Saturday, November 14, 2015
Japan Study Shows Health Effects from Cell Towers. Wireless Radiation Causes Oxidative Stress, leading to cancer and non-cancer problems
Japan Study Shows Health Effects from Cell Towers. Wireless Radiation Causes Oxidative Stress, leading to cancer and non-cancer problems
Children are vulnerable because their brains and bodies are developing.
Microwave RF radiation was classified as a WHO IARC 2B possible carcinogen in 2011, and the same experts who made this classification believe there is enough evidence to upgrade it to class 2A probable carcinogen now.
We should be limiting exposure instead of saturating our children with it, putting them at risk for UNKNOWN health effects.
(WHO IARC = World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer)
Even though cell phone instructions say use a hands free device, do not carry close to the body, and do not hold to your head because they may exceed FCC limits in that instance, the US government (FCC) does not publicize this information nor mandates advertising to demonstrate this, leaving most people unaware of potential hazards and allowing their infants and children to play with them like toys.
FCC compliance does not equal safety. FCC's 30-year old limits only protect your body's tissues from heating damage, and does not protect against all other bioeffects that have been demonstrated in peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Other governments, including Russia and China, recognize other bioeffects,and thus have limits 100 times lower than ours. Don't forget how long it took our government to take action on tobacco, asbestos, and X-rays.
A documentary is in the works regarding scientific research on the effects of wireless radiation.
Here's the trailer, a short 3-minute video - https://www.youtube.com/
Below are 2 very interesting studies
1) Japan Study Shows Statistically Significant Health Effects from Cell Tower Antennas
Residents of a condominium building that had cell tower antennas on the rooftop were examined before and after cell tower antennas were removed. In 1998, 800MHz cell antennas were installed, then later in 2008 a second set of antennas (2GHz) were installed. After the owner of the condo withdrew its permission, the antennas were deactivated in 2009. Medical exams and interviews were conducted before and after the antennas were removed on 107 residents of the building who had no prior knowledge about possible adverse health effects of RFR. After their removal, the number of people who had symptoms decreased from 41 to 15, which was statistically significant. The symptoms that decreased in statistical significance after their removal were: tinnitus (ringing in the ears), fatigue, eye pain, sleep problems, dizziness/vertigo, jitteriness, headache, nosebleeds, numbness, and shoulder stiffness
2) July 2015: Microwave RF Radiation causes Oxidative Stress. How Non-Ionizing Radiation can cause DNA Damage
Only ionizing radiation (e.g. X-rays, Gamma rays) can directly damage DNA because it carries enough energy to directly ionize atoms and molecules. However, recent research has shown that there are other mechanisms (oxidative stress) by which DNA can be indirectly damaged by non-ionizing radiation, which is what microwave RF radiation is.
In July 2015, a review of existing studies on radiofrequency radiation (RFR) was published by National Academy of Sciences in Ukraine, Indiana University, and the University of Campinas in Brazil. Based on "93 out of 100 peer-reviewed studies, it concluded that low-intensity RFR [radiofrequency radiation] is an expressive oxidative agent for living cells with a high pathogenic potential, and that oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure should be recognized as one of primary mechanisms of biological activity of this kind of radiation.
This explains a range of biological/health effects of low-intensity RFR, which includes both cancer and non-cancer pathologies."
"Indoor RFR increased 5000 times from 1985 to 2005. Long-term RFR exposure can cause various disorders: headaches, fatigue, depression, tinnitus, skin irritation, hormonal disorders [including high stress hormone levels]. Convincing studies in hazards of RFR in human germ cells [sperm cells] have been published. " Other effects mentioned in the review: sleep disorders, skin and mucosa related symptoms (itching, allergic reactions)
Here are the mechanisms by which these effects happen:
- Reduced iron chelation with ferrozine (ferritin affected)
- Increased intracellular calcium ions (Ca2+)
- Dissociation of water molecules, generating H and OH radicals, H+ and OH- groups. (OH radical is the most aggressive form of ROS, Reactive Oxygen Species)
- Oxidative Damage of DNA caused by OH radical and other ROS
- Perturbation of cellular signaling caused by free radicals induced by RFR
There is an increase in the number of people with EHS (electrohypersensitivity). EHS is like an allergy to RFR, and presents with skin and mucosoid symptoms, heart or nervous system disorders. In an allergic reaction to RFR, there is a significant increase in the level of mast cells in the skin of persons when exposed to EMF, and also a higher level of degranulated mast cells. These activated mast cells release histamine, leading to an allergic reaction (itching, rash).
