Here is a video from http://www.wifiinschools.com/ which, in my opinion, is the finest and most comprehensive site in the entire nation in terms of irrefutable evidence that clearly demonstrates we are harming our children with this technology.

You be the judge. WiFi in schools, with their industrial strength routers in some cases just several feet from young children, that are hundreds of times more powerful than the ones in your home or cafe, wireless computers, and tablets in the hands of children emit microwave radiation in close proximity to the developing young bodies of our children, specifically the brain and the highly vulnerable reproductive areas.  http://www.wifiinschools.com/studiesreports.html

I believe that children in wireless classrooms are just like the rats in the cage in the following experiment:http://synapse.koreamed.org/Synapse/Data/PDFData/1020KJU/kju-48-1308.pdf

There are no FCC RF exposure guidelines for children, only for adults and that is what the schools are standing on. Also the FCC guidelines ARE DECADES OLD and only take into consideration acute burning from microwave exposure.http://www.wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/8027123_orig.jpg  The FCC guidelines COMPLETELY IGNORE NON THERMAL BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS AS WELL. An important distinction to note is that guidelines are not safety standards. The FCC is not a health care agency. The FCC guidelines, in my opinion, are woefully inadequate and antiquated. They astonishingly allow for exposure limits in a classroom  high enough to be 1000 times the emissions of a cell tower.  Is the convenience really worth the risk? Let us begin with the basics and welcome aboard.


Look at all of the experts who agree with our position: http://www.wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html

Ladies and gentlemen, what your children are facing is a potential public health disaster in the making. Make your voice heard. They are your children. Please take the time to watch the rest of these videos and get informed: http://www.wifiinschools.com/educational-videos.html

Did you as a parent consent to this? Do you know if this is what your children arleady are or  soon to be subjected to? Just say no!





  1. #1 by tin foil hat on March 5, 2013 - 3:47 pm

    Better put one on Joe.

  2. #2 by Buxton on March 5, 2013 - 8:17 pm

    Go dad!

  3. #3 by concerned parent on March 7, 2013 - 6:48 pm

    This video is disturbing. Joe have you sent this to the principal at your child’s school?

    • #4 by Joe Imbriano on March 7, 2013 - 9:59 pm

      Yes I did, as well as the District superintendent, several teachers and at least one board member. Get the word out-use the social media links.

  4. #5 by Eileen on March 12, 2013 - 6:29 am

    Do lead protectors help at all? I know whenever my kids get Xrays, the nurses put a lead protector on the lower half of their bodies.
    I’m so glad for all the information you’re providing!

  5. #6 by Joe Imbriano on March 12, 2013 - 8:52 am

    Thank you for your question Eileen. Lead protectors are necessary when being exposed to extremely dangerous ionizing radiation of a different frequency and wavelength which leads to damage to tissue and genetic material IMMEDIATELY such as x-rays and gamma rays.

    High frequency pulsed microwave radiation, on the other hand, which is what the wireless devices emit, have different properties and thus differing physiological effects.

    The wireless devices emit a pulsed high-frequency form of microwave radiation which interferes with the natural structure of water molecules. It results in the destabalization of the hydrogen bonds affecting water’s role in cell-to-cell communication, metabolism, it’s ability to bind cell structures together, and its needed ability to flush out waste material and poisons. All these natural functions of water are affected by the microwave technology. There are also studies that can be found here http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/
    that implicate the exposure to non-ionizing microwave radiation to a myriad of serious health concerns. I am not making this stuff up.

    Remember these devices are HELD in close proximity to the children’s SENSITIVE DEVELOPING REPRODUCTIVE AREAS FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME in the classroom setting.

    With the much lower frequency non-ionizing radiation such as microwaves, shielding can be accomplished with a variety of metals, even something as simple as aluminum foil. However, how practical is shielding when it is simply so easy to just eliminate the exposure with hardwired connections? This is the solution. Help us end this experiment on school children and get the word out. People simply are not aware and the school administrators just won’t even give the evidence any consideration. I urge all those involved in conducting this experiment and parents involved in supplying the test subjects to apply public pressure now. It is the only way to get these people to open their eyes and to put an end to what, in my opinion, amounts to the largest forced irradiation of school children that the world has ever seen.

  6. #7 by Continued on March 20, 2013 - 9:07 pm

    Hmm is anyone else encountering problems with the videos on this blog loading? I’m trying to find out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog. =Very interesting perspectives on an issue that has far reaching consequences for sure.

  7. #8 by Anonymous on March 20, 2013 - 10:29 pm

    This was a great video and really puts it into perspective. Wow!

  8. #9 by Anonymous on March 28, 2013 - 4:57 am

    Its like you read my mind! You appear to know so much
    about this, like you wrote the book in it or
    something. I think that you can do with a few pics to drive the message home a little bit, but other than that,
    this is wonderful blog. An excellent read. I’ll certainly be back.

    • #10 by Joe Imbriano on March 28, 2013 - 8:11 am

      Thank you for your post. The information on the dangers of this technology is readily available to anyone who seeks it. I appreciate your input. Tell your friends.

  9. #11 by Anonymous on April 3, 2013 - 11:13 am

    Helpful information.

  10. #12 by Joe Imbriano on April 17, 2013 - 7:51 pm

    Hard-wired systems are now available from computer stores that easily turn every electrical socket in a building into a internet port. This is another easy and safe solution for schools or homes.

  11. #13 by Patricia on April 18, 2013 - 9:57 pm

    Thank your for this video. I never knew there were any dangers related to any of this. The video is a real eye opener.

    This is all very new to me. I appreciate your site and will discuss this with my friends and co-workers for sure.

  12. #14 by Anonymous on April 19, 2013 - 10:00 am

    By watching this video, it appears that they are not safe.

  13. #15 by Anonymous on April 23, 2013 - 5:47 pm

    Thank you for this. It has me questioning a lot right now. We just purchased two IPads for our daughters last week.

  14. #16 by Domenic on May 2, 2013 - 6:25 am

    I think they are not. Thank you for this.

  15. #17 by Anonymous on May 24, 2013 - 1:18 pm


  16. #18 by melinda on May 30, 2013 - 6:29 am

    Mr. Imbrianio, did you show this video to your principal or school board members?

    • #19 by Joe Imbriano on May 30, 2013 - 9:06 am

      Yes. the Acacia elementary prinicipal, Dr. Whisnant was emailed the video and she called it “thought provoking”. In her email she thanked me for sending it to her and 3 months later, not a single word from her to this day on this issue even after I personally handed her information that she returned to me and me blanketing parents cars with this information at almost every public meeting Acacia has called. Acacia is ground zero for the district wide roll out of the 1:1 student to wireless device program.

      Superintendant Dr. Pletka was sent the video and other links and he responded to me by stating that a few articles here or there on this issue are not going to change either of our minds on this issue. It was that comment by Dr. Pletka, who by the way, has made a career out of installing this technology in every school district that he has worked at, that forced me to launch this blog on 3-5-13.

      This video was also sent to board member Chris Thompson and he has not responded to it in writing. He has only called me on the phone and told me that this (the wifi issue) doesn’t concern him as he is not convinced that is is dangerous. He has also told me on the phone that this argument over wireless is probably going nowhere. I interpret that to mean that they are not changing their position and he certainly is not moved by the information presented to date.

      All of the aforementioned individuals along with the entire administrative office of the FSD were emailed a link to this blog on MARCH 12. All the board members were repeatedly provided materials at three board meetings and since 3-5-13, I have not received one single written response regarding the safety concerns presented with the wireless classroom issue with the exception of a letter from Dr. Pletka on 5-16 that stated that the emissions were all legal and I will not be allowed to film and record measurements in my children’s classrooms. There has not been any written statement from the district, its staff or board members that state that they are even willing to look into the information that we have presented. They, thus far have chosen to simply ignore all of the research that we have presented and are moving forward. Unless the parents stand up, even more children will be subjected to unprecedented microwave EMF emissions in the FSD classrooms.

      I believe that they are ignoring all the research and studies out there because as educrats, they put all of their faith and trust in the FCC guidelines and current law. In my opinion, real leaders break rank when outside the box thinking is needed and the time comes to put the children first in a potentially dangerous situation. No one in the FSD is thinking outside of the box on this issue. Real leaders do not blindly trust what are in my opinion, outdated exposure guidelines. Do you as parents? There you have it folks.

      The administration needs to be held to a higher standard because they are the experts responsible for the safety and well being of the children. They cannot simply blindly follow top down edicts from the State Superintendent’s office which I believe is what they are doing. They are the stewards of the public trust. They certainly have lost most of mine and I believe when all is said and done and the parents open their eyes, they will have certainly lost most of their’s as well. It is never too late to do the right thing FSD. The truth will stand on its own.

  17. #20 by Joe Imbriano on June 15, 2013 - 11:43 am

    This post has been moved back to the front for the newcomers. To the players of East Fullerton Little League, congrats on a great season. To the parents, this is a clarion call to all of you to look into what I believe is already harming your children. Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Knowledge is power folks.

  18. #21 by R. Shulze on June 16, 2013 - 12:55 am

  19. #22 by Ray on June 16, 2013 - 12:04 pm

    Thank You, R. Shulze, for presenting that blog entry. It provides excellent examples of
    false and misleading information on the biological and health effects of WiFi.

    This is exactly the kind of material that school districts distribute amongst themselves, while somehow ignoring the massive amount of scientific and medical evidence that shows WiFi to be a toxic agent that is immensely harmful to human health.

    One of the article’s foundational tenets is that WiFi emits 1% of a typical cell phone. This is absolutely false and easily disproven.

    A quick look at Apple’s Important Product Information Guide for the iPad WiFi + 3G reveals that the highest SAR value for the WiFi 2.4 GHz is 1.19 W/kg and for the 1800/1900 MHz cell phone network is 1.18 W/kg, which is typical for SAR values of cell phones.

    In other words, an iPad emits more radiation than an iPhone.

    The article then goes on to say that there is no compelling evidence that cell phones pose a health risk. Again, this is blatantly false. All long term (greater than 10 years), studies on cell phones have found a significantly increased risk of cancer. Even the industry funded studies have reported this, although they tend to bury the data.

    Independently funded studies from Sweden have found that children are especially at risk, as their risk of high grade brain cancer increases by 4% for every 100 hours of use.

    Now, let’s do the math to get an idea of the increased cancer risk faced by children who use iPads in school.

    5 hours per day x 180 days x 12 years = 10,800 hours

    10,800 divided by 100 hours of use = 108

    108 x 4% = 432% increased risk of high grade cancer.

    Certainly these numbers aren’t perfect because they apply to cell phones and high grade brain cancer. iPads aren’t typically held directly against the head, but they are, however, held in very close proximity to the body. Significantly increased cancer risk would therefore be expected, especially given that young children are much more vulnerable.

    The article then states “Overall, there is little evidence of cellular effects of RF fields of health significance below current safety limits”. Again, blatantly false. Take a look at the Bioinitiative Report, released in 2007 and 2012, which presents THOUSANDS of peer reviewed studies showing RF radio frequency microwave radiation, at levels less than FCC guidelines, to cause adverse biological and health effects.

    I could go on, but please, is it really necessary? Do you really need more evidence?

    Aren’t thousands of studies enough?

    R. Shulze, what do you say about this?

    But first, please do your homework. Just take 5-10 minutes and look over the peer-reviewed science at http://www.wifiinschools.com

    Then get back with us.

