Push too late and it won’t work.
Yes the R.’s have it but not for much longer. You know folks, I believe that the Fullerton School District parents and children deserve better than R. Schulze, the F.S.D.’s self proclaimed “attack dog of truth” in this fight, R. Pletka, the F.S.D.’s superintendent and what we believe to be his misleading safety assurances, and of course the slick moves of R. Craven, the soon to be ex F.S.D. technology director.
What we believe is on the line are your children’s reproductive and physical health, cognitive function and critical thinking skills’ development in that order.
There are clearly two sides to this debate. On one side it involves an entrenched trillion dollar industry involving companies like APPLE, CISCO, and GOOGLE with orders from The Executive Branch to roll this out, along with servile school administrators and staff who appear to be unable to wrap their arms around the other side of the story or simply refuse to expose themselves to it. On the other side of the aisle are thousands of peer reviewed articles and the scientists behind them, flanked by parents that simply see the forest for the trees, sound the alarm and say no. So the ten thousand dollar question is why do the teachers, board members, administrators, staff, PTA and foundations all appear to have blindfolds on and earplugs in? We now begin to peel back the layers of the proverbial onion for you.
This just came in from Ray, one of our commenters that dares to care and dares to tell it like it is. With his logging thousands of hours of research on this issue spanning over 20 years, and his flagship website WIFI IN SCHOOLS.COM , he writes:
“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/
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.
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.”
DON’T BANK YOUR FAMILY’S LINEAGE AND YOUR CHILDREN’S HEALTH ON EMPTY PROMISES BY THOSE WHO WILL LONG SINCE BE RETIRED IF IT TURNS OUT THAT WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ALL HAVE SKIN IN THIS GAME, AND THE REASON WE AT THE FULLERTON INFORMER DO IS SO THAT YOUR CHILDREN WON’T.
GET INFORMED AND GET INVOLVED.
#1 by Serena on September 17, 2013 - 2:41 pm
It is foolish to be ignoring all of the possibilities of harm to children. It is dangerous as well. There are two sides to the argument so why then is the district not exercising caution and going ahead with this? Who is this person? Does he work for the school district?
#2 by Anonymous on September 20, 2013 - 11:16 pm
This article should be read by all of you here.
http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall01.html
#3 by Angie B on September 21, 2013 - 8:42 am
Thanks for posting. The monied interests and power on the Tech side cannot be overstated.
I heard of one Ph.D. that spoke out publicly of the harms of wifi subsequently had his house burn down. Also, researchers have had their work destroyed and funding evaporated because their research produced results contrary to tech industry interests.
#4 by Ray on September 17, 2013 - 2:47 pm
WiFi emits levels of RF radiofrequency microwave radiation that are millions of times higher than anything our parents, grandparents, or other ancestors were ever exposed to. We are led to believe that it is low level radiation, but it is anything but low.
Our children are in the first generation ever to be exposed to high levels of microwave radiation all day, every day. This amounts to a giant experiment being carried out. Children are being exposed to more radiation than has ever been researched.
Meanwhile, there are, contrary to what you may hear in the news, literally thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies going back decades that report wireless radiation to be associated with a myriad of adverse biological and health effects, including cancer, DNA damage, leakage of the blood brain barrier, infertility, etc.
If thousands of peer reviewed studies show that wireless radiation is able to cause serious health effects in short periods of time, we suspect that the effects will be much more serious in twenty or thirty years. Scientists in the know warn that those who are exposed to this kind of radiation for decades will likely face severe deterioration in neurological and reproductive function. All for a technological novelty.
Keep in mind that this is simply about the use of WiFi. We can choose to hardwire the computers, and use cords for the internet, and our children will not be exposed to RF radiofrequency microwave radiation all day, every day.
Most parents are incredibly busy and don’t have hours, let alone days and weeks to investigate this issue in full. I advise that if you only have an hour or two to investigate this issue, that you invest your time into reading advisories by independent medical and scientific experts, many at the top of their fields, who warn that WiFi is a health hazard to children.
Independent Medical and Scientific Experts:
http://www.wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/scientists_and_medical_doctors.pdf
Barrie Trower, former Military Microwave Radiation Expert
http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/Humanity-at-the-Brink–Barrie-Trower,15,3333
Martha Herbert, MD, Harvard Medical School
http://www.wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/herbert_final_to_lausd.pdf
Martin Blank PhD, Columbia University
http://www.wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/martin_blank_lausd.pdf
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine
http://www.wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/aaem.pdf
UK Medical Doctors
http://www.wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/uk-doctors-letter-wifi-ssita-26-june-2013.pdf
Magda Havas, PhD
http://www.wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/havas_open-letter-wi-fi-schools-2013.pdf
Jeremiah Eckhaus, MD
http://www.wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/cvmc_open_letter_wifi_in_schools.pdf
#5 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 3:17 pm
EMF-NET: EFFECTS OF THE EXPOSURE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC
FIELDS: FROM SCIENCE TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFER WORKPLACE, November 2007: Report on the Effects on reproduction and development
“Overall, the literature indicates that exposure to low intensity fields, at levels experienced by members of the public, should not have a significant impact on fertility or on development either before or after birth. However, should exposure be sufficiently intense to raise tissue temperatures by a few degrees or more, or to increase core body temperature by more than about 1 0C, then the possibility of effects increases. Intense and prolonged exposure of pregnant animals to RF fields will induce a range of adverse effects that depend on the degree and duration of hyperthermia. These range from subtle behavioural changes, to retardation of fetal growth, gross morphological changes, and increased intrauterine deaths. Similarly, testicular temperatures in mammals are normal several degrees below that of the rest of the body, and exposure to heat (from RF fields or other sources) can induce temporary sterility. It is less clear whether synergistic effects occur with combined exposure to RF fields and other agents. Results suggest that complex interactions may occur but only using RF fields at hyperthermic levels”.
German Mobile Telecommunication Research Programme (DMF), May 2008: Statement by the German Commission on Radiological Protection (Strahlenschutzkommission – SSK)
“Although a final evaluation of the DMF is only possible when the studies still in progress have been completed, the findings available to date show that the initial fears of health risks could not be confirmed. Nor have the research findings of the DMF led to any new indications of health impacts that have not previously been considered. In agreement with other international bodies (WHO, ICNIRP) it can be stated that the protection concepts underlying the present basic restrictions are not challenged”.
National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health, BC Centre for Disease Control, Sept 2008: Cellular/Mobile Phone Use and Intracranial Tumours
“There is insufficient evidence to indicate a causal association between cell phone use and intracranial tumours. There is weak evidence supporting an increase in odds of glioma, acoustic neuroma, and meningioma in adults with regular, ipsilateral use for 10 years or longer. Existing findings are suggestive but preliminary because they are based on few studies with small numbers and potential biases”.
EMF-NET: EFFECTS OF THE EXPOSURE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC
FIELDS: FROM SCIENCE TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFER WORKPLACE, October 2008: Report estimating upper and lower bounds of probabilities of occurrence of possible health effects.
“The possibility of the exposure to low level EM fields having hazardous effects on human health is to date a topic of concern. In the last years different specific mechanisms have been proposed to explain possible interaction between electric, magnetic or EM fields and living matter, at different levels of biological complexity. In particular, at molecular level, models have been developed able to face the problem of overcoming local water viscosity and thermal agitation. Among them, the most plausible one is the action of magnetic field on RP recombination, since the spins of radicals are very weakly coupled to the thermal bath and thus sensitive even to low intensity fields. At higher complexity levels concepts as nonlinearity, stochastic resonance, cooperative actions, spatial and temporal integration of biological responses have been invoked to account for the possibility of weak signals to be detect by membranes, cells and network of cells. However, in spite of the great number of proposed models, there is not yet a specific mechanism able to link the action of the EM field at different complexity levels, from the first interaction step, at molecular level, up to some adverse effects on organism health. Therefore, except for the thermal effects, present knowledge does not allow quantification of a threshold value for the field, below which the probability of occurrence of health effects is negligible. In this context, further research work, including both theoretical and experimental activities, seems to be necessary”.
EMF-NET: EFFECTS OF THE EXPOSURE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC
FIELDS: FROM SCIENCE TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFER WORKPLACE, October 2008: Status report on relevant risk communication initiatives and regulatory harmonization in the EU
“There is no common approach to EMF risk communication that will satisfy all stakeholders. This makes the position of responsible authorities even more challenging when protecting the health of the public, and responding at the same time to public demands for more information, education, measurement and participation concerning these matters. Essential evidence-based information and best practice advice is provided by National scientific institutes, the WHO, and other competent international scientific institutions. The greatest difficulty, however, is that often the majority of the public does not take part in the communication process. So letting aside some highly motivated concerned citizens and action groups, which usually have their own made up opinions, we are left with an apparently silent majority”.
EMF-NET: EFFECTS OF THE EXPOSURE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC
FIELDS: FROM SCIENCE TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFER WORKPLACE, October 2008: Report estimating approximate upper and lower bounds on ‘cost/benefit ratios’ for the services provided.
