Archive for February, 2014

Fullerton’s City wide WiFi proposal-An Agenda 21/NSA trial run Trojan Horse?

images (36)

Folks, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch and every gimmick has a catch. Whether or not you agree with the thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies and researchers that conclude wireless is harmful, the privacy aspect of city wide WiFi is a whole other issue.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, Agenda 21 is a Fullerton thing. Make no bones about it. You all need to be aware that the euphemism “sustainable development” has been whispered into your ear instead of the real deal which is Agenda 21.



Several months ago, I mentioned to the council that building codes should be amended to include RF shielding in multifamily housing units.  Ironically, Jan Flory feebly attempted to mock my Autism/wireless hypothesis and publicly conjure up the notion that my wireless concerns have no business being presented to the council, I politely reminded her that a lot more towers were coming. Well maybe they finally are. Folks you cannot afford to look the other way on this one.>

Wireless  infrastructure and wireless devices are being peddled to us as a benefit. They are being jammed down our children’s throats in the classrooms as a necessity and the infrastructure is creeping ever closer to our homes and businesses disguised as palm trees or literally in plain view. By no means am  I alone in believing the general health, well being, and most importantly, the fertility of us and our children is on the line.

HERE ARE  ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX  Reference Links to Peer-Reviewed Studies re RF Microwave Radiation  RIGHT HERE:Parents for Safe Schools 2013 Collection of Studies, Videos and News Releases– See more at:

What Citywide WiFi amounts to is a massive V.I.P. back door entrance to the wireless devices’ trap doors for electronic eavesdropping purposes. They also make the entire matrix including anything connected to it extremely vulnerable to cyber attacks.

Don’t kid yourselves folks, the NSA is as strong as ever and WiFi networks are about as secure as a Brazilian bank account.

Don’t fall for the latest  smoke and mirrors filled theater to get your eyes off of the ball.

Yeah, and next they will tell about the layoffs that are coming at the NSA.
They don’t need the building anymore because they moved to the basement long ago.

images (38)


images (39)


Snowden is leaking because they want you to look at the dinosaur and the outdated building hooked up to the old copper wires. You see, while behind your backs, and under your noses, in your bedrooms,  living rooms, kitchens and classrooms and even in your kids laps, they now potentially have unlimited access. Now they could theoretically just push a button and tap into all of the wireless networks and decide what channel they want to watch. Warrants? What are those? Fusion centers? Are those  Japanese restaurants?

The old copper wire infrastructure used to require several city blocks of  Cray computers and a 10,000 heads to log and keep tabs on us. Well, now with everything wireless, they can take the show on the road, utilize other infrastructure and some of the apparatuses can now fit into a  large van on a street corner with current advances in technology.

City wide WiFi also amounts to a form of forced irradiation at both 2.4 and 5.0 GHz at power levels that are trillions of times the normal background levels in that particular part of the electromagnetic spectrum. For the record, Fukashima is elevating our background levels of ionizing radiation by less than a factor of one. WiFi by a factor of a trillion, so  tell me about all this “low power” nonsense. FCC exposure guidelines green light emission levels below cooking of tissue. They deviously, totally ignore non-thermal effects.

Waves of non ionizing radiation  have energy and in the presence of metals can be amplified tremendously. Stick a fork in a microwave and watch 3 million volts in action come out of a 110 volt appliance.

WiFi is low power compared to what?  A microwave oven?  Long term, the residents will be paying for it in more ways than they can imagine. The RF industry’s irresponsible, reckless, and unabated proliferation of these devices along with their pulse modulated microwave emissions has been given the green light by design. Slick Willy got the Agenda 21 ball rolling in 1993  when he doled out the dough for the APA to write a land use legislative blueprint for every municipality in The U.S. Then he signed the Telecom Act after a night on the town with his Glass Steagall repealing party buddies and set it all in motion. Come to think of it, this was right around the time he mandated the chiva slamming  hooker vaccine(the hepatitis shot) for newborns which is given to babies within minutes of birth. The point is that there are and have been problems at the highest levels for some time now and they have us running on a treadmill chasing our tails while they cook our goose and close the walls in. Oh yeah and the lip service begins while the trojan horse rolls into town.

Regardless of whether or not you have health concerns about wireless, you are not alone and this site contains no less than 75 unique posts containing studies and links to thousands of other studies that are sure to get your attention and maybe even prove to you that beyond a shadow of a doubt, at the very least, wireless has no place in our children’s classrooms, much less on the light pole next to your child’s bedroom window. Even if you remain unconvinced of the health hazards, you still would have reason to be gravely concerned over the potential for 4th amendment violations with this technology.

I think what Snowden leaked is just the tip of the iceberg. The technology is decades ahead of what they allow us to be privy too.
If you ever had any privacy concerns, I would say the following article would be worthy of your undivided attention.



CSEC used airport Wi-Fi to track Canadian travellers: Edward Snowden documents

Electronic snooping was part of a trial run for U.S. NSA and other foreign services

By Greg Weston, Glenn Greenwald, Ryan Gallagher, CBC News Posted: Jan 30, 2014 8:59 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 31, 2014 6:38 PM ET

Privacy and security experts on CSEC

Privacy and security experts on CSEC 2:32
MPs face off over CSEC revelations
MPs face off over CSEC revelations 2:59

Airport Wi-Fi used to track Canadians

Airport Wi-Fi used to track Canadians 4:16

About The Author

Photo of Greg Weston
Greg Weston
National Affairs Specialist
Greg Weston is an investigative reporter and a regular political commentator on CBC Radio and Television. Based in Ottawa, he has afflicted governments of all stripes for over three decades. His investigative work has won awards including the coveted Michener Award for Meritorious Public Service in Journalism. He is also the author of two best-selling books, Reign of Error and The Stopwatch Gang.

Related Stories

A top secret document retrieved by U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden and obtained by CBC News shows that Canada’s electronic spy agency used information from the free internet service at a major Canadian airport to track the wireless devices of thousands of ordinary airline passengers for days after they left the terminal.
After reviewing the document, one of Canada’s foremost authorities on cyber-security says the clandestine operation by the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) was almost certainly illegal.
Ronald Deibert told CBC News: “I can’t see any circumstance in which this would not be unlawful, under current Canadian law, under our Charter, under CSEC’s mandates.”
The spy agency is supposed to be collecting primarily foreign intelligence by intercepting overseas phone and internet traffic, and is prohibited by law from targeting Canadians or anyone in Canada without a judicial warrant.
As CSEC chief John Forster recently stated: “I can tell you that we do not target Canadians at home or abroad in our foreign intelligence activities, nor do we target anyone in Canada.
“In fact, it’s prohibited by law. Protecting the privacy of Canadians is our most important principle.”
But security experts who have been apprised of the document point out the airline passengers in a Canadian airport were clearly in Canada.
CSEC said in a written statement to CBC News that it is “mandated to collect foreign signals intelligence to protect Canada and Canadians. And in order to fulfill that key foreign intelligence role for the country, CSEC is legally authorized to collect and analyze metadata.”
Metadata reveals a trove of information including, for example, the location and telephone numbers of all calls a person makes and receives — but not the content of the call, which would legally be considered a private communication and cannot be intercepted without a warrant.
“No Canadian communications were (or are) targeted, collected or used,” the agency says.
In the case of the airport tracking operation, the metadata apparently identified travelers’ wireless devices, but not the content of calls made or emails sent from them.

Black Code

Deibert is author of the book Black Code: Inside the Battle for Cyberspace, which is about internet surveillance, and he heads the world-renowned Citizen Lab cyber research program at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs.
He says that whatever CSEC calls it, the tracking of those passengers was nothing less than an “indiscriminate collection and analysis of Canadians’ communications data,” and he could not imagine any circumstances that would have convinced a judge to authorize it.


A passenger checks his cellphone while boarding a flight in Boston in October. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration issued new guidelines under which passengers will be able to use electronic devices from the time they board to the time they leave the plane, which will also help electronic spies to keep tabs on them. (Associated Press)
The latest Snowden document indicates the spy service was provided with information captured from unsuspecting travellers’ wireless devices by the airport’s free Wi-Fi system over a two-week period.
Experts say that probably included many Canadians whose smartphone and laptop signals were intercepted without their knowledge as they passed through the terminal.
The document shows the federal intelligence agency was then able to track the travellers for a week or more as they — and their wireless devices — showed up in other Wi-Fi “hot spots” in cities across Canada and even at U.S. airports.
That included people visiting other airports, hotels, coffee shops and restaurants, libraries, ground transportation hubs, and any number of places among the literally thousands with public wireless internet access.
The document shows CSEC had so much data it could even track the travellers back in time through the days leading up to their arrival at the airport, these experts say.
While the documents make no mention of specific individuals, Deibert and other cyber experts say it would be simple for the spy agency to have put names to all the Canadians swept up in the operation.
All Canadians with a smartphone, tablet or laptop are “essentially carrying around digital dog tags as we go about our daily lives,” Deibert says.
Anyone able to access the data that those devices leave behind on wireless hotspots, he says, can obtain “extraordinarily precise information about our movements and social relationships.”

Trial run for NSA

The document indicates the passenger tracking operation was a trial run of a powerful new software program CSEC was developing with help from its U.S. counterpart, the National Security Agency.
In the document, CSEC called the new technologies “game-changing,” and said they could be used for tracking “any target that makes occasional forays into other cities/regions.”
Sources tell CBC News the technologies tested on Canadians in 2012 have since become fully operational.
CSEC claims “no Canadian or foreign travellers’ movements were ‘tracked,'” although it does not explain why it put the word “tracked” in quotation marks.
Deibert says metadata is “way more powerful than the content of communications. You can tell a lot more about people, their habits, their relationships, their friendships, even their political preferences, based on that type of metadata.”
The document does not say exactly how the Canadian spy service managed to get its hands on two weeks’ of travellers’ wireless data from the airport Wi-Fi system, although there are indications it was provided voluntarily by a “special source.”
The country’s two largest airports — Toronto and Vancouver — both say they have never supplied CSEC or other Canadian intelligence agency with information on passengers’ Wi-Fi use.
Alana Lawrence, a spokesperson for the Vancouver Airport Authority, says it operates the free Wi-Fi there, but does “not in any way store any personal data associated with it,” and has never received a request from any Canadian intelligence agency for it.
A U.S.-based company, Boingo, is the largest independent supplier of Wi-Fi services at other Canadian airports, including Pearson International in Toronto.
Spokesperson Katie O’Neill tells CBC News: “To the best of our knowledge, [Boingo] has not provided any information about any of our users to the Canadian government, law enforcement or intelligence agencies.”
It is also unclear from the document how CSEC managed to penetrate so many wireless systems to see who was using them — specifically, to know every time someone targeted at the airport showed up on one of those other Wi-Fi networks elsewhere.
Deibert and other experts say the federal intelligence agency must have gained direct access to at least some of the country’s main telephone and internet pipelines, allowing the mass-surveillance of Canadian emails and phone calls.

‘Blown away’

Ontario’s privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian says she is “blown away” by the revelations.
“It is really unbelievable that CSEC would engage in that kind of surveillance of Canadians. Of us.
“I mean that could have been me at the airport walking around… This resembles the activities of a totalitarian state, not a free and open society.”

