Month: January 2015

Making technology safer in schools- Petition to sign

“WHERE DO OUR CHILDREN SPEND MOST OF THEIR WAKING MOMENTS?  AT SCHOOL, THEREFORE SCHOOL RADIATION SHOULD BE AT THE TOP OF OUR CONCERNS AND ENSURING THE REMOVAL OF WIFI EXPOSURE SHOULD BE OUR TOP PRIORITY FOR IMPROVING CALIFORNIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
HARD WIRED INTERNET CONNECTIONS OFFER A SAFE OPTION FOR ALL STUDENTS AND STAFF.”

Will you sign this petition? Click here:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-microwave-radiation-1?source=s.icn.em.mt&r_by=549012

My comments on the above petition:
Wireless computers and routers at school transmit microwave and radar frequencies (EMR).  Studies show EMR disrupts cellular communication, damages immune and nervous systems, desynchonises brain and heart rhythms, and causes headaches, sleep problems, tinnitus, anxiety and other health effects. The WHO IARC classifies EMR as a 2B carcinogen, in the same category as DDT and lead.

Children are more vulnerable to EMR because their skulls are thinner and bodies are still growing.  Health authorities are calling for reduced screen time, for elementary and junior high ages: less than one hour a day. For high school age,  less than two hours a day.

Using technology responsibly would require schools to:
1) Remove wireless routers, and wireless phone systems from schools.
2) Use only hardwired computers with wireless turned off, and wired phones.
3) Screen time should be limited to one hour a day.
4) Homework on the computer must be optional.
5) Failing the above steps, schools should, at the very least: a) notify parents they are using EMR, b) measure exposure levels in the school and make the info public; and c) provide a map as to the locations of all routers and wireless infrastructure; and d) Teachers notify parents of children’s screen time.

Sandi Maurer, EMF Safety Network

Supreme Court ruling on cell towers and local rights

In February of 2010 T-mobile wanted to erect a 108 ft cell tower in the City of Roswell Georgia.  The City held a meeting, and voted to deny the application. They sent T mobile the denial, and later sent the reasons for denial  in the form of minutes of that meeting.  T-Mobile sued claiming they were not given substantial reasons for denial. On January 14, 2015, The Supreme Court agreed with T-mobile that adequate written response must be given.

Georgia State University constitutional law professor Eric Segall states this case is important.”The question is: Did Congress and can Congress as a matter of federal law require local towns and cities to give reasons for its denial of these kinds of permits? That raises the question of federalism, which is the appropriate relationship between the state and federal governments. We all have a stake in what that relationship is.”

“There’s a real significant question at the bottom of this case, which is both should and can Congress dictate to local towns and cities how they go about their business?” Georgia State University constitutional law professor Eric Segall

In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Roberts remarks that
“cell service providers are not Mom and Pop operations,” “a
telecommunications company is no babe in the legal woods,” and “[T-Mobile is] a sophisticated, well-lawyered company” (Roberts thinks the Court went too far in requiring a local government to issue the reasons for its written denial of a cell tower contemporaneously with that written
denial).

Justice Alito writes in a concurring opinion that “Nothing we say today
should be read to suggest that when a locality has erred, the inevitable
remedy is that a tower must be built.”

Is it reaching too far to infer that the Supreme Court Justices might not
look too kindly on a cell tower being place in their own back yards?