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...

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Drunk on Wireless: Public Health Consequences of Cell Phone and Wireless Technologies

Drunk on Wireless: Public Health Consequences of Cell Phone and Wireless Technologies are Begging for Society’s Attention

Watch this video of a talk last month in New York with experts in the field:
  • Camilla Rees, MBA of Electromagnetic Health.org, 
  • Dr. David Carpenter, Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at University at Albany, and public health physician.
  • Dr. Martin Blank, retired Associate Professor in the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, 
  • Dr. Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University. 
  • Duncan Campbell, Esq., of Living Dialogues™. This program was sponsored by Occupy EMF Harm and organized by ElectromagneticHealth.org
  • You can view this online at https://vimeo.com/170149087

"Wi-Fi Causes Terrible Headaches" Children and Parents Call For Wi-Fi To Be Removed From School

In New York State, students and parents are giving testimony to their Board of Education calling for Wi-Fi to be removed from classrooms. Please watch these two minute clips from a recent BOE meeting

A special thank you to these parents and students for advocating for safe schools. As more people take the time to learn about this issue, there will be more voices. 

Want to take the next step? 
1. Educate yourself 
2. Contact your elected officials, school board and teachers. 
3. Do not take no for answer. 
In matters of children's health and safety the only solution it to ensure children are adequately protected. Ask that your child have a wire (not wireless) for their device in the classroom and get the school fully hardwired. Learn more about best practices in schools.  

Saturday, June 25, 2016

National PTA Executive Director Removes Safe Technology Advocacy Organization From PTA Convention

The National PTA has banned an Oregon based health non- profit Wireless Education Action from exhibiting at the 2016 Annual National PTA Convention.

National PTA Executive Director Nathan Monell wrote that:

“The National PTA hereby revokes Wireless Education Action as an exhibitor at the Convention. Neither the Wireless Education Action nor any of its members, representatives, and, or agents, including yourself, shall be allowed to exhibit, attend, or in any other way participate in the convention.”

Without a vote from the voting body of the National PTA,  the Executive Director issued a statement that- advocacy to protect children from the health risks of wireless radiation is not in accordance with the Mission of the National PTA.

In his June 20th letter, Monell also states that:
"The National PTA has determined that Wireless Education Action's positions that wireless classrooms are a danger to children, that the government is covering it up, that schools are microwave radiating children without real safety standards,  and that wireless systems should be banned from schools and other locations where children are exposed to them, are not consistent with National PTA's mission, position statements, resolutions or policies."  

Monell cited the “National PTA’s Rules and Regulations” which state that “any organization whose products, services or materials are not consistent with the national PTA's mission, position statements, resolutions or policies will not be permitted to exhibit” as the reason for banning WEA from exhibiting.

As far as we know, the PTA voting body never voted on this issue, nor has the voting body ever been presented with the issue

In fact, the National PTA Bylaws state that the PTA’s purpose is “To advocate for laws that further the education, physical and mental health, welfare, and safety of children and youth”

Why no vote on this issue?
Were Bylaws bypassed by issuing such a statement with no vote and no discussion?

The June 20, 2016 Position Statement is in contradiction to prior National PTA resolutions.
The National PTA’s 2007 Resolution on Internet and Wireless Communication resolves to “promote responsible and ethical use of the Internet and wireless and other electronic resources” and “to inform and educate students, parents, educators, and communities on the dangers associated with the Internet and wireless” and states:

“That National PTA and its constituent organizations will work to advocate for appropriate laws, policies, and regulations to ensure the safety of children and youth when using the Internet and wireless and other electronic communications.”  Read it here.

Other exhibitors at the PTA Convention include AT andT, Microsoft, Lifelock "powered by Verizon” and Chuck E. Cheese's
Are their positions in accordance with the National PTA’s mission?

Both AT&T and Microsoft companies warn their shareholders about litigation from long term exposure to electromagnetic fields. AT&T states in its 10K Report:
As we deploy newer technologies, especially in the wireless area, we also face current and potential litigation relating to alleged adverse health effects on customers or employees…Read it here.

Verizon warns it’s shareholders in its 10 K Annual Report that:
...our wireless business also faces personal injury and consumer class action lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters...We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.Read it here.

Chuck E Cheese's total revenues for the first fiscal quarter of 2016 increased 3.3%, or $8.8 million, over the prior year to $274.3 million.  Read it here.  Note: The PTA Bylaws state that,”The association shall be noncommercial, nonsectarian, and nonpartisan.” Then why is the PTA promoting Lifelock and other commercial ventures?

Wireless Education Action had signed up to exhibit MONTHS in advance and had fully informed the National PTA of their issue.