    • #23 by Anonymous on August 12, 2013 - 9:53 pm

      Joe, I want to thank you for sending me the link to the article on WiFi dangers in school. I have talked and talked to all the school officials involved, to no avail. I feel as if I am talking to drug pushers about marijuana dangers. They are actually pushing us to give our kids access to their iPads “24/7” (their term). I measured my daughter’s iPad, and even with the cover on, even when not in use, as long as the WiFi is ON, the radiation pulses are about 1.6 million times the background radiation in my home. Multiply that times 20 devices in the room. The drop-off of the radiation was not 18 inches, as advertised, but about 4 feet. Homeschooling in a non-WiFi house is the only answer for now–until the Smart meters get installed. Thanks again.

  20. #24 by Joe Imbriano on June 16, 2013 - 12:51 pm

    I guess we will find out what levels of EMF radiation are present in the Fullerton School District’s classrooms as soon as superintendent Dr. Pletka hands over the emissions report from Acacia elementary that we are asking for. Once I receive that information, I can post the report along with the corresponding scientific studies that show non thermal biological effects on tissue at the observed corresponding power levels found to be present in Acacia Elementary’s 21st century classrooms that we have been forbidden from measuring ourselves.

    There are children as young as 5 years old that are literally 6 feet away all day long, 180 days a year for their entire school age lives, from these high powered industrial strength routers crammed into electronic sardine cans with 35+ ipads in all of their laps humming away all day long. This has never been done before ever. Is there a connection between all of this- .http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2013/05/18/cdc-1-in-5-us-children-may-have-mental-disorder/ and EMF? Not according to the RF industry and the educrats that keep ignoring the issue. I believe that there is indeed a direct connection and the trillion dollar wireless industry could care less. They will simply put this crap everywhere and make as much money as they can until someone in the government with a conscience puts a stop to it. Apparently even Mr. Obama is pushing this stuff on every school age child in the nation: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/p480x480/421229_10151686938719238_64289827_n.jpg.

    Ask any IT person with half a brain and they will tell you that wireless networks are a nightmare in terms of reliability, security and performance. Ask some scientific experts about the health risks to our children and you will see what they tell you. http://www.wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html

    The local school district administrators are just doing what they are told.https://thefullertoninformer.com/straight-from-the-horses-mouth/ The local school boards are just doing what will get them re-elected. The local parents don’t know any better, and the kids and their parents are already addicted to this dangerous technology. Facebook is just following orders blocking me from posting links. The media gatekeepers with their blackout on this issue are just following orders to protect the wireless industry. The local autism foundations are ignoring my emails after they have been presented with: https://thefullertoninformer.com/carbonyl-iron-and-orange-county-the-autism-capital-of-the-state/ and my children’s principal https://thefullertoninformer.com/what-do-you-mean-you-wont-forward-this-information/ just hopes that I will go away and keeps expanding the wireless programs https://thefullertoninformer.com/hot-off-the-press-the-dangers-of-wireless-classrooms-they-could-care-less/. I am sure she is not alone in her sentiment but that doesn’t change what I believe to be the facts.

    The absolutely astonishing list of visitors spanning the entire globe who have been to this site would freak most people out. It is completely obvious that our finger is squarely pressed on a huge nerve right now and we are going to keep it there and press a lot harder until all of the facts on this issue and the necessary ensuing debate makes it to front and center stage in every living room in America.

    I believe that the school children are now part of the largest forced irradiation program that the world has ever seen. There are a lot of people that you may have deceived yourselves into thinking are good people, who are actually the ones who are helping to carry the experiment out. There are some who are involved who as of yet, still do not clearly understand what they are part of. Finally, there are those who have no qualms about making it painstakingly obvious as to what kind of people they are, who and what they serve, and what their true intentions really are. May God help us.

  21. #25 by Anonymous on June 16, 2013 - 2:16 pm

    R. Shulz, thank you for your link to the neurologist.

    Do you have any other information that you can share with us that shows the opposite perspective on this issue?

  22. #26 by freudian tools on June 16, 2013 - 5:27 pm


    This Yale guy is an RF industry hack. There are so many holes in that thing, I could drive my truck through it. At least on this blog, the street is 2 ways, unlike the others where posts representing opposing viewpoints just simply vanish into thin air.

    By the way, where the heck is our stand up board member Chris Thompson in all of this? I can understand the other four are too busy getting their pictures taken and getting their nails and hair done, but where does Chris weigh in on all of this?

  23. #27 by R.D. on June 17, 2013 - 9:42 am

    Watched the entire video. Unbelievable! Excellent! Wake up America!

    • #28 by Anonymous on June 17, 2013 - 2:48 pm

      I agree. How can these people ignore this?

    • #29 by Joe Imbriano on June 17, 2013 - 11:31 pm

      RD, that is why we are here. To ignore this issue is despicable.

  24. #30 by Ray on June 18, 2013 - 7:57 am

    Fullerton School board members:

    This is an open invitation to all parties to discuss the scientific evidence regarding the health impacts of wireless technology to children.

    If you have any questions, concerns, reservations, or areas that you would like to explore, please, post them here. You can do so anonymously.

    As a community health advocate, I offer to walk through this with you.

    This is the kind of engagement of material evidence that the children deserve.

    • #31 by Anonymous on June 18, 2013 - 12:11 pm

      Ray that is an excellent offer and as a parent watching from the sidelines, I am waiting for the first board member to step up to accept your offer. It is very admirable of you and you are extremely knowledgeable on this subject. We would benefit greatly as a community from such an exchange.

      It is nice to see that high road is wide open right now for the administration and board. I hope they decide to take it.

  25. #32 by Anonymous on June 18, 2013 - 5:34 pm

    I just don’t get it. Why would the school district ignore this information? It sounds like they see nothing wrong with any of this and yet this web site has links to all kinds of information that claims wireless is not safe for kids in class. How can there be such a disparity in perceived risk?

  26. #33 by Anonymous on June 18, 2013 - 10:32 pm

    Nice work tonight Joe.

  27. #34 by visitor on June 19, 2013 - 10:59 pm

    Mr. Imbriano, you would be wise to get this video in front of the Fullerton School Board of Trustees at their next meeting as well as in front of the public at the next Fullerton City Council meeting. This information needs to get exposed.

  28. #35 by Anonymous on June 20, 2013 - 9:02 am

    I watched this video and followed the links to wifiinschools website. I am literally as confused as anyone could get. How could all of this be true and how could the people at the district ignore all of this? It is very alarming.

  29. #36 by Ray on June 21, 2013 - 6:48 am

    The main reason the school district can ignore this information is that many mainstream websites state that WiFi is safe.

    School officials are then typically satisfied after superficially viewing such information, and fail to examine other reports that may conflict with what they want to hear.

    Let’s examine a prime example by the World Health Organization

    This outdated 2006 fact sheet makes numerous false statements that can easily be indentified by someone fluent with the body of scientific knowledge.

    First it states that cell phone studies have not identified adverse biological or health effects. This is completely false. As stated in an earlier post, ALL long term case control studies on cell phones (over 10 years) have reported a substantial increase in cancer rates. Children are especially vulnerable.

    For an overview of cell phone studies, I recommend this presentation by scientist Lloyd Morgan: http://vimeo.com/17265162

    Then it erroneously states that no long or short term health effects have been shown to occur from cell towers (base stations). This is blatantly false. Anyone who looks at cell tower studies can see that most of the research reports that these high frequency microwave transmitters cause sharp increases in cancer and neurological issues for those living nearby. (Less than 500 meters)

    We have provided this research here: http://www.wifiinschools.com/studiesreports.html

    Also, this document is fairly convenient, as it provides 15 pages of abstracts that anyone could read through. Or it can be read aloud to those that would not like to read it themselves.


    Cell towers studies are especially relevant to the issue of WiFi safety, because they examine whole body, long-term exposure to microwave radiation, much like what will be experienced in concentrated doses within the schools.

    The reality is that WiFi technology in schools emits more radiation that either cell towers or cell phones, and given that children are especially vulnerable due to a variety of biological factors, such as undeveloped immune systems, rapidly dividing DNA, and a higher water content, many expert scientists and medical doctors are taking a stand.

    Anyone who takes even a brief look at the scientific literature will see that there is substantial and compelling evidence to show that RF microwave radiation is harmful.

    The question is if the school board members will even look.

    • #37 by Anonymous on June 21, 2013 - 12:11 pm

      Ray the elected leaders and public employees all over the US are soon going to have to begin to earn their keep. Their lazy buts aren’t big enough to keep the lid on this. You present such a compelling argument that the only defense these people can claim is ignorance and that is precisely why they will attempt to continue to ignore it.

      You should attend the board and council meetings with Mr. Imbriano. I feel that you two together would be very effective. They cannot ignore you if you are standing rignt in front of them.

  30. #38 by Joe Imbriano on June 21, 2013 - 9:17 am

    please read the following comment that was posted on the https://thefullertoninformer.com/ this morning

    joe imbriano
    10:58 AM (0 minutes ago)

    to chris_thompson, beverly_berrym., janny_meyer, lynn_thornley, hilda_sugarman, ocbe
    #35 by Ray on June 21, 2013 – 6:48 am

    The main reason the school district can ignore this information is that many mainstream websites state that WiFi is safe.

    School officials are then typically satisfied after superficially viewing such information, and fail to examine other reports that may conflict with what they want to hear.

    Let’s examine a prime example by the World Health Organization

    This outdated 2006 fact sheet makes numerous false statements that can easily be indentified by someone fluent with the body of scientific knowledge.

    First it states that cell phone studies have not identified adverse biological or health effects. This is completely false. As stated in an earlier post, ALL long term case control studies on cell phones (over 10 years) have reported a substantial increase in cancer rates. Children are especially vulnerable.

    For an overview of cell phone studies, I recommend this presentation by scientist Lloyd Morgan: http://vimeo.com/17265162

    Then it erroneously states that no long or short term health effects have been shown to occur from cell towers (base stations). This is blatantly false. Anyone who looks at cell tower studies can see that most of the research reports that these high frequency microwave transmitters cause sharp increases in cancer and neurological issues for those living nearby. (Less than 500 meters)

    We have provided this research here: http://www.wifiinschools.com/studiesreports.html

    Also, this document is fairly convenient, as it provides 15 pages of abstracts that anyone could read through. Or it can be read aloud to those that would not like to read it themselves.


    Cell towers studies are especially relevant to the issue of WiFi safety, because they examine whole body, long-term exposure to microwave radiation, much like what will be experienced in concentrated doses within the schools.

    The reality is that WiFi technology in schools emits more radiation that either cell towers or cell phones, and given that children are especially vulnerable due to a variety of biological factors, such as undeveloped immune systems, rapidly dividing DNA, and a higher water content, many expert scientists and medical doctors are taking a stand.

    Anyone who takes even a brief look at the scientific literature will see that there is substantial and compelling evidence to show that RF microwave radiation is harmful.

    The question is if the school board members will even look.

