The Maryland Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council (CEHPAC) issued an eleven-page report December 13, 2016 titled “Wifi Radiation in Schools in Maryland Final Report,” which every school district in the country, if not around the globe, needs to read and implement.

On page 5 of that report, we find “What exposures are linked to WiFi technology?”  Here’s what’s said:

“WiFi radiation” (WiFi), also referred to as radiofrequency radiation (RFR), is non-ionizing radiation typically in the microwave frequencies of approximately 900 megahertz (million cycles/second, or MHz) to approximately 5 gigahertz (1,000 million cycles per second, or GHz).

WiFi is used primarily for cellular telephones, local area networks (LANs), and other communications technologies.  The primary bands used for WiFi are generally 2.4 GHz and 5GHz.  [CJF: Which is similar to an operating microwave oven’s range of 2.4 GHz or above!]

WiFi radiation exposures are regulated by several agencies.  The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issues radiation exposure guidelines as specific absorption rates (SARs) for fixed antennas, hand-held cellular telephones, and personal communications services (PCS) devices. 1   These guidelines were last issued by the FCC in 1996. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has established occupational exposure limits for microwave radiation. 2   The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not have standards for cellular telephones, but can take regulatory action if these devices are shown to have adverse health impacts. 3

Microwave technology researchers Martha R Herbert, PhD, MD, Harvard Medical School and other affiliations; David O Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University of Albany; Karolinska Institute associate professor Department of Neuroscience Olle Johannson and other respected independent-of-microwave-technology-funding researchers’ work have been consolidated into a 97-page anthology of sorts regarding EMF and RFR and their physiological effects, which can be read here.

Maryland state, education and children’s welfare officials obviously have come to the conclusion that parents have the right to know if there is an environmental hazard in the classrooms their children occupy for up to six hours a day.  Currently, 20 countries around the world have taken steps to protect children from EMF and RFR microwave radiation in the form of WiFi technology in classrooms.

The upshot of the above CEHPAC report, parental and community involvement is the Report’s recommending the Maryland Department of Education (DoE) recommend to local school districts to reduce classroom wireless radiation exposures by switching over to and providing WIRED Internet connections.

 

The Maryland’s DoE recommendation should be followed by every state in the USA, as children are being impacted hourly and daily by health-compromising microwave technology—WiFi everyone thinks as benign or harmless.  Not so!

However, I as a researcher on issues which affect consumer health, have this to ask the Maryland DoE and other states DoEs:  If you are so concerned about parents’ right to know if there is an environmental hazard in the classroom, what about the environmental hazmat materials [1] you are demanding be injected into children by mandating vaccinations in order to attend school?

May I respectfully suggest Department of Education administrators and school district principals do your research into neurotoxic chemicals, ethylmercury, aluminum in any of four solutions, formaldehyde/Formalin, polysorbate 80—just to mention a few.  You may be surprised to find they are equal to, if not worse than WiFi, as they are INJECTED directly into children’s bloodstream, which impacts children’s mental capacities and human physiology.  Can your vaccination mandates be contributing to, and even requiring, chemical child abuse?

We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.”

It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.

David Rockefeller, 1991 Bilderberg Meeting, Baden, Germany