Wi-Fi Especially Dangerous for Young Children—Cell Phones Too

 From Alliance for Natural Health USA

March 24, 2015

Should we be concerned about radiation from our cell phones (which we carry with us everywhere) and our Wi-Fi (which is nearly ubiquitous these days)?

A review of recent studies shows reasons for caution, pointing to evidence which demonstrates that children absorb more microwave radiation (MWR) than adults. The authors also note the shortcomings in current federal regulatory policy in regard to MWR exposure.

The study, published in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, says that children are at greater risk because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner, and their relative size is smaller. The younger the child, the greater the risk; fetuses are particularly vulnerable to MWR.

To those who follow this issue, the potential dangers of MWR-exposure are nothing new. The UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer calls MWR a class 2B carcinogen, which means it possibly causes cancer in humans—it’s in the same category as lead, chloroform, gasoline fumes, and the pesticide DDT. Most of the research concerns a specific type of MWR: the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF) given off by radios, televisions, microwave ovens, cell phones and Wi-Fi, and the smart meters installed in your home by the utility company.

As we noted in 2011, there have been multiple reports, mostly out of Europe’s premier research institutions, of cell phone use being linked to brain damage, early-onset Alzheimer’s, senility, DNA damage, and even sperm die-offs. But after this new study on the MWR dangers to young children, concern is mounting about the growing number of children’s toys that use Wi-Fi technology—and that’s not counting the number of kids who play with tablets or carry cell phones these days.

The study also found that adults are at a lower, but still significant, risk, echoing the findings of a 2013 case study from a team of breast cancer surgeons and pathologists who raised the possibility that nonionizing radiation from cell phone EMF exposures caused multifocal invasive breast cancer in four young women. These women, all between the ages of 21 and 39, regularly carried their smartphones directly against their breasts in their bras for up to ten hours a day, for several years. All four developed tumors in areas of their breasts immediately underlying the phones. All four had no family history of breast cancer, tested negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2, and had no other known breast cancer risks. The pathology of all four cases shows striking similarities in the tumor composition.

The article concludes with this striking warning: “The risk to children and adolescent from exposure to microwave radiating devices is considerable. Adults have a smaller but very real risk, as well.”

Given the potential dangers of long-term exposure to MWR and the near-ubiquity of cell phones and Wi-Fi devices in our society, you might think that significant steps would be taken at the policy level to adequately address these dangers. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

Rather than erring on the side of caution, the US seems to be moving in the opposite direction. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC), the government body responsible for regulating MWR exposure, has stated that equipping schools with Wi-Fi is a national priority; the agency plans to invest an additional $2 billion in broadband service for schools and libraries by the end of the year.

The study also notes that exposure limits in the US are inadequate. Exposure limits were set by the FCC in the 1990s, before the plethora of scientific studies showing cancer risks at levels well below the current legal exposure limit. Further, the FCC’s exposure limits are based entirely on short-term exposures, with no consideration of long-term exposures. We now have an abundance of data showing just how dangerous MWR may be.

Government warnings have been issued, but according to Forbes, most of the public is unaware of such warnings. Cell phone manual warnings make clear that an overexposure problem exists—but that is to limit legal liability, and besides, who reads cell phone manuals? Furthermore, FCC regulations state that devices should be tested under normal operating conditions—yet many MWR products, including cell phones and laptops, usually measure exposure when the device is held 20 centimeters (a little less than 8 inches) from the body. People place laptops on their laps and keep cell phones in receiving mode (rather than the presumably safe airplane mode) in their pockets and bras all the time. Most people hold their cell phones to their heads to talk, rather than using speakerphone or a headset.

Clearly, something needs to be done. The answer isn’t to throw away our cell phones and smash our wireless routers, but in our increasingly tech-intensive world, we need to do a better job of evaluating the risks of moving further and further away from nature.

At the policy level, the FCC should update its standards on MWR exposure and test products based on how they are actually used. Government officials in the US could also follow the proactive approach taken by officials in other countries to warn and protect their citizens. Belgium’s Public Health Minister, for instance, banned cell phone sales for children under seven years old. The Australian government produced a fact sheet educating citizens on how they could reduce their exposure from wireless devices. The FCC and other related agencies should work to make sure that people are aware of the possible dangers of MWR exposure.

