ENGLISH VERSION - Israeli Government Installing Wi-Fi in Schools, Saving Money on the Expense of its Children’s Health

The Israeli Government policy on wireless technology led by Dr. Sigal Sadetzki has been outrageously negligent. While the ‘precautionary principle’ is being quoted often, in reality it is an empty slogan. Most recently, an inter-departmental committee on the issue of wireless technology in schools ‘recommended’ the use of wired LAN but DID NOT BAN Wi-Fi, and outrageously left the decision of whether or not to use Wi-Fi to the principles, who probably cannot even explain what electricity is, let alone electromagnetic radiation. The Ministry of Education has been using this decision to actually promote Wi-Fi in schools despite known and established adverse health effects of which Dr, Sadetzki has been ignoring including denying the existence of EHS. Following is my response to the position paper which is largely based on an affidavit given by Prof. David Carpenter

Response to the position paper on the introduction of Wi-Fi & Cellular systems to schools in Israel

The State of Israel once again recklessly endangers the health of its children, and proves that its public officials do not deserve the responsibility with which they are entrusted. The application of the ‘precautionary principle’ regarding electromagnetic radiation indicates that the use of the precautionary principle is not a policy but rather an empty slogan.

SUMMARY

1.      I have carefully read the recommendations report (‘the report’) published by the inter-governmental committee ('the committee'), particularly chapter 5 which discusses the effects of electromagnetic radiation including effects of, ELF, Radio Frequencies (‘RF’) and Microwave (‘MW’), emitted by mobile phones and wireless internet technology. The report is yet another badge of shame to the State regarding the recklessness it exercises in establishing a responsible policy in dealing with the issue of cellular/wireless radiation. The report indicates that the State, through its public officials, the members of the committee, prove once again a lack of understanding of the issue, it is misleading the public whether by ignorance or by criminal negligence, and it is clear that the committee and its members do not understand the issues at hand and definitely not their public responsibility.

2.      The ‘Precautionary Principle’ policy is an empty slogan - As the following would indicate, the State once again proves that the ‘precautionary principle’ policy is an empty and meaningless slogan. How exactly is the State practicing the ‘precautionary principle’-based policy if it does not determine any policies? Policy is not mere words but rather, actions, and the States just mumbles, instead of acting, and even misleads the public with the result of neglecting the health and life of the children of Israel and its adult population!

3.      Deployment of Wi-Fi by the Ministry of Education - Furthermore, while the committee 'recommends' to prefer wired internet, in reality, The Ministry of Education (‘MOE’), exercises an opposite policy of encouraging and promoting the use of wireless technology. The Ministry already  is in the process of deployment of wireless internet in schools in order to save costs on the expense of the health of the children! This policy is peculiar as only recently, the MOE restricted the usage of mobile phones because of their established adverse health effects, but at the same time it deploys wireless networks that are much more dangerous!  

4.      Personal and criminal liability – One wonders if the committee members would have been exposed to personal & criminal liability, whether they would have only ‘recommended’ the usage of wired internet rather than recommending that wireless internet be banned? I don’t think so. I believe that they would have recommended to ban the usage of Wi-Fi as they should have done!

Enclosed is a Declaration by Prof. David Carpenter, explaining why Wi-Fi Should be banned from schools

5.      Professor David Carpenter - Recently, a legal action for injunction against deploying Wi-Fi systems in schools, was submitted in Portland, Oregon. In this action, Prof. David Carpenter submitted a declaration as an expert witness by the applicants. Prof. Carpenter is an expert in public health, including in the areas of electrophysiology, the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation in ELF, RF, and microwaves (MW). Prof. Carpenter is a graduate of Harvard medical school and he is currently the Head of Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research of the NY State Department of Health. He is also the Head of the Institute of Health and Environment, in Albany University, NY, and a professor of Health and Environment Sciences. He is a coauthor of the Bioinitiative Report, and of the book: Setting prudent public health policy for electromagnetic fields exposures. He is a coauthor of 349 scientific papers, and he volunteers as an expert witness in cases regarding the adverse health effects of Electromagnetic radiation (‘EMR’). Prof. Carpenter’s CV is enclosed with his declaration.

 

6.      In Israel there is no expert in the field of electromagnetic hazards matching in his/her crudentials as Prof. Carpenter, therefore, it is rather recommended that the State would read his enclosed declaration carefully. His declaration is  quoted throughout my document.

7.      Prof. Carpenter quotes 62 peer reviewed papers of adverse health effects of EMR which the committee ignores completely – In contrast to only 7 references (such a mockery) referred by the committee which is guided by Prof. Sigal Sadetzky, Prof. Carpenters’ declaration is quoting 62 research papers (‘papers’). Of the 7 papers referred to by the committee, only 2 involve MW/RF radiation (the other 5 deal with ELF), although the report focuses mainly on cellular/wireless technology. These 2 papers refer just to cancer and are based only on the ‘Interphone Study’, which was in severe conflict of interest because of its partial financing by the ‘Industry’. As a result of this conflict of interests, the publication of the results of the 'interphone' was delayed for more than 4 years and it had conflicting interpretations. In comparison, Prof. Carpenter quotes 62 studies which refer to diverse injuries inflicted by the EMR. These papers, prove that continuous exposure to weak EMR in MW/RF frequencies is causing injuries to almost every system and organ in the body, injuries not less severe than cancer, adverse health effects that the committee is ignoring completely.

