The Fullerton Observer: Preoccupation with the messengers, ignoring the science and two years of forced irradiation of FSD school children.
Re: The Fullerton Observer, Mid May 2015
109 Scientists Call for EMF Protection Against Long-term Health Effects of WiFi
We applaud the recent Fullerton Observer article that brings to light the very recent appeal from 109 scientists worldwide calling on the United Nations, its member states and the World Health Organization to provide leadership in “this emerging public health crisis.” The “health crisis” is exposure to wireless radiation and the known and serious biological effects.
As the Fullerton School District has been bringing wireless devices into the classrooms
for the past two years, the reporting by the Observer is particularly critical and relevant. Additionally and as explained in the article, the Fullerton City Council approved 3 additional cell towers within the past year, indicating the need for sounding the alarm on health harms from wireless radiation.
As I am sure everyone would agree, newspapers carry weight with the reading public, serve to inform us with items that are important, sometimes vital to our community and lives. In order for a newspaper to function in a responsible manner, it is essential that it be truthful, fair and ethical in its reporting. That brings us to elements of the Observer article that greatly strayed from that integrity that I will now correct.
Fullerton Observer quote:
“Regular commenters on the dangers of WiFi have been appearing at the public comment portions of both the Fullerton city council sessions and school board meetings over the past two years. Unfortunately, the demeanor of some commenters at these meetings has caused many to dismiss what they say, and has prevented any reasonable discussion.”
“Regular commenters” would be Joe Imbriano and myself. “Some” commenters conveys more than one and implies that both of our demeanors overrode/negated the messages we were communicating. Accomplished in 3 minutes, my public comments brought forth nothing but the science and messages of PhDs, medical doctors, and researchers that had extensive background in EMF and its effect on human biology. This was material that had been organized and expressed by myself in order to convey in layman’s terms what the researchers were telling us. All of the information on all occasions was presented in a professional tone and in keeping with the seriousness and gravity of the subject. This is all a matter of public record and may be retrieved by anyone that cares to verify it. I never deviated from this.
It begs the question, why the Fullerton Observer writer tried to cast the scientists’ communications as something that would prevent “any reasonable discussion.” What was it about the serious tone of my message that would cause the Observer to disparage my demeanor? After all, isn’t it a very serious situation to have children exposed to wireless radiation from iPads and classroom routers day in and day out? Is the Observer trying to justify the children being exposed to radiation because, in their words, Joe and I presented in such a way as to make it impossible for them to take the messages seriously? Is the Observer attempting to let all of the FSD and Fullerton City Council elected officials off the hook in demeaning/degrading these scientists’ work, as if it is not worthy of their serious consideration?
Fullerton Observer quote:
“Numerous email blast follow-ups from one commenter to officials and newspapers with information links that did not pan out, also did not help anyone listen.”
Indeed, the Observer was carbon copied on emails as I felt that they should know of the science and findings of wireless. I very much wanted the paper to write articles on this subject. Most, if not every one of the emails to officials, provided citations to source documents, studies, and media including videos. Yes, these were follow-ups, as I did not expect elected officials to just take my word for the information presented in public comments. On every occasion, I followed up with the citation sources.
I do not understand the statement “information links that did not pan out.” As the Observer editor was supplied with information we were capable of obtaining, it should be noted that any information that did not originate from the U.S. did not hold much weight with her. Many people, including the Observer editor, are both naïve and chauvinistic, perhaps, to think that the U.S. produces the most up-to-date and cutting edge research, especially in the EMF realm. Unable to accept, acknowledge research from outside our country, the editor appeared to discard or view irrelevant, not worthy, the current studies and findings originating from other countries.
In the case of RF-radiation studies, the U.S. gets minimal funding, if that, and as a consequence is not doing significant research. It is as simple as that. If there are studies in the U.S., they are industry funded, corrupted to produce results to favor the tech industry. The U.S. research, when it is funded, is designed not to find the truth about EMF. That is why the Hardell study that determined cell phone radiation causes cancer was from Sweden and that is why the recent study that demonstrated cancer cell growth with exposure to 3G radiation was from Germany.
