Tag Archives: schools

Wi-Fi: Are you worried about possible health risks?

  • August 25, 2010 3:44 PM
  • By POV


Earlier this month, school administrators in Ontario’s Simcoe County decided not to turn off wireless internet in classrooms despite complaints from parents who suspect their children are being made ill by the Wi-Fi.

There’s a debate in the scientific community about whether radiation from wireless communications could pose health risks. Some studies suggest Wi-Fi may cause neurological and cardiac symptoms, but other researchers insist the concerns are unfounded.

Dan Krewski, director of the McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa, told CBC Radio’s Metro Morning that so far, the medical evidence is reassuring. There have been thousands of research papers on the potential health effects of the type of radiation emitted by Wi-Fi and cellphones, he said, and overall, they show no cause for concern.

A day earlier, British physicist Barrie Trower had shared an opposite view with Metro Morning. Trower, who advised the British Secret Service on the use of microwave weapons during the Cold War, thinks parents are right to worry.

Read more.


Leave a comment

Filed under electromagnetic radiation, electrosmog, EMF, schools, WiFi

Local doctor shares his views on dangers from EMF electromagnetic field radiation


by Lillian Cox

Dr. Dan Harper, M.D., was among the first to arrive at the Encinitas City Council meeting the evening of July 21. Carrying a 12-inch stack of medical journal articles about the health risks of electromagnetic field, or EMF, radiation, he was there to speak on behalf of his patient, Michael Schwaebe.

Schwaebe was appealing the placement of WiMAX towers on the site of the former Cabo Grill at Coast Highway 101 and La Costa Avenue. WiMAX is often referred to as “a cell tower on steroids.”

Harper directed his initial remarks to the Sprint Clearwire representatives in attendance when he quoted author Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding.”

Harper said he was frustrated, but not surprised, that he was unable to complete his presentation.

It would have been illegal.

The wireless industry is protected by Article 704 of the Telecommunications Act signed by President Clinton in 1996 which prohibits arguments of potential health risks from communications towers to be made at public hearings, even if they are legitimate.

Consequently, Schwaebe and his fellow presenters were forced to fall back on a secondary argument, declining property values as a result of placement of the WiMAX towers.

Had Dr. Harper been able to complete his speech, following are points he would have made.

Today, there is an indisputable parallel between the wireless and the tobacco industry, which was not required to post warning labels on cigarette packaging and in advertising until 1965 — after generations of families suffered from respiratory illnesses, cancers and even death due to smoking.

“It took 50 years to get warning labels and they are still selling the product,” Harper wrote in his notes.

In addition, he would have cited studies since the 1970s that show an increase in many cancers of those living within 300 meters of power lines. “Despite being a class 1B carcinogen, they are still building schools and houses on cheap land under power lines,” his notes read.

He would have made the argument that if we post the addresses of sexual predators, why then can’t the location of concealed or stealth cell tower antennaes also be posted.

Harper is a proponent of the need to develop safe neighborhoods for chemically sensitive and EMF-sensitive individuals such Michael Schwaebe by burying powerlines, having no wi-fi in a minimum of a half-mile radius, and no cell towers or pesticides or herbicides sprays in the area.

Finally, Harper would have made an argument that the EMF radiation controversy should actually be a state’s rights issue.

“Even though the FCC has said to ignore the potential health risks to humans and have a 150-day limit on the request to locate their wireless units, you are the wall of protection,” he wrote in his comments to City Council. “This is a federation of states with the states regulating the insurance, medical, dental and mortuary industries. The sheriff of this county has more rights of executive power than the FBI since the sheriff is elected and accountable to the voters.”

So, is he a whack job? Who is Dr. Dan Harper?

He graduated magna cum laud from Baylor College of Medicine, which today ranks No. 13 in research behind Stanford and before UCLA according to www.MedSchool100.com.

He is board certified in holistic medicine and family medicine; and board eligible in emergency medicine with more than 35,000 hours of ER experience.

Before moving to San Diego five years ago he was licensed in Oregon, Wyoming, Montana and Texas. Currently he’s licensed in California and Arizona.

It was changes he noticed in his own system and in his patients in his Solana Beach medical practice that prompted him to investigate environmental factors that impact health here on the coast.

