Enter forum description here ...
Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles 0

Below is a data plot of peak WiFi exposures experienced by a teacher and students at the North Kingstown, RI High School over two days, February 24, 2016 and February 26, 2016. The exposures resulted in the 9th Grade Math Teacher, Shelley MacDonald, experiencing migraines, brain fog, headaches and a throbbing head. When the teacher left school, the exposures and the symptoms stopped.

High School in North Kingstown Rhode Island

Ms. McDonald has appealed to the school administrators to consider the effect of WiFi at the school, but instead of genuine attention being paid to this matter, she has faced Administrators who say they are powerless to do anything and must defer to the position of the R.I. Department of Health, which relies on flawed FCC Radiofrequency exposure guidelines.

For those not familiar with these guidelines, the FCC exposure guidelines only consider one form of risk from wireless radiation, the thermal effects of the radiation. This, in effect, protects the commercial interests of the wireless industry, as if the non-thermal risks were considered, that would mean many electronic products—like school Wi-Fi routers—would not be considered safe and have to come off the market. Non-thermal effects (i.e. non-heating) include the effects of frequencies, the pulsing and peaks, and the cumulative and long-term effects. It’s not surprisingly the FCC is in effect turning a blind eye to the non-thermal effects as wireless industry insiders, like its Chairman Tom Wheeler, are in charge.



See the Harvard University report “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates” at http://tinyurl.com/zkgu33j to understand the FCC’s failures and why parents, teachers and schools need to investigate the risks of wireless technologies for themselves. The FCC is failing as a regulatory agency.

Ms. McDonald has now been brought up on disciplinary matters by the school related to her concern that student’s privacy rights are being violated by the data required to be submitted online for the PARCC test, and she faces potential firing at the end of the school year, ostensibly due to that issue, not because of her concern about wireless exposures at the school. Many believe she is being retaliated against because she has nobly persisted in raising an uncomfortable subject for the school in the interests of North Kingstown students, faculty and administrators.

North Kingston High School Wi-Fi Data Plot Graph

North Kingston High School Wi-Fi Data Plot Graph

** Note, the BioInitiative guideline used for reference here is the original 2007 BioInitiative recommendation for indoor continuous exposures of 0.1 mW/m2 (or 100 uW/ m2). The 2012 guideline is significantly lower than the 2007 recommendation, but the 2007 guideline is used here as it is considered to be more achievable.
What we learn from plotting the exposures at N. Kingstown H.S. is:
  • WiFi exposure varied from period to period and also within class periods.
  • WiFi should not be thought of as benign, static background energy, as in reality it is a highly variable, pulsing energy with high peaks.
  • Exposures in the school are well above the recommended BioInitiative safe indoor safety guideline of .1 mW/m2 or 100 uW/m2
  • A “cumulative exposure” measure would be a more accurate reflection of risk, as a one moment in time measurement does not convey the nature or amount of exposure to biologically active Radiofrequency radiation.
  • Similarly, a metric for “Percentage of a Day” exposed, accounting for any times the body could rest and rebalance, would also be beneficial as a means of monitoring exposures.
  • Using “average” exposures to determine if an exposure is within the current FCC thermal safety guidelines is inappropriate, as “average” exposures do not in any way reflect the true nature of the exposures, with pulsing and peaks. It is the pulsing and peaks to which the body responds, not the engineering measure of an ‘average’.
  • Just because Wi-Fi is invisible does not mean it is not there or not biologically disruptive.

Also of note:
  • WiFi routers in schools are typically industrial strength routers, designed to go through cement, to handle 100s of users, and to extend the signal into a large area through a building or campus. School routers are far more powerful than home routers.
  • WiFi routers in schools keep getting stronger, and the signaling characteristics change. Newer router systems are directional in nature, meaning certain students in a classroom will be more exposed to the WiFi than others.
  • North Kingstown High School is using WiFi despite the fact that the school already invested in hard-wiring capability. It is risking the health of students, faculty and administrators despite the fact that a safer alternative exists.

