Safe Tech for Schools MCPS - Wireless Internet in Schools
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Big Deal, they introduced best practices, device on table and 12 inches away, which makes sense for vision and safety of the device. Turning off wi fi when not in use, that would be when everyone has gone home. Why do you not respond with real data? where is your proof that the wifi is 200 times stronger. What is your unit of measurement? |
Anonymous
|
Dr Hardell was not taken seriously when he raised issues with Agent Orange . Read it hre. There were hired guns doing what you do- creating doubt that the science was valid.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/dec/08/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth |
Anonymous
|
Reasd about the 20 countries taking precautions here
oops- there are actually more than 20 http://www.parentsforsafetechnology.org/worldwide-countries-taking-action.html Cyprus was the most recent Cyprus October 2015, The Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Child Health (ECH) announced it wants "to err on the side of caution", warning the public that using mobile devices could be potentially harmful to children. Stella Michaelidou, President of the ECH, states that society should respond by taking precautions because “Documentation of other potential and more serious biological side effects are on the tip of an emerging iceberg.” This stance was documented in a recent news article that quotes Michaelidou stating that “multiple and frequent exposure to this kind of radiation, which falls below the acceptable levels of thermal effects, pose a health risk to a developing embryo.” and children who use their mobile phone more frequently face a higher risk at having a weaker memory, attention deficit disorder, and similar issues.? |
Anonymous
Agent Orange is not wi-fi or in any way comparable. The cancer causing effects of the dioxin contained within Agent Orange were scientifically proven and validated by numerous studies in the 80's. Veterans increased cancer rates and other detrimental health effects along with birth defects of children born to veterans were medically verified. Hardell was not a lone voice in the wilderness, the US scientific community long held that Agent Orange caused egregious health issues and had proof. Where are your scientific studies? What scientific validation do you have to denotes this is the "tip of the iceberg"? |
Anonymous
MCPS students will be the experiment. Thanks parents for sacrificing your children for future generations. |
Anonymous
You are just weird.  and honestly just not that intelligent.
|
Anonymous
|
Where are the studies?
Read the blog- they are detailed in full. If you cannot take the time to read the research presented.. then please do not say "where are the studies". FYI- I am not the only person posting here. Lots of parents seem interested in this. Glad to see it! http://safetechforschoolsmaryland.blogspot.com |
Anonymous
|
Trolls resort to attacking character when they cannot counter the facts.
Please read the research and expert opinions. What does the World Health Organization state about wireless ? You can find links to the hundreds of pages of research hat has been done. Read it here http://safetechforschoolsmaryland.blogspot.com/2015/10/ten-facts-about-what-world-health.html |
Anonymous
Can you please give a specific citation supporting the allegation that wifi in schools is 200 time stronger than that used in a home? This has been requested a couple of times and has either elicited non-responses like this one or links to an entire website. Could you please point to something specific about this? |
Anonymous
|
I do not know about that but I do know the Access points at MCPS can accommodate 200 devices ---each one. that is pretty intense. Just call Aerohive and ask them.
it fits my bill for industrial-strength if it can deal with 200 devices. To me, it does not matter if it is 10 or 200 times as strong ... the fact is that these access points are mounted directly above the children's heads. Here is a nice research paper for you to take a look at: Misa-Agustiño et al. EMF radiation at 2450 MHz (Wi-Fi) triggers changes in the morphology and expression of heat shock proteins and glucocorticoid receptors in rat thymus. Life Sciences.vol. 127:1-11. April 15, 2015. In this study, we analyzed cellular stress levels in rat thymus after exposure of the rats to a 2.45 GHz radio frequency using an experimental diathermic model in a GTEM chamber. This study describes for the first time changes in the morphology, levels of cellular stress proteins Hsp90 and 70 and glucocorticoid receptors in the rat thymus exposed to a maximum interaction of 2.45 GHz radio frequency to the left leg of the animal in a GTEM chamber. Significance Our results indicate that non-ionizing sub-thermal radiation causes changes in the endothelial permeability and vascularization of the thymus, and is a tissue-modulating agent for Hsp90 and GR. The increase of glucocorticoid receptors in the cortical thymocytes indicates that radiation constitutes a stimulus for immune response. and this.. Megha K, Deshmukh PS, Ravi AK, Tripathi AK, Abegaonkar MP, Banerjee BD. Effect of Low-Intensity Microwave Radiation on Monoamine Neurotransmitters and Their Key Regulating Enzymes in Rat Brain. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2015 Feb 12. The first important finding of our study demonstrated that low-intensity microwave radiation exposure at 900 and 1800 MHz for 30 days induced significant reduction in levels of monoamine neurotransmitters (DA, NE, E and 5-HT) in hippocampus of experimental animals, substantiating that low-intensity microwave radiation might alter synthesis of these neurotransmitters, thereby leading to their reduced levels in brain. Since these biogenic amines play important role in learning and memory functions, the reduction in their levels can be strongly associated with learning and memory disturbances... Overall, the results of present study indicate that exposure to low-intensity microwave radiation induces alterations in brain monoamine neurotransmitters (play role in learning and memory functions) at mRNA and protein levels which might be the possible cause of cognitive dysfunction. |
Anonymous
|
Plus Insurance Companies will not cover this AT ALL. The risk is too high.