“I did not have problems in Montana since no cell phone towers were there at the time,” he said. “I got here and things were blazin’ hot and people were ill due to the EMFs. There was catatonic schizophrenia, depression, autism, arrhythmias of heart, seizures — all related to EMF exposure. I hit pubmed.com (National Institutes of Health research website) and the Internet to find out why.”

He also took several courses on EMFs offered through the American Academy of Environmental Medicine and studied under Dr. William J. Rea, who is considered one of the fathers of environmental medicine.

Harper learned that San Diego is the second-highest radiated city in the nation, behind Washington, D.C.

“There is 10 million times the background radiation in San Diego compared to 1970,” he said. “It is caused by technology such as cell towers and high-powered transformer lines; military telecommunications; Doppler radar and sonograms shot into earthquake faults. It is also generated by wi-fi communications for computers and games, SDG&E smart meters and transformers on poles and on the ground of local neighborhoods (camouflaged) as green boxes.”

Harper warns that EMF radiation even interferes with meditation at the Self Realization Fellowship.

Ultimately, he says this is leading to a generation of older Americans with pre-senile dementia being cared for by a younger generation with a disproportionate amount of brain cancer.

Beyond our own world, he warns that extremely low frequency, or ELF, radiation used to communicate with submarines is impacting ocean life.

“They interfere with the vestibular apparatus of the brains of the whales,” Harper said. “It messes up their navigation and seems to impair cognition.”

Frustrated, Dr. Harper walked out of the council meeting on July 21 after a woman representing the wireless industry said she had no closing remarks except to say that the city of Encinitas had no legal leg to stand on.

“My heart sank as I saw big business once again put the FCC knife to the throats of the City Council and tell them they would have to sit and watch as they raped and ravaged the community and there was nothing they could do,” he said. “Every citizen is being blasted at a cellular level by this radiation. It may take two or three decades to manifest the cancer or dementia, but it is adversely affecting us all.”

He said that 3 percent of the population is severely and rapidly affected with symptoms such as headaches, confusion, tachycardia, anxiety, skin burning and hives.

“Sixteen percent will only feel the fatigue, insomnia, ‘brain farts’ and memory issues, and the other 81 percent will look at that 19 percent and recommend a good psychiatrist until 30 or 40 years down the road (medical) articles will begin to report that cell phones and wi-fi are more dangerous than cigarettes, asbestos and leaded gasoline put together,” he said.

After members of the Encinitas City Council explained that they had no choice but to deny the appeal, for fear of losing money in legal bills in a futile battle with the federal government, Deputy Mayor Maggie Houlihan called on citizens to write their congressmen and senators to demand that Article 704 be repealed.

The Coast News contacted Rep. Brian Bilbray and his opponent Francine Busby to ask if they would lead such a movement to repeal Article 704. To date, only Bilbray’s office had responded.

Following is the statement from Bilbray’s office: “Congressman Bilbray holds health and safety standards in the highest regard. The standards used in the 1996 Telecom Act to support Article 704 were, at the time, the most stringent health standards available in the United States. A review of these standards has been scheduled by the Federal Communications Commission and Congressman Bilbray will make a determination on further action upon completion of the review.”

Dr. Dan’s Advice

Dr. Dan Harper offers a few tips on how to protect yourself from EMFs:

  1. Purchase a Trifield Meter to measure EMF radiation in your home. The price is about $125 online.
  2. In homes, make sure the grounding is done correctly at the junction box of the circuit breaker and of the switch box inside that grounds to the hot water. EMF-sensitive patients have to have a 3-foot section of nonmetallic pipe between their water meter and the house, or all the grounded negative energy comes from neighboring homes into their house and onto them when they shower or do dishes.
  3. Keep children more than 4 to 5 feet from the front of the TV and away from any alternating current devices such as air filters, computers and stereos.
  4. Use a large computer monitor, with a corded mouse and key pad that can be set 3 to 4 feet away from the monitor and tower to prevent the strong EMFs from entering your body. Stay away from laptops.
  5. Turn off electrical equipment at the surge protector when not in use. Turn off routers on wi-fi and computers so EMF radiation is not shot through the house and neighborhood.
  6. Don’t use a cordless phone. Get a speaker phone or land line.
  7. Limit cell phone texting and talking, turning off the phone when not in use. If it is kept turned on, it is broadcasting microwaves into the tissues of the person carrying it and those around them. Second-hand radiation is more dangerous than second-hand cigarette smoke in my opinion. The further one gets from the cell tower, the stronger the cell phone blasts into the tissues trying to reach the tower. The closer one gets to the tower, the more the tower blasts the person there, whether they have a phone on or not.
  8. Bluetooth phones triple the amount of negative energy entering your body.
  9. Finally, don’t live near a cell tower unless you have your life insurance policy and your medical insurance covers cancer, autoimmunity, dementia (including Alzheimer’s and presenile dementia), heart disease, diabetes, and a large number of so called chronic diseases that have been shown to increase in the presence of harmful EMFs at low doses.

