Press Release: Experts Call for Montgomery County Public Schools to Correct Inaccurate Website on Wireless Radiation

Press Release SBWIRE: Experts Call for Public School District to Correct Inaccurate Website on Wireless Radiation Safety

Parents raising Wi-Fi health concerns lead Montgomery County Maryland Public Schools to issue information about Wi-Fi cancer links resulting in a worldwide response.

Teton Village, WY -- (SBWIRE) -- 02/17/2016 -- Fox News reported that Environmental Health Trust (EHT) experts identified numerous false and misleading claims about radiofrequency radiation and children's health on the Montgomery County Public School Maryland (MCPS) School District website. In a letter to MCPS, Lloyd Morgan, senior EHT advisor, detailed extensive errors, adding, "I am appalled that a public agency would rely on and relay outright falsehoods."

Contrary to what MCPS asserts, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, of the World Health Organization, classifies wireless radiation from cell phones as well as wireless radiation from other devices as a possible human carcinogen, Morgan noted.

EHT President Devra Davis PhD MPH commented, "The County assertion that the 20-year old FCC radiofrequency standards 'are not outdated' is wrong. The Government Accountability Office in 2012 reported that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 'RF energy exposure limit may not reflect the latest research.' This prompted the FCC to begin a formal reassessment which remains incomplete. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics asked the FCC to update its standards in light of children's growing exposures."

"The erroneous information provided by Montgomery County Public Schools on its website is emblematic of a nationwide problem. Local schools and policymakers are not provided adequate information about the possible health risks of wireless radiation from the federal health agencies on which they rely. The EPA, the CDC and the FDA have not reviewed current science and determined US exposure limits to be safe. Most people assume that the federal government has radiofrequency regulations that protect children from health effects from long-term exposures, but that is a myth. We have no proof of safety," stated Davis.

"Any government agency, in my opinion, that has done a review in the last two or three years and hasn't made a significant change to their safety standard has not done a proper thorough review of the science," stated former President of Microsoft Canada, Frank Clegg, in a Tuesday, February 16, 2016 ABC Catalyst documentary WiFried which also featured Davis who cautioned, "Children today are growing up in a sea of radiofrequency microwave radiation that did not exist five years ago."

Montgomery County has received over 15 letters:
Dr. Martha Herbert’s Letter, Dr. Anthony Miller's Letter, Dr. Lennart Hardell’s Letter , Dr. Carpenters Letter, Dr.  Olle Johansson’s Letter, Dr. Devra Davis' Letter , Cris Rowan Letter,,Dr. Martin Pall’s letter, Katie Singer’s Letter,Cindy Sage and Trevor Marshal  Letter, Ellie Marks Letter , Arthur Firstenberg  Letter, Mikko Ahonen PhD, Lena Hedendahl MD and Tarmo Koppel MSc PhDs Letter, Cece Doucette’s Letter, Alisdair Philips Letter, Lloyd Morgan’s Letter , Peter Sullivan's letter. Letter from Ms. Véronique Terrasse of the World Health Organization confirming Wi-Fi is in the Carcinogenic classification, Dr. Elizabeth Cardis confirming 30 minutes a day resulted in increased brain cancer. 

"MCPS extols the virtues of 21st century learning as a wireless classroom, yet the County has yet to consider 21st century best available science that shows wireless may not be such a smart technology after all," stated mother Thea Scarato in the February 9, 2016 MCPS Board of Education meeting. In a letter posted on a local blog started by concerned parents, Scarato detailed the "over 32 false facts" given by the County on wireless radiation health issues. Fifteen letters were also sent by by scientists, doctors and researchers to MCPS calling for minimizing wireless exposures in schools.

In January, Dr. Devra Davis wrote a letter to MCPS raising concerns about the use of Google's Wireless Expeditions Program in classrooms. Davis presented preliminary imaging showing the radiation absorption into the brain of a child from the virtual reality "cardboard" viewer that is a smartphone held up at the eyes of children, and Davis called on the County to reduce such exposures. Environmental Health Trust scientists also wrote to the US Secretary of Education in October 2015, calling for the implementation of both "safe technology" and a national educational awareness program in schools, in order to reduce cell phone and other wireless radiation exposures.

