WiFi Dangers.com

For those still arguing for allowing wireless radiation in our children’s classroom:

Do you realize that you are arguing against precaution for our kids? Why wouldn’t you want to be cautious with our kid’s health?

Ok, I’ll call your bluff. Please cite these thousands upon thousands studies… hell, I’ll take 2000 just too make it easy. Please cite those studies or admit you are lying. Or if, you want, cite one study that shows cell phone use decreases the risk of cancer and explain to me how that is possible. And of course I’m cherry picking. I was hoping to make a point which I knew would be lost. Definitely carcinogenic is a pretty far cry from possibly carcinogenic so that’s not a “minor” mistake. Wait, the government took action on tobacco? They outlawed tobacco and took kids away from parents that smoke? I must have missed that. Engine exhaust is actually classified as “1” for diesel and “2B” for gasoline but I know I can’t bother you with details. Lets go with that Ad Hominem attack and I’ll admit I have no credibility. Fortunately for me, my credibility is not the topic of discussion here. We are discussing possible health affects of EMF radiation so my credibility matters just as much as yours, that is not at all. Yup, nice study. I’m familiar with it and quite a few more like it. I’m also familiar with multiple studies that show a decreased risk of cancer with EMF exposure. We can discuss the merits and errors of each and every one of these studies and then I’ll hit you with the Expert Panel Systematic Reviews anyways. So, can we just skip the individual studies and move on to the Reviews? As for my dog in this fight, well I don’t like bullies and I don’t think its right to scare people with some “monster in the closet” routine. And perhaps most importantly I don’t appreciate the district having to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves against this nonsense. Money that should be going to education. Is that enough?

Oops I almost missed it, the claim that I work for “them” and lick their boots. I was expecting that to have been thrown out during our last exchange (well it was but not by you) and was kind of disappointed. I pride myself in predicting that these exchanges go how I expect and was kind of let down… better late than never.

Hey progress. Ok based on your statement we can agree that radio waves have not been proven to be harmful is that correct? And yes, there actually have been studies relating illness to distance of residence from nearest radio tower and radar sites (Mt. Wilson is not the only radio tower in the world). I just feel you should know this, I don’t want to be the only idiot here who actually read the literature here.

Jamie: If I give you twice as many names of people who agree that there is insufficient evidence of harm will that change your mind? If not, please stop using an argument from authority. And reasonable measures to reduce harm have been taken… microwaves don’t turn on with the door open.

JGarrison: Cite me one recent expert opinion or systematic review where recent data was reviewed and the determination was made that the expose limits do NOT need to be changed. Hint: It exists. Also, I did not say that there are NO physiological important non-thermal effects. I said “the preponderance of the evidence shows that there are NO physiologically important non-thermal effects”. There is a difference and I can go into detail if that’s confusing.

Amateur night: I don’t even know what that means. If you’re going to make ad hominem attacks they have to make sense. I want to laugh too.

Anonymous: CHILDISH… we’re doing synonyms, right?

Joe: Its only a debate worth having if both sides are willing to change their minds. My experience is that these type of debates are almost universally not worth having but I’m willing to be wrong… actually hoping to be wrong.

Ok, this is my understanding of Eugenics: Eugenics (\yü-ˈje-niks\) is the bio-social movement which advocates practices to improve the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.[2][3]

It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits.[4]

Now did you mean to say genocide or are we redefining eugenics?

Here’s a good analysis on the BIR if you bother to read it you may understand. There are 31other reports that you can pick, let’s not start with the worst.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/picking-cherries-in-science-the-bio-initiative-report/#more-24907

Yup, I was given what I expected… crap.
This is what a systematic review requires:
1. Assessing risk of bias in included studies
2. Analyzing data and undertaking meta-analyses
3. Addressing reporting biases
4. Presenting results and “summary of findings” tables
5. Interpreting results and drawing conclusions

Your Navy report dose exactly NONE of these and is older than I am. Therefore it is CRAP and not admissible as evidence. As a concession I will let you throw out the ICNIRP study…30 to go

Oh come on!!! “Ask any mom. If one study shows harm, it negates the claims of safety all of the others.” Ask any mom, ask any mom??? About how to interpret scientific studies??? You have got to be kidding, even you can’t believe that. Ask a research scientist and they will explain to you that yea, it can negate them. I feel that we’ve been over this before…

Yup, Parents deserve the truth and not intimidation through fear mongering.