0.06% of the total population had EHS in 1985. In 2006, 9-11% of the European population has EHS. In Sweden, EHS is an officially recognized health impairment.
You can read this review here: http://nebula.wsimg.com/
HEALTH ISSUES | Message to Public Schools and Parents about Wireless Devices and Health
HEALTH ISSUES | Message to Public Schools and Parents about Wireless Devices and Health
By Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D –
If wireless devices, such as WiFi, are used in your schools, then the health of your staff, your teachers, and your students can be at risk. But this problem can be successfully addressed, and with benefit to all.
Background: Wireless devices transmit information using radiofrequency/microwave radiation. The international biomedical research community has been studying the impact of such radiation on biological entities for decades, but more intensely in recent years. Thousands of studies have been published in peerreviewed biomedical journals. And so many of these studies are finding biological effects of concern that immediate responsive action is warranted. Further, these biological effects occur at levels of radiation far lower than earlier understood. Simply stated, a worldwide health crisis is emerging and is becoming a hallmark of the 21st century. The international biomedical research community is trying to warn us; but, as a society, we are not yet listening. I hope this message will help to change that.
As a scientist, I urge you to look into the health impact of the radiofrequency/microwave radiation produced by wireless devices. Examples of wireless devices of concern in our environment are WiFi in all of its forms—cellphones and cell towers (especially those located on school grounds); cordless phones; wireless computers, whether desktop, laptop, or tablet versions; wireless baby monitors; wireless smart electricity meters; emerging wireless smart appliances; and, microwave ovens (which always leak radiation).
“The levels of manmade radiofrequency/microwave radiation in our environment are increasing exponentially and already exceed, by many orders of magnitude, the levels at which all life on Earth evolved. Simply stated, we are drowning in a rising sea of manmade radiofrequency/microwave radiation.”
This crisis is the consequence of many factors. Here are some of them:
All living things are bioelectrical in nature. That is why electrocardiograms and electroencephalograms work. They, of course, measure the tiny electrical signals that operate the heart and the brain. The critical tasks performed by these tiny electrical signals, and so many other electrical signals in all living things, can be disrupted by radiofrequency/microwave radiation.
The levels of manmade radiofrequency/microwave radiation in our environment are increasing exponentially and already exceed, by many orders of magnitude, the levels at which all life on Earth evolved. Simply stated, we are drowning in a rising sea of manmade radiofrequency/microwave radiation.
The invisible nature of radiofrequency/microwave radiation leaves the public and the decision-makers unaware of the rising levels of radiation around them.
The genuine usefulness of wireless devices promotes denial of the risks.
The intense advertising, the economic power, and the political power of profitable wireless industries enable them to dominate the public dialogue and to hold sway over government regulators and legislators.
Current federal standards for limiting the exposure of the public to radiofrequency/microwave radiation are outdated and overly permissive. Those standards are based on thermal heating alone. In effect, the government claims that if you are not cooked too much by the radiation, then you are fine. Those federal standards ignore the many biological effects that occur at much lower levels of radiation, leaving the public unprotected.
The radiation around them, much like second-hand smoke, is forced on them by unaware individuals.”
Federal and state governments are advocating unlimited expansion of wireless technology, and are even co-funding such expansion and mandating the acceptance of wireless technology by the public. Such actions reflect a widespread lack of understanding of, or willful blindness to, the underlying science and its consequences for public health.
Some of the more serious consequences of exposure to radiofrequency/microwave radiation (such as DNA damage, cancer, and infertility) are especially nefarious because they give no early warning signs.
Other consequences of exposure do give early warning signs (such as sleep disruption, headaches, fatigue, ringing in the ears, memory loss, dizziness, heart arrhythmia, and many others); but, those signs are too often dismissed because they can have other causes as well, complicating identification of the true cause.
The absence of routine training of physicians in the biological effects of radiofrequency/microwave radiation makes it difficult for physicians to identify the causes and to provide responsive guidance.
Simply stated, public schools can protect their staff, teachers, and students from the health risks posed by wireless devices
Even aware individuals cannot control their exposure in any environment shared with others, because the radiation around them, much like second-hand smoke, is forced on them by unaware individuals. Only governments can fully solve this problem, but they are currently part of the problem. For now the public will have to protect itself, and that will require public education.