“To date, a debate is still open in the scientific community about possible health effects due to non-thermal or specific mechanisms of interaction with low level EM field. As discussed in D42, present knowledge does not allow us to quantify a threshold below guidelines, above which the EM field could induce adverse biological effects. As an example, a recent study [44] on the binding process of the carbon monoxide to the myoglobin under a 1 GHz microwave field indicates alterations in the biochemical process only for E field intensities comparable with the atomic/molecular ones, well above any possible value induced by the environmental fields. Therefore, to date, a cost/benefit analysis for the services provided seems to be unnecessary. However, although it has not been established that any of proposed specific mechanism could result in adverse health effects at levels below guidelines, one cannot conclude that long term effects will not be seen. Therefore, in depth investigation on specific mechanisms is advisable, in order to reconstruct the whole chain of effect, from the “first interaction step” at molecular level up the whole organism behavior”.
Scientific Advisory Committee on Radiofrequency Fields and Health (CCRAS) Spain, Jan 2009: CCSAR’s report on radiofrequency fields and health (2007-2008).
“The exposure levels of Spaniards to MT RFs are extremely low…RFs are not considered a causal factor of the symptoms of persons who claim to be hypersensitive…the use and exposure of adult individuals to waves from mobile telephones over a period of less than 10 years is not associated with an increase in the number of brain tumours… as a whole, the national and international committees for protection against RF waves unanimously conclude that recent scientific/technical breakthroughs do not justify changes in the present RF benchmark levels and exposure limits for the public and for workers”.
Update to Royal Society of Canada Report (2004 – 2007), 2009: Recent advances in research on radiofrequency fields and health.
“At present, the results from epidemiologic studies do not provide sufficient evidence to support a clear association between mobile phone use and an increased risk of head and neck benign tumors… Animal carcinogenesis studies conducted to date (Table 2) provide no convincing evidence that nonthermal RF field exposures either cause or contribute to cancer, although some studies suggest the possibility for low-level exposures to increase the risk of cancer”.
Statens strålskyddsinstitut (SSI), Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields 2009: Recent Research on EMF and Health Risks. Sixth annual report.
“A large number of cell studies are done on both genotoxic and non-genotoxic outcomes,
such as apoptosis and gene expression. There are no new positive findings from cellular
studies that have been well established in terms of experimental quality and replication”.
“…animal studies have not identified any clear effects on any of a number of different biological endpoints following exposure to RF radiation typical of mobile phone use, generally at levels too low to induce significant heating”.
“Many human laboratory studies reviewed here are provocation studies with rather short exposures. Most use methods that are too crude, or look at phenomena that are too small, or non-existent, for the research to be informative”.
“Several epidemiological studies on mobile phone use and cancer have been presented since the previous report, including national studies from the Interphone group as well as other studies. There are also studies on reproductive outcomes. A few recent studies on people living near transmitters have also appeared. None of this changes any of the Groups previous conclusions”.
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, 2009: Review of the scientific evidence on dosimetry, biological effects, epidemiological observations, and health consequences concerning exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz).
Overall, it is concluded that:
“The mechanisms by which RF exposure heats biological tissue are well understood and the most marked and consistent effect of RF exposure is that of heating, resulting in a number of heat-related physiological and pathological responses in human subjects and laboratory animals. Heating also remains a potential confounder in in vitro studies and may account for some of the positive effects reported”.
”Recent concern has been more with exposure to the lower level RF radiation characteristic of mobile phone use. Whilst it is in principle impossible to disprove the possible existence of non-thermal interactions, the plausibility of various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low”.
“Concerning cancer-related effects, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and
carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at SAR levels up to 4 W kg-1. With regard to in vitro studies of RF effects on non-genotoxic end-points such as cell signaling and gene/protein expression, the results are more equivocal, but the magnitudes of the reported RF radiation induced changes are very small and of limited functional consequence. The results of studies on cell proliferation and differentiation, apoptosis and cell transformation are mostly negative”.
“There is some evidence of small changes in brain physiology, notably on spontaneous EEG, and somewhat more variable evidence of changes in sleep EEG and regional cerebral blood flow but these may be of limited functional consequence; no changes were seen in cognitive function. With regard to more general physiological end-points, the evidence suggests that there are no consistent effects of non-thermal RF exposures on cardiovascular physiology, circulating hormone levels or on auditory or vestibular function, except for the auditory perception of pulsed RF such as that characteristic of radar”.
“The evidence from double-blind provocation studies suggests that subjective symptoms, such as headaches, that have been identified by some individuals as associated with RF exposure, whilst real enough to the individuals concerned, are not causally related to EMF exposure”. “The experimental data do not suggest so far that children are more susceptible than adults to RF radiation, but few relevant studies have been conducted”.
“Studies of the effects of RF modalities such as high peak power pulses have been somewhat diverse and sporadic; no effects have been seen other than those associated with heating and with acoustic perception”.
“Results of epidemiological studies to date give no consistent or convincing evidence of a causal relation between RF exposure and any adverse health effect”.
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection DG, Jan 2009: Health Effects of Exposure to EMF
“The question receiving most attention is whether RF field exposure is involved in
carcinogenesis. The previous opinion stated that, based on epidemiological findings,
mobile phone use for less than ten years is not associated with cancer incidence.
Regarding longer use, it was deemed difficult to make an estimate since few persons had used mobile phones for more than ten years. Since then, a few additional epidemiological studies have been published. Unfortunately they do not significantly extend the exposure period. These studies do not change this assessment”.
“New improved studies on the association between RF fields from broadcast transmitters and childhood cancer provide evidence against such an association”.
“Animal studies show that RF fields similar to those from mobile phones, alone or in
combination with known carcinogenic factors, are not carcinogenic in laboratory rodents. Certain studies have also employed higher exposure levels (up to 4 W/kg), still with no apparent effects on tumor development”.
“Furthermore, the in vitro studies regarding genotoxicity fail to provide evidence for an involvement of RF field exposure in DNA-damage”.
“It is concluded from three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, animal and in vitro studies) that exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans. However, as the widespread duration of exposure of humans to RF fields from mobile phones is shorter than the induction time of some cancers, further studies are required to identify whether considerably longer-term (well beyond ten years) human exposure to such phones might pose some cancer risk”.
“Regarding non-carcinogenic outcomes, …the conclusion that scientific studies have failed to provide support for an effect of RF fields on self-reported symptoms still holds”.
“Recent studies have not shown effects from RF fields on human or animal reproduction and development. No new data have appeared that indicate any other effects on human health”.
“From the risk assessment perspective it is important to recognise that information on possible effects caused by RF fields in children is limited. Furthermore, there is a lack of information on diseases other than those discussed in this report”.
Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich Gesundheit, Sep 2009: Report Health 16, Children’s health and RF EMF exposure
“For children under 8 years no conclusive evidence exists for the assumption that the SAR level in children’s head is higher than for adults. For whole body exposure, there is some evidence that the ICNIRP reference level cannot ensure that basic restrictions are not exceeded under any circumstances… Overall, the review of the existing scientific literature does not support the assumption that children’s health is affected by RF EMF exposure from mobile phones or base stations. Especially, animal research provides no substantial argument that children are at risk. However, with respect to some endpoints in human risk assessment, in particular cognitive effects and general health disturbances, the available evidence is rather limited so that no firm conclusions can be drawn… The balance of evidence of studies on human does not indicate an evaluated risk of RF EMF exposure for children’s health… The available data from animal experiments do not indicate that younger animals are at risk, when exposed to RF electromagnetic fields at relevant exposure scenarios… Nearly all studies concerning offspring do not suggest any significant threat to the development of offspring when exposed to non-thermal RF levels… The weight of evidence solidly refutes the assumption that RF EMF exposure causes effects on the permeability of the blood brain barrier and nerve cell damage in young animals”.
French Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (Afsset), Oct 2009: Report on expert update related to radiofrequency fields, Collective Working Group on Radiofrequency fields
More than 1,000 studies were reviewed by Afsset, including studies on mobile phones, Wi-Fi emitters, microwave ovens, cordless home phones and other devices that use frequencies of between 9 kilohertz (kHz) and 300 gigahertz (GHz). Most of the studies did not show any negative effects but some studies at high exposure levels did indicate possible health effects such as cell damage, reduced male fertility, and a lower blood flow to the brain.
A joint statement from the Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities, Nov 2009: EXPOSURE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS
“The Nordic authorities agree that there is no scientific evidence for adverse health effects caused by radiofrequency field strengths in the normal living environment at present. This conclusion concurs with the opinion of international scientific and advisory bodies listed as references below [ICNIRP, 1998 and 2009; WHO, 2005 and 2006; SCENIHR 2009; SSI`s Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields, 2007]. The Nordic authorities therefore at present see no need for a common recommendation for further actions to reduce these radiofrequency fields”.
