Safe Schools for Prince George's County

Parents, Neighbors, and Students Against  Cell Towers on School Property

godaddy web stats
godaddy web stats
godaddy web stats


Dr. Santosh Kesari

Professor of Neurosciences , UC San Diego School of Medicine, and Director of Neuro-oncology,  Moores UCSD Cancer Center.



Dr. Sanjay Gupta

Neurosugeon, Associate Chief of the Neurosurgery Service, Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia.





Our Children Are NOT Guinea Pigs.


Our Children Do NOT Need To be Part

Of a Scientific Experiment.


Would you put your children in a CAR with such Safety Controversy?

And with FCC's  18 Year old Standards? 




Did someone say that “reputable sources say cell tower radiation is safe?” 


 The EPA does NOT say it is "safe" nor does any medical organization we know of. 

Are you Looking for Reputable Sources of Information?

This Long List will Hopefully Inform You of the Hundreds of Concerned Scientists and Doctors. 

Cell Phones and Cell Towers emit the SAME type of radiation. 

A Cell Tower on school grounds exposes children to daily constant cell phone radiation.

Even at very very low power, research shows biological effects. 

 Scientists of the World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer EMF Working Group in 2011 are stating that “SAFETY IS NOT ASSURED”.

If you click on the bold red words you will be taken to the scientific documentation and quote source. 


The American Academy of Pediatrics

"In recent years, concern has increased about exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phones and phone station antennae. An Egyptian study confirmed concerns that living nearby mobile phone base stations increased the risk for developing:

Headaches
Memory problems
Dizziness
Depression
Sleep problems

Short-term exposure to these fields in experimental studies have not always shown negative effects, but this does not rule out cumulative damage from these fields, so larger studies over longer periods are needed to help understand who is at risk. In large studies, an association has been observed between symptoms and exposure to these fields in the everyday environment."

The American Academy of Pediatrics Webpage on Healthy Kids 


“None of the radiofrequency radiation exposure guidelines take pregnant women, fetuses, and the elderly into consideration!  RF exposure limits for the general public should be lowered to protect all those more vulnerable to electromagnetic fields"

The “International EMF Scientist Appeal” asks the Secretary General and UN affiliated bodies to encourage precautionary measures, to limit EMF exposures, and to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women.

Over 200 International Scientists 
Their 2015 Appeal to U.N. to Protect Humans and Wildlife from Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology 












Dr. Jonathan Samet

“The IARC 2B classification implies an assurance of safety that cannot be offered—a particular concern, given the prospect that most of the world’s population will have lifelong exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.”

- Dr. Jonathan Samet, physician and epidemiologist, Chair of the World Health Organization’s EMF Working Group who made the Class 2 B classification. This statement is from his 2014 Commentary calling for more research. 


Dr. Anthony Miller

I am a strong advocate of the view that at this time the Precautionary Principle should be applied and that exposure to RFF should be reduced as far as possible, perhaps particularly with regard to exposure to children and in schools. The Royal Society panel has failed in it’s obligation to the public. It ignored recent evidence that wireless radiation is a probable carcinogen,” 

- Dr. Anthony Miller, Professor Emeritus of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health in his review of the Canadian Royal Society’s 2014 Safety Code 6 Review. In addition, Dr. Miller recently co-authored this peer reviewed paper.  Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen. Pathophysiology. 20(2), 123-9.


Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski,

"The evidence demonstrates that the ICNIRP safety standards are insufficient for the protection of the adult user... Based on the IARC 2011 classification of cell phone radiation as a possible human carcinogen, the authorities should implement the Precautionary Principle. The Time to Act is Now."

-Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski, International Agency for the Research on Cancer Invited Expert to Working Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation (RF fields). Lyon, France, May 2011 . He also gave expert testimony at the  US Senate hearing on “The Health Effects of Cell Phone Use”. Washington, DC, USA, September 14th, 2009. This quote is from  his 2014  article Wireless Communication and Precautionary Principle


Dr. Lennart Hardell

"Based on the Hill criteria, glioma and acoustic neuroma should be considered to be caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones and regarded as carcinogenic to humans, classifying it as group 1 according to the IARC classification. Current guidelines for exposure need to be urgently revised."

Dr. Lennart Hardell is renowned cancer epidemiologist of the  Department of Oncology, University Hospital Örebro Sweden. In addition to his significant research (see below) Dr. Hardell co-authored a Chapter in the The European Environment Agency Report “Late Lessons from Early Warnings, Volume II” 2013 Report   detailing the accumulating science on radio frequency radiation, the significant  risks of waiting and critical need to take precautionary action to reduce exposures to avoid widespread harm.


