The Evidence Key Videos & Emails: Feb 2013 to the Present

The video and email evidence on this page does not reflect well on the performance of our local branch of government known as the Petaluma City School District (PCSD). The videos and the emails document that the School District has repeatedly ignored valid, scientific evidence regarding the dangers of the use of wireless connectivity and wireless devices in PCSD classrooms. Instead, the District has continued to expand the use of wireless technology in its schools.

As stated by University Researchers, Government Scientists and International Scientific Advisors; a minimum of 57.7% of schoolgirls exposed to low-level microwave radiation (Wi-fi) are at risk of suffering stillbirth, fetal abnormalities or genetically damaged children, when they give birth. Any genetic damage may pass to successive generations. Read the fulll Sept 2013 Research Report here.

Who is responsible for this? The Petaluma City School District board members, the Superintendent and the School Principals — the very people who have the authority, accountability and liability for providing a safe learning environment for all PCSD students and teachers. The School Board members have been particularly unresponsive: after receiving hours of valid scientific evidence via slides and videos during public comment in 2013-2014, , documented below, and after receiving many emails with links . . . documenting . . . the negative health effects . . . of continuous RF/EMF exposure, the School Board members, approved a dangerous 2013-2018 technology plan and continue to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to pump even more of a proven Class 2B carcinogen (RF/EMF) into classrooms at levels that exceed our federal guidelines nearly 8 times every school day -- and hearing many cost-effective solutions .

The Petaluma City School District's chronic silence and inaction on this important health and safety issue of too much RF/EMF in their classrooms has resulted in:

  • "A failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances," and
  • "Actions that hurt, or threaten smaller or weaker persons (i.e. children)"
In short, after receiving the evidence reproduced on this web page, the Board of Education has done nothing to effectively address the problem — for over nine months now. Parents need to put a stop to this irresponsible behavior and the District needs to create a safe learning environment for everyone.

Sheri Chlebowski

Voted YES on 1/14/14 to approve the $748,000+ AMS.net wireless expansion contract.
Contact her.

Michael Baddeley

Voted NO on 1/14/14 to approve the $748,000+ AMS.net wireless expansion contract.
Contact him.

Troy Sanderson

Voted YES on 1/14/14 to approve the $748,000+ AMS.net wireless expansion contract.
Contact him.

Mary Schafer

Voted YES on 1/14/14 to approve the $748,000+ AMS.net wireless expansion contract.
Contact her.

Phoebe Ellis

Voted YES on 1/14/14 to approve the $748,000+ AMS.net wireless expansion contract.
Contact her.

Steve Bolman

Superintendent Steve Bolman is not a Board Member and has no vote, but he sits to the far right at the meetings.
Contact him.

  • Despite many requests for the District to properly measure the levels of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF/EMF) in our schools, the PCSD has declined to do so.
  • Despite many requests for the District to amend its 2013-2018 technology plan to add a student health and safety section to this plan, they have also declined to do so.
  • Despite many requests for the school to turn off the wireless access points in kindergarten rooms, where the students are not even using wireless technology in their education, they have declined to do so.
  • Despite many requests for the PCSD to share its evidence and rationale for why keeping the wireless access points on in these kindergarten rooms is more important than protecting the health and safety of the kindergarteners, they have remained silent.
  • Even after learning that the total RF/EMF in a typical PCSD classroom exceeds our federal RF/EMF guideline nearly 8 times each day, using actual measurements and calculations approved by senior FCC and OSHA officials, the PCSD School Board, Superintendent and Principals do nothing. Why? They are following the direction of Steve Bolman: direction which values School District convenience much more than the long-term health and safety of our students and teachers, as documented in this 11/07/13 email.

There are no benefits for wireless, other than convenience. Wired connectivity is faster, more secure and safe for all. We can all agree on that. The PCSD is effectively gambling with the long-term health and safety of all of its students and teachers — for no compelling educational reasons. Any envisioned 1:1 student:device or Bring-Your-Own-Device program can be achieved using wired connectivity, as long as the District requires that the devices that students bring to school have a wired connectivity option, i.e. every main stream laptop or tablet out there, except the Apple iPad. The problem is that the PCSD has reported that the Apple iPad is an educational standard in the PCSD, despite full knowledge of its inherent dangers. This results in letting the tail, the iPad, to wag the dog — replacing existing wired connectivity with new wireless connectivity at a costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.

PCSD principals have a legal duty to provide a safe learning environment for its teachers and students, but they are not doing so. The PCSD has provided no evidence that their current technology plans and practices are safe for the long-term health of students and teachers, despite having much evidence to the contrary.

We don't have to accept this. We don't have to wait for some national or state branch of our government to address this problem. The buck stops with your local school Principal: he or she is legally responsible for providing a safe learning environment. We can take actions to ensure that the Principals do their jobs and protect the long-term health of your children.



Key Videos: Feb 2013 to the present

The videos, as you can see, are all embedded YouTube videos, which means that you will need a modern browser to view them: Chrome, FireFox, Safari or IE10+. YouTube does not allow one to download the videos or edit them, so please drag the scrubber along the timeline to skip to the time slices specified for each video. Also, be sure to watch this video from Australia and this video from Vermont all the way through. These two videos provide the best introduction to the topic. Once you have watched these two videos, you will have the context to better understand the slide presentation. You can find videos of the Petaluma City Schools Board of Education meetings on the Youtube channel of Petaluma Community Access Television.

Featured Video

1/14/14 Petaluma City Schools District Board Presentation

Skip to 0:32:50 --> 0:38:20 in the video for the public comment that shows the total cumulative levels of RF/EMF microwave radiation emittted in a Petaluma City School District kindergarten classroom has exceeded our Federal Maximum Public Exposure Guideline for RF/EMF microwave radiation nearly eight times every day using calculations agreed to by senior officials from the FCC and OSHA. In 87 school days in 2013-2014, the PCSD has exceeded our Federal Maximum Public Exposure Guideline for RF/EMF microwave radiation over 658 times in that classroom alone. The exposure would be much higher if wireless devices were used in the classroom. The cumulative RF/EMF microwave radiation exposure levels are significantly higher today. See the details here.

Skip to 0:47:40 --> 0:57:35 in the video for comments on why the Acer C720 Chromebook is better than the Samsung Series 3 Chromebook and why it is critical that the PCSD buy a USB-to-Ethernet adapter for every Chromebook for higher bandwidth, better security, greater student safety and lower cost.

Skip to 1:15:43 --> 1:32:50 in the video to learn all of the solid evidence and analysis that establishes why the $748,000+ AMS.NET technology contract is both wasteful and dangerous to our children. The Petaluma City Schools board members ignored this evidence and analysis, said it was not their responsibility to be concerned about the details of this contract and then they voted 4-1 to approve this terrible contract. See the quotes reproduced below the embedded video. Read commentary about this meeting published in the Argus Courier here.



1/28/14 Petaluma City Schools District Board Presentation

Skip to 00:57:45 --> 01:19:50 in the video for the relevant presentation Skip to 01:59:55 --> 02:05:10 in the video for the relevant presentation .



Other Videos In Chronological Order

5/14/13 Petaluma City School District Board Presentation

Skip to 01:44:30 --> 2:04:30 in the video for the relevant presentation.
Petaluma Community Access television mistakenly dated the video as 5/16/13. The meeting was actually held on 5/14/13.



5/28/13 Petaluma City School District Board Presentation

Skip to 1:31:30 --> 1:52:00 in the video for the relevant presentation.
Please view the full video that was played during this presentation.
Skip to 1:53:55 --> 2:00 in the video for public commenton PCSD not complying with the California Public Records Act.



Video Shared at 5/28/13 Petaluma City School District Board Meeting

Although this video was produced in Australia, it is very relevant to our schools.



6/11/13 Petaluma City School District Board Presentation

Skip to 1:31:30 --> 1:52:03 in the video for the relevant public comment presentation.
Please view the full video that was played during this presentation.
Skip to 1:46:30 --> 2:16:00 in the video for comments prior to the vote of the Petaluma City School District 2013-2018 Technology Plan.



Video Shared at 6/11/13 Petaluma City School District Board Meeting

Although this video was produced in Vermont, it is very relevant to our schools.



6/25/13 Petaluma City School District Board Presentation

Skip to 26:45 - 34:00 in the video for the relevant presentation. In an attempt to control the conversation on the problem of wi-fi in schools, the PCSD twice attempted to change its bylaws to restrict how public commenters can make their comments. Fortunately, both attempts failed and the public can still comment in PCSD School Board meetings, without undue restrictions, per CA state law. The presentation reports on legal research that establishes that the PCSD School Board, Superintendent and Principals are the key decision-makers for the use of wi-fi in schools: these officials have the authority to make the decisions as well as the accountability/liability for the consequences of the decisions. There is no federal, state or school district mandate to use wireless technologies in school; it is strictly a local decision and it can be made on a school-by-school basis. We need choice: we need some schools without wi-fi to accommodate the growing number of parents who do not want their children exposed to this continuous voluntary toxic pollution as a condition for receiving a public education. If you agree that we need choice, then please take action.



9/10/13 Petaluma City Schools District Board Presentation

Skip to 1:30:15 --> 1:36:15 in the video for the relevant presentation.



11/12/13 Petaluma City Schools District Board Presentation

Skip to 00:19:30 --> 00:24:50 in the video for the relevant presentation.



3/xx/14 Petaluma City Schools District Board Presentation

Skip to 29:50 --> 39:45 in the video< for the relevant presentation.



3/11/14 Petaluma City Schools District Board Presentation

Skip to 49:40 --> 50:50 in the video< for the relevant interaction. Skip to 1:03:45 --> 1:08:20 in the video< for the relevant presentation. Skip to 1:03:45 --> 1:08:20 in the video< for the relevant presentation. Skip to 1:13:15 --> 1:18:35 in the video< for the relevant presentation. .



5/13/14 Petaluma City Schools District Board Presentation

Skip to 29:50 --> 39:45 in the video< for the relevant presentation Skip to 45:35 --> 56:30 in the video< for the relevant presentation .



5/27/14 Petaluma City Schools District Board Presentation

Skip to 01:34:05 --> 01:39:25 in the video< for the relevant presentation.



6/10/14 Petaluma City Schools District Board Presentation

Skip to 01:01:35 --> 01:06:55 in the video< for the relevant presentation.





Key Emails: Feb 2013 to the present

The text of the following emails have been placed into the public record by actions taken by Superintendent Steve Bolman in response to a valid California Public Records Act (CPRA) request, per CA CODE SECTION 6250-6270.

[Parent],

Leadership Team Members, including me, will be forwarding you emails of all of your emails to them, and their email responses to you, to provide you with an electronic copy of information to comply with that portion of your California Public Records Act request of ".... all of this important information I have previously provided to you as well as our email communications".

Steve Bolman

In the following list of emails, click on the date/time link to view any individual email. Personal contact information and repeated sections were removed. The emails, below, are a long read, but are very informative.

Overall, the responses to most of these emails has been silence: requests have gone unfilled, questions remain unanswered and follow ups have been forgotten. Superintendent Steve Bolman has sent a few shoot-the-messenger letters in addition to his typically terse email responses. He has unsuccessfully attempted to run interference for Emily Kleinholz, the Principal at Valley Vista. Hiding behind one's boss does not remove one's legal responsibilities, accountabilities or liabilities.

Ms. Kleinholz ranks near the bottom for responsiveness: she has sent exactly one single-sentence email in response to the 30+ emails that were sent to her, asking her to please take some simple actions to protect the health and safety of her students and teachers. The 11/22/13 email to Ms. Kleinholz, reporting on a meeting held earlier in the day, accurately sums up her position.

[Ms. Kleinholz], you admitted in our meeting that as the principal of Valley Vista School, you are the person who has the legal responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for Valley Vista. When I asked you for your evidence that operating the wireless access point was safe, you provided nothing.

I then repeated the question that you did not answer in my 11/12/13 email. I looked you in the eye, and asked you for an honest answer:

[Parent]: "Ms. Kleinholz, why will you not turn off the wireless access point in the kindergarten room? Will you please provide your evidence and rationale of why keeping the WAP on is more important than protecting the health and safety of the kindergarten teachers and students in the Valley Vista kindergarten classroom?"

What was your response?

Ms. Kleinholz: "No comment." And then you ended our meeting after just ten minutes.

Parents deserve an answer to this question from Ms. Kleinholz. When will she provide one? We are still waiting . . . If you would like an answer to this question, then contact her and ask her yourself. Perhaps she can answer this question in an upcoming PTA meeting or at a future school assembly? It's only the health and safety of our children at stake here. That can wait, right? The 12/20/13 email to Ms. Kleinholz, reporting a decision made my Ms. Kleinholz, shows that her position is against the health and safety of her teachers and her students/our children.This position, of course, is not acceptable for someone who has the legal duty to create a safe learning environment for her teachers and students.

Ms. Kleinholz, I am asking you for an answer to my question and the rationale of why keeping the wireless router/access point on is more important than protecting the health and safety of our children? All the kindergarten parents deserve an answer to this question. Not answering the question is neither responsible nor caring.

Ms. Kleinholz, you will eventually have to turn off the unnecessary and dangerous wireless router/access point in the Valley Vista kindergarten classroom. You have no evidence to refute the evidence I have already presented to you. It's just a matter of time. You are on the wrong side of this issue. You are against the health and safety of children. For the life of me, I cannot understand why you take that position, unless you are being forced into that position by your boss, Steve Bolman.

Mr. Bolman's wishes and directives do nothing to shield you from the responsibility, accountability and liability of your irresponsible and uncaring position. The longer you delay, the worse it will be for everyone.

The emails below document our attempt to locate a PCSD kindergarten classroom on the Petaluma's west side that would not have high levels of RF/EMF. One existed at Valley Vista in 2012-2013: the School District and the School Principal both confirmed this via responses to our 5/17/13 California Public Records Acts request. We trusted the District's responses, metered the RF/EMF environment ourselves and enrolled our child there. The emails, below, show that we were in close contact with Ms. Kleinholz about the importance of the RF/EMF environment of the Valley Vista kindergarten room throughout June and July, 2013. This made no difference. Valley Vista installed additional Wi-Fi anyway — with full knowledge of the health risks. This action was irresponsible, uncaring and dangerous. It was done without any effective prior safety testing, without parental notice and without parental consent.


Information Provided by Petaluma City School District in Response To a 5/17/13 California Public Records Information Request

In 2012-2013, Valley Vista had only two Wireless Access Points; none in the Kindergarten rooms (rooms 22 and 23). The 5/17/13 CPRA information request asked for the current wireless installation for each school and for each school's specific plans for wireless expansion in 2013-2014 and for 2015-2016. No school-by-school specific expansion plans were provided by the School District, despite their being such plans. Not providing specifically-requested information via CPRA on a timely basis is a violation of CA State law, one of many such violations committed by the Petaluma City School District over the last six months.


We were quite surprised to learn on 8/6/13, 8/8/13 and 8/9/13 that Ms. Kleinholz decided to have ten industrial strength Cisco 4410N wireless access points installed on the Valley Vista campus in July, 2013 and did so without any effective prior safety testing, parental notice or consent. Here is why we now have a class 2B Carcinogen (RF/EMF from Wi-Fi) being pumped into our classrooms at levels that exceed our Federal Maximum Public Explosure guideline every day: the following 8/20/13 email from Mike Cole says that he was just following the orders/wishes of the School Board, Mr. Bolman and Ms. Kleinholz:

[Parent],

This is sent at Steve Bolman’s request.

The wireless access points at Valley Vista Elementary were installed during the month of July. The installation was done by District staff, the installation was approved by me. There was no work order and was done so by verbal order, to do so during time available. There is no email concerning this.

The WAPs were re-purposed from Kenilworth Jr. who upgraded to Meraki’s. At the beginning of summer the Principal of Valley Vista expressed an interest in making use of them at her site.

The installation is in line with the District Technology Plan and the Board of Education’s goals.

Mike Cole

As you can see below, one of the Wireless Acess Points was placed in the Kindergarten room (room 23), where the students are not using wireless technology for their education. The simple solution is to turn off this unnecessary Wireless AP. Unbelievably, Ms. Kleinholz will not do this. Why? She will not say. She is willing to risk the health and safety of everyone in the kindergarten room in order to tow School District's line and serve some meaningless adult-driven agenda.

If one focuses on the health and safety of children, instead of the agendas of adults, then this decision should be a no-brainer. Any school board's, superintendent's or principals' potential concerns over setting a precedent or losing some operating convenience are utterly trivial compared to risking permanent damage to the health of our teachers and children.

Information Provided by Petaluma City School District in August, 2013

In July 2013, Valley Vista added an addition ten wireless access points including one in room 23 (a Kindergarten room), one in the library and one in room 32 (both adjacent to the Kindergarten rooms) — all of these wireless access points are unnecessary for the students' education. Knowingly putting children at risk for nothing more than convenience is irresponsible, uncaring and simply wrong. The total cumulative radiation being pumped into the Valley Vista Kindergarten room has been calculated through today on the RF/EMF counter page. Students near the other nine Cisco 4410N Wireless Access Points are facing similar levels of radiation. Students near the Meraki MR16 routers are getting even more radiation. The Valley Vista School and the Petaluma City School District are doing nothing to address this problem: they are pretending there is no problem and they refuse to talk about it. This is not acceptable leadership.


Mr. Barrie Trower, a British physicist who was a microwave weapons expert and who worked for the Royal Navy and the British Secret Service, talks about the health effects of Wi-Fi and other forms of microwave radiation.

I think anyone who puts Wi-Fi into a school should be locked up for the rest of their life. I really do. I think they are not fit to walk on the surface of this planet because they haven't looked at the research and whatever incentive they have, it is not worth the genetic problems that parents are going to face with their children . . .

It's what I call intentional ignorance. They are offered some sort of incentive and they think: 'Oh this is going to be good, we'll have it.' Now the problem is: imagine you are a 15-year old school girl. All of the 400,000 eggs in your ovaries were with you at birth . . . they are ten times more susceptible to radiation than all of the other DNA in the body . . . [wireless devices] are all transmitting [radiation] through your ovaries. So you are risking the DNA damage of your [future] child every time you sit down and you use Wi-Fi. It's like saying if I smoke a cigarette, which one will cause the damage? The answer is I don't know, it could be the one today. So you now have a child that has a probability of being genetically damaged.

If you are a teacher or a mature student [who becomes pregnant], the embryo inside your womb, in the first 100 days, is forming all of those 400,000 eggs . . . the eggs [at this stage] have absolutely no protection. It hasn't been developed, yet. [The eggs] are at maximum risk from radiation. We already see this in animal studies . . . it has been published . . . we know this happens. It's also been documented in the Cold War when women were deliberately microwaved. The documents are there.

What you are risking by putting Wi-Fi into schools are the future generations of all of these girls, but it gets worse because this particular DNA, the mitochondrial DNA, you can trace unchanged [for many generations], so if you damage it, it will continue to be passed onto future generations . . . When you put Wi-Fi in schools, what you are saying is for the sake of a little bit of money . . . because it is cheaper, we are just going to put Wi-Fi in but you can have genetically damaged children for the rest of your family's lineage.

The written record speaks for itself.

Comment: This one of the first emails on the issue, following a 2/21/13 meeting/presentation with David Rose and Mike Cole.
Hi, Ed.

I gathered some thoughts and links to scientifically-established data that I could find on the negative health effects of exposing children to wireless signals from . . .

  - wifi routers
  - wireless desktop, laptop or tablet computers
  - cell phones/smart phones
  - cordless phones
  - wireless baby monitors
  - wireless gaming systems
  - wireless security systems
  - electric and gas smart meters
  - cellular tower transmissions

All of these data-carrying wireless signals are the same stuff: they are wireless signals (800mHz to 5800mHz carrier waves) that pulse data at the rate of 100-200 pulses per second.

Scientists believe that these pulses are what makes today's digital data-carrying wireless signals more dangerous than the analog radio and televisions signals of yesteryear. The relatively slow rate of powerful bursts of data (100-200Hz) is what our cells membranes are reacting to and what is affecting intracellular communication, membrane permeability and cell-division. Children are at the most risk because they are smaller, their skulls are thinner, and their cells are dividing/differentiating faster than adults. It's a long-term, cumulative effect, so if we do nothing to curb the heavy doses of wireless signals that these kids are getting today, it could lead to significant health problems when they are in their late teens and early 20's: the prime of their lives.

The Precautionary Principle advocated by UNESCO and the Council on Europe states the obvious: it is better to be safe than sorry. You don't need to be 100% certain about this danger before you decide to take action.

You are already doing the best for your kids by relying primarily on your school's Ethernet wired network. It would be great to have the 3rd grade teacher turn on the wireless router only when it is needed for class and then turn it back off when the class is over. Of course, check with Mike Cole to make sure that this will work with the school network.

That is exactly what I encourage families to do. If the family is not yet convinced of the benefit of eliminating wireless in their home, then they should only turn the wireless router on when it is absolutely needed it and turn it back off the rest of the time – especially overnight, when everyone is sleeping. The wireless affects deep sleep and Melatonin production, which is one of the most thoroughly researched areas.

If you think this is important information for others, such as Emily Kleinholz, to see, then please feel free to forward this link to anyone that comes to mind. I presented these slides to David Rose and Mike Cole at the Petaluma City School offices yesterday.

Regards,

[Parent]
Hi, Mr.Rose.

Thanks for the follow up and for listening to my presentation at with an open mind. I can understand there are many reasons for "moving forward with [the Petaluma School District's] current plans regarding the installation of wireless devices".

On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:38 AM, Dave Rose wrote:

> An update for you regarding the presentation of this information to our Cabinet/Leadership Team.  It was appreciated that these concerns were brought forward, and time was spent processing the different opinions that are currently available.  Our Superintendent will also share the gathered information with our Board.  At this point, we are moving forward with our current plans regarding the installation and use of wireless devices.


I am committed to educating the educators and parents in our community about this very important issue so that everyone fully understands the trade-offs that the Petaluma School District is making by taking this position. It is a position that prioritizes the health of our children lower than other priorities.

Schools can make smart technology decisions today by ensuring that when they purchase new devices (desktops, laptops, netbooks or tablets) that these devices offer a wired networking option via Ethernet or USB/Ethernet adaptor. As we discussed, this includes Google Nexus and Microsoft Surface tablets, but not Apple iPads, which currently offer no wired networking option. Avoiding "wireless only" devices will protect the school's technology investment for the long-term.

Who knows? As a result of education, opinions may change and the Petaluma School District or individual schools may to decide to change their current position on wireless. By not purchasing "wireless only" devices now, the School District will not be painting their schools into a corner, which results in a more flexible, long-term technology investment.

If one reads and parses the science carefully, one will understand that there is a real problem here and it is worth enlightening others to the dangers involved in running wireless networks in schools. This requires some effort, but the effort required is well worth it to protect the health of our children.

I believe these scientists when they say:

>>> start of quotes

[1] "Adverse health effects from wireless radio frequency fields, such as learning disabilities, altered immune responses, and headaches, clearly exist and are well documented in the scientific literature. Safer technology, such as use of hard-wiring, is strongly recommended in schools."

--  American Academy of Environmental Medicine Board of Directors on October 3, 2012.

[2] "The Seletun Scientific Statement (2010) recommends that lower limits be established for electromagnetic fields and wireless exposure based on scientific studies reporting health impacts at much lower exposure levels. The Seletun Panel (2011) recommends wired internet access in schools and strongly recommends that schools do not install wireless internet connections that create pervasive and prolonged EMF exposures to children."

-- Olle Johansson, Ph.D., Karolinka Institute

[3]
TO:    Los Angeles Unified School District
FROM:  Martha R Herbert, PhD, MD
RE:    Wireless vs. Wired in Classrooms
DATE:  February 8, 2013

I am a pediatric neurologist and neuroscientist on the faculty of Harvard Medical School and on staff at the Massachusetts General Hospital.

I am Board Certified in Neurology with Special Competency in Child Neurology, and Subspecialty Certification in Neurodevelopmental Disorders. I have an extensive history of research and clinical practice in neurodevelopmental disorders, particularly autism spectrum disorders.  I have published papers in brain imaging research, in physiological abnormalities in autism spectrum disorders, and in environmental influences on neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and on brain development and function.

I recently accepted an invitation to review literature pertinent to a potential link between Autism Spectrum Disorders and Electromagnetic Frequencies (EMF) and Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR).  I set out to write a paper of modest length, but found much more literature than I had anticipated to review. I ended up producing a 60 page single spaced paper with over 550 citations. It is available athttp://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec20_2012_Findings_in_Autism.pdf

In fact, there are thousands of papers that have accumulated over decades – and are now accumulating at an accelerating pace, as our ability to measure impacts become more sensitive – that document adverse health and neurological impacts of EMF/RFR.  Children are more vulnerable than adults, and children with chronic illnesses and/or neurodevelopmental disabilities are even more vulnerable. Elderly or chronically ill adults are more vulnerable than healthy adults

Current technologies were designed and promulgated without taking account of biological impacts other than thermal impacts.  We now know that there are a large array of impacts that have nothing to do with the heating of tissue.  The claim from wifi proponents that the only concern is thermal impacts is now definitively outdated scientifically.

EMF/RFR from wifi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function. This will make it harder for some children to learn, particularly those who are already having problems in the first place.

Powerful industrial entities have a vested interest in leading the public to believe that EMF/RFR, which we cannot see, taste or touch, is harmless, but this is not true. Please do the right and precautionary thing for our children. I urge you to step back from your intention to go wifi in the LAUSD, and instead opt for wired technologies, particularly for those subpopulations that are most sensitive.  It will be easier for you to make a healthier decision now than to undo a misguided decision later.

Thank you.

Martha Herbert, PhD, MD
Pediatric Neurology
Director, TRANSCEND Research Program
Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging
Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Phone:  (617) 724-5920
Fax: (617) 812-6334

>>> end of quotes

I don't understand why educators would dismiss these assessments?

Close
-----
I am convinced that the safest things to do for all the students would be to turn off the wireless networks for at least 90-95% of the time, and rely primarily on the wired Ethernet networks, when the students are on campus. I would guess that parents might accept an occasional use of wireless technology for special needs/events/performances, when wired technology could not be implemented, but that would be the rare exception, not the rule.

It is important to note that most schools in the Petaluma City School District already have Ethernet wires installed throughout their campuses, so we are not talking about much additional cost per campus. A few campuses, like Cherry Valley, might require more of an effort, but I did learn from my school tours that this kind of improvement can be funded by parent groups, if they wish.

Thanks again for your time. I will continue to communicate with Mike Cole to let him know what I am discovering at each of the schools I visit and the progress I am making to educate our community about this important issue.


Regards,

[Parent]
Hi, Emily.

We enjoyed the tour this morning and I would like to set up a 30-minute meeting at your earliest convenience.

In the meeting, I would like to discuss the science behind our growing awareness of the negative health effects of wifi signals in schools and Valley Vista's commitment to protecting students from environmental threats, of which wireless signals are one.

The ironic part of modernizing schools is that schools often make technology choices with the purpose of improving the quality of their education, but unwittingly are not aware of the negative health effects of this technology on the very students they are trying to help:

"Adverse health effects from wireless radio frequency fields, such as learning disabilities, altered immune responses, and headaches, clearly exist and are well documented in the scientific literature. Safer technology, such as use of hard-wiring, is strongly recommended in schools."

--  American Academy of Environmental Medicine Board of Directors on October 3, 2012.

As I shared with Ed Harra (see my Feb 22 email, quoted below):

"[Valley Vista] is already doing the best for its students by relying primarily on the school's ethernet wired network. It would be great to have the 3rd grade teacher with iPads only turn on his wireless router when it is needed for class and then turn it back off when the class is over."

After visiting this iPad-equipped classroom today, it is apparent that there are many fewer iPads than I expected (four) and that the way the iPads are being used (as portable, on-demand internet connections), they are superfluous. The students could just as easily go to the classroom eMacs to complete their research on the internet using the classroom's safe, wired ethernet connections.

Therefore, turning off the only wireless network on the Valley Vista campus should not affect the educational experience for the students in any significant way. The benefit of turning off this wireless router is that *all students* are then protected from the 'second-hand smoke effect' of choosing to run a wireless network to support these few iPads.

Wifi is the second-hand smoke or our generation. Should we tolerate an ineffective half-step, similar to placing a curtain between smoking and non-smoking areas of planes and restaurants, while waiting for more certainty in the research -- as we did for many years? Or should we follow the Precautionary Principle advocated by UNESCO and the Council on Europe: it is better to be safe than sorry.

There are much safer choices than WiFi-only iPads (see my Mar 5 email, quoted below).

iPads, however, can be safely used by teachers and students in the following way:

[1] Have an adult transfer software to the iPads via its supplied cable connector via iTunes.

[2] Keep the iPads in 'Airplane mode' (under Settings) at all times, which turns off the iPad's radio transceivers. This turns the iPads into portable computing devices without network connectivity.

All wireless devices are transceivers: they both transmit and receive signals. Therefore, the cloud of wireless signals around the child near a wireless device may be as strong as the cloud of wireless signals around a wireless router. It is the pulsed data on these wireless signals which play havoc with the students' intracellular communication and create a number of negative health effects, clearly established in the existing scientific literature.

The vision of a classroom with each student holding their own wirelessly connected hand-held device may sound cool, but is ultimately a bad idea for their long-term health. I believe that we need to rethink this vision for our children.

One can still have individual tablet devices (Google Nexus or Microsoft Surface tablets, for example) for each child, but they can be connected via ethernet cables when they need network connectivity, which, of course, does not have to be 100% of the time.

We are very happy that Valley Vista has very little wifi on campus and hope it becomes wireless-free. I would like to understand more about the new document cameras, projectors and interactive white boards Valley Vista and the District are considering. I am hopeful that all of these devices are connected via wires and need no wireless connectivity.

Wired ethernet networks are faster, more secure and safer for all – compared to wireless networks.

I will look forward to meeting with you to discuss these issues and answer any questions you may have. Please respond via email or call me at www-xxx-yyyy.


Regards,


[Parent]

Hi, Emily.

We completed our intra-district transfer from McKinley to Valley Vista (our first choice) yesterday. Important to our decision is that Valley Vista is the most wireless-free elementary campus on the West Side of Petaluma.

I need to understand if the campus will stay that way, or if the District will be installing any additional wireless routers on the campus in 2013-2014 and beyond. I also want to confirm that the existing and new projectors and document cameras will not require a wireless network to operate. I have an email into Mike Cole requesting this information, but have not yet heard back from him.

In the meantime, I am interested in meeting with you for 30 minutes at your earliest convenience to discuss this and other transition issues for my daughter.

Yesterday, I found a great primer on the complex issue of Wi-fi radiation in schools. You and your teachers would definitely benefit from watching the YouTube video and reading the letter by Dr. Magda Havas, at the link and in the attachment, below.

[1] WiFi in Schools is Safe. True or False?
-------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v75sKAUFdc

If one watches the first ten minutes of this video, I believe that one you will learn quite a bit and hopefully feel compelled to watch the rest.

[2] Dr. Havas also wrote an important letter on Feb 15, 2013
------------------------------------------------------------
Please note, the letter and the video cite Canada's Safety Code 6, which similar to the USA's Federal Communications Commission standard that sets an upper limit for exposure to microwave radiation at 1,000 microwatts/square-centimeter, which is at least 10,000 times too high, based on current science.

Will you please view the video and read the document in advance of our meeting? When do you think we can get together? I have time over the next three weeks, except from Mar 18-20.

I look forward to hearing from you.


Regards,

[Parent]


On Mar 6, 2013, at 2:03 PM, [Parent] wrote:

> Hi, Emily.
>
> We enjoyed the tour this morning and I would like to set up a 30-minute meeting at your earliest convenience.
>
> In the meeting, I would like to discuss the science behind our growing awareness of the negative health effects of wifi signals in schools and Valley Vista's commitment to protecting students from environmental threats, of which wireless signals are one.

Regards,

[Parent]
Hi, David and Mike.

Yesterday, I found a great primer on the complex issue of Wi-fi radiation in schools. The Petaluma City School board members would definitely benefit from watching the YouTube video and reading the letter by Dr. Magda Havas, at the link and in the attachment, below.

[1] WiFi in Schools is Safe. True or False?
-------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v75sKAUFdc

If one watches the first ten minutes of this video, I believe that one you will learn quite a bit and hopefully feel compelled to watch the rest.

[2] Dr. Havas also wrote an important letter on Feb 15, 2013
------------------------------------------------------------
Please note, the letter and the video cite Canada's Safety Code 6, which similar to the USA's Federal Communications Commission standard that sets an upper limit for exposure to microwave radiation at 1,000 microwatts/square-centimeter, which is at least 10,000 times too high, based on current science.

Every school administrator, teacher, student and family needs to see this video, read this letter and carefully consider the tradeoffs involved in allowing wi-fi networks on school campuses.  How will the School District help to disseminate this important safety information?

A decision on whether or not the District should run wireless networks in its schools while students are present is not a closed-door, private, corporate board room decision. This is a public school, financed-by our-tax-dollars decision, so an open process and public input is important.

As good educators, I am confident the Petaluma School District will not 'shoot the messenger' for researching and sharing this safety concern, but will carefully study both sides of the issue and provide a full rationale of its eventual decision with strong, scientific evidence to back up the decision.

In the meantime, while this issue is debated, it would be prudent for the School District to hold off on spending money on any additional wireless installations -- as they may have to be turned off later and that money will have been wasted.

The video I found is such a thorough presentation of the facts. I will be continuing my education efforts and will be reaching out to School Site Committees, School Board Members, parents and teachers.

Any help you can provide, including a response to my March 6 email to Mike Cole asking for more specific information about the District's plans for installing additional wireless in its schools, would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,


[Parent]
Hi, Mike.

Thanks for your reply.

Mike, I have received advanced training in measuring and mitigating exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation from the International Institute for Building Biology & Ecology (http://hbelc.org) and know that 15 minutes per campus will not be sufficient to set up realistic usage scenarios and make any meaningful measurements.

The bottom line, is that you are busy and I have limited time to determine which of the public school's on the West Side would be the safest for my daughter when she attends Kindergarten next year. In the short-term, I think it would be best to concentrate our efforts on accurately characterizing the wireless environment of Valley Vista, the school that looks the most promising to us.

[1] May I please get a more specific plan for just Valley Vista?

[2] My understanding is that currently they have only one wi-fi router on campus. Is that correct?

[3] For each router currently on campus, which model and where is it located?

[4] Is it OK with the District for the 3rd grade teacher (with the four iPads) to turn his wi-fi router on and off as needed and not run it 100% of the time?

[5] Are you planning to add any more wi-fi routers in 2013-2014? If so, which models and where will they be located?

[6] Are there any other devices (other than the four iPads used in the 3rd grade class) that use the wireless network? I am thinking of existing and new projectors, document cameras and interactive white boards . . . anything else? Do these devices require a wireless network or could they use a wired network?

[7] If the school does not want any more wi-fi routers, is that OK with the District?

If Valley Vista is going to remain a single wi-fi router school in 2013-2014, the teacher has the freedom to turn it on an off as needed and we are able to get my daughter enrolled there, then we may not need to meet to measure the school and we have at least solved our immediate problem for one year, and maybe for all seven.

How does that sound? Is this possible? Please let me know.


On Mar 8, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Mike Cole wrote:

> Hello [Parent],

> An accurate picture of plans for all Petaluma City Schools is complete campus wifi coverage for all campuses.  This vision will be phased in during the next 5 years.  It will allow for bandwidth to accommodate a one student to one device program and/or a Bring Your On Device (wifi)  program.  The updated District Technology Plan will have some detail.  At this time, details and drawings are not available to give you.
>
>
> To date our standard wireless access points is a Meraki MR-16.  A pilot wifi program used a Cisco 4410n it is being phased out.
>
> As for your request to measure and record signal strengths at each of your campuses of interest; you must make an appointment with me.  I will accompany you on your visit of each campus of interest.
> It will occur after school hours.  We can walk the campuses for 15 minutes each.
>
> Thanks
> Mike Cole
>
Regards,

[Parent]
Hi, Emily.

I was hoping you could respond to one of my emails and confirm a time for our follow up meeting. This is my fifth email that I have either sent or cc'ed to you.

I am fairly flexible in March (except from Mar 18-20), but get busier in April. I could come at the end of the school day, if that would work for you.

I will look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,


[Parent]
Hello [Parent],

I've answered, in color following your questions below.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [Parent] <>
Date: Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 7:59 AM
Subject: Additional Info Requests for Valley Vista
To: Mike Cole 
Cc: Emily Kleinholz 


Hi, Mike.

Thanks for your reply.

Mike, I have received advanced training in measuring and mitigating exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation from the International Institute for Building Biology & Ecology (http://hbelc.org) and know that 15 minutes per campus will not be sufficient to set up realistic usage scenarios and make any meaningful measurements.

[Parent], how much time do you feel you would need to make meaningful measurements? What would it mean to you? What is the purpose in doing so?

The bottom line, is that you are busy and I have limited time to determine which of the public school's on the West Side would be the safest for my daughter when she attends Kindergarten next year. In the short-term, I think it would be best to concentrate our efforts on accurately characterizing the wireless environment of Valley Vista, the school that looks the most promising to us. [1] May I please get a more specific plan for just Valley Vista?

The specific plan is not available yet, the end, as mentioned before, is to have wifi available campus wide for both coverage and a 1 to 1 and/or BYOD program. There is a bit of work to do before this is realized fully. It will take time.

[2] My understanding is that currently they have only one wi-fi router on campus. Is that correct?

Yes that is correct.

[3] For each router currently on campus, which model and where is it located?

There is a Meraki MR-16, in the 3rd grade classroom.

[4] Is it OK with the District for the 3rd grade teacher (with the four iPads) to turn his wi-fi router on and off as needed and not run it 100% of the time?

No, this causes alarms in the controller and fouls the update schema, it also stops others from using the WAP.

[5] Are you planning to add any more wi-fi routers in 2013-2014? If so, which models and where will they be located?

We do not have immediate plans to do so. If we do, it would be the same model as answered in question #3 or an upgrade.

[6] Are there any other devices (other than the four iPads used in the 3rd grade class) that use the wireless network? I am thinking of existing and new projectors, document cameras and interactive white boards . . . anything else? Do these devices require a wireless network or could they use a wired network?

There are plans for Apple TV and a wireless printer. There are other devices using it in adjacent classrooms.

[7] If the school does not want any more wi-fi routers, is that OK with the District?

Site administrators will continue to work with the Technology Committee and The District Leadership on these decisions.

If Valley Vista is going to remain a single wi-fi router school in 2013-2014, the teacher has the freedom to turn it on an off as needed and we are able to get my daughter enrolled there, then we may not need to meet to measure the school and we have at least solved our immediate problem for one year, and maybe for all seven.

No, this causes alarms in the controller and fouls the update schema, it also stops others from using the WAP.

How does that sound? Is this possible? Please let me know.

There will be more wifi installed at all of our schools, iPads are one of our standards, especially for elementary. It is an accepted and standard trend in public education. Unless a legal authority tells us other wise we will not stray from this aim.

Regards, Mike Cole
Hi, Emily.

Thanks for meeting with my wife and me this morning. We both appreciated that you were open to the information that we presented and that you want to do the best for your students.

Thank you also for looking into the important issue of protecting your students and staff from pulsed, data carrying, wireless signals and for considering the choice of turning off Valley Vista's industrial-grade wireless router when it is not needed, which, of course, could be permanently. It seems clear that Valley Vista could at least turn off its wireless router whenever students are present on campus (8:00 am to 5:00 pm) and still fulfill all of its educational objectives.

As we discussed, the third grade class can safely use their four iPads in 'Airplane Mode', to run iOS software, to take pictures, create presentations and to present their work by connecting to the classroom projector using the existing wired adapter. If the students need to complete internet research, they can safely use the eMacs already present in the classroom, which are already wired to the school's wired Ethernet network. Therefore, no wireless network is needed to support the education of the students using these iPads.

For teachers who wish to connect to the internet, they have the option to use the wired Ethernet network in the classrooms instead of the wireless network. Simply stated, running a wireless network offers more convenience at the cost of potentially damaging the health of students and staff. Is it worth it?

I think we can all agree that connectivity is the main educational benefit, not whether the form of connectivity is wired or wireless. I think we can also all agree that connecting via Ethernet wires is safe. But we do not all agree that connecting wirelessly is safe.

I have lots of information, recommendations and questions that I have forwarded to the Petaluma City School District that I would be happy to share with in the future. Specifically, I asked Mike Cole on March 12 about the technology plans for Valley Vista and received some brief answers. I responded to Mike today seeking clarification on some of the answers he provided.

In the meantime, I would recommend that you personally approve all new technology purchases for Valley Vista and that you require that any new devices that need connectivity offer a wired networking option and the ability to turn off the device's wireless transceiver. Many devices (printers, tablets, laptops, netbooks, chromebooks) provide both wired and wireless options, but many, including iPads, come wireless-only. If you buy the latter, then you're allowing the tail to wag the dog: choosing to purchase and use wireless-only devices requires the school to run a wireless network on campus, needlessly endangering all.

