Generation Zapped - Full Show HD *Read Info* - MRR

Video Transcript:

Hello, everyone. I'm from your telephone company. The telephone. The greatest advancement in human communication since the printing press. Is proliferation throughout society spurred innovation, created jobs, helped grow the economy, and brought people closer together. Can you bring me my chap stick? But it wasn't without its flaws. You usually had to be stuck in one place in order to use one. Give me a setback! No! Stop it! Whoa! Oh! What the? Which could be frustrating. Fucking fucking! If only you could go wherever you wanted while talking on the phone. Those who thought that getting a car phone wasn't for them weren't keeping up with the booming industry of cellular radio telephone. Wireless technology and devices have forever changed how we communicate with family and close friends. In the US, the wireless industry is responsible for 3.8 million jobs and generates over 146.2 billion annually. In the United States alone, there are over 200 million cell phones in this. Globally, this figure stands at 4.77 billion and is expected to reach 6.1 billion by 2020. Prior to 1984, wireless technology was only used in the military. And in 1984 was the first move to take wireless technology into the consumer environment. Cell phones, at the time, they were excluded from any pre-market testing. So they aim onto the market without any safety testing at all. When we evolved on the planet, there was no microwave radiation, other than this infinitesimal amount. And what we have added today is a billion times more microwave radiation. Our bodies didn't evolve with it and we have no protection against it. So it's invisible, but it's a very real environmental pollutant. EMF or electromagnetic fields are invisible forms of energy, often referred to as radiation. They are associated with use of electrical power and various technologies, including wireless devices. We are electrical in nature. We are made of the same stuff as everything else. We are made of atoms. And atoms are made of electrons, which are negatively charged, protons that are positively charged. And we react to electromagnetic fields. So it's not surprising that we respond to all kinds of things. So there's various kinds of radiation. One of the distinctions that's made is between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation. That distinction reflects the energy that the radiation delivers. And whether it breaks up molecules as it passes through tissues. The electromagnetic spectrum measures different levels of radiation. Non-ionizing radiation emits lower energy. The higher the energy, the more dangerous it becomes for our health. Most people are able to tolerate lower energy fields, such as AMFM radio, for example. Why are these technologies emits non-ionizing radiation known as radio frequencies? Regulatory agencies consider these emissions safe for short periods of time. But increased exposure could have dangerous biological effects. The light from the sun causes sunburn or skin cancer in some. Over exposure to x-rays and cosmic rays are dangerous. Where there's scientific uncertainty and a need for research is how non-ionizing radiation might cause some of the diseases that are concerned some of the diseases. We've seen that pretty epidemiologically. So yes, we know that there's a potential to heat. And then there are questions about whether there are other potential mechanisms. As a society, we are very fond of things that make life easier or more enjoyable. Anything that provides release from the stress of everyday life. But history has shown our enjoyment and our dependence on these things can blind us to their adverse effects and influence us to ignore obvious warning signs. Today scientists have not found any substance as contained in smoke. That is known to be responsible for human disease. What cigarette do you smoke, Dr? The smoking was a major factor. Could where you carry your cell phone make you sick? Some doctors say they're seeing evidence of cancer that could be linked to mobile phones. It's convenient, say many young women. That's probably the most convenient place to put it, especially when you go out and you put your money on one breast and your phone and the other. If I'm wearing a dress ever, I usually just slip it like in the straps or down in the center. I used to carry my cell phone and my bra when I used a Bluetooth headset because the connection was poor. Otherwise it was anything further away. It would just wouldn't work well. I don't have a family history of cancer and so cancer was nowhere in the radar as far as something I thought that I would ever have to deal with in my life. I was diagnosed with breast cancer and they found five tumors pretty much in the footprint of where the phone used to sit right in this kind of set of area of my chest. The morning of my mammogram and ultrasound, my husband and I were trying to locate the lump. We were going to mark it with a sharpie so that it would be easy to point out to the person who's going to do the testing. I pointed at one spot and he said, and then he was trying to feel it. He said, no, no, it's right here. No, I said this right here. Not realizing at the time that we actually found another one that morning. And here we were arguing that morning because he said, no, no, this is it. And he was arguing that was it. And we actually come to find out that morning we actually discovered another one. I'm not the kind of person that's an advocate for these unusual problems. I don't go into crazy diets. I don't worry about the environment as maybe as much as I should. I really am a focused physician. But when Donna came in with her case, it kind of opened my mind. It didn't convince me there was a problem. But I remember sitting very clearly looking at her slides with a pathologist. And I said, well, how many tumors are there in this brush? She said, well, there's basically three dominant tumors. It wasn't until we looked at her mastectomy specimen under the microscope and saw what wasn't just a single cancer, but it was multiple cancers. But it was very extensive and a very unusual pattern. And that's when it clicked with me. I said, you know, I don't remember saying that pattern anybody before. And I remember her saying she worried about her cell phone. Could there be a connection? The best evidence that we have for an adverse effect of RF is an increase in the frequency of cancer. The wireless industry denies there's a problem, citing a lack of scientific evidence that cell phones cause breast cancer. There is no evidence, but that's because we haven't studied it. Until further data either supports it or disproves it, I would keep cell phones away from the body and in particular the breasts. We have cancer registries in place that quite carefully track new cancers among children and adults. They work with the hospitals, the clinics, the pathologists to identify each new case. And this is to help us understand how much cancer there is, what kinds there are, and what directions the rate to go. Are they going up or down? The question comes up, how long would it take to prove that cell phones could cause based on the way we figured out smoking caused lung cancer? And there's no database. All this stuff takes years to accumulate. The doctors by and large aren't asking patients, did you put your cell phone in your bra? Yes, a few over the morning I've had phone calls and I've