This was sent to me by a mom in Fullerton who truly cares.
I just read the California Department of Education, News Release: #13-62, dated June 6, 2013. Here it is: http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr13/yr13rel62.asp
The first sentence reads: “State Superintendent Tom Torlakson today hailed President Obama’s call to give more schools broadband internet access and wireless network capacity.” This, after all the letters written to LA Unified School District by MDs, PhDs, and scientists imploring LAUSD to use wired technologies. And, this is after all the pushback from the LA teacher’s union on using the wireless technology and pushback from parents across the state.
There is just so much information out there that says the EMF (electro magnetic frequency) radiation is harmful to our children. It is available to us all. http://www.wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html
As a mother of three, it is shocking that Torlakson can just turn a deaf ear to this information that is so important. How does that happen?
As a mom, when you drop your child off for school in the morning, you don’t want one hair on their head harmed by being in the school environment. I certainly don’t want my children experiencing “double strand DNA breaks” or “decreased sperm motility” or headaches, leukemia, etc. What happens when a school decides for us, and makes the choice for our children, to be exposed to WiFi radiation? Does the State of California have that right?
It seems as if the state believes that the Internet can only be accessed via an unsafe, wireless means. We all know that is not true. Yet, they are insisting on this. Why?
Apparently, it makes no difference to Superintendent Torlakson, he won’t settle for safe and secure wired technologies. No, he prefers to risk the health of millions of California children for the sake of what? So that our children can run around with an iPad in their hands?
Why doesn’t the harmful radiation make any difference to Tom Torlakson? Why isn’t he as concerned about the safety of our children as we parents? Mr. Torlakson, don’t you care about the health and welfare of our children? Why can’t you take a precautionary stance on this issue and opt for wired technologies? Well as a matter of fact from his own re-election web page,http://www.tomtorlakson.com/story we quote: ” As the chair and founder of the California Task Force on Youth and Workplace Wellness, Tom has been a leader on banning junk food from our schools, providing healthier school meals, and promoting student health and fitness”.
I don’t get it. Does damaging WiFi promote health and fitness?
As a mom, all I can say is that Torlakson needs to undergo the same forced irradiation as the Fullerton School District Superintendent, Dr. Pletka.
So, Tom Torlakson, here you go: before our children are subjected to this UNPRECEDENTED WiFi EMF forced irradiation exposure, you must be the FIRST to step up to the plate. We, the parents, insist that you sit in a massive building with a 35,000 WiFi routers and, 1,500,000 operating iPads at legal emission levels, 6 hrs/day for 180 days/year for 12 years.
At the end of that time, you tell us how that worked out for you.
Since you think it is OK to forcibly irradiate on our kids, we must insist that you be forcibly irradiated in a like manner.
One final thing, Mr. Torlakson, mom’s don’t take kindly to their children’s health being compromised. We take a lot of care in raising our children. We make sure they eat right, get to the doctor and dentist office when needed, and worry a whole bunch that they are growing up healthy and happy. Raising children is truly a labor of love and one filled with blood, sweat, and tears, and a lot of sleepless nights.
After all of this, do you think you have the right to put our children in an unsafe environment just because you say so?
You don’t, Mr. Torlakson.
Fullerton mother of three-
#1 by R.D. on June 9, 2013 - 10:19 am
It should be criminal. Then maybe they would react properly. Until then money talks, children suffer.