Reassessment of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Limits and Policies (Docket No. FCC-2013-0204)

According to Apple’s product information guide, iPads can emit even more radiation than cell phones. Also, the scientific literature clearly shows that children absorb more radiation than adults.

According to the scientific evidence itself, in our opinion, it would be reasonable to state that children who use iPads for long periods of time are likely to have a significantly increased risk of developing cancer. Equally worrying is that in my opinion, children may actually suffer severe reproductive harm. So what kind of risk are we talking about? Isn’t that really the question? According to high quality independently funded research by Dr. Lennart Hardell of Sweden:

For every 100 hours of cellphone use, the risk of brain cancer increases by 5%.

So how many hours would children in Fullerton schools be exposed?

175 days x 6 hours = 875 hours per year.

That means after each year of exposure to these wireless devices there would be a 44% increased risk of brain cancer.

After 13 years, this comes to a 572% increased risk of cancer, for adults that is. For children, the increased risk would be much more, as research shows that they have at least double the risk of adults.

So according to these calculations, children would have an 1100% increased risk of brain cancer as a result of using an iPad at school. This does not include time spent doing homework or other extraneous activities. WiFi enabled devices such as tablets and laptops  in the classroom possibly emit as much or more high frequency pulse modulated microwave radiation as a cell phone and they are in direct proximity to the children’s sensitive developing reproductive areas.


 13-84 09-03-2013 American Association For Justice 7520942173


  1. #1 by Curious... on September 24, 2013 - 2:57 pm

    Does it help to have the iPad
    on Airplane mode??

  2. #2 by Sundip G. on September 24, 2013 - 6:08 pm

    Yes, but it defeats the classroom purpose. They won’t get the internet. Airplane mode shuts off the emissions.

  3. #3 by Lawsuit? on September 24, 2013 - 8:45 pm

    Is the prelude to a massive class action lawsuit?

    • #4 by Schulzee on September 25, 2013 - 8:32 am

      Nope, lawsuits have already been tried… See below. Usually these individual suits have to have merit before they run the class action thing. May have some luck in Italy though. Not sure what happened there but I’m always a little dubious when lawyers practice science.

      • #5 by Anonymous on September 25, 2013 - 12:11 pm

        Are you the one that works for Apple?

    • #6 by Anonymous on September 25, 2013 - 9:15 am

      Italian supreme court ruling links cell phones to tumors

      • #7 by Anonymous on October 8, 2013 - 9:02 pm

        Is there a Link between Cell Phone Use and Thyroid Cancer?
        “The incidence of thyroid cancer has been on the rise in Israel for more than a decade, which matches the rise in the use of cell phones.”
        By Rong Wang, PhD | April 29, 2013 | Categories: General, Radiation
        Israeli scientists have reported preliminary findings of a possible link between cell phone radiation and thyroid cancer.
        Does Cell Phone Radiation Cause Thyroid Cancer?
        Conducted at Beilinson Hospital in Petah Tikva and at Tel Aviv University, the Israeli research showed evidence for the first time of the possible connection between the rise in thyroid cancer cases to the increased exposure to radiation emitted by cell phones.
        In the experiment, human thyroid cells collected from healthy patients were subjected to radiation from a device that simulates the electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phones. The irradiated thyroid cells proliferated at a much higher, statistically significant rate than non-irradiated cells in the control group.
        According to the lead researcher Prof. Raphael Feinmesser, head of Beilinson’s Ear, Nose and Throat Department, “The findings are the first evidence of changes in thyroid cells in response to electromagnetic radiation… ”
        “The thyroid gland is located in the neck, but the area is located the same distance from the ear as the regions of the brain where [cancerous] growths have been diagnosed as being related to the use of the [cellular] devices. This is a region that is not far from the center of the device’s radiation,” said Feinmesser.
        An Increase in Thyroid Cancer and Cell Phone Use
        The incidence of thyroid cancer has been on the rise in Israel for more than a decade, which matches the rise in the use of cell phones. In the United States, the chance of being diagnosed with thyroid cancer has also risen in recent years and is now more than twice what it was in 1990, according to the American Cancer Society.
        There are about 60,220 new cases of thyroid cancer in 2013 (45,310 in women, and 14,910 in men). For women, it is the cancer with the fastest-growing number of new cases.
        This recent research comes after a 2007 Israeli nationwide study reported an association between cellular phone use and parotid gland tumors (PGTs), tumor of the largest salivary gland located on the sides of the face.