had patients come to me because their doctor made the connection. So it is happening, but it's not like with lung cancer. I think it may take longer for cell phones to accumulate enough data to really prove it's a risk factor for breast cancer. How is it that wireless devices in Wi-Fi have been able to permeate our daily lives over the last 20 years without the public being made aware of the associated dangers? So back in 1984, the two key agencies were the FDA for the devices and the EPA for the infrastructure. The FDA, or Food and Drug Administration, was established to protect and promote public health through the regulation of the food, tobacco, veterinary, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical industries. The EPA, or Environmental Protection Agency, was created for the purpose of protecting human health in the environment by writing and enforcing regulations. Neither agency had any previous experience with the regulation or safety testing of new technology. Both of those agencies preempted either pre-market testing or post-market surveillance because at the time it was felt that the power was so low for cell phone transmissions that there could not be heating and without heating there could not be health effects. My name is Jamie. I'm from Los Angeles, California. I'm a photographer, and I'm electro-sensitive. I'm going to turn this off. This is a kill switch because it's an electric stove and most things electric triggers me, so even making something simple and boring. Like, Ksidia, is on it? No. Electro-hypersensitivity, or electro-sensitivity, is the sensitivity to electromagnetic fields in the environment. I think when cell phones first came out, we'd have the birdie feeling, the hot-year syndrome, kind of a headache, but didn't think anything about it because we were all told they were awesome and safe. Another aha moment was when we had wireless, just watching movies on the laptop, the symptoms would start headache, brain fog, itchy eyes. I just thought maybe I'm staring at the screen too long. I would get a zinc when we drive up and down the 405 every time, especially this tower close to our on-round. I would get a zinc, it's like a burning feeling. Electro-hypersensitivity, or EHS, is currently not a recognized medical diagnosis. Experts are still divided as to its validity, and the World Health Organization claims there is no diagnostic criteria to link EHS to exposure to electromagnetic fields or microwave radiation. I was diagnosed with EHS in 2011. I became electro-mech-deply hypersensitiv in 2009. There are many symptoms, but when I'm in a high EMF environment or in a place with a strong Wi-Fi, first it starts off with the burning sensation of my forehead. Dizziness, fatigue, pain in the back of my head. Right in my neck and a headache. And my muscles start pulsing as I breathe. I feel like I'm going to throw up. Heart palpitations, breathlessness, feeling faint. I left my home for three weeks and I didn't have a headache the entire time I was gone. I came back into my house. My headache is hurting. My whole face is getting a little bit of stress. My co-ing for radiation is the ultimate pollutant. You can't see it, you can't smell it, you can't hear it, but you can feel it. Electro-sensitivity is something that people have started to describe in recent years. And there are very few studies of it. Let's put it that way. But a study was done at the University of Texas by Dr. Rhea, where he had people in a room and actually exposed them to radio frequency signal. And he was able to show bonafide cases where people could identify correctly when the field was on and when the field was not on. If there was somebody that was questioning whether this is psychological or biological, I'd just say come live with somebody who's sensitive, it's not even that he's thinking about it and then starts to fill ill. He'll start to fill ill and then will notice, okay, something's off. I think a lot of people are having these types of symptoms and have no idea what's causing it. There are so few physicians that deal with any of these issues and most of them are very expensive. But those are the people that even know what's causing their problems. And there's a lot of people who, when they even do figure it out, those around them are skeptical and so they don't have the support. Now what's the difference between me and somebody who's electro-sensitivity? My body was able to adapt. Why? Well, there are genetic reasons, there are epigenetic reasons. So when you put adaptation into the equation, now it's even more complicated because the signals don't affect everybody the same way. I'm here in Brussels to attend conference on electrical hypersensitivity. And the reason that we're holding this conference is because there are so many people suffering from environmental illness. And it's important to get the scientific community together with the medical community so that we can help people recover from electrical hypersensitivity. My background is as a neuroscientist, I've studied a central ampere from the nervous system. We had struggled for many years to get some formal ponds through the lab. And the person with electro hypersensitivity was what is he or she? This Congress is trying to raise awareness among healthcare practitioners because so few of them recognize environmental sensitivities. And very often people are misdiagnosed as having psychological problems rather than physiological responses. If I ask you how much more such radiation does penetrate your body today compared to like 10 years ago, is it twice as much? Three times as much. Now it's a quintillion times more. That's a one with 18 seros. We've been looking for a house on and off for like 60 years now. And because of Jamie's electro sensitivity and other health issues, it's very difficult to find a house. The house had been up for sale for a few weeks and it hadn't even occurred to me to look because it had been so difficult to find a house. But I thought, you know, we should just look at it anyway. And Jamie walked in and said, wow, this is really great. I can live here. Which is a big, which says a lot. Like that doesn't happen ever. I walked in, I usually within half a second know, yes or no. So we had just put an offer on the house and Jamie told me that 70 foot monopole tower was going to be erected about three blocks away from our house. It's almost impossible for citizens who don't want to tower in their backyard to stop that because the needs of the masses are greater than the needs of the individual. I think it's an interesting area to, for me personally as a doctor, to learn more about the electro sensitive syndrome. And I would hope that there would be criteria for the diagnosis which we don't have today. My hope is that this should be recognized as a medical disorder and as such get an international code of diseases. That's one thing which is urgent. The other thing is to come up with some kind of treatment advice because there are different types of treatment. It is recognizable biologically but the information about how to recognize it biologically is not pervaded through the medical literature. There is an increasing body of diagnostic tests and guidelines that can correlate the exposure of a person to radiation and physiological effects quite reliably. You can do a blood test, you can do a urine test, you can measure malindialdehyde, lipid peroxidation, you can see what's going on with those