Truth

Issues of Truth With Which the Our Local School District and Others Are Still Struggling

Truth About 2016 Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) Board Trustee Election

Three Candidates for Two PCSD School Board Trustee Slots:

The information about the three 2016 PCSD School Board Candidate for two seats is pretty thin; the Petaluma City Clerk had a bit of publicly available information . . .

The 2016 PCSD School Board Candidate Forum on Tue 10/4/16 was marketed with the title Making Democracy Work, but the event fell far short of its goal for these reasons

  • The Sponsors of the event, the members of the AAUW did not practice sound democracy in the way they ran the public forum held in a public venue. Pam Granger, the event moderator, attempted to restrict the public's right to record the proceedings and she filtered out all three questions listed in the column to to right. When asked about the transparency into the AAUW's question-filtering process, the AAUW only offered "you must trust our process." What was the end result? Little public participation and mostly softball questions. View for yourself.

  • The Candidates had each received a copy of all three questions (listed in the column to the right) before the event started, but each chose not not answer these questions either during the event or after the event ended. I am therefore inviting each candidate to email me a pdf file with their thoughtful answers to these three important questions. I will post their answers on this page — so that all the signers of this petition will have the information they need to decide for which candidates they will vote.

  • The Media, in this case, the Argus Courier reported nothing of the obvious shortcomings of this event, including the prepared statement read by Mary Johnson that intentionally mislead the public about the actual levels of RF Microwave radiation in PCSD classrooms. The public is expected to remain polite and listen, but when candidates openly lie like this -- right to the camera, so these lies can be reviewed and analyzed, the press needs to report this information because it is very relevant to the actual truth, to the candidates' character and to the voters' choices in this election. That's how we can actually 'Make Democracy Work'.

Two years ago, in 2014, the members of the AAUW filtered out the following question from the 2014 PCSD School Board Candidate Forum, so the public did not get a chance to hear direct answers from Candidates Michael Baddeley, Sheri Chlebowski Phoebe Ellis on this:

{Candidate}, "is it appropriate for California public schools to forcibly expose young children to a known carcinogen by continually placing this carcinogen into their classrooms as a condition for receiving a public education, particularly when there is California education code that prohibits schools from doing so?"

PCSD Board trustees Michael Baddeley, Sheri Chlebowski Phoebe Ellis, Mary Schafer and Troy Sanderson have avoided answering this important question for the last three years. PCSD Board members Mary Schafer and Troy Sanderson opted to not seek re-election in 2016, so they would not have to answer this question, but each still retains full responsibility, accountability and liability for decisions/votes they made from 2013 to 2016, along with current Board members Michael Baddeley, Sheri Chlebowski and Phoebe Ellis.

Key Issues of Truth With Which the PCSD and Others Are Still Struggling
  1. PCSD RF Microwave Radiation Committee-Gate
  2. PCSD 2016 Classroom RF Microwave Radiation Assessment: a Farce and a Whitewash
  3. PCSD is Hiding its 2014-2016 Technology Infrastructure Contracts. Why?
  4. Will the Argus Courier or Press Democrat Report the Truth? Apparently not.
  5. Will the AAUW allow questions to each Candidate about their solutions for eliminating forced exposure of minor children to continuous RF Microwave Radiation in PCSD classrooms? Unfortunately, they did not.
  6. Will the Candidates Face the Truth About Forced Exposures to RF Microwave Radiation in PCSD Classrooms? We'll see . . .
  7. Will PCSD School Board Trustee Candidates Respond? Frank Lynch and Ellen Webster did. Mary Johnson did not.
  8. The PCSD is on 60-days notice to correct the problems of Forced Exposures to RF Microwave Radiation in PCSD Classrooms
  9. Next Steps for the 2016 PCSD School Board Trustee Campaign
  10. The Fallacy of Technology "Best Practices" for Schools

One Big Problem with Mary's Answer, Over There to the Right --->

Mary's statement that there is "no danger to students from the Wireless installations" is FALSE, so her conclusion that "no further steps needed to be taken by the District to address this matter" is ridiculous. The PCSD's 9/12/16 LIMITED RADIO-FREQUENCY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR PETALUMA CITY SCHOOLS is wholly unreliable and is fully refuted here and here. It's the blind (RESIG/PCSD Administrators) leading the blind (PCSD Board and parents).

After three years of systematic and thorough education about the toxic hazards of continuous Microwave Radio-Frequency Radiation (RFR) — both immediate hazards (blood clumping, oxidative stress, nosebleeds, headaches, rashes) and latent hazards (testicular/ovary damage, brain/nerve damage, cancer) — the PCSD Board Trustees have still done nothing effective to eliminate these toxic hazards from PCSD classrooms.

This, unfortunately, is how far the PCSD School Administrators and Board Trustees will go to attempt to cover their own a**es and mislead Petaluma parents. When the light finally shines on the dark-room deals, people will be held accountable for their decisions, actions and unwillingness to protect the health & safety of 7,000+ students and 800+ employees.

In Pursuit of the Truth. . .

I called each candidate and left them voice-mail message(s) on 9/28/16 and 9/29/16. Ellen Webster and Frank Lynch responded. I then left additional voice-mail messages for Mary Johnson on 9/30/16 and 10/3/16. Unfortunately, Mary Johnson never responded.

On 9/23/16, I left a comment on Mary Johnson's Campaign Facebook page, but, unfortunately, Mary Johnson deleted my comment the next day. Hmmmm . . . what's up with that? This was the comment:

Hi, Mary.

Argus Courier | September 15, 2016, 9:36 am:
"When some parents [communicated their knowledge of the scientific evidence that establishes the hazards of] electromagnetic radiation being emitted from wireless [access points] in classrooms, [Mary Johnson] volunteered to meet with parents and is currently serving on a committee formed to study the issue."

What committee is this, when does it meet next and how can parents have direct input into this committee before the election?

Then, on 10/4/16, Mary Johnson even refused to answer the questions directed to her just as the Candidate Forum for School Board event ended. Her only response was: . . .
"I have a dinner reservation."
These are the questions Mary Johnson refused to answer:

  1. {Candidates}, is it appropriate for PCSD schools to expose children to a known carcinogen -- a hazardous agent proven by the May 2016, National Toxicology Study Results to cause two forms of cancer and other adverse health effects -- by continuously transmitting this carcinogen into student classrooms as a condition for receiving a public education, particularly when there is CA education code (Sections 32060-32066) that prohibits PCSD schools from doing so?

  2. {{Candidates}, how will you eliminate the immediate and latent toxic hazards of RF Microwave radiation in PCSD classrooms – hazards which students face due to the PCSD's current purchase, use and configuration of its proprietary wireless business equipment? What specific remedies do you recommend?

  3. {{Candidates}, given that evidence proves that the PCSD has engaged in a repeated pattern of withholding public information from the public and misleading parents and students about actual RF Microwave radiation levels in PCSD classrooms in 2013 and 2016, what will you do to ensure that the PCSD follows all state and federal laws, including the CA Public Records Act, to share complete, accurate, and truthful information about total, cumulative RF Microwave radiation exposures in PCSD classrooms?

View the 10/4/16 PCSD School Board Candidate Forum Video

Here is how the three audience questions, above, got watered down . . .

Pam Granger's Question:
https://youtu.be/OXCMXesJCQA?t=30m28s

"We have several audience questions that have a common theme. Other parent groups have expressed concern about potential harmful effects on children by the use of pesticides and Wi-Fi radiation . . . how would you propose to analyze these and future issues in order to create board policies and regulations to keep the kids health and welfare upfront?"

. . . and how the candidates answered the question:

Frank Lynch's Answer:

https://youtu.be/OXCMXesJCQA?t=31m10s

"Let's vet the issues and find out what the pros and cons are . . . also let parents know we are using as a school district."

Ellen Webster's Answer:
https://youtu.be/OXCMXesJCQA?t=32m06s

"Once again, I return to transparency . . . it's important for our kids to be safe and healthy in our schools and that comes down to pesticides, it comes down to radio waves . . . if there is not an open discussion and education about what these things do, why we should be careful about this, then everybody is dissatisfied. So if there is an openness and transparency, then people are able to express their opinions, know that they are being heard and to understand the rationale behind any kind of decision that the School Board makes."

Mary Johnson's Answer:
https://youtu.be/OXCMXesJCQA?t=33m20s

"I've had the opportunity to work with individuals recently representing different points of view regarding technology in our classrooms . . . with technology, these conversations that I have had resulted in solid and specific District action. The District recently adopted iPad Use Guidelines for students and, in addition, recognizing that there is controversy in the installation of Wireless Access Points in classrooms, the District commissioned a study by our insurance carrier, the Redwood Empire Insurance Group or RESIG. That study which was distributed to the Board at a recent meeting concluded that there was no danger to students from the Wireless installations because the radio frequencies that they emit are several orders of magnitude below regulatory limits. Consequently, the study recommend that no further steps needed to be taken by the District to address this matter."

Key Issues of Truth With Which the PCSD Is Still Struggling

The agenda of ever-increasing exposures to weapons-grade levels of wireless radiation in our classrooms is a disaster. We need to turn off the WAPs.

PCSD's 2016 Classroom RFR
Assessment is a Farce



Slide 1: 9/12/16 RESIG Microwave RF Radiation Report: no reliable recommendations can be made based upon the data or findings from this report. The truth that refutes this report was entered into the public record at the 10/11/16 PCSD School Board meeting.


Slide 2: Microwave Radio-Frequency Radiation (RFR) Meter Comparison

$195 Anaheim Scientific E200 $1,385 Gigahertz HFW-59D Plus RF Meter
$485 Gigahertz Solutions HF-38B RF Meter

Of the three meters referenced above, only the $1,385 HFW-59D can meter the full range of frequencies in PCSD classrooms (2450 MHz and 5000-5800 MHz). RESIG choosing to use the cheapest meter, the E200 — a unit that only meters 50mHz to 3,000 MHz — is a failure, right out of the gate because the unit does not meter 5000-5800 MHz, a frequency used by the PCSD WAPs and devices. Both Gigahertz Solutions meters are professional meters that have Certificates of Calibration. The Anaheim Scientific E200 meter is a consumer grade meter that does not have a Certificate of Calibration. Most importantly, the Gigahertz Solutions units meter continuously with sampling durations of 33 microseconds or 0.5 microseconds, while the E200 unit meters only every 1/3 of a second for an unknown sampling duration, which severely decreases the E200's chances of making reliable measurements of peak RFR. All three of these units have options to meter for RMS/Average, Peak/Max and Peak-Hold, but RESIG only metered RFR Averages — on purpose, which understates the RFR results.


From the Gigahertz HFW-59D Plus RF Meter Manual:


From the Anaheim Scientific E200 RF Meter Manual:




RESIG RFR Readings Confirmed/Refuted on 10/10/16

RESIG took four RFR readings in the Pertaluma community to provide "context" to influence the interpretation of RESIG's unreliable PCSD classroom RFR readings. On 10/10/16, we used a Gigahertz Solutions HF-38B RF Meter to independently verify if RESIG's community RFR readings were accurate and found that only two of the four RFR readings (both far-field cell phone base station antenna readings) were able to be replicated. Two of RESIG's community RFR readings (from a WAP at Starbucks and a MotoX cell phone downloading a video) were not able to be replicated, signifying significant operator errors by Will Davis. The following bullet points summarize the findings and the 28 slides/explanations, in the column below, provide the detailed evidence.

  • Confirmed Average RFR reported at east entrance of Helen Putnam Park — our average RFR readings from far-field cell phone base station antennas are within 2% of RESIG's Average RFR reading, but when comparing the more relevant peak RFR in PCSD classrooms (245,000 µW/m²) to peak RFR at the entrance to Helen Putnam park (27,200 µW/m²), peak RFR in classrooms is about 10x higher than peak RFR at the east entrance of Helen Putnam Park. This is important because the substantial scientific evidence has proven that human biology reacts to RFR peaks, while knowing average RFR only protects against acute burns.

  • Confirmed Average RFR reported in Safeway Parking lot — our average RFR readings from far-field cell phone base station antennas are within 11% of RESIG's Average RFR reading, but the same peak RFR analysis above applies. Average RFR readings from cell phone base station antennas are typically 25 to 50 times lower than peak RFR readings and, therefore, do not provide accurate context for RFR from Wireless Access Points, which have average RFR that is 200 to 250 times lower than peak RFR.

  • Refuted Average RFR reported inside Starbucks— our average RFR readings from far-field Wireless Access Point antennas are nowhere near the average RFR readings from RESIG: we metered 4.2 µW/m², while RESIG metered 1,260 µW/m². We also metered peak RFR inside Starbucks at 10,600 µW/m², which establishes a 250x difference between Average RFR and peak RFR for WAPs, also established here and here. Our best explanation is that RESIG must have set the ES200 meter to meter 'Maximum instantaneous' at Starbucks and mistakenly reported this as 'Average'. It is also important to note that neither meter here is capable of metering 5000MHz to 5800Mhz, so these RFR readings should be doubled.

  • Refuted Average RFR reported for MotoX cell phone — Will Davis reporting 470,500 µW/m² metered from a MotoX cell phone is most assuredly a serious error by Davis, who, apparently, did not understand that the difference between metering in the near-field verus metering in the far-field regions (see details, below). This is a specious and unreliable measurement and so it provides false context to interpret classroom RFR.

Slide 3: East entrance to Helen Putnam Park, Petaluma CA — facing Southwest

Cliff De Graw at the 9/13/16 PCSD Board Trustee presentation:

"As far as context to what's out there in terms of Radio-Frequency [Radiation] exposure, RESIG tested various locations around Petaluma including Helen Putnam Park; I am not sure if that is on the east side of the park or the west side of the park . . . [it shows that] our classroom exposure is lower than all of those [readings at Helen Putnam Park, the Safeway parking lot and Starbuck's interior]."

On 10/10/16, we metered these three community locations to verify RESIG's RFR readings. As one can see in the 28 slides, below, we determined that De Graw's statement is VERIFIABLY MISLEADING. The ES200 meter is not reliable and Will Davis' classroom metering protocols are verifiably wrong. Therefore, any comparison of community RFR levels to RFR levels in PCSD classrooms is a useless exercise doomed by "garbage in, garbage out". The classroom RFR data RESIG reported is inaccurate and unreliable.

With these caveats firmly in mind, we have determined that RESIG's reported average RFR classroom reading of 980 µW/m² likely yields a peak reading of at least 245,000 µW/m² -- and that is only for half of the PCSD classroom RFR, since the ES200 is not capable of metering the 5000-5800 MHz RFR — frequencies that are definitely in PCSD classrooms.


Slide 4: East entrance to Helen Putnam Park — facing East.

As the next two detail photos show, the hill east of Helen Putnam Park hosts an array of cell phone antennas that pollute this valley 24/7/365. It is no surprise that the RFR readings on the east side of the park are high. As the readings below show, at the east entrance to Helen Putnam park, we were able to meter the same average readings as RESIG metered and reported. The key conclusion, however, is that when comparing the more relevant peak readings in PCSD classrooms (245,000 µW/m²) to peak readings at the entrance to Helen Putnam park (27,200 µW/m²), the peak classroom readings are about 10x higher.


Slide 5: Cell phone antennas on the east hill facing Helen Putnam Park


Slide 6: Cell phone antennas on the east hill facing Helen Putnam Park


Average RFR: 1,040 µW/m² Peak RFR: 27,200 µW/m²

Slide 7: RFR Readings at East Entrance to Helen Putnam Park:
1,040 µW/m² is close to RESIG's average RFR reading of 1,020 µW/m², but it is only 4% of peak RFR, following Gigahertz Solutions' manual and instructions on how to adjust for the short duration of peaks from cell phone base stations and from Wireless Access Points.


Slide 8: Helen Putnam Park Path on East Side of Hill:
Walking up the hill, the path drops behind a small berm, which blocks Microwave Radio-Frequency Radiation (RFR) from the East. This photo was taken facing Southeast.


Slide 9: Valley in Helen Putnam Park, facing Southwest


Slide 10: Berm next to walking path, facing East
The cell phone antennas on the East hill are blocked by this berm.


Average RFR: 0.15 µW/m² Peak RFR: 4.2 µW/m²

Slide 11: RFR metered behind a berm next to the walking path, facing East
4.2 µW/m² is close to the Bio-Initiative guideline of 3 µW/m²; the average of 0.15 µW/m² is about 4% of peak RFR. The key conclusion is that hills, even as small as berms, are extremely effective at blocking RFR, when they are between base stations and observers.


Slide 12: On the walking path, half way up the hill
Walking further up the hill, the path emerges from behind the berm. Facing East, we are, once again, in direct line of sight to the cell phone antennas on the east hill.


Average RFR: 140 µW/m² Peak RFR: 8,800 µW/m²

Slide 13: RFR metered on the walking path, half way up the hill, facing East
A peak of 8,800 µW/m² RFR, unfortunately pollutes this otherwise clean park setting and all of the homes in this valley. Note that 8,800 µW/m² is roughly 1/3 of the 27,200 µW/m² metered at the park's east entrance, showing that RFR power density decreases, as the distance from the antennas increases. Average RFR of 140 µW/m² here is 2% of peak RFR


Slide 14: A Virtually RFR-free Spot in Petaluma, facing Southeast
Cresting over the hill, the path drops down the back side of the hill into an area with no cell phone base station antennas. The hill we just crested over now blocks the cell phone antennas on the east hill facing the park.


Slide 15: A Virtually RFR-free Spot in Petaluma, facing North
This hill blocks any cell phone antennas on other side.


Slide 16: A Virtually RFR-free Spot in Petaluma, facing East
This hill blocks any cell phone antennas on other side.


Slide 17: A Virtually RFR-free Spot in Petaluma, facing West
From this same spot, we see no cell phone base stations to the West. The path descends towards the pond. Trees, by the way, also block a lot of RFR.