Fortunately, many of the services that wireless devices offer can be realized with much safer wired devices. The wired devices achieve connectivity with fiber-optic, coaxial, or ethernet cables. The wired devices are faster, more reliable, and more cyber secure. They are, however, less mobile, often less convenient, and somewhat more expensive to install. But those drawbacks pale in comparison to the benefits of good health.
Simply stated, public schools can protect their staff, teachers, and students from the health risks posed by wireless devices, including WiFi, by converting to safe wired connectivity. If your schools lack the resources to convert now, do seriously consider shutting down your wireless devices anyway and converting as soon as you can. Your schools can advance learning without leaving a trail of illness, some of which can be lifelong.
As a suggested starting place in exploring the concerns about radiation from wireless devices, I have appended an “Annotated List of References” and an “Annotated List of Videos.”Please view, especially, video (1) called “Wi-Fi in Schools, the Facts”, made in Australia, on page 6.*
*Complete document including references available at goo.gl/rFsDoo
Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D., 20316 Highland Hall Drive, Montgomery Village, MD 20886-4007 Phone: 301-926-7568
Email: ronpowell@verizon.net
Ronald M. Powell, is a retired US government scientist (Ph.D., Applied Physics, Harvard University, 1975). During his government career, he worked for the Executive Office of the President, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. For those organizations, respectively, he addressed federal research and development program evaluation, energy policy research, and measurement development in support of the electronics and electrical-equipment industries and the biomedical research community. He currently interacts with other scientists and with physicians around the world on the impact of the environment – including the radiofrequency/microwave environment – on human health.
Baroness Susan Greenfield on IT’s impacts on children
Baroness Susan Greenfield on IT’s impacts on children
Although I had mentioned this in a blog last year, considering my recent blogs on Wi-Fi technology in schools, it is worthwhile to revisit Professor Susan Greenfield’s Youtube talk on how new digital technologies are rewiring the brain’s frontal cortex – the area of the brain responsible for cognitive analysis and abstract thought.
Greenfield suggests that ‘mind change’, brought on by increasing internet use and the popularity of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, will be the new climate change.
The first part of her presentation deals with how the brain develops and the second part about children and overuse of IT and its impact of their ability to learn and also diminishing interpersonal skills. Points in the presentation include:
SNIP
Read the post here.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Wireless Communication and Health: Future of the Research and the Precautionary Principle
Wireless Communication and Health: Future of the Research and the Precautionary Principle
Following are his conclusions:
- Currently available scientific evidence, although inconclusive, indicates that health of the ‘to-be-determined’ part of the population is possibly affected.
- Radiation dosimetry needs to be significantly improved in epidemiological and EHS studies.
- Objective data on effects of radiation on human body should be collected using screening approaches of transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics.
- While waiting for the conclusive evidence, what will take several tens of years, Precautionary Principle should be implemented as broadly as possible and feasible.
- Whenever possible and feasible, wired connections should be promoted over wireless
The slides for his presentation are available at http://bit.ly/1NQnCkQ
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website: http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/SaferE
News Releases: http://pressroom.prlog.org/
Twitter: @berkeleyprc
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website: http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/SaferE
News Releases: http://pressroom.prlog.org/
Twitter: @berkeleyprc
The Hidden Agenda Behind 21st Century Learning: Public-private partnership is strangling our education system.
From Psychology Today:
The Hidden Agenda Behind 21st Century Learning: Public-private partnership is strangling our education system.
Victoria L. Dunckley M.D. Sep 30, 2015
Excerpt
How has our public education system gotten so off track?
High-stakes testing, obsessive data collection, and lofty promises of technology’s potential to “revolutionize” education are contributing to ever-increasing amounts of school-based screen-time. The invasion is occuring with complete disregard for what it taking away from in terms of basic developmental needs, as well as for screentime’s negative influence on nervous system health. Health and development risks aside, research suggests computer use in schools drags down test scores (link is external).
SNIP
Read the post here.
Actions/inactions taken by the FCC and Tom Wheeler. Cell Phone History
Actions/inactions taken by the FCC and Tom Wheeler. Cell Phone History
Video from Larry King interviewing Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dr. Devra Davis, Dr. Paul Song, Dr. Keith Black on cell phone precautions and risks
Dr. Sanjay Gupta - neurosurgeon and CNN Chief Medical correspondent. Dr. Devra Davis - Director of Oncology at University of Pittsburg, Dr. Keith Black - neurosurgeon and Chairman of Neurology Dept. at Cedars-Sinai Hospital, and Dr. Paul Song - Radiation Oncologist. Precautions need to be taken, especially with children, and cancer does not show up for decades after exposure. Testes and eyes very sensitive to RF radiation. https://www.youtube.com/
One of the FCC's responsibilities is to REGULATE the wireless industry and set safe exposure limits for wireless RF radiation.
