I am a public health physician who served as the Co-Editor
of the Bioinitiative Report first published in 2007 and later in 2012 as a comprehensive review of the adverse
health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. I also provided
testimony on radiofrequency radiation and cancer risk to the Presidents Cancer
Panel in 2009. I am also a former
resident of Montgomery County and my two older children attended elementary
school there.
There is strong and consistent evidence that excessive
exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields has adverse human health
effects.Of particular concern is the
clear evidence that children are more vulnerable than adults.The best documented adverse effects are an
increase in risk of cancer after years of exposure as evidenced by the results
of the Interphone, Hardell and French CERENAT studies. These research studies
found increased cancer risk in the “heavy” users of cell phones after ten years
of use. However, “heaviest use” corresponded to the equivalent of just thirty minutes a day in these research
studies. Please note that cancers do not appear immediately upon exposure but
rather come years later.
Within a school setting there is increasing evidence that
excessive exposures reduce learning ability, which is the last thing one wants
in a school.Some children will also
develop a syndrome of electrohypersensitivity, where they get headaches and
reduced ability to pay attention and learn.While these effects are not nearly as well documented as those relating
to cancer, they are particularly important within a school.This is especially the case in a wireless
computer classroom, where exposure can be very high.However there will be essentially no exposure
in a wired computer classroom.
The exposure levels of the Federal Communications Commission
are totally outdated and do not protect the health of the public, especially of
children.I urge you to abandon any
plans for wireless communication within schools.It is of course critical that all children
have access to the internet, but when this is done through wired connections
they will not be exposed to excessive electromagnetic fields.
I am president of the Cellular Phone Task Force. We provide education, advocacy and support around electromagnetic radiation and its dangers. Our organization was founded in 1996. I am personally in touch with thousands of individuals who have been injured by wireless technology in its various forms, including children unable to go to school because of WiFi in their classrooms. I'm not talking about children whose parents are "concerned." I'm talking about children who cannot go to school because if they do, they come home dizzy, nauseous, with headaches, skin rashes, nosebleeds, and worse. I have a B.A. in mathematics and physics from Cornell University, and went to medical school (1978-1982) at the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine. I have been studying bioelectromagnetics, the science of the interaction between electromagnetism and life, for 35 years.
Here are my comments on the Frequently Asked Questions that are on the MCPS’s website:
1. Protocol: "Data were collected for six minutes." The required averaging time is six minutes for occupational exposure, and 30 minutes for the general population. They therefore did not use a protocol authorized by the FCC.
2. Narrow band measurements will not tell you what you want to know. Radiation injury is cumulative over time as well as over the whole spectrum. WiFi, RF-ballasted lighting, AM, FM, TV, and cell phone frequencies are all present and you need a broadband measurement to see what the students are actually exposed to. Adding WiFi to an already substantial mix can turn a safe environment into a toxic one that can cause permanent injury.
3. The FCC guidelines were adopted in 1996. The database it relied on was current only to 1986, ten years before digital cell phones came to the United States and fifteen years before WiFi was invented. Those guidelines are thirty years out of date.
4. The Environmental Protection Agency drafted Stage I RF-exposure guidelines in 1995, and sent them around to other agencies for their comment prior to planned release of the guidelines in early 1996. Stage I was for thermal effects. EPA announced that Stage II guidelines, to protect against non-thermal effects, would be ready in 1998. TheTelecommunications Industry Association lobbied Congress to prohibit the EPA from releasing any guidelines. The 1996 Appropriations Bill that Congress passed not only defunded the EPA's work in this area, but contained language specifically prohibiting the EPA from releasing its regulations. We requested a copy of them under FOIA and were refused. The 1996 Telecommunications Act awarded authority over the health effects of wireless technology to a non-health agency, the FCC. It is a major scandal. I have thorough documentation of all of this. (See uploaded powerpoint slides from the EPA here)
5. MCPS's statement that "there is no basis on which to establish a different safety threshold" has some truth to it, because when they say "threshold" they are talking about power levels only. Power levels are an engineering concept that has no relevance to biology. When I say there is some truth, that is because there is no safe power threshold for pulsed RF radiation. The limit should be zero. For the same amount of power, continuous waves are enormously less harmful than pulsed (digital) radiation. We also have many studies showing power "windows" of maximal effect, and other studies showing that lowering the power increases the harm. See the work of Salford's team at the University of Lund, Sweden, finding an inverse relationship between power levels of a cell phone and damage to the blood-brain barrier. It is simply not the case that you can eliminate the harm of digital wireless technology by reducing the power level.