    – See more at: https://thefullertoninformer.com/wireless-classrooms-are-they-safe/#comment-15028


    Joe Imbriano

    site administrator for https://thefullertoninformer.com/

  31. #39 by Joe Imbriano on June 21, 2013 - 9:20 am

    date: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM
    subject: You all need to read this comment posted on https://thefullertoninformer.com/ this morning
    mailed-by: gmail.com

    joe imbriano
    10:46 AM (0 minutes ago)

    to Robert, RHendrick, bob_pletka, Karen, katina_rhodes, GGIOKARIS, alison_nordyke, Susan, childwelfare, edservices, Jackie_pearce, jflory1, Mar, news, TJ, suptoffice, troynewspaper, wirelesswatch, William, Davis, JenniferF, GregSebourn, council, bcc: Ray
    #35 by Ray on June 21, 2013 – 6:48 am

    The main reason the school district can ignore this information is that many mainstream websites state that WiFi is safe.

    School officials are then typically satisfied after superficially viewing such information, and fail to examine other reports that may conflict with what they want to hear.

    Let’s examine a prime example by the World Health Organization

    This outdated 2006 fact sheet makes numerous false statements that can easily be indentified by someone fluent with the body of scientific knowledge.

    First it states that cell phone studies have not identified adverse biological or health effects. This is completely false. As stated in an earlier post, ALL long term case control studies on cell phones (over 10 years) have reported a substantial increase in cancer rates. Children are especially vulnerable.

    For an overview of cell phone studies, I recommend this presentation by scientist Lloyd Morgan: http://vimeo.com/17265162

    Then it erroneously states that no long or short term health effects have been shown to occur from cell towers (base stations). This is blatantly false. Anyone who looks at cell tower studies can see that most of the research reports that these high frequency microwave transmitters cause sharp increases in cancer and neurological issues for those living nearby. (Less than 500 meters)

    We have provided this research here: http://www.wifiinschools.com/studiesreports.html

    Also, this document is fairly convenient, as it provides 15 pages of abstracts that anyone could read through. Or it can be read aloud to those that would not like to read it themselves.


    Cell towers studies are especially relevant to the issue of WiFi safety, because they examine whole body, long-term exposure to microwave radiation, much like what will be experienced in concentrated doses within the schools.

    The reality is that WiFi technology in schools emits more radiation that either cell towers or cell phones, and given that children are especially vulnerable due to a variety of biological factors, such as undeveloped immune systems, rapidly dividing DNA, and a higher water content, many expert scientists and medical doctors are taking a stand.

    Anyone who takes even a brief look at the scientific literature will see that there is substantial and compelling evidence to show that RF microwave radiation is harmful.

    The question is if the school board members will even look.

    – See more at: https://thefullertoninformer.com/wireless-classrooms-are-they-safe/#comment-15028


    Joe Imbriano

    site administrator for https://thefullertoninformer.com/

  32. #40 by Veritas on June 22, 2013 - 5:59 pm

    Everyone, If you think that the governmental entities, such as the FCC Enforcement Bureau, charged with ensuring your safety is doing their job, the evidence says they are NOT:


    Here is the lead paragraph from The EMR Policy Institute article:
    Americans Beware: Nationwide Violations of FCC Radiation Limits at Wireless Antenna Sites
    MARSHFIELD, VT–(Marketwire – Mar 20, 2013) – The EMRadiation Policy Institute (EMRPI) releases Videos revealing the FCC’s failure to protect Americans from wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation.
    US workers and families are at risk of overexposure to RF at hazardous levels. Hundreds of wireless industry-operated antenna sites from Maine to California have been tested by EMRPI and found to be in gross violation — up to and in excess of 600% — of the FCC’s public exposure limits. These sites include rooftops as well as locations where the general public, including children, can gain access, and where workers are on the job.

    We are relying on the FCC to be ensuring our safety; THEY ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB.

    Ref: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/-1770139.htm

  33. #41 by Veritas on June 22, 2013 - 6:23 pm

    Here is the headline: Government Should Tell Canadians About Wireless Safety: FMR Microsoft Canada President

    OTTAWA — The former president of Microsoft Canada says the federal government has a duty to inform Canadians about safety concerns related to wireless technology.

    “We have a responsibility as adults, as parents, as legislators to inform people so they can make intelligent decisions,” Frank Clegg said in an interview with QMI Agency.

    Clegg, who is regarded as a pioneer in the development of Canada’s technology sector, is now on an awareness mission. He’s building a new organization — Citizens for Safe Technology — along with a team of partners.

    Clegg’s organization plans to provide consumer safety tips and scientific information about technology including cell towers, cellular phones and wireless Internet. He says the government doesn’t share this information effectively enough, despite a growing body of scientific evidence of safety issues.

    Even the Microsoft President says there are safety concerns and has formed “Citizens for Safe Technology”!!!!!


    I could keep retrieving more evidence, but I have to take off for an Angels game.

  34. #43 by technical perspective on June 26, 2013 - 1:54 pm

    Wi-Fi in Schools Nov 2011 Dr Andrew Goldsworthy

    Most of the damage done by digital telecommunications is not due to heating but by the electrical
    effect their pulsating signals have on living tissues, which occurs at much lower energy levels.
    The human body can act as an antenna and the signals make electric currents flow through it in time with the pulsations. It is this that does the bulk of the damage by destabilising the delicate membranes that surround each cell and also divide it into internal compartment such as mitochondria (the energy factories of the cell) and the lysosomes (the cell’s recycling factories).
    All of these membranes are just two molecules thick and have a similar basic structure. They are liquid crystals, made largely of negatively charged molecules (which repel one another) stabilised by divalent positive ions (mostly calcium) that sit in between them by mutual attraction and hold them together like mortar holds together the bricks in a wall.
    It was first shown by Bawin et. al. in the 1970s that weak amplitude modulated radio waves, where the strength of the signal rises and falls at low frequencies, could remove some of this calcium from brain cell membranes. This destabilises them and make them more likely to leak. The low frequency pulsations of Wi-Fi and mobile phone signals can be expected to behave in much the same way.-
    This is important in the brain because the normal function of brain cells depends on the controlled passage of specific ions through their membranes. When these membranes leak, ions flow through them in a relatively uncontrolled way, which results in brain hyperactivity and may cause attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in some people. When this occurs in the brain of a foetus or very young child it prevents normal brain development, which may result in autism (see http://mcs- america.org/june2011pg2345.pdf ) . Wi-Fi should therefore be considered as an impediment rather than an aid to learning and may be particularly hazardous for pregnant teachers.
    Effects on the peripheral nervous system are equally damaging since hyperactivity here causes false sensations such as pain, heat, cold, and pins and needles in some people (i.e. symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity). Hyperactivity in the cells of the inner ear can cause tinnitus and affect the sense of balance causing dizziness and symptoms of motion sickness, including nausea. Pupils showing any of these symptoms should be treated with sympathy and the Wi-Fi switched off.
    Many other effects on health can be attributed to membrane leakage, including damage to DNA due to the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) from mitochondria, and digestive enzymes from lysosomes. Such DNA damage can cause a loss of fertility and an increased risk of getting cancer.
    Membrane leakage can also open the blood-brain barrier, leading to Alzheimer’s disease and early dementia. There are similar barriers protecting all of our body surfaces from foreign chemicals. Damage to these can cause or exacerbate a variety of illnesses, including asthma, multiple allergies and autoimmune disorders such as multiple sclerosis. More on these, including references, can be found at http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/cell_phone_and_cell.pdf
    Fortunately, because of genetic variability, not everyone will suffer the same symptoms and many may suffer none at all but, for the sake of those that do suffer, Wi-Fi is not a good idea in schools or anywhere else for that matter.

  35. #44 by R.D. on June 27, 2013 - 2:06 pm

    We need to show this video at next clowncil meeting.

  36. #45 by R. Shulze on July 5, 2013 - 6:00 pm

    Thanks for posting my last comment. Its funny that you should mention the Bio-Initiative. In fact much of your blog will serve well for a course on recognizing and identifying logical fallacies. There is more information here: http://emfandhealth.com/ … not that I expect facts to sway anyone. To quote:

    “Some alarmists, such as the Bio-Initiative group have argued that studies do not need to be consistent to raise cause for concern. But this is completely contrary to the way science works. The COMAR Expert Review paper debunks the shoddy studies cited in the Bio-Initiative Report. See the following section on in vitro studies for more examples.”

    I would honestly be more worried about the amount of GMOs my kids were getting in their food, the hormones/antibiotics in milk, or the fluoride in water. We need to cast a wider net and not single out EMF. There are more rodent carcinogens in a single cup of coffee than potentially carcinogenic pesticide residues in the average American diet in a year, and we’re worried about EMF?

    • #46 by jgarrison on July 6, 2013 - 12:35 am

      As a parent all I have to do is read the letters from all of the PhDs, scientists, MDs and researchers to know that WiFi does not belong in my child’s classroom. At the moment, I am deeply concerned that my 8th grader will start school in the fall with a classroom full of 36 Ipads operating 6 hrs a day for the whole school year. This is an imminent danger to my child and we have no choice in the matter. We must get involved.
      If you worry about the amount of GMO’s your children are getting, then be a parent and do something about it. If you want to buy hormone/antibiotic free milk, it is easily done. If the fluoride in the water bothers you, buy bottled water. Oh, and the coffee, there, again, be a parent and don’t feed them coffee. In each of these cases you brought up, you have a choice in the matter. You also have a choice to advocate for what you believe.
      EMF is being singled out because schools are making a harmful safety decision for our children.

      We have no choice in the matter. It’s not like GMO food, milk, fluoride, or the coffee you choose to feed your kids. In each of these instances, you, as a parent, have control over these things. With WiFi in the classroom the kids have no choice for getting or not getting the radiation.

      There is just so much information and sources articulating the harm of EMF radiation that it is apparent to anyone willing to look that this does not belong in our children’s classrooms.

      And, why would you argue for not worrying “about EMF”? Is EMF radiation your “sacred cow?”

    • #47 by Joe Imbriano on July 6, 2013 - 11:34 am

      Thank you for your post. The fluoride, the vaccines, and the GMOs, pesticides, and antibiotics are all easily avoidable with an RO filter, an immunization waiver, your own garden and with organic stores. Lets not forget the allopathic petrochemical poisons, high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame potassium, hydrolized protiens, di sodium guanylates, tumor dogs, autolized yeast extracts, blue lake 40s, potassium sorbates, trans fats and all the rest of the health destroying compounds VOLUNTARILY AND CONSCIOUSLY being ingested like whiskey in an old mining town on payday.

      The unprecedented EMF exposures in the compulsory education system and the clear and present danger that they pose to the students, however, are not avoidable and thus are the focal point of our attention and efforts. There are literally thousand of peer reviewed studies that show the dangers of EMF exposures are real. There are absolutely no studies that demonstrate that the proposed classroom applications of this technology are clearly safe. Rolling this out is what I believe to be called forced irradiation of school children.

      There is no substitute for a healthy diet and a good immune system as good nutrition and proper sanitation are things we should all be thankful for. Sadly people are losing touch with common sense as it relates to taking care of their children. They therefore rely on an industry that offers no solutions and can only manage diseases. I cannot get the vaccines out of the children however I can and have educated parents of ways to avoid them. The school districts continue to hide the immunization waivers in the office instead of in the enrollment packets where they belong. If you were clearly concerned about the well being of children you too would be concerned about pumping 35 shots full of unspeakable compounds not limited to toxic chemicals, modified pathogens and genetic materials and who knows what else into these kids before they show up to the microwave chambers seated under the router.