Dr. Belyaev

"There are many publications showing health effects of radiofrequency radiations. Approximately half of all published papers show such effects. This apparent discrepancy can be accounted for various conditions of exposure, because non-thermal RF effects are critically dependent on various parameters and also biological variables."

Dr. Belyaev is the Head Research Scientist at the Cancer Research Institute at the Slovak  Academy of Science in Bratislava, Slovakia. Dr. Belyaev was one of the thirty members of the IARC Working Group charged with  classifying the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation, which produced the 2013 IARC Monograph. E. Markova, L. Malmgren and I. Belyaev. Microwaves from mobile phones inhibit 53BP1 focus formation in human stem cells more strongly than in differentiated cells: possible mechanistic link to cancer risk, Environ Health Perspect 118: 394-399, 2010.I.Y. Belyaev and Y.G. Grigoriev. Problems in assessment of risks from exposures to microwaves of mobile communication, Radiats Biol Radioecol 47(6): 727-732, 2007. I. Belyaev. Non-thermal biological effects of microwaves: Current knowledge, further perspective, and urgent needs, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 24(3): 375-403, 2005


The EPA

"The FCC‘s current exposure guidelines, as well of those of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNRP), are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure situations. They are believed to protect against injury that may be caused by acute exposures that result in tissue heating or electric shock and burn…”   

Norbert Hankin of the EPA  2002 Letter on RF Regulations

“Wireless technology is still relatively new, and world-wide, researchers continue to study the effects of long-term exposure. To date, the scientific evidence linking long-term use of cell phones to cancer or other health effects is not conclusive. More research is needed to clarify the question of safety. “

-EPA Webpage on RF- Radiation.


The American Academy of Pediatrics  

(60,000 Pediatricians and Pediatric Surgeons)

"The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the United Nations’ World Health Organization, said in June 2011 that a family of frequencies that includes mobile-phone emissions is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” ...These studies and others clearly demonstrate the need for further research into this area and highlight the importance of reassessing current policy to determine if it is adequately protective of human health.”

-Dr. Thomas K. McInerny, President  of the American Academy of Pediatrics , in the AAP  Submission to the FCC on August 29, 2013 calling for more protective guidelines in the USA.

US Department of the Interior

"The electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today… Laboratory studies have raised concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation...on domestic chicken embryos- with some lethal results”

- Willie Taylor,  Director of the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance of the US Department of the Interior, Letter to the Department of Commerce in 2014.


The World Health Organization

"The Working Group concluded that the findings (increased brain cancer in heavy cell phone users) could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone, and that a causal interpretation between mobile phone RF-EMF exposure and glioma is possible."

The World Health Organization has classified the radiation cell towers emit as a Class 2 B  Possible Human Carcinogen based on increased brain cancer rates.. and has a super long list of research needing to be done. Read it here

The World Health Organization cites the study, “Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children,” (Gandhi et al, 2011), which documents how the industry-designed process for evaluating microwave radiation from phones results in children absorbing twice the cell phone radiation to their heads, up to triple in their brain’s hippocampus and hypothalamus, greater absorption in their eyes, and as much as 10 times more in their bone marrow when compared to adults.

​Dr. Robert Baan of the International Agency for the Research on Cancer of the  WHO has stated- this classification 2B, possibly carcinogenic, is not limited to cellphone radiation, it “holds for all types of radiation within the radiofrequency part of the electromagnetic spectrum, including the radiation emitted by base-station antennas (that means cell towers) , radio/TV towers, radar, Wi-Fi, smart meters, etc."


U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

"Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use. More research is needed before we know for sure if using cell phones causes cancer...Children who use cell phones – and continue to use them as they get older – are likely to be around RF for many years. If RF does cause health problems, kids who use cell phones may have a higher chance of developing these problems in the future."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Frequently Asked Questions about cell phones, CDC web site.


SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

“If there is even a reasonable possibility that cell phone radiation is carcinogenic, the time for action in the public health and regulatory sectors is upon us. Even though the financial and social cost of restricting such devices would be significant, those costs pale in comparison to the cost in human lives from doing nothing, only to discover thirty or forty years from now that the early signs were pointing in the right direction....If the probability of carcinogenicity is low, but the magnitude of the potential harm is high, good public policy dictates that the risk should not be ignored.”

DC Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg in her 2014 Rulingallowing expert testimony on litigation alleging cell phone linked tumors. 




