Public Health is Not a Sport Doc. Don’t Play Games With Our Children’s Health.

images (8)


When learning of the issue of WiFi and wireless device health impacts, one of the first thoughts that often cross our minds is: “This can’t be possible that WiFi and these devices are harmful. Surely some governmental or health agency would have prevented this from happening.”

For many of us it just doesn’t make sense, because we assume that they couldn’t be that bad, otherwise “they” would have stopped it. One of the hardest things to realize is that many individuals, groups, and entities are actively blocking the public from learning about very serious health impacts affecting their communities from wireless technology.

 Why would people do this? Don’t they realize that they are hurting their own children? Parents are busy, and they can’t spend hours upon hours doing scientific research. They therefore tend to base their decision on information that they consider trustworthy. Perhaps they will go on the web and read an article or two, or they will visit the World Health Organization’s website and read up. Not surprisingly, the most common approach is to ask someone who has a medical background, namely a nurse or doctor. In seems that in every school in which parents bring forth the issue of WiFi and wireless device health risks, certain figures manage to appear who will do everything in their power to block the process, and will fight tooth and nail to insist that wireless technology stays, even if it means presenting distorted and or false information to their communities. Usually this is a tech-savvy school board member, a technological integration specialist, or someone whose motivation is borne of his infatuation with gadgets. Sometimes it’s a school board member who doesn’t want the children to be left behind. In Fullerton California, it’s a medical doctor named Dr. Roman Schulze. Schulze, rather than actively engage in the scientific evidence, has been actively “war gaming” the issue of WiFi health effects. We know now why – he is defending his PTA wife and friends, so that they may then in turn defend their fundraising and other efforts to bring iPads into Acacia Elementary School.

Dr. Schulze has two primary weapons that he uses in his war games.

The first is a list of “systematic reviews” that he found at “EMF and Health” , a pro-industry website financed and put together by Canadian electronics mogul Lorne Trottier, who went so far as to hire professors and scientists to further his agenda.

Dr. Schulze’s second, and most widely employed weapon is to use diversions to take the focus away from the substantial, compelling, if not irrefutable scientific evidence that shows RF radiation to be unsafe for children. Just look back through the threads at Fullerton Informer, and you will see his almost endless efforts to distract and divert. Again, this is a “sport” for him, according to his very own wife, Michelle Garden.

Distractions are one thing, but another thing completely is his use of the EMF and Health list of expert reviews. At first, this looks impressive enough (and that’s exactly why wireless industry executives devised it). Little do parents or other community members know how deeply manipulated and misleading it is. Unfortunately it probably fools most parents into thinking that WiFi is safe. Most aren’t experienced enough in the science to see the gaping flaws, and if they are being handed this information from a medical doctor, it would be natural for them to consider it trustworthy.

It’s not. There are so many holes in it so large that you could drive a truck through it.

I’ve been asked several times, what is the “smoking gun” of scientific research that proves wireless radiation to be unsafe. Often is this by moms who would like a way to explain the issue it to their pro-technology husbands.

The short answer is: There are several very large and well designed research projects that have found RF microwave radiation causes damage to DNA and other genetic material.

This is, by itself, very serious and compelling evidence, and enough to say no to placing wireless devices in the laps of children. There are some risks worth taking in life, but genetic mutation is not one of them. Not for a technological novelty. Never.

The first of these research programs was WTR, or the “Wireless Technology Research” project. A 7-year, $28 million dollar program of research conducted in the1990’s, and funded by the cell phone industry, this large scale project was a response to a high profile lawsuit, aired on Larry King Live, alleged cell phones caused the formation of a deadly brain tumor for a businessman.

As part of the WTR project, 200 scientists and medical doctors, under the direction of Dr. George Carlo, found that cell phone radiation caused DNA damage, leakage in the blood brain barrier, and a near tripling in the risk of brain tumors.

The second is ECOLOG, a multi-million dollar review of the state of the scientific research funded by T-Mobile in 2000. This review of over 220 peer-reviewed and published papers yielded strong indications that RF wireless radiation was genotoxic, and was able to cause single and double stranded DNA breaks and damage to chromosomes.

It also found substantial and compelling evidence that RF radiation disrupted other cellular processes, caused teratogenic effects (birth deformities), and caused loss of fertility in animal studies. Wireless radiation was also found to have cancer initiating and cancer promoting effects. Remember, this was from a study commissioned by T-Mobile, a mobile phone company.

The third of these large scale projects was “REFLEX” a $3 million, EU-funded research project conducted from 2000-2004 which studied the effects of wireless radiation on animal and human cells in the laboratory. Summarizing the work of 12 research groups in seven European countries, the end result was that high frequency microwave radiation causes genetic damage.

In summary, three large scale research projects from 1993-2004 that all found RF radiofrequency microwave radiation causes genetic damage. Subsequent research was released and continues to be published that confirms and expands these earlier findings.

The Bioinitiative Report 2012 now lists hundreds of studies that show EMR electromagnetic radiation to cause genetic effects. For those of you unfamiliar with the Bioinitiative Report, there is a reason it is so unpopular with the wireless industry. A group of experts from around the world, many of whom were at the top of their fields, worked together in order to lay out the evidence for the public to see.

Bioinitiative Report: Evidence for effects on Gene and Protein Expression

Bioinitiative Report: Evidence for Genotoxic Effects

So now back to Dr. Schulze’s document from EMF and Health, which collectively states that there is no credible evidence of harm from WiFi. Taking a closer look, let’s shine the light of the evidence from the above research on this document and see how it stands up.

One of the extractions is of The Swedish Radiation Authority 2008. It states:

“…two studies on genotoxicity report no increase in micronuclei or DNA strand breaks after RF exposure.”

Two studies. Does this sound like a comprehensive assessment of the science of genetic effects? What about the $28 million research project WTR, ECOLOG, or the $3 million REFLEX project, that reported genetic damage? No mention of these of course. This is industrial cherry picking at its finest.

This Swedish Radiation Authority excerpt suggests that two new studies (from pre 2008), somehow negate all the other studies before and after that report RF exposure causes DNA damage. That’s not how science works. Two studies do not “poof” make all the other evidence somehow disappear. EMF and Health, however, would like you to think that it does, and yet the unsuspecting parent would never know this.

Another example is: Radiofrequency Toolkit for Environmental Health Practioners, BC Center for Disease Control. Here’s what the folks at EMF and Health chose to highlight from this report:

“The report notes that “several recent international reports” such as “the UK Health Protection Agency (2012) and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (2012), among others, have published major reviews of RF and its potential effect on health; both agencies concluded that there is little evidence of adverse impacts on the health of the general population by RF”.”

It would appear from this excerpt that wireless technology was found to be safe, but this is far from the case, as the actual BC CDC document mentions numerous biological and health impacts.

Not mentioned in the Expert Review is that the BC CDC document states that “the epidemiological studies of men assessed for infertility were consistent in demonstrating decreased sperm motility associated with increased use of mobile phones” and “biological effects on sperm motility related to RF Exposure”.

Also left out is that the review panel noted that “oxidative stress seems one of the more plausible mechanisms of RF-induced sperm damage. Mechanisms by which oxidative stress is caused by increased ROS (Reactive Oxygen Species) and decreased antioxidant have been shown to exist in neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.”

Here are several other excerpts from the BC CDC expert review that the folks at EMF and Health failed to share:

Page 75, Section 6B

“For the same emitted power, children and fetuses experience higher SAR.”

Page 62, Section 5

 “Whole body exposure at frequencies in the range of 80 to 180 MHZ and 1-4 GHZ to ICNIRP exposure levels may expose children and small persons (shorter than 1.3m) to above acceptable ICNIRP SAR levels.”

Page 138, Section 6B

“Mortality higher in RF-exposed groups than in control groups at SAR 0.5W/kg.”

Page 144-145, Section 6B

“Ferreira and colleagues exposed pregnant Wistar rats to 834 MHz RF signal for 8.5 hours from gestation to birth at SAR values of 0.55 – 1.23 W/kg or sham. At birth, the animals were sacrificed and an increased level of micronucleus formation was seen in the bone marrow of RF exposed versus sham—exposed animals.”

Page 260, Section 10

“The investigators found a dose-dependent response for all tested parameters including sperm motility and vitality. Decreased motility and increased levels of ROS were found in exposed specimens … a dose-response effect was found, it would seem there is biological and clinical relevance to their findings.”

Page 144, Section 6B

“On examination of brain tissue immediately after exposure, an increase in both single-  and double-strand DNA breaks were seen in the animals exposed to pulsed or continuous wave RF compared to sham-exposed rats.”

Page 157, Section 6B

“Research on effects on behaviour and cognition are mixed, with several studies showing that RF exposure has an adverse effect.”

Page 150, Section 6B

“Examination revealed increased permeation of albumin from capillaries into both white and grey brain matter in RF –exposed rats by comparison with sham-exposed animals, suggesting that exposure to pulsed RF fields at around 900 MHz increases permeability of the blood-brain barrier. They also observed an increase in “dark neurons,” indicators of neuronal damage in rat brains in animals exposed to RF fields.”