      EMF is clearly the most insidious threat as it so stealth and has quickly become so ubiquitous. What is going on under the auspices of 21st century learning is nothing more than window dressing on the largest forced irradiation program involving children that the world has ever seen. There are no studies at all on the long term effects of the EMF exposures that these wireless classroom environments will have on our children. We are simply making the studies we enroll the subjects every fall. Most concerning, aside from the detrimental effects on cognitive function, are the reproductive ramifications. The science that you refer to has only 20/20 hindsight. Based on the scope of, the sheer volume of and the amazing nature of the visitors to this site, it is obvious we have struck a nerve, the biggest nerve that there is. The Autism epidemic is just collateral damage from a much larger undertaking. In my opinion, there is no entity that has a greater role in the destruction of our children’s health than the school districts with their color of law mandates on immunizations, GMO and antibiotic laced feeding programs rife with factory farm pesticide and now the microwave chambers that used to be called classrooms.

      My kids can bring their own lunch, bring filtered water, avoid the drugs and crap like the plague, but not the RF emissions Mr Shulze. Ignoring this fact simply shows that you are on the wrong side of things or are simply naive.

      Ending Fullerton’s water fluoridation will not be on our agenda anytime soon. Our position is that the municipalities need to be fluoridating the Coca Cola, Starbucks and the Gatorade as no one drinks water any more.

      For now the Trojan Horse of the 21st Century classrooms replete with microwave emitting toys must be exposed and defeated in the FSD.

      Are you by any chance a medical professional or in the wellness field? If so read the autism article I wrote. Spend some time there and also on the http://www.wifiinschools.com/ site.

      Your perspective is always welcome here and thanks for stopping by.

  37. #48 by Anonymous on July 5, 2013 - 7:13 pm

    Are you by any chance a medical professional or in the medical field?

  38. #49 by Ray on July 6, 2013 - 3:00 am

    R Shultz, you’re back, and you brought with you with more industry-speak.

    I’ll offer, as before, to go through the details with you.

    Before we start, doesn’t it concern you that the COMAR “expert review” that you cited comes from the IEEE, or the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers?

    The IEEE is a trade organization that refers to itself as the “world’s largest professional association for the advancement of technology.”

    I assume that you haven’t researched the IEEE before, but doesn’t this create a few red flags for you as far as a possible conflict of interest?

  39. #50 by R. Shulze on July 6, 2013 - 2:28 pm

    Two words… Home Scool. You have the right to protect your kids from whatever you fear. The fact that you would continue to expose your children to EMF is shameful if in fact you are convinced of its effects. If your article is peer reviewed and published in a journal I would be happy to take a look at it. My rights to have my children in a school that prepares them for the future and not be exposed to a cadre of unvaccinated disease resovoirs is no less valid than your rights. So we come to an impass. Who’s rights are more important and why? How much of the school districts money need be wasted on defending attacks. 250,000 children are injured every year, and 2000 killed, in car accidents in the US alone. This is a fact and people still continue to put their kids in cars. This blatant disregard for life can not stand, or can it? Life it turns out is about risks an benefits and I agree we need to minimize the risks whenever possible but if people continue to want to use cars, we’re going to have too accept 2000 dead kids a year. Or am I way off here? Maybe we should go back 1000 years when all food was organic and there was no pollution or EMF, but life expectancy was about 40. I’ll take my chances in the modern world.

    • #51 by Joe Imbriano on July 6, 2013 - 4:19 pm

      Home school is an option for the privileged but not for most doc. I am not choosing to continue to expose my kids to EMF. I pulled my son out of a class last year that used wireless devices and made sure that both kids were placed in a classes that had no routers.

      Mr. Schulze are you saying that you won’t take the time to read the article because it is not peer reviewed? That is ludicrous. Give it a read. As far as preparing kids for the future, wire the computers and problem solved.

      As far as the vaccine issue, there is no substitute for good wholesome nutrition, fresh air, sunlight, sleep, exercise, clean water and good clean blood. All of which are possible with today’s advances in sanitation, technology, food distribution and the use of good old common sense.

      Your argument that the unvaccinated are a cadre of disease reservoirs couldn’t be further from the truth. What those vaccinated children have become as a result of being injected with the live and attenuated modified strains of human and animal pathogens,fragments of trans species DNA, RNA and the like are exactly what you refer to as the cadre and reservior.

      Besides if the vaccines work, what’s the problem? But the shots are not really the issue because they are mandatory and that means that they are NOT REQUIRED. When I was a kid the air was filthy, the waterways were full of toxic waste, we burned our trash, lead was in the gas, the paint, the air, mercury was in the shots, the amalgans, the coal, the mercurochrome for our cuts, in dads hat liner, we had about 8 shots and we were just fine with virtually no Autism. Now we have 36 shots before age 6. 1 in 5 kids has a mental disorder in 2013 EMF is everywhere thanks to the FCC,the RF industry and now the school districts. Public health is on the decline and chronic pediatric conditions are a virtual epidemic. The flesh mechanics have full lobbies and people like you know this and make a living off of this.

      How much money do I have to spend fending off an attack on all of our childrens’ health by the school district with their irresponsible technology plans?

      There is no impasse as there is much for both of us to learn. I am very open minded. If you are the medical guy that I think you are, then you should be opening your eyes to instead of dancing around the vaccines and the emf issue that everyone in the medical establishment bows down to on a daily basis, telling everyone including the schools to dig up their front yards, playgrounds and plant a garden, filter the water, shut off the WiFi, question the color of law injection mandates stop shopping at the glorified liquor stores called supermarkets full of GMO, antibiotic laced factory farm garbage, and how some keep hawking alcohol laced extracts and spinal adjustments with promises to cure everything under the sun.

      I would like to point out that the life expectancy argument that you refer to is fatally flawed. You see the it is all front loaded. People are not living longer, the infant mortality rates have drastically improved due to the general advances in pediatric medicine, technological advances in neonatal intensive care and general improvements with home heating and water treatment. 1000 years ago if you made it past 5 and lived where food could be grown you could make it to 100 unless you were killed by an animal, a drunk or a savage. Not today, as most people are totally falling apart for a variety of reasons that I mentioned in the prior comment. EMF is finishing the job.

      I take risks all day long and the biggest one of all is me putting my name all over exposing this agenda against children all over the world and it is worth taking. I drive cars and my kids ride bikes. Those are voluntary calculated risks whose inherent dangers are a 50% function of the skill of the risk taker. Wireless classrooms are not in the same category of risk because in reality, they are by their very nature, not voluntary as a result of the school district’s policies and the RF industry’s insidious marketing program, nor are they a necessity as they can be completely avoided by hard wiring the devices. The risks are being downplayed by people like you or intentionally hidden by people like the school districts and the government.

      The EMF exposure is now REQUIRED and many cannot afford to home school. I have ample resources for plan B for my family, but most do not. I am advocating for everyone’s children because I know exactly what this agenda involves and it has very little to do with education. I believe that you know what I am referring to but if you don’t I will give you a hint-it has to do with fertility. In addition, what is going on in the homes as a result of this technology, ie, the need for Wifi in the home so the kids can do their homework on these tablets is another concern.

      Hardwired computers with keyboards are the way to go if you want to prepare them for the future. Tablets are 2 dimensional learning tools which simply train children to be list verifiers.

      I really appreciate your joining us. So tell us all what you do for a living. What is you cup of tea pal? Are you a doctor? I am out in the open, so how about you? How much did the FSD pay you to spend hours on this blog? You appear to an advocate for the RF industry and the vaccine manufacturers.Have you ever read this? http://www.physiology.columbia.edu/MartinBlank.html

      Hmm…geepers, if a fork in a microwave gives off a light show, an anemic fetus under the WiFi all day comes out Autistic, sperm deformities are the norm for short term laptop exposure, then what the heck could possibly be going on with the nano particles being injected into our children with the WiFi going all day and night? Inquiring minds want to know. Maybe that is why this site is getting a mind numbing amount of hits from all over the planet. Yes we are on the radar and we plan to stay there.

      In Jesus name we will prevail in opening the eyes of the blind. This transcends far beyond that of the confines of the Fullerton School District and in my opinion, their petty, inept administrators and their worshippers. Those on the wrong side in this information war will only remain there by their own volition. The truth always stands on its own and the truth will truly set you free. Humanity must seek it all costs. Wireless affects us all. Get informed and open your eyes.

    • #52 by jgarrison on July 6, 2013 - 9:08 pm

      Most parents are both out working to put food on the table for their families. Do you really think that everyone can just drop their financial obligations to home school?
      Don’t you care about the safety of the children? Don’t you think safety should be #1? Technology can be safely accessed in schools via wired means. Why wouldn’t you want to use the safest technology for the children? Do you care about the children?

      • #53 by amateur night on July 6, 2013 - 9:48 pm

        Yeah most homes don’t even have 2 parents anymore and some have one working 2 jobs just to fork out the taxes to pay Pletkas 200k bonanza and his sidekicks 160K so they can eat bacon in Europe in the summers, bury their heads in the sand and hire hacks to blow off the fringies.

        Ya think Shulzeepoo cares about the kids? He’s a hack too waiting for his instructions.. Hey R-answer Ray will ya?

  40. #54 by jgarrison on July 6, 2013 - 9:03 pm

    How come R. Schulze won’t answer Ray’s questions in #49?

    • #55 by amateur night on July 6, 2013 - 9:41 pm

      He is probably waiting for FSD’s legal to get back to him.

  41. #56 by R. Shulze on July 6, 2013 - 11:39 pm

    Look, there are people out there that believe in an invisible man in the sky that cares about them, and there is more evidence that EMF is harmful than that he exists. When engaging those people we are not playing by the same rules and that makes it difficult. And if you think that the powers that be can pursuade someone to “toe the line” to a point where they would endanger their own kids, well that’s fairly grim. I’m willing to even say that EMF may possibly be harmfull but at this point, in my considered opinion, the prepondance of the evidence indicates that it is unlikely. Tomorrow new information may come to light and I may change my opinion. I do know that today between 4000 and 8000 children starved to death and tomorrow while we discuss EMF another 4 – 8000 will starve to death too. I just feal that priority wise we are missing the point. If EMF killed 4000 children a day this would be a different conversation. I guess we all are entitled to have our causes. My education and background is irrelevant unless we really want to stoop to an argument from authority. I agree that the maximum age may not have changed much but the average or median has, for some of the reasons you pointed out. There is a difference.

    • #57 by jgarrison on July 7, 2013 - 8:24 am

      So, in your mind, we need to have 4000 children killed per day by EMF before we have “a different conversation?” Really?

    • #58 by jgarrison on July 7, 2013 - 8:39 am

      By “invisible man,” do you mean God? Are you putting down all people who have faith: Christians, Hindus, Islamists, Buddhists, Jewish, as those “out there that believe in an invisible man in the sky?” I don’t get it, are you trying to push atheism on this blog?

      This blog is about safe technology in the school PERIOD.

  42. #59 by R. Shulze on July 6, 2013 - 11:56 pm

    Ray: yes it does and yes it was considered. I’m always a bit leery of blogs that allow people to use aliases or remain anonymous. It completely devaluates their opinions.

    • #60 by Joe Imbriano on July 11, 2013 - 11:07 pm

      Then why don’t you come out in the open and dialogue using you real name?