Dr. David O. Carpenter

“Many bioeffects and adverse health effects occur at far lower levels of RF exposure than those that cause measurable heating; some effects are shown to occur at several hundred thousand times below the existing public safety limits, which are set based on the fallacious assumption that there are no adverse health effects at exposures that do not cause easily measurable heating.”

-David O. Carpenter, MD, Harvard graduate, Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany in his Letter to the Kawartha School Board.


Dr. Devra Davis

"Assuming things are safe until we have incontrovertible evidence they are not -- as happened with tobacco and asbestos -- is not a path we can afford to take. At this point, our failure to develop evidence of harm cannot be regarded as proof of safety.

-Dr Devra Davis, from LEGAL BUT LETHAL: San Francisco Medicine: “Flying Blind: The Public Health Impacts of Wireless Radiation” . Dr. Davis founded the Environmental Health Trust to raise awareness on microwave radiation and public health. Dr. Devra Davis was Founding Director, Center for Environmental Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute.  President Clinton appointed  Dr. Davis to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and she was a former Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Health in the Department of Health and Human Service. She also was a member of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the U.S. National Toxicology Program.


Dr. Joel Moskowitz

"Epidemiological studies in humans show links between RF exposure and cancers, neurological disorders, hormonal changes, and symptoms of electrical hypersensitivity (EHS).  Laboratory studies show increased cancers, abnormal sperm, reproductive risks, learning and memory deficits, and heart irregularities."


Dr. Joel Moskowitz is Director of the UC Berkeley Center for Family and Community Health. Please Read his informative BLOG where he lists all of his press releases and please read his"New Federal Policy Needed for Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Safety"


The Cities of Boston and Philadelphia

"The FCC admits its own lack of expertise in the field. But the overlap of federal agency responsibilities for RF radiation protection and the merely advisory status of the Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group often leaves leadership unclear and encourages a pass-the-buck attitude…”

- The Cities of Boston and Philadelphia’s Submission to the FCC Docket 18-34, 11/18/1.


A Group of YALE Doctors including Dr. John Wargo and Dr. Hugh Taylor

THE CELL PHONE REPORT: TECHNOLOGY EXPOSURES, HEALTH EFFECTS,ENVIRONMENT & HUMAN HEALTH, INC.J

John Wargo, Ph.D., professor of Environmental Risk and Policy at Yale University and lead author of the report, said, “The scientific evidence is sufficiently robust showing that cellular devices pose significant health risks to children and pregnant women. The weight of the evidence supports stronger precautionary regulation by the federal government. The cellular industry should take immediate steps to reduce emission of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from phones and avoid marketing their products to children.”

Recommendations to the Federal Government: Set exposure standards to protect human health.

Recommendations to Individuals: Reduce your exposure to wireless radiation sources.

Read the Full Report 


Dr. Martin Blank

"Scientific data on the biological effects of radiofrequency (RF) indicate the need to pursue a precautionary approach to protect the exposed population. It is clear that RF radiation can cause single and double strand DNA breaks at exposure levels that are currently considered safe under FCC guidelines." 

- Dr. Martin Blank of Columbia University in his Letter to the Greater Victoria School Board


Dr. Cindy Russell

“We should not ignore, however, the enlarging body of science that points to real threats to public health and, especially, our children’s safety and well-being. The best approach is precautionary. Reduce the risk by reducing the microwave emissions. It is our obligation as physicians and parents to protect our children. They are the future and our legacy.”

-Dr. Cindy Russell, VP Environmental Health, in her recently published “Shallow Minds: How the Internet and WiFi Can Affect Learning” in the Santa Clara Medical Association Bulletin.


Dr. Santosh Kesari, Dr. Davis and Lloyd Morgan

"Wireless devices are radio transmitters, not toys. Selling toys that use them should be banned. Government warnings have been issued but most of the public are unaware of such warnings. Exposure limits are inadequate and should be revised such that they are adequate."

From 
Dr. Santosh Kesari, Dr. Davis and Lloyd Morgan in their recently published
article Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences. 

            


Dr. L Dade Lunsford


The authors “continue to raise appropriate concerns related to the ever-increasing role of technologies that emit nonionizing radiation, including cell phones and certain toys.”  

-
L. Dade Lunsford, MD,  Director of the Center for Image-Guided Neurosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in his comments on the recent review of  wireless and children's health published in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure (cited in the paragra.