Prof. Carpenter provides, inter alia, papers that are showing that the radiation created by RF/MW inflicts injuries on the immune system (p.21), endocrine system (p.13), DNA repair system (P.20), mRNA (19), diverse neurological problems, involving headaches and migraines (p.11), cognitive problems (p.12, 13), concentration problems (p.11), behavior problems, learning problems, and insomnia (p.10, 11), allergies (p.11), oxidative damage due to free radicals (p.18-19), problems with the reproductive system in males and females (p.12, 14), damage to the heart, cancer (p.8), and more. Prof. Carpenter states that the papers quoted are just a small sample of thousands of papers that he had read on this issue, proving that electromagnetic radiation is causing adverse health effects, not merely ‘probably causing’ damage! But the MOH is completely ignores these effects.

8.      The unequivocal conclusion reached by Prof. Carpenter is that Wi-Fi systems should be banned from schools!

9.      Translation of the Declaration - Prof. Carpenter's declaration was written in English. As the committee did not invite any opinions from a qualified experts, it is recommended and proper that the committee and all its members would read Prof. Carpenter's declaration thoroughly. I will be glad to translate the document into Hebrew, in case the committee members would have difficulties with the English.

10.   Quoting the declaration in my response – As an integral part of my response to various statements of the committee, I am quoting Prof. Carpenters’ declaration as support to my claims.

Response to Arguments raised in the Report of the Committee

11.   The obligation of the state to determine policy, not to ‘recommend’, especially in complex issues - How does the state exercise the ‘precautionary principle policy’ if it does not set any policy for schools, but rather 'recommends' schools to deploy wired internet connection, rather than wireless internet? It seems that the committee did not understand its role, and decided to leave the decision of which internet connection to use to the schools’ principals, most of which probably do not have any understanding of the issues involved, and we can even assume that most of them cannot explain what electricity is let alone EMR! Writing that there is a policy which is based on the 'precautionary principle’, does not mean that there such a policy in reality. There is a disturbing feeling that the State uses the slogan of the ''precautionary principle policy' as if the repetition would instill a sense of confidence in the public (a fake sensation) that such a policy actually exists (while it is not). Writing something does not make it true! There is no doubt that the committee knew or should have known that if they would not recommend to categorically ban Wi-Fi, considering its infrastructure is cheaper, and simpler to install than wired internet networks, most principals would deploy Wi-Fi systems. Therefore, it was clear to the committee that if it would only 'recommend' wired internet, in practice, such a recommendation would lead most principals to act against the committee's recommendation. As undoubtedly the committee was aware of it, its decision is even more disturbing. Was the committee’s recommendation only purpose was to discharge its legal and the duty of the government?

12.   The committee erroneously and misleadingly claim that the schools do not involuntarily expose children to radiation from cell phones- The committee wrote that the government does not expose children involuntarily to radiation from cell phones – this is misrepresentation per se (or absolute ignorance).  Cell phones emit radiation even when not used; therefore, as long as the school or MOE do not ban bringing mobile phones to schools or ensuring that they are kept turned off, they do expose students to radiation from the cellular phones involuntarily, just as secondhand smoking does! An iPhone emits radiation of ~1700 mW/m² when it is on, just in a standby mode and this is the radiation from only one mobile phone (by comparison, people who suffer from EHS exhibit allergic symptoms even when they are exposed to 0.002mW/m² or less)! Has anyone measured what is the cumulative radiation from all the mobile phones in one classroom? As long as mobile phones are allowed in school, students are exposed to involuntary radiation! As long as there are cellphone antennas in the vicinity, there is involuntary exposure in schools!

13.   The committee claims, misleadingly, that exposure to radiation is dependent on the choice of the individual student and his/her parents – Once again, the State is misleading the public. There are responsible parents who choose not to allow their children to use mobile phones, and thereby to limit their exposure to radiation. However, the State, by allowing students and teachers to bring their phones to school, does force these children to be exposed, against their parents' decision, and their 'individual choice'. Cell phone radiation is like secondhand smoke, those who do not use a cell phones are harmed nevertheless. 

Prof. Carpenter declares the students' exposure is involuntary (p.6, s.20):

"Children are largely unable to remove themselves from exposures to harmful substances in their environment. Their exposure is involuntary"

Prof. Carpenter refers to the legal problem of involuntary exposure, especially when it concerns a dependent individual (p.6, s.21):

"There is a major legal difference between an exposure that an individual chooses to accept and one that is forced upon a person especially dependent, who can do nothing about it". 

