’t turn on with the door open.

    JGarrison: Cite me one recent expert opinion or systematic review where recent data was reviewed and the determination was made that the expose limits do NOT need to be changed. Hint: It exists. Also, I did not say that there are NO physiological important non-thermal effects. I said “the preponderance of the evidence shows that there are NO physiologically important non-thermal effects”. There is a difference and I can go into detail if that’s confusing.

    Amateur night: I don’t even know what that means. If you’re going to make ad hominem attacks they have to make sense. I want to laugh too.

    Anonymous: CHILDISH… we’re doing synonyms, right?

    Joe: Its only a debate worth having if both sides are willing to change their minds. My experience is that these type of debates are almost universally not worth having but I’m willing to be wrong… actually hoping to be wrong.

    • #58 by Joe Imbriano on September 5, 2013 - 11:43 am

      There is absolutely no larger issue facing humanity than the wireless assault on human fertility. Stick around pal.

    • #59 by Anonymous on September 5, 2013 - 11:43 am


    • #60 by Jamie on September 5, 2013 - 11:50 am

      Why do you so want to irradiate our children? You are mean.

  16. #61 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 10:54 am

    Hey, all right! Anonymous (#2?? I think we have more than one). All we need now is for your you to understand and admit (or disprove) that you are choosing to agree with the minority of scientists and you win! We have a complete and fairly logical argument. The next step would be for you to convince me that the minority is right and the majority is wrong and you will have changed my mind. I’m excited. If you don’t agree that you are siding with the minority of scientists that’s fine but then we have to start there. Convincing me just that the majority of scientists agree with you would probably be enough to change my mind or at least then it would be my responsibility to prove that my “now” minority opinion is correct.

    • #62 by Anonymous on September 5, 2013 - 11:44 am


  17. #63 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 11:08 am

    Ok, this is my understanding of Eugenics: Eugenics (\yü-ˈje-niks\) is the bio-social movement which advocates practices to improve the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.[2][3]

    It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits.[4]

    Now did you mean to say genocide or are we redefining eugenics?

    • #64 by Joe Imbriano on September 5, 2013 - 11:36 am

      Eugenics. Just like all layers of the socioeconomic strata, your kids are getting the sessemmmee street death of reading programs, satanic cartoons, vision destroying screens, video games, sorcery books, fluoride, aspartame, pthalates, BPA, estrogen mimickers, endocrine disruptors, nano tech fallout, captain crunch, nano tech injections, the loving mercury in the corn syrup and the syringe, all the nano tech emf interacting pulse modulated microwave emissions and all the rest of the love fest. We are all weeds to these people, you and I included. They are no respecter of persons. The 300 channel idiot box circus has a cattle stall for every taste.

    • #65 by Anonymous on September 5, 2013 - 11:44 am

      Again, infantile.

  18. #66 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 11:51 am

    How is any of that “advancing the improvement of human heredity traits”??? Sorry if I’m dense.

    And can I interpret #46 to mean that there is absolutely nothing that would change your mind? Don’t want to put words on your mouth…

    • #67 by Joe Imbriano on September 5, 2013 - 11:55 am

      It’s called spraying round up on us as we suck our thumbs in front of the twonky. We are all weeds to these people on a St. Augustine lawn.

      R. I am one of the most open minded people that you will ever meet in your entire life. Of course my mind can be changed.

  19. #68 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 12:07 pm

    Oh good. Does roundup kill St. Augustine grass? Because indiscriminate killing sounds more like genocide as opposed to eugenics which would be more like spraying roundup on a genetically engineered “roundup ready” crop. I think eugenics needs to be selective by definition.

    Anon: Recurrently Sophomoric!! Come on, I’m not going to play if your just going to use the same words…lame.

  20. #70 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 12:50 pm

    Oh good, so you meant genocide, not eugenics then… Genocide doesn’t sound completely right either but I can’t think of a better word.

    • #71 by Joe Imbriano on September 5, 2013 - 1:15 pm

      No just our kids and not theirs. It is selective in terms of what level of understanding the parents have.

  21. #72 by Ray on September 5, 2013 - 1:25 pm


    There are only a few categories of people who are as blind as you are to the evidence before you regarding the health impacts of WiFi emitted microwave radiation to children.

    School district employed technology staff.
    Resistant school board members.
    Spouses and close friends of any of the above.

    These people have a way of ignoring the facts so that no matter what evidence is placed before them, they pretend that it never existed.

    I am asking you again, what is your dog in this fight? It is obvious that it is more than just about tax dollars. You are acting too blindly, and acting far too resistant for that.

    As has been explained previously, there are thousands of peer reviewed studies that show EMR radiation to cause biological and health effects. This is more than sufficient evidence to remove WiFi from schools immediately and to hardwire the computers.

    It is impossible for something to be safe if thousands of studies show it to be unsafe.

    You have been shown the links to these studies numerous times, but your bias has prevented you from seeing what was before you. You have spent your time and energy conjuring excuses instead of looking at what has been placed before you for months.

    Here are links to the studies (again).

    Bionitiative Report 2012 bibiliography. This group of studies includes 3,800 peer reviewed research papers, most of which reported biological and health effects.


    1972 Naval Medical Research Institute: Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenonena “Effects” and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation. Over 2,300 citations are included from before 1972.




    This site has even more resources and citations, such as the 1990 EPA resolution to designate EMR radiation as a Class 1 Probable Carcinogen.

  22. #73 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 3:26 pm

    Come on, you got to admit it’s at least a little funny that you accuse me of being blind and at the same time you refuse to look at the data that shows it is safe or even beneficial. Now there is a Expert Opinion/Systematic review, the Bioinitiative Report, that we can start with. It is one of 32 Expert Opinion/Systematic reviews that I am aware of, the IARC is another one. That leaves 30 other reports. You know what they say? I’m sure you do as you’ve done the research but maybe you can bring everyone up to speed here. And, as you are aware, the Bioinitiative Report received a score of 3 out of 10 in regards to quality of the report. The worst there was. Since I know you know all that it makes me wonder; why would you rely on the worst report there is when there are 31 others. Unless it is because that that report just happens to support your beliefs. No, that can’t be it, can it? Please tell me you are at least aware of the other 31 reports and their findings or I will be so disheartened. I refuse to be the only one here that did his homework.

  23. #75 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 3:52 pm

    Here’s a good analysis on the BIR if you bother to read it you may understand. There are 31other reports that you can pick, let’s not start with the worst.


    • #76 by Joe Imbriano on September 5, 2013 - 4:41 pm

      This one is for you, Pletka and your buddy Gorski. We are not talking about potted plants in a greenhouse, we are talking about 35 children to a room, 6 hours a day, 180 days a year.


      When it comes to children’s health, cherry picking on the side of caution is a no brainer. Ask any mom. If one study shows harm, it negates the claims of safety all of the others.

  24. #77 by Ray on September 5, 2013 - 4:49 pm


    You asked for the scientific evidence and were given it.

    Thousands of peer reviewed studies report biological and health effects from EMR radiation, including extremely serious impacts such as cancer and DNA damage.

    Now what? Well for you it was to change the subject.

    You can give links to articles and groups that criticize the BioInitiative Report, but the point is that it doesn’t matter, because this isn’t about the report, it’s about the science itself. There simply are too many peer reviewed studies reporting adverse biological and health effects for parents to ignore.

    Try as you might, you can’t make them go away.

    So onto your next tactic, which is to give a link to a pro-EMF website that gives the impression that most expert reviews have concluded that EMF radiation is safe.

    Well, looking at the list, the first one is ICNIRP, which is an organization so heavily influenced by the wireless industry that it has zero credibility. This is definitely not a source that parents would want to rely on when it comes to their children’s health.

    Take a look at a typical ICNIRP meeting, and you will find representatives of Nokia, Motorola, and all other wireless manufactures present.

    Parents deserve better Schulze. This is about their children. This isn’t a game.

    • #78 by Jamie on September 6, 2013 - 5:52 am

      One has to wonder about R Schulze, who works so diligently to irradiate our children.

  25. #79 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 8:12 pm

    Yup, I was given what I expected… crap.
    This is what a systematic review requires:
    1. Assessing risk of bias in included studies
    2. Analyzing data and undertaking meta-analyses
    3. Addressing reporting biases
    4. Presenting results and “summary of findings” tables
    5. Interpreting results and drawing conclusions

    Your Navy report dose exactly NONE of these and is older than I am. Therefore it is CRAP and not admissible as evidence. As a concession I will let you throw out the ICNIRP study…30 to go

    Oh come on!!! “Ask any mom. If one study shows harm, it negates the claims of safety all of the others.” Ask any mom, ask any mom??? About how to interpret scientific studies??? You have got to be kidding, even you can’t believe that. Ask a research scientist and they will explain to you that yea, it can negate them. I feel that we’ve been over this before…

    Yup, Parents deserve the truth and not intimidation through fear mongering.

    Oh, I asked my child’s mom and she says your wrong. So I guess you can’t ask just any mom.

    Come on 3 down, 30 to go, so far I’m at 90%
    Let me give some direction lets go here next:

    Recent Research on EMF and Health Risks; Sixth annual report from the Independent Expert Group
    on Electromagnetic Fields, 2009

    • #80 by amateur night on September 6, 2013 - 12:15 pm

      Can anyone name three things this cat can’t get his arms around?

  26. #81 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 8:16 pm

    Or here:

    Report on the analysis of risks associated to exposure to EMF: in vitro and in vivo (animals) studies, July 2010
    Risk analysis of human exposure to electromagnetic fields, July 2010

  27. #82 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 8:17 pm

    or here:

    Latin American Expert Committee on High Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health.
    Scientific review: Non Ionizing electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency spectrum and its
    effects on human health.

  28. #83 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 8:17 pm

    Or here:

    Agence française de sécurité sanitaire de l’environnement et du travail (Afsset), Comité d’Experts
    Spécialisés liés à l’évaluation des risques liés aux agents physiques, aux nouvelles technologies et aux
    grands aménagements, Octobre 2009. Groupe de Travail Radiofréquences, mise à jour de l’expertise
    relative aux radiofréquences (Saisine n°2007/007) (2009).