cells and that is a biological measure that says the person is impaired. Recently, Professor Dominique Bepamp from France tested about 700 people who suffer from electro sensitivity. His study showed severe damage such as damage to the immune system, to the nervous system and established additional biomarkers for the diagnosis of electro sensitivity. I became very involved in the cell phone brain tumor issue in 2008 when my husband was diagnosed with a brain tumor. He had a grandmouse seizure in the middle of the night and was rushed by ambulance to our local hospital. And within an hour they had done a CT scan and they said he had a large mass in his right frontal lobe. He had a weight though about two weeks for surgery and what was really remarkable was that our son had worked for Senator Ted Kennedy. He was an intern for him. We've just learned here in the last hour so that Ted Kennedy has a brain tumor that knew. So my son came in and he said, Mom, I have to talk to you about something that's really bothering me. They think it was his cell phone. And I was just stunned because my husband was a heavy user of a cell phone. He always held it to his right ear and his tumor grew. It was his right frontal lobe. I remember that night I sat up all night long searching the internet and I found all this information that I had no idea existed. And there were studies about it and there were scientists in Sweden and there were other people who were talking about how cell phones were causing brain tumors. They were talking about cell phones and brain cancer. We don't know why they're on for life. Carol Crowe was recently diagnosed with a benign brain tumor. It's in my cell phone area and there are no doctors that will confirm that. There's no way to say that cell phone is a safe. The public generally assumes that if one is selling something on the market that we have had a assurance that it is a bad device is safe. There's truth and there's justice. The science is all about truth. Let's go find the truth of whether or not there's dangers and all of that. That's the truth apart. But the government and regulatory authorities are all about fairness. When cell phones first came into consumer use, the purpose was to carry the signal wirelessly only a little ways. And then to convert the signal to the wired infrastructure that we had on landline, you know, phone lines. But when we began the process of moving to digital signal, we had to have a different kind of infrastructure. So recently in the past year or two, there has been a lot more cell towers popping up and down over the place. So there's the existing one right there, not sure who it is. So there she is right there. Are she glows? In 1985, the total number of cell phone towers in the United States stood at just 900. Today, that figure stands north of 215,000. What ended up happening was that the infrastructure that would be required to deliver, you know, cell phone signals and later Wi-Fi. It had to be spread all across the country and what was called cells. That's why they called them cell phones, by the way. And it looks like a beehive. So that every cell was like one of those little circles in a beehive. And what would happen is that the signal would go to a base station and then as long as you were within the cell on your phone, that cell tower would be handling your call. But as soon as you moved into another cell, it handoffed the signal to the next cell tower. And that required an infrastructure so that there's always a transmission and reception loop between the cell phone and the infrastructure or the closest base station. That's also how the base station knows where you are. If you have good signals in Maryland, but you don't have good signals in Virginia, Maryland would have a commercial advantage in business. It's about fairness. And when you go back to our constitution, the Commerce Clause is one of the big fairness clauses. So it became a federal program to build out the infrastructure. That was the rationale for the federal government being able to come in and in effect in some cases step on the rights of individual citizens in order to build out the infrastructure. It's our system. If you've been following the news, you know a group of Scottsdale parents are upset about plans to put one in operation at Copper Ridge Elementary. The district broke a deal in which Sprint would pay 1200 bucks a month to use that tower. Some parents are worried about health effects on the kids saying the money just isn't worth it. Everyone told us you're not going to win. You're not going to be able to fight us. Nothing you can do. It's done. It's going up. It's happening. And I said to myself, if and when it does go up, I want to be able to look at it and at least say to myself, I tried. We had like 10 days. So that I ran around for a week, a couple hours a night trying to get signatures. And then we got enough to go to City Hall, get our foot in the door. My message was that if the cell towers were not safe enough for the fire department, have them where they live and work, then why is it safe enough to have near 3000 children who go to school and live in the immediate area? That's how it came to pass that we were able to stop the tower. I live and breathe by this technology. I want to watch something while stuck in the car. I want to be able to justify being stuck and trapping and call my mom or grandma on the phone. It's a typical human thing that we have new technology. We get very excited about it. We use it. We push it really far and it has great applications. However, many of those often come with health considerations. And so once those become more evident to the general population, then we hopefully force the government and scientists to come up with a safer way of using that technology. Today our world is being re-made yet again by an information revolution, changing the way we work, the way we live, the way we relate to each other, with a stroke of a pan. Our laws will catch up with our future. In 1995 and 1996, we began the process of a new Telecommunications Act. And the Telecommunications Act now was for the first time written to put the FCC in the role of a policing agency. But the FCC's job as a commission was fair and equitable use of spectrum. The FCC was not a policing agency, had nothing to do with safety, had nothing to do with monitoring. Only to make sure that the different phone companies didn't cheat each other, that's an important point because it was the industry that lobbied to have those changes made. Recognizing the regulatory void that existed, the cellular industry strategically positioned itself to be influential in the kind of research the government would be carrying out on its products. So the wireless industry agreed to put up money from the cell phone industry and an inter-agency working group of the United States government was put in place to oversee the work. That project was called the WTR or Wireless Technology Research. And that's the program that I ran looking into the health effects of wireless technology. This program was put in place under what we would call a regulatory paradigm. Ordinarily, in a regulatory context, new technologies would be tested extensively before they reached the marketplace in order to make sure that they didn't present any dangers to consumers. In the case of cell phones and the wireless industry as a whole, this crucial stage was bypassed. This meant the regulatory