 Ann Cavoukian

Privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian. (Colin Perkel/Canadian Press)
Experts say the document makes clear CSEC intended to share both the technologies and future information generated by it with Canada’s official spying partners — the U.S., Britain, New Zealand and Australia, the so-called Five Eyes intelligence network.
Indeed, the spy agency boasts in its leaked document that, in an apparently separate pilot project, it obtained access to two communications systems with more than 300,000 users, and was then able to “sweep” an entire mid-sized Canadian city to pinpoint a specific imaginary target in a fictional kidnapping.
The document dated May 2012 is a 27-page power-point presentation by CSEC describing its airport tracking operation.
While the document was in the trove of secret NSA files retrieved by Snowden, it bears CSEC’s logo and clearly originated with the Canadian spy service.
Wesley Wark, a renowned authority on international security and intelligence, agrees with Deibert.
“I cannot see any way in which it fits CSEC’s legal mandate.”
Wark says the document suggests CSEC was “trying to push the technological boundaries” in part to impress its other international counterparts in the Five-Eyes intelligence network.
“This document is kind of suffused with the language of technological gee-whiz.”
Wark says if CSEC’s use of “very powerful and intrusive technological tools” puts it outside its mandate and even the law, “then you are in a situation for democracy where you simply don’t want to be.”
Like Wark and other experts interviewed for this story, Deibert says there’s no question Canada needs CSEC to be gathering foreign intelligence, “but they must do it within a framework of proper checks and balances so their formidable powers can never be abused. And that’s the missing ingredient right now in Canada.”
The only official oversight of CSEC’s spying operations is a retired judge appointed by the prime minister, and reporting to the minister of defence who is also responsible for the intelligence agency.
“Here we clearly have an agency of the state collecting in an indiscriminate and bulk fashion all of Canadian communications and the oversight mechanism is flimsy at best,” Deibert says.
“Those to me are circumstances ripe for potential abuse.”
CSEC spends over $400 million a year, and employs about 2,000 people, almost half of whom are involved in intercepting phone conversations, and hacking into computer systems supposedly in other countries.
It has long been Canada’s most secretive spy agency, responding to almost all questions about its operations with reassurances it is doing nothing wrong.
Privacy watchdog Cavoukian says there has to be “greater openness and transparency because without that there can be no accountability.
“This trust-me model that the government is advancing and CSEC is advancing – ‘Oh just trust us, we’re doing the right thing, don’t worry’ — yes, worry! We have very good reason to worry.”
In the U.S., Snowden exposed massive metadata collection by the National Security Agency, which is said to have scooped up private phone and internet records of more than 100 million Americans.
A U.S. judge recently called the NSA’s metadata collection an Orwellian surveillance program that is likely unconstitutional.
The public furor over NSA snooping prompted a White House review of the American spy agency’s operations, and President Barack Obama recently vowed to clamp down on the collection and use of metadata.
Cavoukian says Canadians deserve nothing less.
“Look at the U.S. — they’ve been talking about these matters involving national security for months now very publicly because the public deserves answers.
“And that’s what I would tell our government, our minister of national defence and our prime minister: We demand some answers to this.”


No Comments

The untimely death of Gary Carter and what we can learn from what happened to the “kid”


His death was a  tragic, untimely loss, seemingly without reason. The hope of many is that this field of dreams in our home town will offer the next generation what may seem impossible: a chance at the big league and the big time. My sincere hope in this article is, maybe in his memory, I can expose what I believe has stolen the best years of Gary’s and many other ballplayers’ lives. That is what I will attempt to explore and assert. The cruel twists and turns of this arduous life don’t make sense at times, especially when it seems the good die young and the impetuous inherit the earth. I never had the pleasure of personally meeting Mr. Gary Carter,  but his reputation preceded him. His career in the major leagues spanned decades and his philanthropy will span even more. He was known as “Kid” for his ebullient demeanor. He was known to all as number 8 on the field, to some as dad, to some as one of a kind to many more, he will be forever remembered as Gary Carter, one of baseball’s great players.

On Saturday, Febuary 21st, field two at the Fullerton Sports complex will be dedicated and officially named Gary Carter field.

images (7)

One of my sons is a catcher and wore number 8 for several years. My older son will be playing in the tribute game being held in Mr. Carter’s honor, ironically here, just a few miles to the east of where Gary used to play in his younger years in the empty fields on the corner of Rosecrans and Sunny Ridge drive. Today there you can find a 20+ acre golf course which is meticulously landscaped and cared for which is now known as the McColl superfund site.

Gary attended Sunny Hills High School and would eventually write his own ticket because of his athletic gifts. He had what it took to make the big leagues and that he did. In 1972 he signed with the Expos. Life would never be the same. Gary was drafted as a shortstop but several years later he would permanently change positions to catcher. He would spend the better part of the next 20 years behind home plate. This would be the “kid’s” new home. Throughout his remarkable career,  Gary Carter caught more major league games than all but three players in baseball history. Some would estimate that Gary Carter caught upwards of three to four hundred thousand pitches behind home plate.

Gary Carter eventually developed a very aggressive form of terminal cancer in his brain that led to his tragic, untimely death. The type of cancer is known as glioblastoma. Brain cancer seems to be increasingly prevalent in our society and even more so in some sports. Baseball, in particular seems to be the sport where the tumors are becoming the most prevalent. You would initially suspect that head trauma would be responsible and that contact sports like hockey or football would lead the way statistically. Oddly enough, that is not the case. Baseball players like catchers and pitchers seem to be the ones plagued by this dreaded disease.

Cancer is a disease whose causes can vary just a widely as the different forms and is very difficult to prove what specifically is responsible.  With respect to the big leagues, the experts are baffled as to causation but in agreement that there is indeed a strange correlation to baseball. Time magazine had a piece a few years back on it:


There are many baseball players that spend time behind home plate and on the mound. and they live long healthy lives. However there is definitely an inordinate amount that do not.  I believe there are reasons that he and other players met the same fate and succumb to this disease and while many who spend their lives out on that field do not.’

I would like to explore what I believe to be the common denominator and and cause of what is being observed. I believe there is a logical explanation for we are witnessing.

Gary Carter was a catcher. He had tumors that resembled a snake wrapped around the back of his brain. Let us look at some of baseballs other players that suffered a similar fate.

Dan Quisenberry was a right handed pitcher who developed brain cancer on his left temporal lobe.

Dan Quisenberry 1953-1998

Dan Quisenberry 1953-1998


Bobby Bonds, the father of Barry Bonds, was an outfielder. He developed a brain tumor and lung cancer.


Bobby Bonds 1946-2003

Bobby Bonds 1946-2003

One of the more notable anomalies in baseball’s bizarre brain tumor incidence is what went on with The Phillys  at veterans stadium.

Five players, Tug McGraw, John Vukovich, Johnny Oates, Ken Brett and Darren Daulton all had brain tumors.

Tug Mcgraw was a pitcher. The location of his tumor was located on his left temporal lobe.

Tug McGraw 1944-2004

Tug McGraw 1944-2004

John Vukovich was an infielder spending most of his career at 3rd base.

John Vukovich 1947-2007

John Vukovich 1947-2007

Johnny Oates was a catcher. His tumor was in the back of  his head in the brain stem.

Johnny Oates 1946-2004

Johnny Oates 1946-2004

Ken Brett was a pitcher. His tumor was on his frontal lobe.

Ken Brett 1948-2003

Ken Brett 1948-2003

Darren Daulton is a catcher. He has a brain tumor.

Darren Daulton 1962-

Darren Daulton


Ricky Stone is a pitcher. He developed a malignant brain tumor.

Ricky Stone 1975-

Ricky Stone

Bobby Mercer was a center fielder and a broadcaster and his tumor was on his right frontal lobe.

Bobby Mercer 1946-2008

Bobby Mercer


Curt Schilling, one of the Phillies’ all-time greatest pitchers and recently announced  he was recently diagnosed with cancer
download (7)


Giants pitcher Dave Dravecky, 32, had a cancerous tumor on his left arm.

download (6)



Lets look at some umpires. Although they rotate their positions on the field, they spend plenty of time behind the plate.

Orioles long-time umpires attendant Ernie Tyler, who has worked 51 consecutive Opening Days including  3,819 consecutive home games  in Baltimore, was diagnosed with a brain tumor.

Longtime big league home plate umpire Harry Wendelstedt had a career that spanned from 1966-98  and was diagnosed with a brain tumor. 

Henry Wendelstedt 1938-2012

Henry Wendelstedt




Frank Dezelan,  a major league home plate umpire,  umpired for 10 years in the minor leagues and then in the major leagues from 1966-1971. Surgery to remove a brain tumor ended his career when he was 42.


Frank Dezelan 1929-2011

Frank Dezelan

Lanny Harris was a home plate umpire in the National League for 7 full seasons, from 1979 to 1985. In 1985, he was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor, and given six months to live.

Lanny Harris 1940-1991

Lanny Harris

Todd Felis walked away from a coordinator position with Big League Dreams to return to umpiring logging 5000 games. He was diagnosed with a brain tumor.

Thomas S. Busdeker, 54, a long time umpire of high school and youth baseball was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor called “glioblastoma multiform.

MLB’s Executive Director Michael Weiner has also been diagnosed with a brain tumor. 

What is striking is the majority of the aforementioned individuals is that most are in the direct trajectory of the ball when it is being pitched. Why do the brain tumors seem to plague pitchers and catchers? Why that particular group of individuals?

The anomaly at Veterans stadium in Philadelphia brings no less than five players to oncology wards. The brain cancer rate was 3 to 4 times what the average should have been and four out of the fiver were either pitchers or catchers.  Was it the synthetic turf that they played on? Was it the proximity to the South Philadelphia refineries? Was it due to the stadium being built on a dump? If so what about all of the other players on the field besides the pitcher and catcher? Why are they not seemingly affected? What about the grounds crew, season ticket holders or anyone else that worked for years in, on and around the astro turf? Considering that the odds in a normal environment of contracting brain cancer is about 1 in 8,000 and that there were only a couple of hundred Phillies who played during the last 30 years,  the question  should be raised concerning possible public health risks from the facility.

Let us first look at Astro Turf. According to the U.S. Patent Office, Astro Turf is composed of many ingredients including polyvinyl chloride which is a plastic that when exposed to temperatures of 86 degrees or more breaks down into a dioxin. In addittion, studies have concluded that artificial turf contains dangerous toxins like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phthalates, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead including the lead chromate pigment.

UV degradation along with the elements aid in the decomposition of polyvinyl chloride compounds and release their contents into their environment. Rub your fingers along a white pvc pipe in your yard that has been exposed to the elements and look at the white powder that will stick to your hand.  The same pipe will not do that on the shelf at the hardware store.

What about the refinery pollution or the jets landing over the stadium? Why does it appear that the pitchers and catchers are the only ones affected? What about all of the other players from other teams that played on the field throughout the seasons? Once more, why are they not affected? Good question.

What did Gary Carter  have in common with the five players from the Phillies who came down with brain tumors?

One of the fields where Gary Carter used to play in his youth was later determined to be a superfund site called the McColl site in Fullerton California. From 1942 to 1946, this location served as a dump for the petroleum industry. The principal contaminants of concern (COC) are: benzene, tetrahydrothiophenes (THTs), and metalsEPA McColl site info When dumping operations ceased, it subsequently became an empty field. Like many children are naturally inclined to do to this very day, they play in empty fields.  Gary, along with hundreds of children over the next 50 years, played in those fields, breathing the air, inhaling the metallic laden dust and the airborne organic compounds. The older kids on my block used to ride up there to dirt bike, play in those fields and even go shooting up in the Coyote Hills. So what about all of the kids that used to play in the fields up there off of Rosecrans? I grew up with some of them. Why are they not all sick? 

Like the five Phillies, Gary was exposed to and ingested carcinogens. Gary breathed his from the dust and physical contact with the soil. So did the neighborhood kids. The five Phillies spent an inordinate amount of time on the Astro Turf breathing and coming into contact with carcinogens as well but so did countless others. The players used their cell phones, lived on an on the road diet at times and were frequently subjected to a lack of sleep on the road trips. So were all the other players?

So what is different about these individuals? 

Why were they possibly susceptible to a greater extent than their counterparts to these carcinogens and external factors off of the field if indeed they were responsible? What did Gary Carter and these others have in common?

All professional Baseball players have it rough. There is no doubt about it. I have known at least one personally and all the way from his farm team days to the big time under the bright lights, it has been an incredibly trying time both physically and emotionally. Long hours away from home and family are just one of the hallmarks of baseball’s  commitments. All baseball players use cellphones to fill the long hours hours away from home. So why are the  GBM’s are on the rise in just the pitchers, and catchers . It is no coincidence that this is the area of the brain closest to which the cell phone is held. Baseball players (even retired) probably use their cell phones often as they are on the road often. So why don’t we see the left or right fielders, coaches, or first basemen inordinately coming down with brain tumors on a similar basis? 

Yankees Phillies Spring Baseball

A lot goes on behind the plate as that is where all the action is. There are a lot of eyes and ears 30 feet back in the stands. What most people don’t realize is that part of the action behind the plate and elsewhere involves radar. The radar is aimed at the pitcher from behind home plate and at times, in center field aimed at the catchers to get the velocities off of the bat. It is used on almost every ball that is pitched and caught, whether it be at practice, spring training or during regular season, a radar gun is in operation aimed directly at the pitcher. The catcher is also smack dab in the middle of the radar beam. Gary Carter was no exception. He was in the radar gun’s line of fire almost all of the time. For that matter, so are most catchers, pitchers and even umpires. So why then, do not all pitchers, catchers and umpires get brain tumors?