  29. #84 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 8:18 pm

    or how about here:

    IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 102: Non-Ionizing
    Radiation, Part II: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields [includes mobile telephones, microwaves,
    and radar] – in press (2011)

  30. #85 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 8:20 pm

    I got more:

    2.10 French national academy of medicine (2009)
    The academy stated that the precautionary principle may not be ‘misused’ to impose
    unscientific opinions. Scientific data are needed, not a subjective interpretation of the
    precautionary principle. According to the Academy “ No mechanism is known through which
    electromagnetic fields in the range of energies and frequencies used for mobile communication could
    have a negative effect on health.”

    Don’t have a link for that one, be a dear and find one for me? Thanks

  31. #86 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 8:21 pm

    Oh, I’m just getting started:

    2.14 Report from the Belgian superior health council (2009)

  32. #87 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 8:23 pm

    Look here:

    2.19 German expert group on children by the Jülich research institute (2009)

  33. #88 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 8:24 pm

    Lets not forget:

    2.24 Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET, 2010)
    Position statement on low level electromagnetic fields up to 300 GHz.

  34. #89 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 8:25 pm

    Showing all my cards now:

    2.25 Reports from the Health Protection Agency (HPA)

  35. #91 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 8:27 pm

    Getting tired but one more:

    2.30 National Cancer Institute (NCI, USA, September 2009)

    • #92 by Joe Imbriano on September 8, 2013 - 10:04 am

      What do expert organizations conclude?

      The International Agency for Research on Cancer Exit Disclaimer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, has recently classified radiofrequency fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency energy and cancer in rodents, and weak mechanistic evidence (from studies of genotoxicity, effects on immune system function, gene and protein expression, cell signaling, oxidative stress, and apoptosis, along with studies of the possible effects of radiofrequency energy on the blood-brain barrier).

      The American Cancer Society Exit Disclaimer (ACS) states that the IARC classification means that there could be some risk associated with cancer, but the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal and needs to be investigated further. Individuals who are concerned about radiofrequency exposure can limit their exposure, including using an ear piece and limiting cell phone use, particularly among children.

      The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) states that the weight of the current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed.

      The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for regulating the safety of machines and devices that emit radiation (including cell phones), notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency energy have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency energy from cell phones and health problems.

      The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that, although some studies have raised concerns about the possible risks of cell phone use, scientific research as a whole does not support a statistically significant association between cell phone use and health effects.

      The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concludes that there is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone use can lead to cancer or to other health problems, including headaches, dizziness, or memory loss.

      What studies are under way that will help further our understanding of the health effects of cell phone use?

      A large prospective cohort study of cell phone use and its possible long-term health effects was launched in Europe in March 2010. This study, known as COSMOS Exit Disclaimer, has enrolled approximately 290,000 cell phone users aged 18 years or older to date and will follow them for 20 to 30 years.

      Participants in COSMOS will complete a questionnaire about their health, lifestyle, and current and past cell phone use. This information will be supplemented with information from health records and cell phone records.

      The challenge of this ambitious study is to continue following the participants for a range of health effects over many decades. Researchers will need to determine whether participants who leave are somehow different from those who remain throughout the follow-up period.

      Another study already under way is a case-control study called Mobi-Kids Exit Disclaimer, which will include 2000 young people (aged 10-24 years) with newly diagnosed brain tumors and 4000 healthy young people. The goal of the study is to learn more about risk factors for childhood brain tumors. Results are expected in 2016.

      Although recall bias is minimized in studies that link participants to their cell phone records, such studies face other problems. For example, it is impossible to know who is using the listed cell phone or whether that individual also places calls using other cell phones. To a lesser extent, it is not clear whether multiple users of a single phone will be represented on a single phone company account.

      The NIEHS, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, is carrying out a study of risks related to exposure to radiofrequency energy (the type used in cell phones) in highly specialized labs that can specify and control sources of radiation and measure their effects on rodents.

      Do children have a higher risk of developing cancer due to cell phone use than adults?

      In theory, children have the potential to be at greater risk than adults for developing brain cancer from cell phones. Their nervous systems are still developing and therefore more vulnerable to factors that may cause cancer. Their heads are smaller than those of adults and therefore have a greater proportional exposure to the field of radiofrequency radiation that is emitted by cell phones. And children have the potential of accumulating more years of cell phone exposure than adults do.

      So far, the data from studies in children with cancer do not support this theory. The first published analysis came from a large case-control study called CEFALO, which was conducted in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland. The study included children who were diagnosed with brain tumors between 2004 and 2008, when their ages ranged from 7 to 19. Researchers did not find an association between cell phone use and brain tumor risk in this group of children. However, they noted that their results did not rule out the possibility of a slight increase in brain cancer risk among children who use cell phones, and that data gathered through prospective studies and objective measurements, rather than participant surveys and recollections, will be key in clarifying whether there is an increased risk (19).

      Researchers from the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Spain are conducting another international study—Mobi-Kids Exit Disclaimer—to evaluate the risk associated with new communications technologies (including cell phones) and other environmental factors in young people newly diagnosed with brain tumors at ages 10 to 24 years.

      Nothing anywhere in any of these slickly worded industry, government and tech friendly papers about effects on female eggs in our little girls or developing testes in our your boys, no mention of 35 WiFi enabled tablets emitting high frequency pulse modulated microwave radiation in a room all day carrying on data transmission with the industrial strength, spread spectrum access points 180 days a year 6 hours a day for 13 years plus the exposure at home with the wireless gaming systems, WiFi that stays on all night, cordless phones, tablets in the laps till the chickens come home to roost, wireless desktops, tvs, dvrs, e readers and yet the NCI even mentions kids shouldn’t be around this stuff? In the meantime, Pletka and Craven order these Ipad carts to be wheeled into all the classrooms while the Cisco glowing frisbee transmitters buzz away over the kids with the best seat in the house’s head seated next to metal filing cabinets bouncing around massive levels of microwave radiation that dwarf what their parents were exposed to as a child. There is a reason, yes a reason, by design, that the microwave background is so low. It was designed by God to remain low for our safety. Take a natural background 60HZ static electricity up a trillion times and put your kids in a room full of it for 180 days a year 6 hours a day for 13 years. How about infrared levels up a trillion times, visible light? UV? Gamma rays, positron emissions? Come on folks.

      Yes folks, this is progress. The Autism rates will continue on a similar trajectory as a flight out of John Wayne Airport with the Santa Ana Winds blowing as they jam all this wireless crap down yours and your children’s throats. But don’t worry, more foundations are being formed, research palaces are being constructed, and special ed will keep hiring. Yes folks, this is safety as defined by the FCC who totally ignores non thermal biological effects because they supposedly don’t exist? I guess they have never read about electromagnetic energy, attenuation, amplification, and discharges in the presence of highly specialized and engineered nano particles, metals, biological systems running on electrical ionic gradients and voltage potentials, and of course how the radio doesn’t catch on fire when it receives the broadcast signal but yet it still works.Of course they do folks, they are THE FCC.

      Yes folks, this is healthy as determined by the National Cancer Institute who condones treating people with cancer as if they suffer from a 5-Fluorouracil deficiency all the while high priced morphine drip hospices get booked like swanky Vegas hotel rooms for New Year’s Eve. Never you mind that a chronic metabolic disorder like cancer can be prevented by consuming a diet rich in Nitrilosides as God told us to in the first chapter of the Bible which provides the daily dose of defense to deal with the environmental onslaught that otherwise should roll right off. But hey, even the churches are in on it now. I watched Gene Appel over at Eastside in horror last night glamorize how they are replacing the Bible with “The Story” which gets these insignificant boring meaningless tidbits that were put there for no reason out of the way for more self help and psychology right Gene? A few missing pages never hurt anyone right? Depends on who you ask now doesn’t it. Well come to think of it, I have never heard a sermon on that verse so maybe these guys are all in on it. I digress again. No, I take that back as this is all relative. The subterfuge being employed at the highest levels is absolutely mind blowing and the oldest lie in the book is that these people just don’t know any better and are ignorant. Well that depends on who you ask now doesn’t it?

      Look folks, every last one of these supposed trusted sacred institutions that we have been trained to follow in such a Pavlovian fashion, from the alphabet agencies in government, to the alphabet social clubs in the school districts with our very own attack dog local alphabet embossed white coat FSD aficionado, mixed with an esquire or two, to the alphabet teachers in the schoolhouse, all the way down to the sawdust trail big tent revival pass the plate gimme your money talking heads in the pulpits, look like they are hanging us out to dry. I don’t know about you all but my fingers ain’t fittin’ in no clothespins.

      Truth, what is that? There is no truth anymore.It is only what you choose to believe. Well folks now that really truly does depend on who you ask.

      Everyone one of the pro irradiation studies cited misses the boat, clearly doesn’t get anyone off the hook and yet and still leaves the devices in your kids laps. I reiterate: We are not dealing with potted plants in a greenhouse, we are dealing with everyone’s most valuable asset, your children. There are thousands of studies that claim this is not safe. I can read these studies until I am blue in the face and I believe that we are in big trouble when everyone in key roles ostensibly designed to protect us are giving your kids the shaft.

      Where the heck is Rod Serling. I have been waiting for that guy to show up smoking a chesterfield telling me what is coming up next week in Fullerton’s Twilight Zone. Anyone got a lite?

      • #93 by Anonymous on September 9, 2013 - 6:19 am

        Mr. Imbriano, the depths to which the deception pervades is unconscionable. These people at our level are not evil Joe, they are just stupid and lazy. Those at the top, those are the evil ones.

        • #94 by amateur night on September 9, 2013 - 10:50 am

          You give these cats too much credit.

      • #95 by Schulze on September 19, 2013 - 9:57 am

        Sorry this post got past me.

        “There is a reason, yes a reason, by design, that the microwave background is so low. It was designed by God to remain low for our safety” ???