If one is only to be satisfied by U.S. research findings then she may very well view the information as not “panning out.” That, however, does not change the fact that the science is what the science is, regardless of its country of origin. How unfortunate that she did not take this science, publish the findings in her paper, and use it for ethical reporting on such a significant and vital topic: the health and wellbeing of the Fullerton children.
Fullerton Observer quote:
“There are legitimate sources advocating caution about the location of wireless devices.”
The inference here is that the many, many citations from researches across the globe did not qualify as “legitimate” in the estimation of the Observer. That is an absolutely astounding and hugely arrogant assertion. It speaks for itself.
I will note here that we have been doing this for over two years. Initially, I thought that the Observer would treat this subject fairly and give it a decent airing in the Fullerton newspaper. After the Observer treatment and portrayal of two men, falsely accused after a cell tower vote at the Fullerton city council meeting, it became apparent that the paper was not interested in reporting the truth. It has been several months since I have included the Observer in any of my emails. You may read about that here: https://thefullertoninformer.com/sharon-kennedy-and-the-fullerton-observer/
The two Observer reporters assigned to the schools district meetings reduced the science and news I presented to my “concerns.” It was about 3 months ago that I began prefacing my comments with a statement of liability for any reporters that mischaracterized my remarks as anything less than substantive. This was effective in getting the Observer to stop the false reporting. It was better that the public not learn anything than have the information reduced to my “concerns.” I understood that one of the reporters actually was laughing at the science. The children’s health and future is on the line and the Observer reporter finds this humorous? Why did they not report the many significant findings on health or the actions, such as in France where they have enacted a law that is banning WiFi in environments for age 3 and under?
Great care and a tremendous amount of dedication in preparing and presenting the information to elected officials in Fullerton has been given. As so much is at stake here with the children’s health, nothing less was acceptable. Many times, especially after voting for a new cell tower the same quote comes to mind: “casting pearls before swine.” The elected officials have no appreciation of the science, and are either incapable of understanding health consequence or choose to ignore it, resulting in radiation exposure to those living around it.
A lot of responsibility is in our hands, the population is largely ignorant on the radiation health harms, and we cannot afford to do anything but our very best. I think that I can speak for both of us, neither Joe nor myself care what people think of us, we are here to communicate what the scientists are saying. Joe is going to continue to share and warn the public in his own unique way. We will continue to make the now rapidly increasing information and news available.
In reading the article, one might come to the conclusion that both Joe and I, over a two year period, presented illegitimate material that “prevented any reasonable discussion” and, therefore, were responsible for the officials not taking appropriate action. This can be viewed as nothing but a mischaracterization that is easily refuted in the public record of the meetings as well as the follow up correspondence providing the citations and source documents. The information stands on its own, despite the gross misrepresentation as reported by the Observer. One would have to question the motivations of the editor in doing this. One might also wonder if the Observer served to delay the information, preoccupied with the messengers rather than the message.
As there are thousands of studies that have accumulated over the decades, countless websites, Facebook groups and pages, books and films dedicated to documenting and conveying the harms from RF-radiation, neither Joe nor myself had a lock on the information. It was always in the public domain. The Fullerton Observer was free to research this material on its own and they, apparently, disliked our demeanor and the science to the extent that it precluded them from reporting on this “emerging public health crisis.” It’s too bad that they waited these two years, while the FSD students were being irradiated in school, to wait for this one piece of information that they deemed worthy of reporting.
Nevertheless, the issue is and always was about getting the truth about wireless radiation out there, especially where the children are concerned. For that reason, we are happy that the Observer is finally responding. I hope the Observer article is the catalyst for the immediate removal of WiFi from the schools in Fullerton.
For a newspaper, ethics is everything and truth in reporting essential. Nothing less will do.D.H.