«
»

INSERT FOOT IN MOUTH


 

This required a lot more than just her two hands.

I live in Fullerton.  My kids attend Fullerton schools.  I go to public meetings all the time that pertain to what, when, where and how things are going to affect my community and how those bestowed with the revocable public trust will behave when no one is looking.  As a card carrying taxpaying member of the 65th Assembly district, I was invited by my Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk Silva along with all the rest of the 145,000+ residents of Fullerton to attend a little shindig over at the local High School down the street with the top dog Torlakson and all the rest of the education brass who just so happen to be the ones who could pull the plug on this massive radiation experiment taking place in classrooms all over this once Golden State.

StEducationFlyer

 

So naturally, we RSVPed.  The Fullerton Informer showed up with our banner, and set up camp right on the first amendment protected sidewalk right next to the entrance to Troy High School and proceeded to notify the educrats, parents, students and anyone else that pulled in that by their silence on this issue, that they are all possibly complicit in exposing these children and students to unprecedented levels of pulse modulated high frequency microwave radiation trillions of times higher than what our parents were exposed to as children, that could potentially cause reproductive harm, cancer, ADHD and a myriad of other health problems with this wireless agenda.  These, by the way, are not simply my assertions: microwave radiation, cancer and infertility.  There are thousands of studies out there on this.
unnamed

After about an hour or so filming the train of cars passing us on the sidewalk, I figured it was time for a little meet and greet, so I decided to mosey on in to the reception to taste some of the fruit and see if they really filter the water.  I got to the sign in table and signed in.  I went to get my name tag and WHADDAYA KNOW, THEY DIDN’T HAVE ONE FOR ME!

Well, as I stood there, I was greeted by a  parent that I have known for some time from little league and she was encountering the same problem.  She was not on the list either.  She didn’t have a name tag either.  As a matter of fact, in the 72 seconds that I stood at the tables, I noticed that many people were not on the list and were being encouraged to fill out their own name tags by the gals working the tables.  Not long after I put a lemon slice in my water, Ed Kephart, who was watching me on the sidewalk, singled me out to SRO Kendler.  Officer Kendler told me, “because you are not on the guest list, you have to leave.”  I advised him that it was a public meeting and that I RSVPed the day before and he repeated, “you have to leave”.

I wonder why they didn’t call in some back up from Anaheim PD to escort the other 50 people in attendance that were not on the list either?  Well folks, it is simply because I was the only one in attendance at this public meeting that they wanted the heck out of there.  You see, I believe that I was merely singled out solely based on what the meeting organizers thought I might  say at the meeting, and as such appears to have been a conscious content-based decision specifically designed to rob me of my ability to exercise my First Amendment rights and observe and participate in that meeting.  They did not want me to be permitted to participate in the meeting or hear what the speakers had to say. Gee, I wonder why?  Could it be that I was going to address the fact that they were all involved in a massive wireless agenda that according to scientific research, has the potential to cause cancer and reproductive harm to school children?  Yeah,  they didn’t want me asking any questions alright.  I wonder if they all pledged allegiance as they plotted.

So instead, I simply chose the high road and allowed myself to be publicly humiliated, and temporarily forgo my First Amendment rights after I was confronted by a man in a black uniform with a gun.  Perplexed, I agreed to leave the premises without any further ado.  Being disruptive could certainly have been grounds for removal and someone held in the high esteem by these fellows like myself  was by no means willing to make myself an occupant of the back seat of a black and white in this town, especially when the air and the company was much better on the sidewalk anyway. You know what they say, you pick your battles wisely.

So I was told to leave a public meeting because I was not on the guest list.  This obviously made no sense  to me so I proceeded to call Quirk Silva’s local office.  The gentlemen on the phone took my number and told me that he would contact her staff to see what was going on.  I asked him if it was a public meeting and he told me it was “an RSVP meeting” -(never heard of one of those).  I asked him if he could confirm the RSVP list while we were talking and he couldn’t confirm the  names on the list.  After a period of time on hold, he came back on the line and told me, “your being asked to leave was a matter of campus security and the Assemblywoman, and her staff hadn’t the authority to override a campus security decision or issue.”

What was the problem, now really? How many seats was I going to occupy?  By the looks of this room I could have have brought my 8th grader’s entire classes for a civics lesson.

1045158_228597593971573_930317690_n

 

 

Here is what our illustrious assembly woman Sharon Quirk Silva  had to say about this supposed “invitation only” meeting “I was pleased to invite State Superintendent Tom Torlakson to visit Troy High School. As a former teacher and local elected official it is essential to bring state and local policymakers, students, parents, teachers and administrators to discuss how we can work together and increase student success in California schools.” — huh?  Last time I checked, I was a parent— four times over. 

My next call was to the Fullerton Police Department dispatch.  I briefly explained where I was and what happened and that I wanted to know the specific reason that I was asked to leave.  The dispatcher took my phone number and told me that she would have the officer come out and talk to me. So I waited on the sidewalk where earlier in the morning, the SRO and Kephart and Avina  were staring at me earlier in the morning, holding up the banner on the sidewalk with my associates.  They knew where I was and who I came with and which car was mine.  Time had passed and that filtered water got the better of me.  I had to make a decision.  Do I go into the Troy office and ask to use the restroom where I was now  the subject of “a campus security issue” or do I go down the street to Western State to use their facilities?  Well, I chose the latter given the circumstances.

Wouldn’t you know, officer Kandler and Kephart came out for a peek, when I was not there for about 10 minutes, walked halfway to the sidewalk where my associates were standing with the banner, and went back inside without asking them where I was.  For another hour or so, I waited for a phone call or him to come outside.  As it turns out, another mom we know stopped by to chat with us and we told her what was going on and she offered to call officer Decaprio.  She did and he offered to send a out a Sargent in about 15 minutes.  Well, 15 minutes came and went a couple of times so one of my associates called him again.  He said Sargent Williams will be on the way.  About 20 minutes later, a cruiser rolls into the parking lot and heads for the office.  Officer Williams gets out and goes inside.  We remained on the sidewalk but moved to the eastern driveway to show the guests our message as they departed.  Close to 11:00 am, Williams emerged from the office with Kandler speaking on the steps.  I assumed that since I called dispatch, and 2 calls were made to officer Decaprio, and that I was told to leave the premises, that I was to wait on the sidewalk for them.  Well, I waited and around 11:15 or so, Williams starts heading back to his car in what appears to be his attempt to drive away.  So, here I stand on the sidewalk exiled from the long since concluded public meeting waiting for an answer from the Fullerton Police officers as to why I was asked to leave watching him about to bail the scene.  My associate hurried toward him and flagged him down.  I walked over and  I spoke with both of the officers and asked why I was asked to leave a public meeting.  SRO Kendler told us that Tom Torlakson’s aide gave the order to have me removed.  The reason was because I was not an invited guest.  I proceeded to remind them that it was a public meeting.  Officer Williams explained that it was all a misunderstanding and that SRO Kendler attempted to make contact with me to let me know that I could come back in.  I explained that no one called my cell phone from the FPD or Sharon’s office, and no one attempted to make contact with my associates to see where I went for those 10 minutes while we waited on the sidewalk for 2 and 1/2 hours for them to come tell me what I did wrong.  I chose not to split hairs and we parted ways.  Chalk it up to experience I guess.

Later that day, I sent an email to the FJUHSD superintendent and an email to Tom Torlakson asking for some clarity and who gave the orders to have me removed.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This afternoon, I received the following email from Jennifer Williams from the FJUHSD:

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: Jennifer Williams <jwilliams@fjuhsd.k12.ca.us>
Date: Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: Meeting at Troy High School with guest speaker California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson 10-23-13.
To: joe imbriano <joeimbriano777@gmail.com>
Cc: George Giokaris <GGiokaris@fjuhsd.k12.ca.us>
Dear Mr. Imbriano,

Please accept the District’s sincerest apology for initially not allowing you to participate yesterday at the State of the Education event held at Troy High School (TRHS).

We offer this explanation not in any attempt to excuse what happened, but only to possibly assist you in accepting our apology.

There was a miscommunication yesterday between the staff members from Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva’s office, the TRHS Resource Officer (SRO), TRHS administrators, and Dr. Williams.  As you are aware, the event was coordinated by Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva’s office with the assistance of the District.  The District believed the event was by invitation only.  We had assisted the Assemblywoman’s staff members in preparing a portion of the invitation list; and therefore, we knew your name was not on the list.  The TRHS administration and the SRO asked if you had been invited and our staff members said you had not.  The staff members from Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva’s office thought TRHS administration and the District wanted you to leave and told the SRO to ask you to leave.  The District was unaware that Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva’s office had posted an open invitation on their web site.  By the time staff were made aware of the misunderstanding and instructed the SRO to go back and find you, you were gone.   It is our understanding that SRO Kandler followed up and spoke with you to explain as well.

Again, we sincerely apologize.

Respectfully,

Jennifer Williams, Ed.D.

Director Administrative Services

Fullerton Joint Union High School District

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Did you catch that?  Where does one begin?  Well, semantics for starters.  Let’s begin with “initially”.  Jennifer starts out with, “Please accept the District’s sincerest apology for initially not allowing you to participate.“ Last time I checked, initially was defined as of, relating to, or occurring at the beginning.   Initially? What the heck? I didn’t find out that I could go back into the meeting until AFTER THE MEETING WAS OVER.

I believe here is the only kernel of truth and husk of honesty in this whole rotten ear of corn.  “We offer this explanation not in any attempt to excuse what happened.”   Of course they can’t attempt to excuse the fact that they clearly violated my First Amendment rights and treated me like a criminal. 

Do they think that I just fell off the turnip truck or something?  If this is the sincerest apology they have to offer, I would hate to see what the phony one looks like.  Look gang, lets go line by line here.  These people are amazing.  What happened to me yesterday was downright wrong and unethical.  I was singled out from a group of 300+ people just because I want this radiation experiment on our kids to come to an end and I make no bones about our position.