Page 165, Section 6B

 “The results of the two studies, while quite “soft,” suggest that more attention needs to be paid to very long-term effects of RF-EMF. Although it is impossible to suggest a biologic mechanism which might explain the findings, results of both studies described above suggest that lifelong exposure to RF fields may shorten lifespan, perhaps in conjunction with other factors, at least in animals.”

Page 257, Section 10

 “Mean sperm motility, viability and normal morphology showed significant adverse effects in the mobile phone user groups, both in men with normal and abnormal sperm counts. A dose-response relationship was found as the assessed semen parameters declined with increasing mobile phone use, independent of the quality of the original sample.”

Page 153 -154, Section 6B

“Analysis of tissue from the several parts of the brain, namely the prefrontal cortex, cerebellar cortex and dendate gyrus at three and 10 days post-exposure indicated elevated levels of GFAP, suggesting that the RF exposure was having a physiological effect, at least on astrocytic cells in the central nervous system.”

Page 152, Section 6B

“Sirav and Seyhan (2011) completed a similar study to their earlier investigation, again in Wistar albino rats, and once again found that the exposure to 900 or 1800 MHZ RF fields for 20 minutes promoted a  significant increase in albumin in the brains of male rats by comparison with sham-exposed animals.”

Page 154, Section 6B

 “Bas et al (2009) exposed Wistar rats to continuously modulated 900 MHz GSM signal (SAR 2.0 W/kg) or sham for one hour per day for 28 days and found a significant decrease in pyramidal cells in the brain of the exposed rats by comparison with sham-exposed animals. Pyramidal cells are thought to play an important role in cognitive functioning.”

Page 250, Section 10

“Unlike the mixed findings found in occupation health studies of radar EMF exposures, the epidemiological studies of men assessed for infertility ere consistent in demonstrating  decreased sperm motility associated with increased use of mobile phones. “

Page 259, Section 10

“Sperm motility and viability were negatively affected by exposure to RF.”

 Page 275, Summary, Section 10

“The balance of all evidence, animal and human, is consistent with the assertion that exposure of the testes to mobile phone RF may be associated with decreased sperm count, motility, concentration and altered morphology.”

Adverse Effects identified, Mechanisms of Harm suggested

Page 272, Section 10

“Overall, oxidative stress seems one of the more plausible mechanisms of RF-induced sperm damage. It has been found fairly consistently in human and animal studies on sperm specifically and on other cells in general. Mechanisms by which oxidative stress is caused by increased ROS and decreased antioxidant have been shown to exist in neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimers.”

Page 269-270, Section 10

“Non-enzyme antioxidants, like melatonin, have also been observed to decline after RF exposure 62-65 An additive effect may occur, with alternation not only of sperm cell enzymes but of whole body system antioxidants. Melatonin in particular is known to support antioxidant activity in sperm. 66 A number of recent studies have provided experimental evidence suggestive of an oxidative stress mechanism for the effect of RF on sperm.”

Page 270, Section 10

“It was determined that the ROS were sourced from the sperms’ mitochondria. At a SAR of 2.8 W/kg, the results became statistically significant for mitochondrially produced ROS. They noted specifically that rapid change occurred at low SAR exposures which reached a plateau when about 30% of sperm affected.”

Page 263, Section 10

“Most, although not all studies attempting to control temperature, convincingly ruled out a thermal effect.”

Page 273, Section 10

 “It is known that RF can induce currents in a cell membrane, and that this may alter the cation (positive ion) distribution (and so charge) in the normally negative membrane. Some evidence shows pulsed RF can dislodge calcium ions (Ca++) from a membrane, resulting in a weaker barrier and leakage, although there is no direct evidence on sperm membranes. However, studies do seem to point to efflux of Ca++ as a factor in altered sperm motility.”

Page 340, Section 13

“The most effective way to reduce total exposure to RF is to avoid the use of RF-emitting devices, especially devices that result in the highest personal exposures such as mobile phones used at the head.”

These biological and health effects are not what I would call safe. As a parent, of course I would want to know if wireless technology was shown to cause DNA damage, infertility, neurological and behavior changes, leakage of the blood brain barrier, and other radiation damage.

I believe that to omit these details is highly misleading if not fraudulent, and although Schulze has been warned of serious errors in this document since September of 2013, he continues to present it to the public, falsely stating that it provides evidence as to the safety of microwave radiation exposure onto their children.

Young children cannot look after themselves. They look to parents, teachers, principals, and other school administrators to make sure they are safe. They expect that medical experts will do their due diligence and protect them from environmental hazards. The last thing they expect is that a local medical doctor could be playing games with their children’s physical, mental and reproductive health.

This is what I believe is on the line folks. Look very carefully at this photo:


So what are the parents of the 15,000 children in The Fullerton School District to do with this information? I believe that you can all answer that question yourselves. They are your children ladies and gentlemen.

So what is Dr. Roman A. Schulze to do with all of this information? Good question. Let’s hear what  this IPad, WiFi, wireless radiation defending extraordinaire woman known as his wife, Michele Garden has to say:

“My husband, Roman Shulze, and I, Michele Garden, just plain ol’ don’t agree with your assertions. We, along with a majority of the parents, the Physics Dept. at CSUF, and a WHOLE LOTTA other scientists and citizens think that you are wrong. We are tired of the minority forcing their views on the majority”

This statement along with her latest email to the Fullerton Informer aside from being absolutely stunning, is a field day in the making for the advocates of free speech and our children’s health and well being. So once again, she tries to make it all about Joe Imbriano and my assertions?  Sorry Charlie or should I say Charlette, no cigar.

So what are all these people that she mentions to do with this information? Boy now that’s a tough one. She has certainly put the physics dept over at Cal State Fullerton in the basket now too. I guess they are in good company with the likes of of Robert Pletka, Robert Craven, Karen Whisnant, George Giokaris, Jennifer Williams, Greg Dhuyvetter from the Diocese of Orange, both the entire FSD and FJUHSD school boards, and the host of all of the other teachers, principals, and administrators who flat out continue to IGNORE these health concerns we continue to present on this issue who are just rolling this ball right along and REFUSE TO TURN THESE EMISSIONS SYSTEMS OFF and continue to forcibly irradiate the children.

This issue is a big deal ladies and gentlemen, a big big deal. In my humble opinion, there is no larger threat to humanity than this issue.  You can choose to ignore it or you can choose to face it head on.

Remember these things? Like wireless today, advertisements for this so called “necessity” once blanketed the  television and radio airwaves, billboards, movies,  magazines, and sporting events for decades. They used to be in almost every home, car, plane, train, bus, restaurant, school, hospital, park, mall, airport, backyard, porch, movie theater and everywhere else humans went? Sound familiar? 

images (5)

  Remember who told us it was safe? 

images (6)

Acacia PTA, Fullerton parents and the rest of  you parents around the world that read this, will we ever learn?  Will you still listen when they say “trust me, I’m a doctah”  Remember these are our children, that they depend on us for protection and the future depends on them being protected. There will be no future if their reproductive future has been stolen from them. It is foolish to trust people you don’t know, in places so high and far away that you will never meet, about a danger that most people do not understand, that most people would never suspect, with what you and I and the rest of humanity has taken for granted for the last 6,000 years: our and our children’s reproductive capabilities.  So many today pharmaceutically and prophylactically attempt control or thwart it. No one that I know, however, is ready to willingly relinquish it, much less surrender that of their children. Do not kid yourself folks. There are those in the highest positions of power that are hell bent on doing just that.  It is flat out dangerous to think that the technology has not yet arrived to carry out the most insidious of agendas.

I think it is flat out shameful, to be a parent and to willingly ignore all of this because I believe if you do just that, it spells the beginning of the end of the line for what you and I once were:

images (9)

 Could this spell the end of what our kids will someday assume they were entitled to as a God given right?  Will they ask us why we didn’t fight for it and for them? What then will you tell them my friends, what will you look them in the eyes and tell them?  

In closing, I would like to state that I believe that of all the sins in the world, that cowardice is by far the worst of them all. It is because of this one that all the rest are allowed to flourish, spread and run their destructive course driving humanity right off the cliff into an abyss. Look at what is happening to our children’s minds with the music, TV, movies, video games and yes even some of the curriculum in the schools. The war for their souls being patently obvious, is already well underway. Right now ladies and gentlemen, this whole kit and kaboodle is on the line and hidden in plain view for all to see. Now is not the time to treat the debate over your children’s physical and reproductive health as some sort of a sport, much less trust anyone who I believe has been publicly identified as one who I believe appears to enjoy doing just that. Thank you.


  1. #1 by Anonymous on November 3, 2013 - 7:57 pm

    I noticed his wife mentions for each study that shows harm, she can provide one or two that shows it is safe? How does that make it safe? When you put one drop of poison in a water bottle, how do the other drops of water make it safe to drink?

  2. #2 by Anonymous on November 4, 2013 - 2:57 am

    Your assertions are not correct and the science disproves everything you are saying. You need to stop attacking the Fullerton School District. They are doing a marvelous job educating thousands of children with award winning schools. Give it up will ya?

    • #3 by Ray on November 4, 2013 - 7:14 pm

      They may have award winning schools, but they are irradiating children with a radiation that has been shown in thousands of studies to cause adverse biological and health effects.

