]
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 Ray on September 6, 2013 - 10:23 am
Schulze,
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.
#2 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.
#3 by Anonymous on September 6, 2013 - 4:14 pm
What on earth are you talking about?
#4 by Leroy Brown on September 7, 2013 - 5:24 am
Meaner than a junk yard dog
#5 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.
#6 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.
#7 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.
#8 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.
#9 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.
#10 by Anonymous on September 11, 2013 - 7:33 pm
That is a question only the FCC can answer.
#11 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.
#12 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.