The FCC allows for 100 MILLION more times the microwave exposure than The Austrian Medical Association recommends.

RF Radiation Regulations

It is truly a tale of two cities. Yes indeed folks, yes indeed and oceans apart. The Fullerton School District’s Board of Trustees, administrators, principals, teachers, staff and even most of the PTA groups and Foundations are all aware of what we are attempting to stop which is what we believe to be the extremely dangerous forced irradiation of our school children with pulse modulated high frequency microwave emissions to run these totally unnecessary wireless classrooms. My son, who is not using a microwave transmitter at this time as participation is OPTIONAL if you were not aware, tells me it seems like game day every day. All this just so the kids can play games on their Ipads? He finishes with pencil and paper far ahead of his classmates on problems and assignments. He said the other kids get to play games on their Ipads often and everyday. That is certainly what is going on at the Morningside afterschool day care since WiFi was installed recently as well at the behest of the parents ostensibly so the children can do their homework on the Ipads. Ask the staff. It is game day everyday over there now thanks to Mr. Pletka. His agenda has spilled over into the infant care centers now.

Well there was a time when my wife and I would walk in to the day care facility and see all the kids at the tables with their pencils in hand and their noses in their books doing their homework. Well at least the director has partially followed my advice by shutting off the WiFi until the kids get there in the afternoon sparing the infants, preschoolers and the kindergarten late birds the needless and dangerous RF exposure. Oh I forgot, it is all about the common core. You know even as of today, 6 months into this thing, still not one single solitary servile FSD employee has had the courage or decency to break rank and stand up for these kids. It is amazing what a paltry paycheck and a few bucks will do to peoples’ consciences. Ignoring thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies that show harmful effects and sicking an unqualified attack dog on us to obfuscate the issue is not what the children deserve.

So what gives with the folks across the Atlantic deeming 100 MILLION times less microwave radiation exposure as being the upper limit on safe exposure? What do they know that we don’t? Why are their Autism rates one third of the US? How could there be a 100,000,000 variation? THAT IS TOTALLY INSANE.

It can only amount to one of several possibilities. The first is that they know something that we don’t. It is also possible that our government knows something that they know but don’t want us to know, or lastly no one knows anything and they pulled the 10 to 8th power odds off of the back of a powerball ticket. Somewhere in the middle is the Bio Initiative report that the wireless industry and the academia bobble heads pick apart with their RF industry sharpened Pinocchio schnozes. Those folks are a bit more liberal than those from that far land across the sea at the center of culture and wealth at a recommendation of 30,000 times less exposure. Who are these folks? They are scientists. Who are folks at the Austrian Medical Association? They are doctors who happen to live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Who are the folks at the FCC? Well it is simply a regulatory agency. It is not a public health agency. They don’t have one single medical doctor on its entire payroll. So what do they give us? They give us EXPOSURE GUIDELINES 100 million times higher than the Austrians and to add insult to injury, they get themselves off the hook because the guidelines are NOT SAFETY STANDARDS.

How can something so important, be given to chance? How do we have people with Ed.D’s who demand to be called docktahs, people with MBA’s, and risk managers looking the other way while these disparities are glaring them in the face with me at the microphone every two weeks and me passing out fliers in the parking lots every chance they provide me a captive audience making crucial health decisions for 15,000 school children. These folks have appeared to demonstrate that they themselves don’t even understand these numbers by allowing the THE FSD’s RF report and press release to stand with what I believe to be preposterous readings and false and misleading statements of total safety. They just follow orders. If it is legal and the order comes down, they simply flip the switch. We are not getting what we pay for but we are certainly getting what we deserve if no one dares to speak up for these kids.

I firmly believe that these wildly varying numbers clearly show that the meaning of the FSD’s very own superintendent Robert Pletka’s claim that this is “totally safe for the children” is merely based on what I believe to be his extremely limited understanding of the issue, and a mere subjective interpretation of the facts. Ladies and gentlemen, that is simply a chance that none of us should be willing to take with our most valuable assets who happen to be our own children.

  1. #1 by a mother on September 13, 2013 - 6:56 am

    Mr. Imbriano, am I correct in understanding that we are only being protected from the burning effects by the FCC guidelines? Are you saying that these devices, although they do not emit enough heat to burn, can cause harm?

    • #2 by Joe Imbriano on September 13, 2013 - 9:01 am

      The FCC ignores non heating effects. The scientists clearly warn against non thermal exposures. Please read these letters that were submitted to the LAUSD earlier this year. Their position is the same as ours: hard wire period-no wireless.

    • #3 by Ray on September 13, 2013 - 1:26 pm

      The FCC guidelines are based on outdated science, as it used to be believed that the only effect from RF microwave radiation was heating of bodily tissue.

      It is now clear from the scientific evidence that many effects occur at non-thermal levels, which are millions of times lower than what the FCC deems acceptable.

      Given that the FCC is the only regulatory agency actively involved, we have no protection from RF radiation emissions.

      Our society has never before been exposed to levels even remotely close to these. WiFi emits levels of RF microwave radiation hundreds of millions of times higher than what our parents, grandparents, and all ancestors before them ever experienced.

      This is why many scientists consider this to be the greatest health threat of the 21st century.

      Most are not aware of this because the media does not report this story. There is a blackout in this country.

      • #4 by ? on September 13, 2013 - 4:31 pm

        Hundreds of millions of times higher? Where do you get that figure from?

      • #5 by Anonymous on September 13, 2013 - 7:11 pm

        If what you are claiming is true, then we most certainly have a pending disaster on our hands. It would make sense as to why the children are not the same as 15, 20 or even 30 years back. They blame the shots. Maybe this is a big part of it. Regardless, something is truly amiss. How can there be no discussion of this issue? There have to be some honest news agencies out there right?

        • #6 by Robert Craven is leaving FSD on September 15, 2013 - 5:51 am

          He has a technology obsession? Take your obsession somewhere else please.

          Hit the road Jack

          • #7 by Joe Imbriano on September 15, 2013 - 10:15 am

            “Robert is the Director of Technology and Media Services for Fullerton School District. In this role Robert oversees 1:1 Laptop and iPad deployments, professional development training, network infrastructure, repair facilities and much more for a 14,000 students K-8 school district.”

            One to one DEPLOYMENT? What are these things?

            • #8 by militaristic? on September 15, 2013 - 12:13 pm

              “deployments”, sounds like iPads and laptops are weapons.

              • #9 by Joe Imbriano on September 15, 2013 - 4:04 pm

                • #10 by crack pipe on September 16, 2013 - 12:35 am

                  You need to put it down slowly Joe

                  • #11 by Joe Imbriano on September 16, 2013 - 8:39 am

                    The following are 22 shocking population control quotes from the some of the global elite:

                    #1) The March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief….

                    “What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?”

                    #2) Microsoft’s Bill Gates….

                    “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

                    #3) Barack Obama’s top science advisor, John P. Holdren….

                    “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

                    The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

                    #4) George W. Bush’s science advisor Paul Ehrlich….

                    “Each person we add now disproportionately impacts on the environment and life-support systems of the planet.”

