Monday, 30 December 2013

Dads Win Battle Against WiFi in School

New Zealand Parents Removed Wi-Fi From Their Childrens' School Because 'Wi-Fi Causes Cancer'

Dec. 30, 2013, 11:39 AM 1,626 

Damon Wyman and David Bird, two New Zealand parents, have successfully petitioned their children's school to remove its Wi-Fi network, reports TVNZ.

The school will maintain an Internet connection by way of cable, but the fathers are concerned with any potential health dangers their children might face by being near wireless data signals.
Wyman began researching Wi-Fi networks after a brain tumor killed his young son. He theorizes that this was linked to his son's sleeping with a Wi-Fi-enabled iPod under his pillow at night.
The school issued a statement saying that its decision to remove Wi-Fi networking equipment was based on feedback from a survey of parents, and while the junior school will see its wireless Internet capabilities removed, students at the senior school will continue to enjoy Wi-Fi functionality.
From TVNZ's report:
[The school] maintains that it believes wireless internet is safe, a view shared by the Government.
"We have sourced information from the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and other submissions," the statement read.
"Based on this information the board believes that Wi-Fi does not pose a health risk to staff or students."
My Wyman and Mr Bird have said they will continue to advocate for the total removal of the system at Te Horo School.

Wednesday, 25 December 2013

Cell Phone Use Linked to Lower Grades, Anxiety, and Much Worse...

Last week Dr. Oz and Sanjay Gupta separated fact from fiction on this hotly contested issue of cell phones. They suggest that parents should wait before giving your child a cellphone because children have thinner skulls and absorb ten times more radiation in the bone marrow than an adult.

Students using wireless laptops and iPads directly on their laps are unaware that these wireless devices are far more powerful than cell phones and exposing them to potential short and long term health effects.

Australia's top Neurosurgeon, Dr. Charlie Teo - "Explosion" in brain tumours and the truth (Parts 1 and 2)
Wake-up Call Australia
Concerns student's fatal brain tumour linked to wifi

Dr. Anthony B Miller, WHO scientist, presented to Toronto Councilors at the Government Management Committee about Cell Tower proliferation in the City, stating wireless radiation would be classified 2A (probable) carcinogen if evaluated today and recommends prudent avoidance. (4 min video presentation)

Facebook: like & share information

Saturday, 7 December 2013

Anthony B. Miller says if an IARC Working Group were to meet now, Electromagnetic Radiation would be classifed as a Category 2A

Radiofrequency (RF) Fields: Possibly, Probably, or Definitely Carcinogenic — The Evidence Mounts Toward the Latter.

BrainThe International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) generally categorizes agents into four (4) categories:
  • Group 1:        Carcinogenic to humans.
  • Group 2A:     Probably carcinogenic to humans.
  • Group 2B:     Possibly carcinogenic to humans.
  • Group 3:        Not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.

