The two sides of The Fullerton Informer’s two cents.

On March 5, 2013, The Fullerton Informer began the quest to end what we believe to be the largest radiation experiment on children that the world has ever known.  Since that date we have logged close to a million hits from all over the world. We are by no means alone ladies and gentlemen.

Yes it all began as a result of an email from the Fullerton School District’s acting superintendent Dr. Robert Pletka.   I was previously involved with his office as a result of an investigation into my allegations of mistreatment of my son over at Acacia Elementary which directly involved principal Karen Whisnant and my son’s teacher Stephanie Givens. With the help of Trustee Chris Thompson, my wife and I arranged a meeting with Dr. Pletka to address my concerns. There was a subsequent investigation and upon conclusion of such, Dr. Pletka stated that he continued to believe that our concerns were real and he would take appropriate steps. The subsequent actions taken by the district were not made public but problems had ceased in the interim. It was’t long after that however, that they began again, remained ongoing, and ironically in my opinion, they still continue to this day. Stephanie Givens was awarded teacher of the year. The OC Register awarded Acacia Elementary the title of the number one school in Orange County and the smoke and mirrors  hid this bizarre irony for many.

At the time back in March, I felt that the rapport between Dr. Robert Pletka and I was good and the trust was there. I felt that I had his ear and he was willing to advocate for much needed change at Acacia.  Meanwhile,  Acacia school began a pilot program in my son’s GATE class which involved room 7  to go wireless. It was my choice at the time to subsequently remove my son from the GATE class when they decided several months into the school year to abandon pencil and paper and go 1:1 with Ipads. At the time I had no idea that entire school had WiFi systems that permeated every room. When I provided Dr. Robert Pletka with several links to articles, scientists’ claims, and videos that warn that the wireless classroom model had potential dangers, he responded to me that we have both formulated our opinions over a long time and a few articles here or there were not going to change either of our minds.  He then sent me some outdated links from the W.H.O. and information from  industry links from Cisco and the like. The emails continued back and forth for a short period but resulted in no progress. He never offered to personally meet and discuss these concerns. His mind was already made up. When Karen Whisnant was presented with this information, she as usual, responded with placation first and foremost, and then, as always, followed it up with patronization, thanking me for the thought provoking information. Of course nothing else was forthcoming from her. It was their display of authoritative arrogance coupled with the low road my son walked for months at Acacia that ushered in the dawn of and the tone of this movement as it involved the F.S.D.

The Fullerton School District is home to some 14,000+ students in grades K-8. Many of these students, unbeknownst to me, were already using WiFi enabled devices.  I found Dr. Pletlka’s Facebook page was riddled with photos of children in the F.S.D. using laptops and Ipads many literally resting down where they should be nowhere near.  What’s more, I found out that there were plans to go 1:1 throughout the entire district and Acacia was ground zero for the roll out. It turns out that this is what Dr. Robert Pletka had done in his previous stint in the San Diego County schools. The most vulnerable segment of the student population in Fullerton was slated for receiving the most microwave emissions exposure, more than that of the high school district. This to me was shocking. The next step was  for me to continue disseminating information regarding this issue to Dr. Pletka and Karent Whisnant which I did to no avail.

The more I researched into this issue, the more horrified I had become.  Within a matter of days, I began to question the various high schools if they indeed were wireless as of yet. I was told no. It was at that time we had requested a meeting with Dr. Giokaris and Dr. Williams from the F.J.U.H.S.D. to discuss our concerns. They agreed to meet with us and listen to our concerns. What seemed unusual at that time was the room adjacent to our meeting was full of district staff while Dr. Giokaris had his chair in the doorway to ensure the door remained open. It was obvious that a larger audience was in attendance. In the meantime, they were very open and up front about their plans and timeline.  He agreed to review the information and that was back in March of this year. There had been no formal contact initiated by his office until around labor day weekend when Dr. Williams called  to schedule a meeting to discuss the F.J.U.H.S.D.’s technology plan.

In the meantime, in the F.S.D., the rollout of the Ipad programs and the installation of the enterprise class Cisco wireless access points continued to encompass every school in the District. While this continued, I appeared at virtually every school board meeting jamming this website down their throats, with handouts followed by my three minute diatribes dressing them down, asking them not to proceed, and the technology expansion just continued to accelerate. I handed out  thousands of fliers and information packets to parents over the course of several months on numerous occasions, and sent mass emails to every school and administrative office in the entire Fullerton School District. Aside from the frightened parents, not one response from anyone in the F.S.D. except Trustee Chris Thompson and one other board member that said she was looking into it.  At one board meeting an F.S.D. teacher refused to accept one of my handouts because he said “I was told not to accept it….my superiors may have a problem with it…”

In the F.J.U.H.S.D., however,  something very different was going on. They were actually investigating what we alleged and put their plans on hold as a result.  Consequently, I continued to attend the F.J.U.H.S.D. board meetings and politely presented information and informed the board, administrative staff, and principals of the potential dangers of the proliferation of this technology. They were given handouts including the Autism hypothesis I wrote. As I stood at the door of the room handing out information to teachers and parents, not one refused the handouts. Aside from some concerned parents, months had gone by and not one  single F.J.U.H.S.D. member of staff, employee or board member reached out to me with a phone call or an email.

Meanwhile, in the F.S.D., my visits to the board meetings continued parallel to the F.J.U.H.S.D meetings but with a different tone and demeanor. The blog articles went along the same lines as the meetings. The basic tenet of the argument was questioning how when presented with all of the information over the course of several months, how did it appear that the F.S.D. continued to ignore it, not reach out to me, call a meeting to discuss an issue such as this and the whole time step on the gas and accelerate its roll out?

So here we have Dr. Giokaris putting plans on hold while investigating, and Dr. Pletka stepping on the gas. July came with a bang with the RF report released by the F.S.D. showing impossibly low microwave radiation levels in the classroom at my child’s school and a blanket total safety statement flying in the face of everything I had presented signed by,you guessed it,  Dr. Robert Pletka.

Yesterday The Fullerton Informer met with Dr. George Giokaris and Dr. Jennifer Williams and they confirmed that based on their research and findings, in spite of the thousands of scientific studies that show harm,  that they are proceeding with the district technology plan with virtually no changes except for the fact that the access points will not be located in classrooms.  That statement by Dr. Williams, in my opinion,proves that they are cognizant of the fact that there is some risk associated with these devices. Why else would they not locate them in the classrooms. Dr. Giokaris was asked point blank by myself, how many hours did he personally invest in researching this issue on this website and  he declined to state.  What is not clear to him is that the IP tracking logs had answered that question long before I asked it. After a rather lengthy discussion that even bordered on philosophical at times, we wrapped it up but not before I laid it all out to both of them like no other human being that they will ever meet for the rest of their lives. The meeting went well. They both agreed to disagree with us. I parted ways and shook his hand and bid Dr. George well and reminded Dr.  Williams to remind her friends that Autism is a disease of electromagnetic exposure and not food allergies. It was clear to me she didn’t read it either.

