ENGLISH VERSION - Israeli Government Installing Wi-Fi in Schools, Saving Money on the Expense of its Children’s Health
FRIDAY, MAY 25, 2012
The Israeli Government
policy on wireless technology led by Dr. Sigal Sadetzki has been outrageously
negligent. While the ‘precautionary principle’ is being quoted often, in
reality it is an empty slogan. Most recently, an inter-departmental committee
on the issue of wireless technology in schools ‘recommended’ the use of wired
LAN but DID NOT BAN Wi-Fi, and outrageously left the decision of whether or not
to use Wi-Fi to the principles, who probably cannot even explain what
electricity is, let alone electromagnetic radiation. The Ministry of Education
has been using this decision to actually promote Wi-Fi in schools despite known
and established adverse health effects of which Dr, Sadetzki has been ignoring
including denying the existence of EHS. Following is my response to the
position paper which is largely based on an affidavit given by Prof. David
Carpenter
Response
to the position paper on the introduction of Wi-Fi & Cellular systems to
schools in Israel
The
State of Israel once again recklessly endangers the health of its children, and
proves that its public officials do not deserve the responsibility with which
they are entrusted. The application of the ‘precautionary principle’ regarding
electromagnetic radiation indicates that the use of the precautionary principle
is not a policy but rather an empty slogan.
SUMMARY
1. I have carefully read the recommendations report (‘the report’)
published by the inter-governmental committee ('the committee'), particularly
chapter 5 which discusses the effects of electromagnetic radiation including
effects of, ELF, Radio Frequencies (‘RF’) and Microwave (‘MW’), emitted by
mobile phones and wireless internet technology. The report is yet another badge
of shame to the State regarding the recklessness it exercises in establishing a
responsible policy in dealing with the issue of cellular/wireless radiation.
The report indicates that the State, through its public officials, the members
of the committee, prove once again a lack of understanding of the
issue, it is misleading the public whether by ignorance or by criminal
negligence, and it is clear that the committee and its members do not
understand the issues at hand and definitely not their public responsibility.
2. The ‘Precautionary Principle’ policy is an empty slogan - As the following would indicate, the State once again
proves that the ‘precautionary principle’ policy is an empty and meaningless
slogan. How exactly is the State practicing the ‘precautionary principle’-based
policy if it does not determine any policies? Policy is not mere words but
rather, actions, and the States just mumbles, instead of acting, and even
misleads the public with the result of neglecting the health and life of the
children of Israel and its adult population!
3. Deployment of Wi-Fi by the Ministry of Education - Furthermore, while the committee 'recommends' to prefer
wired internet, in reality, The Ministry of Education (‘MOE’), exercises an
opposite policy of encouraging and promoting the use of wireless technology.
The Ministry already is in the process of deployment of wireless internet
in schools in order to save costs on the expense of the health of the
children! This policy is peculiar as only recently, the MOE restricted the usage
of mobile phones because of their established adverse health effects,
but at the same time it deploys wireless networks that are much more
dangerous!
4. Personal and criminal liability – One wonders if the committee members would have been exposed
to personal & criminal liability, whether they would have only
‘recommended’ the usage of wired internet rather than recommending that
wireless internet be banned? I don’t think so. I believe that they would have
recommended to ban the usage of Wi-Fi as they should have done!
Enclosed is a Declaration by Prof. David Carpenter, explaining why Wi-Fi Should be banned from schools
5. Professor David Carpenter - Recently, a legal action for injunction against
deploying Wi-Fi systems in schools, was submitted in Portland, Oregon. In this
action, Prof. David Carpenter submitted a declaration as an expert witness by
the applicants. Prof. Carpenter is an expert in public health, including in the
areas of electrophysiology, the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation
in ELF, RF, and microwaves (MW). Prof. Carpenter is a graduate of Harvard
medical school and he is currently the Head of Wadsworth Center for
Laboratories and Research of the NY State Department of Health. He is also the
Head of the Institute of Health and Environment, in Albany University, NY, and
a professor of Health and Environment Sciences. He is a coauthor of the Bioinitiative
Report, and of the book:Setting
prudent public health policy for electromagnetic fields exposures. He
is a coauthor of 349 scientific papers, and he volunteers as an expert witness
in cases regarding the adverse health effects of Electromagnetic radiation
(‘EMR’). Prof. Carpenter’s CV is enclosed with his declaration.
6. In Israel there is no expert in the field of electromagnetic
hazards matching in his/her crudentials as Prof. Carpenter, therefore, it is
rather recommended that the State would read his enclosed declaration
carefully. His declaration is quoted throughout my document.
7. Prof. Carpenter quotes 62 peer reviewed papers of adverse health
effects of EMR which the committee ignores completely – In contrast to only 7 references (such a mockery)
referred by the committee which is guided by Prof. Sigal Sadetzky, Prof.