So with the decades of experience that these administrators have in combing through $120 million dollar budgets every other month with a  fine tooth comb, an electron microscope and a metal detector and hosting events at sensitive locations such as SCHOOLS, do you think that they knew the difference between a meeting that was open to the public and one that was by invitation only?  Ok, let’s assume that they are not lying. I will give the the benefit of the doubt for the next ten seconds.  So if the FJUHSD staff really believed that it was an invitation only meeting with State level guests attending, then they would be CHECKING INVITATIONS AT THE DOOR. They were doing no such thing.  So what do we make of Assemblywoman  Sharon Quirk Silva’s flyers and announcements that invited the ENTIRE 65th Assembly district and just about anyone else that has a pulse on her PUBLIC website and FACEBOOK page?  I guess the FJUHSD staff missed those too.

Jennifer Williams goes on to say that the  FJUHSD staff “ had assisted the Assemblywoman’s staff members in preparing a portion of the invitation list; and therefore, we knew your name was not on the list“. Wow, so if you prepare a portion of the list then you know who is not on the portion that you didn’t prepare?  Clairvoyance huh, Jennifer?  So preparing part of an RSVP  list gives them the omniscience that  ” therefore, we knew your name was not on the list”.  Amazing.

“The TRHS administration and the SRO asked if you had been invited and our staff members said you had not.” Ah, the million dollar questions right here folks:

1) WHY WERE THEY ASKING IF I WAS ON THE LIST?

2) WHO DID THEY ASK?

3) WHAT MEMBERS OF THE TRHS ADMINISTRATION ASKED IF I WAS NOT ON THE LIST ?

4) WHY WERE THEY SINGLING ME OUT?

5) WHY WERE THEY NOT GOING AFTER ALL THE OTHERS WITH HANDWRITTEN NAME TAGS?

Oh boy – “The staff members from Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva’s office thought TRHS administration and the District wanted you to leave and told the SRO to ask you to leave.”  No – Sharon’s office told me that they didn’t know why I was asked to leave and it  “was a matter of campus security and they had no power to override it”.  SRO Kendler told us that it was Torlakson’s aide that ordered us to be removed.

This is a real humdinger right here: “The District was unaware that Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva’s office had posted an open invitation on their web site.” Really?  Can I schedule a meeting on campus, post invitations everywhere, invite the whole world, and not clear that part with Dr. George?  The health and safety of State level officials and a thousand students was potentially on the line when you opened up an in use, fully operational, fully occupied school facility to host a meeting with hundreds of guests and you apparently didn’t understand what the scope and nature of the invitation and announcement process as well as those who will be in attendance were?  Got some dough Dr. George? I got some land on the surface of the sun for sale if your are interested.

“ By the time staff were made aware of the misunderstanding and instructed the SRO to go back and find you, you were gone.”  REALLY?  While my bright, yellow car glistened in the parking lot, my remaining outside for 3 hours, with our repeated calls to the FPD and Sharon’s office with not one return call, and without any attempts to contact me or my associates for 2 1/2 hours including the measly ten minutes that I was gone to the restroom, that is called attempting to make contact with me?  There was obviously NO legitimate attempt by SRO Kendler, Sharon’s office, her staff, FJUHSD Staff or the FPD to contact me.

“It is our understanding that SRO Kandler followed up and spoke with you to explain as well.”  We expended a massive amount of effort to get someone to follow up and explain why I got the royal treatment, and yes SRO Kendler did explain the most important part of the whole thing – that is who gave the order to run me off.  Kendler stated that it was Torlakson’s aide who gave the order.

We cannot overlook  Troy High School principal, Dr. Avina’s assessment of yesterdays event from the school website http://www.troyhigh.com/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=367239&type=u:

“We have had a wonderful fall at Troy High School.  We had the honor of hosting State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlekson as well as Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, and Orange County Superintendent of Schools Al Mijares this month. This event was attended by local school superintendents, city mayors, PTA presidents, and educators throughout the Fullerton area. Our amazing custodians made the campus look beautiful, and our office staff was pivotal in creating a welcoming environment. The “buzz” of the event was the gorgeous Halloween pumpkins which were hand-painted by students in Mike Thomas’s AP Studio Art class. Many thanks to everyone who made this event special.”

Did you catch that? The staff was staff was pivotal in creating a welcoming environment? Yeah as long as you are a blind supporter of the agenda,  you  got your very own name tag.  Holy smokes!  The buzz of the event was the pumpkins? What kind of kool aid were they drinking inside that theater room anyway?  They illegally throw me out of a public meeting on my rear end as my associates and I are out on the sidewalk trying to warn every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the joint about the potential for cancer, ADHD, reproductive harm and a host of other maladies that could be staring every kid in the face in the FJUHSD  from the common core microwave matrix that Giokaris just green lighted, and it’s all about the pumpkins.  As amateur night states so eloquently on this blog -“man alive.”  I digress.

Well, let’s get back to the District’s mouthpiece or piece in mouth.

Dr. Williams, I cannot accept an insincere apology from a public servant that willingly chooses to ignore literally thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies that warn against what you and Dr. George have blatantly chosen to do, that is to proceed with the district’s wireless technology plan on the heels of all of the information that you have been personally presented with that you choose to ignore.  Instead you have decided to proceed to irradiate every last one of the children in the FJUHSD.

Dr. Williams, I will not accept an insincere apology from a steward of the public trust who in my opinion, cannot be trusted by putting forth such an obfuscation in the form of such a preposterous explanation for my being purposely singled out, publicly humiliated, and removed from an open public meeting solely based on what the meeting organizers thought I might do or say at the meeting.  This, as such, appears to have been a content-based decision that was intentionally made to violate and interfere with the exercise of my first amendment rights and to keep me out of that meeting.  Once again, I was publicly humiliated and your insincere diatribe speaks volumes as to how you appear to have every intention to continue to do just that by insulting my intelligence with this pathetic spin. And to think I took the high road over the last 7 months with the FJUHSD simply behooves me right now.  Can you imagine if my lovely wife was with me while you guys publicly gave me the shaft?  You guys are a real class act.

Jennifer, please, save it for later.  Let me know when you manage to remove that foot from your mouth, and  please try speaking a little clearer next time with a lot more sincerity and a lot less of everything else.  As far as the First Amendment goes over at the Troy campus, have your staff review it, would you please?  Make sure you include the Harvard trained helmswoman over there with the walkie talkie (Troy High School principal, Dr. Avina).  Get ready because the kids are already asking about this wireless stuff.  The parents and the teachers will be next.  I guess we will see how the First Amendment pans out over on Dorothy behind those gates.  It is alive and well on the sidewalk.

In the meantime, The Fullerton Informer will continue our efforts to expose and end the largest radiation experiment on children that the world has ever known and we hope that all involved will realize that silence on this issue is complicity.  Your paltry paychecks are not worth it people. Well, sadly, to some, as we have seen, they just may be.

 

 

 

 

This entry was posted on October 24, 2013, 10:03 pm and is filed under Radiation experiments on school children. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

  1. #1 by amateur night on October 25, 2013 - 6:55 am

    Damn straight Joe.

    • #2 by Anonymous on October 26, 2013 - 5:34 pm

      Mr. Imbriano, the way you have been treated is utterly ridiculous. This issue needs to be taken up with Assemblywoman Silva’s office. Do you know if she is aware of what transpired?

      • #3 by Joe Imbriano on October 27, 2013 - 11:41 am

        I agree. I would assume that she is aware, and with the exception of contact with her staff that morning, I have not made any written formal contact with her or her office subsequent to the incident. We will see what she has to say.

    • #4 by Joe Imbriano on October 27, 2013 - 11:36 am

      THIS COMMENT BEARS REPEATING

      “EMF induced degenerative oocytes”

      I believe that it is all about affecting fertility, specifically the oocytes in your daughters ladies and gentlemen. Until these eggs are released, they simply remain dormant in their follicle-in a state of suspended animation precariously frozen smack dab in the middle of a cell division. The egg is one of the longest-lived cells in the body, and because a dormant egg cannot perform the usual cellular repair processes, as such, it is the most vulnerable cell type in the human body.

      http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/33785/InTech-Environmental_electromagnetic_field_and_female_fertility.pdf

      Aside from the EMF induced degeneration of the oocyte, there remains yet another more serious concern that I have. Like all microwave irradiated cells in your body, specifically the oocytes in your daughters ovaries, they struggle to protect themselves against the microwave, electromagnetically induced dissonance by hardening their membranes. I believe that in the case of the oocyte, the zona pellucida hardens rendering it impermeable and thus results in human female infertility. This is the mechanism which I believe is responsible for what some consider to be the salvation of the planet: the wide scale, wholesale sterilization of young girls. Ladies and gentlemen, I have just said what no scientist in the world has ever dared to utter. Pray to Almighty God that I am wrong.

      Where is the WiFi enabled tablet tonight? Is it transmitting pulse modulated high frequency microwave radiation trillions of times normal background levels right in your daughters’ laps? Where will it be in the morning and in the afternoon while your child sits in a Fullerton classroom?

    • #8 by axelrod on November 21, 2013 - 12:11 am

      Torlakson, Giokaris, Williams, Kendler, and Silva must be real real proud of themselves with that North Korean style teamwork work.

  2. #9 by Jamie on October 25, 2013 - 7:02 am

    And, these people are in charge of our children’s education. They obviously did not want you there, Mr. Imbriano. Is it because you are bringing information that concerns the health of the kids and it interferes with their obsession with wireless devices? I think it is.

    Why do Drs Geokaris and Williams want our kids subjected to “the largest radiation experiment on children that the world has ever known?”

    • #10 by Joe Imbriano on October 25, 2013 - 9:33 am

      And to think that these are the folks who are directly responsible for deliberately engineering the civic mindedness right out of an entire generation.

  3. #11 by LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy May Resign in February on October 25, 2013 - 11:46 am

  4. #13 by skeletons in the closet on October 25, 2013 - 11:51 am

    Just look at Giokaris. The F.J.U.H.S.D. seal should be a broom and a dustpan. Look at how they handled the the asbestos scandal,the A.S.B. election fraud, and now they don’t want to come out to play with you Joe. Given the chance, it appears they can never do the right thing. I wouldn’t trust any of them any farther than you can throw them.