                    #5) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg….

                    “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

                    #6) A United Nations Population Fund report entitled “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate”….

                    “No human is genuinely ‘carbon neutral,’ especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation.”

                    #7) David Rockefeller….

                    “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

                    #8) Jacques Cousteau….

                    “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

                    #9) CNN Founder Ted Turner….

                    “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

                    #10) Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder….

                    “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

                    #11) Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh….

                    “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

                    #12) David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club….

                    “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

                    #13) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger….

                    “The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

                    #14) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12….

                    “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

                    #15) Princeton philosopher Peter Singer….

                    “So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!”

                    #16) Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs….

                    “There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it….”

                    #17) Mikhail Gorbachev….

                    “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

                    #18) John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London….

                    “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.”

                    #19) Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka….

                    “This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.”

                    #20) U.S. Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton….

                    “This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way. The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That’s the largest allocation in more than a decade – since we last had a Democratic president, I might add.”

                    #21) Clinton adviser Nina Fedoroff….

                    “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people.”

                    #22) The first of the “new 10 commandments” on the Georgia Guidestones….

                    “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature

                    • #12 by Anonymous on September 30, 2013 - 12:15 pm

                      So whose children are the one’s that don’t get to have kids?

  2. #13 by Anonymous on September 13, 2013 - 8:11 am

    So now, I am thoroughly confused. How can there be such a disparity in terms of exposure limits which are deemed to be safe? Why does the FCC allow for such a massive amount?

    • #14 by Joe Imbriano on September 13, 2013 - 9:03 am

      Even the American Academy of Pediatrics petitioned the FCC to lower the exposure levels set fort in their guidelines. The FCC flat out refused.

      This is just one of many reasons that I believe that this proliferation of wireless technology, especially in the schools, is part of a much larger agenda which I believe, and I am not alone,to affect human fertility. This should deeply alarm any rational thinking person with a conscience. That is why we are here.

    • #15 by amateur night on September 13, 2013 - 9:38 am

      Why such confusion? It’s because of these cozy little cats like the one’s over at Executive Environmental, Pletka from the FSD and the FSD’s own attack dog Schulzeepoo that say the sky is the limit. Was the RF survey done from the friendly skies at around 25,000 feet above Acacia? I will have to check the Jet Blue manifest and get back to you. Hey Brother Bob,put Schulzeepoo back on the choke chain will ya? Save him for the rainy day when it really starts pourin’. Looks like clouds on the horizon to me.

      • #16 by Joe Imbriano on September 13, 2013 - 9:56 am

        Based on the science and the mounting evidence supporting our position, I would say the storm is already upon them and it is already raining. They just haven’t bothered to look outside yet.

  3. #17 by Ray on September 14, 2013 - 5:32 am

    RF radiofrequency microwave radiation levels in the classroom are hundreds of millions of times higher than our parents, grandparents and all ancestors before us ever experienced.

    Actually this is a conservative number, and I’ll explain why.

    If you have access to an RF meter, and you measure levels near wireless devices and then levels further away, you will see how huge of a difference there is. Levels near the devices are around 100,000 microwatts per square meter. Areas with weak reception will be around 0.1 microwatts. Areas with no cell reception will be less than 0.001 microwatts.

    Divide 100,000 by 0.001 to find out how many times higher it is.

    The result is 100 million. iPad radiation is 100 million times higher than out in nature, today.

    Now given the existence of many radiation sources are present these days, that weren’t there before, the levels would have been much lower 50 or 100 years ago.

    Some scientists say that the levels today are trillions of times higher than for our ancestors, but I have yet to read the studies and see the evidence. When you have an RF meter, you can see the facts for themselves, in real time.

    Here is a video showing iPad radiation emissions:

    Some make the mistake of thinking that given the presence of all these different sources of RF radiation, that it isn’t worth addressing. This is a serious mistake – a total cop out.

    Turning off the WiFi reduces the levels in a huge way. The radiation may not be completely gone, but the levels would be much, much lower.

    Think about how much time our kids spend in school. If they have radiation-free school, and a radiation-free home, we have taken care of the worst of it.

    A low RF environment is achievable by running a few wires and saying “NO” to an unsafe technology that is completely unnecessary.

    • #18 by Joe Imbriano on September 15, 2013 - 4:03 pm

      The microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum has almost NO BACKGROUND by design. Like I have said before, sit in a room with a trillion times the normal visible UV, INFRARED, XRAY, GAMMA RAY, 60 Hz electricity etc all day 5 days a week for 180 days a year in an arms legnth proximity.

      The nefarious nature of this insidious proliferation is the confusion on two levels. Number one-it is low power-yes low power relative to what? Not what we were designed by God to be exposed to a trillion times less. Number two-there are no non thermal effects. Really? Says who. These waves have energy and stick your hand over a laser beam, it won’t burn. Stick your eye over it and see what happens. That won’t burn either, it will just make you go blind.

      It is all relative to the frame of reference that I believe is being mistakenly obfuscated by those who don’t understand the science, those that do and have nefarious intent and finally those that don’t refuse to understand the science and blindly go along with it. Any guess which one of the three we have working in the FSD?

      How about on the board?

  4. #19 by Anonymous on September 14, 2013 - 7:21 am

    I have been told by several parents that Mr. Imbriano is fear mongering, making baseless claims, and forcing the school district to spend much needed precious dollars that could otherwise be spent in the classrooms on defending itself from his accusations.

    You know what I think as a mom? I think he is on to something and for these parents, and you know who you are, to put dollars out in front ahead of the safety of the children is really sick. There is no other word to describe it. I have read the links and articles here. There is definitely something not right about what is going on.

    My husband and I need to do more research but for now, I am turning off the WiFi in our home and taking away these tablets from our two sons. They are not worth it. My children are. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

    • #20 by Anonymous on September 14, 2013 - 11:38 am

      “much needed precious dollars that could otherwise be spent in the classrooms”? You mean those parents want the money to be spent on more ipads to irradiate our precious children. These uninformed and confused parents just believe everything Dr. Whisnant and Robert Pletka tell them. Those parents are such fools not even realizing what they are exposing their children to. So sad…

      • #21 by Joe Imbriano on September 14, 2013 - 12:03 pm

        The major concern from my first hand dealings with Karen Whisnant is that she doesn’t even understand all the numbers. You would think that with this issue landing in her lap 6 months ago, staring her daily in the face, with the health of upwards of 800 children in her hands, she would spend some quality time as a public servant and expend some serious effort as a steward of the public trust on trying get a handle on the issue. From her comments when my wife and I were in room 20 at Acacia last Thursday taking RF readings in my son’s classroom, she offered up the fact that it is all a little over her head and doesn’t understand all the numbers.

        As far as Robert Pletka goes, his press release says it all. The following comment from a parent summarizes his handle on the issue

    • #22 by Jamie on September 14, 2013 - 8:58 pm

      I think the focus should be shifted off of Joe Imbriano and onto all the evidence. Anytime someone wants to talk about Mr. Imbriano, I talk about all the evidence and keep the discussion there. This is about the health of our children and the recognition that wireless radiation is harmful.