Although Jennifer Bradley, National PTA | Corporate Alliances Specialist, was informed in detail  as to the educational information to be provided at the conference months ago the letter ends with a refund:
“Enclosed please find a refund check for your exhibitor registration.”

Did the Executive Director of the PTA follow proper Rules and Regulations?
This new position statement comes as a surprise to many local PTAs who were not aware of this determination. Was proper procedure followed? Should the PTA representatives from the State's first voted on this issue?

Q: When did the National PTA do due diligence with this issue?
A: No one knows.

PTA’s and teacher unions are working to reduce radio frequency exposures in schools and promote safe classroom environments.
Many PTAs have worked hard to keep cell towers off their children’s school grounds. Many PTAs have also grappled with the issue of wireless radiation and called for safe technology- meaning hardwired computers rather than wireless computers. For example:
  • Wrote a letter to the Onteora School District calling for the Wi-Fi to be turned off. See it here.
New York State Teachers Union

Los Angeles California Public School District
  • Uses a RF-EMF Exposure Threshold 10,000 Less Than the FCC Limits: Read it here.  
  • Passed a Resolution Banning Cell Towers from schools and recommending against WiFi. Read it here.
In fact, PTA’s have a long history of calling for safe technology.
“RESOLVED that the California PTA supports encouraging schools to use cable lines for all communications services on campus and to avoid the endorsement, purchase or use of wireless local area network systems on campus” Fletcher Hills PTA Resolution submitted to the California State PTA

Could the PTA’s relationships with companies have influenced this statement?
The National PTA has various relationships to companies that may feel threatened by safer technology choices. These companies are making money off their relationship with the PTA.


“eTrak, Powered by Verizon, is now a National PTA Member Benefits Provider. eTrak is a safety product that allows parents to know the whereabouts of their children and receive an instant message if they wander “off track” or need help. Utilizing+ technology, parents can instantly see their child’s exact location on a map from a smartphone or any computer.Read the Press release by the PTA.

Lifelock Inc is a PTA sponsor and sells Smartphone products to make technology “safer”. “The LifeLock mobile app helps consumers manage their identity and payment cards on the go and enables LifeLock members to receive alerts and services on their digital device,” according to the PTA press release which states that, “It is a high priority of National PTA to increase understanding of the implications of online interactions. We are pleased to partner with LifeLock to engage students, families, educators and communities and foster safe, effective use of the Internet and mobile devices.” Read the press release here.

Lifelock seems to encourage devices for children stating that “Every kid wants a smartphone. And a tablet. And all the other popular technical devices, “ neglecting to state that wireless devices were never ever pre-market safety tested. Lifelock Director Roy A. Guthrie is former CEO of Discover.

  1. Wireless is microwave radiation.
  2. There are no safety standards in the USA, just adopted guidelines based on 30 year old science. The EPA was defunded from developing actual safety standards in 1996.
  3. Over a dozen countries are recommending reducing microwave exposure to children.
  4. The National PTA passed a 2007 Resolution stating it will advocate for safe technology.

What does the American Academy of Pediatrics have to say about cell phone and wireless exposures?

After the PTA wrote this letter, several people responded by sending letters of concern to the National PTA.

“I want to call your attention to the attached slide which was presented by Dr. Lennart Hardell, the world's expert on the health effects of wireless devices, at my conference in NYC in 2013.  Note he says that an iPad does not belong in human environments if one's concern is health; they are emitting spikes of radiation 100,000 times higher than is safe.”  Read Deborah Kopald’s Letter

Letter to Petaluma Board of Education by a Math Teacher to Halt Wi-Fi in School

June 24, 2016
Dear Superintendent and members of the Petaluma Board of Education,
I am writing you today requesting that you put forth a plan to hardwire the schools that our children attend as students. 
I am NOT anti-technology. I am a math teacher and a believer in science. 
I don’t, however, believe in long-term exposure to high levels of WiFi for my kindergartner.
We take good care of our children. WE WANT YOU TO TAKE CARE OF THEM TOO. Maybe you don’t think about exposure because you don’t have small children. Maybe you don’t have children at all. You may not see any level as being unsafe. I don’t know because, so far, you won’t discuss it.
It is now scientifically PROVEN that RF/EMF use increases certain types of tumors. The NTP, a branch of the NIH, recently released this $25 million study commissioned by the EPA (Please see “Report of Partial findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposure”).
Respectfully, I would remind you that there are many things throughout history that people were assured were safe (asbestos, cigarettes, solvents, thalidomide, DDT, etc). In these cases, many people were on the wrong side of history and that proved disastrous.
You can be pro-technology AND safety-minded.
Again, your openness says a lot about your concerns. If you continue to avoid this conversation, it will certainly drive more people out of the district while organizing against you (this will include my family). I don’t believe there has been a lot of good faith thus far, but I really am hopeful that this will change. I am very concerned about the technology leadership in this area. While I‘ve seen some great work in the development of curriculum, I also detect a real defensive, hard-headedness when discussing safety. I would suggest, in my own experience as a teacher, that students’ safety is our first priority, while curriculum and test scores a very distant second.
Thank you for your time,
Jason Greenwald

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Berkeley California Passes the Cell Phone Right to Know Ordinance

Berkeley California passed the Cell phone right to Know Ordinance. MCPS should be informing students and staff. Please watch the video. 