Carpenters’ declaration is quoting 62 research papers (‘papers’). Of the 7
papers referred to by the committee, only 2 involve MW/RF radiation (the other
5 deal with ELF), although the report focuses mainly on cellular/wireless
technology. These 2 papers refer just to cancer and are based only on the
‘Interphone Study’, which was in severe conflict of interest because of its
partial financing by the ‘Industry’. As a result of this conflict of interests,
the publication of the results of the 'interphone' was delayed for more than 4
years and it had conflicting interpretations. In comparison, Prof. Carpenter
quotes 62 studies which refer to diverse injuries inflicted by the EMR. These
papers, prove that continuous exposure to weak EMR in MW/RF frequencies is
causing injuries to almost every system and organ in the body, injuries not
less severe than cancer, adverse health effects that the committee is ignoring
completely.
Prof. Carpenter provides, inter alia, papers that
are showing that the radiation created by RF/MW inflicts injuries on the immune
system (p.21), endocrine system (p.13), DNA repair system (P.20), mRNA (19),
diverse neurological problems, involving headaches and migraines (p.11),
cognitive problems (p.12, 13), concentration problems (p.11), behavior
problems, learning problems, and insomnia (p.10, 11), allergies (p.11),
oxidative damage due to free radicals (p.18-19), problems with the reproductive
system in males and females (p.12, 14), damage to the heart, cancer (p.8), and
more. Prof. Carpenter states that the papers quoted are just a small sample of
thousands of papers that he had read on this issue, proving that
electromagnetic radiation is causing adverse health effects, not merely
‘probably causing’ damage! But the MOH is completely ignores these effects.
8. The unequivocal conclusion reached by Prof. Carpenter is that
Wi-Fi systems should be banned from schools!
9. Translation of the Declaration - Prof. Carpenter's declaration was written in English. As
the committee did not invite any opinions from a qualified experts, it is
recommended and proper that the committee and all its members would read Prof.
Carpenter's declaration thoroughly. I will be glad to translate the document
into Hebrew, in case the committee members would have difficulties with the
English.
10. Quoting
the declaration in my response –
As an integral part of my response to various statements of the committee, I am
quoting Prof. Carpenters’ declaration as support to my claims.
Response to Arguments raised in the Report of the Committee
11. The
obligation of the state to determine policy, not to ‘recommend’, especially in
complex issues - How does the state
exercise the ‘precautionary principle policy’ if it does not set any policy for
schools, but rather 'recommends' schools to deploy wired internet connection,
rather than wireless internet? It seems that the committee did not understand
its role, and decided to leave the decision of which internet connection to use
to the schools’ principals, most of which probably do not have any understanding
of the issues involved, and we can even assume that most of them cannot explain
what electricity is let alone EMR! Writing that there is a policy which is
based on the 'precautionary principle’, does not mean that there such a policy
in reality. There is a disturbing feeling that the State uses the slogan of the
''precautionary principle policy' as if the repetition would instill a sense of
confidence in the public (a fake sensation) that such a policy actually
exists (while it is not). Writing something does not make it true! There is no
doubt that the committee knew or should have known that if they would not
recommend to categorically ban Wi-Fi, considering its infrastructure is
cheaper, and simpler to install than wired internet networks, most principals
would deploy Wi-Fi systems. Therefore, it was clear to the committee that if it
would only 'recommend' wired internet, in practice, such a recommendation would
lead most principals to act against the committee's recommendation. As
undoubtedly the committee was aware of it, its decision is even more
disturbing. Was the committee’s recommendation only purpose was to
discharge its legal and the duty of the government?
12. The
committee erroneously and misleadingly claim that the schools do not involuntarily
expose children to radiation from cell phones- The committee wrote that the government does not expose
children involuntarily to radiation from cell phones – this is
misrepresentation per se (or absolute ignorance). Cell phones emit
radiation even when not used; therefore, as long as the school or MOE do not
ban bringing mobile phones to schools or ensuring that they are kept turned
off, they do expose students to radiation from the cellular phones
involuntarily, just as secondhand smoking does! An iPhone emits radiation of
~1700 mW/m2 when it is on, just in a standby mode and this is the
radiation from only one mobile phone (by comparison, people who suffer from EHS
exhibit allergic symptoms even when they are exposed to 0.002mW/m2 or less)! Has anyone
measured what is the cumulative radiation from all the mobile phones in one
classroom? As long as mobile phones are allowed in school, students are exposed
to involuntary radiation! As long as there are cellphone antennas in the
vicinity, there is involuntary exposure in schools!
13. The
committee claims, misleadingly, that exposure to radiation is dependent on the
choice of the individual student and his/her parents – Once again, the State is misleading the public. There
are responsible parents who choose not to allow their children to use mobile
phones, and thereby to limit their exposure to radiation. However, the
State, by allowing students and teachers to bring their phones to school, does
force these children to be exposed, against their parents' decision, and their
'individual choice'. Cell phone radiation is like secondhand smoke, those who
do not use a cell phones are harmed nevertheless.
Prof. Carpenter declares the students' exposure is
involuntary (p.6, s.20):
"Children are largely unable to remove themselves from
exposures to harmful substances in their environment. Their exposure is
involuntary"
Prof. Carpenter refers to the legal problem of involuntary
exposure, especially when it concerns a dependent individual (p.6, s.21):
"There is a major
legal difference between an exposure that an individual chooses to accept and
one that is forced upon a person especially dependent, who can do nothing about
it".