        Is this the same god that designed polio to maim and kill his children? Maybe that was the other guy. Maybe it was the guy who created light 3 or 4 days before he created the sun. But I digress.

        The other interesting thing is, in regards to: “How about infrared levels up a trillion times, visible light? UV? Gamma rays, positron emissions? ” – how long do you think it would take us to figure out that a trillion times the UV or IR exposure would be harmful? I would guess maybe 1 or 2 seconds tops. Yet after 107 years we can’t prove conclusively that RF has any harmful effects. Why is that?

        • #96 by Joe Imbriano on September 19, 2013 - 10:13 am

          Correct and yes it is. I believe that if you laid off of the Dawkins and read the King James, you would understand the answer to your first question. We have very similar undergrad backgrounds and have arrived at polar opposite world views and perspectives. It is quite a fascinating dichotomy. That would be a very interesting conversation to have with you in person.

          In terms of your second one. Well for the same reason that it took 50 years to prove cigarette smoke was harmful and it only took me 3 seconds in a puff when I was 12 years old. No really the frequency, duration, power level and tissue exposed are all variables and none of which have objectively addressed the effects of WiFi enabled devices in the laps of children for 20 years and the effects on the ovum and sperm development. As Dr. George said we just may not find out for 10 years.

          • #97 by Schulze on September 19, 2013 - 9:54 pm

            More of a Hitchins man myself but Dawkins is pretty good too. That other book is a little too anti-woman and pro-slavery for my tastes. I don’t know Dr. George but I cold swear someone else said the same thing in 2003 too. This “moving goal post” thing gets a bit annoying too after a while.

        • #99 by Anonymous on November 24, 2013 - 1:43 pm

          Is this the doctor that is defending the Ipdads in the classrooms?

          • #100 by Anonymous on November 25, 2013 - 11:56 am

            Yes, his name is Dr. Roman Schulze.

  36. #101 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 8:28 pm

    Sorry I lied:

    2.32 Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR, 2009)

  37. #102 by R. Schulze on September 5, 2013 - 8:38 pm

    Just read this again and it bears repeating:

    French national academy of medicine (2009)

    The academy stated that the precautionary principle may not be ‘misused’ to impose unscientific opinions. Scientific data are needed, not a subjective interpretation of the precautionary principle. According to the Academy “ No mechanism is known through which electromagnetic fields in the range of energies and frequencies used for mobile communication could have a negative effect on health.”

    I think they may be referring to you?

    • #103 by Joe Imbriano on September 6, 2013 - 9:08 am

      R. I really appreciate the research that you have put forth. While I am familiar with many of these studies there are some with which I am not.

      R. My concern is with Autism and more importantly with human fertility if you haven’t already noticed. These studies do not address the classroom settings, classroom setting exposures, and the microwave RF emissions’ effects on the unborn and young children. To use these studies to extrapolate a safety determination is insane.

      This study really stood out to me: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825

      You appear to be sold lock stock and barrell on this idea. Given the eugenics agenda, the trillion dollar industry in the drivers seat in bed with the directed research machine, regulatory agencies, lawmakers, and even the school district officials, this debate is far from over.

      R. keep the studies coming. The traffic will continue to pick up on this site. We have more plans to distribute literature to drive even more traffic here. The debate on this issue needs to be as open as possible. Can I look forward to personally meeting you at the school board meeting on the 10th?

    • #104 by Anonymous on September 6, 2013 - 6:01 pm

      I have to step in and be serious for a change, sarcasm back in the bottle. It has been a while. I have watched this saga from the sidelines for sometime now. You need to go back into your little corner for just a moment doc.

      Mr. Imbriano provided a hypothesis outlining a plausible mechanism for non-thermal biological effects in his Autism article: https://thefullertoninformer.com/carbonyl-iron-and-orange-county-the-autism-capital-of-the-state/

      He also went on to explain why people in the establishment like yourself won’t believe it: https://thefullertoninformer.com/a-picture-of-the-universe-as-we-know-it/

      Ironically, I believe that you instead make a living off of pill pushing and real fear mongering by being part of the establishment that tells us that unless we do and think what the government and their scientists want us to, that we are: https://thefullertoninformer.com/endangering-the-herd/

      All Mr. Imbriano is trying to point out is that what is going on here is: https://thefullertoninformer.com/the-end-of-the-birds-and-the-bees/

      If this was not such a serious matter, I would say that Joe has one heck of a sense of humor. I personally know that many people feel the same way. I also know that there are a lot of people who are afraid of his ideas as they threaten very large industries.

      The fact is that Mr. Imbriano is a rather extraordinary individual who courageously makes such claims at a time in history where this kind of behavior could cost him everything including his life. What he is alleging is extremely serious. What you are doing by circling the wagons with the establishment is despicable to say the least. The wireless industry, the government and even the school districts have tremendous power and influence. Why you have chosen to side with those that have turned their backs on the children will continue to be a mystery to many as this continues to unfold in the days ahead. You choose the popular and cowardly position of safety that is actually the most dangerous to the most vulnerable among us: the children. The wireless industry does not need your help.

      Without a doubt, there are those in high places that are deeply concerned about the traction that these ideas are gaining and the attention that this issue is garnering.

      If you have not been able to ascertain what is possibly underway as we speak, which is the groundwork for the largest class action lawsuit in world history against the wireless industry, then your head needs to be checked at the door.

      This information could collapse the economy. From what I have been able to gather thus far, he has the noblest of intentions, has been an open book and is unwavering in his commitments to this cause and the reproductive rights of everyone’s children, including the children of those who wish him harm.

      I say the least we can do is pray for this cause, for him, for his family, and give this side of the story the merit that it truly deserves.

      • #105 by Joe Imbriano on September 9, 2013 - 3:55 pm

        Thank you.

      • #106 by Veritas on September 19, 2013 - 10:32 am

        Wonderful post. Thank you.

      • #107 by Gvt Agent on September 19, 2013 - 10:19 pm

        I probably shouldn’t let the cat out of the bag but here it is: The establishment wants you to distrust authority and “pill pushers”. It wants you to refuse medical care and scientific advances. It wants to keep you in fear of WiFi, vaccines, area 51, chem trails, etc.. They want you, out of fear, to remove yourself and your family from the system (as long as you pay your taxes). You think its by chance that 9/11 looks like an inside job? And then there’s people like Shulze, who’s job it is to get you to entrench yourself deeper. Because, let’s face it, if someone who is part of the system is arguing against you it must mean your concerns are valid, right?

        It works every time, almost too simple.

        • #108 by Joe Imbriano on September 19, 2013 - 10:55 pm

          Roman I have already gone into the details on the medical system. For the most part the prophylactic dosing with the the petrochemical poisons that the allopaths push are just another brick in the wall. The chemtrails are actually metallic nano particles of aluminum and barium salts being applied to the upper atmosphere to supposedly cool the planet as Snowden leaks the red herring describing it as if it were to combat global warming which is what those involved think they are doing. The reality is that it is a multifaceted operation involving weather modification designed to disrupt agricultural operations, induce droughts and flooding as well as the proliferation of these nano compounds into the food and water supply to interact with the microwave emissions once in our bloodstreams. Ordo Ab Chao-order out of chaos-its the oldest trick in the book. The porn is flowing everywhere with the booze, dope and pills, so no one notices and no one cares, and connecting the dots is far too arduous anymore for most.

          You are correct about one thing-fear. Fear mongering with the talking heads and mindless diversions on the idiot box and paranormal paranoia Hollywood hell hole smut vampire productions that everyone glues their eyeballs to nightly is how they keep the eyes of the unsuspecting off of the ball and on the endless red herrings with a constant IV drip of rat poison. All controlled media is 2 percent truth, 96.4 percent fillers that appeal to the one of several palates and 1.6 percent anti-coagulant that silently destroys from the inside out. That 2 percent is hard to fractionally distill but it is available if the reflux apparatus is functional.

          They actually make it so we have to stay in the system, and in the matrix. They have most right where they want them, fat dumb and happy with their toys in their cages Pavlovian style. It is up to people like you and I to break their conditioning and set them free Roman. You know things are not what they appear to be. My concerns are not concerns but rather inconvenient truths that the social engineers and spin masters conveniently label or refer to as “conspiracy theories”.

    • #109 by Joe Imbriano on September 14, 2013 - 9:42 am

      And the Austrian medical association disagrees with you 100,000,000 percent.

  38. #110 by amateur night on September 5, 2013 - 9:09 pm

    Where are the cats from Executive Environmental that got the cush gig to trip us all out? What’s the matter gang, cat got your lenguas?

    • #111 by Joe Imbriano on September 6, 2013 - 9:51 am

      I think that they must be on an eternal furlough day as they have been ignoring all of my emails for months.

  39. #112 by long time educator on September 5, 2013 - 11:45 pm

    The overwhelming alarm raised by the experts here in my district where I am employed, the LAUSD, their claims and controversy cannot be ignored. I have read the claims and assertions from the expert testimony submitted in the spring. I attended the board meetings and had discussions with many colleagues. Our union, UTLA, wanted no part of this either.

    From my perspective as classroom science teacher for all of the last 27 years, 19 of which has been in the LAUSD, I have watched the courtship by these tech companies (no names mentioned) give way to a billion dollar intrusion which is about to become even more costly. Now bonds are being discussed. We are now being told that keyboards need to be ordered along with a retrofit patch. The networks are constantly an issue and we have children that want to play with their toys.

    There is also rumor of problems with batteries and the liners in some devices. What to me seems overwhelmingly obvious, is that the board was sold a bill of goods, the sup fell for it and the administration looked the other way.

    At the end of the day, I think this whole thing is going to really get expensive, messy, and safety concerns aside, from a cost benefit analysis, fiber optic connectivity to desktops is probably where we should have gone.

    I don’t know how far along the Fullerton District is in this but it shouldn’t be too late for a u-turn.

    • #113 by Patricia on September 6, 2013 - 8:39 am

      KCAL had a story on that. I saw that.

      So what happens with all of the fundraising money that has been spent on all of this?