Leave a comment

Filed under cancer, cell phone, EMF, radiation interference

EMR-Updates July 28th, 2010

Thank you Paul Doyon for the immense amount of time and energy you voluntarily devote to educating the world …CSea and our readers.


International Coalition for an Electromagnetic-Safe Planet (IC-ESP)

Education! Awareness! Support! Action!

(From denial to acceptance, from ignorance to awareness, from apathy to action, from selfishness to compassion.)

Leave a comment

Filed under awareness, cancer, cell phone, cell tower, children, EMF, EMR, schools, WiFi

French Senate Bill for the Environment – ban cell phones

She did it again, we are grateful to Angela Flynn for finding this valuable Report…. CSea


I have finally tracked down the French action on cell phones and antennas.  Here it is:

The French Senate bans cell phones in schools, advertising to children under 14 and many other precautionary health actions on cell towers.

French  Senate Article 72 (Articles L. 32-1, 34-9 and L. L. 34-9-1 of the Code of Posts and Telecommunications electronic articles L. 5231-3 and L. 5231-4 [new] Code of Public Health and Article 17a [new] law of 15 June 1906 on the distributions of energy) – Regulatory Guidance on electromagnetic waves


Here is the google translation – http://tinyurl.com/2azgmmm

Some highlights:

Afsset – French Agency for Health Safety Environment and Labor


CE Article

Everyone has the right to health and protection against the harmful effects of electromagnetic waves.

CE It is revealed that “the Court of Appeal of Versailles, by a decree of February 4, 2009, upheld the conviction of a mobile operator to dismantle an antenna relay, whereas it caused an abnormal disturbance Neighborhood.  Since that case, the judgments in this direction is growing.  These decisions reveal the growing concern of many of our fellow citizens for their health and that of their children.”

CE Article 9 Any decision on the establishment, alteration or maintenance of a facility used in radio telecommunications networks must be displayed clearly and visibly in the public areas of the building affected by the work.

Decisions on the siting radio used in telecommunications networks in condominiums must be taken unanimously by the owners.

Decisions on the siting radio used in telecommunications in low-rent housing should be a consultation of residents.

The lack of consultation in void the lease between the owner or owners of the building and the network operator.

CE Article 11 Bans advertising of mobile phones for children to children under 14.

CE Article 16 The installation of Wi-Max and LTE (long term evolution) are suspended for a period of 5 years from the enactment of this Act.  Where possible, the terminal facilities Wi-Max and LTE are replaced by an existing wired broadband.  In all other cases, prior approval of the Regional Directorate for Industry, Research and Environment will be required.

Amendment Prohibits the use of mobile phones in kindergartens, primary schools and colleges.

Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Angela Flynn
Wireless Radiation Alert Network
FAX 301-229-4752

http://www.scribd. com/doc/24352550 /Cell-Tower- Rpt

Leave a comment

Filed under cancer, cell phone, cell tower, children, EMF

Wide Web of diversions gets laptops evicted from lecture hall



Wide Web of diversions gets laptops evicted from lecture hall

By Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 9, 2010; A01

On a windy morning in downtown Washington, a hundred Georgetown Law students gathered in a hall for David Cole’s lecture on democracy and coercion. The desks were cluttered with books, Thermoses and half-eaten muffins.

Another item was noticeable in its absence: laptop computers. They were packed away under chairs, tucked into backpacks, powered down and forgotten.
Cole has banned laptops from his classes, compelling students to take notes the way their parents did: on paper.

A generation ago, academia embraced the laptop as the most welcome classroom innovation since the ballpoint pen. But during the past decade, it has evolved into a powerful distraction. Wireless Internet connections tempt students away from note-typing to e-mail, blogs, YouTube videos, sports scores, even online gaming — all the diversions of a home computer beamed into the classroom to compete with the professor for the student’s attention.

