]
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 - 8:27 pm
Getting tired but one more:
2.30 National Cancer Institute (NCI, USA, September 2009)
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones
#2 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?
#3 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.
#4 by amateur night on September 9, 2013 - 10:50 am
You give these cats too much credit.
#5 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?
#6 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.
#7 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.
#8 by Joe Imbriano on September 19, 2013 - 11:05 pm
That is because you have not read the whole thing.
#9 by Anonymous on November 24, 2013 - 1:43 pm
Is this the doctor that is defending the Ipdads in the classrooms?
#10 by Anonymous on November 25, 2013 - 11:56 am
Yes, his name is Dr. Roman Schulze.