Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
Chromebooks in School and Your Child: Why the Rollout without Considering the Health Risk
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
LOL is right.
This is not about a conspiracy theory. Its about companies maintaining their bottom line. Companies protect their assets. As Blackberry Says.... BlackBerry Limited US SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FORM 40-F Annual Report For the fiscal year ended February 28, 2015 “Risk Factors: Although the Company’s products and solutions are designed to meet relevant safety standards and recommendations globally, when used as directed, any perceived risk of adverse health effects of wireless communication devices could materially adversely affect the Company…” ‘...there can be no assurance that future studies, irrespective of their scientific basis, will not suggest a link between electromagnetic fields from mobile devices and adverse health effects.” ‘Other users of mobile devices with multimedia functions, such as MP3 players, have claimed that the use of such products has contributed to or resulted in hearing loss or other adverse health effects.” http://us.blackberry.com/content/dam/bbCompany/Desktop/Global/PDF/Investors/Governance/Annual_Information_Form_Fiscal_2014.pdf NO ASSURANCES they say... Why doesn't MCPS Warn their investors? |
Anonymous
|
One more..
“If radio frequency emissions from wireless handsets or equipment on our wireless infrastructure are demonstrated to cause negative health effects, potential future claims could adversely affect our operations, costs or revenues. We cannot guarantee that claims relating to radio frequency emissions will not arise in the future or that the results of such studies will not be adverse to us. If a connection between radio frequency emissions and possible negative health effects were established, our operations, costs, or revenues may be materially and adversely affected. We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.” CROWN CASTLE INTERNATIONAL CORP. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FORM 10-K For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 |
Anonymous
| They are not insured because no insurance company will insure them. The risk is too high. The companies business insurance specifically exempts lawsuits related to long term exposure to wireless. High Risk. |
Anonymous
|
What a ridiculous thread by someone who doesn't know what harmful radiation is.
Ridiculous. |
Anonymous
|
According the California Medical Association, peer reviewed research shows adverse biological effects from wireless non-ioinizing RF-EMF radiation including "DNA breaks, creation of reactive oxygen species, immune dysfunction, cognitive processing effects, stress protein synthesis in the brain, altered brain development, sleep and memory disturbances, ADHD, abnormal behavior, sperm dysfunction, and brain tumors".
Non-ionizing radiation is not as safe as you think it is. It works by causing a cascade of biological effects that lead to damaged DNA. You can read the US government documents that themselves show an awareness of this reality. http://www.parentsforsafetechnology.org/us-government-reports-show-harm.html |
Anonymous
|
Read the Documents from the US ANSI and IEEE Standards (This is what our USA wireless radiation limits are based on) themselves are you will see:
1. The authors understood that the mean (average) SAR value ignored “hotspots” which can be many-fold higher than the mean SAR. 2. The authors were aware of the existence of “modulation-specific effects, such as efflux of calcium ions” (resulting in harmful effects on cells), but because the authors were mostly military and/or associated with corporations with a vested interest in promoting microwave radiation, they chose, in effect, to ignore these results. 3. The authors were aware that other characteristics of the exposure such as modulation frequency and peak intensity may pose a risk to health. 4. There is no 5-fold “safety level” for the general public.With the IEEE Standards, the general public’s exposure was reduced 5-fold compared to electrical workers. However, the allowed averaging time was increased 5-fold for the general public compared to electrical workers and the end result was that the the total allowed absorbed radiation is identical. In effect this change negates the so-called 5-fold “safety level” for the general public. Read it here IEEE C95.1-1991 Exposure-Limit Standard http://emfguide.itu.int/pdfs/C95.1-2005.pdf and what these were based on- and slightly changed from ANSI C95.1-1982 Exposure-Limit Standard http://www.dicom.unican.es/espanol/Radiaciones-docs/Ansi.pdf and here |
Anonymous
|
In english, the above shows that our government standards are not protective.
A: Free radicals damage DNA B: Non-ionizing radiation can create free radicals. C: Therefore, non-ionizing radiation can damage DNA DAMAGED DNA CAN LEAD TO CANCER. |
Anonymous
| He/she is still going?...instead of trying to promote your cause on DCUM maybe you should create a website and start an actual grassroots movement. That way you can promote actual change instead of blowing hot air. |
Anonymous
Being alive leads to cancer. |
Anonymous
| Everyone should be writing the BOE and all their elected officials. Have you? |
Anonymous
|
Being alive did not use to lead to cancer.