Average RFR: 0.03 µW/m² Peak RFR: 0.8 µW/m²

Slide 18: RFR metered from this spot, facing North
0.8 µW/m² is 97% below the Bio-Initiative guideline of 3 µW/m².
The average of 0.03 µW/m² is 3% of peak RFR.


Average RFR: 0.03 µW/m² Peak RFR: 0.9 µW/m²

Slide 19: RFR metered from this spot, facing East
0.9 µW/m² is 97% below the Bio-Initiative guideline of 3 µW/m².
The average of 0.03 µW/m² is 3% of peak RFR.


Average RFR: 0.03 µW/m² Peak RFR: 0.9 µW/m²

Slide 20: RFR metered from this spot, facing South
0.9 µW/m² is 97% below the Bio-Initiative guideline of 3 µW/m².
The average of 0.03 µW/m² is 3% of peak RFR.


Average RFR: 0.02 µW/m² Peak RFR: 0.8 µW/m²

Slide 21: RFR metered from this spot, facing West
0.8 µW/m² is 97% below the Bio-Initiative guideline of 3 µW/m².
The average of 0.02 µW/m² is 3% of peak RFR.


Slide 22: Parking lot of Safeway @ 389 So. McDowell Blvd, Petaluma, facing East


Average RFR: 1,330 µW/m² Peak RFR: 59,700 µW/m²

Slide 23: RFR metered from this spot, facing East
1,330 µW/m² is 57% of RESIG's Avg metering of 2,330 µW/m².
The average RFR of 1,330 µW/m² is 2% of peak RFR.


Average RFR: 2,680 µW/m² Peak RFR: 87,800 µW/m²

Slide 24: RFR metered from this spot, facing North
2,680 µW/m² is 115% of RESIG's Avg metering of 2,330 µW/m².
The average RFR of 2,680 µW/m² is 3% of peak RFR.


Average RFR: 2,410 µW/m² Peak RFR: 85,000 µW/m²

Slide 25: RFR metered from this spot, facing West
2,410 µW/m² is 103% of RESIG's Avg metering of 2,330 µW/m².
The average RFR of 2,410 µW/m² is 3% of peak RFR.


Average RFR: 1,920 µW/m² Peak RFR: 56,200 µW/m²

Slide 26: RFR metered from this spot, facing South
1,920 µW/m² is 82% of RESIG's Avg metering of 2,330 µW/m².
The average RFR of 1,920 µW/m² is 3% of peak RFR.


Slide 27: Outside of Starbucks @ 3100 So. McDowell Blvd, Petaluma, facing Southwest
The manager allowed me to take inside meter readings, but not any inside photos.


Anaheim Scientific E200 Gigahertz Solutions HF-38B
Average RFR: 1,260 µW/m² Average RFR: 4.2 µW/m²
Peak RFR: 10,600 µW/m²

Slide 28: RF Meter readings inside Starbucks

4.2 µW/m² is 0.33% of RESIG's Avg metering of 1,260 µW/m², suggesting an error by RESIG's Will Davis. The Avg RFR was .004% or 1/250th of peak RFR, very similar to the average and peak RFR readings taken six feet from a NetGear AC1450 Wireless Router, as reported here. These readings inside Starbucks are the only readings similar to a PCSD classroom. We have learned that the difference between average and peak readings are much greater for Wireless Access Points (250x) than for cell phone base stations (25-50x). All of this indicates that RESIG's RFR readings are unreliable for these reasons:

  • RESIG is not an RFR expert: as stated on pages 5-6 of the 9/12/16 report "RESIG makes no representation of unique expertise regarding EMF and RF energy specifically . . . RESIG recommends consulting with experts in the field of EMFs . . . the measurement protocols, techniques and scope of services were not comprehensive . . . it is recommended that the findings of this report be presented to a qualified medical professional . . . RESIG assumes no liability or responsibility for claims that may arise out of failure to identify, correct or remediate problems that may exist at the subject property." These are the reasons why RESIG chose a cheap meter that could detect only half of the RFR in the classroom instead of a professional meter that can detect the full range from 2450MHz to 5800MHz. Will Davis also did not follow even basic RFR metering protocols by placing his far-field meter in the near-field regions. There are two obvious and significant errors we have verified: the average RFR readings of a MotoX cell phone downloading a video (off by more than 4 orders of magnitude) and the interior average RFR reading at Starbuck's (off by 3 orders of magnitude). Both of these readings provided a misleading context for the classroom RFR readings.

  • Certified RFR Expert Eric Windheim Concurs: Mr. Windheim drove from Sacramento on 9/13/16 to educate the PCSD Board on reliable RFR metering practices, but the Board only allowed him five minutes to speak, despite two community members wishing to cede their time to Mr. Windheim. Windheim wrote on the Petaluma Safe Technology Facebook page: "The RESIG WiFi report used an RF meter that only measures up to 3.5 GHz. Since the WiFi used in your Petaluma schools radiates both 2.4 & 5.0-5.8 GHz RF radiation, the RESIG report is missing half or more of the RF radiation exposure. This indicates either gross incompetence or intentional deception: perhaps both. Additionally, the meter RESIG used does not have a certificate of either factory or third party calibration. On a final note the meter RESIG selected is the cheapest 3- axis RF meter I have ever seen: $200. Building Biologists use meters that cost $1,432 for Wi-Fi measurement. These facts alone disqualify the RESIG report."

  • Evidence of a RESIG statement that deceived the PCSD Board and the public: Will Davis wrote and Cliff De Graw emphasized that" "The value of 3 µW/m² is below ambient (background) power density regardless of location and is considered to be unattainable". This is a provably false statement. Measurements of peak levels of RFR have been made with a professional, certified RFR meter as low as 1.0 µW/m² in the field next to Mary Collins School at Cherry Valley and as low as 0.08 µW/m² on 10/10/16 at Helen Putnam Park, which is 97% below the guideline. The PCSD can achieve the BioInitiative guideline of 3 µW/m² or less by powering off all the antennas in the Wireless Access Points and devices at Cherry Valley school and using 100% Ethernet hardwiring instead.

  • These reasons and more were entered into the public record at the 10/11/16 PCSD School Board meeting. Receiving the evidence that refutes the 9/12/16 RESIG RFR report is very relevant to the PCSD's response to the 200 original ink-signatures from Petaluma residents supporting the petition listed here: http://responsibleipad.com/petition.html. The petition puts the PCSD on 60-days notice to correct the problems described in the petition.


RFR Truth: Connecting the Dots

Connecting the dots, defined:

To draw logical inferences connecting items of information to reveal something previously hidden or unknown.

Steve Jobs, CEO and founder of Apple Computer, Inc., gave a commencement speech to the 2005 graduating class of Stanford University, six years before his premature death in 2011 at the age of 56 from cancer that had spread from his pancreas to the rest of his body, a long process that most likely started in his mid-twenties. Jobs was likely exposed to toxic chemicals at Hewlett Packard (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, gallium, gold, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, palladium, platinum, selenium, silver or zinc.) where Jobs was soldering as a 14-15 year old, working on the production line where they made frequency counters, of all things.

Jobs' strict vegan diet, which started in his early twenties, probably slowed the growth of his cancerous cells, but some change in his environment likely hastened the rate of growth of his cancerous cells from 2000 to 2011. Steve was first diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003 at age 48, but he probably had it long before that. By the time he consented to surgery (a modified Whipple procedure) and chemotherapy in July, 2004, we learned that the cancer had spread to his liver -- eventually leading to a liver transplant in 2009. Steve Jobs died two years later in October, 2011.


In May, 2016, we may have learned why Jobs' cancer grew faster: the scientists at the US Federal National Toxicology Program proved that both hyperplasias (abnormal increases in volume of a tissue or organ caused by the formation and growth of new normal cells) and tumors occur at signifanctly higher rates in the presence of continuous Microwave Radio-Frequency Radiation (RFR), exposures like the ones we receive from Wireless routers at home, from Wireless Access Points at school/work and from iPhones, iPads or laptops, — if we don't remember to power off the devices' antennas and use hardwire Ethernet cables to connect to the Internet — to protect ourselves and others nearby from continuous Wireless exposures.

Jobs' commencement speech consisted of three stories from his life:

Jobs: "Today, I want to tell you three stories from my life. That's it. No big deal. Just three stories. The first story is about connecting the dots . . . you have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, karma, whatever — because believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart even when it leads you off the well-worn path."

Connecting the dots is something we all must do in order to protect ourselves from continuous RFR exposures so we can prevent our loved ones and especially our children from facing outcomes like Steve Jobs or 23-year old Tiffany Frantz, who contracted breast cancer after storing her cell phone in her bra for 5 years as a teenager. Tiffany's cancer has now metastasized to her liver, just as Jobs' cancer did between 1999 and 2004.

Jobs: "My third story is about death . . . If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today? . . . Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything, all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure -- these things just fall away in the face of death . . .

About a year ago, I was diagnosed with cancer . . . a tumor on my pancreas. I didn't even know what a pancreas was . . . Death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is, as it should be. Because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It's life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new . . .

Your time is limited so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition."

As Jobs advised, I have decided to "follow [my] heart even when it leads [me] off the well-worn path". In order to get an effective solution that eliminates the immediate and latent toxic hazards in PCSD classrooms, I have had to endure the many obstacles that the PCSD Board Trustees and Administrators have so unkindly forced on our family in 2014 and 2016 in their attempts to continue to shoot the messenger, instead of solving the problem.

I will also not "be trapped by dogma which is living with the results of other people's thinking, or let the noise of others' opinions drown out [my] own inner voice." Despite its popularity in the current culture, continuous microwave RFR exposures, including exposures from Wi-Fi, is toxic and should be used only sparingly, when absolutely needed -- and only by adults. This disqualifies Wi-Fi as an always-on option for our children to access the internet in their schools. Hardwired internet is faster, more secure and safer (http://octowired.com). Using USB-to-Ethernet adapters (http://responsibleipad.com/goals.html) to connect any iPad, Chromebook or laptop to the internet by wire eliminates the current latent and toxic hazards in Petaluma classrooms.

By simply connecting the dots of the substantial scientific data and the daily events that we can observe in our classrooms (increased mucus response, nose bleeds, rashes, headaches, brain fog), I am confident the PCSD students will be better off in Wireless-free schools, with no WAP or device antennas powered on when children are present — simply accessing the Internet through hardwired Ethernet cables and adapters. For our children, we simply need education without irradiation, as we had just a few years ago.


More RFR Truth: Pulsed, Peak RFR is Much Higher than Average RFR

The truth that refutes the 9/12/16 RESIG Microwave RF Radiation Report: was entered into the public record at the 10/11/16 PCSD School Board meeting. Receiving the evidence that refutes this report is very relevant to the PCSD's response to the 200 orignal ink-signatures from Petaluma residents supporting the petition published here. The petition puts the PCSD on 60-days notice to correct the problems described in the petition.

Averaging RFR is merely a trick, dreamed up by the Wireless industry lobbyists to hide the extremely high peaks (bursts of energy, similar to blinding bursts of light from a strobe light). Thousands of scientific studies, since the 1950's have proven that our biology is not equipped to tolerate these extremely short bursts of pulsed, peak RFR.

From the Gigahertz HFW-59D Plus RF Meter Manual:


That is why any living organism should be 1,000 feet or more away from any antennas that continuously transmit peak RFR: Cell Phone Base Stations, so called Smart Meters or Wireless Access Points (WAPS). The bursts of RFR from WAPs and Wireless devices such as iPads, Chromebooks and laptops are far too close to PCSD students and these pulsed bursts of electrical power can be extremely short in duration: as short as one microsecond, which is a millionth of a second (or 0.000001 seconds).

This makes the process of accurately metering these RFR peaks very difficult. It requires professional training and professional precision instruments that range in price from $1,500 at the low end up to $100,000 at the high end. Most assuredly, no $200 RF meter, like the candy apple red RF Meter that RESIG chose, has even a remote a chance of reliably capturing these peak RFR signals.

  • The RESIG meter has no Certificate of Calibration, as confirmed by Anaheim Scientific, the US Distributor of this cheap imported RF meter. In contrast, the Gigahertz Solutions HF-38B and HF-59D meters both have have factory and/or third-party Certificates of Calibration.

  • The RESIG meter missed at least half of the RFR in PCSD Classrooms. The RESIG meter only measures from 50 MHz to 3,000 MHz — even though the PCSD transmits RFR at the 2,450 MHz and 5,000-5,800 MHz frequencies into PCSD classrooms

  • The RESIG meter only meters three times per second, while a Gigahertz Solutions HF-38B or HF-59D meters continuously: tens of thousands of times per second, each capture lasting .000033 seconds at the default setting and 0.0000005 seconds at a finer-grained setting.

From the Gigahertz HFW-59D Plus RF Meter Manual:





Still More RFR Truth: Here Are Some Reliable RFR Measurements

On April 15, 2013, right in front of the PCSD Superintendent and Technology Director, I used a professional precision instrument, a Gigahertz Solutions HF-38B RF Meter — a meter with a current Certificate of Calibration. I placed the meter on a tripod, so the meter's antenna was 24 inches from a wirelessly connected laptop that was downloading a video and I metered the peak RFR. I repeated a similar demonstration with a wirelessly connected iPad for the Superintendent and Technology Director.

  • For both devices, I metered over 160,000 µW/m² of peak RFR, where a student would be sitting. Note: µW means microWatt or millionths of a Watt; /m² means per square meter, which is slightly larger than a square yard of fabric. These April, 2013 RFR readings are consistent with the following peak RFR readings from 2016.

  • Safe Living Technologies, Inc. reported 140,000 µW/m² of peak RFR, from a single iPad, metering all relevant Wi-Fi frequencies used in schools today — 2450 MHz and 5000-5800 MHz. These findings are reported in the following March, 2016 Youtube video published at this excellent Youtube channel.

This is a screen grab from the video.



This is an embedded video. Click below to view it.



  • Windheim EMF Solutions reported 165,000 µW/m² of peak RFR, from a classroom of laptops in Sacramento, metering only the 2450 MHz Wi-Fi frequency, which means the actual peak RFR is more likely 240,000 to 320,000 µW/m². These findings were reported in July, 2016 and discussed in the following Youtube video. Importantly, the results from this accurate peak RFR Assessment were sufficient to convince the Sacramento school to take action: in just six weeks, the school powered off all of its Wireless Access Points and then installed Ethernet hardwired connections and purchased USB-to-Ethernet adapters to connect every device in the school to the internet by wire — which is faster, more reliable, more secure than Wireless and emits no RFR into the classrooms.

This is an embedded video. Click below to view it.




Refuting Incorrect PCSD Statements Made on 9/13/16

Cliff De Graw at the 9/13/16 PCSD Board Trustee presentation:

"You can just see in relative terms to what citizens are exposed to around Petaluma, our classroom exposure is lower than all of those [community Average RFR readings]. We asked the insurance agent to test the Radio-Frequency Exposure using a cellular device . . . streaming a video. All of our devices are only Wi-Fi enabled and not cellular devices. The standard measure [for a school classroom] is a six minute exposure, that's an industry standard. If you look at what the cellular Radio-Frequency [exposure that] was [Average RFR of 470,500 µW/m²], it's several thousand times higher. That's just a comparison to give you some context. . . . As far as some industry standards that RESIG used there is a variety of national and international standards here. There's [standards for] employee groups, [for] agencies, and there are international reports . . . The exposure type refers to what can be expected if you are in a job versus just out in public versus a school."

REFUTED

  1. De Graw's statement that "our classroom exposure is lower than all of those [community Average RFR readings]" is extremely misleading and downright false. We already established that none of the RESIG's classroom RFR readings are reliable (due to poor RF meter quality, meter set up to record only averages and meter technique to measure in the near-field region, when the meter is only designed to measure in the far-field region). We have also shown that the RESIG-reported PCSD Classroom Average RFR readings (920-980 µW/m²) are much higher than our verified Starbucks interior Average RFR reading (4.2 µW/m²). Starbucks interior is the only community environment that RESIG metered that has a Wireless Access Point. It is important to verify Will Davis's substandard work.

  2. Will Davis reporting 470,500 µW/m² metered from a MotoX cell phone is most assuredly a serious error by Davis, who, apparently, did not understand that the difference between the near-field and far-field regions. Davis attempted to meter closer than 14.5" from the iPads, so it seems he made a similar mistake with the MotoX cell phone -- metering closer than three wavelengths away from the cell phone. This is a specious and unreliable measurement and so it provides false context.

  3. From the Anaheim Scientific E200 RF Meter Manual:


  4. For more reliable measurements, watch the Safe Living Technologies Video, referenced earlier, which shows that cell phones and tablets measure very similarly, when performing similar activities.


  5. Both Will Davis and Cliff De Graw seem to be very confused about the RFR Exposure standards as evidenced by De Graw fumbling the following statements: "The standard measure [for a school classroom] is a six-minute exposure, that's an industry standard . . . The exposure type refers to what can be expected if [one is] in a job versus just out in public versus [in] a school . . . "

    Both Will Davis and Cliff De Graw are wrong. The accurate answers are found in various FCC Office of Engineering and Technology bulletins oet65.pdf, oet65a.pdf, oet65b.pdf, as well as more recent documents posted here, here, and here.

    Quotes from these FCC documents' definitions clear things up:
    FCC: General population/uncontrolled exposure — "For FCC purposes, this applies to human exposure to RF fields when the general public is exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public always fall under this category when exposure is not employment-related. "Uncontrolled" RF environments are those open to the general-public, where persons would normally be unaware of exposure to RF energy."

    Students are NOT employees and therefore a 30-minute data collection period is the standard for collecting RFR readings for classrooms, according to the FCC. In addition, both teachers and students cannot exercise control over their exposure, since the entire school environment is saturated with RFR 100% of the time by the WAPS, resulting in forced exposure for everyone at the schools. Therefore, the general population/uncontrolled exposure standard applies to both teachers and students. RESIG's Will Davis made a significant error only collecting RFR data for six minutes because he mistakenly treated students as an Occupational/controlled exposure group instead of as a General population/uncontrolled exposure group.