  4. #8 by Schulzee on September 24, 2013 - 9:02 pm

    Wait, the ear has to receive more radiation than the brain so where are all the cases of ear cancer??

    • #9 by amateur night on October 2, 2013 - 10:56 am

      Wait the eyeball to get more laser exposure not the elbow? Where are the cases of elbow blindness? I don’t remember doc. Do tell.

      • #10 by Schulzee on October 2, 2013 - 2:33 pm

        You have got to be kidding me, right? Lasers generally do not cause cancer. They damage the photo-receptive cells of the retina. Now, I know it’s complicated but since the elbow does not have these photo-receptive cells, you can’t blind it. Now since skin cells can get cancer just like brain cells, I want to know where all the ear skin cancers are???

        • #11 by Question for Schulzee on October 2, 2013 - 6:03 pm

          Are you the heart and soul embodiment of FSD? Is your advice and consult what the FSD is relying upon when they push wireless radiation in the classroom?
          Are you constantly reassuring the Dr. Pletka and the board members that the wireless radiation is “totally safe.” Schulzee, are you why Pletka made the “totally safe” statement? Did that come from you?

  5. #12 by mom1 on September 25, 2013 - 7:38 am

    Mr. Imbriano, have you sent the American Association for Justice letter to FSD and FJUHSD?

    • #13 by Joe Imbriano on September 25, 2013 - 1:06 pm

      Yes it was emailed to the administration yesterday in the form of a link to this blog post.

  6. #15 by Angie B on September 25, 2013 - 8:09 am

    I didn’t know about the American Association for Justice; here is their website:

  7. #16 by Schulzee on September 25, 2013 - 8:25 am

    Send me Joe cuz we all know how that went in Oregon:

    Wireless Waste
    Portland schools have had to spend $172,000 fighting a parent’s lawsuit over Wi-Fi.

    But we know all that since it was 6/2012 right?

    • #17 by David Morrison on September 25, 2013 - 7:17 pm

      When it was over PPS actually spent over 200,000 defending their right to microwave our kids. I spoke to a couple of the school board members and asked if they had ever read the witness declarations and they never did which means they never looked at the science. One of our witnesses, Dr. David Carpenter, was a presenter to the Obama Cancer Panel. The Defense attorney argued that he was just a public health employee. He is the head of the Public Health Dept. at the University in Albany N.Y. read the witness declarations at our website and then tell me there was no substance to our case.

      • #18 by Anonymous on September 25, 2013 - 8:28 pm

        The implication that ionizing radiation can damage DNA is that non-ionizing radiation cannot. This is not correct.

        For example, blue visible light absorption can induce damage to both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA of cells, which can result in the death of the cell, or in a substantial increase of radical oxygen species generation and increased levels of oxidative stress.

        It can also be easily demonstrated that low level magnetic fields can influence cellular metabolic functioning of any cell with active photoreceptor molecules. This follows from the understanding that biologically significant visible-light induced excitations (which are non-ionizing) are dependent on a change in the spin of the electron in the photoreceptor molecule which has been raised to a higher energy level.

        While I have no idea whether there is any health risk from the use of cell phones, I don’t believe that one can dismiss the possibility of harmful effects of radiation on biological systems, which are capable of detecting and reacting differently to (non-ionizing) photons on the basis of the polarization or incident direction of the photon, simply because the energy level of the radiation is insufficient to induce ionization.

