Mississauga May 9th Wi-Fi In Schools Info Session / Keynote and Other Speakers

The links below won't be clickable because these are screenshots. The first page is good info for anyone. Farther down, the second page shows the event details, with an RSVP request at the bottom. If you need more details or the clickable document, please email wififreeschools@gmail.com. That's also the RSVP email address. If you click on the images below, I think they'll open larger for easier reading.

We have each other. Pay it forward.

[I apologize if the email addresses below aren't all in blue. Hopefully someday I'll figure out the fine points of blog formatting! Thx, Barb]


                                                             

Richard Farver, deceased at age 29
Rich deserved the right to know

The San Francisco Supervisors are being pressured by their industry friendly Mayor to repeal their landmark Cell Phone Right to Know law (unanimous vote, 2011); 25 cities & states are waiting to do the same; if  SF caves, they will all stop in their tracks.

According to Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Department of Public Health, UC Berkeley, “the World Health Organization Monograph released last week is likely the most significant governmental health report ever published about mobile phone radiation. All governments should study this report and follow the precautionary principle to take appropriate actions including educating the public about safe use.”
The Monograph states:
"Positive associations have been observed between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless phones and glioma (LETHAL BRAIN CANCER) and acoustic neuroma" (p.421).

Children are particularly vulnerable as “the average exposure from use of the same mobile phone is higher by a factor of 2 in a child’s brain and higher by a factor of 10 in the bone marrow of the skull.”  

No matter where you live, PLEASE send the email below to the Supervisors now as the vote on may 7 will affect you, your friends, family and co-workers  (pass this onto them please). YOUR EMAILS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
Industry has trillions of dollars- WE HAVE YOU!

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.
Ellie, Alan, Zack, Jordan, Crystal and Mandy Marks
On the behalf of many other victims
(please bcc us at cabtasf@hotmail.com)


Copy and paste the short note below into body of your email and send to:
Norman.yee@sfgov.org
John.avalos@sfgov.org
Malia.cohen@sfgov.org
London.breed@sfgov.org
Eric.l.mar@sfgov.org
David.chiu@sfgov.org
David.campos@sfgov.org
Katy.tang@sfgov.org
Jane.kim@sfgov.org
Mark.farrell@sfgov.org
Scott.wiener@sfgov.org

Subject line:
Keep Cell Phone Right to Know legislation intact; vote no against the settlement

Short email note (type your name at the bottom, you do not need to add where you reside):
-------------------------------------
Dear Esteemed San Francisco Supervisors,

Please stand firm on May 7 to keep your landmark Cell Phone Right to Know legislation intact; vote no against the settlement. People deserve the right to know advisories at the point of sale related to a radiation emitting device used by nearly every man, woman and child daily. The World Health Organization states this radiation is a possible human carcinogen based on an increased risk of brain cancer associated with wireless phone use.

Please continue to stand with your constituents and not with the telecom industry. Please continue to employ your Precautionary Principle ordinance. You will ultimately be saving taxpayers’ money as brain tumor rates are on the rise and the average cost of initial treatment of a brain tumor is over half a million dollars.

Thank you.

Respectfully,
[your name]
-------------------------------------

EMAIL SIGNATURES HAVE IMPACT and you can have fun with them

[updated June 15, 2021]

[This post is about email signatures. If you also do other types of digital or paper communications that can have manual or automatic signatures or stamps, I hope you'll consider similar opportunities. Also refer to another old post of mine, perhaps the instructions in it would be different now but surely still possible It's easy to Change iPhone's Email Signature.]

I encourage everyone to be pleasant, informative, creative, and even fun in email signatures — for all our communications, whether the communication is for strictly business purposes, personal non-business communications, or pleasant advocacy. You don't have to try to save-the-world with each email signature, but collectively that's what you'll be doing. And you don't know whose life your email signature might hugely benefit or even save!

Put it out there, because you can! Pleasantly. Not always with a URL.

For example, years ago, worldwide many companies' signatures included a point like this:
"Think about the environment before you print this email."
That was stated and widely shared with enthusiasm, compassion, and respect, as a very desirable goal. We feel the same way and the environment will be just as thankful for our email signatures that can make a similarly beneficial impact.

Current examples:
1.  For my interactions in my freelance transcribing business, here's what I use. Sometimes a recipient will ask me about it. And I know that it hasn't caused me to lose any clients:

Barb Payne
Information Time
barb@transcriptionhero.com
~ for cleaner air we use corded devices to connect with wireless off

2.  For my personal (non-business, non-EMF) interactions, I have a large selection of signatures to choose from. These are only a few:

~ for cleaner air i use corded devices to connect with wireless off, i hope you do too

or

~ rockin’ my faster ethernet connection with wireless off

or

~ step away from the glowing rectangle more often

- - - - - - - - - -

[below is my original post in 2013]

Here's my gift to the Earth for Earth Day. Keep in mind that it isn't solely humans affected by electroSMOG. I hope you can easily copy-paste from the list below. If not, please let me know by email EnergyCanaries@bell.net. Use them in good health!

EMAIL SIGNATURES:

An easy way to message

Signatures are separated by a horizontal line and sorted into sections identified by thicker lines. To maximize your message, either stick with a favourite, or switch signatures, or change the colour once in a while. If you need any of the graphic files or have suggestions to add to this collection, please email EnergyCanaries@bell.net.

      GREEN      = adds a little humour (humour helps memorability)

       PINK         = various tones suit various senders/recipients

      BLUE        = general use messages

       YELLOW    = graphics included

      GREY        = too much info but if you feel that a lecture is necessary

HUMOUR

do it with wires ~~~

~ step away from the glowing rectangle more often

sent from my WIRED internet connection
X  don't dump radiation into your body
practice SAFE TECH

Did you laugh with the universe today? I did.
~ sent from my fast safer WIRED internet connection

~ sent from my WIRED internet connection
~ practice SAFE TECH
~ step away from the glowing rectangle more often

~ Sent from my fast safer WIRED internet connection
No one’s reaching into my brain
Resistance is not futile

TONE

~ sent from a fast safer wired internet connection

~ Sent from my fast safer wired internet connection

sent from wonderful technology ~ my fast safer wired cxn

~ sent from my fast safer WIRED internet connection

~ sent from my fast safer WIRED internet connection

GENERAL USE

~ sent from a fast safer wired internet connection

prefer wired connectivity
provide cord/cable connections
reduce firsthand & secondhand wireless radiation exposures
tell 2 ppl to tell 2 ppl

tell 2 ppl to tell 2 ppl ...
reduce firsthand & secondhand wireless radiation exposure

tell 2 ppl to tell 2 ppl ...
standard wireless = radiation emissions (not magic)
reduce exposures ... firsthand & secondhand
updates released in 2013+ ... bioinitiative.org

tell 2 ppl to tell 2 ppl ...
standard wireless = radiation emissions (not magic)
reduce exposures ... firsthand & secondhand

~ sent from my WIRED internet connection
~ reduce the wireless radiation inside your body

sent from my totally WIRED internet connection
don’t dump radiation into your body
wired = speed & security & my body thanks me
iexistworld.org

GRAPHICS

practice SAFE TECH

MORE INFO

Prefer wired connectivity. Provide wired connections.
Q  Why?
A  To reduce 1st-hand & 2nd-hand wireless radiation exposure.
F  What you can’t see CAN hurt you. Wireless devices and networks connect because they continually generate unnatural electromagnetic waves that flood your environment. These waves are radiation that can reach inside your body. When your network is off or when you completely power off a device, you reduce the radiation in the environment and in your body.
iexistworld.org
tell 2 ppl to tell 2 ppl

~ Sent from my fast safer WIRED internet connection
PDO is the way to go!
Personal Devices Off
reduce your body’s dose of “e-smog” radiation
if you have questions about this please ask me

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance — it is the illusion of knowledge.
~ Daniel J. Boorstin

tell 2 ppl to tell 2 ppl ...
standard wireless = radiation emissions (not magic)
reduce exposures ... firsthand & secondhand

Each wireless communication task performed by an electronic device sends radiation into your body that interferes with your body’s normal functioning (whether you notice it or not). Each of those wireless tasks also sends radiation into the bodies of everyone within the coverage areas of the network your device is connected to, and into the bodies of everyone within the coverage area of the network your recipient uses, and into the bodies of everyone within the coverage area of all the network equipment used to connect the sender’s network with the recipient’s network. From this moment on, please consider whether or not your wireless task is so important enough that it justifies physically damaging your body (firsthand) and physically damaging everyone else’s bodies (secondhand). If your device is network-enabled inside a public transit vehicle (even if it can’t connect with a network), the mostly metal shell of the vehicle causes the radiation to bounce around so much that passengers can be exposed to hundreds of times more radiation.

Two significant reasons why wireless radiation exposure of all Canadians and living ecosystems is increasing—everywhere outdoors AND indoors—are installations and increases or changes in operation of outdoor network antennas that in standard operation continuously emit wireless electromagnetic fields (from towers, poles, rooftops, and wherever else antennas are installed). The wireless electromagnetic fields travel into every child and adult body, residences, private and public buildings and areas, and throughout all communities (including habitats of flora and fauna) wherever there is network coverage (weak or strong) provided for consumers or for broader network connectivity. Presently, Industry Canada (a federal government agency) has authority to allow corporations that provide commercial wireless services to change or increase the amount and density of these wireless electromagnetic fields. Presently, any such change or increase can be allowed by Industry Canada even when non-consent is formally given by parents, citizens, homeowners, building owners, a majority of citizens, or a majority of local government located within an antenna’s coverage area. Also, there are installations and increases and changes in antennas and antenna emissions that, presently, by authority of federal law can proceed without notification of anyone within the coverage area of the antenna, in which cases there is often no awareness of any opportunity for formal non-consent.

If it sounds too good to be true ...

Honest, I get it. Wireless devices are amazing, spiffy, sick, etc. I'd be the queen of promoting them if they and their networks didn't have detrimental effects on the health and wellbeing of, ah, EVERYone. I know that you're at least wondering (or know) about the health effects of the radiation flying all around you, your kids, and your pets Felix and Spot -- otherwise you wouldn't be reading this. Even if you're not fully on that page yet, lately we've got Anthony Robbins, Dr. Andrew Weil, Huffington Post, Dr. Oz, many other notables, and even www.visitcalifornia.com inundating media with daily reminders to you and all of humanity to step away from the glowing rectangle more often so that you don't get sucked into the e-vortex.

I'm often asked for my opinion regarding the various accessories that claim to provide a wireless device user with some degree of protection. If I post it here, I'll know where to find it.

Mobile wireless devices on in various standby modes or being directly used emit radiation. The cell towers/antennas/network infrastructure are continuous irradiation for everyone, whether or not they're using a device, including people (all ages) who do not use any device at all -- wherever indoors and outdoors there is network coverage, there's a never-ending swamp of radiation.

It's wonderful for people to do what they can to protect themselves and their families, but to encourage no decrease in use or to encourage increase in use is definitely worsening the situation regardless of an individual’s personal radiation dose maybe being somewhat reduced (note: the radiation is not eliminated, only maybe reduced), including for the user (as this person will also still be subject to that ongoing or increased irradiation from the network infrastructure).

Further, that an individual can purchase a product that decreases personal physical harm to the purchaser and the purchaser has knowledge that her/his use of the product causes continued or increased physical harm to OTHER people is quite, let's say, distasteful.

Further, for example, do the add-on accessory bits or pouches that are offering shielding in one direction come with warnings to keep the unprotected side away from other people (for example not to stuff it into a purse crammed into a stroller behind a toddler's head)?

Further, do the items claiming to be protective come with warnings that the item may cause more of the non-RF types of electromagnetic radiation to enter into a user's hand?

Radiation emissions from wireless electronic devices and the networks that support them are a complex problem that is not resolved by wrapping up a machine in a pretty piece of fabric or slapping a sticker on it. If someone claims to be unable to survive without owning and using a mobile device, maybe use such a pouch or sticker AND completely power off the device more often AND never use the device or have it on standby for incoming calls and messages near another person, never in a car, never in a bus, never in a train, never in an airplane, never in an elevator, never near anyone sleeping, etc.

Perhaps a "warning label" should be attached both to personal wireless devices AND to products claiming to reduce radiation exposure from those devices:

WARNING
Each wireless communication task performed by an electronic device can send radiation into your body that interferes with your body’s normal functioning (whether you notice it or not). Each of those wireless tasks also sends radiation into the bodies of everyone within the coverage areas of the network your device is connected to (including but not only the people nearby you), and into the bodies of everyone within the coverage area of your recipient’s network (if also using wireless), and into the bodies of everyone within the coverage area of all the network equipment used to connect the sender’s network with the recipient’s network. From this moment on, please consider whether or not your wireless task is so important enough that it justifies physically damaging your body (firsthand), physically damaging your recipient's body (firsthand), and physically damaging everyone else’s bodies (secondhand).

To see, or not to see. There is no question.

There was an article at www.businessinsider.com headlined "Now People Are Freaking Out That Google Glasses Will Cause Cancer." Dr. Devra Davis' facebook points out that article and comments, as follows:

"I have worked on environmental health hazards my entire professional career starting with tobacco and asbestos. We simply cannot go through the path we took with those hazards with cell phones. For those well-established hazards we never had 100% people exposed. We are paying the price now for the damaging effects of tobacco and these hazards that were debated far too long because of commercial interests.
This idea of placing something right in front of the brain in the eyes that would be receiving microwaves is deeply troubling. While cell phones emit much less power than microwave ovens, they release pulsed digital signals that can be disruptive to all membranes in the body (including the membrane that protects the brain) at very very very weak levels.
Studies conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora Volkow have shown that 50 minutes of exposure to a cell phone result in a significant alteration of glucose metabolism in that area of the brain that is most exposed. World Health Organization concluded that cell phone radiation and other wireless radiation is a possible human carcinogen. We must learn from mistakes of the past in public health."

I wanted to add a comment to hers. I thought about it for a long time because this is so important for people to know (whether or not science explains it to anyone's satisfaction). If people take the time to read this, maybe they will “know.” I apologize if it's difficult to read because of long sentences necessary for clear comparisons ... I tried to punctuate it for ease of understanding.

No one would think it's okay to send ELECTRICITY (an invisible-to-humans man-made energy that is in the LOWER END of the electromagnetic spectrum) directly into the eyeballs or the brain beyond them for any length of time; and no one would think it's okay to send XRAYS (an invisible-to-humans man-made energy that is in the HIGHER END of the electromagnetic spectrum) directly into the eyeballs or the brain beyond them for any length of time. So why would it ever be okay to send an invisible-to-humans man-made electromagnetic energy (whatever name you give it) that is scientifically measured in the same spectrum BETWEEN those two very dangerous damaging energies directly into the eyeballs or the brain beyond them for any length of time?

The damage from sending electricity or xrays into eyeballs and brains might be immediately evident or later evident, and the damage is worsened by duration of exposure and by multiple exposures over time. We know that. Except under strict guidelines of medical and healthcare authorities, it is NOT okay to send any type or any measure of man-made energy in the electromagnetic spectrum directly into eyeballs and brains (or anywhere else in and on the body). And those authorities do NOT claim it is ever safe to do so; such use is based on weighing the known risk of physical damage to the body versus possible benefits. We know that.

Whatever wireless device is network-enabled, or receiving, or transmitting, the physical presence of invisible-to-humans man-made energy in the electromagnetic spectrum is what technically makes those things happen. For receiving, the device must uptake the man-made electromagnetic energy; for transmitting, the device must emit the man-made electromagnetic energy; for a network to know that a wireless device is network-enabled and able to receive network transmissions, both the network and the device must be both uptaking and emitting the man-made electromagnetic energy even when the device is not actively in use. We know that.

Therefore, the invisible man-made electromagnetic energy is physically travelling and physically present, at the very least, at and around the wireless device; usually the device user shares the environment with the wireless device (touching it, wearing it, holding it at or near the head or lap, etc.). Therefore, the invisible man-made electromagnetic energy is also at and around the user’s body. It’s a scientific fact that a human body uptakes this invisible man-made electromagnetic energy. We know that.

In most built environments (urban, rural, indoors, outdoors, anywhere) there is coverage provided by one or many networks for various uses and purposes. Any area with “coverage” is an area where invisible-to-humans man-made electromagnetic energy is present and travelling as emissions from network equipment somewhere, and these emissions are usually continuously pumped into and throughout coverage areas whether or not any device within the coverage area is on or in use. Connections can start at any time, and wherever in the coverage area a device is, and continuously as the device moves around within the coverage area and into other coverage areas. In effect, we’re constantly wading through an invisible swamp of the man-made electromagnetic energy around us all the time. We know that.

This invisible-to-humans man-made electromagnetic energy isn’t “weak.” Think about it. It’s hurtling through the air at speeds that provide pretty much instant communication; plus, somehow it’s strong enough to hurtle through the air at great distances; plus, during all that hurtling, somehow all its billions of bits of zero’s and one’s stay intact enough that they’re in perfect condition after they’ve been slammed at such high speeds over huge distances: plus, somehow it’s strong enough to get through windows and walls (obviously, it can get through eyeballs, skin, and skulls too). We know that.

For most people, this stuff is slamming into the inside of their bodies all day, all night, every day prenatally and forever. It can do damage. We know that. If you didn’t know before, you know now.

Know to prefer NON-wireless communication technology, and provide WIRED communication technology for others.

NOW HIRING: AGENT REQUIRED TO GO BACK IN TIME TO FETCH COMMONSENSE STUCK THERE

[this is one of the energycanaries.blogspot.com posts]

If a toddler girl is throwing a temper tantrum at bedtime insisting that she must take the clock-radio to bed with her and that she wants it to be under her pillow or directly beside her head or hugged like a teddy bear and it must remain plugged in to the electrical outlet, simply as-is not with the radio on, would a parent agree to that? Even if there seems no way to stop this tantrum, a parent would never allow such an hours-long close encounter with the clock-radio to happen. I know it seems as though no explanation of the “why not” is necessary, that it’s simply commonsense, but just think about it for a moment. WHY NOT? It isn’t “just because.” Think about it. Think about what it is that makes it commonsense. At the root of it, it’s because (a) it’s a machine so it isn’t passive, it can DO things, and (b) it uses electricity and electricity is this invisible thing that is dangerous if you touch it or go too close to it, and it can even severely permanently injure you or kill you quite easily if you touch it. Electricians, doctors, and other experts consciously know and act in respect of these hazards and facts every day; others of us know these things by commonsense; others of us seem to have forgotten these hazards and facts; and others of us, I suppose, only know the reality of machines and electricity being commonplace and therefore assume there is no hazard because experts and those of us with the knowledge and commonsense haven’t shared it often enough.

Machines and electricity have been around so long now that generations and generations have come and gone, and nowadays we see and are surrounded by so many machines and electricity throughout every day and night. The centuries-old commonsense reasons to respect the inherent hazards of machines and electricity have not gone away. If we think about it, the long-standing commonsense reasons to not have constant and/or close encounters with cell phones, wifi routers, cordless phones, tablet computers, laptops, baby monitors, hair dryers, microwave ovens, a table lamp, keeping babies’ fingers out of electrical outlets, and so on should be enough to in fact avoid these constant and/or close encounters. Anything that is a machine and as well anything that runs on wired or portable electrical power DOES come along with those risks that we’re aware of by knowledge or commonsense. Certainly we make choices about our risks, for example, cars are machines and they use electrical power; and cars can kill and yet so many of us do choose to drive them.

Ahh, but there are CLEARLY publicized laws, rules, and instructions about driving cars so that there is a reduced risk of harm to yourself as a driver, to other drivers, and to anyone who is not driving. And these laws, rules, and instructions are monitored, changed from time to time, and enforced—including serious penalties against drivers who do not obey laws and against drivers who harm other drivers or harm people who aren’t driving. There are also enforced laws and rules applicable to manufacturers of cars. There are also laws and rules regarding the by-products or emissions that occur when a car is operated; similarly, those emissions are monitored, changed from time to time, and limits are enforced—with various penalties when emission and operation standards are exceeded. These laws, rules, and instructions exist because health and safety of individuals and the public is a priority; and generally, these laws, rules, and instructions change when there is new or varying concern regarding health and safety of individuals or the public—not when car manufacturers and fuel producers want changes so that their profits will increase. Laws, rules, and instructions for cars and drivers don’t apply only while driving. They also apply to stopped cars, parked cars, abandoned cars, wherever. If your neighbour habitually parked his car with the open end of the car’s exhaust pipe positioned directly beside a window or door of your home and your home was always filling with fumes, you could probably ask your neighbour to stop doing that, and he probably would apologize as most people are kind and certainly don’t intend to harm anyone, and he probably would stop doing it by parking his car differently. I don’t know the letter of the law—I suppose that if your neighbour refused to make this change, because our homes by law are actually supposed to be not airtight, and if these fumes continued to be overwhelming, you would have some recourse perhaps by police or other legal intervention to put a halt to these fumes polluting your home. Again here you’ve got commonsense coming into play: no one really has to explain why fumes are unwanted. Again to go back as to why we have this commonsense knowing that polluting fumes are bad, it’s that (a) they might smell or look very unpleasant, and (b) regardless whether or not they have a smell or are visible at all, exposure to air pollutants can cause ill health right then and there or in the future.

The up-close and personal habits that people have adopted with their electronic machines—wired or wireless, stationary or portable—don’t make sense. Somewhere along the way, commonsense was thrown out the window. Point one: these are machines. Point two: these machines operate using electricity.

I said earlier that the centuries-old commonsense reasons to respect the inherent hazards of machines and electricity have not gone away. There is however something that HAS changed: the hazards have increased, in a number of ways. Nowadays, we’re touching and near so many, many more machines and so many more sources of electricity. And we’re doing that continually throughout our entire lives during the entire 24-hour cycle every day and again the next day and the next; in fact, these exposures start before we’re born, in fact, even before we’re conceived because genetic material from parents that becomes an embryo has been similarly exposed non-stop.

And all the above is before you add into consideration all the other electromagnetic fields flung everywhere throughout every size of airspace indoors and outdoors and as well into every nook and cranny in case there’s a machine there that wants to communicate wirelessly with another machine somewhere nearby or anywhere else on the planet. Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are a type of radiation; and EMFs are everywhere in our 21st-century air. EMFs aren’t gentle, thin, invisible threads harmlessly winding their way from a wifi router in the house, or from a DECT cordless phone, or from a cell phone that’s on, or from a baby monitor, or a rooftop antenna 200 metres or 5 kilometres away and detouring around people and plants and animals in order to gently touch another machine (big or small); you’re always enveloped by a never-ending explosion of this radiation and this radiation explosion is constantly travelling through your skin and into the inside of your body and brain where the cells throughout your body and brain react to this radiation in ways that they wouldn’t react if it wasn’t there.

It is jaw-droppingly astonishing whenever anyone in authority suggests that these machines and electromagnetic fields that we interact with are benign and needn’t be avoided or at the very least handled with caution. Who is it that we need to teach or remind about this commonsense about the hazards of machines and electricity so that we stop harming you, me, and everyone else present and future?

It Ain't Rocket Science

I don't have to be a rocket scientist to comprehend that 1800 scientific studies is a lot more than 0 and a lot more than "not enough." And I don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize when experts who used to say it's urgent to reduce to a maximum limit of 1000 are now saying we better aim for something more like 3 or 6 that, "Houston, we have a problem."

An amazing compilation of science and conclusions from 29 of the world's top electromagnetic radiation scientists: a new report by the BioInitiative Working Group 2012. At its website www.bioinitiative.org , you'll find many options for reading the Report or summaries and sections of it. I started by reading the Conclusions section (the clickable alongside my post here). The Report says that evidence for risks to health has substantially increased since 2007 from electromagnetic fields and wireless technologies (radiofrequency radiation). The Report reviews over 1800 new scientific studies. [Note: 1800 is not a typo, so when anyone claims there are no scientific studies ... and that number is only mentioning the "new" ones.]

The Report is not at all only about brain cancer, and not at all only about cell phones. There are sections about Autism, Fertility, Fetal Exposure, Alzheimer's Disease and other neurological effects, plus many other relevant topics. Any and all powered devices or networks that communicate with something else without the use of wires are using floods of electrically-generated unnatural electromagnetic radiation waves to carry and distribute digital signals and information throughout all your indoor and outdoor airspaces (whether or not you or anyone else is actively using a device or network). These communications don't happen by magic ... they happen because in the 21st century your air is densely filled with this unnatural radiation ... always ... everywhere.

Please notice that the Report often mentions cordless phones in the same breath as cell phones.

“There is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma (a malignant brain tumor) and acoustic neuroma with use of mobile and cordless phones” says Lennart Hardell, MD at Orebro University, Sweden. “Epidemiological evidence shows that radiofrequency should be classified as a human carcinogen. The existing FCC/IEEE and ICNIRP public safety limits and reference levels are not adequate to protect public health.”

If you referred to The BioInitiative Report 2007 for their recommendation for maximum exposure limit of 1000 microwatts per meter-squared, it's my understanding that the revised recommendation in the 2012 Report is 3 to 6 microwatts per meter-squared. [Again, there's no typo: it was 1000, and now it's 3 to 6.] There is also a paragraph: "Safety standards for sensitive populations will more likely need to be set at lower levels than for healthy adult populations. Sensitive populations include the developing fetus, the infant, children, the elderly, those with pre-existing chronic diseases, and those with developed electrical sensitivity (EHS)."