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 - 4:50 pm
Ok folks, this is a very long post:
Ok, so what we know from the 2010 INTERPHONE study, ($30 million, 13 nation research project) is that using a cell phone for over 10 years or 1650 hours leads to significantly increased risk of brain tumors, namely a doubling or more of brain tumors.
Let’s apply this and other updated scientific knowledge to this list of “Expert Reviews” that Schulze has been waving around:
#1. ICNIRP
“Also recent epidemiological investigations (e.g., in 2009 already available results from the interphone study) were considered as being indicative for the absence of cancer risk from mobile phones.”
We now know this is no longer accurate. This review is thus invalidated.
#2. SHENIHR 2009.
“The summary and conclusions of the SCENIHR (2009) report were that it is unlikely that radiofrequency radiation is carcinogenic although further studies on long-term cancer effects are needed due to the long latency period for most brain tumours.”
We now know that this is no longer accurate. This review is thus invalidated.
#3 Dutch Health Council 2008.
“The Health Council’s conclusion was that effects on brain function were described in some papers but that there were no indications that they might be hazardous.”
We now know that this is false. Brain tumors are hazardous. This review is thus invalidated.
#4 Swedish Radiation Protection Agency 2009. (SSI)
The SSI furthermore concluded that there are no indications of an increased cancer risk in mobile phone users (up to 10 years of exposure to mobile phone radiation).
Given that it is widely understood that it generally takes over 10 years for brain tumors to develop from mobile phones, this statement is irrelevant. This review is thus invalidated.
#5 EFRAN
“Inadequate evidence from cancer studies in humans”
We now know that this is no longer accurate. This review is thus invalidated.
#6 Latin American Expert Committee 2010
“There were no indications of effects from mobile phone radiation on well being.”
Although that may be the case in Latin America, that is not the case with INTERPHONE.
This review has thus been invalidated.
#7 Bioinitiative Report 2007, 2012
“According to the report it is obvious that exposure to the electromagnetic fields constitute an important health risk for humans.”
This remains valid. A doubling of brain tumor risk in adults is an important health risk.
#8 AFSSET Report 2010
“According to the AFFSET report there are no indications for short or long term adverse
health effects as a result of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.”
We now know that this is no longer accurate. This review is thus invalidated.
#9 IARC 2011
The working group concluded that there is evidence carcinogenicity of radiofrequency radiation to humans. This report remains valid.
#10 French National Academy of Medicine 2009
“No mechanism is known through which electromagnetic fields in the range of energies and frequencies used for mobile communication could have a negative effect on health.”
This is irrevelvant for us to not know the exact mechanisms by which these effects occur. First we get the data (which INTERPHONE showed us) and then decades or centuries later we understand the mechanisms. This review is thus invalidated.
#12 “The National Academy of Medicine, the Academy of Science and the Academy of
Technologies deplore the conclusions drawn by AFSSET from their experts’ report.”
Not sure if this is affected by the INTERPHONE report. ??
#13 French Health Ministry 2009
“There are no indications so far that radiation from the handset poses a health risk”
We now know that this is no longer accurate. This review is thus invalidated.
#14 Belgian Superior Health Council 2009.
“The SHC stresses that it takes the view that, on account of the scientific uncertainties, the precautionary principle must be applied in this case in order to protect the population.”
This report remains valid.
#15 Bundestag 2009.
“The exposure limits in force indeed offer sufficient protection against mobile phone radiation.”
We now know that this is no longer accurate. This review is thus invalidated.
#16 German Mobile Telecommunication Research Programme 2009.
“Due to the question of health risks from long-term exposure for adults and children and the existence of some studies showing effects one should remain careful with wireless communication technologies.”
This report remains valid.
#17 German Commission on Radiological Protection 2009.
“There is no scientific evidence of a genotoxic effect (effects on the DNA) of
radiofrequency fields or of an influence on gene regulation.”
Scientific research now proves this false. This review is thus invalidated.
#18 The Bundesambt fur Strahlenschutz 2009
“Recent studies have failed to demonstrate effects of mobile phone radiation on human fertility.”
There have been many studies published since 2009 that report adverse effects on human fertility. This review is thus invalidated.
#19 German Group Julich 2009
“The review of the existing scientific literature does not support the assumption that children’s health is affected by RF EMF exposure from mobile phones.”
Several independent studies have been published since 2009 that show that children are indeed adversely affected by RF exposure from mobile phones. This review is thus invalidated.
#20 STUK, Finland 2009.
“There are no indications so far for long-term adverse health effects from radiofrequency radiation.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#21 Radiation Authority of the five Nordic countries 2009
“There is no scientific evidence for adverse health effects caused by radiofrequency field strengths in the normal living environment at present.”
There have been many peer reviewed studies published since 2009 that report adverse health effects from mobile phone towers. This review is thus invalidated.
#22 CCARS, Spain 2009
“Recent scientific/technical breakthroughs do not justify changes in the
present RF benchmark levels and exposure limits for the public and workers.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#23 Council of Ministers of the Isle of Man UK 2009
“The precautionary principle can be applied, especially with respect to children.”
This review remains valid.
#24 Institute of Engineering and Technology 2010
“There are still no data in favour of adverse health effects from low level (normal) exposure to the radiofrequency fields.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#25 HPA 2010
“The scientific consensus is that, apart from the increased risk of a road
accident due to mobile phone use when driving, there is no clear evidence of adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#26 Austrian Ministry of Health 2009
“There is no scientific evidence that cellular phones are hazardous to man.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#27 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
“There is essentially no evidence that microwave exposure from mobile telephones causes cancer.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#28 Health Canada 2009
“The RF energy from cell phones poses no confirmed health risk.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#29 Food and Drug Association 2009-2010
“The weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#30 National Cancer Institute 2009
“Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain.”
We now know that this to be false. Higher incidence of brain cancer was consistent among many of the 13 member nations of the INTERPHONE study and other long term case control studies. This review is thus invalidated.
#31 US Health Physics Society 2010
“The available evidence does not show that use of mobile phones or causes brain cancer or any other health effect.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#32 Committee on Man and Radiation (IEEE Electronics Industry) COMAR
COMAR recommends on the contrary that the public health officials continue to base their policies on RF safety limits recommended by established and sanctioned international organisations such as ICNIRP, IEEE etc.
In other words, the electronics industry recommends that the electronics industry continue to set the recommended exposure levels for the rest of society.
This review is invalidated due to a blatant conflict of interest.