]
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 Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 2:30 pm
That’s right Ray, its almost as bad as cutting and pasting from wifiinschools because of course they are not biased. Wait, I think I just got it. Do you actually think that every report from that site I cited showed harmful effects and that the site administrators (Schwartz) blatantly altered the conclusions and got away with it. I actually verified the information on that site by examining the original publications, you may want to try it. Thank you for demonstrating the Ad Hominem logical fallacy although I think it may be lost on most. Let me cut and paste from another site”:
Before I go on look at this and stop. Labeling me as the “FSD attack dog” is a very similar thing and I will throw that in your face eventually if you make it so easy for me. Jeeze, talk about steering focus away…
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
Ok where was I?
IEEE/ANSI, 1991: The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) is the body on whom the US Federal Communications Commission relies for its expertise. A panel of scientists and medical experts from IEEE/ANSI has developed safety standards, recommendations and guidelines for exposure to radio frequency and microwave energy. Its position is that there is no cause for concern regarding the environmental levels of radiofrequency EMFs to which the general population are routinely exposed.
#2 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 3:01 pm
So in 1991 they observed the effects of industrial strength WiFi systems and WiFi enabled tablets in the laps of young girls for 6 hours a day for 13 years and found no harm to their reproductive capabilities or offspring?
R. the burden of proof is on the District to prove that the classroom application of this technology on children is safe. There are no studies and there will be no studies.
This is an agenda from those above The White House and on down all the way to the infant care centers. The plan is a 1:1 ratio of microwave transmitters to children placing them squarely in the laps of every child in the nation with a pulse for the rest of their God given lives is what you are defending.
Tell me as a Bio-Chem major and a D.O. what do you know about the human female ovum and the effects that the application of trillions of times the normal background levels of emissions matching the resonance frequency of water have on its in utero development, maturation and eventual viability? How about the sperm development of the pubescent males? How about the electromagnetic interactions of such in the presence of metals and engineered nano tech compounds?
The preceding statement just put this site on the map and you are now in the spotlight. It is time for you to shine R. Don’t disappoint. You have a spectacular audience right now indeed.
#3 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 3:48 pm
Well Joe, you got me there, but I’m willing to bet I know more than an insurance salesman. What I am comfortable with is my understanding of research and my ability to interpret the science. But again, YELLO FLAG!!! Ad Hominem attack!!! Logical Foul, another 10 IQ points and first down. My qualifications matter as much as your lack of qualifications and are not the subject of this discussion.
You realize what your criticism of my 1991 study means for your 1972 study, right. Not willing to play be 2 sets of rules, I suspect you are used to it but that wont fly here: Please answer this:
So in 1972 they observed the effects of industrial strength WiFi systems and WiFi enabled tablets in the laps of young girls for 6 hours a day for 13 years and found no harm to their reproductive capabilities or offspring? R. the burden of proof is on the District to prove that the classroom application of this technology”
?
It’s your audience not mine, don’t disappoint.
#4 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 8:38 pm
You are more qualified to tow the party line than I am. You appear to be, in what is common academic arrogance, unable to get your arms around the fact that some so called dumb insurance salesman figured out what is aimed at your kids ovaries. Just because I push paper and not pills for a living is irrelevant. What is relevant is the potential threats posed to the reproductive capabilities of our children that are being ignored by those such as yourself who champion the cause for the populist wireless perspective, the RF industry and the educrats as they bathe the children day and night in emissions trillions of times what we were exposed to as children.
#5 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 8:42 pm
Just answer the question R. it isn’t that hard.
#6 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 9:28 pm
I’m not sure what the question is but I’m happy to answer it. Not sure where the “dumb” came from. I don’t think I said that nor did I mean to insinuate it. I know plenty of dumb doctors, some have even been quoted here. I won’t use your education or area of expertise against you but I can’t stop you from doing the same to me. I’m honestly not interested in discussing any individuals credentials because that’s low hanging fruit. It just always seemed like a copout to turn from criticizing the points of the argument to criticizing the arguer. When the Ad Hominem attacks start, I usually go home.
#7 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 9:46 pm
On a side note, most doctors really could care less if you take the pills or not. Their job is to give you a decent risk-benefit analysis of the situation and let you make the decisions. Most doctors don’t care if you smoke or not. Ask for their opinion or recommendations and you’ll get them. Ask for help and you’ll get it. Don’t want to take the pill or stop smoking, fine. The doctor doesn’t have the live with the consequences of the patients decisions, the patient does. Children are an exception here, occasionally children need to be protected from the stupidity of their parents.