6. MCPS's statement that there is "no scientific evidence" establishing a causal link between wireless device use and any illnesses is a flat out lie. I receive an average of five emails a day forwarding me new studies showing a causal link between cell phones, WiFi, cordless phones, baby monitors, cell towers, etc., and various types of neurological, cardiological, and other types of injury, including cancer.
7. The WHO is absolutely correct that there have been over 25,000 scientific studies published over the last 30 years on the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation. What the WHO does not tell you is that the majority of these 25,000 studies found one or more harmful effects of the radiation. The WHO's statement of no harm is not based on an analysis of that database, but is purely a political statement, unpublished, not peer reviewed, and without any named author.
8. MCPS's claim that its system is not industrial strength contains an admission that it is industrial strength. It says the access points are not even plugged into the wall, but "are powered by 7.5-15 watts of power." That is a huge, dangerous amount of power for a wireless transmitter. If you stood one foot in front of a 15 watt wireless antenna you would be over the limit allowed by the FCC. Furthermore, WiFi access points are regulated as mobile devices under Section 2.1093
of the FCC's Rules. As such, they are required to be at least 20 centimeters from all persons at all times. The public is not told this.
"Your school system has the opportunity to develop safer practices: to hard-wire computer use;help children recognize when they need eye-to-eye conversation ornon-electronic activities. I urge you to serve as a model for the country and to develop practices that encourage safe use of technology."
Dear Montgomery County Schools Chief
Operating Officer Dr.Andrew Zuckerman
and Montgomery County Public School Board of Education Members,
Re: Health effects from wireless LAN in schools
Your report about the health effects from
wireless LAN in schools contains erroneous information. For example, it states
that "FCC standards are not outdated." In fact, FCC standards do not consider
the effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted by WiFi onchildren or pregnant women (including
pregnant teachers). While theFCC does
not recognize that children absorb radiation differently thanadults, since children's skulls are thinner
and smaller than adultskulls, the U.S.
Air Force does recognize this difference: Roach,
FCC standards do not consider the effects
of exposure to RFR from Wi-Fi emitted in a building with metal roofing (such as
many schoolshave). Meanwhile, in the
IEEE's June 23, 2015 issue of Spectrum, Dr. OmGandhi, professor of electrical engineering at the University of Utah,has served as Co-chair of IEEE's SCC 28.IV
Subcommittee on RF SafetyStandards
(1988-97) and as Chair of IEEE's Committee on Man andRadiation (COMAR) 1981-82, published,
"Yes the children are moreexposed
to radio-frequency energy from mobile telephones than adults." In this
peer-reviewed paper, Dr. Gandhi writes that "it is very hardto understand why" the FCC's safety
guidelines only consider the head of a mannequin whose size is in the 90th
percentage of US militaryrecruits.
http://bit/y/1CWO1od
In a lecture reporting on peer-reviewed
literature, "Children, Radiation and Health," British MD Dr. Erica
Mallery-Blythe outlinesthe effects of
RFR exposure on children:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNFdZVeXw7M
Further, to avoid Electronic Screen
Syndrome and addiction to technology (different from RFR exposure), children
need to learn howto regulate their use
of electronic devices.
Your school system has the opportunity to
develop safer practices: to hard-wire computer use;help children recognize when they need
eye-to-eye conversation ornon-electronic activities. I urge you to serve as a model for the
country and to develop practices that encourage safe use of technology.
For more info on these subjects, please
see:
●Child psychiatrist Victoria Dunckley, MD's book,
Reset Your Child's Brain: A Four-WeekPlan to End Meltdowns, Raise Grades and Boost Social Skills by Reversing
the Effects of Electronic Screen-Time, New World Library,2015.