European Health Risk Assessment Network on Electromagnetic Fields Exposure
EFHRAN, July 2010: Report on the analysis of risks associated to exposure to EMF: in vitro and in vivo (animals) studies
“For the three frequency ranges examined, the conclusions of the 2009 SCENIHR report are still valid in spite of the publication of several positive findings. Many of the new publications originate from laboratories and countries that are new to bioelectromagnetics research. This translates sometimes into unsatisfactory dosimetry or statistical analysis. Health risk assessment to be performed in the coming years (e.g., WHO EMF project) will need to be carried out with strict quality criteria”.
#6 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 8:43 pm
Yes for 50 years the combustion products of a chemistry set called tobacco smoke went from being prescribed as therapeutic, to being called an irritant, to being suspected of being a possible carcinogen, to being determined to cause cancer, and now in many instances close to being illegal.
#7 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 2:32 pm
Yup, the first radio broadcast, and there for significant RF field exposure happened in 1906. That’s 107 years of RF exposure and after that time EMF has, aggressively, been classified as 2B. It only took 50 years to figure out tobacco was carcinogenic (class 1) so something doesn’t make sense here. Interesting by the way that smoking seems to reduce the risk of endometrial cancer though.. by like 30% or so
#8 by Serena on September 17, 2013 - 5:01 pm
I get the fact that there is a possibility of danger. Given there are two sides, why are there those that argue that it is wise to risk it? I don’t get it one bit. This is not that necessary is it?
#9 by why? on September 17, 2013 - 9:40 pm
It is dumbfounding and incomprehensible that those entrusted with our children’s safety are making the decision for us to have our children exposed to wireless radiation. The technology can be accessed via hardwires, so why risk our children’s health? Nothing is that necessary, but especially when a wired alternative is available.
I guess jobs are on the line and wireless technology wins. This is really insane.
#10 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 10:32 pm
The only thing that is really on the line is the children’s future. The reality is that if people begin to accept what is asserted here,then that translates into the need for action, action to stand up against the government agencies, the spouse, the kids, the boss, the preschool directors, the day care providers, the school officials, the college school officials, employers, hospitals, city council members, legislators, and even extended family, friends and neighbors. It is no wonder there isn’t a line a mile long with me at the school board meetings. Yes it requires courage to stand up against what is aimed at all of your kids. It is a much easier choice to therefore keep calling me a loon, denying what to me is the obvious and going along with the plan instead of laying it on the line for your lineage.
If this makes you feel uncomfortable it is because it should.
#11 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 3:16 pm
YELLOW FLAG!! Ad Hominem attack!!. Logical foul, back 10 IQ points. First down, no more attacking the messenger lets attack the message please. Willing to concede the messenger is Satan, move on.
#12 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 3:19 pm
Still waiting for those studies, 1600 to go…..
#13 by Ray on September 18, 2013 - 5:05 am
Weeks ago you were given over 2000 peer reviewed studies showing that wireless radiation caused biological and health effects, including DNA damage, reproductive damage, damage to the brain, damage to the heart, damage to the neurological system, and many other impacts.
#14 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 2:14 pm
I explained why what I was given was crap and generously gave you credit for 400 of those studies named in the Navy paper. In discussion with others I have been admonished for being to generous but whatever. The fact is that you have ZERO studies, that’s right, not one study that shows harm from children using iPads at Acacia School. So, 1600 to go.. or I’ll take one study done on WiFi exposure in Acacia Elementary (double blinded, peer reviewed and published please). You’ll see where I’m going with this…
#15 by Ray on September 19, 2013 - 2:42 pm
You must really have an inflated sense of self to feel that you are somehow superior to the scientists who conducted that report, or any of the other reports I gave you, including the bibliography of the Bioinitiative Report 2007, 2012.
Together, you have been presented with over 3,000 peer reviewed studies showing that wireless radiation causes biological and health effects, including DNA damage, cancer, damage to the reproductive system, and infertility.
#16 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 4:07 pm
Joe:
Just a side line here, if you’re willing to be honest. Is Acacia your home school or do you have to fill out paperwork every year specifically requesting that your children be allowed to attend Acacia? I’m sure you see where I’m going with this but I’m just readying my Ad Hominem attack just in case.
#17 by Joe Imbriano on September 17, 2013 - 8:31 pm
We are in there on an inter district transfer from Raymond renewable every year. Raymond is WiFi’d up too with 1:1 coming soon there too.
#18 by Schulzee on September 17, 2013 - 4:12 pm
Never mind, don’t answer that, I realize it’s a “Fangfrage”.
#19 by Anonymous on September 17, 2013 - 6:11 pm
I don’t know who is the bigger crackpot-you or Schulze. You guys need to give it a break. Who the heck is reading all this crap anyway. Get with the program. It is called technology. Go move to the hills and go milk some cows.
#20 by Ray on September 18, 2013 - 5:03 am
There are times when technological “progress” has lead to innovations later determined to be harmful. For example, back in the 1950’s, local municipalities used to spray DDT down neighborhood streets from the back of large trucks.
Other examples are asbestos, thalidomide, tobacco, etc. Now is it microwave radiation.
I will not allow my child to be exposed to these technological innovations just so that you can look the other way.
#21 by mom1 on September 18, 2013 - 12:32 pm
I’m with you, Ray.
#22 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 2:18 pm
Wow, I like your idea but honestly, I’d rather take my chances with WiFi than raw milk.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm079516.htm
#23 by Anonymous on September 17, 2013 - 10:32 pm
“Ban mobile phones and wireless networks in schools, say European leaders”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/8514380/Ban-mobile-phones-and-wireless-networks-in-schools-say-European-leaders.html
#24 by Anonymous on September 17, 2013 - 10:36 pm
Here are some schools that have banned wifi:
Switzerland http://prd34.blogspot.ca/2013/07/switzerland-teachers-vote-to-keep-wi-fi.html
Brittish Columbia http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/206826071.html
Ontario, Canada
http://digitaljournal.com/pr/448529
#25 by Ray on September 18, 2013 - 8:53 am
Over the last several years there have been a large number of scientific papers published that report, with much greater clarity, that RF microwave radiation causes serious health impacts. The last group to recognize this will of course be representatives and or proponents of the wireless industry.
On the other hand, the first to accept this change in scientific understanding are often medical doctors, as many are seeing, first hand, the effects of wireless radiation as more and more of their patients are becoming ill.
In 2012 the American Academy of Environmental Medicine stepped forward and appealed to LAUSD schools to not go ahead with the installation of wireless technology.
In this appeal they stated:
“While technicians and sales staff argue about the validity of the dangers posed by cell towers, cell phones, WiFi and other forms of wireless radiation, it is the doctors who must deal with the fall out.”
“Adverse health effects from wireless radio frequency fields, such as learning disabilities, altered immune responses, and headaches, clearly exist and are well documented in the scientific literature. Safer technology, such as use of hardwiring, is strongly recommended in schools.”
http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/uploads/scribd/American%20Academy%20of%20Environmental%20Medicine_LettertoLAUSD_March%2019%202013.pdf
#26 by Ray on September 18, 2013 - 9:28 am
When a person first approaches the issue of wireless health impacts, the first thing to understand is that there are two sides. On one side is the tremendously powerful and influential wireless industry, who in the U.S. actually has more lobbying power than big pharma.
One the other side are independent doctors and scientists, many who are experts in their field, who have nothing to gain other than to promote awareness and to protect society.
Just this year, in June of 2013, one such group of physicians from Oregon, concerned for the health of their patients, and their community, conducted a sixteen month investigation of the scientific literature and presented an 85 page paper on the health impacts of wireless technology. The report was designed to educate their community of the hazards of smart meters, although the information contained within is absolutely relevant to WiFi and other wireless devices.
In this paper, this group of physicians walks you through the state of the science, with special focus on electrohypersensitivity, an emerging public health issue facing 5% or more of the world today. This means one in twenty of all community members, including children, have a sensitivity to high frequency microwave radiation. They experience such impacts as headaches, nose bleeds, hair loss, difficulty sleeping, inability to concentrate, depression, anxiety, skin rashes, and other symptoms when exposed to wireless devices such as WiFI.
Also included in the study are sections on how RF radiation causes oxidative stress and damage to DNA, including such studies as Avendano 2012 which reported DNA damage from WiFi laptops in just 4 hours of exposure.
There is also a section on the current research on cell phone use and brain tumors. It explains the results of the large-scale INTERPHONE study, a 13 nation project that officially reported no increased risk of brain cancer. What is important to understand is that this study defined a member of the risk group as any subject who “had an average of at least on call per week for a period of 6 months.”
Buried in the fine print, however, it showed that those who used a cell phone for over 1640 hours over a 1 to 4 year interval (over 8 hours a week), had a markedly higher odds ratio – their increased risk of a brain tumor was actually 400%.