If you are concerned about MWR exposure, there are some simple steps that you can take in your home to protect your family:

• Because of particular dangers to the fetus, pregnant women should avoid exposing their fetus to MWR.
• Avoid using baby monitors on cribs.
• Women and girls should avoid putting cell phones in their bras.
• Hold cell phones 15 centimeters (about 6 inches) away from your ear to limit exposure—that is, use the speakerphone function or else headphones with a microphone.
• When not in use, try not to keep your phone on your person. A cell phone is always radiating unless it’s turned off.
• Teach kids to limit cell phone use when they can, and to use alternatives like landlines and Skype, which don’t emit MWR.
• Wi-Fi routers should be placed where people, especially children, spend the least amount of time.
• Consider hardwiring your computers to the modem via Ethernet instead of using Wi-Fi (that’s what we do at the ANH-USA offices).
• Opt-out of installing smart meters in your home (though this may be difficult in some states).

In response to public and governmental concern, the World Health Organization (WHO) has established the International Electromagnetic Fields Project to assess the scientific evidence of possible adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields. WHO will conduct a formal risk assessment of all studied health outcomes from RF fields exposure by 2016.

Dr. Mercola, in a powerful article on RF/EMF dangers, reported an interesting suggestion from a panel of experts: EMF-free zones where children, pregnant women (or those hoping to conceive), and others sensitive to EMFs, can be protected. It’s an excellent first step for protecting the most vulnerable members of our society.

Considering how much wireless technology and other MWR-emitting devices have been woven into our everyday lives, it’s important to act now to protect our family and loved ones.

Original article:

http://www.anh-usa.org/wi-fi-especially-dangerous-for-young-children%E2%80%94cell-phones-too-2/

Video: Health Effects of Microwave Radio Exposures, by Paul Dart MD FCA

This July 2013 presentation by Paul Dart MD FCA is a useful, science-rich resource to inform city councils and utilities who are considering ‘smart’ or ‘advanced’ meter deployment, with an understanding of the significant associated public health risks and liabilities.

Following this meeting, several public hearings, and several community screenings of Take Back Your Power, the Eugene Water & Electric (EWEB) voted unanimously to curb ‘smart’ meter installations, byscaling back to an ‘opt-in’ program, whereby ratepayers would need to provide explicit written permission to have a ‘smart’ meter deployed on their home.

This video focuses in on the rF health-related issue exclusively, and does not fully address the switching-mode power supply / dirty electricity issue; nor the surveillance, cost increases, associated fire and hacking risks, or other downsides associated with the ‘smart’ metering program.

https://youtu.be/_d4NOfTOUDA

Austrian study finds link to cancer, cell phone tower exposure at levels also found in Framingham schools

It was the study’s objective to determine whether cancer cases that became known in the eastern part of Hausmannstätten or Vasoldsberg, respectively, represent a cluster with regard to timing and location as well as whether they might be associated with the mobile phone base station, which operated as a car phone service from 1984 to 1997.

The analog mobile phone base station under study was part of the national C-Network, installed by the Austrian post and communications authority and operated according to the Nordic Mobile Telephone 450 (NMT 450) standard. The cell radii of this network were usually up to 30 km. The area under study was defined as a circle with a 1,200-m radius around the former transmitter. With the help of the provincial government of Styria (GIS Steiermark) and the municipalities of Hausmannstätten and Vasoldsberg, n=2,543 potential study participants could be located and personally invited to participate in the study.

By applying limiting exposure conditions such as the assumption of a latency period, an “after-effect period” and a 5-year minimum exposure period, three different case-control samples were compiled. Sample A (67 cases/1242 controls) and B (67 cases/646 controls) included living and deceased cases, sample C (28 cases/56 controls) living cases only.

Based on the selected exposure period limits, the distance assessment for the range from 0 to 200 m around the transmitter in comparison to the area from 201 to 1,200 m showed a significantly increased cancer risk for all three samples, which makes for a distinct incidence with regard to location. The incidence was particularly pronounced for breast and brain tumors.

The essential assessment focused on the relationships between the RF radiation exposure levels from the transmitter and cancer risk. The risk (odds ratio=OR) was assessed for the exposure categories 10-100 µW/m², 100-1000 µW/m² and greater than 1000 µW/m² (1 mW/m²) in relation to the reference category less than 10 µW/m², all of which apply to outdoor levels.