        • #19 by amateur night on September 28, 2013 - 12:36 pm

          Hey where are all the Cal State Fullerton science cats weighing in on this cat right here? Ya’ll too busy teaching kids they came from the rocks?

      • #20 by Veritas on September 25, 2013 - 10:15 pm

        A UC Berkeley PhD, one involved in this issue, told me that the school boards will not look at any of the information (science) because once they do look at it, they are liable for having seen it.

        • #21 by Shanna on September 28, 2013 - 8:38 am

          We had the same problem up here in Manitoba. They refused to even look into it. I am glad to see that your group in California is trying to stop this.

  8. #22 by Schulzee on September 25, 2013 - 8:26 am

    Should be em, mot me… I don’t want to go.

  9. #23 by amateur night on September 25, 2013 - 8:45 am

    Cell phones and I pads put out. The kids take it in. Cell phones are good for the kids? Schulzeepoo says they prevent brain cancer. What a freak.

    • #24 by Schulzee on September 25, 2013 - 1:41 pm

      If it helps, I did NOT say that. What I said was that there are studies that show a decreased risk of brain cancer. I’m sure someone here can explain to us how that is possible.

      • #25 by David Morrison on September 25, 2013 - 7:13 pm

        The brain cancer statistics are most likely being altered. This is a 4 trillion dollar industry attached to the military and there will be nothing to stand in it’s way. I have it from a source in Britain that they are tampering with the brain cancer statistics. Besides, the stats are a couple of years behind here. Brain cancer used to be rare however how many of you know or have known someone that has had it? Most of you ….

        • #26 by Schulzee on September 28, 2013 - 3:26 pm

          Is the data supporting a correlation also being altered???

      • #27 by Anonymous on September 25, 2013 - 7:52 pm

        Are you the one that works for Apple?

        • #28 by Conflict of interest? on September 26, 2013 - 11:32 am

          No that’s this guy

          He is the husband of the principal over at Fisler.

        • #29 by Pro-irradiation on September 26, 2013 - 8:53 pm

          No, he’s the doctor that likes to irradiate our children.

      • #30 by Ray on September 26, 2013 - 11:47 am

        Schulze, you continue to obfuscate the science.

        The studies you are referring to actually found a significantly increased risk of cancer if there was greater than 10 year exposure, and there was more than 30 minutes of use per day.

        For 60 minutes of use per day, there was a massive increase in brain cancer risk.

        What disgusts me is that as medical doctor you ignore this data.

        • #31 by Anonymous on September 26, 2013 - 5:11 pm

          I don’t know who this Schulze guy is but he doesn’t live in the real world. He seems like he has no compassion and that this is all some sort of a game. He is not playing with a full deck.

          Ray you are very well spoken, reasonable and articulate. Your perspective is reasonable and one of caution. Parents need what you bring to the table here. Thank you for your research and your efforts. Please continue to shed the proper light on all of this conflicting information and data.

        • #32 by Joe Imbriano on September 26, 2013 - 10:30 pm

          FSD’s very own Robert Pletka mandates 3 -4 hours a day 5 days a week 180 days per year plus extra credit for the countless hours at day care as well as at home. Yes, and he says that it is totally safe for the kids.

      • #33 by Anonymous on October 1, 2013 - 9:07 pm

        Why don’t you ask Bob?

    • #34 by Anonymous on September 28, 2013 - 8:57 pm

      The guy does enjoy irradiating our children.

  10. #35 by Anonymous on September 25, 2013 - 10:31 am

    Can someone please explain to me why then is this issue not the subject of a more contentious debate? It would seem logical that something of this magnitude would be worthy of far more attention than this is getting by this website and others like it online.

    • #36 by mom1 on September 25, 2013 - 2:28 pm

      It is worthy of far more attention. We generally learn of new things through the media. The media has not carried this and, in my opinion, the general population is not aware. I know I was not aware of wireless radiation emissions 6 months ago. Once I started looking at it, I was astounded all the websites talking just about the radiation in schools. I have a son in eighth grade and they are starting with the iPads. Once you learn the information, you can’t do anything but act.