Oh, I asked my child’s mom and she says your wrong. So I guess you can’t ask just any mom.

Come on 3 down, 30 to go, so far I’m at 90%
Let me give some direction lets go here next:

Recent Research on EMF and Health Risks; Sixth annual report from the Independent Expert Group
on Electromagnetic Fields, 2009
http://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/Allmanhet/

Sorry I lied:

2.32 Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR, 2009)
http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/

Most likely the school district spent all the money and energy into fighting the issue. It doesn’t matter what evidence is given to them. They will fight it tooth and nail.

Parents need to become educated. Look through the studies and ask yourself – how can research from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and laboratories all around the world show that wireless radiation causes extremely serious biological and health effects and for it to be considered safe?

The answer is that it can’t be safe; parents will recognize this when they examine the research, whereas entrenched school officials and their attack dogs will not.

Remember, there are many others before us who have determined that wireless radiation is unsafe, especially for children.

In 2013 The European Council The European Council has produced a report warning about the use of mobile phones and Wi-Fi and its harmful effects on children and babies. A committee has prepared a roadmap that includes a prohibition of this type of technology in schools and colleges in Europe, among other proposals.

In 2012 the Italian Supreme Court determined that cell phones can cause brain tumors. Why? Well because all long-term case control studies over 10 years show significant increases in cancer.

In 2011 the Council of Europe passed a resolution banning WiFi and cell phones from schools.

Many political organizations worldwide have begun to take steps to protect children from what clearly is a sigificant and unjustified health risk.

http://www.wifi-in-schools-australia.org/p/worldwide.html

It is not only absurd to expose children to levels of microwave radiation shown in countless studies to cause biological and health effects, it is unethical, immoral, and criminal.

Parents need to become educated, because the educators themselves have been bought and sold by the wireless industry and are misled by the notion that it is safe until their superiors tell them otherwise.

The fact of the matter is that there isn’t anyone above them who will, at least for decades to come, because of the immense power and profit possessed by this industry.

Parents need to take a stand. When that happens, Schulze will be taken out by the leash with his tail between his legs, followed by the cowering and complacent school board.

The Health Council of the Netherlands published an updated 124 page report (1st half Dutch, 2nd half English) dated Mar. 2009 on EMF and health. The following is a quote from the cover letter to the Minister: “… the Committee concludes that there is no scientific evidence that exposure to environmental levels of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields causes health problems.”

New Zealand Ministry of Health, National Radiation Laboratory (2007) Safety of Cell Phones

Latin American Expert Committee: Non-ionizing EMF and its Effects on Human Health 2010: P11 “The induction and promotion of tumors or blood neoplasms by RF exposure in animals as well as the appearance of cellular molecular predecessors of tumorigenesis, etc. has also been investigated. Despite using RF exposures, measured as specific absorption rates (SARs), far above those that people are normally exposed to, and in some cases exposures for the duration of the animal’s lifetime, about 93% of in vivo studies published since 1990 have shown no significant short or long-term effects. Further, the average survival of irradiated groups of animals was not affected in some 96% of studies.