      If the parents would just start to look at the information, I believe they will become convinced that they must act in the best interest of their children. At the same time, they will realize that those entrusted with the safety of their children are not worthy of that position. This is a very frightening realization.

      I have made a lot of changes in our home, also. I have switched the phones from cordless to hard wired, had my computer hardwired, and changed the kids’ game controllers to hardwired.

      You are correct, wireless technology in our schools is not worth risking our children’s health.

      • #23 by mother on September 16, 2013 - 8:01 am

        Jamie you are so right. It certainly seems as if they try to make it personal. From what I heard first hand, the mantra goes something like he is incorrect in his assertions.

        There is so much information here and on other sites that whether he is incorrect or not makes no difference at all. I re read the press release again after spending some time reviewing the information here and there is no way anyone should say what Dr. Pletka said. He needs to change what he said. It is a false statement. My children attend Raymond and they are beginning to use these Ipads more and more. I don’t know where to start and what to do.

        • #24 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 11:00 pm

          I would start by making your concerns know to the principal, the district officials and the school board.

        • #25 by Anonymous on September 19, 2013 - 6:55 pm

          If some say it is safe and others say it is not, who do we believe and why do we take the chance? It is our children for crying out loud. This is apalling.

      • #26 by Schulze on September 19, 2013 - 8:54 pm

        When you say “all the evidence” you mean all the evidence that supports your opinion, right.

  5. #27 by Ray on September 14, 2013 - 4:23 pm

    It’s typical for administrators to state that they aren’t experts, and then abdicate responsibility to some other invisible authority.

    Everyone just passes the buck upwards, but what they don’t understand is that there isn’t anyone at the top who will do anything.

    These school officials have a huge responsibility, but the reality is that it’s up to the parents to stop this train wreck in the making.

  6. #28 by Schulzeeepoo on September 14, 2013 - 8:09 pm

    Anybody have a link to the Austrian Medical Assoc. paper I’m having trouble finding the complete report. I know they cite the BioInitiative report but I want to see the whole report before dismissing it as crap out of hand. Thanks.

    • #29 by food for the beast on September 14, 2013 - 9:06 pm

      The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) – August 29, 2013
      …find out why child health experts are asking the US Government for much stricter radiation standards for all wireless devices including Wi-Fi (wireless internet).

      1396 Reference Links to Peer-Reviewed Studies re RF Microwave Radiation
      …how much more proof do parents need before school officials will protect students from needless microwave radiation? Hard wired computers are much safer!,28,3376

      CTV News: Do wireless devices in classrooms pose health risks?- September 04, 2013

      Cellphones and Health – the Future? by Dr. Joel Moskowitz
      Several new, independent studies confirm previous research that pulsed digital signals from cell-phones and other wireless devices disrupt DNA, impair brain function, and damage sperm (page 8)

      Wi-Fi Report: Humanity at the Brink – Barrie Trower – August 24, 2013–Barrie-Trower,15,3333
      With Deference to all Scientists: this Research Report has been written for all students and non-scientists to understand.

      & Wi-fi, Microwaves and the Consequences to our Health – August 20, 2013 (short video)

      • #30 by amateur night on September 15, 2013 - 10:45 pm

        Don’t feed this cat. Schulzeepoo is a vegetarian. He doesn’t like the crust and he won’t eat the skin.

    • #31 by Ray on September 15, 2013 - 8:29 am

      The Austrian Medical Association Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF related health problems and illnesses (EMF-syndrome)

    • #32 by Joe Imbriano on September 16, 2013 - 11:55 am

      The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit professional
      organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and
      well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults disagree with your assertions R.

      • #33 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 2:56 pm

        Not my assertions Joe, I’m nearly presenting data and information. My assertions or opinions matter and mean as much as yours in this debate, that is not at all.

        • #34 by Joe Imbriano on September 18, 2013 - 3:52 pm

          These are your assertions and the information you put forth is at odds with this group of crackpots called the AAP and many others like them. We could go on for years citing studies on both sides which I am grateful for you having done. The traffic is really up here lately.

          Roman, look the fact is that there are thousands of studies that show harm, and there are thousands that show no harm. So you, the FSD, the FJUHSD and their respective staffs choose to willfully ignore the thousands of studies that show harm and to roll the dice with the boys stacked on the pass line and the girls placed on the big 6.

          That is what is happening all so that the kids can play with their toys, everyone feels good about helping the kids, the school gets the accolades and the common core curriculum implementation via this technology can begin to put the algorithms together more efficiently on every last one of the children and their families.

          This is the twighlight zone indeed. When I look into the eyes of the staff, board members, and parents that are involved in this debate, I see fear, I see worry, I see shame. Everyone knows this stuff can’t be good. Few have the courage to stand up against it. It is easier to delve into the bottle or some other escape than to face this head on.

          You cite references to apples and oranges, radio waves , sunlight and the like. The inverted bell curve of the spectrum plotted against background levels speaks for itself. The trillion dollar Rf industry is bigger than your big pharma high priest order.

          Like I have said in prior posts, some of the most foolish people that I have ever known were the most educated.
          My assertions are equally important in this debate because I am alleging that this technology is directly responsible for the Autism epidemic and is affecting human fertility specifically the eggs in the young girls.

          You see Roman, you are banking on the fact that I am wrong, the stack of scientists on our side of the aisle are wrong and hoping your kids won’t be affected. That takes more faith than you give yourself credit for having.

          I am here to tell you that this thing is designed to be inescapable unless we stand up and stop it. Break your conditioning. Open your eyes. If you choose not to, because of your dedication to people that in reality could care less about you, your family and your children, then that is even more foolish than your mocking the man in the sky position which you cling to so tightly in the midst of His trying so desperately to get your attention by sparring with one such as I Roman.

          Will you be at the next school board meeting?

          • #35 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 4:27 pm

            Ok, that was step one, you recognize that there are thousands of studies that show no harm. The problem I really had was that not one of those studies found its way onto your site until I got here. And I’m sorry but I get hyper-skeptical when anyone only quotes evidence that happens to only support their side… that’s an industry move and quite irresponsible. I am not pro EMF at all, I am against bias and misinformation. I’m not saying you’re spreading misinformation but by not mentioning any evidence that contradicts your opinion, you are being deceitful.

            In my experience, people who hide evidence do so because they fear it. Which makes me dig even harder and deeper.

            That’s what happened here and earned me the reputation as “attack dog” ( Though I would have used “lap dog”, it’s more demeaning).

            So, put an easy to find link to EMF&Health on your front page and we can be done. You can then editorialize on each and every one of their points as much as you want but hiding it only makes it more powerful.

            I will look at my availability for the next board meeting, should be no problem.

  7. #36 by Ray on September 16, 2013 - 5:30 am

    Specific symptoms of EMR exposure, such as sleep problems, fatigue, heart palpitations, muscle and joint pain, headaches, depression, difficulty concentrating, anxiety, dizziness, tinnitus, etc, have been well documented in the scientific literature, going back decades. It used to be called “microwave illness” in Eastern Europe and Russia, back in the 1960’s.