      The tech industry/government (FCC) seem to have control of what we learn and are exposed to. This is criminal. We need to help inform the parents and public of the other side of the story because the media is not doing it. We need to get the wifi out of the schools.

  11. #37 by 33 degrees of separation on September 25, 2013 - 1:30 pm

    Of all the ways to skin the cat, of course this one makes the most sense Mr. Imbriano. No one would ever suspect it and the people cry “give us Barabus”. While, you are correct in your observations and assertions, they will be impossible to prove given the sheer magnitude of who is involved and what is at stake.

    This is, has been and will continue to be a very long term plan. You have simply been bestowed the good fortune of arriving on the scene as the tail end of these endeavors are approaching. The complicit are willing and aware.

    Your efforts will not be in vain, and as to where your intent comes from, it literally speaks for itself. God speed Mr. Imbriano, God speed.

  12. #39 by Ray on September 25, 2013 - 5:32 pm

    July 2013:

    Israeli Supreme Court Orders Government To Study the Number of Children Suffering From Electrosensitivity

  13. #40 by Ray on September 25, 2013 - 5:35 pm

    2013 Israel Cell Phone Company To Compensate Customer Who Contacted Cancer

    Partner Communications, which operates in Israel under the name Orange, will pay NIS 400,000 to a customer who contracted cancer in his ear.

  14. #41 by Ray on September 25, 2013 - 5:38 pm

    2013: Australian government ordered to pay claims for damaging health of employee with EMF sensitivity

  15. #42 by Ray on September 25, 2013 - 5:43 pm

    Italian Supreme Court Affirms Tumor Risk from Long-Term Use of a Cell Phone

    The Supreme Court of Italy has affirmed a ruling granting worker’s compensation to a businessman who developed a tumor after using a cell phone for 12 years.

    This is the first time that a high court —in any country— has ruled in favor a link between mobile phone radiation and tumor development.

  16. #43 by David Morrison on September 25, 2013 - 7:09 pm

    There are at least 60 international organizations, agencies, government bodies that have sounded the alarm about children’s exposure to wi fi and cell phone radiation. Among those are, the Council of Europe, The American Academy of Environmental Physicians, The 60,000 member American Academy of Pediatricians, The Ontario Catholic Teachers Union, The L.A. Unified School District Teachers Union, The German, French and Israeli Government, The American American Association for Justice and Dr. Martha Herbert of the Harvard Medical School. These organizations and people do not stick their necks out with policy recommendations without exhaustive research. I would much rather look to them for advice and guidance than to the govt. agencies like the FCC, FDA, EPA, etc. that are in bed with the telecommunications industries. The key word in microwave radiation is: RADIATION !!!!

    • #44 by Schulzee on September 28, 2013 - 3:21 pm

      Oh no, not RADIATION!!! Just like sunlight???

      • #45 by Anonymous on September 28, 2013 - 8:55 pm


    • #47 by Joe Imbriano on September 26, 2013 - 11:06 pm

      1 billion taxpayer dollars, and I believe that it’s still not enough for Dr. John E. Deasy and Apple to irradiate the unsuspecting in the LAUSD against the wishes of those in the know as well as their very own teachers union UTLA:

      The kids have hacked the devices so they can get the internet and all the trappings. Did the Apple execs forget to tell the LAUSD that this could happen? There is just no way the computer giant could have ever forseen or imagined that the kids would do this now could they or was it part of the plan to recall them all back in and sell them an upgrade on the security features?

      Meanwhile this hack bobble head reporter just told everyone else who hasn’t figured it out yet how to hack the rest of the devices. He brushes over the billion dollar boondoggle with a twinkle in his eye as the taxpayers are getting the billion dollar shaft. I heard the LAUSD may be ordering keyboards as well for these microwave transmitters?