  43. #61 by jgarrison on July 7, 2013 - 8:14 am

    As a parent, anyone arguing for a position other than a precautionary one tells me that they value technology devices in each of the kids’ hands over their health and safety.

    What does that say about someone?

  44. #62 by Ray on July 7, 2013 - 8:36 am

    R. Schulze,

    Thank you for responding to my comment regarding your use of a trade group document as a source.

    As I look back though your comments, it looks to me as if you simply had a knee-jerk reaction. This is very common, unfortunately. You saw the information on this site stating that WiFi-emitted microwave radiation poses a serious health threat to children, and you did what most people do at first – you tried to prove it wrong.

    It makes sense. We already have enough serious health issues to deal with as it is. It would be much easier to believe that microwave radiation doesn’t cause harm to children, or that the government and industry worked side by side to ensure that these devices didn’t emit harmful radiation.

    I truly wish that were the case, but the science flatly shows otherwise. It is impossible for something to be safe if thousands of peer reviewed studies show it to be harmful.

    We are all entitled to our own beliefs, but not our own facts.

    Use your head. As parents and community members, we need to be cautious rather than brazen when it comes to the health and welfare of children. It is said early part of the video, and throughout this site that there is substantial scientific evidence, but in comment #50 you state that you would be willing to look at peer-reviewed research?

    You appear to be well-meaning, and not just an industry troll, so why the heck not at least look at the evidence on RF radiation before slinging around your industry quotes?


    Perhaps start with #2:

    Yakymenko et al. 2011. Long-Term Exposure to Microwave Radiation Provokes Cancer Growth: Evidence From Radar and Mobile Communications Systems.

    • #63 by Joe Imbriano on July 7, 2013 - 5:36 pm

      People think that if they are part of a system that they are safe. The system is like an onion. The people would freak out if they realized how many layers this thing has and how no one is really inhabiting a layer that offers them any real security. Denial is a choice and the only religion that works for those that refuse to deal with reality. There are 300 channels of mindless diversions, endless aisles of booze and wine, and food selections to eat yourself into a pine box all the while the social engineers pay inept lapdogs top dollar to look the other way and go with the program.

      Bottom line, when something is too good to be true, it usually is. Science has 20/20 hindsight. Billions of people’s physical, mental and reproductive health is on the line with this issue.

      I will quote Mr. Tesla and this applies to everyone including those in the golden handcuffs- ” But instinct is something which transcends knowledge. We have, undoubtedly, certain finer fibers that enable us to perceive truths when logical deduction, or any other willful effort of the brain, is futile.”

      To those in the golden handcuffs-you don’t need a key to open them because they are not locked. Take ’em off and do the right thing. Stand up for the children. The FCC guidelines intentionally ignore non-thermal effects and require no license for the 2.0-5.0 GhZ frequencies BY DESIGN. The proliferation of these emissions THUS BECOMES GUARANTEED AND THAT IS THE PLAN.

  45. #64 by Ray on July 12, 2013 - 2:26 am

    I agree, denial is a choice, and it is amazing how capable we as humans can be of blocking out unwanted information.

    R Schulze – what happened? It’s been five days and I haven’t heard from you since providing you one, only one peer reviewed paper.

    Are you going to quietly slip away, refusing to admit to yourself or to the public that there is substantial evidence that RF microwave radiation causes harm to human health?

    You have inferred in an earlier post that you occupy a position of authority due to your education and background.

    If that’s the case, and you are an MD or other authority, then why not address this issue rather than just submitting dismissing statements?

    If you do occupy a position of authority then you have a greater responsibility to addressing the public health issue before us.

  46. #65 by jgarrison on July 12, 2013 - 4:45 pm

    “Wireless classrooms, are they safe?” maybe should read “Wireless classrooms, are they LEGAL?”

    How legal is it to expose children to radiation levels that research has shown is harmful to them? Don’t the children have any legal rights to a safe school environment? Do their rights go away because the school board can point to outdated, 1996 FCC rules that don’t address non-thermal wireless radiation? What is the legal liability of the superintendent and school board for refusing to look at information?

  47. #66 by jgarrison on July 12, 2013 - 5:12 pm

    How ethical is it for a superintendent and school board to close themselves off to information that constituents and parents are showing them?

    This is behavior from people who do not have a leg to stand on.

  48. #67 by R. Shulze on July 12, 2013 - 5:24 pm

    Sorry, I got bored but will try one more time. This is not my first rodeo with people who don’t science and it is my experience that it is neer impossible to change someone’s mind so why try? In this case I will try because I hope to avoid wasting more of the district money, my money, in defending against assaults. On that note, please consider reimbursing the district for expenses they have had to incur as a result this campaign. Anyway, to move ahead we need to decide on a paper/systematic review as being authoritative rather than cherry picking studies that support our opinion. I would agree to IARC monograph Vol 102, published in 2013, wich classifies RF-EMF radiation as Group 2B, or “possibly carcinogenic”. ( http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/index.php ). It’s 480 pages and reviewing it I actually found that there are studies that showed a decrease in relative risk of Glioma following moderate exposure to EMF ( leaving me wondering why you would possibly exclude these studies from your website… ) If it is not acceptable as authoritative I am willing to consider others but please let’s not go down in “level of evidence”.

    As far as my level of education Ray, if you want me to say that I have postdoctoral training in neurobiology and quantum physics and therefor I’m right and you’re wrong, well I won’t. Individual expert opinion is at the bottom of that “level of evidence” pyramid and I know it won’t convince anyone here, including me. Well, if it would let me know and I can save us some time.

    Yes, I did just say that there are studies that show that EMF may help prevent brain tumors/cancer… And you would have the audacity of sugesting that the School district remove those life saving EMF generators from our classrooms… The nerve. ( that’s satire by the way 😉 )

    • #68 by parent on July 12, 2013 - 5:52 pm

      Please take a look at the numerous letters from experts that have studied and know the subject matter: http://www.wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html#sthash.ezNs83O0.dpuf

      They are ALL saying WiFi in schools is harmful to our children.

      Aren’t you the same R. Shulze who inferred that unless 4,000 children’s lives were lost per day from wireless radiation, it was a non-issue and not worthy of a “conversation?”
      Oh, and the same one that puts down those who have faith in God?

      Yep, it was comment #55

    • #69 by dawn on July 12, 2013 - 5:59 pm

      Bored, huh? Time to move on to an audience that does science. You’re just too advanced for us and then you don’t have to waste any more of your money “in defending against assaults.”

  49. #70 by parent on July 12, 2013 - 5:28 pm

    Please be advised of the wireless radiation danger and take the time to consider this new information:

    WiFi In Schools – United States http://www.wifiinschools.com/

    WiFi In Schools – UK http://wifiinschools.org.uk/

    WiFi In Schools – Australia http://www.wifi-in-schools-australia.org/


    Citizens 4 Safe Technology http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/


    Center For Safer Wireless http://www.centerforsaferwireless.org/

    There are other websites, as well as videos, and many, many peer reviewed studies by MDs, Ph.D.s, and scientists.

    Wireless technology must not be implemented at the risk of our children’s health and safety.

  50. #71 by Ray on July 12, 2013 - 6:22 pm

    R Schulze,

    I would think given your education that you would better understand the scientific method.

    Quite simply, studies do not cancel out studies.

    What you’re doing is actually cherry picking, because you are only addressing the studies that didn’t report effects. You thus ignore thousands of studies that do find effects, and that is, well misleading at best.

    Each and every one of those studies falsifies your position that RF microwave radiation is safe.

    The absurdity of your comments is staggering. Imagine that we were to apply your logic to any other known toxin. Take lead paint, DDT, asbestos, etc. I am sure that there are studies out there that have found these agents to be safe. I bet there are even a few studies that found them to be good for you.

    Feel free to use that logic with your own health, but not with other people’s children.

    • #72 by Anonymous on July 12, 2013 - 6:54 pm

      R. Schulze, do you have any children of your own in the Fullerton School district?

  51. #73 by R. Shulze on July 12, 2013 - 11:47 pm


    I’m going to ignore you criticizing me of ignoring the positive studies while you seem willing to ignor the negative ones. I don’t even know where to go with that. And yes, studies do “cancel out” other studies. The word you are actually looking for is “disprove”, or I would also accept “refute”. If study A has a small sample size and multiple methodology errors or a sample bias and study B has a larger sample size and fewer errors… study B wins. In this case study B refuted or disproved study A. Not that study A was useless, it may have kept the investigators from making the the same mistakes and perform a better quality of study, which is frequently the case. The fact that you seem to believe that one study caries as much weight as any other study is, in fact, absurd.

    You can list as many web pages or letters from experts as you want, simply stating something over and over again does not make it true. Again, I will accept systematic reviews preferably performed by a panel.

    Also, I did not say that unless 4000 children die per day from EMF it’s not worth discussing, read it again. That’s actually probably a low number. Some data suggest that about 25,000 people starve to death every day, “most” of which are children. So over 12,500 per day at least would be a fair estimate. But I digress.

    Finally, the invisible man in the sky I was referring too was Horus, not God. Sorry to have mislead.

    • #74 by amateur night on July 13, 2013 - 12:14 am

      Very disingenuous indeed. R. do you have scales? So how many are gettin’ sterilized by the pixie dust in these classrooms?

    • #75 by parent on July 13, 2013 - 7:39 am

      You appear to be an ardent advocate for wireless radiation of children in school and also “bored.”

      What kind of person advocates for radiation of school children? Especially, when it concerns other people’s children.

      • #76 by parent, too on July 13, 2013 - 8:14 am

        Yes, as a mother our job is to protect our children. The school district needs to take a precautionary position and use wired technology.

        I don’t understand anyone who would push for the radiation of the kids. That’s inhuman.

  52. #77 by Err on the side of the kids' health on July 13, 2013 - 7:21 am

    The FSD Board of Education should be looking at both sides of the issue. Even if they doubted the substantive information demonstrating the harms of wireless radiation, they would know that they cannot refute it. The least conservative approach would be to err on the side of not harming the children’s health and using wired technology.
    How about “first do no harm?”

  53. #78 by R. Shulze on July 13, 2013 - 8:47 am

    Yes, I have scales. Unless you are talking about ones a fish has, then no. We have to focus on one thing at a time, in this case neoplasia. If we when want to explore the effects of EMF on fertility, autism, ADHD, or whatever then that is a different topic. I admit I’m not very knowledgeable about pixie dust but I seem to recall it requires faith and trust but unfortunately neither of those factor in the scientific method. Now I have not read any studies showing that pixie dust is safe for our children and does not cause cancer so I’m going tho have to reccomend we not expose our children too it until some studies are available.

  54. #79 by R. Shulze on July 13, 2013 - 10:09 am


    I would in general agree with you that we should minimize all harmful exposures to everybody, not just children. And of course the FSD can not refute it. It is not logically possible to prove a negative (EMF does no harm, Odin does not exist, etc..) therefore the burden of proof is on those making the positive assertion. Even if there is some evidence of it being harmful there is a certain burden of proof that needs to be met by he preponderance of the evidence. And the burden may very form effect to effect. For instance I would require less proof to verify that a child close to a WiFi router experiences dizziness, than if a child claims that being close to a router makes them poo Fruity Pebbles. I hope that makes sense.

    • #80 by Joe Imbriano on July 13, 2013 - 2:08 pm

      R. do you have any children in the FSD? Also why is everyone at the local level so opposed to hard wiring computers in the classrooms? This is not very complicated.

