Israeli Wi-Fi In Schools Case Update – 1.27.14

Israeli Wi-Fi In Schools Case Update – 1.27.14

Background

As mentioned in the past couple of updates, on 7.18.13, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the Gov the following: (1) To provide data as to how many schools have wi-fi as opposed to wired networks (2) to check how many children suffer from EHS and/or to explain what action the Gov took, if at all, to check (3) to submit an affidavit regarding their EHS reply.

On 11.19.13, the Gov submitted its response to the Court order as follows: It reported that (1) 75% of schools have wi-fi (2) They did not conduct an inquiry as to EHS, claimed that they could not conduct one and  submitted a shameful letter (instead of an affidavit) from Dr. Sadetzki from the Ministry of Health (who is also oddly (?) on Devra Davis’ EHT Scientific Advisory Board), denying the correlation between EHS and radiation, saying that they adopted the WHO position. The letter was not supported by any evidence and clearly indicated that Dr. Sadetzki is knowingly misleading the Court.

My Submissions

On 1.1.14, I submitted my response to the Gov’s update. The response was 85 pages and included 80 appendices. However, and unfortunately, on 1.6.14, the Chief Justice ordered that I shorten my response to 20 pages. On 1.16.14, I submitted a motion asking the Court to reconsider its decision but it was rejected. On 1.27.14, I submitted my shortened and final response.

Amir Borenstein (www.norad4u.com), who has been working with me on the lawsuit, and I, believe the response to be very thorough. We gathered very strong evidence both on the issue of the wi-fi deployment by the Ministry of Education and on the EHS. The response and the evidence we gathered are the result of amazing work by so many people, Israeli and international experts and parents who worked tirelessly.

The essentials of the claims are as follows:

Regarding the Wi-Fi Deployment:

1. We argued that the data provided by the Gov. admitting 75% of schools have wi-fi, proves our contention that the Gov.’s alleged declaration that its policy is that ‘wired networks should be preferred’ is a sham and that it has been knowingly misleading the court as to its real policy.
    
2. In July, the Court gave the Ministry of Education (‘MoE’) 4 months to prove enforcement of its July 2013 Decree which stipulates that schools should prefer wired networks. In its response, the Gov. made the excuse that it would start enforcement in “the second half of the year”. We argued that this is another lie.
    
3. We provided the court with strong evidence that the MoE is actually preventing the replacement of Wi-Fi with wired networks where Wi-Fi already exists, and that in schools where no network was installed yet, it is actually taking active measures to ensure that Wi-Fi will be installed, contrary to its alleged declared policy.
    
4. For example, we provided a letter (‘the letter’) sent by the MoE to a mother, in which it tried to convince her that wired networks create a safety hazard and explained that the July Decree is merely a recommendation. To remove any doubt, we provided an expert opinion that wired networks can be installed safely and conveniently in every classroom.
    
5. The letter tried to “appease” any worries the mother expressed as to health concerns and it mentions that “the radiation measurements are showing almost no radiation at all”. To contradict this argument, we have submitted an expert opinion proving that the radiation testing conducted in the schools is a joke. We showed that the testers use antennas which do not measure the Wi-Fi, as the antennas that were used are measuring up to 3GHz while Wi-Fi uses frequencies up to 5GHz. We also proved several other problems and indicated that if the testing were done properly, the radiation levels found would have been 200-1000 times higher.
    
6. We also referred to a quote that Dr. Sigal Sadetzki made to a Parliamentary Committee, saying that “there is no research on Wi-Fi”. We provided the court with a list of 15 research papers proving various forms of biological harm. We also provided more proof of the damage it causes, including.., a patent request filed by Swisscom (the Swiss cell phone company which is owned by the Swiss Gov.), in which it admits that wi-fi routers have significant impact on the body and that non-thermal effects, including DNA damage, have been proven.
    
7. The letter says that the actions of the MoE are perpetrated with the approval of the Ministry of Environmental Protection (‘MoEP’), which in Israel is responsible for setting up the safety standards of EMF and is also a respondent in the case. However, we proved it is yet another lie and countered provided the Court with a letter from the Head of the Non-Ionizing Radiation Department in the MoEP that the Ministry objects the installation of Wi-Fi in Schools.
    