On the flip side, using a device that offers either wired or wireless connectivity, allows one to fit the connectivity choice to the situation:

[a] On campus, where there are many students and wired network options are plentiful, one can choose to connect all devices via the wired network for the fastest, most secure and safest connection to the internet. This is the safe default for students since it represents the vast majority of a student's time at school: 6 hours a day x five days per week x 40 weeks per year.

[b] On a field trip, where there are fewer students one, can choose to use a mi-fi network, for example, and connect devices wirelessly, as this is the only option, and will only last for a short time.

The key is to eliminate the long-term, chronic exposure to data carrying wireless signals on school campuses.

Thanks again for meeting with us. I will be continuing to educate parents and teachers throughout the District about the health benefits of eliminating wireless networks on Petaluma City School District campuses. I hope that the Petaluma City School District will carefully evaluate the current science, select the safest options for its students and staff and come to the same conclusion.

Regards,


[Parent]
Hi, Steve.

Thanks for the heads up on the link to the newer technology plan.

I have now read through both of the technology plans available on the Petaluma School District web site. Thank you for agreeing to answer my questions, below (see the sections called 'My Questions' and 'More Questions').

I am asking you, from the bottom of my heart, to not just skim my emails, but please read this email and yesterday's email carefully, all the way through. Your students and staff need your leadership to right a wrong and create safe conditions on your school campuses.

Previous Plan:
-------------
PETALUMA CITY SCHOOLS DISTRICT
Master Technology Plan
March 10, 2004 - December 31, 2007
(link on this page http://www.petalumacityschools.org/administ/educationalservices.html)

Current Plan:
-------------
PETALUMA CITY SCHOOLS DISTRICT
EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN
JULY 1, 2008 – JUNE 30, 2013
(link on the menu to the left)

I understand that another plan is being finalized and about to go for a School District vote this Spring:

Future Plan:
------------
PETALUMA CITY SCHOOLS DISTRICT
EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN
JULY 1, 2013 – JUNE 30, 2018

In the previous and current plans, there is hardly any mention of 'wireless', just a few references to wireless carts of laptops. There are however many references to safety goals:

Page 6:
------
Goal: Students, teachers, administrators and staff will practice appropriate and safe use of
technology.

Page 10:
--------
Standard 2: Social, ethical, and human issues -
        Students develop positive attitudes toward technology uses that support lifelong learning, collaboration, personal pursuits, safety, and productivity.
        Students practice responsible use of technology systems, information, and software.

Pages 12, 13:
-------------
6.9 Use technology in a responsible and ethical manner.
8.7 Use technology in a responsible and ethical manner.
12.10 Use technology in a responsible and ethical manner.

Page 25:
-------
Professional Development, Tier I -
Teacher Basic Proficiency, All teachers are able to
Objective -   Use computers to safely enhance personal productivity
Proficiency - Use technology equipment safely
Proficiency - Understand technological issues involving safety practices, ethics, and equitable access

My questions
============
[1] Do these statements still represent Petaluma City School District policy or has the school District dropped safety considerations from its goals?

[2] If safety is still an important goal for our students, then the current District technology practices, as communicated to me by David Rose and Mike Cole, are not consistent with the Petaluma City School District's policy of "practicing appropriate and safe use of technology." and the 2013-2018 technology plan, most likely, includes even more use of these unsafe technologies. How can the School District let this happen?

[3] Can parents read the draft of the JULY 1, 2013 – JUNE 30, 2018 plan and have a chance to comment on the plan before it goes to School Board vote?

My Concerns
===========
The Petaluma City School District made choices and implemented dangerous technology that was not part of its School Board-approved technology plans. From what I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, the School district is no longer relying primarily on its wired ethernet network that has already been paid for and deployed in nearly all of its schools.

Instead, it chose to spend precious *additional* funds to purchase and deploy industrial-grade campus-wide, wi-fi routers to create an unnecessary, redundant, and dangerous wireless router-based network that needlessly irradiates our children the entire time they are on campus.

This is not what is needed to enable the use of 'wireless laptop carts', mentioned in the current plan. A cart of laptops is a space-saving strategy; the cart can be wheeled to different classrooms. The laptops have both safe wired and unsafe wireless connectivity options. Please understand, there are no safe wireless connectivity options.

Technology Implementation Details Have Serious Consequences
===========================================================
There are three use cases to enable student use of these laptop carts:

[a] Students do not need connectivity to the network/internet 100% of the time they are using the laptops. In fact, available internet access could distract students from using the educational software that the District has also purchased to run on these laptops.

[b] For the times that the laptops need network connectivity to support the educational goals of the lesson (how often is that?), the carts could easily be equipped with 8 to 24-port wired switches that would hook up to the already existing ethernet drops in each classroom.  Then the laptops could be connected to these switches via ethernet wires, which, admittedly is more difficult, but not impossible, to manage. This is the only safe connectivity option and clearly shows the tradeoffs involved: less convenience for greater safety.

[c] Alternatively, the carts could contain a low-power (not industrial grade) wireless router that is plugged into the electricity *only* when the laptops need connectivity to support the educational goals of the lesson. I am thinking this might be for about 10-30 minutes during any class.

Use case [c] is not ideal for the following reasons:

        - There are no magical wireless routers that can contain their wireless signals only in the classroom where the students are using the laptops. The signals will spill out into the adjacent classrooms and irradiate other students with this 'second-hand smoke'.

        - The laptops/tablets are *transceivers* that have wireless antennas that both send and receive signals. Whenever their wireless options are enabled (i.e. Airplane Mode is off), the cloud of wireless signals around the antennas (and students) are very strong and the signals are additive, so 24 students using wireless devices in the same classroom at the same time can create dangerous levels of radiation very quickly.

        - if students/teachers don't remember to unplug the wireless router from the electricity and put all 24 of the wireless devices back into 'Airplane mode' (wireless disabled) when they are done using them, then, we have ubiquitous irradiation of all students and staff for as long as these devices are on.

        - recognizing that there are no safe wireless connectivity options, five classes a day x 20 minutes per class = 100 minutes of wireless radiation per day is far better than 'always on' wireless radiation 6 hours a day = 360 minutes of wireless radiation per day.


More questions
==============
        - Let's do the math, if it takes 1640 hours of cell phone radiation (in an adult) to cause a 40% increased risk of brain cancer, what is 2400 hours of needless wi-fi radiation over two years going to do to our kids? How about 4800 hours in four year? 9600 hours in eight? Why would the School District even consider an 'always on' wi-fi network given that the science clearly shows negative health effects of this toxic pollutant? This is not just my opinion, but the considered judgment of credible scientists from around the world.


Petaluma Students and Staff Need Your Leadership
================================================
Steve, the Petaluma City School District needs your leadership on this issue. It takes courage and leadership to do the unpopular but the right thing for your students and staff. If you take  a careful look at the available science, and cannot find studies that prove campus-wide wi-fi is safe for students and staff, then you have the responsibility to follow the precautionary principle.

Please consider taking a stand and removing the industrial grade wireless routers from the Petaluma City School campuses. Whenever there is electricity flowing through these wireless routers, they can irradiate students and staff. If you leave routers in place mounted on the ceilings, it is very likely that someone who manually turns them on may not remember to turn them back off. If you must have some wireless routers for special occasions, then please select lower power consumer-grade routers, not mounted on the ceilings, so they are accessible for teachers and staff to easily turn them on and off as needed.

Even though the new technology plan is nearly complete and just about to go to vote, the District should not simply ignore the credible scientific information that I have been sharing with your staff over the last six weeks.

The BYOD (Bring-Your-Own (wireless)-Device) plan is a misguided and misinformed idea. It is the tail wagging the dog: if the School District standardizes on wireless-only devices, then the District forces all of its students and staff to pay the price with their health for an 'always on' wireless network for on-demand connectivity.

There are much better and safer choices that are still consistent with this one-device-per student vision. You can achieve nearly the same goals by selecting tablets that have wired ethernet options (Google Nexus and Microsoft Surface tablets instead of iPads) and even save some money doing so:

iPads are popular, but are they an educational standard?
========================================================
As I have already shared with Mike Cole, David Rose and all of the West side elementary principals, I would encourage the School District to not purchase Apple iPads or any other devices (printer, laptop, netbook or chromebook) that are wireless-only. For the same price (and often lower) one can instead buy devices that offer both a wireless and a wired ethernet option, such as Google Nexus tablets or Microsoft Surface tablets.

Comparing 10" 32GB Models (16GB versions, are $100 less)
--------------------------------------------------------
[a] $600 Apple iPad   265 ppi screen, lots of apps, wireless networking only
[b] $500 Google Nexus 300 ppi screen, lots of apps, wireless and wired networking options
[c] $500 Microsoft RT 150 ppi screen, fewest apps, wireless and wired networking options

Notes:
------
[b] and [c] share some good features (multiple user accounts and wired ethernet via microusb)
[c] includes Microsoft office at no additional charge

Yet, Mike Cole stated in his March 12 email to me "iPads are one of our [District's] standards, especially for elementary. It is an accepted and standard trend in public education."

More questions
==============
This standard/goal is not mentioned at all in the District's current technology plan. How can the District allow this dangerous technology to be deployed without School Board authorization? Do we have the meeting minutes showing this School Board authorization? Are parents aware of the dangerous tradeoffs the District is making?

Perhaps using tablets might be an accepted trend, but I don't believe any School District can specify a specific branded product as the only option for a trend, particularly when this choice requires one to irradiate students for connectivity.

Instead, the District should source broadly and purchase the safest, most flexible and most cost-effective options for laptops, tablets and networking gear. What is your opinion on this matter?

What do the Experts Say?
========================
Magda Havas, PHd lays out a very compelling case for the available options for schools:

Her opinion is that the Petaluma City School District's current technology practices are similar to many schools in the US and Canada: 'high tech/low intelligence'.

I attached three pdfs in yesterday's email with expert opinions and cite a February 8, 2013 letter from

        Martha Herbert, PhD, MD
        Pediatric Neurology
        Director, TRANSCEND Research Program
        Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging
        Massachusetts General Hospital
        Harvard Medical School


What Should We Do When Scientists Disagree?
===========================================
I believe it as simple as this: the Petaluma City School District cannot guarantee that the use of data carrying wireless signals is safe for our students or even a reasonable risk to take. If it's a tie, than the tie should go to the health of our kids, not for some 'promise' of an enhanced educational experience.

Steve, everyone recognizes that there are published studies that show disagreement among the scientists and the issue is still being evaluated. One needs to parse these studies, to understand what can be concluded from each, to recognize the biases of the study funders and to not ignore the results from either side.

The wireless industry spends a lot of money to field studies that are designed to report 'no effect', often because they cut off the studies after five years. It takes about ten years before problems start cropping up – which would be in my daughter's high school years.

It is not at all surprising that existing studies conflict in their reported results. Given the lobbying clout of the wireless industry and the money at stake, I would fully expect wireless-industry-backed researchers to design studies that can report 'no effect'. But there are thousands of studies, many performed by the US Government over the last 40 years (now declassified) that *do* show negative health effects with exposure to low powered, continuous exposure to wireless signals.

So, while, allegedly, the 'jury is still out', what should we do? It's simply a trade off of perceived cost/convenience vs. potential damage to the health of students and staff.

In case you missed this from my earlier email:

Let's fast-forward ten years and hypothesize that the issue has been fully researched and the results accepted by all. There are two options:

        Option A: Wireless is proven safe and has no long-term health-impacts.

        Option B: Wireless is proven unsafe and has needlessly caused many illnesses
                 and cancers in the population.

[A] If the District 'bets' on option A and it turns out that Option B is the truth, then the District has needlessly inflicted irreparable harm on it students and staff -- a very large price to pay.

[B] If the District 'bets' on option B and it turns that Option A is the truth, then the District has needlessly endured the inconvenience of purchasing wired devices and running wired networks -- a very small price to pay.

This is the compelling argument: the downsides of being wrong are much greater for [A] than for [B] and we have no certainty of the eventual outcome of future research.

In short, for our children, who have no choice in this matter, it is better to be safe than sorry.


What We Need From You
=====================
Steve, given that you have now been made aware of a great deal of credible scientific information and opinion that can guide your decision-making on this issue, will you please take the time to carefully analyze this information, make a decision and fully explain your rationale for your decision?

Since we are gambling with the health of our students, the parents need a full analysis from you and your staff on this issue included in the 2013-2018 School District Technology plan *before* it goes to vote in front of the Petaluma City School District Board.

I am also still waiting answers from Mike Cole on my 3/25 email regarding specific technology configuration options for Valley Vista; this is a follow up from the answers he provided in his 3/12 email, in which he we had this exchange:

From [Parent]: "If Valley Vista is going to remain a single wi-fi router school in 2013-2014, the teacher has the freedom to turn the router on an off as needed and we are able to get my daughter enrolled there, then we have at least solved our immediate problem for one year, and maybe for all seven."

From Mike: "No, this causes alarms in the controller and fouls the update schema, it also stops others from using the WAP.  There will be more wifi installed at all of our schools, iPads are one of our standards, especially for elementary. It is an accepted and standard trend in public education. Unless a legal authority tells us other wise we will not stray from this aim."

More Questions
==============
Wow. To me, that sounds like a bureaucratic train headed in exactly the wrong direction. How is any of this position consistent with the current publicly available District Technology Plans on the District's web site? Where is the authorization for these actions? Do we have School Board meeting minutes that authorize this change to the plans? What is the legal authority here? We are talking about protecting the health of our kids. What is most important?

Thank you for your attention in reading this and yesterday's emails all the way through. I look forward to hearing from you and what you will do in response to receiving and reading these emails. I am requesting that you add this important issue to the next School Board meeting, so we can have a full discussion and educate the Board Members on the trade offs involved in executing the Petaluma City School District's technology plans, present and future.

Please call me or email me if you have further questions. I would be happy to meet with you at any time and can provide as much detail and assistance as you might need. I will be continuing to educate parents and teachers throughout the District about the health benefits of eliminating wireless networks on Petaluma City School District campuses. I hope that the Petaluma City School District will carefully evaluate the current science and select the safest options for its students and staff.


Regards,


[Parent]
Hi, Steve.

So now we are meeting, right? You now recognize that many of my questions have not been addressed, right? I will call Sue to set up a time.

I think we may be thinking about this wrong. We don't have to square off and 'prove' any side is more valid than the other. Think about the issue as one of 'choice' and mitigating risk.

As there are no studies on the safety children and wi-fi, we can only extrapolate from and reason about things that have been studied (radar, cell phones, animal studies) and observations about changes in our environment: explosion of wireless devices, current cancer rates, current autism/adhd rates et al.

Throw your desire for explicit causality out the window, put your safety cap on and the problem space looks different. The bottom line is that something is up and we, as a society, have not yet connected all of the dots. This is a flashpoint, emotional issue that could easily put the School District on the 'wrong side', which increases risks unnecessarily for everyone.

Society is divided on how to think about wireless, so I wouldn't expect parents in Petaluma to be any less divided. People are getting the message about the dangers of cell phones. They are just starting to learn that wireless networks and cell phone networks are very similar in their signal strengths and their dangers.

So what position can the Petaluma School District take at this time, as the attitudes in the population may be shifting? I think a dogmatic position is the wrong answer. The District should remain flexible to go either way, as we learn more. Hence the strong recommendations to not purchase wireless-only devices, such as iPads -- by doing so you are letting Apple walk you into a tough, inflexible position. Buy devices that can go either way, wireless or wired.

How about making it one of parent choice and consent? The School District can be up front about what we know and don't know about the dangers of wireless signals from all sources and then let the parents, PTAs, and school site councils for each school decide how they want to handle wireless in their schools.

For parents who think that wireless convenience is worth the risk, have them sign consent forms so they are explicitly agreeing to take on this risk and then install wireless into say, Grant and McNear. Now the  school district is in the clear.

For parents who think wireless is not worth the risk, allow those schools to go fully wired, say Valley Vista and Cherry Valley and support them in their choice. Letting it be one of parent choice and consent gets the district out of the hotbox and provides options for parents.

Let's discuss this and other possible workable 'win-win' strategies. The District can't hide from the facts and can't reasonably take a strong position on the safety of wireless -- at present, it is an unknown.

I am not the enemy. I am just a well-informed, motivated and skilled parent who cares deeply about the health of my child and all the children in Petaluma. I would like to work together to fashion a workable solution, instead of squaring off. Squaring off is a waste of valuable time, energy and money and should be only the last resort.

Regards,



[Parent]
Hi, Steve.

Did you attempt to send another email to me that maybe got stuck as a draft somewhere?

I have received only two emails from you in my inbox on Apr 8, 2013 and on Mar 27, 2013 and have received no answers from you that I asked in my 3/28 email, but I would appreciate some.

I believe Sue has answered the questions I asked her except for when the CD-ROM will be available. Any time this week will be fine.

>> On Apr 4, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Sue Merrill wrote:
"I will have the CD-ROMs available early next week, as I am working on it as time allows.  I will send you an email when they are ready to pick up."

Mike is still two emails behind on answering questions (remaining questions copied/pasted below your questions).

Please find below the 15 questions that I posed to you from my 3/28 email that you have not answered and the three questions from my email earlier today. Will you please re-read the 3/28 and 4/8 emails for context and answer the copied/pasted questions, below? None of these questions where intended as rhetorical questions.

I copied you on the 4/3 and 4/4 emails to Mike Cole so you would be aware of the information, but had no questions for you to answer in those emails. Thanks again for your time in reviewing this detailed information and for providing thorough and thoughtful answers to each question below.


> My questions
> ============
> [1] Do these statements still represent Petaluma City School District policy or has the school District dropped safety considerations from its goals?

        -- Still need an answer

>
> [2] If safety is still an important goal for our students, then the current District technology practices, as communicated to me by David Rose and Mike Cole, are not consistent with the Petaluma City School District's policy of "practicing appropriate and safe use of technology." and the 2013-2018 technology plan, most likely, includes even more use of these unsafe technologies. How can the School District let this happen?

        -- Still need an answer

>
> [3] Can parents read the draft of the JULY 1, 2013 – JUNE 30, 2018 plan and have a chance to comment on the plan before it goes to School Board vote?

        -- Still need an answer


On Mar 28, 2013, at 12:30 PM, [Parent] wrote:

> More questions
> ==============

> Let's do the math, if it takes 1640 hours of cell phone radiation (in an adult) to cause a 40% increased risk of brain cancer, what is 2400 hours of needless wi-fi radiation over two years going to do to our kids?

        -- Still need an answer

> How about 4800 hours in four year?

        -- Still need an answer

> 9600 hours in eight?

        -- Still need an answer

> Why would the School District even consider an 'always on' wi-fi network given that the science clearly shows negative health effects of this toxic pollutant?


        -- Still need an answer

> More questions
> ==============
> This standard/goal is not mentioned at all in the District's current technology plan. How can the District allow this dangerous technology to be deployed without School Board authorization?

        -- Still need an answer

> Do we have the meeting minutes showing this School Board authorization?

        -- Still need an answer

> Are parents aware of the dangerous tradeoffs the District is making?

        -- Still need an answer
>
> Perhaps using tablets might be an accepted trend, but I don't believe any School District can specify a specific branded product as the only option for a trend, particularly when this choice requires one to irradiate students for connectivity.
>
> Instead, the District should source broadly and purchase the safest, most flexible and most cost-effective options for laptops, tablets and networking gear.

> What is your opinion on this matter?

        -- Still need an answer


> More Questions
> ==============
> Wow. To me, that sounds like a bureaucratic train headed in exactly the wrong direction.

> How is any of this position consistent with the current publicly available District Technology Plans on the District's web site?

        -- Still need an answer

> Where is the authorization for these actions?

        -- Still need an answer

> Do we have School Board meeting minutes that authorize this change to the plans?

        -- Still need an answer

> What is the legal authority here? We are talking about protecting the health of our kids.

        -- Still need an answer

> What is most important?

        -- Still need an answer

Three new questions for Steve Bolman from the 4/8 email:

[1] Given that there is a safe alternative for connecting to the Internet that is already installed in nearly all of the Petaluma City Schools (ethernet), is there any good reason to have wifi at your schools?

        -- Still need an answer

[2] Wouldn't it be better to purchase devices or require Bring Your Own Devices to have a wired networking option so it can be used to safely connect to the internet?

        -- Still need an answer

[3] When can we meet?

        -- Still need an answer


Here are the questions not yet answered by Mike Cole:
======================================================

The 4/2 email left many of my earlier questions unanswered, so will you now please provide the answers to these questions?

Unanswered Questions from my 3/25 Email to Mike Cole
-----------------------------------------------------

[1] May I please get a more specific plan for just Valley Vista?

        [a] When will the specific technology plan be available?

            -- Still need an answer

        [b] In the meantime, what plan is being used to guide District decisions and is this current plan available to parents?

            -- Still need an answer

        We, as parents, are entrusting our schools to maintain a safe school environment for our children. I have presented a great deal of scientific evidence that reports that data carrying wireless signals are not safe for students and staff.

        [c] What scientific evidence does the District cite to refute the evidence I have presented?

            -- Which studies cited by RESIG refute the information that I have provided? How?
            (On 4/3 I provided more recent citations from the same sources that come to the opposite conclusions)

  [d] What scientific evidence does the District cite to demonstrate that their current practices are safe for students and staff?

      -- Nothing that RESIG cited demonstates that the District's current technology practices are safe
      -- Still need an answer: which study, which page, which paragraph?

        [3.b] What if Valley Vista chooses to turn off the router permanently? Does Valley Vista have the right to make this independent decision?

        -- Still need an answer: who has the final authority?

        [c] I don't understand what you mean by "fouls the update schema" and why this is dependent on the presence of a wireless network. Can you please explain why the District cannot execute its update schema via the existing wired/fibre-optic network? If the update schema must use the wireless network, can it occur over night at a time when students are not on campus?

          The answer your provided: "There is no provision for excluding it from controller alerts. The update schema concerns the software updates on the WAP. The sites use the parameters of the District tech plan for guidance." is too brief/opaque and does not address all of the questions.

           -- Still need an answer and please cite on what page of the School Board-approved District Tech Plan the parameters regarding wireless networks appear.

        [d] Don't teachers at Valley Vista have the option to use the wired ethernet network to connect  their classroom laptops? Since the wired ethernet network reaches all classrooms in Valley Vista, why is the wireless network necessary?

           -- Still need an answer

[6] Are there any other devices (other than the four iPads used in the 3rd grade class) that use the wireless network? I am thinking of existing and new projectors, document cameras and interactive white boards . . . anything else? Do these devices require a wireless network or could they use a wired network?

        [a] Apple TV (http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html) comes with a wired ethernet jack and an hdmi jack for video out, so no wireless network is needed to run Apple TV on a single television. Please understand that streaming video is the largest data payload on any wireless network and presents the most danger to anyone in the stream's path. Is the District's plans to stream video wirelessly from one Apple TV box through the bodies and brains of our children to multiple televisions/devices simultaneously? Is this a good idea?

        -- Still need an answer

        [b] A wired printer is sufficient and often less expensive. Sometimes products that offer both wired and wireless options do not provide the option to turn off the wireless transceiver. Does the printer the District is planning to buy for Valley Vista have the option to turn off its wireless transceiver?

        -- Still need an answer

        [c] What are the 'other devices in the adjacent classrooms' that are using the wireless network? As we already established, laptops can safely connect via the existing wired network. Are there any other wireless-only devices at Valley Vista other than the four known iPads? Can you please be specific?

        -- Still need an answer

Unanswered Questions from my 4/3 Email to Mike Cole
-----------------------------------------------------
Re: In May 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed these studies and determined that EMF/RF/MW from all sources (cell phones, wi-fi, wireless computers/tablets, cordless phones, wireless gaming devices and more) is a Class 2B carcinogen:

        - What do you conclude from the this May, 2011 classification?

                -- Still need an answer

        - Do you conclude that wi-fi is completely safe?

                -- Still need an answer: Yes or No, and why

        - Should you ignore this science and listen to your insurance company instead?

                -- Still need an answer

        - What if your insurance company is wrong?

                -- Still need an answer

        - Is your insurance company really an expert in this field?

                -- Still need an answer
Hi, Steve.

Just a quick note to let you know that I dropped by the District Office and talked to Sue Merrill who set an appointment for you and I to meet at 4:00 PM on Mon Apr 15.

During our 4/15 meeting, I would like to review and discuss the content included and linked to in my earlier emails (March 27, March 28, April 3 and April 8 and April 10), the testimony for the trial against the Portland School District (attached to my April 8 email) and the content of these three videos:

[1] Science 101: Cherry Picking & Black Swans
---------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyzZX-bCiqs

[2] Wi-Fi in Schools: Testing for Microwave Radiation Dangers in the Classroom
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO0AnNHz8vI

[3] Dr. Magda Havas: WiFi in Schools is Safe. True or False?
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v75sKAUFdc

Will you please carefully review this information over the next five days to prepare for our discussion? I will be focused on getting answers from 3/27 and 4/8 emails to you and discussing my proposals from April 10.

I hope Mike Cole will separately be able to answer the questions from my 3/25 and 4/3 emails to him.

Thank you,


[Parent]
Hi, Steve,

Thanks again for meeting with me yesterday afternoon.

16,000 microwatts per square meter (μW/m2) is a dangerous level of microwave radiation. It is 33% higher than a reading several hundred meters from a cell phone tower. That's a lot by anyone's standards.

16,000 μW/m2 is what you, Mike Cole and I measured coming off of just two wireless devices in your office yesterday afternoon, as a simulation of what just two students might do in your classroom. Please read about the details of this measurement, it's student health and safety implications and what we can do about it in this email.

I appreciate your listening to the information that I gathered and for watching the video presentations of the following reputed scientists, who are experts in the field of electromagnetic radiation:

Martin Blank, PhD
Associate Professor, Columbia University
Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics
http://vimeo.com/17266941

Magda Havas, PhD
Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies
Trent University
http://vimeo.com/17268032

Olle Johansson, PhD
Associate Professor, Karolinska Institute
Department of Neuroscience
http://vimeo.com/17270582
http://vimeo.com/18018440
http://vimeo.com/17250790

Joel Moskowitz, PhD
Director, Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
http://vimeo.com/17266112

What These Scientists Report in the Videos
==========================================
[1] Wireless tablets, laptops and smart phones when connected to a wireless network (airplane mode off/radios on) are not safe for our children. These devices are transceivers and concentrate dangerous levels of microwave radiation around the devices and the nearby children, whenever the devices wirelessly download or upload data. [Note: Apple's Important User Information Guide provides similar guidelines on how to operate iPads and iPhones (see manual quotes below my signature), but provides no statement as to whether or not these devices are safe to use. The devices, in fact, are only safe to use when the user turns Airplane mode on/radios off. When airplane mode is off/radios on and the device is put into standby mode (screen off), the device, is not actually powered off and still sends out a powerful beacon signal (5,000+ μW/m2) several times a minute.]

[2] These scientists recommend that school administrators invoke the precautionary principle and install safe, wired technology instead of dangerous wireless technology in their classrooms, while studies are conducted to determine if the levels of pulsed microwave radiation that these devices emit is actually safe for our children. No study has *ever* been done to determine a safe level of pulsed microwave radiation for children. Such a level may not exist. I left you copies of letter from Drs. Johansson and Havas that detail their independent recommendations for schools. Here are pdfs of the letters again:

[3] These scientists know that the current FCC/ICNIRP microwave radiation exposure guideline was never designed to be a safety standard. It is only a narrowly focused and woefully outdated guideline. The FCC guideline is 10,000,000 μW/m2 (yes that's millions). The scientists listed above propose much safer guidelines based on the large body of current scientific literature showing biological effects at levels above 3 to 6 μW/m2. (see http://emfwise.com/emf-safety-standards.php) That's 10 million vs. 3 to 6 μW/m2, which is millions of times too high.

The FCC guideline (calculated in the 1950's) is based on a level of radiation that would keep a 6', 200 lb. adult male soldier/radar operator from heating his tissue over a 30-minute exposure to intermittent radar. This guideline never considered that there are negative biological effects at levels below that which would heat tissue. Heating tissue is only one of many cellular environmental changes that can disrupt cellular functions. Others include changes in pH and exposure to extremely low levels of microwave electromagnetic radiation - millions of times lower in power than that which would heat tissue. In short, our cells can sense this radiation, see it as a foreign toxic substance and it causes many deleterious effects demonstrated in published, peer-reviewed, replicated scientific studies, as I shared with you earlier and as the scientists, above, list in the videos.

On Apr 8, 2013, at 4:23 PM, [Parent] wrote to Steve Bolman:

> Bottom line, a growing body of scientific research indicates that the microwave radiation emitted from wireless devices creates adverse biological effects.  These include:
>
> - permanent DNA damage
>
> - increased risk of cancer
>
> - damage to the reproductive system
>
> - heart and circulatory problems
>
> - weakening of the blood-brain barrier
>
> - changes to melatonin levels
>
> - insomnia
>
> - thyroid disruption
>
> - neurological and behavioral problems
>
> - decreased cognitive function

Why the Current FCC Guideline is Useless
========================================
The current FCC guideline does not and could not fit our modern times.

[1] Today's modern wireless routers, laptops, tablets and phones modulate/pulse its data transmissions at 100 to 200 Hz on a carrier wave (800 MHz to 6000MHz); the radar waves on which the current FCC guideline was calculated was for continuous (not pulsed) radiation. Pulsed radiation power is much higher in power than typically reported because manufacturers report average power, which is much lower than the peak power. Our cells, however, react to the peak power.

[2] The FCC guideline is calculated based on a 30-minute exposure. The FCC uses this broad guideline for ALL wireless devices, for ANY type of person and for ANY length of time.  On a typical 6.5 hour school day, that means that we are irradiating our children at 8x more than the guideline addresses. Furthermore, radar signal is directional and intermittent (once every minute or so), not an always-on 360 degree exposure, like today's wifi routers.

[3] The FCC RF exposure guideline only considers heat (thermal) effects as dangerous. They do not consider any other health effects (non-thermal) as dangerous and thus there are no safety guidelines for non-thermal biological effects. For example, prior to the man heating up he could suffer headaches, his heart could be affected, his nerves could start to tingle, he could be getting anxious and not able to concentrate, maybe he is having problems breathing, his sperm might be dying off, and his cells's DNA might be mutating his blood-brain barrier might be leaking, but this doesn't matter to the FCC. As long as the man does not get warm then he is within the guideline.

[4] The FCC RF exposure guideline does not vary for differences such as duration of exposure, distance from exposure, or whether there are any other competing sources of exposure. What if the man is sitting 150 yards from 8 cell tower antennas, talking with a cell phone pressed against his head, using a wireless tablet on his lap, and exposed to wi-fi 24 hours a day in his home? The FCC is considering each device separately, not in an actual use environment. This is the same issue when you stuff 24 wireless laptops tablets in a classroom. The wireless signals are additive and get to dangerous levels very quickly.

[5] The FCC RF exposure guideline does not vary for differences such as body weight, sex, age, and health status. Where are the FCC guidelines for small children, pregnant women and their fetuses, the elderly, or those with compromised immune systems? Should exposure for average-sized military men using radar equipment be the standard? Can one size fit all? The guideline never considered sensitive populations which absorb more radiation than a  6', 200 lb. adult male soldier.

In conclusion, this FCC guideline of 10,000,000  μW/m2 to which nearly all national and international agencies depend on for wireless product approvals and SAR ratings is based on a fallacy: that only tissue heating matters to one's health. That is definitely not true as proven by the scientists listed above. That is why you cannot look to the usual agencies for accurate guidance on this issue. I understand that this is very disturbing, but this is the case. Please recognize this truth.

On this issue, Steve, you have to think for yourself and make decisions that are in the best interest of your students. There are few experts in this field who have read and critically evaluated the literature. Will Davis at RESIG, your insurance company, is not such an expert. But the scientists I listed at the start of this email are such experts and they are telling you the truth. Watch their videos again or call them directly.

What We Learned From the Wireless Device Demo
============================================
Steve, yesterday in your office, you, Mike Cole and I together measured the microwave radiation emanating from a wireless laptop and tablet, both purchased in 2012.

I first explained to you the three scales on my professional GigaHertz Solutions HF-38B 800MHz-2500 MHz HF-Analyser and showed you the meter's user manual and its certificate of calibration. I also showed you the 223-page ElectroMagnetic Radiation Seminar manual that I received at my July, 2012 Electromagnetic Radiation Seminar conducted by the International Institute for Building-Biology & Ecology (www.hbelc.org). This week long seminar taught me how to use the meter properly and to interpret its results correctly.

I first clipped the meter to a tripod with a rubber covered clamp and adjusted the level of the meter's directional antenna to where a student's head would be located when operating the laptop. I did this to ensure that my body, which is a natural antenna for microwave radiation, would not affect the reading. I pointed the directional antenna directly at the laptop and the tablet.

I then set the meter to its highest scale of 1,000 to 20,000 μW/m2. I turned the meter on and, after a sufficient warm up period, placed the meter into peak-hold mode. I proceeded to measure the radiation emanating from my laptop and my tablet while both were wirelessly connected to the District Office's wireless network and the laptop was downloading this video: http://vimeo.com/17250790. We all heard the screeching from my meter while I measured and reported to both of you a reading of over

        *** 16,000 microwatts per square meter ***

You both acknowledged and saw for yourself that this was the measurement and it is much, much higher than 3 to 6 μW/m2. The scientists listed above would consider this a dangerously high level of pulsed microwave radiation for anyone, especially children.

Steve, after Mike left, you and and I watched a video that I first shared with Mike on February 21:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4E2i5XFX9M

This video is a recording of the press conference for the May, 2011 announcement by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC's committee of 31 international scientists analyzed all of the relevant current scientific literature over eight days and determined that EMF/RF/MW from all sources (cell phones, wi-fi, wireless computers/tablets, cordless phones, wireless gaming devices and more) is a Class 2B carcinogen.

At 4:07 in this video, you and I both saw that Dr. Magda Havas metered on her GigaHertz Solutions meter the microwave radiation level at at a point several hundred meters from a series of cell phone antennas that were in clear view, attached to the roof of a five story building. Her results were

        *** 11,870 microwatts per square meter ***

Wait. That means that my earlier reading of over 16,000 microwatts per square meter from two wirelessly-connected devices downloading a video (to simulate a typical student use) was

        *** 33% higher than a reading several hundred meters from a series of cell phone antennas. ***

Take a moment. Please let that sink in fully . . .

. . . and then ask yourself, are wireless laptops and tablets that irradiate more than a cell phone tower safe to put right next to our children? There are many studies that show that there are cancer clusters for those living within several hundred meters of cell phone towers and the cancers appeared in less than ten years. See the links below. What is the School District voluntarily choosing to do to its children? We can't ignore these facts.


What We Can Do About This
=========================
If, instead, we connected our laptops or tablets to the internet with ethernet cables, we could completely eliminate this toxic pollutant from our school environment. That sounds like a good idea. Why don't we just do that?

Oh, that's right. We already have these wires installed in nearly all of our schools. All we need is a few more switches and wires to extend this existing wired infrastructure. Then we need to purchase devices or require BYOD devices to have a wired connectivity option and finally the courage to do the right thing and turn these wireless routers off and direct students to use safe, wired technology for their connectivity while they are in school. Just like these scientists listed above are telling you to do in their letters and videos. Do you think they are lying? Making this stuff up? Incompetent?

What is missing in this logic? Nothing. Just because society is blindly going in the wrong direction doesn't mean that we have to be lemmings and follow them. We can listen to the scientific facts and accurate measurements and make safer choices for our children. Just because I am early in my awareness of this issue doesn't make the science or the facts wrong.

Microwave radiation at 16,000 microwatts per square meter is a very large number; the microwaves at this level will penetrate our children's brains and bodies, creating biological effects detailed by the work of the scientists, listed above.

Long-term chronic exposure to always-on, school-wide wi-fi is enough to cause these effects. It's like living next to a cell phone tower. There are not always symptoms in the short term. Some students may report headaches, heart palpitations or confusion and others will not. But the scientists listed above believe that it will affect the cells of all of the children, increasing their long-term risk of cancer - say within 10 years, when my daughter will be in high school.

The following link is to a page showing the current precautionary guidelines from the International Institute for Building-Biology & Ecology:

http://emfwise.com/emf-safety-standards.php

SBM 2008 (Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods)
No Concern      Slight Concern          Severe concern          Extreme concern
----------      -------------------     --------------------    ---------------
<0.1μW/m2       0.1μW/m2 to 10μW/m2     10μW/m2 to 1000μW/m2    > 1000μW/m2

*** My measurement of 16,000+ microwatts per square meter is WELL BEYOND extreme concern. ***

Therefore, BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) with wireless connectivity will irradiate our students at dangerous levels, since these levels are additive in a classroom. In contrast, BYOD with wired connectivity would be safe for all students to use. Wires and less convenience for greater student health and safety – that's the trade off we have to consider. Fewer sexy, wireless toys for less cancer. These wireless toys are not central to your educational mission. One can achieve the same goals with safe tablets with wired connectivity, samples of which I showed you yesterday.


Your Responsibilities
=====================
Steve, as the Superintendent of the Petaluma City School District, you are the one ultimately responsible for providing a safe environment for your students and for making technology decisions for your schools.

When these two responsibilities are at odds, like they are right now, you may face liability for ignoring these facts. Your agencies will not save you on this one. The scientists listed above report significant negative biological effects at the levels of pulsed microwave radiation that you are currently foisting upon your students in your school's wireless classrooms. Your district made these choices to install the wireless networks and devices without any regard for students' physical health and safety. Furthermore, the installation of these wireless networks were never mentioned in and not consistent with the safety goals stated in the District's technology plans that were available on the School District web site at the time I searched for them several weeks ago. Most importantly, you have created this unsafe environment without parental consent.

How should you best manage this situation?

I have made you, your executive team, the Petaluma City School board, the Sonoma County Office of Eduction, and the California Department of Education aware of all of the relevant peer-reviewed, published scientific literature and have provided names of experts in the field that any of you may contact directly. You all also now have an accurate measurement of just two wireless devices in use.

16,000+ μW/m2 of radiation is not safe for our children. What is the reading with 24 wireless devices simultaneously downloading content? We need to measure this.

On Apr 11, 2013, at 2:52 PM, [Parent] wrote to Micky Porter:

> Dr. Havas is the steward of the Zory Glaser archives that cites well over 6,000 studies (through 1972) on the bioeffects and health effects of radio frequency and microwave radiation.
>
>       http://www.magdahavas.com/introduction-to-from-zorys-archive/
>
> BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS (a one-page summary)
>       http://www.justproveit.net/content/biological-impacts
>
> 2012 BIOINITIATIVE REPORT
>       http://www.bioinitiative.org
>
> GOOD LIST OF STUDIES
>       http://www.justproveit.net/studies

Specific Recommendations
========================
Steve, I am glad that over the next few days that you will be considering my specific recommendations and have agreed to answer the remaining questions from my earlier emails for which we ran out of time to address.

These are the specific recommendations that we discussed:

[1] In the next 30 days, to add to the 2013-2018 Petaluma City School District Technology Plan, a carefully considered and thorough technology health/safety section that addresses how the District will deploy its wired and wireless technology in a safe way, designed to minimize students' exposure to wireless signals. We discussed the following:

  [a] To develop policies to prefer wired over wireless technology in as many situations as you can.

  [b] To instruct teachers and students to turn on wireless technology only when connectivity is needed to achieve an educational goal and then to turn this technology back off (minimizing students' wireless exposure) when it is no longer needed. This means putting laptops and tablets into Airplane mode on (radios off) whenever possible and the ability for teachers to turn the electricity on and off to the wireless routers, as needed.

  [c] To purchase laptops, chromebooks and tablets that offer both wired and wireless connectivity options, instead of purchasing wireless-only devices, such as current-generation Apple iPads; Apple may add a wired connectivity option in future iPads, but they are not there, yet. Google Nexus and Microsoft Surface tablets are less expensive and offer both wired and wireless connectivity options.

  [d] To require that any BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) have both a wired and wireless connectivity option.

  [e] To regularly measure the microwave radiation from all sources in your classrooms when students are using the technology and to make any changes necessary to bring the classroom microwave radiation into safe ranges (1μW/m2 to 10μW/m2).

[2] To disclose to parents what you now know: the current state of knowledge on the pros and cons of deploying wireless technology into your schools, addressing the tradeoffs of convenience vs. student health and safety. To disclose that there is no current definitive evidence for or against the safety of using wireless technology in schools because it has not been studied at all. To disclose that thousands of studies document biological effects of wireless microwave radiation at or below the measured levels in your typical wireless classrooms. To disclose how your accurate classroom measurements compare to current scientific thinking on appropriate biologically-based safety guidelines for wireless exposure:

        SBM 2008 (Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods)
        -------------------------------------------------------
        No Concern      Slight Concern        Severe concern            Extreme concern
        <0.1μW/m2       0.1μW/m2 to 10μW/m2     10μW/m2 to 1000μW/m2    > 1000μW/m2

        [a] The school can provide a balanced list of materials and links to parents so they can understand both sides of the wireless issue and decide for themselves if the potential risk to their children's health is worth the perceived convenience benefits. There no educational benefits using wireless connectivity that cannot be achieved with wired connectivity.

