]
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 amateur night on September 4, 2013 - 8:27 am
Check out page 5 of the Fullerton Observer:
http://www.fullertonobserver.com/artman/uploads/foearlysept2013.pdf
Get the balance right? We are getting there.
#2 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?
#3 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.
#4 by amateur night on September 4, 2013 - 3:16 pm
Schulzeepoo where are you?
#5 by Joe Imbriano on September 4, 2013 - 3:50 pm
The article does not mention his name. Is Roman Garden her husband?
#6 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.
#7 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 . . . .
#8 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.
#9 by Anonymous on September 4, 2013 - 3:54 pm
Are these people are all against WiFi in classrooms?
#10 by Jamie on September 4, 2013 - 9:27 pm
Yes, they are all against WiFi in the classroom.