      I understand that http://www.thewirelessclassroomagenda.com roll out edict is coming down from the White House, then to the State Dept of Ed, then to the OC Dept of Ed and then finally to The FSD, but this is a no brainer. The Feds don’t run the local school districts, the local board and administrations do. So why are they locking arms with an insidious agenda driven, dangerous, irresponsible and unnecessary technology policy, blatantly ignoring the thousands of peer reviewed studies http://www.wifiinschools.com that state that EMF is harmful, putting out blatantly false assurances of safety, and trying to obfuscate the issue by attempting to make this about Joe Imbriano instead of the massive body of scientific evidence that is contrary to what the FSD is doing? So what if all the other schools are doing it. Is Obama the pied piper? https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/421229_10151686938719238_64289827_n.jpg

      What is so evil about an ethernet cable and a keyboard? What is really going on here?

      • #81 by parent, too on July 13, 2013 - 2:37 pm

        Joe, Do we really want to listen to R Schulze, who is in favor of radiating our children so that they can have wireless technology? I believe he has had his say, he supports wireless radiation in the school.

        • #82 by Joe Imbriano on July 13, 2013 - 6:38 pm

          R. is no dummy and has some good points. The more involved in this debate, the better the outcome.

  55. #83 by Ray on July 13, 2013 - 12:24 pm

    R Shulze,

    Your attempts to obfuscate this issue have worn through.

    You stated that you were interested in examining the scientific evidence, but in reality, you refuse to address it, even when it’s placed in your lap.

    Yakymenko et al. 2011. Long Term Exposure to Microwave Radiation Provokes Cancer Growth: Evidences From Radars and Mobile Communications Systems.


    This peer reviewed report, published in the Journal of Experimental Oncology, which cited over 95 other peer reviewed studies, had the following conclusion:
    “There is enough convincing data to appropriately assert that the long-term exposure to low intensity electromagnetic microwaves can indeed promote cancer development.”

  56. #84 by R. Shulze on July 13, 2013 - 4:53 pm

    Ray. Again, nice study but we are beyond individual studies. Find me a systematic review or equal meta analysis supporting your point and we can start a discussion. We are at a Supreme Court level here and I honestly don’t care what some county court thinks. Interestingly enough Percy Spencer, the inventor of microwaves, first came upon it when he steped in front of a magnetron and a chocolate bar in his pocket melted. Imagine this guys exposure working around radar tubes that were essentially open microwave ovens. He thought it was cool to pop corn in a bag in his hand. Died at age 76 of “natural causes”… Who knows, I doubt he had an autopsy.

    Joe. I really would prefer wired computers for the kids as well but I think it is a huge cost issue. Especially since the school has to buy Apple. I’m not aware of anyway to hard wire a iPad so that means laptops. I’m not sure but maybe you can help; how much would it cost to wire each room with 32 Cat-6 ports vs. one WiFi router? How much for the whole school? Then how much would a laptop cost per kid, and how much for the whole school? Now extrapolate to the district, county, etc. if you could find a way to divert our tax dollars from defense to support this I would champion the cause. Hell, even raise taxes. I have children in “High Tech” classrooms, yes.

    I’m still not even sure how people are allowed to drive cars that spew know carcinigenic and poisonous toxins into the air that my children have to breath. And those chemtrails? Sorry, let’s focus on EMF first.

    • #85 by Joe Imbriano on July 13, 2013 - 6:35 pm

      This site covers it all, the whole kit and kaboodle R.

      You know Percy wasn’t a child when he was toying around with his inventions, he had a fully developed body.

      The health of children takes precedent, not the bloated union contracts and useless administrative expenditures. The hard wire cost is peanuts. These districts have massive budgets and there is plenty of fat to cut.

      The Ipads can be returned or sold on ebay and replaced with desktops with nice keyboards and led screens for an extra 150 bucks each.

      R, we will have thousands of studies after 10 years if the White House is successful in coercing the local lackeys in the school district administrations all over the United States to flip the switch. We are here to throw a wrench into that.

      The proposed unprecedented K-12 school classroom exposure 6 hours a day, 180 days a year to low intensity, perfectly legal microwave radiation in the 2.4 -5.0 GHZ range courtesy of the FCC which by design, ignores the non thermal effects of the emissions, I believe, will yield, for the most part, a largely infertile population rife with a myriad of health effects that will guarantee an endless client base for big pharma, full lobbies for their flesh mechanics, and burgeoning enrollment for the special ed side of the aisle. I believe that is the goal of the social engineers, that is the dream of those that serve darkness, and their kin can return the planet to the wolves as the cull will be well underway.

      As for me and mine, we will have no part in this macabre forced irradiaton, which amounts to the perfect crime in my opinion. The public at large is clueless about the health effects, is highly addicted to the wireless technology and so too, if not already so, will be the children. The school district establishment lapdogs tout it as perfectly safe, the industry gets to bathe our children in ever increasing levels of emissions, they make a boatload of money, the school districts get to increase class sizes to capture more attendance money, teaching to the test takes on a whole new meaning, the common core and its privacy invading algorithms comes all the faster, and two dimensional learning completely replaces 3 dimensional hands on problem solving and thinking. The blue glow screens will rule their minds. By the time that folks realize what has been done to their them and their children by being bathed in these emissions, it will have been too late.

      We are here to stop the rollout of the largest forced irradiation program involving children that the world has ever seen. We could really use your help.

  57. #86 by Ray on July 13, 2013 - 8:03 pm

    R . Shulze,

    Your latest diversion states that a meta-analysis is valid, whereas thousands of peer reviewed studies are not. Where do you come up with these senseless diversions? What is motivating such foolish conduct? What is your conflict of interest here Shulze, because its obvious that you have one.

    As parents, if we found that there was a chemical being inserted into the school’s drinking water that thousands of peer reviewed studies reported to cause biological and health effects, few would ignore the information.

    If we found that scientific and medical experts have formally declared these chemicals dangerous and advised against their use in schools, few would ignore the information and instead waive around industry propaganda.

    Parents wouldn’t wait for the perfect meta-analysis meanwhile ignoring study after study and report after report. They wouldn’t make jokes about pixie dust, candybars, or the old man who died of natural causes.

    Only the foolish or the corrupt would respond in such a way.

    For these individuals, it wouldn’t matter how much evidence existed, for they would continue to pretend that it wasn’t quite right.

    Here’s another piece of evidence for those who are openly investigating this issue:

    In 2004 Swisscom, Swizerland’s leading telecom provider, applied for a patent for a lower emission wireless technology. Here are a few excerpts from their application:

    “The influence of Electrosmog on the human body is a known problem… When for example, human blood cells are irradiated with electromagnetic fields, clear damage to hereditary material has been demonstrated and there have been indications of an increased cancer risk”

    “Thus is has been possible to show that mobile phone radiation can cause damage to genetic material, in particular human white blood cells, whereby both the DNA itself is damaged and the number of chromosomes changed. This mutation can lead to increased cancer risk. In particular, it could also be shown that this destruction is not dependent upon temperature increases, i.e., it is not thermal.”

    • #87 by dawn on July 14, 2013 - 6:10 am

      “For these individuals, it wouldn’t matter how much evidence existed, for they would continue to pretend that it wasn’t quite right.”

      Agreed, I have to wonder about R. Shulze’s interest on this blog.

      • #88 by curious on July 14, 2013 - 12:21 pm

        I for one am curious as to why they will not address this issue publicly. I have read the F.S.D. press release and the Rf report and both Dr. Pletka and the firm the district hired clearly fail to address the very nature of this blog’s contention, that is the possible adverse health effects that are below the F.C.C. guidelines.

        Am I correct in assuming that the standard of safe RF exposure is pegged to the benchmark of exposure present inside a microwave oven?

  58. #89 by R. Shulze on July 13, 2013 - 8:30 pm

    Ok. So I’ gonna assume you do not accept IARC systematic review as an authority and as you provided no alternate systematic review that we may start our discussion with, that you have none. I’m willing to have this debate like educated adults but if we don’t agree to the rules of the game, I can’t play. I’m waisting my time as I have no chance of addressing your misconceptions or even presenting my point. Geez, I just hope that you never need one of those “flesh mechanics” to save your life. Maybe “healthcare technician” would be more politically correct.

    • #90 by Joe Imbriano on July 13, 2013 - 11:00 pm

      Allopathic doctors for the most part R., cause way more problems than they solve. Osteopaths are not mucn better these days either. Way too much prophylactic administration of petrochemical poisons for any of our own good.

      R. anything to do with the trillion dollar cancer industry in my opinion is a sick joke. Cancer fundamentally, is a chronic metabolic disorder. It is a nitriloside defiency engineered by the big food giants removing the nitriloside containing foods from modern man’s diet.

      The triggers are more prevalent than ever these days with people literally slathering poison all over their skin, irradiating themselves, drinking gallons of chemical concoctions a day, eating foods that aren’t really foods at all, and all the while, consciously and willingly on a daily basis in a Pavlovian fashion. With the defenses down, it’s no wonder the epidemic is exploding.

      My concern with the EMF, aside from cancer and cognitive issues is the fertility aspect.

      Yes R., for the most part, they are flesh mechanics. The manual that they use was written by the drug companies. Every illness is treated as a medication deficiency. It is pure flypaper I tell you. Once you get on with a couple of appendages you are done for.

      Common sense is what we need. Some of the stupidest people I have ever met were the most educated. We have really lost our bearing as a people. We will get it back as long as there are those that can offer a perspective that makes sense.

      I remember reading the insert for humalog and the pamphlet that came home with it for a friend of mine. As you know, diabetics have limited pancreatic function. So what do the doctors and insulin makers tell the patient to eat? Peanut butter, beans, bacon, sugar free processed foods and diet sodas, canned tuna, steak, and avoid the high glycemic index foods like oranges and carrots. Instead of advising the patient of the benefits of a raw diet replete with enzymes, dirt cheap mucopolysaccharides present in cactus and the like, they send her home with a syringe, pig insulin, and on her way to the store for some bacon and diet coke-that is insanity. Great business model but not a very moral one.

      For me a busted bone, car wreck and I am there. The rest of the petrochemical poisons they push with their bad advice, no thanks.

      R., cancer is undoubtedly a problem with EMF exposure, but fertility is the bigger picture issue as it is a right that people don’t know that they are relinquishing.

    • #91 by Anonymous on July 14, 2013 - 10:26 am

      R. Shulze, your responses get vaguer by the day.

      You know that IARC has no systematic review on classroom WiFi and WiFi enabled device exposure studies because it is still in clinical trails, the labs are just now being set up and the subjects won’t show up until September.

    • #92 by dawn on July 14, 2013 - 2:14 pm

      OK, we get it. Rather than wire the technology, you want our children to be irradiated.

  59. #93 by amateur night on July 14, 2013 - 9:13 am

    Ohhh, oooo, looks like our little Schuzee poo exited stage left on us. Don’t worry baby, he was just some hack that some FSD afficianados dredged up from the bottom of their high school yearbooks. Our little pal just thinks we be nothing more than a bunch of blithering idiots. Yeah his brand of sciencetistitas can’t prove nothin till the poor subjects been diagnosed by some hack in a white coat and had the tombstone ordered.