        [b] By presenting information in a balanced for/against format, similar to any voter information pamphlet, parents can then have an informed discussion about the decision to go wired or wireless at their schools and come to a majority decision, by completing and signing consent forms. The District would then support the decisions made by each school.

        [c] Doing this will enable the District to get ahead of this issue, inform its parents, increase the overall safety for all students and will limit the School District's liability if, in fact, wireless technologies do end up damaging the health of its students and cause cancers.

This is a win-win-win and gives parents choice and the ultimate responsibility for their own children's health. If some schools go wired (Valley Vista/Cherry Valley) and other schools go wireless (McNear/Grant), then parents have choice within the District.

The bottom line is that since we are gambling with the health of our children, then the parents should make the informed choice on behalf of their children and live with the consequences either way. Teacher convenience should not factor into this important health and safety decision. I think parents will understand majority rule and will respect the District leaders for being upfront with them and giving them choice.

Of course, your students would benefit most if you found the scientific information and opinions of these expert scientists convincing enough to eliminate wireless signals from your school. That would be the safest thing to do. Others schools and public institutions have done it:

- Hérouville-Saint-Clair in France
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7VetsCR2I  Skip to 10:37

- Wi-Fi removed from French National Library:
http://www.01net.com/editorial/377864/le-wi-fi-a-la-bnf-attendra/

- Germany warns citizens to avoid using Wi-Fi
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/germany-warns-citizens-to-avoid-using-wifi-401845.html

- Dr. Steven Sinatra - medical explanation
http://www.heartmdinstitute.com/v1/wireless-safety/ban-wifi-schools


Steve, I would very much like to work with you, Jason Hunter and Mike Cole to implement these or other similarly effective recommendations over the next 30 days. I can help in any way that you might need. Specifically, I could work with Jason Hunter to write this health and safety section of the Technology plan.

May we please keep the health and safety of our students near the top of the list of priorities? Wired technology is just as modern as wireless technology. Wired is not as sexy and it's less convenient, but it is faster, more secure and safer for all.


Thank you,


[Parent]

http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/iPad_Imporant_Product_Information_Guide.pdfcomes withe

Exposure to Radio Frequency Energy

Apple: "iPad contains radio transmitters and receivers. When on, iPad sends and receives radio frequency (RF) energy through its antenna. The Wi-Fi and Bluetooth® antennas are located behind the screen to the left of the Home button, and behind the Apple logo. iPad has been tested and meets the SAR exposure requirements for Wi-Fi and Bluetooth operation. A cellular antenna is located at the top edge of the iPad Wi-Fi + 3G, when oriented with the Home button at the bottom. For optimal mobile device performance and to be sure that human exposure to RF energy does not exceed the FCC, IC, and European Union guidelines, always follow these instructions and precautions: Orient the device in portrait mode with the Home button at the bottom of the display, or in landscape mode with the cellular antenna (located under the black edge at the top of the device) away from your body or other objects."

My Comment: Do you honestly expect elementary students to read, understand and follow these directions?

Apple: "iPad Wi-Fi + 3G/4G is designed and manufactured to comply with the limits for exposure to RF energy set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)."

My Comment: We already know that the FCC guidelines are outdated and will *not* protect the health of our children. You need to measure these iPads when in use to determine it radiation level.

Apple: "If you are still concerned about exposure to RF energy, you can further limit your exposure by limiting the amount of time using iPad Wi-Fi + 3G in wireless mode, since time is a factor in how much exposure a person receives, and by placing more distance between your body and iPad Wi-Fi + 3G, since exposure level drops off dramatically with distance."

My Comment: This requires either not holding the device or keeping the device's 'Airplane mode' on (radios off) in order to be safe, which means no connectivity. Wouldn't it be better to purchase devices or require Bring Your Own Devices to have a wired networking option so it can be used to safely connect to the internet? How do you ensure compliance? Don't run a wireless network on your school campuses.

Hi, Jason.

Steve and I are apparently are not working on this issue. He has not responded.

I am asking you the following questions:

[1] Are you planning to add a student health and safety section to the 2013-2018 Petaluma City School District Technology Plan?

[2] When can parents review the draft of the 2013-2018 Petaluma City School District Technology Plan?

[3] Do you value Petaluma City School District student health and safety?

[4] What proves that the recommendations in the 2013-2018 plan are actually safe for students?

I would like to report your accurate answers to these important question to the School Board tomorrow. If I don't hear from you, I will just have to report that you have chosen not to respond.


Regards,


[Parent]
Hello [Parent],

1) There is no health and safety section in the State Planning Guidelines which we are following. We have no plans to add any additional sections not included in the guidelines including the one you are suggesting.

2) The draft will be available for review and comment in mid to late May.

3) Yes.

4) There are multiple goals in the plan that address student safety in the use of technology

-- Jason Sutter
[Parent]

We did have a detailed discussion and reviewed several sources on the use of wifi on campuses at Thursday's Augmented Cabinet meeting.  It is recognized that scientific inquiry can never prove that something is safe. Based on the discussion, and the state of science at this time, we are going forward with our plan to increase wifi on campuses. 

Augmented Cabinet is not recommending your proposed solutions regarding wifi.

Steve

Hi, Chad.

On Apr 24, 2013, at 7:15 AM, Chad wrote:

> Good morning, [Parent]!  Hope you are well.
>
> A tech buddy and I were talking, and I could remember exactly where the routers are located in the Kinder building. Where, physically, are they now?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chad Carvey
> Incoming Principal 2013-14
> Mary Collins School at Cherry Valley

All I know is what I measured from the outside of the kindergarten room on the Cherry Valley campus at 4:30 pm on 4/12/13 when no students were present on campus. My strongest reading were from the angle of the building on the West/Northwest side. Mike Cole at the District Office has the full schematics that he can share with you.

Mike, will you please send this information to Chad?

The largest danger for wireless signals in the classroom are created by the connection between the wireless devices and the wireless router, it literally  takes 'two to tango'. From my earlier email, please recall a wirelessly connecting device works just like a cell phone call where the laptop/tablet is the cell phone and the wireless router is the cell phone tower. The power density is highest during data exchange (upload and download) and the power density drops off by the square of the distance from the antennas on both the wireless router and the wireless devices.

Here are four possible scenarios ranked in order from safest to most dangerous:

[a] Safest: Wireless router removed, devices' wireless features turned off
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This means no voluntary pollution and no danger to the students' health and safety. I would expect measurements in the classroom to match the outside readings of 1-2 μW/m2.

This can be achieved by putting all tablets or laptops in 'Airplane mode on'/'radios off' and removing the wireless router from the classroom. In fact, I recently learned from Apple that an administrator can set up an entire fleet of iPads to permanently configure them so they will always remain in 'Airplane mode on'/'radios off'. Students could not override the setting, only Administrators could. This is a great choice for students.

For laptops or Goggle/Microsoft tablets, connectivity would be wired. Comcast has already confirmed that they can bring an internet cable directly to the kindergarten classroom and parents could donate the switch, all the ethernet wire and the labor to safely distribute the signal throughout the classroom. Comcast also confirmed that an administrator could duplicate the web site filtering, currently done by SCOE, by typing those IP addresses into the modem's configuration software. This is a safe and no-cost solution to the problem.

[b] Dangerous: Wireless router on, no wireless devices in the classroom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whenever the router is turned on, the school will be voluntarily polluting its students with unnecessary microwave radiation. The danger is nearest the router (12,000 μW/m2?) and will spray the students with a continuous beacon signal of wireless radiation (decreasing with distance from the router), but there will be no wireless devices concentrating the signal near the students.

If, however, one stored wireless devices in the room with 'Airplane mode off'/'radios on' these devices (laptops or tablets) would irradiate students with their beacon signals (5,000 - 8,000 μW/m2?) several times a minute.

Even when wireless-enabled tablets 'appear off' (after one pushes the on/off button to make the screen go dark), the device is not off. It continuously sends out a powerful beacon signal the entire time the device is in a kid's pocket, it is sitting on her desk or gets placed in her backpack.

[c] More dangerous: Wireless router on, 1-2 wireless devices connecting to it
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now the danger is both near the router (24,000μW/m2?) and near every wirelessly connected device (12,000μW/m? each, or possibly 24,000 μW/m2 if the students or teachers have the devices' 36" radius spheres of radiation overlapping each other). Students nearest the routers and the wirelessly connected devices are getting the highest exposures.

[d] Most dangerous: Wireless router on, 24+ wireless devices connecting to it
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now the danger is for all students in the classroom with readings near the students at dangerous levels (24,000μW/m2? or higher), depending on how the classroom is configured. The devices' spheres of radiation will definitely be overlapping in this scenario, creating very dangerous hotspots of microwave radiation.

Logistical Concerns
-------------------
The only way to know the radiation exposure levels that students are facing is to measure it regularly with calibrated professional meters. Wireless signals are very dynamic. They are reflected by metal surfaces and can be bent/refracted through transparent surfaces. A lot of it is absorbed into children's brains and bodies which function as shields, lowering measurements in the environment.

The work it would take to measure and monitor environments to ensure that the environments remained safe would far outweigh the work to set up wired networking for all. In short, the only reliably safe option is scenario [a].

Finally, the volumes of scientific information that I have already shared with you establishes that the following biologically-based levels of microwave radiation exposure to children in schools are your safe targets:

http://emfwise.com/emf-safety-standards.php

SBM 2008 (Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods)
=======================================================
No Concern    Slight Concern            Severe concern          Extreme concern
----------      -------------------     --------------------    ---------------
<0.1μW/m2    0.1μW/m2 to 10μW/m2    10μW/m2 to 1000μW/m2    > 1000μW/m2

The current FCC microwave radiation exposure guideline (10,000,000 μW/m2) was never designed to be a safety standard. It is a decades-old, non-protective, scientifically disproven guideline. Any government agency/school district recommending this guideline as one that is safe for students is negligent in performing their duties to provide a safe environment.

Even the FCC, might be finally getting it. On March 27, 2013, the FCC announced they will review and may modify their microwave exposure guideline related to health and safety of radiofrequency (RF) emissions from radio transmitters (http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-review-rf-exposure-policies).

I hope this information is helpful in your decision to value health and safety of your kindergarten students.


Regards,


[Parent]
Hi, Emily.

Thanks for setting us straight about the promotion of your kindergarteners to first grade.

We remain very concerned about schools that are choosing to adopt wireless technology in the face of volumes of evidence that shows that long-term chronic exposure to wireless radiation is not safe for anyone, especially school-age children.

Children absorb more of this pulsed microwave radiation than adults: their bones and skulls are thinner, the water content in their body is higher and their cells are dividing/differentiating faster than adults.

Many scientific experts in this field recommend against deploying wireless technology in schools. I have already forwarded their letters to you.

You can find more here:

  http://www.wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html

  http://www.justproveit.net/studies

The logic of why you do not want wireless networks and devices in your school is amazingly simple. Here's the summary:

1. The FCC Guideline of 10,000,000 μW/m2 is outdated and not protective; a safe level that does not cause biological effects is 3-6 μW/m2.

2. A wirelessly connected laptop or iPad irradiates students at 16,000 μW/m2, 33% more than a person standing 1,000 feet from a cell phone tower, which has been a level sufficient to cause cancer clusters after 7-10 years exposure.

3. The State/County/District's plans to add more wireless for BYOD compounds this danger.

4. All of this danger can be avoided by using your existing wired network and existing/new wired devices (including tablets from Google or Microsoft, instead of Apple).

5. Your school has a legal responsibility to provide a safe environment for its students.

6. Your school can point to nothing that proves that wireless is safe for its students.

7. Expert scientists in this field have published over 8,000 studies in peer-reviewed scientific literature over the last 40 years, that document the following negative heath effects caused by microwave radiation at levels far below the current FCC guideline:

  - permanent DNA damage

  - increased risk of cancer

  - damage to the reproductive system

  - heart and circulatory problems

  - weakening of the blood-brain barrier

  - changes to melatonin levels

  - insomnia

  - thyroid disruption

  - neurological and behavioral problems

  - decreased cognitive function

Emily, you are an intelligent person. These are scientific results. You believe and cite education research to back up your education decisions. This scientific research deserves your same respect.

Your parents deserve to know about the consequences to their children's health of moving to an 'always on' wireless network.Your parents should be asked for their consent to allow the school to conduct this kind of experiment on their children: irradiating their children with dangerous levels of microwave radiation for projected educational and convenience benefits.

The parents should also know that their children can get exactly the same educational benefits with wired devices, by the school accepting some lower convenience.

That's the trade off: greater convenience vs. student health and safety. We all need to face how trivial 'greater convenience' is compared to our children's life-long health and safety.

Do you really believe that wireless radiation for kids is safe? Are you willing to risk their health and safety because your bosses tell you it's OK to do so?

Who should you listen to? Your bosses? The wireless industry? Scientists doing the work, independent of the influences of the wireless industry?

The good news is that you can make the call for Valley Vista. The District, as your technology advisor, must support your independent decision.  I would involve your parents in this decision. They may have a very different opinion than your teachers.


Here is a list of some of the scientific experts in this field.
---------------------------------------------------------------
They are telling you the truth.

In the words of Olle Johansson, PhD, Associate Professor, Karolinska Institute, Department of Neuroscience:

"I [would be] very very happy if this turns out to be a false alarm, but that would also mean that thousands and thousands of publications for decades at the same time *all* would have to be wrong, and that has never ever happened in science before."

  http://vimeo.com/17250790  8:19 - 10:00

Links to all of their presentation are also on vimeo:

Martin Blank, PhD
Associate Professor, Columbia University
Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics

Magda Havas, PhD
Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies
Trent University

Olle Johansson, PhD
Associate Professor, Karolinska Institute
Department of Neuroscience

Joel Moskowitz, PhD
Director, Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Still not convinced?

1. The FCC Guideline of 10,000,000 μW/m2 is outdated and not protective
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The current FCC microwave radiation exposure guideline (10,000,000 μW/m2) was never designed to be a safety standard. It is a decades-old, non-protective, scientifically disproven guideline. Any government agency/school district recommending this guideline as one that is safe for students is negligent in performing their duties to provide a safe environment.

Even the FCC, might be finally getting it. On March 27, 2013, the FCC announced they will review and may modify their microwave exposure guideline related to health and safety of radiofrequency (RF) emissions from radio transmitters (http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-review-rf-exposure-policies). See additional analysis below my signature.

These are your safe targets:

http://emfwise.com/emf-safety-standards.php

SBM 2008 (Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods)
=======================================================
No Concern    Slight Concern            Severe concern       Extreme concern
----------   -------------------     --------------------    ---------------
<0.1μW/m2    0.1μW/m2 to 10μW/m2    10μW/m2 to 1000μW/m2    > 1000μW/m2


2. A wirelessly connected laptop or iPad irradiates students at dangerous levels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A student holding a wirelessly connected iPad or smartphone, downloading video content in a public school classroom as directed and encouraged by her public school, is effectively holding a cell phone tower in her hands/lap, which is irradiating her brain, her breasts and all of her vital internal organs at dangerously high levels of microwave radiation.

How high? 16,000 μW/m2, as witnessed by Steve Bolman and Mike Cole when I properly measured a laptop and tablet downloading a video in Steve's office on 4/15/13. See details below.

16,000 μW/m2 is 33% higher than the level of radiation 1,000 yards from a cell phone tower and 16 times higher than the level for extreme concern. The following video shows that

   Microwave Radiation: In May, 2011, the WHO Classified it as a Class 2B Carcinogen
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4E2i5XFX9M  3:45 - 4:05

. . . Magda Havas, a leading scientist in the field, measured 11,870 μW/m2 at a spot several hundred yards from a cell phone tower. This is a level of microwave radiation that leads to cancer clusters after 7-10 years of exposure:

  http://vimeo.com/54189727 46:15 - 51:10


3. The State/County/District's Plans to Add More Wireless Compounds This Danger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the envisioned 1:1 wireless device:student scenario in the soon-to-be-approved 2013-2018 Petaluma City School District Plan, one has to multiply this dangerous level of microwave radiation by the number of students in a class, say 25-35 students.

Since the 'sphere of radiation' around a wirelessly connected device has at least a 36" radius, then students who are sitting near each other are also irradiating their fellow students next to them.

Microwave radiation is reflective, additive and absorbed into the water-filled bodies and brains of our children. The DNA in our children's cells is the perfect fractal antenna for this microwave radiation: the DNA sees it as a toxic substance and reacts to it, as explained fully here:

  http://vimeo.com/17266941

This documentary, Resonance, Beings of Frequency,  puts this all into perspective.

  https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/resonance-edit.mp4

Cell phone and wi-fi radiation are so similar, you have to treat them as the same thing. They have similar frequencies, power levels and data modulation (data pulses at 100-200 times per minute).

Please find below my signature several scenarios that I explained to Chad for his school.

Emily, you are already at option [a], except for one wireless router in a third grade classroom. At no cost to your school, parents are willing to provide any additional switches and wiring so you can remain at option [a] and remove that one wireless router from the third grade classroom. Your parents will thank you for your foresight.

Will you please forward this email to those to whom I will be presenting on May 14? You could also forward this email to the technology committee, to all your teachers and to all the parents whose children would be affected by a decision to add more wireless to your campus.

That would be courageous and the right thing to do. This is information they all deserve to evaluate.

Thank you,

[Parent]

Dear Ms. Larsen, Ms. Kleinholz, Ms. Haugen, and Mr. Sutter:

Concerned parents will be following all Petaluma City School District guidelines to distribute the attached two-page pdf document to the parents of children attending Petaluma City Schools.

I would appreciate your help on May 13 to notice, by email, the parents of children who are attending your public schools about the important May 14, 2013 Petaluma City School District Board meeting at 6:00 pm at 200 Douglas Street re: the District's 2013-2018 Technology plan that, if approved, will have significant health and safety implications for their children.

Will you please invite your parents to attend the 20-minute presentation during public comment period? The presentation will address why the District's current position on using wireless connectivity and wireless devices in elementary schools is not the safest choice for their children. Your parents deserve to know this information, so they can make informed decisions for the health and safety of their children.

The Petaluma City School District's current position is as follows (quotes from Steve Bolman and Jason Sutter): "we are going forward with our plan to increase wi-fi on campuses. There is no health and safety section in the State Planning Guidelines, which we are following. We have no plans to add any additional sections not included in the guidelines [in the 2013-2018 District Technology Plan]."

The District's publicly-available technology plans posted on the District Web site in April, 2013 and approved by the Petaluma City School District School Board say the following about safety:

Page 6 – Goal: Students, teachers, administrators and staff will practice appropriate and safe use of technology.

Page 10 – Standard 2, Social, ethical, and human issues: Students develop positive attitudes toward technology uses that support lifelong learning, collaboration, personal pursuits, safety, and productivity. Students practice responsible use of technology systems, information, and software.

Pages 12, 13 - 6.9, 8.7, 12.10: Use technology in a responsible and ethical manner

Page 25 – Professional Development, Tier I: All teachers are able to use computers to safely enhance personal productivity, use technology equipment safely, understand technological issues involving safety practices, ethics, and equitable access.

In my meeting with Steve Bolman on April 15, 2013, he confirmed to me these safety goals were still applicable to the District’s current technology practices. I have specific notes from that meeting on each of the points, documenting Steve's position.

This means that despite having clear goals for "safe use of technology", the School Board, the District and its schools have been complicit in installing wireless networks and wireless devices into our schools in direct opposition to these stated goals, without prior consent from its parents and without parents' clear understanding about the trade offs: more wireless convenience at the expense of student health and safety.

In addition, the  School Board, the District and its schools have been complicit in providing no health and safety information on how best teachers and students should use this technology in the safest way possible. This also means that the the School Board, the District and its schools have been complicit in not finding, reading, evaluating or responding to the volumes of peer-reviewed scientific research and opinions that clearly demonstrate negative biological effects from the use of wireless connectivity and devices.

The two-page pdf document, attached, provides accurate information on these issues, which have not yet been adequately addressed by the Petaluma City School Distict. The pdf also provides the meeting date, time and location. Please email this pdf to your parents, so they will be informed about the consequences of "increasing wi-fi on their elementary school campuses" and so they will be prepared to ask questions to their public school administrators about this serious public health and safety issue.

Each of you on May 13 has a decision to make. To send or not to send this email and pdf attachment, i.e. to notice or not to notice your parents about a public meeting regarding a serious public health and safety issue that directly affects their children, an issue for which each of you have received detailed information over the last few months.

Your decision will be defining for each of your schools where you and your school stands on the important public school issue of information transparency. Your decision will define either –

[a] that you value open sharing of information and value inviting your parents to have a timely and open discussion on the serious health and safety implications of your school's current and future planned technology practices before the School Board votes on the 2013-2018 Petaluma City School District Technology Plan, or

[b] that you will be actively preventing the open sharing of information and a timely and open discussion on the serious health and safety implications of your school's current and future planned technology practices before the School Board votes on the 2013-2018 Petaluma City School District Technology Plan

Choosing [b] will cement your continued complicity with the School District to perpetuate dangerous technology practices without proper parental consent.

It is time to stop pretending that using wireless connectivity and wireless devices in schools is not a serious health concern. Expert scientists in this field have demonstrated many negative biological effects and are advising all schools to remove wireless connectivity and devices and use safer, wired connectivity and devices, instead. There are no scientific studies that demonstrate that the use of wireless connectivity and devices in schools is safe for students. None of these studies exist.

Would the envisioned 1:1, student:device Bring Your Own (wireless) Device (BYOD) program, supported with wireless connectivity be a safe use of technology? According to the wireless industry and to the scientific experts who have actually read and reviewed the literature in this field, the answer is an emphatic NO, it is not a safe use of technology. Let’s hear what the experts say about this:

First, a quote from Dan Snowden, Vice President, External & State Affairs, Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA), Former Chief of Consumer and Governmental Affairs, FCC:

"I want to be very clear. Industry has not said once . . . once . . . that cell phones are safe."
http://vimeo.com/31336824 skip to 4:00 in the video

Next, a quote from of Olle Johansson, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, the institution that hands out the Nobel Prizes:

"Of course, I would be very, very happy if this turns out to be a false alarm, but that would also mean that thousands and thousands of publications for decades, at the same time, all would have to be wrong, and that has never, ever happened in science before. Do not believe for a second that mobile phones, wireless Internet, smart meters and so on are safe, because they are not. They interfere with normal brain function, learning and memory, fertility, cancer risks and have been shown to shard the DNA in cells. All of this can be found in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but until now has not been in the public domain. You can find it, you can read it, you can assess the data yourself. Governments and Health Protection Agencies usually hide behind out-of-date, official guidelines that were drawn up when it was thought that the only way that living organisms could be harmed by electromagnetic radiation was if it was sufficiently strong to cause significant acute heating and this is monitored in fluid-filled plastic dolls . . . these guidelines cannot be used at all and were never meant to be used as any formal safety measure."
http://vimeo.com/17250790 skip to 8:20 in the video

Dr. Johansson was only one of four industry experts who presented their findings to the Commonwealth Club in November 2010. Please take the time to educate yourself by listening to these other presentations:

Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor, Columbia University, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics http://vimeo.com/17250790

Magda Havas, PhD, Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University
http://vimeo.com/17250790 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyzZX-bCiqs

Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley http://vimeo.com/17250790

Thank you for exercising your good judgment to act on May 13, 2013 to inform your parents about this serious public health and safety concern that directly affects their children and to inform them of their legal rights to address the issue with their School Board on May 14, 2013.

Regards,

[Parent],

The District will not be distributing the pdf documents or notifying parents about your presentation as you requested.

Steve
Dear Ms. Larsen, Ms. Kleinholz, Ms. Haugen, and Mr. Sutter:

Concerned parents will be following all Petaluma City School District guidelines to distribute the attached two-page pdf document to the parents of children attending Petaluma City Schools.

I would appreciate your help on May 13 to notice, by email, the parents of children who are attending your public schools about the important May 14, 2013 Petaluma City School District Board meeting at 6:00 pm at 200 Douglas Street re: the District's 2013-2018 Technology plan that, if approved, will have significant health and safety implications for their children.

Will you please invite your parents to attend the 20-minute presentation during public comment period? The presentation will address why the District's current position on using wireless connectivity and wireless devices in elementary schools is not the safest choice for their children. Your parents deserve to know this information, so they can make informed decisions for the health and safety of their children.

The Petaluma City School District's current position is as follows (quotes from Steve Bolman and Jason Sutter): "we are going forward with our plan to increase wi-fi on campuses. There is no health and safety section in the State Planning Guidelines, which we are following. We have no plans to add any additional sections not included in the guidelines [in the 2013-2018 District Technology Plan]."

The District's publicly-available technology plans posted on the District Web site in April, 2013 and approved by the Petaluma City School District School Board say the following about safety:

Page 6 – Goal: Students, teachers, administrators and staff will practice appropriate and safe use of technology.

Page 10 – Standard 2, Social, ethical, and human issues: Students develop positive attitudes toward technology uses that support lifelong learning, collaboration, personal pursuits, safety, and productivity. Students practice responsible use of technology systems, information, and software.

Pages 12, 13 - 6.9, 8.7, 12.10: Use technology in a responsible and ethical manner

Page 25 – Professional Development, Tier I: All teachers are able to use computers to safely enhance personal productivity, use technology equipment safely, understand technological issues involving safety practices, ethics, and equitable access.

In my meeting with Steve Bolman on April 15, 2013, he confirmed to me these safety goals were still applicable to the District’s current technology practices. I have specific notes from that meeting on each of the points, documenting Steve's position.

This means that despite having clear goals for "safe use of technology", the School Board, the District and its schools have been complicit in installing wireless networks and wireless devices into our schools in direct opposition to these stated goals, without prior consent from its parents and without parents' clear understanding about the trade offs: more wireless convenience at the expense of student health and safety.

In addition, the  School Board, the District and its schools have been complicit in providing no health and safety information on how best teachers and students should use this technology in the safest way possible. This also means that the the School Board, the District and its schools have been complicit in not finding, reading, evaluating or responding to the volumes of peer-reviewed scientific research and opinions that clearly demonstrate negative biological effects from the use of wireless connectivity and devices.

The two-page pdf document, attached, provides accurate information on these issues, which have not yet been adequately addressed by the Petaluma City School Distict. The pdf also provides the meeting date, time and location. Please email this pdf to your parents, so they will be informed about the consequences of "increasing wi-fi on their elementary school campuses" and so they will be prepared to ask questions to their public school administrators about this serious public health and safety issue.

Each of you on May 13 has a decision to make. To send or not to send this email and pdf attachment, i.e. to notice or not to notice your parents about a public meeting regarding a serious public health and safety issue that directly affects their children, an issue for which each of you have received detailed information over the last few months.

Your decision will be defining for each of your schools where you and your school stands on the important public school issue of information transparency. Your decision will define either –

[a] that you value open sharing of information and value inviting your parents to have a timely and open discussion on the serious health and safety implications of your school's current and future planned technology practices before the School Board votes on the 2013-2018 Petaluma City School District Technology Plan, or

[b] that you will be actively preventing the open sharing of information and a timely and open discussion on the serious health and safety implications of your school's current and future planned technology practices before the School Board votes on the 2013-2018 Petaluma City School District Technology Plan

Choosing [b] will cement your continued complicity with the School District to perpetuate dangerous technology practices without proper parental consent.

It is time to stop pretending that using wireless connectivity and wireless devices in schools is not a serious health concern. Expert scientists in this field have demonstrated many negative biological effects and are advising all schools to remove wireless connectivity and devices and use safer, wired connectivity and devices, instead. There are no scientific studies that demonstrate that the use of wireless connectivity and devices in schools is safe for students. None of these studies exist.

Would the envisioned 1:1, student:device Bring Your Own (wireless) Device (BYOD) program, supported with wireless connectivity be a safe use of technology? According to the wireless industry and to the scientific experts who have actually read and reviewed the literature in this field, the answer is an emphatic NO, it is not a safe use of technology. Let’s hear what the experts say about this:

First, a quote from Dan Snowden, Vice President, External & State Affairs, Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA), Former Chief of Consumer and Governmental Affairs, FCC:

"I want to be very clear. Industry has not said once . . . once . . . that cell phones are safe."
http://vimeo.com/31336824 skip to 4:00 in the video

Next, a quote from of Olle Johansson, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, the institution that hands out the Nobel Prizes:

"Of course, I would be very, very happy if this turns out to be a false alarm, but that would also mean that thousands and thousands of publications for decades, at the same time, all would have to be wrong, and that has never, ever happened in science before. Do not believe for a second that mobile phones, wireless Internet, smart meters and so on are safe, because they are not. They interfere with normal brain function, learning and memory, fertility, cancer risks and have been shown to shard the DNA in cells. All of this can be found in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but until now has not been in the public domain. You can find it, you can read it, you can assess the data yourself. Governments and Health Protection Agencies usually hide behind out-of-date, official guidelines that were drawn up when it was thought that the only way that living organisms could be harmed by electromagnetic radiation was if it was sufficiently strong to cause significant acute heating and this is monitored in fluid-filled plastic dolls . . . these guidelines cannot be used at all and were never meant to be used as any formal safety measure."
http://vimeo.com/17250790 skip to 8:20 in the video

Dr. Johansson was only one of four industry experts who presented their findings to the Commonwealth Club in November 2010. Please take the time to educate yourself by listening to these other presentations:

Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor, Columbia University, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics http://vimeo.com/17250790

Magda Havas, PhD, Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University
http://vimeo.com/17250790 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyzZX-bCiqs

Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley http://vimeo.com/17250790

Thank you for exercising your good judgment to act on May 13, 2013 to inform your parents about this serious public health and safety concern that directly affects their children and to inform them of their legal rights to address the issue with their School Board on May 14, 2013.

Regards,


[Parent]
Dear Ms. Larsen,

Thank you for meeting with me today. I appreciate your willingness to listen to the important scientific information I have gathered for your review. Thank you also for agreeing to respond to and answer the questions in all of my previous emails to Sheila Garvey and to yourself:

May 15 email sent directly to Kathy Larsen (this email)
May  9 email sent directly to Kathy Larsen
May  9 email sent directly to Kathy Larsen
Apr 12 cc email to Sheila Garvey
Apr 12 cc email to Sheila Garvey
Apr 11 email sent directly to Sheila Garvey
Mar  5 cc email to Sheila Garvey
Feb 21 email sent directly to Sheila Garvey
Feb 20 email sent directly to Sheila Garvey

Together, we discussed and recognize that the emails listed above have received no previous responses from either of you. I will look forward to your replies by the end of the week.

In my previous emails, I requested from you and Mike Cole the time to accurately measure the microwave radiation exposure in the kindergarten room, so I can determine if this environment would be safe for my daughter. I will need to measure the microwave radiation exposure for four use cases/scenarios:

[1] Router on, no wireless devices connected to it
[2] Router on, one teacher laptop connected to it, both idle and downloading content
[3] Router on, one teacher laptop and one student tablet connected to it, both idle and downloading content
[4] Router on, all 24 laptops (from the rolling cart) connected to it, both idle and downloading content

This would take about 60 minutes, but we would need access to the cart of laptops.

Question: When can we set up these measurements?

Only by using a professional meter that measures microwave radiation levels in the full range of carrier waves (2.4GHz thru 5.8GHz) to measure the microwave radiation in typical usage scenarios, will I have the knowledge to determine the safety of the school environment for my daughter.

In our limited time today, we spent five minutes listening to small portions of videos of three expert scientists working in the field which told you in in their own voices, that based on the review of thousands of studies over the last 40 years, there are significant, scientifically-validated, negative biological effects for long-term chronic exposure to wireless signals at the levels you choose to irradiate your students at Mary Collins School at Cherry Valley every school day, including:

        - permanent DNA damage

        - increased risk of cancer

        - damage to the reproductive system

        - heart and circulatory problems

        - weakening of the blood-brain barrier

        - changes to melatonin levels

        - insomnia

        - thyroid disruption

        - neurological and behavioral problems

        - decreased cognitive function

I would encourage you to take the time to listen to the full videos of the following scientific experts and listen attentively to what they are telling us all:

Olle Johansson, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, the institution that hands out the Nobel Prizes
        http://vimeo.com/17250790

Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor, Columbia University, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics
        http://vimeo.com/17250790

Magda Havas, PhD, Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University
        http://vimeo.com/17250790
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyzZX-bCiqs

Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
        http://vimeo.com/17250790

You can find the many scientific opinions and studies at these links:

        http://www.wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html

        http://www.justproveit.net/studies

        http://www.bionitiative.org

        http://www.magdahavas.com/category/from-zorys-archive/

By choosing to ignore these expert scientists and the thousands of published, peer-reviewed studies and to falsely assume that Steve Bolman, Mike Cole or anyone else in the District Office has any expertise in this topic, you are being negligent in evaluating the scientific information at your finger tips and negligent in providing a safe environment for your students.

Ms. Larsen, you are the decision-maker for your school. You are accountable. By doing nothing to change your current technology practices you are valuing your administration's convenience over the health and safety of our children/your students. By choosing not to inform your parents of this scientific information and the health and safety implications of the 2013-2018 District technology plan, you are being negligent in performing your duties.

I would urge you to respect the information presented to you and to take the actions to inform your parents and to protect the health and safety of your students. Wired connectivity is a simple, effective solution that we know is safe. Anything else is just someone's best guess of what is safe.

There are many, many data points showing you that long-term, chronic exposure to wireless signals is not safe for adults, let alone children. Please connect the dots and don't continue to put our children at risk by choosing unnecessary, continuous, voluntary, toxic pollution of our classroom environments.


Regards,


[Parent]

Measurements
============
I measured the power density levels of the wireless connectivity from my Apple Devices today using my Gigahertz Solutions HF58B RF-Analyser http://www.gigahertz-solutions.com/en/Online-Shop/Measurement/High-Frequency/Instruments/HF58B.html

For perspective, the following are some guidelines for safe targets for pulsed microwave radiation exposure that are based on a thorough review of over 2000 scientific studies that show negative health effects for low power, wireless microwave radiation (http://www.bionitiative.org andhttp://emfwise.com/emf-safety-standards.php)

SBM 2008 (Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods)
(μW/m2 is microwatts per square meter)
=======================================================
No Concern    Slight Concern            Severe concern       Extreme concern
----------   -------------------     --------------------    ---------------
<0.1μW/m2    0.1μW/m2 to 10μW/m2    10μW/m2 to 1000μW/m2    > 1000μW/m2


Legend for Measurements
-----------------------
All measurements in microwatts per square meter (μW/m2), 6-12" from the device
WR-y: Wireless Router on
WR-n: Wireless Router off
WF-y: Device WiFi on
WF-n: Device WiFi off
CD-y: Device Cellular Data on  (4G Verizon, 94952)
CD-n: Device Cellular Data off  (4G Verizon, 94952)
AM-y: Device Airplane Mode on/radios off
AM-n: Device Airplane Mode off/radios on
0.25 μW/m2 with WR-n, WF-n (background reading)
Large readings rounded up to nearest 1,000  μW/m2

I own all of the devices listed below.

Results
-------
[0] Apple Airport Express 2.4 GHz router (Serial# HS4378LJQVO)
        12,000    μW/m2 with WR-y (continuous @ 6")
            50    μW/m2 with WR-y (continuous @ 20')

[1] Apple MacBookPro4,1 (Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.4 GHz, Serial# W88294WDYJX
        12,000    μW/m2 with WR-n, WF-y (beacon signal every 15 seconds)
        12,000    μW/m2 with WR-y, WF-y (beacon signal every 15 seconds)
        20,000 +  μW/m2 with WR-y, WF-y (downloading youtube video)

[2] Apple iPad 3 Tablet (Serial# DLXH86G5DNQR)
             0.25 μW/m2 with WR-n, WF-y, CD-n, AM-y
             0.25 μW/m2 with WR-n, WF-n, CD-y, AM-y
         3,000    μW/m2 with WR-y, WF-y, AM-n (beacon signal every 5-10 seconds)
         4,500    μW/m2 with WR-y, WF-y, AM-n (beacon signal every 5-10 seconds)
        18,000    μW/m2 with WR-y, WF-y, AM-n (downloading youtube video)
        12,000    μW/m2 with WR-n, WF-n, CD-y, AM-n (connecting to tower)
        20,000 +  μW/m2 with WR-n, WF-n, CD-y, AM-n (downloading youtube video)
        No wired connectivity option

[3] Apple iPhone 4 on Sprint (Serial# C39GJMU4DTDG)
             0.25 μW/m2 with WR-n, WF-n, CD-n, AM-y
         6,000    μW/m2 with WR-y, WF-y, AM-n (beacon signal every 5-10 seconds)
        14,000    μW/m2 with WR-y, WF-y, AM-n (downloading youtube video)
        12,500    μW/m2 with WR-n, WF-n, CD-y, AM-n (connecting to tower)
        14,500    μW/m2 with WR-n, WF-n, CD-y, AM-n (making a call)
        20,000 +  μW/m2 with WR-n, WF-n, CD-y, AM-n (downloading youtube video)
        No wired connectivity option

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that signals that are 12x-20x the level for 'Extreme Concern' might not be a good idea for our children. Understand all of these wi-fi measurements were taken for a single device communicating solely on the 2.4 GHz spectrum. Most routers in schools are broadcasting simultaneously at 2.4GHz and 5.0GHz, and have as many as 25-30 wirelessly connected devices in a single classroom. Therefore, the readings in these classrooms would be much higher than what we see here.
Hi, Steve and Chad.

Thank you for your responses.

What you are both missing is that the current Petaluma School District Technology practices and the upcoming 2013-2008 Technology Plans has significant implications for student health and safety. This is important news for you and for all of the PCSD parents.

You now both know that what I have reported is true because I have shared links with you and the School Board to all of the videos and published, peer-reviewd scientific information which demonstrates the scientifically-validated, negative biological effects for long-term chronic exposure to wireless signals at the levels you choose to irradiate your students in Petaluma City Schools every school day, including:

        - permanent DNA damage

        - increased risk of cancer

        - damage to the reproductive system

        - heart and circulatory problems

        - weakening of the blood-brain barrier

        - changes to melatonin levels

        - insomnia

        - thyroid disruption

        - neurological and behavioral problems

        - decreased cognitive function

No government agency opinion, including yours, can invalidate these scientific findings. This is a perspective the PCSD parents are missing.

You both, as public school officials, have the responsibility to inform your parents about the potential health and safety risks of your technology practices and choices. Not doing so is negligence. Please start addressing this issue with the professionalism and care that it deserves.

The Petaluma City School District has the legal obligation to provide a safe environment for its students. My initial measurements show that the environment in the PCSD schools is not safe. Steve, you saw first-hand that the peak measurement of microwave radiation was 16,000 μW/m2 from a single laptop downloading a video in your office.

As we learned last night, about the time-value exposure to radiation:

Just as microwave cooking lesson tells us:
------------------------------------------
100% power x 6 minutes = 1 cooked potato
50% power x 12 minutes = 1 cooked potato


We have to apply the same analysis to the PCSD classrooms
---------------------------------------------------------
16,000 μW/m2 x 100 pulses per minute x 6.25 minutes = 10,000,000 μW/m2

One student downloading video means a student has exceeded the FCC Federal guideline after just 6.25 minutes of use . . .

. . .  and you both still maintain that this is safe? What about when 24 students do this simultaneously in one classroom at the same time?

There is no way that any thinking, feeling person who can do 5th grade math could have an informed conclusion that this wireless practice is as safe as downloading the video on a wired internet connection.

Please wake up. You are both sticking your heads in the sand and 'pretending' that this science does not exist. That is negligence.

You are the decision-makers. You are both accountable. I would start playing it safer with our kids. Wired connectivity is a better and safer choice for everyone. There are many good, wired alternatives that can achieve all of your envisioned educational objectives.

You can't deny the science. Please listen to the facts that we know and start making safer choices.


Thank you,


[Parent]
Hi, Mike.

On May 15, 2013, at 4:43 PM, Mike Cole wrote:

> Hi [Parent],
> I agreed to spend an hour with you at the site.
> Pardon me for being vague late last evening...
> We will not be taking measurements in the classroom buildings.
> Mike Cole

You provided contradictory information to me regarding the metering:

On 5/13, around 10:30 am, we discussed at the School District Office that you and I were planning to meet to measure inside the MCCV kindergarten classroom on Thu 5/16

On 5/14, around 8:00 pm, after my presentation to the School Board, you changed your story and said that Thu, 5/16 would not work for you and that you wished to measure only outside of the classroom.

I pointed out to you then and confirmed in my 5/15 email, that measuring outside of the classroom is useless because our students and the wireless router and wireless devices are actually inside the classroom. What would measuring outside the classroom teach us? Nothing useful. That's pretty obvious, right?

So, we need to measure typical usage scenarios, as I described yesterday for all the reasons I have already provided:

On May 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, [Parent] wrote:

> In my previous emails, I requested from you and Mike Cole the time to accurately measure the microwave radiation exposure in the kindergarten room, so I can determine if this environment would be safe for my daughter. I will need to measure the microwave radiation exposure for four use cases/scenarios:
>
> [1] Router on, no wireless devices connected to it
> [2] Router on, one teacher laptop connected to it, both idle and downloading content
> [3] Router on, one teacher laptop and one student tablet connected to it, both idle and downloading content
> [4] Router on, all 24 laptops (from the rolling cart) connected to it, both idle and downloading content
>
> This would take about 60 minutes, but we would need access to the cart of laptops.
>
> Question: When can we set up these measurements?