  40. #114 by Anonymous on September 6, 2013 - 7:11 am

    How can anyone say this is safe if their is so much conflicting information out there? I went to the websites on the bookmark and when I come here and listen to R Schulze, you would think that information doesn’t exist. Does this person work for Apple or Cisco? I just don’t get it. As a mother, I don’t feel right about what is happening.

    Dr. Whisnant assured me that this technology is safe. How can she make that statement in light of what is being presented? I am really worried now. I don’t know who to believe or trust.

    • #115 by Joe Imbriano on September 6, 2013 - 9:36 am

      That is precisely why we are here. We are here to present the other side of the story that the district is not telling you about. Dr. Whisnant cannot make that claim as she is not qualified to make that claim.

      Please contact me at the contact link above when you have a moment. Thank you.

    • #116 by Anonymous on September 11, 2013 - 10:30 am

      DON’T BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE LIES FROM DR. WHISNANT OR ANY OF THE SCHOOL OFFICIALS – I believe that they are all in on it. You don’t know who to believe? Really? If that is still your question after what you have read the links on this blog, you are in denial.

  41. #117 by Ray on September 6, 2013 - 10:23 am


    The Naval Medical Research Document was never intended to be a systematic review. It is a list of research papers and a list of biological and health effects reported from thousands of studies pre -972.

    Your attempts to discredit this research based on its age are infantile and ignore glaringly obvious fact that this is a massive compilation of evidence showing that EMR radiation causes serious biological effects. It was known by the military that EMR radiation caused health effects decades ago.

    Thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies have been published since. Over 1,800 studies have been published since 2007 alone. Most of these new studies reported biological and health effects.

    You said that you would accept 2,000 peer reviewed studies as evidence that EMR radiation causes biological effects. You were given much more. In typical fashion, you didn’t have the integrity to respect the science, and instead attempt to change the focus to opposing scientific reviews.

    The fact is, you are Fullerton School District’s dog in this fight over child health and safety. With foam covered mouth and an ever increasing bark, you refuse to back down no matter what evidence is placed before you.

    Parents deserve the truth Schulze, and as I’ve said, the science speaks for itself.

    It is impossible for something to be safe when thousands of studies show it to be unsafe.

    Getting to the reviews, I have no idea why you would include IARC, as it concluded that RF radiation is a possible human carcinogen. When the World Health Organization releases a statement that something is a possible human carcinogen, that should be enough evidence by itself that we should put our feet on the brakes rather than both feet on the gas pedal.

    Members of the deciding IARC panel went even further and stated that given this classification, application of the precautionary principle was justified.

    Given your sheer insistence that other groups’ assessments of the science somehow negate the statements of scientists and medical experts who recommend the removal of WiFi from schools, I will go through your list, examine each closely, and provided an analysis of what you are standing behind.

    Which as we know, is alot more than what you have done by ignoring thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies.

    • #118 by amateur night on September 6, 2013 - 12:28 pm

      Looks like Schulzeepoo gots another half and is foamin’ too. Man alive, they are sold on this crap beyond belief. They just ain’t havin’ none of it.

      • #119 by Anonymous on September 6, 2013 - 4:14 pm

        What on earth are you talking about?

        • #120 by Leroy Brown on September 7, 2013 - 5:24 am

          Meaner than a junk yard dog

      • #121 by Schulzeeepoo on September 14, 2013 - 7:25 pm

        Ok Poo-Poo-Brain-Stinky-Face have it your way. I’ll see your immaturity and raise you some childishness.

    • #122 by Anonymous on September 6, 2013 - 4:32 pm

      Ray, you tend to be the balanced one in all of this bantering. I tend to agree with you. This is all so unnecessary. Technology has its place but not at the expense of the health of the children.

      This Sculze person actually had the audacity to call parents airing their concerns over health effects that appear to be justified fear mongering? Later, then went into how into how the district is spending tens of thousands of dollars fighting this? What in heaven’s name did they buy? They could have spent that money on the classrooms. This is absurd.

      • #123 by Schulzee (Attack Dog of Truth) on September 17, 2013 - 4:28 pm

        Actually I believe I said bullying and fear mongering but I could be wrong. If I was not clear it was my intent to suggest that the parents were the victims of this bullying and fear -mongering, not the perpetrators. My apologies.

        • #124 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 8:40 pm

          Sadly R. the real victims here will be the children and their reproductive health. Fear mongering is the idiot box with 3000 channels. I think you need to switch stations. You have me confused with another network.

    • #125 by Jenna on September 11, 2013 - 12:11 pm

      Then why would the FCC allow for these devices to blanket the entire nation? It doesn’t make any sense. I read the letter from the EPA. This is baffling.

      • #126 by Anonymous on September 11, 2013 - 7:33 pm

        That is a question only the FCC can answer.

        • #127 by Joe Imbriano on September 14, 2013 - 9:43 am

          Yes my hope is that they will have to answer it in Federal Court. At the last school board meeting in the foyer, I personally have put the offer to Michelle Knowles, the president of the Acacia Foundation who happens to be my next door neighbor and an attorney, to assist us in taking The FCC to Federal Court over the sky high exposure guidelines. She has deferred at this time but I reminded her that the offer remains standing. In my opinion, there would be no greater honor for her than to use her God given talents to rescue tens of millions of children from needless microwave radiation exposures to levels trillions of times higher than what we were exposed to as children that have been shown to cause harm by thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies and help end what I believe to be an unprecedented, unmitigated public health disaster on our hands, the likes of which the world has never seen.

    • #128 by Schulzeeepoo on September 14, 2013 - 7:18 pm

      Ok. I don’t need to discredit the Navy paper because the author does it himself. Obviously you haven’t read it so let me quote and splain”

      “The original plans were to categorize and key the literature citations to the “outline of biological and clinical effects” (Chapter 1). This proved to be a much more difficult and time-consuming task than anticipated, and was actually completed only for about 400 papers. Thus, the letter-number combinations given in square brackets for some of the “A” through “C” citations refer to the outline. [NV] indicates the citation was “not verified”.”

      Translation: We were going to do real science but it was TOO HARD. We tried to half-ass it but that was too hard too so we just 1/6-assed it.

      “Note: These effects are listed without comment or endorsement since the literature abounds with conflicting reports. In some cases the basis for reporting an “effect” was a single or a non-statistical observation which may have been drawn from a poorly conceived (and poorly executed) experiment.”

      Translation: I admit some, maybe even most, of these studies are crap but I’m too busy to analyze each one so here’s the list, good luck. In fact, I’ll leave it to you to determine whether each study is positive or negative.

      So, because I’m lazy, and generous I’ll give you those 400 studies even without reviewing them, 1600 to go.

      As far as the IARC, explain to us why EMF was not categorized as class 1, or even 2A. Explain that and I’ll take it from there.

      Thanks for looking at the publications I listed, let me know when you’re done, I have more.

  42. #129 by Ray on September 7, 2013 - 8:37 am

    Most likely the school district spent all the money and energy into fighting the issue. It doesn’t matter what evidence is given to them. They will fight it tooth and nail.

    Parents need to become educated. Look through the studies and ask yourself – how can research from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and laboratories all around the world show that wireless radiation causes extremely serious biological and health effects and for it to be considered safe?

    The answer is that it can’t be safe; parents will recognize this when they examine the research, whereas entrenched school officials and their attack dogs will not.

    Remember, there are many others before us who have determined that wireless radiation is unsafe, especially for children.

    In 2013 The European Council The European Council has produced a report warning about the use of mobile phones and Wi-Fi and its harmful effects on children and babies. A committee has prepared a roadmap that includes a prohibition of this type of technology in schools and colleges in Europe, among other proposals.

    In 2012 the Italian Supreme Court determined that cell phones can cause brain tumors. Why? Well because all long-term case control studies over 10 years show significant increases in cancer.

    In 2011 the Council of Europe passed a resolution banning WiFi and cell phones from schools.

    Many political organizations worldwide have begun to take steps to protect children from what clearly is a sigificant and unjustified health risk.


    It is not only absurd to expose children to levels of microwave radiation shown in countless studies to cause biological and health effects, it is unethical, immoral, and criminal.

    Parents need to become educated, because the educators themselves have been bought and sold by the wireless industry and are misled by the notion that it is safe until their superiors tell them otherwise.

    The fact of the matter is that there isn’t anyone above them who will, at least for decades to come, because of the immense power and profit possessed by this industry.

    Parents need to take a stand. When that happens, Schulze will be taken out by the leash with his tail between his legs, followed by the cowering and complacent school board.

    • #130 by Anonymous on September 7, 2013 - 8:56 am

      The principal at my daughter’s school told me the technology is safe and referred me to the school district’s web site for further information. Everything that is contained in the Acacia elementary report directly conflicts with what you people are claiming. How can this be possible?

      Ray, I don’t know who you are. The link you provided flies in the face of the report that Acacia provided? What the heck is going on here? Mr. Imbriano goes further and claims that this is a supposed clandestine program to sterilize kids? My husband and I are deeply concerned and would like some answers that we can rely on. Where do we go from here?

      • #131 by Joe Imbriano on September 7, 2013 - 10:36 am

        I would strongly advise to question the motives of those defending this totally unnecessary mover to expose our children to these unprecedented microwave radiation levels that are trillions of times higher than those that you were exposed to as children.

        In terms of my claims that this technology at the top of the power structure is being rolled out to affect fertility, I stand firm on that claim. The fact is hard wiring computers is the only sensible option in terms of safety and reliability.

        If you and husband have any further questions, I will be at the next school board meeting to answer any questions that anyone may have. This issue is as serious as you can get.

      • #132 by Ray on September 7, 2013 - 12:23 pm

        Principals always say that the technology is safe. My friend went to her principal and was told that if evidence were shown to her that WiFi were harmful, the principal would take action to remove it. After being given dozens of studies and letters from medical and scientific experts, the principal would no longer address the issue. The truth is that this is an immensely political issue, and these administrators are aware that taking action would set a precedent affecting all other schools in their district and beyond. So instead of facing the subject in a transparent and open fashion, they refuse to even investigate the issue in depth, and misguide parents into thinking that everything is safe.