The US limits are 100-1,000,000 times higher than other countries, but so far the FCC has not taken any actions on changing our limits which are 30 years old.
FCC, Lobbying, and Who is Tom Wheeler?
The wireless industry spends millions per year lobbying. The current FCC Chairman is Tom Wheeler, who was previously the CEO of the CTIA, the powerful lobbying organization representing the wireless industry, and who also raised $500,000 for President Obama's campaign https://en.wikipedia.
Tom Wheeler was also president of the CTIA when it hired Dr. George Carlo in 1993 for their $27 million research project on cell phone safety. Cell phones were never tested for long-term safety prior to market introduction (in 1984, the FDA had exempted cell phones from premarket testing before allowing them to be marketed to the public). January 21,1993 - David Reynard appeared on the Larry King Live show – he was suing the wireless industry for his late wife's brain tumor. His wife's doctor demonstrated that that the brain tumor's location matched where the antenna was when she held the phone to her head. When that caused a panic, Tom Wheeler hired George Carlo to conduct research to reassure the public that cell phones were safe, and got the FDA to agree not to regulate cell phones until Carlo's study was complete. Carlo hired 200 prominent scientists and created a peer review board headed by Dr. John Graham from Harvard University School of Public Health. In 1998, their research showed that the microwave radiation used by cell phones (this would also include Wi-Fi and other wireless devices) caused micronuclei in human blood - there was a strong corrleation between micronuclei and cancer. After the Chernobyl accident in 1986, the presence of micronuclei in the blood was used to identify children at high risk for developing cancer. When the research project continued to find other serious negative health effects, the wireless industry shut down the project and tried to discredit Dr. Carlo. A few days later, Carlo's house was destroyed by arson. Read more here http://www.cqlpe.ca/pdf/
From June 2012 to August 2015, the FCC invited opinions on its RF radiation limits - see Proceeding Number 13-84 on the FCC web site. You can see the 1000 submissions the FCC received here, http://www.saferemr.com/2015_
RF Emissions levels from cell towers NOT monitored for exceeding FCC limits
FCC does not monitor the RF emissions levels from cell towers, so there is no enforcement when they exceed FCC levels. An article appearing in the Wall Street Journal in October 2014 reported that 1 in 10 cell tower antenna facilities were emitting RF radiation levels higher than FCC standards according to engineers' tests of 5000 cell towers across the country. http://www.wsj.com/
July 2014: FCC, under Tom Wheeler, approves $1 billion per year to give to schools to install Wi-Fi over the next 5 years (that's $5 billion!), despite criticism
funding will come from a tax on your phone bill http://www.dailydot.com/
Cost of Wi-Fi - $800 million per year https://thejournal.com/
June 2015: FCC, under Tom Wheeler is pushing wireless companies to increase speeds (which would require more capacity, i.e. increase cell towers)
FCC fined AT&T $100mil for slowing down their data speeds, slower than advertised, for their unlimited data plan customers. http://finance.yahoo.com/
Now Sprint will be increasing their cell towers to three times what Verizon has (Verizon has the fastest network in the country)! http://money.cnn.
Now wireless industry lobbying to remove proof of gap from cell tower applications, looking to substitute capacity instead (because there are no more significant gaps anymore) - Skip to p. 7 http://www.commerce.senate.
This is the result of Wi-Fi and wireless in schools https://www.youtube.
Pediatricians' new warning: Limit children's exposure to cellphones
Pediatricians' new warning: Limit children's exposure to cellphones
There are now more cellphones in use in the United States than there are people. But how safe are they?
U.S. government agencies including the FCC (which decides how much radiation mobile phones are allowed to emit) say there is little to be concerned about.
Pediatricians warn: Limit children's exposure to cellphones
PLAY VIDEO
But others beg to differ. Earlier this year 190 independent scientists representing 39 countries (including the United States) appealed to global health organization to strengthen cellphone guidelines and ensure the public be "fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy." These scientists, who have collectively authored more than 2,000 papers on the topic, add to a growing number of prominent experts and government agencies around the world who are holding up a caution sign for consumers — particularly when it comes to kids.