14. The
committee claims, and misleads the public, that the State’s policy in general does
not allow to expose children to involuntary radiation – If this was actually the State’s policy, it would have
banned Wi-Fi in schools. If wireless internet would be installed in schools,
the State would force continuous Microwave radiation on the children, radiation
which is trillion times higher than the natural radiation to which the human
body is accustomed to! Leaving the decision whether to use wireless internet to
the principals does not change the fact that as long as the MOE does not ban
Wi-Fi in school it does force involuntary radiation on the children! The
committee’s claim is yet another slogan the committee is repeating, probably
with the hope that if they repeat it long enough parents would believe it to be
true, while the reality their decision is creating is the opposite.
Prof. Carpenter declares that if Wi-Fi would be used, the
parents would be forced to expose their children to radiation which is trillion
times higher than that of the natural environment to which the human body is
accustomed (p.6, s.21):
"When Wi-Fi is in operation in a school, children and
their parents have no choice, but to allow the school to expose them to
trillions of times higher microwave radiation than exists naturally on earth at
the same frequencies".
15. The
committee disregards the issue of cumulative radiation – The committee explains that a wireless router should be
installed in every classroom, and completely disregards the fact that radiation
from each of these transmitters reaches all the other classrooms, and
everywhere else in school, as it is not blocked by walls. Therefore, the
committee disregards the cumulative radiation to which the students would be
exposed to from Wi-Fi!
Prof. Carpenter explains that every student will be exposed to
30-40 hours a week of continuous Wi-Fi radiation form numerous transmitters and
to other sources of cellular/ wireless radiation(p.6, s.21):
"Children and other building users are exposed to as much
as 30-40 hours per week of constant…Wi-Fi signals from each wireless device… A
given child is subject to direct signals from multiple Wi-Fi transmitters… and
wireless signals".
16. The
committee claims, and misleads the public, that radiation of 100 Watt is safe
and therefore does not require safety testing – Contrary to the committee's claim, there are no standards
that were proven safe. The alleged 'safe' standards, claimed in the report,
were never proven to be safe, while thousands of studies prove that they are
unsafe and that there is no known level of radiation that is safe! Individuals
who suffer from intolerance to electromagnetic radiation, exhibit symptoms,
when exposed to EMR at levels millions of times lower than those emitted by
just one mobile phone!
Prof. Carpenter determines unequivocally that there is no safe
radiation (p14, s.28):
"There
is no exposure power density that is safe".
Prof. Carpenter determines that the radiation in schools with
Wi-Fi is a trillion times higher than the radiation to which the human body is
adapted (p.5, s.18):
"Wi-Fi radiation in schools, exceeds natural background
levels of microwave radiation by trillions of times."
Prof. Carpenter determines that the present "safe"
guidelines have no credibility whatsoever(p.22, s. 34):
"Thus,
the guidelines have no credibility"
17. The
committee ignores the problematic interaction of radiation from concurrent
sources and various frequencies.
Prof. Carpenter states that the complexity and the interaction
of radiation emitted from different sources of various frequencies, is causing
more severe and complex injuries to the human body (p.5, cl.17).
"Like second hand smoke, ELF and EF/MW radiation involve
complex mixtures, where different frequencies, intensities, duration of
exposure, modulations, waveform, and other factors, are known to produce
variable effects, often more harmful with greater complexity".
18. The
committee is misleading when claiming that there is a need to impart right
mobile phone usage and habits –
This claim of ‘safe usage’ is total nonsense, and a disturbing sham. As long as
a mobile phone emits EMR, there is no ‘safe’ usage. If it does not radiate by
the head, it radiates near other body parts and causes them damage. Anyone who
says otherwise is misleading the public. If a child would not put the cell
phone near the head but rather near the stomach, then, instead of getting brain
cancer or neurological problems, his/her reproductive organs would be adversely
affected or the sperm vitality/quality would be damaged! The public does not
understand EMR, frequencies, densities, antennas, etc. By making such false
claims of an existing ‘safe use’ argument, the committee and the State
perpetuate the lack of understanding of the dangers by the public, and mislead
the public to think that the sole problem is the radiation to the head. The
public has the right to know and be properly informed and the State has a duty
to provide reliable information to the public! The only way to reduce injuries
inflicted by EMR, is not to use a mobile phone. A responsible State would have
banned cell phone use and, most definitely, the use of mobile phones of
children under the age of 16!
19. The
committee misleads the public by ignoring the adverse health effects caused by
EMR other than brain cancers - As explained above, the committee ignores over 10,000 studies
indicating adverse health effects of wireless and cellular technology, to
almost every system in the body, including but not limited to the neural
system, heart and blood vessels, immune, endocrine, reproduction, blood,
cognitive, headaches and migraines, memory, sleeping, muscles,
etc.
.