    One of the most famous stories of microwave or RF sickness took place in the U.S. embassy in Moscow in the 1950’s, when the Soviets beamed our embassy with pulse modulated microwave radiation at levels similar to what is emitted by WiFi in school classrooms today.

    After several years of exposure, what resulted was a large scale sickness of U.S. personnel. Effects ranging from mood alterations and depression to reproductive problems and cancer were clearly documented by scientists from Johns Hopkins.

    It was concluded that “significant health and behavior effects can be attributed to chronic exposure to microwave radiation and that such a link can be verified empirically. “

    Again, here is the document from the Naval Medical Research Institute, with a long list of documented biological and health effects on pages 10-14.

    Here in the U.S. we continue to live in the dark ages, with many completely unaware of this issue. As we’ve seen on this blog, resistance is the norm, rather that acknowledging the thousands of peer reviewed papers, staring us in the face, that show there is a serious problem at hand.

    • #37 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 3:56 pm

      I know I’m breaking my own rules but I had some time:

      Review of 31 EHS Studies
      The following article is an overview of 31 separate double blind studies in which self declared EHS individuals were subjected to various tests. It is based on studies such as these that the WHO reached its conclusions. From the abstract: The objectives of this study were to assess whether people who report hypersensitivity to weak electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are better at detecting EMF under blind or double-blind conditions than nonhypersensitive individuals, and to test whether they respond to the presence of EMF with increased symptom reporting. Conclusions: The symptoms described by “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However, it has proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to EMF can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” is unrelated to the presence of EMF, although more research into this phenomenon is required.

      Update Review of 46 EHS Studies
      Rubin et al., the authors of the above overview of separate double blind studies, have recently published an update. The new study adds 15 to the original 31 for a total of 46 double blind EHS studies. This larger scale review article came to the same conclusion as all previous double blind studies: there is no evidence that EMF causes EHS.

  8. #38 by Anonymous on September 16, 2013 - 7:23 am

    Does anyone know if all of the teachers know about this website?

    • #39 by Jamie on September 17, 2013 - 10:44 pm

      No, we don’t know which or what percentage of teachers know of this website.

      • #40 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 10:48 pm

        I would say every last one of them in Fullerton are totally aware of this site and what we are involved in attempting to stop.

        • #41 by Jamie on September 17, 2013 - 11:10 pm

          If that is the case, that is horrid.

  9. #42 by Schulzee on September 16, 2013 - 5:59 pm

    We, and our kids are SAFE. This study proves it beyond a doubt:

    Effect of in utero wi-fi exposure on the pre- and postnatal development of rats.

    Poulletier de Gannes F, Haro E, Hurtier A, Taxile M, Athane A, Ait-Aissa S, Masuda H, Percherncier Y, Ruffié G, Billaudel B, Dufour P, Veyret B, Lagroye I.


    “University of Bordeaux, IMS Laboratory, ENSCBP, Pessac, France.



    The increase in exposure to the Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) wireless communication signal has raised public health concerns especially for young people. Animal studies looking at the effects of early life and prenatal exposure to this source of electromagnetic fields, in the radiofrequency (RF) range, on development and behavior have been considered as high priority research needs by the World Health Organization.


    For the first time, our study assessed the effects of in utero exposure to a 2450 MHz Wi-Fi signal (2 hr/day, 6 days/week for 18 days) on pregnant rats and their pups. Three levels in terms of whole-body specific absorption rate were used: 0.08, 0.4, and 4 W/kg. The prenatal study on fetuses delivered by caesarean (P20) concerned five females/group. The dams and their offspring were observed for 28 days after delivery (15 females/group).


    For all test conditions, no abnormalities were noted in the pregnant rats and no significant signs of toxicity were observed in the pre- and postnatal development of the pups, even at the highest level of 4 W/kg.


    In the present study, no teratogenic effect of repeated exposures to the Wi-Fi wireless communication signal was demonstrated even at the highest level of 4 W/kg. The results from this screening study aimed at investigating Wi-Fi effects, strengthen the previous conclusions that teratology and development studies have not detected any noxious effects of exposures to mobile telephony-related RF fields at exposure levels below standard limits.

    Are we done now?

    • #43 by Joe Imbriano on September 16, 2013 - 10:23 pm

      No because you told us that animal studies don’t equate to human results. Besides FSD students get 6 hrs a day 180 days a year for 13 years plus extra credit for home exposure. So R. what would an autistic rat behave like?

      • #44 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 3:13 pm

        No I didn’t say that, but its true. They do not equate but extrapolations can be made. You may be willing to throw out every animal study that shows harm but I’ll keep the ones that show safety if that’s ok. And stop changing the topic. We are on neoplasia and genotoxicity until that is settled. Once it is settled I’m willing to move on to Autism, ADD, anal probes, whatever.

        Also, if at some point we talk about autism you are going to need to understand the animal research and what an autistic rat “behaves like”

        Let me save some of you the click:

        “Paylor’s early results suggest that rats with these mutations display traits that may be analogous to autistic characteristics in humans. When paired together in a cage, two rat pups each lacking a working copy of Fmr1 spend less time playing and produce fewer ultrasonic calls than normal rats. Adult females missing one copy of neuroligin-3 tend to throw errant pups back towards their nest, whereas normal females carry the rodents back. Paylor isn’t sure what to make of this habit, but it could be a proxy for the problems in social interaction seen in humans with autism.

        Both rat strains exhibit the repetitive behaviours that are a core feature of autism. Adult female rats lacking neuroligin-3 gnawed at the hard plastic water bottles in their cages so voraciously that the bottles leaked. Paylor’s team gave the animals blocks of soft wood and measured how much of the block remained after a day. The rats lacking Fmr1 munched on more wood than normal rats. Meanwhile, rats missing neuroligin-3 chewed through no more wood than other rats because they were too busy gnawing at their water bottles, Paylor says.”

        Next I can explain the significance of a “dose-response curve” if that would help.

        So, can we agree that EMF has not been proven to contribute to any form of cancer/mutation so that we can move on? If not then let’s stick to the topic at hand.

  10. #45 by Ray on September 17, 2013 - 5:36 am

    Schulze, this is another fine example of your lack of integrity.

    Your argument for the past several weeks has been that individual studies carry little to no weight. That’s how you’ve managed to ignore thousands of peer reviewed research papers reporting biological and health effects.

    Your study posted above is but one study that hasn’t reported an effect. Yes, there are studies that do not show effects, but there are also studies that do show effects, such as cancer, tumors, and DNA damage.

    What you continue to demonstrate is a blindness to any and all evidence that reports serious health effects. That’s sick – really dark.

    On one hand, you will absolutely ignore lists that show study after study reporting adverse effects, and then you will cite one study that didn’t report an effect, and call it done.

    You continue to treat this as a game, like you said, a rodeo, thinking that the goal is to ride this animal, as long as possible, no matter what, using whatever tactics you can come up with.

    You have stooped to new levels of dishonesty Schulze. Give yourself a big round of applause.

    • #46 by freudian tools on September 17, 2013 - 6:11 am

      He is in good company, a legend in his own mind, and dark-yes very.