For all models, the analysis revealed significantly increased risk ratios. Compared to the reference category (<10 µW/m²), the cancer risk for all cancer sites in the highest exposure category (>1000 µW/m²) was 5 to 8 times higher, depending on the sample. Similar to the distance assessment, the cancer cases were again most pronounced for the cancer sites breast and brain.

Incidentally, the wifi radiation measured from the industrial strength routers in Framingham schools was as high as 34,000µW/m².

http://www.vws.org/documents/Cell-Project-Documents/Austrianstudy-1.pdf

Princeton University Pulls WiFi Safety Assurances

A website has released emails and screenshots detailing how Princeton removed a position statement that their wireless networks “do not present a hazard,” after letter writing campaign by concerned parents.

Parents For Safe Technology Website

PRLog - March 16, 2015 - Princeton University removed its position statement on wireless safety from their website after concerns were raised that Princeton's information was “outdated and inaccurate”.  Starting in early 2014, a parent, Thea Scarato, wrote the radiation safety officer detailing point by point why the Princeton’s  website needed to be updated to accurately reflect the state of science on health risks from wireless radiation. By August of 2014, Princeton had pulled down all information related to wireless radiation.

The website came to the attention of Scarato after she raised concerns about the safety of the WiFi in her children’s elementary school. The Princeton position statement was presented to her as validation that wireless networks were “safe”.

“I decided to write a letter because decisions impacting my children’s health were being made based on Princeton’s outdated information. I would hope Princeton now gives this issue the due diligence it deserves.  Why is Wifi  being rolled out when so many scientists are calling for caution around the world?” stated Scarato of her actions.

In February 2014,  Scarato first wrote a letter to the Director of Environmental Health and Safety at Princeton University asking that Princeton update the information on wireless. The letter critiqued the information on the Princeton website, provided documentation for each point and called the website data “outdated and inaccurate.” Scarato noted that the “New” Study was actually from 2007 and did not include the 2011 International Agency for the Research on Cancer’s Class 2 B Carcinogen classification nor the growing body of research showing neurological, immune and reproductive damage.

She followed up with several letters and phone calls. Other parents wrote including the National Association for Children and Safe Technology. By August 2014, Princeton had removed the wireless information.

The now retracted Princeton Position Statement on Wireless was also used by the National Association for Independent Schools (NAIS) as a reference in their 2014 NAIS Non-Ionizing Radiation: Literature Review. NAIS serves over 1,700 schools. Scarato stated that, "I have heard from parents in other states whose children's schools also referenced the outdated Princeton site to support the WiFi rollout.  Does Princeton realize just how many schools were relying on their site?"

In the final email exchange Princeton staff stated that recent reviews “affirm that RF exposure from WiFi-based devices does not pose a hazard to the general public.”

“How can a Class 2 B possible carcinogen that “needs more research” be called safe by Princeton? How could I, as a mother, just ignore the research showing brain damage at levels thousands of times below our governments regulations ? It might take decades to prove -just like asbestos did, but what about the years my children will have been exposed? We won’t be able to turn back the clock,” stated Scarato adding, "If that is their position, then why doesn't Princeton place this safety assurance on their website and provide us with the up-to-date scientific documentation backing such a stance?"

The changes to the Princeton University website are vieweable on the Parents For Safe Technologywebsite which has posted Before/After screen shots and the email exchanges. The website shares information on wireless to parents so they can take simple "actionable" steps to increase their children's health and well-being.

For more information please see http://www.parentsforsafetechnology.org/princeton-univers...

Contact Parents for Safe Technology at ParentsForSafeTechnology@gmail.com.

Why research into Wifi can be tailored to seem safe. It's all about power density.

Scientists:
Aït-Aïssa S, de Gannes FP, Taxile M, Billaudel B, Hurtier A, Haro E, Ruffié G, Athané A, Veyret B, Lagroye I. 