Unlike the committee, which quoted only 2 papers, both dealing
with cancer and correlated to the Interphone study that 50% was funded by the
industry, Prof. Carpenter quoted 62 studies, as a sample to the variety of
published peer reviewed articles. In addition, he summarized many more studies
from the thousands that he declares to have read (p.4, s.12):
"Exposure to high frequency RF and MW radiation and also
the ELF EM fields that accompany Wi-Fi exposure have been linked to a variety
of adverse health outcomes. Some of many… include neurologic,
endocrine, immune, cardiac, reproductive, and other effects including cancers"
Prof. Carpenter quotes studies on cells that indicated damage to
the cells after they were exposed to EMR in power densities lower than those of
Wi-Fi (p.4, s.13):
“Studies of isolated cells have shown that RF/MW may cause
changes in cell membranes function, cell
communication, metabolism, activation of proto-oncogenes and can trigger
production of stress proteins…DNA breaks andchromosome aberrations, cell death including death
of brain neurons, increasedfree radicals production, activation of the endogecous opiod system, cell stressand immature
aging.”
Prof. Carpenter quotes experiments in humans that exhibited
changes in brain functions, some of them specifically in children (p.4, s.14):
“Changes in brain function including memory loss, retarded
learning,performance impairment in children, headaches and neurogenerative
conditions, melatonin suppression and sleep
disorders, fatigue, hormonal imbalances, immune
dysreguations such as allergic and inflammatory
responses,cardiac and blood pressure problems, genotoxic effects, miscarriages, cancers such
as childhood leukemia, childhood and adult brain
tumors and more.”
Prof. Carpenter determines that the conclusion of the world
leading experts is that there is absolutely no doubt that the radiation is
injurious and dangerous – After
he has read thousands of studies, Prof. Carpenter determines that he and the
world leading experts in this field (not those paid by the industry and/or
employed by the government, thus under pressures and conflict of interests) can
assert with confidence that MW/RF radiation is dangerous to humans and
especially to children (p.7, s.24):
“Having reviewed hundreds, possibly thousands of studies in RF/MW radiation and ELF fields, published from decades
ago to the present…the forefront expertsspecializing in these
areas RF/MW radiation and ELF fields, recognize the certainties…that RF/MW
radiation with chronic duration is quite harmful to humans, particularly
children.”
20. While
the committee is using only convenient comparisons, it does not mention
countries that did ban Wi-Fi and cell phones in schools, such as Austria – while the committee mentions Switzerland as a country
that encourages use of wired instead of wireless Internet, it does not mention
countries that ban cellular technology in schools, countries that do understand
their responsibility to the health of their residents and children, such as
Austria, which as early as 2007 banned (not ‘recommended’ to ban) the use of
cell phones, cordless phones, and wireless internet in schools and day care
centers. This is an example of exercising proper public policy and a true
‘precautionary principle’ based policy, not a mere slogan with no action to
support it.
21. The
committee misleads regarding the special sensitivity of children and is
ignoring the effects of EMR in causing cognitive, learning, and behavioral
problems in addition to cancer and other neurological conditions in children – the existing ‘safety’ standards are irrelevant to
anyone, but especially to children. While the committee is almost completely
ignoring the issue of the special sensitivity of children, except for declaring
that ‘the children population is sensitive’, and does not take the required
measures to protect it (except for a meaningless recommendation that it is
aware that is not going to be followed). Prof. Carpenter explains that the
nervous system of children is still developing and therefore the EMR is more
dangerous to children in creating cancer and other conditions. For example,
damage to the DNA, neurological and cognitive problems such as creating
learning and behavioral problems that are acute to the environment of a school.
This year there was in Israel, a 76% increase in the use of Ritalin, but Israel
is continuing to ignore the obvious and established correlation between EMR and
cell phone use and the increase in ADD. Prof. Carpenter determines (p. 6 s.20):
“Since children are growing their rate of cellular
activity and division is more rapid, and
they are at more risk for DNA damage and subsequent cancers.
Growth and development of the central nervous system is still occurring well
into the teenage years, such that the neurological impairments predictable
by the extant science may have great impact on cognition, learning
and behavior.”
22. The
committee ignores the WHO decision to classify RF EMR as 2B Carcinogen – the committee completely ignores the WHO decision. How
is it possible that after the WHO decision, the committee (and the MOE) still
think that it is not obligatory to ban the exposure of children to EMR that was
decided to be cancerous for 40 hours a week, every week? It should be noted
that the majority of members of the WHO committee that are not on the
‘Industry’s’ payroll (directly or indirectly) required higher classification,
which is undoubtedly supported by the existing science on the topic! An expert
on the topic who also used to head the IRAC, the WHO committee responsible for
the classification, said in an interview that the research on the topic
undoubtedly justifies a 2A, not a 2B classification, but political pressure
prevented the correct decision. Link to the interview with Dr. Sasko:http://youtu.be/2JyAlO_UdSk
23. The
committee ignores the damage to the school employees and its duties as an
employer, and ignores the established correlation between EMR and miscarriages – The State as an employer has a responsibility to protect
the health of its employees and avoid exposing them to environmental hazards
that may harm their health. It should be remembered that the majority of the
school employees in Israel are women, many of which are in the reproductive
ages, and there are many research papers which establish, as Prof. Carpenter
states, that the EMR is causing miscarriages (p.4 s.14 and p.6 s. 20), a fact
that the committee obscurely does not mention. Prof. Carpenter emphasizes the
responsibility of the MOE to the schools’ employees as well as to the students:
“Based on high degree of scientific certainty …use of WI-FI is
causing and will continue to cause AHM, other students,
and school staff and faculty adverse health effects and
should be discontinued immediately.