Montgomery County Public Schools is the largest school district in Maryland and the 18th largest in the United States. For three years, parents have been advocating for safe technology in the classrooms. However, the District continues to implement its Strategic Technology Plan, which includes high-density radiofrequency radiation wireless networks in all classrooms and a Bring Your Own Device Policy so that cell phones and other wireless devices are also used as classroom tools.

Read the Full Press Release on SB Wire here http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/experts-call-for-public-school-district-to-correct-inaccurate-website-on-wireless-radiation-safety-665616.htm

Thousands of Doctors recommend that children reduce exposure to cell phones and wireless.

Click here for a Full Compilation of Medical Doctors Statements and Letters on Wi-Fi in Schools including the American Academy of Pediatrics Recommendations on Cell Phones/Wi-Fi and Electromagnetic Fields.

Our children deserve a safe and healthy environment. Safe Tech for Schools has additional articles that are wonderful to share. Please contact us for these at safetechforschoolsmaryland@gmail.com.

"Does the state of willful ignore exempt you from liability?" Silicon Valley Philanthropist writes Montgomery County Schools

February 25, 2016

To the Montgomery County Board of Education:

My wife and I love to empower children and are proud to help fund education here in Silicon Valley. Our first large grant to education 12 years ago was used to buy new computers and upgrade the wireless network at our local public school.

So it may come as a surprise that I now believe that was a mistake. Obviously, we are still big supporters of education, but I believe the role of wireless networks (as opposed to wired Ethernet networks) needs to be carefully re-evaluated.

With the same goal of empowering children in mind, I am also an environmental health funder. I look at factors like toxic lead exposures that can undermine intelligence and the ability to learn. After researching wireless for the last 5 years and connecting with researchers who have spent over 30 years on the topic, I now have some grave concerns. I was surprised by how much evidence of harm has been published, not just recently, but for more than three decades.

This brings up some basic questions for educators:

• Does wireless exposure impact attention and learning?
• Do current wireless safety standards protect children? 
• What are the safety limits of other countries compared to the US?
• Why is school funding for wireless discussed in an ethics paper from Harvard?

Finally, there is the issue of liability. Will your Wi-Fi vendor or cell tower carrier be liable, or have they already exempted themselves from liability for health in their contact? If you find there are health concerns, can you get out of a cell tower contract with a wireless carrier? If you don’t look at the research after being informed about it, does the state of willful ignore exempt you from liability?

Like most people, I assumed this had been fully tested and failed to do adequate due diligence on this topic.

Please don’t repeat my mistake.

A short video version of this letter can be watched here: http://bit.ly/wirelessEd

Sincerely,
Peter Sullivan Founder and CEO Clear Light Ventures

Download the letter here. 

Alster, Norm. Captured agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates. Cambridge, MA: Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University. 2015. Read it here. 

Who is Peter Sullivan? 

Peter Sullivan is founder of Clear Light Ventures whose mission is to improve human health and performance by removing widespread environmental health threats.  He has spent the last 15 years successfully recovering his two sons from autism and sensory issues. 

Read about his work in Autism Magazine. Click here to read. 

Over the last 10 years, he has funded efforts to reduce mercury and other toxic metals from the environment. He funded roughly half of the National Resource Defense Fund’s mercury program, and in 2008, they successfully sued the EPA to close the cement industry’s exemption from the Clean Air Act. This victory resulted in an annual healthcare savings of approximately 6.7 billion dollars.

Today he is one of the leading funders in the country in EMF research, funding work at Harvard, Stanford, University of California, Berkeley and several leading environmental health non-profits. Peter speaks about autism and environmental health at conferences throughout the United States and abroad. Previously, he was a software designer for Netflix, Inc., Interwoven, Inc., Excite@Home, and Silicon Graphics. Prior to working in high-tech, Peter was an Executive Officer and pilot in the United States Navy. He has a B.A. in psychology from University of Detroit and an M.S. in computer science from Stanford University.