The point of all of this is that The Fullerton Informer, much like a coin, has two sides. It can flip rather easily I might add. We simultaneously chose two parallel paths to deal with the same issue with two separate school districts based on the footings established by each district’s respective administrators. We took two roads. The high road was chosen in our dealings with the F.J.U.H.S.D. and Dr. George Giokaris as he began the journey by listening and applying the brake.  The low road was taken with the F.S.D. and Dr. Robert Pletka as he began the journey by dismissing the information and stepping on the gas.

Heck we even took a side road along the way when we took  our gig to the June 27th A.S.C.I.P meeting and they made us shut off our camera.  It got a Bagley-Keene Act violation investigation going with the AG but at least I got to meet the big cheese attorney, and got to see the some familiar and some not so familiar faces that are all actively involved in flipping the switch to irradiate school kids all over the golden state.

Ironically, understanding full well, the nature of the command and control educational bureaucracy, the top down edicts from the Executive Branch down to the techs hanging those Cisco access points on the classroom walls down to the staff loading the Ipad cart, I knew that ultimately all involved would take the low road. I expected this even though some walked with me on the high road. You see folks, this is a big deal and in my opinion, there is no bigger deal than what I believe to be this insidious, stealth threat to if not an attack on our children’s fertility. The telecom laws protect the RF industry and the school officials, FCC exposure guidelines set 100 million times higher than some of the most cultured Europeans open the floodgates for the proliferation,  Madison avenue has you and your kids hook line and sinker, and of course the CTA and CalPers have the golden handcuffs on the certificated staff to where they can’t say no even though the union contracts are strong enough for them all to simultaneously stand on top of and stop this. The administrators can’t break rank for fear of loss of reputation, fear of conflict with parents or superiors, or loss of their peace of mind having to wonder if they will be watched over like those trying to stop this by those trying to implement it at the highest levels. Sadly for some it is simply a religion relegated to merely fill the void. It is that void that the pursuit of the insatiable gods of materialism and status have left inside as their backs continue to turn on the children with the kids always coming last in all of the decisions. Don’t tell me they come first. I have read the contracts, the minutes and the agendas. Look at the payroll, look at the busted up black top, look at the benefits costs and look at the drinking fountains, look at the shortened school year and look at the class sizes, look at the administration costs and look at the fiddle playing the parents for everything under the sun, look at the paycheck and look at the lead pipes, look at the orthodontic plan and look at the asbestos tiles, look at the wireless health risks and look what your kids are using instead of text books. I could go on.

So as a result,  the children  are to be condemned  for the rest of their lives to 24/7 microwave emissions in the classroom, in the gym, multipurpose room, library, restaurants,  trains, airports, and at home for hours on end with these  pulse modulated high frequency microwave transmitters sitting and emitting in their precious little laps in direct proximity to their sensitive developing reproductive areas. In return, everyone involved gets to get excited about all this Trojan horse called 21st century learning with the common core oozing out of its orifices, they mistakenly think that they get to keep their jobs, get to go wine tasting and eat bacon in Europe this summer all the while this stuff is going to put them all out of work someday sooner than they can imagine.

It has been my suspicion and contention all along that at the highest levels, this is part of an agenda to affect human fertility, specifically aimed at the female ovum in our young girls and the sperm in the pubescent boys with Autism merely being an unintended consequence. Think of where these devices are most of the time.  THERE ARE NO LONG TERM STUDIES ON THIS ANYWHERE AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS BY DESIGN. THIS IS UNCHARTED TERRITORY FOLKS. Dr. Robert Pletka and Dr. George Giokaris just set sail with your kids on board.  You wonder why they don’t want to sail the thing in my direction?  I believe that they are afraid to stand up for the kids a midst this uncertainty. I have heard multiple administrators tell me that “Joe-all the districts are doing this… it is the way the world is going…”  So if everyone is jumping off of the Brooklyn Bridge do we follow them?

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. Once you do try to face this reality, you have to come up against it all because this stuff is going in everywhere.  But hey, are the kids not worth it? Like I have said in prior posts, some of the most foolish people that I have ever known were the most educated.

I knew all along that both roads would ultimately lead us to the same destination. I understand that it is easier to arrive if you take the road everyone else is on. You can’t get lost by yourself that way, you simply get lost with everyone else that way. For servile school administrators to trust in antiquated and inadequate FCC exposure guidelines that are 100 million times higher than those of some Europeans that ignore an entire realm of effects, to not personally investigate the issue and relegate the researching to their insurance companies and risk managers, to keep looking the other way and ignore piles and piles of scientific studies and evidence warning of the potential dangers to the children of unprecedented pulse modulated microwave high frequency radiation levels in Fullerton’s classrooms that are trillions of times higher than the levels 50 years ago that our parents lived with, in my opinion is despicable. I believe that we might as well stick Bob and George in a mold and make  rubber stamps out of both of them.

We may not know for years, uttered Dr. Giokaris, We will not know until it is too late says I.  Based on the decisions of these two men, who dealt with the two sides of my coin, and walked two different roads on the way, they ended up arriving at the same conclusions which, in my opinion, translates to heads or tails, the kids lose.

Ladies and gentlemen, now that the high and the low roads have come together, the merge sign is in the rear view mirror, with the two roads having converged, may I suggest that all of you look in the rear view mirror and out in front, and be aware of what I have known all along, that the road is slippery when wet. You have been warned. I believe that precaution has been thrown to the wind by these two leaders in spite of the many speed limit and warning signs posted right in front of them along the way. In my opinion, they have willfully chosen to roll the dice with your children’s reproductive health. Do they have that right? Absolutely not!

We will now move to even further expand our information campaign to the parents of the students in the F.J.U.H.S.D. as well as the F.S.D. and the community at large.  We welcome you all to this critical debate that is worthy of as much lighting, signage, caution and attention that is humanly capable of being employed and invested so that we can begin ending the largest radiation experiment on children that world has ever known. Fasten your seat belts. Give us your two cents worth, stay tuned and please don’t touch that dial.

