Ashland, Massachusetts Public Schools have implemented Wi-Fi Device "Best Practices" which include turning the Wi-Fi off when not in use and keeping devices on a table.
Ashland, MA -- (SBWIRE) -- 09/28/2015 --Based on its own review of the matter, the Ashland Public School District is reducing wireless radiation exposures to children by instituting district wide “best practices for mobile devices”. Spurred by parent Cecelia Doucette’s concerns about the lack of safety data on Wi-Fi and children, the district investigated the issue and developed a policy to substantially reduce wireless exposures to students and staff. Doucette not only brought the issue to the district’s attention, but then also worked with state legislatures who introduced two bills concerning electromagnetic radiation this session. The Environmental Health Trust (EHT) submitted written testimony on MA Senate Bill 1222 after expert scientists presented information on wireless health risks at a briefing at the Massachusetts State House in June 2015.
Watch Cecelia Doucette speak about her efforts to legislators in this video.
Since wireless devices are constantly emitting radiation even when the user is not using the Internet, the instruction to "turn it off when not in use " stops the Wi-Fi antennas from continuously emitting radiation and is one simple way to reduce the radiation dose and exposure time for children and staff.
Instructions for “Best Practices” are posted in every classroom and include:
Turn off the device when not in use
Turn Wi-Fi on only when needed
Always place the mobile device on a solid surface
Viewing distance should be a minimum of 12 inches from the screen
Specific product information guides are available through the IT department
We ask that staff members regularly remind and instruct students in using best practices in regards to mobile devices
Ashland's Best Practice of “keeping the device on a table” and no closer than a 12 inch viewing distance is critically important. Laptops and tablets have fine print warnings buried in their manuals specifically stating that the laptop should be at least 8 inches away from the user so that the user is not exposed to radiation levels that exceed as-tested FCC levels. If a device is used on a lap, as is common practice, the student could receive radiation levels far exceeding FCC limits. FCC limits are set to prevent the radiation from heating the brain and body but are not set to avoid chronic impacts on the developing nervous system or reproductive organs.
Suffolk County in New York voted to label wireless routers in all public buildings including schools. The US United Federation of Teachers Union now hosts a webpage on how to reduce exposures to protect pregnant women, other staff members and students.
The Environmental Health Trust maintains a regularly updated database of these worldwide precautionary policies on wireless related to children and schools.
Frank Clegg, former Microsoft Canada President is now a leading advocate for safe technology in schools.
"We support the use of technology in our children’s schools and agree there is tremendous value in providing access to the internet. We feel this can be accomplished more safely without the unnecessary constant bombardment of microwave radiation."
Listen to him discuss the health risks of wireless and the issue of Wi-Fi in School.
Mr. Clegg retired from Microsoft Canada and now leads Canadians for Safe Technology. They are supporting a new safe technology in schools initiative
See the Press Conference in Canadian Parliament on the new Bill for warning labels on wireless devices. Terrence Young MP explains why he has introduced a Private Members Bill C-648 which calls for better labeling on wireless device packaging.
Dr. Anthony Miller is testifying about the health risks of wireless.
Inform yourself with this short and sweet video.
Dr. Anthony Miller clearly states in this testimony to Toronto that RF Wireless could seriously increase cancer risk. An expert cancer researcher, he was former Assistant Executive Director (Epidemiology), National Cancer Institute of Canada, Director, National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, Toronto; Director, Epidemiology Unit, National Cancer Institute of Canada; Director, M.Sc./Ph.D. Programme in Epidemiology, Graduate Dept. of Community Health, University of Toronto; Chairman, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, University of Toronto. Read the publication he co-authored calling for RF Wireless Radiation to be at an increased risk classification HERE. See his excellent lecture at Women's College Hospital HERE about the WHO classification process.
A parent read this letter at the recent Sept 21, 2015 MCPS Board of Education Meeting.
Martin Blank, PhD
Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics
Columbia University
New York, NY 10032
July 25, 2014
Mr. Thomas McKean, President, Board of Trustees Mr. James Shay, President-Elect, Board of Trustees
Fay School
48 Main Street
Southborough, MA 01772
To the Board of Trustees,
It has been brought to my attention that school children have become symptomatic at your
school after installation of WiFi. I am writing to express my concern and to encourage you
to review the independent science on this matter.
