-By: Les Jamieson
An abundance of independent research exists on how children have heightened vulnerability to electromagnetic frequencies due to their smaller body mass. Yet every day we see children from toddlers to teen years still in growth stage with cell phones and various WiFi gadgetry. Parents can take an active role in limiting their childrens’ exposure. However, currently there are wireless antennas installed next to schools and playgrounds throughout New York City. This will only increase with the plans to erect 4,000 5G Jumbo Poles as part of a massive marketing effort that will add to the already excessive levels of radio frequency (RF) we’re exposed to from 13,600 pole-mounted antennas. We’ve also seen a proliferation of rooftop antennas on each corner of apartment buildings and large commercial structures. The building owners are raking in extra revenues on top of their rental income. The RF transmissions from all of these antennas is cumulative.
What do parents need to know right now? Here is a synopsis from manhattanneighbors.org/protect-ing-the-children/.
FOR PARENTS TO KNOW
1. We are fundamentally electromagnetic entities.
2. Man-made frequencies from wireless devices and cell phones are biologically disruptive Radiofrequency Radiation (RF).
3. FCC exposure guidelines ignore a large body of science showing risk from this radiation and the guidelines are not protective as they only protect from one form of risk — the heating effects.
4. There are greater risks — and unknown EMF risks — to children, whose brains absorb more RF.
5. RF emitted by cell phones cause brain tumors and other cancers.
6. WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified the radiation as a group 2B “Possible Carcinogen” in 2011, and there is now evidence to upgrade this to “Carcinogen”.
7. RF impairs fertility.
8. RF causes damage to DNA, impacting our health today and that of future generations.
9. RF is a biological stressor.
10. RF interferes with the Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) that regulates the heart and balance in the body.
11. RF overexposure symptoms, as are being experienced in many schools today with WiFi, indicate dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system.
12. These symptoms can include headaches, dizziness, nausea, pressure in the head, feeling faint, chest pressure, difficulty concentrating, irritability, weakness, fatigue, an irregular heart beat, etc.
13. Children are beginning to show signs of dementia, where they cannot remember basic things, a phenomenon being called “Digital Dementia”.
14. RF increases endorphins and is ad- dicting. Children do not have the understanding and discipline to pull away, and parents need to regulate use of any RF-emitting technologies.
15. Exposure guidelines are based on average exposures yet the body responds to peaks, not to averages. In schools with WiFi, children can be exposed to peak pulsing way above the safety guidelines recommended by independent scientists for a significant portion of the day, with the worst symptoms commonly happening during those peak times.
16. Schools use industrial grade WiFi that is significantly more powerful than home WiFi, and designed to go through cement walls, brick and to travel into outside areas of the school. Newer systems use potentially more dangerous directional radiation patterns in addition to the higher power.
17. RF in a school bus, car or train exacer- bates the RF exposures due to the radiation reflecting off the metal vehicle.
18. Children with metal braces are especially prone to symptoms from RF.
19. Fetuses exposed to RF in utero have more relational and social problems later when in school.
20. Radiofrequency Radiation (RF) has no place around children. Over two-dozen foreign countries are taking steps to protect children from RF, including removing WiFi from schools and libraries, preventing advertising to children, and turning off cell towers.
21. There are numerous aspects of risks from tech overuse outlined at a recent Commonwealth Club program on EMF and Children. These include 1) Reward/addiction pathways; 2) Intense sensory stimulation; 3) Bright & Blue-toned light; 4) Media Multitasking; 5) Interactivity & Rapid Pace; and 6) Electromagnetic Radiation.
● All computer equipment and internet connections should be hardwired with a cord,
and wireless functionality disabled.
● Schools should establish pristine learning environments without electrosmog that impairs cognitive function and learning.
● Mobile phones and RF-emitting devices should be restricted to emergency use only, and especially in the case of children whose brain development is being impacted.
Commentary: Over exposure to RF is ev- ery bit as serious as exposure to air pollution, contaminated water, micro plastics, and “forever chemicals”. Safety to our health and privacy should be of foremost importance, not the profits of telecom and cell phone companies. If schools and playgrounds in your neighborhood have wireless antennas, get informed and get active. Educate your school board and local policy makers. Once people develop electrosensitivity and experience symptoms such as headaches, fatigue, neurological problems, cardiovascular problems, weakened immune system, and more, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to return to normal. Pre-emptive measures are needed now to enable children to live in an environment free from harmful levels of RF. The next generation has enough challenges without having to deal with RF in the form of pulsed microwave radiation being emitted from wireless antennas in our midst. The world needs them in optimum health so they can create a better future.
5 thoughts on “Are NYC Schools and Playgrounds Being Overdosed with WiFi?”
So sad to see Westview News going down the rabbit hole. It used to be mostly about George, but now it seems to be mostly Fox News and aluminum foil head kind of stuff to get people stirred up and scared and against nearly everything. Except Oman. Phooey!
[…] Source link […]
The American Academy of Pediatrics has repeatedly written the FCC calling for updated safety limits for children because children are more vulnerable to wireless radiation. Yet the FCC has so far refused to update limits.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its 2019 determination that its wireless radiation guidelines -set in 1996- adequately protect against all harmful effects of exposure. The Court specifically ordered the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for these issues:
the impacts of wireless radiation on children
the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation
the ubiquity of wireless devices and the technological developments since the FCC last updated its guidelines.
the cell phone radiation emission test methods that use heat measurements and allow a space between the phone and body.
the impacts of wireless radiation on the environment.
The Journal of the National Cancer Institute published a letter by experts including the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D.; Hugh Taylor, M.D., chief of obstetrics at Yale-New Haven Hospital; which concludes:
“The majority of animal and cell studies have found nonionizing RFR can induce oxidative stress- a key characteristic of human carcinogens and a way that RFR can initiate or promote tumor development as well as play a role in the development of other diseases. DNA damage and cancer in these state of the art studies signal the need for the public to reduce exposures to RFR now.”
The New Hampshire State Commission Final Report on 5G Health and Environment recommends:
“Schools and public libraries should migrate from RF wireless connections for computers, laptops, pads, and other devices, to hardwired or optical connections within a five-year period starting when funding becomes available. There is strong evidence that the younger the child the more susceptible they are to the negative impacts of RF-radiation.”
Some research studies:
Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. Frontiers in Public Health, 7.
Sage, C., & Burgio, E. (2018). Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development. Child Development, 89(1), 129–136.
International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), (2022). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health. Oct 18;21(1):92.
Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2020). [Comment] Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest. Oncology Letters, 20(4), 1–1.
Uche, U. I., & Naidenko, O. V. (2021). Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach. Environmental Health, 20(1), 84.
Bandara, P., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). Planetary electromagnetic pollution: It is time to assess its impact. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(12), e512–e514.
Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environmental Pollution, 242, 643–658.
More peer reviewed published research at https://ehtrust.org
So happy to see a publication brave enough to pay attention to these controversial topics that I am suspecting is what has been causing this media war. Westview is obviously doing something right. It is a really deep and paradigm shifting problem, but it has to be faced, there is a large large volume of science that we have to be conscious of: https://ehtrust.org/science-on-health-risks-of-cell-towers-5g-exposure-small-cell-densification-and-new-wireless-networks/ Thank you to Westview and Les Jamieson.
Tin foil hat? Nah. An entire tin foil wardrobe.
What are the author’s qualifications?
Who is “ManhattanNeighbors.org”?
Legit scientific and authoritative sources collectively cited by the American Cancer Society (see link) make no such assertions as the laundry list above.
Do better, WestView News!