Chromebooks in School and Your Child: Why the Rollout without Considering the Health Risk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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."

Anonymous wrote: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.

Looks to me like we have an industry guy on this site trying to mislead the public. oops


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. "

3. The authors were aware that other characteristics of the exposure such as modulation frequency and peak intensity may pose a risk to health.

I could not locate this specific statement, in fact the term "peak intensity" was not used anywhere in the document.

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.

Once again, "5-fold" was not located in the document, nor was any reference to general public versus electrical worker SAR rate.

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

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]

the Industry guy quoted above is getting in a bot above his head. The details are there in full in the documents themselves. Try reading. Links were provided to you. I cant help it if you cannot take the time to read.


For example per the ANSI document please note

'No medical organizations were included (beyond the military) nor any public health agency. Please note these Members of the Committee (a partial listing) which reviewed and approved this standard. (pdf page 6) :
American Petroleum Institute
DoD (Defense Nuclear Agency)
International Microwave Power Institute
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
US Department of Commerce
US Department of the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine
US Department of the Air Force Office of the Surgeon General
US Department of the Army, Army Material Command’
US Department of the Army, Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
US Department of the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
US Department of the Navy, Naval Sea System Command;


No Medical Organization WHATSOEVER

[Anonymous]

NOTE THIS: They knew calcium efflux was an issue.

The authors were aware 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. Nevertheless, they felt obligated to report that there were effects. This is extraordinarily important.

FROM THE DOCUMENT OUR STANDARDS ARE BASED ON “In addition, modulation-specific effects, such as efflux of calcium ions from brain materials were not considered adverse because of the inability of the subcommittee's members to relate them to human health. The narrow ranges of power density and the low and narrow range of modulation frequencies associated with field-induced efflux of calcium ions, and the authors' findings that the phenomenon is reversible, are factors that entered into the subcommittee's deliberations.” (Page 13, column 2)

Think we figured out that guy doing all the name calling was an industry trool that just got a bit riled up.

[Anonymous]

NO SCIENCE?
This stuff could damage the girls uterus?

Yüksel M, Naz?ro?lu M, Özkaya MO. Long-term exposure to electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones and Wi-Fi devices decreases plasma prolactin, progesterone, and estrogen levels but increases uterine oxidative stress in pregnant rats and their offspring. Endocrine. 2015 Nov 14. [Epub ahead of print]

We investigated the effects of mobile phone (900 and 1800 MHz)- and Wi-Fi (2450 MHz)-induced electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure on uterine oxidative stress and plasma hormone levels in pregnant rats and their offspring.

In conclusion, although EMR exposure decreased the prolactin, estrogen, and progesterone levels in the plasma of maternal rats and their offspring, EMR-induced oxidative stress in the uteri of maternal rats increased during the development of offspring.

Mobile phone- and Wi-Fi-induced EMR may be one cause of increased oxidative uterine injury in growing rats and decreased hormone levels in maternal rats. TRPV1 cation channels are the possible molecular pathways responsible for changes in the hormone, oxidative stress, and body temperature levels in the uterus of maternal rats following a year-long exposure to electromagnetic radiation exposure from mobile phones and Wi-Fi devices.

[Anonymous]

Read the science in full here
http://safetechforschoolsmaryland.blogspot.com/2015/11/read-evidence-that-industrial-strength.html

[Anonymous]

"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? "

My point exactly, the standards were developed BEFORE people were even using cell phones.
THEY WERE DEVELOPED FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS
Read the Documents and spend some time educating yourself.. yup- it was a slight change in the scheme of things.

Here check out a whistle blower speaking.. Mr. Barrie Trower, a British physicist who was a microwave weapons expert and who worked for the Royal Navy and the British Secret Service, talks about the health effects of WiFi and other forms of microwave radiation.

[Anonymous]

'No medical organizations were included (beyond the military) nor any public health agency. Please note these Members of the Committee (a partial listing) which reviewed and approved this standard. (pdf page 6) :
American Petroleum Institute
DoD (Defense Nuclear Agency)
International Microwave Power Institute
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
US Department of Commerce
US Department of the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine
US Department of the Air Force Office of the Surgeon General
US Department of the Army, Army Material Command’
US Department of the Army, Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
US Department of the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
US Department of the Navy, Naval Sea System Command;

You went back to the 1982 document to pull this list out. Try to wrap your brain around, his the military would have been heavily involved in creating the standard because they had soldiers, sailors and airmen in occupations that were exposed to RF, and RF much stronger than wireless routers. What exactly do you think the Air Force Surgeon General, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, and the Army Hygiene Agency are responsible for?