Evidence for RF Fields Being Group 2B, Possibly Carcinogenic
In May 2011, IARC concluded that “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields [are] possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) … A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible,…”
As stated in the full IARC Monograph Vol. 102, for Non-Ionizing Radiation, published in April 2013, the evaluation for carcinogenicity was applicable for all radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the range (30 kHz to 300 GHz) of the electromagnetic spectrum.  Quoting the Monograph:
“[It] should be emphasized that the evaluations in this volume address the general question of whether RF radiation causes cancer in humans or in experimental animals:  it does not specifically or exclusively consider mobile phones, but rather the type of radiation emitted by mobile phones and various other sources.”  [emphasis added]
“The Working Group agreed to consider three categories of human exposure to RF radiation:  (a) environmental sources such as mobile-phone base stations, broadcast antennae, smart meters, and medical applications; (b) occupational sources such as high-frequency dielectric and induction heaters, and high-power pulsed radars; and (c) the use of personal devices such as mobile phones, cordless phones, Bluetooth devices, and amateur radios.”
“The overall evaluation by the IARC Working Group was:  Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).”  [emphasis added]
Evidence for RF Fields Being Group 2A, Probably Carcinogenic
Dr. Devra Davis and Dr. Anthony B. Miller, along with other co-authors, published an article in April 2013, entitled, “Swedish Review Strengthens Grounds for Concluding That Radiation from Cellular and Cordless Phones Is a Probable Human Carcinogen.” [1]
A noteworthy quotation from the article is as follows:
“By reviewing key epidemiological studies, some of which have been published since the IARC review, addressing methodological critiques of their own and other studies, and reporting the results of a meta-analysis of their own and the IARC coordinated Interphone study, Hardell et al provide new and compelling evidence for IARC to re-evaluate its classification of ‘a possible carcinogen’, with a view to changing that assessment of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones, cordless phones, and other wireless devices at least to a ‘probable human carcinogen,’ i.e. Group 2A.”  [emphasis added]
Consistent with the above evidence presented to support the Group 2A classification, Dr. Anthony B. Miller made a presentation on November 20, 2013, before the Toronto Public Works and Infrastructure Committee.  This presentation was made in opposition to a request for authorization by a communications company to install cellular towers/poles throughout Toronto, Canada (on the City’s public right-of-way) that were less than 15 meters in height.  The video for Dr. Miller’s presentation is provided below.  Some of the more significant statements include the following:
We set forward [in a recent paper] the reasons for our view that the proper designation now if [an IARC] Working Group were to meet would be Category 2A, … making it a probable human carcinogen.”
“We in public health believe in prudent avoidance.”
“When you deliver a potential [or probable] carcinogen over a wide area in the environment, you expose numerous people and you may increase risks to a small proportion, but you can’t identify who they are. … That doesn’t mean there’s no harm, and as you increase the dosage, as you increase the amount of radiofrequency fields in our environment, you will in fact increase the hazard.”
“It seems to me that unless I can be reassured that this proposal before you, … that what you are in fact setting, if you approve this, you are setting the scene for increasing cancer risks, probably brain tumors, several other cancers, which you will not be able to identify, I would say, for ten to fifteen years.”
Anthony B. Miller in Toronto, CA
Anthony B. Miller in Toronto, CA
Evidence for RF Fields Being Group 1, Carcinogenic
Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg published an article in November 2013, entitled, “Using the Hill Viewpoints from 1965 for Evaluating Strengths of Evidence of the Risk for Brain Tumors Associated with Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones.” [2]
This published article utilized causation criteria developed by Sir Bradford Hill in 1965 to provide a framework for evaluation of the brain tumor risk from RF-EMF.  According to the article, “all nine issues on causation according to Hill were evaluated.  Regarding wireless phones, only studies with long-term use were included.  In addition, laboratory studies and data on the incidence of brain tumors were considered.”  The results of the evaluation were as follows:
“The criteria on strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, and biologic gradient for evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma were fulfilled.  Additional evidence came from plausibility and analogy based on laboratory studies.  Regarding coherence, several studies show increasing incidence of brain tumors, especially in the most exposed area.  Support for the experiment came from antioxidants that can alleviate the generation of reactive oxygen species involved in biologic effects, although a direct mechanism for brain tumor carcinogenesis has not been shown.  In addition, the finding of no increased risk for brain tumors in subjects using the mobile phone only in a car with an external antenna is supportive evidence.”
Conclusions reached in the published article include the following:
“Based on Hill’s viewpoints and his discussion on how these issues should be used, the conclusion of this review is that glioma and acoustic neuroma are caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones.  According to the IARC Preamble, the classification should be Group 1, i.e., ‘the agent is carcinogenic to humans’, and urgent revision of current guidelines for exposure is needed.”  [emphasis added]
“Because of the widespread use of wireless technology, even a small [health] risk increase would have serious public health consequences.”
Summary on Carcinogenic Effects and Discussion of Other Adverse Effects
Evidence continues to mount that radiofrequency fields are harmful to humans and that RF emissions should not be treated in the same vein, for example, as “picked vegetables as traditionally prepared in Asia” (which is also an agent categorized as Group 2B by the IARC organization).  With mounting evidence that RF radiation is definitely carcinogenic and the fact that exposure to our population is increasing at an exponential rate from a variety of RF sources, the potential consequences are catastrophic.  Because of the potential long-term ramifications, prudent avoidance measures should be implemented immediately by all governments, corporations, schools, and individuals.
Furthermore, this blog posting has yet only highlighted the recent developments in establishing the carcinogenic nature of RF radiation.  Evidence continues to also mount for other adverse biological effects as well, such as those described by Magda Havas in another recent article published in November 2013, entitled “Radiation from Wireless Technology Affects the Blood, the Heart, and the Autonomic Nervous System.” [3]
RF Health Hazard ImageThe Havas article describes how radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system.  Certainly to some individuals, these adverse effects represent a much more imminent threat than do the more long-term carcinogenic effects.  According to Havas:
“Exposure to electrosmog generated by electric, electronic, and wireless technology is accelerating to the point that a portion of the population is experiencing adverse reactions when they are exposed.  The symptoms of electrohypersensitivity (EHS), best described as rapid aging syndrome, experienced by adults and children resemble symptoms experienced by radar operators in the 1940s to the 1960s and are well described in the literature.”  These symptoms can include “fatigue, sleep disturbance, headaches, feeling of discomfort, difficulty concentrating, depression, memory loss, visual disruptions, irritability, hearing disruptions, skin problems, cardiovascular problems, dizziness, loss of appetite, movement difficulties, and nausea.”
The final statements in the Havas article are:
“If we do nothing about guidelines and … fail to regulate the technology in a way that minimizes microwave exposure, then many more people are likely to become ill and some will die.  [See figure below.]
If we choose to minimize exposure by establishing biologically based guidelines rather than the current thermal guidelines, by encouraging wired Internet access in schools, universities, hospitals, workplaces, and homes, by installing wired smart meters, and by establishing RF-free zones for those who are highly sensitive, then we can reverse much of the damage that has been inflicted.  [See figure below.]
The choice is ours, and the real question is, ‘Do we have the foresight and courage to make the right decision or will we require a health tsunami before we act?’”
Havas Article Figure 7
[1] “Swedish Review Strengthens Grounds for Concluding That Radiation from Cellular and Cordless Phones Is a Probable Human Carcinogen;” Devra Lee Davis, Santosh Kesari, Colin L. Soskolne, Anthony B. Miller, Yael Stein; Pathophysiology – April 2013 (Vol. 20, Issue 2), Pages 123-129,
[2] “Using the Hill Viewpoints from 1965 for Evaluating Strengths of Evidence of the Risk for Brain Tumors Associated with Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones,” Hardell and Carlberg, Reviews on Environmental Health, Volume 28 (November 2013), Issue 2-3, Pages 97–106,
[3] “Radiation from Wireless Technology Affects the Blood, the Heart, and the Autonomic Nervous System,” Magda Havas, Reviews on Environmental Health, Volume 28 (November 2013), Issue 2-3, Pages 75–84,
A PDF “reprint” version of this blog posting is available at:

Wednesday, 4 December 2013

The Royal Society of Canada is reviewing Health Canada's Exposure Standards - Safety Code 6

The Royal Society of Canada is in the process of reviewing Health Canada’s exposure standards (Safety Code 6) in relation to radio frequency radiation emitted by cell towers and all wireless technologies to determine if new safety standards are needed.

Currently standards do not recognize biological effects and only protect against acute thermal (heating) effects on the human body. Considering Canada’s exposure standards are amongst the laxest in the world, many would affirm change is desperately needed. These standards have remained essentially the same for several decades despite the fact use of wireless technologies has skyrocketed during that same time.

Rodney Palmer, a parent from Simcoe, Ontario, shared his son’s personal story and ill symptoms experienced when Wi-Fi was installed in their school and went on to share to the panel alarming information re other children in the school district who suffered cardiac arrest after the installation of commercial Wi-Fi networks in their schools.  Two children ultimately died from heart failure and two others had pacemakers implanted. Several others experience palpitations, arrhythmias and other cardiac problems.

When Rodney and Dr. Magda Havas suggested that these problems could be caused by Wi-Fi (microwave radiation) in their classrooms, several parents removed their children and the problems stopped. Some children scheduled to get pacemakers no longer required one once they were removed from the Wi-Fi environment in their schools.

Rodney Palmer’s presentation (18 min) Child affected by Wi-Fi
Learn what actions school officials took after two children died in Simcoe SD from cardiac arrest

Charlene Acres presentation (8min)  Child affected by Wi-Fi

Global News: 16:9 Investigation on Wi-Fi with Carol Jarvis (14 min)
Carol interviews children in the Peel School District in Ontario who are experiencing ill effects following Wi-Fi installation in their school


Monday, 2 December 2013

Collection of Studies, Letters, Videos and News Releases that were sent to the Victoria School District over the last 2 years

iPad software licenses expire in three years, L.A. Unified says
Renewing licenses could cost $50 to $100 per iPad, about $60 million annually, despite earlier statements that the district would own the software permanently.   "At the end of three years, that content is going to disappear or we're going to be violating something by attempting to use this content?”,0,429771.story#tugs_story_display

Radiofrequency Radiation - Hidden Health and Environmental Effects by B. Blake Levitt


Parents' Information on Wi-Fi Installation in our Schools - Collection of Studies, Videos and News Releases
This is the information that was presented to the Victoria School Board over the last 2 years about the harmful effects microwave radiation has on our children in our schools.,72,3507

Saturday, 30 November 2013

Have you read your Safety Manual and Disclaimers?

     Bookmark or Follow us on Twitter !     
iPads: How Safe Are Our Children?
TheGreenGazette July-August 2013

In the past few years, iPad has become many adults’ best friend and children’s babysitter. It is used as a computer, eBook reader, camera, video/music player, word processor, communication device, drawing tool, game pad, and more.

Apple says, “Read all safety information below and operating instructions before using iPad to avoid injury.” The safety information provided with purchase is a small booklet of 3 1/4" x 5", with text so tiny it is practically illegible without magnifying glasses. As a result, most people have never read the following:

iPad contains radio transmitters and receivers. When on, iPad sends and receives radio frequency (RF) energy through its antenna. The Wi-Fi and Bluetooth® antennas are located behind the screen to the left of the Home button, and behind the Apple logo... A cellular antenna is located at the top edge of iPad Wi-Fi+3G, when oriented with the Home button at the bottom.”

When dissected a Wi-Fi+3G iPad, they discovered not three but five antennas, including the frame of the LCD screen being a giant antenna.

... to be sure that human exposure to RF energy does not exceed the FCC, IC, and European Union guidelines, always follow these instructions and precautions: Orient the device in portrait mode with the Home button at the bottom of the display, or in landscape mode with the cellular antenna (located under the black edge at the top of the device) away from your body or other objects...”

This means if you don’t handle the iPad exactly as instructed, the RF radiation can exceed governments’ limits for human exposure. Unfortunately, most parents and teachers have no idea about this, and have never communicated the manufacturer’s instructions to children who are using iPads.

The user manual recommends:you can further limit your exposure by limiting the amount of time using iPad Wi-Fi+3G in wireless mode, since time is a factor in how much exposure a person receives, and by placing more distance between your body and iPad Wi-Fi + 3G, since exposure level drops off dramatically with distance.”

RF/EMF: 2B Possible Carcinogen

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by wireless communication devices as Type 2B Possible Carcinogen to Humans. The monograph states: “The general population receives the highest exposure from transmitters close to the body... In children... deposition of RF energy may be two times higher in the brain and up to ten times higher in the bone marrow of the skull than in adult users.” The WHO report concluded that additional research is important and advised the public, particularly young adults and children, to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure.