Here is the link to this report from the group of physicians from Oregon, presented in 2013.
http://www.national-toxic-encephalopathy-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Biological_and_Health_Effects_of_Microwave_Radio_Frequency_Transmissions.pdf
#27 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 5:16 pm
Now this Interphone study and your interpretation of it are interesting. Now I have only reviewed a summary of the study, not the study itself, so I will have to do that.
Now, the data I have shows an OR for the heaviest users (>1640 hours) of 2.79 for Schwannoma and 1.40 for Glioma. However for those in the usage category below that (735-1639.9 hours) the OR are 0.60 and 0.71 respectively. This means that those users had a 40% and 29% LOWER risk of those cancers than NON-users. Now if you can explain how cell phone use decreases the risk of cancer we have a good discussion.
I just don’t know why you would leave those facts out of your comments…. oh, wait. I think I may know why…
( Now I did not find the OR of 4.00 (400%) you mentioned and I’m hoping that I have bad data as opposed to you being disingenuous so I need to go back and read the actual study. I may owe you an apology )
#28 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 5:29 pm
Still not finding the study in its entirety but there’s this:
Glioma and meningioma A reduced odds ratio (OR) related to ever having been a regular mobile phone user was seen for glioma [OR 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70–0.94] and meningioma (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68–0.91), possibly reflecting participation bias or other methodological limitations. No elevated OR was observed ≥10 years after first phone use (glioma: OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.76-1.26; meningioma: OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.61-1.14). ORs were <1.0 for all deciles of lifetime number of phone calls and nine deciles of cumulative call time. In the 10 th decile of recalled cumulative call time, ≥1640h, the OR was 1.40 (95% CI 1.03–1.89) for glioma, and 1.15 (95% CI 0.81–1.62) for meningioma;
Acoustic neuroma The odds ratio (OR) of acoustic neuroma with ever having been a regular mobile phone user was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.69-1.04). The OR for ≥10 years after first regular mobile phone use was 0.76 (0.52-1.11). There was no trend of increasing ORs with increasing cumulative call time or cumulative number of calls, with the lowest OR (0.48 (0.30‐0.78)) observed in the 9th decile of cumulative call time. In the 10th decile (≥1640 hours) of cumulative call time, the OR was 1.32 (0.88-1.97); there were, however, implausible values of reported use in those with ≥1640 hours of accumulated mobile phone use. With censoring at 5 years before the reference date the OR for ≥10 years after first regular mobile phone use was 0.83 (0.58-1.19) and for ≥1640 hours of cumulative call time it was 2.79 (1.51-5.16), but again with no trend in the lower nine deciles and with the lowest OR in the 9th decile. In general, ORs were not greater in subjects who reported usual phone use on the same side of the head as their tumour than in those who reported it on the opposite side, but it was greater in those in the 10th decile of cumulative hours of use.
Now themes a lot of complicated words but still no OR of 4.00….
#29 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 5:35 pm
Now here’s another summary of it, still no 4.00:
http://www.rfcom.ca/programs/interphone.shtml
I’m going to consider my due diligence done. Let me know if you find anything else.
#30 by Its totally safe for the children on September 18, 2013 - 5:49 pm
Apple’s product information states that the iPad emits more radiation than the iPhone.
http://manuals.info.apple.com/MANUALS/1000/MA1524/en_US/iPad_Important_Product_Information_Guide.pdf
“Its totally safe for the children”
#31 by Schulze on September 18, 2013 - 6:05 pm
Who are you quoting? Water isn’t totally safe for children, neither is sun or air.
#32 by Ray on September 19, 2013 - 1:08 pm
The INTERPHONE Study, which was a 13 nation, large scale report on long-term cell use, officially reported no increase in brain cancer from mobile phone use unless:
a. There was over 10 years of use.
b. There was over 1650 hours of use.
It is widely known that brain tumors take time to develop, so it is expected that you would not detect a brain tumor until after at least 10 years of use.
According to the official IARC statement, those that used a cell phone for greater than 1640 hours of use, had an OR for a glioma tumor of 1.40 and 1.15 for a meningioma tumor
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2010/pdfs/pr200_E.pdf
(An OR of 1.40 means an increased risk of 40% for developing a glioma tumor after more than 1640 hours of use.)
This is the public version.
#33 by Ray on September 19, 2013 - 1:16 pm
According to the 2013 document “Biological and Health Effects of Microwave Radio Frequency Transmissions, a Review of the Research Literature”,
“Individuals who accrued that greater than 1650 hours of use over a 1 to 4 year interval (ranging from 8 to over 30 hours a week) had a markedly higher odds ratio of meningioma (OR 4.80) or glioma (OR 3.27).”
This means that according to the INTERPHONE study, which was a 13 nation, large scale study, those who used a cell phone for at least 8 hours a week had a 380% increased risk of brain tumor.
http://www.national-toxic-encephalopathy-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Biological_and_Health_Effects_of_Microwave_Radio_Frequency_Transmissions.pdf
#34 by Ray on September 19, 2013 - 1:22 pm
Als, according to the above research paper,
A more recent study from the INTERPHONE group found an increased risk for acoustic neuroma in individuals with greater than 1640 hours of talk time over up to 5 years of exposure had an OR of 2.79, meaning a 179% increased risk.
For those subjects who routinely used their cell phone on the same side of the head where they had the acoustic neuroma, the odds ratio was 3.74, meaning a 274% increased risk of developing a tumor on the nerve that connects the ear to the brain.
#35 by Ray on September 19, 2013 - 2:09 pm
Flaws of the INTERPHONE Study
So now let’s go a little bit deeper into this $30 million telecom-funded study.
Schulze asked how could this study report that cell phones reduce the risk of brain tumors, meaning that cell phones actually protect you from brain cancer.
There are very clear reasons for this, as the INTERPHONE study has been widely criticized as having methodological and design errors that result in a drastic underestimation of risk.
Reason #1: Selection Bias.
In a case–control cellphone study both brain tumor cases and controls without a brain tumor
are asked if they would like to participate in a “cellphone study.” It is reasonable to assume
controls who use a cellphone are more likely to participate than controls who do not use a
cellphone. This would result in selection bias. And, such selection bias would result in an
underestimation of risk.
The impact of selection bias increases as the percentage of controls that refuse to participate
increases. The Interphone weighted-average refusal rate for controls was a remarkably high
41%. [1] Dr. Sam Milham, an occupational epidemiologist with over 100 published papers,
states that, in the past, science journals would not accept a study with such a high refusal
rate. [2]
One Interphone study investigated the possibility of selection bias by asking controls that
refused participation if they used a cellphone; 34% said they used a cellphone and 59% said
they did not use a cellphone, confirming selection bias in that Interphone study. [3]
INTERPHONE researchers admit that there is a selection bias, and states that it represents 10% of the underestimation of risk.
Source: Cellphones and Brain Tumors, 15 Reasons for Concern:
http://electromagnetichealth.org/pdf/Cellphones%20and%20BT-15%20Reasons-for-Concern-USA1s.pdf
#36 by Ray on September 19, 2013 - 2:14 pm
Flaw 2: Insufficient Latency Time
The known latency time (the time between exposure and diagnosis) for brain tumors is 30+
years [4], similar to lung cancer from smoking, [5] and mesothelioma from asbestos exposure. [6]
An ICNIRP study states, “Most types of cancer occur many years, or even decades, after initial
exposure to known carcinogens.” [7] Yet, they also note, “However, the important issue is not
how long it takes for maximum risk to occur, but how long before detectable risk is present.
Even for asbestos, a carcinogen that has a notoriously long induction period, detectable
elevations in risk occur 10–14 years after first exposure,” [7]
Ten or more years was the longest cellphone use time reported in the Interphone studies.
Three of the 11 single country Interphone studies had very few people who had used a
cellphone for more than ten years and had no brain tumor cases among these people, and 3 of
the remaining 8 studies had less than 10 cases. Not including sufficient numbers of longer term
cellphone users results in an underestimation of risk.
#37 by Ray on September 19, 2013 - 2:16 pm
Flaw 3: Definition of “Regular” Cellphone User
The Interphone Protocol defines “regular” cellphone use, as use for at least once a week, for 6
months or more, with any cellphone use 1 year prior to diagnosis (Dx) excluded. Based on UK
cellphone subscriber data, [8] and the UK study’s Dx eligibility dates [9], the rapid rise of
cellphone subscribers finds 85% of “regular” UK users had used a cellphone for less than 5
years; 98% of “regular” UK users had used a cellphone for less than 10 years (all Interphone
countries had similar rapid increases in cellphone users). See Figure 1: UK Cellphone
Subscribers by Year.
Given known latency times how could any risk of brain tumors be expected for “regular”
users? Inclusion of such a large proportion of short-term users (use for at least once a week, for
6 months or more) underestimates the risk of brain tumors.
Dr. Elizabeth Cardis, the head of the Interphone study stated, “Reporting ‘regular’ user [data]
was not intended to be a risk factor.” [10] Yet, the abstract of every Interphone brain tumor
study highlights that there is “no risk” of brain tumors from “regular” cellphone use.