"In Situ Expression of Heat-Shock Proteins and 3-Nitrotyrosine in Brains of Young Rats Exposed to a WiFi Signal In Utero and In Early Life. Radiat Res. 2013 May 10. [Epub ahead of print]

The bioeffects of exposure to Wireless High-Fidelity (WiFi) signals on the developing nervous systems of young rodents was investigated by assessing the in vivo and in situ expression levels of three stress markers: 3-Nitrotyrosine (3-NT), an oxidative stress marker and two heat-shock proteins (Hsp25 and 10 Hsp70).

These biomarkers were measured in the brains of young rats exposed to a 2450 MHz WiFi signal by immunohistochemistry. Pregnant rats were first exposed or sham exposed to WiFi from day 6 to day 21 of gestation.

In addition three newborns per litter were further exposed up to 5 weeks old. Daily 2-h exposures were performed blind in a reverberation chamber and whole-body specific absorption rate levels were 0, 0.08, 0.4 and 4 W/kg.

3-NT and stress protein expression was assayed in different areas of the hippocampus and cortex. No significant difference was observed among exposed and sham-exposed groups. These results suggest that repeated exposure to WiFi during gestation and early life has no deleterious effects on the brains of young rats."

Without the power density data, it's difficult to ascertain how strong the signal was. It could have been 1W, which would show no effects, most likely. If it was a common wifi power density, like those our children are being exposed to in schools, we'd possibly get a different result.

This is an abstract from a study, and part of many other studies that can be found here:

http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/RFR-11_28-research-summary.pdf

New Studies Show Health Risks from Wireless Tech

New Studies Show Health Risks from Wireless Tech:  

Warnings from the BioInitiative Working Group/University at Albany, Rensselaer, New York /April 16, 2014

The BioInitiative Working Group says evidence for health risk from wireless tech is growing stronger and warrants immediate action.  The Group released a mid-year update covering new science studies from 2012 to 2014.

New studies intensify medical concerns about malignant brain tumors from cell phone use. “There is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma (a malignant brain tumor) and acoustic neuroma with use of mobile and cordless phones” says Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD at Orebro University, Sweden, according to studies released in 2012 and 2013. “Epidemiological evidence shows that radiofrequency should be classified as a known human carcinogen. The existing FCC/IEEE and ICNIRP public safety limits are not adequate to protect public health.”

The BioInitiative reports nervous system effects in 68% of studies on radiofrequency radiation (144 of 211 studies) in 2014.  This has increased from 63% in 2012 (93 of 150 studies) in 2012.   Studies of extremely-low frequency radiation are reported to cause nervous system effects in 90% of the 105 studies available in 2014.     Genetic effects (damage to DNA) from radiofrequency radiation is reported in 65% (74 of 114 studies); and 83% (49 of 59 studies) of extremely-low frequency studies.

Mobile wireless devices like phones and tablets are big sources of unnecessary biological stress to the mind and body that can chip away at resilience over time.  The Report warns against wireless in schools.   Schools should provide internet access without Wi-FI.

“It is essentially an unregulated experiment on childrens’ health and learning.

Microwave from wireless tech disrupts thinking – what could be worse for learning?  Technology can be used more safely with wired devices that do not produce these biologically-disruptive levels of microwave radiation” said Cindy Sage, Co-Editor of the BioInitiative Report.

Federal programs like ConnectED  and E-Rate are calling for wireless classrooms while ignoring the health evidence.  Hyperactivity, concentration problems, anxiety, irritability, disorientation, distracted behavior, sleep disorders, and headaches are reported in clinical studies.

Government reviews on health impacts of wireless radiofrequency radiation from the European Union and Australia continue to be inconclusive largely because they require certainty before issuing warnings.   The FCC review of health impacts from wireless technologies is still underway, but has not affected the federal push for wireless classrooms.

See:                                          www.bioinitiative.org
Contact:                                   info@bioinitiative.org
David O. Carpenter, MD           dcarpenter@albany.edu

Let’s Not be Clueless About Wireless

By Devra Davis 

The following is an open letter to President Obama asking him to consider the full costs of wireless technology — Ed.

Before this nation makes wifi in schools like it is in coffee shops, as the president recently urged, we need to consider what this could do to our children’s brains and bodies.

.

Three years ago the World Health Organization declared cellphone and other wireless radiation to be a possible human carcinogen, the same category as some pesticides, lead and engine exhausts. Since then evidence has mounted that such radiation can profoundly affect human biology, altering brain metabolism, damaging animals exposed during pregnancy and reducing sperm count. Before blanketing our preschools, kindergartens and middle schools with wireless radiation we need a full life-cycle assessment of economic and health costs and benefits of wireless technology.