      • #47 by Roman's holiday on September 17, 2013 - 10:20 am

        The R’s have it:

        R. Craven, R. Pletka and R. Schulze

        • #48 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 3:49 pm

          Thanks, I was starting to think I was wasting my breath.

    • #49 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 3:39 pm

      I have stooped to your level, I’m not too proud. I maintain that individual studies are not nearly as significant as systematic reviews/expert opinion but I kept getting individual studies thrown at me so I “stoop to a new level” out of courtesy really. If you won’t play by my rules I have 2 choices. I chose to play by yours… should probably have chosen not to play but, eh, wasn’t my first mistake.

      I see it like this allegory. Two people are having a duel to the death and one grabs a USP .45. The other says ” I don’t like that gun” and grabs a slingshot. Now you can kill somebody with a sling shot but its going to take a while. Now the first person, having some honor, can either walk away shaking his head or pick up a sling shot and go for it. Slingshots it is.

      Now the whole reason I quoted that study was to make a point and it went better than expected. If negative studies can’t disprove positive ones, as I have been repeatedly told, then positive ones can’t disprove negative ones (Neither of which is true but nobody is willing to play by my rules, the rules of scientific research, anyway)

      Now you want to guess how many studies I can find showing no effect? Slingshots it is.

      • #50 by Ray on September 18, 2013 - 5:29 pm

        Schulze, your problem is that you see this as some sort of gunplay. It’s not. It’s a public health issue.

        • #51 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 5:47 pm

          No, no. I see gun play as actually being dangerous and harmful and needing much stricter regulation. Gunplay is a public health issue in fact, I wish guns we’re as safe as WiFi.

          My gut told me it was not the best allegory but did I listen? I’ll think of another one if you missed the point I was trying to make. My apologies.

  11. #52 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 11:11 am

    A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation
    HomeNews CenterAbout UsEMF/EMR MetersEMF/EMR DirectorySupport Us
    Children and Cell Phones: Time To Start Talking Sense

    Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print
    May 3, 2010
    Fifteen years ago Om Gandhi pointed out that children are exposed to higher levels of radiation from cell phones than adults. He was right then and he is right today. Yet, no one could blame you for thinking otherwise.

    In an article published in the May issue of Harper’s, Nathaniel Rich uses this putative controversy, among a number of other examples, to make the case that confusion reigns in all aspects of cell-phone research. “The brain of a child absorbs a much greater amount of radiation from a cell phone than does the brain of an adult,” he writes, adding immediately after, “No, it does not.”

    The truth is that there should be no controversy. Children do have higher radiation exposures and if cell phones are indeed doing us harm, then children are at greater risk than their parents.

    “There is nothing complicated about why children absorb more radiation than adults,” Gandhi told Microwave News from his office at the University of Utah not long ago. Children have thinner skulls and smaller ears than adults, he explained, and so the radiation has a shorter distance to travel from the phone to the brain. (Every millimeter of separation makes a big difference.) Because more radiation gets to the brain, the specific absorption rate (SAR), the preferred way to measure the radiation dose, increases. That’s it. You don’t need any complicated equations, or even a computer to see the big picture. “The higher SARs have nothing to do with sophisticated models,” Gandhi said, “It’s all about separation distance. This is something you can explain to your mother-in-law.”

    Gandhi’s original 1996 graphics showing that 5-year-old and 10-year-old children have higher SARs than adults (reproduced below) have achieved iconic status. Ronald Herberman, the former director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, and his colleague Devra Davis fashioned a three-dimensional model of Gandhi’s pictures —with Gandhi’s assistance— to emphasize the higher SARs and the deeper penetration of the radiation in a child’s brain. They have exhibited it at Congressional hearings, on various TV shows and during myriad lectures and presentations. Their message, summarized by Herberman in a memo distributed to the some 3,000 members of the cancer institute’s faculty and staff in July 2008, calls for precaution, especially with respect to children (see “Who’s for Precaution, Who’s Not”). “Do not allow children to use a cell phone, except for emergencies,” Herberman advised because, “The developing organs of a fetus or child are the most likely to be sensitive to any possible effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.”

    Figure 1
    SAR distributions at 835 MHz for: (a) adult; (b) 10-year-old; (c) 5-year old. (d) is the SAR scale.
    Source: O. Gandhi et al., IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 44, p.1893, 1996

    Much of the cell-phone industry is still in denial, however, and disputes the increased risk for children. In a brochure released earlier this year, the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF), a leading cell-phone industry trade group, continues to insist that others have been unable to find support for Gandhi’s conclusion. MMF’s argument is tautological: It cites Gandhi’s 1996 paper as evidence that that same 1996 paper is wrong. Then again, perhaps it does make sense. If industry’s objective is to sow seeds of confusion, using Gandhi against Gandhi would be entirely appropriate.

    Some of those who should be trying to set the record straight are dragging their feet. Take, for instance, Michael Thun, the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) point man on cell phones. Last month, Thun told Parade magazine and its 75 million readers that, “If cell phones were harmful, then it is conceivable that children might be more vulnerable.” Conceivable? No, it’s a fact. As Gandhi points out: It’s simple high school geometry.

    Today, Gandhi has many supporters. Research groups in Brazil, France, Japan, Spain and Switzerland have all published papers showing that children have higher SARs. Joe Wiart of France Telecom, a major mobile-phone operator, should have put the issue to rest two years ago when he announced that he agreed with Gandhi. (The MMF neglects to cite Wiart’s paper in its brochure.) “Children are not simply small adults,” Wiart told us at the time. “Their skin and their skulls are thinner than those of adults, and their ears are smaller too. Given these differences, the higher SAR for children is not surprising” (see our post of June 22, 2008). The industry does not speak with one voice: One large company says Gandhi is right, while others fight on.

    Even Niels Kuster, the director of the IT’IS Foundation in Zurich, who has feuded with Gandhi for more than a decade, has decided that he can no longer turn back the tide (see MWN, N/D01, p.8, and MWN, M/J02, p.1). Kuster’s work is often been cited to make the case that children are no different than adults. One example: The MMF brochure points to two Kuster papers to bolster its argument. Kuster counters that he has been misunderstood. “In the 1990s, we were talking about compliance,” he told Microwave News, “My position was never about whether or not children get more radiation exposure in the brain, but whether the phones meet exposure standards when used by children.” Kuster told us that Gandhi’s revelation is “trivial” —which is what Gandhi has been saying all along.

    Children’s Brains Are Different

    And there’s more: Children also have a greater sensitivity to cell-phone radiation. For years, some have argued that young children are more vulnerable because their brains are still developing. This is Herberman’s argument in favor of precaution, and, while plausible, there wasn’t much hard data to back it up. Now, Andreas Christ of Kuster’s lab has reported that the SAR in the bone marrow of children is more than ten times higher than that in adults. Or, to put it bluntly, the same amount of radiation packs ten times the punch inside a child’s bone marrow as in his mother or father’s bone marrow. The new paper came out last month in Physics in Biology and Medicine.

