]
WELL I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK NOW DOESN’T IT?
DOES THE EPA’S OWN SCIENTIST AGREE? http://thefullertoninformer.
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:
Facts
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 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.
#2 by Anonymous on September 5, 2013 - 8:28 am
INFANTILE.
#3 by pie in the sky? on September 5, 2013 - 9:45 am
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01131411?LI=true#page-1
#4 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?
#5 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.
#6 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.