  1. #1 by Schulze on September 19, 2013 - 9:30 am

    Dizzying. Thought for a second we were going to explore the other side of the coin, you know, as Joe said: “look the fact is that there are thousands of studies that show harm, and there are thousands that show no harm.”

    We may differ on what the word “fact” means or what we consider a quality study but to me this is the other side of the coin, the thousands of studies that show no harm. Let’s look at all those safe studies so I can stop accusing you of being biased.

    • #2 by Joe Imbriano on September 19, 2013 - 9:58 am

      A day in the life of Joe- R. The show must go on.

      Why don’t you write an article on the flip side of the issue and I will post it. Email it to me.

      • #3 by Anonymous on September 19, 2013 - 1:07 pm

        Mr. Imbriano, I noticed that at Acacia elementary, the boys are not allowed to be boys. Dr. Whisnant has taken away most of the vestiges of male childhood play.
        I am saddened to see what your family has endured. Your experiences are similar to other parents that I personally know.

        The absence of male employees at Acacia is a problem.

        • #4 by Schulze on September 19, 2013 - 8:50 pm

          Exactly what vestiges of male childhood play have been taken away? It is my understanding that the principal herself bought, with her own money, two flag football sets. So I’m going to ask you to keep your misinformed opinions to yourself. Or do you care to give some examples?

          • #5 by Anonymous on September 20, 2013 - 3:09 pm

            Misinformed opinions? Of course you know everything about what’s going on at Acacia. After all, aren’t you and Michelle Garden working around the clock for Dr. Whisnant and the FSD to discredit Mr. Imbriano and this website?

            Excerpt from one of the commenters from another one of Mr. Imbriano’s post:

            “there are several parents here in Fullerton who are working tirelessly around the clock in unison with local school officials and County officials to discredit what is being set forth on this website.”

            Hmmm…sure sounds like they are talking about you and Michelle alright. All for what? So you get special treatment from Dr. Whisnant and her staff? To be known as the “good guy” defending Acacia and FSD?

            • #6 by amateur night on September 20, 2013 - 4:19 pm

              So they can get their kids the best seats in the house right under the wireless access points. These cats are brilliant. You thought selling wrapping paper got you special treatment?

            • #7 by Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 5:00 pm

              Oh for goodness sake. Mr. Imbriano is in no way a subject of discussion here. I don’t know Joe but hear he’s a nice guy. The credibility of Mr. Imbriano means nothing so discrediting him would not invalidate his argument. Try to understand, I am not here to discuss Joe, me, the principal, or you for that matter. I’m here to discuss the health effects of EMF. I’m not interested in defending the school or the district. I’m interested in shedding an unbiased light on the subject, that’s it. Oh, I am however not a fan of slander whether it be towards the principal, Joe, or whoever.

  2. #8 by amateur night on September 19, 2013 - 3:33 pm

    Joe, gotta hand it to you, you are a long haul kinda guy. Pretty admirable. That is one hell of a rocky road you ride. These cats don’t like trouble and boy you sure know how to shake the stick. There’s a ton of kids out there depending on you.

  3. #9 by Angie B on September 19, 2013 - 3:42 pm

    Looking at this from the outside, I believe that Supt Geokaris was just paying lip service to you. So what he waited a few months time before proceeding. He is still proceeding, so it makes no difference.

    He is going ahead and gambling with every child’s health in the Fullerton H S District. He is taking advantage of every parent who has no knowledge of the health implications of wireless radiation. Does he think that if these parents knew the harms they would go ahead and say it’s okay? Does he think that if the parents knew about this that they would be okay with it:

    How about the teachers and staff? If they knew about this, does he think they would be okay with this:

    or this:

    It makes you wonder if Geokaris believes himself to be God.

    This is almost too crazy and evil to believe.

    • #10 by Joe Imbriano on September 19, 2013 - 3:47 pm

      He has had a pretty good run in his 35 year career steering clear of controversy, but as we have seen here in Fullerton, things can turn on a dime pretty quickly.

    • #11 by amateur night on September 19, 2013 - 5:33 pm

      That cat’s a politician. What do you expect?

  4. #12 by Trust? on September 19, 2013 - 11:01 pm

    Who can you trust? Certainly not George Geokaris.

  5. #13 by jgarrison on September 19, 2013 - 11:27 pm

    Two short, informative videos, well worth your time:

    Smart Meters/Cell Phones/Microwave Radiation Health-Part 1:

    Smart Meters/Cell Phones/Microwave Radiation Health-Part 2:

  6. #14 by iPads, how safe? on September 20, 2013 - 6:40 am

  7. #15 by Fox 5 Las Vegas on September 20, 2013 - 6:42 am

    • #16 by retired educator on September 20, 2013 - 11:41 am

      For the 36 years that I spent as a classroom educator, I have never seen, as in the last 3 or 4 years, the vast difference in the general overall demeanor, appearance and behaviour of young children. Something is going terribly awry in their development. It is simply irrefutable.

      Could this be to blame? Perhaps. I personally feel that it is in large part due to what Mr. Imbriano is alleging. We received our networks about 3 years ago and another upgrade just before I retired. I can only imagine what is going on in the homes. Up until reading the information on this website, I never, even for a moment, thought to consider the implications of wireless classroom technology along these lines.

      Before I retired late last year, I noticed over the last several years, the children became more and more restless. Many were unable to focus, unable to sit still, prone to tantrums, continually frustrated and having difficulties remaining engaged. Many had bloody noses and headaches that we thought were a result of the weather, many were fatigued and some even fell asleep. My career spanned three decades from grades 1 to 5. I have seen it all and I have never seen kids like we have today.

      In retrospect, given this information, I can definitively make the correlation. It sounds like a movement is beginning and evidently nationwide, the district officials all read from the same press release.

      Mr. Imbriano, will you be attending the meeting on Monday at the Fullerton Library?

      • #18 by Another mom on September 20, 2013 - 6:32 pm

        Thank you so much for your input. I hope you will be attending the Monday meeting and that you express your experience and observations.

        What you wrote is so sad. It’s as if the administration does not believe that learning can take place without wireless devices. And, the wireless devices are making the kids and teachers sick.

        Anyone, everyone please make sure you attend the Monday meeting and make your voice heard. I have already experienced confronting administrators on this subject. They will not reason or be rational on this subject. The parents and community MUST GET INVOLVED.

  8. #19 by Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 10:24 am

    Wow, another quality retort by the media, FOX none the less. Where to begin?

    First, they didn’t bother to talk to anyone with a differing opinion, big surprise there.