        Parents need to make an investment of time into examining this issue in some depth. The truth is that it takes 20 or so hours to start to get a handle on this. It takes time to digest all of this conflicting information.

        Who am I? I’m a parent who has been aware of the biological effects of EMR radiation for about 20 years. I have spent thousands of hours investigating this issue, measuring radiation, speaking to scientists, and reading scientific research. I am now a health advocate/citizen activist, and my primary mission is to help guide parents.

        The truth is that there is an enormous amount of research showing serious health effects from EMR radiation, and more is being published every month.

        Take a look at this compilation of studies from Powerwatch.org.uk


        Look at how many have a “P” next to them, meaning they have reported positive for biological effects. Ask yourself how it could be possible that so many studies are reporting biological and health effects and for this radiation to be harmless?

        • #133 by amateur night on September 7, 2013 - 1:04 pm

          Oh but Schulzeepoo says it is safe.

          • #134 by Schulzeeepoo on September 14, 2013 - 7:43 pm

            I did not say it was safe, or did you miss that Poo-Poo-Brain-Stinky-Face? I said that the preponderance of the evidence does not support the opinion that EMF has any adverse health effects. Please don’t make me repeat myself again Poo-Poo-Brain-Stinky-Face.

            Oh hell, I’m going to have to anyways so here:

            I did not say it was safe, or did you miss that Poo-Poo-Brain-Stinky-Face? I said that the preponderance of the evidence does not support the opinion that EMF has any adverse health effects.

        • #135 by Schulzeeepoo on September 14, 2013 - 8:01 pm

          Ok that’s a start at least he lists studies that have no effect that’s one step away from being unbiased and actually listing the protective studies. As long as they are not selling anything… oh wait they are:

          Double Silver Tulle Canopy – Box

          Well, as long as they don’t have any secondary gains we’re all good.

          • #136 by Ray on September 15, 2013 - 10:11 am

            Schulze, you continue to illustrate your lack of understanding and compassion.

            There are thousands and thousands of people around the world who are sick as a result of exposure to high frequency microwave radiation. In Sweden alone over 300,000 are officially recognized as being disabled.

            Powerwatch.org.uk sells bed canopies so that people can sleep in a protected environment. This is because those with electrosensitivity, or EHS, are not able to sleep in a high EMR environment due to heart palpitations and other symptoms. They end up in the emergency room or out on the streets without one.

            There are a growing number of people, who must, as a matter of personal survival, take significant steps to protect their bodies from high levels of EMR, otherwise they become immediately ill.

            I expect you will discount all of this, as you have all other evidence, because you simply need to be right. Your reputation is more important than the truth.

            Here is a link to a video on the effects on the heart from RF microwave radiation:


            Here is another video on the effects to the blood:


            Here is a link to children describing the health impacts of RF microwave radiation in the classroom


        • #137 by Schulzeeepoo on September 14, 2013 - 8:15 pm

          Ray. Come on. You cant say:

          “I’m a parent who has been aware of the biological effects of EMR radiation for about 20 years. I have spent thousands of hours investigating this issue, measuring radiation, speaking to scientists, and reading scientific research.”

          AFTER stating you would read the publications I cited… indicating you are not familiar with them. Which is it, have you done the research or do you need to read it… I’m confused.

          • #138 by Ray on September 15, 2013 - 9:48 am

            I can say that I have spent thousands of hours investigating it, measuring radiation, speaking to scientists and reading scientific research, because it is both true and valid.

            What you cited was not research Schulze. It is a list of groups, many of which are industry-funded, that say that EMR radiation not yet proven to be a health issue.

            How easy is it for the industry to influence such a report? Unfortunately it is common.

            For example, In 2011, Anders Ahlbom, a long-time member of IARC’s panel on RF cancer panel, was removed due to his connection with the wireless industry.


            Days later the IARC working group made a significant step forward, classifying RF microwave radiation as a class 2B possible human carcinogen.

            Ahlbom continues to be a consulting expert to ICNIRP, one of the other groups you cited in that list from the pro-EMF site.

            As I’ve said before, and this does bear repeating, something cannot be safe when thousands of studies and reports show it to be unsafe.

            Here is another example. ECOLOG report. 2000.


            This report, actually commissioned by T-Mobile, found: serious biological and health effects, including DNA damage, leakage of the blood brain barrier, reproductive effects, and cancer.

            “The mobile telecommunications situation reflects, once again, the dilemma already known
            from chemical toxicology: The study of potential health effects cannot generally compete
            with the speed of technical development and the roll out of the product.”

            “A particular problem in this exposure group is posed by children and adolescents, not
            only because their organism is still developing and therefore particularly susceptible, but
            also because many adolescents have come to be the most regular users of mobile phones.”

            • #139 by Shulzeepooh on September 16, 2013 - 5:28 pm

              Ok. you’re right, I cited studies that are Expert Panel Systematic Reviews. Which, to those of us who understand research and science, hold a significantly higher level of evidence than any individual research studies. And since the BioInitiative report is this type of paper it, according to your logic, is also not research. Happy now, you’ve discredited your own evidence.

              You point out how easy it is for the industry to influence the reports and immediately show how one of these groups policed itself. Then you cite a study from one of these industry groups that supports your position…wait, what???

              • #140 by Joe Imbriano on September 16, 2013 - 5:33 pm

                R. I respectfully ask that from now on, you use your real name please. Thank you.

                You have now earned the title of the leader of the loyal opposition. I must admit, you have more courage that any of the school district employees or board members.

                • #141 by Schulzeepooh on September 16, 2013 - 5:50 pm

                  This name was given to me my Poo-Poo-Brains- Stinky-Face and out of respect I will use it in accordance to his wishes. If you insist everyone use their real name, I will happily comply. I did take the liberty to add the “h” to make it less offensive, like “Winnie the Pooh”. Or if you wish I will use “amateur night (aka Schulze)” since P.P.B.S.F should no longer be using it.

                  • #142 by Joe Imbriano on September 16, 2013 - 9:09 pm

                    Come on R. step forward.

                    • #143 by Schulzee (Attack Dog of Truth) on September 17, 2013 - 4:31 pm

                      Ok, my pettiness only goes so far, sorry.

    • #144 by Joe Imbriano on September 7, 2013 - 10:49 am

      Ray they better have a whole lot more ready to bankroll because this thing is just getting started. I couldn’t agree with you more.

      What is amazing to me is that there is not one single teacher or administrator in the entire Fullerton School District that has been willing to break rank over this threat to the children so far. That, in my opinion, translates to all of them turning their backs on the children. I guess everyone has their price. I don’t know of any single district employee that can hold a candle to any of these experts: http://www.wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html

      Why have they chosen to ignore this information? Is it because Robert Pletka has told them to?

      We will continue steadfastly and systematically in our efforts to educate all involved regarding what I believe are simply flat out lies and disinformation being disseminated by those that wish to force this agenda on our children. We will also continue to expose the administrators to the highly credentialed scientific expert testimony that warns against the decisions that they are making.

      With Robert Pletka’s blanket statement of total safety codified in the district’s press release, accompanied by the fact that the FCC guidelines are not safety standards, and then topped off by Executive Environmental’s disclaimer at the end of their questionable survey, someone could be stuck holding the bag on this one.

      • #145 by Fullerton mom on September 12, 2013 - 5:58 am

        I think this is blatant evidence of the schools having our trust when they are totally unworthy of it.
        If this isn’t scary, I don’t know what is.

      • #146 by Shulzeepooh on September 16, 2013 - 5:33 pm

        Unfortunately Joe its only getting started for some, for the rest of us its over.

        This struck a cord:

        Cell phone die-hards are convinced that radiofrequency energy from cell phones is having harmful effects on users and that the truth is being suppressed by a powerful alliance of the telecommunications industry, researchers, and governments. Scientists who try to describe the evidence in a dispassionate way are routinely attacked for being corrupt and in the pay of industry. The believers portray themselves as having no conflicts-of-interest and motivated purely by their desire to avert a dire public health disaster. Interestingly, the movement includes many who still believe that the lower frequency radiation from power lines and electric appliances and motors also poses a cancer threat, in spite of the fact that 30 years of research has shown no effects.

        It appears that nothing will shake the conviction of the believers. Their certainty rests on something much more visceral than what can be provided by any statistics and admittedly far-from-perfect studies.”

        It’s almost like the author predicted this exchange back in March. like I said, not my first rodeo.


    • #147 by Joe Imbriano on September 19, 2013 - 9:07 pm

      Actually they just contracted with some super ed lawyers so they are digging in. So are we.

  43. #148 by long time educator on September 7, 2013 - 10:56 am

    This bears repeating on this site if it hasn’t been already:
    Not one of the studies cited by the Schulze person involve children in a classroom environment, nor do they investigate effects on children’s reproductive development. In fact they appear to all be conducted for government regulatory agencies or industry. Can they really be trusted? In my district, the LAUSD, we are looking at a billion dollar boondoggle on our hands by the time this all washes out.

    Your Board down there needs to open their eyes if the parents won’t.

    • #149 by Schulzeeepoo on September 14, 2013 - 7:34 pm

      This bears repeating. Yes one does, did you even bother to read anything???

      “Studies on humans

      The balance of evidence does not indicate an evaluated risk of RF EMF exposure for
      children’s health.”

      German expert group on children by the Jülich research institute (2009)


      • #150 by Pletka's experiment on September 14, 2013 - 8:37 pm

        “Therefore, the animal data
        should not be evaluated in isolation, but together with epidemiological data and data
        from experiments with human volunteers. “‘

        Got any kids Bob? Sign ’em up.

      • #151 by Joe Imbriano on September 14, 2013 - 9:54 pm

        R. welcome back.

  44. #152 by Pletka's experiment on September 14, 2013 - 9:43 pm

    How much more evidence do we need before school officials will protect students from needless microwave radiation

  45. #154 by Schulzee on September 16, 2013 - 6:04 pm

    The COMAR committee of the the IEEE has written an excellent Review Paper published in the Oct. 2009 issue of Health Physics on many of the studies cited by alarmists, and in particular the Bio-Initiative Report. From the COMAR paper:
    “A major weakness of the BIR is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.