    • #14 by publicly paid parasites on October 25, 2013 - 10:11 pm

      They are taking our tax dollars to irradiate and foster a corrupt school environment (election fraud) for our children.

      • #15 by skeletons in the closet on October 26, 2013 - 11:21 am

        You have no idea what is really going on inside Troy. There are some huge issues that are still being swept under the rug.

      • #16 by Jgarrison on October 26, 2013 - 5:50 pm

        Giokaris and Williams are only interested in maintaining the status quo. They do not care about the kids or the teachers, for that matter.

  5. #17 by clark on October 27, 2013 - 8:24 pm

    What a bunch of idiots. Did they even read that email before the sent it to you?

    • #18 by mom1 on October 28, 2013 - 9:27 am

      Drs Giokaris, Williams, & Pletka: I guess PHD’s have no meaning anymore.

    • #19 by Anonymous on October 28, 2013 - 9:54 am

      Their cognitive skills are somewhat lacking, to put it mildly.

      One thing is consistent in their behaviors: they will not do the right thing for the kids.

  6. #20 by Anonymous on October 28, 2013 - 9:51 am

    From Sharon Quirk-Silva’s website:
    “I was pleased to invite State Superintendent Tom Torlakson to visit Troy High School. As a former teacher and local elected official it is essential to bring state and local policymakers, students, parents, teachers and administrators to discuss how we can work together and increase student success in California schools.”

    Oh, really? How come Sharon Quirk-Silva has a parent booted out of this meeting by an armed policeman? Doesn’t sound very parent friendly to me. Does the assemblywoman really want the parents there? How about the parent’s Constitutional rights? The right to assemble, freedom of speech. Does Sharon Quirk-Silva care about the parent’s Constitutional rights?

    • #21 by amateur night on October 28, 2013 - 7:43 pm

      From socks to Sacramento first class non stop. No time for coach. Sorry Charlie.

  7. #22 by butch cassidy on October 28, 2013 - 10:37 am

    Here are two questions I think need to be asked:

    Is the FSD working with Dr. Roman A Schulze to deceive the public?

    Why is this medical doctor so crazed about wireless radiation?

    This guy is so gun ho that it seems so ridiculously obvious he is involved at some level with the district.

  8. #23 by Anonymous on October 28, 2013 - 11:18 am

    Some of the potential side effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation:
    Blurry Vision
    Headaches
    Nausea
    Fatigue
    Neck Pain
    Memory Loss
    Leukemia
    Rare Brain Cancers
    Enzyme Changes That Affect DNA
    Birth Defects
    Changes In Metabolism
    Increased Risk For Alzheimer’s Disease
    Increased Risk For Heart Conditions
    Neurological Hormone Changes Linked Impaired Brain Function

  9. #24 by Anonymous on October 28, 2013 - 12:50 pm

    I believe that the members of the Fullerton Informer are clearly more intelligent and conscientious than the entire school district members stacked together…I am disgusted and sickened once again how our “leaders” have not taken this matter more seriously…REALLY? Plug it in the wall, what’s the big deal!

    • #25 by Jamie on October 28, 2013 - 1:42 pm

      Yes, you would think that a wired technology alternative does not even exist.

      What’s driving the other side?

    • #26 by Redina on October 28, 2013 - 7:47 pm

      You can say that again. These people made complete fools of themselves. Joe, I don’t blame you one bit for exposing this.

      • #27 by amateur night on October 30, 2013 - 7:57 am

        There is a long laundry list this tag team is going to have hung out to dry sooner than later. The parents will squeal.

  10. #28 by Moriarty on October 28, 2013 - 8:11 pm

    Mr. Imbriano, if you haven’t noticed, the parents are not involved in the civic aspects of their children’s education, thus the empty seats for the dog and pony show. They have been trained to keep themselves relegated to fundraising and other subservient forms of involvement.

    You, on the other hand, are an anomaly and a rather tenacious one at that. You appear to have been built for this as far as one can tell. My best years are far behind me now and I don’t have it in me anymore. My grandchildren are in Fullerton and I sense the danger. For you I have but one piece of advice:

    Give’em hell.

  11. #29 by fullerton parent on October 29, 2013 - 8:11 am

    This is a wonderful website. The issues are serious,the coverage is hard hitting and the gloves are off. I love it. You go Joe.

    It would be wise for you to attend the city council meeting next Tuesday night and during the public comment period, introduce yourself and this website.

    People need to know what is happening in the community, in our schools and with our leaders. The local media is a complete joke. It is all fluff.

    • #30 by Anonymous on October 29, 2013 - 10:50 am

      Mr. Imbriano has attended the city council meetings numerous times, but they choose to ignore this issue as well as the board members. They are all cowards.

  12. #31 by Anonymous on October 30, 2013 - 8:58 am

    Mr. Imbriano, has anyone from the Assemblywoman’s office been in contact with you?

  13. #32 by Michele Garden on October 30, 2013 - 10:23 am

    Alright, look here. I’m really tired of hearing from other people that y’all are giving me grief on this blog and maligning my husband’s name. Here is the real deal. My husband, Roman Shulze, and I, Michele Garden, just plain ol’ don’t agree with your assertions. We, along with a majority of the parents, the Physics Dept. at CSUF, and a WHOLE LOTTA other scientists and citizens think that you are wrong. We are tired of the minority forcing their views on the majority. I am dog-tired of picking up the trash you leave on people’s cars from the bushes and gutters around Acacia and Raymond. Stop littering the neighborhood. We have no connection to the school district. My husband just enjoys arguing his well-researched point…it is sport for him. Finally, and most importantly, I really hate that people post on this site without using their real names. Joe seems to be the only person with balls enough to use his real name with what he says. If you are going to say something, then have the balls to attach your real name to it. Stop posting my name here and there in your random blogs. I have worked tirelessy for the school and the district for 7 years now (2 years of it as PTA President) and I’m tired of people talking shit when I am just doing my best and sticking to what I find to be the truth, even if it doesn’t align with your philosophy. I’ve really lost my patience with y’all! Thank you for listening.

    • #33 by Anonymous on October 30, 2013 - 11:18 am

      Wow, where to start?

      Michele Garden: Perhaps you should do what your husband was told to do and contact all the medical doctors, scientists, researchers and tell them they are all wrong and it’s okay to irradiate all the children. I guess you should give that list to the CSUF Physics Dept, too. That is who your argument is with.

      “I am dog-tired of picking up the trash you leave on people’s cars from the bushes and gutters around Acacia and Raymond. Stop littering the neighborhood.”
      Are you for denying everyone their First Amendment rights under the US Constitution, Michele? Or, is it just the “minority” that differ from you?
      Do you normally go around picking up things from the ground, or is it just literature with which you disagree and don’t want the parents to see?

      ” . . . it is sport for him.” Well, there we have it! Dr. Roman Schulze finds his amusement in arguing against the experts in the field, all the while influencing the school parents to his view that classroom radiation is fine for their children. Just a suggestion, but why doesn’t your husband find sport in something more benign, like arguing the nutritional value of an apple or an orange? He picked a very serious health concern in which to find sport and entertainment.

      “If you are going to say something, then have the balls to attach your real name to it. Stop posting my name here and there in your random blogs.”
      Michele, are you being discussed on other blogs? This is the nature of blogs, they can be back and forth between posters, you can post with your real name, you can post anonymously, or you can just visit and read, or you cannot visit at all. That’s just the nature of blogs.

      Think of what you are advocating for, Michele. You are advocating for the irradiation of the children in classrooms, and you are fighting tooth and nail for it, along with your husband. You continually frame this as an argument between you/your husband and Joe Imbriano. It’s not. It’s an argument between you and those researchers and medical doctors that have documented the harms from wireless radiation. The world is much bigger than Acacia Elementary.

      As I think about your motivation and your words, your argument defies reason, logic, and human kindness and compassion. How on earth could anyone argue so persistently for NOT applying caution with our children?

      Sometimes, it can be very difficult to change direction once one has dug in. I am sure the parents have appreciated all of your hard work on the PTA, and you are to be thanked and commended for that effort. You must know, in your heart, that all of these studies, all of the medical doctors, all of the researchers and scientists that have stepped up and said that wireless does not belong in our children’s classroom cannot all be wrong. You must know that. If you step forward, change direction, and say that while you have doubts, it is better to err on the side of caution for our children, your Acacia community will be accepting and respectful of that. You will be well regarded, Michele.

      In the larger picture, this issue is being played out all across the globe. Fullerton, CA, is just one drop of the ocean, Michele.

      • #34 by amateur night on October 30, 2013 - 7:56 pm

        Hey Joe-solid gold article material right here-call it “insert foot in mouth part 2”-

      • #35 by Anonymous on November 1, 2013 - 5:49 pm

        I wholeheartedly agree with you. You really speak from the heart. Maybe they will listen and err on the side of caution.

    • #36 by amateur night on October 30, 2013 - 10:14 pm

      Michele is this your first and last goodbye?

      • #37 by she's done on October 31, 2013 - 2:25 pm

        stick a fork in it

    • #38 by first grade parent at Acacia on November 1, 2013 - 1:52 pm

      Michele, I was never aware of any of the alleged health risks associated with these Ipads and WiFi until I received a flyer on my windshield. Over the last several months, I have receieved multiple notices and information on this topic. I don’t believe that they were all from Mr. Imbriano. However, I am grateful for this side of the story. I have supported the PTA and foundation as I thought these were organizations that want to help improve the educational experience at my child’s school.

      While I do not know you personally, I do know who you are and have friends that know you. I find it deeply disturbing that debating over an issue affecting the health of our children is some sort of a “sport” to your husband.
      What’s more, I am shocked that you would be so calloused about admitting that fact.

      Michele, Mr. Imbriano, or anyone else for that matter has every right to distribute literature that is not deemed obscene on any car windshields as he sees fit. No one has asked or appointed you to be the street cleaner.