      Never mind what this is potentially doing to the children’s cognitive function, and physical and reproductive health. These kids in the LAUSD are not watching church services on these things at home either. Yeah, they need more screen time like Fullerton needs more potholes. This is awful.

      • #48 by LAUSD Shiny New Toys on September 27, 2013 - 6:39 am

        “Like districts across the country, Detroit and Los Angeles are infatuated with fancy electronic devices, glossy new textbooks and DVDs “aligned” to top-down Common Core “standards, and other whiz-bang gadgetry to stimulate “21st century learning.” Education’s Shiny Toy Syndrome is the result of a toxic alliance between big government and big business.”

        Educator’s Shiny Toy Syndrome:

        • #49 by Anonymous on September 27, 2013 - 7:40 am

          This is going to turn children into robots and zombies. This is unbelievable. Where are the parents?

          • #50 by Parents? on September 27, 2013 - 4:29 pm

            We are trying to reach and inform them.

            There was a meeting with the two Fullerton school Superintendent’s on Monday evening. This was to discuss the Common Core, etc.; there are 20,000 + students in those districts and maybe 10 parents were in attendance. The parents are trusting those that are not to be trusted, as superintendents Pletka and Giokaris have shown by turning their backs on and steadfastly refusing to acknowledge any information contrary to their technology plans.
            Meanwhile, it appears that Acacia Principal Whisnant, herself, would not accept the bookmark offered to her yesterday. The bookmark references several websites that address the problems with WiFi in the schools. In that same meeting, the teacher also refused the information. So, it appears there is solidarity among the teachers and staff to ignore any new information contrary to their plans, even if it endangers the health of the students.
            How do we get to the point where people shut down and not even look at new information, especially when it involves the health and welfare of the children they are responsible for at school? Is there no one at FSD and FJUHSD that can look at two sides and employ critical thinking skills? Their behavior defies logical, rational thinking. Don’t these teachers, who are being instructed to stay away from this blog and not read other information, know that this is wrong? Don’t they know that their school is trying to censor information? Don’t they wonder why this is? Are they curious? Will there be disciplinary action taken against them if they look? Under what authority can your supervisor tell you not to look at information? Is this ethical, moral behavior?

            That gets us back to this issue: if the school admin allows themselves to look at this information, they are legally liable for having done so. When problems start appearing and parents want to remedy the situation by suing the school district, if the school personnel never had that information that it was harmful, you can’t hold them liable.
            So, their answer is to acknowledge that their is another side to the issue, but not engage or discuss the other side because once they discuss it, they are on the record for having known about it. Is this a Catch 22, circular logic?
            Additionally, there is the risk management legal council (ASCIP) that I believe is telling the superintendents that the information on the pro-wired side is “inconclusive” and to go ahead based on FCC guidelines ( 17 years old, ignores non-thermal biological effects).
            Of course, not looking at it leaves them unable to fulfill their responsibilities of ensuring the health and safety of our children while at school.

            Parents and anyone reading this, this is your call: wake up, these are your children, your neighbors children, your nieces, nephews, friends. We are all in this together and we are all impacted by this.

            • #51 by Angie B on September 28, 2013 - 12:35 pm

              Name Grade
              R. Pletka F
              G. Geokaris F

              Both superintendents, responsible for running this circus, receive an F.