#38 by Ray on September 19, 2013 - 2:19 pm
Flaw 4: Exclusion of Young Adults and Children from the Interphone Study
The Interphone Protocol requires subjects to be between 30 and 59 years of age (some studies
have included ages as low as 20). There is strong evidence that the young adults and children
are at greater risk from exposure to carcinogens than mature adults suggesting that the young,
with greater cell growth, are more vulnerable to genetic mutations.
Two cellphone studies report higher brain tumor risks in young adults (20–29 years of age)
compared to mature adults. The first study found a 717% increased risk of brain tumor
compared to a 35% increased risk for all adults using an analog cellphone and the second
study found a 217% increased risk of brain tumor [ compared to 26% to 84% increased risk in
older adults
An ionizing radiation brain tumor study of children found the younger a child’s age,
the greater the increased risk of brain tumors (356% increased risk/Gy12 of brain tumors for
children less than 5 years of age; 224%% increased risk/Gy for children 5 to 9 years of age,
and; 47% increased/Gy risk for children 10 or more years
Exclusion of children and young adults underestimates the risk of brain tumor
#39 by Ray on September 19, 2013 - 2:22 pm
Flaw 5: Brain Tumor Risk from Cellphones Radiating Higher Power in Rural Areas Were Not Investigated
Flaw 7: Exclusion of Brain Tumor Types
Flaw 8: Tumors Outside the Cellphone’s Radiation Plume Are Treated as
Exposed
Flaw 9: Exclusion of Brain Tumor Cases Because of Death or Too Ill to Respond
Flaw 10: Recall Accuracy of Cellphone Use
Flaw 11: Funding Bias
http://electromagnetichealth.org/pdf/Cellphones%20and%20BT-15%20Reasons-for-Concern-USA1s.pdf
#40 by Ray on September 19, 2013 - 2:49 pm
To me, the largest flaw in the INTERPHONE study is Flaw #6:
Exposure to Other Transmitting Sources Are Not Considered
Subjects who used cordless phones, walkie-talkies, Ham radio transmitters, etc., and who did
not use a cellphone, are treated as unexposed in the Interphone study when in fact they are
exposed to radiation quite similar to cellphone radiation.
It is important to note that two independently funded cellphone studies found that use of a
cordless phone results in an increased risk of brain tumors. Treating exposed subjects as
unexposed, once again, underestimates the risk of brain tumors.
The existence of Flaw 6 is perhaps the most egregious example of either ignorance by the
authors of the Interphone Protocol,13 or a conscious attempt to downplay a discovery of a risk.
DECT cordless phones are based on GSM cellphone technology.
The unpublished portion of the Interphone Protocol requires asking subjects if they use a cordless phone. Yet cordless phone use was not analyzed.
#41 by Ray on September 19, 2013 - 3:12 pm
So let’s recap.
The INTERPHONE study found that those who used a cell phone over 10 years, or 1650 hours had a significantly increased risk of brain tumors.
The increased risk for brain tumors from this massive research project was over 200%.
Further, the INTERPHONE study was criticized for having serious methodological and design flaws, which would lead to a significant underestimation of risk.
Now, let’s talk about children’s absorption of RF radiation. It is widely understood that children absorb much more radiation than adults.
According to a study published in 2012, the specific absorption rate for a 10 year old child is 153% higher than for adults, and when electrical properties are considered, the child’s head absorption can be over 2 times greater, and absorption of the skull’s bone marrow can be ten times greater than adults.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21999884
Of course the INTERPHONE study did not investigate the effects on children, however other independent research did, and found, quite expectedly, an increased risk of over 400% for those who started using a cell phone under the age of 19.
#42 by Ray on September 19, 2013 - 4:50 pm
Ok folks, this is a very long post:
Ok, so what we know from the 2010 INTERPHONE study, ($30 million, 13 nation research project) is that using a cell phone for over 10 years or 1650 hours leads to significantly increased risk of brain tumors, namely a doubling or more of brain tumors.
Let’s apply this and other updated scientific knowledge to this list of “Expert Reviews” that Schulze has been waving around:
#1. ICNIRP
“Also recent epidemiological investigations (e.g., in 2009 already available results from the interphone study) were considered as being indicative for the absence of cancer risk from mobile phones.”
We now know this is no longer accurate. This review is thus invalidated.
#2. SHENIHR 2009.
“The summary and conclusions of the SCENIHR (2009) report were that it is unlikely that radiofrequency radiation is carcinogenic although further studies on long-term cancer effects are needed due to the long latency period for most brain tumours.”
We now know that this is no longer accurate. This review is thus invalidated.
#3 Dutch Health Council 2008.
“The Health Council’s conclusion was that effects on brain function were described in some papers but that there were no indications that they might be hazardous.”
We now know that this is false. Brain tumors are hazardous. This review is thus invalidated.
#4 Swedish Radiation Protection Agency 2009. (SSI)
The SSI furthermore concluded that there are no indications of an increased cancer risk in mobile phone users (up to 10 years of exposure to mobile phone radiation).
Given that it is widely understood that it generally takes over 10 years for brain tumors to develop from mobile phones, this statement is irrelevant. This review is thus invalidated.
#5 EFRAN
“Inadequate evidence from cancer studies in humans”
We now know that this is no longer accurate. This review is thus invalidated.
#6 Latin American Expert Committee 2010
“There were no indications of effects from mobile phone radiation on well being.”
Although that may be the case in Latin America, that is not the case with INTERPHONE.
This review has thus been invalidated.
#7 Bioinitiative Report 2007, 2012
“According to the report it is obvious that exposure to the electromagnetic fields constitute an important health risk for humans.”
This remains valid. A doubling of brain tumor risk in adults is an important health risk.
#8 AFSSET Report 2010
“According to the AFFSET report there are no indications for short or long term adverse
health effects as a result of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.”
We now know that this is no longer accurate. This review is thus invalidated.
#9 IARC 2011
The working group concluded that there is evidence carcinogenicity of radiofrequency radiation to humans. This report remains valid.
#10 French National Academy of Medicine 2009
“No mechanism is known through which electromagnetic fields in the range of energies and frequencies used for mobile communication could have a negative effect on health.”
This is irrevelvant for us to not know the exact mechanisms by which these effects occur. First we get the data (which INTERPHONE showed us) and then decades or centuries later we understand the mechanisms. This review is thus invalidated.
#12 “The National Academy of Medicine, the Academy of Science and the Academy of
Technologies deplore the conclusions drawn by AFSSET from their experts’ report.”
Not sure if this is affected by the INTERPHONE report. ??
#13 French Health Ministry 2009
“There are no indications so far that radiation from the handset poses a health risk”
We now know that this is no longer accurate. This review is thus invalidated.
#14 Belgian Superior Health Council 2009.
“The SHC stresses that it takes the view that, on account of the scientific uncertainties, the precautionary principle must be applied in this case in order to protect the population.”
This report remains valid.
#15 Bundestag 2009.
“The exposure limits in force indeed offer sufficient protection against mobile phone radiation.”
We now know that this is no longer accurate. This review is thus invalidated.
#16 German Mobile Telecommunication Research Programme 2009.
“Due to the question of health risks from long-term exposure for adults and children and the existence of some studies showing effects one should remain careful with wireless communication technologies.”
This report remains valid.
#17 German Commission on Radiological Protection 2009.
“There is no scientific evidence of a genotoxic effect (effects on the DNA) of
radiofrequency fields or of an influence on gene regulation.”
Scientific research now proves this false. This review is thus invalidated.
#18 The Bundesambt fur Strahlenschutz 2009
“Recent studies have failed to demonstrate effects of mobile phone radiation on human fertility.”
There have been many studies published since 2009 that report adverse effects on human fertility. This review is thus invalidated.
#19 German Group Julich 2009
“The review of the existing scientific literature does not support the assumption that children’s health is affected by RF EMF exposure from mobile phones.”
Several independent studies have been published since 2009 that show that children are indeed adversely affected by RF exposure from mobile phones. This review is thus invalidated.
#20 STUK, Finland 2009.
“There are no indications so far for long-term adverse health effects from radiofrequency radiation.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#21 Radiation Authority of the five Nordic countries 2009
“There is no scientific evidence for adverse health effects caused by radiofrequency field strengths in the normal living environment at present.”
There have been many peer reviewed studies published since 2009 that report adverse health effects from mobile phone towers. This review is thus invalidated.
#22 CCARS, Spain 2009
“Recent scientific/technical breakthroughs do not justify changes in the
present RF benchmark levels and exposure limits for the public and workers.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#23 Council of Ministers of the Isle of Man UK 2009
“The precautionary principle can be applied, especially with respect to children.”
This review remains valid.