      Your idea of litter happens to be a pillar of our free society. What if Mr. Imbriano is correct? You have called yourself a scientist. What if it were you who were screaming from the mountain tops over some new discovery? Your display of such arrogance and your clear hatred and disregard for the First Amendment makes one wonder what kind of scientist you are and what kind of education you received.

      Do you are are you speaking on behalf of the Acacia Foundation or PTA? I would like an answer to that question. My support of these organizations as well as that of the other parents that I know just may be coming to an end!

  14. #39 by Ray on October 30, 2013 - 1:44 pm

    It was obvious from the beginning that there was a reason for Dr. Schulze’s refusal to engage with the scientific evidence that shows WiFi to be harmful. I asked him outright what his relationship was to the school district, but he wouldn’t respond.

    So, months later the truth comes in. His wife is with PTA.

    I have to ask a similar question to you Michelle, how to do manage to ignore thousands of peer reviewed research papers that show this kind of RF microwave radiation to be harmful? How is it that you manage to turn a blind eye to testimony from top medical and scientific experts, many with entire careers dedicated to this field of research, who state that this is not safe for children?

    I’ve read through your rant several times, and am shocked at the lack of substance. Like your husband, you focus on everything but the scientific evidence right in front of you.

    I agree with you on one point, which is that your husband, a medical doctor, treated this public health issue as a game. He dodged and jumped around the evidence as long as he could, until I personally challenged him to address the material before him. It was his decision to then disappear, and in doing so, to demonstrate a complete lack of integrity.

    As would be expected, your rant illustrates the fact that you have also made the mistake of seeing this as a sport or game. Like a high school football, you’ve chosen your team. Public health issues are not a competitive sport, Michelle. Snap out of it.

    My advice for you is to get off the bleachers and grow up. This isn’t about what you’ve done for the school, it’s not about leaflets that blew away, and it’s not about what people think. Most of all this isn’t about beliefs or philosophy. It’s about the scientific evidence. Put all that other stuff away, at least for a few minutes, and focus on the facts.

    Science does not negate science. If we have thousands of peer reviewed papers on one side that report adverse biological and health effects, and thousands of papers on the other side that do not report effects, they don’t mix into a muddy puddle. That’s not how it works. Each and every one of those studies that reported effects disproves the statement that WiFi is safe.

    Consider this for a minute. Imagine that your child grew up to be one of the world’s top researchers on RF radiation. Imagine that this researcher lead a project that clearly found that wireless radiation caused damage to the brain. Imagine that this project was deliberately ridiculed by industry, with such efforts going so far as to attempt to ruin the researcher’s career? Imagine that these efforts, born of pure greed, prevented the public from knowing about the health risks. Last, imagine that school PTA moms, when hearing of this information, simply turned their heads, and made up excuses.

    This story is real, and I’m talking about the results of REFLEX, an EU funded research project that found that pulse modulated RF microwave radiation, such as is emitted within in wireless classrooms, caused genetic damage. (see Adlkofer testimony)

    Ask yourself how can you can, in good conscience, ignore the statements of top medical and scientific experts as to the dangers of irradiating children with wifi emitted microwave radiation?

    Dr Annie Sasco, MD, PhD, Director, Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention, INSERM (Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale) Research Unit, School of Public Health, Victor-Segalen Bordeaux 2 Université, France. Formerly International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Unit Chief of Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention.

    “If we want to wait for final proof, at least in terms of cancer, it may still take 20 years and the issue will become that we will not have unexposed population to act as control. We may never have the absolute final proof. But we have enough data to go ahead with a precautionary principle to avoid exposures (radiofrequencies) which are unnecessary if our goal is to reduce somewhat the burden of cancer in the years to come and other chronic diseases.”

    Dr. David O Carpenter, MD, Director Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany and Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, USA.

    Chronic, such as all-day, school exposure, is more likely than short and intermittent exposure, such as cell phone use, to produce harmful health effects, and is likely to do so at lower exposure levels.

    Children are more vulnerable to RF/MW radiation because of the susceptibility of their developing nervous systems. Children are largely unable to remove themselves from exposures to harmful substances in their environments. Their exposure is involuntary. There is a major legal difference between an exposure that an individual chooses to accept and one that is forced upon a person, especially a dependent, who can do nothing about it. WiFi must be banned from school deployment.”

    Professor Dr. Franz Adlkofer, MD, Chairman of Pandora – Foundation for Independent
    Research. Director of the EU-funded REFLEX research project.

    “While the use of mobile phones is the result of people’s free choice, their exposure to W-LAN and other wireless applications is mostly compulsory. Especially concerned are children in schools where this technology has been given preference to wired computers. Since our knowledge on possible adverse effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields isstill rather poor, it is obvious that at present the biggest biophysical experiment of mankind is under way – with an uncertain outcome.

    In May 2011, the uncertainty has been strengthened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’. This decision was mainly based on the results of epidemiological studies that observed after long-term (>10years) and intensive use of mobile phones an increased risk for brain tumors exactly at the side of the head at which the mobile phone was used. The results from animal experiments, although of minor
    significance, supported the decision. Not discussed, however, was research that shows changes in the structure and functions of genes. Had they been included in the evaluation, the classification would not have been ‘possibly carcinogenic’ but rather ‘probably carcinogenic’.

    The general public is confronted with two different views, one represented by politics and industry and one by the growing number of independent researchers. Ordinary people have either no idea of the probably adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation or have full confidence in the exposure limits that according to their governments reliably protect from risk to the health. They do not know that the exposure limits are based on pseudo-science thought to create the necessary legal frame for a telecommunication industry that wants to make use of the new technology without being hampered by medical considerations.

    For a medical doctor like me, the conclusion from the present state of knowledge must be that a precautionary approach is overdue and must not be delayed anymore.”

    More testimonies from medical and scientific experts:

    http://wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/scientists_and_medical_doctors.pdf

    • #40 by Anonymous on October 31, 2013 - 11:01 am

      Ray,you are a gentleman and always show tact and class. This is an excellent response written with a level head to a person that can claim to possess no such thing. This woman is a PTA president?

  15. #41 by Schulzee on October 30, 2013 - 2:23 pm

    Ha ha ha, that cinched it. I have it on good authority that Joe is also posting as “Anonymous” and possibly others. Makes sense now.

    I called all the “specialist” that we’re listed and they all laughed and said you were wrong so, there’s that.

    Ray. Certified by what board?

    Joe. Still sending your kids to be radiated on a daily basis?

    1. Radiofrequency Toolkit for Environment Health Practioners, BC Center for Disease Control
    This report was prepared by the Center for Disease Control in the province of British Columbia Canada. On the whole, this document is quite good considering that it was written by outsiders to the field. The report notes that “several recent international reports” such as “the UK Health Protection Agency (2012) and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (2012), among others, have published major reviews of RF and its potential effect on health; both agencies concluded that there is little evidence of adverse impacs on the health of the general population by RF”.

    However, in its analysis of the BioInitiative Report, which deviates widely from the mainstream scientific consensus, the “Tookit” fails to do any critical analysis. The two editions of the Bio-Initiative Report have been widely criticized by mainstream scientists. The “Toolkit” also fails to mention the new studies that seriously undermine the weak evidence used in IARC classification of cell phones as Category 2B- a possible carcinogen. These are serious weaknesses that mar an otherwise good quality report. The full report can be found here.

    2. March 2013 Swedish Radiation Safety (SSM) Report:
    “together with national cancer incidence statistics from different countries, [recent results are] not convincing in linking mobile phone use to the occurrence of glioma or other tumours of the head region among adults.”

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

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

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

    3. 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”.
    Click these links for the: Executive Summary, and the Full Report.

    4. 2102:3 Norway: The Expert Committee appointed by the Nowegian Institute of Health has published a new report entitled: Low-level electromagnetic fields – an assessment of health risks and evaluation of regulatory practice. The following are quotes from the web page short summary:
    “The group found no evidence that the low-level fields around mobile phones and other transmitters increase the risk of cancer, impair male fertility, cause other reproductive damage or lead to other diseases and adverse health effects, such as changes to the endocrine and immune systems.”
    And
    “The Committee did not find that mobile phones and other equipment can cause health problems such as electromagnetic hypersensitivity”.
    Click the following link for a web page short summary of the report.
    Click the following to download the PDF of the English version of the report.

    5. 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”.

    6. EFHRAM European Health Risk Assessment Network D2 Report Risk Analysis of Human Exposure to EMF 2010: “SCENIHR (2009a) reviewed the evidence from the various national studies and pooled analyses from parts of the Interphone study: severe concerns were raised about reporting bias that may exist in these data. Nonetheless, it was concluded that this evidence, combined with the results of animal and cellular studies indicated that exposure to RF fields was unlikely to lead to an increase in brain cancer or parotid gland tumours in humans”.
    7. EFHRAM European Health Risk Assessment Network D3 Report on Risks of EMF in vitro and in vivo 2010: P 27 “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”.
    8. ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: ICNIRP is affiliated with the World Health Organization. New report: Exposure to electromagnetic fields, biological effects and health consequences 16/2009. P260: “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. 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”.
    9. Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion: Wireless Technology and Health Outcomes: Evidence and Review 2010:
    “…While the most recent review continues to call for additional research to follow up on new findings, after a decade of additional research, there is still no conclusive evidence of adverse effects on health at exposure levels below current Canadian guidelines.’
    Given the experience with other sources of non-ionizing radiation (e.g. power lines) that have been in use much longer than cellphones or Wi-Fi, it is unlikely that all controversies related to potential RF effects will be resolved even after decades of additional research”.
    10. University of Ottawa, McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment: Review Panel Reports 2011. This is a collection of quotes from reports by expert groups of the world’s major public health organization assessing the issue of EMF & health. New quotes are added periodically.