“Is the convenience of wireless delivery of the internet really worth risking our children’s health? N. Kingstown High School has wired internet installed and we should be using it, not wireless. It is everyone’s responsibility to advocate for the health and safety of our children.” – Math teacher Shelley McDonald

The concern voiced by Ms. McDonald and many other teachers, parents and administrators across the world about risks from wireless technologies in schools will be getting much more attention given an article published in IEEE Power Electronics Magazine (March 2016) showing weak magnetic fields can promote cancer by two esteemed scientists. The paper “Some Effects of Weak Magnetic Fields on Biological Systems: RF fields can change radical concentrations and cancer cell growth rates,” was authored by Distinguished Professor Frank Barnes in the Electrical, Computer and Energy Engineering Department at University of Colorado, and Ben Greenbaum, Professor Emeritus of Physics at University of Wisconsin-Parkside. (See Microwave News, March 18, 2016, http://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/barnes-greenebaum-weak-field-effects). The paper’s conclusions are consistent with the concern of over 220 international scientists who appealed to the United Nations last year (http://tinyurl.com/nlzxja6), and with the WHO’s classification of Radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and wireless technologies as a Group 2B ‘Possible Carcinogen’ in 2011 (http://tinyurl.com/o2dvt98 ). That classification will need to be updated.

Last Fall, we contributed a list, 10 Elements of an Electromagnetically Clean and Conscious School, for an article in Boston Parents, “Is WiFi Safe In Schools?”, and recommend them here for N. Kingstown High School:

  • Use hard-wired cable or fiber optic communications networks, replacing over-the-air Wi-Fi transmissions.
  • Install workstations with Ethernet connections available throughout the school for laptop Internet access.
  • Teach students and school personnel to disable Wi-Fi functionality on laptops and personal devices and remove wireless “smart boards.”
  • Institute a “No Cell Phone” policy on campus, including personal hotspot devices.
  • Hard-wire computer peripherals such as mice, keyboards, speakers, monitors and other accessories.
  • Hard-wire printers and disable Wi-Fi function.
  • Disallow iPads or other tablets for students unless they accommodate an Ethernet connection and provide the ability to disable the wireless.
  • Train school personnel to be alert for signs of chronic electro-sensitivity symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, fatigue, irritability, heart irregularities and concentration problems.
  • Educate parents about the advisability of hard-wiring computers and Internet connections and limiting mobile phone use in the home.
  • Assess via www.antennasearch.com and with a radio frequency (RF) meter any external RF radiation sources, such as from antennas or towers, within a mile of the school.
Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles 0

Use www.antennasearch.com to search for antennas near your home or place of work. You might be surprised by the results!


Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles 0

SMITHVILLE, TX— Smithville is a small town of about 3800 residents in central Texas, about 40 miles southeast of Austin and about 100 miles northeast of San Antonio. It’s not just the town’s name – even residents say Smithville is a fairly ordinary small town and typical of “middle America” with a Main St. where everyone knows each another. A community meeting there last November that presented information about smart meters ignited debate and participation, galvanized the town to action, and generally shook politics up in a good way, according to residents.


Some background: About a year ago, the Smithville city council signed a “revenue neutral” contract with energy company Ameresco to replace all the analog water and electric meters in town with “smart” wireless meters and install LED streetlights (which have their own set of problems). Residents were informed of an “infrastructure upgrade” but few were aware of the implications and potential problems.

Jim Keller, a photographer and property owner in Smithville, and Kelly Holt, an investigative journalist running for the Smithville City Council, were aware of these problems and knew they had to act in order to bring critical information about the risks to the town’s attention. Acting on an ad hoc, independent basis, the two organized a community meeting to discuss the smart meter issue, and brought in experts. Jim Keller tells us that prior to the meeting, “I don’t think city staff or the meter manufacturers ever expected a backlash here in Smithville.”

Keller and Holt sent a mailer out to 2174 households in town on October 31st (using USPS Every Door Direct Mail) with facts about security and fire risks, inviting everyone to a community meeting to discuss smart meters on November 5th. They hoped a few people would turn out to have a discussion, but were not prepared for the response.

Neither were the city council nor Ameresco, who had simply considered the metering/ streetlight projects a mundane and routine “infrastructure upgrade.”


On the evening of November 5th 2015, more than 110 residents packed into an old school auditorium in the center of Smithville. The crowd included 4 of 5 city council members and 2 officials from Ameresco. Many were taken aback by the size of the crowd, including one of Ameresco’s staff who was reportedly appeared to be in shock at the number of people gathered to hear about the problems with the company’s products.


Speakers at the event included Sheila Hemphill of Texans Against Smart Meters and Laura Pressley of Austin Smart Meters.