As you have said in other contexts, “Just because we can do something, does not mean that we should do something.”

The notion that the fast-developing brains of children benefit from digital devices flies in the face of what experts in neurodevelopment understand. Your pledge to put wireless in all schools for children from prekindergarten on does not rest on any proof that such technology is safe or that children actually learn better using such technology.

While our nation excels at many things, our wireless-based Internet connection is inferior to those of a slew of other countries, including Korea, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic — all of which have invested in “fiber to the home” rather than wireless Internet connections. Wireless routers are costlier and less reliable and can be three to 10 times slower than wired systems that can operate at speeds of up to 1 gigabyte a second. As other technologically savvy nations appreciate, there are also important health risks posed by classrooms full of closely held wireless devices.

Growing numbers of experts in telecommunications understand that plans to phase out wired phone lines or have energy systems rely on wireless metering are frankly ill-conceived and uneconomic. A parallel interdependent network of wired fiber-optic cables is faster, safer and more secure against criminal or terrorist attacks or wide swings in weather. It is more difficult to hack into or take down a wired network than a wireless one, especially if the latter has not been properly encrypted. Bravo to Google for recently announcing its expansion of wired services in many major cities.

Studies finding wireless radiation tied to serious biological impacts have moved governments in Israel, Canada, Australia, Korea, India and Finland to advise reducing children’s exposure. Following actions in Turkey, France and other nations, the health minister of Belgium recently banned the sale of cellphones for children ages 7 and younger. What does she know that you don’t?

Ignoring these serious concerns, the mobile phone industry has treated reports of risks of cellphone radiation as inconveniences to be rapidly undermined using science as a form of public relations. When confronted with the possibility that cellphone radiation could damage the brain cells of rats way back in 1994, Motorola wrote a memo to its public relations firm noting the need to “war-game the science.” More recently, in response to the World Health Organization declaration of possible dangers of cellphone radiation, the global manufacturers forum set up a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar fund to produce defensive information, effectively attacking the credibility of the WHO and its scientists and promoting other expert reviews that counter and undermine the WHO.

We are flying blind here, as there are no studies on the safety or efficacy of microwave-based learning for young children, nor are any planned. Despite repeated advice from expert groups, the U.S. has no training or research programs underway in this field and is forced to rely on outdated science and foreign reports. One way to fund such programs would be to impose a $1 fee (split between consumers and industry) on every phone for five years to fund much-needed independent training and research to evaluate and improve the technology.

Until we have better information at hand, you should encourage the growth of fiber-optic and Ethernet cables and order the Federal Communications Commission to drop wireless expansion into schools with young children — relying instead on wired systems and keeping wireless tablets on airplane mode if they have already been purchased. Apple should develop a lightning-to-USB-to-Ethernet adapter and software driver to reduce radiation from already purchased devices.

Years ago the philosopher Immanuel Kant noted that “What man must do, he can do.” But the opposite is not true. A rigorous analysis of the full costs and benefits of wired and wireless infotech is long overdue.

Teton County resident Devra Davis is the president and founder of the Environmental Health Trust. She has a doctorate in science studies and a Master of Public Health in epidemiology.

For Best Practice Guidelines on wireless radiation:

http://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/SchoolsandWirelessFebrurary2015Updatedbriefing.pdf

Here's what your wireless device makers say about their safety.

Major Device Safety Warnings

Below is a list of warnings from every major manufacturer in the world found deep inside their user manuals warning consumers of the dangers of holding their device to the head or storing in pockets/bras. Most people have no idea. This information should be on the front package of every device.

---

Apple - "iPhone's SAR measurement may exceed the FCC exposure guidelines for body-worn operation if positioned less than 15 mm (5/8th inch) from the body. When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8th inch) away from the body, and only use carrying cases, belt clips or holsters that do not have metal parts and that maintain at least 15 mm (5/8th inch) separation between iPhone and the body."

SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) which is a measure of the rate at which energy is absorbed by the human body when exposed to a radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields.