#24 Institute of Engineering and Technology 2010
“There are still no data in favour of adverse health effects from low level (normal) exposure to the radiofrequency fields.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#25 HPA 2010
“The scientific consensus is that, apart from the increased risk of a road
accident due to mobile phone use when driving, there is no clear evidence of adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#26 Austrian Ministry of Health 2009
“There is no scientific evidence that cellular phones are hazardous to man.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#27 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
“There is essentially no evidence that microwave exposure from mobile telephones causes cancer.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#28 Health Canada 2009
“The RF energy from cell phones poses no confirmed health risk.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#29 Food and Drug Association 2009-2010
“The weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#30 National Cancer Institute 2009
“Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain.”
We now know that this to be false. Higher incidence of brain cancer was consistent among many of the 13 member nations of the INTERPHONE study and other long term case control studies. This review is thus invalidated.
#31 US Health Physics Society 2010
“The available evidence does not show that use of mobile phones or causes brain cancer or any other health effect.”
We now know that this to be false. This review is thus invalidated.
#32 Committee on Man and Radiation (IEEE Electronics Industry) COMAR
COMAR recommends on the contrary that the public health officials continue to base their policies on RF safety limits recommended by established and sanctioned international organisations such as ICNIRP, IEEE etc.
In other words, the electronics industry recommends that the electronics industry continue to set the recommended exposure levels for the rest of society.
This review is invalidated due to a blatant conflict of interest.
#43 by Schulze on September 19, 2013 - 8:37 pm
Wow! Ray used one study to disprove multiple Expert Opinion Reviews. A study that he points out that has no less than 11flaws. This is so far off the reservation that I think I have to read it again because I must have misunderstood something. Give a simpleton a hand here:
Is the Interphone study a good study or is it flawed?
Does the Interphone study show an increased risk, decreased risk, or no change in risk.
I’m pretty sure when you say a study is flawed and then use it as support for a position it’s about the same as calling the witness, that is proclaiming your innocence, a liar.
Also, a conflict of interest does not by itself invalidate a study. Again, just because you want to believe something does not make it true. Even if you believe really hard.
#44 by Schulze on September 19, 2013 - 8:41 pm
Man, I gota tell all these committee members that they are wrong because Ray said. That’s gota be like hundreds of people, man are they going to be upset.
#45 by Another mom on September 20, 2013 - 8:49 am
For your own sake, as well as those that count on you for guidance, please grow up.
#46 by Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 10:34 am
I gave up the erudite approach a while ago. It is a bit shameful, I’m not proud.
#47 by Ray on September 20, 2013 - 2:03 pm
Schulze,
The INTERPHONE study is a $30 million dollar, 13 nation, government-backed cell phone study. It reported a substantially increased risk of brain cancer for those that used a cell phone for over 10 years with an exposure of only 30 minutes per day.
For those that used a cell phone for greater than 60 minutes per day, the risk of brain cancer grew to over 400% after just a few years.
Although there are flaws that many scientists indicate would underestimate the risk of brain cancer, this research project has been used, along with independent research from Scandinavia, as evidence for several landmark decisions, including:
1. The 2011 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of wireless radiation as a class 2B carcinogen.
2. The 2012 Italian Supreme Court ruling that cell phones cause brain cancer.
3. The 2011 Council of Europe resolution 8.3.2 stating:
“For children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired internet connection, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises”
Therefore the INTERPHONE research project, along with Hardell research does, without a doubt, constitute evidence that mobile phones do increase the risk of brain cancer, and given this, it is irresponsible to ignore this data.
As such, it is reprehensible to not share this information with parents and to instead wave around a list of reviews, many of which were released prior to the publication of this data.
It is beyond disrespectful to these parents and their children to continue to assert that there is no evidence that mobile phones cause health effects given the presence of this massive research project and the data it provided.
It is because of the existence of this data that those reviews would be invalidated. It is not possible for cell phones to be safe when these huge research projects found them to be unsafe.
#48 by Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 5:40 pm
I’m not sure you’re allowed to make shit up and interpret studies however you want:
CONCLUSIONS:
Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835
CONCLUSIONS:
There was no increase in risk of acoustic neuroma with ever regular use of a mobile phone or for users who began regular use 10 years or more before the reference date. Elevated odds ratios observed at the highest level of cumulative call time could be due to chance, reporting bias or a causal effect. As acoustic neuroma is usually a slowly growing tumour, the interval between introduction of mobile phones and occurrence of the tumour might have been too short to observe an effect, if there is one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21862434
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that reinterpreting studies is not allowed. Now you can disagree with the study and explain its faults but in that case don’t use it to support you argument.
Finally, and again, if you could educate us as to why the IARC did not classify EMF as class “1” or “2A” I would be grateful.
It is way beyond disrespectful to the parents for you to keep saying that I claim that there is no evidence that mobile phones cause health effects. So for the 3rd or 4th time now I will tell you again what I said:
“The preponderance of the evidence does not support adverse health effects from EMF exposure”
That last line is a bit disingenuous. You need to insert “In my opinion” in front of “It is not possible for cell phones….” and then its a fair statement.
#49 by Joe Imbriano on September 20, 2013 - 6:10 pm
Roman, by the way, I was in room 20 this morning around 8:10 am observing the emissions coming from the access point and all of the Ipads with my RF meter. There is now a Cisco access point in that classroom and last week there was not. I sat behind my son in the back of the room at least 5 feet away from any wireless device.
I was also at the farthest point away from the access point on the south wall as well.
Where I was seated, away from everything in that room while Ipads were in use, I was being exposed to the same amounts of radiation that an in use cell phone emits from a distance of around 4 inches but what is different is that it was all over my body, for the entire time I was there. Roman, there are some kids that sit right up front next to the access point in the thick of all the devices and their exposure is exponentially higher.
In my opinion, it is safe to say that at the very least all of the children in that room are receiving at the very least, the same amount of radiation that a continuously in use cell phone produces for several hours a day or about half of the radiation one would get from standing 30 feet away in a 45 degree angle from a cell tower for several hours. For some students in that room, their levels of exposure is much much higher. Who lets their kids use a cell phone all day long or stand near a cell tower for hours a day every day 180 days a year for 13 years?
Do you explain that these classrooms are exposing these children to the same or in many cases higher levels of radiation than being on their cell phones or standing adjacent to a cell tower for several hours a day, not just to the head but all over and throughout their entire body?
I guess you feel this is safe? I certainly don’t and I believe that most parents do not understand the reality of what is going on.
Roman please show me studies where you have these conditions replicated, where the long term shows no effects and show me where studies on reproduction show no effects. How about the studies on the female human ovum en vivo in 5 year old girls under these conditions. How about the effects on pubescent boys?
If you really care, please help me find the studies because I don’t see any anywhere. No one in all of their infinite wisdom has decided to do them that I can find and the FSD steps on the gas. Roman, you missed your calling as you should have been a salesmen. You done closed the FSD and the PTA on the deal. I need to show the parents the other side. Both of our shows need to be on the road out of respect for the parents and for the best interests of the children. Roman too many people worry about their reputations in this town. Don’t fall into that trap. Your last rodeo with you know who wasn’t worth it.
#50 by Another mom on September 20, 2013 - 6:17 pm
Mr. Imbriano, I don’t believe Schulzee is capable of anything but infantile behavior. His posts indicate that he views this as a game or sport.
#51 by Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 7:18 pm
Well, fair enough. I have always looked at debate as a sport and approach it light heartedly. And I obviously see where this can be mistaken as my attitude towards the subject. Unfortunately I live in a world where every day 15,000 children starve to death and all to frequently get shot to death at school. In light of all that something that possibly could harm but probably doesn’t seems a little less critical.
#52 by Joe Imbriano on September 20, 2013 - 7:33 pm
Roman, if I am correct, and I sincerely believe that I am, then we are talking about the fertility of an entire generation- hundreds of millions of people and if others are correct, an unmitigated public health disaster on our hands. I don’t approach this issue lightly. Neither should anyone. I am raising the alarm because the industry and the school districts are jamming this stuff down our throats and I am not buyin’ it. We have gone with pencil and paper for thousands of years in schools and in the last 12 months we have re invented the wheel with forced implied consent based, successfully in large part, to apathy and ignorance. I don’t smell a rat, I see nefarious intent on the part of the social engineers and the eugenicists. Call me what you want but I calls it as I sees it.
I would like you to do some research yourself and tell me if you can postulate a mechanism by which these emissions can affect the development and viability of the female ovum. Can we work together on this?
#53 by Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 6:48 pm
The person sitting next to you have a cellphone on them uploading a 20 min video?
I will look but you have to hold up your end and find studies with those conditions showing harm. Also, we need to stick to cancer until that is settled then we can go on to reproductive issues or whatever. If you are willing to concede that the evidence does not show a link to neoplasia then we can move on. I hate to be a pain about this but it has happened to me too many times where we switch to topic B and then I put a bunch of work into that and then we switch to topic C before B is resolved. And so on…
And it’s all rather interconnected. If I’m convinced EMF is carcinogenic then it will be easy to convince me it is teratogenic or affects fertility. If I remain convinced that it is not carcinogenic I will need that much more evidence to convince me of it’s teratogenicity. Hope that makes sense.