    Second is this gem: “In May of 2011, the World Health Organization listed mobile phone use in the same “carcinogenic hazard” category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform. ” I’m gonna address this again, one more time. Coffee is in the same class, did they mention this? No. Why? Also, it is very unlikely that lead, exhaust (gasoline), chloroform, or coffee cause cancer. Dangerous, poisonous, harmful – YES!!! Carcinogenic – NO!!! (well, unlikely anyway).

    Somebody please let me know they understand this because we are dangerously close to a lost cause here.

    (btw: diesel exhaust is class “1” (definite carcinogen))

    • #20 by Joe Imbriano on September 20, 2013 - 11:22 am

      No one here has given up on you yet Roman.

    • #21 by Ray on September 20, 2013 - 2:11 pm

      Schulze – given that you are a medical doctor, and are giving parents guidance that RF microwave radiation one hundred million times higher than background is safe for their children, I’d think you would be a great person for the job.

      • #22 by Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 4:38 pm

        See, there you are wrong. I guide no one. My goal is to present the data and instruct people on how to think and analyze the science. I don’t tell them what to think, that’s your gig. When I have spoken to people about this its a weather involved process. I star with explaining the electromagnetic spectrum, its history and applications. Then we go into research and the different kinds of studies; in vitro, in vivo, animal, prospective, retrospective, cohort, double blind, meta-analysis, systematic review, etc. We then review all those in regards to level of evidence. Then we start looking at the data, most specifically systematic reviews, both good and bad. We look at some specific studies and discuss OR, RR, P values etc. of both negative, positive, and neural studies. We then evaluate the quality of the reviews and published critiques of the reviews as well as editorial opinions. Finally we do some Q&A. It’s kind of a pain in the ass but well worth it. I find if you educate in this fashion and let people make their own “informed” decisions that they generally come to the most valid conclusion. And even if they don’t at least we’ve started a foundation of critical thinking that can be built upon. There is no Patient-Doctor relationship in play here at all. By the way, what gives you the right or authority to give parents, or anyone for that matter, guidance?

  9. #23 by Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 10:29 am

    Hey, does anyone know if these EMF meters used to measure these fields are the same devices that ghost hunters use? A parent asked me and I said I think so but I wasn’t sure.

    • #24 by Joe Imbriano on September 20, 2013 - 11:20 am

      I believe the ones used by the company that conducted the RF survey for the district were. Maybe that is why the readings were so low because they were measuring the wrong frequency.

      I personally like to use the coronet ed85ex model in and around school when kids are in and the gigahertz solution sRF-Analyser HF58B model on campus on the weekends and after hours for real tight readings.

    • #25 by Ray on September 20, 2013 - 1:22 pm

      No, they are not, but it doesn’t surprise me that you would given them your opinion without any knowledge on the subject.

      • #26 by Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 4:11 pm

        Actually, yes they are. See post below from 11:39 am.

      • #27 by Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 4:44 pm

        Well, I do have some knowledge on the subject but as I was not sure I told them that… as I said. Now Joe said that the ones the school district used may be used by ghost busters and as I know he owns them, I would take his word over yours. Notice the site below: “Meet the EMC meter, the little tool that ghost hunters swear by” That’s pretty clear to me..

        • #28 by Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 5:01 pm

          Sorry…. EMF meter, not EMC

        • #29 by Ray on September 21, 2013 - 3:53 pm

          Schulze, you continue to demonstrate a lack of comprehension.

          None of those devices depicted on that website could even detect RF microwave radiation.

          How do I know? I have over 20 years experience measuring EMR radiation

        • #30 by Robert A. on September 21, 2013 - 4:39 pm

          From what I understand, they won’t give Joe permission to go in and conduct a survey with calibrated equipment and a film crew. I don’t get your point. I believe that your question needs to be directed to the firm that the district hired for the RF survey conducted at taxpayer expense.

          In addition, it would be of interest to make public what the District was charged for that very questionable report. It appears to not line up with any results that I have ever seen.

          • #31 by Schulzee on September 22, 2013 - 5:06 pm

            Wait! That does it, Joe was specifically told not to calibrate his equipment??? I’m taking this up with the board. Not sure why he would need a film crew, he making a movie? Getting all the releases signed wouldn’t happen anyway. And yes, I would have never supported the expense of a RF survey. I could have told you they would find non-thermal levels, as has Joe, and since non-thermal levels have not been proven to be harmful it doesn’t matter much how high or low they are, does it?

            • #32 by Joe Imbriano on September 22, 2013 - 6:23 pm

              I was told that I could not conduct an RF study. I am not going to come in to a room full of kids with the big wand with the big antenna. At this point, I observed that the same RF levels are present as if they are all using cell phones all day. I have been awaiting permission for calibrated equipment and a film crew to conduct an RF survey and study in my son’s classroom. In the meantime, my little handheld is very accurate and simple to use. It appears to be far more accurate than the equipment Executive Environmental used as the first time that they came in, they couldn’t even detect WiFi emissions. Heck a cell phone with the right app does better than that.

              Instead of you and your wife taking up issue with my handy equipment, have your wife ask around Cal State Fullerton and see if she can get some local experts to chime in over here and comment on what we paid big money for in terms of the RF survey and the readings they reported. It should be interesting. There is plenty of talk over there and it would be nice if a few came out of the woodwork and joined the club here. It would do the community good.

              Your last statement is the whole kit and kaboodle Roman. In my opinion, it is that dark magic phrase, that lie from the pit of hell that is ensuring the best laid plans of those with the most nefarious of intentions, proceeds in high gear right under our noses.

              Movie you bet. You will be in it as well very soon as soon as you cozy up to mic at the board meetings.

              • #33 by Schulzee on September 22, 2013 - 11:36 pm

                You flatter yourself thinking anybody at CSUF has time to concern themselves with this. They are busy teaching science.

                Thinking you are going to film people without their consent? This should be interesting.

                • #34 by amateur night on September 22, 2013 - 11:57 pm

                  You off your meds Schulzeepoo? He doesn’t need their consent to film them in a public place and at public meetings you moron.

                  • #35 by Schulzee on September 23, 2013 - 8:50 am

                    Well, I’m definitely off my meds. And technically you are right. However, I assumed he wanted to show the video or even post it on-line or on YouTube.

                    “It does not matter if it is professional or not, you are posting the video to a public media. It is no different than publishing a photo in your local paper, you MUST have consent or you can be sued if showing a person’s face on the video. It does not matter if there is no money involved, the people in the video must still give consent. Your last point, “it will be public” is what requires the consent form to be signed. If it was merely a project for school and would remain in the confines of the class you could do this, but when you turn it into something public, you have certain legal responsibilities and should want to protect yourself from future lawsuits.”