(NOTE: APPLE RECENTLY STOPPED DISTRIBUTING MANUALS WITH THE iPHONE AND THE SAFETY WARNING MUST NOW BE SEARCHED FOR DEEP WITHIN THE TEXT ON THE PHONE ITSELF)

---

Blackberry - “Use hands-free operation if it is available and keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.98 in. (25 mm) from your body (including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers) when the BlackBerry device is turned on and connected to the wireless network.

---

Samsung - "For body-worn operation, this phone has been tested and meets FCC RF exposure guidelines when used with an accessory that contains no metal and that positions the mobile device a minimum of 1.5cm from the body."

---

Motorola - "If you wear this mobile device on your body, always place the mobile device in a Motorola-supplied or approved clip, holder, holster, case, or body harness. If you do not use a body-worn accessory supplied or approved by Motorola, keep the mobile device and its antenna at least 2.5cm (1 inch) away from your body."

---

Sony - "For body-worn operation, this phone has been tested and meets FCC RF exposure guidelines when the handset is positioned a minimum of 15mm away from the body without any metal parts in the vicinity of the phone or when used with the original Sony Ericsson body-worn accessory intended for this phone. Use of other accessories may not ensure compliance with FCC RF guidelines."

---

T-Mobile - "This device has been tested for body-worn operation with the distance at of 0.79 inch (2cm) for a normal mode and with the distance of 0.39 inch (1cm) for a hot-spot mode from the user's body. To comply with FCC RF exposure requirements, a minimum separation distance of 0.79 inch (2cm) for a normal mode and 0.39 inch (1cm) for a hot-spot mode must be maintained from the user's body."

---

Casio - "For body-worn operation, this phone has been tested and meets the FCC RF exposure guidelines when used with an accessory that has not metal parts and that positions the handset a minimum of 2cm from the body. Noncompliance with the above restrictions may result in violation of RF exposure guidelines."

---

Pantech - This device was tested for typical body-worn operations with the back of the phone kept 2cm from the body. To maintain compliance requirements, use only belt clips, holsters, or similar accessories that maintain a 2cm separation distance between the user's body and the back of the phone, including the antenna."

---

HTC - "This device was tested for typical body-worn operations. To comply with RF exposure requirements, a minimum separation distance of 1cm must be maintained between the user's body and the handset, including the antenna."

---

Kyocera - "To maintain compliance with FCC RF exposure guidelines, if you wear a handset on your body, use a Sprint-supplied or Sprint-approved carrying case, holster, or body-worn accessory. If you do not use a body-worn accessory, ensure the antenna at least 0.886 inch (2.2cm) away from your body when transmitting. Use of non-Sprint-approved accessories may violate FCC exposure guidelines."

Schools, Wireless and Health best practices

This document has a wealth of data showing the hazards of wifi and other EMF on children.  Please read this to get more specific information.

“Children, however, are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. In fact, according to the International Agency for the Research on Cancer, when used by children, the average RF (radiofrequency) energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull, compared with mobile phone use by adults…it is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes.”
– ​Dr. Robert Block,​President of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 2012.

http://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/SchoolsandWirelessFebrurary2015Updatedbriefing.pdf

Turn it off for kids petition: sign today

We the undersigned fully support the National Association for Children and Safe Technology's Turn It Off 4 Kids Initiative.

We are calling on major health/wellness and cancer prevention organizations to make children's exposure to wireless radiation in educational settings an immediate priority for 2015 by taking the following actions:

1. Call for all new school technology to be hardwired.

2. Call to replace existing wireless technology systems with hardwired systems.

3. Call for the implementation of primary prevention efforts such as educating the public about simple steps to reduce exposure, especially in regards to children and pregnant women.

4. Educate their organization's members and audience on this issue by emails, informational web pages, updated materials, and all other means possible.

Sign it if you feel we need to protect our children:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/turn-it-off-4-kids

Information on the Turn It Off 4 Kids Initiative can be found here:

http://www.nacst.org/nacst-turn-it-off-4-kids.html

Los Angeles Unified School District Removes Wi-Fi Routers from Classroom After Teacher Experiences Adverse Health Effects

PRLog – Oct. 10, 2014 – In the Fall of 2014, LAUSD, the second largest public school district in the US, officially accommodated teacher Ms. Anura Lawson by approving her request to have the Wi-Fi turned off in her classroom during the 2014-2015 school year and alternatively approving a reassignment to a different school site where Wi-Fi has yet to be installed.