Dr. Hugh Scully


As a physician leader in Canada with a great commitment to the health of Canadians, I am very concerned about the increasing evidence internationally that EMR is creating increasing health problems in our population as its use increases exponentially.  This is particularly true among children and young Canadians, and teachers and nurses who are continuously exposed to WiFi routers in schools [and hospitals].


As a cardiac specialist, I am concerned that approximately 20% of people have detrimental cardiac rhythm sensitivity to EMR. This issue is under active consideration by the Health and Public Policy Committee of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, the Health Policy and Public Health Committees of the Canadian Medical Association and the Council of Family Physicians of Canada, the Canadian Pediatric Society and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society.


There is an abundance of evidence from around the world that EMR can be harmful to health.  Many countries...not Canada or the United States...have initiated policies to mitigate the risks.  We, in Canada, need to do the same or more.
-Dr. Hugh Scully, BA,MD,MSc,FRSC[C],FACSProfessor of Surgery and Health Policy, University of Toronto, Past-President, OMA, CMA, CCS, Former Member of Council [Board], RCPSC and WMA, Member, Health Policy Advisory Council, American College of Surgeons


The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Resolution 1815:  In 2011 The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued The Potential Dangers of Electromagnetic Fields and Their Effect on the Environment. A call to European governments to

  • “take all reasonable measures” to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields “particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours.”
  • The Resolution calls for  member states to:Implement “information campaigns about the risk of biological effects on the environment and human health, especially targeting children and young people of reproductive age."
  • Reconsider the scientific basis for the present standards on exposure to electromagnetic fields set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which have serious limitations, and apply ALARA principles, covering both thermal effects and the a thermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation.”


The European Environment Agency

The European Environment Agency Report “Late Lessons from Early Warnings, Volume II” 2013 Report  details the accumulating science on radio frequency radiation, the significant  risks of waiting and critical need to take precautionary action to reduce exposures to avoid widespread harm.


​62 Doctors, Scientists and Experts

"We join together as physicians, scientists and educators to express our concern about the risk that wireless radiation poses to pregnancy and to urge pregnant women to limit their exposures."

-BabySafe Project: Joint Statement on Pregnancy and Wireless Radiation 2014

" Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly below existing exposure standards for telecommunications and power utility technologies in developed and developing countries. ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inadequate and obsolete with respect to prolonged, low-intensity exposures common today. New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect public health world-wide." 

-Seletun Consensus Statement 2010


Canadian Physicians
"Out of sincere concern for the health of Canadians at all stages of life – from the developing fetus through childhood and into adulthood – we respectfully request that:
i) Health Canada develop and support strategies to raise awareness about microwave radiation impacts and to minimize prolonged exposure to microwave radiation in schools and other places where children are regularly exposed."

-2014 Declaration by Canadian Physicians to the Canadian Government      


The International Congress of Potenza Picena 
"Radiofrequency can cause structural changes in enzymes with time reactions of nanoseconds,while the pulsed radiofrequencies emitted by radars occur every milliseconds, thus suggesting that for every pulsing event several enzymatic changes occur...RF sources should be kept far from residential areas. For pulsed RF sources, such radars andWi-Max antennas, the distance from the EMF source should be even greater because they causemore biologically effects than non pulsed signals" 

Potenza Picena Resolution2011


Magda Havas PhD.

"It is irresponsible to introduce Wi-Fi microwave radiation into a school environmentwhere young children spend hours each day.... The two most important environments in a child’s life are the home (especially the bedroom) and the school. For this reason it is imperative that these environments remain as safe as possible. If we are to err, please let us err on the side of caution."

-Open Letter to School Boards 2012


International Group of Doctors and Scientists

"Epidemiological studies show links between RF exposure and cancers, neurological disorders, hormonal changes, symptoms of electrical hypersensitivity (EHS) and more. Laboratory studies show increased cancers, abnormal sperm, learning and memory deficits, and heart irregularities. 

Our urgent call for public health protection.
The public’s health and the health of the environment are threatened by ever-evolving RF emitting technologies, without due consideration for what the potential cumulative impacts on biological systems are likely to be in the future."

 

Scientific Declaration to Health Canada 2014


The BioInitiative Report

"Existing public safety limits (FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits) do not sufficiently protect public health against chronic exposure from very low-intensity exposures...We have the knowledge and means to save global populations from multi-generational adverse healthconsequences by reducing both ELF and RFR exposures. Proactive and immediate measures to reduce unnecessary EMF exposures will lower disease burden and rates of premature death."