14.   The committee claims, and misleads the public, that the State’s policy in general does not allow to expose children to involuntary radiation – If this was actually the State’s policy, it would have banned Wi-Fi in schools. If wireless internet would be installed in schools, the State would force continuous Microwave radiation on the children, radiation which is trillion times higher than the natural radiation to which the human body is accustomed to! Leaving the decision whether to use wireless internet to the principals does not change the fact that as long as the MOE does not ban Wi-Fi in school it does force involuntary radiation on the children! The committee’s claim is yet another slogan the committee is repeating, probably with the hope that if they repeat it long enough parents would believe it to be true, while the reality their decision is creating is the opposite.

Prof. Carpenter declares that if Wi-Fi would be used, the parents would be forced to expose their children to radiation which is trillion times higher than that of the natural environment to which the human body is accustomed (p.6, s.21):

 "When Wi-Fi is in operation in a school, children and their parents have no choice, but to allow the school to expose them to trillions of times higher microwave radiation than exists naturally on earth at the same frequencies".

15.   The committee disregards the issue of cumulative radiation – The committee explains that a wireless router should be installed in every classroom, and completely disregards the fact that radiation from each of these transmitters reaches all the other classrooms, and everywhere else in school, as it is not blocked by walls. Therefore, the committee disregards the cumulative radiation to which the students would be exposed to from Wi-Fi!

Prof. Carpenter explains that every student will be exposed to 30-40 hours a week of continuous Wi-Fi radiation form numerous transmitters and to other sources of cellular/ wireless radiation (p.6, s.21):

"Children and other building users are exposed to as much as 30-40 hours per week of constant…Wi-Fi signals from each wireless device… A given child is subject to direct signals from multiple Wi-Fi transmitters… and wireless signals".

16.   The committee claims, and misleads the public, that radiation of 100 Watt is safe and therefore does not require safety testing – Contrary to the committee's claim, there are ­­no standards that were proven safe. The alleged 'safe' standards, claimed in the report, were never proven to be safe, while thousands of studies prove that they are unsafe and that there is no known level of radiation that is safe! Individuals who suffer from intolerance to electromagnetic radiation, exhibit symptoms, when exposed to EMR at levels millions of times lower than those emitted by just one mobile phone!

Prof. Carpenter determines unequivocally that there is no safe radiation (p14, s.28):

"There is no exposure power density that is safe".

Prof. Carpenter determines that the radiation in schools with Wi-Fi is a trillion times higher than the radiation to which the human body is adapted (p.5, s.18):

"Wi-Fi radiation in schools, exceeds natural background levels of microwave radiation by trillions of times."

Prof. Carpenter determines that the present "safe" guidelines have no credibility whatsoever (p.22, s. 34):

"Thus, the guidelines have no credibility"

17.   The committee ignores the problematic interaction of radiation from concurrent sources and various frequencies.

Prof. Carpenter states that the complexity and the interaction of radiation emitted from different sources of various frequencies, is causing more severe and complex injuries to the human body (p.5, cl.17).

"Like second hand smoke, ELF and EF/MW radiation involve complex mixtures, where different frequencies, intensities, duration of exposure, modulations, waveform, and other factors, are known to produce variable effects, often more harmful with greater complexity".

18.   The committee is misleading when claiming that there is a need to impart right mobile phone usage and habits – This claim of ‘safe usage’ is total nonsense, and a disturbing sham. As long as a mobile phone emits EMR, there is no ‘safe’ usage. If it does not radiate by the head, it radiates near other body parts and causes them damage. Anyone who says otherwise is misleading the public. If a child would not put the cell phone near the head but rather near the stomach, then, instead of getting brain cancer or neurological problems, his/her reproductive organs would be adversely affected or the sperm vitality/quality would be damaged! The public does not understand EMR, frequencies, densities, antennas, etc. By making such false claims of an existing ‘safe use’ argument, the committee and the State perpetuate the lack of understanding of the dangers by the public, and mislead the public to think that the sole problem is the radiation to the head. The public has the right to know and be properly informed and the State has a duty to provide reliable information to the public! The only way to reduce injuries inflicted by EMR, is not to use a mobile phone. A responsible State would have banned cell phone use and, most definitely, the use of mobile phones of children under the age of 16!

19.   The committee misleads the public by ignoring the adverse health effects caused by EMR other than brain cancers - As explained above, the committee ignores over 10,000 studies indicating adverse health effects of wireless and cellular technology, to almost every system in the body, including but not limited to the neural system, heart and blood vessels, immune, endocrine, reproduction, blood, cognitive, headaches and migraines, memory, sleeping, muscles, etc.        .     