Let’s talk about radar. Radar employs microwave technology to determine the velocity of the ball as it travels to home plate from the pitcher’s mound. It emits a precisely focused, directional beam of electromagnetic radiation that travels right through the catcher, umpire and to the pitcher. Just how many radar guns were in use at each respective game is anyone’s guess. The frequency of the radiation these devices operate on is similar to the microwave oven in your home, which is around 2.4 GHz. This is also the same frequency that your WiFi and WiFi enabled wireless devices, including some cordless and cellular phones operate on as well. This particular frequency has been shown to make the blood brain barrier permeable to toxins and metals.

I believe this unique combination of cause and effect is why Gary and these individuals fell victim to this tragedy and many others, although exposed to the toxins, were not exposed to the radar failed to develop tumors. Those exposed to the radar that were not exposed to the toxins failed to develop tumors as well. I believe that both are required for the brain tumors to form and this explains what we are observing.

Below is an excerpt from Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. Director, Center for Family and Community Health School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley  that confirms what low intensity microwaves do to the blood brain barrier:

“Since exposure to low intensity microwave radiation can open the blood-brain barrier, toxic chemical exposure may be more harmful to anyone who is exposed to wireless radiation. For example, see]”

‘Putting the next generation of brains in danger’

Saundra Young, CNN, Feb 14, 2014

The number of chemicals known to be toxic to children’s developing brains has doubled over the last seven years, researchers said.

Dr. Philip Landrigan at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and Dr. Philippe Grandjean from Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, authors of the review published Friday in The Lancet Neurology journal, say the news is so troubling they are calling for a worldwide overhaul of the regulatory process in order to protect children’s brains.

“We know from clinical information on poisoned adult patients that these chemicals can enter the brain through the blood brain barrier and cause neurological symptoms,” said Grandjean.

“When this happens in children or during pregnancy, those chemicals are extremely toxic, because we now know that the developing brain is a uniquely vulnerable organ. Also, the effects are permanent.”

The two have been studying industrial chemicals for about 30 years. In 2006, they published data identifying five chemicals as neurotoxicants — substances that impact brain development and can cause a number of neurodevelopmental disabilities including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, dyslexia and other cognitive damage, they said.

Those five are lead, methylmercury, arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, and toluene.

Banned in the United States in 1979, PCBs were used in hundreds of products including paint, plastic, rubber products and dyes. Toluene is in household products like paint thinners, detergents, nail polish, spot removers and antifreeze.

7 chemicals in your food

Now, after further review, six more chemicals have been added to the list: manganese; fluoride; tetrachloroethylene, a solvent; a class of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or flame retardants; and two pesticides, chlorpyrifos, which is widely used in agriculture, and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT.

“The continuing research has identified six new chemicals that are toxic to the developing human brain,” said Landrigan. “We’re turning up chemicals at the rate of about one a year that we’re discovering are capable of damaging the developing brain of a human fetus or human infant.”

To examine fluoride, which is in tap water in many areas, Landrigan and Grandjean looked at an analysis of 27 studies of children, mostly in China, who were exposed to fluoride in drinking water at high concentrations. The data, they said, suggests a decline on average of about seven IQ points.

There’s another big concern: “We are very worried that there are a number of other chemicals out there in consumer products that we all contact every day that have the potential to damage the developing brain, but have never been safety tested,” Landrigan said.

“Over the last six or seven years we are actually adding brain toxic chemicals at a greater speed than we are adding toxicity evidence in children’s brains,” Grandjean said.

“At least 1,000 chemicals using lab animals have shown that they somehow interfere with brain function in rodents — rats and mice — and those are prime candidates for regulatory control to protect human developing brains. But this testing has not been done systematically.”

At greatest risk? Pregnant women and small children, according to Grandjean. According to the review, the biggest window of vulnerability occurs in utero, during infancy and early childhood.

The impact is not limited to loss of IQ points.

“Beyond IQ, we’re talking about behavior problems — shortening of attention span, increased risk of ADHD,” Landrigan said.

“We’re talking about emotion problems, less impulse control, (being) more likely to make bad decisions, get into trouble, be dyslexic and drop out of school. … These are problems that are established early, but travel through childhood, adolescence, even into adult life.”

BPA, phthalate exposure may cause fertility problems

It’s not just children: All these compounds are toxic to adults, too. In fact, in 2006 the pair documented 201 chemicals toxic to the adult nervous system, usually stemming from occupational exposures, poisonings and suicide attempts.

The American Chemistry Council, meanwhile, called the review a “rehash” of the authors’ first review.

“This iteration is as highly flawed as the first, as once again the authors ignore the fundamental scientific principles of exposure and potency,” said council spokesman Scott Jensen.

“What is most concerning is that the authors focus largely on chemicals and heavy metals that are well understood to be inappropriate for children’s exposure, are highly regulated and/or are restricted or being phased out. They then extrapolate that similar conclusions should be applied to chemicals that are more widely used in consumer products without evidence to support their claims. Such assertions do nothing to advance true scientific understanding and only create confusion and alarm.”

Landrigan and Grandjean now say all untested chemicals in use and all new chemicals should be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.

This is not a new concept. In 2007, the European Union adopted regulations known as REACH — Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals — to protect human health from risks posed by chemicals. REACH covers all chemicals, placing the burden of proof on companies to prove that any chemicals they make are safe.

“We are behind right now and we’re falling further behind,” Landrigan said. “… I find it very irritating some of the multinational manufacturers are now marketing products in Europe and the U.S. with the same brand name and same label, but in Europe (they) are free of toxic chemicals and in the U.S. they contain toxic chemicals.”

The best example of this, he said, is cosmetics and phthalates. Phthalates are a group of chemicals used in hundreds of products from cosmetics, perfume, hair spray, soap and shampoos to plastic and vinyl toys, shower curtains, miniblinds, food containers and plastic wrap.

You can also find them in plastic plumbing pipes, medical tubing and fluid bags, vinyl flooring and other building materials. They are used to soften and increase the flexibility of plastic and vinyl.

In Europe, cosmetics don’t contain phthalates, but here in the United States some do.

Phthalates previously were used in pacifiers, soft rattles and teethers. But in 1999, after a push from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, American companies stopped using them in those products.

“We certainly have the capability, it’s a matter of political will,” Landrigan said. “We have tried in this country over the last decade to pass chemical safety legislation but the chemical industry and their supporters have successfully beat back the effort.”

However, the Food and Drug Administration said two of the most common phthalates, — dibutylphthalate, or DBP, used as a plasticizer in products such as nail polishes to reduce cracking by making them less brittle, and dimethylphthalate, or DMP used in hairsprays — are now rarely used in this country.

Diethylphthalate, or DEP, used in fragrances, is the only phthalate still used in cosmetics, the FDA said.

“It’s not clear what effect, if any, phthalates have on human health,” according to the FDA’s website. “An expert panel convened from 1998 to 2000 by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institute for Environmental Safety and Health, concluded that reproductive risks from exposure to phthalates were minimal to negligible in most cases.”

But Grandjean is unfazed.

“We know enough about this to say we need to put a special emphasis on protecting developing brains. We are not just talking about single chemicals anymore. We are talking about chemicals in general.”

“This does not necessarily mean restrict the use of all chemicals, but it means that they need to be tested whether they are toxic to brain cells or not,” he said.

“We have the test methods and protocols to determine if chemicals are toxic to brain cells. If we look at this globally, we are looking at more than a generation of children — a very high proportion of today’s children have been exposed to lead, mercury and other substances, including substances that have not yet been tested but are suspect of being toxic to brain development.”

The Environmental Working Group is an environmental health research organization that specializes in toxic chemical analysis and has long called for reforms. In 2004, the group tested 10 samples of umbilical cord blood for hundreds of industrial pollutants and found an average of 200 in each sample.

“Here in the U.S., the federal law put in place to ostensibly protect adults and children from exposures to dangerous chemicals, including those that can present serious risks to the brain and nervous systems, has been an abject failure,” said Environmental Working Group spokesman Alex Formuzis.

“The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act has instead been largely responsible for the pollution in people beginning in the womb, where hundreds of industrial contaminants literally bathe the developing fetus.”

Landrigan is recruiting pregnant women for a new study that will test for chemical exposures. He said it’s inevitable that over the next few years more chemicals will be added to the list.

His concern? “The ability to detect these chemicals lags behind the chemical industries’ ability to develop new chemicals and put them into consumer products. That’s why we need new legislation in this country to close that gap.”

“We are lagging behind,” Grandjean said. “And we are putting the next generation of brains in danger.”

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley

There are many studies and research papers that confirm that microwaves allow toxins to get into the brain that would under normal circumstances, not be able to enter:

Increased blood–brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain

 Here is an invaluable 19 min. lecture by world-renowned neurosurgeon and research scientist Dr. Lief Salford of Lund University, Switzerland, on research findings showing blood brain barrier leakage in (thousands of) rat brains leading to increased albumin (neurotoxin) uptake, memory loss and damage of up to 2% of brain cells.
Folks, wireless microwave radiation exposure like any radiation exposure is cumulative. The more exposure over time, the greater propensity for disease. The radar guns have improved in technology over the years much like the cell phones went from a brick to a small flip phone that fits in the palm of your hand. While they are still dangerous, the wireless emissions have dropped in proportion. The same with the radar. Pitchers and catchers are in the radar beam almost continuously. This is the game changer. The radar exposure is the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back when combined with toxin exposure, cell phone use etc. The radar guns behind home plate beamed at the back of Gary’s head for decades. Gary Carter’s tumor was in the back of his head wrapped around the spine.
The radar guns are always aimed at the pitcher and I believe the locations of the tumors indicate the radar is the trigger. For example, catchers would get the cancer on the back of the head or the brain stem and the pitchers would get the cancer in one of the temporal lobes depending on if they were left or right handed. You would expect to find the tumors on the side of the head that faces home plate during the delivery. I believe that is exactly what we are witnessing.  Coincidence? I do not believe so.
What about the scouts, pitching coaches or bullpen catchers? They are around the radar and it is sometimes aimed at the backs of their heads?
Mark Merila, the Padre’s bullpen catcher for more than a decade has brain cancer.
Mark Merila

Mark Merila

Colorado Rockies scout Chris Forbes came down with two brain tumors.

download (4)

Tom Pratt was the 12-year pitching coach for the MLB’s Chicago Cubs and has a brain tumor.

download (5)

Michael Weiner, the executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association died of brain cancer. I believe it was probably due to his cell phone use. 

images (2)

Gliomas (brain cancers) have been linked to wireless exposure.

As a matter of fact, the Italian supreme court ruled that microwave radiation from cell phones did in fact cause tumors. Remember that radar guns emit microwave radiation.

How about other sports like tennis that use radar?

tennis radar system

tennis radar system

So how many tennis players are getting brain tumors?

Tim Gullikson, the uncommon tennis player who never made an enemy and who became the coach of the best player in the world, died of the brain cancer he had been fighting for nearly 18 months at the age of 44.

Timothy Ernest "Tim" Gullikson 1951-1996

Timothy Ernest “Tim” Gullikson

Helen Kelesi  had a brain tumor.

Helen Kelesi

Helen Kelesi

James Broach had just become the first and only Trinity men’s tennis player to win a national championship in singles and doubles. He died after a three-year battle with brain cancer. He was 37

James Broach 1986-2013

James Broach

Renee Simpson died of brain cancer at age 47.

Rene Simpson 1986 -2013

Rene Simpson
1986 -2013

Todd Witsken was a three-time All-American at USC and died of brain cancer at age 34

Todd Witsken 1963-1998

Todd Witsken

Leander Paes, one of the world’s best doubles tennis players, was treated for a brain lesion that turned out to be a parasitic brain infection.

download (6)


Alice Reen, is a professional tennis player and a two-time brain tumor survivor.



Stephen Bell, a champion tennis player died of a brain tumor at the age of 38.

Stephen Bell 1969-2009

Stephen Bell

Chuck McKinley was clearly among the most charismatic players of the early 1960s. He passed away far too young at 45 of a brain tumor. 