I can say with conviction, in light of the science, and in particular in light of the cellular
and DNA science, which has been my focus at Columbia University for several decades,
putting radiating antennas in schools (and in close proximity to developing children) is an
uninformed choice. Assurances that the antennas are within ‘FCC guidelines’ is
meaningless today, given that it is now widely understood that the methodology used to
assess exposure levels only accounts for one type of risk from antennas, the thermal effect
from the power, not the other known risks, such as non-thermal frequencies, pulsing,
signal characteristics, etc. They fail also to consider multiple simultaneous exposures from
a variety of sources in the environment, and cumulative exposures over a lifetime.
Compliance with FCC guidelines, thus, unfortunately, is not in any way an assurance of
safety today, as the guidelines are fundamentally flawed. Until the guidelines and
advisories in the U.S. are updated, the intelligent thing for your Board of Trustees to do is
to exercise the Precautionary Principle and hard wire all internet connections.
I know this might be disappointing to hear, as I understand you have invested in the WiFi.
But there is no amount of money that could justify the added physiological stress from
wireless antenna radiation and its many consequences, most in particular for children.
Our research has shown that the cellular stress response, a protective reaction that is
indicative of cellular damage, occurs at levels that are deemed ‘safe’. Many other harmful
reactions have been reported, such as the impairment of DNA processes that can account
for the observed increased risk of cancer, as well as the potential cognitive decline, and
sleep effects that may be due to impairment of the blood brain barrier. The DNA effects are
of particular concern for future generations, an area of research that is just beginning to
raise alarms. As with other environmental toxic exposures, children are far more
vulnerable than adults, and they will have longer lifetimes of exposure.
The science showing reasons for concern about the microwave radiation emitted by
antennas is abundant and there will be a day of reckoning. As I explain in my recent book,
Overpowered, The Precautionary Principle instructs us that in the face of serious threats, a
lack of scientific ‘certainty’ never justifies inaction. The changes occurring at the molecular
level, and known associations with many diseases, are sufficient at this time to give us
pause and to recommend minimizing exposures to these fields, in our homes, schools,
neighborhoods and workplaces. There is significant potential for risk, and to very large
numbers of people, and the effects are occurring nonetheless whether or not we are
noticing them.
I recommend you hardwire the internet connections at your school, and also encourage
students to use hard wired connections at home for internet access, as well as for all
computer equipment connections and voice communications.
Sincerely yours,
Martin Blank, PhD
Martin Blank, PhD, Special Lecturer and (ret.) Associate Professor,
Columbia University, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics.
Dr. Blank is a leading expert in the effects of electromagnetic fields on
DNA and biology, and Past President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society.
He holds two PhDs, in physical chemistry and in colloid science, an interdisciplinary field involving chemistry, physics and nanoscience. Dr. Blank was author
of the BioInitiative Report’s section on the impact of electromagnetic fields on Stress
Proteins; Editor of the journal Pathophysiology’s special issue on Electromagnetic Fields
(2009); and co-author of “Electromagnetic fields and health: DNA based dosimetry”
(2012), which recommends a new way of assessing the biological impact of
electromagnetic fields across the spectrum, using DNA. Dr. Blank’s book,
“Overpowered—What Science Tells Us About the Dangers of Cell Phones and Other WiFi-
Age Devices“, was published in 2014. Read More About the Fay School Lawsuit and Federal Charges Concerning the WiFi Installation.
Excellent Videos By Parents on Practicing Safe Tech at Home Watch these excellent videos on how to reduce wireless exposures in your home and still have full access to technology. Solutions exist. Why not use them?
Simple Instructions to Hook Up Your IPad Without Radiation
A Letter by A Montgomery County Public School Alumni 9/16/2015
This was written by a 2014 MCPS Graduate (Now In College ) who got informed on the issue by some Safe Tech for Schools Maryland parents during the summer of 2015.
Dear Mr. Sherwin Collette, MCPS Board of Education, Administrators, Parents, Teachers and Community,
Montgomery County Maryland Public Schools Chief Technology Officer Sherwin Collette recently responded to a parent’s concerns about the health risks of Wi-Fi. Mr. Collette based the crux of his defense of current MCPS wireless technology policy on purported compliance with FCC radio frequency radiation exposure guidelines. However, organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Department of Interior (DOI) have all condemned the current guidelines (which have not been revised since 1996) as inadequate, since the guidelines are based on studies which;
Only measure the effects of short-term exposure to wireless radiation (unlike the nearly constant exposure children in MCPS schools receive),
Do not consider the effects of exposure on particularly vulnerable populations such as children, and,
Only consider tissue heating caused by the radiation, a measure now considered an inappropriate gauge of the potentially adverse health consequences of wireless radiation.