I am willing to get the meter that covers the full range of 2.4GHz to 5.8GHz. I just need access to the room and the rolling cart of laptops to set up the typical usage scenarios.

Of course, if everyone would prefer, we can forego the metering and just remove the wireless router from the MCCV kindergarten classroom. I have already offered to pay the Comcast bill for the entire school year to provide safe wired networking to the MCCV kindergarten classroom. That's a great idea that would solve the problem at no additional cost to the MCCV.

Measuring just the outside of the class room is useless and therefore unacceptable. Please let me know how we can proceed to either evaluate the safety of my daughter's kindergarten classroom or to take the actions to make it safe for her.


Regards,
My focus is on the safety of children. They are the first generation that will be getting continuous exposure to these microwave radiation signals for their entire lives. We have no certainty of what the impact of this will be, but we have a lot of science that says we should be careful.

Though wireless signals affects us all, I think adults, when properly informed, can make their own decisions about how much microwave radiation exposure they wish to endure for the added convenience of wireless connectivity. My choice, of course, is for as little microwave radiation as possible, but I recognize that others may feel differently.

Adults frequently make less-than-perfect choices for their long-term health. We shouldn't, however, make decisions as a community to continually irradiate our children where they spend the majority of their time in public places: at school, playgrounds, parks and ball fields.

Exposure for 30 minute in a store or coffee shop, for example, is probably not enough to cause much harm. Exposure for 6-10 hours a day at school, playgrounds, parks and ball fields is a very different story and could cause significant harm, as reported in over 8000 peer-reviewed, scientific studies:

        - permanent DNA damage

        - increased risk of cancer

        - damage to the reproductive system

        - heart and circulatory problems

        - weakening of the blood-brain barrier

        - changes to melatonin levels

        - insomnia

        - thyroid disruption

        - neurological and behavioral problems

        - decreased cognitive function

Here are the links to the studies and scientific opinions:

  http://www.wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html

  http://www.justproveit.net/studies

  http://www.bionitiative.org

  http://www.magdahavas.com/category/from-zorys-archive/


The key point is that there is no agreement/certainty about the safety of any of this so we should be safer with our kids, while we wait for the results of more studies specific to Wi-Fi of which there are none right now. Unfortunately, Petaluma City School District is choosing to not take this precautionary position and to not inform its parents about the possible health and safety impacts of existing and planned increased use of wifi technology on its campuses. By doing so, they are valuing their convenience over the health and safety of our children/their students.

It's obvious that we are facing a potentially-dangerous unknown for our kids and have a very easy, well-known, low cost and less convenient alternative: use wired connectivity and wired devices, instead. Other schools and entire towns have already chosen to do this:

- Hérouville-Saint-Clair in France
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7VetsCR2I  Skip to 10:37

- Wi-Fi removed from French National Library:
http://www.01net.com/editorial/377864/le-wi-fi-a-la-bnf-attendra/

- Germany warns citizens to avoid using Wi-Fi
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/germany-warns-citizens-to-avoid-using-wifi-401845.html

- Dr. Steven Sinatra - medical explanation
http://www.heartmdinstitute.com/v1/wireless-safety/ban-wifi-schools

If we all work together to understand the following, we can then make informed choices for our children's health and safety:

        [a] power density of the microwave radiation emanating from these wireless routers and from the wireless devices and how these power density levels fall off with the square of the distance from the devices

        [b] how these power density levels of microwave radiation affect us via time-value of exposure

        [c] how these exposures relate to biologically based guidelines

        [d] how these exposures relate to our current government guidelines, FCC or otherwise

For point [b], just think of your microwave oven re: time-value exposure to radiation:

Just as microwave cooking lesson tells us:
-------------------------------------------------------
1 raw potato @ 100% power x 6 minutes = 1 cooked potato
1 raw potato @ 50% power x 12 minutes = 1 cooked potato

. . . when downloading a high-def video on a wireless device, it looks like this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16,000 μW/m2 x 100 pulses per minute x 6.25 minutes = 10,000,000 μW/m2

16,000 μW/m2 is what I measured with Petaluma City School Superintendent Steve Bolman and Technology Director Mike Cole in Steve's office on 4/15/2013 of the microwave radiation swirling around one wirelessly-connected laptop and one wireless tablet downloading a video. I have made other measurements closer to 20,000 μW/m2, but use 16,000 μW/m2, here because it can be verified by Steve and Mike. It doesn't change the conclusions at all.

One person downloading a high-def video for 5-7 minutes, means that this person has exceeded the FCC Federal guideline. Makes you think differently about streaming videos through our brains and bodies of everyone nearby on the way to our screens, large and small, doesn't it?

When 24 students download this same video simultaneously on wireless devices, the signals are additive and will exceed the federal guideline many times over. Downloading the same video with wired connectivity, on the other hand, is safe for everyone. Which is the better choice for our children?

Recall, the following are some guidelines for safe targets for pulsed microwave radiation exposure that are based on a thorough review of over 2000 scientific studies that show negative health effects for low power, wireless microwave radiation (http://www.bionitiative.org and http://emfwise.com/emf-safety-standards.php)

SBM 2008 (Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods)
(μW/m2 is microwatts per square meter)
=======================================================
No Concern    Slight Concern            Severe concern       Extreme concern
----------   -------------------     --------------------    ---------------
<0.1μW/m2    0.1μW/m2 to 10μW/m2    10μW/m2 to 1000μW/m2    > 1000μW/m2

I will look forward to hearing from you.

Re: California Public Records Act Information Request per GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48

May 17, 2013

Mr. Steve Bolman
Superintendent
Petaluma City School District
200 Douglas Street
Petaluma, CA 94952

Dear Mr. Bolman,

According to the CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (CPRA), Government Code Sections 6250-6276.48 (January 2004), the Petaluma City School District (PCSD) is a local government agency, subject to all provisions of the CPRA.  Please find below my first CPRA information request regarding the Petaluma City School District's current technology practices and its plans to increase wifi on campuses.

My understanding is that the district has ten (10) days to respond to this CPRA information request. I stand ready to review the documents whenever they are made available to me between May 20 and May 27, 2013 – the last day the District has to respond to this CPRA information request.

As a member of the public I am requesting the PCSD to produce for my inspection at the Petaluma City School District Offices within ten (10) days of receipt of this written request a series of documents described below. Please note, the CPRA says "Records may be inspected at an agency during its regular office hours. The CPRA contains no provision for a charge to be imposed in connection with the mere inspection of records." My plan is to read the documents at the District Office. I will bring a camera to take photos of the few copies that I may actually need to make.

My understanding from Craig Cheslog in Superintendent Torlakson's office is that this request and your response to it are themselves public records and may be disclosed to the public should your agency receive a request for it.

On May 3, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Craig Cheslog wrote:

> Please be advised that your request for records, and our response to it, are themselves public records and may be disclosed to the public should the CDE receive a request for disclosure.

California Public Records Act Information Request per GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48
==================================================================================
I am first requesting to review at the District offices a print of the text of this email, prints of all the letters and documents attached to this email, and prints of all the studies linked to in this email. By making a CPRA information request of this CPRA information request, all of this important information I have previously provided to you as well as our email communications, listed in reverse-chronological order below my signature in this email, will be added to the public record.

In addition, I am making a CPRA information request of your response to this CPRA information request so it, too, can be added to the public record.

I have posed a series of questions to you, Steve Bolman, and to Mike Cole that have remained unaddressed and unanswered for nearly two months. The questions are listed in my On Apr 8, 2013, 6:06 PM email to Steve Bolman listed below my signature in this email. May I please review a written response to these questions as part of this CPRA information request?

For the following 19 schools in the Petaluma City School District, I have broken them down into two groups and would like to review the information for Group A by no later than May 27, 2013 and the information for Group B by no later than May 31, 2013, if you need the additional four days. Again, I would plan to review this information at the District office, and no copies will be required. I am well-equipped to review records in digital format, pdf or otherwise to save paper.

Group A
-------
Grant Elementary
McDowell Elementary
McKinley Elementary
McNear Elementary
Penngrove Elementary
Valley Oaks Elementary
Valley Vista Elementary
Live Oak Charter
Mary Collins at Cherry Valley
6th Grade Academy

Group B
-------
Kenilworth Junior High
Petaluma Junior High
Crossroads Community Day
Carpe Diem High
Casa Grande High
Petaluma High
San Antonio High
Sonoma Mountain High
Valley Oaks High

I would like to review the following documents, diagrams, spreadsheets, maps and any other documentation that evidences the following:

[1] The current state of the wired and wireless networking equipment and devices used in each of the schools, listed above as of May, 2013: including the brand name, model name/number, year put in service, and classroom location for each device, and if the device is connected via wires or wirelessly. The device inventory should include, but not be limited to document projectors, computer projectors, smart board devices, in-classroom microphone/speaker systems, printers, desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, wired router, wireless router, switch and any other networking equipment required to run the school's computer network. I will need to review the schematics to determine where ethernet wires exist in these schools and the location of each wired router, switch and wireless router.

[2] The planned state of the wired and wireless networking equipment and devices to be used in each of the schools, listed above for the 2013-2014 school year: including the planned changes in device inventory, connectivity (wired or wireless) and locations.

[3] The planned state of the wired and wireless networking equipment and devices to be used in each of the schools, listed above for the 2014-2015 school year: including the planned changes in device inventory, connectivity (wired or wireless) and locations.

I would also like to review all school contracts with any vendors that have installed wireless networking equipment in the,  Petaluma City School District schools for the period January, 2008 through May, 2013. In addition, I would like to review the AMS.NET, Inc. contract, as referenced in the 3/12/13 Petaluma City School Board Packet:

"AWARD OF BID - RECOMMENDED MOTION – “that the Board award Bid No. 01-13, E-Rate Project for Wireless at McKinley & McDowell Elementary Schools, to AMS.NET, Inc., in the amount of $255,351.43, and the Superintendent be authorized to approve change orders up to 10% and accept the work as being complete.” (Enc. B.8.) (Pg. 52)

Thank your for addressing this CPRA information request in a timely manner.


Regards,


[Parent]
Hi, all.

I attended Google I/O last week and found the Google Play for Education announcement very timely and relevant for both the soon-to-be-released California Education Technology Blueprint and the Petaluma School District 2013-2018 Technology Plan. That is why I am sharing the following links with you all.

Free Google Apps for Education
-------------------------------
  http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/education/

Google Play for Education Launches This Fall
--------------------------------------------
[1] Google I/O 2013 Keynote Part 8: Google Play Education
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E579ddgRnNc

[2] TechCrunch: With Google Play For Education, Google Looks To Challenge Apple’s Dominance In The Classroom
  http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/15/with-google-play-for-education-google-looks-to-challenge-apples-dominance-in-the-classroom/

[3] Edudemic What To Know About Google Play For Education
  http://edudemic.com/2013/05/what-to-know-about-google-play-for-education/

All prices quoted from Google's and Apple's web sites, without educational discounts:

All of the following Google devices offer safe, wired connectivity options*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  $199.00 16GB Google Nexus 7 tablet
  $249.00 32GB Google Nexus 7 tablet
  $249.00 16GB Google Chromebook + 100GB of free Google Drive storage
  $399.00 16GB Google Nexus 10 tablet
  $499.00 32GB Google Nexus 10 tablet
  * When used with widely-available microUSB/USB-to-Ethernet adapters

These higher priced, Apple Devices offer no safe, wired connectivity options**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  $329.00 16GB Apple iPad Mini tablet - 65% more than 16GB Google Nexus 7
  $429.00 32GB Apple iPad Mini tablet - 72% more than 32GB Google Nexus 7
  $499.00 16GB Apple iPad tablet - 25% more than 16GB Google Nexus 10
  $599.00 32GB Apple iPad tablet - 20% more than 32GB Google Nexus 10
  ** No 30-pin-to-Ethernet adapter or Lightning-to-Ethernet adapter is available.
           I emailed Apple about this on 5/6/13, but no response, yet. See the emails below.

Google's devices and platform at this time represent the safer and more cost-effective option for CA students. Will you please address this in your soon-to-be-released Technology Blueprints and Plans?

Regards,


[Parent]
Dear Mr. Bolman and Mr. Rose,

I am a member of the public and parent of a student enrolled in Mary Collins Cherry Valley charter school. As such, I am guaranteed rights by CA GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48 which governs the California Public Records Act. I made a proper CPRA information request on 5/17/13. The Petaluma City School District (PCSD) is not in compliance with the law re: my request.

I am writing to communicate three concerns:

[1] That the Petaluma City School District is not complying to CA GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48.

[2] Why Steve Bolman's 5/24/13 letter to [Parent] does not comply with the CPRA

[3] How the Petaluma City School District personnel treated me today, after I made my proper and lawful request to review any of the records that were on-site at the time of my 11:00 am visit to the Petaluma City School District offices today. The records that I sought were properly cited in my 5/17/13 CPRA information request email, that was also hand-delivered to the PCSD on 5/17/13.

This afternoon, I called a lawyer and the Petaluma City Police Dept regarding this issue and will discuss the three concerns, above, with the Petaluma City School District Board this evening, during public comment. The PCSD is not in compliance with the CPRA and needs to make immediate changes to be in compliance with the law.

Discussion
==========
[1] PCSD Denied Me Timely Access to its Public Records
------------------------------------------------------
The 5/24/13 Letter from Steve Bolman to [Parent] states: "we will respond in a timely matter . . . we anticipate providing you a response to your request during the second week of June 2013, or as soon as possible given the staff time available to work on this"  . . . and provides no additional reasons or explanations for not providing access to the properly requested public records within the first 10-day period. This is not consistent with the PCSD's obligations under the CPRA which states the following:

"public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except for specific exceptions to disclosure listed in sections 6253.2, 6253.5, 6253.6, 6254, 6254.1-6254.22, 6255, 6253.2, 6267, 6268, 6276.02-6276.48  . . . and any reasonable segregable portion . . .  shall be available for inspection . . . Access is immediate and allowed at all times during business hours . . . an agency may not adopt rules that limit the hours records are open for viewing and inspection. The agency must provide assistance by helping to identify records and information relevant to the request and suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access."

None of these specific exceptions were cited in Steve Bolman's 5/24/13 letter to [Parent]. The CPRA's Section 6253.c, which is also not cited in the letter, states that "each agency  . . . shall within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request . . . seeks copies of the disclosable public information . . . In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this section may be extended by written notice of the head of the agency . . .  setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. "

The section then lists the specific unusual circumstances, none of which are listed in Steve Bolman's 5/24/13 letter to [Parent]. The one reason given in the letter "given staff time available to work on this" is not one of the unusual circumstances allowed.

[2] Why Steve Bolman's 5/24/13 letter to [Parent] Does not comply with the CPRA:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The 5/17/13 CPRA is very clear that it does not seek copies, therefore, Section 6253.c does not apply to this request.

On May 17, 2013, at 3:21 PM, [Parent]wrote to Steve Bolman:

> As a member of the public I am requesting the PCSD to produce for my inspection at the Petaluma City School District Offices within ten (10) days of receipt of this written request a series of documents described below. Please note, the CPRA says "Records may be inspected at an agency during its regular office hours. The CPRA contains no provision for a charge to be imposed in connection with the mere inspection of records." My plan is to read the documents at the District Office. I will bring my own scanner/copier for the few copies that I may actually need to make.


2. The desired extension, as described in Steve Bolman's 5/24/13 letter to [Parent], is not sufficient under the CPRA: No specific date for the extension was provided and no allowed unusual circumstance was specified for the extension in the letter.

3. The Petaluma City School District cannot pick and choose which items in the 5/17/13 CPRA it wishes to disclose without proper rationale for why it will not disclose them. PCSD states the following in its 5/24 letter:

a.  "your request for correspondence (emails, documents, etc.) is already public information."

b. "the District is not obligated to provide a response to your questions posed in your correspondence"

c. "Documentation that does not already exist shall not be created."

None of these reasons are proper justification for not disclosing the Public records requested.

[3] PCSD Personnel Acted Discourteously to Dissenting Member of the Public
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I attempted to explain to David Rose, how the 5/24/13 letter from Steve Bolman to me did not relieve the District of its obligations under GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48, he would not listen to me and just walked away. Mr. Rose gave me two choices: accept his interpretation of the Petaluma City School District's obligations or he would call the Police, which, in fact, he did. This was neither a discussion, nor a courteous way to treat a parent of a student in the Petaluma City School District.

What are the proper next steps?
-------------------------------
For any records on-site at the PCSD offices, the PCSD on 5/29/13 "must provide assistance by helping to identify records and information relevant to the request and suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access so public records will be open to inspection at all times during the office hours."

For any records not yet on-site at the PCSD, the PCSD must provide a date when the records will be made available for inspection and "No notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days." As section Section 6253.c does not apply to this request, then 14 days from May 17, is May 31, 2013.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

I will make another proper and lawful request to review the records that are on-site tomorrow at the Petaluma City School District offices. The records that I will be seeking are those that are properly requested in my 5/17/13 CPRA information request email, that was also hand-delivered to the PCSD on 5/17/13.


Regards,


[Parent]
Dear Mr. Bolman,

Please forward this email to the Petaluma City School District's lawyer (PCSDL), as I will direct the rest of my comments directly to him/her.

Dear PCSDL,

Here are some refreshingly open comments from an alleged PCSD adversary – which is an incorrect and short-sighted portrayal of me in several emails that have come from the PCSD staff.

I have no interest in or intention of suing the PCSD over the wireless networking issue. I see a law suit as a hugely wasteful and inefficient activity that has a greater potential for ending in a lose-lose scenario than in a win-win scenario. I personally believe any dollar spent on a lawyer is a dollar wasted by someone who lacks the creativity and leadership to solve their own problems. I have already shared this view openly and candidly with Mike Cole and have no problems with my statement going on the public record.

I wish to proceed in a lawful manner. I will carefully research and follow the law for each of my efforts. I recognize that some PCSD policies are trumped by local and state laws and choose to follow those laws in lieu of following the PCSD policies. I am open to reading any local or state law presented to me and will adjust my activities to ensure that they remain within the law. I expect the PCSD to do the same.

My planned public campaign activities will serve the following stakeholders' needs in descending priority:

A. The health and safety of PCSD students, grades K-6.

B. The health and safety of PCSD students, grades 7-12,

C. The PCSD's educational goals to educate its students in a way that does not threaten A or B, above.

E. The rights of the parents of all PCSD students.

F. The health and safety of PCSD teachers.

G. The health and safety of PCSD administrators.

H. The PCSD financial interests, to ensure that money is spent wisely and in ways that do not threaten A or B, above.

I. Any teachers' or administrators' desires for fashionable technology or greater convenience that might threaten A or B, above.

Fashion and convenience belong at the bottom of the list of all of the needs to be considered, as they are both utterly trivial in the context of student health and safety. Promoting the use of iPads is an example of this trivial fashion. Apple is the only major company that does not offer wired connectivity for their tablets. The schools can select good alternatives and save money: the Microsoft Surface tablet or Google Nexus tablet/Chromebook perform the same functions and they offer a safe, wired connectivity option.

For my current CPRA request, yesterday, I was able to review only one contract (AMS.NET contract for McKinley and McDowell) and incomplete maps for ten out of 19 schools. I will still need confirmation of which routers are placed where on these ten maps, and for any maps the district cannot provide, I am willing to create one for them as long as I get accurate information re: the specs of the existing routers and where they are located. I would be happy to give the PCSD a copy of the newly created maps when they are complete and verified. I also need information about where the existing Ethernet and fibre optic wires are located, which were not specified on the maps. Further, I need accurate information about what changes are planned for each of these campuses for the 2014-2015 school and 2015-2016 school years.  All of this was detailed properly on my 5/17/13 CPRA request. I will return to the PCSD offices later this morning to continue my review of the requested public records.

I can understand the reasons why the PCSD staff feels compelled to consult with you, its lawyer, but fear of a lawsuit from me should not be one of them. I am hopeful that the PCSD will continue to follow the law and provide timely access to its public records that I will continue to request via CPRA over the next few months.

Fear of lawsuits from parents of PCSD students grades 7-12, however, should be at the very top of your list of concerns. The PCSD has been continually irradiating these students for the last seven years without their parents' consent. By reading the current science, it is likely that in another 3-5 years of continual irradiation, the health problems for these students will start to show up.

I would be most concerned about students attending Kenilworth Junior High who will be going on to Casa Grande. I counted 18 wireless routers on the Kenilworth campus map yesterday and understand that Casa Grande is slated to get an additional 35 wireless routers next year.  I will be researching the schools that feed into Kenilworth to see which of these schools have had wireless routers for the last seven years. The concern is for students who have had continual exposure for ten or more years.

My 5 year old daughter is currently scheduled to get over 1,200 hours of wi-fi radiation in her classroom per year for the next 13 years. That's 15,600 hours of exposure. We already know that just 1,640 hours of exposure to cell phone radiation over ten years has caused a 500% increase in brain cancer among those who started using their cell phones at a young age (Hardell). If you believe wi-fi radiation is not as dangerous as cell phone radiation, then you are grossly misinformed. They measure the same and pulse data at nearly the same rates. It's just a matter of time, if we don't wake up and do something about this.

Cancer is extremely expensive and inconvenient for everyone. Very expensive for the institution that insisted on continuing to pump unnecessary, continuous, voluntary, toxic pollution into classrooms, despite volumes of scientific data and opinions advising them to stop.

All it will take is one (or more) sick PCSD student(s), one (or more) litigious PCSD parent(s) and one (or more) lawyer(s) willing to work on contingency and the PCSD will have a large liability on its hands. A liability which can be easily avoided by getting ahead of this issue and taking corrective actions now.

I suspect the parents' lawyers will want to interview me. I will be able to provide background on and any evidence of my Spring 2013 campaigns to educate the PCSD on the dangers of wireless connectivity for children and how the PCSD ignored the important information that I provided: the thousands of scientific studies, the many opinions telling the PCSD to choose wired over wireless technologies, the easy, low-cost solutions to buy only devices with wired networking options, and the well-established, long-term health effects caused by data-carrying wireless signals. All of that information is also now in the public record.

The PCSD's head-in-the-sand response and its slavish devotion to international health agencies' opinions is also in the public record – as if these agencies had the PCSD's students' health and safety interests in mind when they made their proclamations. They most certainly did not.

The School Board and all of the current PSCD senior management team has been informed, starting on Feb 21, 2013 and continues to be thoroughly informed about the dangers of their choices to use wireless connectivity and wireless devices in PCSD schools. Four other Petaluma citizens shared with the School Board on Tuesday May 28, 2013 their comments and the following video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmcAXZ-o1K4

which details the very similar wi-fi issues in Australia and the decisions of many governments and schools in Europe to eliminate wi-fi on their campuses for all of the reasons I have already cited to the PCSD.

None of us are as dumb as all of us. Those that do not listen invite liabilities.

Over the last seven years, the PCSD chose to install wireless connectivity and deploy wireless devices into its schools without evaluating the safety of these decisions; by doing so the PCSD willfully disregarded the directives from the PCSD's own technology plans that were approved by the School Board and were publicly available on the PCSD web site through April, 2013. Furthermore, Superintendent Steve Bolman confirmed in his office on Apr 15, 2013 that the following principles were still applicable to the PCSD schools' current technology practices:

Page 6 – Students, teachers, administrators & staff will practice appropriate and safe use of technology.

Page 10 – Standard 2, Social, ethical, and human issues: Students develop positive attitudes toward technology uses that support lifelong learning, collaboration, personal pursuits, safety, and productivity. Students practice responsible use of technology systems, information, and software.

Pages 12, 13 - 6.9, 8.7, 12.10: Use technology in a responsible and ethical manner

Page 25 – Professional Development, Tier I: All teachers are able to use computers to safely enhance personal productivity, use technology equipment safely, understand technological issues involving safety practices, ethics, and equitable access.

The PCSD has lost sight of their legal obligation to provide a safe learning environment for its students. I have the evidence that shows that the current learning environment at PCSD schools using wireless connectivity and devices is not safe. No one will be able to hide from these facts, as they will be publicly on display 24 hours a day.

The PCSD School Board, its executive management team and its principals are the decision-makers and therefore are liable for these poor decisions. There are no federal, state or county mandates for using any particular technologies for connectivity or for education in public schools. No federal guideline or opinion will remove their liability. The guidelines are not safety standards. Read them carefully. Read your iPad manuals carefully.

The liabilities seem much greater than any potential benefits of using wireless networking and devices, especially considering that all of the PCSD's educational goals can be easily met by choosing to use safe, wired connectivity and devices instead.

I cannot explain why the PCSD feels it is in the PCSD's best interest or in the PCSD's students' best interests to continue to push for the use of wireless connectivity and devices. It is simply a matter of valuing convenience more than the health and safety of its students and valuing convenience more than their own potential liabilities. The District also chooses to not include health and safety instructions for their teachers and students about how to most safely use wireless devices: sparingly and with airplane mode on/radios off nearly all the time. It makes no sense to not share this important safety information with its teachers and students.

Finally, the PCSD is preventing our family from being able to enroll our daughter in her first choice and closest neighborhood school: Mary Collins School at Cherry Valley (MCCV).

The PCSD actively blocked my wife's and my attempts to communicate to the fellow parents of incoming kindergartners about our generous offer for the kindergarten room at MCCV. Our family is offering to cover all the costs for removing the industrial Meraki MR-16 router in this room and all the installation and monthly Comcast costs to install and use safe, wired networking. Comcast has confirmed that it can make the drop into the room and provide a way to replicate the IP-blocking for any required online filtering. During our May 8, 2013 kindergarten orientation meeting, when all parents were present and we had ten minutes free to discuss the issue after all other questions had been answered, Kathy Larsen and Sheila Garvey did not allow the discussion and we sat in silence for ten minutes. The school will also not provide a contact list of these parents so we can contact them independently about this important health and safety issue that directly affects their children.

The PCSD does not have my consent to irradiate my daughter in her public school classroom and I believe many parents will also make this explicit to the PCSD in the following months, as this will be a major focus of my public campaign. The PCSD will have to create mechanisms for accommodating the needs of students whose parents will not allow PCSD schools to irradiate them. Wired networking options can be made available to accommodate these students' needs.

The PCSD may also have to create wireless-free zones for these students: safe, wired classrooms/islands on the school campuses. Shielding from the unnecessary, continuous, voluntary, toxic pollution of wi-fi from the rest of the campus will most likely be required to achieve safe levels of microwave exposure in these safe areas. There will also need to be professional RF meters at each of the schools and training to complete and report regular monitoring of the microwave radiation levels.

It would be much easier – and would drastically reduce PCSD's future liabilities – if PCSD just decided to make all of its campuses 100% safe, wired islands in our sea of wireless madness that is our town.

Why is wireless connectivity considered important for educating our students? In reality, it is not important at all. Connectivity is important. Connectivity via wires is faster, more secure and safe for all.

In closing, choosing to use wireless connectivity in public schools is a matter of valuing administrator and teacher convenience more than our children's health and safety, more than the cost of accommodating the needs of students whose parents will not consent to allow the school to irradiate their children with wi-fi and with the second hand smoke from wireless devices in the classroom and more than the cost of increased PCSD liabilities. Expanding the use of wireless connectivity and devices could turn out to be the most foolish and expensive choice the PCSD ever makes.

Regards,


[Parent]
Hi, Mike. Thanks for the inventory pdf documents and the school maps. They are a good start, but incomplete to fulfill the CPRA request, which I quoted below my signature. As a first step, I analyzed the Mary Collins School at Cherry Valley inventory and created the attached 'data table style' spreadsheet from the original. I have also included the jpeg to the MCCV wireless router map. Will you please identify which routers are placed where? This is what I learned from this exercise, followed by some questions. Key learnings ------------ 1. The inventory is missing line entries for printers, smart boards and document cameras. Each item will need its own line because each item will need to have its unique properties for its wired/wireless connectivity options. 2. The inventory does not say whether the computer is a desktop or laptop computer. I made some guesses from what I could figure out. Did I get it right? 3. The inventory has some missing and inconsistent data entries. I filled in blanks with NA = Not applicable (data not possible to get) UA = Unavailable (data is possible to get, but is just missing) xxx = unsure of meaning of data 4. The inventory is missing the important Cap-wd, Cur-wd, Cap-wl, Cur-wl columns, explained below. 5. The inventory is missing any planned purchases that will add to the inventory for the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years. Questions on PCSD cols ---------------------- PC/Print = (should this be Brand?; Doesn't printer needs its own line?) AV = ?? (I assume this means audio-visual, but there are no data entries nComp = ?? (what does this mean?) Columns I added per CPRA Request -------------------------------- Type = (desktop/laptop/tablet/chromebook/other) - I guessed; did I get it right? Year = Year purchased or placed in service Cap-wd = Capability of wired connectivity Cur-wd = Currently connected via wired Cap-wl = Capability of wireless connectivity Cur-wl = Currently connected via wireless ?? Printers (this data is missing) - need to know Cap-wd, Cur-wd, Cap-wl, Cur-wl The spreadsheet states the following totals, but the unit counts are different: 31 Laptop 35 Desktop 21 Projector 6 Doc Cam 0 Smart Boards I will send you the other school's 'data table style' spreadsheets as I complete them. You may want to combine these spreadsheets into a single master data table style spreadsheet at the end as a more complete inventory for yourself. I can share with you how I use advanced Excel data filtering techniques to find quick answers from any data set. I will drop by this afternoon after 2:00 pm to review the other wireless installation contracts, as detailed in my CPRA request. Today is 5/31/13, which is 14 days from my original request and the last day to provide this data and still be in compliance with CA State law. Regards, [Parent]
Re: Former Microsoft Canada President Agrees School Wi-fi is a Potential Health Hazard

Dear Mr. Bolman and Petaluma City School District (PCSD) Principals:

    David Stirrat, Principal, Petaluma High
    Linda Scheele, Principal, Casa Grande High
    Rusty Sims, Principal, Sonoma Mountain High & Carpe Diem High
    Lyn Moreno, Principal, San Antonio High & Valley Oaks Elementary

    John Lehmann, Principal, Petaluma Junior High & 6th Grade Academy
    Emily Dunnagan, Principal, Kenilworth Junior High

    Catrina Haugen, Principal, Grant Elementary
    Maureen Rudder, Principal, McDowell Elementary
    Matthew Harris, Principal, McKinley Elementary
    Jason Sutter, Principal, McNear Elementary
    Amy Fadeji, Principal, Penngrove Elementary
    Emily Kleinholz, Principal, Valley Vista Elementary
    Matthew Morgan, Principal, Live Oak Charter
    Kathy Larsen, Principal, Mary Collins at Cherry Valley
    Chad Carvey, Incoming Principal, Mary Collins at Cherry Valley
    Greg Stevenson, Principal, Crossroads Community Day

You are each responsible and accpountable for what you are doing to our children/your students.

The PCSD School Board and all of the current PSCD senior management team has been informed, starting on Feb 21, 2013 and continues to be thoroughly informed about the dangers of their choices to use wireless connectivity and wireless devices in PCSD schools. Four Petaluma citizens shared with the School Board on Tuesday May 28, 2013 their comments and the following video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmcAXZ-o1K4

which details very similar wi-fi issues in Australia and the decisions of many governments and schools around the world to eliminate wi-fi on their campuses for all of the reasons already shared with the PCSD.

There are no US Federal, State or County mandates to use wireless technologies. It is up to each of you to provide safe learning environments for our children/your students and to make the prudent decisions to do so. Each of you can independently choose for your school and your students. You can choose safe, modern and more secure wired connectivity and devices to support your educational goals – even 1:1 student:device programs and BYO (wired) device programs. The Petaluma City School District cannot force a decision for wireless connectivity and wireless devices upon your school. The District is an advisor to its schools and must support the schools' decisions.

The former Microsoft Canada President, Frank Clegg, joins many expert scientists in the field in recommending removal of wi-fi from schools and stopping the use of wireless devices in schools. Instead, they recommend using safe, wired connectivity and devices, of which there are many good options: Chromebooks and tablets from Google/Samsung and Microsoft offer wired connectivity options; Apple iPads do not. Read the May, 2013 Wall Street Journal article, cited below.

What You Can Do
===============
I would strongly recommend getting ahead of this issue and not be caught defending a position which is against the health and safety of our children/your students. Over the next several months, such positions will be broadly publicized. Ignoring the scientific information presented below and taking no corrective actions re: the PCSD schools' current wireless practices will be publicized, as well, since as a local branch of our government, you, as officials in this branch, are all personally accountable.

Please make the changes to the PCSD 2013-2018 technology plan to protect the health and safety of our children/your students. Please make changes to your current technology practices to ensure that you are providing a safe learning environment for our children/your students.

You have the responsibility to become educated on this issue and to take the steps to protect our children/your students from this unnecessary continuous, voluntary, toxic pollution that is being created by your decisions to install and use wi-fi and wireless devices in PCSD schools. The decision to remove wi-fi and to eliminate the use of wireless devices in schools is not and should not be the result of a popularity contest. The volumes of science on this issue need to be taken seriously by the decision-makers.

Over the next several months, parents will learn more about the dangers of the use of wireless connectivity and devices in schools, how PCSD schools have been forcing this upon our children/your students without the parents' consent and how the parents can explicitly state that the PCSD does not have their consent to irradiate their children in public school classrooms.

The PCSD may have to create mechanisms for accommodating the needs of students whose parents will not allow PCSD schools to irradiate them. Wired networking options can be made available to accommodate these students' needs. The PCSD may also have to create wireless-free zones for these students: safe, wired classrooms/islands on the school campuses. Shielding from the unnecessary, continuous, voluntary, toxic pollution of wi-fi from the rest of the campus will most likely be required to achieve safe levels of microwave exposure in the safe zones on the campuses. There will also need to be professional RF meters at each of the schools and training to complete and report regular monitoring of the microwave radiation levels.

It would be much easier – and would drastically reduce PCSD's future liabilities – if PCSD just decided to make all of its campuses 100% safe, wired islands in our sea of wireless madness that is our town.

Why is wireless connectivity considered important for educating our students? In reality, it is not important at all. Connectivity is important. Connectivity via wires is faster, more secure and safe for all.


FCC Microwave Radiation Exposure Guidelines Are Not Safety Standards
====================================================================
The current FCC guidelines for maximum public exposure (MPE) to electromagnetic radio frequency fields are not protective and are not safety standards.

The following biologically-based levels of microwave radiation exposure are some safe targets, based on a careful review of over 2,000 recent scientific studies (http://www.bioinitiative.org). These levels are expressed in microwatts per square meter (μW/m2):

http://emfwise.com/emf-safety-standards.php

SBM 2008 (Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods)
=======================================================
No Concern    Slight Concern            Severe concern       Extreme concern
----------   -------------------     --------------------    ---------------
<0.1μW/m2    0.1μW/m2 to 10μW/m2     10μW/m2 to 1000μW/m2      > 1000μW/m2

Current FCC Microwave Radiation MPE Guidelines
=======================================================
Frequency MHz              Power Density μW/m2   Minutes
----------------------     --------------------   -------
    0.3  to       1.34        1 Billion             30
    1.34 to      30         120 Million             30
   30    to     300           2 Million             30
  300    to   1,500           6 Million             30
1,500    to 100,000          10 Million             30

The current FCC microwave radiation guideline for maximum public exposure is not in the single digits of μW/m2, as recommended in the 2012 Bioinitiative report (3-6 μW/m2), but in the tens of millions or even billions of μW/m2. This is like posting a speed limit in front of your house at 1 million miles per hour and saying "You see, all the drivers are driving below the speed limit, so it must be safe."

This following video is a recording of the press conference for the May, 2011 announcement by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC's committee of 31 international scientists analyzed all of the relevant current scientific literature over eight days and determined that EMF/RF/MW from all sources (cell phones, wi-fi, wireless computers/tablets, cordless phones, wireless gaming devices and more) is a Class 2B carcinogen.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4E2i5XFX9M

The current FCC microwave radiation guideline is based on an outdated view of the world (that only heating one's tissue is important to one's health), is not relevant to our current continuous exposure environment and is based on very old science, as the FCC states: "our exposure limits are based in part on NCRP’s exposure criteria from 1986. The NCRP has not updated its criteria since its release . . . the Commission is guided by the expertise of federal safety, health, and environmental agencies and institutes that, subject to any budgetary constraints, perform regular reviews of scientific research" (from FCC-13-39A1).

The key caveat is "subject to any budgetary constraints". James Cassata, Executive Director of the NCRP confirmed the reality of these budget constraints:

On May 23, 2013, at 4:59 PM, James Cassata, Executive Director of the National Council on Radiation Protection
  and Measurements (NCRP) wrote to [Parent]:

> Although we are congressionally chartered we are not government funded and must rely on contracts, grants, and the sale of publications to fund our work.  We have not updated our radiofrequency non-ionizing radiation effects reports lately because of the lack of funding in this area.

The FCC Maximum Public Exposure (MPE) guideline for radio frequency electromagnetic fields was never and has never been intended to be a safety standard, as the FCC states: [the FCC] "does not claim expertise as a de facto health agency" (from FCC-13-39A1).

Discussion
==========
Children absorb more of data-carrying pulsed microwave radiation than adults: their bones and skulls are thinner, the water content in their body is higher and their cells are dividing/differentiating faster than adults. Expert scientists in this field have published over 8,000 studies in peer-reviewed scientific literature over the last 40 years, that document the following negative heath effects caused by microwave radiation at levels far below the current FCC guideline:

   - permanent DNA damage

   - increased risk of cancer

   - damage to the reproductive system

   - heart and circulatory problems

   - weakening of the blood-brain barrier

   - changes to melatonin levels

   - insomnia

   - thyroid disruption

   - neurological and behavioral problems

   - decreased cognitive function

   - heart arrhythmias

You can find many scientific opinions and studies at these links:

    http://www.wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html

    http://www.justproveit.net/studies

    http://www.bionitiative.org

    http://www.magdahavas.com/category/from-zorys-archive/



The Cells React Negatively
==========================
"The latest information indicates that cell vibratory receptor proteins sense, but do not recognize electromagnetic radio frequency fields and interpret them as a threat.  Sensing occurs within milliseconds of exposure, interpretation as a threat in seconds and in about 30 seconds the response is cell membrane compression.  Compression interferes with or stops transport of nutrition in and waste out of cells.  A cascade effect follows impairing intercellular communication and, hence, organ function.  This effect is reversible so long as the affected cell is still alive.  However, long-term exposure causes cell death due to the build up of injurious free radicals in the cells. The new daughter cells have permanently compressed membranes.  It takes 18 months for this defective cell to be replaced with a ‘good’ cell assuming freedom from the electromagnetic radio frequency fields." (Lecture by Dr. George Carlo, MD, PhD, IBE Conference, Nashville, 2008).

Carlo's conclusion is that the level of electromagnetic radio frequency fields required to be safe is ZERO.

Blood-brain Barrier Leaks
=========================
German Physicians Issue Warning

The German Environmental Physician Initiative in a letter of July 2008 states that “Even a radiation dose of 1000 to 5000 µW/m2 breaks the blood-brain barrier, which causes the entry of water, dissolving metabolism waste products, environmental toxins and blood proteins (especially albumins) into the central nervous system.  The fatal consequences are: miniature edemas occur in the brain, multiple selective swellings in non-renewable brain cells are irretrievably squeezed to death.  They occur as dark neurons in a microscopic picture.  Those dark neurons are proven to be the possible starting point of very serious neurodegenerative diseases like multiple scleroses, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, senile dementia and so on.”  Full text at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=SolvQ5XRFxwC&pg=PT381&lpg=PT381&dq=german+environmental+physician+initiative+on+wireless+lan&source=bl&ots=V9w7Tg1zZF&sig=Aitd0I_WwVDVRtzakYbNRKLGAIg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TXxaT5LrBoWGiQL6oeHQCw&sqi=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=german%20environmental%20physician%20initiative%20on%20wireless%20lan&f=false


American Academy of Environmental Medicine
==========================================
The AAEC released a letter on Jan 25, 2012 to the Public Utilities Commission of California speaking to wireless radiation. The most important passage is this:

“Chronic exposure to wireless radio frequency radiation is a preventable environmental hazard that is sufficiently well documented to warrant immediate preventative public health action.”

Full Text at: http://aaemonline.org/images/CaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission.pdf


Specialist MD’s are Convinced
=============================
Doctors working with people exhibiting motor neuron disease (like Alzheimer’s) are now convinced that digital pollution accelerates brain deterioration by destruction of brain synapses.  Work with autistic children indicates that cell membrane transport impairment compromises the ability to remove cellular toxins hindering the ability to reverse the symptoms of Autism. (From a lecture by Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, MD, Seattle, Dec. 2006.)


Former Microsoft Canada President Agrees School Wifi is a Potential Health Hazard
=================================================================================
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130509-906512.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"TORONTO, May 9, 2013 /CNW/ - Frank Clegg, one of the biggest names in Canadian technology, announced today that he stands behind parents who object to wireless internet in schools.