      Please educate us on “the science” that disproves everything we have presented regarding this public health disaster.

      • #4 by Joe Imbriano on November 4, 2013 - 10:35 pm

        They have no science that clearly demonstrates that exactly what they are doing is “totally safe for the children”. Why? Because this has never been done to children before. Robert Pletka must have some new discovery locked up real tight that he is not sharing as he is the one that made that claim. On the other hand, there are thousands of studies that I believe Robert Pletka has chosen to ignore. He even stated in a letter to me dated 11-1-13 that I have “not provided any competent evidence of health hazard”.

        • #5 by Ottowa on November 5, 2013 - 1:28 pm

          I agree. There are NO studies, only extrapolations of skewed data and slanted research. In the US, you will find a much more entrenched cadre of wireless proponents and a mindset as a result if industry pressure and your lawmakers betraying their own people. For the most part, the school officials do not know how to think. Look at how they behave.

    • #8 by Angie B on November 5, 2013 - 12:58 pm

      You can be doing a “marvelous job” when you won’t err on the side of caution. You can’t have it both ways.

      FSD intentionally ignores information of a very critical nature and you are defending that? When is that ever defensible?

      • #9 by Anonymous on November 7, 2013 - 6:11 am

        Do you not realize that all schools are doing the same thing? Why are you just focusing on Fullerton? If this is really such a serious threat then why are you limiting your “attack” to simply Fullerton?

        • #10 by Angie B on November 7, 2013 - 10:04 am

          I realize “all schools are doing the same thing.” And, as my 4th grade teacher asked us over and over again: “If everyone is jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, are you going to jump off, too?”

          It’s time for us, as parents, to use our brains. Erring on the side of caution, especially when it comes to our children, is the only reasonable route.

          The focus is on Fullerton because that is where our children are directly impacted. We have read the studies and heeded the warnings of medical doctors and researchers that are telling us to hard wire the technology in the schools. We don’t want our children’s health risked for wireless technology. We can’t solve the problems of the world, but we can directly impact what goes on in our Fullerton community. Schools and institutions around the world have successfully taken wifi out of the classroom and everyone has to start somewhere.

          It’s odd how you label this as an “attack.” Actually, the determination of the Fullerton SD in allowing unprecedented amounts of wireless radiation in our children’s classrooms could be viewed as an “attack” on our children. Why does FSD want to “attack” our children’s health with wireless when wired technology presents no health risk? Parents have no choice if they do not want their children exposed to the wireless radiation; the FSD is making that choice for the parents.

          I also find it odd that you perceive making information available to the Fullerton parents and community as an “attack.” Aren’t we supposed to be a free society?

          • #11 by Ray on November 7, 2013 - 11:55 am

            I see it as microwave radiation is the threat to the children, not us as the threat to the school.

            Why on earth would you take the risk from irradiating children with a form of radiation that medical and scientific experts warn causes acute and chronic effects including cancer, genetic damage, reproductive damage, neurological changes, etc?

            Oh, right, because it’s popular.

        • #12 by Joe Imbriano on November 17, 2013 - 11:03 pm

          Yes and we start in our own back yard. That is how it is done.

        • #13 by Robyn on November 19, 2013 - 6:59 pm

          Is there anyone fighting this in Anaheim? Can your group help stop this in Anaheim?

  3. #15 by amateur night on November 4, 2013 - 5:31 am

    This cat and his gal pals really done it this time.

  4. #16 by Anonymous on November 4, 2013 - 8:08 am

    Why would this doctor do such a thing? Is it because he doesn’t understand the issue? I just don’t get it.

  5. #17 by Anonymous on November 4, 2013 - 11:58 am

    This is amazing. Just when you thought you know someone really well…. and then this.

  6. #18 by Joe Imbriano on November 4, 2013 - 1:17 pm

    How much clearer can we make our concerns with the wireless device and WiFi RF emission exposure to schoolchildren?

    Why is it that Michele Garden ignores 50% of our concern which is with the microwave transmitter device in the hands of children?

    Why does she only mention WiFi? Does she not understand the inverse square law and the fact that the other microwave transmitters in the room aside from the Cisco wireless access points on the walls are the wireless tablets that are in direct proximity to the head and reproductive areas of these children?

    Why is it that Karen Whisnant ignores 50% of our concern which is the microwave transmitter device in the hands of children in an excerpt from an email to me dated 11-4-13? “….Quite frankly, your opinions about wifi do not bother me. You are entitled to your opinions, and I respect that.”

    Why does she only mention WiFi? Does she not understand the inverse square law and the fact that the other microwave transmitters in the room aside from the Cisco wireless access points on the walls are the wireless tablets that are in direct proximity to the head and reproductive areas of these children?

    What is going on with the principal at my children’s school and the past PTA president of my children’s school. Do they not read past the first line on anything? Do they just listen to the doc? Do the kids deserve better?

    • #19 by Angie B on November 4, 2013 - 3:52 pm

      Enough information has been presented here for the parents to demand that wifi radiation devices/routers be removed from their children’s classrooms until they can be proven safe.
      The whole lot of them need to be removed from the taxpayer payroll, as well. They all need to go because they deny or won’t look at the information.

      • #20 by mummies on November 5, 2013 - 8:09 pm

        Parents are zombies. They don’t even know they are asleep.

        • #21 by Joe Imbriano on November 5, 2013 - 11:09 pm

          That is simply not true. The real problem is not that the parents don’t care. It’s that the teachers, administrators, PTA and school officials that are giving the parents a guarantee that all of this is safe. The parents simply believe it as a tremendous amount of trust is placed in these individuals. Are they worthy of it? My opinion is no way Jose, not on this one.

          • #22 by Ray on November 6, 2013 - 7:51 am

            I agree, and I think this analysis is constructive.

            If you track this decision making process, this is what happens.

            Parents believe wireless is safe.
            Parents are told that wireless is safe by PTA, school official, teacher, doctor, etc.
            School official, teacher, PTA, or doctor was told that wireless was safe by source such as “EMF and Health”.
            “EMF and Health” manipulates information and doesn’t report harmful effects from wireless radiation.

            These parents are disconnected from the science that shows wireless to be harmful.

            With all this said, I also think that parents are acting like zombies. They should know better.

            Or should they? Good points.

            • #23 by Anonymous on November 8, 2013 - 1:01 pm

              Thank you for this information. This site is more than I can take in during one sitting. I agree that this is extremely serious. This is no time for acting like we are in High School.

  7. #24 by Anonymous on November 4, 2013 - 1:32 pm

    This is getting ugly.

  8. #25 by amateur night on November 6, 2013 - 10:28 pm

    What a tool.

  9. #26 by mom1 on November 7, 2013 - 1:17 pm

    Is there any uncontrolled exposure to man-made radiation that is known to be safe?

    • #27 by Joe Imbriano on November 7, 2013 - 2:21 pm

      We only have exposure GUIDELINES not safety standards that are constantly in flux.In terms of the US compared to the rest of the world, ours are sky high. As they relate to ionizing radiation, look how they raised the guidelines after Fukushima.

  10. #28 by Anonymous on November 7, 2013 - 6:46 pm

    What in the world is going on in that town? What kind of leadership do you guys in Fullerton have? What about the elected school board members? What would motivate these people to keep pouring concrete all over themselves?

    • #29 by Anonymous on November 8, 2013 - 3:29 pm

      Let me get this straight, if you have a pile of research that indicates potential harm on one side of the table, and on the other, a pile of research that indicates no harm, is there a potential for harm? Is is totally safe? What is this, a sports book? Are you guys nuts? These are someone else’s children.

      How many administrators or board members have THEIR OWN KIDS in the Fullerton classrooms right now?

      • #30 by Anonymous on November 9, 2013 - 12:24 pm

        None. This whole thing is a big ego trip for the board members. They all just try to spin it by focusing attention on Joe INSTEAD OF THE KIDS!

      • #31 by mom1 on November 9, 2013 - 12:39 pm

        I don’t think any of them have their own children in K-8.

        I don’t know if that would make any difference, either. Once again, we’re in the Twilight Zone. There isn’t one among them that would exhibit common sense, read the information, and take a precautionary stance.

  11. #32 by harper valley pta on November 7, 2013 - 10:38 pm

    “We are tired of the minority forcing their views on the majority” Michele, get a grip on yourself and your husband.

    • #33 by austin city limits on November 8, 2013 - 11:24 am

      That is a hilarious moniker. You just dated yourself.

  12. #34 by Anonymous on November 9, 2013 - 9:31 am

    the calm before the storm . . .

    • #35 by Anonymous on November 9, 2013 - 5:12 pm

      What is that supposed to mean?

    • #36 by JGarrison on November 10, 2013 - 3:24 pm


    • #37 by Ray on November 12, 2013 - 4:01 pm

      you sure got that right.

  13. #38 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 10, 2013 - 1:21 pm

    Joe, You are obviously very passionate about your concern over what you consider to be excessive and unnecessary exposure of school children to RF fields. Whether or not these concerns are justified or not, is less obvious.

