]
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 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.
http://www.wifi-in-schools-australia.org/p/worldwide.html
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.
#2 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?
#3 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.
#4 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
powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp
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?
#5 by amateur night on September 7, 2013 - 1:04 pm
Oh but Schulzeepoo says it is safe.
#6 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.
#7 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
£1428.00
Well, as long as they don’t have any secondary gains we’re all good.
#8 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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-mw_nCJWs4&feature=c4-overview&list=UUxs1UgZ6DivWUfG1dX3TELw
Here is another video on the effects to the blood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7E36zGHxRw&list=UUxs1UgZ6DivWUfG1dX3TELw
Here is a link to children describing the health impacts of RF microwave radiation in the classroom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvkxO8xLqMQ
#9 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.
#10 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.
http://microwavenews.com/Ahlbom.html
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.
http://www.wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/ecolog20001.pdf
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.”
#11 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???
#12 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.
#13 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.
#14 by Joe Imbriano on September 16, 2013 - 9:09 pm
Come on R. step forward.
#15 by Schulzee (Attack Dog of Truth) on September 17, 2013 - 4:31 pm
Ok, my pettiness only goes so far, sorry.
#16 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
http://www.wifiinschools.com/open-letters.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.
#17 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.
#18 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.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2013/03/05/do-cell-phones-cause-brain-cancer-the-diehards-cling-desperately-to-opinion/
#19 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.