Peter's work has been featured in the book "Toxin Toxout: Getting Harmful Chemicals Out of Our Bodies and Our World", the book The Out of Sync Child Grows Up: Coping with Sensory Processing Disorder in the Adolescent and Adult Years, and will be featured in the 2016 season of CNN's Inside Man with Morgan Spurlock. 

He has an excellent blog Clear Light Ventures and readers may be interested in this recent post on college: Campus Safety: How to Survive and Thrive in the Wireless Era

Yale Chief of Obstetrics, Dr. Hugh Taylor, Recommends Pregnant Woman Reduce Exposures From Cell Phones and Wi-Fi

Yale Medicine Chief of Obstetrics Dr. Hugh Taylor  talks about his research on Cell Phone Radiation in this video from the BabySafe Press Conference. 

Pediatric Neurologist Dr. Maya Shetreat-Klein Speaks
on on Wireless and Pregnancy at the Press Conference. 

Dr. Devra Davis describes the 

 Spinal Cord damage and  3X more DNA damage and brain damage from cell phones during pregnancy. 

More than one hundred physicians, scientists and public health professionals from around the world have joined together to express their concern about the risk that wireless radiation poses to pregnancy and to urge pregnant women to limit their exposures. 

Learn more about safer ways to use technology during pregnancy at the BabySafe Project website. http://www.babysafeproject.org/

Safe Tech asks that pregnant staff and students be protected by minimizing wireless in schools. 

Wi-Fried? ABC Catalyst Investigates Wi-Fi Health Concerns 2/16/2016

A New Report Details Current Research on WiFi and Health. Watch it now! 

  

Letter from Cindy Sage and Josefina Cobb to FOX News about Coverage of WiFi Health Issues

Congratulations to Fox 5 News.  

It is one of the best pieces yet done on the subject of wireless health risks to school children, and statements about potential risks are based in the science and the epidemiology we have to date.  High journalistic quality, investigative depth and balanced reporting.  If anything, it doesn't go far enough to warn of the risks, based on what health agencies and independent experts already know.

The current federal public safety standards for RF are grossly inadequate and undergoing an update at the FCC.  The existing 'safety' standards are decades old, and never envisioned WiFi, nor realistically took into account the evolution of chronic exposure to low intensity pulsed radiofrequency radiation.  The existing standards are developed by the industry's professional group, the IEEE.  Then, the FCC (claiming no health expertise) simply adopts what the IEEE standards committee recommends.  The conflicts of interest are vast.  And, the IEEE expertise is engineering, not health sciences.

The 20-year old standards have everything to do with WiFi.  Any pulsed RF down to the nanowatt/cm2 level is being reported by credentialed teams of researchers, including epidemiologists with excellent exposure assessment by engineering experts to cause health impacts - where you have chronic (persistent, prolonged) exposures. 

Basic fact checking will reveal to naysayers that the WHO IARC has determined that ANY exposure to RF is classifiable as a Possible Human Carcinogen.  The IARC Working Group of international scientific experts who voted this classification included the best array of experts in the world, and that group included experts on public health standards, published epidemiological, in vivo, and in vitro studies.

Signed,

Cindy Sage, MA

Co-Editor, BioInitiative Reports

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To all those who were part of the Fox coverage of Wi-fi in the Montgomery School District,

I would like to thank you for the excellent newscast about wi-fi in the Montgomery School District and the interview with Nobel Prize Awardee, Dr. Devra Davis. It's inspiring to learn of a group of parents and journalists who truly care, amidst a majority who would not touch the issue with a ten-foot pole, I hope, not because they love their technology more than they care about people. 