Comparison between iPad and cellphone radiation

The published radiation level of mobile devices is called Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). An iPad on WiFi/3G has an SAR of 0.76-1.19 W/kg, compared to the SAR of an iPhone on GSM/CDMA at 0.547-1.18 W/kg. Many other cellphones have even lower SAR value than the iPhone.

Governments of some countries including Canada have issued warnings on children’s use of cellphones. With iPad’s radiation level being similar to cellphones, the same caution should be taken. Health Canada, “encourages parents to reduce children’s RF exposure... since children are typically more sensitive” and “there is currently a lack of scientific information regarding the potential health impacts of cellphones on children.”

Health Canada advises the following: Limit the length of cellphone calls; replace cellphone calls with text messages or use hands-free devices; and encourage children under the age of 18 to limit their cell phone usage.

Just as we would not put an actively transmitting cellphone against a child’s head for hours a day, we should not put an actively transmitting iPad against the reproductive organ or other parts of a child’s body for hours a day.

900 blasts of radiofrequency per hour

When the WiFi antenna in an iPad is turned on, it emits a burst of radiofrequency approximately every four seconds. That makes 900 blasts per hour in the child’s hands, on his lap, or at his face. This does not include any additional data signals resulting from uploading and downloading activities. Moreover, the blasts at four-second intervals occur even when the user is not accessing the Internet. In other words, even if a child is only using the iPad to draw or to play a game, he still receives 900 blasts an hour as long as the WiFi antenna is left on.

Between 2008 and 2011, the European Union Parliament and the Council of Europe passed multiple resolutions against the “early, ill-considered, and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves.” Many medical associations in North America and Europe have also issued public statements to warn about the serious health risks associated with using wireless devices. Among them, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine wrote:

In September 2010, the Journal of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine - Fertility and Sterility reported that only four hours of exposure to a standard laptop using WiFi caused DNA damage to human sperm.”
Multiple studies correlate radiofrequency exposure with diseases such as cancer, neurological disease, reproductive disorders, immune dysfunction, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity... Other neurological and cognitive disorders such as headaches, dizziness, tremors, decreased memory and attention, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, decreased reaction times, sleep disturbances, and visual disruptions have been reported to be statistically significant in multiple epidemiological studies with radiofrequency exposure occurring non-locally.”

With the proliferation of the wireless industry, it might not be possible to eliminate all sources of RF radiation. However, a good start is to follow the European parliaments’ advice for an exposure level called A.L.A.R.A. (as low as reasonably achievable). The following resolution was adopted by the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Council this year. While these steps were proposed for schools, they are also useful for reduction of unnecessary exposure at home:

1. to provide on/off switches to WiFi routers; 

2. to establish a protocol of use that 
    (i) WiFi routers and WiFi/3G functions of computers/laptops/tablets are to be turned on only when they are  needed for access to the Internet via the wireless network; and, 
    (ii) Bluetooth function is to be turned on only if it is needed for accessing other Bluetooth-enabled devices. 

3. to observe safety warnings and follow safety instructions in the user manual of iPad by reducing the duration of use under wireless mode and keeping the iPads away from the students’ bodies. 

Note that putting an iPad on airplane mode will initially turn off all antennas on the iPad. However, WiFi and bluetooth antennas can be re-enabled without switching off the airplane mode. Therefore, an iPad showing airplane mode “on” is not a guarantee that all the antennas are off. It is important to check the antennas separately. In addition, when the WiFi function on an iPad shows “Not Connected,” it does not mean the antenna is off. It only means the iPad is not logged onto any available wireless network. To ensure the WiFi antenna is turned off, the WiFi function must read “off.”
Differences between the iPad and an AM/FM Radio
The “radio” frequency emitted by iPad is often confused with AM/FM radio waves. The two actually differ in the following ways: (1) AM/FM radio utilizes analogue signals with a continuous waveform (see diagram below). iPad (via 3G or WiFi) emits digital signals in the form of pulsed microwave, similar to cellphone and DECT cordless phones. Pulsed microwave digital signal has sharp spikes in its waveform. (2) AM/FM radio is one-way transmission, with the listeners at the receiving end only. iPad antennas, on the other hand, work in constant two-way communication. iPad is not only a receiver but also a transmitter of pulsed microwave. The user of an iPad on wireless mode is in direct or close contact with the pulsed microwave signal at its source, which is the strongest.