    11. Swedish Radiation Authority: the Swedish State Radiation Protection Authority (SSI), sets the safety standards for wireless devices in Sweden. The SSI has commissioned a series of expert assessments on EMF and health in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The following statements were extracted from these reports:
    2008 P5: “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”.
    2009 P4: “..these results in combination with the negative animal data and very low exposure from transmitters make it highly unlikely that living in the vicinity of a transmitter implicates an increased risk of cancer.”
    2009 P4: “While the symptoms experienced by patients with perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity are very real and some subjects suffer severely, there is no evidence that RF exposure is a causal factor.”
    2010: P4: “Available data do not indicate any risks related to exposure to RF from base stations or radio or TV antennas. Taking into account also the low levels of exposure that these sources give rise to, health effects from transmitters are unlikely”.
    12. 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.

    13. The following is a compilation of 68 statements from Expert Groups over the years 2000 – 2010 attesting to the fact that there is no credible evidence of harm from EMF.

    Previous Reports from Expert Groups

    1. World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO is the world’s largest and most prestigious public health organization. It was established by the United Nations to monitor and report on international pubic health issues. The WHO has published an excellent overview of EMF and health entitled “About Electromagnetic Fields”. The following is a link to fact sheets containing documents on Base stations and wireless networks, Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and Exposure to extremely low frequency fields. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/.
    2. The American Cancer Society. This site has good articles on cellular phones and cellular phone towers and health: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/cellular-phones
    3. The US FDA this page contains a statement by the FDA to the effect that there are no known problems from the use of cell phones: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/default.htm
    4. US National Cancer Institute. The page summarizes the results of studies to date on cellular telephone risk and cancer risk. The results of the majority of studies are negative. A handful of “positive” studies suffer from “recall bias”. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones and this update.
    5. US Centers for Disease Control. This fact sheet is a basic Q&A on cell phones and health. The CDC indicates that studies to date do not indicate a significant association between cell phones and health problems. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/factsheets/cellphone_facts.pdf
    6. European Commission: Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) has written a comprehensive report entitled: Health Effects of Exposure to EMF. This report was issued in Jan. 09. They found no significant link between various forms of EMF and health. The main 83 page report is entitled Health Effects of EMF. The following quote is from P 8: “”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”.
    7. EMF-NET is a scientific consortium of 41 participants from various countries funded by the European Commission to investigate the issue of EMF and health. None of their investigations has found any significant link between EMF and health. The following is a link to their documents: http://web.jrc.ec.europa.eu/emf-net/efrtdocuments.cfm
    8. The COMAR committee of the the IEEE has written an excellent Review Paper published in the Oct. 2009 issue of Health Physics on many of the studies cited by alarmists, and in particular the Bio-Initiative Report. From the COMAR paper:
    “A major weakness of the BIR is a selective, rather than a comprehensive, review of the literature in various topical areas.
    9. 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.”
    10. U.K. Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) (2000), “Mobile Phones and Health,” Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones,” c/o National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, Didcot,” Oxon, UK. UK Independent Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP),
    11. U.K. National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation (AGNIR) (2004) “Review of the Scientific Evidence for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (0 – 300 GHz),” Documents of the NRPB, Vol. 15, No. 3, NRPB, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire, U.K.
    12. UK Institution of Engineering and Technology, Biological Effects Policy Advisory
    Group on Low-level Electromagnetic Fields (2006): Link
    13. French Environmental Health and Safety Agency (AFSSET) Communiqué on cell phone towers
    14. French Academie Nationale de Medecine. “Les risques des antennes de téléphonie mobile”.
    15. German Research Centre Jülich, Programme Group Humans, Environment,
    Technology (MUT) (2005) This program brought together 25 leading experts from
    Germany and Switzerland in a risk dialogue to assess the results of recent scientific
    studies on mobile phones and base stations Mobile Phones and Health

    • #42 by Jamie on October 30, 2013 - 4:11 pm

      Still working so diligently to irradiate the children, huh, Dr. Roman Schulze?

      Kinda sick. . . . .

      • #43 by Anonymous 2 on October 30, 2013 - 4:49 pm

        You are aware that EMF is much safer than sunlight which is a class 1 carcinogen, right???

        • #44 by Joe Imbriano on October 30, 2013 - 6:28 pm

          I am aware that exposure to sunlight amplified to a trillion times the normal background levels can kill you on the spot.

          Your frame of reference with respect to quantity needs to be examined by your physics buddies over at the wife’s office Roman. Bring them on board and let them publicly join the debate seeing as how your wife has just gone on record stating their position. The more the merrier. 15,000 children just in Fullerton K-8 alone. Add the FJUHSD and what CSF and FJC is doing as well with their wireless programs. The stakes are tremendous.

          • #45 by Schulzee on October 31, 2013 - 3:27 pm

            You do realize that sunlight, without amplification, Can cause melanoma and kill you? Oh, and lead moving at 2,000 fps will kill you too but it will not cause cancer. Yet lead is 2B and solar radiation is 1. Which would you rather be exposed too? I’ll take the class 1 carcinogen, thanks.

            • #46 by Joe Imbriano on October 31, 2013 - 3:51 pm

              Sunlight exposure cannot cause cancer unless the person is deficient in nitrilosides, a partaker in a highly acidic diet, with elevated sugar levels, low tissue oxygenation and other factors, most of which are simply rooted in irresponsible behavior. The sun was hung in the sky by God for our benefit and survival. Heck the WHO has got aloe vera leafs on that list and now the medical establishment has turned everyone inward away from the source of vitamin D, health and vitality by freaking them out. Now they slather toxic sunscreen all over their bodies, utilize UV blocking contact lenses and glasses virtually ensuring vitamin D deficiency in every last one of us, cram the non-absorbable synthetic form into the school lunch toxic milk, chlorinate the bodies production of viatmin D emolient with the tapwater shower after exposure, and seat everyone under a 2700k mercury vapor light all day staring at screens because Simon Says So. Roman, the fact is that we were designed by God to withstand and benefit from sun exposure. WE WERE NOT DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND AND BE EXPOSED TO TRILLIONS OF TIMES THE NORMAL BACKGROUND LEVELS OF MICROWAVE RADIATION. Even the healthiest and most vibrant among us will succumb. Your worldview is a major impediment to your logic and thought processes. Sadly it appears that you are in good company.

              • #47 by Anonymous on October 31, 2013 - 4:04 pm

                Mr. Imbriano, you are so right on so many fronts. When one removes The Creator from the equation, there is no limit to the vastness of their error. You are a very wise man. This Schulzee person demonstrates knowledge but clearly lacks wisdom. He is a troubled soul.

        • #48 by Jamie on October 31, 2013 - 7:54 am

          still workin’ it, huh, Schulze?

    • #49 by Joe Imbriano on October 30, 2013 - 10:31 pm

      The irony of your position is that it literally is dovetailing your lineage right into your very own worldview.

      The wisdom of a fool is folly Roman. To think that all of the intelligence God has blessed you with is being used to attempt to thwart His will for His children and to serve those whose stated goal is to interfere with His stated plan and command to be fruitful and multiply. Yes Roman-I believe that the goal is to adversely impact human fertility. Maybe your worldview really lends itself to that and as such, surreptitiously, that could be your motivation.

      Roman, I believe that the Fullerton School District and the wireless industry could care less about you or your children. The school district is an insatiable quasi-municipal corporation and the wireless industry a ravenous beast offshoot of the military. In my opinion, they are both ruthless and the children to them are merely chattel property, a means to an end and an end to a means. Open your eyes.

      • #50 by Ray on October 31, 2013 - 7:58 am

        Another cut and paste from Schulze’s go-to source for industry-spun obfuscation.

        Schulze, your lack of integrity continues to be made evident by your repeated cut and paste from http://www.emfhealth.com, a website financed and put together by electronics industry mogul Lorne Trottier, who went so far as to hire scientists and professors to push his agenda.

        We’ve been through these reports with you before, and found that they are either outdated, cherry picked, or are easily disproven by the scientific evidence itself. This represents most of your game, and yes you and your wife have now both admitted that this is a game for you, is to continue to use material that has already been falsified.

  16. #51 by Schulzee on October 30, 2013 - 2:36 pm

    Hey, what’s with this wifiinschools website. Why is there no bio on the owner of the site? Am I missing something or do they have something to hide? Man, even Joe has his bio…

    And how could the owner of the site fail to ignore the thousands of studies that FAIL to who any health effects? Now that’s just irresponsible and misleading. Even Joe acknowledged that there are “thousands of studies” that fail to show adverse health effects.

    • #52 by mom on October 30, 2013 - 7:43 pm

      If you are referring to Ray Pealer’s website, Wifiinschools.com, it is replete with independent scientific experts that have spent their careers researching RF emissions’ effects.

      How about this site?

      http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/schools-children-and-families,4,0 ?

      Lets look at the message not the messenger.

    • #53 by Anonymous on October 31, 2013 - 12:53 am

      Please post your credentials on the website for all of us to see Dr. Scholl

    • #54 by Ray on October 31, 2013 - 8:08 am

      Schulze, I would lay my bio out in a heartbeat if I thought it would make a difference.

      However, given that you ignore the world’s top scientists, thousands of medical doctors, and other public health experts, it is clear that this is simply another diversion.

      • #55 by Schulzee on October 31, 2013 - 12:42 pm

        That’s what I expected, thanks. Say, do you have any studies on hat website that fail to show harm? Why not?

  17. #56 by Schulzee on October 30, 2013 - 2:42 pm

    Robyn Urback: Former Microsoft Canada head joins bizarre fight to protect schoolchildren from Wi-Fi

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/16/robyn-urback-former-microsoft-canada-head-joins-bizarre-fight-to-protect-schoolchildren-from-wi-fi/

    • #57 by amateur night on October 31, 2013 - 12:22 pm

      Is a cat called Dr. Roman Schulzeepoo joining a bizarre fight to irradiate all these inncocent kids in Fullerton Schools?

  18. #58 by email to me from Michele Garden on October 30, 2013 - 3:07 pm

    Garden, Michele
    2:39 PM (27 minutes ago)

    to me, bob_pletka, Susan, Karen, Chris, beverly, laurie_bruneau, janny, Hilda, Ed, Foundation, GGIOKARIS, Mar, PTA, Renee, William, Davis, Fritz
    Mr. Imbriano,

    I am done with you.