8. We also provided much evidence of the shameless aggressiveness of the MoE and the Municipalities towards parents who demanded the enforcement of the July Decree and the replacement of Wi-Fi with wired networks.
    

Regarding  EHS and Sadetzki’s Letter:

 

1. We argued that the Gov. failed to comply with the all of the Court’s Orders regarding EHS. The Gov. did not check how many children suffer from EHS, and it did not provide an affidavit regarding the issue but a shameful and misleading letter by Dr. Sadetski. We argued that the Gov. went back on its previous admission regarding the correlation of EHS to radiation and the reason is that now, following the Court order the Gov was cornered and finding children with EHS will expose it to tort action and essentially will be admission of the harms of wireless technology and the Gov ongoing negligent policy.
    
2. While the Gov did not conduct an inquiry as to how many children suffer from EHS, we conducted an inquiry in one school as an example. In that school, David Yalin in Tel-Aviv, we found 6 children with EHS, out of which 3 were in the same class. We had a list of 15 more children in that school who suffered from symptoms but we did not have sufficient time to confirm whether or not their symptoms were caused by radiation. Essentially, the findings from this school support the contention that EHS is an epidemic.
    
3. We also presented the court with 12 affidavits from parents of children with EHS and one letter from a child who is in the 11^th grade. We also showed that while in previous declaration the Gov. stated that if there be a child who ‘suffers from RF sensitivity’ measures will be taken in the school to eliminate exposure, in effect these children are being mocked by teachers, the schools principles take no action and letters to the Minister received no response. Based on these affidavits and inaction by the Gov. to protect these children, we requested an immediate Order for the protection of these children. We did not exposed the names of the parents and children and explained that it was a condition by the parents considering the disturbing approach presented in Dr. Sadetzki’s letter.
    
4. We attacked Dr. Sadetski’s credibility. We claimed that she intentionally submitted a letter and not an affidavit , as she very well knows her claims to be false and/or ignorant. We showed that she mislead in a scientific paper, the Interphone Study,  when she and her fellow scientists published results which indicate an increased risk of cancer, which was 50% lower than the risk which was actually found. We also provided evidence of other preposterous and/or ignorant claims made by her and showed that she is consistently misleading the public regarding the harms of EMF’s and preventing data of harms from being found. Every claim was supported with evidence.
    
5. We contradicted every claim on EHS that Dr. Sadetski put forward and provided 5 expert opinions including some from experts who combined, tested about 1,000 EHS people as well as research to prove the claims.
    
   1. General comments about Sadetzki’s letter - Instead of providing the rate of EHS, she said that the surveys differs from one another and are inconclusive. We claimed that she purposely does not provide the specific numbers as the existing surveys indicate an epidemic in the making , a rate of 5-10%. With regard to Israel, we emphasized that it was her responsibility to check but she purposely avoided the issue. We brought a quote of her saying “there is no time and money” and we wrote that while she does not have time and money to conduct an inquiry regarding what seems to be an epidemic, she does have time and money from the industry to research cancer with very negligible prevalence.
       
   2. Sadetski’s claims that the symptoms are non-specific to weaken the correlation to radiation and to hint that maybe people with EHS are really suffering from a psychological condition. We showed that the symptoms may be varied but they are specific – they indicate a problem with the nervous system.
       