Did you know for an MD to obtain a speciality in Aerospace Medicine they have to have an MPH (Master's in Public Heath), prior to their Aerospace Medicine Residency?

I understand where research comes from, in this era (which was 33 years ago) occupational medicine would have driven the research, that is why the American Industrial Hygiene Association, Health Physics Society, EPA and the National Council for Radiation Protection and other agencies (also listed in the document) were been involved. Does it not make sense to you that so many agencies are involved in creating and reviewing standards so that one rogue agency does not try to hide or improperly influence the results?

You bandy about the "military" like it is a secret organization bent on hiding RF from the American Public. Do you not realize that they have their own research branches, medical departments, occupational training programs, track health issues, provide medical care and have a genuine mission and passion to protect the health of their own? I am having a difficult time understanding where you see the conspiracy here or can't see what is blatantly obvious. I don't mean this as an insult, you should really consider talking to a mental health provider about your paranoia.

FROM THE DOCUMENT OUR STANDARDS ARE BASED ON “In addition, modulation-specific effects, such as efflux of calcium ions from brain materials were not considered adverse because of the inability of the subcommittee's members to relate them to human health. The narrow ranges of power density and the low and narrow range of modulation frequencies associated with field-induced efflux of calcium ions, and the authors' findings that the phenomenon is reversible, are factors that entered into the subcommittee's deliberations.” (Page 13, column 2)

Once again, you cherry picked something out of the 1982 standard to try to make your point. There was additional research carried out and this was extensively reviewed and explained in the 1991 standard (and I also cut and pasted the conclusion in a previous post).

Looks to me like we have an industry guy on this site trying to mislead the public. oops

the Industry guy quoted above is getting in a bot above his head.

Think we figured out that guy doing all the name calling was an industry trool that just got a bit riled up.

I am not an "Industry guy", I don't work in the "Industry" nor do I have any connection to any industry involved in cell phones or wireless appliances and I am a woman.

Just because I wrote that I attending engineering college you should not unfairly gender stereotype me as being a man. You are bullying me!!!

Actually I could care less if you call me a "guy", or that you wish a "bot" over my head, although I do wonder what a person of your limited technical expertise sees as a "bot"? Is it one of those giant, metal 80's robots (that seems to be your favorite decade) from the old sci-fi movies? Wait a minute, you are a spambot, maybe you want to hang over my head to expand your abilities from cutting and pasting repetitively to learn how to read a scientific document.

The details are there in full in the documents themselves. Try reading. Links were provided to you. I cant help it if you cannot take the time to read.

I think it's obvious that I have read the documents, and equally obvious that you can't objectively read or understand them due to your desire to find conspiracy. There is no shame in admitting you need help, seriously consider talking to someone.

[Anonymous]

[quote There is no shame in admitting I need help, I am seriously consider talking to someone.

Here is a link to your employers website of resources:
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/eap/links.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quote There is no shame in admitting I need help, I am seriously consider talking to someone.

Here is a link to your employers website of resources:
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/eap/links.aspx

+1

This is an excellent resource and it's confidential. Please make the call.

[Anonymous]

Wow this is 9 pages of serious Fox News level conspiracy theories. Impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow this is 9 pages of serious Fox News level conspiracy theories. Impressive.

Yea...some nut job is off her meds. Instead of having an actual discussion all they are doing is copy pasting random stuff from online and responding to themselves. Hopefully Jeff locks the thread eventually, doesn't look like anyone else is participating. I think he/she just keeps posting stuff periodically to bring the thread back under "recent topics".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow this is 9 pages of serious Fox News level conspiracy theories. Impressive.

I am off my meds. I just keep posting stuff periodically to bring the thread back under "recent topics".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow this is 9 pages of serious Fox News level conspiracy theories. Impressive.

Yea...some nut job is off her meds. Instead of having an actual discussion all they are doing is copy pasting random stuff from online and responding to themselves. Hopefully Jeff locks the thread eventually, doesn't look like anyone else is participating. I think he/she just keeps posting stuff periodically to bring the thread back under "recent topics".

I feel kinda sorry for her. Bipolar runs in my family. My cousin goes off her meds and does this on FB with alkaline water. Finally, she goes entirely manic and ends up in her underwear (or less) at her favorite truck stop in rural central PA. She's hospitalized for a while, gets out, and has no idea why she suddenly has no FB friends except for family and her baby daddy.

[Anonymous]

Bipolar runs in my family.

Your employer has many resources for you.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/eap/topics/depression.aspx

[jsteele]

This thread is off the chain. Time to put it out of my misery.