  17. #52 by Pletka's Alma Matter on September 25, 2013 - 9:57 pm

    University of California, Irvine June 2008
    EH&S; Radiation Safety Division


    Wi-Fi is an acronym for “wireless fidelity” and it refers to a wireless network for computers that uses
    radiofrequency radiation for communication just like cell phones and two-way radios (walkie-talkies) do.
    Communication across a Wi-Fi network is very similar to two-way radio communication:
    1. A computer’s wireless adapter translates data into a radiofrequency signal and transmits the data
    using an antenna to a nearby wireless router.
    2. The wireless router receives the signal and decodes it. It sends the information to the Internet using a wired Ethernet connection. The Ethernet is a widely-used local area network (LAN) technology, with
    a local area network referring to a wireless computer network covering a small geographic area such as a home, an office, or a school.
    3. The process also works in reverse, with the router receiving information from the Internet, translating
    it into a radiofrequency signal, and then sending it via an antenna to the computer’s wireless adapter.
    Since Wi-Fi systems emit high-frequency electromagnetic radiation (at either 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz, with a GHz
    [gigahertz] being a frequency of one billion cycles per second), some concern has been raised regarding the safety of using a Wi-Fi system. But these systems generally emit at a very low power — typically about 0.1
    Watt emitted from both the computer antenna and the router antenna. The power falls off very rapidly
    beyond a few inches from the antennas. In comparison, cell phones emit between 0.6 Watts and 3 Watts
    (typically at about 1 Watt), generally at 1.9 GHz.
    There is a good deal of controversy nowadays about potential health effects caused by Wi-Fi radiation.
    Currently, it is believed by most scientists that Wi-Fi radiation exposure is safe for most people with the possible exception being small children exposed for long periods of time. Although no health effects in children have been identified, it is recommended that children not sit for hours daily with a Wi-Fi laptop on their laps; placing the computers on a table is much better. The same thing goes for cell phone use by children — use is acceptable, but spending hours a day on a cell phone is discouraged as a precautionary measure even though definitive health effects have not been observed in studies.
    Of course, the exposure to Wi-Fi radiation is somewhat additive if a person is in a room full of others on WiFi. But since the radiation intensity drops off so rapidly with distance from the Wi-Fi emitting source (e.g.,the laptop antennas), most of a user’s exposure is from his/her own system unless other users are within a few feet away.

    In conclusion, exposure to Wi-Fi radiation is presently considered to be very safe. Studies on possible
    health effects caused by long-term Wi-Fi (and cell phone) radiation exposure continue to be conducted.
    Some good websites for further reading regarding potential Wi-Fi radiation health effects are listed below:

    • #53 by Joe Imbriano on September 27, 2013 - 9:31 am

      “Currently, it is believed by most scientists that Wi-Fi radiation exposure is safe for most people with the possible exception being small children exposed for long periods of time. Although no health effects in children have been identified, it is recommended that children not sit for hours daily with a Wi-Fi laptop on their laps; placing the computers on a table is much better. The same thing goes for cell phone use by children — use is acceptable, but spending hours a day on a cell phone is discouraged as a precautionary measure……”

      Welcome to the FSD’s wireless classroom model where it appears that the aforementioned is ignored along with everything else we have brought to the table thus far by UCI graduate Robert Pletka, four of the five board members and the entire FSD administration including ALL of the principals-every last one of them.

      As my wife and I gazed over the 700 children with their families at the Acacia elementary family picnic day, I was reminded that these children are expecting parents, teachers, and administrators to be looking out for them.

      Have the parents been misled by district officials? The administration appears to have their heads in the sand with the likes of Karen Whisnant and Nancy Regitz who willingly continue to choose to look the other way as they both refused information on the potential dangers of wireless classrooms I attempted to present to them yesterday at my child’s conference. They are turning their backs on the kids by ignoring the expert warnings and are ignoring the scientific evidence We will do no such thing ladies and gentlemen. You have my word on that.

      • #54 by Anonymous on September 28, 2013 - 1:30 pm

        This is disgusting behavior by the staff, all of them. The Board doesn’t deserve a medal either. Where the heck are they in the thick of this?

        • #55 by Angie B on September 29, 2013 - 11:07 am

          The Board has been reached out to on many, many occasions. As they continue to roll out the wireless classrooms, you can only conclude that they are okay with this.

          The Boards are equally responsible for the District’s actions.