The Middle School teacher reported that she fell seriously ill after a wireless system upgrade in her school in Spring 2014. She described her cardiac symptoms during a May 28, LAUSD Common Core Tech Project meeting. Ms. Lawson also stated, “The students are having nosebleeds and the main offices are refusing to do incident reports. I have had two seventh grade students bleeding out of their ears.”

This is the first accommodation in a US public school system for microwave sickness.

Microwave sickness, also known as electro hypersensitivity (EHS), is not widely recognized in the US. However, physicians in many other countries are familiar with this medical condition and the diagnosis is more common. EHS symptoms include: headaches, dizziness, anxiety, rapid heart beat (tachycardia) and irregular heart beat (arrhythmia), ear and nose bleeds, tinnitus, red and irritated eyes, increased mucous and upper airway congestion, itchy skin rashes, abdominal pain, poor focus and attention, memory and sleep problems.

In March 2012, the Austrian Medical Association recognized and developed EHS treatment guidelines. In the United States, adverse effects were identified before 1988 when a US Air Force Review stated that “Experimental evidence has shown that exposure to low intensity radiation can have a profound effect on biological processes.”

The LAUSD Board of Education went ahead with a wireless technology plan in February 2013, even after they were presented with numerous letters from many noted medical doctors and researchers, including the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, imploring them to use wired technology in the classroom because of the health impacts from wireless radiation. See http://wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html

Wireless LAUSD classrooms typically employ 30+ devices (iPads) in addition to an industrial-sized router. These devices all emit microwave radiation and represent an unprecedented level of exposure to children.

Decades of accumulated research show wireless radiation damages neurological, immune, and reproductive systems in addition to increasing cancer risk. Professor Olle Johansson, Karolinksa Institute, Stockholm Sweeden, has stated that wireless radiation exposure studies have indicated “irreversible sterility within five generations.” As this damage is cumulative, the longer the radiation exposure, the greater the health impact over time.

“We are getting reports of headaches and cardiac issues from across the country. The time to act is now,” stated a spokesperson for the National Association for Children and Safe Technology (NACST).

NACST is an organization dedicated to raising awareness of the health impacts of wireless radiation on children. They are calling for schools to use wired Internet only. Their website details both the accumulated research showing wireless radiation’s acute as well as long term health impacts.

If you are a Framingham student,  teacher or school employee who has been affected by wifi feel free to contact us at chazmatz@yahoo.com.
or

The National Association for Children and Safe Technology

http//www.nacst.org

contact@nacst.org

WiFi: A Big Problem with a Simple Solution

Our 21st century children need an education that teaches them to solve the problems of the 21st century. They need caring thoughtful teachers who feel supported and have the resources and tools they need to teach and inspire.

They need access to the best technology.

They do not need WiFi radiation that “needs more research”.

The Problem: Wireless safety standards are outdated and do not apply to children.

• In fact,  the US never developed a “safe level” of wireless.  Thresholds were set 30 years ago for “allowable radiation”  for military men (not children) and regulations have barely changed since then.
• Wifi is not as safe as we thought it was. According the California Medical Association and several other independent scientists,  peer reviewed research shows adverse biological effects linked to wireless radiation including DNA breaks, inflammation, cell damage, immune dysfunction, cognitive processing effects, altered brain development, sleep and memory disturbances, ADHD, abnormal behavior, sperm dysfunction, and brain tumors.

  
  

  See all the routers in Churchill and Cabin John. Click to view. (all the circles are access points emitting radiation

The Solution: Safe Technology

• Safe technology means using internet connections without radiation. Several schools have pulled out the WiFi and installed corded connections.  Most schools already have cables running into every room and can transition to wired internet quickly. Read the Best Practices developed by the Collaborative for High Performing Schools.

• We believe our children’s health and safety is the most important priority for any school. It is equally as important that teachers and school staff have  a safe healthy working environment. Read What Unions Say.

The Perks:  

• In addition to eliminating the health risks, corded connections are faster and more secure. Most teachers report the corded connections “work great!” No dropped connections.

Q: How do I reduce Wifi exposures at home and still have technology?