  46. #155 by Schulzee on September 16, 2013 - 6:05 pm

    The Health Council of the Netherlands published an updated 124 page report (1st half Dutch, 2nd half English) dated Mar. 2009 on EMF and health. The following is a quote from the cover letter to the Minister: “… the Committee concludes that there is no scientific evidence that exposure to environmental levels of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields causes health problems.”

  47. #156 by Schulzee on September 16, 2013 - 6:06 pm

    Japanese Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications (MPHPT) (2001) Interim Report by Committee to Promote Research on the Possible Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (30 January 2001), MPHPT Communications News, Vol. 11, No. 23.

  48. #157 by Schulzee on September 16, 2013 - 6:06 pm

    New Zealand Ministry of Health, National Radiation Laboratory (2007) Safety of Cell Phones

  49. #158 by Schulzee on September 16, 2013 - 6:07 pm

    Swedish Radiation Authority: the Swedish State Radiation Protection Authority (SSI), sets the safety standards for wireless devices in Sweden. The SSI has commissioned a series of expert assessments on EMF and health in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The following statements were extracted from these reports:
    •2008 P5: “Six recent studies on carcinogenicity, some with higher exposure levels than previously used, consistently report lack of carcinogenic effects, and two studies on genotoxicity report no increase in micronuclei or DNA strand breaks after RF exposure”.
    •2009 P4: “..these results in combination with the negative animal data and very low exposure from transmitters make it highly unlikely that living in the vicinity of a transmitter implicates an increased risk of cancer.”
    •2009 P4: “While the symptoms experienced by patients with perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity are very real and some subjects suffer severely, there is no evidence that RF exposure is a causal factor.”
    •2010: P4: “Available data do not indicate any risks related to exposure to RF from base stations or radio or TV antennas. Taking into account also the low levels of exposure that these sources give rise to, health effects from transmitters are unlikely”.

  50. #159 by Schulzee on September 16, 2013 - 6:08 pm

    Latin American Expert Committee: Non-ionizing EMF and its Effects on Human Health 2010: P11 “The induction and promotion of tumors or blood neoplasms by RF exposure in animals as well as the appearance of cellular molecular predecessors of tumorigenesis, etc. has also been investigated. Despite using RF exposures, measured as specific absorption rates (SARs), far above those that people are normally exposed to, and in some cases exposures for the duration of the animal’s lifetime, about 93% of in vivo studies published since 1990 have shown no significant short or long-term effects. Further, the average survival of irradiated groups of animals was not affected in some 96% of studies.

  51. #160 by Schulzee on September 16, 2013 - 6:09 pm

    EFHRAM European Health Risk Assessment Network D3 Report on Risks of EMF in vitro and in vivo 2010: P 27 “For the three frequency ranges examined, the conclusions of the 2009 SCENIHR report are still valid in spite of the publication of several positive findings. Many of the new publications originate from laboratories and countries that are new to bioelectromagnetics research. This translates sometimes into unsatisfactory dosimetry or statistical analysis. Health risk assessment to be performed in the coming years (e.g., WHO EMF project) will need to be carried out with strict quality criteria”.

  52. #163 by Schulzee on September 16, 2013 - 6:10 pm

    April 2012 UK: The UK base Health Protection Agency has just released an exhaustive new 348 page expert report on the issue of EMF and Health. The report is entitled: Health Effects of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. The following is the key conclusion of the report: “The quantity, and in general quality, of research published on the potential health effects of RF field exposure has increased substantially since AGNIR last reviewed this subject. Population exposure to RF fields has become more widespread and heterogeneous. There are still limitations to the published research that preclude a definitive judgement, but the evidence considered overall has not demonstrated any adverse health effects of RF field exposure below internationally accepted guideline levels. There are possible effects on EEG patterns, but these have not been conclusively established, and it is unclear whether such effects would have any health consequences. There is increasing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels does not cause symptoms and cannot be detected by people, even by those who consider themselves sensitive to RF fields. The limited available data on other non-cancer outcomes show no effects of RF field exposure. The accumulating evidence on cancer risks, notably in relation to mobile phone use, is not definitive, but overall is increasingly in the direction of no material effect of exposure. There are few data, however, on risks beyond 15 years from first exposure.
    In summary, although a substantial amount of research has been conducted in this area, there is no convincing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels causes health effects in adults or children”.

    • #164 by Joe Imbriano on September 16, 2013 - 10:32 pm

      “There are still limitations to the published research that preclude a definitive judgement” …. “There are possible effects on EEG patterns, but these have not been conclusively established, and it is unclear whether such effects would have any health consequences”. –

      You like Vegas R.? You certainly appear to like to gamble. I bet you would be pretty good at the tables. Maybe not.

      • #165 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 4:47 pm

        No, I suck at the tables, you’re right on that account. Now I would be at Vegas right now if you gave me a 95% chance of winning, you bet. That’s about what I figure my chances are of being right here, well maybe 94.85% to be honest. Well ok, I fluctuate between 92% and 98% and today I’m feeling a bit more cautious.

  53. #166 by Schulzee on September 16, 2013 - 6:10 pm

    2102:3 Norway: The Expert Committee appointed by the Nowegian Institute of Health has published a new report entitled: Low-level electromagnetic fields – an assessment of health risks and evaluation of regulatory practice. The following are quotes from the web page short summary:
    “The group found no evidence that the low-level fields around mobile phones and other transmitters increase the risk of cancer, impair male fertility, cause other reproductive damage or lead to other diseases and adverse health effects, such as changes to the endocrine and immune systems.”
    “The Committee did not find that mobile phones and other equipment can cause health problems such as electromagnetic hypersensitivity”.

    • #167 by Joe Imbriano on September 16, 2013 - 10:18 pm

      Low level fields is a term used rather loosely. The levels are trillions of times background. I don’t see any specifics as it relates to WiFi enabled tablets in the laps of school children and the effects on the developing fragile human ovum. Of course it’s a conspiracy theory so the inconvenient truths don’t really exist.

    • #168 by amateur night on September 16, 2013 - 10:38 pm

      Poo-That’s our boy in the clearance rack of the RF industry hacks’shop.

  54. #169 by Schulzee on September 16, 2013 - 6:11 pm

    June 2012 Sweden: The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research has published a new report reviewing the past 10 years of research in the area of EMF and Health. The following quotes were taken from the Executive Summary:
    “More than 15 provocation studies (single or double blind) have been conducted on symptoms attributed to exposure to RF fields. These studies have not been able to demonstrate that people experience symptoms or sensations more often when the fields are turned on than when they are turned off”.
    “A considerable number of studies on cancer, and in particular brain tumor, were presented. As a consequence there exist now very useful data including methodological results that can be used in the interpretation of this research. With a small number of exceptions the available results are all negative and taken together with new methodological understandings the overall interpretation is that these do not provide support for an association between mobile telephony and brain tumor risk”.

    • #170 by Joe Imbriano on September 16, 2013 - 10:14 pm

      Cancer and brain tumors are not my focus R. Like I have stated before, cancer is a chronic metabolic disorder as a result of a nitriloside deficient diet. The triggers including emf are subsequently more damaging as a result. My whole concern is with the effects of RF microwave emissions on cognitive function, human fertility and its link to Autism. I believe it is all by design and of course establishment studies don’t look objectively at that. Our impasse is that you don’t question things enough and I question the heck out of them.

      Given your worldview, I find it rather odd that you are so trusting of the establishment.

  55. #171 by Schulzee on September 16, 2013 - 6:11 pm

    Radiofrequency Toolkit for Environment Health Practioners, BC Center for Disease Control
    This report was prepared by the Center for Disease Control in the province of British Columbia Canada. On the whole, this document is quite good considering that it was written by outsiders to the field. The report notes that “several recent international reports” such as “the UK Health Protection Agency (2012) and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (2012), among others, have published major reviews of RF and its potential effect on health; both agencies concluded that there is little evidence of adverse impacs on the health of the general population by RF”.

    However, in its analysis of the BioInitiative Report, which deviates widely from the mainstream scientific consensus, the “Tookit” fails to do any critical analysis. The two editions of the Bio-Initiative Report have been widely criticized by mainstream scientists. The “Toolkit” also fails to mention the new studies that seriously undermine the weak evidence used in IARC classification of cell phones as Category 2B- a possible carcinogen. These are serious weaknesses that mar an otherwise good quality report

  56. #172 by Schulzee on September 16, 2013 - 6:15 pm

    Wait, what was that again?:

    “The “Toolkit” also fails to mention the new studies that seriously undermine the weak evidence used in IARC classification of cell phones as Category 2B- a possible carcinogen. These are serious weaknesses that mar an otherwise good quality report”

    Well, looks like we can find some valid criticism of the IARC report. And I was going to let that be the basis of our discussion… shame on me, getting sloppy.

  57. #173 by Schulzee on September 16, 2013 - 6:28 pm

    Here’s a YouTube video confirming the existence of the LochNess Monster.


    Since somebody was using YouTube videos as proof of EMF harm. Wonder if there’s a video on Bigfoot, bet there is.

    • #174 by Joe Imbriano on September 16, 2013 - 9:02 pm

      R. you are going to soon be billed for bandwidth.

    • #175 by check yourself on September 16, 2013 - 9:11 pm

      Why don’t you grow up and then come back to the blog?

  58. #176 by freudian tools on September 16, 2013 - 9:56 pm

    Schulze, where did you learn how to cut and paste RF industry funded content so efficiently? Do tell.

  59. #178 by Ray on September 17, 2013 - 9:58 am

    Response to Post #152 by Schulze, the Fullerton School Disrict attack dog.

    This is yet another report from “EMF Health.com”, Schulze’s go to source for pro-industry, pro-EMF spin.