While some countries see to it that their citizens are informed about the health risks and hazards of wireless technologies, the American public, in general, seems oblivious to the gravity of the situation. While most schools would surely not allow spraying DDT in the classrooms, or use lead paint, we are seeing a big push for wi-fi, whose non-ionizing radiation was classified by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer as a possible Type 2B carcinogen, in the same class as lead and DDT. Why this glaring disconnect? There's an abundance of research studies on the biological effects of microwave radiation, warnings from medical doctors, and the stories of those who have either died or suffered greatly as a result of overexposure to RF radiation.

May your courage and honesty inspire others to put public safety first, before money, technology, and convenience.

Sincerely,
Josefina Cobb

Prince George's County is getting Cell Towers on School Grounds just like MCPS

This video is about cell towers going up in neighboring Prince George's County.

Letter to MCPS Student Member of the School Board Eric Guerci on the Bring your Own Device Policy for Middle Schools

Dear Mr. Guerci, and those interested in increasing exposure to wifi radiation with a BYOD policy in middle schools,

Please read this recent statement from the World Health Organization. I do not expect you to be experts in this matter, as you have a plate full of concerns to tend to every day. I hope this email educates you more on what wifi radiation in our schools means to human health.

In short, it should be minimized, not maximized. I do hope you will come to understand this with more reading on the subject. Happy to help however I can.

IARC classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including Wi-Fi signals and mobile phone signals) as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use. Read the Press Release on the Carcinogenity of Radio Frequency. 

The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10-year period).

Summary of the IARC evaluation.

I would be very surprised if this does not get your attention and prompt action.

Kindly,

Lisa Cline

Gaithersburg

World Health Organization Confirms that Wi-Fi and Cell Phone Radiation are Class B Carcinogens.

Myth: The Class 2 B Carcinogen classification by the World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer does not include Wi-Fi radiation emissions. 

• MCPS has this myth up on their webpage. 

Fact: Wi-Fi radiation is a Class 2 B Carcinogen just the same as cell phone and cell phone tower emissions.

• Wireless radiation is also called radio frequency radiation (RF-EMF Radiation). RF-EMF specifically refers to a range of frequencies from 30 kHz–300 GHz.
• Wireless radiation comes from any wireless device. In fact, every wireless device is a two way microwave radio. They send and receive wireless signals (microwaves). We are talking about cell phones, gaming consoles, baby monitors, ipads, fitbits, laptops, computers and tablets. 

Please read the email from the World Health Organization confirming this fact. The chain starts at the bottom. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: Question about the RF-EMF classification 

From	Véronique Terrasse TerrasseV@iarc.frhide details
To	'theodora Mon, Dec 14, 2015 6:57 am

IARC's evaluation of the cancer hazards from exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields covers all sources of RF-radiation.

Véronique Terrasse

Press Officer, IARC Communications Group

Email:   TerrasseV@iarc.fr; com@iarc.fr

Web:     www.iarc.fr

Tel:       +33 4 72 73 83 66

Cell:      +33 6 45 28 49 52

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Theodora
Sent: 14 December 2015 12:15
To: Véronique Terrasse
Subject: Re: Question about the RF-EMF classification

Ms. Véronique Terrasse

Thank you so much, 

Could you please carify the answer to this question. "Was the classification intended to apply to all wireless frequencies including 2.45 GHZ? " In other words, does it only include radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones? Or does it simply apply to all radiofrequencies within the radiofrequency range ?

Please clarify if the intention of the classification for the frequency and the type of radiation OR was it specifically for the source of the emissions or the device giving off emissions .. ie mobile phones only. 

Could you please detail an answer to this. 

Thank you ,

Theodora Scarato 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Original Message-----
From: Véronique Terrasse  
To: 'Theodora
Sent: Mon, Dec 14, 2015 5:14 am
Subject: Question about the RF-EMF classification

Dear Theodora Scarato

Please find below some information on behalf of Dr Straif.

As far as cancer is concerned, electromagnetic fields were evaluated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer research branch of WHO in 2011. The details of these assessments have now been published in Volume 102 of the IARC Monographs and is the latest authoritative Monograph on the topic.

IARC classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including Wi-Fi signals and mobile phone signals) as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.

The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10�year period).