Chuck McKinley 1941-1986

Chuck McKinley


I believe that so many are dead or dying from wireless microwave radiation this and yet government and the industry is trying to hide it from the public. How could major league baseball or the tennis associations not even mention any of this anywhere? Has no one ever put these pieces together?

Radar guns emit wireless microwave radiation.   Wireless microwave radiation has been determined to be a class 2B carcinogen by the World Health Organization. list of class 2B carcinogens begins on page 9

Some scientists believe if accurately assessed today, wireless microwave radiation would be listed as a class 1 carcinogen. Dr Hardell of the World Health Organization EMF Working Group,  now states radio frequency radiation meets criteria for a  group 1 carcinogen and that  “Current guidelines for exposure need to be urgently revised”.

Think of the  tremendous industry influence over the scientific community and government regulators.

The FCC exposure guidelines for wireless radiation only take into consideration acute burning of tissue and ignore all non thermal biological effects that are found at much lower exposure levels.  There is much debate over this particular issue. For example:



Epa scientist on wireless

Cell phones, WiFi routers, wireless TVs, dvr’s, blue tooth devices,iPads, tablets, laptops, security systems, printers, and any other wireless device emits this carcinogen. Depending on how toxic of an environment you live in, will determine how synergistically the radiation with work with the poisons around you and your children to produce disease.

I believe that Gary Carter and many others would possibly still be alive today if those we entrust with our safety and our very lives at times would stand up and face head on what has spent the better part of the last 35 years behind home plate. It sadly has now managed to enter our homes, schools and workplaces, and in some cases, without even our knowledge or consent.

Major league baseball as well as all sports need to act on this and end this needless tragedy of some of our finest men and women who tirelessly give of themselves for the game.

images (13)

There is nothing more precious than to see the sun shine forever in a child’s eyes. Their excitement of being in the stands of a big league game or simply playing on the little league field is priceless.  We all know that without the children there is no tomorrow for any aspect of our society.  How much longer will we have to tolerate the silence on the wireless microwave radiation dangers especially to our children?

I would like to show you a photo of what I believe to be the biggest threat of all to our children. It is taking place in the classrooms and maybe even at home. This is a photo of a child, not with a radar gun in his lap, but something similar. It is a microwave transmitter.

The Fullerton Informer shared from:

Like This Page · March 8, 2013

Student at Commonwealth creating a story on the iPad.

33984_479084712158056_1011868072_n (2)

The wireless antenna is right on his zipper. Need I say more?

What is all this wireless doing to the unborn? Are the same mechanisms at work in Autism involving metals and microwave radiation?

download (5)

You see, my son will be playing on that field tomorrow in honor of Gary Carter. Ironically my other son is number 8 on his little league team and my oldest will be wearing the “kid” shirt tomorrow at the game. My hope for my sons is that they will have a “kid” of their own someday and with any luck more than just one. Sadly I believe that what is taking place right before our very eyes may make that reality a mere impossibility some day.

When my father died of cancer some 12 years ago, I availed myself to warn others of the mistakes he made in the hopes of many others gaining insight into what may not be evident to the unsuspecting.

While what has happened to Gary Carter and those that have gone before him cannot be changed, what can be gained is insight into what needs to change so that others don’t have to go down that road. Ladies and gentlemen, wireless radiation is not harmless, the trillion dollar wireless industry is not your friend and if you think the government is going to protect you, you have another thing coming. The dangers of microwave radiation have been known for the last 50 years and are still being actively suppressed to this day.

I am sure that if the players that gave their all to the fans that meant it all to them were here today and know what is now evident, they would want you to act in a way consistent with the values they collectively embodied as a team. The need to be strong, courageous, brave and to persevere in spite of at times, insurmountable odds, and to act in a way that was fair, kind, and loving towards those who are the most vulnerable would be the best tribute to Gary Carter and the others that any of us could ever make.

Do it for the “kid” and for all the “kids”. Help us end the largest radiation experiment that the world has ever known that is currently being conducted on all players in this game of life, including our children  so that the “kids” may live to display Gary Carter’s once youthful exuberance in perpetuity and have “kids” of their own someday. I am sure he would have wanted it that way.

No Comments

Jim James Speaks

images (3)


The most recent Fullerton Observer hit the stands the other day. I have to give credit to the crew over there as The Observer is the only paper that will touch this wireless classroom issue with a ten foot pole and that is truly commendable. You know there is a lot going on in this town that would qualify under the term of “inconvenient truth”. The fact is, no one cares to deal with inconvenient truths. Sadly, when those two words end up in the same sentence, it’s lights out meatball for logic and hello Dolly for cognitive dissonance.

So how does one deal with these when confronted with something inconvenient? Well, prudent avoidance is extremely effective if no one else is looking. Denial is always an option unless the word is getting out and it is ending up in your face. Spin can be successful if your audience has a very myopic perspective and a limited memory. For the more sophisticated at heart and late in the game, you can call good old subterfuge  to the rescue.

A few weeks ago, a Fullerton resident, and mother along with her 87 year old mother were passing out fliers to the parents of children as they were dropping their kids off over at Acacia Elementary.

As parents with a conscience and some critical thinking skills that have not been impaired by halide toxicity, they were legally attempting to warn parents of a potential imminent threat to the safety of school children. FSD staff, brass and board are no stranger to this information as they have been ignoring it long enough to birth a child. So these ladies, being freedom loving Americans that happen to take the “love your neighbor” scripture literally instead of allegorically, were freely and peacefully exercising their first amendment rights out on that sidewalk passing out fliers. These flyers were not printed on yellow paper being dropped out of an aircraft, rather they were clearly written warnings citing groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, and some Harvard trained pediatric neurologist with links to thousands of scientific studies that warn against what Karen Whisnant and Robert Pletka with the tacit approval of the silent school board is doing to the Acacia kids with their wireless radiation experiment in the classrooms., You get the picture.

So at the drive thru, the kids can hold the pickles and hold the lettuce but  in the classrooms special orders do upset us. No wireless, no education at Acacia. That was the final from Brother Bob some time ago. So rather than crawl under a rock inside a Faraday cage with my kids, I had some of my colleagues filming these wonderful ladies do what they felt inclined to do, that is warn the parents that sending their children into that environment maybe isn’t such a good idea.  I will tell you what is not a good idea, and that is stepping on the egos of those who have dug their heels in on this issue all the way to China because Karen Whisnant who personally refused this information at least twice called the police on this law abiding, valiant 87 year old grandmother who puts all of these servile, spineless lackeys to shame.

So now enter Jim James from Fullerton who wrote into the Observer in response to my letter to all involved in this potentially unmitigated public health disaster in the making. You can read what I believe to be his subterfuge piece missing the boat right here on page 2 :

Yeah he says it costs a quarter for gas to have two Crown Victoria police interceptors show up to shake down an 87 year old grandmother passing out fliers. With super at 4 bucks a gallon, the lead foots down Commonwealth to Acacia and North to Dorothy, he is probably off by a few bucks. Sure the salaries are paid regardless of whether they are shaking down an 87 year old grandmother, murdering a homeless man or simply arresting a drunk driver. My point was the school called the police on a law abiding citizen exercising her first amendment rights on a public sidewalk. It was done simply to intimidate and to embarrass people that were not in agreement with her forced irradiation classroom model. Jim James you spin it well. You introduce terms like missing persons, 25 cents, sick and tired, community and donut shop.

Jim James, what is your dog in this fight? Is it the health of these school children? Is it your ardent support of free speech?  Is it your concern over the fatally flawed business model of the FSD with their purchasing of all these contraptions that if you add the letters c and e after the letter a to that word, you just might get a glimpse of the permanent version of what the social engineers have in store for the unsuspecting? Do tell. What prompted to you to write this letter?

Subterfuge defined. Plain and simple.

Kids’ health is on the line, you talk about 25 cents worth of gas.

Police from one of the most notorious departments in America are called on an 87 year old grandmother and you talk about being sick and tired.

The First Amendment was being attacked and you talk about a donut shop.

The school district officials ignore this information for almost a year and you talk about someone doing their JOB.

No, not one mention of the kids, the thousands of scientific studies that warn against the wireless classroom experiment, the fact that someone could have gone to jail or even beaten to death for doing nothing, and no mention of one government entity (the school district) throwing its weight around to intimidate the law abiding taxpayers.

No, once again, not one mention of the possible health dangers to our children as a result of this potentially unmitigated public health disaster in the making, just a reference to chump change.

When you are dealing with lackeys in lockstep formation from the fields of education and academia along with those in industries like telecom and defense, and the servile, sold out in the cubicles, what else would you expect? Face this issue head on? It is a nightmare. Try being one of those 14,o00 children in the FSD as the backs of the grown ups are turning on them. Yes, they are going to have microwave transmitters in their laps for the rest of their lives.33984_479084712158056_1011868072_n-1-300x225

With the vampires running the blood bank at The FCC, with the FSD and the FJUHSD boards appearing to be asleep at the switch and with Pletka’s and Giokaris’s feet on the gas, one has to wonder in light of all the science on both sides of this issue, what is this all going to do to the children? Chronic, long term pulse modulated wireless microwave radiation exposure trillions of times the normal background levels in direct proximity to the sensitive developing reproductive areas of children has never been studied. What has been known for decades is that microwaves are dangerous even at what is commonly referred to as  “low power”.  7 years ago the German’s warned us:

40 years ago the Navy told us:

A year ago the experts warned us:

HERE ARE  ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY SIX  Reference Links to Peer-Reviewed Studies re RF Microwave Radiation

Parents for Safe Schools 2013 Collection of Studies, Videos and News Releases

Just like Roman Schulze’s wife Michele Garden was “sick and tired” of the flyers on the windshields over at Acacia ending up in the gutter because she made herself the self appointed street sweeper, another one decides to jump in the” irradiate the children and attack the first amendment” basket.  Jim James is sick and tired alright. Jan Weiner chimed in from over at CSUF a few weeks ago on the wireless issue on the heels of Dr. Roman Schulze’s presentation to the Glendale Unified’s board convincing them to green light  the WiFi party in our northern Agenda 21 neighbors’ classrooms. Just when you thought it couldn’t get any stranger-

Jim James serves it up straight on the rocks and spoon feeds us pure subterfuge. Yes it is all just subterfuge. Jim James has spoken indeed.

We too will continue to speak up for these kids while Jimmy Boy, you can keep the chump change. The largest radiation experiment on children that the world has ever known is well underway. It needs to come to an end. To all of you who know better, please don’t turn your backs on those who already have the deck stacked to the hilt against them. Silence in this case, I believe, is complicity of the worst kind. 

Jim, we will never get sick and tired of people like you getting sick and tired because when people like the aforementioned get sick and tired, that just means that we are becoming more effective. We cannot ever afford to get sick and tired of having the backs of  these kids. Not getting sick and tired is gonna make all the difference in the world to them someday whether you are sick and tired or not.





No Comments

Jan Weiner speaks

Jan Weiner speaks


I guess it is a good living making money off of the Autism epidemic and the special education explosion while breathing exhaust fumes next to the 57 freeway.

Meet Jan Weiner

Looks like out of all of those in key positions that were in receipt of this email, this one was the first to step right up to the microphone. Here is just a little background on her right here –

Research Interests: Full Inclusion of Individuals with Moderate/Severe Disabilities (Birth to Death); Adult Transition; Positive Behavior Support (Individual and School-Wide), Single Subject Research Design


  • Ph. D., Education University of California, Santa Barbara
  • M.A., Education Administration
  • Ed.M., with distinction, Special Education, Boston University
  • B.A., cum laude, Psychology, Northeastern University & University of Massachusetts

It sure looks to me like another Psychology major with an Education degree defending irradiating children. Such an eerily familiar ring to Pletka and his cadre of followers (school principals)  in the FSD.

I am still waiting for the C.S.F. physics department to jump into the basket. Michelle Garden said they don’t agree with us either:

Why does it seem that it is always the taxpayer funded, establishment on the teat types, who are always the ones stepping on the gas pedal to the common core’s microwave matrix, wireless radiation chambers’ classroom finish line for our kids? I just don’t get it.

Yeah, yeah, sure, sure, the Autism epidemic has nothing to do with wireless or vaccines. Prevention? What the heck is prevention?  The solution seems to be simply more vaccines, petrochemical poison pharmaceuticals and more wireless. It is a brilliant business model but in my opinion, a very immoral one.