Unlike the committee, which quoted only 2 papers, both dealing with cancer and correlated to the Interphone study that 50% was funded by the industry, Prof. Carpenter quoted 62 studies, as a sample to the variety of published peer reviewed articles. In addition, he summarized many more studies from the thousands that he declares to have read (p.4, s.12):

"Exposure to high frequency RF and MW radiation and also the ELF EM fields that accompany Wi-Fi exposure have been linked to a variety of adverse health outcomes. Some of many… include neurologic, endocrine, immune, cardiac, reproductive, and other effects including cancers"

Prof. Carpenter quotes studies on cells that indicated damage to the cells after they were exposed to EMR in power densities lower than those of Wi-Fi (p.4, s.13):

“Studies of isolated cells have shown that RF/MW may cause changes in cell membranes function, cell communication, metabolism, activation of proto-oncogenes and can trigger production of stress proteins…DNA breaks and chromosome aberrations, cell death including death of brain neurons, increased free radicals production, activation of the endogecous opiod system, cell stress and immature aging.”

Prof. Carpenter quotes experiments in humans that exhibited changes in brain functions, some of them specifically in children (p.4, s.14):

“Changes in brain function including memory loss, retarded learning, performance impairment in children, headaches and neurogenerative conditions, melatonin suppression and sleep disorders, fatigue, hormonal imbalances, immune dysreguations such as allergic and inflammatory responses, cardiac and blood pressure problems, genotoxic effects, miscarriages, cancers such as childhood leukemia, childhood and adult brain tumors and more.”

Prof. Carpenter determines that the conclusion of the world leading experts is that there is absolutely no doubt that the radiation is injurious and dangerous – After he has read thousands of studies, Prof. Carpenter determines that he and the world leading experts in this field (not those paid by the industry and/or employed by the government, thus under pressures and conflict of interests) can assert with confidence that MW/RF radiation is dangerous to humans and especially to children (p.7, s.24):

“Having reviewed hundreds, possibly thousands of studies in RF/MW radiation and ELF fields, published from decades ago to the present…the forefront experts specializing in these areas RF/MW radiation and ELF fields, recognize the certainties…that RF/MW radiation with chronic duration is quite harmful to humans, particularly children.”

20.   While the committee is using only convenient comparisons, it does not mention countries that did ban Wi-Fi and cell phones in schools, such as Austria – while the committee mentions Switzerland as a country that encourages use of wired instead of wireless Internet, it does not mention countries that ban cellular technology in schools, countries that do understand their responsibility to the health of their residents and children, such as Austria, which as early as 2007 banned (not ‘recommended’ to ban) the use of cell phones, cordless phones, and wireless internet in schools and day care centers. This is an example of exercising proper public policy and a true ‘precautionary principle’ based policy, not a mere slogan with no action to support it.

21.   The committee misleads regarding the special sensitivity of children and is ignoring the effects of EMR in causing cognitive, learning, and behavioral problems in addition to cancer and other neurological conditions in children – the existing ‘safety’ standards are irrelevant to anyone, but especially to children. While the committee is almost completely ignoring the issue of the special sensitivity of children, except for declaring that ‘the children population is sensitive’, and does not take the required measures to protect it (except for a meaningless recommendation that it is aware that is not going to be followed). Prof. Carpenter explains that the nervous system of children is still developing and therefore the EMR is more dangerous to children in creating cancer and other conditions. For example, damage to the DNA, neurological and cognitive problems such as creating learning and behavioral problems that are acute to the environment of a school. This year there was in Israel, a 76% increase in the use of Ritalin, but Israel is continuing to ignore the obvious and established correlation between EMR and cell phone use and the increase in ADD. Prof. Carpenter determines (p. 6 s.20):

“Since children are growing their rate of cellular activity and division is more rapid, and they are at more risk for DNA damage and subsequent cancers. Growth and development of the central nervous system is still occurring well into the teenage years, such that the neurological impairments predictable by the extant science may have great impact on cognition, learning and behavior.”

22.   The committee ignores the WHO decision to classify RF EMR as 2B Carcinogen – the committee completely ignores the WHO decision. How is it possible that after the WHO decision, the committee (and the MOE) still think that it is not obligatory to ban the exposure of children to EMR that was decided to be cancerous for 40 hours a week, every week? It should be noted that the majority of members of the WHO committee that are not on the ‘Industry’s’ payroll (directly or indirectly) required higher classification, which is undoubtedly supported by the existing science on the topic! An expert on the topic who also used to head the IRAC, the WHO committee responsible for the classification, said in an interview that the research on the topic undoubtedly justifies a 2A, not a 2B classification, but political pressure prevented the correct decision. Link to the interview with Dr. Sasko: http://youtu.be/2JyAlO_UdSk

23.   The committee ignores the damage to the school employees and its duties as an employer, and ignores the established correlation between EMR and miscarriages – The State as an employer has a responsibility to protect the health of its employees and avoid exposing them to environmental hazards that may harm their health. It should be remembered that the majority of the school employees in Israel are women, many of which are in the reproductive ages, and there are many research papers which establish, as Prof. Carpenter states, that the EMR is causing miscarriages (p.4 s.14 and p.6 s. 20), a fact that the committee obscurely does not mention. Prof. Carpenter emphasizes the responsibility of the MOE to the schools’ employees as well as to the students:

“Based on high degree of scientific certainty …use of WI-FI is causing and will continue to cause AHM, other students, and school staff and faculty adverse health effects and should be discontinued immediately."