April 2012 UK: The UK base Health Protection Agency has just released an exhaustive new 348 page expert report on the issue of EMF and Health. The report is entitled: Health Effects of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. The following is the key conclusion of the report: “The quantity, and in general quality, of research published on the potential health effects of RF field exposure has increased substantially since AGNIR last reviewed this subject. Population exposure to RF fields has become more widespread and heterogeneous. There are still limitations to the published research that preclude a definitive judgement, but the evidence considered overall has not demonstrated any adverse health effects of RF field exposure below internationally accepted guideline levels. There are possible effects on EEG patterns, but these have not been conclusively established, and it is unclear whether such effects would have any health consequences. There is increasing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels does not cause symptoms and cannot be detected by people, even by those who consider themselves sensitive to RF fields. The limited available data on other non-cancer outcomes show no effects of RF field exposure. The accumulating evidence on cancer risks, notably in relation to mobile phone use, is not definitive, but overall is increasingly in the direction of no material effect of exposure. There are few data, however, on risks beyond 15 years from first exposure.
In summary, although a substantial amount of research has been conducted in this area, there is no convincing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels causes health effects in adults or children”.

June 2012 Sweden: The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research has published a new report reviewing the past 10 years of research in the area of EMF and Health. The following quotes were taken from the Executive Summary:
“More than 15 provocation studies (single or double blind) have been conducted on symptoms attributed to exposure to RF fields. These studies have not been able to demonstrate that people experience symptoms or sensations more often when the fields are turned on than when they are turned off”.
And
“A considerable number of studies on cancer, and in particular brain tumor, were presented. As a consequence there exist now very useful data including methodological results that can be used in the interpretation of this research. With a small number of exceptions the available results are all negative and taken together with new methodological understandings the overall interpretation is that these do not provide support for an association between mobile telephony and brain tumor risk”.

Parents deserve quality information, not heavily biased industry-influenced reporting from a hack website. For the past several months we’ve been reading post after post by this R. Schulze individual. He’s been providing links to scientific reports claiming that EMR radiation is not a health issue.

Schulze has consistently refused to acknowledge any and all scientific evidence that reports EMR radiation to be harmful. He just pretends that it doesn’t exist, and instead refers us to links provided by a website called “EMF and Health”. This site is blatantly biased, and promotes a denialist perspective.

Well I did some digging on this website and learned founded by an electronics tycoon by the name of Lorne Trottier.

Trottier, who has deep ties to the wireless industry, financed an operation to public deny the hazards of EMR radiation and the validity of electro-sensitivity. He hired 60 academics, mostly from McGill University and Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, to which he has donated tens of millions of dollars.

Another of EMF and Health’s contributors is Michel Plante, a consultant for Hydro Quebec, one of the largest electrical utilities in Canada.
http://www.emfandhealth.com/About%20Us.html

Joe Schwarz of EMF and Health is also a known industry shill who not only defends the safety of EMF, but also the safety of Aspartame, pesticides, and GMO, etc, for companies the like of Monsanto. Schwartz is also the Director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society, which is “dedicated to demystifying science for the public”, and which receives millions in funding from the Lorne Trottier family trust.
http://alexconstantine.blogspot.ca/2007/08/by-alex-constantine-reposted-dr.html

Parents deserve to have high quality scientific information and should be warned that the pro-EMF site Schulze has been referring to is anything but independent science.

Wouldn’t usually go back that far but I guess up to 1972 is open.

NRPB, 1992: The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), an agency of the government of the United Kingdom, established an Advisory Group on Non-ionizing Radiation (AGNIR) that reviewed the published scientific literature on exposure to EMF and the risk of cancer. The AGNIR, chaired by the eminent epidemiologist Sir Richard Doll, concluded that there is no firm quantitative evidence of a carcinogenic hazard from EMF exposures for the general public and workers in the electrical, electronic and telecommunications industries (NRPB, 1992).

ICNIRP (1996) has also reviewed health issues related to mobile phone use and base transmitters. Among the conclusions in the report, the ICNIRP states that results of published epidemiological and laboratory studies relevant to cancer do not form an adequate basis for limiting human exposure to the energy associated with the use of wireless phones.

Eircell, 1998: An independent team of experts commissioned by Eircell telecommunications in Ireland concluded in their analysis of the current literature that there is at present no evidence for any detrimental effect of the RF from mobile phone base stations on health. They also stated,

“Unless studies of mobile telephone users show a significant risk of some ill effect, there could be little justification for expending enormous resources investigating the enormously lower radiation intensities from the base stations.”