    I am done with your relentless pursuit of poor science. I am done with the unsolicited stream of e-mails from you. I am done with finding your flyers on my car and in the gutters and bushes around our school. I am done with hearing that my name is mentioned here and there on your website in an unflattering tone. I am done with you pushing your views on the majority of people who have listened to them and do not agree. For every “expert scientific opinion” you purport, I can give you one or two that substantiates the fact that Wi-Fi does NOT pose a danger. I am done with you continually referring to the one scientific report (the Bioinitiative report) that is one of the worst pieces of scientific research. I am done hearing about how you and your minions believe that my husband and I, because we argue for scientific reason, are somehow “working for the school district” and are mere stooges speaking for the school board, as one person told me personally. I am done.

    Please remove me from your e-mail lists. If you are unhappy with the place your children are learning, then remove them to a place you are happier with. Stop pushing YOUR viewpoints on the rest of us.

    Sincerely,

    Michele Garden

    • #59 by Joe Imbriano on October 30, 2013 - 3:07 pm

      ———- Forwarded message ———-
      From: joe imbriano
      Date: Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:59 PM
      Subject: Re: The wireless debate goes on and on
      To: “Garden, Michele”
      Cc: joe imbriano , bob_pletka , Susan Cross Hume , Karen Whisnant , Chris Thompson , beverly berryman , “laurie_bruneau@fullertonsd.org” , janny meyer , Hilda Sugarman , “Rep. Ed Royce” , “Foundation@theacaciapartnership.org” , “GGIOKARIS@fjuhsd.net” , Mar Buc , “PTA@theacaciapartnership.org” , Renee Hendrick , William Diepenbrock , Davis Barber , Fritz Heirich

      Michele, The First Amendment protects everything that you have mentioned. For the record, I am not emailing you directly. I am simply emailing the Acacia PTA and Foundation. May I suggest you remove yourself from the email roster from the PTA or Foundation if you wish to no longer receive my emails. As a parent of three children at Acacia, I have every right to freely communicate with these groups as their decisions and actions directly impact my children.

      Thank you.

      Joe Imbriano

    • #60 by Jamie on October 30, 2013 - 4:17 pm

      I second this:

      “Think of what you are advocating for, Michele. You are advocating for the irradiation of the children in classrooms, and you are fighting tooth and nail for it, along with your husband. You continually frame this as an argument between you/your husband and Joe Imbriano. It’s not. It’s an argument between you and those researchers and medical doctors that have documented the harms from wireless radiation. The world is much bigger than Acacia Elementary.

      As I think about your motivation and your words, your argument defies reason, logic, and human kindness and compassion. How on earth could anyone argue so persistently for NOT applying caution with our children?”

      – See more at: http://thefullertoninformer.com/insert-foot-in-mouth/#comment-25520

      • #61 by Joe Imbriano on October 30, 2013 - 11:07 pm

        It is easy, she just makes it all about Joe Imbriano. She just packages it all up, puts a ribbon on it and ships it off next day delivery to some place 3000 miles away from her conscience. See how easy that was?

    • #62 by amateur night on October 30, 2013 - 7:11 pm

      The makings of a solid platinum article right here- call it “insert both feet in mouth” and then hand it over to the the theater arts dept over at Fullerton High School and then the poly sci dept over at CSF.

      The kids will have a field day with it.

    • #63 by Rubinia on October 30, 2013 - 8:23 pm

      Wow, who is this woman spewing vitriol, disdain and disregard for free speech, and supporting the squelching of the voice of the minority?

      I no longer live in the US, and if this is what it is coming to, I am glad I left when I did. This person’s comments are unbelievable. Michele, move to Cuba or North Korea. You will fit right in.

      • #64 by Joe Imbriano on October 30, 2013 - 10:13 pm

        What are certain parents to do when it appears the teachers, principals, administration, County and State level brass, and even the PTA and local parent groups and even some parents collectively turn all their backs on the children? I will tell you what those certain parents are to do. They are to be as relentless in their undertaking as we are.

      • #65 by she's done on October 31, 2013 - 3:16 pm

        stick a fork in it

    • #66 by sundip on October 30, 2013 - 9:59 pm

      Bio Initiative report is just one of many resources and links referenced on this web site. You obviously haven’t bothered to pay much time to what is on this website.

    • #67 by stick a fork in it on October 31, 2013 - 2:13 pm

      She’s done

  19. #68 by Joe Imbriano on October 30, 2013 - 3:08 pm

    joe imbriano
    3:03 PM (4 minutes ago)

    to bob_pletka, Susan, Lisa, info, david
    Mr. Robert Pletka, Ed.D.
    District Superintendent
    1401 W. Valencia Drive
    Fullerton, California 92833

    RE: my children

    Dear Mr. Pletka:

    I presume you are aware that since the introduction of iPads, many children in my children’s classrooms, including SON, are routinely getting bloody noses since the iPad devices were introduced; if not, you are now personally aware. By any standard, you must agree that this is entirely unacceptable.

    Accordingly, this is my final demand to turn off the WI-FI and to cease using iPad devices at my child’s school, or to provide him an accommodation room without WI-FI and without any iPad devices. If you deny my request, I will be forced to remove SON and to provide him a private education or home schooling, which will cause substantial hardship, will deny him the social developmental skills offered in public schools, substantial financial costs, and additional emotional distress.

    Finally, in your October 3, 2013 letter, you stated that my “concern that iPads or routers constitute a health hazard has been reviewed by District staff and found to be without merit,” please explain to me how you and the District (what you took into consideration) derived and formed this opinion?

    Please note that I reserve all rights and remedies available at law and equity.

    Sincerely,

    Joe Imbriano

  20. #69 by Anonymous 2 on October 30, 2013 - 4:52 pm

    I’m sure they’ll accommodate you at your home school, Raymond.

    • #70 by Joe Imbriano on October 30, 2013 - 5:35 pm

      Roman, come on pal, use your name please and stop using the the proxy server, or I will not post your comments. You are the district’s dog in this fight so stay in the ring with me please. Thank you.

      • #71 by Schulzee on October 31, 2013 - 3:37 pm

        Wen your server blocks my IP and I get a Error 403 I have to mask my IP. Why is it so important that I use my name when so many others don’t, am I special?

    • #72 by Jamie on October 30, 2013 - 6:07 pm

      Do you try to drive everyone out of Acacia school that you see fit? Are you working with the FSD in driving out those who will not go along with your irradiation kick? You are just unrelenting, doc.
      Don’t you like Mr. Imbriano’s children? Are the children your target? Oh, I forget, they are your target; you insist on irradiating them. Does FSD ask you to orchestrate this? Do they show favor on you for doing so? Are you the hero of FSD?

      • #73 by Joe Imbriano on October 30, 2013 - 6:26 pm

        The Imbriano’s are enrolled at Acacia Elementary school and we will remain there. We are not going anywhere.

        • #74 by Schulzee on October 31, 2013 - 3:46 pm

          Jesus Joe! You can’t send a threatening letter like that to Pletcka and within minuets admit that you are bluffing. I don’t think it is suppose to work like that.

          • #75 by Joe Imbriano on October 31, 2013 - 3:53 pm

            Your wife posted profanity yesterday on this blog and you are now taking The Lord’s name in vain. Please show some decorum.

            Where do you see anywhere that I am bluffing?

            • #76 by Schulzee on October 31, 2013 - 4:29 pm

              Did you not say that “If you deny my request, I will be forced to remove SON and to provide him a private education or home schooling, which will cause substantial hardship”…???

              Also, lying does not become us. My wife did not post to this blog. YOU posted a private email from her to you. So you are in fact responsible for posting profanity.

              • #77 by Anonymous on October 31, 2013 - 5:22 pm

                Ummm…no, your wife used profanity on her comment to this blog or else Mr. Imbriano would have posted the date and time of her email to him.

                • #78 by amateur night on October 31, 2013 - 5:30 pm

                  ha ha ha-that cinched it, I have it on good authority that we have here the making of a new blog article entitled “insert foot in mouth part tres” Oh Schulzeepoo where are you.

                • #79 by Schulzee on October 31, 2013 - 5:48 pm

                  Perhaps I stand corrected, I was refering to the post titled “e-mail to me from….”. Perhaps there is another blog entry in which I missed the profanity…

                  • #80 by Anonymous on November 1, 2013 - 12:21 pm

                    Yeah sure you did. Just like you are missing the whole boat on this issue.

          • #81 by amateur night on October 31, 2013 - 4:00 pm

            This cat just don’t get it.

  21. #82 by Anonymous on October 30, 2013 - 5:15 pm

    Wi-Fi:
    Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825

    Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647

    Avendaño C. et al., 2010. Laptop expositions affect motility and induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for Reproductive Medicine 66th Annual Meeting: O-249 http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/laptops+and+sperm.pdf)

    Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479077

    Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19396408

    Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.

    Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2): 253-266.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675629

    Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields.http://www.istanbul.edu.tr/6internatwshopbioeffemf/cd/pdf/poster/WI-FI%20ELECTROMAGNETIC%20FIELDS%20EXERT%20GENDER.pdf

    Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915130

    Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19637079

    Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489926

    Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-92.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019785

    Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23145464

    Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714138

    (Wi-Fi alters brain activity in young adults:http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/wifi+brain+July+2011.pdf)

    Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23334843

    Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360060

    A few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures (6V/m or below):
    (Not comprehensive)
    Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769

    Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci. 24:111-116.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600821
    Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika 44:737–741.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10544828
    Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:29–35.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619445

    Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.

    Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 162(2):416-428.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19768389
    Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 158:126-139.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089649
    Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16:263–267.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

    Maier R. et al., 2004. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on cognitive processes – a pilot study on pulsed field interference with cognitive regeneration. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 110: 46-52.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15180806
    Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29: 219-232.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044737
    Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika 43:1132–1333.

    Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II. Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:37–41.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619446
    Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816647

    Panagopoulos D. J.et al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20397839

    Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.
    Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 25:216-27.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042631

    Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the mammalian blood-brain barrier. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:333-355.http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.
    Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:881-883. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486

    http://wifiinschools.org.uk/30.html

    • #83 by Joe Imbriano on October 30, 2013 - 6:25 pm

      Thank you for your post. I guess these studies are what Michele Garden refers to as “my assertions” and “poor science”.