No mention was made of the health effects of microwaves in the mailer, but the audience was passionately interested and the presenters delivered detailed information on current medical research and EMF exposure guidelines as they relate to the safety of exposure to smart meters. When moderator Jim Keller notified Sheila Hemphill that her time was up, a person in the audience yelled, “let her speak!” People were riveted to the presentations and hungry for more information on the topic. Several people shared specific concerns about health impacts from wireless technologies, including the interference problems with pacemakers.


Continue reading article...

Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles • updated 1 year ago 0

Weak RF fields may indeed be able to promote cancer, according to two leading members of the EMF/RF research community. Frank Barnes and Ben Greenebaum are offering theoretical arguments to explain how low-level RF radiation can alter the growth rates of cancer cells. They present their ideas in an article which has just appeared in the IEEE Power Electronics Magazine.


“Stuff is going on,” Barnes told Microwave News. “We can see changes with very small fields.” He granted that some may interpret what he is saying as “heresy.”

“What we are postulating does not violate any laws of physics and chemistry,” said Barnes, a distinguished professor emeritus of electrical engineering at the University of Colorado in Boulder and a long-time member of the National Academy of Engineering. Greenebaum, a professor emeritus of physics at University of Wisconsin-Parkside, was the editor-in-chief of BIoelectromagnetics from 1993 to 2006. Barnes and Greenebaum are coeditors of the most recent edition of the CRC Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

“Bob Adair’s calculations are not wrong,” Barnes added. “They just don’t deal with the situations we are dealing with.” He was referring to Robert Adair, a professor emeritus of physics at Yale University, who has long maintained that weak field effects are incompatible with the laws of physics (more on Adair). Barnes was careful to point out that not all experiments would show effects because “biological systems have many feedback and repair mechanisms.”

“We have a reasonable hypothesis with a framework which allows others to do experiments which can show whether we are right or wrong,” Barnes said.


For some papers by Barnes and Greenebaum on weak field effects, click here.


Original source

Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles 0

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan today issued a consumer alert “urging Illinois residents to do their homework on smart meters – how they work, what type of data they collect, how the data can be used and if you authorize it, who can access it.” [1]


In an interview with WLS-TV of Chicago, Lisa Madigan said that:

There is a “lot of potential for consumers to be deceived.”

“There’s a possibility that [energy suppliers] will also be able to determine whether or not people are in the home. There are some people that may not feel comfortable with sharing that information.” [2]

Continue reading article...

Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles 0

In June and July of 2011, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) hosted two separate workshops related to the possible health effects associated with radiofrequency (RF) emissions from smart grid technologies. In December 2011, EPRI published a report summarizing the results and findings from those workshops [1].


The first workshop on “technology” identified numerous electromagnetic field (EMF) emission sources from smart grid-related components that might cause health effects. Supposedly, EPRI would follow-up and study these possible sources and “inform the public about emissions associated with emerging smart grid technologies.” I conclude that this informing of the public has not yet happened.

A second workshop on “health effects” reviewed the science available in 2011 regarding EMF-related health effects and identified “critical gaps and research needs” for smart grid technologies. Regarding this workshop, I am not aware of progress being made in completing the identified research other than periodic field testing of wireless smart meters to ensure that emission rates comply with outdated Federal exposure guidelines.

After reviewing the summary information from the EPRI workshops in 2011, I am left with two impressions that are quite disturbing:

  • With the health issues that exist related to smart grid technologies, how could the smart grid industry continue to move forward with deployments even though there are acknowledged “critical gaps and research needs”?
  • In many instances, members of the public are mocked as subscribing to conspiracy theories when expressing health concerns over smart meters. How can smart grid industry officials and proponents so readily dismiss public concerns and health complaints based upon the science summarized in the EPRI report that would tend to substantiate those concerns and complaints as well-founded and legitimate?
Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles 0

On February 6th, [Jeromy Johnson] had the opportunity to speak at TEDxBerkeley. The title of my talk was “Wireless Wake-Up Call.” I discussed the health effects related to the explosion in wireless technology the past few years, along with solutions that can help everyone. Within the presentation, I also talked about how we can develop technology that is much safer for humanity. Here is the video:



Zellerbach Hall on the UC Berkeley campus is an incredible venue. It seats 2,000 people and this event was sold-out. I was the second speaker of the day and the first couple minutes on stage were a bit nerve-racking. As you will see in my opening questions, there was an uncomfortable moment for everyone (it felt like the entire room needed to pause). It happened when I asked who knew that the fine print in every smart phone owner’s manual says to never put the phone within about 1 inch of the body. This is a truth that is currently taboo to discuss in our society, so few people know about it. However, once we got through this moment, the talk soon became fun and was well-received by many in the audience.