24.   Another example to the ignorance of the committee members and the MOE is not understanding the difference between ELF to RF/MW – before the committee made its determinations, my father, Mr. Avraham Tachover, contacted the MOE and asked to know their policy with regard to Wi-Fi in schools. After he was transferred between various people, the MOE decided that the person who is more suitable to answer the question regarding Wi-Fi and EMR is Mr. Noam Kuriat, director of IT. In his response, Mr. Kuriat wrote “for your information already now we are allowing schools to install wired and not wireless internet”. This answer suggests that in reality the MOE is encouraging schools to install Wi-Fi and that the ‘recommendation’ of the committee is designed only to discharge its legal duties.

But even more disturbing (but not surprising) is the complete lack of understanding of the issue of EMR by the person that the MOE chose to provide response to inquiries of the public. In response to my father’s question regarding the EMR of Wi-Fi, Mr. Kuriat is referring my father to a table of magnetic radiation of ELFs. My father referred Mr. Kuriat to the mistake (?) but Mr. Kuriat continues and writes that the Wi-Fi radiation is measured in miligauss…Therefore, Mr. Kuriat does not know that there is a difference between ELF to RF/MW, he does not know that there is a difference between magnetic fields and EMR, and he does not know that even if we would want to measure the magnetic fields of the RF/MW, the measurement units are not miligauss. And this is the person appointed to answer the questions from the public. I would be happy to provide the correspondence. While a professional of the MOE, who is entrusted with the issue of telecommunication infrastructure in schools, does not understand the difference between magnetic fields and EMR, the committee thinks and believes that school principals would be able to properly understand the topic to reach a responsible decision on whether or not to install Wi-Fi.

Additional determinations by Prof. Carpenter that explain why Wi-Fi in schools should be banned

25.   Prof. Carpenter determines that Wi-Fi is even more harmful than cell phones – Prof. Carpenter determines that Wi-Fi is more dangerous than cell phones in the frequencies it utilizes, in the length of exposure, and in the exposure being involuntary and harmful even at lower intensity levels. However, while the MOE is limiting the use of cell phones as a result of the committee ‘recommendation’, it does allow use of Wi-Fi, i.e., it allows continuously radiating the children from routers and it does not refer to this contradiction in its policy.

“WI-FI is more hazardous by way of frequency, duration and the involuntary nature of exposure”

“Chronic, such as all day, school exposure is more likely than short and intermittent exposure, such as cell phone use to produce harmful health effects, and is likely to do so at lower exposure levels.”

26.   Prof. Carpenter determines that the frequency utilized by Wi-Fi is particularly dangerous and is used in Microwave ovens due to its penetration abilities – Prof. Carpenter determines that the frequency that is used for Wi-Fi is the same frequency that is used for microwave ovens and that it was chosen for this purpose due to its ability to penetrate and because of the transmission method which combines high and low frequencies, which create more complex effects on the human body (p.3 S. 7):

“The 2.45 GHz frequency was chosen for the oven because of its wavelength and harmonic resonance with the water molecule, to ensure the most efficient absorption by living tissues and effective heating…"

“The pulse modulation of a wave with lower frequencies in additional to the frequency carrier signal, increases the exposure complexity and in turn the bioeffects in the exposed population."

27.   Prof. Carpenter (and other scientists) are convinced that an epidemic of neurological problems, cancer, and genetic damage is underway – Prof. Carpenter claims that an epidemic of diseases (not only cancer) is underway as a result of EMR. As a person who suffers from intolerance to EMR, a condition suffered already by 3-8% of the population, it is clear to me that the epidemic is already here; this is just not known because this condition is ignored, as admitting its existence would require far-reaching actions on the part of governments and the admission of their criminal negligence (p.5 s.18):

“Many public health experts believe myself included, that it Is likely society will face epidemics of neurotoxic effects and degeneration, cancers and genotoxicity in the future’ resulting from the extreme and involuntary exposure to RF/MW radiation and EMFs.”

28.   Carpenter warns regarding the damage to the unlucky students who would seat the closest to the router – the committee does not refer to this issue at all. There is no place in a classroom and not even in the whole school that is far enough from the router! However, a few students would be even more unlucky and would have to sit very close to the router. I wonder whether the State would inform these parents regarding the special hazard to their children. (p.3 s.9):

“Persons stationed close to school computers and WI-FI and especially those very near to any WI-FI infrastructure will receive considerably higher exposure than do others.”