    The lead author was none other than Anders Ahlbom, the former chair of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) committee on RF radiation who was kicked off the panel due to a huge and undeclared conflict of interest – namely that he was the director of a telecom lobbyist firm.

    Days later IARC announced that RF radiofrequency microwave radiation was a class 2B possible human carcinogen.

    Other highlights of Anders Ahlbom’s career are that for years he served as a consultant to the tobacco industry.

    Also, he was one of five professors who in 2001 wrote in a Swedish Newspaper that PCB, phenooxyacetic acids and dioxins in Agent Orange probably do not pose a risk of cancer, and that he found the thought “bizarre” that cell phones might cause brain tumors.

    Ahlbom continues to serve as a consultant to ICNIRP, the main international organization that sets world wide safety guidelines, despite the fact that ICNIRP officially disallows industry representatives from participating.

    This is just another attempt by Schulze to steer the focus away from the massive amount of scientific evidence reporting that RF microwave radiation causes serious biological and health effects.

    Again, parents deserve better.

  60. #179 by Ray on September 17, 2013 - 12:58 pm

    Parents deserve quality information, not heavily biased industry-influenced reporting from a hack website. For the past several months we’ve been reading post after post by this R. Schulze individual. He’s been providing links to scientific reports claiming that EMR radiation is not a health issue.

    Schulze has consistently refused to acknowledge any and all scientific evidence that reports EMR radiation to be harmful. He just pretends that it doesn’t exist, and instead refers us to links provided by a website called “EMF and Health”. This site is blatantly biased, and promotes a denialist perspective.

    Well I did some digging on this website and learned founded by an electronics tycoon by the name of Lorne Trottier.

    Trottier, who has deep ties to the wireless industry, financed an operation to public deny the hazards of EMR radiation and the validity of electro-sensitivity. He hired 60 academics, mostly from McGill University and Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, to which he has donated tens of millions of dollars.

    Another of EMF and Health’s contributors is Michel Plante, a consultant for Hydro Quebec, one of the largest electrical utilities in Canada.

    Joe Schwarz of EMF and Health is also a known industry shill who not only defends the safety of EMF, but also the safety of Aspartame, pesticides, and GMO, etc, for companies the like of Monsanto. Schwartz is also the Director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society, which is “dedicated to demystifying science for the public”, and which receives millions in funding from the Lorne Trottier family trust.

    Parents deserve to have high quality scientific information and should be warned that the pro-EMF site Schulze has been referring to is anything but independent science.

  61. #180 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:30 pm

    That’s right Ray, its almost as bad as cutting and pasting from wifiinschools because of course they are not biased. Wait, I think I just got it. Do you actually think that every report from that site I cited showed harmful effects and that the site administrators (Schwartz) blatantly altered the conclusions and got away with it. I actually verified the information on that site by examining the original publications, you may want to try it. Thank you for demonstrating the Ad Hominem logical fallacy although I think it may be lost on most. Let me cut and paste from another site”:

    Before I go on look at this and stop. Labeling me as the “FSD attack dog” is a very similar thing and I will throw that in your face eventually if you make it so easy for me. Jeeze, talk about steering focus away…


    Ok where was I?

    IEEE/ANSI, 1991: The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) is the body on whom the US Federal Communications Commission relies for its expertise. A panel of scientists and medical experts from IEEE/ANSI has developed safety standards, recommendations and guidelines for exposure to radio frequency and microwave energy. Its position is that there is no cause for concern regarding the environmental levels of radiofrequency EMFs to which the general population are routinely exposed.

    • #181 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 3:01 pm

      So in 1991 they observed the effects of industrial strength WiFi systems and WiFi enabled tablets in the laps of young girls for 6 hours a day for 13 years and found no harm to their reproductive capabilities or offspring?

      R. the burden of proof is on the District to prove that the classroom application of this technology on children is safe. There are no studies and there will be no studies.

      This is an agenda from those above The White House and on down all the way to the infant care centers. The plan is a 1:1 ratio of microwave transmitters to children placing them squarely in the laps of every child in the nation with a pulse for the rest of their God given lives is what you are defending.

      Tell me as a Bio-Chem major and a D.O. what do you know about the human female ovum and the effects that the application of trillions of times the normal background levels of emissions matching the resonance frequency of water have on its in utero development, maturation and eventual viability? How about the sperm development of the pubescent males? How about the electromagnetic interactions of such in the presence of metals and engineered nano tech compounds?

      The preceding statement just put this site on the map and you are now in the spotlight. It is time for you to shine R. Don’t disappoint. You have a spectacular audience right now indeed.

      • #182 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 3:48 pm

        Well Joe, you got me there, but I’m willing to bet I know more than an insurance salesman. What I am comfortable with is my understanding of research and my ability to interpret the science. But again, YELLO FLAG!!! Ad Hominem attack!!! Logical Foul, another 10 IQ points and first down. My qualifications matter as much as your lack of qualifications and are not the subject of this discussion.

        You realize what your criticism of my 1991 study means for your 1972 study, right. Not willing to play be 2 sets of rules, I suspect you are used to it but that wont fly here: Please answer this:

        So in 1972 they observed the effects of industrial strength WiFi systems and WiFi enabled tablets in the laps of young girls for 6 hours a day for 13 years and found no harm to their reproductive capabilities or offspring? R. the burden of proof is on the District to prove that the classroom application of this technology”

        It’s your audience not mine, don’t disappoint.

        • #183 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 8:38 pm

          You are more qualified to tow the party line than I am. You appear to be, in what is common academic arrogance, unable to get your arms around the fact that some so called dumb insurance salesman figured out what is aimed at your kids ovaries. Just because I push paper and not pills for a living is irrelevant. What is relevant is the potential threats posed to the reproductive capabilities of our children that are being ignored by those such as yourself who champion the cause for the populist wireless perspective, the RF industry and the educrats as they bathe the children day and night in emissions trillions of times what we were exposed to as children.

        • #184 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 8:42 pm

          Just answer the question R. it isn’t that hard.

          • #185 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 9:28 pm

            I’m not sure what the question is but I’m happy to answer it. Not sure where the “dumb” came from. I don’t think I said that nor did I mean to insinuate it. I know plenty of dumb doctors, some have even been quoted here. I won’t use your education or area of expertise against you but I can’t stop you from doing the same to me. I’m honestly not interested in discussing any individuals credentials because that’s low hanging fruit. It just always seemed like a copout to turn from criticizing the points of the argument to criticizing the arguer. When the Ad Hominem attacks start, I usually go home.

          • #186 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 9:46 pm

            On a side note, most doctors really could care less if you take the pills or not. Their job is to give you a decent risk-benefit analysis of the situation and let you make the decisions. Most doctors don’t care if you smoke or not. Ask for their opinion or recommendations and you’ll get them. Ask for help and you’ll get it. Don’t want to take the pill or stop smoking, fine. The doctor doesn’t have the live with the consequences of the patients decisions, the patient does. Children are an exception here, occasionally children need to be protected from the stupidity of their parents.

  62. #187 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:31 pm

    Wouldn’t usually go back that far but I guess up to 1972 is open.

    NRPB, 1992: The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), an agency of the government of the United Kingdom, established an Advisory Group on Non-ionizing Radiation (AGNIR) that reviewed the published scientific literature on exposure to EMF and the risk of cancer. The AGNIR, chaired by the eminent epidemiologist Sir Richard Doll, concluded that there is no firm quantitative evidence of a carcinogenic hazard from EMF exposures for the general public and workers in the electrical, electronic and telecommunications industries (NRPB, 1992).

  63. #188 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:32 pm

    ICNIRP, 1995: The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is an independent scientific organization established to investigate the hazards that may be associated with the different forms of non-ionizing radiation (NIR) and to develop international guidelines on NIR exposure limits. A scientific summary report by ICNIRP (1995) stated:

    “This review is provided to supplement the conclusion reached about RF-field exposure and possible health effects. All learned reviews have concluded that the RF fields emitted from base stations do not have any known impact on health. While research is continuing to determine if there are health effects from very low levels, it is only possible to make decisions based on our present knowledge. Regulators are well aware of the fact that physical agents such as X-rays, asbestos and smoking were once considered safe but later studies revealed they were not. In the case of RF, studies have continued for some 40 years and laboratory techniques are extremely sensitive. While it cannot be dismissed that subtle effects will be found in the future, it is comforting to know that a large amount of research has been conducted and international and national standards have not had to be lowered for more that 15 years. Another point that needs to be remembered is that the RF emissions from base stations are some 30,000 times lower than the levels at which the first health effects begin to be established”.

  64. #189 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:33 pm

    ICNIRP (1996) has also reviewed health issues related to mobile phone use and base transmitters. Among the conclusions in the report, the ICNIRP states that results of published epidemiological and laboratory studies relevant to cancer do not form an adequate basis for limiting human exposure to the energy associated with the use of wireless phones.

  65. #190 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:34 pm

    ECE, 1996: The European Commission set up an Expert Group that reviewed the scientific literature, examined research needs and recommended a research agenda. The European Commission Expert Group examined possible health effects related to the use of radiotelephones and concluded that a very small database exists for exposure to RF fields, and there are very few studies relating to the emissions and exposures specific to personal telecommunications.

  66. #191 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:34 pm

    Eircell, 1998: An independent team of experts commissioned by Eircell telecommunications in Ireland concluded in their analysis of the current literature that there is at present no evidence for any detrimental effect of the RF from mobile phone base stations on health. They also stated,

    “Unless studies of mobile telephone users show a significant risk of some ill effect, there could be little justification for expending enormous resources investigating the enormously lower radiation intensities from the base stations.”

  67. #192 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:35 pm

    Statement from the WHO EMF Project: The Project has produced a paper examining the possible non-thermal effects of RF (Matthes et al., 1996). At an international seminar in Munich in 1996 sponsored by WHO, ICNIRP and others, expert working groups reviewed the RF scientific literature and concluded that,

    “from the current scientific literature, there is no convincing evidence that exposure to RF shortens the life span of humans, induces or promotes cancer”. They also stated that “although hazards from exposure to high-level (thermal) RF fields were established, no known health hazards were associated with exposure to RF sources emitting fields too low to cause a significant temperature rise in tissue.”