Cancer - like brain tumors among children FYI - and leukemia- is on the rise in this country and if you are sick- you generally wish you did not have it. Prevention just makes sense. |
Anonymous
This thread has had tons of back-and-forth with proponents of the perceived risk putting up links to videos of purported exports, most of whom are NOT PHD RESEARCH SCIENTISTS but instead include a lobbyist, a sociologist, a concerned parent, etc. -- and then other people rebutting with their own facts. It's really easy to pull up any single anecdote, expert, or piece of research to support either side. Climate change deniers have been doing an excellent job of this for years, convincing many people that there isn't anthropogenic climate change when the majority of studies and majority of scientists say that there is. So I propose cutting to the chase. To the advocates for removing wi-fi in schools: I reject the proposition that we should do this "just in case". Most evidence in large studies does not show that there is a definitive link between low-level RF and any health outcome. The best that people can say -- and this is true -- is that more and better studies are needed. You're advocating that until we have PROVEN a health impact we should not have wi-fi in schools. This is a claim that since we don't have perfect information, we should do nothing. I say that given that we do have information, and that most of it points in the direction of there being no health risk, we should make an informed decision not to require schools to remove wi-fi. Parents can always opt out of schools with wi-fi if they want. If you get your way, parents can't easily opt-in to having wi-fi in schools. This is analogous to the situation 30 years ago with power lines and leukemia, and it's a good thing we didn't have fear mongers getting their way and having lots of power lines taken down. Further, I reject the proposition that removing routers will achieve anything at all. The idea of eliminating wi-fi routers in MCPS schools is just ludicrous. Sure, let's say there are 80 routers spewing out 100mW at Churchill -- so there's 8W of RF radiation infusing the school from the routers. Churchill has about 2000 students and about that many cell phones. Cell phone transmit power is 500mW. They operate in the same frequency bands as routers. That's 1000W of RF power. If only 1% of the students have them on, the cell phone RF dominates over the router RF. And they're probably a lot closer. Sure, go ahead, ban the routers. It won't make a difference unless you get the schools to follow students around with RF detectors and turn off every cell phone there. Good luck with that. Oh, and please don't go back into this thing that 'routers serve 200 terminals and so they're more powerful than at home'. They're not. Read the manuals before you make stuff up, or be more selective about which things you read online. Part of having an educated debate about a topic should involve becoming educated about it, which does not mean repeatedly posting material found on an advocacy site. |
Anonymous
|
Read the manuals
You got the manuals? Cough them up! |
Anonymous
page 100 - "During both experimental and clinical MRI procedures, part of the body (e.g., knee, head, or trunk) is often exposed to complex electromagnetic fields including RF fields. Shellock [R184] investigated the possibility that high RF 'hot spots' may generate thermal “hot spots.” During MRI, RF energy is mainly absorbed by peripheral tissues allowing the use of thermography to record patterns of skin heating. The study found no evidence for thermal “hot spots” on the dorsal skin of human subjects undergoing 45-min MRI scans at a WBA SAR of 3.2 W/kg. Instead there appeared to be a smearing effect of the temperature as the thermal load was distributed across the skin surface. Several studies have involved MRI procedures of the head, brain, and cornea through use of a send/receive head coil at local SARs as high as 3.1 W/kg, and imaging of the spine, abdomen, or scrotum through use of a body coil at local SARs of up to 4.0 W/kg (Shellock and Crues [B117]) (Shellock et al. [B118], [B119], [B120], [R182], [R183]) (Shellock [R184]). In general, localized temperature increases, including that of the cornea, were modest and not deleterious."
My comment: Unless the IEEE has drastically changed since I was in engineering college, there is no military involvement . It's primarily composed of egghead professors and researchers. pages 62-64 - Section B.6.7 Calcium studies and neuron conduction This section analyzes in detail the calcium studies, the conclusion is - "Several reports that have reviewed the calcium efflux effects literature support the conclusion that, notwithstanding unresolved research questions, calcium effects from exposure to low-level amplitude modulated RF fields cannot be used in setting RF exposure standards. In its review, a UNEP/WHO/IRPA [B129] report concluded that the original observation was not sufficiently well defined, and could not be characterized as a potential adverse health effect. An NRPB report [B104] observed that if the phenomenon of calcium efflux were biologically significant, concomitant changes would be expected in the functions of nervous tissues that depend on the movement of calcium ions. No such functional alterations have been demonstrated unambiguously; the report included the statement that there was no strong reason to believe that 16-Hz modulation has special effects. A more recent NRPB review [B105] did not mention effects of amplitude modulated RF fields on calcium efflux. "
I could not locate this specific statement, in fact the term "peak intensity" was not used anywhere in the document.
Once again, "5-fold" was not located in the document, nor was any reference to general public versus electrical worker SAR rate.
Seriously??? The ANSI C95.1-1982 was approved in 1982. I don't even know if cell phones were widely available to the public in 1982, and you call the 1991 document a slight change? Really? It's obvious someone, once again, cut and pasted from another scare site. There is no science to back up the claims that wireless RF poses ANY health risk. It's scientifically criminal to erroneously cite a document and present such false conclusions. If you do not have the capability to analyze and interpret a complex IEEE standard, then don't cut and paste such blatantly false information. |
Anonymous
|
Read the manual here.
Chromebook instruction manual The FCC has set a general guideline of 20 cm (8 inches) separation between the device and the body, for use of a wireless device near the body (this does not include extremities). This device should be used more than 20 cm (8 inches) from the body when wireless devices are on. While installing and operating this transmitter and antenna combination the radio frequency exposure limit of 1mW/cm2 may be exceeded at distances close to the antenna installed. Therefore, the user must maintain a minimum distance of 20cm from the antenna at all times. This device can not be colocated with another transmitter and transmitting antenna. Do not hold any component containing the radio such that the antenna is very close or touching any exposed parts of the body, especially the face or eyes, while transmitting http://www.manualshelf.com/compare/samsung/chromebook-xe303c12-notebook-xe303c12a01us/samsung/np-rc418-s02ph |