29.   Prof. Carpenter determines that research papers that find damage have more significance than papers that do not find damage – This simple logic is consistently being ignored. If we would have had 100 research papers showing no damage but one research study that shows damage, the conclusion is that there is a damage. It is not a statistical matter – what is the percentage of studies that show damage compared with those that do not. It is time everyone, especially professional committees on the topic would not fall into this trap! (p. 22 s.33):

“Even were the reverse true, i.e. if there existed greater number than those do show adverse effects, it is the case that positive studies (those that show adverse effects) hold more weight than negative studies (those that show no effect)"

30.   Prof. Carpenter determined that most studies on EMR did prove damage (p.22 s. 33):

"There are only a few of many studies of RF/MW radiation infrastructure such as base stations that fail to show their studies effects"

31.   Prof. Carpenter determines that there is intentional suppression of studies that found damage of EMR of RF/MW, and therefore some of those entrusted with setting up the public health policy on the topic are not even familiar with these studies (p.7 s.24):

“Due to the active suppression of the RF/MW literature, some researchers in public health science are less aware of these studies”

The recent report of the British Government that was getting worldwide headlines misled the public that “there is no proof” that cell phones are causing cancer – a recent example to the intentional misrepresentation and suppression of studies that established damage of EMR is the declaration of The UK Health Protection Agency's AGNIR that there is no proof that cell phones cause cancer. This declaration is intentional misrepresentation by a governmental agency. The problem faced by governments nowadays is the overwhelming consequences of admitting that EMR does cause cancer, and therefore they continue to mislead the public. For example, the British report completely ignores the WHO decision (IRAC) that RF EMR is a 2B carcinogen although in the area of cancer research an IRAC decision is the ‘golden standard’. Worse, the declaration claimed that it is the most comprehensive review of studies from 2003. What the declaration failed to mention, is that probably with intent it omitted from the list of studies it reviewed those that did find that EMR of RF/MW does cause cancer. For example, Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski, who is one of the world leading scientists on the topic, published between 2003 and 2010 seven research papers that found damage. It was understandable if one or two of his research papers would not have been included in the report, but all of them??? A review of the list of studies examined by the report show that this claim is true as to many other researchers and studies that found damage. If you ignore the proofs, obviously you would not find proofs!

The Government expert Dr. Sigal Sadetzki

32.   The government continues to use Dr. Sadetzki as the sole expert, while she consistently ignores established adverse health effects of EMR except cancer (and focuses on brain cancer) and the unavoidable question is why. It would have been prudent to use experts who are able to refer to other damages caused by EMR, established and existing damages, not less severe than cancer as described by Prof. Carpenter. While thousands of research papers indicate that EMR radiation from RF/MW creates adverse health effects almost to every organ and system in the body, Ms. Sadetzky completely ignores them!

Intolerance to EMR and Dr. Sadetzki

33.   Dr. Sadetzki also ignores the existence of a condition called Electromagnetic Intolerance/Hypersensitivity (‘EHS’) - a condition that develops as a result of exposure to EMR. In the past few years, with the increase of the uncontrolled RF/MW radiation, the number of people who suffer from this condition is increasing fast and it is estimated that already 3-8% already suffer from the condition and the numbers are growing fast. Since Sweden, which has a population the size of Israel, recognized the condition, 3% of its population (248,000 individuals) get 100% disability for the condition.

34.   Since Wi-Fi started to be installed in schools many children developed EHS – Following is a link to a TV program from Canada that show children who got EHS from Wi-Fi in school. Before any further decision the committee should watch this program: http://www.youtube.com/safeschool#p/u/3/KN7VetsCR2I/

35.   Denying the existence of EHS by Dr. Sadetzki – recently I was informed that Dr. Sadetzki not only ignores EHS in the public health policy but also denies its existence firmly. This denial unfortunately is not uncommon despite being ignorant and illogical for many reasons as follows:

35.1 Hundreds of research papers referring to the condition have documented this condition for decades – there are over a hundred research papers that document the condition and until the commercialization of this technology there was no dispute as to its existence. In the 50’s it got the name ‘Microwave Sickness’ and there are even warnings of governments that currently ignore the existence of this condition, including warnings of the US government.

35.2 Thousands of studies establish the same symptoms complained by people with EHS – there are thousands of papers which establish that EMR of RF/MW is causing the exact symptoms of which people with EHS complain; some of these manifestations are stated in Prof. Carpenter’s declaration including migraines, sleep problems, memory problems, heart problems, allergies, etc. But while all the symptoms of which people with EHS complain about were established to be a result of EMR, when a person with EHS says he suffers from these exact symptoms, he is being told that it is psychosomatic. It is a logical disconnect (which costs the lives of millions).

35.3 Ignorant reliance on studies with no scientific validity in order to deny EHS – most of those who deny the existence of EHS have interests and it is understandable as admitting the existence of EHS would require far-reaching changes, and admitting the ‘original sin’ of approving this technology as EHS is in a scale of epidemics! Whether because of negligence or intentionally, the ‘deniers’ rely on ridiculous studies that do not have scientific validity, studies that allegedly tested people with EHS.