“This is like putting on every student’s desk, when you walk into class, five different magazines, several television shows, some shopping opportunities and a phone, and saying, ‘Look, if your mind wanders, feel free to pick any of these up and go with it,’ ” Cole said.
Professors have banned laptops from their classrooms at George Washington UniversityAmerican University, the College of William and Mary and the University of Virginia, among many others. Last month, a physics professor at the University of Oklahoma poured liquid nitrogen onto a laptop and then shattered it on the floor, a warning to the digitally distracted. A student — of course — managed to capture the staged theatrics on video and drew a million hits on YouTube.

Cole was among the first professors in the Washington region to ban laptops, in the 2006-07 academic year. He found them an “attractive nuisance.” It was a bold decree: Georgetown had only recently begun requiring that first-year law students own laptops, after painstakingly upgrading the campus for wireless Internet access.

Just last week, a colleague of Cole’s unwittingly demonstrated how thoroughly the Internet has colonized the classroom. When Professor Peter Tague told students a canard about Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stepping down, students promptly spread the news into the blogosphere. Later in class, Tague revealed that the tip was false, part of a lesson on credibility, according to the blog Above the Law.
The laptop computer, introduced in 1981, has become nearly obligatory on campus; some colleges require them. They are as essential to today’s student as a working stereo system was to their parents.
“My laptop lives with me. I’m always on it,” said Madeline Twomey, 20, a George Washington junior.
Twomey has used a computer since age 6 and had her first laptop at 15. She senses a widening generation gap. “Most professors, even at their youngest, they’re in their 30s,” she said. “They don’t understand how much it’s become a part of our lives.”
The ‘cone of distraction’
Professors say they do understand — all too well.
Diane E. Sieber, an associate professor of humanities at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has debated her students on the collegiate conceit of multitasking, the notion that today’s youths can fully attend to a lecture while intermittently toggling over to e-mail, ESPN and Facebook.
“It’s really serialized interruption,” Sieber said. “You start something, you stop it, you do something else, you stop it, which is something you’re doing if you’re switching back and forth between World of Warcraft and my class.”
One recent semester, Siebert tracked the grades of 17 student laptop addicts. At the end of the term, their average grade was 71 percent, “almost the same as the average for the students who didn’t come at all.”
Sieber believes that those students, in turn, divert the attention of the students behind them, a parabolic effect she calls the “cone of distraction.”
José A. Bowen, dean of the Meadows School of the Arts at Southern Methodist University, is removing computers from lecture halls and urging his colleagues to “teach naked” — without machines. Bowen says class time should be used for engaging discussion, something that reliance on technology discourages.

Cole surveyed one of his Georgetown classes anonymously after six weeks of laptop-free lectures. Four-fifths said they were more engaged in class discussion. Ninety-five percent admitted that they had used their laptops for “purposes other than taking notes.”
Even when used as glorified typewriters, laptops can turn students into witless stenographers, typing a lecture verbatim without listening or understanding.

“The breaking point for me was when I asked a student to comment on an issue, and he said, ‘Wait a minute, I want to open my computer,’ ” said David Goldfrank, a Georgetown history professor. “And I told him, ‘I don’t want to know what’s in your computer. I want to know what’s in your head.’ ”

Some early attempts to ban laptops met resistance. In 2006, a group of law students at the University of Memphis complained to the American Bar Association, in vain. These days, the restriction is so common that most students take it in stride.

“I think that a professor’s well within reason to ban laptops,” said Cristina Cardenal, a 20-year-old Georgetown junior. “Professors aren’t stupid. They know what’s going on.” She also happens to believe that the rule benefits students, who should know better than to “pay as much money as we do to sit in a class and read a blog.”

Flipping a switch
Perhaps no college has experienced the good and bad of laptops like Bentley University in Waltham, Mass. In 1985, Bentley was the first college in the nation to require students to own portable computers. By the late 1990s, professors complained of distracted students. In 2000, the college installed a custom-designed system to let professors switch off Internet and e-mail access in their classrooms. They’ve flipped the switch “thousands of times,” said Bentley’s Phillip G. Knutel.

Universities have stopped short of disabling Internet access entirely, which might create a raft of new complaints from professors who routinely ask students to go online in class.