    Christ and Kuster’s finding could not have been a big surprise to those who follow the field. Last year, Azadeh Peyman and Camelia Gabriel, another veteran RF researcher who runs MCL Technology Ltd., a testing firm in London, showed that some children’s tissues have very different electrical properties than those of adults. These are known as dielectric properties and, in this context, refer to the conductivity (σ) and the permittivity (ε). (The SAR is directly proportional to the conductivity.) Peyman and Gabriel worked with samples from freshly killed pigs of different ages, which, they said, “are regarded as a good substitute for human tissues.” They reported that the conductivity of a piglet’s bone marrow was ten times higher than that of an adult pig. The reason for the big difference is that bone marrow has a higher water content in early life. The more water, the higher the conductivity, which in turn leads to a higher SAR. Christ and Kuster then used Peyman and Gabriel’s new numbers to calculate the relative SARs in children and adults. (Follow this link for a look at the SAR arithmetic.)

    If Gandhi’s contribution is about the importance of separation distance, the lesson from the Swiss and U.K. groups is about the importance of biophysical properties. Each tells us that the SARs are higher in children.

    One remarkable aspect of the Peyman/Gabriel paper is that, having measured the dielectric properties, they did not take the next step and show that the SAR in a child’s bone marrow would be higher. Peyman and Gabriel were working under a ~$600,000 (£408,000) research grant from the U.K. mobile phone research program, known as MTHR. They could have done the same SAR calculation as Christ and Kuster, or at least pointed to and compared the conductivities. Yet, Gabriel and Peyman did neither. When asked why not, Gabriel replied that this would have required “speculation.” Maybe so, but that was the problem they were hired to study. Another peculiar disconnect is that Peyman and Gabriel only looked at RF exposures from walkie-talkies, not cell phones. This too doesn’t make much sense. When was the last time you saw a child talking into a walkie-talkie?

    Gabriel and Peyman’s decision not to draw the obvious inference about the higher SARs is all the more surprising because they had long known that the dielectric properties of bone marrow change with age. Back in 2001, they had reported a similar change in rat tissues —that time too, they didn’t say a word about how it might raise the SARs. Yet, Gabriel realized its significance. “Children are not little adults,” she told a meeting in Rome on children and cell phones the following spring. “We cannot afford not to do more research,” she said (see MWN, M/J02, p.10).

    At about the same time that Gabriel was delivering her talk in Rome, Gandhi published a new paper that showed what Gabriel and Peyman must have already known but had not stated in print: The higher conductivity found in baby rats means higher SARs in young children. Gandhi minced no words about the necessity to follow up. These results point to “an urgent need” to validate the finding for rats in children, he pleaded.

    Still, seven years later when Gabriel finally had the better data from pigs to support everyone’s long-held suspicions that children might be at greater risk, she once again held back.

    While Christ and Kuster have shown that the SAR is higher in a child’s bone marrow, we still don’t know the dose (the SAR). It may be ten times higher than in adults, but we need the actual number, or at least a range of SARs. “That’s coming,” Kuster said. “We have a new research grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation to look at SARs induced by phones in specific tissues.”

    Slicing and Dicing SARs

    The SAR is a curious quantity for setting exposure limits because it cannot be directly measured. You can’t stick a probe into a live brain, nor can you work with dead tissues —the electrical properties of the tissues change as soon as the organism dies. Instead, one is left with making physical models, called phantoms, or running computer stimulations.

    A phantom is a primitive substitute for the human head. It’s little more than a plastic shell filled with a liquid designed to mimic the dielectric properties of brain matter. A phantom makes no allowance for variations in types of tissue or for internal structure. Even so, making SAR measurements is more complicated than you might think. A committee of the IEEE spent six years developing a protocol on how they should be done. The protocol is a highly technical and generally impenetrable document that runs 148 pages, replete with opaque assumptions. [Here’s a typical sentence: “A simple analytical model of an infinite half-space layered tissue model exposed to a plane wave was utilized to investigate the impact of impedance matching, scattering, standing waves, etc., on the peak spatial-average SAR.”] The process was run by industry insiders, who prefer to work out of public sight. Minutes of the committee meetings are secret —even the agendas are password protected. A couple of years ago when Microwave News asked to be on the committee’s mailing list, representatives from the FDA and Motorola, who chaired the panel, said no.

    The protocol includes recipes to make the synthetic brain liquid: Start with deionized water, add salt, sugar, hydroxyethyl cellulose, etc. This gross simplification of what must be the most complex piece of evolutionary engineering is a conceit. As Allan Frey pointed out in 1979: “There is a very real question whether [an SAR] has any relevance to the biological organism.” Frey, a well-known RF researcher now semi-retired and living in Potomac, MD, took the RF research community to task for relying on “a concept whose time came and went in the 1950s.” Its use, he said, is “grossly misleading and “cannot be justified.” No one wanted to hear it. Today, over 30 years later, SARs are by far the most common measure of dose and the same criticisms continue to echo. “The brain is not a giant bowling ball filled with fluid —that’s ridiculous,” Devra Davis told us recently.

    You can see the simplicity of the approach using phantoms in the graphics below, Figure 2, taken from Christ and Kuster’s new paper. They show SAR distributions based on measurements carried out under the IEEE protocol. Note how smooth the color contours are. No bumps, no discontinuities. The SARs go steadily down as you move away from the phone just as you would expect. There are a number of reasons why the pictures at 900 MHz and 1800 MHz are not the same: The radiation comes off the phone differently at the higher frequency and the dielectric properties of tissues vary with frequency. (The IEEE offers variations of the brain-fluid recipe for different frequencies.)

    Figure 2
    The yellow area has the highest SARs, followed by red, mauve and blue.
    Source: A. Christ et al., Physics in Medicine and Biology, 55, p.1772, 2010

    Computer models allow more complexity. By adapting MRI scans, representations of the head can have internal structure with a variety of different tissues, each with its own set of dielectric properties. Compare the Christ/Kuster phantom-based graphics with the pictures from computer models generated by Gandhi, Figure 3 below. He included 15 types of tissues. The simplicity is gone. Note especially the reddish areas inside the yellow zones in (b) and (c). They are regions of higher SARs called “hot spots,” brought about by the mix of tissues. With phantoms, there are no hot spots.

    Figure 3
    SAR distributions in different sized heads: (a) large); (b) average: (c) small Here the red areas have the highest SARs, followed by yellow, aqua and purple.
    Source: O. Gandhi and G. Kang, Physics in Medicine and Biology, 47, p.1512, 2002

    The SAR is specified in energy per weight or volume of tissue, usually in watts per kilogram (W/Kg). The averaging volume for the SAR is a critical variable. For a given amount of energy, the larger the averaging volume, the smaller the SAR will be. Here’s one way to think about it: A bathtub is half-full of cold water when the hot-water tap is turned on for a couple of minutes. What’s the temperature of the bath water? It will, no doubt, be much warmer right under the tap than at the other end of the tub. But what about the average temperature? It depends on the averaging volume. A teaspoon of water taken from right under the tap would be quite hot, but the temperature would go down as more and more of the surrounding cold water is included in the averaging volume. If you consider all the water in the bath, the temperature would be about the same whether you measured it before or after the tap was turned on. The reddish spots in the Gandhi graphics would fade away as more of the lower SAR areas (in yellow) are averaged in.