#54 by Joe Imbriano on September 20, 2013 - 7:00 pm
Roman 34 kids were using their Ipads and your wife was pretending to grade papers, Whisnant had her hands on her lap the whole time. The emissions were coming from the students Ipads which some had in their laps and the Cisco access point on the wall that was withing 5 feet of several students next to a metal filing cabinet, not your wife or Karen playing with their phones.
I already told you that my contention is fertility. I cannot find any studies that replicate the FSD classroom environment and any long term studies on effects on children’s fertilty. Dr. George had it right when he said we may not know for 10 years or so. How can Pletka say this is “totally safe for the kids”? http://fsd.k12.ca.us/parent_resources/files/wireless.pdf
In the meantime, would you please find some that do and show that it is safe? There apparently are stacks that show it is not safe and stacks that show that it is but they don’t address children’s long term exposure nor effects on fertility.
What we do have are highly credentialed experts warning against what FSD is doing http://www.wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html. That alone is enough reason to apply the brakes to anyone who puts safety first. This wireless push driven by the common core is dangerous to our society on many fronts, such as the children’s reproductive health and their privacy. This wireless proliferation is going way to far way too fast. Even you have to admit that.
Will you be there Monday at the library for the common core sales pitch?
#55 by Karen at Acacia on September 20, 2013 - 11:41 pm
The point is, there have been no long term studies that investigate fertility, correct? Or any other long term health impacts, it looks like.
Until it can be proven safe, I do not want my child in a wireless classroom. This is a no brainer for any parent that understands this.
Thank you for providing this information.
#56 by Schulzee on September 20, 2013 - 7:51 pm
I was merely stressing the importance of controlling for variables. You know that next I’m going to ask you when the EMF meters we’re independently calibrated, what humidity they are stored at, and what fields they we’re exposed to that could have affected their calibration.
Michele says she was actually grading papers but was also there to observe your procedures. She asked me to ask about the calibration too.
I think there may have been some concern that the kids don’t get freaked out leading to upset parents. I’m sure you understand.
I probably will find as many studies as you did meeting those criteria so I will have to extrapolate form existing RF/EMF studies.
#57 by What you can do? on September 21, 2013 - 9:20 am
What you can do:
http://www.radiationeducation.com/Letter_For_Schools.html
#58 by Ray on September 21, 2013 - 4:47 pm
Stop trying to obfuscate the science, Shulze.
It is a fact that the $30 million, 13 nation, government-backed INTERPHONE research project reported that those who used a cell phone for over 1640 hours during a 4 year period, meaning a little over an hour a day, had a significantly increased risk of developing brain cancer.
If you read the actual research it shows:
There was a 480% increased risk of developing a meningioma.
There was a 377% increased risk of developing a glioma, which are often incurable brain tumors.
And for acoustic neuromas there is even a more clear story – using a cell phone for just 30 MINUTES A DAY lead to 374% increased risk of brain tumors.
This is what the actual data says from the INTERPHONE report.
Next we will be getting into other case-control studies that reported similar results.
#59 by Holly on September 22, 2013 - 9:07 am
Who is this Schulze person? Does he work for Apple?
#60 by Joe Imbriano on September 22, 2013 - 9:54 am
He is an osteopathic medical doctor and a Fullerton parent. He does not work for Apple.
#61 by Holly on September 22, 2013 - 9:59 am
Who is Ray?
#62 by Joe Imbriano on September 22, 2013 - 10:12 am
Ray is a parent, an activist and a researcher with over 20 years experience in this field. He is the administrator of the most comprehensive website in the entire nation on this topic.
http://www.wifiinschools.com/
#63 by Schulzee on September 22, 2013 - 4:16 pm
Ok, so we establish Ray is impartial and objective… Excellent. I wonder if the guys from EMF&Health will come and make a bunch of posts here giving us their opinions. Could be fun. I would be interested in reading Rays published research if possible.
#64 by Joe Imbriano on September 22, 2013 - 6:05 pm
Bring em over-the more the merrier.
#65 by Schulzee on September 22, 2013 - 4:27 pm
I still have not found the original study to read it in its entirety but based on the information I have found the percentages you quote are fabricated (lies). If you have a link to it please let me know and I am happy to admit a am wrong and apologize. I appreciate you evasiveness but allow me to redirect; Please explain how this study can show a decreased risk of interracial tumors among some cell phone users. Failure to answer will force me to conclude that you are obscuring parts of the study that don’t support your opinion.
#66 by Schulzee on September 22, 2013 - 4:28 pm
Intercranial, not interracial.
#67 by Anonymous on September 22, 2013 - 8:46 pm
Are you the one that works for Apple?
#68 by Schulzee on September 22, 2013 - 11:10 pm
No, that’s the other guy.
#69 by Ray on September 21, 2013 - 5:13 pm
After the INTERPHONE research we have the work of the Hardell team from Sweden.
This is high quality independent research, and as such, does not suffer from as many flaws as is typical of studies funded by industry.
According to the latest research, Hardell has found that after about ten years of use, adults have roughly a tripled risk of developing a brain tumor. (300% increased risk)
Hardell has also found those who began using a cell phone under the age of 19 had over a 400% increased risk.
#70 by Ray on September 21, 2013 - 5:18 pm
In 2009 Khurana et al. published a metanalysis of the eleven existing long-term epidemiologic studies on cell phone use and brain tumor risk that met these criteria:
Publication in a peer reviewed journal; inclusion of subjects with greater than 10 years of cell phone use; analyzing “laterality” of cell phone usage in relation to brain tumor incidence.
Their conclusion was that “using a cell phone for 10 years or more approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same (“ipsilateral”) side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use”.
#71 by Ray on September 21, 2013 - 5:20 pm
In 2012, Levis et al. published an analysis of published case control studies,
pooled analyses, and meta-analyses on head tumor risk with mobile phone use.
They found that “in studies funded by public bodies, blind protocols give positive results revealing cause-effect relationships between long-term latency or use of mobile phones (cellulars and cordless) and statistically significant increases of ipsilateral risk of brain gliomas and acoustic neuromas, with biological plausibility. In studies funded or cofunded by the cellphone companies non-blind protocols give overall negative results with systematic underestimation of risk; however, also in these studies a statistically significant increase in risk of ipsilateral brain gliomas, acoustic neuromas, and parotid gland tumours is quite common when only subjects with at least 10 years of latency or exposure to mobile phones (only cellulars) are considered.” (Levis et al., 2012)
#72 by Ray on September 22, 2013 - 6:21 am
All of these recent large-scale case control research programs have reported the same result:
Those who use a cell phone for over 10 years experience significantly increased risk of brain tumors.
We already knew this though, as back in the 1990’s the CTIA, (cellular phone industry) funded a $25 million research project, which found essentially the same results, namely:
1. A statistically significant doubling of brain cancer risk;
2. A statistically significant dose-response risk of acoustic neuroma with more than 6 years of cellphone use.
http://electromagnetichealth.org/pdf/Cellphones%20and%20BT-15%20Reasons-for-Concern-USA1s.pdf
#73 by Ray on September 22, 2013 - 6:45 am
According to Apple’s product information guide, iPads emit even more radiation than cell phones.
http://manuals.info.apple.com/MANUALS/1000/MA1524/en_US/iPad_Important_Product_Information_Guide.pdf
Also, the scientific literature clearly shows that children absorb more radiation than adults.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21999884
According to the scientific evidence itself, it would be reasonable to state that children who use iPads for long periods of time are likely to have a significantly increased risk of developing cancer.
But what kind of risk are we talking about? Isn’t that really the question? I mean there are all kinds of risks in life. As Schulze points out, there are many issues in the world, including hunger, disease, injury, etc.
According to high quality independently funded research by Dr. Lennart Hardell of Sweden:
For every 100 hours of cellphone use, the risk of brain cancer increases by 5%.
So how many hours would children in Fullerton schools be exposed?
175 days x 6 hours = 875 hours per year.
That means after each year of exposure to these wireless devices there would be a 44% increased risk of brain cancer.
After 13 years this comes to a 572% increased risk of cancer. For adults that is.
For children, the increased risk would be much more, as research shows that they have at least double the risk of adults.
So according to these calculations, children would have an 1100% increased risk of brain cancer as a result of using an iPad at school.
This does not include time spent doing homework or other extraneous activities.
#74 by Holly on September 22, 2013 - 8:32 am
This is unbelievable. How can this be true?
I have spoken with my son’s teacher and principal and they both assured me that the Ipads were SAFE.
I had no idea that they are more powerful than a cell phone.
Why are the parents not being provided with this information by the school. There was no mention of this information anywhere in all of the packets sent home.
#75 by Joe Imbriano on September 22, 2013 - 9:47 am
That is a very good question. The superintendents of the the Fullerton School District, The Fullerton Joint Union High School District, The Orange County Department of Education, and the Board of Trustees of each have been repeatedly provided with this information. The entire administrative staff of the FSD was made aware as well.
That question needs to be directed towards your principal. Holly, are your children in Fullerton?
