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 Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 5:40 pm
I’m not sure you’re allowed to make shit up and interpret studies however you want:
CONCLUSIONS:
Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835
CONCLUSIONS:
There was no increase in risk of acoustic neuroma with ever regular use of a mobile phone or for users who began regular use 10 years or more before the reference date. Elevated odds ratios observed at the highest level of cumulative call time could be due to chance, reporting bias or a causal effect. As acoustic neuroma is usually a slowly growing tumour, the interval between introduction of mobile phones and occurrence of the tumour might have been too short to observe an effect, if there is one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21862434
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that reinterpreting studies is not allowed. Now you can disagree with the study and explain its faults but in that case don’t use it to support you argument.
Finally, and again, if you could educate us as to why the IARC did not classify EMF as class “1” or “2A” I would be grateful.
It is way beyond disrespectful to the parents for you to keep saying that I claim that there is no evidence that mobile phones cause health effects. So for the 3rd or 4th time now I will tell you again what I said:
“The preponderance of the evidence does not support adverse health effects from EMF exposure”
That last line is a bit disingenuous. You need to insert “In my opinion” in front of “It is not possible for cell phones….” and then its a fair statement.
#2 by Joe Imbriano on September 20, 2013 - 6:10 pm
Roman, by the way, I was in room 20 this morning around 8:10 am observing the emissions coming from the access point and all of the Ipads with my RF meter. There is now a Cisco access point in that classroom and last week there was not. I sat behind my son in the back of the room at least 5 feet away from any wireless device.
I was also at the farthest point away from the access point on the south wall as well.
Where I was seated, away from everything in that room while Ipads were in use, I was being exposed to the same amounts of radiation that an in use cell phone emits from a distance of around 4 inches but what is different is that it was all over my body, for the entire time I was there. Roman, there are some kids that sit right up front next to the access point in the thick of all the devices and their exposure is exponentially higher.
In my opinion, it is safe to say that at the very least all of the children in that room are receiving at the very least, the same amount of radiation that a continuously in use cell phone produces for several hours a day or about half of the radiation one would get from standing 30 feet away in a 45 degree angle from a cell tower for several hours. For some students in that room, their levels of exposure is much much higher. Who lets their kids use a cell phone all day long or stand near a cell tower for hours a day every day 180 days a year for 13 years?
Do you explain that these classrooms are exposing these children to the same or in many cases higher levels of radiation than being on their cell phones or standing adjacent to a cell tower for several hours a day, not just to the head but all over and throughout their entire body?
I guess you feel this is safe? I certainly don’t and I believe that most parents do not understand the reality of what is going on.
Roman please show me studies where you have these conditions replicated, where the long term shows no effects and show me where studies on reproduction show no effects. How about the studies on the female human ovum en vivo in 5 year old girls under these conditions. How about the effects on pubescent boys?
If you really care, please help me find the studies because I don’t see any anywhere. No one in all of their infinite wisdom has decided to do them that I can find and the FSD steps on the gas. Roman, you missed your calling as you should have been a salesmen. You done closed the FSD and the PTA on the deal. I need to show the parents the other side. Both of our shows need to be on the road out of respect for the parents and for the best interests of the children. Roman too many people worry about their reputations in this town. Don’t fall into that trap. Your last rodeo with you know who wasn’t worth it.
#3 by Another mom on September 20, 2013 - 6:17 pm
Mr. Imbriano, I don’t believe Schulzee is capable of anything but infantile behavior. His posts indicate that he views this as a game or sport.
#4 by Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 7:18 pm
Well, fair enough. I have always looked at debate as a sport and approach it light heartedly. And I obviously see where this can be mistaken as my attitude towards the subject. Unfortunately I live in a world where every day 15,000 children starve to death and all to frequently get shot to death at school. In light of all that something that possibly could harm but probably doesn’t seems a little less critical.
#5 by Joe Imbriano on September 20, 2013 - 7:33 pm
Roman, if I am correct, and I sincerely believe that I am, then we are talking about the fertility of an entire generation- hundreds of millions of people and if others are correct, an unmitigated public health disaster on our hands. I don’t approach this issue lightly. Neither should anyone. I am raising the alarm because the industry and the school districts are jamming this stuff down our throats and I am not buyin’ it. We have gone with pencil and paper for thousands of years in schools and in the last 12 months we have re invented the wheel with forced implied consent based, successfully in large part, to apathy and ignorance. I don’t smell a rat, I see nefarious intent on the part of the social engineers and the eugenicists. Call me what you want but I calls it as I sees it.
I would like you to do some research yourself and tell me if you can postulate a mechanism by which these emissions can affect the development and viability of the female ovum. Can we work together on this?