Push too late and it won’t work.
Yes the R.’s have it but not for much longer. You know folks, I believe that the Fullerton School District parents and children deserve better than R. Schulze, the F.S.D.’s self proclaimed “attack dog of truth” in this fight, R. Pletka, the F.S.D.’s superintendent and what we believe to be his misleading safety assurances, and of course the slick moves of R. Craven, the soon to be ex F.S.D. technology director.
What we believe is on the line are your children’s reproductive and physical health, cognitive function and critical thinking skills’ development in that order.
There are clearly two sides to this debate. On one side it involves an entrenched trillion dollar industry involving companies like APPLE, CISCO, and GOOGLE with orders from The Executive Branch to roll this out, along with servile school administrators and staff who appear to be unable to wrap their arms around the other side of the story or simply refuse to expose themselves to it. On the other side of the aisle are thousands of peer reviewed articles and the scientists behind them, flanked by parents that simply see the forest for the trees, sound the alarm and say no. So the ten thousand dollar question is why do the teachers, board members, administrators, staff, PTA and foundations all appear to have blindfolds on and earplugs in? We now begin to peel back the layers of the proverbial onion for you.
This just came in from Ray, one of our commenters that dares to care and dares to tell it like it is. With his logging thousands of hours of research on this issue spanning over 20 years, and his flagship website WIFI IN SCHOOLS.COM , he writes:
“Parents deserve quality information, not heavily biased industry-influenced reporting from a hack website. For the past several months we’ve been reading post after post by this R. Schulze individual. He’s been providing links to scientific reports claiming that EMR radiation is not a health issue.
Schulze has consistently refused to acknowledge any and all scientific evidence that reports EMR radiation to be harmful. He just pretends that it doesn’t exist, and instead refers us to links provided by a website called “EMF and Health”. This site is blatantly biased, and promotes a denialist perspective.
Well I did some digging on this website and learned founded by an electronics tycoon by the name of Lorne Trottier.
Trottier, who has deep ties to the wireless industry, financed an operation to public deny the hazards of EMR radiation and the validity of electro-sensitivity. He hired 60 academics, mostly from McGill University and Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, to which he has donated tens of millions of dollars.
Another of EMF and Health’s contributors is Michel Plante, a consultant for Hydro Quebec, one of the largest electrical utilities in Canada.
http://www.emfandhealth.com/
Joe Schwarz of EMF and Health is also a known industry shill who not only defends the safety of EMF, but also the safety of Aspartame, pesticides, and GMO, etc, for companies the like of Monsanto. Schwartz is also the Director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society, which is “dedicated to demystifying science for the public”, and which receives millions in funding from the Lorne Trottier family trust.
http://alexconstantine.
Parents deserve to have high quality scientific information and should be warned that the pro-EMF site Schulze has been referring to is anything but independent science.”
DON’T BANK YOUR FAMILY’S LINEAGE AND YOUR CHILDREN’S HEALTH ON EMPTY PROMISES BY THOSE WHO WILL LONG SINCE BE RETIRED IF IT TURNS OUT THAT WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ALL HAVE SKIN IN THIS GAME, AND THE REASON WE AT THE FULLERTON INFORMER DO IS SO THAT YOUR CHILDREN WON’T.
GET INFORMED AND GET INVOLVED.
#1 by Ray on September 19, 2013 - 2:09 pm
Flaws of the INTERPHONE Study
So now let’s go a little bit deeper into this $30 million telecom-funded study.
Schulze asked how could this study report that cell phones reduce the risk of brain tumors, meaning that cell phones actually protect you from brain cancer.
There are very clear reasons for this, as the INTERPHONE study has been widely criticized as having methodological and design errors that result in a drastic underestimation of risk.
Reason #1: Selection Bias.
In a case–control cellphone study both brain tumor cases and controls without a brain tumor
are asked if they would like to participate in a “cellphone study.” It is reasonable to assume
controls who use a cellphone are more likely to participate than controls who do not use a
cellphone. This would result in selection bias. And, such selection bias would result in an
underestimation of risk.
The impact of selection bias increases as the percentage of controls that refuse to participate
increases. The Interphone weighted-average refusal rate for controls was a remarkably high
41%. [1] Dr. Sam Milham, an occupational epidemiologist with over 100 published papers,
states that, in the past, science journals would not accept a study with such a high refusal
rate. [2]
One Interphone study investigated the possibility of selection bias by asking controls that
refused participation if they used a cellphone; 34% said they used a cellphone and 59% said
they did not use a cellphone, confirming selection bias in that Interphone study. [3]
INTERPHONE researchers admit that there is a selection bias, and states that it represents 10% of the underestimation of risk.
Source: Cellphones and Brain Tumors, 15 Reasons for Concern:
http://electromagnetichealth.org/pdf/Cellphones%20and%20BT-15%20Reasons-for-Concern-USA1s.pdf