URGENT: We Must Band Together to Prevent Looming Health Crises

The agenda of ever-increasing exposures to weapons-grade levels of wireless radiation threatens our health, privacy and rights — at both the national and local levels.

At the National Level

July 14, 2016 G-Day: The 5G Specrtrum Announcements

Learn How the FCC Intimidated the Press and Killed Free Speech at the 5G Rollout Event

“Moments ago I was attempting to talk to some people who came to attend the meeting and [are knowledgeable about the substantial evidence for health hazards from RF] radiation and 5G. And your security force intervened — told the guy he couldn’t show me the t-shirt he wished to display at the meeting, forced him to put it away, and confiscated my FCC-issued ID. Is this consonant with the discussion that ought to be taking place here, and what’s your reaction to this action by your staff?”

Todd Shields, Bloomberg reporter, to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

Take Action: Please Email, Write and Call

View this comprehensive list of congressional email addresses and phone numbers and tell your representatives to halt this reckless 5G rush job. The intelligent path is to safety test before deploying new technology. We have only one biosphere & we cannot ruin it for everyone just to serve the megalomania and massive greed of a very few people at the top.

FIRST: SEND A LETTER, EMAIL OR CALL

Write, call and email Congress, the FCC and others. Use the following platform to let them know firmly that you

  • Accept their oath of office to defend the Constitution, and all of your rights Will hold them responsible, liable and accountable if they do not stop harmful 5G technology in its tracks
  • Demand the 1996 Telecommunications Act be immediately repealed. (This industry-penned law took away local rights to refuse cell tower installations environmental grounds.)
  • Demand that the responsibility of electromagnetic frequency (EMF) safety standards be transferred to an independent, science based panel that represents the people. (The FCC has NO ONE who is qualified to protect the health of the people, because it was never part of their mandate.)

SECOND: GO TO YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS

View Kevin Mottus' call-to-action, above, and join him to make change on the ground. Mottus is calling on everyone to go to speak with your government reps in DC — and to go in person if at all possible. You know where the Congressmen are. You know where all of the committees are. Go. Educate them. Go like the wireless industry goes, time after time, to the FCC.

Contact Both of your Senators and your Representative

Look them up and find their phone and FAX numbers at these links: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and http://www.house.gov/representatives/ http://www.help.senate.gov/ links to contact the two ranking members

Mottus is inviting anyone who wants to join him in DC for the next session of Congress (between September 6 to October 6), to email him at truthaction@protonmail.ch.

Email addresses for FCC Commissioners:

  • Email Tom Wheeler, Chairman at tom.wheeler@fcc.gov
  • Email Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner at mignon.clyburn@fcc.gov
  • Email Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner at jessica.rosenworcel@fcc.gov
  • Email Ajit Pai, Commissioner at ajit.pai@fcc.gov
  • Email Michael O’Rielly, Commissioner at mike.orielly@fcc.gov

House Communications and Technology Subcommittee

Call Greg Walden, Chief of Staff: (202) 225-6730
Call Bob Latta: (202) 225-6405
Call John M. Shimkus: (202) 225-5271
Call Marsha Blackburn: (202) 225-2811
Call Steve Scalise: (202) 225-3015
Call Leonard Lance: (202) 225-5361
Call S. Brett Guthrie: (202) 225-3501
Call Pete Olson: (202) 225-5951
Call Mike Pompeo: (202) 225-6216
Call Adam Kinzinger: (202) 225-3635
Call Gus Michael Bilirakis: (202) 225-5755
Call Bill Johnson: (202) 225-5705
Call Billy Long: (202) 225-6536
Call Renee Ellmers: (202) 225-4531
Call Chris Collins: (202) 225‐5265
Call Kevin Cramer: (202) 225‐2611
Call Joe L. Barton: (202) 225‐2002
Call Fred S. Upton: (202) 225-3761
Call Anna G. Eshoo: (202) 225‐8104
Call Mike Doyle: (202) 225-2135
Call Peter Welch: (202) 225‐4115
Call John A. Yarmuth: (202) 225‐5401
Call Yvette D. Clarke: (202) 225-6231
Call David Loebsack: (202) 225‐6576
Call Bobby L. Rush: (202) 225‐4372
Call Diana L. DeGette: (202) 225‐4431
Call G. K. Butterfield: (202) 225‐3101
Call Doris O. Matsui: (202) 225‐7163
Call Jerry M. McNerney: (202) 225‐1947
Call Ben R. Lujan: (202) 225-6190
Call Frank Pallone, Jr: (202) 225-4671

Do You Use Twitter?

Read the FCC Factsheet on 5G and then tweet to these addresses: @TomWheelerFCC, @KatyontheHill, @AEItech, @MClyburnFCC, @HouseCommerce#SubCommTech, @ChrisJ_Lewis@panjwaniPK, @lawandeconomics, @theNCI, @Ryan_Knutson, @lizrhoffman, @DanaMattioli, @danacimilluca, @DaveCBenoit, @MariaBartiromo, @keachhagey, @lalpert1, @tgryta

Submit comments to the FCC Review of Radiofrequency and Health

  1. Go to https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings -- go to top of page and click "submit a filing"
  2. under “proceeding, type in13-84 enter that and then add- 03-137 you will see a drop down and click on it to confirm.
  3. Under name of filer, put in your name.
  4. You only need to fill in where there is a star- so put in your email, your address and a zip.
  5. Under upload documents, just drag over the document of your comments and drop them in- and while you are at it PLEASE put in all other research and documents you have that pertain to the issue.
  6. Follow all prompts to submit this until it states that you are done.

At the Local Level

April 19, 2016 Responsible iPad Use in Classrooms Launch Event

Local School District Intimidates Parents and Illegally Blocks Access to Public Records

Parents learned on 8/17/16 that the Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) secretly had their insurance company, RESIG complete the data collection phase of a PCSD classroom RF Radiation Survey — without first consulting parents. We finally learned on 9/13/16 that the PCSD had completed its data collection by 7/29/16, but did not publish its results until 9/12/16 -- in order to hide this information from the public. Furthermore, the PCSD unilaterally decided on a methodology and data collection process without involving parents who have certified expertise in measuring and mitigating RF Radiation. The PCSD's 9/12/16 LIMITED RADIO-FREQUENCY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR PETALUMA CITY SCHOOLS is wholly unreliable and is fully refuted here.

Certified RFR Expert, Eric Windheim, reports: "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."

Take Action: Sign Petition and Speak out

Read about the evidence of the PCSD voting on 8/16/16 to spend another $80,000 for more wireless saturation of Petaluma classrooms here and here. This vote occurred well AFTER 5/25/16, the date that the PCSD was noticed and informed about the May, 2016 National Toxicology Program study results proving that continuous RF radiation exposure from wireless causes two forms of cancer and other serious health effects.

Learn how the PCSD is hiding information about the installation of Wireless Access Points and hiding the details about PCSD RF Radiation Classroom Survey data that the PCSD's insurance company, RESIG, collected at some date prior to 8/17/16. Despite receiving 5/24/16 and 9/1/16 California Public Records Act requests that gives the public the right to immediately inspect this public information, the PCSD refuses to voluntarily share public records with parents. In violation of CA laws, the PCSD is obstructing parents' access to inspect these records.

Don't be fooled by Average RFR readings in classrooms. Reporting average levels is merely a trick, created by Wireless industry lobbyists designed to hide the extremely high and damaging peaks of RF radiation that are occurring in classrooms every day, such as these: a peak of 165,000 µW/m² (microwatts per square meter), measured in a Sacramento classroom in July, 2016 — a level which is extremely hazardous. The school responsible for this classroom took immediate action: they powered off their Wireless Access Points and installed hardwired Ethernet connections for every laptop computer.


© 2016, Eric Windheim, Windeheim EMF Solutions | 916-395-7336


© 2016, Eric Windheim, Windeheim EMF Solutions


© 2016, Eric Windheim, Windeheim EMF Solutions



2015 Building Biology RF Microwave Radiation Guidelines

No HazardSlight HazardSevere HazardExtreme Hazard
<0.1 µW/m² 0.1 to 10 µW/m² 10 to 1000 µW/m² > 1000 µW/m²

  • The Oberfranken study evaluated medical complaints of 356 people with long-term radiation in their homes.
  • Above 100 µW/m², only 5-6% of the people did not have adverse health effects.

Peaks of only 0.1-10 µW/m² are the correct targets for classrooms; zero microwatts per square meter would be the best. The only way the PCSD can achieve these correct RF Radiation targets is by powering off WAPS when students are present on campus from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm every school day.

View Additional Videos

Learn more.

EVIDENCE: PCSD Continues Wireless Expansion After 5/25/16

   $38,808 for 2016-0816-AMS-Net-Contract-A.pdf
+ $41,400 for 2016-0816-AMS-Net-Contract-B.pdf

PCSD Hides Public Records from the Public

List of Key Communications

  • 5/24/16 email re: CA Public Records Requests per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48
  • 8/31/16 email re: Apparent Communication Problem; Need Basic Information About 2016 PCSD RF Radiation Survey
  • 9/1/16 email re: CA Public Records Requests per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48
  • 9/2/16 email re: Invitation and Petaluma City Schools District's Good Faith, Good Will and Good Intentions
  • 9/6/16 email re: TIME Magazine: Screens In Schools Are a $60 Billion Hoax
  • 9/7/16 email re: Petaluma Parents Need Information Now, Round 8

On 5/24/16, [Parent] wrote Callahan, Escobedo and Deen:

May 24, 2016

To: Mr. Gary Callahan, Superintendent
Ms. Jane Escobedo, Deputy Superintendent, Educational Services
Ms. Lori Deen, Director of Technology
Petaluma City Schools District
200 Douglas Street
Petaluma, CA 94952

Subject: CA Public Records Requests per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48

According to the CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (CPRA), Government Code Sections 6250-6276.48 (January 2004), the Petaluma City School District (PCSD) is a local government agency, subject to all provisions of the CPRA. The intent of CPRA is for Mr. Callahan, Ms. Escobedo, Ms. Deen and other government employees in the state of California to assist members of the public to get the information that they request.

Members of the public will not always know on which artifacts (reports, email, calendar entries, text messages, hand-written notes, financial records, phone records, memories) the information they request will reside, so it puts the public at a disadvantage. Hence the need for assistance from the government employees, as stated in CA law.

The Petaluma City Schools District is not a private company and is not afforded the same levels of confidentiality that a private company might enjoy. The PCSD is a local government agency, subject to all provisions of the CPRA. Californians' state and local governments must conduct their business in the open -- nearly all of it in the open, except for personnel matters. All of the information that is not covered by exemptions is available for inspection by members of the public.

In this email, I, [parent], a member of the public, am hereby making the following CA public records requests:

  1. In a list of Purchase Orders, dated 05/04/2016 - 05/17/2016 -- Board Meeting Date 5/24/2016, a summary Purchase Order Item (P16-01876) appears (see 2016-0524-Purchase-Order.pdf, attached): $27,746.06 for Every Day Math Teacher. I seek to inspect the invoices that shows the detail of the individual items (ISBN #, description, price and quantity) that comprise the total of $27,746.06. Since the PCSD seeks Board approval to spend this $27,746.06 during the 5/24/16 PSCD School Board meeting, I am seeking to inspect this record at 200 Douglas Street by no later than 3:00 pm on Tue 5/24/16, which would provide sufficient time to analyze these invoices prior to this evening's Board meeting. I am seeking no copies of these records, just on-site inspection of the requested records on 5/24/16.

  2. Similar to my May, 2013 CA Public Records request to which to PCSD mostly complied, I am seeking to inspect all invoices, school maps, diagrams and any other records that evidence the purchase, configuration and installation of any PCSD schools' technology and wireless equipment from 1/1/2014 through 5/24/16, including but not limited to Wireless Access Points (WAPs), iPads, Chromebooks, laptops and any other equipment that connects to the PCSD network wirelessly. For each Wireless Access Point (WAP): I am seeking to inspect the current location, model number, equipment purchase price, software purchase price, installation cost, date of purchase, date of installation and operational characteristics of the antennas in these WAPs. I am also seeking to inspect all contracts that evidence the purchase, configuration and installation of this equipment. I am seeking no copies of these records, just on-site inspection of the requested records no later than Tue June 7, 2016.

  3. In the Youtube video, titled "Petaluma Schools Explaining iPADs are safe for kids?", PCSD Technology Director Lori Deen made the following statements:

Lori Deen: "All I can say is that extensive research has been done at the District level. We had a gentleman in our community who believed that as you did and came to many board meetings, so it required us to [the PCSD] to do many, many studies and right now we are operating under the FCC regulations in which these devices are OK to use."

Parent 1: "Are those studies available for public viewing?"

Lori Deen: "Um . . absolutely . . . um . . . I don't have them off-hand, I can definitely correspond with you, but basically all I can say is that through FCC regulations, we are not doing anything that . . . um . . . the Federal government believes is . . . uh . . . outside of the realm of normal use."

I am seeking to inspect the many, many studies that Ms. Deen referenced above and any other records that evidence the due diligence that the PCSD completed before rolling out the current PCSD student iPad program. I am seeking no copies of these records, just on-site inspection of the requested records no later than Tue June 7, 2016.

The CPRA information request detailed in this document is not subject to delay, ten days or otherwise, for the following reasons:

  • I am not requesting copies, just inspection of the existing information in any form
  • The information exists in some form within the Petaluma City Schools District offices
  • The information is not exempt from the CPRA process

The following quotes from the CPRA summary and law establishes the validity of the CPRA requests, above, made on 5/24/16 by [parent] to the Petaluma City Schools District.

>>> Start of quotes - Summary of CA Law

"In enacting the CPRA, the Legislature stated that access to information concerning the conduct of the public's business is a fundamental and necessary right for every person in the State. Cases interpreting the CPRA also have emphasized that its primary purpose is to give the public an opportunity to monitor the functioning of their government. The greater and more unfettered the public official's power, the greater the public's interest in monitoring the governmental action . . .

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 in making focused and effective requests for identifiable records."

Please note, the CPRA says "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."

>>> Start of quotes - CA GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48

"Section 6253
(a) Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided . . .

(b) . . . each state or local agency . . . shall make the records promptly available . . .

(c) Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part seeks copies of disclosable public records"

The fundamental precept of the CPRA is that governmental records shall be disclosed to the public, upon request, unless there is a specific reason not to do so . . . the CPRA provides for a general balancing test by which an agency may withhold records from disclosure, if it can establish that the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure . . . If a record contains exempt information, the agency generally must segregate or redact the exempt information and disclose the remainder of the record . . .

In enacting the CPRA, the Legislature stated that access to information concerning the conduct of the public’s business is a fundamental and necessary right for every person in the State. Cases interpreting the CPRA also have emphasized that its primary purpose is to give the public an opportunity to monitor the functioning of their government. The greater and more unfettered the public official’s power, the greater the public’s interest in monitoring the governmental action . . .

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 in making focused and effective requests for identifiable records. One legislatively-approved method of providing assistance is to make available an index of the agency’s records. 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. However, if the records are not readily accessible or if portions of the records must be redacted in order to protect exempt material, the agency must be given a reasonable period of time to perform these functions . . .

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

In closing, this email does not request any copies of records, just inspection of the records relevant to the requests that are available at the Petaluma City Schools District. As public records are now stored digitally and available from tax-payer supported servers, the records are available in either paper or digital formats. To satisfy this CPRA, I am fine receiving the records in digital format (.pdf. xls or other file format).

The public seeks access to inspect whatever records are available on the PCSD's servers. It can be easily established when records have been created and if the public information is on the servers at any slice in time. We have a right to see this public information because the information must be "open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record".

Thank you.

Regards,

[Parent]


Return to List of Key Communications.

On 8/31/16, [Parent] wrote Burcina, Johnson and Thomas:

August 31, 2016

Ms. Rose Burcina
Executive Director
Redwood Empire Schools Insurance Group (RESIG)
5760 Skylane Blvd., Suite 100
Windsor, CA 95492

cc:
Ms. Mary Johnson, Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) Board Member
Ms. Christine Thomas, PCSD Chief Business Officer

Subject: Apparent Communication Problem; Need Basic Information About 2016 PCSD RF Radiation Survey

Dear Ms. Burcina,

Apparently, we are experiencing a communication problem. I have left you several voice-mail messages and emails confirming that I understood your earlier communication that said "the report has not been finalized so the information is not yet available." Once again, I reject the premise of your statement.

On 8/30/16 @ 4:15 pm, Rose Burcina wrote to [Parent]

Hi [Parent] The report has not been finalized so the information is not yet available. Thanks. Rose

Yours is not sufficient or acceptable reason for not answering the basic questions, listed below in red. Perhaps PCSD Board Member Mary Johnson or PCSD Chief Business Officer, Ms. Christine Thomas will promptly answer these basic questions. I have copied each of them on this email for that reason.

Specifically, the PCSD Classroom RF Radiation Survey Report does not have to be finalized in order for the PCSD or RESIG to answer the following questions in red that parents have posed to the PCSD and to RESIG days after parents learned on 8/17/16 that the data collection process for the Classroom RF Radiation Survey had been completed. This fact has already been confirmed by both RESIG and PCSD personnel.

Promptly answering the following questions would show the PCSD's good faith, good will and good intentions in addressing the RF Radiation exposures in PCSD classrooms with the parents who have gone on record to formally demand that the PCSD address this issue. The PCSD choosing to not respond and to not promptly answer these basic questions would communicate the opposite.

Here are five questions that can be answered immediately; questions that the PCSD and RESIG have refused to answer in the last seven days:

  1. What dates/times did RESIG conduct the RFR metering and data collection at the PCSD?
  2. In what schools/classrooms and under what conditions did RESIG complete the meter readings?
  3. Did the RF meter log a stream of data over a set period of time (as most professional RF meters do)?
  4. Did the meter collect Root Mean Square (RMS) or some other average readings of RFR or did the meter collect peak/instantaneous maximum levels of RFR?
  5. On what date do you project that the RESIG report will be finalized?

Petaluma parents would appreciate prompt answers to these questions from Ms. Burcina, Ms. Johnson or Ms. Thomas. Ms. Johnson and Ms. Thomas are the appropriate parties to answer these questions because they are the two who have conducted a series of conversations with [another] Petaluma parent, regarding RF Radiation exposures in PCSD classrooms. [This other parent] is speaking on behalf of about 30 PCSD parents -- parents who are predominantly from the Cherry Valley School and who signed a May/June 2016 letter [the other parent] sent to the PCSD.

In contrast to [the other parent's] constituents of 30 or so, I am addressing the needs of 200+ Petaluma residents who have signed the petition at (http://responsibleipad.com/petition.html), including former Congress woman, Lynn Woolsey.

I am speaking on behalf of a significant constituency, whose needs need to be addressed in the two weeks before the next scheduled PCSD School Board meeting on 9/13/16. [The other parent] is not representing the interests or needs of the 200+ petition signers.

Next, please find attached two documents that provide information that is relevant to RESIG's not-yet-finalized classroom RF Survey report.

[A] 2016-0706-Windheim-EMF-Report.pdf
[B] 2016-0601-Telecom-10-K-Liability-for-Insurance-Companies.pdf

[A] 2016-0706-Windheim-EMF-Report.pdf
`````````````````````````````````````
The attached EMF report is an example of a recently completed professional EMF report that knowledgeable Petaluma parents will reference when judging the sufficiency of RESIG's PCSD Classroom RF Radiation Survey. Allow me to highlight several key areas of this report:

Pages 2-3: RF Microwave Radiation Observations, including photo of set up and data log collection procedures
Pages 4-5: Charts/Tables of a data log of a series of peak (maximum-instantaneous) RF radiation level readings, reflecting peak RF Radiation levels when devices were downloading videos (a typical student activity)
Pages 7-8: Table of Recorded Peak Level Readings
Page 10: SBM-2008 RF Radiation Exposure Guidelines (based on substantial scientific literature showing biological effects of RF Radiation)

[B] 2016-0601-Telecom-10-K-Liability-for-Insurance-Companies.pdf
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
The attached document is all about insurance, your area of expertise, Ms. Burcina. I would hope that the content of this document enlightens you about the unnecessary and high financial risks the PCSD faces if they continue to power on Wireless Access Points on its school campuses after the PCSD was informed on 5/25/16 and 6/14/16, in the public record, about the substantial scientific results reported by the National Toxicology Study on the carcinogenesis of RF radiation.

I would also hope that in advising the PCSD, that you recognize the PCSD Board Members', Superintendent's and Principals' responsibility, accountability and liability for not honoring CA State laws and for not providing a learning environment that is free from known toxic substances and agents, such as RF radiation -- as specified by CA State laws.

I will look forward to a prompt response, addressing the questions, above, from Ms. Burcina, Ms. Johnson or Ms. Thomas. I would also welcome professionalism and common courtesy from each of you. I invite you to return my calls and follow up with me promptly at [telephone number]

Thank you.

Regards,

[Parent]


Return to List of Key Communications.

On 9/1/16, [Parent] wrote Callahan, Thomas, Deen and PCSD Board Members:

September 1, 2016

To:
Mr. Gary Callahan, Superintendent
Ms. Christine Thomas, Chief Business Official
Ms. Lori Deen, Director of Technology
Mr. Michael Baddeley, PCSD Board President
Ms. Sheri Chlebowski, PCSD Board Member
Ms. Phoebe Ellis, PCSD Board Member
Ms. Mary Johnson, PCSD Board Member
Mr. Troy Sanderson, PCSD Board Member
Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD)
200 Douglas Street
Petaluma, CA 94952

Subject: CA Public Records Requests per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48

According to the CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (CPRA), CA Government Code Sections 6250-6276.48, the Petaluma City School District (PCSD) is a local government agency, subject to all provisions of the CPRA. The intent of CPRA is for Mr. Callahan, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Deen, Mr. Baddeley, Ms. Chlebowski, Ms. Ellis, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Sanderson and other elected government officials and employees in the state of California to assist members of the public to get the information that they request.

The Petaluma City Schools District is not a private company and is not afforded the same levels of confidentiality that a private company might enjoy. The PCSD is a local government agency, subject to all provisions of the CPRA. Californians' state and local governments must conduct their business in the open -- nearly all of it in the open, except for personnel matters. All of the information that is not covered by exemptions is available for inspection by members of the public.

Members of the public will not always know on which artifacts (reports, email, calendar entries, text messages, hand-written notes, financial records, phone records, memos) the information they request will reside, so it puts the public at a disadvantage. Hence the need for assistance from the PCSD Board members and PCSD employees, as stated in CA law. I have repeatedly requested such assistance from the PCSD, but have been repeatedly denied. Instead, I have faced obstruction to inspect public records from the PCSD -- obstruction designed to block my access to the CPRA-requested public records.

As background, my wife [parent] and I are residents of Petaluma and parents to a [x]-grader, whom we must home school because the PCSD is not fulfilling its duty to provide a safe learning environment that is free from toxic substances and/or agents. I am an expert in measuring and mitigating RF radiation. I am keenly aware of the substantial scientific evidence of the immediate and latent toxic RF radiation hazards. Please do not characterize my comments in this email or any other of my communication as mere concerns. I have in the past and am now discussing only matters of substantial scientific evidence.

On 4/19/16, Petaluma parents banded together to form a group, Responsible iPad Use in Classrooms (http://responsibleipad.com and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbEpOETzLWg) to define a platform for change that will protect their children from exposures from a known toxic agent in PCSD classrooms, RF radiation, and to collect petition signatures for Petaluma residents who support eliminating RF Radiation in PCSD schools. We have collected over 200 ink-signatures for the petition listed at http://responsibleipad.com/petition.html, including from former Congress woman Lynn Woolsey. Several members of our group have advanced training in RF radiation metering and mitigation and deep knowledge of the inadequacy of the various national Radio-Frequency Radiation (RFR) guidelines.

Continuous exposures to RFR in classrooms is causing many symptoms in children today. Dr. Toril Jelter, 925-935-5425, lists the most common symptoms of microwave radiation sickness on her web site: runny nose/increased mucus flow, nose bleeds, stomach ache, headache, thought processing difficulties, memory impairment, heart palpitations, 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. Another key factor is that the symptoms change with location and EMF (electromagnetic field) exposure, often improving outdoors.

In this email, [parent] and [parent], members of the public, are hereby making the CA public records requests, as detailed below. The CPRA information requests detailed in this email is not subject to delay, ten days or otherwise, for the following reasons:

  • The 9/1/16 CPRA-request is not requesting copies, just inspection of the existing information in any form (paper or digital)
  • The information exists in some form within the Petaluma City Schools District or with its vendors
  • The information is not exempt from the CPRA process

As public records are now stored digitally and available from tax-payer supported servers, the records are available in either paper or digital formats. We seek access to inspect whatever records are available on the servers under the PCSD’s control (SERVERS). To satisfy this and all past CPRA requests, we are fine with receiving any records in digital format (.pdf, .xls or other file format).

Members of the public have a right to inspect this public information because the PCSD’s information must be "open to inspection at all times during the office hours", per CA laws.

9/1/16 CPRA Request Item 1: County of Merced Contract Number 2009121

For the County of Merced's contract number 2009121, there apparently exists three levels of detail:

A. The full Contract, which I have never been allowed to inspect

B. 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.

C. 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.

This 9/1/16 CPRA request includes a request to inspect the County of Merced's contract number 2009121: the full contract and all of its relevant Exhibits (both A and B, above). As this CPRA-request was communicated in writing to Ms. Thomas on 7/13/16 as a follow up to the 5/24/16 CPRA request, it is reasonable to expect that the PCSD has had sufficient time to locate this full contract and make it immediately available for inspection by my wife, [parent], who dropped off this 9/1/16 CPRA request, in person, to the PCSD Superintendent’s office on 9/1/16, as evidenced by the “Received by Superintendent” stamp on page 1 of this document.

Importantly, [parent] is seeking no copies of the CPRA-requested records mentioned in this email, just immediate, on-site inspection of the requested records. [Parent] or [Parent]’s designated agents are open to scheduling a convenient time to inspect all CPRA-requested public records mentioned in this email at the PCSD offices on 200 Douglas Street, Petaluma, CA between now and no later than September 8, 2016. She and I would both appreciate the PCSD’s full compliance with this 9/1/16 CPRA request and all other outstanding CPRA requests, discussed below.

PCSD’s Well-Established Pattern of Obstructing Access to Public Records

This 9/1/16 CPRA request needs to be viewed in context with many past CPRA requests from 2013 to 2016, to which the PCSD has not fully complied. In fact, at this very moment, the PCSD continues to obstruct the public’s access to inspect CPRA records stemming from a 5/24/16 CPRA request. PCSD employees Callahan, Thomas and Deen have been chronically unresponsive regarding the PCSD’s duties to provide reasonable access for the public to inspect all of the records requested on 5/24/16.

Such obstruction is another example of a long-standing PCSD pattern of blocking the public’s timely access to inspect public records – either denying access altogether or delaying access to CPRA-requested records to a mere few hours before the items are presented to the PCSD board members for a vote, such as on 1/14/14, when such a delay tactic was entered into the public record about the PCSD’s non-compliance with GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48 with respect to a County of Merced's contract number 2009121, -- see quotes from the public record (https://youtu.be/qOoehWxGbP4), below.

PCSD Board President, Troy Sanderson:
https://youtu.be/qOoehWxGbP4?t=1h15m40s

"Moving onto Item 9 . . . it is in the best interest of the District to co-join, otherwise known as piggybacking on the County of Merced's contract number 2009121 for District wide technology and overall system upgrades to expand wireless access and the overall recommendation is for the board to ratify the agreement."

PCSD Administrator, Midge Hoffman:
https://youtu.be/qOoehWxGbP4?t=1h16m52s

"without this agreement, the students would not be able to participate in the [Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium] testing at this time, as we stand right now."

. . . which was a false statement. Ms. Hoffman admitted as much to a PCSD Board member later in the 1/14/14 meeting –- in the public record.

Member of the Public, [Parent]:
https://youtu.be/qOoehWxGbP4?t=1h17m28s

"I just got my hands today on the details behind this contract. The details [and exhibits] of this contract were not available to the Board and not available to the public on the web site . . . when I went down to the District office and made a [CPRA] request [to inspect] the contract, I was denied [access] . . . This contract was not properly noticed, this contract was not available for public review. It was not even available for review by the board members. It would be irresponsible for the Board to vote on this contract without first understanding what's the price per [Wireless Access Point] . . . is that a good price? Is that our best spend of money? It is impossible to [determine these things] from what was on the web site . . . I only got my hands on the [AMS.NET] contract [exhibits] at 3:15 pm [today]"

PCSD Board Member Sheri Chlebowski:
https://youtu.be/qOoehWxGbP4?t=1h27m42s

"I think if we are piggybacking off of someone else's contract, we should have the full contract."

PCSD Board Member Michael Baddeley:
https://youtu.be/qOoehWxGbP4?t=1h32m23s

"First of all, I don't think we can ever piggyback on another contract . . . if you are incorporating the terms and conditions of another contract into our contract we got to know it. You got to know what's in there. . . This [County of Merced] contract, I haven't read it. I didn't get it . . . We really shouldn't waste money ever."

Yet, without the chance to review County of Merced's contract number 2009121 -- the full contract and all of its relevant Exhibits (both A and B, above) -- the PCSD Board members, inexplicably, voted to approve the $748,000 AMS.NET wireless infrastructure upgrade project. Hence, the need for a public review of all terms of contract number 2009121 and a full accounting of the monies involved, both of which are part of this 9/1/16 CPRA request.

I have requested, in writing, access to inspect contract 2009121 on 5/24/16, again on 7/13/16 and once again in this 9/1/16 CPRA request. When will the PCSD finally comply with CA GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48 and produce the records requested for inspection by the public?

9/1/16 CPRA Request Item 2:
Accurate, Up-To-Date WAP installation and configuration information from each PCSD School

The other records the PCSD has been attempting to hide from the public are “the school maps, diagrams and any other records that evidence the configuration and installation of any PCSD schools' technology and wireless equipment from 1/1/2014 through 5/24/16."

The PCSD ignored CPRA requests certify-mailed to each PCSD Principal on 1/8/14 (http://rfemf.com/schools.html#requests), which stated the following, among many other things:

[Parent]: "I am also interested in inspecting any and all documents, files (either printed or stored on computers) meeting agendas, meeting minutes, correspondence (including, but not limited to letters, emails and text messages), contracts, work orders and calendar appointments regarding

a. the installation of any wired or wireless networking equipment at your school during the period from August 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014.

b. any changes planned for the wired and wireless connectivity infrastructure on your school campuses for the following time periods: January, 2014 through July 2014, August, 2014 through July 2015, August, 2015 through July 2016

c. parent or staff technology committee meetings/decisions

This CPRA information request is for the information you have on site at your school. It is not for information that might be stored at the District office. That information has been requested via other CPRA information requests.

It is disingenuous to maintain that your school does not have this information. The [Wireless Access Points are] in place, are being used and the records of their use are on site at your school. Members of the public are willing to work at no charge to gather and compile this easily verifiable information [the location, model number of each Wireless Access Point]. You cannot prevent access to this public information; this information is critical for evaluating the safety of the learning environment at your school for your teachers, staff."

In addition, [parent] wrote to Ms. Thomas on 8/24/16:

"As I have previously rejected, I once again reject the reasons you state in your 7/15/16 letter for denying access to inspect the public records with respect to the PCSD's Wireless Access Points for all of the solid reasons I have already written to you in the past. Please review my earlier correspondence. The PCSD has a strict duty to provide access to current public records that simply update the very similar public records that I received in 2013 and 2014: see http://www.rfemf.com/schools.html#classroom. As I have previously communicated, there is a precedence for the PCSD treating these maps and diagrams of Wireless Access Point (WAP) locations as public records and the PCSD cannot hide this current information from the public. The WAPs are obviously in plain sight of any PCSD employee or student, so any argument that claims some 'secret' or 'security' reason for not divulging this information is ridiculous and is simply obstruction."

It is in the public’s highest interests to know how far each student is from each of the various Wireless Access Points that are installed in PCSD schools because each WAP contributes a known toxic agent, RF Radiation, into the school environment. The configuration and operation of these WAPs are regulated by the State and local laws, not by Federal laws. The WAPs must be configured and used in a way that complies with CA State laws – i.e. in a way that prevents the schools from placing a known toxic agent into students’ classrooms when students are present.

9/1/16 CPRA Request Item 3:
All existing information about the 2016 PCSD Classroom RF Radiation Survey (2016-RFR-Survey)

Petaluma Parents learned on 8/17/16 that Redwood Empire Schools Insurance Group (RESIG) completed their data collection process for the 2016-RFR-Survey. RESIG has played a central role in providing various letters and determinations from 2013 to the present, which the PCSD has cited as justification for its current use and configuration of wireless classroom and business equipment. The use and configuration of this equipment leads to immediate and latent toxic hazards in Petaluma classrooms.

Both PCSD and RESIG personnel have separately confirmed that the data collection has been completed, but PCSD personnel have refused to share information about the 2016-RFR-Survey and have refused to participate in a dialog about the 2016-RFR-Survey with parents from Responsible iPad Use in Classrooms: a group of over 200 Petaluma residents who have signed a petition requesting that the PCSD eliminate RFR exposures in PCSD classrooms (http://responsibleipad.com/petition.html).

Since 8/17/16, PCSD Administrators and Board members have refused to answer even basic questions about the 2016-RFR-Survey, including:

  1. What dates/times did RESIG conduct the RFR metering and data collection at the PCSD?
  2. In what schools/classrooms and under what conditions did RESIG complete the meter readings?
  3. Did the RF meter log a stream of data over a set period of time (as most professional RF meters do)?
  4. Did the meter collect Root Mean Square (RMS) or some other average readings of RFR or did the meter collect peak/instantaneous maximum levels of RFR?
  5. On what date will the 2016-RFR-Survey be finalized and made available for the public’s inspection?

. . . and, therefore, have ignored their duty to assist members of the public to write a focused and effective CPRA request about this 2016-RFR-Survey, per CPRA law.

It has been established by both PCSD and RESIG personnel that certain parts of this "formerly secret project" (the 2016-RFR-Survey) have been completed: project design, methodology and data collection. The only thing parents are allegedly waiting for is analysis and conclusions. History shows that RESIG typically generates a report within two to seven days after the completion of data collection. There is no reason for such an extreme delay of the final 2016-RFR-Survey report, other than the PCSD’s desire to hide public information from the public.

The public has a right to immediately inspect all records about the 2016-RFR-Survey’s design, methodology and raw data that was collected. Sharing the design, methodology and the raw data does not have to wait for the analysis and conclusions to be completed.

Indeed, it has been the PCSD’s tactics to play these kinds of games in the past: i.e. RESIG or the PCSD have said "we don’t have the final report, yet, so we cannot share any information with the public". We will not accept this obvious ploy to hide information from the public, especially for information that is extremely important to the health and safety of over 7,000 PCSD students and to hundreds of PCSD employees.

Such information can be misused to reach false conclusions, as the PCSD did in 2013. This is why immediate public oversight over this “secret project” is of paramount importance and is immediately required. In 2013, the PCSD secretly completed two magnetic field surveys by not sharing the design of these studies with parents before making the readings and writing the reports. The parents were actually expecting RFR surveys of the classrooms, so sharing the design with the parents would have uncovered an obvious act of bad faith by PCSD Superintendent, Steve Bolman, recognized even by the person from RESIG who completed these studies. The evidence of this bad faith was uncovered by 2013 CPRA requests, cited below.

Specifically, Will Davis from RESIG completed magnetic field studies of two PCSD schools in 2013, Cherry Valley and Valley Vista, instead of completing RF Radiation Surveys, as the parents had requested and expected. You can find the 2013 magnetic field studies here and here. Dumbfounded about this, I wrote the following to Will Davis and PCSD Superintendent Steve Bolman on 8/26/13:

>>> start of 2013 quotes

>>> On 8/26/13 [Parent] wrote to Will Davis
```````````````````````````````````````````````
[Parent]: “As you know, the magnetic field studies that you completed communicate nothing about the levels of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF) faced by PCSD employees and students in PCSD classrooms. Reporting the magnetic field results is like giving humidity readings to someone who needs temperature readings . . . When I first discovered that RESIG completed a magnetic field study instead of an RF/EMF study, I assumed this was an honest mistake/miscommunication between Will Davis and Superintendent Steve Bolman, but it's worse than that. Superintendent Steve Bolman knowingly chose to not spend $750-$1,000 for an outside consultant to complete the RF/EMF study. Instead, Bolman . . . ordered a superfluous magnetic field study, even though Will Davis said to Steve Bolman about this choice:

. . . on 7/12/13 (before the 7/16/13 MCCV data collection): "I doubt this would satisfy this individual, but it would give us some exposure data."

. . . on 7/20/13 (after the 7/16/13 MCCV data collection): "I'm pretty sure that it will in no way satisfy the parent, however, it probably will show good faith to Cal/OSHA."

Despite recommendations made by the PCSD's own insurance company, Redwood Empire Schools' Insurance Group (RESIG), for the PCSD to hire an outside consultant to conduct an RF/EMF study of PCSD schools in realistic usage scenarios, Mr. Bolman declined to do so.

Here is the evidence:

>>> On Wed at Jul 3 2013 at 9:05 AM, Will Davis wrote to Steve Bolman:
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
"Alex Stadtner is a consultant with Healthy Building Science in Marin. He does monitoring/sampling for EMFs. He can be reached at 415-785-7986. Please let me know if you decide to proceed with monitoring"
>>> On Wed at Jul 3 2013 at 9:09 AM, Steve Bolman wrote to Will Davis:
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
"Unless Cal/OSHA ask[s] us to do monitoring, I am not planning on using Alex Stadtner's services."

The PCSD eventually used the result of these 2013 Magnetic Field studies to intentionally mislead parents about the PCSD’s knowledge and assessment of RF radiation levels in PCSD classrooms. I witnessed the following in November, 2013, after I completed a presentation about the hazards of RF radiation exposures in PCSD classrooms to parents at Cherry Valley: the principal said that the 2013 magnetic field studies that RESIG completed for Cherry Valley and Valley Vista Schools proved that classroom RF radiations levels were "safe". This was a false statement that could never be concluded from the data of the 2013 magnetic field studies that the Cherry Valley Principal referenced: it was a big, fat lie.

I received the communication records, cited above, from a 2013 CPRA request, which sets a precedent for the types of information this 9/1/16 CPRA request currently seeks. Specifically, this 9/1/16 CPRA request seeks similar communication records about the planning and execution of the 2016-RFR-Survey.

Not only did the PCSD order the wrong studies in 2013 (magnetic field studies instead of RF Radiation studies), the PCSD then proceeded to hide the results from the public for over a month, despite a CPRA-request demanding immediate public inspection of these studies. The facts are as follows:

  1. The 2013 Cherry Valley magnetic field survey was completed on 7/16/13 and written up on 7/23/13

  2. The 2013 Valley Vista magnetic field survey was completed on 8/14/13 and written up on 8/16/13

  3. A CPRA request for the results of these or any other studies was submitted to the PCSD on 7/16/13, but the PCSD ignored this CPRA request for over a month – in violation of CA CPRA laws.

  4. The results from these magnetic field studies were hidden from the public until 8/22/16 (a full five weeks after the CPRA request was filed, five weeks after the start of school at Cherry Valley and two days after the start of school at Valley Vista).

Such manipulation is evidence of extreme bad faith on the PCSD’s part. This lack of transparency is, once again, evidencing a pattern of the PCSD’s bad faith and underhanded dealings with parents about issues of RFR exposures in PCSD classrooms.

This debacle in 2013 taught parents the following:

  1. A reasonable time for RESIG to write a report is from two to seven days after the completion of data collection.

  2. The PCSD actively hides information from the public and violates CA CPRA laws in the process.

  3. The PCSD has repeatedly lied to Petaluma parents either directly or by omission regarding RF radiation levels in PCSD classrooms.

The obvious follow up question is that since parents have known since 8/17/16 that RESIG has completed its data collection process for the 2016-RFR-Survey, why has RESIG taken more than two weeks to complete the report? Our expectation, set by RESIG’s past performance, is that the report would be completed on 8/23/16. It is now 9/1/16 – at least two weeks since RESIG completed its data collection (and probably even longer).

I have been discussing the 2016-RFR-Survey with RESIG since 8/23/16, but the final report is still being held up. Parents see right through this obvious attempt to hide public records from the public and therefore [Parents], seek to immediately inspect any and all PCSD documents, files (either printed or stored on computers or SERVERS) meeting agendas, meeting minutes, correspondence (including, but not limited to letters, emails and text messages), contracts, work orders and calendar appointments from 1/1/16 to the present regarding

a. The 2016-RFR-Survey project proposal and the parties involved in the bidding process

b. The vendor selection process for 2016-RFR- the contract/agreement for the selected vendor

c. The proposed and accepted fees for the 2016-RFR-Survey

d. The specifics of who, what, when, where and how the data was collected: i.e. a description of the 2016-RFR-Survey meter setting and methodology used when collecting the data

e. The actual raw data that has already been collected for 2016-RFR-Survey in the form of an MS Excel file or other digital spreadsheet file format

f. Any correspondence between the PCSD, RESIG and the RF radiation survey vendors.

g. Any other public record that will provide information that could answer the questions that I posed to RESIG on 8/23/16 and confirmed in writing on 8/24/16:

1. What dates/times did RESIG conduct the RFR metering and data collection at the PCSD?

2. In what classrooms and under what conditions did RESIG complete the meter readings?

3. Did the classroom conditions emulate typical use of RFR devices in PCSD classroom? How?

4. What were the distances from the meter to the sources of RFR (both to Wireless Access Points and to wireless student devices) when readings were made?

5. Were all of the antennas of the WAPS and devices in the classroom powered on and downloading/uploading data during the meter readings?

6. What are the brand/models and operational specs of the antennas in the WAPs and devices that were metered?

7. Were the data downloads/uploads of sufficient size (i.e. HD Videos) to meter the maximum RFR levels students might face?

8. Which meter and which antenna/probe did RESIG use to meter the RFR levels? Were the specs of the meter and antenna/probe combination adequate to measure all RF radiation frequencies used in PCSD classrooms (2450 MHz and 5000-5800 MHz)?

9. What was the date of the calibration-certificate for the meter and antenna/probe used to collect data for the 2016-RFR-Survey?

10. What entity conducted the calibration of the meter and antenna/probe used?

11. What person(s) conducted the RFR Survey and what training did they have to operate the meter and analyze the resulting data?

12. What were the settings on the meter at the time data was collected?

13. Did the RF meter log a stream of data over a set period of time (as most professional RF meters do)?

14. Did the meter used collect Root Mean Square (RMS) or some other average readings of RFR, did the meter collect peak/instantaneous maximum levels of RFR of did the meter collect both?

It is disingenuous to maintain that the PCSD and/or RESIG does not have publicly available information sufficient to immediately address the questions, above. As you well know, members of the public will not always know on which artifacts (reports, email, calendar entries, text messages, hand-written notes, financial records, phone records, memories) the information they request will reside, so it puts the public at a disadvantage. Hence the need for continued assistance from the PCSD Board members and PCSD employees, as stated in CA law. I have repeatedly requested such assistance, but, to date, have been denied any such assistance.

Still Hoping for the PCSD to Demonstrate Some Good Will and Intentions in 2016

Since Otis W. Brawley, MD, Chief Medical Officer, American Cancer Society recently stated . . .

"This [5/25/16] report from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is good science. The NTP report linking radio-frequency radiation (RFR) to two types of cancer marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of [wireless] radiation and cancer risk. The findings are unexpected; we wouldn't reasonably expect non-ionizing RFR to cause these tumors: [gliomas and schwannomas]. This is a striking example of why serious study is so important in evaluating cancer risk. It's interesting to note that early studies on the link between lung cancer and smoking had similar resistance, since theoretical arguments at the time suggested that there could not be a link . . . the association with gliomas and acoustic neuromas had been suspected from human epidemiology studies. The second cancer, called a schwannoma, is an extremely rare tumor in humans and animals, reducing the possibility that this is a chance finding . . . importantly, the study found a 'dose/response' effect: the higher the dose, the larger the effect, [which is] a key sign."

. . . and since Dr. Ronald L. Melnick, the lead designer of United States National Toxicology Program (NTP) RF Radiation Cacinogenesis study, recently stated . . .

"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 [multiplied by] time [of exposure], 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."

. . . any PCSD classroom RFR survey that only compares the average classroom RF radiation levels to the meaningless 'old-paradigm' national RFR radiation guideline will be useless and will be rejected by the 200+ Petaluma residents of Responsible iPad Use in Classrooms.

PCSD classroom Wireless Access Points (WAPs) and the wireless devices that connect to the WAPs are designed to both send and receive individual packets of digital data by encoding/modulating data onto certain carrier frequencies (2450 MHz and 5000-5800 MHz).

The antennas of the WAPS and devices send the data as a stream of strong and often erratic bursts of power, with (very short) periods when no data is sent (i.e. the antenna's duty cycle). If the meter did not log the peak or instantaneous maximum power levels of each pulse of data over time during typical classroom activities (i.e downloading an HD video) and instead reported only the calculated RMS or average RFR levels, then the RFR survey has not accurately measured the RFR environment in PCSD classrooms and any conclusions based on this data would be unreliable.

Wireless data transmissions are very much like strobe-lights. One experiences a stream of very strong, bursts of bright light from a strobe light, a steam of bursts that demands one's attention and that can be very distracting and annoying with continuous exposure. Considering how intrusive a strobe light can be, it is surprising that if one calculates the average power output of a strobe light, it would be about 1-2 watts. People do not experience a strobe light as a dim 1-2 watt light bulb. Therefore, averaging the power output of a strobe light leads to a very misleading characterization of what people experience from the stream of bursts from a strobe light.

Wireless data transmissions work in much the same way. That is why one needs a log of peak or instantaneous maximum power levels of each pulse of data over time in order to understand what is actually going on in a classroom. This trick of understating power output by averaging the power from a device with a duty cycle is shown graphically on the slide entitled the ‘The Fallacy of Temporal Averaging’ here: http://www.rfemf.com/presentation/index.html#/37. The red line represents the average and the blue spikes represent the bursts from a so called ‘Smart Meter’.

Similarly, averaging RF radiation power levels drastically understates the actual experience of bursts of power that students face from using wireless equipment such as that issued by the PCSD to its students. As part of an analysis to refute a May/June 2016 Hammet & Edison RFR Survey of schools in Elk Grove, CA, I completed the following readings:

With a Gigaherz Solutions HF-38B meter, equipped with its directional antenna, I metered six feet from a NetGear AC1450 WAP broadcasting its beacon signal only and derived the following relationship for Peak readings vs. RMS-Average readings:

Peak: 20,000 µW/m² (microwatts per square meter)
RMS-Avg: 80 µW/m² (microwatts per square meter)
Ratio: 20,000/80 = 250x

The HF-38B meter’s directional antenna measures up to 3 GHz, similar to a Narda Type 18 Isotropic Electric Field Probe used by Hammet & Edison. Therefore, both meters did not measure the RFR from the WAP antennas that broadcast in the 5.0 to 5.8 GHz range, so the metered levels should be doubled.

Finally, the PCSD’s lack of transparency for this 2016-RFR-Survey shows bad faith on the part of the PCSD. To show good faith, everything should have been conducted in the open and passed by a parent-run safety committee, per CA law (https://youtu.be/dbEpOETzLWg?t=4m40s).

In reference to this 2016-RFR-Survey, last week, a parent posted the following on a Petaluma Parents for Safe Technology Facebook group:

“We do not have a copy of the recent RF radiation report. All we know is that it is not complete yet, we believe it was done in good faith by the PCSD who we think are good people with the right intentions. It will be discussed at a PCSD Board meeting coming up at some point. We spent some time discussing how the conclusions of a report such as this might be used by the District, considering what happened in Elk Grove and other places, and they convinced us that they have the best interests of the students in mind and are open to listening to the parents.”

[Parents] are hopeful that the PCSD will immediately demonstrate its good will and intentions by its actions and not just its words. The PCSD’s response to this 9/1/16 CPRA request(s) will be the evidence: actions always speak much louder than words.

We recognize that the PCSD has a consistent record of significantly delaying access to properly requested public records and complying only partially with many CPRA requests from 2013, 2014 and 2016, so we are hoping for a break from this pattern of poor performance and bad faith. We are hoping, instead, that the PCSD will provide immediate access for [Parent] and/or her agents to inspect the CPRA-requested records detailed in this 9/1/16 CPRA Request. We will need to inspect the records by no later than 9/8/16, the Thursday before the 9/13/16 the PCSD Board meeting when the Wi-Fi in PCSD schools issue is allegedly scheduled as an agendized item.

We also hope the PCSD is willing to do the following:

a. Provide timely and full disclosure about how the classroom RF Radiation survey was conducted -- answering the questions above and providing access to the raw data collected -- by no later than 9/8/16.

b. Recognize that parents and the PCSD must agree on the methodology of the classroom RF radiation survey in order for the members of Responsible iPads Use in Classrooms to accept any conclusions drawn from this data.

c. Be willing to correct any mistakes in the current 2016-RFR-Survey methodology and then take additional measurements, as needed, in order to collect reliable RFR exposure data that the parents can accept as reflective of the actual exposures their children face in PCSD classrooms.

Thank you.


Return to List of Key Communications.

On 9/2/16, [Parent] wrote Callahan, Thomas, Deen and PCSD Board Members:

September 2, 2016

To:
Mr. Gary Callahan, Superintendent
Ms. Christine Thomas, Chief Business Official
Ms. Lori Deen, Director of Technology
Mr. Michael Baddeley, PCSD Board President
Ms. Sheri Chlebowski, PCSD Board Member
Ms. Phoebe Ellis, PCSD Board Member
Ms. Mary Johnson, PCSD Board Member
Mr. Troy Sanderson, PCSD Board Member
Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD)
200 Douglas Street
Petaluma, CA 94952

cc: Ms. Rose Burcina, RESIG

Subject: Invitation and Petaluma City Schools District's Good Faith, Good Will and Good Intentions

You are each invited to attend and participate in a community meeting on 9/20/16 from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm at Aqus Restaurant, 189 H Street, Petaluma CA to talk to and question an expert MD and Engineer from Santa Cruz who will be one of our featured speakers:

Dr. Maret has been a frequent speaker at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. He clearly explains the hazards of microwave radiation exposures for children from cell phones, smart meters and Wi-Fi in terms that lay people can easily understand.

Karl Maret, M.D., Engineer
The High Road to a True Smart Grid

Commonwealth Club January 28, 2014
https://vimeo.com/87023780
At 21:00, pulsed microwave radiation changes the blood brain barrier, hormone production and more
At 26:45, voltage-gated calcium channels

Karl Maret, M.D., Engineer
Expert Forum on RF Radiation and Wireless Hazards

Commonwealth Club June 22, 2015
https://vimeo.com/132039697
At 1:30, Maschek Elektronik ESM-140 dosimeter measures RF/EMFs around the whole body
At 2:15, For WAPs, iPads and Chromebooks, there was no safety testing for health effects before unleashed onto the public
At 2:40, Wi-Fi is evolving
At 8:00, 2/7/14 California Medical Association Resolution 107-14
At 9:45, We have a problem here, it is time to address it

If you would like to arrange for a private session with Dr. Maret at a future closed session of the School Board, I could help facilitate that for you.

You are also each invited to the other events monthly community information events at Aqus, which are summarized here: http://responsibleipad.com/events.html

All are welcome. The size of the group that gathered at Aqus on 8/30/16 and the message that was delivered that evening was very similar to our 4/19/16 Launch event for the group Responsible iPad Use in Classrooms, a video of which you can view here:

Project Censored 4/19/2016: Responsible iPad Use in Classrooms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbEpOETzLWg

Comments From the Audience: 16:19 to 17:40
https://youtu.be/dbEpOETzLWg?t=16m19s
Check out the comments of Starling, a Petaluma parent who lost a 4-year old son to a glioma and the Petaluma teacher who fears for the safety of her students and for her job!

Next Steps

Now, the real question for today is . . . Will the Petaluma City Schools District demonstrate -- today -- some genuine good faith, good will and good intentions by its actions and not just its words.

In reference to the secret RF Radiation survey conducted by RESIG on behalf of the PCSD with no prior parent input or approval of the methodology, one parent posted the following on a Petaluma Parents for Safe Technology Facebook group, a week after he first reported on 8/17/16 his knowledge of this PCSD Classroom RF radiation study :

“We do not have a copy of the recent RF radiation report. All we know is that it is not complete yet, we believe it was done in good faith by the PCSD who we think are good people with the right intentions. It will be discussed at a PCSD Board meeting coming up at some point. We spent some time discussing how the conclusions of a report such as this might be used by the District, considering what happened in Elk Grove and other places, and they convinced us that they have the best interests of the students in mind and are open to listening to the parents.”

It is CA "State law that every public school has to have a safety plan and a safety committee and it has to housed in a participating parent-run group" (https://youtu.be/dbEpOETzLWg?t=4m40s), so will the PCSD please stop hiding critical information from the public about the hazards of pulsed microwave radiation in classrooms?

Today, the public needs specific information, listed below, and included in a 9/1/16 CPRA request that was hand-delivered to Superintendent Gary Callahan's office yesterday. The public information that we seek today is specifics about how the 2016 PCSD Classroom RF Survey was conducted, so parents can be informed participants in this critically important discussion.

To show good faith, good will and good intentions today, the PCSD should not continue to hide public information and should not delay the release of information just days/hours before the 9/13/16 School Board meeting when this issue will allegedly be discussed -- as has been the PCSD's clear pattern in the past.

The PCSD, instead, can and should voluntarily follow CA laws, without argument, delay or obstruction:

>>> Start of quotes - CA GOVT. 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 in making focused and effective requests for identifiable records. One legislatively-approved method of providing assistance is to make available an index of the agency’s records. 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[1] 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 . . ."

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

We will see if the PCSD will exhibit actual good faith, good will and good intentions today -- by their actions of openly sharing public information. I left voice messages with Mr. Callahan, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Burcina last night to ask them to prepare for this inspection of public information. We are fine with electronic records emailed as .pdf, .xls or other file formats.

[Parents] also addressed the 9/1/16 CPRA to each of the PCSD School board members, so they are each also subject to the CPRA laws, and we wish to inspect today any of their communications about the 2016 PCSD Classroom RF radiation Survey, as specified in the 9/1/16 CPRA request. As each of the Board members took an oath to uphold the laws of California, cooperation is not discretionary, it is mandatory.

We hope to receive today a full disclosure of public information today about the 2016 PCSD classroom RF radiation Survey from the PCSD Board members, administrators and vendors.

Thank you.

Regards,

[Parent]


Return to List of Key Communications.

On 9/6/16, [Parent] wrote Callahan, Thomas, Deen and PCSD Board Members:

September 6, 2016

To:
Mr. Gary Callahan, Superintendent
Ms. Christine Thomas, Chief Business Official
Ms. Lori Deen, Director of Technology
Mr. Michael Baddeley, PCSD Board President
Ms. Sheri Chlebowski, PCSD Board Member
Ms. Phoebe Ellis, PCSD Board Member
Ms. Mary Johnson, PCSD Board Member
Mr. Troy Sanderson, PCSD Board Member
Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD)
200 Douglas Street
Petaluma, CA 94952

Subject: TIME Magazine: Screens In Schools Are a $60 Billion Hoax
http://time.com/4474496/screens-schools-hoax/

It is evident that the Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) did not conduct proper due diligence before it voted to purchase, deploy and configure wireless technology into all PCSD schools. There is precious little educational research (if any) that proves that technology such as that deployed in PCSD schools since 2013 will improve educational outcomes. There is, however, much research to the contrary -- as reported recently in TIME magazine's article: Screens In Schools Are a $60 Billion Hoax.

It's time to pivot. Will you please consider putting your egos aside, admitting the past mistakes, doing the right things now and getting out from under a failed investment, while you still can.

I reiterate my well-reasoned 6/14/16 recommendation for the PCSD to sell their iPads in the used market while the iPads are still holding good value (about $400 each), make $2.8 million back and then purchase appropriate educational materials for the following age groups:

[A] Ages 5-11: Traditional books and hand-manipulative materials -- with no need for internet access, which removes many classroom distractions.

[B] Ages 12-18: $200 Chromebooks for students with $14 USB-to-Ethernet adapters to enable them to be hardwired for internet access.

As I shared with you on 6/15/16, the majority of schools, nationwide, have decided that Chromebooks offer superior educational value vs. iPads. Chromebooks are the best-selling one-to-one Educational device, nationwide, and offer the following key benefits:

  • 1/3 the cost of an iPad; options for Chromebook touch screens, if needed
  • Extremely secure platform, especially when using wired Internet access
  • $14 adapter to enable wired Internet access (vs. $53 for equivalent iPad adapters), which is 1/4 the cost
  • State-of-the art centralized device management software
  • Integrated with Google for Education (https://www.google.com/edu/)
  • Able to run all ChromeOS apps and millions of Android Apps in 2016-2017 (including free Microsoft Office editions)
  • Include integrated keyboards and trackpads -- which are essential for any web-based standardized testing (see https://eduresearcher.com/2016/03/16/sbac-moratorium/)
  • Avoid the 'expensive Apple tax' of extremely expensive hardware and adapters

Please study carefully this spreadsheet: 2016-0615-PCSD-Revenue-Option.pdf

Doing this will also solve most of the internet filter problems of failed one-size-fits-all strategies, which is obviously not working well -- as we all learned at the 3/8/16 PCSD Board Meeting: (https://youtu.be/oEvjnsybO00?t=51m5s)

Talk to well-educated and informed parents and understand what they are practicing in their homes: strict restrictions on screen time for all of these solid reasons (http://nypost.com/2016/08/27/its-digital-heroin-how-screens-turn-kids-into-psychotic-junkies/). Informed parents are limiting screen time. Current PCSD policies are working against informed parenting and are driving the students of well-educated and informed parents out of the District, with predictable losses of revenue.

Start Quotes From the TIME Magazine Article:
````````````````````````````````````````````

"We are projecting our own infatuation with shiny technology, assuming our little digital natives would rather learn using gadgets—while what they crave and need is human contact with flesh-and-blood educators. Schools need to**** heed this research in order to truly understand how to best nurture real intrinsic learning and not fall for the Siren song of the tech companies—and all of their hypnotic screens . . ."

"The screen revolution has seen pedagogy undergo a seismic shift as technology now dominates the educational landscape. In almost every classroom in America today, you will find some type of screen—smartboards, Chromebooks, tablets, smartphones. From inner-city schools to those in rural and remote towns, we have accepted tech in the classroom as a necessary and beneficial evolution in education. This is a lie. . . ."

"Tech in the classroom not only leads to worse educational outcomes for kids, which I will explain shortly, it can also clinically hurt them. I’ve worked with over a thousand teens in the past 15 years and have observed that students who have been raised on a high-tech diet not only appear to struggle more with attention and focus, but also seem to suffer from an adolescent malaise that appears to be a direct byproduct of their digital immersion. Indeed, over two hundred peer-reviewed studies point to screen time correlating to increased ADHD, screen addiction, increased aggression, depression, anxiety and even psychosis."

"Many researchers and neuroscientists believe that this ADHD epidemic is a direct result of children being hyper-stimulated. Using hyper-stimulating digital content to “engage” otherwise distracted students exacerbates the problem that it endeavors to solve. It creates a vicious and addictive ADHD cycle: The more a child is stimulated, the more that child needs to keep getting stimulated in order to hold their attention . . ."

"Despite the Amplify and LA debacles, others still seek to convince naïve school administrators that screens are the educational panacea. Yet as more American schools lay off teachers while setting aside scarce budget dollars for tech, many educators and parents alike have begun to ask: Do any of these hypnotic marvels of the digital age actually produce better educational outcomes for the kids who use them?"

Also from the TIME magazine article, the list of supporting education experts and researchers is long:

  • "The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development said in a 2015 report that heavy users of computers in the classroom “do a lot worse in most learning outcomes” and that: “In the end, technology can amplify great teaching, but great technology cannot replace poor teaching.”

  • An exhaustive meta-study conducted by Durham University in 2012 that systemically reviewed 48 studies examining technology’s impact on learning found that “technology-based interventions tend to produce just slightly lower levels of improvement when compared with other researched interventions and approaches.”

  • "The Alliance for Children, a consortium of some of the nation’s top educators and professors, in a 2000 report concluded: 'School reform is a social challenge, not a technological problem…a high-tech agenda for children seems likely to erode our most precious long-term intellectual reserves—our children’s minds.'”

  • "Patricia Greenfield, distinguished professor of psychology at UCLA, analyzed more than 50 studies on learning and points out that reading for pleasure among young people has decreased in recent decades, which is problematic because “studies show that reading develops imagination, induction, reflection and critical thinking, as well as vocabulary…in a way that visual media such as video games and television do not.”

  • "Education psychologist and author of Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children’s Minds Jane Healy spent years doing research into computer use in schools and, while she expected to find that computers in the classroom would be beneficial, now feels that “time on the computer might interfere with development of everything from the young child’s motor skills to his or her ability to think logically and distinguish between reality and fantasy.”

  • "John Vallance, a Cambridge scholar and headmaster of Australia’s top K-through-12 school, Sydney Grammer, has said: “I think when people come to write the history of this period in education . . . this investment in classroom technology is going to be seen as a huge fraud.”

End Quotes From the TIME Magazine Article:

Intelligent school boards know when to pivot and how to avoid the liabilities of remaining stuck and pursuing a failed strategy of wireless technology for all grades. The PCSD's disastrous lack of insurance coverage alone should informs all what to do. The PCSD is sitting on a ticking time bomb right now -- without sufficient insurance coverage to cover the inevitable claims. See 2016-0601-Telecom-10-K-Liability-for-Insurance-Companies.pdf.

As you can see and hear for yourself, in the following Youtube video, which is in the public record:

Petaluma Board of Education: 5/16/13 1:58:48 to 2:01:05
https://youtu.be/MvL8AvVvUvQ?t=1h58m48s

. . . I correctly characterized Wi-Fi in PCSD Schools as Unnecessary, Continuous, Voluntary, Toxic Pollution, based on substantial scientific evidence through 2013.

[1] Apparently, the telecom and insurance companies agree that RF radiation exposure is pollution:

Verizon Equipment Protection Insurance
"Pollution is defined as 'The discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, escape or presence of pollutants. Pollutants means any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acid, alkalis, chemicals, artificially produced electric fields, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, sounds waves, microwaves, all artificially produced ionizing or non-ionizing radiation and/or waste.'"

Cingular Wireless Phone Insurance -- No Coverage For Microwaves
"'Pollutants' means: Any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acid, alkalis, chemicals, artificially produced electric fields, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, sound waves, microwaves, and all artificially produced ionizing or non-ionizing radiation and waste.

Mutual of Enumclaw Pollution Exclusion (for smoke, petroleum, asbestos, lead and electromagnetic radiation)
"Pollutant or pollutants mean any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including: a. smoke, vapor, -soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals; b. radioactive matter, including electromagnetic fields or electromagnetic radiation; c. petroleum, or petroleum products in any form; d. asbestos or substances containing asbestos; e. lead or substances containing lead; f. waste, including materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed."

[2] There is (little to) no reinsurance for law suits regarding health effects from RF Radiation exposures, such as the forced exposures that Petaluma students face daily in PCSD classrooms from PCSD purchased, deployed and configured Wireless Access Points (WAPs). PCSD board members and administrators were made aware of substantial information about the downsides of RF radiation exposures in PCSD's classrooms, as the evidence was systematically entered into the public record from 2013 through 2016:

Swiss Re Report (2013): Unforeseen Consequences of Electromagnetic Fields
Overall potential impact: High
Time Frame: >10 Years
"Over the last decade, the spread of wireless devices has accelerated enormously . . .This development has increased exposure . . . If a direct link [to health effects] were established, it would open doors for new claims and could ultimately lead to large losses ..."

Lloyd's of London Underwriter in 2015
(Endorsement Change sent out by the Maxum Indemnity Company. CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s as of Feb. 7, 2015)
"The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term, non-ionizing radiation exposure"

[3] Wireless companies tell the truth to their investors, if not to their customers:

2014 Verizon 10K
"We are subject to a significant amount of litigation, which could require us to pay significant damages or settlements ... our wireless business also faces personal injury and consumer class action lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters, and class action lawsuits that challenge marketing practices and disclosures relating to alleged adverse health effects of handheld wireless phones. We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements."

2014 AT&T Annual Report
“Unfavorable litigation or governmental investigation results could require us to pay significant amounts ... As we deploy newer technologies, especially in the wireless area, we also face current and potential litigation relating to alleged adverse health effects on customers or employees who use such technologies including, for example, wireless handsets."

2014 Microsoft Annual Report
"U.S. cell phone litigation Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse health effects. We have assumed responsibility for these claims as part of the NDS acquisition. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines."

2014 Nokia Annual Report
"We have been involved in several lawsuits alleging adverse health effects associated with our products, including those caused by electromagnetic fields and the outcome of such procedures is difficult to predict, including the potentially significant fines or settlements."

2014 American Tower Corporation Annual Report
"Our costs could increase and our revenues could decrease due to perceived health risks from radio emissions, especially if these perceived risks are substantiated ... If a scientific study or court decision resulted in a finding that radio frequency emissions pose health risks to consumers, it could negatively impact the market for wireless services, as well as our tenants, which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. We do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters."

Crown Castle International Corp.
"If radio frequency emissions from wireless handsets or equipment on our wireless infrastructure are demonstrated to cause negative health effects, potential future claims could adversely affect our operations, costs or revenues. We cannot guarantee that claims relating to radio frequency emissions will not arise in the future or that the results of such studies will not be adverse to us. If a connection between radio frequency emissions and negative health effects were established, our operations, costs, or revenues may be materially and adversely affected. We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters."

PSCD Board Members and Administrators, please choose wisely and practice well-informed and inspired leadership, instead of focusing your efforts on justifying past decisions and shooting the messengers: parents who are shining light on the past mistakes, so we can achieve better future outcomes for all and, most importantly, protect the long-term health of 7,000 children in Petaluma Schools.

Thank you.

Regards,

[Parent]


Return to List of Key Communications.

On 9/7/16, [Parent] wrote Burcina, Johnson and Thomas

September 7, 2016

Ms. Rose Burcina
Executive Director
Redwood Empire Schools Insurance Group (RESIG)
5760 Skylane Blvd., Suite 100
Windsor, CA 95492

cc:
Ms. Mary Johnson, Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) Board Member
Ms. Christine Thomas, PCSD Chief Business Officer

Subject: Petaluma Parents Need Information Now, Round 8

Dear Ms. Burcina,

Thank for your response, but unfortunately, your response it is not sufficient to address the questions that I have asked you since our conversation on 8/23/16 and my follow up email to you on 8/24/16.

On 9/6/16 @ 10:52 pm, Rose Burcina wrote to [Parent]:
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Good morning, [Parent].

The report has not been finalized at this time therefore the information you are seeking from RESIG is not yet available. We are anticipating completion next week. In the meantime, please direct any inquiries you may have for RESIG to my attention in writing; there is no one else on my staff who will have the information prior to me or in my absence.

Thanks.

Rose

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

Will you please shed some light on the truth today by answering the following questions in red?

Given that there is a history of RESIG conducting EMF data collection and analysis for the Petaluma City Schools District (PCSD) in 2013 and from that history we can establish that RESIG has a record of completing written reports within 2-7 days from data collection:

  • The 2013 Cherry Valley magnetic field survey was completed on 7/16/13 and written up on 7/23/13

  • The 2013 Valley Vista magnetic field survey was completed on 8/14/13 and written up on 8/16/13

    . . . will you, therefore, please answer the following questions?

    1. On what dates/times did RESIG conduct the RFR metering and data collection at the PCSD?

    2. In what schools/classrooms and under what conditions did RESIG complete the meter readings?

    3. Did the RF meter log a stream of data over a set period of time (as most professional RF meters do)?

    4. Did the meter collect Root Mean Square (RMS) or some other average readings of RFR or did the meter collect peak/instantaneous maximum levels of RFR?

    5. On what date will the 2016-RFR-Survey be finalized and made available for the public’s inspection?

    6. Why it has taken X days from data collection to final release of the report, where X is at least 20 days and probably much longer?

    7. Do you intend to share any information about the 2016 PCSD Classroom RF Radiation survey with the public before the important 9/13/16 PCSD school board meeting?

    8. Will you please share all of the records regarding the planning and execution of the 2016 PCSD Classroom RF Radiation survey today, per the 9/1/16 CA Public Records Requests request, referenced below?

    Writing essentially that 'you are anticipating completion of the final report sometime next week' is much too vague. The information that could answer the questions above is public information included in a 9/1/16 CA Public Records Requests per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48. The access to this public information does not depend, in any way, on RESIG's completion of any written report. You can read the scope of the CPRA-requested information in the 9/1/16 CPRA request at

    http://responsibleipad.com/urgent.html#2016-0901

    In short, the public has requested to inspect records about the planning and execution of the 2016 PCSD Classroom RF Radiation survey and the raw data that RESIG collected -- records that exist independent of the final report. These are the records that the public has requested to immediately inspect -- before RESIG finishes its final report.

    I am hopeful for a more thorough response from you, not just another reprise of the insufficient response you have repeated now three times.

    Thank you.

    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.