Summary of the IARC evaluation: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(11)70147-4/fulltext.

IARC's evaluation of the cancer hazards from exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields covers all sources of RF-radiation.

Please find also attached three documents explaining several aspects of residential electromagnetic fields, on  where they originate, and how they are measured. These documents  are not from IARC but from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency but I think you may find them useful.

Best regards,

Véronique Terrasse

 

Véronique Terrasse

Press Officer, IARC Communications Group

Web:     www.iarc.fr

Tel:       +33 4 72 73 83 66

Cell:      +33 6 45 28 49 52

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Theodora

Sent: 06 December 2015 00:01
To: straif@iarc.fr
Subject: Question about the RF-EMF classification

Dear Dr. Kurt Straif, 

I need clarification from the IARC on the classification for RF-EMF. 

• Was the classification based on studies that looked st 1,640 hours a year or for a lifetime? 

• Was the classification intended to apply to all wireless frequencies including 2.45 GHZ? 

• Does it matter what the source of the radiation is or is the classification for the radiation itself no matter what the source? 

Thank you so much, 

Theodora Scarato 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Note: This email was initiated because MCPS stated on November 20 , 2015 that “The 2B classification was based on studies of extremely heavy cell phone use: 1,640 hours or more per year, which is equal to holding a cell phone to the side of one’s head for four hours a day, every day for an entire year.” 

MCPS changed the text on their website on Dec, 5, 2015 (after repeated letters from us) but then the text read that, "According to the Office of the Provincial Health Officer in British Columbia the 2B classification was based on studies of extremely heavy cell phone use: 1,640 hours or more per year, which is equal to holding a cell phone to the side of one’s head for four hours a day, every day for an entire year. Again, this is cell phone use, not Wi-Fi. "

Clearly this is wrong so we continued to write and unfortunately now the MCPS text reads that "Using the Group 2B classification of the entire spectrum of radiofrequencies as an indication that Wi-Fi is harmful when the classification came about due to extremely heavy cell phone use and not Wi-Fi does not accurately represent the intention of the classification."

MCPS has yet to put fully factual information on its page. So we wrote the World Health Organization in hopes that an email from them would clear up the matter.  We have been providing MCPS with factual information on this issue for three years now. 

Read Digital Trends: Is cell phone radiation actually dangerous? We asked an expert

Montgomery Sentinel Article: Parents Worry Wi-Fi Could Harm Students

Feb, 16, 2016 Parents Worry Wi-Fi Could Harm Students

ROCKVILLE — A few parents at a Montgomery County Public Schools Board of Education meeting said they worried that wireless computers and devices with wireless Internet was gradually impeding the health of students.

"David Carpenter is a former county resident and a general physician who served on committees with scientists who performed research about the effects of radio frequency radiation.

He wrote a letter to members of MCPS management in November encouraging them not to have the school system connected to the Internet wirelessly. Carpenter also is the director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany.

“It’s appropriate that every child have access to the Internet, but the problem is when it’s wireless access to the Internet, there is exposure to radio frequencies,” said Carpenter.

MCPS spokesperson Derek Turner said MCPS follows guidelines set by the Federal Communications Commission. One of the repeated concerns of parents who testified at the meeting and said the standard was 20 years old.  Turner said the guideline had been updated in 2013. "

 Read the full Montgomery Sentinel article here.

Fact: FCC guidelines have not been reviewed for 20 years. 
Unfortunately, MCPS is staff is reading the MCPS Statement about Radio frequency radiation which has several incorrect statements.  We have sent MCPS staff multiple letters informing them that there was no 2013 review. 

Please see below. 
In 2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a Report that states, "FCC set an RF energy exposure limit for mobile phones in 1996, based on recommendations from federal health and safety agencies and international organizations...
In the conclusion it states that, "However, FCC has not formally asked FDA or EPA for their assessment of the limit since 1996, during which time there have been significant improvements in RF energy research and therefore a better understanding of the thermal effects of RF energy exposure." Read it here http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592901.pdf