agencies were forced to rely on post-market surveillance. It was an argument going on between the EPA and the FDA and the FCC was in the middle of it about the safety standards that should be put in place for analog phones. And that standard was the specific absorption rate. SAR, or specific absorption rate, is a measure of the rate to which energy is absorbed by the body when exposed to cell phone radiation, the smaller the body, the greater the exposed area. But the standard was based on microwave oven studies from the 70s and 80s. It was really not relevant to anything other than heating effects. When they did some safety testing, the device that's had the most testing is probably the mobile phone. It's one of the first devices that emits this kind of radiation. And they built a model called SAM, standing for standard anthropomorphic mannequin. But bizarrely, what they did was SAM was based on the 90th centile of military recruits. So he wasn't representative of a child or even a woman or actually an average man. This guy just his head weighed five kilograms, which is more than some children's entire body. I think the thing that surprised me most and really caught my attention the most, which I hadn't realized, is that the manufacturers actually tell people in the instruction manual, which I'd never read, to put not to put the cell phone against your ear. The advice in the phone tells you to keep it off the body because phones are tested in two positions. They are tested next to the head and next to the body. When they're tested next to the head, they're tested with a spacer. It used to be 10 millimeters away from the head. Now I think it's six, but the point is there's a space between the phone and the head. The industry has succeeded in getting the FCC to accept an approach where the phone is not used like this. And you know that this is exactly how most people use phones. In that time frame in 1995, 1996, it was really the industry that was pushing for the SAR standard. And the reason was because they knew that they could easily meet the SAR standard. If you got into standards that were biologically based, actually looking at health effects and all that stuff, the industry was worried. We do have one finding in experiments that indicates the potential for genetic damage coming from radio frequency radiation, such as that that comes from the phones. And we also have an epidemiological finding of an increased risk of a very rare type of a brain tumor among people who report using cellular phones. We were sort of caught in a difficult place because some of the claims that were being made about health effects were so severe that had there been pre-market testing. Cell phones never would have made it into the marketplace. So what happened was through some lobbying efforts and in the Telecommunication Act when it was finally passed, the EPA's RF program was defunded. We didn't like what they were saying, so let's get rid of them. And that's what happened. People deserve to have the right to know. The industry wants to keep the cat in the bag as long as they possibly can that there is harm. They don't like the word radiation, they don't like the word safety. They're against all of this because they don't want to alarm people and the big thing is they have no liability insurance. By the Lloyds of London or Swiss Auree, the two top insurance companies. The main effect on the insurance industry will concern product liability claims for bodily injury. I'm involved in this issue because I love my husband. Just a few months after Alan had his diagnosis of a brain tumor, I ended up testifying to the United States Congress about it. Today's hearing will examine what science is saying about the potential links between long-term use of cell phones and tumors or other health effects. I see this from the public health perspective as being very, very important that we urgently need more research. We have almost no US-funded research in this area. I'm not a scientist. I'm a human being, a mother, a wife. I do know from my research and from talking with doctors and scientists worldwide that there are major flaws even in this interphone study. I have in front of me something right here that says the interphone studies always find a statistical significant elevated risk. When a cell phone has been used for 10 or more years on the same side of the head where the tumor was found. I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding the lack of correlation here. The FCC is debating the science. And the FCC is a captured agency. They're captured by the telecom industry. There's a revolving door between the telecom industry and the FCC. There's people that have worked at the FCC that now work for the telecom industry. There's people that work for the telecom industry that are now at the FCC. When I myself look at where people go for advice, so where would I go as both a parent and a medical doctor. I look at the World Health Organization, I look at my government and the educational authorities and the groups like the Department of Health. And it's very hard now to find groups who are truly independent. All of these groups receive revenue from the telecom communications industry. The wireless industry spends $100 million a year lobbying the Congress. They have very good access to the FCC. So it's really hard to go up against the power of this industry even when you have the facts on your side. Despite the industry attempts to suppress the findings of the scientific community, scientists continue their pioneering research into the adverse effects from EMF and RF exposures. We're having a serious problem with global fertility reducing. There's evidence now that men who use cell phones, they have deformed sperm, they have sperm that moves much more slowly dies much more quickly. And all of this is going to affect their ability to successfully impregnate their partners. Men who carry their cell phones and their pockets are carrying them right next to their testes and the sperm cells are vulnerable. In autism we see denoval mutations, which is mutations, that the babies have that the parents don't have. That can be caused from genetic damage. There's been a study done in Iceland where historically they have a usually homogeneous population. When many of the people are related so they have similar DNA and when something is bad it'll stick out like a sore thumb. They took, I think, with only 78 children and half of them were autistic. And they analyzed the DNA of the child and the DNA of the mother and the DNA of the father. And they found that they had some mutations in the child that were not present in the parents. And the reason for that is very simple. Girls are born with all their eggs in an ovary so it's pretty much guarded until puberty. The testes are exposed, it turns much more accessible to radiation. And as a result they get irradiated. And the interesting thing is that when a spermatic site gets irradiated it keeps on making sperm cells with the mutations. If there is a genetic change in mutation that modification will be maintained throughout the life of the individual. I am a pediatrician but for the last 10 years I decided to work on epigenetic cancer research. Because in the last 20 years cancer is increasing in children and not only cancer because a lot of chronic diseases are increasing in children. We have an increase in autism. What we are witnessing is a real epidemiological change. Women