"
24. Another
example to the ignorance of the committee members and the MOE is not
understanding the difference between ELF to RF/MW – before the committee made its determinations, my father,
Mr. Avraham Tachover, contacted the MOE and asked to know their policy with
regard to Wi-Fi in schools. After he was transferred between various people,
the MOE decided that the person who is more suitable to answer the question
regarding Wi-Fi and EMR is Mr. Noam Kuriat, director of IT. In his response,
Mr. Kuriat wrote “for your information already now we are allowing schools to
install wired and not wireless internet”. This answer suggests that in reality
the MOE is encouraging schools to install Wi-Fi and that the ‘recommendation’
of the committee is designed only to discharge its legal duties.
But even more disturbing (but not surprising) is the complete
lack of understanding of the issue of EMR by the person that the MOE chose to
provide response to inquiries of the public. In response to my father’s
question regarding the EMR of Wi-Fi, Mr. Kuriat is referring my father to a
table of magnetic radiation of ELFs. My father referred Mr. Kuriat to the
mistake (?) but Mr. Kuriat continues and writes that the Wi-Fi radiation is
measured in miligauss…Therefore, Mr. Kuriat does not know that there is a
difference between ELF to RF/MW, he does not know that there is a difference
between magnetic fields and EMR, and he does not know that even if we would
want to measure the magnetic fields of the RF/MW, the measurement units are not
miligauss. And this is the person appointed to answer the questions from the
public. I would be happy to provide the correspondence. While a
professional of the MOE, who is entrusted with the issue of telecommunication
infrastructure in schools, does not understand the difference between magnetic
fields and EMR, the committee thinks and believes that school principals would
be able to properly understand the topic to reach a responsible decision on
whether or not to install Wi-Fi.
Additional determinations by Prof. Carpenter that explain why Wi-Fi in schools should be banned
25. Prof.
Carpenter determines that Wi-Fi is even more harmful than cell phones – Prof. Carpenter determines that Wi-Fi is more dangerous
than cell phones in the frequencies it utilizes, in the length of exposure, and
in the exposure being involuntary and harmful even at lower intensity levels.
However, while the MOE is limiting the use of cell phones as a result of the
committee ‘recommendation’, it does allow use of Wi-Fi, i.e., it allows
continuously radiating the children from routers and it does not refer to this
contradiction in its policy.
“WI-FI is more hazardous by way of frequency,
duration and the involuntary nature of exposure”
“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.”
26. Prof.
Carpenter determines that the frequency utilized by Wi-Fi is particularly
dangerous and is used in Microwave ovens due to its penetration abilities – Prof. Carpenter determines that the frequency that is
used for Wi-Fi is the same frequency that is used for microwave ovens and that
it was chosen for this purpose due to its ability to penetrate and because of
the transmission method which combines high and low frequencies, which create
more complex effects on the human body (p.3 S. 7):
“The 2.45 GHz frequency was chosen for the oven because of its
wavelength and harmonic resonance with the water molecule, to ensure
the most efficient absorption by living tissues and effective heating…
"
“The pulse modulation of a wave with
lower frequencies in additional to the frequency carrier signal, increases
the exposure complexity and in turn thebioeffects in
the exposed population.
"
27. Prof.
Carpenter (and other scientists) are convinced that an epidemic of neurological
problems, cancer, and genetic damage is underway – Prof. Carpenter claims that an epidemic of diseases (not
only cancer) is underway as a result of EMR. As a person who suffers from
intolerance to EMR, a condition suffered already by 3-8% of the population, it
is clear to me that the epidemic is already here; this is just not known
because this condition is ignored, as admitting its existence would require
far-reaching actions on the part of governments and the admission of their
criminal negligence (p.5 s.18):
“Many public health experts believe myself
included, that it Is likely society will face epidemics of
neurotoxic effects and degeneration, cancers and genotoxicity in the future’
resulting from the extreme and involuntary
exposure to RF/MW radiation and EMFs.”
28. Carpenter
warns regarding the damage to the unlucky students who would seat the closest
to the router – the committee does
not refer to this issue at all. There is no place in a classroom and not even
in the whole school that is far enough from the router! However, a few students
would be even more unlucky and would have to sit very close to the router. I
wonder whether the State would inform these parents regarding the special
hazard to their children. (p.3 s.9):
“Persons stationed close to school computers and WI-FI and especially those very near to any WI-FI infrastructure
will receive considerably higher exposure than do others.”