CTIA, which represents cellphone manufacturers, tells NBC News that mobile phones are tested at independent labs to ensure they meet the FCC's mandatory radiation exposure limits. But the FCC does not independently test cellphones for safety; they base their guidelines on information provided by other government agencies and independent experts.
The guidelines were last updated in 1996. In a letter to the FCC, the American Academy of Pediatrics urged the agency to adopt U.S. standards that protect children's health, reflect use patterns of cellphone users today, and "provide consumers the information they need to make informed decisions."
"Children are not little adults," Dr. Gisela Mercada-Deane, chair of radiology at the American Academy of Pediatrics, said. "The amount of radio frequency that children will be exposed by the time they are our age [an adult] is exponential to the amount of radiation, radio frequencies that we ourselves are being exposed to in a lifetime."
TODAY
NBC's Miguel Almaguer was granted rare access inside a cellphone test lab.
The current FCC test does not take into account that children's skulls are thinner and can absorb more radiation, Mercada-Deane added.
A 2012 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office also recommends the FCC standards be reassessed to account for current usage. "By testing mobile phones only when at a distance from the body, FCC may not be identifying the maximum exposure, since some users may hold a mobile phone directly against the body while in use," the report notes.
While the FCC maintains there has not been sufficient evidence to warrant a change in the radiation or usage guidelines, they did open a formal Notice of Inquiry in 2013. They're exploring whether recent research and usage patterns of radio frequency emitters of all types warrant a reexamination of the FCC's current exposure limit.
"The U.S. has among the most conservative standards in the world," wrote the FCC in a statement to NBC News. "As part of our routine review of these standards, we are soliciting input from multiple stakeholder experts, including federal health agencies and others, to guide our assessment."
The good news is, even critics of the FCC's current cellphone radiation guidelines do not suggest people stop using their devices. Instead, they offer common-sense precautions. Here are the basics you need to know:
Your phone radiates like a microwave. Smartphones today have multiple antennas inside. When in use, the phone emits non-iodizing radiation — not the type you would get from an X-ray; more like a low-powered microwave oven.
"Phones are transmitting radiation so long as they are connected to the Internet or connected to Wi-Fi, and even if you're not talking on your phone, your phone is talking to the tower," Dr. Devra Davis, a former White House senior health adviser, said.
Be aware that your phone is, in essence, always transmitting. Experts suggest that if you plan to watch a movie on your device, download it first, then switch to airplane mode while you watch in order to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.
Distance is your friend. Chances are you have not read the fine print of your cellphone safety manual. Most of them tell consumers not to keep their phone directly against the body.
The Samsung Galaxy S6 manual reads: "Body-worn SAR testing has been carried out at a separation distance of 1.5 cm [.6 inches]. To meet RF [radio frequency] exposure guidelines during body-worn operation, the device should be positioned at least this distance away from the body."
Bottom line: if you're carrying your phone in your pocket, sock, bra or anywhere against your body, the manufacturers can't guarantee that the amount of radiation you're absorbing will be at a safe level. Distance is your friend.
Get wired (or use the speaker). Countries such as Israel, France, Russia and Canada provide additional cellphone safety recommendations for adults and children. The most consistent advice: Use a wired earpiece or talk on speakerphone.
Experts say for every inch you keep your phone away from the body, the amount of radiation your body or head absorbs goes down exponentially.
Avoid radiation hot spots. Your phone doesn't always give off the same level of radiation: The weaker your cell signal is, the harder your phone has to work and the more radiation it gives off.
So when you're in an elevator or a mall or a rural area with a spotty signal, your phone's power output automatically increases as it searches for a signal. If radiation is a concern for you, experts say its better to wait until you're in an area with a stronger signal before using your device.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Transparency and Liability Issues with Wireless: November 12, 2015 Letter to Montgomery County School CEO Dr. Andrew Zuckerman
Transparency and Liability Issues with Wireless: November 12, 2015 Letter to Montgomery County School CEO Dr. Andrew Zuckerman
November 12, 2015
Dear MCPS CEO Dr. Andrew Zuckerman,
Thank you for your email asking for a meeting. We are concerned that you stated you would not respond in writing to our questions nor would you allow us to record our meeting so that we could document MCPS’ response. You wrote me on November 2, 2015 that “I regret that we are unable to provide you detailed written responses to your questions.”
If MCPS staff cannot answer questions nor understand the health implications of an environmental exposure that MCPS is creating ...then MCPS should not be exposing kids to it.