of reproductive age should be so careful and be able to see the results. And the result is that the genetic change is very important. The result is that the genetic change is very important. The genetic change is very important. Women of reproductive age should be so careful in terms of their exposures because they can influence the health of their child even before they know that they are pregnant. The fetus is programming itself which means that every cell of the fetus is getting information from outside, from the environment, from the mother. All these can make a sort of mismatch in his programming. Of all the stages of life, the fetus is by far the most vulnerable. And that's for multiple reasons. First of all, the fetus is growing cells rapidly. So cells are dividing rapidly. So if there is an exposure, that can influence the fetus and can alter the whole lifespan of the subsequent child. The fetal programming is very important for every tissue and for every organ. The most important thing that we are trying to understand is the way in which the brain is forming in the fetus. When something appears to be caused by an environmental influence, one ought to figure out what it would cost to take care of it or to do something to emigrate its effects. And how it compares to what would happen if we did nothing. And we'd have to do the cleanup work afterwards. And in 2007, we published the first BioInitiative Report. And that report is basically an encyclopedia or a compendium of all the science and public health that comes to bear on the issue of whether EMF and now radio frequency radiation are in fact cancer causing. And are perhaps caused of neurological diseases like Alzheimer's and cognitive problems and developmental problems in children like autism. So scientists decided it was time to counter the industry claims that there is no evidence. Now the thing is it came out and there were obviously there are a number of people who didn't like it because they said, first of all, it's not an authorized group. I don't know what they wanted an authorized group. They want a bunch of fat cats or political characters. These were scientists who were talking about the stuff that they were working on. The BioInitiative has been criticized and it was also considered pretty good. And one of the people considered it pretty good was the European Parliament who used that as a argument for saying that one ought to look at the electromagnetic safety standards. Today's research struggles to keep up with technology as more and more aspects of our daily lives become dependent on wireless devices. This is particularly true for children, many of whom have known nothing else other than the age of smartphones and tablets. A little more than 10 years ago my first grandson was born and when he was nine months of age he could find a cell phone, turn it on and play a game. So I was of course very proud of how smart he was but I began to look into what we know about the developing brain and how it is affected by different things. I'd been a CDC advisor on lead poisoning and I knew that the brain doubled in the first year of life and that we go to great lengths to protect children's brains from lead poisoning. And here we were exposing them to something that had never really been tested. So the more I looked into this the more concerned I became. I found that Sir William Stewart who had been Margaret Thatcher's key advisor on chemical weapons had concluded in a report for the Royal College of Physicians that cell phones should not be used by children aged 16 and younger and that we really did not have adequate safety information. The more research I did it led me to conclude that we really didn't know a lot about this device and it was being proposed and heavily marked. It was a very important thing to do about this. We have a number of barriers in our body to protect important tissues and we have ones in the brain to protect the brain from toxins and bacteria, heavy metals. And what this means is that some of the toxic things that can be transported in blood don't cross into these very sensitive tissues so they have barriers. In the early work with microwaves Alan Fry who was one of the early workers in this area published the paper where he found that when he put a die into the blood shortly after exposure you suddenly found it in the syrufable spinal fluid. Obviously what happened is the blood brain barrier had leaked. The blood brain barrier leakage is apt to be a rather important effect in terms of the pathology that can result from people because if you're going to contaminate the environment of the brain you can expect all kinds of odd things to be happening on exposure to EMF. The exposures from the time you're conceived the things that you get once you're a baby the baby monitors that your parents in all good intention put next to your head which is like living next to a cell tower. I think of autism as an overload of the brain where the genes can set you up whether you fall off the cliff into severe autism whether it's mild autism whether it's sort of behaviorally cognitively challenged. It's a cascade of things that go wrong that pile up and then the brain as I see it reaches a tipping point. The exposures that we now have are unprecedented I remember a life without this kind of radiation but the children that we have now are going to view the internet the way that we view electricity. They'll think that it's just something that of course is okay because they never knew life without it. But in terms of legislation to protect children yeah the level in classrooms in my opinion should be zero. We are the second largest school district in the nation with the demands of the school district and the demands of getting the kids into the 21st century. The school district the Board of Education in particular asked the Office of Environmental Health and Safety to take a look at wireless and all its classrooms. And so the district wanting to move forward with the technology wanting to meet the demands of the state in terms of the testing that needs to be done. We need to look at how we can accomplish that and certainly Wi-Fi is really a good fit and a good answer for it. But again we need to look at that in terms of its safety and a lot of people claim that even at very low levels there are adverse health effects associated with these radio frequency exposures. The recent attempts of various school systems to try and enrich the educational opportunities of the students is sort of leading them into some peculiar blind alleys. The particular concern is when you have a wireless classroom in schools. You have one rotor and you have 20 or 30 kids with a wireless laptop. That is going to be a really hot Wi-Fi environment and those children are going to be exposed to that radio frequency radiation for as long as they're in that classroom. Most of the classrooms were configured in a way where we had longer tables in a classroom. We took some basic information about the devices we were going to buy, the end devices are the tablets or the laptops, the access points or the antennas in the classroom. And you do some calculations based on standard formulas and kind of a model. And basically we took everything that we knew we were going to acquire before we acquired it and we did some calculations to make sure that the levels were low. Typical configuration, we had a number of rectangular tables that were situated across the room. We had students that were located around each one of the tables. The district felt that we should establish our own internal threshold for acceptable exposure. And so what we've done was we've looked at the available research and the district has set a threshold of acceptable exposure at 10,000 times lower than the current FCC standards. 