29. Prof.
Carpenter determines that research papers that find damage have more
significance than papers that do not find damage – This simple logic is consistently being ignored. If we
would have had 100 research papers showing no damage but one research study
that shows damage, the conclusion is that there is a damage. It is not a
statistical matter – what is the percentage of studies that show damage
compared with those that do not. It is time everyone, especially professional
committees on the topic would not fall into this trap! (p. 22 s.33):
“Even were the reverse true, i.e. if there existed greater
number than those do show adverse effects, it is the case that positive
studies (those that show adverse effects) hold more weight
than negative studies (those that show no effect)"
30. Prof.
Carpenter determined that most studies on EMR did prove damage (p.22 s. 33):
"There are only a few of many studies of RF/MW radiation
infrastructure such as base stations that
fail to show their studies effects
"
31. Prof.
Carpenter determines that there is intentional suppression of studies that
found damage of EMR of RF/MW, and
therefore some of those entrusted with setting up the public health policy on
the topic are not even familiar with these studies (p.7 s.24):
“Due to the active suppression of the RF/MW literature, some
researchers in public health science are less aware of these studies”
The recent report of the British Government that was getting
worldwide headlines misled the public that “there is no proof” that cell phones
are causing cancer – a recent example to
the intentional misrepresentation and suppression of studies that established
damage of EMR is the declaration of The UK Health Protection Agency's AGNIR
that there is no proof that cell phones cause cancer. This declaration is intentional
misrepresentation by a governmental agency. The problem faced by governments
nowadays is the overwhelming consequences of admitting that EMR does cause
cancer, and therefore they continue to mislead the public. For example, the
British report completely ignores the WHO decision (IRAC) that RF EMR is a 2B
carcinogen although in the area of cancer research an IRAC decision is the
‘golden standard’. Worse, the declaration claimed that it is the most
comprehensive review of studies from 2003. What the declaration failed to
mention, is that probably with intent it omitted from the list of studies it
reviewed those that did find that EMR of RF/MW does cause cancer. For example,
Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski, who is one of the world leading
scientists on the topic, published between 2003 and 2010 seven research papers
that found damage. It was understandable if one or two of his research papers
would not have been included in the report, but all of them??? A review of the
list of studies examined by the report show that this claim is true as to many
other researchers and studies that found damage. If you ignore the proofs,
obviously you would not find proofs!
The Government expert Dr. Sigal Sadetzki
32. The
government continues to use Dr. Sadetzki as the sole expert, while she
consistently ignores established adverse health effects of EMR except cancer (and focuses on brain cancer) and the unavoidable question
is why. It would have been prudent to use experts who are able to refer to
other damages caused by EMR, established and existing damages, not less severe
than cancer as described by Prof. Carpenter. While thousands of research papers
indicate that EMR radiation from RF/MW creates adverse health effects almost to
every organ and system in the body, Ms. Sadetzky completely ignores them!
Intolerance to EMR and Dr. Sadetzki
33. Dr.
Sadetzki also ignores the existence of a condition called Electromagnetic
Intolerance/Hypersensitivity (‘EHS’) -
a condition that develops as a result of exposure to EMR. In the past few
years, with the increase of the uncontrolled RF/MW radiation, the number of
people who suffer from this condition is increasing fast and it is estimated
that already 3-8% already suffer from the condition and the numbers are growing
fast. Since Sweden, which has a population the size of Israel, recognized the
condition, 3% of its population (248,000 individuals) get 100% disability for
the condition.
34. Since Wi-Fi started to be installed in schools many children
developed EHS – Following is a link
to a TV program from Canada that show children who got EHS from Wi-Fi in
school. Before any further decision the committee should watch this program: http://www.youtube.com/safeschool#p/u/3/KN7VetsCR2I/
35. Denying
the existence of EHS by Dr. Sadetzki –
recently I was informed that Dr. Sadetzki not only ignores EHS in the public
health policy but also denies its existence firmly. This denial unfortunately
is not uncommon despite being ignorant and illogical for many reasons as
follows:
35.1 Hundreds of research papers
referring to the condition have documented this condition for decades – there are over a hundred research papers that document
the condition and until the commercialization of this technology there was no
dispute as to its existence. In the 50’s it got the name ‘Microwave Sickness’
and there are even warnings of governments that currently ignore the existence
of this condition, including warnings of the US government.
35.2 Thousands of studies
establish the same symptoms complained by people with EHS – there are thousands of papers which establish that EMR
of RF/MW is causing the exact symptoms of which people with EHS complain; some
of these manifestations are stated in Prof. Carpenter’s declaration including
migraines, sleep problems, memory problems, heart problems, allergies, etc. But
while all the symptoms of which people with EHS complain about were established
to be a result of EMR, when a person with EHS says he suffers from these exact
symptoms, he is being told that it is psychosomatic. It is a logical disconnect
(which costs the lives of millions).
35.3 Ignorant reliance on studies
with no scientific validity in order to deny EHS – most of those who deny the existence of EHS have
interests and it is understandable as admitting the existence of EHS would
require far-reaching changes, and admitting the ‘original sin’ of approving
this technology as EHS is in a scale of epidemics! Whether because of
negligence or intentionally, the ‘deniers’ rely on ridiculous studies that do
not have scientific validity, studies that allegedly tested people with EHS.