Graphic adapted from EMfields.
Reference for this article: For more information on wireless radiation, its health effects and scientific basis, and video of RF measurements, please visit the following websites:,,
Solutions for living green and achieving self-sufficiency
Lisa Bland, Publisher / Editor-in-Chief:

Download this article in a flyer format:

More Health and Safety Warnings from the iPad User Manual:

Seizures, Blackouts, and Eyestrain
A small percentage of people may be susceptible to blackouts or seizures (even if they have never had one before) when exposed to flashing lights or light patterns such as when playing games or watching video. If you have experienced seizures
or blackouts or have a family history of such occurrences, you should consult a physician before playing games or watching videos on your iPad. Discontinue use of iPad and consult a physician if you experience headaches, blackouts, seizures, convulsion, eye or muscle twitching, loss of awareness, involuntary movement, or disorientation. To reduce risk of headaches, blackouts, seizures, and eyestrain, avoid prolonged use, hold iPad some distance from your eyes, use iPad in a well-lit room, and take frequent breaks.

Glass Parts
The outside cover of the iPad screen is made of glass. This glass could break if iPad is dropped on a hard surface or receives a substantial impact. If the glass chips or cracks, do not touch or attempt to remove the broken glass and stop using iPad. Glass cracked due to misuse or abuse is not covered under the warranty.

Radio Frequency Interference
Radio-frequency emissions from electronic equipment can negatively affect the operation of other electronic equipment, causing them to malfunction... the wireless transmitters and electrical circuits in iPad Wi-Fi + 3G may cause interference in other electronic equipment. Therefore, please take the following precautions:

Use of iPad may be prohibited while traveling in aircraft.
For more information about using Airplane Mode to turn off the iPad wireless transmitters, see the iPad User Guide.

Radio frequency emissions from iPad may affect electronic systems in motor vehicles. Check with the manufacturer or its representative regarding your vehicle.

The Health Industry Manufacturers Association recommends that a minimum separation of 15 cm (6 inches) be maintained between a handheld wireless phone and a pacemaker to avoid potential interference with the pacemaker.

Persons with pacemakers: Should always keep iPad more than 15 cm (6 inches) from the pacemaker when the wireless device is turned on.

If you have any reason to suspect that interference is taking place, turn iPad off
immediately (press and hold the Sleep/Wake button, and then slide the onscreen slider).

Other Medical Devices
If you use any other personal medical device, consult the device manufacturer or your physician to determine if it is adequately shielded from radio frequency emissions from iPad.

Health Care Facilities
Hospitals and health care facilities may use equipment that is particularly sensitive to external radio frequency emissions. Turn iPad off when staff or posted signs instruct you to do so.

Blasting Areas and Posted Facilities
To avoid interfering with blasting operations, turn off iPad when in a “blasting area” or in areas posted “Turn off two-way radio.” Obey all signs and instructions.

Read more:

Saturday, 23 November 2013

Presentation to the Victoria School Board - Nov 18, 2013

On November 2013 the Victoria School Board passed a motion to lift a 3 year moratorium on the installation of commercial grade Wi-Fi networks in our Elementary Schools thereby shifting the fundamental responsibility of keeping children safe, in this case from wireless microwave radiation, an established 2 B carcinogen, onto individual school staff and parents.
Continue Monitoring WiFi Documentation
That the Board of Education of School District No. 61 continues to monitor documentation from the Vancouver Island Health Authority , the Provincial Health Officer, Health Canada and the World Health Organization with regard to the use of WiFi in Schools.  Further, the WiFi Committee recommends that the Board Reviews, on an annual basis. those recommendations and receives updates on any changes.