    Some of your comments here and the links you have referenced, upon close examination, do little to support your contention. ECOLOG and REFLEX are almost 10 years old and very out of date. More recent – and more rigorous papers, make them irrelevant. And the BioInitiative Report you mention is not a peer reviewed group effort at all. It involves several individual contributions from researchers who are well known for their outlier views. The separate papers were combined into a single document by a business woman without a science degree and an MD without a license to practice medicine. It’s no wonder that it has been highly criticized by international bodies for lack of balance and objectivity.

    Your observations on the BC CDC RF Toolkit are out of context. This work is aimed at Environmental Health practitioners, providing a framework for assessing RF exposure issues in the community. Quotes from evaluated studies are just that, they are not conclusions from the CDC. As pointed out in the introduction, it is not meant to be definitive.

    I have only recently discovered this site, and have not got around to reading all the comments. But if this is representative of your case against Wi-Fi in schools, you have little chance of convincing any well informed authorities. Why not spend some time researching credible sources of information and stop tilting at windmills!

    • #39 by Anonymous on November 10, 2013 - 7:57 pm

      It would be nice if this would all go away, but all we have to do is look at what the experts are telling us to know that is not the case. Joe or no Joe, Joe’s argument or no Joe’s argument, wireless radiation in schools is harmful to our children. Even if I had doubt, which I do not, I would err on the side of caution for my children.

    • #40 by Anonymous on November 11, 2013 - 11:54 am

      Sure you just recently discovered this site…you mean, you were either asked or told to be the next person to take over Roman Schulze ever since he has been put in his place. You sure sound you’re either buddies with R Schulze or just another FSD attack dog.

  14. #41 by Ray on November 10, 2013 - 7:28 pm

    Dear Doubting Thomas,

    Step 1: Please provide the scientific references to back your assertions, starting with the “rigorous papers” that somehow negate ECOLOG, REFLEX, and WTR conclusions that RF microwave radiation causes DNA damage.

    Step 2: Explain how these papers somehow negate 3 major research projects that cost well over $30 million combined, and which represented over 7 years of collaborative effort by some of the world’s best scientists.

    Step 3: Explain how you ignore the other several hundred peer reviewed studies that also report genetic damage from EMR radiation.

  15. #42 by Anonymous on November 10, 2013 - 10:15 pm

    Denier Thomas sounds like a Roman Schulze clone.

  16. #43 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 11, 2013 - 8:27 am

    Ray, If you were really interested in getting answers to your questions, you should already have located this information on reputable websites. If you don’t know where to look, I suggest you read the expert panel reviews released within the past 18 months. Sweden, Norway, Holland, Switzerland, France and Britain have all put out reviews. Google them.

    BTW -non-ionizing radiation does not have sufficient energy at any power level to damage DNA. Contrary findings are due to artifacts, false positives or experimental set-up errors.

    Irrational fear, born out of scientific illiteracy, will not change the facts.

    • #44 by mom1 on November 11, 2013 - 3:57 pm

      An argument to irradiate the children for the sake of wireless devices is not a good side to be on, D Thomas. Think about it.

  17. #45 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 11, 2013 - 11:40 am

    The following exchange took place in a San Francisco courtroom in November of 2011:

    Judge William Alsup was unconvinced by the arguments of city lawyers that no scientific proof existed to guarantee cellphones were completely safe.

    “Anything is possible,” Alsup said during the trial. “Let’s put out a brochure about UFOs. If you have concerns about UFOs, here are the steps you can take.”

    The Judge ruled that the required warnings were misleading because they implied cell phones were dangerous and unregulated. He ordered substantial changes to the wording of a fact sheet the new law requires retailers to distribute.
    The fact sheets must now include a statement that all cell phones must comply with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) safety limits regarding radiation emissions, the judge said.

    “The overall impression left is that cellphones are dangerous and that they have somehow escaped the regulatory process,” Judge Alsup wrote. “That impression is untrue and misleading, for all of the cell phones sold in the United States must comply with safety limits set by the FCC.”

    “The FCC set a conservative standard, one weighted heavily in favor of minimizing any public health hazard.”

    “San Francisco has long been bathed in RF radiation from the Sutro Tower transmitting facilities, from radar, from hand-held television remotes, from portable phones, from Wi-Fi (vigorously promoted by San Francisco itself), from Wi-Fi-equipped notebook computers, from cell towers, from satellites, not to mention EMF radiation from our AC power infrastructure dating back a hundred years or more. If this exposure has been so dangerous, one might reasonably ask why has it not manifested itself by now.”

    Perhaps there is something that can be learned from this example? Or not!

    • #46 by Anonymous on November 11, 2013 - 1:00 pm

      How much do you shills get paid, Doubting Thomas? Is it worth it?

      Do you have a library of standard shill answers at the ready? Do you collect them as time goes by and then just cut and paste them into blogs and opportunities to post?

    • #47 by Joe Imbriano on November 14, 2013 - 12:06 am

      If you are talking about microwave wireless radiation exposure, the first place I would look for signs of effects would be the Autism rates. First of all, whether San Francisco’s autism rates are lower isn’t relatively clear to me at this point. They seem to be skyrocketing like everywhere else.

      What is clear to me, and has been presented in my Autism article, if you have read it: is the crucial role that iron plays in this whole mystery. I will try to clarify why what appears to be conflicting and what you may be observing may actually be a corollary to my hypothesis.

      Certain forms of Iron act as a microwave emissions’ absorber, and metals in general can shield from microwave emissions.

      Residents of the Golden Gate City have some of the best drinking water in the country that is not currently filtered by the municipality. It is said to be among the cleanest in the world: San Francisco’s tap water comes from pristine snowmelt in the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park. It is replete with naturally occurring minerals including high levels of NATURALLY occurring elemental IRON. The municipal water supply’s Iron levels are even further enhanced by leaching from the city’s cast iron delivery system. The residents unknowingly are being blessed with an aqueous elemental source of iron for intake that yields protection from EMF emissions.

      Aside from the newer steel and glass construction, one must also consider San Francisco’s famed architecture and building materials used-red brick. Red brick construction being so prevalent naturally accomplishes microwave RF emission shielding from the OUTSIDE sources such as the microwave towers, masts and antennae arrays as it has a very high iron and metal content. As such, it provides natural shielding as well.

      Thus the iron rich red brick architecture and iron rich water could benefit the residents.

      Why I believe that Autism will inevitably increase irrespective of the shielding from the outside sources is because we are witnessing the exponential proliferation of the inside sources of microwave RF emissions in the homes, workplace and classrooms such as WiFi, cordless phones, smart technology’s RF transponders, wireless TV sets, wireless laptops, wireless desktops with wireless keyboards and mouses, wireless home phones, wireless home video and security systems and of course the microwave ovens.

      Unless these issues are addressed, the reprieve that the the residents are getting will be short lived.

      Down here in Southern California, where I live, walls are very thin unlike there. Here in the OC, They generally consist of drywall board which is a mixture of gypsum, calcium carbonate, starch and vermiculite. None of which offer any semblance of microwave RF shielding thus leaving residents exposed to the outside sources of these emissions like the cell towers, their NEIGHBORS emission sources that enter through their walls especially in apartments or condos and their own devices’ emissions in their own homes. Add the occupational exposures and you have very high autism rates.

  18. #48 by Ray on November 11, 2013 - 12:21 pm

    Thomas, I’ve debated you before. You are one of the shills who post industrial spin in the comment section beneath major news stories on wireless health issues. Your agenda is to confuse the public about the science, and to discount recent scientific discoveries.

    Your tactics will not work here.

    There are several thousand peer reviewed studies published over the last several decades that report serious biological and health effects from RF radiation. Each month new studies come out showing, with greater detail, that wireless radiation is harmful to human health. RF microwave radiation is, according to clear scientific evidence, a biohazard.

    Here is a recently updated bibliography on the biological effects RF radiation:

    One look through that list will show anyone the depth of evidence that shows wireless radiation is not safe. It is blatantly obvious. Nothing can be safe if thousands of studies show it to be unsafe.

    Here is a Naval Medical Research document that shows another 2311 research papers from before 1972 that reported the same kinds of biological effects.

    Of the many biological and health effects detailed were clear “Genetic and Chromosomal Changes”:

    1. Chromosome Aberrations (e.g. linear shortening, pseudochiasm, diploid structures, amitotic division, bridging, “sticky” chromosomes, irregularities in chromosomal envelope)
    2. Mutations
    3. Mongolism
    4. Somatic Alterations (changes in cell not involving nucleus or chromosomes, cellular transformation)
    5. Neoplastic Diseases (e.g. tumors)

    It was clearly evident from the scientific literature even back in 1972 that RF microwave radiation caused genetic damage. We may have not known everything there was to know about it, but there was plenty of evidence of harm decades ago. Over the last forty years hundreds and hundreds of additional studies have been published giving us greater and greater detail.

    The fact is that industry-guided “expert” reviews cannot make this evidence go away.

  19. #49 by Ray on November 11, 2013 - 12:41 pm

    Recent studies on the negative effects on Fertility from WiFi radiation:

    In 2011 a study was published in the Journal of Fertility and Sterility that found just
    4 hours exposure to a WiFi enabled laptop caused damage to DNA and fertility.