      • #56 by Schulzee on September 29, 2013 - 8:23 pm

        I don’t think it’s fair to assume that they are ignoring the scientific “evidence”. It sounds like they probably looked at all the evidence on the subject, not just your biased information. Please tell us, did you provide them with any studies supporting the safety of EMF? Why not? So, I’m going to propose that they are ignoring you, not the data on EMF. It’s ok, telling people what to think never worked out well for me either…

        • #57 by for Schulzee on October 2, 2013 - 6:06 pm

          Maybe it’s fair to assume that they are listening to you, Schulze.

          Are you advising them that these radiation emissions are okay for our children?

          • #58 by amateur night on October 3, 2013 - 3:05 pm


      • #59 by Mass mom on October 1, 2013 - 6:12 pm

        Thank you. We need people you out here. It is promising to see a movement like this in California. You know what they say about California. Best of luck to you watching from across the land.

    • #60 by David Morrison on September 29, 2013 - 9:57 am

      Who are these scientists that say it is safe? Look at their connections to industry. Most have industry ties, either through funding or stock holdings. This has been shown over and over again.

      • #61 by Joe Imbriano on October 3, 2013 - 8:18 am

        Look at the investment pools for CalSTRS and CalPERS. Look at the conflicts of interests in the various districts. Look at what is in the textbooks. Look at the worldview of those in positions of power. 2 plus 2 equals 4. It is hidden in plain view.

  18. #63 by David Morrison on September 29, 2013 - 9:58 am

    Parents demand school Wi-Fi ban
    AUSTRALIAN schools are introducing Wi-Fi into classrooms despite questions … France has legislated to discourage Wi-Fi in schools until it is “safe for human …
    See all stories on this topic »

    Dr Marie-Therese Gibson resigns from Tangara School for Girls over … Herald Sun
    Dr Marie-Therese Gibson resigns from Tangara School for Girls over Wi-Fi health … Sydney girls’ school has quit due to health concerns over Wi-Fi radiation.
    See all stories on this topic »

    Louise Brosnan pulled her boys out St Kevin’s Primary School at …
    Brisbane Catholic Education spokesman John Phelan yesterday said schools were not obliged to use Wi-Fi but the technology was being introduced to all new …
    See all stories on this topic »

    CSIRO scientist Dr David McDonald wins compensation for Wi-Fi pain
    “There were schools I’d been going to for 10 or 15 years and never had a problem, then I started having problems with their Wi-Fi,” she said yesterday.
    See all stories on this topic »

    • #67 by Marge on October 1, 2013 - 10:27 pm

      She should now work on getting it out of the schools. This is insane. Everything is wireless now. It is scary.

  19. #68 by Schulzee on September 29, 2013 - 8:10 pm

    The director of the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research, Professor Rodney Croft, said there was “absolutely no evidence’’ of people suffering sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation.

  20. #69 by Ray on September 30, 2013 - 7:13 am


    We can address the subject of electrosensitiviy, but before you move on to obfuscating another subject, the issue of cell phones and cancer is still waiting.

    Please read the Oregon physician’s report so that you and I are able to continue our discussion of the scientific evidence.

    • #70 by Schulzee on October 2, 2013 - 2:24 pm

      Ok, I already adressed this study but you missed it and I can’t find my comments. Not really a study but more of an opinion piece( “Expert” Opinion ). I got to page 9 and stopped as I found what I was looking for. Join me there:

      “We have organized this report into six sections:

      1. An introduction into some of the issues involved in the “smart meter” Advanced Metering Infrastructure.

      2. A review of the scientific research documenting the existence of acute reactions to “non-thermal” levels of RF exposure — reactions which in their most severe form are called electrohypersensitivity syndrome (EHS).”

      Notice #2. Thy did not review ALL of the scientific research, rather, they only reviewed that “documenting the existence of acute reactions…”. I wonder why they couldn’t be bothered to review the scientific research that documents the lack of existence of acute reactions, which even Joe admits exists???

      So, thanks again for showing us an example of crap science and allowing me to demonstrate how to identify it.

      Now to be thourogh, I’m going to look at the studies they cite but I’ll guess they will all be positive. Or, through deceitfull interpretation, will be made to show harm, much like our Interphone study.