#76 by Schulzee on September 22, 2013 - 4:36 pm
I think we have a bigger problem: The water in the drinking fountains and the air in the air has not proven to be safe at Acacia either. I’ll look into it.
#77 by mom1 on September 22, 2013 - 1:02 pm
Holly,
As a parent, and before I started researching this myself, all I had to do was read the first of many letters from medical doctors & scientists to LAUSD imploring them not to use wireless technology in the classroom:
http://www.wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html
This was all I needed to tell me that this is harmful.
The schools will have to answer you as to why they are not telling you this information and also why they think they can risk our children’s health for the sake of using wireless technology.
#78 by Schulzee on September 22, 2013 - 4:33 pm
Are you actually invoking a dose-response curve in your argument/calculation when clearly the Interphone study in fact does not support a such a consistent mechanism???
#79 by Ray on September 23, 2013 - 3:41 am
Based on 20 years of research, Dr. Lennart Hardell has concluded that there is a dose-response curve with regard to cell phones and brain tumors.
The more microwave radiation exposure, the higher the risk of brain tumors.
Given that iPads emit even more radiation than cell phones, it would be likely that the same would apply to children who experience long-term exposure to microwave radiation from these devices.
#80 by Ray on September 23, 2013 - 4:08 am
Schulze,
Let me get this straight. You haven’t read any research yet, but you are calling me a liar.
Listen, you’ve been given study after study, but what is evident is that you don’t read any of it. You are full of convictions and bias, but you don’t really have any knowledge or experience with this subject.
To make up for your lack of knowledge, you continue to throw around insults.
As a medical doctor, don’t you have access to medical journals? Why don’t you start by going back to the beginning of this thread, and reading the 85 page report by the Oregon physicians group? It provides the necessary citations.
http://www.national-toxic-encephalopathy-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Biological_and_Health_Effects_of_Microwave_Radio_Frequency_Transmissions.pdf
If you really wanted to get to the bottom of this issue, you would read this report and perhaps even get in touch with the authors. Again, these were a group of physicians, who concerned for the welfare of their community, undertook a 16 month investigation of the scientific literature. These medical doctors concluded that there are both acute and chronic effects.
Acute Effects
“In susceptible individuals, excessive RF exposure can provokeacute symptoms. The most common symptoms are sleep disturbance, headache, irritability, fatigue, and concentration difficulties. Other symptoms may include depression, dizziness, tinnitus, burning and flushed skin, digestive disturbance, tremor, and cardiac irregularities.”
Chronic Effects
“Chronic exposure to RF can also cause chronic physiologic changes, including altered endocrine function (both melatonin and other hormones), and increased oxidant stress that can lead to increased levels of cancer and male infertility. The public I already being subjected to increased levels of RF from wireless communications. In- creasing the total load of transmission further will increase the occurrence of these adverse consequences.”
The short answer to your question about INTERPHONE is that it generally takes at least 10 years for brain tumors to form.
#81 by Anonymous on September 23, 2013 - 10:40 am
There, there, now Schulzee. Feel better now?
Did someone call you a bad name?
#82 by Schulzee on September 23, 2013 - 6:44 pm
If I had any feelings left they would be hurt. Good thing I don’t.
#83 by Schulzee on September 23, 2013 - 6:43 pm
Wow, I say I haven’t read one study because I can not find it and the excerpts I have found could not verify your statements. From that you generalize that I haven’t read anything? I have read the summary of that study in the IARC Monograph and it did not confirm the numbers you quoted. I have also looked at data here: http://interphone.iarc.fr/ which also does not support your figures or conclusions. Now I stooped short of calling you a liar because I had not been able to read the actual study first hand. Now if you actually have read it I was hoping you would just supply me with a link. I’m starting to wonder if you have read it.
Now in regards to your last statement, for Schwanoma, the OR for time since start of use is 0.99 for 5-9 years and 0.83 for over 10 years. Now let me ask again, how is it that cell phone use decreases the chance of Scwanoma by 17% in people who used cell phones >= 10 years compared to those who never used cell phones. If you could explain on a physiological level how the EMF protects from cancer I would appreciate it. I have no idea.
#84 by Ray on September 24, 2013 - 5:55 am
Schulze, what is your aversion to reading the 2013 Oregon physician’s report? I mean it’s right there in front of you. Many of the answers to your questions are within it.
Here’s the link once again:
http://www.national-toxic-encephalopathy-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Biological_and_Health_Effects_of_Microwave_Radio_Frequency_Transmissions.pdf
#85 by Schulzee on September 24, 2013 - 8:33 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.
#86 by Ray on September 26, 2013 - 6:53 am
Schulze, why are you changing topics? We are talking about brain cancer.
Quote from Schulze on 9/20/13:
“We need to stick to cancer until that is settled then we can go on to reproductive issues or whatever. I hate to be a pain about this but it has happened to me too many times where we switch to topic B and then I put a bunch of work into that and then we switch to topic C before B is resolved.”
#87 by Anonymous on September 27, 2013 - 9:14 pm
This person cannot engage the issue. He can only put spins on what clearly shows harm. It is not a very convincing method to debunk what is being claimed by these scientists. Industry money abounds.
#88 by Schulzee on September 28, 2013 - 9:18 pm
Because Joe wore me down, saying again and again how his concerns are not about cancer, did you miss that?
#89 by Ray on October 3, 2013 - 1:14 pm
Another excuse. Schulze simply refuses to read research if it reported adverse biological and health effects.
#90 by Schulzee on October 3, 2013 - 4:37 pm
Ok Joe, I was going to move on but Ray insists I sand my ground. Easier for me anyway, sorry. Ray, I’ve read most of that and looked a all I could find or that was given me, including 42 year old Navy reports.
Now, if someone, anyone, could explain to me why EMF is not classified as “1” or “2A” by the IARC, I would appreciate it. Alcohol and smoking made it to “1” and indoor wood fires and shift work with circadian disruption made it to “2A”.
Hey, when they say EMF “possibly” causes cancer is that like saying I can possibly win the lottery jackpot? I think it may be.
#91 by Fertility? on October 14, 2013 - 12:34 pm
PRESS RELEASE: For Immediate Release – Sept. 09, 2013
BC CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL REPORT POINTS TO
DAMAGING HEALTH EFFECTS FROM WIRELESS DEVICES
Based upon recent findings, the BC CDC recommends that males keep cell phones away from the groin area and limit mobile phone use. The report confirms that there is consistent evidence that exposure to testes is associated with reduced sperm count, motility, concentration and altered cell structure.
In its report, “A Radiofrequency Toolkit for Environmental Health Practitioners.” released March 7, 2013, the BC CDC states that “the epidemiological studies of men assessed for infertility were consistent in demonstrating decreased sperm motility associated with increased use of mobile phones” and “biological effects on sperm motility related to RF Exposure”.
In the need to understand how harm is caused by exposure to microwave radio frequency radiation, the review panel noted that “oxidative stress seems one of the more plausible mechanisms of RF-induced sperm damage. Mechanisms by which oxidative stress is caused by increased ROS (/Reactive Oxygen Species) /and decreased antioxidant have been shown to exist in neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.” http://www.bccdc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/9AE4404B-67FF-411E-81B1-4DB75846BF2F/0/RadiofrequencyToolkit_v4_06132013.pdf
It is clear that our health agencies are still in the process of understanding risks from wireless technologies; however, the findings of the BC CDC are consistent with those of many international experts who continue to warn that prolonged exposure to low levels of microwave radio frequency radiation from wireless devices, such as wi-fi, i-pads, cell and cordless phones and smart meters, can lead to serious health effects, especially for those most vulnerable in our society.
Citizens for Safe Technology Society applauds the BC Centre for Disease Control for this report, and continues to plead with our Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Perry Kendall, to take immediate action to first protect our children and youth with the immediate recommendation that schools and homes return to safe wired technologies.(letter from Una St. Clair is attached).
According to Sharon Noble, Director, Citizens for Safe Technology, in May, 2012, Dr. Kendall was presented with more than 150 studies on health effects due to RF exposure which he forwarded to the BCCDC to review. “Dr. Kendall said that should the BC CDC conclude there are risks to the public, he would use his authority under the public health act to make appropriate recommendations for the protection of our most vulnerable citizens. Yet months after the report’s release he has failed to publish any recommendations or even comment on it. Neither has he revised the now outdated, misleading information on public health web sites. What is he waiting for?” Sharon Noble asks. “He knows that he has a duty to protect the health of all the citizens of BC. We are mystified as to why he is failing to respond to this important report.”
This BC CDC report, in concert with the 2011 W.H.O. classification of radio frequency radiation as a possible cause of cancer, must now prompt our health agencies to act without delay by implementing the precautionary principle to reduce the significant health risk to the public in general, with special focus on protecting the health of our children and youth today and for future generations.
Citizens for Safe Technology Society
Website – http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/
#92 by Coopertown on October 15, 2013 - 7:11 pm
It’s all about the cull.