                    Now, if me being a moron helps in any way that’s fine. The key thing we need to understand is that my moronocity does not make me wrong just as yours would not make you right.

                    Interestingly enough I thought what you said was true but then I remembered seeing blurred out faces on shows like “COPS” or hidden video type shows and wondered why they would have to do that. I then used the powers of the interweb to help reduce the chances of my erring.

                    • #36 by Bozo Esq. on September 23, 2013 - 12:19 pm

                      What the heck you are talking about?

                  • #37 by Anonymous on September 23, 2013 - 12:06 pm

                    The Bagley-Keene Act applies to all specified state boards, commissions, agencies, committees and advisory groups of such multimember bodies. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 11121, 11121.2, 11121.7 and 11121.8.

                    The Brown Act applies to the legislative body of a local agency or any other local body created by state or federal law, including all counties, cities, towns, school districts, municipal corporations, districts, political subdivisions or any board, commission or agency thereof. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 54951, 54952. The Legislature intended that all state and local agencies be included under the provisions of some open meeting act, unless expressly excluded. Torres v. Board of Commissioners, 89 Cal. App.3d 545, 549, 152 Cal. Rptr. 506

                    • #38 by Schulzee on September 23, 2013 - 6:57 pm

                      Don’t know the Bagley-Keene act or the Brown act but I’m willing to be educated. I did notice what was posted above did not mention a classroom. Do we consider a classroom a legislative body? How odd.

            • #39 by He sees nothing on September 23, 2013 - 5:43 pm

              For out very own Schulze –


              • #40 by that's our Schulze on September 24, 2013 - 3:43 am

                too funny!!

  10. #41 by Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 11:39 am

  11. #42 by R.D. on September 20, 2013 - 12:33 pm

    Joe: Thanks for your help. Parents need to realize that their children are being harmed.

  12. #43 by Angie B on September 21, 2013 - 8:43 am

    After all of this, why would anybody trust Drs Pletka & Giokaris with the safety of their children?

  13. #44 by common core q & a gets ugly on September 21, 2013 - 1:14 pm

    On Monday, Sept. 23, at 6:45pm at the Fullerton Public Library Community Room, 353 W. Commonwealth, two Superintendents will speak on the state of Fullerton schools. The program is sponsored by Neighbors United for Fullerton. I believe their thrust will be selling the common core to the public.

    There will be an open Q & A with the audience.

    Here is what happened at a Maryland meeting on the common core:

  14. #45 by FJUHSD safe environment? on September 21, 2013 - 7:50 pm

    Welcome back to the new school year! . . . The Board of Trustees and I are committed to working together as a team with all parents/guardians, students, teachers, staff members, and the entire school community to provide excellent educational programs in a safe and nurturing environment.

    ” . . . in a safe and nurturing environment.” Isn’t that an amazingly hypocritical statement coming from George Geokaris, who apparently considers it his decision to expose people’s kids to wireless radiation. Has he even looked at the letters to LAUSD that he was given:

    George Geokaris was given this; did he read it?

    • #46 by Joe Imbriano on September 21, 2013 - 10:26 pm

      Why don’t you ask him on Monday night?

  15. #47 by Angie B on September 22, 2013 - 7:05 am

    These school administrators need to be exposed.

  16. #48 by Angie B on September 22, 2013 - 7:07 am

    Are we repeating history?

    …In the case of tobacco and lung cancer, debates over whether there was a true increase in lung cancer associated with smoking raged far longer than they should have, fomented by an active disinformation campaign…

    Recalling the 70 years that it took to remove lead from paint and gasoline and the 50 years that it took to convincingly establish the link between smoking and lung cancer, … we must learn from our past to do a better job of interpreting evidence of potential risks.

    Ronald Herberman (Founding Director of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Cancer Centres and Hillman Professor of Oncology) in a statement to the US Congress Domestic Policy Subcommittee about cell phone risks

    • #49 by Schulzee on September 22, 2013 - 4:50 pm

      Well, we have a 107 years of RF exposure so we are well on our way of this being the worst risk stratification ever.

      • #50 by Joe Imbriano on September 22, 2013 - 6:26 pm

        More obfuscation Roman, frequency my friend, frequency, apples and aircraft carriers pal.

        AM, FM, UHF are not at 2.45 GHz. We have only had these transmitters in the children’s laps for the last year or so. Radar has not been being bounced off of your daughters ovaries for the last 107 years.

        • #51 by Schulzee on September 22, 2013 - 11:23 pm

          So, you are saying that only 2.45 GHz are potentially harmful??? So why didn’t you just say you wanted 5 GHz routers, coulda saved us all some time.

          The fact remains that as long as you leave your kids in rooms with 30+ tablets firing as close as 1 – 2′ away all day you are affirming that there are safe levels of EMF radiation. The alternative is unthinkable.

          • #52 by Anonymous on September 23, 2013 - 4:36 pm

            Shulzee, You come from a very strange place and are not for the kids.

            • #53 by Schulzee on September 23, 2013 - 6:50 pm

              I’m for the kids being technologically literate. And I guarantee you that of I was convinced that any level of EMF was harmful my kids would be out of that environment so quick they would be dizzy. Hey, that’s just me, I protect my kids as much as possible.

              • #54 by really? on September 24, 2013 - 5:28 pm

                What an ignorant argument. We all know that technology can be accessed by wire our children without risk.

                • #55 by yes, really on September 24, 2013 - 8:47 pm

                  Yes but the logistics are a bit tough. First you can’t wire a tablet, Win 8 maybe but not iOS. Desktops are not an option since they can’t be taken home. So that leaves us with laptops at twice the expense. Then there is the cost of wiring the room. Now Joe said it would cost “peanuts” to do that but the 2 contractors I spoke to said that they would not take peanuts as payment. One said he had peanut allergies so I offered almonds but still no go. If someone was serious and would draw up a proposal outlining construction and equipment cost and then fund it, hell I would be on board.

  17. #56 by Angie B on September 22, 2013 - 7:08 am

  18. #57 by Angie B on September 22, 2013 - 7:13 am

    Understanding the science

    Is the jury still out on the health risks of mobile phones?

    We sometimes hear in the press that the “jury is out” when it comes to the health risks of mobile phones. We hear one day about a study showing adverse health effects then another that a research has given them the all clear.

    What are the public to do in the face of this uncertainty?

    At WiredChild we wanted to investigate for ourselves. This is what we found:

    1. All the independently-funded studies that included longer term users (10 years or more use) have shown an association between brain tumour incidence and mobile phone use.