The solution is not just simply more vaccines, drugs and more wireless. The solution is to stop doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. That is the definition of insanity. A paltry salary with a pension down the line can turn into some real blinders if it befalls the right individuals. How can so many who are ostensibly so well educated be so complicit in the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced? How can people continue on with the blinders as the special ed budgets explode while the Autism rates head straight into orbit?  Is job security, fake fair weather friends, reputation and fleeting prestige really worth it? 

Gotta tow the line so they can eat their bacon in Europe and go wine tasting in the summer. Break rank and its all out the window. Yes but the the onslaught of wireless technologies in the form of microwave towers,  satellites showering the planet with radiation,  Wireless Fidelity (WiFi) ports,  Wireless Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX) antennas — plus all the gadgets they make possible: , tablets, dect phones,  pagers,  Blackberries, cell phones, roving laptops,  wireless electric and water meters, satellite TV and radio,  in-flight internet are totally safe as the vampires run the blood bank at the FCC.  I am referring as well to the electromagnetic weapons,  radiation-emitting stations,  surveillance instruments,  and crowd-control devices military and law enforcement deploy, the rf modules, the microwave ovens, the wireless cameras, baby monitors and of course the extra special mandatory exposure wireless classrooms in the Fullerton School District. But have these always been with us? Have the battery of the 50+ metallic nano tech laden injections which are touted for the greater good? Yeah, and meanwhile the term public health has truly become an oxymoron as a result of all this willful ignorance in the year of the cat. I digress. There are thousands of studies, scientists, accompanied by millions of brain damaged kids and all we get from the community to address this is a special ed teacher? Come on gang. 

Come to think of it, the trillion dollar wireless industry, the lobbyists on the hills, the out of control federal government,the educrat lackeys counting the dollar signs in the CAFR’s, the tech companies’ infestation of the CalPers, the immoral desire to not rock the boat to the detriment of others and the clandestine agenda to affect human fertility all have nothing to do with the price of tea in China now do they?

Right out of the gate, the quack job theme of junk science rises to the surface. Never you mind that she appears to ignore thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies and exchanges it for this. WELL ANYWAY, HERE IS WHAT SHE WROTE which appears to be nothing more than cut and paste RF industry info possibly from Lorne Trottier’s shill cut and paste site promoted by ROMAN SCHULZE.

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Weiner, Jan <> wrote:

Here is more updated data to add to your information:
“Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.”

Quackwatch lists the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) as a questionable organization, and its certifying board, the American Board of Environmental Medicine as a dubious certifying board.[4] They are not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties.[8]

Electromagnetic fields and public health
Base stations and wireless technologies

May 2006

Mobile telephony is now commonplace around the world. This wireless technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennas, or base stations, relaying information with radiofrequency (RF) signals. Over 1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of third generation technology.

Other wireless networks that allow high-speed internet access and services, such as wireless local area networks (WLANs), are also increasingly common in homes, offices, and many public areas (airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base stations and local wireless networks increases, so does the RF exposure of the population. Recent surveys have shown that the RF exposures from base stations range from 0.002% to 2% of the levels of international exposure guidelines, depending on a variety of factors such as the proximity to the antenna and the surrounding environment. This is lower or comparable to RF exposures from radio or television broadcast transmitters.

There has been concern about possible health consequences from exposure to the RF fields produced by wireless technologies. This fact sheet reviews the scientific evidence on the health effects from continuous low-level human exposure to base stations and other local wireless networks.

Health concerns

A common concern about base station and local wireless network antennas relates to the possible long-term health effects that whole-body exposure to the RF signals may have. To date, the only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has been related to an increase in body temperature (> 1 °C) from exposure at very high field intensity found only in certain industrial facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature increases are insignificant and do not affect human health.

The strength of RF fields is greatest at its source, and diminishes quickly with distance. Access near base station antennas is restricted where RF signals may exceed international exposure limits. Recent surveys have indicated that RF exposures from base stations and wireless technologies in publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals) are normally thousands of times below international standards.

In fact, due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body absorbs up to five times more of the signal from FM radio and television than from base stations. This is because the frequencies used in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in TV broadcasting (around 300 to 400 MHz) are lower than those employed in mobile telephony (900 MHz and 1800 MHz) and because a person’s height makes the body an efficient receiving antenna. Further, radio and television broadcast stations have been in operation for the past 50 or more years without any adverse health consequence being established.

While most radio technologies have used analog signals, modern wireless telecommunications are using digital transmissions. Detailed reviews conducted so far have not revealed any hazard specific to different RF modulations.

Cancer: Media or anecdotal reports of cancer clusters around mobile phone base stations have heightened public concern. It should be noted that geographically, cancers are unevenly distributed among any population. Given the widespread presence of base stations in the environment, it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near base stations merely by chance. Moreover, the reported cancers in these clusters are often a collection of different types of cancer with no common characteristics and hence unlikely to have a common cause.

Scientific evidence on the distribution of cancer in the population can be obtained through carefully planned and executed epidemiological studies. Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published. These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base stations and wireless networks.

Other effects: Few studies have investigated general health effects in individuals exposed to RF fields from base stations. This is because of the difficulty in distinguishing possible health effects from the very low signals emitted by base stations from other higher strength RF signals in the environment. Most studies have focused on the RF exposures of mobile phone users. Human and animal studies examining brain wave patterns, cognition and behaviour after exposure to RF fields, such as those generated by mobile phones, have not identified adverse effects. RF exposures used in these studies were about 1000 times higher than those associated with general public exposure from base stations or wireless networks. No consistent evidence of altered sleep or cardiovascular function has been reported.

Some individuals have reported that they experience non-specific symptoms upon exposure to RF fields emitted from base stations and other EMF devices. As recognized in a recent WHO fact sheet “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity”, EMF has not been shown to cause such symptoms. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize the plight of people suffering from these symptoms.

From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF signals produced by base stations. Since wireless networks produce generally lower RF signals than base stations, no adverse health effects are expected from exposure to them.

Protection standards

International exposure guidelines have been developed to provide protection against established effects from RF fields by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 1998) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE, 2005).

National authorities should adopt international standards to protect their citizens against adverse levels of RF fields. They should restrict access to areas where exposure limits may be exceeded.

Public perception of risk

Some people perceive risks from RF exposure as likely and even possibly severe. Several reasons for public fear include media announcements of new and unconfirmed scientific studies, leading to a feeling of uncertainty and a perception that there may be unknown or undiscovered hazards. Other factors are aesthetic concerns and a feeling of a lack of control or input to the process of determining the location of new base stations. Experience shows that education programmes as well as effective communications and involvement of the public and other stakeholders at appropriate stages of the decision process before installing RF sources can enhance public confidence and acceptability.


Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.

WHO Initiatives

WHO, through the International EMF Project, has established a programme to monitor the EMF scientific literature, to evaluate the health effects from exposure to EMF in the range from 0 to 300 GHz, to provide advice about possible EMF hazards and to identify suitable mitigation measures. Following extensive international reviews, the International EMF Project has promoted research to fill gaps in knowledge. In response national governments and research institutes have funded over $250 million on EMF research over the past 10 years.

While no health effects are expected from exposure to RF fields from base stations and wireless networks, research is still being promoted by WHO to determine whether there are any health consequences from the higher RF exposures from mobile phones.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized agency, is expected to conduct a review of cancer risk from RF fields in 2006-2007 and the International EMF Project will then undertake an overall health risk assessment for RF fields in 2007-2008.

Further Reading

ICNIRP (1998)
IEEE (2006) IEEE C95.1-2005 “IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz”

Related links

Base stations & wireless networks: Exposures & health consequences
Fact sheet: Electromagnetic fields and public health: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
WHO handbook on “Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic Fields”
2006 WHO Research Agenda for Radio Frequency Fields
pdf, 100kb
For more information contact:

WHO Media centre
Telephone: +41 22 791 2222

Here is the WHO fact sheet.
EMF fields from electrical wiring is likely more of an issue.

Electromagnetic fields and public health
Exposure to extremely low frequency fields

June 2007

The use of electricity has become an integral part of everyday life. Whenever electricity flows, both electric and magnetic fields exist close to the lines that carry electricity, and close to appliances. Since the late 1970s, questions have been raised whether exposure to these extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields (EMF) produces adverse health consequences. Since then, much research has been done, successfully resolving important issues and narrowing the focus of future research.

In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International Electromagnetic Fields Project to investigate potential health risks associated with technologies emitting EMF. A WHO Task Group recently concluded a review of the health implications of ELF fields (WHO, 2007).

This Fact Sheet is based on the findings of that Task Group and updates recent reviews on the health effects of ELF EMF published in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), established under the auspices of WHO, and by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in 2003.

ELF field sources and residential exposures
Electric and magnetic fields exist wherever electric current flows – in power lines and cables, residential wiring and electrical appliances. Electric fields arise from electric charges, are measured in volts per metre (V/m) and are shielded by common materials, such as wood and metal. Magnetic fields arise from the motion of electric charges (i.e. a current), are expressed in tesla (T), or more commonly in millitesla (mT) or microtesla (µT). In some countries another unit called the gauss, (G), is commonly used (10,000 G = 1 T). These fields are not shielded by most common materials, and pass easily through them. Both types of fields are strongest close to the source and diminish with distance.

Most electric power operates at a frequency of 50 or 60 cycles per second, or hertz (Hz). Close to certain appliances, the magnetic field values can be of the order of a few hundred microtesla. Underneath power lines, magnetic fields can be about 20 µT and electric fields can be several thousand volts per metre. However, average residential power-frequency magnetic fields in homes are much lower – about 0.07 µT in Europe and 0.11 µT in North America. Mean values of the electric field in the home are up to several tens of volts per metre.

Task group evaluation
In October 2005, WHO convened a Task Group of scientific experts to assess any risks to health that might exist from exposure to ELF electric and magnetic fields in the frequency range >0 to 100,000 Hz (100 kHz). While IARC examined the evidence regarding cancer in 2002, this Task Group reviewed evidence for a number of health effects, and updated the evidence regarding cancer. The conclusions and recommendations of the Task Group are presented in a WHO Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) monograph (WHO, 2007).

Following a standard health risk assessment process, the Task Group concluded that there are no substantive health issues related to ELF electric fields at levels generally encountered by members of the public. Thus the remainder of this fact sheet addresses predominantly the effects of exposure to ELF magnetic fields.

Short-term effects
There are established biological effects from acute exposure at high levels (well above 100 µT) that are explained by recognized biophysical mechanisms. External ELF magnetic fields induce electric fields and currents in the body which, at very high field strengths, cause nerve and muscle stimulation and changes in nerve cell excitability in the central nervous system.

Potential long-term effects
Much of the scientific research examining long-term risks from ELF magnetic field exposure has focused on childhood leukaemia. In 2002, IARC published a monograph classifying ELF magnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. This classification is used to denote an agent for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals (other examples include coffee and welding fumes). This classification was based on pooled analyses of epidemiological studies demonstrating a consistent pattern of a two-fold increase in childhood leukaemia associated with average exposure to residential power-frequency magnetic field above 0.3 to 0.4 µT. The Task Group concluded that additional studies since then do not alter the status of this classification.

However, the epidemiological evidence is weakened by methodological problems, such as potential selection bias. In addition, there are no accepted biophysical mechanisms that would suggest that low-level exposures are involved in cancer development. Thus, if there were any effects from exposures to these low-level fields, it would have to be through a biological mechanism that is as yet unknown. Additionally, animal studies have been largely negative. Thus, on balance, the evidence related to childhood leukaemia is not strong enough to be considered causal.

Childhood leukaemia is a comparatively rare disease with a total annual number of new cases estimated to be 49,000 worldwide in 2000. Average magnetic field exposures above 0.3 μT in homes are rare: it is estimated that only between 1% and 4% of children live in such conditions. If the association between magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia is causal, the number of cases worldwide that might be attributable to magnetic field exposure is estimated to range from 100 to 2400 cases per year, based on values for the year 2000, representing 0.2 to 4.95% of the total incidence for that year. Thus, if ELF magnetic fields actually do increase the risk of the disease, when considered in a global context, the impact on public health of ELF EMF exposure would be limited.