"There are already children who can't go to school because of headaches, nausea and heart problems from the wireless systems," said Clegg who ran Microsoft Canada for 14 years and now leads a national organization called Citizens 4 Safe Technology (C4ST).

"Some of these kids have a doctor's note to prove it," said Clegg. "This is a real hazard and we shouldn't wait for the government to catch up to the technology. We should exercise caution, especially with children."

On Wednesday the American Academy of Environmental Medicine announced that medical doctors are treating patients who have fallen ill from school wireless systems.

Clegg will address parents and teachers at a public meeting in Mississauga tonight at 7pm."


Canadian Tech Leader Warns of Wi-Fi, Smartphone, Cell Tower Radiation
=====================================================================
http://whatsyourtech.ca/2013/05/29/canadian-tech-leader-warns-of-wi-fi-smartphone-cell-tower-radiation/

"The former president of Microsoft Canada is among those warning about the dangers of Wi-Fi and electromagnetic radiation exposure, and he’s heading up initiatives to find safe alternatives to current wireless uses.

Frank Clegg, a leader on the Canadian technology scene for many years, says he supports those parents and concerned individuals who object to wireless Internet in schools.

Former Microsoft Canada President Frank Clegg is actively involved with raising awareness about threats to children and health, particularly those posed by wireless technology or online activity. Photo from KINSA.

“This is a real hazard and we shouldn’t wait for the government to catch up to the technology,” said Clegg, who was head of Microsoft Canada for nearly 15 years and now leads a national organization called Citizens 4 Safe Technology (C4ST). “We should exercise caution, especially with children.”

Still generating heated arguments on both sides, exposure to electromagnetic radiation (generated by cellphones, smartphones, tablets and other wireless gadgets, as well as the towers, routers and meters that are part of the wireless Internet infrastructure) is seen by some as too low level, too short duration, too far a distance, to be of any significant medical concern.

Others maintain that causal links can be found between electro-magnetic radiation exposure and ill health, and treatment is now available at some hospitals for EMS, electro-magnetic hyper-sensitivity,  an umbrella term used for medical issues related to cell phone use, wireless radiation and other related concepts.

Even a slight suspicion of such a connection should warrant a slower, more cautious approach to the use of wireless devices, groups like C4ST maintain, and especially any new installations of wireless transmitters in public spaces like schools or hospitals.

Clegg’s run as president of Microsoft Canada ended in late 2005, a successful term in which the company grew from less than 100 hundred employees to over 700, while increasing revenue from about $50 million to more than $1 billion in sales.

His engagement with the tech community did not end, however, and following successful charges at both real estate and investment, he began dedicating much of his time to issues of tech safety and security: he worked with the Canadian charity KINSA, the Kids’ Internet Safety Alliance, fighting against the online exploitation of children.

Now, with C4ST, he’s working with a volunteer-based group of concerned citizens and researchers who want to work with industry and government to raise awareness about EMR and more closely integrate such information with public policy."


Close
=====
Thank you for taking the time and effort to review your school's future technology plans and practices and making the changes that will protect our students' health and safety. Please do not ignore this important scientific information and please recognize the limitations of our government in being able to implement standards or guidelines that would be protective of our children. Too much has been invested in infrastructure to reverse the course. It is up to us to limit the microwave exposure of our children now. We cannot wait another 10-15 years for  more data. We have enough right now to know that something is wrong and it's time to play it safer with our children.

In short, you need to think for yourselves on this issue. There are no certainties. We have to connect the dots of the research that we have in hand.


Regards,


[Parent]
To Petaluma City School Board Members: boardmembers@petk12.org

Troy Sanderson
Michael Baddeley
Carolyn Tennyson
Mary Schafer
Sheri Chlebowski
Steve Bolman

Based on Sheri Chlebowski's suggestion, I provided each of you with my business card and my invitation to meet with any of you, individually. Please email me, if you would like any more information about or suggestions for how we can address the existing serious student health and safety concerns regarding the use of wireless connectivity and devices in PCSD classrooms and how we can eliminate this unnecessary, continuous, voluntary toxic pollution.

Below, I have also included the recommendations I made in last night's School Board meeting that could save the PCSD tens of thousands of dollars per year in implementing its technology plans.

First, I have recently spoken at length to senior officials at both the FCC and the NCRP and understand how to accurately interpret the current Maximum Public Exposure (MPE) guideline for microwave radiation. The conclusion is that the PCSD exceeds the guideline daily.

Understanding the math and assumptions behind this conclusion will be presented in the next meeting on 6/25/13.  The logic is derived from a simple microwave cooking lesson and math that can be performed by any 5th grader:

[a] 1 uncooked potato @ 100% power x  5 minutes  = 1 cooked potato
[b] 1 uncooked potato @  50% power x  10 minutes = 1 cooked potato
[c] More generally,      Power x  Time       = Work

Work is Power delivered over time. Wi-Fi signals have to be evaluated in the same way.

A simplified example with fictitious power units (pu) for the potato follows:

10,000,000 pu      = total power delivered over time required to cook a potato
       100 Hz      = 100 pulses/sec. (think of a strobe light)
    30,000 pulses  = 100 pulses/sec. x 60 sec./min x 5 min.
       333.3 pu    = power of one pulse at 100% power
    60,000 pulses  = 100 pulses/sec. x 60 sec./min x 10 min.
       166.7 pu    = power of one pulse at 50% power

So, we have solved this fifth grade math problem:

[b] @ 100% power:  30,000  pulses x 333.3 pu/pulse = 10,000,000 pu
[c] @  50% power:  60,000  pulses x 166.7 pu/pulse = 10,000,000 pu

I will use actual measured wi-fi power units, wireless router/access point specifications, and documented locations of these wireless access points in PCSD schools to calculate the Work (amount of radiation over time) being applied to our children/your students daily. The numbers get very large, very quickly.

Once these numbers go public on a web page dedicated to performing and visualizing these daily calculations, I don't know how you will be able support the use of wireless connectivity and devices in PCSD classrooms. I am happy to give each of you a private look first, if you wish. Just email me  and we can set up an individual meeting.


6/11/13 School Board Meeting
----------------------------
Thank you for listening to our public comment presentation that lasted the prescribed 20 minutes, with all of its audio-visual elements. We were able to show about 12 minutes of the 15-minute presentation. If you would like to view the rest of the video, you can find it at the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO0AnNHz8vI

What we didn't hear was the conclusion at the end the video:

"Convenience is not an acceptable reason to risk the health and safety of children."

. . . which should be a primary goal of any public school technology plan.

It was evident to many present, including teachers that talked to me during the closed session, that the video communicated with a clarity that no one just speaking could have communicated. There is no logic that I am aware of that would conclude that a proposed School Board by-law change that would prohibit the use of audio-visual materials in public comment presentations would be in the public's or the School Board's best interests. It takes no additional time to make the public comment with a/v support; in fact, it is more efficient, which is why many other presentations to the School Board already use the technology. I am hoping that this proposed by-law change gets buried and does not come back. If it does come back, it will be vigorously opposed and exposed for what it is: an unconstitutional attempt to limit public comment.

If we did not have the chance to show the video that measured a real school environment both in the classroom and near the cell tower, people may not have understood the meaning of the numbers: the amount of radiation 12-18" in front of a wirelessly connected laptop was 3x higher than the amount of radiation 1,000' from a cell phone tower – a level which has been proven to cause cancer clusters over 7-10 years. This is a fact that we cannot ignore.

This level of radiation is reached in many PCSD classrooms every school day. These levels are easily measured and need to be properly managed. The most effective way to manage the radiation levels (none of which is good for students) is to eliminate the sources: the use of wireless routers/access points and wireless devices in PCSD classrooms.

Doing so is not only the safe choice, it is the most economical one. All one needs to do is analyze how much the PCSD has spent on wireless connectivity and devices over the past five years and how much the PCSD is preparing to spend over the next five years. Compare this to the cost of enabling 12:1 student:device wired Ethernet connectivity (the Technology Plan's 2015 goal) using the PCSD's existing wired infrastructure, and the savings could be as high as tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

There is also a revenue-generating option: sell the PCSD's existing wireless routers/access points and wireless-only devices (iPads) in the used market to businesses who may want them. Please do not sell them to schools which would just transfer the problem to another school.

Saving More Money
-----------------
Other suggestions to save tens of thousands of dollars each year is to stop paying money needlessly to Microsoft for Windows or Microsoft Office.

The PCSD can standardize on the FREE Ubuntu Linux 12.04 or higher with an XUbuntu Desktop interface (not their default Unity desktop interface). This is a very close approximation of the Windows 7 user interface experience and will save the PCSD money with every new computer purchased. One can wipe any existing Windows hard drive clean and install Ubuntu on it instead. There are many free, open source education software programs and text books, as well. The PCSD not need to spend a lot of money on software licensing fees.

Linux is the most-tested operating system in the world and, as it is open source, it has no licensing cost for its use. It does not suffer from the many viruses designed to attack Windows computers. It also runs Google Chrome flawlessly which gives one full access to Google Docs and the Google Apps for Education experience.

If you prefer a close approximation of Microsoft Office, one can use the free Open Source LibreOffice Suite (http://www.libreoffice.org/), which is now at version 4.0. By the time our children graduate, there is no telling which will be the dominant office suite. LibreOffice is so close to Microsoft Office, only a school that wishes to waste money would continue to pay Microsoft for their Office Suite. Standardizing on the Ubuntu Linux platform would also provide all kinds of efficiencies in system administration, as well. Linux was built with system administration in mind. Any competent Windows professional can learn the Linux system.

The AMS.net contract that the School Board approved in March pays them $200 per hour. It does not cost $200 per hour to install Ethernet wires. I have hired people at $35-50 per hour to do this work for me. The cost of the wire is negligible. The main cost is for the switches, which are generally lower cost than the wireless access points. One good suggestion is to divert the money for wireless routers/access points in the AMS.net contract and use it to install wired connectivity instead.

Decisions and Accountability
----------------------------
The use of wireless routers/access points and wireless devices in PCSD classrooms represents a voluntary and accountable decision by the PCSD school principals, the PCSD Executive Management team and the PCSD School Board. I have copies of the Purchase Orders and School Board Meeting minutes that evidence the School Board's approval of purchasing, installing and deploying these devices voluntarily into our classrooms. There is no federal, state or county mandate that says that the PCSD must install wireless routers/access points and wireless devices in schools.

This is a local decision and you local folks are the ones accountable and liable for the negative health effects for your students caused by choosing to use wireless routers/access points and wireless devices in PCSD classrooms. You made these decisions in direct opposition to the PCSD's stated technology plan goal: "Students, teachers, administrators and staff will practice appropriate and safe use of technology". You made these decisions without doing any safety testing or reviewing the science that would tell you that this is not the safest choice for children. It is time to correct these mistakes.

The first place to correct these mistakes is in the 2013-2018 Technology plan that you approved last night which represents another voluntary decision to install even more wireless routers/access points and wireless devices in PCSD classrooms over the next five years.

Please purchase no additional wireless routers, access points or wireless-only devices and please remove these wi-fi expansion goals from your plans. How can you justify this position now that you know the student health and safety implications?

There are better, more economical and safer choices for our students which deserve to be on the School District standards page:

$249 Google/Samsung Series 3 Chromebooks (16GB) - runs the Chrome OS and has a wired networking option via USB-to-Ethernet adapter

$199 Google Nexus 7 tablet (16GB)  - runs the latest Android OS and has a wired networking option via USB-to-Ethernet adapter

$499 Google Nexus 10 tablet (32GB) - runs the latest Android OS and has a wired networking option via USB-to-Ethernet adapter

I contacted both Samsung (Lou Shannon 866-542-7214) and CDW (Justin Lindberg 877-325-9337) this morning to see if they could share some CA school districts that are already purchasing these Google products. They could confirm that they are selling tens of thousands of Google ChromeBooks to School Districts in CA, but would not release the names to me. You can contact them directly to get these names.

The following items should be removed from the School District's standards page, as they are dangerous to use whenever connected to the internet (i.e. they offer no wired connectivity option).

$329 for iPad mini (16GB) - no wired networking option

$599 for iPad with Retina Display (32GB) - no wired networking option

Don't allow the tail (the iPad) to wag the dog (the mode of connectivity). The dog needs to be wired for student health and safety.

The next place to correct the mistakes is in K-3 classrooms, because the youngest ones are the most vulnerable to these levels of radiation.

Please add a goal to the technology plan to remove/relocate wireless routers so that no K-3 students are irradiated with wireless radiation in the 2013-2014 school year. You can expand this goal to address the 4-6 Classrooms in 2014-2015, 7-8 classrooms in 2015-2016 and 9-12 classrooms in 2016-2017.

The recommendations above would be credible and responsive actions that can be taken in the face of all that we learned last night. Thank you for considering these proposals.

>>> On 6/04/13 @  3:11 PM, [Parent] wrote to Emily Kleinholz:
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dear Mr. Bolman and Petaluma City School District (PCSD) Principals:

    David Stirrat, Principal, Petaluma High
    Linda Scheele, Principal, Casa Grande High
    Rusty Sims, Principal, Sonoma Mountain High & Carpe Diem High
    Lyn Moreno, Principal, San Antonio High & Valley Oaks Elementary

    John Lehmann, Principal, Petaluma Junior High & 6th Grade Academy
    Emily Dunnagan, Principal, Kenilworth Junior High

    Catrina Haugen, Principal, Grant Elementary
    Maureen Rudder, Principal, McDowell Elementary
    Matthew Harris, Principal, McKinley Elementary
    Jason Sutter, Principal, McNear Elementary
    Amy Fadeji, Principal, Penngrove Elementary
    Emily Kleinholz, Principal, Valley Vista Elementary
    Matthew Morgan, Principal, Live Oak Charter
    Kathy Larsen, Principal, Mary Collins at Cherry Valley
    Chad Carvey, Incoming Principal, Mary Collins at Cherry Valley
    Greg Stevenson, Principal, Crossroads Community Day

You are each responsible and accountable for what you are doing to our children/your students.

The PCSD School Board and all of the current PSCD senior management team has been informed, starting on Feb 21, 2013 and continues to be thoroughly informed about the dangers of their choices to use wireless connectivity and wireless devices in PCSD schools. Four Petaluma citizens shared with the School Board on Tuesday May 28, 2013 their comments and the following video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmcAXZ-o1K4

which details very similar wi-fi issues in Australia and the decisions of many governments and schools around the world to eliminate wi-fi on their campuses for all of the reasons already shared with the PCSD.

There are no US Federal, State or County mandates to use wireless technologies. It is up to each of you to provide safe learning environments for our children/your students and to make the prudent decisions to do so. Each of you can independently choose for your school and your students. You can choose safe, modern and more secure wired connectivity and devices to support your educational goals – even 1:1 student:device programs and BYO (wired) device programs. The Petaluma City School District cannot force a decision for wireless connectivity and wireless devices upon your school. The District is an advisor to its schools and must support the schools' decisions.

The former Microsoft Canada President, Frank Clegg, joins many expert scientists in the field in recommending removal of wi-fi from schools and stopping the use of wireless devices in schools. Instead, they recommend using safe, wired connectivity and devices, of which there are many good options: Chromebooks and tablets from Google/Samsung and Microsoft offer wired connectivity options; Apple iPads do not. Read the May, 2013 Wall Street Journal article, cited below.

What You Can Do
===============
I would strongly recommend getting ahead of this issue and not be caught defending a position which is against the health and safety of our children/your students. Over the next several months, such positions will be broadly publicized. Ignoring the scientific information presented below and taking no corrective actions re: the PCSD schools' current wireless practices will be publicized, as well, since as a local branch of our government, you, as officials in this branch, are all personally accountable.

Please make the changes to the PCSD 2013-2018 technology plan to protect the health and safety of our children/your students. Please make changes to your current technology practices to ensure that you are providing a safe learning environment for our children/your students.

You have the responsibility to become educated on this issue and to take the steps to protect our children/your students from this unnecessary continuous, voluntary, toxic pollution that is being created by your decisions to install and use wi-fi and wireless devices in PCSD schools. The decision to remove wi-fi and to eliminate the use of wireless devices in schools is not and should not be the result of a popularity contest. The volumes of science on this issue need to be taken seriously by the decision-makers.

Over the next several months, parents will learn more about the dangers of the use of wireless connectivity and devices in schools, how PCSD schools have been forcing this upon our children/your students without the parents' consent and how the parents can explicitly state that the PCSD does not have their consent to irradiate their children in public school classrooms.

The PCSD may have to create mechanisms for accommodating the needs of students whose parents will not allow PCSD schools to irradiate them. Wired networking options can be made available to accommodate these students' needs. The PCSD may also have to create wireless-free zones for these students: safe, wired classrooms/islands on the school campuses. Shielding from the unnecessary, continuous, voluntary, toxic pollution of wi-fi from the rest of the campus will most likely be required to achieve safe levels of microwave exposure in the safe zones on the campuses. There will also need to be professional RF meters at each of the schools and training to complete and report regular monitoring of the microwave radiation levels.

It would be much easier – and would drastically reduce PCSD's future liabilities – if PCSD just decided to make all of its campuses 100% safe, wired islands in our sea of wireless madness that is our town.

Why is wireless connectivity considered important for educating our students? In reality, it is not important at all. Connectivity is important. Connectivity via wires is faster, more secure and safe for all.


FCC Microwave Radiation Exposure Guidelines Are Not Safety Standards
====================================================================
The current FCC guidelines for maximum public exposure (MPE) to electromagnetic radio frequency fields are not protective and are not safety standards.

The following biologically-based levels of microwave radiation exposure are some safe targets, based on a careful review of over 2,000 recent scientific studies (http://www.bioinitiative.org). These levels are expressed in microwatts per square meter (μW/m2):

http://emfwise.com/emf-safety-standards.php

SBM 2008 (Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods)
=======================================================
No Concern    Slight Concern            Severe concern       Extreme concern
----------   -------------------     --------------------    ---------------
<0.1μW/m2    0.1μW/m2 to 10μW/m2     10μW/m2 to 1000μW/m2      > 1000μW/m2

Current FCC Microwave Radiation MPE Guidelines
=======================================================
Frequency MHz              Power Density μW/m2   Minutes
----------------------     --------------------   -------
    0.3  to       1.34        1 Billion             30
    1.34 to      30         120 Million             30
   30    to     300           2 Million             30
  300    to   1,500           6 Million             30
1,500    to 100,000          10 Million             30

The current FCC microwave radiation guideline for maximum public exposure is not in the single digits of μW/m2, as recommended in the 2012 Bioinitiative report (3-6 μW/m2), but in the tens of millions or even billions of μW/m2. This is like posting a speed limit in front of your house at 1 million miles per hour and saying "You see, all the drivers are driving below the speed limit, so it must be safe."

This following video is a recording of the press conference for the May, 2011 announcement by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC's committee of 31 international scientists analyzed all of the relevant current scientific literature over eight days and determined that EMF/RF/MW from all sources (cell phones, wi-fi, wireless computers/tablets, cordless phones, wireless gaming devices and more) is a Class 2B carcinogen.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4E2i5XFX9M

The current FCC microwave radiation guideline is based on an outdated view of the world (that only heating one's tissue is important to one's health), is not relevant to our current continuous exposure environment and is based on very old science, as the FCC states: "our exposure limits are based in part on NCRP’s exposure criteria from 1986. The NCRP has not updated its criteria since its release . . . the Commission is guided by the expertise of federal safety, health, and environmental agencies and institutes that, subject to any budgetary constraints, perform regular reviews of scientific research" (from FCC-13-39A1).

The key caveat is "subject to any budgetary constraints". James Cassata, Executive Director of the NCRP confirmed the reality of these budget constraints:

On May 23, 2013, at 4:59 PM, James Cassata, Executive Director of the National Council on Radiation Protection
  and Measurements (NCRP) wrote to [Parent]:

> Although we are congressionally chartered we are not government funded and must rely on contracts, grants, and the sale of publications to fund our work.  We have not updated our radiofrequency non-ionizing radiation effects reports lately because of the lack of funding in this area.
The FCC Maximum Public Exposure (MPE) guideline for radio frequency electromagnetic fields was never and has never been intended to be a safety standard, as the FCC states: [the FCC] "does not claim expertise as a de facto health agency" (from FCC-13-39A1).

Discussion
==========
Children absorb more of data-carrying pulsed microwave radiation than adults: their bones and skulls are thinner, the water content in their body is higher and their cells are dividing/differentiating faster than adults. Expert scientists in this field have published over 8,000 studies in peer-reviewed scientific literature over the last 40 years, that document the following negative heath effects caused by microwave radiation at levels far below the current FCC guideline:

   - permanent DNA damage

   - increased risk of cancer

   - damage to the reproductive system

   - heart and circulatory problems

   - weakening of the blood-brain barrier

   - changes to melatonin levels

   - insomnia

   - thyroid disruption

   - neurological and behavioral problems

   - decreased cognitive function

   - heart arrhythmias

You can find many scientific opinions and studies at these links:

    http://www.wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html

    http://www.justproveit.net/studies

    http://www.bionitiative.org

    http://www.magdahavas.com/category/from-zorys-archive/



The Cells React Negatively
==========================
"The latest information indicates that cell vibratory receptor proteins sense, but do not recognize electromagnetic radio frequency fields and interpret them as a threat.  Sensing occurs within milliseconds of exposure, interpretation as a threat in seconds and in about 30 seconds the response is cell membrane compression.  Compression interferes with or stops transport of nutrition in and waste out of cells.  A cascade effect follows impairing intercellular communication and, hence, organ function.  This effect is reversible so long as the affected cell is still alive.  However, long-term exposure causes cell death due to the build up of injurious free radicals in the cells. The new daughter cells have permanently compressed membranes.  It takes 18 months for this defective cell to be replaced with a ‘good’ cell assuming freedom from the electromagnetic radio frequency fields." (Lecture by Dr. George Carlo, MD, PhD, IBE Conference, Nashville, 2008).

Carlo's conclusion is that the level of electromagnetic radio frequency fields required to be safe is ZERO.

Blood-brain Barrier Leaks
=========================
German Physicians Issue Warning

The German Environmental Physician Initiative in a letter of July 2008 states that “Even a radiation dose of 1000 to 5000 µW/m2 breaks the blood-brain barrier, which causes the entry of water, dissolving metabolism waste products, environmental toxins and blood proteins (especially albumins) into the central nervous system.  The fatal consequences are: miniature edemas occur in the brain, multiple selective swellings in non-renewable brain cells are irretrievably squeezed to death.  They occur as dark neurons in a microscopic picture.  Those dark neurons are proven to be the possible starting point of very serious neurodegenerative diseases like multiple scleroses, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, senile dementia and so on.”  Full text at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=SolvQ5XRFxwC&pg=PT381&lpg=PT381&dq=german+environmental+physician+initiative+on+wireless+lan&source=bl&ots=V9w7Tg1zZF&sig=Aitd0I_WwVDVRtzakYbNRKLGAIg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TXxaT5LrBoWGiQL6oeHQCw&sqi=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=german%20environmental%20physician%20initiative%20on%20wireless%20lan&f=false


American Academy of Environmental Medicine
==========================================
The AAEC released a letter on Jan 25, 2012 to the Public Utilities Commission of California speaking to wireless radiation. The most important passage is this:

“Chronic exposure to wireless radio frequency radiation is a preventable environmental hazard that is sufficiently well documented to warrant immediate preventative public health action.”

Full Text at: http://aaemonline.org/images/CaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission.pdf


Specialist MD’s are Convinced
=============================
Doctors working with people exhibiting motor neuron disease (like Alzheimer’s) are now convinced that digital pollution accelerates brain deterioration by destruction of brain synapses.  Work with autistic children indicates that cell membrane transport impairment compromises the ability to remove cellular toxins hindering the ability to reverse the symptoms of Autism. (From a lecture by Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, MD, Seattle, Dec. 2006.)


Former Microsoft Canada President Agrees School Wifi is a Potential Health Hazard
=================================================================================
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130509-906512.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"TORONTO, May 9, 2013 /CNW/ - Frank Clegg, one of the biggest names in Canadian technology, announced today that he stands behind parents who object to wireless internet in schools.

"There are already children who can't go to school because of headaches, nausea and heart problems from the wireless systems," said Clegg who ran Microsoft Canada for 14 years and now leads a national organization called Citizens 4 Safe Technology (C4ST).

"Some of these kids have a doctor's note to prove it," said Clegg. "This is a real hazard and we shouldn't wait for the government to catch up to the technology. We should exercise caution, especially with children."

On Wednesday the American Academy of Environmental Medicine announced that medical doctors are treating patients who have fallen ill from school wireless systems.

Clegg will address parents and teachers at a public meeting in Mississauga tonight at 7pm."


Close
=====
Thank you for taking the time and effort to review your school's future technology plans and practices and making the changes that will protect our students' health and safety. Please do not ignore this important scientific information and please recognize the limitations of our government in being able to implement standards or guidelines that would be protective of our children. Too much has been invested in infrastructure to reverse the course. It is up to us to limit the microwave exposure of our children now. We cannot wait another 10-15 years for  more data. We have enough right now to know that something is wrong and it's time to play it safer with our children.

In short, you need to think for yourselves on this issue. There are no certainties. We have to connect the dots of the research that we have in hand.


Regards,



[Parent]
Hi, Emily.

It was nice to meet with you today. Our daughter really appreciated the kitty that you painted on her hand and she had a great time at the kindergarten play date.

Please find below my signature the email that I sent to the School board after my 6/11/13 presentation. My next presentation to the School Board will be on 6/25/13.

To the 6/12/13 email, quoted below, I would now add the following to the list of cost-effective 1:1 device options:

Surface RT Pricing and Specs
----------------------------
$200 for Surface RT 32GB model
$  7 for 4-port USB Hub to connect keyboard, mouse, Ethernet, flash/thumb drive
$ 13 for Plugable 10/100 USB 2 to Ethernet Adapter
$ 10 for protective case or sleeve
----
$220 for Surface RT useful configuration

A quick calculation, using round numbers, shows that the $5000 Valley Vista spent for 72 Microsoft Office Licenses @ $69 each in April 2013 could purchase 23 Surface RT tablets with Microsoft Office Licenses.

Alternatively, the $5000 could be saved by installing as many copies of free Open Source LibreOffice instead (http://www.libreoffice.org/).

To get to a 1:1 program immediately for all of your 3rd-6th grade students, you could consider the following program:

   1. Ask the parents of all 3rd-6th grade students not on lunch assistance to donate $220, so the school can purchase one Surface RT per family.

  2. Hold a fund raiser to generate the rest of the funds for the school to purchase Surface RTs for students on lunch assistance and for the other students in multi-student families.

  3. The Surface RTs would remain school property and be issued to 3rd-6th grade students at the start of every school year.

Valley Vista could be the first in the district to achieve the 1:1 student device goal and do so in a safe, wired networking environment. Valley Vista would serve as a model for the rest of the District. I would pledge my technical and financial assistance to achieve that goal. What do you think?

Next Steps
----------
I will keep you in the loop about what Chad Carvey and MCCV decide to do with the wireless router/access point in the MCVV kindergarten room for the 2013-2014 school year. I appreciate you advising us on our paper work issue and for communicating that Valley Vista would have room for my daughter in the fall, if MCCV does not accommodate ours and other MCCV parents' wishes to remove the wireless router from the kindergarten classroom.

Emily, if today, I had assurance from you, the decision-maker for Valley Vista, that you chose to value your student's long-term health and safety more than your staff's convenience and therefore chose to make Valley Vista a wireless-free environment, then we would rejoice, congratulate you on our good judgement and would enroll my daughter at Valley Vista for all seven years.

As I shared with you, we have no concern for my daughter's kindergarten year at Valley Vista, as the one wireless router in Doug's third grade classroom is pretty far from the kindergarten room and we understand that the kindergarten teachers are not using any wireless devices in the Valley Vista kindergarten room.

Our concern is for the future of wireless at Valley Vista and the decision-making process that governs that choice. This is a health and safety/liability decision that needs to be made by you, and as such, its outcome should not be subject to a popularity contest among staff or parents who are not willing/capable enough to evaluate the scientific information at hand.

You cannot ignore the inconvenient truth that there are thousands of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that report numerous significant negative health effects as a result of exposure to wireless radiation at levels below that which PCSD schools irradiate their children in many classrooms across the District daily. I have shared links to these studies with you and am happy to review any of them with you.

Valley Vista School does not have my consent to irradiate my daughter in her public school classroom at any time and I believe many parents will also make this explicit to you in the following months.

If Valley Vista installs more wireless, Valley Vista may have to create mechanisms to accommodate the needs of students whose parents will not allow their school to irradiate their children. Wired networking options must be made available to accommodate these students' needs. Valley Vista may also have to create wireless-free zones for these students: safe, wired classrooms/islands on the school campuses. Shielding from the unnecessary, continuous, voluntary, toxic pollution of wi-fi from the rest of the campus will most likely be required to achieve safe levels of microwave exposure in these safe areas. There will also need to be professional RF meters at each of the schools and training to complete and report regular monitoring of the microwave radiation levels.

It would be much easier – and would drastically reduce the school's future liabilities – if the school just decided to make all of its campus a 100% safe, wired island.

Why is wireless connectivity considered important for educating our students? In reality, it is not important at all. Connectivity is important. Connectivity via wires is faster, more secure and safe for all. There is no debate about that.

What do you say? Are you ready to support the long-term health and safety for all of your students? If so, will you please make the decision to make Valley Vista a wireless-free environment?

If not? Why not?

I will look forward to your response.

Regards,



[Parent]
Hi, Mike.

It's time. Let's set a up a good time for you and Chad and I will work with you on completing this. I have time from June 26 through July 2 to complete the measurements. I trust you have had sufficient time (over six weeks) to plan for this.

>>> On 6/21/13 @  11:55 PM, [Parent] wrote to Chad Carvey:
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Hi, Chad.

Here is how I followed your advice:
-----------------------------------
1. I didn't pass out flyers to the parents at the kindergarten orientation.

2. I didn't stand in front of MCCV to notice parents and have them sign petitions.

3. I didn't meet with any teachers to distract them at the end of the school year.

4. I haven't (yet) made the measurements in the kindergarten room with and without wireless devices laptops connected to the network, which is still needed.

5. I stopped emailing you, giving you the time to make your transition.

In short, I pretty much left you and MCCV alone, waiting for your start. As the interim principal at MCCV made no attempt to address the issue, it will be left to you to do so.

Here is what I did instead (none of which directly impacted MCCV):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. I have and will continue to present information to the School Board to educate them on the important health and safety downsides of choosing to use wireless connectivity and devices in schools.

2. I have made significant progress in speaking directly to senior officials at the FCC and the NCRP about how to accurately interpret the Maximum Public Exposure Guideline for microwave radiation and how to accurately calculate the microwave exposure of children in schools that choose to use wireless connectivity and devices.

3. Through CPRA requests, I gained an accurate understanding of MCCV's equipment inventory and wireless router/wireless access point placement. I shared the diagram with you, since you requested it a while back.

4. I have made some progress in getting the School Board to consider adding a student health and safety section to the recently approved 2013-2018 school PCSD Technology plan.

5. I have prepared the calculations and visualizations of the irradiation of students in each PCSD school for the public web site.

What I need from you
--------------------
1. To provide a safe learning environment for my daughter and all the other students at MCCV.

2. As you do not have my consent to irradiate my daughter, I need to understand how you will accommodate this student's needs at your school. Accepting our generous offer to provide wired networking for the kindergarten room is an easy, no cost solution, but I am open to other effective solutions. Doing nothing is not an effective solution.

3. Informing the parents about what we do and do not know about the potential effects of choosing to use wireless connectivity and devices in schools, so the parents can make informed consent decisions for their own children.

4. Making accurate measurements of the wireless radiation in the MCCV kindergarten rooms:

On May 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, [Parent] wrote:

> In my previous emails, I requested from you and Mike Cole the time to accurately measure the microwave radiation exposure in the kindergarten room, so I can determine if this environment would be safe for my daughter. I will need to measure the microwave radiation exposure for four use cases/scenarios:
>
> [1] Router on, no wireless devices connected to it
> [2] Router on, one teacher laptop connected to it, both idle and downloading content
> [3] Router on, one teacher laptop and one student tablet connected to it, both idle and downloading content
> [4] Router on, all 24 laptops (from the rolling cart) connected to it, both idle and downloading content
>
> This would take about 60 minutes, but we would need access to the cart of laptops.
>
> Question: When can we set up these measurements?

I would like to complete the measurements by no later than July 2. I will need this information to evaluate the safety of the learning environment that MCCV is providing for its kindergarten students. Mike Cole has delayed this request for over a month.

None of the above are new issues: they are just issues that have remained unaddressed by the PCSD and MCCV. You all have had months to do something about this; it cannot wait any longer, so we will need to address these issues shortly after you start.


Regards,



[Parent]
Hi, Steve.

I am hoping we can talk first thing tomorrow morning so that we can all be on the same page for tomorrow evening's School Board meeting. I am requesting a short meeting tomorrow morning with you, Steve.

I think it is in everyone's best interest to proceed smoothly, with a minimum of surprises. I am concerned about several things, all or some of which will be addressed in tomorrow's School Board meeting. I would like to prepare so that there is a minimum of drama. My interest is in having all parties follow the law:

[1] The June 18 letter that I received and the intentions/District costs for it.

[2] Item 7 on the agenda which is currently a CONSENT item; this needs to be a HOLD item, open for public discussion, as the proposed bylaw change is unconstitutional and prejudicial.

[3] The actions that the PCSD and MCCV will take to ensure my daughter's kindergarten classroom will be a safe environment by July 17, 2013, the date she is scheduled to start kindergarten at MCCV. I have explicitly stated my non-consent for irradiating her with voluntary microwave radiation that is under the control of the PCSD/MCCV while she is in her public school classroom.

[4] The lack of response from MCCV staff on the following issues:

No response yet from Mike Cole and Chad Carvey for a date to measure the radio frequency microwaves in the MCCV kindergarten room under typical use case scenarios (detailed in my earlier email). I have left three messages for Mike. Chad told me that he would respond tomorrow.

An incomplete response from Steve Bolman and Mike Cole for my first CPRA request for invoices, purchase orders, equipment inventories, diagrams/maps for the wireless installations, as detailed in my first CPRA request (I can present the details to you tomorrow)

A lack of response from Steve Bolman or Jane Escobedo on the Public Comment status for Item 7 of the 6/25/13 School Board agenda. I dropped off a printed copy of the email to Debbie Winkler who told me that in Steve's absence, Jane would review the issue and get back to me later in the day. I provided my phone number, but did not hear back from her today.

A lack of response on any of the items summarized in my 6/12/13 email to Mr. Bolman and the Petaluma City School Board members.

I will look forward to speaking with you tomorrow morning, Steve, or, in his absence, Jane. I will also look forward to responses from Mike Cole and Chad Carvey.


Regards,



[Parent]
Hi, Chad.

It's Friday, June 28. I have been waiting patiently for your response and the actions you will take to provide a safe learning environment for my daughter's classroom. I trust you are fully up to speed by now, as we have been discussing this issue for over two months.

Please let me know when we can meet to discuss all of this. What is your first day in the office? Monday July 1? What date and time can we get together?

Please let me know.

>>> On 6/26/13 @ 5:04 PM, [Parent] wrote to Chad Carvey:


Preventing the distribution of this information is another example of the PCSD's and MCCV's systematic disregard for this important public health and safety information that parents need to have. To date, MCCV has not been willing to communicate this important information to the parents of the affected students and has not provided a way for us to communicate to them either.

As this is an important public health and safety issue, and my daughter is now enrolled at MCCV, I am asking you, Chad, for a class roster which includes the names, phone numbers and email addresses of the parents of the students in the MCCV kindergarten and first grade classrooms so that we can distribute this information to them this week. Each parent will need this information at least two weeks before the start of the MCCV school year (July 17, 2013), so they will have time to educate themselves on this important issue and have the opportunity to explicitly state their non-consent, if they wish, against the use of wireless connectivity and wireless devices in the kindergarten/first grade classrooms. My wife and I have already explicitly stated our non-consent for irradiating our daughter to you, the PCSD executive management team and to the School Board. My wife and I are expecting MCCV to create a safe learning environment in my daughter's classroom and we are awaiting your response on how you will fulfill this legal obligation.

While I was writing this email, I received a call from Jane Escobedo, Assistant Superintendent of PCSD Schools. She informed me that the PCSD/MCCV does not want to measure the microwave radiation in the MCCV kindergarten classroom. If the PCSD/MCCV does want not measure the microwave radiation level in the classroom, it would have no way to evaluate if the levels are safe. Therefore, by July 17, 2013, the start of the 2013-2014 School year, in order to provide a safe RF/EMF environment, the MCCV will have to remove all of its wireless routers and access points and no longer use wirelessly connected devices at MCCV. In the absence of measuring the RF/EMF, this would be the only way to ensure the classrooms would be safe from unnecessary, continuous, voluntary, toxic pollution of RF/EMF.  That's a great outcome. Please confirm if this is your plan.

Chad, you and the other PCSD administrators and School Board members have been confusing popular opinion regarding the acceptance of wi-fi in our culture with the importance of what has already been scientifically established.

I created the following analysis after speaking for nearly three hours directly to James Cassat, Executive Director of the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP -- http://ncrponline.org) and both Donald Campbell and Ed Mantiply, of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/). The key insights depend on understanding the basic physics, math and biology that we would expect any Petaluma High School student to understand.

The amount of radio frequency electromagnetic fields that shoot through your students's brains and bodies at over 6 million miles per hour when the MCCV chooses to operate the Meraki MR-16 wireless access points (https://meraki.cisco.com/lib/pdf/meraki_datasheet_MR16.pdf) in its classrooms is staggering. When teachers then direct their students to use wireless devices (Lenovo laptops and iPads) to connect to this wireless network, the already dangerous levels grow exponentially.


Dear [Parent],

I believe that Jane Escobedo has already informed you of the District's answer to your request to conduct private measurements/testing.  Please let me know if that is not the case.

In regards to your daughter being placed in a wifi-free classroom at MCSCV, I am still awaiting district counsel as to how to appropriately respond. Since your request/demand is highly unusual (a first, in my experience), it requires careful consideration, above my level of expertise. I would ask for your patience in getting a thoughtful response from the District.

If you have any non-wifi questions about school, I am at your service if you want to meet, or chat on the phone.  Just let me know.

Best regards,

Chad Carvey
Dear Mr. Bolman and Petaluma City School Board Members:

Troy Sanderson
Michael Baddeley
Mary Schafer
Sheri Chlebowski

I received Superintendent Steve Bolman's letter dated June 28, 2013 and was puzzled by his response to my 6/26/13 email to the School Board that calculated that the levels of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF/EMF) in the MCCV classrooms may be over 7,000 times higher than the current FCC maximum exposure guideline for RF/EMF. I made these calculations after consulting with the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology. I have offered to share the equations with everyone so we can all verify the correctness of the math and the veracity of the results to gain a common understanding of this very serious problem.

OSHA regulations state that areas that have levels of RF/EMF that are just 10 times higher than the FCC maximum exposure guideline for RF/EMF must have warning signs that state "WARNING - RADIO-FREQUENCY RADIATION HAZARD".

The OSHA sign, above, is intended to warn the general public from entering the area because it is dangerous. This is a serious problem that requires a serious response before the start of the school year on July 17, 2013. The PCSD cannot allow teachers and students to enter the classrooms if this problem is not addressed.

Mr. Bolman's letter was obtuse. His letter indicates that the Petaluma City School District (PCSD) considers this health and safety information unimportant and not worthy of further investigation. The letter says "any testing that you might do will not be relevant or necessary as the District does not agree with your concerns".

What? Instead of the PCSD taking the necessary actions to properly evaluate the safety of the classrooms in my daughter's public school and then taking the necessary actions to provide a safe environment for these classrooms, Mr. Bolman has stated that the PCSD will do nothing to accommodate the health and safety needs of the teachers and students and that we, as a family, should just "explore other educational options – another school/district".

Mr. Bolman's letter is an unacceptable response to my 6/26/13 email for the following reasons:

[1] The harmful effects of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF/EMF) is not a matter of belief, faith, or personal opinion. It is a matter of understanding and responding to the published, scientific facts. Whether or not our daughter attends a PCSD school, the facts will remain, as will the ill health effects that the PCSD is forcing upon its teachers and upon its students without the students' parents' consent.

[2] I am a Petaluma city home-owner and a good portion of my annual tax payments contributes to the budget for the PCSD. We selected our home to be close to the good public schools available in our community. We are interested in taking advantage of the education offered by the fine teachers in the PCSD.

[3] The PCSD has a moral and legal obligation to provide a safe learning environment for its teachers and students.

[4] Doing nothing ensures that PCSD will learn nothing and will continue to perpetuate dangerous conditions in our public schools which puts our public school employees and our public school students at risk, out of ignorance. We need to know what are the total RF/EMF levels in PCSD classrooms during normal usage scenarios (using wireless connectivity and devices) and how do these total levels of RF/EMF compare to the following safety guidelines:

SBM 2008 (Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods)
=======================================================
No Concern    Slight Concern            Severe concern       Extreme concern
----------   -------------------     --------------------    ---------------
<0.1μW/m2    0.1μW/m2 to 10μW/m2     10μW/m2 to 1000μW/m2      > 1000μW/m2

http://emfwise.com/emf-safety-standards.php
http://bioinitiative.org

The fact that the PCSD is unwilling to make these measurements is a huge concern. Choosing to not meter the classrooms, raises a lot of questions:

- What is the PCSD hiding?