    In a number of studies the risks for some types of tumours is doubled or even quadrupled. The only studies that have not shown such a link were funded by the mobile phone industry or only analysed short-term duration of use. See the studies here…

    Mobile phones have only been used widely since the late 1990’s so the early studies, mostly done in the early 2000’s, didn’t involve long term phone users. They were done when it was too early for the association to show up. This has clouded the picture for the media and the public.

    2. The studies generally under-estimate the risk

    This is because:

    they can only include people who are still alive (as they need to ask about mobile phone habits) so some of those who might have been worst affected are excluded
    many of the people in the control group and treated as un-exposed to the radiation being tested have been exposed through other sources. For example, many of the studies investigating the link between mobile phones and brain cancers have not extracted cordless phone users from the control group which means that the difference between the risks of those classed as users and non-users may be obscured.
    none of the studies into the link between mobile phone use and brain tumours has directly studied children
    The full extent of the risks of using a mobile phone will probably only show up when people have used them for 20 years or more

    3. Not all studies are independent.

    Have a look at the list of brain tumour studies to see which ones are independently-funded. The independently-funded studies that included long-term mobile phone users found an association between mobile phone use and brain tumours, while mostly industry-linked studies found no association, normally having only studied short-term users. One study has demonstrated statistically that the funding source is linked to the results found…

    When an industry wants to discourage concerns about safety, it can muddy the waters by funding research that shows no association, thereby leaving the press and the public confused and uncertain whether they need to act. Sometimes it is not obvious that they have funded the research. Read more…
    The big corporates with significant financial interests in the mobile phone and wireless markets, have skilled PR and other staff able to work the system to the advantage of their corporate interest. Independent scientists and public interest groups, like us, rarely have the resources to counter this effect. You can help by donating here…

    Some studies have small samples. While this reduces the weight they should be given, in our view a small independent study is sometimes more trustworthy than a larger industry-funded study.

    There is now almost no independent funding of research into the effects of wireless technology in the UK. The industry-funded studies dominate in terms of number and consequently dominate the way the public health agencies assess the risk and the way the media reports the risk. Read more…

    Sometimes, conflicts of interest are concealed…

    4. Don’t rely on what you read in the papers.

    Science is complex and studies are not always easy to interpret. Sometimes the media misunderstands.

    Click here for an example of the media misunderstanding the science…

    5. Don’t assume the government will warn you

    The government has to strike a difficult balance between protecting public health and protecting the economy, so it doesn’t just have our children’s health at heart.

    Businesses can put financial pressure on government and also have influence through their networking and lobbying arms. The mobile phone industry contributes about £15 billion a year to government finances. Coupled with expanding tax revenues from the fast-growing wireless industry, and further jackpots when licences are sold off (about £22 billion when they sold off the 3G licences in 2001) these discourage the government from alerting the public to the possibility of health risks.

    Have a look at what happened in the early days of smoking research, and when the BSE scare was reported.

    …In the case of tobacco and lung cancer, debates over whether there was a true increase in lung cancer associated with smoking raged far longer than they should have, fomented by an active disinformation campaign…

    Recalling the 70 years that it took to remove lead from paint and gasoline and the 50 years that it took to convincingly establish the link between smoking and lung cancer, … we must learn from our past to do a better job of interpreting evidence of potential risks.

    Ronald Herberman (Founding Director of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Cancer Centres and Hillman Professor of Oncology) in a statement to the US Congress Domestic Policy Subcommittee about cell phone risks

    • #58 by Joe Imbriano on October 4, 2013 - 9:01 am

      The EMF issue will all be blamed on Fukushima thousands and thousands of miles away, diluted by quadrillions of gazillions of gallons of water and a billion gazillion trillions of cubic feet of air which at present are not even sporadically increasing background levels of ionizing radiation more that 50% or so. Yes the disaster in Japan is horrific but pales in comparison to what is being done in our classrooms, bedrooms, backyard, workplaces and even in your laps.

      Meanwhile these unborn children :

      are constantly getting hit by sources, at times inches, instead of oceans away, with trillions of times the normal background levels of microwave radiation from 900 MHz up to 8 GHz from WiFi routers, wireless keyboards, mouses, wireless TV’s, DVRs, security camera systems, video game controllers and consoles, laptops, baby monitors, cell phones, tablets, microwave ovens, cordless phones and their base stations, and whatever else people are bring home, live or work around. None of the experts are concerned about that.

      Don’t worry, nothing to fear. The experts tell us it is safe. Oh the experts the gift that keeps on giving. They bestow upon us a legacy the likes of:

  19. #59 by Schulzee on September 22, 2013 - 4:48 pm

    So you are stating that the majority (90%+) of the expert panel systematic reviews got it wrong?

    “Electromagnetic fields, in particular so-called radiofrequencies are used by mobile or wireless communication systems as for example GSM mobile telephones, DECT telephones, wifi etc. Recent years were characterized by a tremendous increase in applications and types of wireless communication systems and this is responsible for an important increase in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Discussions on alleged adverse health effects are going on for years and so far no consensus agreement has been reached. These discussions are held amongst scientists as well as amongst laymen from the general public and authorities. Radio, TV, newspapers and magazines often bring erroneous information to the public. But also scientists do not agree. The scientific literature is full of papers showing that these fields can be dangerous and others showing that they are not. This holds true for virtually all possible endpoints and scientific disciplines that were studied, going from in vitro studies on cell proliferation, genetic and immunological effects, over animal experimental data on cancer and non cancer issues and human epidemiological investigations. It is not uncommon that controversial results are reported by the same laboratory. This results in claims of ‘danger’ when reference is made to essentially ‘positive’ papers (showing adverse biological effects) or claims of innocuity when only papers showing no effects are emphasized. It is clear that all (peer reviewed) scientific data should be considered and carefully analysed in order to come to a best possible ‘weight of evidence’ evaluation of risk. According to the WHO (World health Organisation) and ICNIRP (International Committee on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection) a single study does not provide the basis for hazard identification. It can at the best form the basis of a hypothesis. Confirmation of the results of any study is needed through replication and/or supportive studies. Only the resulting body of evidence forms the basis for science-based judgments by defining exposure levels for adverse health effects and no observable adverse effects.”

  20. #60 by Ray on September 23, 2013 - 4:27 am

    Schulze, you are going to have to come up with some other material than that pro-emf report.

    We already went through it and found that over 90% of those reviews are outdated and ignore recent advancements in scientific understanding.