In my talk, I wanted to convey that people are indeed being harmed by this technology and that there is adequate science to show how and why this is happening. Most importantly though, I provided solutions that every family can utilize today to reduce their exposure and encouraged us all to help society wake-up. Once this happens, our technology industries will create safe products that will move our entire society toward a healthier future.


Original Source

Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles 0

Within the last couple of months I have posted comprehensive articles to demonstrate how consumers financially suffer with smart meters and that they are also financially and socially punished when subjected to Time-of-Use (TOU) electricity rates [1] [2].


Those articles, although comprehensive, were somewhat broad in nature. Let us take a closer look at one particular household appliance that is frequently touted by smart grid proponents, the “smart” dryer. It is advertised that you can “save money” by using a smart tumble dryer in the late evening when electricity rates are low. There is an inference that you would place your washed clothing in a smart dryer, go to bed, and the dryer would later turn on and complete its drying cycles while you were sleeping. Before proceeding, let me present some common sense public service advice on tumble dryer safety:

Tumble Dryer Safety: “Occupants are advised to use tumble dryers and washing machines when they can be supervised. Ideally they should not be switched on and left to run overnight whilst people are sleeping. We would encourage people to switch off all electrical appliances when vacating the house and during the night to reduce the risk of fire in the home.”


Continue reading article...

Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles 0


All electrical and electronic equipment emit Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR), fortunately most devices do not emit high levels of EMR. The ones of prime concern are those that emit radio signals. These include but not limited to: Cell Phones, Cordless Phones, Laptop, Tablets, Baby Wireless Monitors, Wireless Routers. The laptop this is being written on emits approximately 25 milivolts per meter (Electric Field) when turned on, 25 more when the charger is plugged in and regularly over 1000 milivolts when on Wifi. To determine the Power Density would would also need to measure the amps per meter (Magnetic Field). Few radiation meters measure the Amps per meter. These regular meters calculate the amp reading based on established physics when the measurements are in the far field or at a distance from the source.


(Figure source: Safety Code 6 (SC6) Radio Frequency Exposure Compliance Evaluation Template (Uncontrolled Environment Exposure Limits) Industry Canada Technical Note-261)


Yes this is a topic that few of us are aware of or understand on first reading. More explanation of the physics of Radio Frequency is in Cell Tower Siting Considerations. An excerpt on Near Field Radiation is in the pdf accompanying this article. The full booklet is available on request by contacting worksafe@sios.ca .

The radiation field around a transmitting device is divided into 3 primary zones: the Near, Far and a zone that is called the Intermediate or Transition zone – a blend of the other 2.


Safety Code 6 (SC6) Radio Frequency Exposure Compliance Evaluation Template (Uncontrolled Environment Exposure Limits) Industry Canada Technical Note-261

In the near field Spectacular peaks and Valleys of radiation intensity can occur, the radiation pattern is considered to be difficult to model if it is possible to model it. In the Radio Frequency Tool Kit For Environmental Health Practitioners by the BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCCDC) the near field zone is referred to as chaotic. In his zone both Industry Canada (IC) and the BCCDC specify both the Electric Field and Magnetic Fields must be measured in several locations to obtain the true power density readings.

The extent of the danger zones around an emitting device is determined by a series of calculations based on the frequency (wavelength) and size of the antenna. Additional confusions can be introduced by interference from other sources, reflected energy, stored energy and antenna design and imperfections to name a few of the other sources of complexity that may possibly exist.

The Danger zone around a cell phone can be consider to be in the order of 0.1 m and greater if the phone is using wifi. A cell phone antenna – even ones on roof tops over 12 meters to the extreme danger limit and 50 meters to the high danger zone. Larger antennas or higher frequencies could extend these distances considerably. A home wifi router the minimum distance to the extremely dangerous zone limit 0.1 and to the highly dangerous zone 0.3 meters (1 ft). For a laptop assume distance in excess of 1 meter and 4 meters respectively.

Original Source