Swiss Re Report (2013) “Over the last decade, the spread of wireless devices has accelerated enormously. … This development has increased exposure … If a direct link [to health effects] … were established, it would open doors for new claims and could ultimately lead to large losses ...” Unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields (Swiss Re 2013) Overall potential impact: High Time Frame: >10 Years. Exclusion of Coverage for Illness from Long Term Exposure Lloyd’s of London is one of the largest insurers in the world and often leads the way in protection, taking on risks that no one else will. The recent renewal policy -as of Feb. 7, 2015- excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In response to a parent's request for clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Read the Endorsement Change sent out by the Maxum Indemnity Company. Read it all here http://www.parentsforsafetechnology.org/legal-liability-issues-with-wireless.html |
Anonymous
| Wasn't this lunatic psychologist banned from dcum months a go |
Anonymous
| I also requested some information from the office of technology about wi-fi in MCPS but they REFUSE TO PUT ANYTHING IN WRITING. |
Anonymous
I heard tin foil hats deflect the signal |
Anonymous
You understand nothing about EMF or RF.
It does not matter what "fits your bill for industrial strength" based on how many devices can connect. Your personal hysteria doesn't allow you to amplify the magnitude by a factor of 200. I just checked out my home router can handle 155 devices, it's an off the shelf Linksys router. Theoretically a wifi device could handle 255 devices, this is based on i.p. address limitations. More devices do not equal more power or RF. It does not matter if it is mounted above their heads, speaking on a cell phone would expose a child to more EMF, and that has been studied and found not to be causal. The studies you cite.... I found the first one at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25731700, I also found the wi-fi scare site that you cut and pasted it from, they also did not have a link, I had to find it on my own. In this experiment, we used H&E staining, the ELISA test and immunohistochemistry to examine Hsp70 and Hsp90 expression in the thymus and glucocorticoid receptors (GR) of 64 female Sprague–Dawley rats exposed individually to 2.45 GHz (at 0, 1.5, 3.0 or 12.0 W power). The 1 g averaged peak and mean SAR values in the thymus and whole body of each rat to ensure that sub-thermal levels of radiation were being reached. Levels of Hsp90 decreased in the thymus when animals were exposed to the highest power level (12 W) Rats are placed in a special GTEM chamber and bombarded with high powered (12W) RF, the maximum wattage for wi-fi RF allowed by the FCC is 1 watt. Study is not applicable to this discussion at all. The second study --- seriously, it clearly states MICROWAVE!!!! Do you not know that RF and Microwave are different? It is clear you don't understand RF, and honestly there is no reason why a layperson should. You need reference something like the article I posted below, WHO convened a panel of international experts who examined over 120 studies, while it is still very technical you should be able to understand the abstract and summary. The World Health Organization convened an expert workshop to discuss the current state of cellular-telephone health issues, and this article brings together several of the key points that were addressed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1849947/ Summary on RF health effects The accumulated evidence does not establish the existence of adverse short- or long-term health effects from the signals produced by base station and local wireless networks. In fact, for similar RF exposure intensities (watts per square meter), the body absorbs about 5 times more of the RF energy from FM radio and television frequencies (around 100 MHz) than from base station frequencies (around 1–2 GHz). It is reassuring to note that radio and TV broadcast stations have been in operation for > 50 years, and health statistics have not demonstrated adverse health consequences. Stick to what is really important, like the fact that MCPS has a crap curriculum and our children's education is being compromised EVERY day. |