Allow Use of WiFi in Elementary Schools
Than the Board of Education of School District No. 61 allow the use of WiFi in elementary schools subject to each school first obtaining the support of their school community.

Before the Board decides to pass a motion to lift the current moratorium on wifi installation in our Elementary Schools, thereby increasing indoor levels of microwave radiation significantly and exposing children for many hours everyday needlessly, I think its important to review what the Health Authorities, Health Canada and WHO recommend: 

1) The World Health Organization has established that radio frequency, microwave radiation does pose a threat to human health and has thus classified this type of exposure in the same risk category as lead, DDT and car exhaust, recommending that children especially (and I quote) “take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure” to all chronic sources of  RF radiation. Children are much more vulnerable to all radiation and absorb 10 times more into their bone marrow than an adult! This type of daily exposure causes cumulative damage and significantly increases the risk for developing electro hypersensitivity, neurological disorders, infertility, cancer and more.

 Would we allow our School Officials to spray the playgrounds with pesticide DDT or cover classroom walls with leaded paint or allow idling car exhaust to waft in all day through a window for our children to breath in?  So it begs the question: on what evidence or recommendations do school officials assert MWR emissions from wireless technologies at any level is safe for children?

Often we hear a Wi-Fi router emits only a small amount of MWR, much less then a cell phone for instance; however, one must keep in mind that combining several commercial Wi-Fi routers with a classroom full of iPads, each with 5 transmitters all emitting microwave radiation simultaneously, is many times stronger than a cell phone.  If prolonged use of cell phones has been linked to brain cancer, shouldn’t we also be concerned about powerful ipads, often used for longer periods and held against children’s reproductive organs and other vital organs? Should parents have the right to utilize safer modes of connecting to the internet or should officials be able to deny this and decide for them?

2) Health Canada states “The department also encourages parents to reduce their children’s RF exposure from cell phones since children are typically more sensitive to a variety of environmental agents.  As well, there is currently a lack of scientific information regarding the potential health impacts of cell phones on children.” This suggests Health Canada is concerned about children’s close proximity and prolonged exposure to RF radiation and that parents should take precautionary measures to reduce risk. How is allowing the proliferation of RF/MWR devices and routers into schools heeding recommendations set out by the WHO and Health Canada?   In fact it is proceeding contrary to warnings and increasing children’s risk significantly.

3) Dr Kendall’s recommendation if there is a concern re Wi-Fi in schools, as per letter to the Ministry of Education in 2010, is to:
·      Limit WiFi use to certain times or locations within the school
·      Turn off Wifi when not in use
·      Disconnect wifi in rooms that do not use computers
·      Ensure user manuals for smart-phones and smart tablets are read and recommendations are followed.

Apple states: Read all safety information below and operating instructions before using iPad to avoid injury.

Has the Board offered any of these prudent measures to reduce exposure for children? No, they have not. Has the Board distributed the Safety Manuals and Disclaimers of iPads and other wireless devices to be used in the educational setting to parents? No, they have not. Simply parents have never been informed of the risks nor provided their written consent. 

Dr. Perry Kendall and Dr Stanwick are not scientists or medical experts on the biological effects of microwave radiation on the human body.  Dr Kendall continues to state there’s no known harmful effects on children, yet the BC Center for Disease Control recently cautioned in their 400 page report on RF/EMR that their findings are consistent with many international experts who continue to warn that prolonged exposure to low levels of microwave radio frequency radiation from wireless devices that include wi-fi, ipads, cell phones, cordless phones and smart meters, can lead to serious health effects such as infertility and cancer, children especially at risk 

BC Centre for Disease Control Report – July 2013,2,3245 

BC Chief Medical Officer Dr. Perry Kendall's Letter on Wi-Fi for Schools:  Erroneous Representation of Radiation Data
We all want our children to have the best education possible and that includes technology, but not at the expense of their health and well-being. 