    FCC: Occupational/controlled exposure — "For FCC purposes, this applies to human exposure to RF fields when persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general population/uncontrolled limits (see definition above), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means."

    It is painfully clear that despite parents' strong recommendations that the PCSD make their teachers, parents and students "fully aware of the potential for exposure" . . . and that these exposures to "peak electric and magnetic field strengths" will result in harmful effects, as proven by substantial scientific research, the PCSD has not made these groups aware of their plights. These facts along with the students' and teachers' inability to protect themselves from RFR in PCSD classrooms, means that RESIG was wrong to treat these groups as occupational/controlled exposure groups and wrong to apply a six-minute RFR data collection standard.

    FCC: Maximum permissible exposure (MPE) — "The rms and peak electric and magnetic field strength, their squares, or the plane-wave equivalent power densities associated with these fields to which a person may be exposed without harmful effect."

    Even the FCC definitions recognize the importance of metering for the "peak electric and magnetic field strengths" — which RESIG's Will Davis neglected to do. More importantly, the substantial scientific research, including the $25 million, 15-year, National Toxicology Program study and thousands of other studies prove that RFR far below the FCC MPE levels cause harmful effects: two forms of cancer (reported in the NTP study) and other adverse bio-effects including damage to DNA, sperm and the blood-brain barrier, and are linked to tachycardia, infertility and dementia.

    Fortunately, all of these FCC Guidelines only apply to cell phone base stations and to the mobile devices that connect to them. These FCC Guidelines DO NOT APPLY AT ALL to RFR exposures from stationary WAPS in schools and to the devices that connect to these WAPS. The PCSD recognized this by stating the following in the public record on 9/13/16 "All of our devices are only Wi-Fi enabled and not cellular devices". This means that all of the comparisons the PCSC made to national and international RFR exposures guidelines are moot: the regulation of Wi-Fi falls to the states and local communities who have express dual regulatory legal duties to protect their populations and there are laws already on the books that do just that.

    FCC: Near-field region — A region generally in proximity to an antenna or other radiating structure, in which the electric and magnetic fields do not have a substantially plane-wave character, but vary considerably from point to point.
    FCC: Far-field region — That region of the field of an antenna where the angular field distribution is essentially independent of the distance from the antenna. In this region (also called the free space region), the field has a predominantly plane-wave character, i.e., locally uniform distribution of electric field strength and magnetic field strength in planes transverse to the direction of propagation.

    The Anaheim Scientific E200 RF Meter's manual states "if the distance from the meter to the source is less than three wavelengths [which is 14.5" for 2450 MHz], then one is in the near-field. In the near-field . . . the [RF/EMF] field values cannot be accurately calculated. This meter is only designed for reliable far-field measurements." Therefore, every single measurement that Davis made 12" from the iPads and 5" from the iPads, as listed on pages 2, 3 and 4 of the report is unreliable — it is "garbage in, garbage out".


  6. From the Anaheim Scientific E200 RF Meter Manual:


More Cliff De Graw at the 9/13/16 PCSD Board Trustee presentation:

"As you can see here our highest maximum rating of [an Average RFR reading of 980 µW/m²] is below all of these except for the last updated Bio-Initiative Report of [3 µW/m²] . . . I'm no expert in power density and all that, but our agent did include that in the latest BioInitiative Report in 2012 they lowered their [guideline to 3 µW/m²] and he added this [asterisked point which] said that this is considered to be unattainable. I can't speak to that scientifically, but I just wanted to include that."

REFUTED

  • We have already shown that this 9/12/16 RESIG RFR report is akin to the blind (RESIG/PCSD Administrators) leading the blind (PCSD Board and parents), but at least De Graw understands this when he accurately states: "I'm no expert in power density and all that . . .", but RESIG's Will Davis has also proven that he is no expert in RFR or EMF matters. Davis explicitly states that in his report: "RESIG makes no representation of unique expertise regarding EMF and RF energy specifically." — a report that RESIG's Will Davis is not even willing to sign or stamp. Therefore none of Will Davis' work on this report can be treated seriously.

  • The PCSD could and should have worked with parents, some of whom are actual RFR experts, to identify a mutually acceptable independent RFR Expert and agree on a methodology for this PCSD Classroom RFR assessment. I have been suggesting this for three years. Instead, the PCSD conducted this work in secret and continues to hide the details behind the planning and execution of this RESIG study from the public, despite active CA Public Records Act Requests for this public information.

  • Cleary, Davis' statement that the 2012 Bioinitiative guideline of 3 µW/m² "is considered to be unattainable" has been proven false by the 10/10/16 Peak RFR readings taken at Helen Putnam Park (0.08 µW/m²), which is 97% below the 2012 Bioinitiative guideline and a peak RFR reading taken at the field next to Cherry Valley in 2013 (1.0 µW/m²). The PCSD can achieve the BioInitiative guideline of 3 µW/m² or less by powering off all the antennas in the Wireless Access Points and devices at Cherry Valley school and using 100% Ethernet hardwiring instead.


Entered into the Public Record at the 10/11/16 PCSD Board Meeting

Speaker One

On 9/13/16, we presented over 200 original ink-signatures for a petition that puts the PCSD on 60 days notice to correct the configuration problems in the PCSD's Wi-Fi Network, a current configuration that is leading to immediate and latent toxic hazards in PCSD classrooms from pulsed data-carrying Microwave Radio Frequency Radiation, or RFR, for short. Both speakers tonight are proud to have signed this petition, which seeks the relief, therein, and seeks to protect the health and safety of over 7,000 PCSD students and over 800 PCSD employees.

Just before we submitted these original signatures, we listened to a presentation by Superintendent Gary Callahan, Assistant Superintendent Cliff De Graw and Technology Director Lori Deen on this report — an allegedly independent evaluation of the PCSD's Wi-Fi Network. We say allegedly because — despite Mr. Callahan's words that evening:

"We needed to contact our risk analysis partner to contract out an independent evaluation of the Wi-Fi Network."

. . . that never happened.

The PCSD's insurance group, RESIG, did not contract out for an independent expert and so we have here only a biased report, conducted by a non-expert, that is full of errors and false statements. One cannot rely on this report for any accurate assessments of the actual RF Radiation hazards in PCSD classrooms. RESIG, who conducted the assessment on behalf of the PCSD is neither an RFR expert nor an independent evaluator. The PCSD is their customer. RESIG has a clear conflict of interest in this matter because they have every incentive to keep their customer happy and to keep the PCSD's claims low.

No reliable recommendations or conclusions can be made based upon the data or findings from this report — yet the PCSD is already using this report to mislead Petaluma residents. On October 4th, Board member Mary Johnson read the following statement at the PCSD Board Candidate forum that was televised live on Petaluma Community Access Television:

"The District commissioned a study by our insurance carrier . . . a study, which was distributed to the Board at a recent meeting, concluded that there was no danger to students from the Wireless installations because the radio frequencies that they emit are several orders of magnitude below regulatory limits. Consequently, the study recommends that no further steps needed to be taken by the District to address this matter."

Mary Johnson's televised statement was an overt act to mislead the entire Petaluma community — and this happened after Mary Johnson had received the evidence by email that we are stating into the public record this evening.

The 9/12/16 RESIG RFR Assessment is a farce, full of errors and disrespectful of the parents who have been trying to engage Superintendent Gary Callahan in a discussion about how to eliminate the immediate and latent toxic hazards in PCSD classrooms since February of 2016. The members of our family have been ignored and harassed by Mr. Callahan and his staff. Misleading parents and hiding information from the public has been a pattern by the PCSD since 2013 and 2014.

In 2013, we were requesting that the Superintendent and the Principals of Cherry Valley and Valley Vista schools please hire an RFR expert to conduct an independent evaluation of the Wireless Access Points and wireless devices that the PCSD was planning to use in PCSD classrooms. We even offered to pay for the evaluation by an RFR expert upon which both parties could agree. RESIG recommended to Bolman that he hire a certified Building Biologist, but Bolman refused to do so and instead followed a strategy very similar to the PCSD's strategy in 2016:

  1. Proceed in secret, without informing the parents.

  2. Get Will Davis to complete EMF studies (in 2013, two magnetic field studies), using a cheap, non-professional meter (in 2013, it was a $100 single access Gauss meter, instead of a professional 3-Axis meter that costs around $1,500).

  3. Ignore California Public Records Act requests for over a month that demanded immediate inspection of all information about said studies.

  4. Mislead parents about what the studies reported and meant to the safety of PCSD students and employees with respect to RFR exposures.

In 2013, Will Davis from RESIG, conducted two superfluous magnetic field studies of PCSD classrooms. Then the PCSD used these magnetic field studies to mislead parents at a public meeting in November 2013: the Cherry Valley principal stood up and told the parents at that public meeting that the 2013 RESIG studies proved that there was no danger to students from the PCSD's Wireless installations. Sound familiar? This is exactly what Mary Johnson said on television last week. The truth is that that magnetic fields studies say nothing about classroom RFR exposures. It is like asking for temperature readings and then getting only humidity readings. In the ballpark, but not the same thing, at all.

The pattern of hiding information from the public in 2013-2014 is very similar to what the PCSD is doing in 2016. The PCSD has not fully complied with many California Public Records Acts requests, including at least five current CPRA requests in 2016.

Thank you for the time. The other petition signer will read the rest of this statement.


Speaker Two

Will Davis from RESIG used a $195 consumer-grade RF meter, a cheap knock-off, sold by Anaheim Scientific — an RF meter that has severe limitations, listed right in its own operating manual. In addition, Davis made serious errors when collecting the data, ignoring the meter manual's instructions.

I will list some of these items now, but the full-story is posted at http://responsibleipad.com/truth.html. Today, our RFR expert spoke to level-two technical support engineers at both Anaheim Scientific and Safe Living Technologies — a firm that posted an accurate iPad RFR assessment as a Youtube video called Microwave Radiation Exposure Produced by iPad. This video reports, in March 2016, that RFR from a single iPad measures 140,000 µW/m², which is similar to the results reported by RFR expert Eric Windheim at a school in Sacramento in July, 2016: 165,000 µW/m².

  1. Callahan, Deen and De Graw are lay people with no training or expertise in measuring and mitigating RFR, yet, they attempted on 9/13/16 to spin a tale to mislead parents about the actual levels of RFR in PCSD Classrooms.

  2. RESIG employee Will Davis, the person who completed the data collection in secret, without informing the parents, and then wrote this RFR assessment, also has no training or expertise in measuring and mitigating RFR. In fact, Will Davis never signed or stamped the report, proving that he has taken no responsibility for the accuracy or truthfulness of the results, findings or conclusions in the report. Mr. Davis on pages 5 and 6 of the report plainly states he has "no expertise in the field of EMF's . . . the measurement protocols technique and scope of services were not comprehensive . . . [and] RESIG assumes no liability or responsibility." A full page of disclaimers and limitations on page 6 renders the report wholly unreliable. The report, therefore, misleads the parents into thinking the report can make some claims about safety, when it cannot.

  3. The E200 RFR meter that RESIG used has no Calibration Certificate, as confirmed by Anaheim Scientific, so the meter cannot be used to make reliable decisions or recommendations.

  4. The E200 RF meter measures only from 50 MHz to 3,000 MHz, but the RFR in PCSD classrooms is both at 2450 MHz and 5000-5800 MHz. Therefore, the meter missed at least half of the RFR in PCSD classrooms emitted from the WAPs and the devices. The manual states "you should be certain that all field components to be measured lie in the specified frequency range of the measuring device". The RF meter is not designed to measure 5000-5800 MHz. This is RF 101. Will Davis failed.

  5. The manual also states "if the distance from the meter to the source is less than three wavelengths [which is 14.5" for 2450 MHz], then one is in the near-field. In the near-field . . . the [RF/EMF] field values cannot be accurately calculated. This meter is only designed for reliable far-field measurements." Therefore, every single measurement that Davis made 12" from the iPads and 5" from the iPads, as listed on pages 2, 3 and 4 of the report is unreliable — it is "garbage in, garbage out", according to both of the level-two technical support engineers we consulted today. This is, most assuredly, the reason for the obviously erroneous measurement of an average of 470,500 µW/m² from a MotoX Cellphone downloading a video cited in the report. Safe Living Technologies accurately reports in their video that cell phones and tablets measure very similarly, performing similar activities. Will Davis failed repeatedly and De Graw misled parents when comparing tablet measurements to cell phone measurements on 9/13/16.

  6. The E200 RF meter is also severely limited in its ability to measure pulsed RFR — the very definition of Wi-Fi. The manual states: "field strength measuring devices, [such as this RF Meter] understate pulsed signals" because the meter only samples RFR three times per second. This is paltry compared to professional RF meters that sample RFR continuously with sample durations of 33 microseconds (which is 33 millionths of a second). This is important because many RFR peaks are even shorter in duration than that. This means that the RF Meter RESIG used missed measuring nearly all of the RFR in the PCSD classrooms.

  7. RESIG's Will Davis ignored the E200 manual's directions on how to measure RFR. The manual states "Use either the 'instantaneous' or the 'Max. instantaneous' mode . . . when entering an area exposed to electromagnetic radiation . . . Use the 'Average' or 'Max average' modes only when the instantaneous measurement values are fluctuating greatly." Will Davis used only 'Average' modes when metering PCSD classrooms, which understates actual RFR values by as much as 250 times.

  8. Finally, Will Davis wrote and Cliff De Graw emphasized that "The value of 3 µW/m² is below ambient (background) power density regardless of location and is considered to be unattainable". This is a provably false statement. Measurements of peak levels of RFR have been made with a professional, certified RFR meter as low as 1.0 µW/m² in the field next to Mary Collins School at Cherry Valley and as low as 0.08 µW/m² just yesterday at Helen Putnam Park. The PCSD can achieve the BioInitiative guideline of 3 µW/m² or less by powering off all the antennas in the Wireless Access Points and devices at Cherry Valley school and using 100% Ethernet hardwiring instead.

Thank you.


6/2/16 Email to PCSD Superintendent and Board Trustees

June 2, 2016

To: Mr. Gary Callahan
Superintendent
Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD)
200 Douglas Street
Petaluma, CA 94952

cc: PCSD Board Members Baddeley, Chlebowski, Ellis, Johnson and Sanderson

Please listen to these important 4 1/2 minutes (11:02 to 14:30) of substantial scientific evidence in the following Youtube video, transcribed below for your convenience:

Scientific Briefing on the NTP Study on the Carcinogenicity of Radiofrequency Radiation 6/1/2016 Please listen to 11:02 to 14:30 https://youtu.be/rM3_Qdv1hFE?t=11m2s

Ronald L Melnick, PhD. lead the design of the $25 Million NTP/NIEHS Rodent Study:

"What we observed in these [NTP Rat] studies are increases in gliomas and schwannomas of the heart, but there were also hyperplasias. There was a significant trend for gliomas in the . . . exposed rats . . . None were observed in the control [rats]. There were also glial hyperplasias observed in only exposed rats. The glial hyperplasias are focal proliferative lesions, which as they grow larger can convert into a tumor . . .

In the heart, we observed an increase in Schwannomas; the increase was a positive trend with [exposed rats]. The level of Schwannoma incidence was significantly increased in the highest exposure group . . . there were [also] Schwann cell hyperplasias observed only in the exposure group and none in the control [group].

One other effect . . . is that there was also a toxic lesion in the heart: there was a right ventricular degeneration. This was observed with both male and female rats and was significant in all exposure groups . . .

So, what's the message from all of this? We tested the hypothesis that [radio-frequency] radiation could not cause health effects and we feel that that hypothesis has now been disproved because these results clearly show that that [microwave radio-frequency] radiation can cause adverse health effects."

The finding of increases of gliomas and schwannomas of the heart in rats exposed to the radio-frequency radiation provides consistency with the epidemiological reports of increases of gliomas and acoustic neuromas, which are tumors of Shwann cells among humans exposed to [radio-frequency] radiation. Those were the findings that provided the basis for the IARC evaluation of 2011, because the same cells that became cancerous in rats are the cells that have been reported to develop into tumors in [human] epidemiological studies . . .

The incidence of tumors is not the measurement of risk alone. Risk is determined from both the dosimetry, which is the absorbed power x time, versus the tumor response . . . because of the large number of [exposed human] users worldwide, even a small increase in risk at exposure propensities that may be close to what humans experience, could result in a large number of people developing a RF-radiation-induced tumor with long-term exposure."

. . . such as continuous classroom exposures to RFR resulting from PCSD’s voluntary purchase, use and configuration of business equipment, including Wireless Access Points (WAPs), iPads, Chromebooks, laptops and other wirelessly-connected devices.

Definitions

Schwannoma: a neoplasm originating from Schwann cells of neurons; schwannomas include neurofibromas (a tumor of peripheral nerves due to abnormal proliferation of Schwann cells) and neurilemmomas (tumors of neurilemmas -- peripheral nerve sheaths)

Hyperplasia: abnormal increase in volume of a tissue or organ caused by the formation and growth of new normal cells.

. . . as the Superintendent and PCSD Board Members learned in public comment in 2013:

Senior Federal Officials Concur
http://rfemf.com/presentation/index.html#/26

Work = Power x Time
http://rfemf.com/presentation/index.html#/27

Swap the RF/EMF source and the object and the story is the same
http://rfemf.com/presentation/index.html#/28

A Student Irradiation Lesson
http://rfemf.com/presentation/index.html#/29
http://rfemf.com/counter.html#counter

. . . as the PCSD Superintendent and Board Members learned in public comment in 2014:

http://rfemf.com/background.html#clarke
http://rfemf.com/img/2014-0408-Susan-Clarke-RF-EMF-MW-Bioeffects.pdf

Expert testimony of Susan Clarke:

"Where many or all parameters are set so as to maximize harm from RF radiation, weapons-grade radiation results. In the case of school Wi-Fi, there is not only significant exposure intensity, as these measurements and this excellent analysis (http://rfemf.com/counter.html#counter) thereof show, but also maximized DURATION, with WAVELENGTHS that maximize absorption in the brain, heart, thyroid and genitalia, with most harmful PULSE-MODULATION, in an extremely COMPLEX radiation microenvironment.