    Furthermore, if you actually did some research your would realize that replication and confirmation of studies with positive results has already taken place.

  21. #61 by Schulzee on September 25, 2013 - 8:37 am

    So again, I don’t want to put words in your mouth but you are stating that 90% of those expert reviews got it wrong? That in fact with a few more years of research it turns out that the 10% were right?

  22. #62 by Ray on September 27, 2013 - 8:49 am


    Let’s talk about these reports once you have a handle on the evidence.

    Let me know when you have read the 2013 Oregon Physician’s Report on RF Microwave Radiation.

  23. #63 by Schulzee on September 28, 2013 - 9:20 pm

    Well, looked at it and got to page 9.

    “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).”

    – At leased they quickly admitted a bias. If they would have reviewed all the research instead of only that “documenting the existence of acute reactions…” I would continue. Now out of curiosity I’m going to look at what studies they site but I’m going to guess most if not all will “show” adverse health effects. Or at least their interpretation of the studies will.

  24. #64 by Ray on September 29, 2013 - 7:54 am


    Let me get this straight. You won’t read past page 9 of the physicians report because it cites peer reviewed studies showing adverse health effects.


    Way to serve your community.

    • #65 by Schulzee on October 3, 2013 - 4:10 pm

      Yes now you got it. There is hope. You see they did not review ALL of the scientific research on the subject. They only reviewed the positive ones… Kind of like you do. This statement is a major “red flag” that his report is biased and once that is clear, I loose interest. I will tell you that I probably would agree with this reports conclusions based on the scientific research they reviewed. But my concern is with the research they did not review.

      So, third or fourth time now. Why is EMF not classified as “1” or “2A” by the IARC? I’m starting to feel that you’re avoiding that question… odd.

  25. #66 by keep the change on October 3, 2013 - 7:44 am

    No one cares about this crap. Give it up.

    • #67 by Schulzee on October 3, 2013 - 4:15 pm

      This is what we’re dealing with:

      “Regardless of their politics, people who ascribe to conspiracy theories seem to lean very strongly to confirmation bias, the inclination to attend only to information that confirms a pre-existing belief. That’s exactly what conspiracy theorists do, seeing intent and covert ops in every coincidence, every move on the part of those whom they distrust, and ignoring information that disproves their pet ideas. For people who monitor these trends in so-called science denialism, it’s not a huge surprise that a mindset that leans to more intense confirmation-bias seeking would be common among groups that ascribe to conspiracy theories.”

      Good article here :

      So what do we do???

      “What’s a non-conspiracy theorist to do? According to the paper authors, not much. Debating a conspiracy buff isn’t helpful, it seems, because adherence to a conspiracy theory tends to reflect a broader way of thinking about the world, not just specifically about the alleged conspiracy at hand. The authors also note a tendency of conspiracy theorists to have a certain set of personality traits, including paranoid ideation and schizotypy.”

      • #68 by Joe Imbriano on October 3, 2013 - 11:38 pm

        “because adherence to a conspiracy theory tends to reflect a broader way of thinking about the world”-hack pysc warfare journalists from Forbes

        Let me rephrase that for you Roman and let me add a caveat:

        “because adherence to inconvenient truths tends to reflect a broader way of thinking about the world” and “myopic thinking always lends itself to the fetal position” -Joe Imbriano-site administrator of

  26. #69 by Ray on October 3, 2013 - 12:34 pm

    There are many, many people who care and who are realizing how serious of an issue this is.

  27. #70 by Ray on October 4, 2013 - 4:49 pm


    How did you conclude that the 2013 Oregon Physician’s report only reviewed positive studies if you only read to page 9?

    What a piece of work.

    You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about when it comes to the health impacts of RF radiation, and much worse, no interest in doing any actual investigation.

    If you won’t read the Oregon Physicians’ report, why not read the INTERPHONE reports? What’s your excuse? As a medical doctor you should be able to bring that up in a matter of minutes. Is that too much work for you as a physician?

    I will gladly engage new topics with you once we have addressed this issue of cell phones and brain cancer, but I will not play your games of distraction and obfuscation.

  28. #71 by Ray on October 6, 2013 - 6:14 am

    Schulze, the Oregon physicians who spent 16 months investigating the scientific literature on the biological impacts and health effects of wireless radiation, and who concluded that RF microwave radiation can cause both acute and chronic health effects, and coming to the same conclusion as many medical doctors. Why are you so opposed to this?

    One example is the 2002 Freiburg Appeal in which thousands of physicians requested tougher guidelines for radiofrequency exposure.

    In it they stated:

    “We have observed, in recent years, a dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases among our patients, especially:
    • Learning, concentration, and behavioural disorders (e.g. attention deficit disorder, ADD)
    • Extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, ever harder to influence with medications
    • Heart rhythm disorders
    • Heart attacks and strokes among an increasingly younger population
    • Brain-degenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer–s) and epilepsy
    • Cancerous afflictions: leukemia, brain tumors

    Moreover, we have observed an ever-increasing occurrence of various disorders, often misdiagnosed in patients as psychosomatic:
    • Headaches, migraines
    • Chronic exhaustion
    • Inner agitation
    • Sleeplessness, daytime sleepiness
    • Tinnitus
    • Susceptibility to infection
    • Nervous and connective tissue pains, for which the usual causes do not explain even the most conspicuous symptoms

    Since the living environment and lifestyles of our patients are familiar to us, we can see especially after carefully-directed inquiry a clear temporal and spatial correlation between the appearance of disease and exposure to pulsed high -frequency microwave radiation (HFMR)”

    They went on to state:
    “Above all, we are, as doctors, the advocates of our patients. In the interest of all those concerned, whose basic right to life and freedom from bodily harm is currently being put at stake, we appeal to those in the spheres of politics and public health.”

    Schulze, as a medical doctor you have an obligation to your community to adequately investigate this issue, especially if you are providing guidance to parents. So far you have demonstrated such a severe bias in favor of supporting the school district’s plans to implement wireless technology that you will not even read research if it reports biological and health effects.

    As a medical doctor, you took the Hippocratic Oath, in which you promised society to above all, do no harm. According to the medical dictionary, this states:
    “I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.”
    Given that there is substantial and compelling evidence that high frequency microwave radiation causes harm to the human body, and that children are particularly vulnerable, it is unacceptable to turn your back on science and on your oath.

    Get to work Schulze. Do your homework. I will engage in the science with you, but you first need to unbury your head, whether it be from the sand, or the school district’s derriere.

    • #72 by Anonymous on October 6, 2013 - 6:09 pm

      Or remove it from his own derriere.