Does the Board have the right to decide critical health questions for parents? Does the Board have the right to exclude children made ill by Wi-Fi? Wi-Fi in all schools equates to mandatory microwave radiation exposure for every child and robs parents of this right to decide what level of risk if acceptable for their children.  At a minimum, there needs to be choice with some schools remaining hardwire. Using existing hard wired internet does not classify as undue hardship, contrary to what some might say, however, having an inoperable brain tumour or leukemia most certainly is. 

The Board states they will follow recommendations from Health Canada, WHO, Dr. Kendall and the BC Center for Disease Control and yet they have not. And if the Board proceeds with Wi-Fi in all schools and deprives parents the ability to heed health warnings and mitigate risk for their children, they should know they will be held accountable for irreversible harm to our children in the future. 

Please decide on the basis of what’s safest for children and not based upon popular vote and industry propaganda.

Janis Hoffmann

Sunday, 17 November 2013

I NEED YOUR SUPPORT- Monday Night 7:30 Victoria School Board, 556 Boleskine Rd

Please send out to any parents you know in the Victoria School District - Thank you

I realize this is last minute but the Victoria School District is going to pass a motion on Monday night at 7:30 to approve the installation of WiFi  for all Elementary Schools based on the VCPAC's recommendation of 20 parent school representatives.  I have sent you the VSD motions, the recommendations of the VCPAC, and the presentation I did last week on the results of the WiFi Survey. 

I am on the agenda Monday night to make another presentation and I plan on presenting the Victoria School Board with my grandsons story on how sick he becomes after being exposed to microwave radiation for long periods of time during school.  I am also going to present the board with my NON-CONSENT letter to let them know that I do not consent to having my grandson being exposed 6 hours a day 5 days a week

What you can do  - come to the meeting and show your support
                            - and/or send me your story on why you don't want your child exposed to microwave radiation (it can just be a couple of lines)
                            - and/or send me your NON-CONSENT letter to give to the board

My plan is to have everyone at the end of my presentation hand the board members a copy their stories or/and their non-consent letter.  If you are unable to attend I can find someone to present your story and/or non consent letter for you.  This is going to be our last chance to really show them that we are not happy about the installation of wifi routers in our schools when the BCCPAC, the GVTA and the BCTF all agree that we must protect our children and staff until we know for sure that there is no irreversible damage to children.  We must insist on existing hard wire for all our new technology.

Hope to hear from you
Janis Hoffmann

NOTE:  (I can make copies if you email me or  phone me first if you would like to fax me a copy of your letter or non-consent letter)

One in four parents, 25%, are concerned about the Health Risks from WiFi in Schools

Wi-Fi Non-Consent Form for Use in Schools,45,44

VCPAC recommendations to the Board

We recommend to the Greater Victoria Board of Education:
  • that WiFi installation be permitted in all schools.
  • that each school, prior to installation, must obtain the support of their school
    community (suggest using Selective Consultation – Policy 1163).
  • that the District monitors WiFi research and respond accordingly and promptly.
  • that the District maintains the most current technology designed to reduce overall radio
    frequency and microwave radiation emissions.
  • that schools respond to any environmental sensitivities reported by students

Victoria School Board Motions to Pass on Monday Night

Continue Monitoring WiFi Documentation
That the Board of Education of School District No. 61 continues to monitor documentation from the Vancouver Island Health Authority , the Provincial Health Officer, Health Canada and the World Health Organization with regard to the use of WiFi in Schools.  Further, the WiFi Committee recommends that the Board Reviews, on an annual basis. those recommendations and receives updates on any changes.

Allow Use of WiFi in Elementary Schools
Than the Board of Education of School District No. 61 allow the use of WiFi in elementary schools subject to each school first obtaining the support of their school community