- Is the PCSD concerned that the RF/EMF levels may exceed the safety guidelines?

- If the RF/EMF levels in the PCSD classrooms exceed the safety guidelines, isn't this
  important information that PCSD's employees and parents need to know?

- Shouldn't the PCSD make the necessary changes to ensure that the school environment is safe?

- What effect will the current RF/EMF levels have on the long-term health of the PCSD's employees?

- What effect will the current RF/EMF levels have on the long-term health of the PCSD's students?

- If we don't know the actual RF/EMF levels, how do we know if the environment is safe?

What we know right now
-----------------------
There are nine industrial strength routers powered on 24 hours a day at MCCV. Through my first CPRA information request we have determined the brand names and models of these routers. Through my second CPRA information request,, we will get the engineering specifications for each router and for each wireless device used at MCCV and all the other schools in the PCSD:

   1. The number of pulses per second each antenna sends (the 2.4GHz antenna and the 5.XGHz antenna)

   2. The power consumed by the device (per unit of time) when both the 2.4GHz and the 5.X GHz antennas are operating
      a. when idle (transmitting only its beacon signal),
      b. when transmitting a ten-minute 720p video to one wirelessly connected device (Laptop, Chromebook, iPad)
      c. when transmitting a ten-minute 720p video simultaneously to 25 wirelessly connected devices (Laptops, Chromebooks, iPads)

   3. The transmit power density (μW/m2) in both the 2.4GHz and the 5.X GHz ranges (to measure signals from both antennas) measured at the following distances from the wireless access point: 1', 2', 4', 8', 12', 16', 20', 24', 28', 32', 36' and 40'
      a. when idle (transmitting only its beacon signal),
      b. when transmitting a ten-minute 720p video to one wirelessly connected device (Laptop, Chromebook, iPad)
      c. when transmitting a ten-minute 720p video simultaneously to 24 wirelessly connected devices (Laptops, Chromebooks, iPads)

   4. The receive power density (μW/m2) in both the 2.4GHz and the 5.X GHz ranges (to measure signals from both antennas) measured at the following distances from the wirelessly connected devices: 1', 2', 4', 8', 12', 16', 20'
      a. when idle (connected and receiving the WAP's beacon signal),
      b. when receiving a ten-minute 720p video to one wirelessly connected device (Laptop, Chromebook, iPad)
      c. when receiving a ten-minute 720p video simultaneously to 24 wirelessly connected devices (Laptops, Chromebooks, iPads)

I completed measurements – in the 2.4GHz range only – in front of Superintendent Steve Bolman and Technology Director Mike Cole, on April 15, 2013 in Steve Bolman's office. I determined that the peak reading was over 16,000 μW/m2 where a person would be located for entire the time it took to download the ten-minute 720p video on my wirelessly-connected hp Envy dv7t laptop that was connected to a Meraki MR16 router in the District office. That measurement was in line with subsequent measurements I have made with an Apple MacBook Pro, Apple iPad 3 tablet, a Google Nexus 10 tablet, a Google/Samsung Series 3 Chromebook, an Apple iPhone 4s smartphone and an HTC Amaze 4G smart phone.


It only gets worse when you consider realistic working conditions over an 8-hour work day. These numbers will be increased by the rest of the wireless activity in the classroom over the 8-hour work day:

 [a] the WAPs' continuous beacon signals (the WAP nearest the classroom and the other WAPs within range)
 [b] each wireless device's continuous beacon signals (if one teacher and 28 students, that could be 29 devices)
 [c] the spill over/second-hand-smoke RF/EMF radiating from each wirelessly-connected device in the classroom
 [d] the spill over/second-hand-smoke RF/EMF reflecting and refracting from non-absorbent surfaces in the classroom
 [d] the additional power densities of any other content (text, images, audio  or video) that students or teachers choose to download throughout the day.

These are dangerous work-place conditions that can be corrected by requiring the use of only wired connectivity and wired devices on the MCCV campus. Any use of wireless connectivity and wireless devices on the MCCV campus will be subject to these OSHA limits and may prove to be a financial and administrative burden, once MCCV takes the steps to comply with OSHA regulations: provides the required employee training and performs the required metering to report the RF/EMF levels throughout the day to ensure that these OSHA limits are not exceeded.

MCCV must take the steps to provide a safe learning environment for its employees and its students.

In the rest of this email, I will provide the scientific information that proves that there is no scientific consensus that the use of wireless connectivity and devices in school is safe. In such cases, where there is evidence on both sides of an issue, it is appropriate to invoke the Precautionary Principle and take the safer approach, while more studies like MOBI kids are completed (http://www.mbkds.net). MOBI kids started in 2010 and will take ten or more years to gather the data and another year or two to analyze the data and report the results.  We don't have another ten years before we need to take precautions to protect our teachers and our children. We need to start protecting them now. Fortunately, OSHA regulations can help us do just that.

Introductory Comments
---------------------
When I drafted this email yesterday, the size of the pdf attachments put it over my email client's limit of 21MB, so I believe the email did not get sent. I  did, however, print the first version of this email and dropped it off to Superintendent Steve Bolman's office.

I am not certain if you received the first version of this email, but, if you did, please toss it and read this one instead. To reduce the size of the email, I removed all of the attachments and placed them in my public DropBox folder. I  have included links to the files in that DropBox folder below so you can download them to your hard drive. I intend to show the videos referenced below in future School Board meetings. This email will serve as my 72-hour notice for doing so:

First Video: Canadian News Documentary, 16x9 (selected segments)
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ29PMJa6hw
Published on August 25, 2012

00:00 - 03:12:
    Parent activism in Canada
    Measuring Wi-Fi in Schools

03:47 - 04:40:
    Jennifer Armstrong, MD, Environmental Medicine
    Steven Sinatra, MD Cardiologist

06:21 - 7:55:
    Magda Havas, PhD, Environmental Science
    Wi-Fi Alliance: we meet safety requirements

09:00 - 12:37:
    David Carpenter, PhD, Environmental Toxicologist
    Herouville-St.Clair, France banned wi-fi in schools

13:19 - 14:55:
    Non-Consent Forms
    Current FCC Guidelines based on a fallacy


Second Video: Resonance, Beings of Frequency (38 minutes selected from this 90-minute documentary)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/resonance-edit.mp4

Documents to Download
---------------------
OSHA-Sign.png
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/OSHA-Sign.png

WHO-IARC-monograph-102.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/WHO-IARC-monograph-102.pdf

BioInitiativeReport-2012.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/BioInitiativeReport-2012.pdf

EMF-RF-MW-Health-Effects.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/EMF-RF-MW-Health-Effects.pdf

Primer-FCC-for-Smart-Meter-Age.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/Primer-FCC-for-Smart-Meter-Age.pdf

2011-Oct-Wireless-In-Schools.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/2011-Oct-Wireless-In-Schools.pdf

AAEM-to-LAUSD-Mar-13-2013.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/AAEM-to-LAUSD-Mar-13-2013.pdf

Herbert-2012-Findings-in-Autism.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/Herbert-2012-Findings-in-Autism.pdf

Johansson-re-WiFi-in-Schools.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/Johansson-re-WiFi-in-Schools.pdf

Havas-Wi-Fi-2013.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/Havas-Wi-Fi-2013.pdf

01-Dr.-Magda-Havas-Declaration.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/01-Dr.-Magda-Havas-Declaration.pdf

02-Havas-Addendum-A-Studies.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/02-Havas-Addendum-A-Studies.pdf

03-Lloyd-Morgan-Amended-Declaration.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/03-Lloyd-Morgan-Amended-Declaration.pdf

04-Dr-David-Carpenter-Declaration.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/04-Dr-David-Carpenter-Declaration.pdf

05-Dr-David-Carpenter-Reply-to-Savitz.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/05-Dr-David-Carpenter-Reply-to-Savitz.pdf

06-Formulas for Unit Conversion Charts.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/06-Formulas%20for%20Unit%20Conversion%20Charts.pdf

07-MicroWatt-Conversion-Chart.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/07-MicroWatt-Conversion-Chart.pdf

08-EMF-precautions.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/08-EMF-precautions.pdf

European Commission Communication on the Precautionary Principle: "The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be consistent with the high levels of protection chosen by the EU."

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2005 World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology:  "When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm. Morally unacceptable harm refers to harm to humans or the environment that is threatening to human life or health, or serious and effectively irreversible, or inequitable to present or future generations, or imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected."

On Jul 2, 2013, at 10:44 AM, [Parent] wrote to Chad Carvey and Steve Bolman:

With the information you have provided I can only make a best guess. The information you provided is not sufficient for a parent to accurately understand the levels of RF/EMF in the MCCV classrooms. What we need is an accurate assessment of current projected uses of wireless access points and wireless devices first at MCCV, and eventually at all other schools in the PCSD. I provided guidelines on how best to do that in yesterday's email. I have quoted the relevant details of that email, below my signature of this email.

My posture/actions are not hostile. I am asking the Petaluma City School District to evaluate the safety of the MCCV classrooms so we can make informed decisions about the RF/EMF levels in the classroom and what that means. If the District is confident that the results will show that the classrooms are safe, they should have nothing to worry about and should voluntarily make and distribute these measurements. In fact, they may have to do so as a regular safety check on an on-going basis to ensure that they do not exceed safety guidelines, if they continue to use wireless connectivity and wireless devices in their schools.

The key measurement we need for the MCCV kindergarten room is RF/EMF from the wireless access points so we can understand the total exposure delivered over a school day from these WAPs. Since the PCSD has decided against me using my personal equipment to make these measurements at no cost to MCCV or PCSD, the District will now have to hire another professional with the appropriate meters and training to make the measurements by 7/16/13. As we discussed, I contacted the following Cal OSHA office about this issue and understand the steps I need to take to file the necessary complaint that will require the District to make and report the measurements within two weeks of receiving the complaint:

California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement, Santa Rosa Office
1221 Farmers Lane, Ste. 300
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Phone 707-576-2388

Steve Bolman indicated to me this morning that I would not be able to make the complaint, but that is not the information I was given yesterday by Cal OSHA. I will continue to study this option throughout the day and will decide by the end of business today whether or not I will file the complaint.

This seems to be an unfortunate, predictable strategy the PCSD attempts. I have been through the process several times re: my CPRA information requests, my rights to pass out information on the sidewalks in front of schools and the PCSD's attempts to limit public comment in public School Board meetings -- they seem to think it is lawful to prevent the public from using their own audio visual equipment and materials during public comment. This is how it has gone down in the past:

1. I make a lawful request.
2. The PCSD does not comply with the lawful request, sometimes quoting policy that is not consistent with federal, state and local law.
3. I point out that the PCSD must comply with federal, state and local law.
4. The PCSD relents and complies with federal, state and local law.

This just seems to be a waste of everyone's time and energy. As I have communicated to all, I have no desire to enter a legal back-and-forth. I find the court of public opinion to be swifter and more effective. The business of public institutions should be conducted in the open before the public, not behind the closed doors of a legal proceeding.

If the PCSD is going to hire someone to make this measurement, then it makes sense to measure representative use cases for all the grade levels at the same time. See the details below my signature of this email.

Even though the following is a reasonable position:

On Jun 26, 2013, at 5:04 PM, [Parent] wrote to Steve Bolman and PSCD School Board:

While I was writing this email, I received a call from Jane Escobedo, Assistant Superintendent of PCSD Schools. She informed me that the PCSD/MCCV does not want to measure the microwave radiation in the MCCV kindergarten classroom. If the PCSD/MCCV does want not measure the microwave radiation level in the classroom, it would have no way to evaluate if the levels are safe. Therefore, by July 17, 2013, the start of the 2013-2014 School year, in order to provide a safe RF/EMF environment, the MCCV will have to remove all of its wireless routers and access points and no longer use wirelessly connected devices at MCCV. In the absence of measuring the RF/EMF, this would be the only way to ensure the classrooms would be safe from unnecessary, continuous, voluntary, toxic pollution of RF/EMF.  That's a great outcome. Please confirm if this is your plan.

. . . you have communicated to me that I should not have an expectation that MCCV will turn off all the wireless access points and stop the practice of using wireless devices in the 2013-2014 School Year. As you pointed out, we will need a year to educate parents on this topic.

What we need for that education, however, is accurate, relevant information about the RF/EMF levels in the classrooms in which our children/your students will be spending over 1200 hours in the 2013-2014 school year. Best guesses are not good enough.

Chad, you and the other PCSD administrators and School Board members should not confuse popular opinion regarding the acceptance of wi-fi in our culture with the importance of what has already been scientifically established.

Here is the Science
-------------------
As Steve Bolman and I have discussed in each of our previous meetings, in May 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF/EMF from any source as a class 2B carcinogen.

For a summary, of IARC's findings, I played the following video for Steve in his office during our first meeting on April 15, 2013. IARC's committee of 31 international scientists analyzed all of the relevant current scientific literature over eight days and determined that RF/EMF from all sources (cell phones, wi-fi, wireless computers/tablets, cordless phones, wireless gaming devices and more) is a Class 2B carcinogen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4E2i5XFX9M

I recall Steve interrupting the meeting and going to his computer to search the WHO web site for a publication that would convince him that YouTube video was not some kind a hoax. Please find the recently published 462 page IARC Monograph 102 that shares the scientific findings from this committee. I hope this document is sufficient for you to accept that these conclusions have been carefully rendered.  You can find the WHO-IARC-monograph-102.pdf file here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/WHO-IARC-monograph-102.pdf

Ignoring this WHO classification is just one of many examples of how the PCSD Executive Management team and the PCSD School Board have ignored important scientific research results and opinions from the following leading scientists in the field:

Bruce Armstrong
Sydney School of Public Health University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW, Australia

Igor Y. Belyaev
Cancer Research Institute Slovak Academy of Science Bratislava
Slovakia

Carl F. Blackman
Raleigh, NC USA

Maria Blettner
Institute of Medical Biometry, Epidemiology and Informatics
University of Mainz Mainz, Germany

Elisabeth Cardis, Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL)
Barcelona Spain

Clemens Dasenbrock
Toxicology & Environmental Hygiene Fraunhofer Institute
for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine Hanover
Germany

René de Seze
Experimental Toxicology Unit INERIS
Verneuil-en-Halatte, France

Jean-François Doré
Oncogenesis and Tumour Progression INSERM
Léon Bérard Centre, Lyon France

Lennart Hardell
Department of Oncology University Hospital Örebro
Sweden

Peter D. Inskip
Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics
National Cancer Institute Bethesda, MD, USA

Jukka Juutilainen
Department of Environmental Science University of Eastern Finland
Kuopio, Finland

Nam Kim
Chungbuk National University School of Electrical and Computer
Engineering Cheongju Republic of Korea

Dariusz Leszczynski
Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority Helsinki
Finland

Simon Mann
Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards
Health Protection Agency Didcot
England

David L. McCormick
IIT Research Institute Chicago, IL
USA

James McNamee
Consumer & Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau
Health Canada
Ottawa, ON, Canada

Ronald Melnick (Subgroup Chair, Exposure Data)
Ron Melnick Consulting Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Meike Mevissen
Division of Veterinary Pharmacology and Toxicology
University of Bern Bern, Switzerland

Junji Miyakoshi
Research Institute for Sustainable Humanosphere
Kyoto University Kyoto
Japan

Christopher J. Portier (Subgroup Chair, Mechanistic and Other Relevant Data)
National Center for Environmental Health & Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Atlanta, GA, USA

David B. Richardson
Department of Epidemiology University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Martin Röösli
Unit for Environmental Epidemiology and Health Risk Assessment
Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute Basel, Switzerland

Jonanthan M. Samet
Institute for Global Health
University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA, USA

Tomoyuki Shirai
Department of Experimental Pathology and Tumor Biology
Nagoya City University Nagoya, Japan

Jack Siemiatycki (Subgroup Chair, Epidemiology)
Department of Social and Preventive Medicine
University of Montreal Montreal, QC, Canada

Malcolm Sim
Monash Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health
Monash University Melbourne, VIC Australia

Stanislaw Szmigielski [did not attend]
Department of Microwave Safety Military Institute of Hygiene and
Epidemiology Warsaw, Poland

Luc Verschaeve
Department of Toxicology Scientific Institute of Public Health
Brussels, Belgium

Vijayalaxmi
Department of Radiology
University of Texas Health Science Center
San Antonio, TX, USA

Martin Blank, PhD
Associate Professor, Columbia University
Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics
http://vimeo.com/17266941

Magda Havas, PhD
Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies
Trent University
http://vimeo.com/17263893
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyzZX-bCiqs

Olle Johansson, PhD
Associate Professor, Karolinska Institute
Department of Neuroscience
http://vimeo.com/17250790

Joel Moskowitz, PhD
Director, Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
http://vimeo.com/17266112

David O. Carpenter, MD
Director, Institute for Health and the Environment
University at Albany, Rensselaer, New York USA

Prof. Jitendra Behari, PhD
Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory School of Environmental Sciences
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi, India

Prof. Carlo V. Bellieni, MD
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
University of Siena
Siena, Italy

Igor Belyaev, Dr. Sc.
Cancer Research Institute
Slovak Academy of Science
Bratislava, Slovak Republic

Carl F. Blackman, PhD
Raleigh, North Carolina USA
Founder, Former President and Full Member, Bioelectromagnetics Society

Martin Blank, PhD Associate Professor
Dept. of Physiology.
College of Physicians and Surgeons
Columbia University, New York USA
Former President and Full Member, Bioelectromagnetics Society

Michael Carlberg, MSc
Department of Oncology
Orebro University Hospital
Orebro, Sweden

Zoreh Davanipour, DVM, PhD
Friends Research Institute
Los Angeles, CA USA

David Gee, Senior Advisor
Science, Policy, Emerging Issues,
Integrated Environmental Assessment European Environmental Agency
Copenhagen, Denmark

Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, PhD
Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics Faculty of Biology,
University of Athens
Athens, Greece

Prof. Yury Grigoriev, MD
Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
Moscow, Russia.

Prof. Kjell Hansson Mild, PhD
Umeå University, Dept of Radiation Sciences
Umeå, Sweden
Former President and Full Member (emeritus), Bioelectromagnetics Society

Prof. Lennart Hardell, MD
Department of Oncology
Orebro University Hospital
Orebro, Sweden

Martha Herbert, MD, PhD
Pediatric Neurology TRANSCEND Research Program
Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA USA

Prof. Paul Héroux, PhD
Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health
McGill University Faculty of Medicine, and
Department of Surgery, InVitroPlus Laboratory
Montreal, Quebec Canada

Prof. Michael Kundi, PhD med habil
Institute of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna
Vienna, Austria
Full Member, Bioelectromagnetics Society

Prof. Henry Lai, PhD
Department of Bioengineering
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington USA

Prof. Abraham R Liboff, PhD,
Professor
Department of Physics
Oakland University
Rochester Hills, Michigan
Full Member, Bioelectromagnetics Society

Ying Li, PhD
McGill University Health Center
Department of Surgery,
InVitroPlus Laboratory
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Prof. Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD
Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics
Faculty of Biology,
University of Athens
Athens, Greece

Henrietta Nittby, MD, PhD
Department of Neurosurgery
Lund University Hospital
Lund, Sweden

Bertil R. Persson, PhD, MD h.c.
Department of Neurosurgery
Lund University Hospital
Lund, Sweden

Dr. Gerd Oberfeld
Amt der Salzburger
Landesregierung
Landessanitätsdirektion
Referat Gesundheit, Hygiene und Umweltmedizin
Salzburg, Austria

Links to the studies and opinions are here:
-------------------------------------------
BioInitiativeReport-2012.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/BioInitiativeReport-2012.pdf

http://www.bioinitiative.org

EMF-RF-MW-Health-Effects.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/EMF-RF-MW-Health-Effects.pdf

http://www.wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html

What We Know Right Now, With Certainty
--------------------------------------
We know with certainty that the use of wired connectivity and wired devices in classrooms is safe. We do not know with certainty that the use of wireless connectivity and wireless devices in classrooms is safe. In the scientific community, there is is no consensus on whether the use of wireless connectivity and wireless devices is safe. There are thousands of studies and scientific opinions on both sides of this issue. The studies on one side do not cancel out the studies on the other side. The PCSD cannot selectively look at the literature and pick the few studies it wishes to justify its position, as you have done, Steve, in each of our previous meetings.

The Precautionary Principle, quoted below should guide PCSD School Board, School District Executive Management team and PCSD School principals to select the option for which we have certain safety: the use of only wired connectivity and wired devices in classrooms.

-- European Commission Communication on the Precautionary Principle: "The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be consistent with the high levels of protection chosen by the EU."

-- The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2005 World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology:  "When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm. Morally unacceptable harm refers to harm to humans or the environment that is threatening to human life or health, or serious and effectively irreversible, or inequitable to present or future generations, or imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected."

PCSD Responsibilities and Obligations
-------------------------------------
The PCSD has a moral and legal obligation to provide a safe learning environment for its students. The PCSD has a zero-tolerance policy for bullying. The District took actions in April/May 2013 to suspend four students from last summer's Petaluma National World Series Team because they repeatedly ganged up on one student and eventually bruised that student's chest.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word bullying is defined as "acting in a way that hurts or threatens smaller or weaker persons". That is what the PCSD is doing when it forces students to be exposed to continuous wireless RF/EMF signals from the use of wireless access points and of wireless devices in classrooms, without their parent's informed consent about the dangers of doing so.

With respect to exposure to RF/EMF the evidence is strongest for cancer, after 7-10 years of exposure. However, other illnesses crop up much sooner than that. You will find details in the research attached to this email. Please recognize what I am sharing with you all today has already been in your possession for the last three months. You have been just choosing to ignore this important information.

The PCSD cannot ignore the OSHA RF/EMF regulations.

==================
In their own words
==================

President O'Bama's June 6, 2013 Speech in Mooresville, NC
---------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-241jLHVMU

Out of the 2700 words in President O'Bama's June 6, 2013 speech in Mooresville, NC, I count the following mentions:

5 wired/fiber optic/broadband/connected
2 wireless
1 safer
0 mobile

Here are some excerpts from the transcript:

>>> start of quotes

"It requires parents who are more active and involved. Parents, school is not a passive thing where you just dump off your kids, they come back and somehow automatically they learn. You’ve got to be involved in the education process. It requires smarter schools that are safer places to learn. And in an age when the world’s information is a just click away, it demands that we bring our schools and libraries into the 21st century. We can’t be stuck in the 19th century when we’re living in a 21st century economy.

And that’s why, today, we’re going to take a new step to make sure that virtually every child in America’s classrooms has access to the fastest Internet and the most cutting-edge learning tools.

. . .  I am directing the Federal Communications Commission, which is the FCC, to begin a process that will connect 99 percent of America’s students to high-speed broadband Internet within five years. Within five years we’re going to get it done.

. . . Today, the average American school has about the same bandwidth as the average American home, even though obviously there are 200 times as many people at school as there are at home. Only around 20 percent of our students have access to true high-speed Internet in their classroom.

. . .  here in Mooresville, you’ve committed yourself to this cause. Starting in the third grade, as all of you know because you’ve lived through it, every student in the district gets a laptop and high-speed, wireless Internet in the classroom.
And I just saw the ways that it’s changing how you learn. You don’t just write papers and take tests. You’re working together on videos and presentations and movies and poetry. Your high school Spanish class might Skype with students in Barcelona or Buenos Aires.

. . . Imagine a young girl growing up on a farm in a rural area who can now take an AP biology or AP physics class, even if her school is too small to offer it. Imagine a young boy with a chronic illness that means he can’t go to school, but now he can join his classmates via Skype or FaceTime and fully participate in what’s going on. Imagine educators spending fewer hours teaching to a test, more time helping kids learn in new and innovative ways.

. . . over the next five years, we’re going to partner with private companies to put people to work laying fiber optic cables to our schools and setting up wireless connections in our schools with speeds 10 to 100 times faster than what most schools have today. We’re going to work with states to give teachers who want to use these technologies in the classroom the professional development that they need, because I was talking to Ms. Tulbert and she said, for all the teachers here, it took some adaptation to get used to these new technologies. Once all these classrooms are [wired] for superfast Internet, that means a big new market for private innovation.


. . . what we’re going to be able to do is to get companies to compete to create affordable digital devices designed specifically to these new connected classrooms. I want to see a tablet that’s the same price as a textbook.  I want to see more apps that can be instantly updated with academic content the day it’s available, so you don’t have old, outdated textbooks with student names still in them from years ago. These are the tools that our children deserve.
And there’s no reason we can’t do all this.

. . . We connected the world through the Internet, through our imagination."


>>> end of quotes

The President's speech is a ringing endorsement for high-speed internet connectivity. Mentions of 'wired/fiber optic/broadband/connected' outnumber mentions of wireless 5:2 and one of the mentions of wireless just describes the Mooreville school's choice to use wireless connectivity: "here in Mooresville, you’ve committed yourself to this cause. Starting in the third grade, as all of you know because you’ve lived through it, every student in the district gets a laptop and high-speed, wireless Internet in the classroom."

As I have shared with you repeatedly, high-speed connectivity/bandwidth is the important thing (enabled via fiber optic), irrespective of the mode of connectivity for the last few feet (wired or wireless). For the highest speeds at the lowest cost, schools should choose wired connectivity. Cost it out and see for yourselves.

The PCSD is paying nearly $600 for each Meraki MR16 Wireless Access Point. How many switches and wires can you get for $600? Lots of them.

The President's speech is an endorsement for high-speed connectivity, not for wireless.

There are no federal, state, county or local mandates to use wireless technology in schools. It is each school's independent decision and each will have to comply with Federal and State OSHA RF/EMF regulations.


American Academy of Environmental Medicine
------------------------------------------
Amy L. Dean, D.O., FAAEM 1955 Pauline Blvd Ste 100D Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Doris Rapp, M.D., FAAEM 8179 E. Del Cuarzo Dr. Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Jennifer Armstrong, M.D., FAAEM 3364 Carling Ave. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
James W. Willoughby, II, D.O. 24 Main St. Liberty, MO 64068
A.L. Barrier, M.D., FAAO-HNS
William J. Rea, M.D.,FAAEM
Gary R. Oberg, M.D., FAAEM
Craig Bass, M.D.
Martha Grout, M.D., MD(H)
Janette Hope, M.D., FAAEM
W. Alan Ingram, M.D.
Derek Lang, D.O.
Allan D. Lieberman, M.D., FAAEM
Lisa Nagy, M.D.
Kalpana D. Patel, M.D., FAAEM
James W. Willoughby, II, D.O. 24 Main St. Liberty, MO 64068
Allan D. Lieberman, M.D., FAAEM 7510 Northforest Dr. North Charleston, SC 2942
"Adverse health effects from wireless radio frequency fields, such as learning disabilities, altered immune responses, and headaches, clearly exist and are well documented in the scientific literature. Safer technology, such as use of hard‐ wiring, is strongly recommended in schools."

"In December 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics ‐ representing 60,000 pediatricians, wrote to Congress requesting it update the safety levels of microwave radiation exposure especially for children and pregnant women."

"The WiFi systems in schools are typically hundreds of times more powerful than the home consumer systems you may be familiar with. They are also dozens of times more powerful than the cafe and restaurant systems you may have been exposed to. The WiFi systems in schools are necessarily more powerful than any microwave communication systems in any other setting because they are required to run hundreds of computers simultaneously. They are also exposing children ‐ the most vulnerable to microwave radiation ‐ to extended periods all day, for their entire childhood."

"This is an unprecedented exposure with unknown outcome on the health and reproductive potential of a generation."

Martin Blank, Ph.D., College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“As a researcher on biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) for over twenty five years, as well as one of the contributors to the 2007 and 2012 Bioinitiative Reports, I am writing to  you concerning the health risks associated with the radiation from WiFi and to urge you not to install WiFi in the schools in your district.”

“RF radiation can cause single and double strand DNA breaks at exposure levels that are currently considered safe under the FCC guidelines. There are also epidemiological studies that show an increased risk of cancers associated with exposure to RF.”

“RF has been shown to cause other potentially harmful biological effects, such as leakage of the blood brain barrier that can lead to damage of neurons in the brain, increased micronuclei (DNA fragments) in human blood lymphocytes--all at RF exposures that are well below the limits in the current FCC guidelines.“

“As noted above, many potentially harmful effects, such as the stress response and DNA strand breaks, occur at non-thermal levels. Since these field strengths do not cause a temperature increase (the only parameter currently accepted as dangerous), they are unwisely considered safe.  It is clear that the safety standards must be revised downward to take into account non-thermal as well as thermal biological responses. Given the problems in current standards, it is essential, for the protection of ourselves and our children, to take a precautionary approach and not install a WiFi system.”


Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, Environmental Health Trust
---------------------------------------------------
“In our new paper, we conclude that the weight of scientific evidence available at this time supports a classification of cell phone and other wireless technology as a "probable human carcinogen." (2A) The information on which we base this view includes experimental studies as well as a growing number of studies in humans. The criteria on which we rely have been validated through more than three decades of use by the IARC; other materials classified as probable human carcinogen include: diesel engine exhaust, tars, petroleum refining and a number of pesticides. Our paper reviews new studies not available to the IARC in its determination in 2011, including several reports from the team of Swedish investigators led by Lennart Hardell.”

“We note that the American Academy of Pediatrics has expressed its concerns about the growing exposures to children in a letter to Congress dated 12 December 2012: ‘Children are disproportionately affected by environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. The differences in bone density and the amount of fluid in a child’s brain compared to an adult’s brain could allow children to absorb greater quantities of RF energy deeper into their brains than adults. It is essential that any new standards for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded through their lifetimes.'”

"As many researchers have noted, children are not merely little adults. Their brains and skulls absorb more radiation than do adults. Empirical data have shown a difference in the dielectric properties of tissues as a function of age, mostly due to the higher water content in children's tissues. High resolution computerized models based on human imaging data suggest that children are indeed more susceptible to the effects of EMF exposure at microwave frequencies."

"Please be aware that national authorities in France and Israel are advising against wi-fi expansion, especially in schools with younger children. Many authorities have noted that standards for wireless exposures differ by several orders of magnitude, with those in the home country of the World Health Organization, Switzerland being among the most stringent in the world."

"In fact, research on this topic remains poorly funded in the U.S. The absence of definitive information on risks from wi-fi in the U.S. at this time should not be interpreted as proof of safety."

"Wired systems are far more safe, secure, and speedy, and avoid potential long term public health issues. In addition, wired systems will protect the growing number of persons who are hypersensitive to wi-fi exposures, as well as limit risks to persons with pace-makers or those with other implanted electronic or metal devices that can absorb greater amounts of such radiation."


Katharina Gustavs, Cert. EOH, Building Biology Consultant IBN
--------------------------------------------------------------
 “Second, as an EMF consultant, I recommend choosing wired technologies, especially for Internet access in schools and, in general, keeping RF radiation exposures from all sources as low as possible. In this I follow the recommendations of the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (2007), the Parliament of the Federal State of Salzburg (2007), the Israeli Parliament (2010), the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), the BioInitiative Working Group (2012), and the Seletun Scientific Panel (2010), just to name a few. Understand that with each additional wireless transmitter you add to the school environment, you unnecessarily increase the overall exposure to radio-frequency radiation for each student and staff member. Be inspired by other government agencies and school districts that try reducing the RF exposure of their students and staff members. “

“Last year the Physicians’ Working Group of the Competence Initiative not only launched another International Doctors’ Appeal, but they also released another warning regarding Wi-Fi in which it says: ‘Wi-Fi radiation seems to be perceived as particularly stressful. Not only electrohypersensitive people say so, but also healthy people report their discomfort in the presence of Wi-Fi radiation.”

“Laboratory tests of laptops have shown that the exposure level for a user can easily be greater than 100,000 μW/m2 when the laptop is placed in the lap, which is definitely higher than even elevated urban RF levels. The recently released EMF Guidelines by the EMF Working Group of the Austrian Medical Association consider any level greater than 1000
μW/m2 ‘very far above normal,’ and greater than 10 μW/m2 ‘far above normal.’”

“Do not be fooled by the URS report.* In my testing experience, people tend to adversely react to Wi-Fi radiation, starting at 100 μW/m2 (0.01 μW/cm2). And this is not a whole- body, time-averaged value, which would be much lower, but a peak value. The human body does not care about the ‘accepted practice’ of the FCC.”

“Also, basic logic seems to escape the authors of the URS report. On the one hand, they claim that ‘a cautionary level of 0.1 μW/cm2 is attainable within LAUSD classrooms.’ At what distance from any device? At the user distance? From one single Wi-Fi device? For any scenario when all devices in a given classroom are working? How can recommendation
number 3 on page 1-2 be reconciled with number 6? Does this mean that the recommended cautionary level only applies to a single frequency band, i.e. Wi-Fi? What about cumulative exposure from all the different types of wireless frequencies?”

“Ambient exposure levels in a classroom with a Wi-Fi access point may range from 100-4,000 μW/m2 (up to 90,000 μW/m2), depending on a person’s distance to the access point. Compared to the 10 million μW/m2 of the FCC limit, 1000 μW/m2 (0.1 μW/cm2) may sound rather small. Considering that the natural background radiation (in which
human life has evolved) is over a billion times lower (ca. 0.000001 μW/m2), this may give you pause. For your orientation, I have compiled a table with various Wi-Fi exposure levels:
http://buildingbiology.ca/wd/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Wi-Fi-Exposure-Levels-2012.pdf."

“The electromagnetic quality of our indoor environment is part of a healthy learning environment. Just because we cannot smell RF radiation does not mean it cannot cause any harm at low levels. Be smart; invest in wired networks and the future health of our children.”


Magda Havas, Ph.D., Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The safest way to connect to the internet in the classroom is through either Ethernet cable or through fiber optics.  The worst way to connect to the internet from a health perspective is through Wi-Fi routers.  However, if Wi-Fi routers are deployed in the classroom it is essential that the routers be turned off when not in use and/or turned down to minimize exposure of students and staff.”

“The scientific evidence clearly shows that microwave radiation at levels well below the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) guidelines and at levels now commonly found inside classrooms with Wi-Fi routers causes cancer in laboratory animals, causes heart palpitations in sensitive adults, causes reduced sperm motility and viability, and is associated with symptoms of electrosensitivity that include–but are not limited to–cognitive dysfunction, pain, fatigue, mood disorders (depression, anxiety, irritability), dizziness, nausea, weakness, skin problems, and tinnitus.”

“The current guidelines for microwave radiation are based on a heating effect of a healthy adult male (as they were originally designed for military personnel working near radar antennas).  These guidelines were never designed nor intended to protect children and pregnant women.  The guideline in the U.S. is calculated as the average exposure over a 30-minute period that does not raise the body temperature of tissue by 1 degree Celsius.  The U.S. has no long-term guidelines and no biological guidelines for microwave radiation.  The guidelines in Russia, Switzerland and many other countries are 100 times more protective than those in the United States.”

“Furthermore, in 2011 the World Health Organization classified radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a possible human carcinogen, which is a warning to governments around the world.   Why would we want to place a possible human carcinogen in the classroom?”


Martha Herbert, M.D., Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“In fact, there are thousands of papers that have accumulated over decades and are now accumulating at an accelerating pace, as our ability to measure impacts become more sensitive that document adverse health and neurological impacts of EMF/RFR.  Children are more vulnerable than adults, and children with chronic illnesses and/or neurodevelopmental disabilities are even more vulnerable. “

“EMF/RFR from wifi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember,  and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function.  This will make it harder for some children to learn, particularly those who are already having problems in the first place.“

“I urge you to step back from your intention to go wifi in the LAUSD, and instead opt for wired technologies, particularly for those subpopulations that are most sensitive.  It will be easier for you to make a healthier decision now than to undo a misguided decision later.”

Olle Johansson, Ph.D., Dept of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 “In November, 2009, a Scientific Panel comprised of international experts on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields met in Seletun, Norway, for three days of intensive discussion on existing scientific evidence and public health implications of the unprecedented global exposures to artificial electromagnetic fields (EMF) from telecommunications and electric power technologies. This meeting was a direct consequence of on-going discussions already from the mid-nineties, when cellular communications infrastructure began to rapidly proliferate, and stretching through, among many, the Benevento (2006), Venice (2008) and London (2009) Resolutions from this decade, and involving important conclusions drawn from the 600-page Bioinitiative Report published August 31, 2007, which was a review of over 2,000 studies showing biological effects from electromagnetic radiation at non-thermal levels of exposure, which partly was published subsequently in the journal Pathophysiology (Volume 16, 2009). The Bioinitiative Report has, in addition, recently been updated (2012).”

“The Seletun Scientific Statement (2011) recommends that lower limits be established for electromagnetic fields and wireless exposures, based on scientific studies reporting health impacts at much lower exposure levels. Many researchers now believe the existing safety limits are inadequate to protect public health because they do not consider prolonged exposure to lower emission levels that are now widespread.”

“Furthermore, based on the available scientific data, the Seletun Scientific Panel states that:

· Sensitive populations (for example, the elderly, the ill, the genetically and/or immunologically challenged) and children and fetuses may be additionally vulnerable to health risks; their exposures are largely involuntary and they are less protected by existing public safety standards.

· It is well established that children are more vulnerable to health risks from environmental toxins in general.

· The Panel strongly recommends against the exposure from wireless systems of children of any age.

· The Panel strongly recommends against the exposure from wireless systems of pregnant women.”

“Another misunderstanding is the use of scientific publications (as the tobacco industry did for many years) as 'weights' to balance each other. But you can NEVER balance a report showing a negative health effect with one showing nothing! This is a misunderstanding which, unfortunately, is very often used both by the industrial representatives as well as official authorities.”

Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Based upon my review of the research of the health effects associated with exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation (EMR), especially microwave radiation, I feel compelled to register my concern that adoption of Wi-Fi in LAUSD classrooms is likely to put at risk the health of many students and employees in the District.”

“…I was concerned about the health risks of unnecessarily subjecting 660,000 children to 13,000 hours of Wi-Fi microwave radiation during their K-12 school years.”

“I have been calling on the FCC to strengthen its standards and testing procedures to protect the public and workers from the low-intensity, non-thermal risks of RF EMR exposure that have been reported in hundreds, if not thousands, of research studies. These include increased risk of neurological and cardiovascular problems, sperm damage and male infertility, reproductive health risks, and cancer.”

“The precautionary principle should be applied to this critical policy decision. This principle, developed at a U.N. environmental conference in 1992 states that in the absence of scientific consensus if an action has a suspected risk of causing harm, the burden of proof it is not harmful falls on those taking the action, and all reasonable measures to reduce the risk must be taken. Internet access can be provided to students through wires or optical fiber without installing Wi-Fi in the classrooms.”

 Cindy Sage, M.A., Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, CA
------------------------------------------------------
“The LAUSD will place hundreds of thousands of school children at risk for illness, learning impairments and other health problems by choosing a delivery technology that produces a toxic emission (radio frequency and microwave radiation) that has recently been classified as a Possible Human Carcinogen.”

“There is overwhelming evidence that children are more vulnerable than adults to many different exposures (Sly and Carpenter, 2012), including RFR (Wiart et al, 2008), and that the diseases of greatest concern are cancer and adverse effects on neurodevelopment. “

“Existing FCC safety standards are under formal review by the FCC (Proceeding 03-137).  The US Government Accountability Office Report of 2012 recommends to the FCC that it formally reassess, and, if appropriate, change it's current RF energy exposure limit and mobile phone testing requirements related to likely usage configurations,  particularly when phones are held against the body (US GAO, 2012).  The existing FCC public safety standards cannot be presumed for purposes of the LAUSD decision on wireless to be protective of public health under these circumstances.  The existing safety limits do not protect against chronic exposures nor against non-thermal effects of radio frequency and microwave radiation on human health.  They are specifically not protective of children or smaller-stature individuals (they are developed to be suitable to protect a six-foot man (in stature). They address acute, but not chronic exposures.  And they are not protective against biological effects of non-thermal low-intensity RFR exposures for either children,  adults, or the disabled.”

“LAUSD must incorporate appropriate measures to address the recent World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of RFR as a Possible Human Carcinogen before subjecting widespread hundreds of thousands of its District personnel and students to a preventable toxic exposure. The WHO IARC  classified RF radiation as a Group 2B Possible Human Carcinogen; it joins the IARC classification of ELF-EMF (Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields) as a Group 2B Possible Human Carcinogen.  The evidence for carcinogenicity for RFR was primarily from cell phone/brain tumor studies but IARC applies this classification to all RFR exposures.”

“New scientific studies of radio frequency radiation of the kind and at the levels associated with wireless classroom environments report that chronic, whole-body RFR exposure at levels as low as 0.003 microwatts per square centimeter result in adverse health effects on children and adolescents (Thomas et al 2008; Heinrich et al 2010; Thomas et al 2010; Mohler et al 2010). Wireless classrooms will create unavoidable and involuntary exposure to RFR at levels shown to adversely affect memory, learning, cognition, attention, concentration and behavior to school occupants. No level of RFR exposure has been conclusively determined to be safe.”

