Featured Post

Dear MCPS Superintendent Jack Smith- Time to Protect Students Not Promote Pollution

Dear Montgomery County Public Schools Superintendent Jack Smith, I am writing to you on an important issue regarding our children’s hea...

Monday, October 19, 2015

The U.S. National Institutes of Health Advocated for the Precautionary Principle With Wireless in 2009

Listen close to what is said by the Senators and by the Senior NIH staff. 
Should parents have their children take precautions? 
 "Yes" says our National Institute of Health.....

This video speaks for itself. Did you think the NIH staff looked a bit uncomfortable? The Senator's were asking logical and reasonable questions and it is odd the NIH staff did not have a excellent response...

 The question we parents have 7 years later is :
  • Where is the NIH research that is appropriately looking at this issue? 
  • When will we study the effects of this exposure on children's brain development? 
  • Why are we allowing it into schools when it has been shown to have so many problems. 
If a cell phone for 30 minutes a day causes so many problems, what about wireless in school every day for 6 hours? 

“ If some of the studies turn out to be harbingers of things to come, we may have major health consequences from the nearly ubiquitous presence of wireless equipment.” 
-Linda S. Birnbaum, 
Director of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program, see her remarks on page 90 of the 2015 Report found here.

Apparently all NIH is doing right now is a rodent study and the results will not be out for another year. More importantly, they are not sharing the endpoints they are even studying. Is it cancer? cognition? dementia? 

yup.. one A RODENT STUDY
That is all the research being funded by our government in this country 
as far as we know. 
Our children are not guinea pigs.
 If research is ongoing, shouldn't we hold off 
on exposing the children? 

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.
The principle is used by policy makers to justify decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision  when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. 
The principle implies that there is social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.