25 years ago when the FCC standards were adopted for thermal effects, we didn't have all of these wireless devices. And the impacts on health were an epidemiologically visible which they are today. These are cell level effects. These are effects on your DNA. They got nothing to do with the level of power. You know, how much punch we're packing to actually heat up a piece of tissue. And this is the part that the FCC won't admit. The standards that we should have are standards that take into account non-thermal low intensity effects at 10,000, 10,000, 100,000 times lower. So the phase one of our program rolled out a number of schools received these end devices, access points were installed and students began to use them. So what we did was we actually went into the field and we actually took measurements in the classroom. Initially we would walk through here, getting readings from both sides. We do on the outside the same, we do on the backside the same. And here to get a general feeling of the overall ambient. We focus on the router that is on the ceiling, but we're forgetting to think about all of these 25 additive energy producers in the room. Far exceeds the amount of energy being produced by that single wireless router that's on the ceiling. One piece of this is particularly important and that is of the tablet itself. These tablets are extremely high radio frequency emitters. They have either three or four or five antennas built into the areas where you can hold one. When I looked at the Apple user's guide and if you take the time to scroll through it and you look at radio frequency radiation issues, there's a paragraph that will light your hair on fire because it says. A small percentage of people may be susceptible to blackouts or seizures discontinue use of iPad and consult a physician. If you experience headaches, blackouts, seizures, convulsion, eye or muscle twitching, loss of awareness, involuntary movements or disorientation. They test these devices and the FCC receives information. There's a number of different tests that they do. And we found the higher concentrations of the higher field strengths were located when we put the probe located right here in the center. And this seemed to produce some of the higher field strengths right at task level in the center of all of these devices being used. We've got an analogy of a classroom being the inside of a microwave oven. Set it very low power. Children are exposed to that Wi-Fi radiation, six hours every school day, five days a week and for several months during the year. It's 13 years of school. It's a very disturbing trend that we're setting up by irradiating some of the youngest and most vulnerable people in our population. Most parents are oblivious to this whole issue. They think Wi-Fi in schools is the greatest thing since sliced bread because they have no understanding of the concern. The parents of a 12 year old student are suing the phase school in Southboro, claiming the private schools Wi-Fi made him ill. They say he has electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome and radio frequency emissions from the school's strong wireless network has triggered headaches, nose bleeds and nausea. I used to be the Ashland Education Foundation president and I ran seven different campaigns to bring technology into Ashland Public Schools over the years. We have something in Ashland Public Schools called best practices for mobile devices. In our classrooms, when we're not using the Wi-Fi, we should be turning it off. And when we are not using devices actively, then we should be turning them off. We are the first public school district in the nation to address this. It's fascinating when you look at what's happening with school systems around the world. In France, they had some of the first adopters of Wi-Fi. Now they're recognizing that the Wi-Fi is potentially harmful to school children, so they're getting rid of it in elementary schools. I think the European Union, I think other countries, Canada and Sweden and others have different approaches to control of wireless technology. And that's certainly their prerogative. If it's just because you don't want any Wi-Fi or radio frequencies, well then yeah, that's what you do. If that's their threshold of none, well then that's their threshold of none. It's particularly tragic because a wired computer classroom will not expose your child to radio frequency radiation. People have brought this to our attention. They've recommended that a wired technology, fiber optic for example, is certainly a better way to go and might even be more reliable. And we understand that. But the district, because of what's happened in 2009 moving forward to today, with the requirements under the Common Core program, the testing, and the sheer number of schools and classrooms, to actually meet the timeline and actually go ahead and put 30 drops in an individual. Classroom is an unbelievable daunting task and I don't think logistically possible. While hard-wired classrooms would greatly reduce children's exposure to radio frequencies, there's still a growing concern that children are spending too much time on their screen. The American Academy of Pediatrics, their guidelines are no more than one to two hours of screen time a day. For kids under three, zero hours. So I think we need to look at how much of that is interactive screen time and how much is at school and how much is at home. Kids become addicted to their signals. You know, you can go into a nice restaurant and there are four people sitting at a table and they're all doing this. Not even interacting with each other. And there's been such a change in the way people interact with each other. It's all about them. And it's not just because of Facebook. It's all about this is more important than interacting with you. From a psychological point of view, from a development point of view, those things are important. To be able to focus, to be able to remember things, to link complex thought, to track somebody's facial emotion as it has subtle shifts. All of these things require incredibly high levels of subtle coordinated brain function. That general concept, to me, is what links the various brain problems that people are facing, ranging from Alzheimer's. Alzheimer's, where you can't remember, to attention deficit, where you can't focus, to behavioral dysregulation, where little things tend to flying off in one direction or another. When you look at all of these at the chemical level, you see varying degrees of severity, of depletion, of protective substances like glutathione in the brain. And you see brain wave changes. In addition to that, there's a few things with electronics that seem to impact sleep. The first is the screen itself. The light from the screen tends to be a bluish or whitish tone, and that mimics daylight, and the brain thinks it needs to be alert. When that happens, melatonin, which is the sleep signal, gets suppressed for several hours. So even 10 minutes or so, a screen time in or evening will suppress melatonin. When melatonin's suppressed, we don't get the benefit of it