35.4 The Council of Europe declaration from May 2011 determines that
EHS is a real condition that is caused from EMR and is not psychosomatic – Non-biased and independent organizations such as the
Council of Europe, an organization which still was not ‘bought’ by the industry
and is not directly correlated to governments (which, as explained, cannot
afford to admit EHS), after thorough examination of the science, arrived at the
unequivocal conclusion that EHS exists and is caused by EMR. The Council of
Europe, after examining the science on the topic, declared in 2011 that EHS is
a real condition, neither psychosomatic nor mental, and is caused by EMR, and
required all countries to establish EMR-free zones for people with EHS
(sections 8.1.4, 22. 60):http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc11/EDOC12608.htm
22: “…A
syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields (SIEMF) does exist and that
those people are not feigning illness or suffering from psychiatric disorders”
8.1.4 “…introduce
special measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas not
covered by the wireless network”
35.5 A study by Prof. Andrew Marino proves unequivocally that EHS
exists – recently, once again
it was proven that if a study is conducted properly, it is even possible to
prove not only that EHS exists but also that some people with EHS are indeed a
‘human meter’. Professor Marino is regarded as one of the best scientists in
the world on the topic of electromagnetic fields (if not the best). In June
2011 he published a study that he conducted on an emergency room doctor who
suffers from EHS, in which he proved that not only she suffers from the
condition, but that she can also immediately sense radiation, i.e., she is like
a human meter! It is important to note that for a condition to be established,
all you need is to prove that one person suffers from the condition, and this
paper does prove the existence of EHS. The paper was published in the leading
journal in this area, Neuroscience, in which Prof. Marino
wrote:
“EMF hypersensitivity
can occur as a bona fide
environmentally inducible neurological syndrome”
One of the leading
neurologists in the world, Prof. RAMACHANDRAN, uses in his lectures the
following example to explain why one proof is sufficient to prove that
something exists and the lack of reasonableness in requiring another proof:
“If I bring a pig…and I say
this pig can talk…And I wave my hand and all of a sudden the pig starts talking. What would be
your reaction? You would say, My God! You
wouldn’t just say show me another pig. And yet, this used to be the
reaction of many scientists.”
Many research papers before
Marino’s papers already established the existence of EHS and that there are
people who are able to immediately sense EMR, including studies by Prof. Olle
Johansson from Sweden and Dr. William Rea from the US. But those entrusted with
public health continue to ignore EHS and the research papers.
35.6 Research by a Nobel Prize laureate discovered brain damage in
people with EHS as a result of the EMR –
Only in 2008, after decades of reports about this condition, finally a group of
scientists from France did what should have been done long ago – it decided,
instead of examining once more whether people with EHS are a human meter, to
actually examine what happens in their body. The findings are shocking. The
group includes the Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of the HIV, Prof. Luc
Montagnier, and Prof. Dominique Belpomme who is the head of the cancer
institute in Paris. So far they have examined about 450 people who claimed to
be EHS. They discovered that the Blood Brain Barrier in people with EHS is
damaged (many studies already showed that the EMR of RF/MW can damage the BBB
which prevent from toxins from getting to the brain), damage to brain vessels
in the brain, and cause early signs of Alzheimer (yes, EMR causes Alzheimer,
not preventing it as the cellular companies tried to claim).
36. Prof.
Carpenter is convinced about the existence of EHS – Until Marino’s paper Prof. Carpenter was not convinced
of EHS; however, he always responsibly declared that while he is not completely
convinced about the existence of EHS, he cannot ignore the fact that millions
of people around the world are complaining of the same symptoms and therefore
we should all be cautious. Since Marino’s study, Prof. Carpenter no longer has
any doubt in the existence of EHS (and no one should have any such doubt!). He
also stated that, to his opinion, even radiation from ‘Smart Meters’ (a
disturbing issue by itself), which emit much lower EMR than Wi-Fi, can cause
EHS, but the State of Israel is forcing smart meters and dangerous radiation on
people in their own homes. How much longer would we continue to bury our head
in the sand?
37. Sadetzki
ignores the facts and refused to meet EHS people- Despite the above, Sadetzki continues to ignore the
existence of EHS, ignores the facts, and continues to deny EHS. A few times she
was offered to meet with people who suffer from EHS in Israel but refused to do
so and, to the best of my knowledge, so far she did not meet with them,
although her duties as a public health official requires her to do so.
38. Responsible
public health policy demands considering EHS – Even if in spite of the definite established proves of
EHS, Sadetzki does not believe EHS (although it is not a matter of belief but
of facts), history and the precautionary principles which she often quotes
require also cautiousness in regard to her approach of EHS. After all, it is
possible that she is wrong (even if she thinks it is a remote option), just
like those who mocked the 2011 Israeli Nobel Prize winner Dan Shechtman. After
all, there are millions who complain about exactly the same symptoms. Even in
applying the precautionary principle, as the person in charge of the Government
policy on EMR, she should have led a policy that takes under consideration that
she may be wrong. But Sadetzki thinks otherwise, or at least this is what her
actions suggest.
39. To
summarize, despite the established
evidence of EHS, Sadetzki, without meeting people with EHS, in violation of her
public responsibility and while recklessly endangering the health of the
children in Israel (and the adult population), does not take any action to
examine the issue of EHS, to warn the public, to inform doctors, and to protect
people with EHS and prevent unwarranted radiation such as preventing the
installation of Wi-Fi in schools.
40. Ignoring
a problem is the surest way to increase its scale! For an Israeli website on EHS:www.norad4u.co.il.
