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