      Now I’m still interested in your opinion as to why the IARC did not classify EMF as a class 1 or 2A carcinogen.

      • #71 by Ray on October 2, 2013 - 5:36 pm


        I’m sorry, but that will not cut it. We are talking about wireless radiation and brain cancer. The reason I asked you over a week ago to read this scientific report was because it contains a review of multiple cell phone studies including the INTERPHONE project.

        Now given that you hadn’t read any of the INTERPHONE research, this is an accessible entry to the science.

        So rather than change topics, we are going to stay on the subject of brain cancer. Either put up or shut up. It’s time to read the research. Your games are over.

        • #72 by Schulzee on October 8, 2013 - 5:16 pm

          I wasn’t playing games but I’m glad to see the seriousness with which you approach this. Ok, maybe I was playing games just a bit but its just hard to take all this banter serious.

          I will tell you, again, that I have read interpretations if the INTERPHONE study and I have reviewed available data. Again, I have not read the study in its entirety as I have not been able to find it. Though I have asked for a link to it, no one here has been able to supply one. What I’m left to surmise is that you have not read it either.

          I have explained to you why that Oregon Physicians report is flawed and therefore I have “put up”.

          Now its your turn to put up… Why is EMF not classified as 1 or 2A. Feel free to keep dodging this question for doing so just strengthens my opinion.

      • #73 by for Schulzee on October 2, 2013 - 6:05 pm


        Just do your homework!!!!

  21. #74 by Anonymous on September 30, 2013 - 11:03 pm

  22. #75 by Greg on October 1, 2013 - 4:25 am

    I Love this Website!!!

  23. #76 by Talk Back on October 1, 2013 - 2:22 pm

    Talk Back: Are iPads and students a bad mix for L.A. Unified? (Oct 1, 2013):,0,3772378.story

  24. #80 by Cell phone industry never said "safe" on October 2, 2013 - 8:06 am

  25. #81 by Anonymous on October 3, 2013 - 1:30 pm

    They don’t care about the health costs to our children. Will they care about the liability costs?

  26. #82 by Wireless Radiation Litigation on October 3, 2013 - 2:05 pm

    Liability costs?

    “There has already been a successful claim in the Alaska Supreme Court for damages caused by electromagnetic radiation. There have also been two successful workers’ compensation claims awarded in California.”

    Alaska claim:

  27. #84 by Schulzee on October 3, 2013 - 3:56 pm

    “….as a result of his workplace electromagnetic field exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation at levels slightly above the FCC RF limit. ”

    So the only reason this case went anywhere was because they exceeded the FCC limits. And I’m sure he had no secondary gains in mind when he filed against his employer. Because that never happens in workers comp…

  28. #85 by Joe Imbriano on October 3, 2013 - 10:13 pm

    Logs show some really interesting traffic here for a Thursday.

  29. #86 by Anonymous on October 28, 2013 - 2:31 pm

    What about video game consoles and controllers? Are they bad too?

    • #87 by Joe Imbriano on October 28, 2013 - 10:44 pm

      Many systems like the xbox system emits microwave radiation ALL THE TIME EVEN WHEN IT IS TURNED OFF! You must unplug it from the wall. The wireless controllers emit as much as a cell phone. Where are they held all the time? Think about your children wanting to have children. The kids never get a break from these emissions. This is a crisis ladies and gentlemen.

      • #88 by Anonymous on October 29, 2013 - 4:31 pm

        You mean to tell me that these things are always broadcasting even when they are turned off? Why would they design them that way?

  30. #89 by heehh heeehh on November 19, 2013 - 11:03 am

    You got what you deserve jack!

    • #91 by Anonymous on November 23, 2013 - 12:11 pm

      Does anyone know anything about Super WiFi?

  31. #92 by guinea pig #88 on November 21, 2013 - 12:39 pm

    buckle up!

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!