  22. #84 by Concerned grandma on October 30, 2013 - 9:57 pm

    Mr. Imbriano,
    Have you considered removing your children from their school and going to the media with your concerns?
    I would think that “someone” from the media would listen to you if you refused to send your children to school!
    I have a 7 yr old granddaughter that is using iPads daily at her school and I am very concerned about what it is doing to her health. She is not in Fullerton…but in Mission Viejo!

  23. #87 by Anonymous on October 31, 2013 - 2:50 am

    “Wireless phones, i.e. mobile phones and cordless phones, emit radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) when used. An increased risk of brain tumors is a major concern. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the World Health Organization (WHO) evaluated the carcinogenic effect to humans from RF-EMF in May 2011. It was concluded that RF-EMF is a group 2B, i.e. a “possible”, human carcinogen.

    Bradford Hill gave a presidential address at the British Royal Society of Medicine in 1965 on the association or causation that provides a helpful framework for evaluation of the brain tumour risk from RF-EMF.

    All nine issues on causation according to Hill were evaluated. Regarding wireless phones, only studies with long-term use were included. In addition, laboratory studies and data on the incidence of brain tumours were considered.

    The criteria on strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, and biologic gradient for evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma were fulfilled. Additional evidence came from plausibility and analogy based on laboratory studies.

    Regarding coherence, several studies show increasing incidence of brain tumours, especially in the most exposed area. Support for the experiment came from antioxidants that can alleviate the generation of reactive oxygen species involved in biologic effects, although a direct mechanism for brain tumor carcinogenesis has not been shown. In addition, the finding of no increased risk for brain tumors in subjects using the mobile phone only in a car with an external antenna is supportive evidence. Hill did not consider it was essential, or even very likely, that all the listed criteria were likely to be fulfilled.

    Ref: Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg, Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile and cordless phones, Rev Environ Health 2013-0006, De Gruyter; DOI 10.1515
    Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use

    This new study confirms previous results of an association between mobile and cordless phone use and malignant brain tumours. The findings provide support for the hypothesis that RF-EMFs play a role both in the initiation and promotion stages of carcinogenesis.

    Previous studies have shown a consistent association between long-term use of mobile and cordless phones and glioma and acoustic neuroma, but not for meningioma. When these phones are used they emit radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) and the brain is the main target organ for the handheld phone emissions.

    The International Agency for Research on Cancer(IARC) classified in May, 2011 RF-EMF as a group 2B, i.e.a “possible” human carcinogen. The aim of this study was to further explore the relationship between especially long-term (>10 years) use of wireless phones and the development of malignant brain tumours.

    The researchers conducted a new case-control study of brain tumour cases of both genders aged 18-75 years and diagnosed during 2007-2009. One population-based control, matched on gender and age (within 5 years), was used for each case. Here, we report on malignant cases including all available controls. Exposures on e.g. use of mobile phones and cordless phones were assessed by a self-administered questionnaire. Unconditional logistic regression analysis was performed, adjusting for age, gender, year of diagnosis and socio-economic index using the whole control sample.

    Of the cases with a malignant brain tumour, 87% (n=593) participated, and 85% (n=1,368) of controls in the whole study answered the questionnaire.

    The odds ratio (OR) for mobile phone use of the analogue type was 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.04-3.3,
    increasing with >25 years of latency (time since first exposure) to an OR=3.3, 95% CI=1.6-6.9

    Digital 2G (GSM) mobile phone use rendered an OR=1.6, 95% CI=0.996-2.7,
    increasing with latency >15-20 years to an OR=2.1, 95% CI=1.2-3.6

    The results for cordless phone use were OR=1.7, 95% CI=1.1-2.9, and, for
    latency of 15-20 years, the OR=2.1, 95% CI=1.2-3.8.
    Few participants had used a cordless phone for >20-25 years.

    Digital type of wireless phones (2G and 3G mobile phones, cordless phones) gave increased risk with latency >1-5 years, then a lower risk in the following latency groups, but again increasing risk with latency >15-20 years. Ipsilateral use resulted in a higher risk than contralateral mobile and cordless phone use. Higher ORs were calculated for tumours in the temporal and overlapping lobes. Using the meningioma cases in the same study as reference entity gave somewhat higher ORs indicating that the results were unlikely to be explained by recall or observational bias.

    This study confirmed previous results of an association between mobile and cordless phone use and malignant brain tumours.
    These findings provide support for the hypothesis that RF-EMFs play a role both in the initiation and promotion stages of carcinogenesis.

    Ref: Hardell L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Mild KH. Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use, Int J Oncol. 2013 Sep 24. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2013.2111. [Epub ahead of print]”

  24. #88 by Anonymous on October 31, 2013 - 3:00 am

    mandatory exposure to a known class 2b carcinogen violates civil liberty.

    • #89 by mom1 on October 31, 2013 - 8:53 am

      I believe it is criminal and in violation of parental rights.

  25. #90 by anonymous on October 31, 2013 - 9:40 am

    It sounds like the couple that keeps posting here has the ear of the school district officials and, perhaps, through their advisement setting the stage for no other choice but legal recourse on the part of the parent of the 4 kids. If that is the case, it could be argued that they bear the responsibility of the financial outcome of such a scenario.

  26. #91 by Ray on October 31, 2013 - 9:47 am

    I’ve asked Dr. Roman Schulze and Michele Garden how they manage to ignore thousands of peer reviewed studies that report biological and health impacts from RF microwave radiation, and statements from some of the world’s top experts, many of whom have spent their entire lives to this field of research, which state that wireless radiation is harmful to human health, and thus unacceptable in our schools.

    What we’ve heard back, from Schulze, is that there are thousands of studies that don’t report effects, and many experts who say that this isn’t a problem. It becomes a volley.

    This brings us to what I think may be the central issue. What do we do if there are thousands of studies on one side and thousands of studies on the other side?

    Here are some choices that I see:

    1. We focus on the studies that report biological and health effects and say that they are “right”. I will call this the anti-WiFi method.

    2. We focus on the studies that do not report biological and health effects and say that they are “right”. I will call this the “pro-WiFi” method.

    Neither one of these approaches comprehensively addresses the issue, as there are studies on both sides. I would say the next options are:

    3. Mix studies that found effects together with studies that didn’t find effects. This approach results in what I see as a “muddy water” effect. This can result in apathy, and confusion. The media tends to report science this way, and we get the message that we need to “wait and see”.

    4. Selectively “cherry pick” studies and or reports, thus leaving out those that don’t agree with our bias. This is one of the methods employed by the pro-industry site “EMF and health” as well as the pro WiFi site: http://wifiinschools.ca/, who go so far as to censor “anti-WiFi” posts.

    5. Lay out the studies one by one and tally the ones that reported effects and those that did not report effects. This would show which side has more. Note: The BioInitiative Report took this approach, as well as providing abstracts of studies on both sides.

    Now, the problem is that this kind of analysis takes more time than most parents and community members will give. I’ve found that many will make up their minds very quickly, usually with less than rational thought processes. Then they simply rally around their position or go on with their lives.

    In the interest of time, we tend to use mental shortcuts, such as:

    6. Agreeing with our friends or social groups.
    7. Making a decision based on past decisions.
    8. Making a decision based on other philosophies or beliefs, or experiences, such as suffering from electrosensitivity (ES). Many with ES become health advocates, because their condition has proven to them, in an extremely personal manner, that wireless radiation is harmful.

    With all this said, there is an approach that can be taken either from a short-cut or from a long and protracted scientific analysis, and this is what is called the precautionary principle.

    The Precautionary Principle states: “If an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.” (Wikipedia)

    This means those who are installing wireless technology in our schools, and who are placing wireless devices in the laps of young children, these school district officials need to prove first that this technology is not harmful before implementing it in what essentially is a large scale experiment on young children.

    In order to prove microwave radiation safe for children, a person can’t simply wave around a list of reports that state WiFi hasn’t been proven harmful. That proves nothing, and simply amounts to taking a side, or bleacher beating.

    In my perspective, as a parent, and health advocate, each study that reports an effect is evidence that an agent may be harmful. Once there are hundreds of studies reporting something harmful, I am going to try my best to protect my child from it. Once there are thousands of studies reporting something to be harmful, I am also going to try to protect other people’s children from it.

    The bottom line is that something cannot be safe if thousands of studies show it to be unsafe. If there were a chemical seeping up onto school grounds that thousands of peer reviewed studies showed to be harmful, I think the parents would demand immediate action.

    Herein lies the problem. I don’t think Dr. Schulze is so unethical that he would give his patients, particularly children, a drug that thousands of studies showed to be harmful. So why does he push microwave radiation on children?

    • #92 by Schulzee on October 31, 2013 - 4:01 pm

      Actually, what is done is a panel gets all the studies, asses and weigh their quality then throw out the crap and keep the good. Then, this panel of experts reviews the good studies and comes to a consensus. This is a Systematic Review. This Review is then published and submitted for review and critique by other experts.

      This is how good science is done, but thank you for giving 5 examples of bad science.

      • #93 by Ray on October 31, 2013 - 6:03 pm

        In an ideal world, without political and financial pressures, a systematic review would throw out the bad, keep the good, and we’d end up with a comprehensive analysis, but that’s not the world we live in.

        • #94 by Anonymous on November 1, 2013 - 8:53 am

          How can anyone so blindly trust these corporations. They have only one goal and that is profit.

          • #95 by Angie B on November 2, 2013 - 9:16 am

            How can we trust the government (FCC) that has opened the door for the corporations to grow without restraint?

            Why hasn’t our government updated the guidelines in 17 years; why do the guidelines completely ignore non-thermal biological effects?

            Businesses will work to expand their markets/profits, most within the laws. That’s what businesses do. In this case, they are within the law (FCC guidelines). What we see is Frank Clegg, up in Canada, who recognized the harmful effects of wireless radiation and left as President of Microsoft Canada and started his own campaign to inform the public. As some poster previously made known, another tech industry exec has recently quit for this reason, as well.