   3. Sadetski claimed that “most research indicates people with EHS cannot detect radiation” and went on to emphasized that these papers were conducted in controlled lab settings. We argued that (1) Sadetski on purpose did not provide any reference as she is well aware that most provocation studies to which she vaguely refers are unworthy. (2) She probably did not count the papers but rather relied on Rubin’s paper from 2005, a paper which he republished with small changes in 2010 & 2012. (3) We proved that his paper from 2005 was “ordered” by the industry for the purpose of the 2005 decision on EHS in the WHO. We showed that the paper was funded by an organization which is funded by the industry and in which the notorious Dr. Rapacholi was a director. (4) We showed that in many of these papers there is a difference between their conclusions and the actual data found. For example - inside Rubin’s 2005 paper he admits some EHS people were able to detect EMF reliably and therefore his conclusion is a misrepresentation. We gave more examples (5) We claimed that in many of these papers the research was not done in a controlled environment and when provocation studies are properly done they do show that some people with EHS can detect radiation (Marino’s paper) (6) Not all EHS can detect radiation immediately. (7) We argued that even if only a minority of the papers indicate people with EHS can detect EMF, it is sufficient to prove the correlation between EHS and  radiation as no one can claim that a person who can detect radiation is not EHS
       
   4. Dr. Sadetzki ignored Physiological Studies which prove the existence of the condition and its correlation to radiation, studies which are much more worthy than provocation studies when deciding or rejecting the existence of a condition. We claimed she ignored (1) hundreds of research papers proving that the symptoms the people with EHS complain of, can be caused by radiation (2) dozens of papers from before the commercialization of wireless technology (3) we quoted current direct research on EHS such as the papers by Von-Klitzing, Belpomme, and Landgrebe.
       
   5. Sadetzki’s suggested treatment of EHS - Sadetzki declared that in the treatment of EHS, doctors should eliminate various potential causes and treat the symptoms. She completely ignored the potential cause of radiation and we claimed that such an approach is unethical and can amount to medical negligence. For example, it is outrageous to give a child with EHS a psychiatric medication such as Ritalin when turning off the Wi-Fi will stop the problem!
       
   6. Dr. Sadetzki claimed there are no diagnostic criteria. As mentioned above, we provided a few physiological criteria including the 3 found recently by Prof. Von-Klitzing which showed changes in: (1) Changes to the Heart rate variability; (2) Changes in the capillary blood flow changes; and (3) Changes in the electric skin potentials. We also claimed that even if there was no criterion, the condition can be diagnosed using the most basic medical diagnostic tool – the ability of the patient to correlate between cause and effect as the Austrian Medical Guidelines Indicate.
       
   7. Sadetski and the attorney irresponsibly and without any evidence suggested it may be a psychological condition. We claimed that this claim is particularly disturbing and ridiculous. In addition to the data provided in previous responses and in this response, which prove EHS is caused by radiation, as mentioned above, we provided further evidence including (1) reference to the German Gov research which attempted to prove the condition is psychological and proved the opposite (2) We showed that the treatment of EHS with psychiatric medication either did not help and/or exacerbated the symptoms which is evidence that the condition is not psychiatric
       
   8. Sadetzki’s adoption of the WHO decision on EHS from 2005 – while Sadetzki declared that she adopts the decision, we argued that blind reliance on the WHO is absurd (1) The WHO repeatedly proved itself to be a problematic organization which is influenced by the industry (2) There is much corruption regarding the radiation policy and the existence of 2 current contradictory decisions in the WHO – one of IARC classification of 2B and the other, the adoption of the thermal standard by the Radiation Department - are yet another proof  (3) This corruption extends to the decision on EHS. We claimed that the decision was not an honest examination of the topic but a pre-orchestrated decision by the industry, including the Rubin’s paper and the reliance on other ridiculous ‘science’ while ignoring proper scientific and human evidence. (4) In any case, the decision is anachronistic (5) Sadetski unreasonably ignored other international decisions, more recent and noteworthy such as the European Parliament’s decision from 2009 and the Council of Europe decision from 2011.
   
   
   
   

   What Next  

1. In the decision of 7.18.13, the Court indicated that after this round, it intends to reach a decision. We have no ability to estimate how long it will be until a decision is reached. We hope the Court will rule quickly and in our favor especially as we proved that so many children are already sick.  We are concluding this case feeling that we did all that was possible to do and that we gave the Court every proof needed to reach a favorable decision. We are hopeful.
    
2. An anecdote – when my father went to the Supreme Court to submit the paper, the Head of the Submissions Department told him that following my case they have moved all the printers and copiers away, to reduce the EMF’s…I hope that the Judges, not just the employees of the Court will take the issue into heart!