35.4 The Council of Europe declaration from May 2011 determines that EHS is a real condition that is caused from EMR and is not psychosomatic – Non-biased and independent organizations such as the Council of Europe, an organization which still was not ‘bought’ by the industry and is not directly correlated to governments (which, as explained, cannot afford to admit EHS), after thorough examination of the science, arrived at the unequivocal conclusion that EHS exists and is caused by EMR. The Council of Europe, after examining the science on the topic, declared in 2011 that EHS is a real condition, neither psychosomatic nor mental, and is caused by EMR, and required all countries to establish EMR-free zones for people with EHS (sections 8.1.4, 22. 60): http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc11/EDOC12608.htm

22:            “…A syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields (SIEMF) does exist and that those people are not feigning illness or suffering from psychiatric disorders”

8.1.4         “…introduce special measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network”

35.5 A study by Prof. Andrew Marino proves unequivocally that EHS exists – recently, once again it was proven that if a study is conducted properly, it is even possible to prove not only that EHS exists but also that some people with EHS are indeed a ‘human meter’. Professor Marino is regarded as one of the best scientists in the world on the topic of electromagnetic fields (if not the best). In June 2011 he published a study that he conducted on an emergency room doctor who suffers from EHS, in which he proved that not only she suffers from the condition, but that she can also immediately sense radiation, i.e., she is like a human meter! It is important to note that for a condition to be established, all you need is to prove that one person suffers from the condition, and this paper does prove the existence of EHS. The paper was published in the leading journal in this area, Neuroscience, in which Prof. Marino wrote:

 “EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally inducible neurological syndrome”

One of the leading neurologists in the world, Prof. RAMACHANDRAN, uses in his lectures the following example to explain why one proof is sufficient to prove that something exists and the lack of reasonableness in requiring another proof:

“If I bring a pig…and I say this pig can talk…And I wave my hand and all of a sudden the pig starts talking. What would be your reaction? You would say, My God! You wouldn’t just say show me another pig. And yet, this used to be the reaction of many scientists.”

Many research papers before Marino’s papers already established the existence of EHS and that there are people who are able to immediately sense EMR, including studies by Prof. Olle Johansson from Sweden and Dr. William Rea from the US. But those entrusted with public health continue to ignore EHS and the research papers.

35.6 Research by a Nobel Prize laureate discovered brain damage in people with EHS as a result of the EMR – Only in 2008, after decades of reports about this condition, finally a group of scientists from France did what should have been done long ago – it decided, instead of examining once more whether people with EHS are a human meter, to actually examine what happens in their body. The findings are shocking. The group includes the Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of the HIV, Prof. Luc Montagnier, and Prof. Dominique Belpomme who is the head of the cancer institute in Paris. So far they have examined about 450 people who claimed to be EHS. They discovered that the Blood Brain Barrier in people with EHS is damaged (many studies already showed that the EMR of RF/MW can damage the BBB which prevent from toxins from getting to the brain), damage to brain vessels in the brain, and cause early signs of Alzheimer (yes, EMR causes Alzheimer, not preventing it as the cellular companies tried to claim). 

36.   Prof. Carpenter is convinced about the existence of EHS – Until Marino’s paper Prof. Carpenter was not convinced of EHS; however, he always responsibly declared that while he is not completely convinced about the existence of EHS, he cannot ignore the fact that millions of people around the world are complaining of the same symptoms and therefore we should all be cautious. Since Marino’s study, Prof. Carpenter no longer has any doubt in the existence of EHS (and no one should have any such doubt!). He also stated that, to his opinion, even radiation from ‘Smart Meters’ (a disturbing issue by itself), which emit much lower EMR than Wi-Fi, can cause EHS, but the State of Israel is forcing smart meters and dangerous radiation on people in their own homes. How much longer would we continue to bury our head in the sand?

37.   Sadetzki ignores the facts and refused to meet EHS people- Despite the above, Sadetzki continues to ignore the existence of EHS, ignores the facts, and continues to deny EHS. A few times she was offered to meet with people who suffer from EHS in Israel but refused to do so and, to the best of my knowledge, so far she did not meet with them, although her duties as a public health official requires her to do so.

38.   Responsible public health policy demands considering EHS – Even if in spite of the definite established proves of EHS, Sadetzki does not believe EHS (although it is not a matter of belief but of facts), history and the precautionary principles which she often quotes require also cautiousness in regard to her approach of EHS. After all, it is possible that she is wrong (even if she thinks it is a remote option), just like those who mocked the 2011 Israeli Nobel Prize winner Dan Shechtman. After all, there are millions who complain about exactly the same symptoms. Even in applying the precautionary principle, as the person in charge of the Government policy on EMR, she should have led a policy that takes under consideration that she may be wrong. But Sadetzki thinks otherwise, or at least this is what her actions suggest.

39.   To summarize, despite the established evidence of EHS, Sadetzki, without meeting people with EHS, in violation of her public responsibility and while recklessly endangering the health of the children in Israel (and the adult population), does not take any action to examine the issue of EHS, to warn the public, to inform doctors, and to protect people with EHS and prevent unwarranted radiation such as preventing the installation of Wi-Fi in schools.