●Medical journalist Katie Singer's paper,
"Calming Behavior in Children with Autism and ADHD," which features
the work ofpediatrician Toril Jelter,
MD, and reports on families who havereversed autism:
http://www.electronicsilentspring.com/calming-behavior
"In 2008 my seemingly healthy 56 year old husband had a grand mal seizure and diagnosis of a lethal brain tumor. Ironically our son worked for Senator Ted Kennedy in his private office. Just 10 days after my husband’s diagnosis the Senator suffered the same fate. His family felt it was his cell phone that caused his tumor and subsequent death but they chose to keep that quiet."
Dear Dr. Andrew Zuckerman and Montgomery County Public SchoolsBoard of Education,
I am the Director of the California Brain Tumor Association and I am writing to you because I have recently become aware that your school district is making decisions on how to respond to the health risks of cellphones and wireless radiation. I am appreciative of your interest in this serious topic.
In 2008 my seemingly healthy 56 year old husband had a grand mal seizure and diagnosis of a lethal brain tumor. Ironically our son worked for Senator Ted Kennedy in his private office. Just 10 days after my husband’s diagnosis the Senator suffered the same fate. His family felt it was his cell phone that caused his tumor and subsequent death but they chose to keep that quiet. However, our son knew and was concerned as my husband was an early adopter of a cell phone and used it often holding it to the side of the head where his glioma grew. My research began immediately and later that year I testified to the United States Congress and in the years following have appeared on many television and radio programs. Many others have reached out to me that had lost loved ones to cancers related to wireless radiation.. All were far younger than my husband- the youngest was a 12 year old boy who died from a brain tumor after keeping the iPad on under his pillow for a year.
After hearing from so many who were suffering, my son and I founded the California Brain Tumor Association. I have traveled the world to meet with scientists to educate myself on the health effects of wireless radiation. We have worked extensively on prevention. We also work on legislation to advise consumers at the point of sale as to the distance information the industry hides in the manuals or deep within the phone. We recently helped get legislation passed in Berkeley, CA whereby cell phone retailers must inform customers that: To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radiofrequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely. The telecom industry sued and hired the notorious Ted Olson to represent them. Berkeley prevailed in court and the law goes into effect this month. Many other cities, states and nations are considering adopting similar laws.
I took the time to read the Montgomery County School District’s detailed information page on Radiofrequency Radiation and I would like to provide you some comments.
First, In the FAQs Section there is a response to the question of the potential cancer risk from cellphones and your provided information currently states that the IARC carcinogenic conclusion was based on 1,640 hours or more of cellphone use a year. This is not true. In fact, the research studies that the IARC is referring to corresponds to 1,640 cumulative use equivalent to about 30 minutes a day of cell phone use over ten years.
The Montgomery County Page then states that applying this carcinogenic classification to wireless “does not accurately represent the intention of the classification.” I myself had this question of the intention of the classification as well. I have an email from Robert Bann, the Secretary of the International Agency for the Research on Cancer that clarifies the answer to that question. Robert Bann stated that, ”So the classification 2B, possibly carcinogenic, holds for all types of radiation within the radiofrequency part of the electromagnetic spectrum, including the radiation emitted by base-station antennas, radio/TV towers, radar, Wi-Fi, smart meters, etc.” Thus, in fact, the classification does apply to wireless networks as the radiation is the same type- radio frequency radiation (RF-EMF).
While cell phone use clearly results in more of this radiation into the brain of the user, wireless laptop use would also result in children being exposed to not just their brain, but chest and abdominal area (reproductive organs). Many research studies show adverse effects at extremely low levels. What will be the health effect on children who will be exposed at such an early age, and for so many years? We cannot afford to experiment in this manner on our children and grandchildren. DDT is in the same WHO category- we would not spray DDT on them daily!
Just because it is invisible and is a valuable technology that does not mean it is harmless.
I understand that the radiofrequency measuring your district completed this year shows that the radiofrequency radiation levels in schools are “FCC compliant”. However, compliance with eighteen-year-old outdated FCC regulations has no bearing on the health risks to the students and staff, especially pregnant staff. According to experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the FCC regulations do not consider children’s vulnerabilities. Furthermore, cancer can have a very long latency period so we may not know the true health impacts from such daily low level exposure for another decade. Many scientists recommend reducing exposure as low as reasonably possible- the ALARA principle. In a classroom setting this means hardwiring the technology. FCC compliance is not proof of safety.