Royal Society of Canada, 1999: An Expert Panel of the Society concluded:
“To date, human health studies have examined the relationship between exposure to radiofrequency fields and different types of cancer, reproductive problems, congenital anomalies, epilepsy, headache and suicide. Overall, these studies do not provide conclusive evidence of adverse health effects from radiofrequency exposure. However, given the limitations of the currently published studies in this area, particularly the difficulty in determining the precise nature of the exposure to radiofrequency fields that people have actually received, more research is required on radiofrequency field exposure and human health.”

Update to Royal Society of Canada Report (1999 – 2001), 2001: Potential health risks of radiofrequency fields from wireless telecommunication devices.

“…However, these additional study results are not sufficient to alter our original conclusion
that the epidemiologic evidence on potential health risks associated with RF field exposure is inadequate for a comprehensive evaluation of risk (cf. Ellwood, 1999), and that further studies addressing some of the limitations of studies to date, including limitations in exposure assessment, need to be carried out”.

NRPB Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR), 2003: This was a follow-up review to that by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. The AGNIR stated:
“In aggregate the research published since the IEGMP report does not give cause for concern. The weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse effects from exposures to RF fields below guideline levels, but the published research on RF exposures and health has limitations, and mobile phones have only been in widespread use for a relatively short time. The possibility therefore remains open that there could be health effects from exposure to RF fields below guideline levels; hence continued research is needed”.

Nordic competent authorities, 2004: The Danish national Board of Health, the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland, and the Radiation Protection authorities of Iceland, Norway, and Sweden issued a joint statement about cell phones and health. They stated:

“The Nordic authorities agree that there is no scientific evidence for any adverse health effects from mobile telecommunication systems, neither from the base stations nor from the handsets, below the basic restrictions and reference values recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). However, certain knowledge gaps exist that justifies more research in this field. There are a number of published reports suggesting that biological effects may occur at exposure levels below the ICNIRP guidelines. These studies need to be reproduced and the scientific progress in these fields of research should be followed carefully. In this context, however, it is important to note that biological effects do not necessarily imply health hazard”.

Statens strålskyddsinstitut (SSI) Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic fields, 2007: Recent Research on EMF and Health Risks. Fifth Annual Report

“A large number of in vitro studies have been published recently investigating various
outcomes, including effects on reactive oxygen species, genotoxicity, apoptosis, gene
expression, immunology, and enzyme activity. Most of these studies have not demonstrated effects of RF exposure on the studied outcomes”.

“Six recent studies on carcinogenicity, some with higher exposure levels than previously
used, consistently report lack of carcinogenic effects, and two studies on genotoxicity
report no increase in micronuclei or DNA strand breaks after RF exposure. These results
are consistent with the majority of previous studies”.

“Most recent volunteer studies have investigated the effects of GSM mobile phone RF
radiation on cognitive function, sleep, heart rate variability, blood pressure, and hypersensitivity. In general, the recent, methodologically more rigorous studies do not replicate the positive findings from smaller, less rigorous studies published a few years ago, but a few positive effects are reported”.

“Few new data on mobile phone use and brain tumour risk have been published during the last year. Two national Interphone publications are based on very small numbers and do not change the overall assessment, and two published meta-analyses provide little additional information”.

Schulze,

You just cited what the electronics industry said about EMF exposure in 1991.

Think for just a second about how irrelevant that is, even just based on the age. We are living in a radically different world, with exponentially higher levels of EMR radiation.

We’re not talking about Sony walkmans here, Schulze, we’re talking about pulse-modulated microwave radiation.

Parents deserve to hear quality guidance from scientific and medical experts. You continue to fail these parents by posting sources such as the electronics industry.

No problem, I understand, thanks. Hey the FJUHSD did delay for quite some time though. Kinda surprised me.

Yes, anecdotal personal stories where n=1, the solid basis of any good science.