“LAUSD should not encourage or mandate the use of wireless devices like iPads or wireless computers with associated wireless access points installed in classrooms; or cell phones in learning environments on LAUSD properties. There is evidence that is sufficient to warn against chronic use of wireless devices near or worn on the body related to reproductive organs in both males and females (See Footnote 1).”

Imprecise Thinking
------------------
The PCSD continues to erroneously conflate several ideas that don't have to be related at all. I have read the 8/16/12 State Superintendent of Public Instruction Education Technology Task Force and the 2010 U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology's National Education Technology Plan and the recent ConnectED: President O'Bama's Plan for Connecting All School to the Digital Age.

All three of these documents emphasize very similar themes and erroneously conflate "modern technology" to mean "wireless/mobile". Here are the main ideas that the PCSD has been parroting:

1. We use lots of cool wireless/mobile technology at home; we need to also use it in the classroom.

2. We need 24/7, 'always-on', 'any time, any place, any pace' access, which is a euphemism for wireless connectivity.

3. Every student needs access to at least one Internet device for learning any time, any place; often called 1:1 or One-to-One which has turned into “Bring Your Own Device” or BYOD -- a plan that somehow will save the schools some money. Really?

With no standards of what these devices should be, schools are preparing for the the most common connectivity choice: wireless. The  PCSD has no realistic plan for how teachers will deal with the vast array of devices that might show up in the classroom (Windows XP/Vista/7/8/RT/?, MacOS 10.6/10.7/10.8/10.9/10.10?, Linux RedHat/Ubuntu/Debian/Suse/?, ChromeOS, Android 2/3/4/?, iOS 5/6/7/?).

Who is going to support all of those different devices? The teachers? What kind of training will prepare them for that?

Doesn't it make more sense to select one low cost, capable device that gives students and teachers a single environment to manage? Yes, it does. That is why the $200 Windows RT tablet and the $249 Google/Samsung Chromebook are the best choices today and both offer wired connectivity options.

The Apple iPad is a terrible choice as a District technology standard. It offers no wired connectivity option and cost 2-3 times more than these other devices when similarly equipped.

4. "Everyone can agree keeping our children safe online is our highest priority." -- yet the only concern seems to about content filtering, not about their physical health.

No one seems to be recognizing that all of this promotion of wireless connectivity at the National and State levels is leading our local schools down a specific path (more wireless), which is diametrically opposed to our increasing body of science that shows that low power, data carrying wireless signals (RF/EMF) are very dangerous to the health of our children.

In closing, I heard from the School Board that just before it voted to approve the District's 2013-2018 Technology Plan that all parties present recognized that the plan is a living document that is not set in stone: it can be changed at any time. I have requested that plan be changed to include specific measures to ensure student health and safety. I heard one School Board member direct a PCSD staff member to start this process.

Will you please let me know what progress has been made to address these student health and safety measures?

I will expect the PCSD to be in compliance with the Federal and State OSHA RF/EMF regulations at all schools in the PCSD by the start of the 2013-2014 school year. I do not think the PCSD can stick with its current technology plan or deploy its wireless devices as it currently does and be in compliance with these regulations.

I am asking the PCSD for a detailed plan of how it will bring MCCV in compliance with the Federal and State OSHA regulations by July 16, 2013. I am asking for similar plans for the other schools in the PCSD by August 15, 2013.


Details for Accurately Measuring the MCCV Kindergarten/First grade rooms:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To professionally measure the MVCC kindergarten/first grade classrooms, one needs to use meters capable of measuring RF/EMF for the full range of RF/EMF frequencies that are present on the MCCV campus (700 MHz - 5.8 GHz), which are the frequencies of those transmitted by the Meraki MR16 routers, Lenovo laptops and Google/Samsung Chromebooks that MCCV is planning to use in the classrooms.

One would need two professional meters with capabilities similar to these two from Gigahertz Solutions:

[a] RF-Analyser HFE59B with two antennas: (Frequency Range: 27 MHz - 3.3 GHz)
http://www.gigahertz-solutions.com/en/Online-Shop/Measurement/High-Frequency/Instruments/HFE59B.html

    Antenna 1: Horizontal isotropic ultra broad bandwidth antenna UBB27_G3 from 27 MHz up to beyond 3.3 GHz (limited by the frequency response of the HF59B).

    Antenna 2: 800 MHz high pass filter HP800_G3 for the suppression of low frequencies when measuring with the logarithmic-periodic antenna of the HF59B.

[b] RF-Analyser HFW59D (Frequency Range: 2.4 - 10.0 GHz)
http://www.gigahertz-solutions.com/en/Online-Shop/Measurement/High-Frequency/Instruments/HFW59D.html

The use cases that need to be metered are the following. Please note, for each use case, one needs to measure maximum peak levels per the meter manufacturer's user manual.

[1] First, turn off all WAPS and wireless devices at the school in order to measure the base readings with no wireless sources at the school contributing RF/EMF to the environment. The easiest way to achieve this state is to temporarily turn off all electricity to the campus at the breaker boxes before making the base level measurements.

[2] Turn the electricity back on and meter the RF/EMF in the rooms with all WAPS running (to represent the current PCSD practice of running all WAPS 24 hours/day), but no wireless devices on in the classrooms; meter at all student locations.

[3] Meter with all WAPS on and one teacher device wirelessly connected to the network: meter at all student locations when the wirelessly connected device is idle and also when the device is downloading a ten-minute 720p video.

[4] Meter with all WAPS on, one teacher device wirelessly connected to the network and one student device wirelessly connected to the network: meter at all student locations when the wirelessly connected devices are idle and also when the devices are simultaneously downloading a ten-minute 720p video.

[5] Meter with all WAPS on, one teacher device wirelessly connected to the network and 24 (or maximum number of devices expected to be used simultaneously) student devices wirelessly connected to the network: meter at all student locations when the wirelessly connected devices are idle and also when the devices are simultaneously downloading a ten-minute 720p video.

Once we understand the peak RF/EMF measurements made and the length of time it takes each device to download the ten-minute 720p video, we will be able to calculate the total RF/EMF that students will face in their classrooms. Feel free to adjust these assumptions to match your teachers' best projection of the use of wireless connectivity and wireless devices in your classrooms in the 2013-2014 school year.

Please note, average readings will teach us little. If we do not have peak readings, we cannot calculate total RF/EMF exposure over time which is the critical thing that affects the health of children. Chad, I discussed with you today three important RF/EMF fallacies: the fallacy of spatial averaging, the fallacy of temporal averaging and the fallacy of dissipation. Ignoring these fallacies will misstate the actual RF/EMF levels faced by our children/your students. The goals of these measurements are to obtain an accurate assessment of total amount of RF/EMF levels that a student will receive in these classrooms in a typical school day. One could then project how much more RF/EMF a student would encounter if they participate in an 'always-on' wireless BYOD program.

We understand how to cook a potato in a microwave: Work = Power x Time; knowing the total number of pulses and the power per pulse is needed to calculate the total amount of Work (sufficient to cook the potato) performed by the device (microwave oven) to the potato over time.

We need to apply this same logic (Work = Power x Time) to understand the total number of pulses and the power per pulse needed to calculate the total amount of Work (sufficient to cause negative health effects in children) performed by the devices (WAPS and wirelessly connected laptops, Chromebooks and iPads) to our children over time.

I hope this information will assist the PCSD and MCCV to complete the RF/EMF measurements in an accurate and timely way.

Regards,


[Parent]
Re: Illegal Restriction of Public Comment for 7/16/13 School Board Meeting

To Mr. Steve Bolman and Petaluma City School Board Members:

The executive management team of the Petaluma City School District is out of control. It is repeatedly making dangerous and illegal choices to suit its own convenience. It is not acting in the best interest of public discourse in public meetings. It is also not acting in the best interests of the health and safety of its employees, its unionized teachers or its students.

This reckless behavior must stop. We deserve better leadership.

Here is what happened today:

1. Steve Bolman informed me around 4:00 pm that Board President Troy Sanderson would not allow public comment in this evening's 7/16/13 School Board meeting via Skype, a valuable 21st century tool used by many businesses and educational institutions to ensure good communication, even when distances or family emergencies prevent people from being able to meet in the same room. Such a video conferencing skill is at the heart of distance learning and even medical diagnosis -- because it allows experts to participate in local meetings, no matter where they are physically located.

2. I asked for Steve to quote the written School Board policy that would prevent the use of this 21st century tool and he could not provide any. He communicated that his or Mr. Sanderson's interpretation of events not covered in any written federal, state or local law, could essentially create new law on-the-spot to suit their own needs.

3. I pointed out to Steve that this was illegal. There is no law or policy governing the use of Skype. As the public commenter has the right to address any item not on the agenda and enjoys first amendment rights to freedom of speech, the School Board President cannot infringe on a public commenter's first amendment rights. The public commenter can address the board politely on any topic they wish using any means that they wish as long as they stay within the printed School Board bylaws: a five-minute per person limit, and a 20-minute per topic limit for each meeting.

4. Even the minutes from the 6/25/13 School Board meeting (minutes that will be approved this evening) underscore the point. These minutes state the following for item 7: "7. (Second Reading) AMENDED BOARD BYLAW: . . . [Parent] addressed the Board in opposition of the changes, stating that the law does not specify the Board's ability to restrict the use of audio and visual equipment during Public Comment. The Board did not approve the second reading of the following amended Board Bylaw: BB9323 'Meeting Conduct' (Amended)."

5. Steve informed me that he did not agree. While I was explaining why his agreement is not relevant in this matter because it is a matter of law, our phone call was disconnected. I don't know if Steve Bolman hung up on me, but I took no action to end the call. I called back to get clarification from Steve, but did not hear back from him.

The bottom line is that there has been no recent change to the existing meeting conduct policy. The old policy that has been in force for the last three months is still in force. Therefore, public commenters have the right to address the School Board on any topic they wish using any means that they wish as long as they stay within the printed School Board bylaws: a five-minute per person limit, and a 20-minute per topic limit for each meeting. Any School Board behavior contrary to our federal, state or local laws will be vigorously opposed.

I have already written to you all about the dangerous inaction of the PCSD executive management team: the team is not treating seriously their legal duties for RF/EMF OSHA compliance.

My question is elementary: how can you, the MCCV or the PCSD know if MCCV is in compliance with OSHA if you, the MCCV or the PCSD have not measured the RF/EMF in the environment in realistic classroom usage scenarios?

The answer is that you cannot know. Please show me the results of the measurements so we can all learn the truth about what we are doing to our PCSD employees and students.

Folks, this issue is not going away. We need to respect our laws and align our actions with our values. Inaction on this matter is not acceptable.

Regards,


[Parent]
Dear Mr. Bolman,

I am, once again, confused by your response. Will you please identify the three questions that you say you and Chad have answered? In my 7/16/13 email Re: California Public Records Act Information Request per GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48, I don't see any questions.

The important point is that the PCSD must comply with Federal and CA OSHA laws and limits for Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF/EMF) in all PCSD schools and both the PCSD employees and the parents of Petaluma students need evidence of that compliance.

The purpose of my 7/16/13 email re: California Public Records Act Information Request per GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48 was to learn if the PCSD took any actions between 2/21/13 and 7/16/13 to

[a] evaluate the levels of RF/EMF at MCCV during realistic usage scenarios.

[b] ensure that the levels of RF/EMF at MCCV during realistic usage scenarios remain below OSHA limits at all times.

It seems that your 7/18/13 email is confirming that the PCSD took no such actions and therefore has no documents to evidence that these actions were taken. Am I interpreting this correctly and can I conclude that your 7/18/13 email to me is the full answer to my 7/16/13 CPRA information request? I will need your prompt reply to this question.

Mr. Bolman, I will also need PCSD's detailed plans for installing wireless access points on the Valley Vista campus in the 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and the 2015-2016 school years. A request for this information was part of my 5/17/13 CPRA information request. If any new information relevant to my 5/17/13 CPRA request has been created after 5/17/13, I am requesting it now on 7/19/13 via California Public Records Act Information Request per GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48.

Specifically, I will need brand and model numbers for the equipment, the locations on campus where you plan to install the equipment and the approximate dates that the PCSD will be installing this equipment. Please send this information to me via email immediately, as it directly impacts our family's decision of where we can send our daughter to kindergarten in 2013-2014. We have already been forced to remove my daughter from our first choice school, Mary Collins School at Cherry Valley (MCCV), because of the PCSD's inactions to

[a] evaluate the levels of RF/EMF at MCCV during realistic usage scenarios.

[b] ensure that the levels of RF/EMF at MCCV during realistic usage scenarios remain below OSHA limits at all times.

We selected Valley Vista based on the information that the PCSD provided me in response to my 5/17/13 CPRA information request that showed the the Valley Vista school had just one wireless access point installed in one third grade classroom; Mike Cole communicated to me that this would be status of wireless access points for Valley Vista in 2013-2014, but, over time, the school might be getting more wireless access points. We took that information as accurate and made our decision accordingly. If the PCSD has changed its plans for 2013-2014, we need the details immediately.

Mr. Bolman, I remain amazed that you are still leading the PCSD full-steam ahead towards more wireless access point installations on PCSD campuses. Doing so not only disregards your duties to provide a safe environment for PCSD employees and students, it is also an irresponsible, financial blunder.

The majority of the $250,000+ AMS.NET contract (covered 90% via Federal E-Rate funds) for McDowell and McKinley schools is currently planned to purchase new wireless access equipment to replace the equipment that is already operating on those campuses. If spending this money on equipment, that when used as intended, creates an RF/EMF environment that is beyond OSHA limits, then you will not be able to use the equipment and the PCSD will take a loss when selling it on the used market. The money is better spent on equipment that provides connectivity and a safe RF/EMF environment: wired switches and Ethernet wires.

The good news is that fiber-optic bandwidth upgrades to these campuses are appropriate and needed. The last few hundred feet of connectivity is all that we are talking about: should it be wired or wireless? The safe and cost-effective answer is that it should be wired.

When you say, below that my 'self-initiated terms and standards' are not as relevant as 'known and recognized safety standards', I can only conclude that you are, once again, not giving the care and attention to this issue that it requires. The level of sophistication of your analysis or discourse on this topic remains very low. I am familiar with the Google Loon project. To hope that it will someday provide the wi-fi you wish to have in PCSD schools shows your lack of understanding of the scope and goals of the project.

To fulfill your duties as the PCSD superintendent, you need to stop talking in generalities and educate yourself so you can discuss the specifics. What are the 'known and recognized safety standards' to which you are referring? Do they include the following Federal and CA OSHA RF/EMF limits?

Of course, Mr. Bolman, you understand that the Petaluma City School District (PCSD) has a legal obligation to provide a safe environment for its teachers and students. I would encourage you to immediately evaluate the levels of RF/EMF created by the use of the equipment you are planning to install and the use of wireless devices connecting to these wireless access points:

[A] http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5085.html
    Subchapter 7. General Industry Safety Orders
    Group 14. Radiation and Radioactivity
    Article 104. Nonionizing Radiation

[B] User's Guide to Cal/OSHA
    California Occupational Safety and Health
    Revised: November 2012

[C] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/WHO-IARC-monograph-102.pdf
    World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer
    Monograph 102, Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Fields
    Released May, 2013

From Article 104. Non-ionizing Radiation ([A] above):
-----------------------------------------------------
"Radio-frequency (RF) Energy. Electromagnetic waves . . . for the purposes of this specification shall include the microwave region with frequencies between 100 MHz and 300 GHz. (Hertz = 1 cycle/second, MHz = 1 million hertz, GHz = 1 billion hertz.)

"Employees shall not be exposed to RF energy from continuous wave or repetitively pulsed sources exceeding the following limits, as averaged over any possible six minute (0.1 hour) period:"

    * "Continuous exposure to a power density of 10 mW/cm2 (milliwatts per square centimeter)",
       which is equivalent to 100,000,000 µW/m2 (microwatts per square meter).

    * "Exposure to interrupted or modulated RF energy shall not exceed a power density of
       1 mW hrs/cm2 (milliwatt-hours per square centimeter)",
       which is equivalent to 10,000,000 µW-hrs/m2 (microwatt-hours per square meter)

Implicit in this OSHA regulation are three fundamental foundations of physics:

    1. Work = Power x Time;  total power delivered over time is what does the work.

    2. Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is always conserved; energy in one form is converted into energy in other forms.

    3. Electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light,
       which is 300,000,000 meters/second or 6,710,000 miles/hour

Power density alone is not the important measure. It is the total amount of power delivered over time which does the work that can result in health and safety problems for employees (and other people present in the same environment, such as children, if the workplace is a school).

A Microwave Irradiation Lesson: How to Cook a Potato
----------------------------------------------------
A quick microwave cooking lesson provides the necessary perspective:

[a] 1 uncooked potato @ 100% power x  5 minutes  = 1 cooked potato

[b] 1 uncooked potato @  50% power x  10 minutes = 1 cooked potato

[c] More generally,         Power x  Time       = Work

Energy is an indispensable prerequisite for performing work. Energy comes in multiple forms: kinetic, potential, thermal, chemical, electromagnetic, and nuclear. Energy is required to do the work and the energy can only be converted and/or transferred, but never lost or generated anew. Work and energy are inextricably connected.

One has to apply a sufficient amount of power over time to do the work (i.e. cook the potato). It doesn't take just 100% power to cook the potato, it takes 100% power delivered over five minutes to cook the potato, or 50% power over ten minutes. Just knowing the power is not enough; one needs to consider total amount of power delivered over time.

Further, the energy applied to the potato will do general work of all kinds, not just produce heat. That means no holds barred. The energy causes the potato's water molecules to vibrate vigorously (some would say violently), but it will also, simultaneously, alter the chemical structures of the vitamins and nutrients in the potato.

To illustrate this process, I make some simplifying assumptions and define a fictitious power unit (pt - for power delivered over time):

10,000,000 pt   = total power delivered over time required to cook a potato
100 Hz          = 100 pulses/sec. (think of a strobe light)
30,000 pulses   = 100 pulses/sec. x 60 sec./min x 5 min.
333.3 pt        = power of one pulse at 100% power
60,000 pulses   = 100 pulses/sec. x 60 sec./min x 10 min.
166.7 pt        = power of one pulse at 50% power

So, we have now solved this fifth-grade level math problem:

[a] @ 100% power:  30,000 pulses x 333.3 pt/pulse = 10,000,000 pt
[b] @  50% power:  60,000 pulses x 166.7 pt/pulse =†10,000,000 pt

. . . and we have one cooked potato. The logic of this process is self-evident to anyone who has used a microwave oven, is easily understood and needs to be applied to understanding the OSHA RF/EMF limits in the workplace.

A Microwave Irradiation Lesson: How to Irradiate a Classroom of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I recently had very detailed discussions with senior officials from the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP at http://ncrponline.org) and FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (http://fcc.gov/labhelp, which redirects to https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/index.cfm)

    - 5/23/13 discussion with James Cassata (cassata@ncrponline.org)

    - 5/24/13 discussion with Donald Campbell (donald.campbell@fcc.gov)

    - 5/28/13 discussion with with First Last (first.last@fcc.gov)

I passed these calculations below by First Last (an engineer at the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology who does not want to be identified in an email). The person advised me on two long conference calls on how to correctly make these calculations for the total levels of RF/EMF one encounters over time. I am confident in the logic of these simple equations and can identify the engineer through official means at some point down the line. I do not at this point want to betray that person's trust.

The engineering specifications of the antennas in the wireless access points and of the wireless devices themselves can be used to calculate total amount of work (power delivered over time) that PCSD employees and students in a classroom will receive from the use of these devices in the course of a work day. This power density can be independently corroborated by using professional RF/EMF meters:

[a] RF-Analyser HFE59B with two antennas: (Frequency Range: 27 MHz - 3.3 GHz)
http://www.gigahertz-solutions.com/en/Online-Shop/Measurement/High-Frequency/Instruments/HFE59B.html

[b] RF-Analyser HFW59D (Frequency Range: 2.4 - 10.0 GHz)
http://www.gigahertz-solutions.com/en/Online-Shop/Measurement/High-Frequency/Instruments/HFW59D.html

We know that the antennas in the wireless access points and of the wireless devices themselves pulse data at the rate of 100 to 200 times per second, so for conservatism, I will assume 100 times per second or 100 Hz.

I completed measurements – in the 2.4GHz range only – in front of PCSD Superintendent Steve Bolman and Technology Director Mike Cole, on April 15, 2013 in Steve Bolman's office, using a Gigahertz Solutions RF-Analyser HFE38B. I determined that the peak reading was over 16,000 µW/m2 where a person would be for the time it took to download the ten-minute 720p video on a wirelessly-connected hp Envy dv7t laptop that was connected to a Meraki MR16 router in the District office. That measurement was in line with subsequent measurements I have made with an Apple MacBook Pro, Apple iPad 3 tablet, a Google Nexus 10 tablet, a Google/Samsung Series 3 Chromebook, an Apple iPhone 4s smart phone and an HTC Amaze 4G smart phone.

Based on this measurement of only the 2.4GHz frequency, I made calculations for one wirelessly-connected device, using the following assumptions:

Meraki MR16 sends pulses 100 times per second or at 100Hz
Meraki MR16 2.4GHz antenna sends each pulse at a power density of 16,000 µW/m2 over 0.002 seconds
Meraki MR16 2.4GHz antenna sends no pulses over the remaining 0.008 seconds of this 0.01-second period
There are 100 0.01-second periods in one second.
There are 60 seconds in a minute
There are 360 seconds in a six minute period.

First, let's consider the case where the data for this one wirelessly connected device is sent only on the 2.4GHz frequency:

      3,200 µW/m2 = the peak reading of 16,000 µW/m2 in 0.002 seconds, averaged over a one 0.01-second period
    320,000 µW/m2 = the total amount of RF/EMF a person would be exposed to in one second
 19,200,000 µW/m2 = the total amount of RF/EMF a person would be exposed to in one minute
115,200,000 µW/m2 = the total amount of RF/EMF a person would be exposed to in one six-minute period

Now, consider the case where the data for this one wirelessly connected device is sent by the wireless access point simultaneously on its 2.4GHz antenna and its 5.XGHz antenna. This would effectively double the RF/EMF exposure:

      6,400 µW/m2 = the peak reading of 16,000 µW/m2 in 0.002 seconds, averaged over a one 0.01-second period
    640,000 µW/m2 = the total amount of RF/EMF a person would be exposed to in one second
 38,400,000 µW/m2 = the total amount of RF/EMF a person would be exposed to in one minute
130,400,000 µW/m2 = the total amount of RF/EMF a person would be exposed to in one six-minute period

Finally, consider multiple wirelessly connected devices simultaneously downloading the same ten-minute 720p video; the numbers grow even larger:

1,843,200,000 µW/m2 = the total amount of RF/EMF a person would be exposed to in one six-minute period for  8 devices
3,686,400,000 µW/m2 = the total amount of RF/EMF a person would be exposed to in one six-minute period for 16 devices
5,529,600,000 µW/m2 = the total amount of RF/EMF a person would be exposed to in one six-minute period for 24 devices
6,451,200,000 µW/m2 = the total amount of RF/EMF a person would be exposed to in one six-minute period for 28 devices

These numbers represent totals of RF/EMF averaged over a six-minute period. OSHA only allows 100,000,000 µW/m2 averaged over a six-minute period for continuous radiation and 10,000,000 µW-hrs/m2 for pulsed/modulated radiation. The environment in the classroom is therefore unsafe by OSHA standards. It is unsafe for PCSD's employees and unsafe for the students in the classroom.

It only gets worse when you consider realistic working conditions over an 8-hour work day. These numbers will be increased exponentially by the rest of the wireless activity in the classroom over the 8-hour work day:

 [a] the WAPs' continuous beacon signals (the WAP nearest the classroom and the other WAPs within range)
 [b] each wireless device's continuous beacon signals (if one teacher and 28 students, that could be 29 devices)
 [c] the spill over/second-hand-smoke RF/EMF radiating from each wirelessly-connected device in the classroom
 [d] the spill over/second-hand-smoke RF/EMF reflecting and refracting from non-absorbent surfaces in the classroom
 [d] the additional power densities of any other content (text, images, audio  or video) that students or teachers choose to download throughout the day.

These are dangerous work-place conditions that can be easily corrected by requiring the use of only wired connectivity and wired devices on the PCSD campuses. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

To say that the analysis above is just my 'self-initiated terms and standards' and that it does not deserve the PCSD's careful consideration is both dangerous and negligent. The PCSD has to comply with Federal and CA OSHA laws and limits. The PCSD must show evidence of doing so.

As I first communicated on 7/3/16, I am expecting the PCSD to share with the public its detailed plan of how the PCSD will ensure that none of its schools will exceed the OSHA RF/EMF limits in realistic usage scenarios.

The PCSD does not have the option to ignore Federal and CA OSHA laws.


Regards,



[Parent]
Hello [Parent],

Steve Bolman asked me to send you the updated WAP location site map for Valley Vista as per your request.

It is attached.

Mike Cole
[Parent],

Emily Kleinholz is in my office and we discussed the potential for you to meet with her.  She has provided you with several forums to share you concerns with her, Site Council and Emily has shared your concerns with the Valley Vista Staff.  As you have been previously informed, Petaluma City Schools is moving forward with its goal of providing WiFi on all campuses.  Valley Vista was next in line and when the opportunity presented itself we repurposed existing equipment on the campus to provide total coverage this summer.  The School will not be disabling any devices and the integration of instructional technology is ongoing District wide.

At this time we see no reason for you and Emily to meet.

Steve
Dear Mr. Bolman, Ms. Kleinholz and the Petaluma City School District Board Members:

Troy Sanderson
Michael Baddeley
Mary Schafer
Sheri Chlebowski

Steve, I still need answers to all of the questions posed in my earlier 8/6/13 email to you, quoted below. Please provide the answers by no later than 8/13/13.

The PCSD continues to act against the health and safety of its employees and its students and without taking the necessary steps to determine if the installation of the Wireless Access Points (WAPs) at Valley Vista are safe for its employees and students and meet federal and state OSHA guidelines. We need proof that the District has taken the necessary steps. If the PCSD has taken no such steps, then I believe the WAPs at Valley Vista will need to be removed.

This email serves as as California Public Records Act Information Request per GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48 WAP for the evidence of steps the PCSD took to determine if the installation of these WAPS at Valley Vista are safe for its employees and students and meet federal and state OSHA guidelines.

The problem is that the Petaluma City School District has not been open with its technology plans and practices, as evidenced by your recent decision to install these WAPs in Valley Vista as quickly as you did with no advance notice to the parents affected by this decision who have already expressed keen interest in the process.

We selected Valley Vista for my daughter, based on our careful analysis of its minimal wireless environment. On May 17, 2013 I filed a California Public Records Act Information Request per GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48 with the PCSD asking for the PCSD's plans for installing any wireless access points in all 19 PCSD schools for the 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016 school years. The information the PCSD provided to me in response to my request showed that the Valley Vista school had just one WAP installed in a single 3rd grade classroom, which is over 300 feet from the kindergarten rooms. I also received information from Mike Cole at that time that communicated that Valley Vista would remain that way through 2013-2014.

Based on that information provided to us by the PCSD and my readings of the school RF/EMF environment, my wife and I made our decision and enrolled our daughter at Valley Vista understanding that her kindergarten room would not be polluted with wireless radio frequency electromagnetic signals RF/EMF in 2013-2014. It was a very bad decision, on many fronts, to place a WAP in the kindergarten room after July 13, 2013.

Will kindergarten students need wireless connectivity for their kindergarten education? This is a critical questions that deserves an answer.

At each of the scheduled Valley Vista play dates this summer, we asked Principal Emily Kleinholz and the Valley Vista Kindergarten teachers if they had any knowledge of the PCSD's plans for expanding wireless connectivity at the Valley Vista campus. They said they knew nothing.

As I was writing this email, I spoke to Emily Kleinholz, who, it turns out, was the only PCSD employee to return my call in the last two days. I heard from Emily that she learned of the PCSD's decision to install the additional WAPS after July 13, 2013, the date of the last scheduled Valley Vista play date, but she would be no more specific than that.

Emily knows the arguments of why wireless connectivity is a bad choice for the health and safety of children, because I have met with her personally at least twice to communicate the trade offs involved in the decision. I was surprised that Emily did not choose to call me to let me know about the installation of the WAPs at Valley Vista as soon as she learned of the decision, as this information was very germane to our daughter's school enrollment decision. When I asked Emily why she didn't call me the day she learned about the plans to install the WAPs at Valley Vista, she declined to answer the question.

I asked Emily today if there are any specific plans for kindergarteners to use wireless connectivity for their kindergarten studies. She said there were no specific plans to do so at Valley Vista at present. She also said the only immediate user of the wireless connectivity in the kindergarten room would be the teachers.  This, of course, is unnecessary because the teachers already have working wired connections in the kindergarten classroom.

I asked Emily since the kindergarteners were receiving no educational benefit from the WAP in the kindergarten room,  if she was willing to disconnect the electricity to the WAP until such time as it the WAP would be necessary for the kindergartener's education. She was non-committal and said she would bring the question to the District.

Two days, ago, on 8/6/13, I received an email from Mike Cole with an updated map from the Petaluma City School District (PCSD) that showed the PCSD's plans for installing 11 additional Wireless Access Points (WAPs) into Valley Vista School, but with no communication about the timing of the installation.

Today, I had to send my wife to the District Office to get answers to the questions that we had about Mike's terse 8/6/13 email that only included the map. I have received no return calls for my multiple voice mail messages to Mike Cole, Sue Merril or Steve Bolman. I also have not yet received a thorough response to the questions I sent to Steve and Mike in my 8/6/13 email, quoted below. I expect answers to these questions.

I learned today that the installation was completed under our noses without any advance communication to the parents of the students affected by these WAPs. Therefore, the PCSD did not respond properly to the May 17, 2013 CPRA information request because it did not provide the information about the WAP installation plans for the 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 school years for Valley Vista. Obviously, the District had such plans for Valley Vista, or the installation could not have taken place.

This email serves as an additional California Public Records Act Information Request per GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48 for all of the written plans, notes and communications regarding the installation of the WAPS at Valley Vista school and any other changes planned for the other 18 Schools in the PCSD for the 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 School years. I will discover in these communications when the decision for WAP installation at Valley Vista was made, when it was communicated to the parties affected, the date the work started and the date the work ended. It will be interesting to analyze this public information.

I should not have to repeat CPRA information requests, Steve. The PCSD has the legal obligation to comply fully with each CPRA request. The PCSD was negligent in not providing the information on the first request; I will not allow this to happen again. I believe I now have a half a dozen incomplete CPRA information requests with the PCSD, at present. I will ensure that the PCSD complies with each of my outstanding CPRA information requests, as required by law.

I am going to hold you to a much higher standard, Steve, for fulfilling your duties and responsibilities as Superintendent of the Petaluma City School District. You are very likely wasting our District's money and are endangering the health and safety of your employees and students. I will not let this continue to go unnoticed.

So, Steve, I am asking you to fulfill your duties and responsibilities as Superintendent of the Petaluma City School District: to provide all of the incomplete information from my 5/17/13 CPRA information request and from my other outstanding CPRA information requests. I am also asking you to answer all of the unaddressed questions you have been avoiding since our first meeting in April 15, 2013.

I am looking forward to working closely with you, Steve, and the PCSD Board Members to correct the mistakes made in the last month and to follow an open process that ensures that the PCSD is properly run as an open, local governmental agency, as required by law.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Dear Ms. Kleinholz:

It is the Petaluma City School District's legal responsibility and, as the Principal of the Valley Vista School, your legal responsibility, Emily, to provide a safe learning environment for your students. Both the PCSD and you were negligent in not properly evaluating the health and safety implications for your teachers and students of installing ten Cisco WAP4410N and two Cisco/Meraki MR16 Wireless Access Points WAPs on the Valley Vista campus over the last three weeks. This is a big problem.

As you confirmed in our telephone conversation yesterday, you were aware of the installation and that no professional metering of the radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF) in simulated usage scenarios took place prior to installation. Therefore, you and the PCSD have no idea of the levels of RF/EMF that teachers and students will face as a result of this quick decision to install ten Cisco WAP4410N and two Cisco/Meraki MR16 Wireless Access Points WAPs on the Valley Vista campus. You are all flying blind here. This is also a big problem.

For months, I repeatedly asked the PCSD and the Mary Collins at Cherry Valley School (MCCV) Principal, Chad Carvey, to complete professional RF/EMF metering in realistic usage scenarios prior to the start of the school year in the kindergarten rooms where my daughter was scheduled to spend her days. The PCSD and the MCCV ignored their legal responsibilities to provide a safe environment for its students and made no efforts to professionally meter the RF/EMF environment at MCCV.

I will not allow you or Valley Vista to do the same.

I will not allow Valley Vista and the PCSD to gamble with the health and safety of the students in the kindergarten room. I will use all means possible to properly evaluate the current RF/EMF environment of the kindergarten rooms prior to the start of the school year on Aug 20, 2013. I specifically do not give you, the PCSD or the Valley Vista School consent to irradiate my daughter with RF/EMF in her kindergarten room. You will need to accommodate the needs of this student. I will need review your plan of how you will accommodate the needs of this student by Aug 14, 2013, which is just six calendar days before the start of the school year on Aug 20, 2013.

As you indicated yesterday, at present, there are no specific educational plans or needs for the kindergarteners to use wirelessly connected devices for their kindergarten education, so the easy solution is to turn off the electricity to the wireless access point whenever students are present in the kindergarten rooms. This still gives the teachers the freedom to turn on the wireless access point for their own use when students are not present.

Protecting the health and safety of our students is much more important than some adult's agenda somewhere in the District.

Thank you for considering implementing this simple health and safety measure for the entire 2013-2014 school year that will protect the health and safety of the kindergarten students. Of course, Emily, the issue is exactly the same for every other student on your campus and your legal responsibilities to provide a safe learning environment do not end with the kindergarten room.

Please find below important information, that you need to know. Please read carefully the attached pdf data sheets and the rest of this email. You will need to understand this information to fulfill your legal duty to provide a safe learning environment for your students.

WAP Installation at Valley Vista
--------------------------------------
Valley Vista now has 10 Cisco WAP4410N WAPs and two Cisco/Meraki MR16 WAPs. Are 12 WAPs appropriate for the school's connectivity needs and are they placed appropriately (i.e. do we have too many or too few WAPS to get the job done)?. Valley Vista has about 400 students K-6, with about 230 students in grades 3-6: the students using computers for their instruction. According to the WAP4410N Administration Guide, each WAP could serve about 40-60 users. Based on this information, it seems that Valley Vista might only need three additional Cisco WAP4410N WAPs to join the two Meraki MR16 WAPs to provide wireless connectivity for the targeted 250 users.

We need to understand the pros and cons of installing 5 vs 12 WAPs at Valley Vista. Saving money is only one important consideration for installing the minimum number of WAPs needed to meet the connectivity needs. In addition, Valley Vista already has existing wired connectivity to every classroom and could just use that, instead.

Cisco WAP4410N and Cisco/Meraki MR16 WAPs have different specifications and capabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[A] Meraki MR16 is the newer WAP that transmits data in both the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz frequencies, according to its data sheet:

"The MR16 features two powerful radios and advanced RF design for enhanced receive sensitivity. Combined with 802.11n technologies including 2x2 MIMO and transmit beam-forming, the MR16 delivers up to 600 Mbps throughput and up to 50% increased range compared to typical enterprise-class 802.11n access points, meaning fewer access points are required for a given deployment. In addition, dual concurrent 802.11n radios and band steering technology allow MR16 to automatically serve legacy 802.11b/g clients with the 2.4 GHz radio and newer 802.11n clients to the 5 GHz band to provide maximum speed to all clients.

   - One 802.11b/g/n [internal radio and antenna] and one 802.11a/n [internal radio and antenna]

   - Dual concurrent operation in 2.4 and 5 GHz bands

   - Max throughput rate is 600 Mbit/second "

[B] Cisco WAP4410N is the older WAP (circa 2008) and transmits data only in the 2.4 GHz range. The WAPs are used equipment from two other schools in the district who are getting newer WAPs, courtesy of a 90% federal grant via the E-Rate program. According to the 2008 data sheet:

"The Cisco Wireless-N Access Point lets you connect Wireless-N (802.11n), Wireless-G (802.11g), and Wireless-B (802.11b) devices to your wired network . . . the integrated quality of service (QoS) features provide consistent voice and video quality on both the wired and wireless networks, enabling the deployment of business-quality voice over IP (VoIP) and video applications.

   - 802.11n wireless networking delivers greater throughput and extended range, maximizing the number of wireless clients per access point for your small business

   - [Three] adjustable and removable [external] dipole antennas with multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) 3x3 diversity

   - Gigabit Ethernet LAN interface

   - Supports PoE and external DC power

   - Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) wireless QoS support"

Wi-fi Standards Supported by Cisco WAP4410N and Cisco/Meraki MR16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  802.11b can transmit up to a maximum of  11 Mbits/second
  802.11g can transmit up to a maximum of  54 Mbits/second
  802.11n can transmit up to a maximum of 600 Mbits/second

From WikiPedia the definition of dBm is defined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"dBm (sometimes dBmW) is an abbreviation for the power ratio in decibels (dB) of the measured power referenced to one milliwatt (mW). It is used in radio, microwave and fiber optic networks as a convenient measure of absolute power because of its capability to express both very large and very small values in a short form. Compare dBW, which is referenced to one watt (1000 mW). . .  in radio frequency work dBm is typically referenced relative to a 50 ohm impedance . . . 0 dBm equals 1 mW. A 3 dB increase represents roughly doubling the power, which means that 3 dBm equals roughly 2 mW. For a 3 dB decrease, the power is reduced by about one half, making -3 dBm equal to about 0.5 mW or 500 µW."

  dBm     Power Level  Description
-------   -----------  -----------
 24 dBm = 251,000 µW = UMTS/3G mobile phone (Power class 3 mobiles)
 24 dBm = 251,000 µW = 1,880–1,900 MHz DECT phone (250 mW per 1,728 kHz channel)
 24 dBm = 251,000 µW = 802.11a Wireless LAN 20 MHz-wide channels in 5 GHz subband
 23 dBm = 200,000 µW = 802.11n Wireless LAN 40 MHz-wide channels in 5 GHz subband
 20 dBm = 100,000 µW = 802.11b/g Wireless LAN 20 MHz-wide channels in the 2.4 GHz ISM band (5 mW/MHz).
 20 dBm = 100,000 µW = Bluetooth Class 1 radio
 15 dBm =  32,000 µW = Typical Wireless LAN transmission power in laptops.
  4 dBm =   2,500 µW = Bluetooth Class 2 radio
  0 dBm =   1,000 µW = Bluetooth Class 3 radio"

Antenna Design (http://www.antenna-theory.com/)
-----------------------------------------------
No antenna transmits data omnidirectionally in a perfect sphere (isotropically), since antenna designers add antenna gain to flatten this sphere into a far-reaching doughnut shape.

OSHA Guidelines
===============
>From Article 104. Non-ionizing Radiation (http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5085.html)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Employees shall not be exposed to RF energy from continuous wave or repetitively pulsed sources exceeding the following limits, as averaged over any possible six minute (0.1 hour) period:"

    * "Continuous exposure to a power density of 10 mW/cm2 (milliwatts per square centimeter)",
       which is equivalent to 100,000,000 µW/m2 (microwatts per square meter).

    * "Exposure to interrupted or modulated RF energy shall not exceed a power density of
       1 mW hrs/cm2 (milliwatt-hours per square centimeter)",
       which is equivalent to 10,000,000 µW-hrs/m2 (microwatt-hours per square meter)

I will be checking in daily between now and the August 20 to ensure that Valley Vista is taking the steps to provide my daughter and all of the other kindergarten students a safe learning environment for her kindergarten education for the entire 2013-2014 school year. I look forward to meeting with you on August 14 to discuss your plans to do so. Will you please call my wife, Susie, at xxx-yyyy.

Thank you,


[Parent]
[Parent],

Emily Kleinholz is in my office and we discussed the potential for you to meet with her.  She has provided you with several forums to share you concerns with her, Site Council and Emily has shared your concerns with the Valley Vista Staff.  As you have been previously informed, Petaluma City Schools is moving forward with its goal of providing WiFi on all campuses.  Valley Vista was next in line and when the opportunity presented itself we repurposed existing equipment on the campus to provide total coverage this summer.  The School will not be disabling any devices and the integration of instructional technology is ongoing District wide.

At this time we see no reason for you and Emily to meet.

Steve
This is not acceptable. I will insist that you fulfill your legal obligations to provide a safe environment for the students at Valley Vista.

You will not be able to ignore your responsibilities. I suggest that you devise a plan to ensure that the learning environment is safe. You will have to show evidence that you have taken the steps to evaluate the RF/EMF levels at Valley Vista. Not doing so is an act of negligence.