Plenty of professors still allow laptops. Siva Vaidhyanathan, an associate professor of media studies and law at U-Va., generally permits them in his classes. He remembers his own college diversion: reading newspapers surreptitiously on the floor beneath his desk. He believes that, ultimately, it is a professor’s job to hold the class’s attention.

“If students don’t want to pay attention, the laptop is the least of your problems,” he said.

Vaidhyanathan, an Internet scholar, senses a losing battle. In an era of iPhones and BlackBerrys, Internet-ready cellphones have become just as prevalent in classrooms as laptops, and equally capable of distraction. If professors had hoped to hermetically seal their teaching space by banning laptops, they might be about three years too late.

“The question ‘Laptop or not?’ isn’t as big a question as the question of a screen or not,” he said. “And, sitting in front of 200 students, I can’t really enforce a ban on anything.”

Please follow the Post’s Education coverage on FacebookTwitter or our Education and Higher Education pages. Bookmark them!

Leave a comment

Filed under EMF

Dirty Electricity, dirty power, Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Teachers at Middle School getting cancer in California.

For more videos visit http://EMFsolutions.ca

Leave a comment

Filed under awareness, harmonizer, neutralize, power

Childhood cancer survivors / French Senate Moves to Ban Mobile Phones in Schools / Cell Phones and Cancer: How To Stay Safe

Survivors of childhood cancer less likely to marry

“Our study pinpointed what aspects of the survivor experience likely contribute to altered marriage patterns: short stature, poor physical functioning and cognitive problems,” said Kadan-Lottick.

“These conditions are known to be associated with certain chemotherapy and radiation exposures.”


PHILADELPHIA – Childhood cancer survivors typically suffer from the long-term effects of cancer treatment on physical health, and results of a new study suggest that social implications also exist, which may affect their chance of an “I do” at the altar.

Survivors are 20 to 25 percent more likely “to never marry” compared with siblings and the general population, according to findings published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Many childhood cancer survivors still struggle to fully participate in our society because of the lasting cognitive and physical effects of their past cancer therapy,” said lead researcher Nina S. Kadan-Lottick, M.D., M.S.P.H., assistant professor at Yale School of Medicine and Yale Cancer Center, and medical director of the Health Education, Research & Outcomes for Survivors (HEROS) Clinic for childhood cancer survivors.

Using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, a retrospective cohort of more than 10,000 childhood cancer survivors (who are now adults) treated at 26 institutions around the country, Kadan-Lottick and colleagues evaluated the frequency of marriage and divorce rates among survivors compared with their sibling group and U.S. Census data. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study is an ongoing study funded by the National Cancer Institute.

Researchers distributed surveys to participants to determine late outcomes of therapy, medical problems, subsequent cancers, psychosocial functioning and other aspects of survivorship, according to the researchers. They identified patients and treatment factors that may predict marital status, including psychosocial distress and neurocognitive impairment.

“Our study pinpointed what aspects of the survivor experience likely contribute to altered marriage patterns: short stature, poor physical functioning and cognitive problems,” said Kadan-Lottick.

“These conditions are known to be associated with certain chemotherapy and radiation exposures.”

Results showed that an estimated 42 percent of survivors were married, 7.3 percent were separated or divorced and 46 percent were never married.

Those who survived brain tumors were 50 percent more likely never to marry. Survivors of central nervous system tumors and leukemia had the greatest likelihood of never marrying, according to the study. Cranial radiation was the therapy most associated with not getting married.

Likelihood of divorce did not vary between the study populations.

“While it can be debated whether marriage is a desirable outcome, marriage is generally an expected developmental goal in our society to the extent that most U.S. adults are married by the age of 30. Our results suggest that survivors of childhood cancer need ongoing support even as they enter adulthood,” Kadan-Lottick suggested.

Electra D. Paskett, Ph.D., who was not involved with the study, but is a deputy editor of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, said these findings shed light on the use of certain treatments and their long-term implications, which may affect a patient’s physical appearance, thereby resulting in social effects.

“In other studies marital status has been found to be a significant predictor of survival. Will we see this among the childhood survivors as well?” asked Paskett, who is the Marion N. Rowley professor of cancer research in the Division of Epidemiology, and associate director for population sciences in The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center.

As a follow-up to this report, separate analyses are underway to better understand factors that contribute to other adult benchmarks among childhood cancer survivors, such as living independently, achieving higher education and income. The National Institutes of Health funded this study.

Submitted by Linda

Leave a comment

Filed under EMF