This maximally hazardous, weapons-grade radiation is then deployed upon the most vulnerable populations and susceptible individuals, by coercion and without freedom even to move away temporarily from exposure.

The conditions in which wi-fi is deployed in schools, then, ensure harm including early death to all, with intense suffering to some."

. . . as the PCSD Superintendent and Board Members learned in 2016:

U.S. Federal Government Finally Admits RF/EMF Microwave Radiation is Carcinogenic:

New scientific findings from the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) must have a direct bearing on the PCSD's decisions and actions to eliminate the continuous, immediate and latent toxic hazards in Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) classrooms resulting from the PCSD’s voluntary purchase, use and configuration of business equipment, including Wireless Access Points (WAPs), iPads, Chromebooks, laptops and other wirelessly-connected devices. The effective way to eliminate these classroom hazards is to turn off all Wireless Access Points (WAPs) when students are present on PCSD campuses and to hardwire internet access for the iPads, Chromebooks, laptops and other wireless devices used on PCSD campuses.

. . . It is long past the time for PCSD Superintendent and Board Members to act to protect the health of PCSD students and employees.

From the Gigahertz HFW-59D Plus RF Meter Manual:




Return to Key Issues of Truth

Critique of 9/12/16 RESIG PCSD Classroom RFR Assessement

by Mark Graham, Environmental Advocate
Mark Graham is an experienced advocate for environmental protection and peace and against wireless radiation. He opposes Wi-Fi in classrooms because it is a health hazard and it is unnecessary: hardwired internet is a far better alternative. At the 9/13/16 PCSD School Board meeting, Mark spoke on behalf of students and against the PCSD's biased and incorrect 9/12/16 Limited Radio-Frequency Microwave Radiation Exposure Assessment. Here is his written assessment of this report.

The Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) cannot rely on the RESIG report as authoritative medical, scientific, legal or policy making advice about Microwave Radio-Frequency Radiation (RFR) levels in PCSD classrooms. It is discredited based on disclaimers and statements RESIG makes in their own report: 9/12/16 LIMITED RADIO-FREQUENCY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR PETALUMA CITY SCHOOLS.


1. RESIG admits they do not know what they are doing with EMF and RFR measurements.

RESIG statement:

​ "RESIG makes no representation of unique expertise regarding EMF and RF energy specifically. If additional, more detailed information is necessary, RESIG recommends consulting with experts in the field of EMFs, e.g., electronic engineers, physicists, epidemiologists, etc." (page 5)

Comment and analysis:
​ The PCSD has rushed to a conclusion that Wi-Fi in schools is safe without following the RESIG recommendation: RESIG skipped the step of consulting experts. First of all RESIG is an insurance company! RESIG stands for Redwood Empire Schools' Insurance Group. Why would the Board of Education ask an insurance company for a scientific assessment of potentially hazardous microwave radiation in the schools?! Here, RESIG acknowledges​ that they do not know what they are doing with EMF and RFR!​ This might explain their use of a cheap meter, failure to have a qualified person (or any person) ​sign their report, failure to mention whether they calibrated their meter, failure to mention any of the flaws and limitations in the FCC guidelines and the fact that the FCC guidelines only apply to cell phone base station antennas and to the mobile devices that connect to these base stations. The FCC guidelines do not apply to Wi-Fi at all.


2. RESIG relies on, but claims it does not rely on, the FCC exposure guidelines.

RESIG statement:

​ "RESIG does not warrant the services of regulatory agencies . . . " (page 2)

Comment and analysis:
Well, yes and no. They say this, but then RESIG says, on page 1,

"​Given that the monitoring results were several orders of magnitude below regulatory limits no further school district action is recommended at this time." (page 1)

This statement assumes that the "services of regulatory agencies", by which they mean the maximum permissible exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for RFR from cell phones in 1996, based on data from the 1980s, are scientifically valid and sufficient to protect the health and safety of students in the classroom. RESIG and PCSD cannot have it both ways. Either the "regulatory limits" for RFR are protective or they are not.

Also, hidden behind this statement on page 2 ​are the many flaws in the "maximum permissible exposure guidelines set in 1996 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for RFR from cell phones, which the District mistakenly assumes apply to RFR from Wi-Fi. Finally, RESIG failed to mention that, according to the FCC website:

"At the present time there is no federally-mandated radio frequency (RF) exposure standard."

https://www.fcc.gov/general/fcc-policy-human-exposure


3. RESIG failed to measure peak RFR and only measured averages.

​​​ RESIG statement:

​​ "​All results are reported as maximum averages." (page 2)

​​​ Comment and analysis:
The human body experiences peaks, whether they are spikes in RFR or the punches of a boxer or anything else that varies with time. Average RFR is meaningless.

​ The Wi-Fi signals from the wireless access points vary in intensity. There are many (hundreds per minute) of spikes or peaks of radiation, each of which only lasts a fraction of a second. If you have a safe and enjoyable day Monday through Saturday but you get run over by a Mack truck while crossing the street on Sunday, then on average you have had a good week, but in reality you are laying dead in a morgue.

​The FCC, RESIG, and PCSD all want parents and teachers to look only at the averages, but human biology reacts to the strong peaks of RFR, not to the averages. Averaging is just a trick that understates by 250x or more the actual RFR levels in classrooms.

See also the following illustration by Florie of the guy sitting with his feet in ice water and his hair on fire. On average his body temperature is about right and he is comfortable.


4. Six minute measurements do not accurately capture what students and teachers are exposed to from Wi-Fi in classrooms.

RESIG statement:

"The report showed tables of measurements of a "6 minute time averaged exposure" in microwatts per centimeter squared. (pages 2, 3, and 4) ​

​​ Comment and analysis:
​​The students and teachers do not get exposed to Wi-Fi for six minutes. They get exposed for the better part of 6 hours per day, the entire time they are in the classroom, 180 days per school year, or 1,080 hours per school year (or over 60,000 minutes per school year).

​The 1996 FCC ​exposure guideline, which the RESIG report doesn't warrant but does rely on, assumes that if a person can endure a certain amount of RFR for six or 30 minutes he or she can endure it forever. This is literally the claim by FCC, because the units of measurement are in Watts and a Watt is a rate of electricity, not the total power delivered. Total Power delivered uses a units defined as Watt * second, commonly called Watt-Second, Joule, or even KiloWatt-Hour — as you can plainly read on your monthly PG&E bill.

RFR is radiation, as is sunlight. We all know that just because a given person can lay out in the sun for 30 minutes and not get a sunburn that does not mean or or she can lay out in the sun for eight hours on that same day and not get a sunburn.


5. RESIG's report is "for informational purposes only" but RESIG makes a specific policy recommendation for PCSD to continue its 'Wi-Fi in schools' policy.

​​ RESIG statements:

​ "The information contained in this report is provided for informational purposes only." (page 5)

"​Given that the monitoring results were several orders of magnitude below regulatory limits no further school district action is recommended at this time." (page 1)​

​​ ​​ Comment and analysis:
These two statements blatantly contradict each other. RESIG is clearly making a recommendation for policy action; specifically, "no further school district action". In other words, RESIG recommends that PCSD should continue irradiating students and teachers in the schools with Wireless Access Points and Wireless devices powered on. The disclaimer about "for informational purposes only" appears to be RESIG's way of distancing itself from any mistakes they have made and the harmful impacts to students and teachers that will follow from the PCSD continuing to use Wi-Fi in the schools.

Again, remember that there is no federally-mandated radio frequency (RF) exposure standard, according to the FCC.


6. RESIG admits they omitted things when taking their measurements.

RESIG statements:

​ "The measurement protocols, techniques and scope of services were not comprehensive and should not be considered all-inclusive." (page 6)

​​​​ Comment and analysis:
RESIG failed to measure the peaks of the RFR ​radiation, as stated earlier. Also, speaking of protocols and techniques and as stated elsewhere on this page, RESIG used the wrong meter, used the wrong settings on the meter and came up with grossly inaccurate measurements.

7. ​RESIG said that the PCSD should get legal and medical advice on the issue of Wi-Fi in schools. PCSD jumped to conclusions without getting either.

​​ RESIG statement:

​ "RESIG is not a law firm, and therefore, makes no representations regarding any potential liability of any person or entity for site conditions. RESIG is not qualified to present medical advice. If any past, present, or future health issues are in question, it is recommended that the findings of this report be presented to a qualified medical professional for review and evaluation." (page 6)

​​ Comment and analysis:
​ ​What about that legal advice and medical advice?! PCSD jumped to the conclusion that its policy of Wi-Fi in schools is safe without getting medical or legal advice that their own insurance company recommends!

Obviously the question of Wi-Fi in schools is about health. What else could it be about?! Petaluma parents have made that very clear to the PCSD for over 3 years. At best the RESIG report is incomplete because it cannot stand alone. It does not answer the key question, which is, "Is the use of Wi-Fi in schools a health hazard for students and teachers?" It is a liability issue for the PCSD and a health & safety issue for 7,000+ PCSD students and 800+ PCSD employees.


8. ​RESIG does not stand by its own report.

RESIG statement:

​ "RESIG assumes no liability or responsibility for claims that may arise out of failure to identify, correct, or remediate problems that may exist at the subject property." (page 6)

Comment and analysis:
​That is the ultimate disclaimer. It means, "Don't blame us if we are wrong and your students and teachers get sick from your use of Wi-Fi in the schools." When a company says they are not liable for their advice they are covering their behinds. They are doing so because, in this case, they have no expertise in the matter of EMF and RFR, they must sense that there is a possible risk of significant harm to students and teachers, they must know about the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies, and they just don't want to be holding the bag when it all hits the fan. ​

​​The "problem[s] that may exist at the subject property" is simply the use of Wi-Fi in the schools. The PCSD should have asked RESIG to answer the basic question, once again, ​"Does the use of Wi-Fi in schools present health risks for students and teachers?" This disclaimer is RESIG's way of saying, "We don't know and we don't claim to know." PCSD didn't really ask RESIG that question anyway; apparently PCSD asked RESIG to make some measurements to determine whether the schools comply with the 1996 FCC exposure guidelines, which do not apply to Wi-Fi anyway.


9. The RESIG report is not signed by a qualified person - or by any person!

RESIG omission:
RESIG failed to have a qualified person sign their report.

Comment and analysis:
​ Typically a report on a scientific matter from any source would be signed by a qualified person, such as an engineer or scientist with specialized training and experience. It is a way of an individual, whether on his own behalf or on behalf of a corporation, taking responsibility for the report and saying, in effect, "Yes I wrote this report and I stand by it." It is a way of being accountable.

Will Davis of RESIG apparently wrote the RESIG report, according to his boss, Ross Burcina, the Executive Director of RESIG, but Davis did not sign the report. Will Davis' name does not appear anywhere on the report. Nor does the name of any other person. Talk about running away from your own work!​​

Conclusion:

For these reasons and many more, the PCSD should discard the RESIG report as worthless and follow the recommendations that RESIG made by getting legal, medical and qualified technical / scientific advice all intended to answer the question, ​"Does the use of Wi-Fi in schools present health hazards for students and teachers?"


Return to Key Issues of Truth

Issue 1. PCSD RF Microwave Radiation Committee-Gate

On 9/23/16 @ 5:32 pm, [Parent] emailed to PCSD Board Member, Mary Johnson

Dear Ms. Johnson,

Will you please explain this apparent contradiction? What's the truth? Will you please explain this on your Campaign Facebook page, so we all have a good understanding of the truth? Thank you.

Quote from the Argus Courier | September 15, 2016 @ 9:36 am

http://www.petaluma360.com/opinion/6085035-181/johnson-lynch-for-petaluma-school

"When some parents [communicated their knowledge of the scientific evidence that establishes the hazards of] electromagnetic radiation being emitted from wireless [access points] in classrooms, [Mary Johnson] volunteered to meet with parents and is currently serving on a committee formed to study the issue."

Quote from Sue Merrill | September 23, 2016 @ 3:19 pm

"I am responding to your voice mail today inquiring about the district committee on 'studying Electromagnetic Radiation' that was mentioned in the Editorial in the Argus Courier earlier this month. There is no such district committee."

Sue Merrill
Executive Assistant to the Superintendent
Petaluma City Schools
200 Douglas St. Petaluma CA 94952

Regards,

[Parent]

On 9/24/16, Mary Johnson's only response was to delete the Facebook comment

Mary Johnson deleted the following 9/23/16 comment from her Campaign Facebook page

Hi, Mary.

Argus Courier | September 15, 2016, 9:36 am: "When some parents [communicated their knowledge of the scientific evidence that establishes the hazards of] electromagnetic radiation being emitted from wireless [access points] in classrooms, [Mary Johnson] volunteered to meet with parents and is currently serving on a committee formed to study the issue."

What committee is this, who serves on this committee, when does it meet next and how can parents have direct input into this committee before the election?

Return to Key Issues of Truth

Issue 2. PCSD 2016 RF Microwave Radiation Assessment: Farce and Whitewash

On 9/21/16 @ 3:20 pm email [Parent] wrote to Rose Burcina:

September 21, 2016

Ms. Rose Burcina
Executive Director
Redwood Empire Schools Insurance Group (RESIG)
5760 Skylane Blvd., Suite 100
Windsor, CA 95492
707-836-0779, ext. 104

Dear Ms. Burcina,

What about that promise you made to me on 9/16/16 to answer the outstanding questions regarding the 9/12/16 LIMITED RADIO-FREQUENCY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR PETALUMA CITY SCHOOLS (2016-RFR-Assessment), Ms. Burcina?

On 9/20/16 @ 2:10 pm, Rose Burcina wrote to [parent]:

[Dear parent], I reviewed the emails you have sent me and determined that RESIG does not have any additional information to provide about the limited radiofrequency exposure assessment completed for Petaluma City Schools in June and July 2016 other than what is included in the report which you have a copy of, therefore, there is no reason to meet to have any further discussion. Please contact Petaluma City Schools if you have any further questions or need any additional information concerning Wi-Fi in the schools. Thank you. Rose Burcina
Executive Director
License # CA0B24780
Redwood Empire Schools’ Insurance Group (RESIG)
(707) 836-0779 x104

Are you and RESIG then complicit in the process of intentionally misleading Petaluma parents about the actual RF radiation levels in PCSD classrooms? That puts RESIG employee Will Davis' work from 2013 and 2016 in an entirely new light. Are you sure you don't want to just answer the outstanding questions truthfully?

I am reminding you that there is an active CA Public records request for all of the supporting information surrounding the planning, execution and raw data gathering for the 2016-RFR-Assessment, which you can read here (http://responsibleipad.com/urgent.html#2016-0901).

Obstruction of the public inspection of public information violates CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48.

Would you like to reconsider?

Regards,

[Parent]

On 9/21/16 @ 7:47 pm, [Parent] wrote to Rose Burcina:

September 21, 2016

Dear Ms. Burcina,

You also committed to answering the questions that were not addressed by 9/12/16 LIMITED RADIO-FREQUENCY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR PETALUMA CITY SCHOOLS (2016-RFR-Assessment), which, it turns out, is about 90% of the questions from 8/24/14 that still remain unanswered. I am disappointed to see your absolute stonewall.

On 9/21/16 @ 5:43 pm, Rose Burcina wrote to [Parent]:

[Parent],

I committed to reviewing the new email that you said you would send to me on Monday and I did. We do not have any additional information to add to what was included in the report; absolutely none.

Rose Burcina
Executive Director
License # CA0B24780
Redwood Empire Schools’ Insurance Group (RESIG)

Actions and, in this case, a lack of actions, as evidenced by your choices, speak much louder than your words. Yours are not choices I would have expected or recommended for you or RESIG. We are talking about the health and safety of 7,000+ Petaluma students.

As you stated, you did review my lengthy 9/19/16 email, therefore, you are well aware of the following facts:

[1] Will Davis, the RESIG employee that you admitted to me, on 9/16/16, performed the measurements for the 2016-RFR-Assessment, actually holds no certification that you are willing to provide that can prove that he had the professional credentials or competency to measure or interpret RF Radiation assessments, during the period from 6/1/16 to 9/12/16.

[2] The $195 Anaheim Scientific E200 RF meter used by RESIG was not professionally calibrated and, according to the manufacturer's own manual, the E200 meter only measures from 50 MHz to 3.5 GHz (missing the RF Radiation in the 5000 MHz to 5800 MHz ranges that are in PCSD classrooms), and

"Field strength measuring devices [such as the ES200] can underrate pulsed signals [which Wi-Fi signals are, which means] significant measurement errors can arise."

[3] Mr. Davis did not follow the ES200 manual which recommends measuring in the

"Maximum instantaneous (MAX symbol) mode: [which] shows the highest instantaneous value measured so far."

These facts and others prove that the 2016-RFR-Assessment cannot be relied upon for an accurate assessment of the actual RF Radiation values in PCSD classrooms and therefore no reliable recommendations or conclusions can be made based upon the findings from this report.

Ms, Burcina, there is more public information about the planning, execution and data gathering for the 2016-RFR-Assessment. We have state laws which guarantee public access to inspect this kind of public information and we have precedence from 2013 in getting exactly this type of public information via CPRA-requests. You, of course, are well aware of this because the PCSD was your client back in 2013 and most of your clients are local government agencies.

The public has the right to inspect CPRA-requested public information. Obstruction is not allowed.

Regards,

[Parent]

On 9/23/16 @ 11:31 am, [Parent] wrote to Gary Callahan and others:

September 23, 2016

To: Mr. Gary Callahan
Superintendent
Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) 200 Douglas Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
707-778-4604

cc:
Mary Johnson, PCSD Board Member
Chris Thomas, PCSD Chief Business Official
Cliff De Graw, Assistant Superintendent

Re: 9/23/16 CPRA Request, per CA Public Records Act (CPRA), GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48

We recently read a 9/15/16 article in the Argus Courier that PCSD Board Member Mary Johnson is currently serving on a committee formed to study the issue Electromagnetic Radiation.