            Back to United States Federal Government: Why have they made possible an environment in which no one can escape the effects of wireless radiation when, several decades ago, they knew how this would harm all of us?

    • #96 by Schulzee on October 31, 2013 - 4:34 pm

      Also, every drug we use has been proven to be harmful, even on children…. Well, not the Homeopaths, their drugs are very safe.

  27. #97 by Ray on October 31, 2013 - 2:11 pm

    Further thoughts on the Precautionary Principle:

    Given the enormous amount of scientific evidence showing RF microwave radiation to be harmful, parents often come to the conclusion that these are risks not worth taking. They think “Who would ever risk the health of their children for a technological novelty?”

    The problem here is that many parents do not take the time to learn about the scientific evidence, and instead accept the statements made by mainstream website that state wireless radiation is low level and therefore safe. Or enter the Schulze/Garden figures who will fight tooth and nail for iPads.

    Worse, even if parents do their homework, and learn how much peer reviewed science exists, and how serious the risks are, school districts simply refuse to address the issue at all. Somehow, a Schulze-type figure always seems to show up, usually on the school board, and will do anything in his/her power to take the focus away from the thousands of peer reviewed studies that report serious health risks.

    There are school districts in which parents have organized themselves, educated teachers, educated their community, and even gone so far as to vote for the removal of WiFi from the school. The school district responds by flat out ignoring the wishes of parents.

    So while the precautionary principle is great in theory, sadly it isn’t enough to protect children from these health impacts. School districts are too invested in moving forward with their wireless agendas to listen to parents, teachers, or even children who become sick. Democracy is not enough to get them to stop.

    Case in point, I was told by one of our school board members that it didn’t matter how many petitions I collected in our community, she would not removed the WiFi from the school, period. It’s typical for school officials to become that entrenched, because they believe that wireless technology is critical for the kid’s ability to keep up, succeed in life, or compete in a challenging economy.

    School officials actually believe that children have to be on computers all day, starting in elementary school, in order to succeed in life. Forget the radiation, forget the lack of movement, forget the posture, forget the distractions and addictions inherent in this scheme, they have bought hook line and sinker a glossy sales tactic from an industry that is salivating at a multi-billion dollar market. Replace books with gadgets.

    So in the end, schools won’t listen to parents, to scientists, or to medical doctors. It doesn’t matter if they have degrees from Harvard, it doesn’t matter if they teach at Harvard. It doesn’t matter if they are a brain surgeon. It doesn’t matter if they are the best brain surgeon in the world. They simply won’t listen. LALALALALALA – They stick their fingers in their ears and find some other mantra to repeat about papers blowing around the parking lot, pseudo science, blog visitors not using last names, fear mongering, and they miss the point entirely. Microwave radiation is shown in thousands of peer reviewed studies to cause harm to human health and you are irradiating innocent children.

    So what this comes down to is the need for legal action. Schools will not stop until they are forced by a court to stop, and people like Dr. Schulze will not stop until they are faced the threat of financial liability.

    I still advocate democratic action and expressing our rights to free speech, and our god-given responsibilities to warn parents about the health risks of microwave radiation, but I doubt this machine will stop unless hundreds of parents stand in front of that school, or a court forces them to protect the children from something that more than sufficient evidence has indicated is harmful.

    • #98 by Anonymous on November 1, 2013 - 10:11 am

      Ray, your words ring so true.

    • #99 by Jamie on November 1, 2013 - 5:26 pm

      Well, we are back to the realization that the school boards, teachers and administrators will not use reason, logic, or human understanding or compassion in making these decisions for our children. They are all held in the public trust but cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

      Parents, are we okay with our children becoming infertile, getting childhood leukemia, ADHD, autism, DNA damage to human sperm, neurological and cardiovascular problems, cognitive dysfunction, pain, fatigue, mood disorders, dizziness, nausea, weakness, skin problems, etc?

      It’s all so that they can use wireless technology and Dr. Pletka and the board are making these decisions for you. Are you okay with that? Do you give your children over to FSD to do this?

      • #100 by bozo esq. on November 5, 2013 - 7:18 pm

        Two words that apply: Implied consent.
        Two words that don’t apply: Informed consent.

  28. #101 by Anonymous on October 31, 2013 - 3:11 pm

    agreed that the “weight of evidence” is not an accurate approach. e.g. if 10 people eat the same meal and 4 people get food poisoning, the weight of evidence approach would say there’s no problem with the meal.

    • #102 by Schulzee on October 31, 2013 - 4:16 pm

      Actually the “weight of the evidence” would indicate that the majority of people failed to ingest sufficient toxin to produce symptoms. Or the majority of people’s immune system effectively eradicated the bacteria before they caused an illness. Or the majority of people’s gastric pH was low enough to prevent infection… Or… Well you get the idea.

      Turns out this science stuff is not that easy…

  29. #103 by Anonymous on October 31, 2013 - 7:07 pm

    weight of evidence approach if applied to gold mining?
    -“100 [gold] prospectors, 60 don’t find anything, 35 find gold (35 studies showing a harmful effect) and 5 find fool’s gold (5 studies showing a beneficial effect).”

    is there gold?
    sounds like your conclusion would be that the weight of evidence suggests that there is no gold.

    • #104 by Joe Imbriano on October 31, 2013 - 10:55 pm

      great points

      • #105 by amateur night on November 1, 2013 - 8:55 am

        Schuzleepoo will take his 5 percent to the bank.

  30. #106 by Anonymous on October 31, 2013 - 7:14 pm

    interesting in the previous example you concluded that particular meal was bad. maybe skipped the testing step? yep you “scientists” sure have the science stuff all figured.

  31. #107 by Anonymous on November 1, 2013 - 12:17 pm

    email to me from Michele Garden :
    Garden, Michele
    2:39 PM (27 minutes ago)
    to me, bob_pletka, Susan, Karen, Chris, beverly, laurie_bruneau, janny, Hilda, Ed, Foundation, GGIOKARIS, Mar, PTA, Renee, William, Davis, Fritz
    Mr. Imbriano,
    I am done with you.
    I am done with your relentless pursuit of poor science. I am done with the unsolicited stream of e-mails from you. I am done with finding your flyers on my car and in the gutters and bushes around our school. I am done with hearing that my name is mentioned here and there on your website in an unflattering tone. I am done with you pushing your views on the majority of people who have listened to them and do not agree. For every “expert scientific opinion” you purport, I can give you one or two that substantiates the fact that Wi-Fi does NOT pose a danger. I am done with you continually referring to the one scientific report (the Bioinitiative report) that is one of the worst pieces of scientific research. I am done hearing about how you and your minions believe that my husband and I, because we argue for scientific reason, are somehow “working for the school district” and are mere stooges speaking for the school board, as one person told me personally. I am done.
    Please remove me from your e-mail lists. If you are unhappy with the place your children are learning, then remove them to a place you are happier with. Stop pushing YOUR viewpoints on the rest of us.
    Sincerely,
    Michele Garden

    It is about the IPads and wireless devices- NOT JUST THE WIFI-Do you know how to read Michele?

  32. #110 by UC someone on November 1, 2013 - 3:01 pm

    I have watched various interested parties slug it out on this site for months after receiving an unsolicited email with a link to some sort of a paper on Autism. It was a rather unusual read. At first it seemed odd but yet the further I read into it, the more it adds up. While I believe the Autism epidemic’s cause is multifaceted, what has been presented on this site deserves recognition and warrants further study.
    I believe that this is a cause worth defending.

  33. #111 by Anonymous on November 2, 2013 - 4:03 am

    geographically autism is not distributed equally. known as geek syndrome by some in silicon valley

  34. #112 by Veritas on November 2, 2013 - 7:05 am

    “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”

    George Orwell

  35. #113 by Anonymous on November 2, 2013 - 12:27 pm

    “correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint.”

  36. #114 by Anonymous on November 7, 2013 - 5:27 am

    A growing body of medical studies is now linking cumulative RF exposure to DNA disruption, cancer, birth defects, miscarriages, and autoimmune diseases. Smart meters significantly contribute to an environment already polluted by RF radiation through the pervasive stationing of cellular telephone towers in or around public spaces and consumers’ habitual use of wireless technologies. In the 2000 Salzburg Resolution European scientists recommended the maximum RF exposure for humans to be no more than one tenth of a microwatt per square centimeter. In the United States RF exposure limits are 1,000 microwatts per centimeter, with no limits for long term exposure.[4] Such lax standards have been determined by outdated science and the legal and regulatory maneuvering of the powerful telecommunications and wireless industries.

Comments are closed.

Copyright © 2013 TheFullertonInformer.com. All rights reserved. TheFullertonInformer.com is the legal copyright holder of the material on this blog and it may not be used, reprinted, or published without express written permission. The information contained in this website is for entertainment and educational purposes ONLY. This website contains my personal opinion and experience based on my own research from scientific writings, internet research and interviews with doctors and scientists all over the world. Do not take this website, links or documents contained herein as a personal, medical or legal advice of any kind. For legal advice, please consult with your attorney. Consult your medical doctor or primary care physician for advice regarding your health and your children’s health and nothing contained on this website is intended to provide or be a substitute for medical, legal or other professional advice. The reading or use of this information is at your own risk. Readers will not be put on spam lists. We will not sell your contact information to another company. We are not responsible for the privacy practices of our advertisers or blog commenters. We reserve the right to change the focus of this blog, to shut it down, to sell it, or to change the terms of use at our discretion. We are not responsible for the actions of our advertisers or sponsors. If a reader purchases a product or service based upon a link from our blog, the reader must take action with that company to resolve the issue, not us. Our policy on using letters or emails that have been written directly to us is as follows: We will be sharing those letters and emails with the blogging audience unless they are requested to be kept confidential. We will claim ownership of those letters or emails to later be used in an up-and-coming book,blog article,post or column, unless otherwise specified by the writer to keep ownership. THE TRUTH WILL STAND ON ITS OWN AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE-SEEK IT AT ALL COSTS!