Issues to which a written response is required
41. There
is no safe radiation- How can the State prove
what is a safe level of radiation- I ask to receive a proof that the existing
safety standards as determined by the 2006 Act are indeed safe. What research
paper determined that any radiation is safe? How many people who suffer from
EHS did the State examine before determining that EMR is safe?
42. What
is the difference between EMR and smoking as both create passive risks – While there is a policy not to allow smoking in schools, why
is the approach regarding radiation from cell phones and Wi-Fi different?
43. Does
the government intend to conduct periodic health examinations in children to
detect potential health changes as a result of Wi-Fi installation?
44. Does
the government intend to get parental consent for the exposure to EMR from
Wi-Fi – If the Israeli
government is unable to determine a policy and while it forces involuntary
radiation on children in schools, it is at least required that a parental
consent would be received from every parent to allow exposing children to EMR.
It is proper to demand that the letter to parents would include all the
potential adverse health effects of EMR and that it would be clear that
objection by one parent would be sufficient to prevent the installation of
Wi-Fi. Furthermore, considering new children are joining the school every
school, the school would have to receive parental consent every year.
45. Do
the government and schools have insurance against EMR damage? – Are the government and the schools insured against long-term
effects of EMR from cell phones and Wi-Fi? If they do, we ask to be provided
with the insurance policy. And if not, as long as no proper insurance is in
place, the government should not allow the use of cell phones and Wi-Fi in schools.
To the best of my knowledge, the government so far has not even received the
insurance policy from the cell phone companies, insurance that they were
supposed to already provide 20 years ago as part of the franchise agreement…
46. Does
Dr. Sadetzki have conflict of interests?
– Considering Dr. Sadetzki is the only expert used by the Israeli government,
the Health Ministry and the committee, I ask to receive a proof that Dr.
Sadetzki does not have conflict of interests. I ask to receive the list of the
providers of all her grants, past and present.
47. The
alleged ‘precautionary principle-based policy – I would like to be explained how come the committee
claims policy which is based on the precautionary principle while no policy is
being established.
48. Has
the government created financial risk analysis of the potential costs of the
EMR damage? – Are the potential costs
higher or lower than the costs of installing wired internet? I ask to receive
any document that was prepared by the government as to the potential costs of
adverse health effects of the EMR.
49. I
ask to be provided with elaborate written response to each and every claim
raised by Prof. Carpenter.
Summary
50. Ignoring
the facts does not change them and the above proved that EMR is dangerous and
should be banned!
51. A
precautionary principle-based policy requires policy not words.
52. Determining
policy requires public officials who are capable of making courageous
decisions, not people who are afraid of making decisions.
53. If
the committee members are unable to determine a policy they should be replaced.
54. The
legal duty and job of the MOE and the MOH is to determine policy for the
principals, not letting the principals decide policy and health matters. The
principals are not policy makers but rather executers of policy!
55. A
proper exercise of precautionary principle-based policy is to ban cell phones
in schools.
56. A
proper exercise of a precautionary principle based policy demands banning of
Wi-Fi in schools, not a recommendation.
57. A
proper precautionary principle-based policy demands 0 radiation until radiation
would be proven as safe and not the other way around – exposure until radiation
is proven as unsafe (which was already established more than 10,000 times and
cost the life of millions!).
58. The
sad reality that other countries are also reckless does not provide a
justification or decrease the responsibility of the State of Israel to protect
its children and the rest of its population!
59. The
committee report is reckless and ridiculous and provides yet another pathetic
evidence of the lack of proper administration of the government and its
reckless disregard to the health of its citizens and children!
60. I
would like to remind you of what the Cell Phone companies association stated in
a safety hearing in California regarding the safety of cell phones:
Let me be very clear. The Industry has NOT saidonce, ONCE, that cell phones are safe
If the cell phones companies themselves admit that cell phones
are not safe, and research papers establish that they adversely affect health,
how come the government does not take immediate actions to inform the public,
to significantly minimize the use of cell phones and immediately ban the use of
wireless internet networks?
The only decision that would exercise prudent policy, a decision
that would not violate the law and the responsibility of the government, is a
categorical decision to ban Wi-Fi in schools, and to forbid bringing cell
phones to schools, as Prof. Carpenter summarizes his declaration:
“WI-FI
MUST BE BANNED FROM SCHOOL DEPLOYMENT!”
61. It
is clear that anyone who truly understands the science on the topic and who
does not have any hidden interests and understands what public responsibility
entails, would agree with this determination, as the Council of Europe
determined in its report from 2011, in section 8.2.3 (link to the report see
above section 32.4):
“Ban all mobile phones, DECT phones or WiFi or WLAN systems from classrooms and schools”
Sincerely,
Dafna Tachover, Esq.
About the writer of this document: Dafna Tachover is an attorney
in Israel and NY and has MBA. 3 years ago she started suffering from EHS after
years of massive use of wireless/cellular technology. Currently she is working
to ensure basic human rights for people who got injured by EMR and to increase
awareness to the adverse health effects of EMR.
Posted by Dafna Tachover,
Esq. (NY, Israel) MBA at 10:39 PM
http://ehsfighback.blogspot.com/2012/05/english-version-israeli-government.html
No comments:
Post a Comment