    The SAR can be manipulated by changing the averaging volume. The FCC requires that SARs be averaged over 1 g of tissue, while both the IEEE and ICNIRP specify a 10 g average. Why 1 g or 10 g? It’s an arbitrary decision with no cogent biological rationale to favor one over the other. Yet, it makes a big difference. A 1 g average SAR is much stricter than a 10 g average, as Jim Lin, the editor-in-chief of Bioelectromagnetics, has long pointed out. The 1 g SAR can be twice as high as the 10 g SAR, or even higher (see MWN, J/A00, p.8, and MWN, N/D00, p.3). One implication of this is that European phones are built to a much looser radiation exposure standard than U.S. phones because their SAR limit is measured over 10 g rather than the 1g in the U.S.

    Alvaro de Salles of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre, Brazil, has put all this together in the table below, taken from a paper he published a few years ago. The influence of the size of the head, the averaging volume and the dielectric properties, or parameters, are readily apparent.

    Note: A voxel is a 3-dimensional pixel; It’s the smallest volume for which an SAR is calculated.
    Source: A. De Salles et al., Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 25, p.357, 2006

    Looking down any of the three columns, you can see the powerful diluting effect of increasing the averaging volume: Going from one voxel, the smallest volume for which an SAR is computed, to 1 g and then to 10 g, the SAR decreases by two-thirds or more. The SAR plummets when it’s averaged over the whole head. If you look at the individual voxels, the peak SAR can be more than 30 times higher than the average over the entire head. The two columns on the left show how the “Gandhi effect” (the smaller head) raises the SAR. And the two columns on the right show how the higher dielectric properties of children’s tissues also raise the SARs. In every case, the SARs for children are higher than their adult counterparts.

    In an interview with Microwave News, De Salles summed it up this way: “The higher conductivity and higher permittivity in children’s brain tissues, together with their thinner skulls and smaller heads, will lead to higher SARs in their brains compared to adults, as Om Gandhi and others, including myself, have described in many papers.”

    How can there be any doubt that children face a greater potential risk than adults.

    Why Is It Taking So Long?

    But that leaves the question as to why something so obvious is taking so long to acknowledge. After 15 years of feuding, a consensus is finally emerging that children have higher SARs. But even now, the MMF stands apart and many others continue to hedge. We can’t explain the American Cancer Society’s inability to talk sense, but for others, motives are easier to decipher —all you have to do is follow the money. (It’s always about the money: see also our piece, “Industry Rules RF”.)

    You need to look no further than the abstracts of the two papers on dielectric properties in children. Here’s Peyman and Gabriel’s take-home message: “No significant differences between the SAR values for the children of either age or for adults were observed.” Gabriel and Peyman make it sound as if they didn’t find anything of any importance. A more informative conclusion —”Children have higher SARs in biologically active tissues”— never made it into print.

    And here’s the last sentence of Christ and Kuster’s abstract: “This study, however, confirms previous findings saying that there are no age-dependent changes of the peak spatial SAR when averaged over the entire head.” Frankly, we don’t know what that means. What was averaged over the entire head? (We asked both Christ and Kuster —twice each— for clarification and, though they were kind enough to respond, we are still as confused as ever, maybe more so.) Whatever they are trying to say, their message, like Peyman and Gabriel’s, is that there’s nothing much new to report.

    Magicians call it misdirection. The facts are right, but the emphasis is all wrong. Gabriel and Kuster are fixated on the peak SAR, a/k/a, the peak spatial SAR. That’s the only number that counts as far as industry is concerned. The peak SAR determines whether a phone complies with a prescribed exposure limit (1.6 W/Kg over 1g in the U.S. and 2.0 W/Kg over 10 g in Europe) and is allowed on the market. All the measurements and calculations on a given phone end up boiling down to this single number; you’ll find it in fine print buried in the user’s manual or on the manufacturer’s Web site. According to the prevailing dogma, if the maximum SAR is below the limit, the phone is safe. And industry insists on a corollary: A phone that is safe for adults, is equally safe for kids. The possibility that some internal tissues may be more sensitive is left out. Could higher SARs in bone marrow mean a greater health risk for children? That question is never addressed.

    In order to understand how the misdirection works, we need one final, if technical, piece of the SAR story: The peak SAR will just about always be in the tissues closest to the phone. (Or, going back to the bathtub analogy, the temperature will always be highest under the tap.) That means that as long as compliance is the only objective, there is never any incentive to look at what might going on deeper in the brain. When the head is modeled as a homogeneous mass, like a liquid in a phantom, the peak will always be in the skin layer —it’s a straightforward case of the radiation attenuating with distance from the transmitter. You can see this in the Christ/Kuster graphics above (Figure 2); The small red squares mark the spots with the peak SARs. All six are at the interface of the phantom and the phone. Even if you consider variations in the dielectric properties of the tissues and run computer calculations, the maximum SARs will, except in the most unusual circumstances, be in the skin and nearby tissues. Gandhi’s calculations show this too (see Figure 3; his maxima are in red), as do Peyman and Gabriel for walkie-talkies.

    Peyman and Gabriel show their focus is on compliance in the final sentence of their paper. “[T]he peak 10 g averaged SAR in the child head phantoms caused by a walkie-talkie is calculated to be within the safety limits,” they wrote. The impact of their new dielectric constants on the peak SAR is “marginal,” they said. It had to be: The maximum SAR from the walkie-talkie is near the nose. The 10 g volume contains cartilage, skin and some air in the nasal cavity. While the dielectric properties of skin do change with age, the variation is much smaller than for bone marrow (40% vs. 1,000%).

    The U.K. and the Swiss studies were funded by each government’s mobile phone research program. But Gabriel and Kuster’s bread and butter is servicing the telecom industry. Gabriel’s MCL Technology Ltd. sells the phantoms and brain-tissue liquids used for compliance testing. As for Kuster, in addition to running the IT’IS Foundation, he is also the president of SPEAG, a high-tech, for-profit company that sells equipment (the DASY System) for measuring the fields inside a phantom, as well as phantoms and associated brain liquids. This does not run cheap. A single DASY set-up can cost north of $100,000. SPEAG also has a software package, SEMCAD, that can calculate the SAR in tissues; Both Peyman/Gabriel and Christ/Kuster used SEMCAD.

    When they work on research projects for health agencies, Gabriel and Kuster must walk a fine line between the needs of their funders and those of the industry. A research grant is a one-off affair, while the cell phone companies are long-term clients. Even IT’IS, which is a non-profit research outfit, has close ties to the industry. MMF’s Secretary General, Mike Milligan, is on its board of directors. Over the years, representatives from Alcatel, Ericsson, Motorola and Sunrise have all served on the board at one time or another.

    Given this context, the final conclusions in the Gabriel and Kuster abstracts are not so surprising. They are using their special code to be able to say that there’s nothing to worry about and most outsiders are not going to understand the context. That helps assuage Gabriel and Kuster’s long-term industry clients and associates. Christ and Kuster do point out that the SAR in bone marrow is ten times higher in children but then they throw in a few seeds of confusion (the bit about “no age-dependent changes.”) As one close observer who has long worked in this field told us, “Those are the conclusions for the industry.” (The person asked that his name not be used so that his work can continue.)

