]
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 4, 2013 - 10:24 pm
Ok, I’ll call your bluff. Please cite these thousands upon thousands studies… hell, I’ll take 2000 just too make it easy. Please cite those studies or admit you are lying. Or if, you want, cite one study that shows cell phone use decreases the risk of cancer and explain to me how that is possible. And of course I’m cherry picking. I was hoping to make a point which I knew would be lost. Definitely carcinogenic is a pretty far cry from possibly carcinogenic so that’s not a “minor” mistake. Wait, the government took action on tobacco? They outlawed tobacco and took kids away from parents that smoke? I must have missed that. Engine exhaust is actually classified as “1” for diesel and “2B” for gasoline but I know I can’t bother you with details. Lets go with that Ad Hominem attack and I’ll admit I have no credibility. Fortunately for me, my credibility is not the topic of discussion here. We are discussing possible health affects of EMF radiation so my credibility matters just as much as yours, that is not at all. Yup, nice study. I’m familiar with it and quite a few more like it. I’m also familiar with multiple studies that show a decreased risk of cancer with EMF exposure. We can discuss the merits and errors of each and every one of these studies and then I’ll hit you with the Expert Panel Systematic Reviews anyways. So, can we just skip the individual studies and move on to the Reviews? As for my dog in this fight, well I don’t like bullies and I don’t think its right to scare people with some “monster in the closet” routine. And perhaps most importantly I don’t appreciate the district having to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves against this nonsense. Money that should be going to education. Is that enough?
#2 by Joe Imbriano on September 5, 2013 - 12:02 am
How much did the district spend on that RF report? How much did they spend on Pletka last year? How about his sidekick? How much did they get out of the wine tasting parties? How much are they going to spend on his blanket statement of total safety? How much do you think this is costing me? I got my chips on the table. The district plays with our money, and plays the fiddle and cries to the parents for more. They just follow top down orders, packem in for the attendance, teach to the test, run a dog and pony show, shorten the work week, the school year, hand out the raises and still stay awash in cash. In my opinion, what they are no longer awash in is trust.
I don’t think what you appreciate matters here R. What matters here is what is best for these kids and their unsuspecting parents. You can lick their boots all you want because no one is going to stop you.
#3 by amateur night on September 5, 2013 - 6:27 am
The longer he licks, the more laughs he’ll get. Trust me, I’m a docktah!
#4 by Patricia on September 6, 2013 - 9:50 am
Joe, I tend to agree with you. This person is making this into some sort of a sparring match. I love my children and quite frankly, the positions and logic put forth by those who seek to discredit you and this cause are disturbing. They appear to be blind to the humanity of our children. They are our precious little human beings.
#5 by Anonymous on September 8, 2013 - 11:18 pm
As a parent, that would be a very good question to ask. I would put in a public records request with the district. That information is readily available.
#6 by Jamie on September 5, 2013 - 7:03 am
R. Schulze:
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.”
HAVE A NICE DAY, doc!
#7 by Jamie on September 5, 2013 - 7:09 am
R. Schulze, why don’t you take your arguments to those that say wireless radiation is harmful:
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