    “To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the direct impact of laptop use on human spermatozoa. Ex vivo exposure of human spermatozoa to a wireless internet-connected laptop decreased motility and induced DNA fragmentation by a non-thermal effect. We speculate that keeping a laptop connected wirelessly to the internet on the lap near the testes may result in decreased male fertility. Further in vitro and in vivo studies are needed to prove this contention.”

    In 2012 a study published by the Journal of Pediatric Urology showed that WiFi radiation, at levels lower than what are emitted in wireless classrooms, caused damage to rat’s testes at the cellular level.


    “These findings raise questions about the safety of radiofrequency exposure from Wi-Fi Internet access devices for growing organisms of reproductive age, with a potential effect on both fertility and the integrity of germ cells.”

    • #50 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 11, 2013 - 2:00 pm

      Ray, You’re quoting a Turkish study that exposed 5 rats to an uncertain level of RF as conclusive evidence. That’s a joke, right?

      • #51 by Jamie on November 11, 2013 - 3:01 pm

        You are just like Roman Schulze wanting to irradiate the kids. Schulze disappears from the blog and Thomas magically appears to take his place. If you leave, will another shill appear? Is that how it works?

  20. #52 by Ray on November 11, 2013 - 4:16 pm

    One animal study doesn’t by itself provide “conclusive” evidence, but when put together with several thousand other peer reviewed studies, – then yes, there is substantial and compelling evidence that RF microwave radiation causes adverse biological and health impacts.

  21. #53 by Anonymous on November 11, 2013 - 4:27 pm

    at long last the super scientist has arrived. thomas, perhaps you should first fly over to the world health organization and convince them they made a mistake and it’s just like sunshine? when you’re done there, maybe you could fly back and answer the questions throughout the blog your protoge couldn’t.

    • #54 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 11, 2013 - 5:03 pm

      I’m in full agreement with the WHO conclusion on the possible adverse health effects of RF. “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.” See WHO Factsheets 304 and 193

      • #55 by Ray on November 11, 2013 - 5:39 pm

        The World Health Organization factsheet on RF radiation emitted by base stations and wireless technologies (304) was published in 2006.

        In 2011 the World Health Organization classified RF radiation as a class 2B human carcinogen. This classification applies to all RF emitting technologies, including WiFi and cell towers.

        Here are several cell towers studies and their reported biological and health effects:

        Khurana 2010. Adverse neurological, cardiovascular symptoms, and cancer risk.

        Wolf 2004. 10x increased risk of cancer in women with short latency.

        Rassoul 2000. Headaches, memory changes, depressive symptoms, sleeping problems.

        Oberfeld 2008. Significant increase in breast cancer and brain tumors

        Hutter 2006. Headaches, concentration problems, difficulty sleeping

        Kundi 2009. Headaches, fatigue, cardiovascular issues.

        Note that all of these effects occurred due to cell tower radiation. Such levels are much higher in WiFi enabled classrooms.

  22. #56 by Ray on November 11, 2013 - 4:29 pm

    Here is a presentation at Harvard Law School Center for Ethics by professor Frank Adlkofer, PhD, the head of the 12-institute $4 milllion REFLEX project.
    His story of the difficulties he faced after presenting research that reported DNA damage and cancer is very telling as to what lengths the wireless industry will go to prevent the public from learning that cell phones and other devices are harmful to human health..

    In May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified high frequency electromagnetic fields including cell phone radiation as merely “possibly carcinogenic” for humans, Adlkofer said, but he pointed out that studies such as REFLEX were not taken into account in reaching that determination. Had they been, he said, the classification likely would have changed from “possibly” carcinogenic to “probably.”

    • #57 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 11, 2013 - 4:43 pm

      Ray, You conflate ‘biological effects’ with ‘adverse health effects’- a common error. Biological effects are a constant occurrence in all living creatures, and vary in the spectral and temporal domains, according to ambient conditions and various stimuli. The absence of biological effects indicates an absence of life, so there is no controversy about the existence of biological effects.

      Adverse health effects are a little more complicated. The linked article may help explain the details of the causal chain.

      • #58 by W.H.O. cares about kids on November 11, 2013 - 10:31 pm

        Stop muddying the waters.

        Peter A. Valberg, T. Emilie van Deventer, and Michael H. Repacholi

        Did they all slither right out of the Trojan Horse into shaping US public policy?

        Ah yes oh the ultrasounds, yes the sound waves, oh yes the microwaves oh ahhh the tidal waves….

    • #59 by Joe Imbriano on November 11, 2013 - 7:49 pm

      Key point.

  23. #60 by Ray on November 11, 2013 - 5:22 pm

    Thousands of peer reviewed studies that report RF radiation causes adverse biological and health effects. How do these effects compare with radiation levels in a WiFi enabled classroom?

    WiFi laptops emit around 35,000 uW/m2 (microwatts per square meter), at a one foot distance. We all know kids tend to lean very closely over their devices, so this is a very accurate appraisal of what their bodies are exposed to if the device has WiFi turned on.

    At 30,000, peer reviewed research reported irreversible infertility in mice at 3 generations.

    At 20,000, another study reported double strand DNA damage.

    6,000 – Research reported change in calcium efflux from brain tissue.

    3,500 – Pathological leakage of the blood brain barrier.

    1,700 – Irreversible infertility in mice at 5 generations.

    1,600 – Negative effects on the memory, attention, and motor function of schoolchildren.

    1,500 – Reduced memory function

    1,300 – Decreased cognition.

    1,000- Levels of RF microwave radiation typical 10 feet from a WiFi router.

    • #61 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 11, 2013 - 6:56 pm

      Ray, Your estimate of RF exposure from Wi-Fi aircards and access points is grossly exaggerated. Did you forget to factor for spatial and temporal averaging? Check out these links for more accurate figures.

      • #62 by Gloria on November 11, 2013 - 7:33 pm

        Thomas, as a mom, I feel the need to share with you that these children are our children and not yours. You do not have the right to experiment on them. That is what this is you know, it is an experiment.

        This has never been done before and no one should be trusting these big corporations and their so called “independent researchers” much less these bumbling idiots at school districts all across the country. Everyone seems to have been at the World Health Organization before they ended up on the industry side of things. That is scary. I don’t trust you or the wireless industry. The big corporations are making merchandise of the students. This stuff does not belong in the classrooms. It doesn’t really even belong in our homes either.

        • #63 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 12, 2013 - 8:07 am

          Gloria, I gather that your definition of a bumbling idiot is anyone who does not agree with you. You may want to work on your critical thinking skills a bit more.

          I don’t disagree with your not trusting the wireless industry – but I know there is a very robust regulatory regime in place to apply appropriate constraints.

          • #64 by Joe Imbriano on November 12, 2013 - 8:14 am

            I personally, am in full disagreement with the W.H.O.
            As far as a robust regulatory regime, well you mean a bunch of compartmentalized scientists from the W.H.O. which is actually an oxymoron. Funny how they roll right out of that front group and right into the driver’s seat of the wireless industry’s hand picked expert cart.

            I believe we have an incidental out of control Autism epidemic on our hands as a result of a high level, intentional clandestine attack on fertility and the high level hired hacks are coming out of the woodwork like rats in a grain silo at midnite. Welcome.

            Funny how Harvard plays both sides of the fence. No evidence, nothing to see here, move right along, just a bunch of brain damaged, and sterilized kids for you and your ilk to fly over in your chartered aircraft while you sip vermouth. And to think what is going on behind closed doors a stones throw from my great grandmother’s home on Amory Street in Cambridge where as a child I would pick grapes from a 100+ year old Eastern Concord grape vine that survived almost a century and a half of the coldest winters and getting hacked to pieces year after year. Like that vine, humanity will grow back and root itself deeper in the truth, stronger and more vigorously in spite of the best laid plans of those with the worst intentions. My great grandfather warned me of what would come from the places that surrounded his home. How right he was.

            Tell me Mr. Whitney, where did all of the studies go on the effects on the female ovum of pulse modulated microwave emissions emanating from the wireless tablets, laptops and wireless gaming controllers that are trillions of times the normal background levels at the exact frequency where the maximum dielectric loss of water takes place right smack dab on top of the ovaries of these young girls as their developing bodies from head to toe are flanked by spread spectrum dual frequency wireless access points in some cases as little 6 feet above some of their heads in the wireless classrooms with 35+ Ipads humming away?

            I will tell you, they are being conducted right now in classrooms all over the country because of people just like yourself. You think the zona pellucida enjoys the bombardment?

            There is a vast difference between those who deny and those who decry this act of genocide and child abuse because I believe that is what it is. Tell your buddies all over the place what they are part of. And if you forget, don’t worry, we are doing one heck of a job already.

            The inverse square law does not apply when the kids have these microwave transmitters in their crotch all day at school and most of the time at home. Maybe you like population reduction? Is that what your pals drink to at 25,000 feet as they laugh at the residents of flyover country?

            Who’s next from the shill collection? Roll out the next circus clown. It helps drive the traffic.

            • #65 by $ ? on November 12, 2013 - 10:56 am

              I wonder how much Mr. Whitney gets paid to betray humanity.