A number of other adverse health effects have been studied for possible association with ELF magnetic field exposure. These include other childhood cancers, cancers in adults, depression, suicide, cardiovascular disorders, reproductive dysfunction, developmental disorders, immunological modifications, neurobehavioural effects and neurodegenerative disease. The WHO Task Group concluded that scientific evidence supporting an association between ELF magnetic field exposure and all of these health effects is much weaker than for childhood leukaemia. In some instances (i.e. for cardiovascular disease or breast cancer) the evidence suggests that these fields do not cause them.

International exposure guidelines
Health effects related to short-term, high-level exposure have been established and form the basis of two international exposure limit guidelines (ICNIRP, 1998; IEEE, 2002). At present, these bodies consider the scientific evidence related to possible health effects from long-term, low-level exposure to ELF fields insufficient to justify lowering these quantitative exposure limits.

WHO’s guidance
For high-level short-term exposures to EMF, adverse health effects have been scientifically established (ICNIRP, 2003). International exposure guidelines designed to protect workers and the public from these effects should be adopted by policy makers. EMF protection programs should include exposure measurements from sources where exposures might be expected to exceed limit values.

Regarding long-term effects, given the weakness of the evidence for a link between exposure to ELF magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia, the benefits of exposure reduction on health are unclear. In view of this situation, the following recommendations are given:

Government and industry should monitor science and promote research programmes to further reduce the uncertainty of the scientific evidence on the health effects of ELF field exposure. Through the ELF risk assessment process, gaps in knowledge have been identified and these form the basis of a new research agenda.
Member States are encouraged to establish effective and open communication programmes with all stakeholders to enable informed decision-making. These may include improving coordination and consultation among industry, local government, and citizens in the planning process for ELF EMF-emitting facilities.
When constructing new facilities and designing new equipment, including appliances, low-cost ways of reducing exposures may be explored. Appropriate exposure reduction measures will vary from one country to another. However, policies based on the adoption of arbitrary low exposure limits are not warranted.
Further reading
WHO – World Health Organization. Extremely low frequency fields. Environmental Health Criteria, Vol. 238. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2007.

IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1: Static and extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. Lyon, IARC, 2002 (Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, 80).

ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Exposure to static and low frequency electromagnetic fields, biological effects and health consequences (0-100 kHz). Bernhardt JH et al., eds. Oberschleissheim, International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, 2003 (ICNIRP 13/2003).

ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (1998). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74(4), 494-522.

IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 28. IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to electromagnetic fields, 0-3 kHz. New York, NY, IEEE – The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2002 (IEEE Std C95.6-2002).

For more information contact:
WHO Media centre
Telephone: +41 22 791 2222

Jan S. Weiner, Ph.D.
Department of Special Education
California State University, Fullerton
CP 570

“Cowardice asks the question, is it safe?  Expediency asks, is it polite?  Vanity asks, is it popular?  But conscience asks the question, is it right?  And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor polite, nor popular — but one must take it because it’s right.”   Martin Luther King, Jr


Thank you for stepping forward Jan. There are two sides to this debate. On one side are extremely powerful vested financial, compromised scientific and nefarios political interests. On the other side are countless brain damaged children, many others unaware that their wombs will someday be barren. It is along side those that we stand in the gap. In the middle are the willfully ignorant leaders, scientists, educators, and elected representatives that stand in the way of putting an end to an agenda that I believe is straight from the pit of hell.

Thank you for summarizing the very nature of The Fullerton Informer and our quest to end the largest radiation experiment on children that the world has ever known with your quote from Dr. King. I couldn’t have expressed the very nature of our mission in a more forthright and compelling manner.

There is nothing like owning an alignment shop in a town full of potholes. Life is good at special ed central as long as the machine keeps turning them out and no one pops the bubble. The atmospheric chemistry inside that bubble cannot remain in equilibrium because the equation is shifting to the right side of things now folks. We can no longer afford to ignore the explosive Autism epidemic, the infertility crisis unfolding as we speak and the ongoing pruning of our children’s mental faculties taking place right before all of our very eyes with our tacit approval and complicit silence.

Please don’t join the ranks of those who have sold out and turned their backs on the children. 


Thank you.

– See more at:

No Comments

THE FULLERTON FIVE PART 2- For the health of our children, can reason prevail? – See more at:

THE FULLERTON FIVE PART 2- For the health of our children, can reason prevail?


Today another group in Fullerton has decided to address the FSD Board of Trustess. Lets see if the Fullerton Five still read their mail. This email was sent to me by a fellow colleague and is worthy of a post. It appears to have been produced and sent by a group called FCSST which stands for Fullerton Community for Safe School Technology. I don’t know about you but I should be a card carrying member by now and so should the rest of you. Here is the email that was sent to me:

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Fullerton Community <>
Date: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:12 PM
Subject: Fullerton, California School District Trustees: For the health of our children, can reason prevail?

To:Fullerton California School District Trustees

                        Beverly Berryman

                        Janny Meyer

                        Hilda Sugarman

                        Chris Thompson

                        Lynn Thornley

Fullerton School District trustees, please acknowledge the potential harms to our children in the wireless classrooms and immediately declare a moratorium on wireless technology in the schools. 

We all value technology and where it’s brought us today.  But as parents and community we feel the need to take a step back from it and ask that the district wire the technology to prevent any possible harm to our children.

 This is a direct quote from a letter written by The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) on November, 2013 with regards to wireless technology in schools. 

 ”The peer reviewed, scientific literature demonstrates the correlation between RF exposure and neurological, cardiac, and pulmonary disease as well as reproductive and developmental disorders, immune dysfunction, cancer and other health conditions. The evidence is irrefutable.”

See this link for the entire letter: 

 The Fullerton School Board (FSD) members were sent a letter from AAEM on May 13, 2013.  This is what the Academy told you, the FSD trustees:  “To install this system in your school district risks a widespread public health hazard that the medical system is not yet prepared to address.  Statistics show that you can expect to see an immediate reaction in 3% and delayed effects in 30%, including teachers.”  The question to FSD trustees is this:  Have you read the letter?  Do you think parents and teachers would knowingly allow their children and themselves to be exposed to these harms?

This is a direct quote from a letter written on August, 2013 to the FCC by the head of the American Association of Pediatrics which represents over 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical sub-specialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults:


“ Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children. It is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes.”

Please see this link for the entire letter:

 Upon doing more research it was found that other organizations such as the EPA, FDA and NIOSH have warned the FCC that their guidelines are “seriously flawed”.  Other countries were ahead of the US in implementing these devices in schools.  A lot of these countries have had adverse effects and have since pulled back from wireless and opted for safer wired technology.  Please find this comprehensive link to what other countries have done through their experience:

 A lot of studies have shown that the RFs (or Radio Frequencies) emitted by ipads, cell phones, WiFi etc. cause changes in human cells, DNA, chromosomes etc.  Studies have shown links to cancer, infertility, nerve damage and so much more.  The effects of RFs are even more compounded in children because of the interference with their growing bodies.

 Here are some quotes from leading scientists and doctors about this technology:

  Here is Dr. Anthony Miller, World Health Organization (WHO) scientist, at the Government Management Committee about Cell Tower proliferation in the City, stating wireless radiation would be classified 2A (probable) carcinogen if evaluated today and recommends prudent avoidance.

 FSD states that the radiation from these devices are below FCC standards.  FCC standards were set 18 years ago when none of these devices were in place and a lot of the new studies were not out yet.  FCC standards are set based on thermal effects (the ability of these devices to heat tissue).  Scientists have since discovered effects on an electromagnetic level that have the capacity to alter DNA.  This can happen at a much lower level (by as much as 1000 times lower) than those set by the FCC.  Please listen to this lecture by Dr. Martin Blank, an associate professor from Columbia University that explains the science behind this DNA alteration phenomenon:

 These are letters written by numerous medical doctors and scientists all imploring LA Unified School District schools to use wired technology:

 We’re sure a lot of you own these devices and use them on a regular basis, as do we.  Having these devices at home means that you have one or two devices in some of the rooms in your house.  Having these devices at school means having 24 plus (up to 36) devices in one room with kids being exposed to radiation emissions even when they are not in use.  That is an exponential amount of exposure of a class 2B carcinogen to our children for 6 hours a day 5 days a week. 

 As exciting and educational as this technology is we have to ask ourselves is it worth the price of our children’s health?  The same technology exists in a wired format.  We are asking the district to wire this technology as a precautionary measure against this potential danger to our children.

 While all the technology fund raising efforts have brought in the support of the PTAs, school foundations, local business and corporate sponsorships, does it make sense to proceed on a path fraught with potential health harms to the very children they are trying to help? Are these well-intentioned individuals and groups aware that they are funding technology with known and significant health detriments to the kids and teachers? 

 For the past 9 months, parents and community have been trying to present the documented information that exists on wireless radiation to the FSD school trustees.  FSD response has been a mixture of assurances that the classroom radiation is okay and silence on the evidence contrary to your technology plan.  Unmoved, you continue to roll out the wireless technology.  It appears to us that you are intentionally and determinedly remaining ignorant of this information. 

 In the words of FSD Superintendent Robert Pletka, the wireless classrooms “are totally safe for our children.”  With the aforementioned information, how can this be? 

 Within the past couple of months, the parents of three children at Acacia Elementary School had to pull their children out of the school due to their concerns about the wireless radiation emissions.  If you have ever contemplated moving your children to another school, this can be quite agonizing.  Your children are made to leave their school friends, teacher, and other regular and stable elements of their life.  These parents knew and understood the health detriments.   FSD told them no other accommodations could be made for them at Acacia.  As both parents work, the family was forced to make very costly arrangements to assure the safety of their children.  With a stretch of their household budget they were able to afford to do this.  What about the parents that cannot afford to home school their students?   Parents have no choice in the matter.

 It appears that FSD is making public school available only to those that accept mandatory exposure to a Class 2b possible human carcinogen.   Recall WHO scientist Dr. Miller states it would be classified today as a probable carcinogen?  What parents, in their right mind, would allow this?

  Wireless radiation cannot be seen, heard or felt but modern science gives us the ability to see it’s profound effect on the human body.  Enough research and studies have been done to demand precaution for our students and teachers.  Are we willing to use the children and teachers as guinea pigs?

 As FSD trustees, you are held in the public trust, which entails a great responsibility, as you are accountable not only to the children and parents but the taxpayers.  This responsibility vastly exceeds any other consideration, influence, or party, be it a risk management firm or administrator.  It is, therefore, incumbent upon all of you to look at all of the evidence.

Once again, Fullerton School District trustees, please acknowledge the potential harms to our children in the wireless classrooms and immediately declare a moratorium on this technology until the time where consensuses of safety are arrived at.  As with tobacco, which took decades to determine it causes lung cancer and death, we don’t want to wait for such a determination for our children.


 Fullerton Community For Safe School Technology

 Safety first with our school technology

Be informed  +  Take action

Please visit us and pass it on:

 Thank you,

Fullerton Community For Safe School Technology


So without any further ado gang, may I re-introduce “The Fullerton Five” here to all of you:

Beverly_Berryman (1)
 Janny_Meyer (2)Lynn_Thornley

Hilda_SugarmanChris_Thompson (1)

 Let’s see what they have to say. Or, let’s see if we have to be forced to listen to their continued silence on this crucial issue as the kids continue to be irradiated. Stay tuned.

– See more at:

No Comments


Make no bones about it, the dosage is higher than a kite and it is not what the doctor ordered. Are your kids at risk at school in these wireless classrooms with the schools using commercial or industrial grade routers that broadcast on several frequencies at the same time? You want your kids slouched over an in use wireless radiation emitting cell phone all day? How about at home  or everywhere else with these things right in front of their heads and in their laps all the time? That is exactly what your children are doing at school and at home. These tablet devices are microwave transmitters and emit wireless radiation trillions of times the normal background levels that many of us and our parents were exposed to as children.  

What will it take to get the parents to act. I think that there are many obstacles, not the least of which is them dealing with the fact that they themselves have been irradiating their children since the beginning. So if they acknowledge this as harmful, then they have to deal with their guilt. It is time to deal with reality, swallow the pride and put your children ahead of your fears, the school administrators and your fair weather friends ladies and gentlemen. We are talking about your kids, a trillion dollar industry that doesn’t give a rat’s behind about them, and school administrators that will do whatever they are ordered to do without batting an eye.