A: Easy. Families can use Safe Technology at home. You can start by turning the WiFi off when it is not being used. Why have the wifi radiation on all night when no one is using it?

Frank Clegg, former Microsoft President gives this advice in his magazine article.

excerpts from...Frank Clegg’s Tech Exec’s 5-Step Guide to Wireless Safety
(We added a bit for clarification)

1. CELL PHONES:

a) Keep cell phones away from your head (use the speaker or airtube earbuds; not bluetooth) and out of your pocket, bras, or clothing.

b) Don’t sleep with an active cell phone near you. Use airplane mode if you need phone functions on at night. This setting blocks radiation from incoming/outgoing calls and text.

c) Children should not be near a connected cell phone or tablet device. Cell phones and tablets should not be used as toys.

d) Forward your phone to your home landline when at home.

2. CORDLESS PHONES: Replace home cordless phones with corded phones (the kind with the curly cord). The cordless phones base-station is the heaviest emitter of radiation, more than the hand-held phone.

3. WI-FI: Replace Wi-Fi with Ethernet. Call your internet company to get a non wireless router installed and use ethernet cable to connect the computers to the router. If you cannot remove the wifi router- turn it off when not in use, minimally put it on a timer or turn it off every night. Make sure it is not where someone is exposed all day, such as a bedroom or study.

4. BABY MONITORS:  Never place a wireless baby monitor (video or audio) by your child’s bed. Use a wired monitor. Parents, do not carry the monitor near your body.

5. SMART METERS:  If possible, opt out of your smart meter installations for electricity. If not possible, try to have it placed away from bedrooms or other high use area.

Every Step Reduces Exposure. Start with one. It is easier than it seems.

Learn More About Reducing Your Family's Exposure Here.

Sign up for our blog updates to the right.

Like us on Facebook at Safe Tech For Schools Maryland

Write your teacher, principal and the School Board now.

Together we can do this !

Liability a main concern for future of wireless industry

Two of the world's largest insurance companies, Lloyds and Swiss Re, have recommended to other insurance companies to write in exclusion clauses against paying compensation for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure.[1,2] . The recent Austrian insurance company AUVA report confirms DNA-breaks caused by non-ionising radiation, but the report leaves many issues open. Remember what Swiss Re wrote in 2005?

"For the insurance industry, this standoff gives rise to an extremely dangerous risk of change composed of two parts: the classical development risk, that is, the possibility tha new research findings will demonstrate electromagnetic fields to be more dangerous than has hitherto been assumed; and the sociopolitical risk of change, in other words, the possibility that changing social values could result in scientific findigs being evaluated differently than they have been thus far. "

Update 24th September: This is bad news for those employers who expose their workers heavily to non-ionising radiation. Precedents: There are already several cases where the worker got compensation because their tumours etc were caused by mobile phone

 & other occupational EMF exposure [1,2,3,4,5] . And the amount of cases will most likely increase.

Lloyd’s of London and Swiss RE Liability coverage issues for Wireless

http://www.parentsforsafetechnology.org/legal-liability-issues-with-wireless.html

Information on the Fine Print Manufacturers Warnings

http://www.parentsforsafetechnology.org/cell-phone-and-wireless-fine-print-warnings.html

Read the Open Letter to Honorable Senator Rosalyn Baker About Cell Phone Manufacturers Safety Warnings

Learn What States Across the USA Are Doing to Inform Citizens 

http://www.parentsforsafetechnology.org/usa-city-and-state-action-.html

WUSA9 in Maryland Covers Parents Concerns About WiFi in Schools.

Andrea McCarren of WUSA9  broke the story of parents concerned about the health risk of WiFi in Schools. Please watch it at http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/maryland/2015/03/07/montgomery-county-parents-concerned-about-impact-on-children/24509945/

In the report, several parents from Montgomery County gathered to talk about their concerns. 

Join us on Facebook at Safe Tech For Schools Maryland

Contact us at safetechforschoolsmaryland@gmail.com to learn more.

Please learn more about this important issue. Read the credible research here.

Original story can be found here. Thanks to Safe Tech Maryland for sharing.

http://safetechforschoolsmaryland.blogspot.com/2015/03/wusa9-tonight-at-11-pm-worried-about.html