fighting inflammation in the brain. And we know that kids with ADHD, they have abnormally low melatonin to begin with. There has been a 53% increase in the past decade. In all 11% of kids have been diagnosed with the disorder, and approximately two thirds are being treated with medications like ridillin and adorol. On the surface, the answer would appear simple. Monitor your child's screen time, and limit their exposure to wireless technology. But the reality is that taking away their devices may not be enough. Smart meters are the new or newer meters that are replacing the analog meters on your home, electric meters and gas meters. It uses electromagnetic frequency to send DTE information about power use. This gets rid of the need for meter readers and notifies the power company about outages. But some say such meters are making them sick. Many people who are perfectly fine, prior to the installation of smart meter, that thing goes into their house. They can't sleep. They have headaches. They have depression. And it's coincident with the going end of the smart meter. This is similar to the radiation debate over cell phones and cancer, right? Yes. This is very similar to that debate, and that it's the same kind of radiation in the research into its safety is not conclusive. But here's the big difference. You can choose how often you use your cell phone, right? But with smart meters, you don't have a choice. The frequency with which you are exposed to this radiation is determined by the power company. We're confident in the specs of our meters, and the safety of the meters at this point. What PEPKET says is happening is that these smart meters send out communications every four to six hours on a daily basis. But what we're seeing is that these smart meters communicate about four to six times a minute, if not more. When we lived in Lafayette years ago, it was one of the first areas of deployment of the smart meters. And I absolutely did not want one because I knew that this non-Ianizer radiation was not healthy. So I called to opt out, and they said at the time there was no opt out. And I said, I want this thing off my house. And they did do it. There's a number that one can call in the state of California to opt out of your smart meter. And they do charge you $75 up front, and I think it's $10 a month. It doesn't seem fair to me that we have to opt out of something we don't want. But people can do that. They can call, and they can opt out of the meter. The driving force of the 21st century will be powerful processing centralized in the cloud and wirelessly connected to thin clients. Autonomous vehicles will be controlled in the cloud. Smart city energy grids, transportation networks, and water systems will be controlled in the cloud. Immersive education and entertainment will come from the cloud. But such futures won't come to pass unless the pathway to and from the cloud is low latency, ultra fast, and secure. 5G has been approved. The FCC voted on it. It's going to be rolled out. It will be faster and it will take up more of the spectrum. 5G has an enormous amount of promise. It's expected to enable all sorts of things like virtual reality, self-driving cars. You could potentially download a movie within a couple of seconds. With 5G comes the small sell equipment that they're going to be putting on every poll in every city, right outside people's windows. Or on fake mailboxes. Nobody has taken into account the cumulative radiation that we are all getting, especially children. And there were no pre-market safety testing on any of this. So many people involved in the science around this issue are out there arguing for massive change to everything. From tearing down the structure that we have of regulation and public safety to getting rid of technology, to doing all kinds of things that are extreme. In fact, there's none of those things that are going to happen. So what can we do now? My son, Zech, and I created California Brain Tumor Association. And the reason we did this was after we started hearing from more and more people who were affected by this, we wanted to start raising awareness about this. And we were able to get cell phone right to no legislation passed unanimously in San Francisco. We try to say that it's not about the science. Because we always get pushback from the legislators, oh, the FCC says there's no conclusive evidence, unfortunately, the National Institute of Health. These are captured agencies. So we try to say that it's really about giving people the right to informed decisions. And what that means is that the warnings that are now hidden in the phone or in the manual that nobody knows about and sees, if you read them, would be given to the consumer at the point of sale so that they can make informed choices for themselves and for their children as to the safest possible use. So the city of San Francisco passed this law unanimously and then the industry, the CTA Cellular Telecommunications Internet Association, came in and sued. Cellular Telecommunication Industry Association's argument is they are the violation of their first amendment rights. They're saying that this is allowing speech to be given to consumers at the point of sale that they are not okay with it. And then it went to the federal court in a non-published decision. They said it violated the cell phone industry's first amendment rights because it was compelling speech that they didn't want given out at the point of sale. So now we've had similar legislation passed in Berkeley, but what we did here is we learned from our mistakes in San Francisco. San Francisco did overstep their boundaries a little bit in that they had warnings that they were going to give out to people saying, limit your use. Children should not use cell phones. Turn your phone off when not in use. So what we did in Berkeley is have Harvard Constitutional Law Professor Larry Lessick help with the legislation so it would stand up in court. The city expects the industry to file a lawsuit. This proposal would be your response to the alarm consumers with questioning the safety of cell phones. And of course the industry did sue just a couple of weeks later. Here it is. It seems kind of short-sighted. If you look at the tobacco industry, they got behind the warnings eventually because their lawyers told them it's in their best interest. Because when these product liability cases come to trial, they can always point the finger at the consumer and say, well, didn't you read our warnings? We warned you. The stuff is harmful. So be straight with me. Is it true? It could be. No. Very few cases. Really are common out in Iowa. Gentlemen, practice these words in front of the mirror. Although we are constantly exploring the subject, currently there is no direct evidence that links cell phone usage to bring cancer. What is this direct evidence that they in the movie concluded didn't exist? Direct evidence means dead bodies. If we take this approach to public policy on cell phones today, we're basically condemning entire generation or two to getting sick in enough numbers before taking action to prevent it happening. I have proposed that on every mobile device, whether a phone, whether a router, whether an iPad, that there be a two-sense a month fee, paid equally by the consumer, the internet provider and the manufacturer. And that amount of money would generate the funds that we need, first of all, to train people in medicine and engineering