The AAP, EPA, and DOI caution that long- term exposure to radiation well within the FCC guidelines may entail serious health risks, especially for children. FCC compliance is inapplicable and irrelevant when looking at the health and safety of children.
A recently published Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine study has strongly linked wireless radiation exposure to increased oxidative stress in cells, a known health hazard and well associated with diseases such as cancer and neurodegenerative illnesses. As the Harvard Center for Ethics recently published book on the issue states, the FCC “has not changed course despite the IARC classification of cell phones as possibly carcinogenic, despite the recent studies showing triple the glioma risk for heavy users, despite the floodtide of research showing biological effects.” Indeed, the FCC continues to base its guidelines only on protection against thermal heating.The 19 year old FCC guidelines completely ignore biological effects from low level “non heating” levels. “It only hurts you if it cooks you,” the FCC says.
Furthermore, Collette's letter suggests that because Public Health England and Health Canada have similar wireless technology policies, those espoused by MCPS must of course be safe. Yet Collette neglects the facts that Health Canada's approach has been vehemently criticized by the Canadian Parliament's Standing Committee on Health and the Canadian Medical Association Journal; that Public Health England's policy has been denounced as unsafe by leaders of Britain's Education Professionals Union The Voice, and Association of Teachers, and Lecturers and over 100 scientists who stated that Canada’s standards are “flawed, obsolete and did not protect Canadians”. Why did Mr. Collette not mention European Union? The European Parliament issued Resolution 1815 expressing grave concerns regarding long-term wireless exposure, particularly for children, and it specifically recommended that all European nations take steps to reduce wireless exposure in schools. Collette quotes the World Health Organization in attempting to prove the unequivocal safety of wireless technology, yet neglects that the WHO itself classifies wireless radiation as a Class 2B possible human carcinogen, and that over 200 scientists around the world have petitioned the WHO to take immediate urgent action on wireless radiation. Countries like Germany, Italy, Austria, Switzerland and Spain have taken significant steps to limit exposure to wireless radiation in schools. France has gone as far passing a law to ban wireless from nursery schools across the nation, turn wireless off in elementary schools as the default setting recommending wired connections rather than wireless technology. Israel also bans Wireless for the younger grades , drastically limits hours of wifi exposures, and recommends wired not wi-fi. With so many around the world taking such action, how can the argument that we must accept wireless radiation as safe simply because a select few other institutions do so stand?
Ultimately, this question amounts to whether to blindly follow the dictums of a bureaucratic organization not even specialized in public health (the FCC), or to step back and look at the situation with some common sense. While the pressures to adopt new, more "advanced" technologies may be strong often to the point of overwhelming, and in no small way influenced by the financial incentives of the technology industry, we must critically assess whether these technologies are really best for the welfare of our children and society before fully embracing them. While the technology will not go away, the opportunity to protect the health of our children will never come back. We have a choice. Schools across the nation and worldwide have taken steps to reduce the risk of wireless radiation, recognizing that we ought to err on the side of caution when our children's safety is at stake. We as a county can choose to dispassionately undertake similar precautions, or to dogmatically cling to the outdated guidelines of a single federal organization and the doctrine that what's new is always better. The decision's implications for the future are tremendous. Signed, A 2014 MCPS High School Graduate Now In College This was written after becoming informed on the issue by some Safe Tech for Schools Maryland
parents during the summer of 2015.
It has footnotes and is thoroughly scientifically documented with sources.
MCPS staff attended a scientific lecture at George Washington University. A Safe Tech Maryland parent asked a question in the Q and A session about the safety of wireless in schools. See the answer by Dr. Carlo in this 2 minute video.
In response to Mr. Collette's letter (see above), Safe Tech for Schools Maryland parents wrote the following response:
Dear MCPS Board of Education, Parents, Teachers, Staff, Administrators and Community,
We have enough evidence to justify taking action and we are not willing to wait until our members, their children and the students suffer health consequences from not doing anything,"
Mr. Collette, the MCPS Chief Technology Officer, wrote to Safe Tech for Schools Maryland (STSM) on August 4, 2015. In that letter Mr. Collette gave MCPS’s response to some of the concerns raised by parents of STSM. Although this took months to receive, we appreciate his response. Unfortunately, this response includes serious factual mischaracterizations. We are deeply concerned about MCPS’s profound misunderstanding of wireless radiation in the school environment and the health implications for the over 150,000 students entrusted to MCPS. We are responding point by point to MCPS’s letter given the seriousness of these errors.