You could easily avoid extra staff time on this by simply installing safe technology.
You could easily avoid extra staff time on this by simply installing safe technology.
I am writing to ask for answers to specific health and safety questions. I have had previous meetings with Sherwin Collette and have not received a full response to the questions we asked in that meeting nor in response to my subsequent letters and emails. He specifically stated that if we had questions we should contact him. We did and received no answer.
You wrote me on November 8, 2015 that “the reason to meet as opposed to exchange emails/written communication is because the questions you asked are detailed in nature and require extensive staff time and resources, which unfortunately are limited.” Forgive me if the list of questions detailed here is long but the fact is that this issue is complicated and requires a thorough understanding by your staff. As MCPS is installing the transmitters we believe MCPS has a responsibility to answer these questions about their own transmitters.
I have listed below the full questions that MCPS can answer either in written communications or in a recorded meeting. Answers need to be documented so that there is full clarity and we do not misunderstand each other. Our questions involve parental choice, parental notification, transparency, due diligence and liability.
PARENTAL CHOICE
Why aren’t all parents being informed about simple classroom measures that will reduce the risk to our kids. Such choices are already in place in a few schools after parents asked.
- 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.
PARENTAL NOTIFICATION - RIGHT TO KNOW
Why aren’t parents being notified and fully informed about the following:
- 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.
TRANSPARENCY
- 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.
DUE DILIGENCE
Decisions have been made by MCPS but no rationale as to the due diligence taken has been provided to parents by MCPS:
- 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?
LIABILITY
I contacted MCPS about insurance coverage for long term health effects and was told that MCPS is self insured and does not have insurance coverage for this issue. If children get sick as scientists state is quite possible, then there will be lawsuits.
- 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:
“The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure....” They also state they will exclude coverage related to an entity's omission to warn about these potential long term effects. Read the it here.
Why is MCPS setting itself up for lawsuits from damages from harm from these devices plus from not informing and warning families about the potential harm?
2. Swiss Re Insurance company stated in 2013 that “Over the last decade, the spread of wireless devices has accelerated enormously. … This development has increased exposure … If a direct link [to health effects] … were established, it would open doors for new claims and could ultimately lead to large losses ...” Swiss Re rates the “Unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields “ as having an “Overall potential Impact of High”. Read the 2013 Report HERE.
With the inevitable lawsuits MCPS will have, this will translate to taxpayer money being spent on lawsuits. Why are you risking not only our children’s health but also our taxpayer money?
3. Are teachers and administrators aware they could be liable? Will the fact that School Officials refuse to inform parents, teachers and students about the warnings in Safety Manuals and Disclaimers that come with cell phones and other wireless devices make them liable? The fine print warnings correspond to federal law and MCPS is failing to inform their students and staff of the instructions.
As school officials have now been fully notified of this risk, they could be personally held legally responsible for the injuries to our children caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure because they did not act to minimize risk. Are School Principals, Board of Education members and administrators aware they could be personally held liable?
4. The Los Angeles Unified School District Accommodated a Teacher Who Fell Ill After Wireless Installation Read it here Letter of Accommodation from Los Angeles Unified School District The letter states that, “After reviewing and taking into consideration all of the documentation you submitted as part of your request, the information you presented during the meeting, and reviewing alternate accommodations, the Committee approved your request to have the Wi-Fi turned off in your classroom during the 2014-2015 school year. As an alternate accommodation the Committee also approved a reassignment to a different school site where Wi-Fi has yet to be installed.“
What about teachers who fall ill from the radiation? How will they be accommodated?
5. Many scientists and medical doctors are pointing to the real possibility of children being injured from long term exposure to this radiation. Teachers and school administrators are obligated to anticipate that certain situations may prove harmful to students. Steps should be taken to prevent avoidable injuries. If you do not take our concerns seriously, and injury occurs, you could be liable because the injury was foreseeable.
How will MCPS deal with the financial liability for the thousands of students entrusted to its care?
In conclusion, MCPS is choosing to risk our children’s health and our taxpayer money and we parents deserve to know why and how.
MCPS could meet the goals of their strategic plan with a safe wired infrastructure and follow the Best Practices recommended by the Collaborative for High Performance Schools. Download the Criteria HERE. Such simple solutions will mitigate this serious risk and protect the health and financial stability of the county.
I look forward to your response to these important questions. We all agree the safety of our children is our first priority.
Sincerely,
Theodora Scarato LCSW-C