        • #66 by Ray on November 12, 2013 - 8:12 am

          Thomas, the levels of RF radiation exposure from WiFi devices are extremely high.

          Peyman et at 2011 investigated this within a laboratory setting and found that wireless laptops emitted 17,000 uW/m2 at a 1.5 foot distance.

          Fig. 8. on page 609 shows radiation levels as a function of distance from WiFi laptops.

          RF radiation levels are even higher at closer range. As I mentioned earlier, children tend to place their bodies very near these devices, without realizing these exposure levels.

          • #67 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 12, 2013 - 9:13 am

            Ray, Any measurement in microwatts is called extremely low. Are confusing them with megawatts?

            • #68 by Ray on November 12, 2013 - 11:49 am

              Microwatts per square meter (uW/m2) is the most appropriate unit of measurement for the health impacts of RF radiofrequency radiation. This is why it is the metric used in many peer reviewed scientific papers.

              When we seek to understand how high/low the radiation levels are that are emitted by wireless devices, we don’t want to compare to a nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric plant. We also don’t want to compare to the levels inside a microwave oven. We should instead compare to natural ambient background levels.

              Natural background levels are 0.000001 uW/m2

              That is what most of our grandparents grew up with.

              The median levels of RF microwave radiation in U.S. cities in the late 1970’s was about 20 uW/m2. Most of the United States had levels that were much lower than 1 uW/m2, and these levels are still found in natural areas today.

              RF exposure levels from the Wi-Fi transmitter(s) directly at a laptop or tablet when e.g. put in the lap or on the thighs can be as high as 120,000 µW/m2 (IMTS study on WLAN 2005) or even as high as 50,000,000 µW/m2 (NRW Ministry of Environment brochure on wireless devices 2012).

              Most of us have no idea that iPads and WiFi-enabled laptops emit levels of radiation that are billions of times higher than natural levels.

          • #69 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 12, 2013 - 9:15 am

            Ray, Any measurement in microwatts is called extremely low. Are you confusing them with megawatts?

        • #70 by Jamie on November 12, 2013 - 8:20 am

          I’m with you, Gloria. They are bumbling idiots and the industry cannot be trusted to do anything but increase their market share and profits. They have been given a 17 year green light by the FCC in virtually doing whatever they want.

        • #71 by Ray on November 12, 2013 - 8:27 am

          Thomas, the links you provided do not provide any helpful or relevant information.

          The measurements taken by a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection specialist as part of the Firestone study did not examine the levels of radiation emitted by handheld wireless devices.

          The second link you provided is to the IEEE, which is the institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, or in other words, the industry itself. Their slogan is that they are “The world’s largest professional Association for the advancement of technology”.

          That’s not a reliable source for health information.

      • #72 by amateur night on November 11, 2013 - 10:19 pm

        Hey paisa! Me no see no numeros en los linkos-kick down with your figures-put em on the table so we can all sees em.

  24. #73 by Anonymous on November 11, 2013 - 11:48 pm

    thomas why would you provide a 2006 quote when you know full well the world health organization has since designated wireless a class 2b carcinogen? did you forget? why are you trying to convince blog readers wireless is safe, when you can’t convince the world health organization it is safe?

    • #74 by amateur night on November 11, 2013 - 11:52 pm

      The guy is a tool.

    • #75 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 12, 2013 - 7:57 am

      That is an excellent question. Reference was made to a 2006 Factsheet that has not been revised or withdrawn, and is therefore still relevant to the issue at hand. However, since a revised Factsheet 193 was issued immediately following the IARC classification, that one is even more relevant. The conclusion is the same – “A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.”

      Perhaps you are confused about the use of ‘possible’ in the IARC classification. It does not mean ‘plausible’ or ‘probable’. As in: it is ‘possible’ for you (or me) to win the Powerball Lottery!

      Furthermore, the IARC classification does not quantify the risk. That happens at the next step of the WHO risk assessment process, called an Environmental Health Criteria – now expected in early 2014.

      Until then, there is no reason to believe that the very low level of exposure permitted by FCC guidelines poses any risk to the general population.

      Incidentally, the FCC guideline limit for personal exposure of 1.6 W/Kg (over 1 gram of tissue) is much more stringent than most of the rest of the world, which is 2 W/Kg (over 10 grams of tissue). I mention this only because anti-wireless activists often make the erroneous claim that the FCC has the most lax RF guidelines in the world. This is patently false.

        • #77 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 12, 2013 - 9:09 am

          Like in the US, Austria has a federal government agency that sets RF exposure limits. The medical association recommendations have no force or effect whatever.

          • #78 by Sick on November 12, 2013 - 10:30 am

            Looks like we have Doubting Thomas joining the ranks of Michele Garden and Roman Schulze in aggressively pushing for the irradiation of our children in wireless classrooms.

            What’s up with these guys? Sick.

          • #79 by Ray on November 12, 2013 - 11:58 am

            Austria actually has regional governmental agencies that set RF exposure limits.

            Here are the guidelines for Salzburg, according to

            Salzburg GSM/3G outside houses (2002) 10 uW/m2

            Salzburg GSM/3G inside houses (2002) 1 uW/m2

            These are guidelines that take into consideration the clear fact that health effects occur at levels much lower than would cause heating of bodily tissue.

            In the U.S., the FCC allows for 10,000,000 uW/m2

            • #80 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 12, 2013 - 1:41 pm

              Actually, they don’t. Salzburg & Wien (Vienna) have recommended guidelines that carriers try to follow for base stations. ComCom, the federal regulator uses ICNIRP limits for base stations and mobile devices is. But, who cares – only the FCC limits are of any concern here.

              • #81 by Anonymous on November 17, 2013 - 1:07 am

                The FCC limits are for cooking tissue you idiot. They ignore everything else.

  25. #82 by Ray on November 12, 2013 - 8:54 am

    Thomas is a professional hired gun for the wireless industry. His responses are well-practiced, his tactics as slippery as motor oil. Sadly his facts are false and misleading.

    When referring to the issue that the FCC has the most lax RF guidelines in the world, he refers to cell phone guidelines, which are not the guidelines used for WiFi exposures.

    The FCC WiFi exposures instead are based on power-density levels, and the most common way to measure these are in microwatts per square meter. The FCC allows for the general public to be exposed to 10,000,000 uW/m2 (10 million units), as part of their thermally based guidelines.

    The body of scientific literature clearly shows that many effects occur at drastically lower levels than 10 million. There are thousands of peer reviewed studies reporting such biological and health effects as:

    Irreversible infertility in mice at 3 generations at 30,000
    Double strand DNA damage at 20,000
    Pathological leakage of the blood brain barrier at 3,500
    Irreversible infertility in mice at 5 generations at 1,700
    Negative effects on the memory, attention, and motor function of schoolchildren at 1,600
    Reduced memory function at 1,500
    Decreased cognition at 1,300

    There are many other studies that report serious biological and health impacts at even lower levels. These levels are thousands of times lower than what the FCC deems safe.

    • #83 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 12, 2013 - 11:26 am

      FCC guidelines apply to all RF exposures regardless of device.

  26. #84 by Ray on November 12, 2013 - 9:25 am

    Wow, Thomas actually used “winning the lottery” as his analogy for brain tumor risk.

    The IARC/WHO class 2B possible human carcinogen designation for RF wireless microwave radiation was based largely on INTERPHONE and research by independent research by Lennart Hardell.

    This research showed that long-term use of cell phones led to increased risk of brain tumors. As we posted in an earlier article, the increased risk was over 400% for those that used a cell phone for more than an hour a day for 1 year or more.

    Robert A Bean of IARC stated that this designation applies to all wireless devices.

    Prof. Dariusz Leszcynski, IARC panel member, states:

    “The IARC classification justifies implementation of the Precautionary Principle.”

  27. #85 by Confusion & doubt? on November 12, 2013 - 9:42 am

    It seems that a platform is being provided to those that wish to persuade everyone that wireless radiation in schools is okay. In the process, it also appears that misinformation is being spread by these same people.

    Reference postings #63 and #66.

    Instilling confusion & doubt by misinformation, is that what is going on here? I hope the parents understand this is what is going on and can see past this.

    • #86 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 12, 2013 - 12:43 pm

      Regardless of the rhetoric and contending views aired here, the FCC has the regulatory duty, shared with FDA (and in cooperation with NIOSH, OSHA and NTIA), to certify and regulate RF emitting devices and systems of every kind. These federal agencies have the responsibility for all aspects of RF safety, including interpreting the scientific evidence supporting the guidelines.

      These agencies have concluded that current scientific evidence supports the assertion that RF energy emissions from WiFi devices are not harmful, as long as RF energy levels remain below FCC RF safety guidelines. In a very few months we will see if the present FCC proceeding will change that conclusion.

      Meanwhile, all of our machinations are nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing.

      • #87 by Anonymous on November 12, 2013 - 2:18 pm

        If you believe they are nothing but “sound and fury, signifying nothing”, then why are you investing your time arguing on the side that wants to irradiate the children? Why don’t you find something more constructive to do with your time than this?

        Do you find this “sport” and “entertainment” as Roman Schulze does? Or, do you get paid for this?