Watch this video from three years ago when our Congress 
introduced a NATIONAL BILL on cell phones. 

"Cell Phone Radiation Probably Causes Cancer" Former CDC Director Dr. Portier's article in Scientific American

By Christopher J. Portier, Wendy L. Leonard on June 13, 2016

Before you trash your cellphones (or rather, responsibly recycle and dispose of them), a careful review of the data—and the real life human implications—is needed. Here are the facts:

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) just concluded a massive 2-year study investigating the potential health hazards of cellphone use on rats and mice – most notably including the specific radio frequencies and modulations (RF-EMF) currently used in our U.S. telecommunications industry.

The NTP have chosen to publish their preliminary findings in rats, rather than wait. This study found that cellphone exposure increases the incidence of malignant gliomas of the brain, i.e., brain cancer, and schwannomas (also called neuromas) of the heart in the male rats. While schwannomas are not cancers, they are tumors and can profoundly impact the protective sheathing of the peripheral nerves, which can lead to severe pain and disability.

The increases were small (3-4 percent over controls), but since these are rare tumors, the findings are still significant. What make these studies even more significant are the findings of similar tumors in humans.

Who is Dr. Portier? 
Dr. Portier was the Director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry until 2013 when he retired. Prior to CDC, Dr. Portier was with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences where he served as the NIEHS Associate Director, Director of the Environmental Toxicology Program, and Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and Senior Scientific Advisor to the Director. During his 32 years at NIEHS, Dr. Portier maintained his own research laboratory focused on the impact of the environment on human health. 

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Harvard Law Ethics Lecture on Wireless Health Risks: Lawyer Lawrence Lessig and Dr. Franz Adlkofer,

Hosted by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard Lawyer Lawrence Lessig introduces Dr. Franz Adlkofer, former Executive Director of the VERUM Foundation for Behavior and Environment to discuss his research showing radiofrequency (wireless) radiation damaged human cells.

In his 2011 lecture, “Protection Against Radiation is in Conflict with Science,” Adlkofer discussed the difficulties he and other scientists face when presenting research on the carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields emanating from cell phones. He also discussed the institutional corruption which he says obstructs their research.

Adlkofer described his experience with the EU-funded study REFLEX, which aimed to explore the effects of cell-phone radiation on the brain. The study’s conclusions demonstrated that low frequency as well as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below the allowed exposure limits displayed gene-damaging potential.

In 2004, shortly after releasing those findings, Adlkofer was the target of allegations questioning the validity of the findings and even accusing him of fraud. While an ethics panel eventually dismissed the accusations, his struggle against slander continues, he said.

In May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified high frequency electromagnetic fields including cell phone radiation as merely “possibly carcinogenic” for humans, Adlkofer said, but he pointed out that studies such as REFLEX were not taken into account in reaching that determination. Had they been, he said, the classification likely would have changed from “possibly” carcinogenic to “probably.”

“The practices of institutional corruption in the area of wireless communication are of enormous concern,” said Adlkofer, “if one considers the still uncertain outcome of the ongoing field study with five billion participants. Based on the unjustified trivializing reports distributed by the mass media by order and on account of the wireless communication industry, the general public cannot understand that its future wellbeing and health may be at stake. The people even distrust those scientists who warn. In democracies, it is a basic principle that above power and their owners are laws, rules, and regulations. Since in the area of wireless communication this principle has been severely violated it is in the interest of a democratic society to insist on its compliance.”

Friday, June 10, 2016

Wireless Radiation is a Children's Health Risk: May 2016 News Report on Pediatric Academic Societies Conference

DNA Damage in Mice and Rats Exposed to Wireless Radiation in the National Toxicology Program

DNA Damage Shown in National Toxicology Program Mice and Rats 
Exposed to Radio Frequency Wireless Radiation
Preliminary data with comet assay show statistically significant trend in RF-induced DNA damage in rat & mice brain.
The image above is from the US Government  US NIEHS National Toxicology Program study on effects of cell phone radiation in rats and mice.
The Wednesday June 8, 2016
 “Hot Topic Plenary: The US NTP Study: A Real Game Changer or Just Another Study?
Presenters were Myles Capstick of the IT’IS Foundation
 Michael Wyde of US NIEHS NTP.