On 9/23/16 @ 10:41 am, [parent] wrote to Mary Johnson:

Re: When Can You and I Meet to Discuss Your Work/Progress on the Electromagnetic Radiation Committee?

Hi, Mary. When can you and I meet to discuss your work/progress on the Electromagnetic Radiation Committee? I am happy to discuss this with you personally or on your campaign Facebook page. You can reach me at [tel]. I will look forward to hearing from you.

On 9/23/16 @ 10:41 am, [parent] posted a comment to Mary Johnson's Campaign Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/Mary-Johnson-for-Petaluma-School-Board-335999236742902
Agus Courier | September 15, 2016, 9:36 am
http://www.petaluma360.com/opinion/6085035-181/johnson-lynch-for-petaluma-school:

Hi, Mary. "When some parents [communicated their knowledge of the scientific evidence that establishes the hazards of] electromagnetic radiation being emitted from wireless [access points] in classrooms, [Mary Johnson] volunteered to meet with parents and is currently serving on a committee formed to study the issue."

What committee is this, when does it meet next and how can parents have direct input into this committee before the election? Thank you.

Petaluma residents, [parents], are submitting this 9/23/16 CPRA Request to immediately inspect any and all public information about the PCSD Committee formed to study the issue of Electromagnetic Radiation in PCSD Schools, including, but not limited to written documents, email communications, text messages, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, calendar entries and reports that were written by any PCSD board member, employee, vendor or contractor, between 1/1/16 and 9/23/16. Specifically, we are seeking information about who is on this committee, when and where the committee has met and will meet in the future, whether parents have any direct input to this committee, the process for parents to provide direct input to this committee, the relationship this committee has to any school safety committee, the information the committee has gathered to study and the criteria the committee uses to assess the validity and reliability of the information the committee has gathered.

Public oversight of this committee is critically important given the 9/13/16 presentation by Cliff De Graw and Lori Deen on the 9/12/16 LIMITED RADIO-FREQUENCY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR PETALUMA CITY SCHOOLS (2016-RFR-Assessment), a report which is both a farce and a whitewash.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/farce
farce (noun): something that is so bad that it is seen as ridiculous

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whitewash
whitewash (noun): something that prevents people from learning the truth about something bad, such as a dishonest, immoral, or illegal act or situation

Here are the relevant facts:

  1. On 9/13/16, at the Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) Board meeting, the Board members were served a petition with over 200 original ink-signatures from Petaluma residents supporting the petition listed here: http://responsibleipad.com/petition.html. The petition puts the PCSD on 60-days notice to correct the problems described in the petition.

  2. On 9/19/16, I emailed Christine Thomas, PCSD Chief Business Officer, and Rose Burcina, Executive Director of RESIG, and PCSD Board Member Mary Johnson a mapping of the questions in my 8/24/16 email to Ms. Burcina and about how few answers were provided by the 2016-RFR-Assessment and that many answers are still needed. I informed Ms. Thomas, Ms. Burcina and Ms. Johnson that parents need truthful answers to all of the questions asked on 8/24/16 so that the PCSD does not continue to mislead parents about the actual RF Radiation levels in PCSD classrooms, as the PCSD did back in 2013. Details are here: http://responsibleipad.com/urgent.html#2016-0901

  3. Will Davis, the RESIG employee who Ms. Burcina admitted to me, on 9/16/16, performed the measurements for the 2016-RFR-Assessment, actually holds no certification that RESIG is willing to provide that can prove that he had the professional credentials or competency to measure or interpret RF Radiation assessments, during the period from 6/1/16 to 9/12/16.

  4. The $195 Anaheim Scientific E200 RF meter used by RESIG was not professionally calibrated and, according to the manufacturer's own manual, attached, the E200 meter only measures from 50 MHz to 3.5 GHz (missing the RF Radiation in the 5000 MHz to 5800 MHz ranges that are in PCSD classrooms), and the manual further states "Field strength measuring devices [such as the ES200] can underrate pulsed signals [which Wi-Fi signals are, which means] significant measurement errors can arise."

  5. Mr. Davis did not follow the ES200 manual which recommends measuring in the "Maximum instantaneous (MAX symbol) mode: [which] shows the highest instantaneous value measured so far."

No copies for this CPRA request are being requested, therefore there is no basis to delay the immediate inspection of the public records requested.

Regards,

[Parent]


Return to Key Issues of Truth

Issue 3. PCSD Hides 2014-2016 Technology Infrastructure Contracts. Why?

On 9/22/16 @ 12:54 pm, [Parent] wrote to Gary Callahan and others:

September 22, 2016

Ms. Chris Thomas
Chief Business Official
Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD)
200 Douglas Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
707-778-4621

cc:
Gary Callahan, PCSD Superintendent
Mary Johnson, PCSD Board Member

Dear Ms. Thomas,

As you well know, the Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) must comply with CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48, provide reasonable access to inspect CPRA-requested public records and provide assistance during the process. As evidenced by the actions of Mr. Joseph DeCarlo, PCSD Director of Facilities and Maintenance, and other PCSD employees on 9/20/16, the PCSD continues to obstruct my access to inspect public records and continues to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion with the exercise or enjoyment by me of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the state of California.

Start of quotes - CA GOVT. & CIVIL CODE

§§ 6250-6276.48 "Writings held by state or local government are public records. A writing includes all forms of recorded information that currently exist or that may exist in the future. The essence of the CPRA is to provide access to information, not merely documents and files . . .

To the extent reasonable, agencies are generally required to assist members of the public . . . A request for records may be made orally or in writing. . . When a person seeks a record in an electronic format, the agency shall, upon request, make the information available in any electronic format in which it holds the information . . .

Records may be inspected at an agency during its regular office hours. The CPRA contains no provision for a charge to be imposed in connection with the mere inspection of records . . . A person need not give notice in order to inspect public records at an agency’s offices during normal working hours . . .

When a copy of a record is requested, the agency shall determine within ten days* whether to comply with the request, and shall promptly inform the requester of its decision and the reasons therefor . . .

The CA Public Records Act does not permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection . . . of public records . . ."

No copies were requested, only inspection, so there is no reason for a ten-day delay.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=52.1

Civil Code - CIV
DIVISION 1. PERSONS [38 - 86]
( Heading of Division 1 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 12. )
PART 2. PERSONAL RIGHTS [43 - 53.7] ( Part 2 enacted 1872. )


§§ 52.1
"(a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. An action brought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any city attorney may also seek a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). If this civil penalty is requested, it shall be assessed individually against each person who is determined to have violated this section and the penalty shall be awarded to each individual whose rights under this section are determined to have been violated."

End of quotes - CA GOVT. & CIVIL CODE

. . .

[4] On 9/13/16, at the Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) Board meeting, the Board members were served a petition with over 200 ink-signatures for the petition listed here (http://responsibleipad.com/petition.html. The petition puts the PCSD on 60-days notice to correct the problems described in the petition.

[5] On 9/19/16, I emailed Christine Thomas, PCSD Chief Business Officer, and Rose Burcina, Executive Director of RESIG, a mapping of the questions in my 8/24/16 email to Ms. Burcina and about how few answers were provided by the 2016-RFR-Assessment and that many answers are still needed. I informed both Ms. Thomas and Ms. Burcina that parents need truthful answers to all of the questions asked on 8/24/16 so that the PCSD does not continue to mislead parents about the actual RF Radiation levels in PCSD classrooms.

[6] Will Davis, the RESIG employee who Ms. Burcina admitted to me, on 9/16/16, performed the measurements for the 2016-RFR-Assessment, actually holds no certification that RESIG is willing to provide that can prove that he had the professional credentials or competency to measure or interpret RF Radiation assessments, during the period from 6/1/16 to 9/12/16.

[7] The $195 Anaheim Scientific E200 RF meter used by RESIG was not professionally calibrated and, according to the manufacturer's own manual, attached, the E200 meter only measures from 50 MHz to 3.5 GHz (missing the RF Radiation in the 5000 MHz to 5800 MHz ranges that are in PCSD classrooms), and the manual further states

"Field strength measuring devices [such as the ES200] can underrate pulsed signals [which Wi-Fi signals are, which means] significant measurement errors can arise."

[8] Mr. Davis did not follow the ES200 manual which recommends measuring in the

"Maximum instantaneous (MAX symbol) mode: [which] shows the highest instantaneous value measured so far."

[9] On 9/20/16, Dr. Karl Maret outlined most of the relevant issues for effectively evaluating Wireless Dosimetry in classrooms at an evening event in Petaluma to which the PCSD Administrators and Board Members were invited . . . I have offered to sponsor Dr. Maret to meet with the PCSD School Board members privately in a closed session so they can learn from him and have the opportunity to ask any questions that they may have of him.

[10] The more than 200 Petaluma residents who signed the petition at http://responsibleipad.com/petition.html have a strong interest in entering into the public record the most accurate information about RF Radiation levels in PCSD classrooms and accurate analysis about Wireless Dosimetry -- so parents can fully understand the consequences of the current choices the PCSD is making in deploying and configuring its proprietary business equipment in PCSD classrooms. There are better ways for the PCSD to deploy and configure this proprietary business equipment so the PCSD can eliminate the well-known, and scientifically-established immediate and latent toxic hazards of RF Radiation in PCSD classrooms. Making these changes is the main purpose of the petition.

9/22/16 CPRA-Request for Public Information per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48

As we agreed in my 6/24/16 email to you, this 9/22/16 CPRA-request first includes a partial list of missing records from my 5/24/16 CPRA-request.

I attempted to communicate the status of the missing records to PCSD employee John Weaver on 9/19/16, but Mr. Weaver offered insufficient assistance on this matter . . .

Question 3 from 6/24/16

"I have significant experience in making CPRA requests of the PCSD and, in the past, I have been given as much time as I have needed to review the records, because the records are often incomplete and need to have follow up questions answered and follow up searches completed. What is the process for similar types of follow up that will most likely be needed for this 5/24/16 CPRA request?"

Answer 3 from 6/24/16

"Answer from Jose Padilla: I will be able to give to Jose a list of missing records and/or clarification of records, based on my initial review and I will be able to schedule additional records inspections to ensure that the public records I wish to inspect are complete."

. . . I discovered by inspecting separate folders of invoices that there were three distinct phases in the AMS.NET cabling and wireless expansion project for PCSD schools, but I only had folders of invoices for two of the three phases:

  • Phase A: installation of Meraki MR16 Wireless Access Points and other equipment in 2014

  • Phase B: ??? all records completely missing ???

  • Phase C: installation of Meraki MR34 Wireless Access Points and other equipment in 2015

I was also missing the following key requested public information:

  • Key contracts from main technology vendors, Cisco, Apple and AMS.NET

  • The specific detailed communications about the planning and execution of the 2016 PCSD classroom RFR Survey, including the raw data collected - records that were requested on 9/1/16.

. . . Earlier that day, after I had been given permission to use the PCSD conference room phone to call Ms. Thomas, I also made a call to Diane Monaghan, VP of contracts from AMS.NET using the same phone. I left her two numbers, the 526 Jefferson Street Conference Room number and my home office number, the number to which Ms. Monaghan had returned my call a day or so earlier. Ms. Monaghan had returned an earlier call that I had made to an AMS.NET employee who was listed on many of AMS.NET invoices. I was seeking clarification about the three phases of the AMS.NET project listed above.

There were four key outcomes from the return call from Ms. Monaghan to the conference room number at 526 Jefferson Street on 9/19/16.

  1. I answered the phone and properly identified myself to Ms. Monaghan at the start of the phone call as a parent in the Petaluma City Schools District, inspecting public records from a CPRA-request; at no time did I say I was employed by the PCSD. I also clarified with Ms. Monaghan that I properly identified myself the same way to the other AMS.NET employees, whom I called earlier.

  2. When we focused on my need to inspect the County of Merced's contract #2009121, I told her there apparently exists three levels of detail for the contract:

    • The full contract, which I have never been allowed to inspect

    • The contract exhibits, which I was not allowed to inspect until 3:15 pm on 1/14/14 – less than three hours before the Board meeting to vote on the contract; importantly, even this level of detail was hidden from the PCSD Board Members on the days leading up to and including 1/14/14.

    • An ambiguous contract summary that hid nearly all the relevant details required by anyone to judge if the contract was a wise spend of public money.

  3. When I told Ms. Monaghan that the PCSD had written a letter to me saying the PCSD did not have a copy of the full contract, she said I was wrong and that the PCSD had a full copy of the contract. I said I didn't know why the PCSD didn't make a full copy of the contract available for me to inspect, but would it be possible for her to please send another copy of the full contract to the PCSD -- so they could make it available for my inspection. Ms. Monaghan said, of course, she would be happy to do that, but would need the PCSD to request her to do so.

  4. At this point in the conversation, Joseph DeCarlo interrupted me, ordered me off the phone and told me not to use the phone again. I promptly complied.

Today, on 9/22/16, I, [Parent], as a member of the public, am making additional CPRA-requests per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48. As always, I am not asking for any copies of records, just to inspect the requested public information on site:

  1. All AMS.NET Phase B invoices for work completed at PCSD schools for the period of 1/1/14 through 9/22/16

  2. Full contracts from all technology vendors from 1/1/14 through 9/22/16 (including, but not limited to Apple Computer, Cisco and AMS.NET). From my inspections to date, I have learned that Diane Monaghan, VP of contracts from AMS.NET, has the full County of Merced's Focus contract #2009121 (the one on which the PCSD piggybacked). Ms. Monaghan is willing to send another copy of the full contract to the PCSD so it can be made available for my inspection. I am formally requesting that the PCSD make this request of Diane Monaghan because doing so exhibits reasonable assistance in providing access to the 5/24/16 CPRA-request and is less obstructive than the PCDS's suggestion I go the County of Merced to get the contract. I also learned that the PCSD piggybacked on a Glendale iPad purchase contract. I am requesting to inspect this full contract, as well.

  3. Every email or other communication on PCSD computers or servers that was written by any PCSD board member, employee, vendor or contractor, between 1/1/16 and 9/22/16 that addresses the topics of wireless technology, Wi-Fi, iPads, RF radiation or mentions the following names or terms: [specific parent names], Responsible iPad, Responsible iPad Use in Classrooms, Petaluma Parents for Safe Technology, RESIG, 9/12/16 LIMITED RADIO-FREQUENCY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR PETALUMA CITY SCHOOLS (2016-RFR-Assessment), or any other term used to describe this same project.

  4. Any email or other information that can answer the following outstanding questions about the 2016-RFR-Assessment, questions which have been outstanding since 8/24/16:

    • What dates/times did RESIG conduct the RFR metering and data collection at the PCSD?
      Answered on p.1, but too general: The RF radiation "assessment at Petaluma High, Mary Collins at Cherry Valley School and McNear School began on June 27, 2016 and July 29, 2016 . . . all iPad devices were streaming video continuously during both the one-minute and the six-minute monitoring times." Parents need to know the specific dates, times of duration of data collection for each of these classrooms: information easily obtained from data logs over time that most professional level RF meters from Narda or GigaHertz Solutions typically collect for accurate analysis.

    • What records (emails, travel records, expense reports) provide the evidence of which schools were assessed on which dates and times? All of this public information was previously requested in the 9/1/16 CPRA request (http://responsibleipad.com/urgent.html#2016-0901)

    • In what classrooms and under what conditions did RESIG complete the RF meter readings? Parents will need up-to-date maps of the three schools measured (similar to the 2013 maps we received from the PCSD for Petaluma High, Cherry Valley Elementary and McNear Elementary schools, which you can see here http://rfemf.com/schools.html#classroom that show the location of each Wireless Access Point installed in each of these schools: Petaluma High, Cherry Valley and McNear. Parents also need to know if all the other Wireless Access Points (WAPs) in the schools were powered on during RESIG measurement collection times. Was this verified? What proof does RESIG have? Parents also need to know which antennas on the devices were powered on during RESIG measurement collection times (Wi-Fi antenna, Bluetooth antenna, location services antenna?). Was this verified? What proof does RESIG have?

    • Did the classroom conditions emulate typical use of RFR devices in PCSD classroom? How? Parents need to know if other classrooms near Room 10 at McNear school, Room L2 at Cherry Valley and Room C13 at Petaluma High would typically have wireless devices in use also connected to PCSD WAPs at the same time during a school day, and if so, what RF Radiation exposures will the uses of Wi-Fi in these other rooms nearby have on the levels of RF Radiation in the rooms measured?

    • Why does RESIG consider a single center-of-the room location the appropriate assessment for student exposures, since students are spread out in a classroom and may experience hot spots in the classroom due to specific reflection and/or absorption of RF radiation by materials and objects in the room? Parents need to know why RESIG believes that one-minute and six-minute monitoring times (the ones used by RESIG) are appropriate measures for assessing general population exposures of PCSD students during a typical, six-hour school day.

    • How did RESIG measure and assess the total dose of RF Radiation exposure that the students would experience over a typical six-hour school day? It is self-evident that total dose (in this case, total power delivered over time) is what really matters in assessing exposures to toxic substances and/or agents. We each experience this in our lives: with sunlight (30 minutes of mid-day sunlight exposure yields a suntan, while 12 hours of mid-day sunlight exposure yields a sunburn) and with our PG&E electric bills (we are each charged for Watts * time-unit of power that we consume -- i.e. kilowatt-hour. Therefore, why has RESIG not assessed power-density * time?

    • What were the distances from the meter to the sources of RFR (both to Wireless Access Points and to student devices) when readings were made? Without specific length measurements from the RF meter to the sources of RF-Radiation, one cannot assess the relevancy of the meter reading to a student's exposure. Were such distance measurements made by RESIG? If not, why not?

    • Were all of the antennas of the WAPS and devices in the classroom powered on and downloading/uploading data during the meter readings? Answered on p.1, but too general: The RF radiation "assessment at Petaluma High, Mary Collins at Cherry Valley School and McNear School began on June 27, 2016 and July 29, 2016 . . . all iPad devices were streaming video continuously during both the one-minute and the six-minute monitoring times." Parents need to know which video file was being streamed to the devices and specifically what is the length of the video (how many minutes?) and its resolution (1080p?) We have proof that full-size iPad Airs are the educational standard for every PCSD student? Why were iPad Mini devices used at McNear and Cherry Valley?

    • What are the brand/models and operational specs of the antennas in the WAPs and devices that were metered? Parents will need to review the operational specifications of all of the antennas used in the WAPs and iPads used in Petaluma High, Cherry Valley and McNear schools for this assessment to understand how much power is broadcast into the environment from these antennas so parents can then assess if the RF meter used by RESIG accurately measured the total RF Radiation in the PCSD classrooms. Specifically, we need to understand the duty cycles, the rate of data pulses and the power of each pulse from each antenna in each WAP and device and how they operate when at rest (when broadcasting only beacon signals) and how they operate when transferring data from WAP to device and from device to WAP.

    • What were the settings on the meter at the time data was collected? Was it
      [[A]] Instantaneous (no symbol),
      [[B]] Maximum instantaneous (MAX symbol) , or
      [[C]] Average (AVG symbol), as described in the ES200 Meter's manual?

E200 Manual: 12.4 Result modes
Pages 31 and 32 of the 2016-0919-E200_manual.pdf, state

"The bar graph display always shows the instantaneous measured dynamic range value. The digital display shows the result according to one of three modes, which can be selected.

[[A]] Instantaneous (no symbol): The display shows the last value measured by the sensor, no symbol is displayed. Instantaneous mode is the default setting when the meter is turned on.

[[C]] Maximum instantaneous (MAX symbol): The digital display shows the highest instantaneous value measured so far, the “MAX “symbol is displayed.

[[C]] Average (AVG symbol): The digital display shows the average value measured, the “AVG” symbol is displayed.

Thank you. I will look forward to your prompt reply, Ms. Thomas

Regards,

[Parent]


Return to Key Issues of Truth

Issue 4. Will the Argus Courier or Press Democrat Report the Truth?

September 26, 2016

Mr. Matt Brown
Managing Editor
Petaluma Argus-Courier
719 Southpoint Blvd #C,
Petaluma, CA 94954
707-521-5206

Mr. Ted Appel
Managing Editor
The Press Democrat
427 Mendocino Ave.
Santa Rosa, CA 9540
707-521-5288

Re: Petaluma City Schools District RF Microwave Radiation Committee-Gate

. . . A significant scoop/tip-of-iceberg story about the 2016 Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) Board Election

Dear Mr. Brown and Mr. Appel,

For some reason, not all of the quoted emails appeared at the end of what I emailed you both on Saturday morning, 9/25/16. I am including those quoted emails below, as well as the following Youtube links and attached documents. I am also requesting a personal meeting with each of you so I can share more primary evidence of the many misdeeds of the Petaluma City Schools District, and its Board Members, from 2013-2016.

For example, there is an active effort right now by the PCSD to attempt to hide from the public the full contract on which the PCSD piggybacked (County of Merced Focus contract # 2009121) to enable it to spend nearly $10 million?? of public general funds and bond funds to upgrade the PCSD's technology and networking infrastructure -- details at http://responsibleipad.com/urgent.html#evidence.

A great deal of additional evidence is listed at two Petaluma-specific web sites:

Unfortunately, the PCSD board approved the County of Merced Focus contract #2009121 without ever reading it, as admitted on the public record (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOoehWxGbP4). Why would/should they do that? This is evidence that the PCSD did not complete the required due diligence, is not spending public money wisely and is are not fulfilling its legal duties to provide a safe learning and work environment for its 7,000+ students and hundreds of staff. This is a real problem that the PCSD is attempting to sweep under the carpet.

Journalists know to follow the money. I have primary evidence of rampant overcharging and misuse of public funds for much technology spending from 2013 to the present. I have reviewed and taken photos of many primary documents which prove this. I am willing to share this evidence with both the Argus Courier and the Press Democrat.

Gentlemen, we have quite a newsworthy story brewing at the Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD), a story that is very relevant to the upcoming election for the two available Petaluma City Schools District school board seats. And now we have an attempted cover up: PCSD RF Microwave Radiation Committee-Gate: PCSD board member Mary Johnson admits to participating on such a committee to Matt Brown of the Argus Courier, but then the PCSD denies the committee's very existence (see the emails, quoted on this page: http://responsibleipad.com/truth.html.

The PCSD board has been engaging in anti-democratic behavior to continually abridge the Public's right to free speech in PCSD Board meetings since April/May 2014, in violation of the US and CA constitutions and in violation of these other CA laws:

CA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54950-54963 (the Ralph M. Brown Act)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycodesection=gov&group=54001-55000&file=54950-54963

CA GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 6250-6270.5 (CA Public Records Act)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycodesection=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270.5

CA EDUCATION CODE, SECTION 32060-32066 (Toxic agents not allowed in CA K-12 classrooms)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycodesection=edc&group=32001-33000&file=32060-32066

Eliezer Williams, et al., vs. State of California, et al. (The Williams Act)
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/ce/wc/wmslawsuit.asp

Here is the evidence:

A. Petaluma Board of Education 5/13/14 Meeting Comments on an Agendized Item and in Public Comment

  1. https://youtu.be/Dt_4WmojWT8?t=29m51s -- view 29:51 to 39:39 Note: I shared information with the PCSD Board since 2013, not 2010, which I got wrong in my comments.
  2. https://youtu.be/Dt_4WmojWT8?t=53m44s -- view 53:44 to 56:30

Why did this video fade to black at 56:30 right in the middle of the public's comment on an item designed to abridge the public's rights to comment in public meetings? Against the policies of Petaluma Community Access Television, the creators of this video, the video, inexplicably, did not include gavel-to-gavel coverage of this meeting and excluded the additional discussion on this item and the item's vote! Who is responsible for this obviously inappropriate edit? I would ask then board president, Troy Sanderson, who has chosen not to run for re-election in 2016 . . .

B. Petaluma Board of Education 6/14/16 Meeting Comments on an Agendized Budget Item and in Public Comment

  1. https://youtu.be/rlfQOErWnHg?t=1h7m34s -- view 1:07:34 to 1:13:03 about found money in PCSD ($2.6 million) that could solve both health/safety and budget problems at the PCSD.

  2. https://youtu.be/rlfQOErWnHg?t=1h16m7s -- view 1:16:07 to 1:22:06 about the May, 2016 National Toxicology Program results and the need for wired internet access for Petaluma students, instead of wireless internet access.

  3. https://youtu.be/rlfQOErWnHg?t=1h22m15s -- view 1:22:15 to 1:28:00 about the PCSD's obstruction of public access to California Public Records Act (CPRA) requested public information.

What was the PCSD's response to these well-considered and common sense suggestions on how the PCSD can follow CA laws, protect the health and safety of 7,000 students and save over $1 million?

The PCSD continued to block access to inspect public records, to bully/intimidate parents so they could not make additional comments in PCSD public meetings, to secretly plan and execute a whitewash/farce of an RF Microwave Radiation Assessment of a few PCSD classrooms and to continually lie to parents about the actual RF Microwave Radiation levels in PCSD classrooms (from July 2103 through to the present). Details are at http://responsibleipad.com/urgent.html#evidence

C. The following documents were placed in the public record the week of 6/13/16:

2016-0614-PCSD-Public-Record.pdf -- quotes from Dr. Ronald L. Melnick, the lead designer of the NTP study, Otis W. Brawley, MD, Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society and Erica Mallery-Blythe, MD, founder of PHIRE: Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment, that were entered into the public record a 6/14/16 PCSD Board meeting

2016-0614-SPIN-vs-FACTS.pdf -- Joel Moskowitz, PH.D.'s excellent list of facts about National Toxicology Program report on cancer risk from RF microwave radiation -- also entered into the public record.

2016-0615-PCSD-Revenue-Option.pdf -- How the PCSD can afford to swap 7,000 iPads for a 7,000 Chromebooks, purchase 7,000 USB-to-Ethernet adapters (one for each device), hardwire the classrooms for reliable, fast, safe and secure Ethernet internet access and make over $1 million in the process.

D. Additional documents are also relevant to this story:

2016-0913-Petition-Signatures-to-PCSD.pdf -- scan of the first two of the 15 pages of original ink-signatures presented to the PCSD on 9/13/16; I have a full copy of all 15 pages that I can share with the you both. The petition text has been posted online since June, 2016: http://responsibleipad.com/petition.html

The Petaluma parent group, Responsible iPad Use in Classrooms, holds monthly meetings at Aqus Cafe in Petaluma to discuss many of these issues and educate the community. The PCSD board members and administrators have been invited to every event since April 19, 2016, but they have chosen not to attend:

Project Censored 4/19/2016: Responsible iPad Use in Classrooms https://youtu.be/dbEpOETzLWg



I have run into a brick wall in 2014 and 2016 attempting to inspect properly requested public information per the California Public Records Act (CPRA), GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48.

In short, for this 2016 election, the public deserves to know what the PCSD board candidates believe are effective solutions to protect the health and safety of 7000+ Petaluma students who are currently and unnecessarily being subjected to forced exposure to continuous RF microwave radiation every hour of every school day -- when RF Radiation is a known, toxic agent which has been proven by our federal government's National Toxicology program, in its massive 15-year, $25 million dollar RF Radiation study, to cause two forms of cancer and other adverse health effects.

I will look forward to speaking to each of you this week. I left you each a voice-mail earlier today.

Thank you.

Regards,

[Parent]


Return to Key Issues of Truth

Issue 5. Will the LLV, AAUW & Argus Courier Allow Questions at the 10/4/16 PCSDF School Board Candidate Forum?

September 28, 2016

To: Lee Lipinski

cc: Mary Johnson, PCSD School Board Candidate
Frank Lynch, PCSD School Board Candidate
Ellen Webster, PCSD School Board Candidate
Karen Johnson, AAUW
Pam Granger, AAUW
Eileen Simard, AAUW
Nancy Burrington, League of Women Voters of Sonoma County
Gene Zingarelli, League of Women Voters of Sonoma County
Ted Apple, Managing Editor, Press Democrat
Christi Warren, Reporter, Press Democrat
Matt Brown, Managing Editor, Argus Courier

Dear Ms. Lipinski,

Thanks for getting back to me, but I will need more clarification and better next steps.

On 9/28/16, Lee Lapinksi wrote to [parent]:

The AAUW is doing most of the work on these forums. They are using the same format the League of Women Voters uses; i.e. first questions from the organizers and then questions from the audience. The questions from the audience are written on index cards before being handed over to the moderator.

So, your chance for a question will be at the event where you can submit your question on an index card.

I hope this answers your question.

Lee Lipinski

Having been through this process in 2014, I understand that there is an opportunity to get the questions in front of the group who will be filtering/vetting the questions in advance of the event. I would like to know who are the decision makers/question filterers and meet with them personally in the next several days to educate them on the issues and have chance to craft a question or two that meets all the stakeholder's objectives: the candidates, the voters, the League of Women Voters, the AAUW and the Argus Courier.

We want actual democracy in Petaluma, not just the appearance of democracy, right? This is too important to be left to a quick decision, the evening of the event.

In 2014, I emailed my questions the morning of the event and was told, after my questions were filtered out, that I could/should have emailed them in sooner. I want to do it better this year in 2016 for the solid reasons, listed below. My questions were not asked in 2014, even though I edited them to meet the stakeholders' objectives, including the following question:

Question:

{Candidate}, "is it appropriate for California public schools to forcibly expose young children to a known carcinogen by continually placing this carcinogen into their classrooms as a condition for receiving a public education, particularly when there is California education code that prohibits schools from doing so?"

I received letters from Diane Feinstein, Jared Huffman and Marc Levine in 2014 about the unnecessary exposures of students to weapons grade RF microwave radiation in Petaluma classrooms. We heard from Diane Feinstein's office in less than 30 days. Ms. Feinstein sent a letter stating:

"I believe schools should be safe places where children can learn and grow without having to worry about threats to their health. Many Americans enjoy the conveniences of wireless services, but these conveniences should not come at the expense of public health."

The numbered list of facts listed below are relevant to any voter deciding who to vote for a PSCD School Board position. The public deserves to know what each candidate believes are effective solutions to protect the health and safety of 7000+ Petaluma students who are currently and unnecessarily being subjected to forced exposure to continuous RF microwave radiation every hour of every school day -- when RF Radiation is a known, toxic agent which has been proven by our federal government's National Toxicology program, in its massive 15-year, $25 million dollar RF Radiation study, to cause two forms of cancer and other adverse health effects.

This is an extremely timely issue because at the 9/13/16 PCSD Board meeting PCSD personnel, Cliff De Graw and Lori Deen, presented the 9/12/16 LIMITED RADIO-FREQUENCY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR PETALUMA CITY SCHOOLS (2016-RFR-Assessment), a report which is both a farce and a whitewash, as evidenced by the following facts:

  1. Between 1/1/14 and 9/28/16, the PCSD has spent nearly $10 million?? of public money for technology device and infrastructure improvements with a variety of vendors including Apple Computer and AMS.NET, which executed three phases of infrastructure expansion: Phases A, B and C -- but for which the PCSD has not yet fully accounted to the public, despite active CPRA Requests on 5/24/16, 7/13/16, 9/22/16 and 9/23/16, per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48 for such information.

  2. On 9/13/16, the PCSD presented a 9/12/16 LIMITED RADIO-FREQUENCY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR PETALUMA CITY SCHOOLS (2016-RFR-Assessment) to mislead Petaluma parents about the actual RF Radiation Levels in PCSD classrooms. This is another example in a pattern of PCSD behavior to mislead parents about the actual RF radiation levels in PCSD classrooms. The PCSD cited 2013 RESIG-generated reports about magnetic field studies completed in Cherry Valley and Valley Vista schools when the Cherry Valley Principal made statements to mislead parents in a November, 2013 public meeting about the hazards of RF Radiation in PCSD classrooms. The Principal said that the results of RESIG's magnetic field studies showed that the classroom RF Radiation levels were safe, a statement which could not possibly be concluded from the data.

  3. Will Davis, the PCSD's insurance company (RESIG)'s employee who performed the measurements for the 2016-RFR-Assessment and for the 2013 magnetic field studies, actually holds no certification that RESIG is willing to provide that can prove that he had the professional credentials or competency to measure or interpret RF Radiation assessments, during the period from 6/1/16 to 9/12/16.

  4. The consumer-grade $195 Anaheim Scientific E200 RF meter used by RESIG was not professionally calibrated and, according to the manufacturer's own manual, the E200 meter only measures from 50 MHz to 3.5 GHz (missing the RF Radiation in the 5000 MHz to 5800 MHz ranges that are in PCSD classrooms), and the manual further states "Field strength measuring devices [such as the ES200] can underrate pulsed signals [which Wi-Fi signals are, which means] significant measurement errors can arise."

  5. Mr. Davis did not follow the ES200 manual which recommends measuring in the "Maximum instantaneous (MAX symbol) mode: [which] shows the highest instantaneous value measured so far."

  6. Having had enough of the PCSD's insufficient response to the substantial scientific evidence about the May, 2016 National Toxicology results that were placed in the public record on 6/14/16 and later that week . . .

2016-0614-PCSD-Public-Record.pdf
2016-0614-SPIN-vs-FACTS.pdf
2016-0615-PCSD-Revenue-Option.pdf

. . . and presented as succinctly as possible to the Petaluma Board of Education at the 6/14/16 School Board Meeting . . .

https://youtu.be/rlfQOErWnHg?t=1h7m34s -- view 1:07:34 to 1:13:03 about found money in PCSD ($2.6 million) that could solve both health/safety and budget problems at the PCSD.

https://youtu.be/rlfQOErWnHg?t=1h16m7s -- view 1:16:07 to 1:22:06 about the May, 2016 National Toxicology Program results and the need for wired internet access for Petaluma students, instead of wireless internet access.

https://youtu.be/rlfQOErWnHg?t=1h22m15s -- view 1:22:15 to 1:28:00 about the PCSD's obstruction of public access to California Public Records Act (CPRA) requested public information.

. . . at the 9/13/16 Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) Board meeting, the public served the Board members a petition with over 200 ink-signatures from Petaluma residents supporting the petition listed at http://responsibleipad.com/petition.html and 2016-0913-Petition-Signatures-to-PCSD.pdf (a scan of just two of 15 pages of signatures).

The petition puts the PCSD on 60-days notice to correct the problems described in the petition.

These are immediate issues the new PCSD Board members will be facing in their first week in service in mid-November, 2016. It is critically important that the voters know where the candidates stand on the PCSD's need to eliminate the immediate and latent toxic hazards in PCSD classrooms resulting from the current configuration and use of PCSD's proprietary business equipment -- and the steps they will take to solve this problem.

In 2016, we hope that the League of Women Voters, the American Association of University Women, Petaluma chapter and the Argus Courier, a business owned by Sonoma Media Investments, LLC, which also owns the Press Democrat, will not favor "softball" questions over the more important questions that are extremely relevant to the three candidates seeking election to the Petaluma City Schools Board and relevant to the voters and their children.

We have already heard back from the Press Democrat and things are not looking very promising:

On 9/28/16 @ 12:58 pm, Christi Warren wrote to [parent]:

Hi [parent],

After speaking with my editor, we decided not to go through with this as a story. Thanks for your time.

Best, Christi Warren, Reporter
The Press Democrat
Santa Rosa, CA

The Press Democrat seems to be another publication intent on protecting their advertising revenue from wireless and technology companies instead of reporting on the inconvenient truth about the scientifically-established hazards of RF Microwave radiation to minor children in Petaluma City Schools and elsewhere, covered here and elsewhere by Project Censored (https://youtu.be/dbEpOETzLWg). Will the Argus Courier follow suit? We hope not. Please explore the following web sites.

http://responsibleipad.com
http://emfscientist.org
http://babysafeproject.org
http://nacst.org
http://wifiinschools.com

Scientific Briefing on the NTP Study on the Carcinogenicity of Radiofrequency Radiation 6/1/2016 https://youtu.be/rM3_Qdv1hFE?t=11m2s

We also hope this important issue does not get similarly ignored by the Sonoma County League of Women Voters and American Association of University Women, who, should have the health and safety of 7,000+ Petaluma students foremost in their minds, as caring, professional women (and men, as I learned today from Pam Granger earlier today).

Pam, I learned, has worked for tobacco control efforts over the previous 16 years with the American Lung Association, so she should be intimately familiar with the parallels between second-hand smoke and forced exposure of minors to Microwave RF Radiation in schools.

The best analogy, by far, is smoking -- allowed for adults, but not for minors in our society. Wi-Fi exposure is very much like cigarette smoking. If one is a social smoker (has a cigarette or two on the weekends), one will most likely not be in trouble. If, however, one smokes 2-3 packs of cigarettes a day, one will have a great likelihood of serious health problems. We all understand these facts today. This is why we have banned cigarette smoking in schools, restaurants, planes, buses, trains and office buildings. The second-hand smoke was too toxic to everyone.

RF radiation exposure operates much the same. If one dines at restaurant with Wi-Fi for an hour, that is similar to smoking a cigarette or two on the weekend. If, however, one chooses to carry a cell phone (or iPad) with its antennas constantly on and then chooses to pollute where one lives, sleeps, commutes, works or goes to school with 24/7-on Wi-Fi, then this is similar to a three-pack-a-day smoker.

We need the same remedy: to ban the "second-hand smoke" of Wi-Fi from schools, restaurants, planes, buses, trains and office buildings. It is just a matter of time for most public spaces. For environments that you can immediately control or influence, however, like your home or your child’s classroom -- you can act right now.

Just as we do not allow our children to smoke cigarettes, we, as parents, cannot force our children to endure the equivalent of them smoking three packs of cigarettes a day as a condition for living in our homes or for attending school. Every parent can turn off their wireless router/devices at home, has the right to opt out of any wireless iPad program (just don’t sign/agree to the school’s online forms) and the right to opt out of the wireless Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium testing (https://eduresearcher.com/2016/03/16/sbac-moratorium), by writing a letter to your child’s principal.

The science is very clear. Chronic exposures to RF radiation can cause immediate symptoms of microwave radiation sickness: runny nose/increased mucus flow, stomach ache, headache, thought processing difficulties, memory impairment, heart palpitations, tachycardia, sleep problems, general malaise, blurred vision, weakness, dizziness, chest discomfort, muscle pain, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), fatigue, nausea, night sweats, restless legs and numbness or tingling. (http://www.mdiwellness.com/toril-jelter-md.html). Long term exposures to RF Radiation can lead to early dementia, nerve damage, cancer and premature death. There is also a strong link for RF Radiation exposure to both male and female infertility and to autism.

Despite its popularity in the current culture, RF Microwave Radiation Exposure, including Wi-Fi, is toxic and should be used only sparingly, when absolutely needed -- and only by adults. This disqualifies Wi-Fi as an always-on option for our children to access the internet in their schools. Hardwired internet is faster, more secure and safer (http://octowired.com). Using USB-to-Ethernet adapters (http://responsibleipad.com/goals.html) to connect any iPad, Chromebook or laptop to the internet by wire eliminates the current latent and toxic hazards in Petaluma classrooms.

The IT directors of any school should have zero say about health and safety issues. They have not read or quantitatively analyzed the biological literature, as RFR expert Susan Clarke has. Clarke concludes that duration of exposure, not intensity, is the most important factor and that RF Microwave Radiation exposure is both an immediate and latent toxic hazard.

Susan Clarke was for 10 years a Research Assistant the Harvard School of Public Health, from which she holds a certificate in Health and Human Rights. In her area of expertise, radio-frequency radiation bio-effects, she has quantitatively reviewed the scientific literature. She stated the truth on the public record in 2014 to the Petaluma City Schools District

http://www.rfemf.com/background.html#clarke
http://www.rfemf.com/img/2014-0408-Susan-Clarke-RF-EMF-MW-Bioeffects.pdf

Much more can be learned at the latest two pages published on http://responsibleipad.com:

http://responsibleipad.com/urgent.html

http://responsibleipad.com/truth.html

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

[Parent]


Return to Key Issues of Truth

Issue 6. Will the Candidates Face the Truth About Forced Exposures to RF Microwave Radiation in PCSD Classrooms?

September 29, 2016

To:
All Involved in Planning and Participating in the 10/14/16
Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) Board Trustee Candidate Forum

Mary Johnson, PCSD School Board Candidate
Frank Lynch, PCSD School Board Candidate
Ellen Webster, PCSD School Board Candidate
Pam Granger, AAUW
Karen Johnson, AAUW
Eileen Simard, AAUW
Lee Lipinski, League of Women Voters
Nancy Burrington, League of Women Voters
Gene Zingarelli, League of Women Voters
Alice Richardson, League of Women Voters
Ted Apple, Managing Editor, Press Democrat
Christi Warren, Reporter, Press Democrat
Matt Brown, Managing Editor, Argus Courier

A microcosm of the discussion of the effects of non-ionizing RF Microwave Radiation on living tissue was carried out in the tony community of Jackson Hole, Wyoming over two weeks in September, 2016 (excepts and links, below).

The three readable opinion pieces, referenced below, are short and easy to read. A more detailed 'layperson' introduction from 2014, featuring Petaluma's own Leo Laporte, with links and embedded videos, can be found here: Anatomy of a Discussion on RF/EMF Microwave Radiation Exposure (http://www.rfemf.com/news/2014-0112.html).

School Board members, who are usually career administrators and not scientists, are placed in an unenviable position of making critically important decisions for the health and safety of students while facing conflicting piles of information, (as pointed out in these excellent Dr. Karl Maret videos at 4:50 at https://vimeo.com/132039697 and at 26:30 at https://vimeo.com/87023780). See Dr. Maret's 9/20/16 slides attached (2016-0920-Karl-Maret-Slides.pdf). Please also note the following caveat by Dr. Maret about slides 38 and 39: "The graphs of the CBTRUS data on brain and pituitary cancer (slides 38 and 39) are preliminary and should not be shared yet widely since I am still working to get better data."

  • Independently funded scientists, not sponsored by the Wireless industry, conclude that non-ionizing radiation at levels far below the level which causes tissue heating causes significant biological damage

  • Scientists, sponsored by the Wireless industry, design and execute experiments to not show effects of non-ionizing radiation on living tissue (usually by shortening the time of exposure) and sum up their work by saying "more research is needed".

What's a School Board Member to do? Which data can they trust? What's the cost of waiting and doing nothing to place the children in known, safe environments (i.e. 100% hardwired Ethernet wired internet)?

The Wireless industry has got School Board members right where they want them, by following a clear playbook, written about extensively in books, listed here: http://responsibleipad.com/wire/classrooms/index.html#/53 and described succinctly in a short video by Merry Callahan here (https://youtu.be/HCAyPMVuJHY?t=3m45s)

  1. OverPowererd, by Martin Blank, PhD
    https://www.amazon.com/Overpowered-Dangers-Electromagnetic-Radiation-about/dp/1609805097

  2. Doubt is Their Product, by David Michaels
    https://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Their-Product-Industrys-Threatens/dp/019530067X

  3. Science for Sale, by David Lewis, PhD
    https://www.amazon.com/Science-Sale-Government-Corporations-Universities/dp/1626360715

  4. Captured Agency, by Norm Alster
    http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf

The Wireless industry is following the Tobacco industry's playbook: they are selling doubt, so people (in this case school administrators and board trustees) will wait, while everyone can make more money. It's all about money. Who, however, is paying the price with their health and fertility? Our children and the fetuses of pregnant teachers (http://babysafeproject.org -- a web site which will receive an award from the EPA in 2016).

Ending to Thank You for Smoking, directed by Jason Reitman (https://youtu.be/10fn13Q4wAA?t=17s)

Lobbyist sits down with three executives

Lobbyist: "So be straight with me? Is it true?"

Executives: "It could be . . . very few cases . . . there is no scientific proof at all . . . there was an unfortunate incident out in Iowa."

Lobbyist: "Look, Gentlemen . . . practice these words in front of the mirror. Although we are constantly exploring the subject, currently there is no direct evidence that links cell phone usage to brain cancer."

Executives smile, nod and relax

School administrators are falling for these old tricks -- the long con started with the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA) -- a lobbyist-written piece of legislation shepherded through Congress 20 years ago by none other than CTIA lobbyist Tom Wheeler -- who is now the chairman of the FCC in 2016. Are you connecting the dots?

Most importantly, contrary to what many schools claim, the 1996 TCA does not regulate the stationary Wireless Access Points (WAPs) installed in schools and the devices that connect to these WAPS -- the regulation falls to the States and local communities who have legal duties to protect their populations -- and laws already on the books that can do just that.

[1] A preventable cancer due to microwave radiation, Posted: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 4:30 am

"Questions also need to be asked about the whole system with which we surround ourselves, including cell towers. In nations like Israel and India it would be illegal to locate what could become a 75-foot-tall and 40-foot-wide wireless radiating tower with multiple antennas operating 24/7 adjacent to Timber Ridge Academy, Jackson Elementary School and the Teton County/Jackson Recreation Center.

Do elementary school children need to be immersed in Wi-Fi radiation all day long just so they can occasionally use a computer, or should systems be created that rely on wired devices or downloads used on airplane mode to reduce Wi-Fi — as is being done in many regions of the world today?"

Author: [Biologist] Devra Davis, PhD is an epidemiologist and toxicologist who is president of Environmental Health Trust. For more information on these issues go online to EHTrust.org. Guest Shot columns are the opinions of the authors.

[2] Phones haven't been proven to cause cancer, Posted: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:30 am

"The electromagnetic signals, radio frequency signals, from cellphones or any other radio communications are not ionizing radiation — not X-rays, gamma rays, etc. Not even close. Even up into the visible light spectrum EM energy is not ionizing, it does not cause any cellular disruption, unless by the previously identified high power heating effects. Not until the UV spectrum and above can EM energy directly affect living tissue. Most wave phenomena can be said to radiate. Sound radiates from its source, the same for light and heat. In truth they too are radiation. For years, after the adoption of the thermal-based exposure limits, there has been some indication that a human response can be seen to some RF exposures. . . Industry and scientists continue to look carefully for any hidden hazards. A literature search shows that no clear hazardous effects have been found and verified, but investigations are ongoing."

Author: [Engineer] Bob Culver, BSEE, PE (Ret.), is a resident of Jackson. His previous work “exposed” him to much research and regulation regarding RF energy. Columns expressly represent the views of the author.

[3] More on how cellphones are linked to brain cancer, Posted: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 4:30 am

"The findings of highly malignant and quite rare brain tumors and malignant Schwann cell tumors of the heart in the NTP study present a major public health [hazard] because some of these same types of tumors had been reported in epidemiological studies of adult cellphone users. In addition, the NTP reported DNA damage was induced in brain cells of exposed animals. While Mr. Culver is correct that RFR is a type of non-ionizing radiation, the findings of tumors and DNA damage in exposed animals demonstrate that such radiation can adversely affect “living tissue.” For children cancer risks may be greater than that for adults because of greater penetration and absorption of cellphone radiation in the brains of children and because the developing nervous system of children is more susceptible to tissue- damaging agents."

Author: [Biologist] Ronald Melnick, Ph.D, was a senior toxicologist in the Environmental Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences when he led the design of the NTP studies on cellphone RFR. He is now retired and serves as senior scientific advisor to the Environmental Health Trust.

[4] Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 51:410-416 (1993) re: Biological Windows referred to by Dr. Maret
Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
W. Ross Adey, Ph.D
Pettis Memorial VA Medical Center and University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, California 92357
1993-Adey-W-Ross-BioEffects-of-EMF.pdf, attached

Abstract

"Life on earth has evolved in a sea of natural electromagnetic (EM) fields. Over the past century, this natural environment has sharply changed with introduction of a vast and growing spectrum of man-made EM fields. From models based on equilibrium thermodynamics and thermal effects, these fields were initially considered too weak to interact with biomolecular systems, and thus incapable of influencing physiological functions. Laboratory studies have tested a spectrum of EM fields for bio-effects at cell and molecular levels, focusing on exposures at non-thermal levels. A clear emergent conclusion is that many observed interactions are not based on tissue heating. Modulation of cell surface chemical events by weak EM fields indicates a major amplification of initial weak triggers associated with binding of hormones, antibodies, and neurotransmitters to their specific binding sites. Calcium ions play a key role in this amplification.

These studies support new concepts of communication between cells across the barriers of cell membranes; and point with increasing certainty to an essential physical organization in living matter, at a far finer level than the structural and functional image defined in the chemistry of molecules. New collaborations between physical and biological scientists define common goals, seeking solutions to the physical nature of matter through a strong focus on biological matter. The evidence indicates mediation by highly nonlinear, non-equilibrium processes at critical steps in signal coupling across cell membranes. There is increasing evidence that these events relate to quantum states and resonant responses in biomolecular systems, and not to equilibrium thermodynamics associated with thermal energy exchanges and tissue heating."

Folks, this study is from 1993 -- THREE YEARS PRIOR TO -- the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that wrote a scientifically-incorrect and industry-biased guideline into law, based on "equilibrium thermodynamics associated with thermal energy exchanges and tissue heating" -- because it was easier to measure and to get commercial products approved and sold to the unsuspecting public. No real safety-testing, just a lobbyist-driven, commercial guideline.

I provide the information and links in this email and at http://responsibleipad.com as means to help educate incoming PCSD School Board members and others about the issues they will be facing as they start their new terms in November, 2016. At the 9/13/16 Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) Board meeting, the public served the Board members a petition with over 200 ink-signatures from Petaluma residents supporting the petition listed here (http://responsibleipad.com/petition.html). The petition puts the PCSD on 60-days notice to correct the problems described in the petition.

It's time to protect our children from the effects of this Wireless industry long con. Our children's health is more important than Wireless industry profits and we do have all of those CA laws protecting our children, listed in the petition.

PCSD School Board Candidates, we will need to know where you stand on these issues during the 10/14/16 Petaluma City Schools District Board Trustee Candidate Forum -- not typical, politician double-speak, but real, informed statements of where you stand. We want to know what you think and why you think it.

I am available to meet with any of you and share with you the results of my extensive research into this topic over the last four years. Just call me at [tel] to set up a time.

Will we have a real discussion at the Forum on 10/4/16 or will we see another whitewash -- attempting to sweep this substantial scientific evidence under the carpet? Parents recently experienced such a whitewash at the 9/13/16 PCSD School Board meeting, as can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/user/petalumaaccesstv/videos

We are depending on the League of Women Voters, the American Association of University Women and the Argus Courier to allow real democracy to be practiced at the forum on 10/4/16. Please allow this topic to be discussed.

Thank you.

Regards,

[Parent]


Return to Key Issues of Truth

Issue 7. Will PCSD School Board Candidates Respond?

September 29, 2016

To:
Mary Johnson, PCSD School Board Candidate - Unfortunately, NO RESPONSE
Frank Lynch, PCSD School Board Candidate - Yes, Frank responded by phone and email on 9/28/16
Ellen Webster, PCSD School Board Candidate - Yes, Ellen responded by phone on 9/29/16

Communications Record to Each Candidate

9/28/16 -- One email and one voicemail to each candidate
9/29/16 -- Two emails to each candidate, one voicemail each to Johnson & Webster
9/30/16 -- One email and one voicemail to Mary Johnson (NO RESPONSE)
10/3/16 -- One email and one voicemail to Mary Johnson (NO RESPONSE)

See you all on 10/4/16.

It was nice to talk to you yesterday, Frank. I hope Mary and Ellen will return my call today. I can be reached at [tel number] from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm weekdays. We are in close contact with 200+ Petaluma voters who signed the petition at http://responsibleipad.com/petition.html

. . . many of whom will be there on 10/4/16. We are looking forward to hearing your positions on eliminating the immediate and latent toxic hazards in Petaluma City Schools District classrooms.

On 9/29/16 @ 9:23 am, [parent] wrote to Johnson, Lynch and Webster:

PCSD School Board Candidates, we will need to know where you stand on the issue of how you will eliminate the immediate and latent toxic hazards of RF Microwave radiation in PCSD classrooms during the 10/4/16 Petaluma City Schools District Board Trustee Candidate Forum -- not typical, politician double-speak, but real, informed statements of where you stand. We want to know what you think and why you think it.

Thank you.

Regards

[Parent]


Return to Key Issues of Truth

Issue 8. The PCSD is on 60-days notice to correct the problems of Forced Exposures to RF Microwave Radiation in PCSD Classrooms

October 4, 2016

To:

Mr. Matt Brown
Managing Editor
Petaluma Argus-Courier
719 Southpoint Blvd #C,
Petaluma, CA 94954
707-521-5206

Mary Johnson, PCSD School Board Candidate
Frank Lynch, PCSD School Board Candidate
Ellen Webster, PCSD School Board Candidate
Pam Granger, AAUW, moderator of PCSD Board Trustee Candidate Forum

Dear Matt Brown, PCSD Board Trustee Candidates and Pam Granger,

Mr. Brown, there is some real news to report here.

At the 9/13/16 Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) Board meeting, the public served the Board members a petition with over 200 ink-signatures from Petaluma residents supporting the petition listed here http://responsibleipad.com/petition.html and here 2016-0913-Petition-Signatures-to-PCSD.pdf (just two of 15 pages of signatures).

The petition puts the PCSD on 60-days notice to correct the problems described in the petition -- yet this was not considered important enough to be discussed at the 10/4/16 PCSD Board Trustee Candidate Forum. Huh? How about in the Argus Courier?

The PCSD party line that Mary Johnson read at the 10/4/16 Candidate Forum regarding the 9/12/16 RESIG report on RF Microwave Radiation in PCSD classrooms was very disappointing, as it showed that Mary has little regard for the truth or for the health and safety of 7,000 Petaluma students and over 800 PCSD employees. I was also disappointed that no one was willing to answer the three questions that I handed to each of the Candidates and the AAUW moderator, Pam Granger, before the forum started -- the questions that Ms. Granger filtered out from the one hour forum -- just as the American Association for University Women (AAUW) did back in 2014!

2016 Questions for PCSD Trustee Candidates, Filtered Out by the AAUW and not Asked

  1. {Candidates}, is it appropriate for PCSD schools to expose children to a known carcinogen -- a hazardous agent proven by the May 2016, National Toxicology Study Results to cause two forms of cancer and other adverse health effects -- by continuously transmitting this carcinogen into student classrooms as a condition for receiving a public education, particularly when there is CA education code (Sections 32060-32066) that prohibits PCSD schools from doing so?

  2. {Candidates}, how will you eliminate the immediate and latent toxic hazards of RF Microwave radiation in PCSD classrooms – hazards which students face due to the PCSD's current purchase, use and configuration of its proprietary wireless business equipment? What specific remedies do you recommend?

  3. {Candidates}, given that evidence proves that the PCSD has engaged in a repeated pattern of withholding public information from the public and misleading parents and students about actual RF Microwave radiation levels in PCSD classrooms in 2013 and 2016, what will you do to ensure that the PCSD follows all state and federal laws, including the CA Public Records Act, to share complete, accurate, and truthful information about total, cumulative RF Microwave radiation exposures in PCSD classrooms?

See 2016-1004-PCSD-Trustee-Candidate-Questions.pdf.

How is filtering out these questions participatory democracy, Ms. Granger? I expected much better from a woman who has worked for tobacco control efforts the previous 16 years with the American Lung Association, a woman who should be intimately familiar with the parallels between second-hand smoke and forced exposure of minors to Microwave RF Radiation in schools.

The best analogy for RF Microwave Radiation pollution, by far, is cigarette smoking -- which is allowed for adults, but not for minors in our society. Wi-Fi exposure is very much like cigarette smoking. The science is very clear. Chronic exposures to RF radiation can cause immediate symptoms of microwave radiation sickness: runny nose/increased mucus flow, stomach ache, headache, thought processing difficulties, memory impairment, heart palpitations, tachycardia, sleep problems, general malaise, blurred vision, weakness, dizziness, chest discomfort, muscle pain, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), fatigue, nausea, night sweats, restless legs and numbness or tingling and other symptoms at http://www.mdiwellness.com/toril-jelter-md.html. Long term exposures to RF Radiation can lead to early dementia, nerve damage, cancer and premature death. There is also a strong link for RF Microwave Radiation exposure to both male and female infertility and to autism.

Despite its popularity in the current culture, continuous RF Microwave Radiation exposures, including Wi-Fi, is toxic and should be used only sparingly, when absolutely needed -- and only by adults. This disqualifies Wi-Fi as an always-on option for our children to access the internet in their schools. Hardwired internet is faster, more secure and safer, as shown here http://octowired.com. Using USB-to-Ethernet adapters to connect any iPad, Chromebook or laptop to the internet by wire eliminates the current latent and toxic hazards in Petaluma classrooms, as explained here: http://responsibleipad.com/goals.html.

The IT directors of any school should have zero say about health and safety issues. They have not read or quantitatively analyzed the biological literature, as RFR expert Susan Clarke has. Clarke concludes that duration of exposure, not intensity, is the most important factor and that RF Microwave Radiation exposure is both an immediate and latent toxic hazard.

http://www.rfemf.com/background.html#clarke

http://www.rfemf.com/img/2014-0408-Susan-Clarke-RF-EMF-MW-Bioeffects.pdf

Now for some actual truth about the 9/12/16 RESIG report from Certified RF Radiation Experts:

Eric Windheim:

"The RESIG Wi-Fi report used an RF meter that only measures up to 3.5 GHz. Since the Wi-Fi used in your Petaluma schools radiates both 2.4 & 5 GHz RF radiation the RESIG report is missing half or more of the RF radiation exposure. This indicates either gross incompetence or intentional deception: perhaps both. Additionally, the meter RESIG used does not have a certificate of either factory or third party calibration. On a final note the meter RESIG selected is the cheapest 3- axis RF meter I have ever seen: $200. Building Biologists u se meters that cost $1,432 for Wi-Fi measurement. These facts alone disqualify the RESIG report."

Thea Scarato:

"Hi, I had a chance to look at the RESIG Report. There are so many problems with it. First a cheap instrument that is not adequate, and averaging numbers to start. The whole problem with Wi-Fi are the pulses, not the averages. I am sorry the District treated the issue so cavalierly. I’d ask for the data sets but frankly its not worth it. Comparing the numbers to the FCC makes no sense as FCC limits are far to high to protect health. The radiation is still penetrating the body (even though it is lower than FCC limits). In the image below the yellow is the highest SAR."

Thea Scarato is the woman in the video that I sent you all yesterday on 10/3/16:

On 10/3/16 @ 1:04 pm, [Parent] wrote to Mary Johnson, Frank Lynch and Ellen Webster:

Please view the following 3:30 Video and come prepared with your best ideas of how to eliminate the Immediate and Latent Toxic Hazards of RF Microwave radiation in PCSD classrooms that are currently being forced on students by the PCSD's current purchase, use and configuration of proprietary business equipment.

Watch 9/27/16 Thea Scarato: Wi-Fi and Cell phone Frequencies Children Are Exposed to in A School Classroom at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE1Ci-1xAaY

Dr. Karl Maret is the source of the Dosimetry data -- the same physician/researcher that I have offered to sponsor to drive to Petaluma (from Aptos, CA) and meet with PCSD Administrators and Board members from 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm in closed session on either Tue 10/11/16 or Tue 10/25/16. Dr. Maret is willing to come. Is the Board willing to meet with him?

Transparency is important in campaigns, as well as during service as Board Trustees. Unfortunately, we do not see much transparency from Mary Johnson, right now as she has refused to respond to requests for meetings, calls or even requests to answer questions in public.

On 10/4/16 @ [Parent] wrote to Mary Johnson

Re: Can We Meet or Speak Ever?

Any response at all from you, Mary?

On 10/3/16 @ 12:00 pm, [parent] wrote to Mary Johnson:
Hi, Mary.

Any chance you and I can meet today or tomorrow before the Candidate forum? I will keep the page at http://responsibleipad.com/truth.html#seven up to date with the truth. Please let me know.

More to follow . . . We have a month to go in this campaign.

Who will separate themselves as PCSD Board Trustee Candidates who exhibit a strong regard for the truth and a strong regard for the health and safety of 7,000 Petaluma students and many hundreds of PCSD employees?

This is not the time to be silent on this matter. Votes -- and, more importantly, the health and well-being of 7,000+ PCSD students and over 800+ PCSD employees -- are in the balance.

Regards

[Parent]


Return to Key Issues of Truth

Issue 9. Next Steps for the 2016 PCSD School Board Trustee Campaign

October 7, 2016

To:
Frank Lynch, PCSD School Board Candidate
Ellen Webster, PCSD School Board Candidate

Re: Next Steps for the 2016 PCSD School Board Trustee Campaign

This morning, I met with Matt Brown, managing editor of the Argus Courier to discuss what happened at the 10/4/16 Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) School Board Candidate Forum, which was co-sponsored by the Argus Courier. We discussed the following:

After listening to the strong evidence that I presented, including the four expert letters that were sent to the PCSD School Administrators and School Board -- letters that were entered into the public record on 9/13/16 and that recommend only wired internet access for schools:

. . . Mr. Brown understood that the PCSD has been put on 60 days notice to correct the problems described in the petition at http://responsibleipad.com/petition.html and agreed to help participate in actually Making Democracy Work, the tag line that advertised the 10/4/16 PCSD School Board Candidate Forum.

Specifically, Matt Brown agreed to the following today:

  • To read the expert letters (links above).

  • To consider reporting the truth about the PCSD ignoring California public records requests from 5/24/16, 9/1/16, 9/12/16, 9/22/16 and 9/23/16, reported at http://responsibleipad.com/urgent.html#evidence and http://responsibleipad.com/truth.html

  • To publish in an upcoming print and online edition of the Argus Courier before the election, a 350-word guest commentary written by members of our group, Responsible iPad Use in Classrooms.

After consulting with members of Responsible iPad Use in Classrooms, which may account for as many 400 or more votes in the 2016 PCSD School Board Trustee Election, we have decided to offer you . . . a chance to answer the three questions, that I gave to each of you prior to the 10/4/16 Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) School Board Candidate Forum, listed below. We will post whatever answers we get from you to the web site and to our group. Feel free to email your answers in file.pdf format to me by 10/14/16.

  1. {Candidates}, is it appropriate for PCSD schools to expose children to a known carcinogen -- a hazardous agent proven by the May 2016, National Toxicology Study Results to cause two forms of cancer and other adverse health effects -- by continuously transmitting this carcinogen into student classrooms as a condition for receiving a public education, particularly when there is CA education code (Sections 32060-32066) that prohibits PCSD schools from doing so?

  2. {{Candidates}, how will you eliminate the immediate and latent toxic hazards of RF Microwave radiation in PCSD classrooms – hazards which students face due to the PCSD's current purchase, use and configuration of its proprietary wireless business equipment? What specific remedies do you recommend?

  3. {{Candidates}, given that evidence proves that the PCSD has engaged in a repeated pattern of withholding public information from the public and misleading parents and students about actual RF Microwave radiation levels in PCSD classrooms in 2013 and 2016, what will you do to ensure that the PCSD follows all state and federal laws, including the CA Public Records Act, to share complete, accurate, and truthful information about total, cumulative RF Microwave radiation exposures in PCSD classrooms?

Please let me know how you would like to proceed.

Regards

[Parent]


Return to Key Issues of Truth

Issue 10. The Fallacy of Technology "Best Practices" for Schools

October 7, 2016

To: Mr. Matt Brown
Managing Editor
Petaluma Argus-Courier
719 Southpoint Blvd #C
Petaluma, CA 94954
707-521-5206

I would like to discuss the following, as well as my 9/26/16 and 10/4/16 letters to you in our meeting at 10:00 am today. Please note the attachments.

Critique of 2014 US Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) EMF Guidelines

EQ 15.1 – Low-EMF Wiring -- sound OK
EQ 15.2 – Low-EMF Best Practices -- fall far short

This is where the US CHPS CRITERIA fall down. Page 105-106 (pages 4-5 of the 8-page pdf):

"If using a wireless local area network (WLAN) for Internet access, choose the minimum number of access points and adjust the power output of the access points to the lowest maximum level required to meet the needs. Access points shall be placed a minimum distance of 16-32 feet (5-10 m) from where students and staff spend the majority of their time. The access points and Wi-Fi transmitters in the computer devices shall be turned off when not in use. Clearly label access points with warning signs.

Provide a Wireless-free Zone where cell phones, cordless phones, and Wi-Fi-enabled electronic devices shall not be used. Post clear signage at the door to instruct users on how to disable the wireless transmitters on their personal electronic devices (power off or airplane mode) before entering this space . . .

The radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure level at a given student seating area or workstation shall be as low as possible or less than 0.2 V/m or 100 μW/m2 (peak). Measurements shall be taken on the floor in the foot area and across a vertical plane halfway between the floor and the edge of the desk, at the edge of the desk, and at 6 feet (180 cm). Retest RF electromagnetic field exposure levels if IT equipment, electronic devices, or networks when wireless connectivity are installed or added."

Please read the comments about these guidelines, below, in bold:

CHPS:

"If using a wireless local area network (WLAN) for Internet access . . ."

Comment: Nearly all schools at this point, which is the problem.

CHPS:

"Choose the minimum number of access points and adjust the power output of the access points to the lowest maximum level required to meet the needs."

Comment: This is nonsense once you understand what Dr. Leif Salford (https://youtu.be/EWJaJPWIA?t=12m40s), Dr. Karl Maret (https://vimeo.com/132039697) and Dr. Ross Adey (1993-Adey-W-Ross-BioEffects-of-EMF.pdf, attached) have established about DOSE and the specific narrow ranges of power density/modulation that result in biological windows (i.e. the exact wrong power level/modulation/pulsing-frequency that leads to exponential biological effects that cascade through our interstitial areas). The conclusion is that no school is equipped with sufficient meters and knowledge to 'fine-tune' or 'manage' Wireless Access Points and the Wireless Devices that connect to them in ways that makes the use of RF Microwave Radiation not hazardous to the children's biology.

The only effective answer is to turn off all of the WAPS in the schools when children are present, eliminating all use of wireless internet access during the school day, following a schedule: a simple WAPs-on/WAPs-off program, with no WAPs on when students are present during the school day. The following recommended schedule gives the school the freedom to turn the WAPS on for their employees' use during non-school hours for teacher prep and equipment updates, but the WAPs must be turned off, when students are present.

  • WAPs on from 6:00 am to 8:00 am for network updates and teacher work/prep
  • WAPs off from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm when students are present on campus
  • WAPs on from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm for network updates and teacher work/prep
  • WAPs off from 6:00 pm to 6:00 am overnight to save 12 hours of power consumption

Check the language of the petition at http://responsibleipad.com/petition.html. It focused on the configuration and use of the wireless equipment that leads to immediate and latent toxic hazards in classrooms. If the school would simply change the configuration of the WAPs, it could eliminate these toxic hazards.

CHPS:

"Access points shall be placed a minimum distance of 16-32 feet (5-10 m) from where students and staff spend the majority of their time. The access points and Wi-Fi transmitters in the computer devices shall be turned off when not in use. Clearly label access points with warning signs."

Comment: This is more nonsense. These guidelines still allow the schools to operate wireless networks -- something they cannot do when children are present. The WAPs being on is bad, but the disaster occurs when students turn on device antennas, connect to the network and then start downloading and uploading data. Now the students are sitting in their own six-foot diameter spheres of near-field electric and magnetic fields -- a toxic hellstew of erratic spikes, crackles and pops of energy peaks that wreak havoc with their biology, and that overlap with other students' spheres, creating even more dangerous hot spots.

Radiation doesn't really start until the emissions from the antennas transform into the more predictable radiation pattern beyond the spheres, when the electric and magnetic fields are oriented at 90 degrees to each other. All of the professional RF meters we use measure only the electrical field portion of these far-field effects. Nothing effectively measures the hazards of the near-field effects -- in which the children actually sit when using a wirelessly-connected device. We are literally blind to this toxic cloud.

Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), as we know, is not of any help because it is only measuring tissue heating (which is more nonsense) and makes no attempt to actually characterize the erratic spikes, crackles and pops of energy peaks that the children actually face in the near-field regions — within a three-foot radius around each antenna.

CHPS:

"Provide a Wireless-free Zone where cell phones, cordless phones, and Wi-Fi-enabled electronic devices shall not be used. Post clear signage at the door to instruct users on how to disable the wireless transmitters on their personal electronic devices (power off or airplane mode) before entering this space."

Comment: This is even more nonsense. Unless these rooms are professionally shielded and grounded, then nothing stops the RF microwave radiation from the WAPS and devices used elsewhere in the school from penetrating into these "safe sounding" but ineffective 'Wireless-free Zones'. We all know that non-smoking sections in restaurants and planes were utterly ineffective because the second-hand smoke slowly wafted around to fill the space. That is why we banned smoking from schools, offices, restaurants and planes. The only difference with Wireless second-hand smoke is that it instantly fills the space because it moves at the speed of light: 671 million miles per hour.

Whoever wrote these guidelines checked their knowledge of physics at the door and gave into some 'political pressure' and/or 'desire to compromise' to allow a few unfortunate passages, like the ones quoted above, to gut the effectiveness of otherwise good-sounding guidelines.

CHPS:

The radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure level at a given student seating area or workstation shall be as low as possible or less than 0.2 V/m or 100 μW/m2 (peak). Measurements shall be taken on the floor in the foot area and across a vertical plane halfway between the floor and the edge of the desk, at the edge of the desk, and at 6 feet (180 cm). Retest RF electromagnetic field exposure levels if IT equipment, electronic devices, or networks when wireless connectivity are installed or added.

All of this ignores DOSE, a concept relevant to any physician or toxicology study, but conveniently left out of the FCC guidelines by those Wireless industry lobbyists who wrote the 1996 Telecommunications Act — such as current FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler — to mislead the world.

DOSE is explained by these excellent Dr. Karl Maret videos: https://vimeo.com/132039697 and https://vimeo.com/87023780).

DOSE is also shown and explained here: http://rfemf.com/counter.html#counter

By the way, here are the relevant biologically-based RF Microwave Exposure guidelines:

Measuring peak, not average levels is critical and understanding that any use of Wi-Fi leads to unacceptably-high exposures for children (http://www.createhealthyhomes.com/richtwerte-2015-englisch.pdf)

No Hazard     |     Slight Hazard     |     Severe Hazard     |     Extreme Hazard
< 0.1 µW/m² 0.1 µW/m² to 10 µW/m² 10 µW/m² to 1000 µW/m² > 1000 µW/m²

By contrast, the national RFR exposure guideline for Wi-Fi (2450 to 5800 MHz) is . . .

   10,000,000 µW/m² when measured as average RFR levels, which could actually be as high as
2,500,000,000 µW/m² when measured as peak RFR levels (or instantaneous maximum levels).

2.5 billion µW/m² vs. 10 µW/m² -- that's how much independent scientists and the Feds disagree.

Note: µW/m² means microwatt (or 1/1,00,000th of a Watt) per square meter.
Anything higher than 10 µW/m² measured as peaks is a dangerously high RFR exposure for our children.

I hope this provides a clearer picture of the folly of some compromises, i.e. those made by the creators of the CHPs guidelines. We need effective solutions, not "nice sounding" but ineffective ones.

Regards

[Parent]


About Us

Responsible IPad Use in Classrooms
is a group of Petaluma, CA parents who stand for using school-issued iPads with:

  • Hardwired Internet
  • Airplane-Mode On
  • Parental Consent

We support technology that is configured and used in ways that protect our children on Petaluma's K-12 school campuses — and at home.