    These poor Barnum and Bailey circus clowns couldn’t can’t get the decimals in the right place because somebody forgot the creamer. Tickets anyone?

    Don’t you worry, another FSD friendly chuck wagon will roll back into town with another busted spoke, another snake oil salesman at the reins, and a lame mule pullin it. You simpletons just need to keep the light on for these yoyos because they get confused when the road is covered in their own BS and veers to the right side of things where they are out of their element. Contract time and they gots their money feelers on in high gear, heads screwed on straight and tight but don’t tow the party line and they are like a modern man naked in the jungle looking for their teddy bear. Put the screws to ’em Joe. They don’t play clean.

    • #94 by Anonymous on July 15, 2013 - 10:31 am

      You are amazingly funny, amateur night, and you are so right on!!! You’re brilliant!

      • #95 by amateur night on July 15, 2013 - 6:45 pm

        Testicular function is particularly susceptible to radiation emitted by electromagnetic fields-plain English-tin foil Jons for Schulzee poo por favor

  60. #96 by R. Shulze on July 15, 2013 - 11:33 pm

    Joe. Honestly, it is of no help to you or your cause to allow every comment anyone makes to be posted. You and your cause will only be further marginalized and ridiculed by the immaturity exemplified by some of your contributors. When it ceases to be a forum of discussion and starts to be one of ridicule and personal attacks your chances of effecting change dwindle to zero. I, unfortunately, am not surprised but wish you well. I did find another good article about EMF health affects: http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/31625/InTech-Evaluations_of_international_expert_group_reports_on_the_biological_effects_of_radiofrequency_fields.pdf . It is a good review of 33 international expert group reports on multiple health issues in relation to EMF. 3 of the 33 reports indicated that there may be adverse health affects, one of which was the IARC study I suggested. May have been a good discussion.

    • #97 by Joe Imbriano on July 16, 2013 - 8:45 am

      R. this is blog is a two way street. Equal and opposing viewpoints are welcome. I don’t censor comments unless they are obscene or threatening and there has been none of that thus far. Thank you for the link.

    • #98 by jgarrison on July 16, 2013 - 10:36 am

      I thought Dr. Pletka said this is totally safe for the children!!!
      Which 10% of you want to hand your children over for Dr. Pletka’s radiation experiment?????

  61. #99 by amateur night on July 16, 2013 - 9:47 am

    10% odds so lets flip the switch baby. Hey Schulzee poo, lets take them there odds and plan a little road trip up the 15 and parlay the paycheck at the tables. You in bubba?

  62. #100 by Ray on July 16, 2013 - 12:20 pm

    Shultze, why is it that you are so adverse to peer-reviewed evidence?

    How to you sleep at night ignoring thousands of peer reviewed studies, instead cherry picking these industry reports?

    Your approach may be popular with the school administration, but it’s unimpressive here on this board.

    • #101 by ciel on July 16, 2013 - 5:12 pm

      The approach that needs to be taken here is one of a zero margin of error with respect to health effects. As we are dealing with young developing bodies, in the absence of concrete scientific proof that the wireless model IS safe, preciationary principles must be employed. There is more than ample compelling evidence provided in the links on this website to warrant just that.

      Even the non-peer reviewed industry studies cited by the school district apologist clearly show health effects.

  63. #102 by amatuer night on July 16, 2013 - 1:44 pm

    Get a load of this crapola-
    So now its the dope and the friggin hot wings that got the dudes shootin blanks-


    Gimme a break man.

    Hmmmm. Ahhhh. You are getting very sleepy…keep your eye on the ball children, keep the Wifi on, cozy up to the router, get real close now, and keep the wireless devices in your laps because the teacher says you have to do your homework on it. This is such a sick joke.

    • #103 by ciel on July 16, 2013 - 4:13 pm

      I don’t understand your inference. The above article does not mention the effects of wireless devices as being implicated in what is being observed in terms of declining male fertility.

  64. #105 by wise words on July 16, 2013 - 4:47 pm

    “Until we, as doctors, can determine why some of our patients become debilitatingly sick from WiFi and other microwave communications, while others do not, we implore you not to take such a known risk with the health of so many children who have entrusted you to keep them safe while at school.”
    The Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine

  65. #106 by R. Shulze on July 16, 2013 - 6:53 pm

    The major public health organizations of more than 30 of world’s leading industrialized countries do regular expert reviews of the scientific literature on the issue of EMF & health. Virtually every one of these expert reviews has come to the same conclusion as the World Health Organization “that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields”.

    To the layman, the scientific literature on EMF & health is often confusing. Alarmists like to promote poorly conducted studies with “positive” results. These have invariably turned out to be false positives. That is why the assessment of expert groups is so important. They evaluate all studies and use a “weight of evidence” approach. The World Health Organization has published a set of guidelines for the assessment of the health risks of EMF: “All studies, with either positive or negative effects, need to be evaluated and judged on their own merit, and then all together in a weight-of-evidence approach. It is important to determine how much a set of evidence changes the probability that exposure causes an outcome. Generally, studies must be replicated or be in agreement with similar studies. The evidence for an effect is further strengthened if the results from different types of studies (epidemiology or laboratory) point to the same conclusion”. Expert groups consult comprehensive databases of studies on EMF & health such as the one maintained by the IEEE to conduct their assessments.

    The following is a list of expert reviews and web sites that are operated by credible mainstream scientists and public health officials. Their findings are based on evidence based science published in reputable peer reviewed journals. The list includes a brief description of the materials that are available at each site. All of these mainstream scientific organizations arrive at the same conclusion as the European SCENIHR: “It is concluded from three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, animal and in vitro studies) that exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans”.

    • #107 by another mom on July 16, 2013 - 9:35 pm

      Are you “the school district apologist?”
      It seems a fitting description.

  66. #108 by R. Shulze on July 16, 2013 - 6:57 pm

    1. March 2013 Swedish Radiation Safety (SSM) Report:
    “together with national cancer incidence statistics from different countries, [recent results are] not convincing in linking mobile phone use to the occurrence of glioma or other tumours of the head region among adults.”

    P 5 “Although recent studies have covered longer exposure periods, scientific uncertainty remains for regular mobile phone use for longer than 13-15 years. It is also too early to draw firm conclusions regarding children and adolescents and risk for brain tumours, but the available literature to date does not indicate an increased risk.”

    P 5 effects of RF on EEG: “The observed effect is weak and does not translate into behavioural or other health effects. Recent studies suggest that considerable interindividual variation exists in the possible reactivity of the human brain to RF electromagnetic fields. The underlying mechanism is not yet understood,”

    From web summary: “there are no radiation protection problems for the general public related to radio waves from sources such as mobile phone base stations, television and radio transmitters or wireless computer networks in home or school environments”.

    2. June 2012 Sweden: The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research has published a new report reviewing the past 10 years of research in the area of EMF and Health. The following quotes were taken from the Executive Summary:
    “More than 15 provocation studies (single or double blind) have been conducted on symptoms attributed to exposure to RF fields. These studies have not been able to demonstrate that people experience symptoms or sensations more often when the fields are turned on than when they are turned off”.
    “A considerable number of studies on cancer, and in particular brain tumor, were presented. As a consequence there exist now very useful data including methodological results that can be used in the interpretation of this research. With a small number of exceptions the available results are all negative and taken together with new methodological understandings the overall interpretation is that these do not provide support for an association between mobile telephony and brain tumor risk”.
    Click these links for the: Executive Summary, and the Full Report.

    3. 2102:3 Norway: The Expert Committee appointed by the Nowegian Institute of Health has published a new report entitled: Low-level electromagnetic fields – an assessment of health risks and evaluation of regulatory practice. The following are quotes from the web page short summary:
    “The group found no evidence that the low-level fields around mobile phones and other transmitters increase the risk of cancer, impair male fertility, cause other reproductive damage or lead to other diseases and adverse health effects, such as changes to the endocrine and immune systems.”
    “The Committee did not find that mobile phones and other equipment can cause health problems such as electromagnetic hypersensitivity”.
    Click the following link for a web page short summary of the report.
    Click the following to download the PDF of the English version of the report.

    4. April 2012 UK: The UK base Health Protection Agency has just released an exhaustive new 348 page expert report on the issue of EMF and Health. The report is entitled: Health Effects of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. The following is the key conclusion of the report: “The quantity, and in general quality, of research published on the potential health effects of RF field exposure has increased substantially since AGNIR last reviewed this subject. Population exposure to RF fields has become more widespread and heterogeneous. There are still limitations to the published research that preclude a definitive judgement, but the evidence considered overall has not demonstrated any adverse health effects of RF field exposure below internationally accepted guideline levels. There are possible effects on EEG patterns, but these have not been conclusively established, and it is unclear whether such effects would have any health consequences. There is increasing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels does not cause symptoms and cannot be detected by people, even by those who consider themselves sensitive to RF fields. The limited available data on other non-cancer outcomes show no effects of RF field exposure. The accumulating evidence on cancer risks, notably in relation to mobile phone use, is not definitive, but overall is increasingly in the direction of no material effect of exposure. There are few data, however, on risks beyond 15 years from first exposure.
    In summary, although a substantial amount of research has been conducted in this area, there is no convincing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels causes health effects in adults or children”.

    5. EFHRAM European Health Risk Assessment Network D2 Report Risk Analysis of Human Exposure to EMF 2010: “SCENIHR (2009a) reviewed the evidence from the various national studies and pooled analyses from parts of the Interphone study: severe concerns were raised about reporting bias that may exist in these data. Nonetheless, it was concluded that this evidence, combined with the results of animal and cellular studies indicated that exposure to RF fields was unlikely to lead to an increase in brain cancer or parotid gland tumours in humans”.
    6. EFHRAM European Health Risk Assessment Network D3 Report on Risks of EMF in vitro and in vivo 2010: P 27 “For the three frequency ranges examined, the conclusions of the 2009 SCENIHR report are still valid in spite of the publication of several positive findings. Many of the new publications originate from laboratories and countries that are new to bioelectromagnetics research. This translates sometimes into unsatisfactory dosimetry or statistical analysis. Health risk assessment to be performed in the coming years (e.g., WHO EMF project) will need to be carried out with strict quality criteria”.
    7. ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: ICNIRP is affiliated with the World Health Organization. New report: Exposure to electromagnetic fields, biological effects and health consequences 16/2009. P260: “Recent concern has been more with exposure to the lower level RF radiation characteristic of mobile phone use. Whilst it is in principle impossible to disprove the possible existence of non-thermal interactions, the plausibility of various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low. Concerning cancer-related effects, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at SAR levels up to 4 W/kg. With regard to in vitro studies of RF effects on non-genotoxic end-points such as cell signaling and gene/protein expression, the results are more equivocal, but the magnitudes of the reported RF radiation induced changes are very small and of limited functional consequence. The results of studies on cell proliferation and differentiation, apoptosis and cell transformation are mostly negative”.
    8. Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion: Wireless Technology and Health Outcomes: Evidence and Review 2010:
    •”…While the most recent review continues to call for additional research to follow up on new findings, after a decade of additional research, there is still no conclusive evidence of adverse effects on health at exposure levels below current Canadian guidelines.’

    •Given the experience with other sources of non-ionizing radiation (e.g. power lines) that have been in use much longer than cellphones or Wi-Fi, it is unlikely that all controversies related to potential RF effects will be resolved even after decades of additional research”.
    9. University of Ottawa, McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment: Review Panel Reports 2011. This is a collection of quotes from reports by expert groups of the world’s major public health organization assessing the issue of EMF & health. New quotes are added periodically.

