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!
http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/WiFi-NonConsent-Form-for-Use-in-Schools,72,44
#1 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”.
And
“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.”
And
“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.
#2 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?
#3 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.
#4 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?
#5 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?
#6 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.
#7 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:
https://thefullertoninformer.com/the-epa-tells-it-like-it-is-will-the-fsd/
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 https://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.
#8 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.
#9 by amatuer night on July 18, 2013 - 3:17 pm
holy cow
#10 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.
#11 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?
#12 by Joe Imbriano on July 18, 2013 - 10:02 pm
Thank you.