Transparency and Liability Issues with Wireless: November 12, 2015 Letter to Montgomery County School CEO Dr. Andrew Zuckerman
You could easily avoid extra staff time on this by simply installing safe technology.
- Moving children’s classroom seats out from under the WiFi transmitter\access point. Many parents have requested their children be moved in classrooms from sitting right under the WiFi access point to further away in the room. They are changing seats in class. WiFi access points are radiating all day long in classes even if the devices are not in use so this is an easy way to increase distance and decrease exposure.
- Allowing children to use a wire to connect to the internet. We understand that MCPS schools are allowing children to use a wire with their Chromebooks because parents have requested it. This way the child is not getting direct radiation from the laptop or tablet when it is being used in classes. However, most parents are unaware this option exists.
- Location of Microwave Transmitters in Building: Why is MCPS refusing to inform parents, teachers, students, and staff about the location of wireless transmitters in the classrooms? Parents have told me they are not allowed to be sent maps showing the location of access points in their child’s school building. Instead they must go to the central office and cannot write down the information?
- The Fine Print Regulatory Instructions For Chromebooks and Ipads: Why is MCPS refusing to inform students and staff about the fine print warnings ( FCC instructions) in the manuals of the laptops and tech devices which they had purchased for students?
- The Fine Print Regulatory Instructions on Cell Phones: Why is MCPS refusing to inform students about the fine print warnings in cell phones? MCPS has a policy allowing them in school and MCPS allowing students to use MCPS Wi-Fi on their cell phones and more important MCPS is utilizing cell phones as a classroom tool in several classes. Yet students are unaware of how to follow government regulations printed in the manual.
- The Potential Health Risks of The Radiation: Parents have a right to be informed about the health risks related to this technology. The World Health Organization classifies this as a class 2 B human carcinogen and all parents should be aware of this. In addition, health authorities recommend research into the neurotoxic effects that have been shown in several studies. Parents need to be aware of the potential damage to the brain, the immune system, the reproductive organs and increased cancer risk. MCPS informs parents about the legal use of pesticides in school already and this is no different.
- CEO Andrew Zuckerman Wrote that Responses Would Not Be Put Into Writing: Why can't MCPS detail answers to our questions? MCPS staff needs to understand this issue enough to answer the questions. Then Mr. Zuckerman stated he would meet but not allow videotaping. Why not? Why can’t we document the current position and stance of MCPS? Where is the transparency?
- The Radiation Report Is Not Being Released: In the spring of 2015 Mr. Collette stated that radiation readings would be done by the end of the spring semester. Please share this report with the parents, as Mr. Collette stated he knew the results in a Sept 21 BOE meeting. We have asked, called and filed a public information request over a month ago.
- Parents Barred From Observing the Radiation Readings: Why did you barr parents from observing the radiation measurements? If MCPS wants to be transparent then when a school is having radiation reading done- a Safe Tech parent should have been present to observe. The refusal of MCPS to allow an observer could invalidate trust in the results.
- Parents Put Off Who Inquire About Measuring the Devices: Why are parents who have asked to come in and take radiation measurements with their own devices being put off and ignored? Some parents have waited months and still no response?
- Three Years of Ignoring Parents: I have personally been writing and informing MCPS for three years on this and still have not received answers. This is unacceptable as I am raising a health and safety issue. Three years ago, MCPS should have spent staff time and resources to consider this issue and develop a risk management plan.
- Cherry Picking Which Health Authorities To Listen To: Why does MCPS choose to highlight the government stance of England and Canada rather than Israel, Spain, Austria, Belgium or France? Please explain in detail how this decision was made and how and why the information from different countries was weighed differently.
- Ignoring the Concern of Pediatricians: Why is MCPS holding up FCC exposure limits as an assurance of safety when the American Academy of Pediatrics has called for a re-evaluation of FCC limits because “children are more vulnerable” to the radiation?
- Ignoring Current Best Available Science: I have sent copious research and statements by medical doctors showing harm after exposure to wireless radiation. We understand that MCPS staff came to Dr Sharma and Dr. Davis’ talk at George Washington University in June of 2915. Research was presented showing genetic damage from radiofrequency radiation. MCPS staff was there and heard the scientists state that Wi-Fi in school was not recommended because it was experimentation on children and could have grave consequences. Watch the video of the talk here. See my question about wifi in school and Dr Carlo’s answer at 1:29:30. Why have you not included any of that expert information?
- Exclusion of Coverage for Illness from Long Term Exposure: Lloyd’s of London is one of the largest insurers in the world and it’s recent renewal policy -as of Feb. 7, 2015- excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In response to a parent's request for clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s: