Paying for the right to make kids RMOs (radiation-modified organisms)

What is it that's going on? Is there some socio-cultural trend for decision-makers to purposely WANT to be recognized and revered as members of some cult equivalent to flat-Earth believers? In the year 2014, for any person to claim regarding chronic or acute wireless radiation exposures “I’ve read the research and I understand there are no real health issues" shows very much a lack of understanding and/or lack of modern facts. That quote is from a recent news article about a contract for installing cell towers on school property at dozens of schools in a U.S. county.

Oh, the person making the claim is a representative of the cell tower company. (Do I have to say it: Duh?!)

And why do media outlets continue to let such falsehoods repeatedly be in their reporting? Is this yet another example of a trend away from "truth in reporting" if something other than truth sells newspapers, subscriptions, or advertising?

Were English comprehension skills (i.e., ability to read and understand the published research studies or at least the Abstracts, Conclusions, or expert commentaries about the studies) not taught properly in the school system to the people who are now making these non-informed claims and the decisions based on them? Or are these people's English comprehension skills rusty?

Or is it that people who are entrusted with the safety and wellbeing and nurturing of children couldn't be bothered to actually READ about stuff that does directly and every day impact the health, safety, and wellbeing of the kids entrusted to them? There are thousands of research studies and plenty of them report findings of adverse biological effects, so it's a fact that none of these claimants has read and/or understood "the research". Plus, if there were no real health issues, why are more and more research studies being conducted and published every month with also plenty of them finding adverse biological effects?

I'm not a parent and I'm not a grandparent. I cannot fathom how any parent or grandparent (or anyone interested in the indoor and outdoor environment at schools) could decide that it's okay to continuously dose everyone in a school, all day every day of their school lives, with more of ANY type of artificial electromagnetic radiation pollution. We're all supposed to be cutting down on firsthand and secondhand exposures to this stuff, not increasing the exposures and not cramming more of this type of radiation emissions into kids' bodies. And to decide that money will change hands for the right to do that to kids is something beyond disgusting.

If you think this isn't planned for your school or other schools in your community, maybe you better ask to make sure AND to insist that it never happens.

National Association for Children and Safe Technology

#PracticeSafeTech

@SafeinSchoolOrg

ParentsForSafeSchool

Too much of a "good" thing

The progressive way to use technology is to do it in a way that does not increase risk to health of humans and the environment. When any technology's use grows in such a way that ongoing increased risk to human or environmental health results, then that technology is no longer a technological advance, and it becomes the opposite of progress. Knowledge that there is ongoing increased risk requires that everyone actively encourage reduction in use of that technology, increased use of safer existing technology, and perhaps development of newer safer technology. Opting to instead encourage the status quo and stifle public awareness of risk is, at the very least, irresponsible. Opting to further and knowingly increase risk by encouraging increasing the use of the now unprogressive technology is inhumane, absurd, and grossly irresponsible. What are advances in technology? Isn't the root goal that hopefully they advance our lives? I certain don't want the definition of the word "advance" in the phrase "advance our lives" to be that the end of your life, my life, or anyone else's life is on an advanced timeline that ends sooner!

A perfect example of a technology that began as an advance and has become unprogressive is our present-day method of wireless one-way and two-way communications. In 2014, there are enumerable electricity-gobbling wireless connections and coverage areas that are at every moment and at ultra-high speeds multiply flooding into every nook and cranny of our indoor and outdoor airspaces—both everywhere we are and everywhere we aren't, and regardless whether or not any person or machine is using them. The invisible connections and coverage areas exist only because machines were invented that can consume the type of non-ionizing radiation called electricity (that we restrict inside wires and batteries), transform it into another type of non-ionizing radiation called radiofrequency, and spew that out in engineered densities to fill volumes of air. Engineers will tell you that radiofrequency energy cannot alter a living human; medical authorities will tell you that medical experts use radiofrequency radiation to purposely physically alter a human body or its functioning in cases where the medical expert feels some certainty or strong hope that the alteration will result in a benefit that outweighs risks.

Wireless communication radiation is an active polluter of our indoor and outdoor air; it isn't a by-product of some other activity. Millions or billions of times per second, and relentlessly, this radiation pollution floods into all our indoor and outdoor airspaces. This artifically-generated radiation enters into machines via specific engineered pathways, and the machines are programmed to react to the presence of this radiation in specific ways. The problem is that this artificially-generated radiation also enters any and all parts of a living body, not via specific pathways; and living bodies are born programmed to react to natural forms of this type of radiation, and in fact our survival depends on that always present natural radiation. So each moment that the artificially-generated radiation is entering a living body—at any and every area of the body that is being swamped—is some degree of radiation-overload. With such dense and relentless radiation-overloads, in each moment and/or over time, microscopic parts of a living body, or a living body as a whole, is undergoing these overloads and reacting to it. The point being that because that artificial radiation is relentlessly entering your body, your body must perform zillions more reactions than if that artificial radiation wasn't there. This is relentlessly onerous physical work for anyone's body—physical stress added to your body over and over and over again during every moment you're awake or asleep, at every moment you're alive.

Whose decision is it to continue to not encourage, and even further to discourage, the spread of common beneficial habits such as powering off personal wireless gear and networks when they are not in use? The waste of electricity, especially when everyone is asleep, is absurd. To want to inundate your own or anyone else's body with radiation pollution continuously while sleeping is also absurd. Further absurdity is to want to pay the price of the electricity and to want to pay it in order to needlessly irradiate your body and everyone else's while you're sleeping. All wireless connections are users generating both firsthand and secondhand radiation exposures, controllable by the user; all controllable coverage areas (indoors and outdoors; personal, private, and public) are sources of secondhand exposures, sometimes controllable by the user; other and bigger scale coverage areas and infrastructure are sources of secondhand exposures. Secondhand exposures are to users, non-users, and the environment.

So far, it is intended that these radiation pollution emissions be maximized to fill as much volume of air as possible and in unlimited numbers of overlapping densities. So far, there seems to be intention to maximize firsthand and secondhand exposures to this radiation for humans and the environment. This is now the opposite of progress. Continued use of this technology is irresponsible. Stifling public awareness of what "wireless" actually is in regard to firsthand and secondhand exposures is irresponsible. Expanding its use is the opposite of progress and is beyond irresponsible.

21st century poet speaks

eThoughts

I'm so bored of my ceaseless mortality

I'm so bored of my tireless humanity

Weariness already weighs on my shoulders

Indifference has seeped into my marrow

My blood thick with static

I'm sick to my stomach of this constructed realism

Of these plasticized people we are fed

My mouth is constantly sour

My ears are full

Check the checkbox it won't check itself

As we are sold

A hundred different ways to fake genuineness

And I'm tired

Tired tired

These constants need to cease

These ceaseless constants need to change

I want the earthy crush of dirt between my teeth

And the brutal roughness

Of grit and stones and sand lined fingernails

What happened to flaws? And all the filthy realness that came with them?

Dragged and dropped into the trash

With the rest of our human experience

Suckled on outlets and incubated by wires

Such a thin brew we are fed so young

But who cares? Who needs it.

Reality is for suckers.

There's probably an app for it by now

by Bryn McCutcheon ©2014

TOP 5 +1 e-HYGIENE super-smart HABITS (click on the image below to see larger size)

This is an image of a two-sided postcard. If you click anywhere on the image, it will let you choose to look at the front or the back of the postcard at a bigger size.

HERE AND NOW

Not solely regarding the electro-smog pollution topic (i.e., all body/water/air/food/earth pollution problems), I think it's important to get out of our habits of using phrases that include words implying that if people don't smarten up then IN THE FUTURE bad things will result. Because it's NOW that the bad things are happening: the pollution IS the "bad thing." Whether or not there are latency periods until "more bad things" become individually or publicly noticeable/detectible, whether or not there are "enough" cumulative or acute exposures to be individually or synergistically identified as problematic, the over-exposures ("bad things") are happening TODAY, NOW, at this moment.

To me, regarding all pollution topics, this is the crux of why (most? many?) people do nothing with the knowledge. Why should they do anything when everyone is saying that there's gonna be a problem in the future if there are no changes made—as if there is no problem right now!! It's that pollution right now must be reduced/eliminated. Certainly all my colleagues (and other public and expert persons urging attention to environment/pollution), and certainly me too, all of us often fall into that future-doom habit. Maybe it's because we aren't dropping dead as we're standing there talking to someone about it. Sure we aren't dropping dead at this moment but actually we are dropping; collectively, we have already been pushed off the cliff. It's merely that we haven't hit bottom (yet) and don't know where bottom is. And gee, in the meantime most/many people are experiencing this risky free-fall as something that feels okay-ish, and even can be a rush, and even for many people seems like mostly fun and goodtimes!

Would we prefer to right now be back on solid ground and having just as much fun and goodtimes there? Yes, I think so. So why do we talk as if now doesn't matter? I think when we talk like that we're doing a giant disservice and disrespecting all those who came before us—people like Rachel Carson and innumerable other people. In fact, I think that "future bad" style of language is, in a way, spreading disrespect and confusion like a virus, which is the opposite of what we hope and intend.

It isn't that today's baby or child (or anyone) in 2 or 5 or 10 years from now would be a poster-child for a resultant illness or catastrophe. It's the face of each and every baby and child you see right now, today, who already are right now the poster-children because they already have been exposed and harmed and continue right now to be exposed and harmed (whether or not their suffering is "enough" to notice).

Maybe it's sort of like when humans became able to look down from space at a view of Earth they hadn't previously seen. Some observers claim this visual shoved environment/ecology thoughts more into public prominence. It wasn't that everyone had to see a smoggy, filthy, polluted, sick, nasty-looking planet in order to react. They saw this wondrous, big, mostly blue ball and instinctively wanted to do whatever it takes to help it.

I'm not a parent, however, I'm pretty sure parents care about their kids' thriving right now. So why does anyone talk about a now-problem in words that imply it doesn't exist but yes indeedy it's for sure going to be an uh-oh at some mystery time in their kids' future? Non-reaction to that doesn't surprise me. I think everyone must stop inadvertently implying that there is presently no problem.

And I'm pretty sure that most of us are not in this for the purpose of being able to say, years from now, "Dr. Havas was right, Dr. Davis was right, whoever else was right...." It's the opposite: we want to NOT have to say that. How's it working out for us with those buttons that say, "Rachel Carson was right"?

Some Suggested Videos & Books

This collection was handed out at the annual Total Health Show April 4-6, 2014 in Toronto, Canada. My apologies if the links are not all clickable (I will attempt to fix any that are not, but you may have to copy-paste into your internet browser). If you would like a print copy of the file (it prints nicely on a single sheet double-sided), please ask me for it via email to energycanaries@gmail.com.

Enjoy!

electroSMOG awareness • Total Health Show April 2014 • EnergyCanaries@gmail.com

see below for RECOMMENDED BOOKS

VIDEOS Recommended for Parents, Teachers & Other Adults

                                   

Global News: 16:9 with Carol Jarvis (14 min)  WiFi causes heart problems, headaches and other neurological disorders in children. Canadian Documentary exposes the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7VetsCR2I

Safe & Smart 4 r Kids: reduce wireless radiation (9 min)  Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s advice (ARPNSA)
is equivalent to Health Canada that sets a maximum for exposure limits for radiofrequency, microwave radiation exposure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJPTzaNkcUk

WiFi in Schools: The Facts (18 min)  Around the world an increasing number of governments and authorities have banned or warned against the use of wifi in schools. Many experts, scientists and doctors are warning the public to take a precautionary approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmcAXZ-o1K4&feature=share&list=FLI_8xq3QcBTrnb4665kpsNA

Dr. Anthony Miller to Toronto City Council: RF Exposure (4 min)  Dr. Miller is at University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health. He presents to Council that RF exposure should be classified as a 2A (probable carcinogen), not a 2B (possible carcinogen).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wARxnaxrRKk

Radiofrequency Radiation: Hidden Health & Environmental

Effects, by B. Blake Levitt, Congressional Staff Briefing (11 min)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=FLVFPg7-9kG2W2RV11SQ12Dg&v=M43AWNFq8Xs

Wi-Fi in Schools: Dr. Stephen Sinatra M.D. (8 min)  Dr. Sinatra cautions “this exposure is the greatest medical threat of our time.” Students in WiFi schools experience unexplainable cardiac and other symptoms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V9WuM5q-x0

Strong evidence for hazards of RF in brain cancer (2 min)

David Carpenter, MD: "A whole generation may be very much at risk."

http://vimeo.com/73806191

Dr. Magda Havas: WiFi in Schools is Safe. True or False? (24 min)

Learn about studies that have documented adverse effects of this radiation on rats, blood cells, the heart, cancer; learn about alternatives to wireless routers that are cost effective, energy efficient, and don't emit microwave radiation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v75sKAUFdc

Resonance – Beings of Frequency (1 hr 28 min)  A sensational eye-opening documentary reveals the harm we are doing by existing in an ocean of manmade wireless frequencies.

http://vimeo.com/54189727

Take Back Your Power (1 hr 41 min) Whistleblowers, researchers, environmentalists, doctors, and others take us on a journey to expose erosion of rights in the name of “smart” and “green.”

http://www.takebackyourpower.net/

         BOOKS Recommended

                                   

Overpowered

by Martin Blank

Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization

by Sam Milham

Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution

by Camilla Rees and Magda Havas

A Wellness Guide for The Digital Age

by Kerry Crofton

Zapped

by Ann Louise Gittleman

Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation

by Devra Davis

Wiresless Radiation Rescue

by Kerry Crofton, PhD

Earthing

by Clinton Ober, Stephen T. Sinatra, Martin Zucker

#lightwebdarkweb: Three Reasons to Reform Social Media Be4 It Re-Forms Us

by Raffi Cavoukian @Raffi_RC

The Body Electric

by Robert O. Becker and Gary Selden

Geopathic Stress: How Earth Energies Affect Our Lives

by Jane Thurnell-Read

BYOD

If you want to use the below as a sign, it should print well on a landscape 8.5" x 11" page. It's simple on purpose. No clutter ... other than the DIS- TRAC TION part, which is, umm, supposed to be distracting. If you want to receive it as an attachment instead of grabbing it from here, please email energycanaries@gmail.com and tell me if you want a pdf or jpg.