The BioInitiative 2012 Report was prepared by 29 authors from ten countries, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs. It documents more than 1800 research studies and warns that young children, parents to be, and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to the associated health risks. 


Dr. Leonardo Trasande

"Children have developing organs. There is a lot we don't know, but we do know there is cause for concern. We need better studies and those should continue, but that doesn't excuse one from taking some commonsense steps. At the very least this begs for proactive and precautionary steps to try to reduce exposures when possible.  Wireless networks are also non-ionizing. We are talking about a less potent form of radiation, but that doesn't mean there aren't concerns about it. The concern is about the accumulating effect of non-ionizing radiation to do subtle things that we can't detect—like a break in DNA—that are suggested as possible concerns."

 Dr. Leonardo Trasande, associate Professor of Pediatrics and Environmental Medicine at New York University School of Medicine in a 2014 Q and A with Healthy Child Healthy World. 


Vienna Medical Association

"The microwave radiation given off by cell or mobile phones is possibly not as safe as cell phone providers would like us to believe. Therefore the Vienna Medical Association has decided to show responsibility and inform the people of Austria about the potential negative effects of cell phone radiation from a medical perspective."

Vienna Medical Association on it's Cell Phone Radiation Safety Medical Warnings 



International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE-17 countries) and Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA) 

“Because of the potentially increased risks for the foetus, infants and young children due to their thinner more permeable skulls and developing systems, particularly the immune and neurological systems, based on the precautionary principal and on the mounting evidence for harm at the sub-cellular level, we recommend that EMR exposure should be kept to a minimum.” 
Read it HERE


The Austrian Medical Chamber (Österreichische Ärztekammer, ÖÄK ) 40,000 doctors:

"Wi-Fi environments will lead to high microwave exposure for students and teachers which might increase the burden of oxidative stress. Oxidative stress might slow down the energy production especially in brain cells and may lead e.g. to concentration difficulties and memory problems in certain individuals. The Austrian Medical Association recommends Wi-Fi free school environments.
Read it HERE


Swiss Physicians for the Environment

"the risk of cancer for this type of [wireless] radiation is similar to that of the insecticide DDT, rightfully banned... From the medical point of view, it is urgent to apply the precautionary principle for mobile telephony, WiFi, power lines, etc.”
​Read it HERE



American Academy of Environmental Medicine

"The peer reviewed, scientific literature demonstrates the correlation between RF exposure and neurological, cardiac, and pulmonary disease as well as reproductive and developmental disorders, immune dysfunction, cancer and other health conditions. The evidence is irrefutable."

- American Academy of Environmental Medicine


British Medical Doctors
"We urge health agencies and the public to act immediately to reduce exposure to radiofrequency/ microwave radiation. This is especially important for children, who are physiologically more vulnerable to this exposure, and for whom adults have a safeguarding responsibility. Children’s health should be put ahead of convenience and commercial benefits." 


Dr. Poki Namkung

“There are no current, relevant public safety standards for pulsed RF involving chronic exposure of the public, nor of sensitive populations,

nor of people with metal and medical implants...”

— Poki Stewart Namkung, MD, M.P.H., Santa Cruz County Public Health


Dr. Franz Adlkofer

"The general public is confronted with two different views, one represented by politics and industry and one by the growing number of independent researchers. Ordinary people haveeither no idea of the probably adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation or have fullconfidence in the exposure limits that according to their governments reliably protect from anyrisk to the health. They do not know that the exposure limits are based on pseudo-science thought to create the necessary legal frame for a telecommunication industry that wants to make use of the new technology without being hampered by medical considerations."
Dr. Franz Adlkofer, MD, Chairman of Pandora - Foundation for Independent Research.

Dr Vini G. Khurana


"The concerns raised regarding the unnecessary and prolonged exposure of children to near-field radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) from mobile phones, wireless laptops (ontheir laps), and nearby Wi-Fi transmitters in schools are shared by many."
-Dr Vini G. Khurana, MBBS, BSc (Med), PhD, FRACS, Associate Professor of Neurosurgery,Australian National University Medical School; Currently Visiting Attending Neurosurgeon,Royal Melbourne Hospital


Dr. Annie Sasco 


"If we want to wait for final proof, at least in terms of cancer, it may still take 20 years and the issue will become that we will not have unexposed population to act as control. We may never have the absolute final proof. But we have enough data to go ahead with a precautionary principle to avoid exposures (radiofrequencies) which are unnecessary if our goal is to reduce some what the burden of cancer in the years to come and other chronic diseases." 
 