    The entire cell phone health controversy is so riddled with industry money that only a few dare to address the implications for public health. We asked Alasdair Philips, a long-time activist, for his opinion. “My first thought after reading the new Christ/Kuster paper was for those youngsters, who use hands-free sets,” he told us. “That’s what the U.K. government advises and, though few actually listen, those who do and who carry their phones in their trouser pockets, might inadvertently be trading one risk for another,” he said. “I would be concerned about the exposure of the long bones in their legs, as well as in their pelvises, because these have much larger amounts of marrow than the skull. A lot of important biology goes on in the bone marrow, and that includes producing blood cells.” Philips is the founder of Powerwatch and an adviser to Children with Leukaemia, a charity.

    Then we posed the same question to Henry Lai at the University of Washington in Seattle, another long-time microwave researcher. He took Philips’s concerns one step further. “We should be looking at the SARs in each voxel,” he said. “That’s a much smaller volume than 1g or 10g, but there could still be up to 100,000 cells in each voxel. If the target is bone marrow, then the radiation is hitting red and while blood and stem cells. One small change may be all it takes.”

    In an e-mail exchange with Microwave News, Gabriel emphasized that, in fact, she is on the same track. “The exposure of the bone marrow is the single most important issue that needs to be pursued, not just for exposure to the head,” Gabriel said. “I would like to see the exposure of the bone marrow in the limbs of children investigated.”

    Download a pdf of this story.

    Om Gandhi, children, cell phones, Michael Thun, Niels Kuster, IT’IS, Andreas Christ, Azadeh Peyman, Camelia Gabriel, IEEE, SARs, Henry Lai, Alvaro de Salles,

    Microwave News The Web
    Return to Main Article Archive
    Help Support
    Microwave News
    © Copyright Microwave News 2003-2013. All Rights Reserved.

    • #53 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 3:48 pm

      Now, if any level of exposure had been determined to be definitively harmful than this might actually mean something…

  12. #54 by amateur night on September 17, 2013 - 11:28 pm

    I heard that Giokaris took the Pletka plunge this afternoon. Is this true?

    • #55 by Yes on September 18, 2013 - 7:22 am

      I heard the same thing. After being presented with tons of information, Fullerton Joint Union High School District superintendent, George Giokaris said they are going ahead with their wireless plans for all of our Fullerton High Schools.

      I believe this needs to be an article on this blog.

  13. #57 by Abraham Liboff, PhD on September 19, 2013 - 7:01 am

    Abraham R. Liboff, PhD Research Professor Center for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida Co-Editor, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine:

    “The key point about electromagnetic pollution that the public has to realize is that it is not necessary that the intensity be large for a biological interaction to occur. There is now considerable evidence that extremely weak signals can have physiological consequences. These interactive intensities are about 1000 times smaller than the threshold values formerly estimated by otherwise knowledgeable theoreticians, who, in their vainglorious approach to science, rejected all evidence to the contrary as inconsistent with their magnificent calculations. These faulty estimated thresholds are yet to be corrected by both regulators and the media.

    The overall problem with environmental electromagnetism is much deeper, not only of concern at power line frequencies, but also in the radiofrequency range encompassing mobile phones. Here the public’s continuing exposure to electromagnetic radiation is largely connected to money. Indeed the tens of billions of dollars in sales one finds in the cell phone industry makes it mandatory to corporate leaders that they deny, in knee-jerk fashion, any indication of hazard.

    There may be hope for the future in knowing that weakly intense electromagnetic interactions can be used for good as well as harm. The fact that such fields are biologically effective also implies the likelihood of medical applications, something that is now taking place. As this happens, I think it will make us more aware about how our bodies react to electromagnetism, and it should become even clearer to everyone concerned that there is reason to be very, very careful about ambient electromagnetic fields.”


    • #58 by Robert on October 1, 2013 - 6:46 am

      The fact that these emissions cause effects is irrefutable. Quantifying these effects objectively remains elusive as the bias from industry and entrenched interests is immense.

      This site is a much needed long overdue step in the right direction.

  14. #59 by Schulze on September 19, 2013 - 9:06 pm

    Mr. Liboff:

    I see that many of the individuals who’s statements are on that website are associated with the BioInitiative report. What is your opinion of Luc Verschaeve’s assessment of that report?

    • #60 by Joe Imbriano on September 19, 2013 - 10:16 pm

      You seem fixated on taking apart the BIR. It is but one piece of evidence. He is entitled to his assessment of BIR but it is not all that is out there. In defense of the BIR it goes places others do not. Does the baby go out with the bathwater? Hardly. The baby is too big.

      SBM and EMF and Health are mechanized cherry pickers themselves with loads of Big Pharma and RF industry dough behind them. Let me say this Roman. The issue with both crowds is that they are continually refusing to admit that on this EMF in schools and the Autism issue there is a black hole where the science looks, what it looks for, what it ignores and what it refuses to address. Do we look at what a supermarket check stand laser does to the retina of the eye or what it does to the sole of the foot? Do we look at short term EMF exposures to rat brains or 9 months of in utero exposure to brains of 8 day old human fetuses for 8.7 more months? Do we look at irradiating a wistar rat just her before delivery or do we look at and follow 5 year old girls that keep a microwave transmitter in their laps for 16 years and a router on the nightstand next to the DECT phone and examine the offspring if any? At the rate they have been going, my 5 year old will have been married off by the time they even get around to coming down off of their academic arrogance condescension convention stroking each other’s ego high and realize the directed research machine duped them and in the process has betrayed their own daughters.

  15. #61 by Jamie on September 21, 2013 - 8:26 am

    The standards need changing, says Frank Clegg of C4ST, former CEO Microsoft Canada

    • #62 by amateur night on September 30, 2013 - 3:17 pm

      Changing? What is this a diaper? The limits are sky high and need to come down from the altitude Exec Environmental took their RF survey from. Come on man.

      • #63 by Anonymous on September 30, 2013 - 8:54 pm

        Yeah, that’s the understatement of the century and the crime of the century is Pletka getting away with that nonsense reading, only to be overtaken by the statement he made ==> “totally safe.”

  16. #64 by Amir on October 1, 2013 - 8:11 am

    If the radiation from devices so dangers how come nobody at scool stops these from happening

    They children they come first.

    • #65 by Anonymous on October 1, 2013 - 3:58 pm

      The children should come first.

      These teachers, administrators, school boards, superintendents don’t want to know or understand the harms to our children from these wireless devices. They will not listen. They are choosing for the parents to have technology over the health of our kids.

  17. #66 by Anonymous on October 29, 2013 - 9:11 pm

    Austria is an extremely sophisticated country. This disparity is incredibly alarming.

  18. #67 by Anonymous on October 31, 2013 - 1:03 pm

    USA FCC is liars to all peoples

    • #68 by Angie B on October 31, 2013 - 5:38 pm


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!