      • #88 by Joe Imbriano on November 12, 2013 - 3:16 pm

        Mr. Whitney, as an American, and you being a Canadian, let me educate you just a tad in terms of civics. Mr. Whitney, freedom in its purest form, unlike the paltry semblance of which that your government force feeds its subjects, is not the ability to do whatever you want, but rather it is one’s ability to freely DO WHAT IS RIGHT. Hence our mission continues unabated.

        The FCC is not a health care agency, it is a regulatory agency. It sets exposure guidelines, not safety standards. There is a big difference. It doesn’t have a single medical doctor on its payroll. The FDA doesn’t regulate wireless emissions, nor does The EPA. As a matter of fact, an EPA scientist had some very interesting comments about this issue:

        In reality, based on the telecom act of 96 signed by Slick Willy, the wireless industry calls the shots.

        If a wireless carrier feels the need to plug a gap in a coverage area, they can stick a cell tower anywhere they pretty much damn well please as perceived public health concerns are immaterial in any EIR. Heck they could probably put one in a classroom or even in the kids laps if they wanted to Well actually, the schools already have the equivalent with the networks they have installed,just a few notches down on the frequency.

        This is the goal, from the Executive Level on down.

      • #89 by amateur night on November 14, 2013 - 9:24 am

        and the cat exited stage left cuz hes nothing more than an Rf industry clanging cymbal. Sianara compadre.

  28. #90 by Ray on November 12, 2013 - 1:47 pm

    The FCC has the regulatory duty to regulate wireless technology, but given that a former wireless industry lobbyist was just appointed to become it’s new director, it’s clear that this is ushering in a new chapter of smoke and mirrors.

    Parents have a right to protect their children, and ultimately it will be the courts that will need to address the injustice forcing students to be exposed to a toxic agent as part of their education.

    It would be one thing if only a handful of studies reported effects. The reality is that there are thousands that show harm.

    • #91 by Joe Imbriano on November 12, 2013 - 2:51 pm

      Is it the fox running the hen house, the inmates running the asylum, the boracho running the bar or is it the vampires running the blood bank? You decide for yourselves.

    • #92 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 12, 2013 - 3:05 pm

      Ray, You have made mention of the IARC classification a couple of times, so I am presuming you have a copy of the monograph available. If so, please turn to page 1 (IARC Monograph 102), and read what it says;


      “The term ‘carcinogenic risk’ in the IARC Monographs series is taken to mean that an agent is capable of causing cancer. The Monographs evaluate cancer hazards, despite the historical presence of the word ‘risks’ in the title. Inclusion of an agent in the Monographs does not imply that it is a carcinogen, only that the published data have been examined.
      Equally, the fact that an agent has not yet been evaluated in a Monograph does not mean that it is not carcinogenic. Similarly, identification of cancer sites with sufficient evidence or limited evidence in humans should not be viewed as precluding the possibility that an agent may cause cancer at other sites.

      The evaluations of carcinogenic risk are made by international working groups of independent
      scientists and are qualitative in nature. No recommendation is given for regulation or legislation.”

      Read it over a couple of times. It should become clear that this document summarizes the data – it does not quantify it and does not make any recommendations or conclusions.

      WHO Factsheet #193 followed the expert group deliberations that produced the Monograph – and distilled it into conclusions that the general public should be able to understand. The take away message is – “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 effects are expected from exposure to them.” (wireless networks means WiFi)

      • #93 by Joe Imbriano on November 12, 2013 - 3:19 pm

        The in use WiFi enabled tablet,is for all intents and purposes, a base station with equivalent emissions. This is what the Fullerton School District calls 21st Century learning?

        And of course with the vampires running the blood bank, we just all need to relax, roll up our sleeves and hand over our children. Yeah right pal. What’s next, you gonna say, trust me Ima docktah?

      • #94 by Ray on November 12, 2013 - 3:42 pm

        Mr. Whitney,

        In 2011 RF radiation was designated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a class 2b possible human carcinogen.

        The monograph itself does not make recommendations or conclusions, but when a member of the deciding panel comes forward and states that this decision justifies the implementation of the precautionary principle, it is my responsibility as a parent to take notice.

        When the Council of Europe recommends to all European countries to hardwire schools due to potential health risks, my ears are open.

        When the American Academy of Pediatrics says that children absorb more radiation than adults, I recognize that there is a problem.

        When the Italian Supreme Court rules that cell phones can cause cancer, I realize that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

        When the American Academy of Environmental Medicine states ““Multiple studies correlate radiofrequency exposure with diseases such as cancer, neurological disease, reproductive disorders, immune dysfunction, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity… The fact that radiofrequency exposure causes neurological damage has been documented repeatedly… Other neurological and cognitive disorders such as
        headaches, dizziness, tremors, decreased memory and attention, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, decreased reaction times, sleep disturbances and visual disruptions have been reported to be statistically significant in multiple epidemiological studies with radiofrequency exposure occurring non-locally.”

        I realize that you would have to be heartless to fight for the irradiation of children.

        • #95 by Anonymous on November 13, 2013 - 9:33 pm

          Ray, you are so right. These people are living in a deep, deep state of denial. It is very unhealthy to society as a whole.

        • #96 by Anonymous on November 15, 2013 - 5:16 am

          I wholeheartedly 100% agree Ray. I think these people are beyond heartless. How can any rational, sane person ignore all of this?

        • #97 by Anonymous on November 21, 2013 - 7:31 pm

          Ray, I want to thank you, those on this blog and Joe for what you are all doing. You are all fighting on opposites sides of this continent for everyone’s children. The goal is to save these children who are helplessly at the mercy of blind parents,a sick doctor and useless school administrators. Keep up the fight!

        • #98 by Anonymous on November 24, 2013 - 5:22 am

          There has to be more to this story that the news media is telling us. You NEVER hear any of this information on the news EVER!

  29. #99 by Anonymous on November 12, 2013 - 3:06 pm

    no confusion over the word “possible” in this context, thanks thomas. a class 2b carcinogen is not the same as harmless. possible in this context is NOT the same as possibly winning the lottery, otherwise the 2b list would be dictionary-size as many things are colloquially possible. but you know this.

    • #100 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 12, 2013 - 3:40 pm

      Thanks for asking. Yes there are hundreds of agents in the 2b classification. Note also that in class 1 you will find sunshine and alcohol. And just like RF, they really don’t harm you unless you take them in excess. In fact, while sunshine is a known carcinogen, it is also essential to life.

      Remember the old saw – the poison is in the dose? Well it’s true

      • #101 by Ray on November 12, 2013 - 3:56 pm

        Mr Whitney,

        You haven’t answered the question. Are you paid to provide pro-industry spin on websites that discuss wireless health effects, and if so, who pays for your efforts?

  30. #102 by DOUBTING THOMAS on November 12, 2013 - 3:52 pm

    Joe, Thanks for having me here as your guest. But I do sense that I may be annoying some of your regulars. I think I should be moving on now.

    Most anti-wireless sites will not accept comments from the likes of me. Your open attitude probably makes your site more interesting than many of the others. There is nothing wrong with a little thought provoking controversy.

    Best regards,


    • #103 by mom1 on November 14, 2013 - 10:45 am

      You shouldn’t paint this blog as “anti-wireless.” We are for wired technology in school, as we know it is safe for the kids and the teachers. I guess you could be described as “anti-wired.”
      Also, if looking at the ever increasing evidence that wireless is harmful is labeled by you as “anti-wireless,” then so be it.

      • #104 by Ray on November 14, 2013 - 2:29 pm

        Children have a fundamental right to a safe learning environment.

        • #105 by Anonymous on November 14, 2013 - 4:23 pm

          Yes, they do and how did we ever get to the point where we must fight for this fundamental right?

          • #106 by Ray on November 15, 2013 - 8:14 am

            Because school board members refuse to do the right thing, which is to acknowledge the propensity of evidence that shows RF radiation to be harmful.

            Certainly SB members face substantial political pressure. It’s a tough position they are in.

            What they need to realize is that not only do they have ethical and moral responsibilities, but they face legal and financial liability as well.

            When medical and scientific experts tell you not to expose children to a particular type of radiation, it really should be a no-brainer.

            • #107 by board of denial on November 15, 2013 - 9:25 am

              For the love of Pete, open your eyes people.

            • #108 by Norma on November 16, 2013 - 8:18 pm

              We are having the same problem up here in Canada. The board members simply flat out refuse to comment on or address the evidence.

              • #109 by Jamie on November 17, 2013 - 12:41 pm

                It’s amazing how these school boards can be paralyzed by this. They can’t for the life of them call a stop to wireless classrooms as a precautionary measure.

                When is something so important that the health of children will be risked?

            • #110 by Sims on November 17, 2013 - 1:35 pm

              That is true if you are correct.

  31. #111 by Anonymous on November 12, 2013 - 4:19 pm

    thomas, we are discussing class 2b carcinogens. why would you bring up class 1 rather than address the subject? I can choose whether or not I expose myself to other designated carcinogens, so how could it make sense in a democratic society that school boards implement mandatory exposure to class 2b carcinogens?