so they'd understand this. We need to do the monitoring of the impact of children in schools. And we need a public educational program. It really has to be solved more from a regulatory point of view, more from a population-based point of view. Good evening, the World Health Organization. Today, said cell phones are possibly carcinogenic. People are hearing that the World Health Organization, that's the medical arm of the United Nations, is sounding the alarm about cell phones. It puts it in the company of several other kinds of things, like lead, is also a possible carcinogen according to the WHO, as well as engine exhaust and chloroform. You have to see it in the full context of the evaluation scheme. A group, one, means it is established that it's causing cancer in humans. We are two steps below, which is to be that at the time we cannot confidently say that it's clearly causing cancer in humans. That classification has been done in 2011. And since that time, we have at least two large studies, such as that it should be reclassified as at least a group 2A. Or some people believe that it should be reclassified as a group 1. So it's 100% carcinogen in other words. The classification means there cannot be an assurance of safety. And it signals a need for more research. And then for some it would signal the need for being precautionary in terms of handling this exposure. In view of our present scientific knowledge, we hereby stress international institutions, particularly the World Health Organization, to recognize EHS and MCS. Although our scientific knowledge remains incomplete, we unanimously acknowledge this serious hazard to public health, urgently requiring the recognition of these two pathological disorders at international level. What is really needed and what this conference was intended to provide is a strong statement to the World Health Organization that there is sufficient scientific evidence today to classify electricity. Electro sensitivity as a medical condition and what this will do is go a long way toward letting physicians know they've got to get educated and learn to begin to treat patients with this condition. There are signs that the message is beginning to sink in. Some countries are adopting laws to reduce children's exposure in schools. The European Parliament and some European legal courts are starting to acknowledge the correlation between EHS and radio frequency exposure. Today Sweden recognizes EHS as a functional impairment. If the World Health Organization recognized electricity as a real thing, I think it would help in a lot of ways. Talking to teachers about it, if you could show them, it's not just me, the parodies, doctors, the scientists. I think financially it would make a difference. Financial can make a difference now. If it was something that health insurance companies recognized and we could have, right now, all the treatments that he does is purely out of pocket and it's quite expensive. I've been addressing a lot of issues with myself, health wise, molding my system, keelation getting metals out of my body. But I've noticed since past year that I've been doing all this, that my sensitivities have gone down. I don't feel like a text from across the room. I don't get headaches every time I drive by the towers in the freeway. When this first came up and we realized that we might have some sensitivity issues in our house, the first thing we did was just turned off the wireless at night. And that seemed like the easiest first step. We hardlined completely and we have the plug-ins. Here's what helps us hardline. Plugging in here, signal is going through the walls, it's going to come out here. Welcome to my office. Plugging in here, you're going to have a signal and send the signal to a splinter bolt here. I can still use a laptop computer and take it anywhere in the house I want to but I just plug it in to whatever the nearest outlet is. These are all things that immediately will reduce your exposure. Use a wired earpiece, concentrate on speaker phone. The worst time to put a phone right next to the head is when you say hello because it's programmed to go to max power. 100 times a minute, it says, where are you here I am, where are you here I am? We can change that. You can program it to do that less often, you can have it go as the Android system does into a deep sleep so that it doesn't always ping you back and forth. Be aware of the number of sources of wireless that sneak into everyday life. As you layer up, your dose actually is larger and larger as we're at the same time deciding we have to have lower and lower exposures to protect our health. Our sleep and the next generations because my sensitivities we want to address it at the boys school because they know all the schools of worlds every school of miles so we ask them at least if they're going to be in that all day can we at least take out one of the factors and not have their laptops be wireless so by doing that we are able to convince them to hardline their computers. Nowadays because there's so many kids that have food allergies that we've explained it to the teachers and the other kids in the class as kind of a similarity just as you wouldn't make every kid in the class e-penets because some kids have sensitivity to that please don't make every kid in the class use wireless. Alan's situation now is that he's been fortunate he's alive and doing fairly well eight years later he does have to go for a marise of reform months to see if there's any new growth and thankfully there has not been. I wound six months at a time you never know when you're going to come out and it's going to be you know they're going to say it's growing again. She sees what I'm going through and what our family's going through and doesn't want to see that happen to anybody else just calling it right to know says what it's all about. I'm really proud of you all this work is in response to my illness and it means a lot to me. Thanks. It's a very very tough fight and it's been a long time I've been involved in this for about eight years and there's times where I feel like giving up and then there's times where I say no we're going to make progress I'm not going to stop and it's usually when I hear from more and more people every day. That are sensitive to wireless or I hear from people every week or two that their spouse has a brain tumor that they think is from their cell phone then I said I'm not giving up I do have a certain sense of optimism that eventually the right thing will happen like it did with tobacco like it did with the spastic. Every day new technologies and rich our lives 5G and all its wonders is coming to a lamppost near you. So take precautionary steps to reduce your exposure whenever possible favorite good old fashioned wired connections use airplane mode as much as you can and before you go to sleep remember to turn off your Wi-Fi routers and all the meeting devices make a change tonight. Turn it up now you can dim the lights and it choices now here's our eyes. We get wise get what get off the grid get off the grid. We can do this make a change tonight. We can do this use less Wi-Fi keep it wired keep it on the side getting smart now turn off all the lights. We get wise get what get off the grid get off the grid get what get off the grid. Get off the grid get off the grid. We get what get what get off the grid get off the grid. Get off the grid get off the grid get off the grid get off the grid.