While the Berkeley Ordinance mentioned earlier is specific to cell phones, there are similar fine print instructions on all wireless devices such as laptops and tablets as well- again they are well hidden.. Laptops are tested at 20 cm or 8 inches from the body so any closer could result in radiation levels that exceed already outdated FCC regulation. I should note that adhering to these distances does not ensure safety for children as the distances are based on outdated so-called safety standards that only protect from thermal damage to DNA. Thousands of studies have shown damage at non thermal levels- the exposure limits are meaningless.
Children are known to absorb this radiation deeper than adults so they are more at risk and vulnerable to the adverse health effects and it is especially important that they and their parents are aware of this information. Parents and teachers are unable to monitor children to ensure they are not leaning into the laptop or crowding around the devices or placing them on laps and so they cannot ensure that children follow even these distances. Also there is science proving there is second hand radiation from these devices. Thus a child in a classroom is not only exposed to wireless radiation from the wireless access points but also from the other tablets being used in the room. A hardwired connection is the safe solution. The children can still take advantage of using the internet as an educational tool but not be exposed to a possible carcinogen (without their consent) while at school.
Research shows that the statistically significant association between cell phone use and brain cancer is even more increased for people who started using cell phones at younger ages. The County could do immeasurable good and in fact help save lives by helping to reduce radiofrequency radiation to students and by teaching them safer ways to use technology. My colleagues and I are happy to help educate administrators, staff, parents and students about how to protect oneself in a wireless society.
Dear Dr. Andrew Zuckerman, Mr. Larry A. Bowers and Mr. Sherwin Collette,
RE: The Incorrect Statements On Your Radio Frequency FAQs Webpage
This letter is to make you aware of a few of the false statements present in MCPS's Radiofrequency Radiation Monitoring webpage. The current MCPS posted information reflects a lack of factual information on the World Health Organizations International Agency for the Research on Cancer (WHO IARC) classification of wireless radiofrequency RF-EMF radiation as a Class 2 B Carcinogen. The parents, teachers and staff of Montgomery County Schools deserve accurate responsible information on the radiation levels in MCPS schools.
The MCPS Radio Frequency FAQs pagefalselystates 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.”
The facts:
The 1640 hours linked to increased brain tumors in the Interphone Study pertained to lifetime cumulative cell phone use (notannually as MCPS falsely states).
Heavy use in the long term cell phone research that provided strong evidence for the Class 2 B classification was often defined as 30 minutes a day over ten years (not 4 hours a day as MCPS falsely states). Watch WHO IARC expert Dr. Bann state this clearly in this video here.
The MCPS Radio Frequency FAQs page falsely states 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”
The facts:
The carcinogenic classification specifically refers to radio frequency radiation and was intended to apply to radio frequency radiation in the frequency range of 30KHz to 300GHz from any source.
Dr. Robert Bann, the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer Secretary has detailed on several occasions how the experts specifically intended this classification to apply to the full range of radio frequency radiation which includes wifi, personal wireless devices (like Chromebook laptops) and cell tower radiation. Bann clearly states this in his detailed lecture in 2011 found here and in his writing found here.
This is just two of many inaccurate statements MCPS has posted. We will be sending you a comprehensive statement detailing the many other factual errors presented by MCPS soon. To start, please update your site with the facts noted.
These false facts are resulting in misinformed conclusions with the end result being that MCPS is refusing to take a precautionary stance on this issue. We cannot dilute the significance of this classification. The fact is that children are now exposed to a Group 2B “possible” carcinogen nonstop for the entire school day. This risk is easily resolved by installing safe radiation free technology in classrooms.
Sincerely,
Theodora Scarato LCSW-C
PS. Please review the electromagnetic radiation spectrum so you can understand how your assumptions about the Acoustimeter are inaccurate and false. This meter measures microwave radiation in the range of 200 MHz to about 8000 MHz (8 GHz), and does not measure overhead lighting, nor most AM and FM radio or TV frequencies. The meter also has an audio output enabling you to hear the signal modulation.