    10. Swedish Radiation Authority: the Swedish State Radiation Protection Authority (SSI), sets the safety standards for wireless devices in Sweden. The SSI has commissioned a series of expert assessments on EMF and health in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The following statements were extracted from these reports:
    •2008 P5: “Six recent studies on carcinogenicity, some with higher exposure levels than previously used, consistently report lack of carcinogenic effects, and two studies on genotoxicity report no increase in micronuclei or DNA strand breaks after RF exposure”.
    •2009 P4: “..these results in combination with the negative animal data and very low exposure from transmitters make it highly unlikely that living in the vicinity of a transmitter implicates an increased risk of cancer.”
    •2009 P4: “While the symptoms experienced by patients with perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity are very real and some subjects suffer severely, there is no evidence that RF exposure is a causal factor.”
    •2010: P4: “Available data do not indicate any risks related to exposure to RF from base stations or radio or TV antennas. Taking into account also the low levels of exposure that these sources give rise to, health effects from transmitters are unlikely”.
    11. Latin American Expert Committee: Non-ionizing EMF and its Effects on Human Health 2010: P11 “The induction and promotion of tumors or blood neoplasms by RF exposure in animals as well as the appearance of cellular molecular predecessors of tumorigenesis, etc. has also been investigated. Despite using RF exposures, measured as specific absorption rates (SARs), far above those that people are normally exposed to, and in some cases exposures for the duration of the animal’s lifetime, about 93% of in vivo studies published since 1990 have shown no significant short or long-term effects. Further, the average survival of irradiated groups of animals was not affected in some 96% of studies.

    • #109 by Joe Imbriano on July 16, 2013 - 9:39 pm

      R. thank you for your posts and your research. Can you provide the links for our audience?

      • #110 by Jamie on July 16, 2013 - 9:58 pm

        This R. Schulze really loves irradiating our children. He must have spent a lot of time researching all of this. Scary guy.

    • #111 by it's about time on July 16, 2013 - 11:20 pm

      Thank you R. Schulze. It is about time someone has come forward to confront Mr. Imbriano’s attack on the good people of the Fullerton School District. I am tired of this being a one sided argument with his followers from left field bashing the people that work so hard for our children.

      How about his autism theory? Does it have any merit?

      • #112 by Jamie on July 17, 2013 - 7:26 am

        At this point, when those entrusted with our children’s safety cannot look at the data that does not support their agenda, the “good people” term becomes an oxymoron. The information that this is harmful stands on its own, Mr. Imbriano is making it available. New information can be hard on us, sometimes.
        I think you are in the same “FSD apologist” camp as R. Schulze. Do you also enjoy irradiating our children? Why so cruel when the technology can be safe and wired?

      • #113 by Anonymous on July 17, 2013 - 8:24 am

        It’s amazing to me that someone can perceive this as Joe Imbriano attacking the school district.

        Joe is the messenger bringing this health and safety issue to their attention, but if you may recall, they won’t even discuss it, let alone examine the evidence.

        The American Academy of Environmental Medicine advises against WiFi in schools, did you read their statement?

        That’s just the first sheet of paper in a crate full of evidence, but did you even take the time to evaluate it?

        I can imagine that this isn’t enough evidence, but how much is enough?

        For me, it was reading study after study from around the world that examined in depth the health effects of RF radiation. The effects were the same, regardless of nationality, genetics, or other factors.

        After looking at several dozen of these peer reviewed studies, I then went back and looked at some of the official statements that said there was no evidence showing RF radiation to be harmful.

        Is it really possible for something to be safe if thousands of studies show it to be unsafe?

        Perhaps, I guess there may be some small chance that it could still be safe, but why ignore all the evidence that shows it to be harmful? It would be blindly irresponsible if not criminal to do so, given that these are children who look to us to make solid and careful decisions on their behalf.

        There is nothing careful or responsible about ignoring scientific and medical experts who tell you not to irradiate children with microwave radiation.

        • #114 by Joe Imbriano on July 17, 2013 - 7:49 am

          Actually, it is a rather commonly employed strategy simply designed to deflect from the issue and direct the focus and attention to the messenger thereby avoiding the actual message. I have seen it all the way from the FSD administration, to the teachers, staff and all the way down down to the local pta and foundation. They make the issue all about Joe Imbriano and my assertions, my passion, my beliefs etc.

          This actually has nothing to do with my beliefs or my assertions or my passions. This has everything to do with the massive body of scientific evidence that continues to mount against this move to install the networks and rollout the 1:1 device plan, the trillion dollar wireless industry, an uninformed public, cowardly, shallow, servile state and local level administrators, board members and their loyal followers, and the students who have been signed up for the largest forced irradiation of children that the world has ever seen.

          Yes folks there is an agenda that starts here: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/p480x480/421229_10151686938719238_64289827_n.jpg

          trickles down to here: http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr13/yr13rel62.asp

          lands here with some real twists and turns: https://thefullertoninformer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wireless.doc-3.pdf

          and the rubber meets the road for you and the children here: http://www.thewirelessclassroomagenda.com

          You can find science on boths sides of the aisle on this issue. What you won’t find is the truth about how the proliferation of this technology is braindamaging the unborn unless you look here: https://thefullertoninformer.com/carbonyl-iron-and-orange-county-the-autism-capital-of-the-state/

          how you have been lied to about the safety of this technology here:

          and in my opinion, is by design being implemented to reduce fertilty:https://www.google.com/search?q=emf+and+fertility&oq=emf+and+fertility&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j69i62l3.4354j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.

          It is so much much easier to deride Mr. Imbriano and my efforts to expose this insidious agenda than it is to deal with reality. It is basic psychology and part of our frail human nature to unite against a perceived common enemy. If you fall for that folks, then you have all been had and you are allowing me to become the biggest red herring in history. For your children’s sake, please keep your eyes on the ball. Defending the safety of this technology is an indefensible position.

          Call me what you want. Bank your children’s health and your family’s lineage on Dr. Pletka’s blanket statement of total safety, the district’s employees, their afficionados, your allegiances to your fair weather friends, and the wireless industry’s bought and paid for research. I know better and it has become incumbent on all of us at http://www.thefullertoninformer.com to make sure that all of you know better as well. We will continue our endeavors to continue to educate all involved. We have only just begun.

          • #115 by parent on July 17, 2013 - 12:08 pm

            Mr. Imbriano, I applaud your tenacity and your courage. We are praying for you and your family. This information is very frightening.

            The behavior of the decision makers is very predictable in this case. Rather than look right under their noses, they hide under a rock. Once again, thank you for what you are doing for the students and for the community.

          • #116 by amatuer night on July 18, 2013 - 3:17 pm

            holy cow

      • #117 by parent on July 17, 2013 - 12:27 pm

        As a mother of 2 children in Fullerton schools and as an RN for the last 27 years, I would venture to say that Mr. Imbriano has more between his two ears than most of you could imagine and more intestinal fortitude than most of your husbands could wish for.

        I can tell you first hand that his Autism article not only has merit, it is a damming expose on how dangerous our modern society has become to the most vulnerable among us. Every one of us in the medical and healthcare fields should be finding a way to work ourselves out of our jobs. It is a very dangerous article to those in medicine, academia and research who simply refuse to do so.

        • #118 by amatuer night on July 18, 2013 - 4:26 pm

          They are laughing at this cat cuz they dig their dinero, dinners, do gooder do nothing about anything, and their denial land lives inside the cottin’ candy machine. Who wants to give that up man? Come on. They like them eyes closed until the din din bell rings and the ball game comes on. Johny cant read, sure he can, he just cant think or have any kids ya fools. Ya’all like that dark apple with the bite out of it do ya? Get it?

        • #119 by Joe Imbriano on July 18, 2013 - 10:02 pm

          Thank you.

  67. #120 by R. Shulze on July 16, 2013 - 10:47 pm

    Jamie! You flatter yourself. Someone did the work for me http://www.emfandhealth.com/ . I think this site is funded by FSD and D-Link and maybe Cisco so… for what it’s worth.

    • #121 by Jamie on July 17, 2013 - 7:13 am

      my comment stands “scary guy”

    • #122 by Joe Imbriano on July 18, 2013 - 7:37 pm

      Thanks R. That is the one stop shop for the school districts and the RF industry folks that wish to look completely the other way. With the help of the FCC they are all stepping on the gas. Pretty soon, the light switches, stoves, refrigerators, faucets, water coolers, heaters, electric blankets, alarm clocks, blenders, ovens, keyboards, monitors, street lights, printers, toothbrushes, soap dispensers, mattresses and just about everything else that you can stick an Rf module in and run current through will be wireless. Just look at the idiot box and all the commercials for bathing us in these microwave frequency emissions. Spermatogenesis is quickly becoming a thing of the past. May God help us.

    • #123 by Sonji on August 12, 2013 - 8:26 pm

      Why does this site and that site conflict? Are there really two sides to this as I am not aware of any dangers until I came across this site. Who are we the parents supposed to believe? We are not scientists. Who do we trust?

  68. #124 by Veritas on July 27, 2013 - 9:43 am

    For those willing to look, this is another informative website: http://www.kawarthasafetechnology.org/index.html

    and another:

    • #125 by Joe Imbriano on July 27, 2013 - 10:49 am

      That is a great site and really lays it out quite well. Thank you, as always, Veritas.

  69. #127 by concerned parent on August 8, 2013 - 9:08 pm

    I live in Brea. This is a very interesting video. Is there a more recent up to date version with more details dealing with the studies that I can review as well?

  70. #128 by Sonji on August 12, 2013 - 8:23 pm

    This doesn’t really prove anything. Are there any studies?

  71. #130 by jbeck on August 17, 2013 - 12:45 am

    Petition to return to hardwired computers in schools


(will not be published)

Copyright © 2013 TheFullertonInformer.com. All rights reserved. TheFullertonInformer.com is the legal copyright holder of the material on this blog and it may not be used, reprinted, or published without express written permission. The information contained in this website is for entertainment and educational purposes ONLY. This website contains my personal opinion and experience based on my own research from scientific writings, internet research and interviews with doctors and scientists all over the world. Do not take this website, links or documents contained herein as a personal, medical or legal advice of any kind. For legal advice, please consult with your attorney. Consult your medical doctor or primary care physician for advice regarding your health and your children’s health and nothing contained on this website is intended to provide or be a substitute for medical, legal or other professional advice. The reading or use of this information is at your own risk. Readers will not be put on spam lists. We will not sell your contact information to another company. We are not responsible for the privacy practices of our advertisers or blog commenters. We reserve the right to change the focus of this blog, to shut it down, to sell it, or to change the terms of use at our discretion. We are not responsible for the actions of our advertisers or sponsors. If a reader purchases a product or service based upon a link from our blog, the reader must take action with that company to resolve the issue, not us. Our policy on using letters or emails that have been written directly to us is as follows: We will be sharing those letters and emails with the blogging audience unless they are requested to be kept confidential. We will claim ownership of those letters or emails to later be used in an up-and-coming book,blog article,post or column, unless otherwise specified by the writer to keep ownership. THE TRUTH WILL STAND ON ITS OWN AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE-SEEK IT AT ALL COSTS!