 Let us begin.

skull vs ipad basic


As, we know, WiFi and wireless devices emit RF radiofrequency microwave radiation.
The question remains: How much radiation are the teachers and children being exposed to in the classroom?
From the very beginning, we have stated that the radiation levels were dangerously high. Here we have proof, as according to Apple’s Important Product Information Guide , iPads emit about the same radiation as cell phones.
The tables above show us that the iPad, using standard WiFi frequencies (2400-2483 MHz), emits an SAR value of 1.19, which is actually higher than comparable iPhones.
This issue deserves careful and methodical analysis.  I believe that for some time now, that we have been more than doing our part in conveying this to both parents and administrators alike.  This evidence shows that we need to do our due diligence.
brain penetration
Children are especially vulnerable to this kind of microwave radiation. This chart shows how much more deeply the radiation penetrates a child’s brain than for an adult. 
So now it has come time to post a blog entry about cell phone science and studies. We have all heard varying reports from the media about cell phone safety.  One story says that they are safe, another says that they are harmful.  These stories leave us with nothing more than confusion, apathy, and little true knowledge.  As with many industries before, such as tobacco, lead, asbestos, plastics, and many other toxic materials, the multi-trillion dollar wireless industry has been proven to obscure science and to create doubt in the general public.  What they would like to obscure is that according to the science, the fact is that all long term, as in over 10 year case-control studies report an increased risk of brain tumors.
The largest of these scientific reports is called INTERPHONE. Completed in 2004, and not released until 2010, this multi-million dollar international research project, funded in part by the mobile phone industry, officially reported that using a cell phone led to a reduced risk of brain cancer! In other words, the public was told that cell phones protect you from brain cancer. Many media sources simply reported that the coast was clear.
Meanwhile, was not reported to the general public was that according to the data itself, “heavy usage”, as in over 30 minutes of use per day, actually lead to a substantial increase in brain cancer risk.  As they say, the devil is in the details.
Cardis, E. Brain Tumor Risk in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case -control study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2010

Glioma and Meningioma Table 3

In this chart, we can see that for those that used a cell phone for over 1640 hours in 1-4 years, meaning about an hour a day, had an OR of 4.8 for developing a meningioma brain tumor and an OR of 3.77 for developing a glioma.

In other words, using a cell phone for over an hour a day, lead to a 5-fold increased risk of developing brain cancer, according to INTERPHONE, the largest cell phone case-control research study ever.

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on
use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours
diagnosed in 1997-2003. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2006

Hardell pooled analysis 2006 b (1)

It takes a certain amount of exposure for brain tumors to start to appear.  In this chart by a Swedish team of independent researchers lead by Lennart Hardell, there was only a slight increase in risk from using a cell phone 1-1000 hours. The brain tumor risk really jumped, however, after 1000 hours of usage, and was much higher with prolonged usage.

According to the science, using a cell phone for over 1000 hours leads to an increased risk of brain cancer. According to the manufacturer, iPads emit as much or more radiation than cell phones. According to research, children absorb more radiation than adults.  Given this evidence, what will happen to these children who spend at least 4 hours a day on an iPad at school, followed by another 4 hours at home?  This is at least 2000 hours each and every year, and at least 12,000 hours of exposure in elementary school alone.

The Fullerton School District Superintendent Robert Pletka states that the wireless classrooms are “totally safe for the children” as he proudly displays his ignorance of the science by equating two equally important exposure guidelines that are in reality TEN THOUSAND TIMES APART and he gives it all to you right here in writing with his John Hancock on it:
You want to bank your children’s health and reproductive future on a person with an education degree?
Or do we heed the warnings of top medical and scientific experts, many with direct research experience, who state that this is an unacceptable risk for our children?
I would also like to mention that the 60,000 member American Academy of Pediatrics recently put a letter out to the FCC regarding wireless exposure involving children:
As we know, brain tumors generally take at least 10 years, and in many cases 20-30 years to develop. So these children will be grown up before we know the results of this experiment. Reproductive harm may not show up for decades either. That’s not the kind of running start into the brick wall and over the cliff, head first dive that we want to give them…..Do we really want to look back and find out that we made a wrong decision, that we ignored scientists and advisories from experts in the medical field, and now one of our children has a brain tumor, some other form of cancer or irreversible reproductive harm? Maybe some of the obstinate, myopic, cowardly school administrators and board members along with their worshipers do, but in the meantime we are certainly not going to sit back and watch these folks carry out what we believe to be the largest radiation experiment on children that the world has ever known. It is our hope that by informing all of you that you will no longer be able to continue to turn your backs on all of these children.  A  long overdue about face is in order ladies and gentlemen.

Papers finding adverse biological effects such as impaired fertility or damage to health from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz).

Papers listed are only those where exposures were 16V/m or below.  Someone using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer can be exposed to electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m.  Papers are in alphabetical order.  A file of first pages, for printing, can be found here (please pass on to schools).
Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229.

Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45.
Avendaño C. et al., 2010. Laptop expositions affect motility and induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for Reproductive Medicine 66th Annual Meeting: O-249

Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700.

Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163.

Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300.  part 2.
Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2): 253-266.

Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields.

Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of print.

Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689.

Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456.
Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-92.

Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of print.
Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202.
(Wi-Fi alters brain activity in young adults:
Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751.
Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650.
A few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures (6V/m or below):
(Not comprehensive)
Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35.
Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci. 24:111-116.
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika 44:737–741.
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:29–35.
Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300. part 2.
Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 162(2):416-428.
Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 158:126-139.
Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16:263–267.
Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29: 219-232.
Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika 43:1132–1333.
Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II. Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:37–41.
Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4.
Panagopoulos D. al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357.
Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.
Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 25:216-27.
Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the mammalian blood-brain barrier. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:333-355. part 2.
Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:881-883.
Brought to you by 

EMF Refugee: 

The International Coalition for an Electromagnetic Safe Planet (IC-ESP)

“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” 

George Orwell


“Papers finding adverse biological effects or damage to health from
Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5
GHz).Papers listed are only those where exposures were 16V/m or below.
Someone using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer can be exposed to
electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m. Papers are in alphabetical order.
A file of first pages, for printing, can be found here (please pass on
to schools).Wi-Fi:
Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of
deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves
emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology
9(2): 223-229.ño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to
internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases
sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1):
39-45.ño C. et al., 2010. Laptop expositions affect motility and
induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a
non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for
Reproductive Medicine 66th Annual Meeting: O-249 G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced
oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur
Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5):

Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on
oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from
wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163.

Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability
shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic
nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:
part 2.

Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate
variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms
original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2):

Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert
gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on
Biological Effects of Electromagnetic

Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker
responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of

Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and
selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and
electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol.
85(8): 680-689.

Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative
stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human
leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology
88(6): 449–456.

Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45
GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+)
channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav.
105(3): 683-92.

Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against
oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices.
Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of

Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300
component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task.
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202.

(Wi-Fi alters brain activity in young

Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced
Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus
musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751.

Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative
stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless
devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650.

A few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures
(6V/m or below):
(Not comprehensive)
Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana
temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn.
Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35.

Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute
pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci.
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells
by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I.
Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor
production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg.

Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability
shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic
nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:
part 2.

Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting
reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure
effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk
from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health

Maier R. et al., 2004. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on
cognitive processes – a pilot study on pulsed field interference
with cognitive regeneration. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 110:
Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term
exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29:
Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor
necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in
vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika

Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II.
Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring
antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg.
Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of
sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to
radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication
Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4.

Panagopoulos D. al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony
radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna.
Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357.

Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in
rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication.
Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.
Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in
newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the
mammalian blood-brain barrier. European Journal of Oncology Library
part 2.
Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain
after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health
Perspect. 111:881-883.

“Two new papers are published in Pathophysiology this fall that may be
of interest to you.

These papers are the same content as the 2012 BioInitiative Report
Chapter 20
by Martha Herbert and Cindy Sage
This counters the usual criticism that ‘it isn’t good science’ unless
it is peer-review published.

The US annual cost for autism is reported to be $137 billion.
That compares to the EU annual cost for cancer (105 billion
euros/$147 billion USD)
and to heart disease ((165 billion euros/$227 billion USD).

Staggering costs, and the prevalence of autism now in the US is one
child in 88
(one child in 50 by 2012 estimates that include the 8 yr and younger
In 1975, it was one child in 5000. This is a 100-fold increase.

It parallels the explosive rise in wireless technologies and their
pulsed RFR. It should be
considered another possible risk factor for autism, autism spectrum
conditions and ADHD.


The public sidewalk, free speech, our children’s health

The public sidewalk, free speech, our children’s health


images (4)

An 87 year old grandmother asked if this is Nazi Germany at Acacia Elementary School in Fullerton California as the school called the cops on her and other law abiding  moms passing this out: Parents For Safe Schools – flyer (1)

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: joe imbriano <>
Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:07 PM
Subject: The public sidewalk, free speech and our children’s health.
To: Karen Whisnant <>
Cc: Robert Pletka <>, Chris Thompson <>,,, “Rep. Ed Royce” <>, Davis Barber <>,, Beverly Berryman <>, lynn thornley <>, Hilda Sugarman <>, janny meyer <>, “” <>, Mar Buc <>, david morrison <>, “” <>, “” <>

Dear Dr. Whisnant,

This morning a peaceful, well rehearsed, information dissemination campaign which consisted of flyers being politely handed to parents was conducted from four strategic locations located on the public sidewalks adjoining Acacia elementary. It was also all filmed as well.
During the course of their peaceful activities, you rudely shouted at a parent from at least 15 feet away that “you can’t be on school property and you can’t obstruct traffic”. Were you trying to intimidate or humiliate this mother? The implication of your rant was that she was on school property and she was obstructing traffic. The fact of the matter is they were doing no such thing. This is a parent with her 87 year old old mother who have lived in the community for well over 40 years and are neighbors. They were handing out fliers on public property. They were clearly on the sidewalk. Review the geography of your facility. They did no such thing.
You accused them of obstructing traffic. Impossible, as the whole thing is on camera and they were in no way, shape or form doing any such thing remotely resembling what you alleged.
Why are you, or your staff so active in trying to get these parents out of the way?
Someone from your office called the police on these parents, including my lovely wife for doing what is perfectly legal, and protected by the first amendment. Review your civics textbook. This was a waste of public resources, tax money and threatens the safety of the community by needlessly tying up 2 officers and 2 patrol cars by having them dispatched to a nonevent.
I am at a loss for words on what lengths Acacia elementary, you or your staff will go to in order to suppress important health information to the parents.
The attached flyer below is what was and will continue to be disseminated at Acacia and all over the FSD.
Is this the truth that you and the FSD appears to want suppressed?
This material is not obscene and pertains to a matter of public safety, relevant to the the intended audience: the Acacia elementary parents. The dissemination of such was done in a manner wholly consistent with and enshrined within the first amendment.
It appears that there is an agenda to infringe on our first amendment rights. It also appears that you are continuing to attempt to keep this very important information pertaining to the welfare of the children out of the hands of the parents, which by the way, you are entrusted with as a principal.
You do respect the first amendment and the rights afforded all Americans do you not, Dr.Whisnant?
We are well aware of our rights, and will continue to peacefully exercise them as this issue should be and will remain at the forefront off all honest discussion in the FSD,
Chief Hughes, I would like to add that your officers were very professional and courteous and I thank you for that.
Joe Imbriano
site admin

– See more at:

No Comments

JUNK SCIENCE: 70/30 with some wireless industry dough gets you 50/50 and your kids the shaft in the wireless classrooms.


The following is an excellent article from :

This is must read!

UW Scientist Henry Lai Makes Waves in the Cell Phone Industry

UW scientist Dr. Henry Lai never set out to link cell phones to cancer, but his work—and efforts…

Naomi Ishisaka |   January 2011   |  FROM THE PRINT EDITION

A greeting card on bioengineering professor Henry Lai’s office wall at the University of Washington contains this quotation from Ralph Waldo Emerson: “Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”

This philosophy could well sum up Lai’s work on the effects of low-level radiation on DNA, as well as what he believes should be the guiding principle of science: independent investigation and research leading to discovery for the public good. Yet the soft-spoken scientist’s steadfast belief in that principle has placed his research at the center of a persistent global controversy and created powerful enemies that tried to get him fired and essentially succeeded in drying up the source of funding for the type of research he was doing.