    • #73 by Paula on October 7, 2013 - 4:07 pm

      What gives these people the right to take this chance with our children?

    • #74 by Schulzee on October 8, 2013 - 5:31 pm

      I am doing what I can to stop the spread of your delusions which I believe are more harmful than EMF. I am disinclined to do much more work until someone can explain to me why EMF is not classified as 1 or 2B by the IARC.

      Ray, as a lay person you have an obligation to your community to adequately investigate this issue, especially if you are providing guidance to parents. So far you have demonstrated such a severe bias in favor of supporting Joe’s plans to sabotage wireless technology that you will not even read research if it reports no biological and health effects. As a non-medical doctor, you did not take the Hippocratic Oath, in which you would have promised society to above all, do no harm. According to the medical dictionary, this states: “I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.” Given that there is inconclusive and no compelling evidence that high frequency microwave radiation causes harm to the human body, and that children are not particularly vulnerable, it is unacceptable to turn your back on science and on your lack of an oath. Get to work Ray. Do your homework. I will engage in the science with you, but you first need to unbury your head, whether it be from the sand, or Joe’s derriere.

      • #75 by Schulzee on October 8, 2013 - 5:33 pm

        That should be “as 1 or 2A by the IARC”. Sorry.

        • #76 by Anonymous on October 9, 2013 - 9:40 am

          Still haven’t done your homework, Schulzee?

      • #77 by Buxton on October 8, 2013 - 9:08 pm

        It is not my fault you have three times the delusions than Joe has whether it be your brain in a black pit or whether it be your words in a scrap yard. Do this for me: Be quiet because you have nothing to stand for.

        • #78 by Schulzee on October 9, 2013 - 12:01 pm

          You are not the boss of me.

      • #79 by Anonymous on October 8, 2013 - 9:34 pm

        Take lead or auto exhaust levels in the classrooms up, oh lets just say 1000 notches from the levels outside on the playground. Sound ok?

        • #80 by Schulzee on October 9, 2013 - 11:27 am

          As far as cancer is concerned, I am not worried about lead or exhaust very much at all. If you don’t understands the difference between toxicity and carcinogenicity I don’t think I can help.

  29. #81 by Ray on October 9, 2013 - 8:50 am


    It is your decision to ignore over 5,000 peer reviewed studies and advisories from some of the world’s top experts as substantial and compelling evidence.

    Don’t kid yourself; you never did any actual research. You went to a pro industry site, printed out their ready-made report complete with false assertions of safety, and we responded by taking it apart, systematically using scientific evidence to invalidate it.

    If the world’s largest case-control cell phone research projects have reported using a cell phone for over 10 years leads to significant increases in cancer rates, such as 300-500%, and if the wireless devices being used in the classroom emit higher levels of radiation, you are on the wrong side of the issue by trying to pretend that microwave radiation is safe for children.

    If peer reviewed research shows that children absorb much more radiation than adults, you are on the wrong side of the issue to pretend that they are safe.

    If international courts have ruled that cell phones cause cancer, and these iPads emit even higher levels of radiation, it would be entirely appropriate to expect iPads to constitute a serious health risk.

    Let us know when if and when you decide that the children’s health and safety is worth the work of opening up this evidence. I will examine this research with you in detail if you ever decide to step up to the plate as a medical doctor.

    • #82 by Anonymous on October 9, 2013 - 10:25 am

      I don’t believe the Schulzee guy is capable of stepping up to the plate. Maybe his judgement is obscured because he works for Apple (I saw that on the blog) or the school district or maybe he is just a sick individual, morally and ethically.

  30. #83 by Schulzee on October 9, 2013 - 11:58 am

    Ray, It is your decision to ignore over 10,000+ peer reviewed studies and advisories from some of the world’s top experts as substantial and compelling evidence. Don’t kid yourself; you never did any actual research. You went to a con industry site, printed out their ready-made report complete with false assertions of danger, and I responded by taking it apart, systematically using scientific evidence to invalidate it. If the world’s largest case-control cell phone research projects have failed to report that using a cell phone for over 10 years leads to significant increases in cancer rates, such as 300-500%, and even if the wireless devices being used in the classroom emit higher levels of radiation, you are on the wrong side of the issue by trying to pretend that microwave radiation is a danger for children. Even if peer reviewed research shows that children absorb much more radiation than adults, you are on the wrong side of the issue to pretend that they are dangerous. If multiple courts have ruled that cell phones do not cause cancer, and even if these iPads emit even higher levels of radiation, it would be entirely erroneous to expect iPads to constitute a serious health risk. Let us know when if and when you decide that the truth is worth the work of opening up this evidence. I will examine this research with you in detail if you ever decide to step up to the plate as a non-professional.

    Your evasiveness continues to strengthen my point, thank you. Now, if it’s not too much trouble of you could please explain to us why the IARC did not classify EMF as class “1” or “2A” you can save some face and we can go on… or continue on your ad hominem attacks if you wish. Feel free to continue your attacks on my professional integrity if it makes you feel right or superior.

    • #84 by Anonymous on October 9, 2013 - 2:05 pm

      We are not fooled, Apple guy. Go do your homework!!!!

  31. #85 by Schulzee on October 9, 2013 - 12:05 pm

    March 2013 Swedish Radiation Safety (SSM) Report:

    “together with national cancer incidence statistics from different countries, [recent results are] not convincing in linking mobile phone use to the occurrence of glioma or other tumours of the head region among adults.”

    P 5 “Although recent studies have covered longer exposure periods, scientific uncertainty remains for regular mobile phone use for longer than 13-15 years. It is also too early to draw firm conclusions regarding children and adolescents and risk for brain tumours, but the available literature to date does not indicate an increased risk.”

    P 5 effects of RF on EEG: “The observed effect is weak and does not translate into behavioural or other health effects. Recent studies suggest that considerable interindividual variation exists in the possible reactivity of the human brain to RF electromagnetic fields. The underlying mechanism is not yet understood,”

    From web summary: “there are no radiation protection problems for the general public related to radio waves from sources such as mobile phone base stations, television and radio transmitters or wireless computer networks in home or school environments”.

    • #86 by Joe Imbriano on October 9, 2013 - 12:26 pm

      “The underlying mechanism is not yet understood”

      “It is also too early to draw firm conclusions regarding children and adolescents and risk for brain tumours”

      Proof enough for Pletka-thanks Roman

      1:1 wireless device exposure for all even the 5 year olds

      • #87 by Anonymous on October 9, 2013 - 2:04 pm

        Schulzee guy a physician? Scary!!!

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!