-Dr Annie Sasco MD, PhD, Director, Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention, INSERM (Institutnational de la santé et de la recherche médicale) Research Unit, School of Public Health,Victor-Segalen Bordeaux 2 Université, France. Formerly International Agency for Researchon Cancer (IARC) Unit Chief of Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention.

Dr. Norbert Hankin 


"The growing use of wireless communications by children and by schools will result in prolonged(possibly several hours per day), long-term exposure (12 or more years of exposure in classrooms connected to computer networks by wireless telecommunications) of developing children to low-intensity pulse modulated radiofrequency radiation.
Recent studies involving short-term exposures have demonstrated that subtle effects on brain functions can be produced by low-intensity pulse modulated radiofrequency radiation. Someresearch involving rodents has shown adverse effects on short-term and long-term memory.The concern is that if such effects may occur in young children, then even slight impairment of learning ability over years of education may negatively affect the quality of life that could beachieved by these individuals, when adults.
-Dr Norbert Hankin, PhD, Environmental Scientist, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air,Environmental Protection Agency, USA. Quote, page 218, in: ‘Cell Phones, Invisible hazards in a wireless age’. By Dr George Carlo and Martin Schram, 2001. Carroll and Graf Publishers, ISBN: 0-7867-0960-X.

Yuri G. Grigoriev

"The members of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection emphasize
ultimate urgency to defend children’s health from the influence of the EMF of the mobile communication systems. We appeal to the government authorities, to the entire society to pay closest attention to thiscoming threat and to take adequate measures in order to prevent negative consequences to the future generation’s health.
-from the  Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection'
Children and mobile phones: The Health of the Following Generations is in Danger. Yuri G. Grigoriev is Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, member of the Russian Academy of Electrical Engineering Sciences, member of International Advising Committee on WHO EMF Project, IEEE member, permanent member of the US Bioelectromagnetic Society (BEMS), Dr. of Med. Sci., Professor.

Dr Stelios A. Zinelis 
 "We should not subject and force electromagnetic radiation on school children. Technology can be applied by a wired connection. Effects of the electromagnetic radiation have been well documented and should not be ignored. The past has taught as many lessons, for example asbestos."
-Dr Stelios A. Zinelis, BA, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society, Cefallonia, Greece


Dr. Helen Caldicott

"Radio Frequencies emitted from mobile phone towers will have deleterious medical effects to people within the near vicinity according to a large body of scientific literature. Babies and children will be particularly sensitive to the mutagenic and carcenogenic effects of the radio frequency radiation. It is therefore criminal to place one of these aerials on or near a school." 

- Helen Caldicott, MD, Pediatrician and co-founder of Physicians For Social Responsibility


​There is more to share with you  than we could ever fit on this page or webpage. Come back soon and we will add more.  


Read the More from the EPA letter...

The EPA, which participated in FCC's exposure standard setting, explains the  limitations and uncertainty of the FCC's adopted standard in protecting human health. In a July 16, 2002 letter, EPA's Norbert Hankin, Center for Science and Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection Division explains to Ms. Janet Newton, President of the EMR Network:

​Text from the EPA below: 

I believe it is correct to say that there is uncertainty about whether or not current guidelines adequately treat nonthermal, prolonged exposures (exposures that may continue on an intermittent basis for many years).  The explanation that follows is basically a summary of statements that have been made in other EPA documents and correspondence….The FCC’s current exposure guidelines, as well as those of the Institute of Electrical and  Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, nonthermal exposure situations….

The FCC’s exposure guideline is considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all possible mechanisms.  Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified.…

The exposure guidelines did not consider information that addresses nonthermal, prolonged exposures, i.e., from research showing effects with implications for possible adversity in situations involving chronic/prolonged, low-level (nonthermal) exposures.  Relatively few chronic, low-level exposure studies of human populations have been reported and the majority of these studies do not show obvious adverse health effects.  However, there are reports that suggest that potentially adverse health effects, such as cancer, may occur.  

Since EPA’s comments were submitted to the FCC in 1993, the number of studies reporting effects associated with both acute and chronic low-level exposure to RF radiation has increased.…

The FCC does not claim that their exposure guidelines provide protection for exposures to which the 4 W/kg SAR basis does not apply, i.e., exposures below the 4W/kg threshold level that are chronic/prolonged and nonthermal…there is uncertainty about possible risk from nonthermal, intermittent exposures that may continue for years.….Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, nonthermal exposures.


(Source: 2002 EPA letter re: limitations of FCC RF radiation exposure guidelines:

http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/noi_epa_response.pdf)