    • #112 by mom1 on November 12, 2013 - 9:05 pm

      ” . . . so how could it make sense in a democratic society that school boards implement mandatory exposure to class 2b carcinogens? ”

      I had never thought of it that way before, the FSD is making mandatory exposure to class 2b carcinogens.

      • #113 by A. on November 15, 2013 - 8:01 am

        Is there any way to opt my daughter out of this at school? Dr. Whisnant assured me that this was safe and referred us to the report on the district’s website. I have doubts about this. What can I do?

  32. #114 by Glendale Unified and WiFi on November 15, 2013 - 11:38 am

    Parents raise concern over GUSD’s Wi-Fi
    But officials say wireless technology emits radio frequency levels too low to cause harm.
    November 13, 2013|By Kelly Corrigan,

  33. #115 by I doubt it on November 17, 2013 - 12:05 pm

    Is what you are telling us is that we are facing is the largest public health disaster in human history? It sure sounds like it. Is the sky really falling?

    • #116 by Anonymous on November 17, 2013 - 5:13 pm

      I have heard it referred to as “the largest public health disaster in human history.”

      Everyone has to make their own determination about that. Once you determine that, you can figure out if the sky is falling, as you put it.

    • #117 by JGarrison on November 17, 2013 - 7:22 pm

  34. #118 by Joe Imbriano on November 17, 2013 - 4:32 pm

    From: joe imbriano
    Date: Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 4:18 PM
    Subject: The wireless classroom model at Acacia
    To: “” , “” ,,,,,, Michelle Knowles

    • #119 by email this to the PTA on November 17, 2013 - 8:30 pm

      National Center for Biotechnology Information

      Lee S, Johnson D, Dunbar K, Dong H, Ge X, Kim YC, Wing C, Jayathilaka N, Emmanuel N, Zhou CQ, Gerber HL, Tseng CC, Wang SM.

      Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.

      The biological effect of radiofrequency (RF) fields remains controversial. We address this issue by examining whether RF fields can cause changes in gene expression. We used the pulsed RF fields at a frequency of 2.45GHz that is commonly used in telecommunication to expose cultured human HL-60 cells. We used the serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) method to measure the RF effect on gene expression at the genome level. We observed that 221 genes altered their expression after a 2-h exposure. The number of affected genes increased to 759 after a 6-h exposure. Functional classification of the affected genes reveals that apoptosis-related genes were among the upregulated ones and the cell cycle genes among the downregulated ones. We observed no significant increase in the expression of heat shock genes. These results indicate that the RF fields at 2.45GHz can alter gene expression in cultured human cells through non-thermal mechanism.

      PMID: 16107253 [PubMed – in process]

      Article from:

      • #120 by amateur night on November 17, 2013 - 8:46 pm

        Oh Schulzeepoo where are you?

        • #121 by Anonymous on November 17, 2013 - 9:02 pm

          He’s busy with the PTA, Foundation honeys.

          • #122 by amateur night on November 19, 2013 - 5:32 am

            Oh Schulzeepoo where are you?

      • #123 by Robyn on November 19, 2013 - 7:17 pm

        Can I email this to my son’s PTA ? Do we need permission?

        • #124 by Joe Imbriano on November 19, 2013 - 8:09 pm

          Go right ahead, you can email them anything pertinent to their right to a safe learning environment. You do not need anyone’s permission to email them anything from this website. That is why this platform was created.

  35. #125 by Anonymous on November 17, 2013 - 4:40 pm

    I saw the cars at the Fullerton sports complex covered with your flyers again today-you go Joe.

    • #126 by amateur night on November 18, 2013 - 7:46 pm

      Was Michele Garden following you around with her broom and dustpan?

  36. #127 by Joe Imbriano on November 17, 2013 - 11:45 pm

    Ray :

    Mr. Whitney,

    In 2011 RF radiation was designated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a class 2b possible human carcinogen.

    The monograph itself does not make recommendations or conclusions, but when a member of the deciding panel comes forward and states that this decision justifies the implementation of the precautionary principle, it is my responsibility as a parent to take notice.

    When the Council of Europe recommends to all European countries to hardwire schools due to potential health risks, my ears are open.

    When the American Academy of Pediatrics says that children absorb more radiation than adults, I recognize that there is a problem.

    When the Italian Supreme Court rules that cell phones can cause cancer, I realize that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    When the American Academy of Environmental Medicine states ““Multiple studies correlate radiofrequency exposure with diseases such as cancer, neurological disease, reproductive disorders, immune dysfunction, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity… The fact that radiofrequency exposure causes neurological damage has been documented repeatedly… Other neurological and cognitive disorders such as
    headaches, dizziness, tremors, decreased memory and attention, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, decreased reaction times, sleep disturbances and visual disruptions have been reported to be statistically significant in multiple epidemiological studies with radiofrequency exposure occurring non-locally.”

    I realize that you would have to be heartless to fight for the irradiation of children.

    …or just plain evil

  37. #128 by Anonymous on November 19, 2013 - 9:32 am

    When it comes to the dangerous technological devices within your home, wireless routers contribute a great deal to EMF exposure. Wireless routers allow electronics to communicate without the inconvenience of wires, but in doing so they are spewing massive amounts of radiation throughout your home. In fact, an average wireless network can transmit radiation at the same frequency as a microwave.

    But the intensity of the radiation is not the only danger. Whereas other electronic devices are turned off at some point during the day or night, wireless routers are on all the time. This results in your home being covered in EMFs every hour of every day. Furthermore, the wireless networks of your neighbors may be infringing upon your space. If you can pick up a neighbor’s wireless signal on your laptop, then their EMFs are infiltrating your home.

    Learn more:

  38. #129 by mother on November 19, 2013 - 7:00 pm

    I have children in public school, I am a single parent and I don’t have the resources to put them in private school or make waves. What can I do? This is really scary.

    • #130 by Anonymous on November 19, 2013 - 9:32 pm

      You can start by making this information known to your child’s teacher, then principal, and the school board. What I found helpful was the long list of heavily credentialed and experienced physicians and researchers that wrote letters to LAUSD telling them to use wired technology:
      Personally, I feel that these letters were enough for me to know that my child should not be in a wireless classroom. This gave me confidence to press the issue with the school.
      What we are finding is that the principals and school boards are either telling the parents that the wifi is “okay” or they are ignoring us completely. The principals and school boards can never match the credentials of the experts and it is scary to think that they even try to refute them; it tells you how arrogant and closed minded the schools can be.
      Talk to other parents at the school and try to build a consensus. Go to the school board meeting and during public comments tell the district that ALL of the letters from doctors and researchers are telling LAUSD to use wired technology. Tell them you want the school to err on the side of caution with your children and opt for wired technology. Tell them you don’t want your children’s health put at risk. You could also get an email campaign to the school board, principal, and teachers advising them of this information and that as a parent you want to err on the side of caution and not have your child exposed to wireless radiation. Going and speaking at the school board meeting is most effective.

      Given the behavior of the schools, I don’t see any way around not making waves. Be respectful, but firm.
      They have not shown the capacity to be able to do anything but continue down this same path, even if it is at the expense of people’s children. It is scary.

      This is happening in the private schools, too.

      • #131 by Ray on November 20, 2013 - 8:15 am

        There is a tremendous societal pressure to get these kids on wirleless devices at school. Getting school board members to face the facts is a serious challenge, but just as difficult is getting the parents to examine the issue.

        What I’ve seen so far is that in order to have a chance of removing wireless from a public school, there will need to be a mob of EMF-educated parents demanding wireless to be turned off.

        Either that, or a court order.

        Getting parents involved, one by one, is the recommended avenue. Do this before you take it to the school board. Perhaps test the waters somewhat with other parents and see what the level of interest is.

        Consider using the resources, hand outs, etc, available at on the action page.

        • #132 by bozo esq. on November 20, 2013 - 3:20 pm

          Ready, willing, able and available. Call me.

        • #133 by Montreal on November 23, 2013 - 7:34 pm

          If you want a mob, hand out donuts. Better yet, let them eat cake.

  39. #134 by Anonymous on November 20, 2013 - 9:56 pm

    I heard that in Los Angeles, they are spending over 1 billion dollars on Ipads. Is that true? Does that mean those children will all be getting one?

    If these assertions hold true, we have an unthinkable disaster on our hands with this next generation.

  40. #135 by 33 degrees of separation on November 22, 2013 - 6:31 pm

    The readers of this website are now privy to what the elect had never dreamed would be disseminated to those that are not illuminated. The question is, will you believe it?

    • #136 by Monica on November 24, 2013 - 9:36 pm

      What does this mean?

  41. #137 by Monica on November 23, 2013 - 10:44 pm

    What would motivate this man to do such a thing? Does he have children?

  42. #140 by Anonymous on November 28, 2013 - 6:41 am

    who owns the news program and station you are watching? follow money to what else do they own and who owns them? (repeat). who are the shareholders and what do they own? is there a news station left that doesn’t have a vested interest in the wireless industry? the media is mandated to report balanced information in order to promote an informed citizenship. the only wireless information I see on the news is a tech gadget advertisement disguised as a news story. is this balanced reporting of the wireless story? could there be a conflict of interest?

Comments are closed.

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!