Lai admits that he was naive. He came to the UW in 1972 and earned a doctorate in psychology. Two decades later, as a bioengineering researcher, he studied esoteric scientific topics in relative obscurity. He and a fellow researcher, Narendra “N.P.” Singh, were looking at the effects of nonionizing microwave radiation—the same type of radiation emitted by cell phones—on the DNA of rats. They used a level of radiation considered safe by government standards and found that the DNA in the brain cells of the rats was damaged—or broken—by exposure to the radiation. Ironically, cell phones weren’t even on Lai’s mind when he performed the initial studies. Funded initially by the Office of Naval Research, Lai was investigating how radar, which emits radio-frequency radiation, affects the health of operators. “We did not really pay attention to the importance of this thing,” he recalls. But during his research, cell phone giant Motorola Inc. indicated that someone had told the company about Lai’s unpublished results. Motorola asked to meet with him in his lab and at a meeting in Copenhagen.

After Lai and Singh’s research finding an effect on DNA was published in 1995, Lai learned of a full-scale effort to discredit his work. In an internal company memo leaked to Microwave News, a publication that examines health and environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation, Motorola described its plan to “war-game” and undermine Lai’s research. After initially accepting industry funding for continued research from the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program (created to manage $25 million in research funds), Lai and Singh wrote an open letter to Microwave News questioning restrictions placed on their research by the funders. After that, the head of WTR sent a memo asking then-UW president Richard McCormick to fire Lai and Singh. McCormick refused, but the dustup sent a clear message to Lai and his colleagues.

“This shocked me,” Lai says, “the letter trying to discredit me, the ‘war games’ memo. As a scientist doing research, I was not expecting to be involved in a political situation. It opened my eyes on how games are played in the world of business.”

Thus was launched an epic battle over research and truth. If Lai and Singh were correct about the potential impact on brain cells from radio-frequency radiation, there could be billions of dollars on the line for the cell phone industry in potential liability, leading to significant design changes and lost market expansion.

To the layperson, the science behind Lai’s work, which was largely funded by the National Institutes of Health, and  industry-funded research to contradict it is mind-numbingly complex. Virtually every assertion of risk has a counterassertion of no risk. For every independent study showing damage to DNA and memory, there is a study showing the opposite.

Lai, 61, says this phenomenon could be a direct result of the way science is now funded around the world. “[The U.S. was on] the cutting edge of this whole area for the last 30 years. [But] right now, we’re the Third World country. We’re not doing research at all,” Lai says. With government funding all but nonexistent, the bulk of scientific research is funded by private industry. “The mechanism is funding,” Lai says. “You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. The pressure is very impressive.”
The massive Interphone study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and released in May 2010, exemplifies these challenges.

Purported to be the definitive word on cell phone radiation and brain tumors, Interphone involved 13 countries (all outside the U.S.), $25 million, and thousands of tumor patients and controls. Conducted over 10 years, the widely anticipated study was supposed to at last provide clarity on the risks of cell phone use. Yet, once again, the science was divided. The day after the study’s release, headlines read, “No answer, just fuzz, from cell phone study,” and, “One conclusion emerges from Interphone study: Controversy will continue.”

Why, after so much money and time, were the data so mixed? Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, says there were a number of problems with Interphone. “When we started interviewing the protagonists,” he says, “we realized there was a lot of conflict going on. It was a bitter struggle. It tells you the interpretation of the data is not clear cut in any way.”

For the purposes of the Interphone study, a person who used a cell phone 30 minutes a day for more than 10 years was considered to be subjected to heavy exposure. Today, that level of cell phone use (900 minutes a month) is average. The people defined as the most heavily exposed in the Interphone study now represent the average user.

To illustrate that point, Elisabeth Cardis, head of the Interphone study, was quoted as saying, “In my personal opinion, I think we have a number of elements that suggest a possible increased risk among the heaviest users, and because the heaviest users in our study are considered the low users today, I think that’s something of concern. Until stronger conclusions can be drawn one way or another, it may be reasonable to reduce one’s exposure.”

Lai’s frustration with the increasing body of contradictory research led him to do an analysis in 2006 of the available studies on cell phone radiation between 1990 and 2006, and where their funding came from. What he found was that 50 percent of the 326 studies showed a biological effect from radio-frequency radiation and 50 percent did not. But when he filtered the studies into two stacks—those funded by the wireless industry and those funded independently—Lai discovered industry-funded studies were 30 percent likely to find an effect, as opposed to 70 percent of the independent studies.

Lai says that, while his findings highlight the crucial role industry funding plays in scientific research, the 50-50 split alone should be cause for concern. “Even if you accept all the industry studies, you still end up with 50-50,” he says. “How could 50 percent all be garbage? People always start with the statement ‘Hundreds of studies have been done on this topic, and no effect has been found,’ but this is a very misleading statement. [The statements] come out from the cell phone industry, and people just use it, like the American Cancer Society. People haven’t even gone in to look at the real studies and look at the effects that people have reported. This really worries me, because people come out and say things without the facts.”

Slesin agrees and says Lai’s work is important for the research that does show effects from radiation. “[Lai] is one of the most widely cited scientists in this field,” Slesin says.

The American Cancer Society did not reply to requests for an interview. Its official position on the risks of cell phone use states: “Radio frequency (RF) waves given off by cell phones don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, many scientists believe that cell phones aren’t able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported this theory, finding that RF waves do not cause DNA damage.”

CTIA-The Wireless Association, the cell phone industry trade organization, also declined to comment for this story, but its website states: “To date, global health organizations believe that the available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones. Many studies of low-level RF exposure, such as that which occurs with wireless devices, have not discovered any negative biological effects.”

Dr. Beth Mueller, an epidemiologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, acknowledges that there is not strong evidence linking cell phones to brain tumors. But Mueller warns that the research is difficult and that much more study is needed. “I think [cell phone radiation] would be important to study. There are no studies I know of on the possible impact on children and I think it’s something that many people–including some people here at the Hutch–want to see evaluated. I’m concerned because children are using [cell phones] a lot. It’s something that should be looked at, definitely.”

Katy Rock would agree. The Kirkland resident is an athletic 31-year-old who began having headaches in her late teens. “Headaches became an unwelcome fact of life for me in college,” she says, “at first always after running around on the soccer or lacrosse field. So I assumed for years that it was due to dehydration/nutrition problems or just being out of shape. Eventually, they got worse. I started having them with no explainable cause.”

It wasn’t until a she had a seizure in 2007 that Rock discovered something was terribly wrong. The next day, she underwent an emergency double craniotomy to remove a tumor the size of a small lemon from her right frontal lobe and two tumors the size of large grapes from her right temporal lobe. A biopsy showed the cancerous tumors had been growing for about 10 years. A year of chemotherapy followed.

Rock was an early adopter of cell phones. Given a phone as a gift during college in 1997, she recalls using it about two to three hours a week (about 630 minutes a month). Her usage increased in later years with a job that required her to be on call. She is right-handed, and her tumors were on the right side.

Rock, who recently completed her first 5K run in support of Seattle Children’s Hospital’s Pediatric Brain Tumor Research Guild, would not be surprised to find a link between cell phones and brain tumors. “When I was in college, I used to charge my cell phone at night, and the charger cord ran over a leaf of my philodendron plant,” she says. “Over time, the strip on the leaf where the cord touched turned brown. The small amount of power running through the cord was enough to kill some cells of the otherwise healthy plant.”

While Rock’s tale is merely metaphorical, its suggestive import is not lost on Devra Davis, Ph.D., a huge admirer of Lai’s work to raise awareness about the potential hazards of cell phone radiation. Davis is a longtime toxicologist, public health expert and founder of the Wyoming-based Environmental Health Trust, a group that provides basic research and training on environmental health hazards. Davis’ most recent book, released last October, is Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation. Davis calls Lai a “hero” for his groundbreaking work. “[Lai] has made a tremendous impact on the field in many aspects. Not just on the field of DNA, but on the brain, on receptors. In a fair and just world he would be a serious candidate for the Nobel Prize, because he did foundational research on the way the body responds to electromagnetic and radiofrequency radiation and because he persisted in the face of many challenges. He’s been outstanding and indomitable in the face of opposition that would have overwhelmed most people.”
In her book, Davis describes a disconnect between the general public’s largely unquestioning acceptance of cell phone radiation and the large body of evidence suggesting cause for concern. With Lai’s work as her foundation, Davis demonstrates a pattern of the cell phone industry’s scientific manipulation spanning decades. Davis is particularly concerned because the rate of cell phone use by children is skyrocketing—with three out of four 12-year-olds and half of 10-years-olds in the U.S. now possessing a cell phone. Even more troubling: Lennart Hardell, Ph.D., a researcher in Sweden, found that those who began using cell phones in their teens (such as Rock) had four to five times the number of malignant tumors by their late 20s as those who did not use cell hones as teenagers.

While Davis would argue that there is a proven, causal link between cell phones and tumors, Lai does not. What he does say is that there is enough reason for concern, and that a “precautionary principle” should be embraced, as France has done in warning against cell phone use by children, and as San Francisco has done in mandating information on “specific absorption rates” of radiation on cell phone packaging.

“European countries generally believe you need some kind of precautionary approach,” says Lai, who does not own—or use—a cell phone. “What else can we do? Obviously, we don’t know the answer at all. But, then, there is a cause for concern. We need to take some kind of precautionary action.” For now, however, Lai will continue to do research on the drug artemisinin—long used by Chinese herbalists—for applications in cancer treatment, because there is no longer any independent funding available for his research on the effects of nonionizing radiation.

Meanwhile, Davis, who uses a cell phone but only with a headset or as a speakerphone (she never keeps it close to her body), hopes that by the time the public realizes the importance of the path Lai has been on, it won’t be too late. In Disconnect, she wonders how our grandchildren will answer these questions: “Did we do the right thing and act to protect them? Or did we harm them needlessly, irresponsibly and permanently, blinded by the addictive delights of our technological age?”








I am really excited this morning.
I will look for the news in English, and pass it on. I will check The Guardian, The Independent, and the Huffington Post to see if they will cover it in the coming days. will, but it may take some time. We can expect there will be the regular mainstream media black out here, because the industry really does not like that new development and will do everything to stop coverage.
Such a law raises the awareness of the French people on the health impacts of EMR, The green party and the Socialist party members did many compromises to make sure the law passes. But it is a huge step; they got their foot in the door. It will also have repercussions in other countries.
The new law is now sent to the Senate to be ratified and I just called my cousin in France to get his take on what it means and will keep you posted.
A few points off my head:
Acting and education based on the precautionary principle
Transparency & Coordination with local authorities with mayors and departments given back powers to legislate
Ban of WiFi in kindergartens & PRESCHOOLS (for 3 years old and less)
Study of impacts in schools and favor wired connections
Advertising prohibited to all children under 14
Study mandated on Electro Hyper Sensitivity and the creation of low RF radiation zones particularly in cities with results due in one year
Checking transmission levels to make sure that levels do not go over the average determined to be in France at 6V/m or around 100,000 uW/m2, the level of protection most eastern Europe, Italy, Russia, China have set.
(Although France has set the protection standards at 10,000,000uW/m2 like here, the average measured in 16 communes by COPIC is under .7V/m (about 1,200uW/m2) and up to 10 V/m (+300,000uW/m2) in 10% of the cases. The industry will have a set deadline time to adjust those higher levels. Here in the US , according to the Institute of Building biology, although base stations antennas are supposed to transmit with signal strength of no more than 100 Watts or 100,000,000uW/m2 (?) I have to confirm those numbers), but the point is they often go much higher than this and we have no COPIC here to monitor the levels.)
This has wide implications for us-some of them I suggest here:
1- We can use this law as an argument to the Health Committees  –
If France does it, it means there has to be something real about the health dangers of microwave technology. We will not get legislation happen in Fullerton until more representatives are becoming aware of the problem.
2- We can use this for another press release to all media, but this time with follow up calls to make sure they just do not discard it, but that it is their responsibility to publish it as journalists.
3- I was planning to write to all private preschools and kindergarten schools principals and teachers, and union representatives.
Maybe we should do it to all schools, private and public, quoting the New French Law as a proof that something needs be done to protect our children.
For those who can read French or can manage with Google translate:
And (much longer-a full analysis-fornt page of Le Monde to-day)

– See more at:

No Comments

Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved. 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!