  68. #193 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:35 pm

    Royal Society of Canada, 1999: An Expert Panel of the Society concluded:
    “To date, human health studies have examined the relationship between exposure to radiofrequency fields and different types of cancer, reproductive problems, congenital anomalies, epilepsy, headache and suicide. Overall, these studies do not provide conclusive evidence of adverse health effects from radiofrequency exposure. However, given the limitations of the currently published studies in this area, particularly the difficulty in determining the precise nature of the exposure to radiofrequency fields that people have actually received, more research is required on radiofrequency field exposure and human health.”

  69. #194 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:36 pm

    The Independent Expert Group on Mobile phones in the UK, 2000: This Group stated that:

    “The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.”

  70. #195 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:37 pm

    Update to Royal Society of Canada Report (1999 – 2001), 2001: Potential health risks of radiofrequency fields from wireless telecommunication devices.

    “…However, these additional study results are not sufficient to alter our original conclusion
    that the epidemiologic evidence on potential health risks associated with RF field exposure is inadequate for a comprehensive evaluation of risk (cf. Ellwood, 1999), and that further studies addressing some of the limitations of studies to date, including limitations in exposure assessment, need to be carried out”.

  71. #196 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:37 pm

    Health Council of the Netherlands, 2002: The Health Council concluded:

    “….there is at present no cause for concern” that mobile phones can adversely affect health.

    The 96-page report, like most others from review panels, also said that further research is indicated.

  72. #197 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:38 pm

    NRPB Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR), 2003: This was a follow-up review to that by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. The AGNIR stated:
    “In aggregate the research published since the IEGMP report does not give cause for concern. The weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse effects from exposures to RF fields below guideline levels, but the published research on RF exposures and health has limitations, and mobile phones have only been in widespread use for a relatively short time. The possibility therefore remains open that there could be health effects from exposure to RF fields below guideline levels; hence continued research is needed”.

  73. #198 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:38 pm

    The Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, SSI, 2003: The SSI has appointed an international independent expert group for electromagnetic fields and health. The task is to follow and evaluate scientific developments and to give advice to SSI. The group has issued its first annual report. Its conclusions were:
    “The focus of this report is on epidemiological and experimental cancer research, blood-brain barrier and heat shock proteins. In none of these areas have there been breakthrough results that have warranted firm conclusions in one way or the other. It is worth noting, however, that intense research is currently ongoing in several countries and new data will gradually become available. Given the complexity of the research area it is essential that both positive and negative results be replicated before accepted. Given the increase of new technologies, it is essential to follow various possible health effects from the very beginning, particularly since such effects may be detected only after a long duration, due to the prolonged latency period of many chronic diseases. Thus, more research is needed to address long-term exposure, as well as diseases other than those included in the ongoing case-control studies”.

  74. #199 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:39 pm

    Nordic competent authorities, 2004: The Danish national Board of Health, the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland, and the Radiation Protection authorities of Iceland, Norway, and Sweden issued a joint statement about cell phones and health. They stated:

    “The Nordic authorities agree that there is no scientific evidence for any adverse health effects from mobile telecommunication systems, neither from the base stations nor from the handsets, below the basic restrictions and reference values recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). However, certain knowledge gaps exist that justifies more research in this field. There are a number of published reports suggesting that biological effects may occur at exposure levels below the ICNIRP guidelines. These studies need to be reproduced and the scientific progress in these fields of research should be followed carefully. In this context, however, it is important to note that biological effects do not necessarily imply health hazard”.

  75. #200 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:40 pm

    Update to Royal Society of Canada Report (2001-2003), 2007: Potential health risks of radiofrequency fields from wireless telecommunication devices.

    “…the IEGMP (2000) reaffirmed the conclusions reached by the Royal Society of
    Canada (1999). All of the authoritative reviews completed within the last 2 yr have concluded that there is no clear evidence of adverse health effects associated with RF fields from mobile phones”.

    “The potential health risks of RF fields should be continually reassessed as new research results
    become available. RF exposure guidelines also need to be updated as new scientific information on RF fields and health risks is generated”.

  76. #201 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:40 pm

    Statens strålskyddsinstitut (SSI) Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic fields, 2007: Recent Research on EMF and Health Risks. Fifth Annual Report

    “A large number of in vitro studies have been published recently investigating various
    outcomes, including effects on reactive oxygen species, genotoxicity, apoptosis, gene
    expression, immunology, and enzyme activity. Most of these studies have not demonstrated effects of RF exposure on the studied outcomes”.

    “Six recent studies on carcinogenicity, some with higher exposure levels than previously
    used, consistently report lack of carcinogenic effects, and two studies on genotoxicity
    report no increase in micronuclei or DNA strand breaks after RF exposure. These results
    are consistent with the majority of previous studies”.

    “Most recent volunteer studies have investigated the effects of GSM mobile phone RF
    radiation on cognitive function, sleep, heart rate variability, blood pressure, and hypersensitivity. In general, the recent, methodologically more rigorous studies do not replicate the positive findings from smaller, less rigorous studies published a few years ago, but a few positive effects are reported”.

    “Few new data on mobile phone use and brain tumour risk have been published during the last year. Two national Interphone publications are based on very small numbers and do not change the overall assessment, and two published meta-analyses provide little additional information”.

  77. #202 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:51 pm

    Ok, enough for now. Now you can attack the site I pulled those from but for the sake of brevity I’m willing to concede that the site is a joint venture between AT&T, Cisco, and Hitler (with the Illuminati as a silent partner). So please lets not “steer the focus” from the message onto the messenger because lets face it, “steer[ing] the focus away from the massive amount of scientific evidence” is my job, not yours. And I’m a pro.

  78. #203 by Ray on September 17, 2013 - 3:28 pm


    You just cited what the electronics industry said about EMF exposure in 1991.

    Think for just a second about how irrelevant that is, even just based on the age. We are living in a radically different world, with exponentially higher levels of EMR radiation.

    We’re not talking about Sony walkmans here, Schulze, we’re talking about pulse-modulated microwave radiation.

    Parents deserve to hear quality guidance from scientific and medical experts. You continue to fail these parents by posting sources such as the electronics industry.

    • #204 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 3:32 pm

      Yes Ray-pulse modulated high frequency microwave radiation in direct proximity to the sensitive developing reproductive areas of young children at unprecedented levels and for unprecedented durations of exposure.

  79. #205 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 3:35 pm

    Found one you could criticize, fair enough. There’s a few more. go. go go..

  80. #206 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 3:53 pm

    Ray: Sorry, there are 16 other posts that are awaiting moderation let Joe catch up.

  81. #207 by Schulzee (Attack Dog of Truth) on September 17, 2013 - 4:22 pm


    I see you’re moderating out of chronological order which is going to make it a bit hard for me and Roy, for instance, to have a reasonable discussion here. I know I’m probably flooding you but I wouldn’t being things up if I didn’t think they were germane. I just don’t want to be the guy hounding you for your mountain of truth while showing up empty handed myself. Plus, I always find that I can be vague and illusive enough on my own.

    • #208 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 8:18 pm

      Sorry for the delay R. as I was in a meeting this afternoon with the FJUHSD superintendent Dr. Giokaris who confirmed that they are proceeding with the wireless classroom model not 1:1 but rather in a BYOD fashion which amounts to 1:1. Onward we press in the face of the highest levels of opposition.

  82. #209 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 6:02 pm

    No problem, I understand, thanks. Hey the FJUHSD did delay for quite some time though. Kinda surprised me.

  83. #210 by Opportunity==> Write to FCC on September 19, 2013 - 4:32 am

    Comments Due by SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 ===> UPDATE: FCC will accept comments through Nov 1, 2013

    The Federal Communications Commission is requesting comments on “whether its limits should be more restrictive, less restrictive, or remain the same.”


    If you have something you want to tell the FCC about what has happened to you, now is the time to do so. If you have been injured, tell the FCC your story. If you have doctors’ reports, send them to the FCC now. Say “I HAVE BEEN INJURED BY RF RADIATION THAT COMPLIES WITH CURRENT EXPOSURE LIMITS.” If you have been driven out of your home, or your city, say so. If you can no longer work at your job because of wireless technology, say so. If you can no longer go out in public, travel, go to City Hall, visit a hospital, say so. These comments all go onto the FCC’s website for the public, members of Congress, and everyone else to read. If we all send our stories in, they will comprise a document unlike any other in the world.

    A summary of the Notice of Inquiry was just published in the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/06/04/2013-12713/reassessment-of-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-limits-and-policies#h-29, beginning at paragraph 47.

    The complete Notice of Inquiry is here, beginning at paragraph 205: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-review-rf-exposure-policies

    The Notice of Inquiry makes clear that the FCC does not think there is any reason to lower its exposure limits. But every comment sent becomes part of the public record, and if ten thousand injured people send comments, we cannot easily be ignored.

    Some of us were involved in 1996 when the FCC adopted its current exposure limits. We all made the mistake of believing that the scientific studies we sent would be read and acted upon. The FCC ignored 15,000 pages of science. We have even more science now, but in addition we have 17 years of exposure to radiation behind us. Hundreds of thousands of people have been severely injured by radiation that complies with current limits. The last time, only about 100 people in the U.S. sent comments on the proposed exposure limits. This time, we need ten thousand, and we need personal stories. Lots of them.

    SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS HERE: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs

    (Click on “Submit a Filing” if the filing page does not immediately open). Type in “13-84″ in the box for “Proceeding Number.” Write “Comments on Notice of Inquiry, ET Docket No. 13-84″ at the top of your attached comments. You can attach Word, PDF, or Excel files.

  84. #211 by Schulze on September 19, 2013 - 10:11 am

    Yes, anecdotal personal stories where n=1, the solid basis of any good science.

(will not be published)

Copyright © 2013 TheFullertonInformer.com. All rights reserved. TheFullertonInformer.com 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!