40.   Ignoring a problem is the surest way to increase its scale! For an Israeli website on EHS: www.norad4u.co.il.

Issues to which a written response is required

41.   There is no safe radiation- How can the State prove what is a safe level of radiation- I ask to receive a proof that the existing safety standards as determined by the 2006 Act are indeed safe. What research paper determined that any radiation is safe? How many people who suffer from EHS did the State examine before determining that EMR is safe?

42.   What is the difference between EMR and smoking as both create passive risks – While there is a policy not to allow smoking in schools, why is the approach regarding radiation from cell phones and Wi-Fi different?

43.   Does the government intend to conduct periodic health examinations in children to detect potential health changes as a result of Wi-Fi installation?

44.   Does the government intend to get parental consent for the exposure to EMR from Wi-Fi – If the Israeli government is unable to determine a policy and while it forces involuntary radiation on children in schools, it is at least required that a parental consent would be received from every parent to allow exposing children to EMR. It is proper to demand that the letter to parents would include all the potential adverse health effects of EMR and that it would be clear that objection by one parent would be sufficient to prevent the installation of Wi-Fi. Furthermore, considering new children are joining the school every school, the school would have to receive parental consent every year. 

45.   Do the government and schools have insurance against EMR damage? – Are the government and the schools insured against long-term effects of EMR from cell phones and Wi-Fi? If they do, we ask to be provided with the insurance policy. And if not, as long as no proper insurance is in place, the government should not allow the use of cell phones and Wi-Fi in schools. To the best of my knowledge, the government so far has not even received the insurance policy from the cell phone companies, insurance that they were supposed to already provide 20 years ago as part of the franchise agreement…

46.   Does Dr. Sadetzki have conflict of interests? – Considering Dr. Sadetzki is the only expert used by the Israeli government, the Health Ministry and the committee, I ask to receive a proof that Dr. Sadetzki does not have conflict of interests. I ask to receive the list of the providers of all her grants, past and present.

47.   The alleged ‘precautionary principle-based policy – I would like to be explained how come the committee claims policy which is based on the precautionary principle while no policy is being established.

48.   Has the government created financial risk analysis of the potential costs of the EMR damage? – Are the potential costs higher or lower than the costs of installing wired internet? I ask to receive any document that was prepared by the government as to the potential costs of adverse health effects of the EMR.

49.   I ask to be provided with elaborate written response to each and every claim raised by Prof. Carpenter.

Summary

50.   Ignoring the facts does not change them and the above proved that EMR is dangerous and should be banned!

51.   A precautionary principle-based policy requires policy not words.

52.   Determining policy requires public officials who are capable of making courageous decisions, not people who are afraid of making decisions.

53.   If the committee members are unable to determine a policy they should be replaced.

54.   The legal duty and job of the MOE and the MOH is to determine policy for the principals, not letting the principals decide policy and health matters. The principals are not policy makers but rather executers of policy!

55.   A proper exercise of precautionary principle-based policy is to ban cell phones in schools.

56.   A proper exercise of a precautionary principle based policy demands banning of Wi-Fi in schools, not a recommendation.

57.   A proper precautionary principle-based policy demands 0 radiation until radiation would be proven as safe and not the other way around – exposure until radiation is proven as unsafe (which was already established more than 10,000 times and cost the life of millions!).

58.   The sad reality that other countries are also reckless does not provide a justification or decrease the responsibility of the State of Israel to protect its children and the rest of its population!

59.   The committee report is reckless and ridiculous and provides yet another pathetic evidence of the lack of proper administration of the government and its reckless disregard to the health of its citizens and children!

60.   I would like to remind you of what the Cell Phone companies association stated in a safety hearing in California regarding the safety of cell phones:

Let me be very clear. The Industry has NOT said

once, ONCE, that cell phones are safe

If the cell phones companies themselves admit that cell phones are not safe, and research papers establish that they adversely affect health, how come the government does not take immediate actions to inform the public, to significantly minimize the use of cell phones and immediately ban the use of wireless internet networks?

The only decision that would exercise prudent policy, a decision that would not violate the law and the responsibility of the government, is a categorical decision to ban Wi-Fi in schools, and to forbid bringing cell phones to schools, as Prof. Carpenter summarizes his declaration:

“WI-FI MUST BE BANNED FROM SCHOOL DEPLOYMENT!”

61.   It is clear that anyone who truly understands the science on the topic and who does not have any hidden interests and understands what public responsibility entails, would agree with this determination, as the Council of Europe determined in its report from 2011, in section 8.2.3 (link to the report see above section 32.4):

“Ban all mobile phones, DECT phones or WiFi or WLAN systems from classrooms and schools”

Sincerely,

Dafna Tachover, Esq.

About the writer of this document: Dafna Tachover is an attorney in Israel and NY and has MBA. 3 years ago she started suffering from EHS after years of massive use of wireless/cellular technology. Currently she is working to ensure basic human rights for people who got injured by EMR and to increase awareness to the adverse health effects of EMR.