Any further delay will be wasteful of PCSD resources and is just another step in a long line of steps of acting irresponsibly. This is not strong or effective leadership; all of your inaction has been fully documented and shows you burying your head in the sand, repeatedly. Face the issue. Do something about it.

Regards,


[Parent]
Hi, Emily.

I am flying back to CA today and will contact you again when I land.  When I send you an email or leave a voice mail message, I, like most other people expect, a timely reply directly from you, not a third party. I am still waiting for a reply from you to my two emails and my three voice mail messages that addresses the issues raised in these communications.

We'll need to brain storm on an effective solution to the problem you created when you requested that the WAPs be installed at Valley Vista. I stand ready to help in any way, but will not allow you or Steve to continue to ignore the problem. This problem will be front and center in front of all parents and students until it is addressed. Inaction is not acceptable.

Regards,


[Parent]
Dear Mr. Bolman and Ms. Kleinholz and School Board Members,

This morning represented an apparent victory for local government bureaucracy over the laws of the State of CA and over the health and safety of children. Congratulations on committing additional illegal acts this morning. What I witnessed was PCSD employees following Superintendent Steve Bolman's directives to act illegally and not provide immediate access to the information that was properly requested.

This morning, I made a legal request for records that were on site at both Valley Vista School and at the Petaluma City School District (PCSD) Offices. In both cases, the local government officials in charge of the sites (Emily Kleinholz at Valley Vista and Steve Bolman at PCSD) illegally refused immediate access to the records (using David Rose as their proxy): records that I properly requested in person and in writing.

The illegal acts were witnessed by my video camera and by two Petaluma policemen who were called to the scene by David Rose in response to my quietly sitting and waiting for the records to be gathered, printed and shown to me. It is the refusal to follow CA state law by both Ms. Kleinholz and by Mr. Bolman which has created this stand-off, which, of course, makes their employees uncomfortable. Kleinholz and Bolman's current strategy of refusing access or meeting with a member of the public is unnecessarily creating this uncomfortable environment for their employees.

Once again, I am requesting to meet with Emily Kleinholz to discuss how we can ensure that the Valley Vista Kindergarten room will be safe before the start of the school year. This is my fifth request to Ms. Kleinholz. Refusing to meet to discuss possible strategies to make the environment safe is irresponsible. It is Ms. Kleinholz's campus, her decision and her call.

It is not Steve Bolman's call, despite his desire to make it his call. Steve Bolman appears overly worried about setting undesired precedent within the PCSD. That goal seems more important than forcing radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF) onto kindergarteners when the kindergarteners receive no educational benefit for doing so. According to Ms. Kleinholz, there are no specific education plans for the kindergarteners to use wirelessly-connected devices to support their kindergarten education in 2013-2014. Valley Vista is therefore valuing the PCSD's administrator and teacher convenience over the health and safety of our children/Valley Vista's students.

I am writing, once again, to repeat my earlier requests (quoted below my signature) for immediate access to any records that Valley Vista School and the PCSD has on site at Valley Vista School or at the PCSD offices regarding the following specific items:

[1] Any communications and documents, including, but not limited to emails, phone calls, hand-written notes, scheduled appointments, written contracts, invoices, work orders and payments between PCSD officials/employees any other PCSD officials/employees or any other third parties regarding the planning and execution of the installation of 11 additional wireless access points at Valley Vista School from the period of February 21, 2013 through August 19, 2013.

[2] Any communications and documents, including, but not limited to emails, phone calls, hand-written notes, scheduled appointments, written contracts, invoices, work orders and payments between PCSD officials/employees any other PCSD officials/employees or any other third parties regarding the planning and execution of the RF/EMF metering of any PCSD school campus from the period of February 21, 2013 and August 19, 2013.

I learned from Superintendent Steve Bolman in our face-to-face meeting on Thu Aug 15 that the RF/EMF metering report for the Cherry Valley campus was complete and in his possession at the PCSD offices on 8/15/13. Mr. Bolman refused to give me access to this report on Thu Aug 15, Fri Aug 16 and again on Mon Aug 19. I learned from Superintendent Steve Bolman in our face-to-face meeting on Thu Aug 15 that the RF/EMF metering report for the Valley Vista campus will be complete on Tue Aug 20, just one day before the start of the school year. How is the public expected to have the time to properly evaluate the results of this report in less than 24 hours?

I expect to be able to review the Cherry Valley report today Mon Aug 19 and the Valley Vista report as early as possible on Tue Aug 20, in order to make an informed decision of whether or not the kindergarten room at Valley Vista would be a safe environment for my daughter. Withholding this information is illegal. At what date/time can I expect access to these reports?

None of the actions today performed by the PCSD officials/employees absolves Emily Kleinholz, Steve Bolman or any other PCSD employee from following CA law or from their legal responsibilities to provide a safe environment for their employees and students.

Importantly, my CPRA information request, like all of my other CPRA information requests is for access and on-site review of the records. I am not requesting, have not requested and will not request any copies of records. In addition, none of the records requested fall under the exemptions allowed by law. The law is clear: immediate access must be provided. The PCSD is refusing immediate access.

I am flabbergasted that the Petaluma School Board Members do not recognize their obligations to correct the behavior of Steve Bolman and the other PCSD employees. Your silence on the matter communicates that you condone this illegal behavior.

I am asking each PCSD School Board Member to respond to this email to communicate that they have read the email, and to communicate what steps they will take to ensure that PCSD employees follow CA State law in this matter.

Regards,



[Parent]
Dear Ms. Kleinholz,

I wrote the following email this afternoon around 3:00 pm, but took the time to share it with others to get their thoughts and suggested edits. Here is the final version:

I just returned home from delivering printed versions of my 8/19/13 email to both Steve Bolman's and and your office. In both cases, I talked to the assistant on duty to schedule an appointment with them so that I could drop off the documents and get a "received stamp" from the assistant, after they accepted the documents.

At the District office, I made the appointment with Linda Osborne and even called Dave Rose to give him advance notice of the appointment that I had properly set up. Dave thanked me for doing so. Linda received the documents, stamped them both "Received Aug 19, 2013, PCS Superintendent Office", and returned copies of the stamped first pages to me, as expected.

When I arrived at Valley Vista, I had an interesting encounter with Carmen. I had also called her ahead of time and told her that I wanted to drop off the document and get a "received stamp". She then put me on hold for a very long time. I assumed we had gotten cut off; so I first drove to the District office and came by Valley Vista on my way home.

I properly announced my arrival at Valley Vista and my purpose (to drop off the document and get a "receive stamp") and signed into the Valley Vista sign-in sheet. Carmen then told me that she would not provide the "receive stamp", and told me that you had left me a message. When I came home, I checked my messages on the following three numbers and had no message from you:

[Parent] home xxx-yyy-zzzz
[Parent]  xxx-yyy-zzzz
[Parent]  xxx-yyy-zzzz

On what number did you leave a message, Emily?

Carmen then said that she had been directed not to speak to me (by whom?) and that I had to leave. I left the document with Carmen to give to you which ensured the delivery of the document to your office today in person today, so there could be no subsequent claims of not receiving my email.

I don't appreciate being treated as a pariah by you or your staff for taking the steps to ensure that our local school (part of our local government agency) follows CA law to provide access to properly requested public information and to provide a safe environment for its students. You are asking your staff to take the heat for your unwillingness to discuss solutions to this problem.

My daughter is starting kindergarten at Valley Vista in two days and I will be on campus to participate in that happy occasion. Emily, you have no justification for blocking my presence on the Valley Vista campus.

The real problem, Emily, is that you are not facing or solving the RF/EMF safety problem that you created for the Valley Vista campus by you requesting the additional Wireless Access Points (WAPs) from Kenilworth Jr. High. The details of this transaction is public information and will become well-known.

The issue of evaluating RF/EMF levels at Valley Vista and Valley Vista's responsibility to provide a safe RF/EMF environment will not be going away and cannot be just shunted off to an unresponsive Steve Bolman. Steve has not responded to any email or communication since I last spoke to him in person on Thu afternoon Aug 15.

You have ignored my many meeting requests and have not been open to discussing the variety of solutions available to Valley Vista that can solve this problem in a way that will to meet nearly everyone's needs.

Emily, I encourage you to soften your position and meet with me so we can discuss a solution to the RF/EMF problem. I will look forward to your response.

Regards,



[Parent]
Dear Mr. Bolman, Ms.  Kleinholz, Mr. Carvey and Petaluma City School District (PCSD) Board  Members:

Troy Sanderson
Michael Baddeley
Mary Schafer
Sheri Chlebowski

Steve, thank you for the pdf reports of the studies conducted by Will Davis of RESIG. I just skimmed both reports and will read them carefully later this morning and will have some questions. I have attached the reports you provided at the bottom of this email.

I hope Will Davis, your selected expert, will make himself available to answer some questions. When I received Will Davis' 3/25/13 letter, I sent him three emails and left three voice mail messages, but he never returned my emails or calls. I eventually wrote the 4/3/13 email, to refute Davis' conclusions from his 3/25/13 letter.

I will, Steve, still need immediate access today to the rest of the information that I submitted to you via CPRA. At what time should I drop by the PCSD offices today to view the following?

On Aug 19 @ 1:37 pm [Parent] wrote to Steve Bolman and Petaluma City Board Members Troy Sanderson, Michael Baddeley, Mary Schafer and Sheri Chlebowski: :
I am writing, once again, to repeat my earlier requests for immediate access to any records that Valley Vista School and the PCSD has on site at Valley Vista School or at the PCSD offices regarding the following specific items:

[1] Any communications and documents, including, but not limited to emails, phone calls, hand-written notes, scheduled appointments, written contracts, invoices, work orders and payments between PCSD officials/employees any other PCSD officials/employees or any other third parties regarding the planning and execution of the installation of 11 additional wireless access points at Valley Vista School from the period of February 21, 2013 through August 19, 2013.

[2] Any communications and documents, including, but not limited to emails, phone calls, hand-written notes, scheduled appointments, written contracts, invoices, work orders and payments between PCSD officials/employees any other PCSD officials/employees or any other third parties regarding the planning and execution of the RF/EMF metering of any PCSD school campus from the period of February 21, 2013 and August 19, 2013 . . .

Importantly, my CPRA information request, like all of my other CPRA information requests is for access and on-site review of the records. I am not requesting, have not requested and will not request any copies of records. In addition, none of the records requested fall under the exemptions allowed by law. The law is clear: immediate access must be provided. The PCSD is refusing immediate access.

After my first reading of the pdf documents that you provided today, what jumps out right away is that if these are the only reports, then the PCSD paid for magnetic field studies only - not radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF/EMF) studies, as you first indicated to me on Thu Aug 15, Steve.

After five months of education on the topic, including over 120 minutes of my direct instruction to you and the PCSD School Board members at the video taped school board meetings, is it possible that you, the PCSD executive team and the School Board actually believe that magnetic field studies (using meters that measure milligauss) would be able to gauge the safety levels of the RF/EMF levels in school environments (reported in microwatts per square meter or microjoules per square meter)?

Please tell me I am wrong. Please send me the RF/EMF studies that you also conducted.

I fear, however, that the PCSD did not conduct any RF/EMF studies, despite the clear instructions on how to to so, that I shared with you all in my 7/3/13 email.

Magnetic field studies are not sufficient to determine the safe levels of RF/EMF. I have said before that the level of sophistication of understanding the science about this topic was pretty low within the PCSD executive management team, but this points to negligence and even incompetence of every one involved, including the School Board members.

So, where do we stand?

1. From the information the PCSD shared with me today, assuming no additional RF/EMF studies were completed, the PCSD is still flying blind and has no idea of the levels of RF/EMF that their teachers and students will face in a typical school day.

2. The PCSD has done nothing that was effective at measuring the RF/EMF levels in classrooms.

3. The PCSD has already received my explicit,  written non-consent: I will not allow the school to irradiate my daughter with RF/EMF in her kindergarten classroom. The school has presented no plan that will provide a safe RF/EMF environment,  despite my repeated requests for such a plan over the last several months.

4. We are now out of time for completing effective RF/EMF studies before the start of the 2013-2014 school year; my daughter starts kindergarten at Valley Vista tomorrow on Aug 21, 2013.

5. The PCSD must shut down all wireless access points at the Valley Vista School until such studies are conducted because there is sufficient evidence presented to the PCSD (a verified peak measurement of 16,000 µW/m2 completed in front of Steve Bolman and Mike Cole in Steve Bolman's office on 4/15/13 @ 18" from  one laptop downloading a video) and the agreements made with State and Federal OSHA officials on 8/16/13:

Please, finally do the right thing now.

Recognize your limitations, the mistakes you have made and do not continue to needlessly gamble with the health and safety of our children. It does not take a lawyer to point out the obvious mistakes you are making, here.

The parents require that that the PCSD Superintendent and the PCSD School Board members make the effort to provide a safe RF/EMF environment for PCSD employees and students. It is their legal duty and obligation to do so.

The only effective remedy left to us now is to shut off all Wireless Access Points at Valley Vista, until the RF/EMF levels are properly evaluated to determine if they exceed federal and state RF/EMF guidelines set by OSHA and others.

We expect you to complete by the end of business today the task of shutting off the WAPs at Valley Vista today so that children will have a safe RF/EMF environment tomorrow, an environment that will be verified by a professional RF-Analyzer, similar to the following:

To cover 800 MHz to 2.4 GHz:
http://www.gigahertz-solutions.com/en/Online-Shop/Measurement/High-Frequency/Instruments/HF38B.html

To cover 27 MHz to 10 GHz:
http://www.gigahertz-solutions.com/en/Online-Shop/Measurement/High-Frequency/Instruments/HFEW59BD.html

Choosing to do nothing to correct the RF/EMF problem on the Valley Vista campus will be negligence. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.




==============================================================================================
On July 3, 2013, [Parent] wrote Steve Bolman and Petaluma City Board Members Troy Sanderson, Michael Baddeley, Mary Schafer and Sheri Chlebowski:
===============================================================================================
>>> start of quote

Details for Accurately Measuring the MCCV Kindergarten/First grade rooms:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To professionally measure the MVCC kindergarten/first grade classrooms, one needs to use meters capable of measuring RF/EMF for the full range of RF/EMF frequencies that are present on the MCCV campus (700 MHz - 5.8 GHz), which are the frequencies of those transmitted by the Meraki MR16 routers, Lenovo laptops and Google/Samsung Chromebooks that MCCV is planning to use in the classrooms.

One would need two professional meters with capabilities similar to these two from Gigahertz Solutions:

[a] RF-Analyser HFE59B with two antennas: (Frequency Range: 27 MHz - 3.3 GHz)
http://www.gigahertz-solutions.com/en/Online-Shop/Measurement/High-Frequency/Instruments/HFE59B.html

    Antenna 1: Horizontal isotropic ultra broad bandwidth antenna UBB27_G3 from 27 MHz up to beyond 3.3 GHz (limited by the frequency response of the HF59B).

    Antenna 2: 800 MHz high pass filter HP800_G3 for the suppression of low frequencies when measuring with the logarithmic-periodic antenna of the HF59B.

[b] RF-Analyser HFW59D (Frequency Range: 2.4 - 10.0 GHz)
http://www.gigahertz-solutions.com/en/Online-Shop/Measurement/High-Frequency/Instruments/HFW59D.html

The use cases that need to be metered are the following. Please note, for each use case, one needs to measure maximum peak levels per the meter manufacturer's user manual.

[1] First, turn off all WAPS and wireless devices at the school in order to measure the base readings with no wireless sources at the school contributing RF/EMF to the environment. The easiest way to achieve this state is to temporarily turn off all electricity to the campus at the breaker boxes before making the base level measurements.

[2] Turn the electricity back on and meter the RF/EMF in the rooms with all WAPS running (to represent the current PCSD practice of running all WAPS 24 hours/day), but no wireless devices on in the classrooms; meter at all student locations.

[3] Meter with all WAPS on and one teacher device wirelessly connected to the network: meter at all student locations when the wirelessly connected device is idle and also when the device is downloading a ten-minute 720p video.

[4] Meter with all WAPS on, one teacher device wirelessly connected to the network and one student device wirelessly connected to the network: meter at all student locations when the wirelessly connected devices are idle and also when the devices are simultaneously downloading a ten-minute 720p video.

[5] Meter with all WAPS on, one teacher device wirelessly connected to the network and 24 (or maximum number of devices expected to be used simultaneously) student devices wirelessly connected to the network: meter at all student locations when the wirelessly connected devices are idle and also when the devices are simultaneously downloading a ten-minute 720p video.

Once we understand the peak RF/EMF measurements made and the length of time it takes each device to download the ten-minute 720p video, we will be able to calculate the total RF/EMF that students will face in their classrooms. Feel free to adjust these assumptions to match your teachers' best projection of the use of wireless connectivity and wireless devices in your classrooms in the 2013-2014 school year.

Please note, average readings will teach us little. If we do not have peak readings, we cannot calculate total RF/EMF exposure over time which is the critical thing that affects the health of children. Chad, I discussed with you today three important RF/EMF fallacies: the fallacy of spatial averaging, the fallacy of temporal averaging and the fallacy of dissipation. Ignoring these fallacies will lead to a mischaracterization of the actual RF/EMF levels faced by our children/your students. The goals of these measurements are to obtain an accurate assessment of total amount of RF/EMF levels that a student will receieve in these classrooms in a typical school day. One could then project how much more RF/EMF a student would encounter if they participate in an 'always-on' wireless BYOD program.

We understand how to cook a potato in a microwave: Work = Power x Time; knowing the total number of pulses and the power per pulse is needed to calculate the total amount of Work (sufficient to cook the potato) performed by the device (microwave oven) to the potato over time.

We need to apply this same logic (Work = Power x Time) to understand the total number of pulses and the power per pulse needed to calculate the total amount of Work (sufficient to cause negative health effects in children) performed by the devices (WAPS and wirelessly connected laptops, Chromebooks and iPads) to our children over time.

I hope this information will assist the PCSD and MCCV to complete the RF/EMF measurements in an accurate and timely way.

>>> end of quote

Regards,



[Parent]
[Parent],

This is sent at Steve Bolman’s request.

The wireless access points at Valley Vista Elementary were installed during the month of July.  The installation was done by District staff, the installation was approved by me.  There was no work order and was done so by verbal order, to do so during time available.  There is no email concerning this.

The WAPs were re-purposed from Kenilworth Jr. who upgraded to Meraki’s.  At the beginning of summer the Principal of Valley Vista expressed an interest in making use of them at her site.

The installation is in line with the District Technology Plan and the Board of Education’s goals.

Mike Cole
To the Silent Petaluma City School Board (Troy Sanderson, Michael Baddely, Mary Schafer and Sheri Chlebowski),

I have never received a return email from three of you. Your silence speaks volumes.

A PCSD principal asked me for a recommendation of the best third party web site to which to refer his/her parents, so I thought you should know this information, as well. I searched and decided the following is the most complete:

    http://wifiinschools.com/

The site has good explanations and links to the main studies as well as great downloadable documents and resources. I strongly recommend getting this link to every parent in the Petaluma City School District.

    Here is today's update:

1. [Student] is finally starting kindergarten tomorrow. Yea! :)

2. I finally was able to talk to Steve Bolman for 30 minutes this afternoon: I asked him for his or Valley Vista's plan to accommodate the needs for [Student], as we have communicated months ago to both Valley Vista and the PCSD our non-consent regarding [Student]'s wireless computer/device access and use. The PCSD and Valley Vista made no plan. Boo! :(

3. Steve Bolman and Emily Kleinholz are still not willing turn off the wireless access point in the kindergarten room despite having no educational purpose for the WAP for these kindergarteners and having no idea how much radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF) are being introduced into the room over the course of the full school day . . . because Steve Bolman made an expensive error: he ordered from RESIG a magnetic field study for Cherry Valley and Valley Vista, when the schools needed an RF/EMF study. It was clear to me in my meeting with Steve today that Steve did not understand the difference between the two types of studies, until I explained it to him. I hope he understands his error now.

Invisible RF/EMF is the second-hand cigarette smoke or our children's generation. We, as a society, have taken the important steps to remove the sources of second-hand cigarette smoke from our airplanes, restaurants, schools, public parks and other public places -- using OSHA employee-protection as the mechanism. We protected the health of restaurant and airline employees and protected the health of the general public at the same time.

We are very much in the same situation right now with respect to RF/EMF. The health effects from second-hand cigarette smoke are due to long-term, chronic exposure to this toxic pollutant: it takes 15-20 years to develop cancer from cigarette smoke. Research from Hardell and others has shown that long-term chronic exposure to the toxic pollutant of RF/EMF can lead to increased cancer rates in just 7-10 years: a 500% increase for young people who have been exposed to RF/EMF for 30 minutes a day -- just 1,640 hours of exposure. Employees in public schools today are getting over 1,200 hours or RF/EMF exposure each year, or over 12,000 hours of exposure in ten years.

We, as a society, now need to take the important steps to remove the unnecessary sources of RF/EMF from our public schools, public parks and other public places -- using OSHA employee-protection as the mechanism. We can protect the health of teachers and school employees and in doing so also protect the health of the general public at the same time.

The good news is that as of 8/16/13, I have agreement from PhD senior scientists in both OSHA and the FCC on how to accurately calculate the total amount of RF/EMF Work (Power delivered over Time) to which an employee (or student) in a school environment is exposed for any nominal period: 6-minutes, 1-hour or 8-hours. It is based on an understanding of the following key properties of the antennas in any wireless access point (WAP) or in any wirelessly-connected device (Laptop, Chromebook, Tablet or Smartphone)

1. The frequency of the pulses (reported in Hz or pulses/second).

2. The duration of each pulse (reported in microseconds).

3. The peak power of each pulse (reported in microwatts/square meter at 18" from the WAP or device).

The bad news is that PCSD Superintendent Steve Bolman is not willing to verify the following agreed-to calculations with my sources at OSHA and the FCC; I offered Steve the names and telephone number of these sources so he could independently verify the information that I sent to him in my earlier 8/20/13 email, but, unbelievably, Steve is not interested. Instead, Steve Bolman insists on sticking to his flawed analysis of the Cherry Valley and Valley Vista School environments.

I told Steve that, frankly, even though he may have strengths in some other areas (financial?), he was not very skilled in understanding the science involved in this important RF/EMF issue. He said he agreed and that is why he relies on his 'experts'. The problem is that as the top decision-maker, Steve has no way to gauge if his 'experts' are misleading him, which they apparently have on more than one occasion. I underscored to Steve that whatever his 'experts' might say, in the end it is important to get to a 'correct' answer, not just one that agrees with his 'experts'.

The only verified measurement that we have to go on at the moment is the one I completed in Steve Bolman's office on 4/15/13 in front of Steve and Mike Cole - 18" from a laptop downloading a video: a peak reading of 16,000 µW/m2, which has been replicated in the range of 15,000 to 20,0000 µW/m2 more than ten additional times, so I am confident that it is correct and representative of typical classroom activity.

Here are the agreed-to calculations:

>>> Start 8/16/13 Agreement, that can be verified by senior scientists at both OSHA and the FCC

    Definitions
    -----------
    1 Joule =    1 Ampere through 1 Ohm
    1 Joule =    1 Watt-second
    1 Watt  =    1 Joule per second
    1 µW    =   1/1,000,000 Joule per second = 1/1,000,000 Watt-second per second

OSHA Guidelines From Article 104. Non-ionizing Radiation:

http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5085.html

"Employees shall not be exposed to RF energy from continuous wave or repetitively pulsed sources exceeding the following limits, as averaged over any possible six minute (0.1 hour) period":

  - "Continuous exposure to a power density of 10 mW/cm2 (milliwatts per square centimeter)", which is equivalent to 100,000,000 µW/m2 (microwatts per square meter).

  - "Exposure to interrupted or modulated RF energy shall not exceed a power density of 1 mW hrs/cm2 (milliwatt-hours per square centimeter)", which is equivalent to 10,000,000 µW-hrs/m2 (microwatt-hours per square meter)

    . . . and using the following assumptions/measurements:

Assumptions and Measurements
============================
    RF/EMF from wireless devices and wireless access points is pulsed (interrupted or modulated).
    16,000 µW/m2       = power density measurement of each pulse
                          (from actual 4/15/13 measurement in PCSD Superintendent Steve Bolman's office)
           0.002 sec.  = duration of each pulse
         100 Hz        = frequency of pulses (100 per second)
         360 seconds   = # of seconds in a 6-minute period
      36,000 pulses    = # of pulses in a 6-minute period
       3,600 seconds   = # of seconds in 1-hour  period
     360,000 pulses    = # of pulses in a 1-hour period
       28,800 seconds  = # of seconds in an 8-hour period
    2,880,000  pulses  = # of pulses in an 8-hour period

    . . . we can then calculate the total amount of 'Work' (Power delivered over Time) that a public school teacher might face over a nominal six-minute period, a nominal one-hour period and a nominal eight-hour period. We agreed that the following two equations are identical and, as such, reach the same result:

From [Parent]:
  "32 µW-seconds/m2 x  36,000 =  1,152,000 µW-seconds/m2 for one device in one six-minute period"

  From OSHA:
  "The total energy in 6 minutes would be (3200 µJ/s-m2)(360 s) = 1,152,000 µJ/m2"

From today's agreement on the logic of the calculations above, we can then refine the results by using actual data (peak RF/EMF measurements per device in actual specific classroom usage scenarios) and actual manufacturer specs (from Cisco, Apple, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Samsung, HTC and others) that will establish the following key parameters:

1. The frequencies of the pulses (reported in Hz or pulses/second).

2. The duration of each pulse (reported in microseconds).

3. The peak power of each pulse (reported in microwatts/m2 at 18" from the device during actual specific classroom usage scenarios).

    . . .  to calculate the total Work (Power over Time) released into a typical school classroom in a typical day.

The math now is simple and can be performed by any fifth-grader. Assuming the worst-case scenario, simultaneously downloading a ten-minute 720p video from one WAP to 21 wirelessly connected-devices (one teacher device and 20 student devices), we then calculate the total RF/EMF contributed by 22 wirelessly-connected devices in the classroom: 1 WAP + 1 teacher device + 20 student devices = 22 wirelessly-connected devices in the classroom.

The totals are as follows for one nominal six-minute period:
  32 µW-seconds/m2 per pulse x  36,000 pulses =  1,152,000 µW-seconds/m2 for one device

  1,152,000 µW-seconds/m2 for one device x 22 devices =   25,344,000 µW-seconds/m2 for all 22 devices

The totals are as follows for one nominal one-hour period:

  25,344,000 µW-seconds/m2 for all 22 devices x 10 six-minute periods in an hour = 253,440,000 µW-seconds/m2

The totals are as follows for one nominal eight-hour period:

  253,440,000 µW-seconds/m2 for all 22 devices x 8 hours in a typical work day = 2,027,520,000 µW-seconds/m2

>>> End 8/16/13 Agreement, that can be verified by senior scientists at both OSHA and the FCC

I asked Steve one final time this afternoon in my 30-minute plea to him to please protect the health and safety of his students while he completed an RF/EMF study. I asked him to face the truth:

1. That he made an error in ordering a magnetic field study when he intended to order a radio-frequency study, as he communicated to me on 8/15/13 that he had.

2. That, as a result, the Petaluma City School District has no accurate information about the levels of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF) to which teachers and students are exposed in realistic classroom usage scenarios -- information that is critical for making school policy.

3. That the PCSD has no basis for reporting if the RF/EMF levels in their classrooms are safe or not.

    . . . and to then turn off the wireless access points in Valley Vista until he completed an RF/EMF study of the environment.

Steve refused to admit or do anything and went on to make two important points:

A. Steve has already committed a large portion of the PCSD budget to install WAPS into Valley Vista and other schools and he is intending to spend more (the majority of $250,000) at McDowell and McKinley Schools.

B. Steve said that he would not just turn off the WAPs at Valley Vista; he said if he decided to do that he would have to implement the same strategy District-wide.

That signifies the impending implosion of Wi-Fi and any BYO(wireless)D programs in the Petaluma City School District. PCSD Steve Bolman's ill-considered and slavish commitment to these flawed strategies is irresponsible from both a financial perspective and from a health and safety perspective.

The PCSD can execute wired connectivity (using its existing, neglected wired networks) and plan for a BYO(wired)D program instead. Any education plans that envisioned wireless connectivity can be executed equally well or better with wired connectivity which is faster, more secure, safer and lower cost.

We all need to work to change the PCSD's 2013-2018 Technology Plan, fully address employee and student health and safety in the revised technology plan, switch from a wireless connectivity to a wired connectivity strategy in our schools and then concentrate on educating our students.

Hopefully, we can all do that soon, as more and more parents in the District sign and submit their non-consent forms for their child's wireless computer/device access and use.

Regards,



[Parent]
Hi, Emily.

Another PCSD principal asked me for a recommendation of the best third party web site to which to refer your his parents, so I thought you should know this information, as well. I searched and decided the following is the most complete:

http://wifiinschools.com/

The site has good explanations and links to the main studies as well as great downloadable documents and resources. I strongly recommend getting this link to every parent in the Petaluma City School District.

Here is today's update:

1. [Student] is finally starting kindergarten tomorrow. Yea! :)

2. I finally was able to talk to Steve Bolman for 30 minutes this afternoon: I asked him for his or Valley Vista's plan to accommodate the needs for our daughter, as we have communicated months ago to both Valley Vista and the PCSD our non-consent regarding my daughter's wireless computer/device access and use. The PCSD and Valley Vista made no plan. Boo! :(

3. Steve Bolman and you are still not willing turn off the wireless access point in the kindergarten room despite having no educational purpose for the WAP for these kindergarteners and having no idea how much radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF) are being introduced into the room over the course of the full school day . . . because Steve Bolman made an expensive error: he ordered from RESIG a magnetic field study for Cherry Valley and Valley Vista, when the schools needed an RF/EMF study. It was clear to me in my meeting with Steve today that Steve did not understand the difference between the two types of studies, until I explained it to him. I hope he understands his error now.

Invisible RF/EMF is the second-hand cigarette smoke or our children's generation. We, as a society, have taken the important steps to remove the sources of second-hand cigarette smoke from our airplanes, restaurants, schools, public parks and other public places -- using OSHA employee-protection as the mechanism. We protected the health of restaurant and airline employees and protected the health of the general public at the same time.

We are very much in the same situation right now with respect to RF/EMF. The health effects from second-hand cigarette smoke are due to long-term, chronic exposure to this toxic pollutant: it takes 15-20 years to develop cancer from cigarette smoke. Research from Hardell and others has shown that long-term chronic exposure to the toxic pollutant of RF/EMF can lead to increased cancer rates in just 7-10 years: a 500% increase for young people who have been exposed to RF/EMF for 30 minutes a day -- just 1,640 hours of exposure. Employees in public schools today are getting over 1,200 hours or RF/EMF exposure each year, or over 12,000 hours of exposure in ten years.

We, as a society, now need to take the important steps to remove the unnecessary sources of RF/EMF from our public schools, public parks and other public places -- using OSHA employee-protection as the mechanism. We can protect the health of teachers and school employees and in doing so also protect the health of the general public at the same time.

The good news is that as of 8/16/13, I have agreement from PhD senior scientists in both OSHA and the FCC on how to accurately calculate the total amount of RF/EMF Work (Power delivered over Time) to which an employee (or student) in a school environment is exposed for any nominal period: 6-minutes, 1-hour or 8-hours. It is based on an understanding of the following key properties of the antennas in any wireless access point (WAP) or in any wirelessly-connected device (Laptop, Chromebook, Tablet or Smartphone)

    1. The frequency of the pulses (reported in Hz or pulses/second).

    2. The duration of each pulse (reported in microseconds).

    3. The peak power of each pulse (reported in microwatts/square meter at 12" from the WAP or device).

The bad news is that PCSD Superintendent Steve Bolman is not willing to verify the following agreed-to calculations with my sources at OSHA and the FCC; I offered to Steve the names and telephone number of these sources so he could independently verify the information that I sent to him in my earlier 8/20/13 email, but, unbelievably, Steve is not interested. Instead, Steve Bolman insists on sticking to his flawed analysis of the Cherry Valley and Valley Vista School environments.

I told Steve that, frankly, even though he may have strengths in some other areas (financial?), he was not very skilled in understanding the science involved in this important RF/EMF issue. He said he agreed and that is why he relies on his 'experts'. The problem is that as the top decision-maker, Steve has no way to gauge if his 'experts' are misleading him, which they apparently have on more than one occasion. I underscored to Steve that whatever his 'experts' might say, in the end it is important to get to a 'correct' answer, not just one that agrees with his 'experts'.

The only verified measurement that we have to go on at the moment is the one I completed in Steve Bolman's office on 4/15/13 in front of Steve and Mike Cole - 18" from a laptop downloading a video: a peak reading of 16,000 µW/m2, which has been replicated in the range of 15,000 to 20,0000 µW/m2 more than ten additional times, so I am confident that it is correct and representative of typical classroom activity.

I asked Steve one final time this afternoon in my 30-minute plea to him to please protect the health and safety of his students while he completed an RF/EMF study. I asked him to face the truth:

1. That he made an error in ordering a magnetic field study when he intended to order a radio-frequency study, as he communicated to me on 8/15/13 that he had.

2. That, as a result, the Petaluma City School District has no accurate information about the levels of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF) to which teachers and students are exposed in realistic classroom usage scenarios -- information that is critical for making school policy.

3. That the PCSD has no basis for reporting if the RF/EMF levels in their classrooms are safe or not.

. . . and to then turn off the wireless access points in Valley Vista until he completed an RF/EMF study of the environment.

Steve refused to admit or do anything and went on to make two important points:

A. Steve has already committed a large portion of the PCSD budget to install WAPS into Valley Vista and other schools and he is intending to spend more (the majority of $250,000) at McDowell and McKinley Schools.

B. Steve said that he would not just turn off the WAPs at Valley Vista; he said if he decided to do that he would have to implement the same strategy District-wide.

That signifies the impending implosion of Wi-Fi and any BYO(wireless)D programs in the Petaluma City School District. PCSD Steve Bolman's ill-considered and slavish commitment to these flawed strategies is irresponsible from both a financial perspective and from a health and safety perspective.

The PCSD can execute wired connectivity (using its existing, neglected wired networks) and plan for a BYO(wired)D program instead. Any education plans that envisioned wireless connectivity can be executed equally well or better with wired connectivity which is faster, more secure, safer and lower cost.

We all need to work to change the PCSD's 2013-2018 Technology Plan, fully address employee and student health and safety in the revised technology plan, switch from a wireless connectivity to a wired connectivity strategy in our schools and then concentrate on educating our students.

Hopefully, we can all do that soon, as more and more parents in the District sign and submit their non-consent forms for their child's wireless computer/device access and use.

Regards,



[Parent]
Hi, Sheri.

Welcome back from vacation. I hope you had a great time.

I would very much appreciate you doing something about these issues. Reading something is nice, but actions are what count.

Shortly after the vote in favor of the misguided and dangerous Petaluma City School District 2013-2018 Technology Plan was passed (3-0?) by the School Board, I heard you direct staff to 'seriously address' the student health and safety issues that are missing from the 2013-2018 Technology Plan. What happened to that? Anything?

I would appreciate an answer to these questions.

It seemed to me and many others at the time that it was very obtuse that the Board, after hearing a clear presentation of overwhelming scientific evidence that shows that there are negative biological effects for students as as a result of wireless connectivity in schools that the School Board ignored this information and voted to approve a plan that guides the District to install wireless networks everywhere. Huh?

Were we all sold a bill of goods when the Board represented to the public that it was no big deal that they just voted for a plan that was vigorously opposed, based on some 'representation' that the 2013-2018 Technology plan is a living document that can be changed at any time? Has there been any effort to change the document?

I would appreciate an answer to these questions.

Emily Kleinholz, Steve Bolman and Mike Cole used the 2013-2018 Technology plan as justification, in the last two weeks in July, to pollute the last formerly-pristine RF/EMF environment among West Site Elementary schools in the PCSD  -- without providing any advance notice to parents, without accurately informing parents about the risks involved, without securing parental consent for this action and without performing any effective RF/EMF safety testing. Do we now live in the land of no choice?

Bolman, unbelievably, ordered the wrong study: a magnetic study, not a RF/EMF study. Where is the accountability for that mistake? How much did the wrong test cost the District? Are there any plans to correct this mistake? How many dollars is the District wasting by continuing to install wireless access points, when they all might need to be removed in the next 3-6 months?

I would appreciate answers to these questions.

"Happy first day of school."?

Today, Sheri, is my daughter's first day of kindergarten. It should have been a happy occasion for everyone in our family, but it was not because, at this very moment, the PCSD is "acting in a way that hurts, or  threatens smaller or weaker persons", which is the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for bullying.

When a students' physical or emotional well-being is being threatened another student, the PCSD has zero tolerance. How could the same PCSD have unlimited tolerance when the bullies are Emily Kleinholz, Steve Bolman, Mike Cole and all of the Petaluma City School Board Members who voted for the 2013-2018 Technology plan that enabled this terrible action to take place?

I would appreciate an answer to that question.

How can you sit back and do nothing? You all are harming my daughter and all the rest of our children/your students right now through your collective willful ignorance. The damages are mounting every minute that the wireless access points are on -- needlessly, since Principal Emily Kleinholz already confirmed that the kindergarten students will not be using wireless connectivity to meet their education goals. Why then irradiate these sensitive five-year-old children during their school day?

I would appreciate an answer to that question.

Please view this, carefully:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/resonance-edit.mp4

Please read these:

WHO-IARC-monograph-102.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/WHO-IARC-monograph-102.pdf

BioInitiativeReport-2012.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/BioInitiativeReport-2012.pdf

EMF-RF-MW-Health-Effects.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/EMF-RF-MW-Health-Effects.pdf

Primer-FCC-for-Smart-Meter-Age.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/Primer-FCC-for-Smart-Meter-Age.pdf

What more do you need to know before you take actions to protect our children/your students?

Sheri, the time for one paragraph acknowledgments of my emails is over. You were elected to use your leadership to care for our children/your students. It's time for you to do something substantive.

Please reign in Steve Bolman and Emily Kleinholz, insist that they follow CA law, verify information and make the appropriate policy changes to protect the health and safety of our children/your students.

I will look forward to your thoughtful, substantive response that will detail the actions you will take to protect the health and safety of our children/your students.

PCSD parents deserve such a response.

Regards,


[Parent]
Dear Mr. Bolman, Ms. Kleinholz and Petaluma City School District Board Members,

Where are you PCSD Board Members? You need to direct the PCSD employees to follow CA State Law.

Is anyone there?

This is a serious matter, folks. The PCSD cannot selectively follow the law. It must comply with all Federal and State laws.

I will not engage the services of an attorney because I do not want to waste anyone's money. An attorney here is unnecessary because the law is crystal clear.

I am writing to demand that Emily Kleinholz and Steve Bolman follow CA State Law and provide access to the public records that I have properly requested per the CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250, August, 2004 every day since Aug 15, 2013.

I will no longer tolerate the antics attempted by Ms. Emily Kleinholz and Mr. Steve Bolman. Their actions to deny access to the public records that are not exempt are illegal, reprehensible and deplorable as leaders of our local government agencies, the Valley Vista School and the Petaluma City School District.

Right now, the situation is untenable: Ms. Kleinholz will not respond to any email or voice mail message. She has instructed her staff to do the following:

1. When I drop off a document to the Valley Vista office (the only way I can be assured that communications are received), and request a dated "received stamp" to be placed on the document, the office personnel refuse to do so and say that I have no opportunity to address any of my concerns directly with Emily Kleinholz; I must talk only to Superintendent Steve Bolman regarding any issue, minor or major. Not surprisingly, Mr. Bolman's availability is very limited, so my concerns go unaddressed in any way for many days and even weeks. This is failed leadership, not acceptable and forces the PCSD to act illegally by not providing access to public records.

2. I have been told by office staff that I am not allowed on the Valley Vista campus at certain times (what times?) based on vague criteria about how they feel (what criteria?). Unless there are specific issues anyone can document, my access to the campus should be the same as any other parent with a child enrolled in the school. Any special treatment/policy towards me, without specific due cause is discriminatory and illegal.

When I have had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Bolman (for 10 minutes on Thu Aug 15 and for 20 minutes on Tue Aug 20, the only times he was available), Mr. Bolman has been disturbingly uninformed about the matters about which he is supposed to be making decisions. He denies the existence of actual scientific studies, WHO determinations of RF/EMF as a Class 2B Carcinogen, WHO's recognition of electrical hypersensitivity as a true medical condition and misinterprets all kinds of information, including Federal and CA state law.

For example, Mr. Bolman tried to tell me yesterday that the PCSD does not have to provide electronic records (emails, calendar appointments, text messages, voice mail messages), if these records have not been printed on a piece of paper. He has some belief that if it isn't already printed on paper at the time of the CPRA information request, that the record can be omitted from the CPRA information request.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are quotes directly from CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250, August, 2004, also attached to this email for your reference.

>>> Start of quotes - CA Law

"The fundamental precept of the CPRA is that governmental records shall be disclosed to the public, upon request, unless there is a specific reason not to do so . . .

the CPRA provides for a general balancing test by which an agency may withhold records from disclosure, if it can establish that the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure . . .

If a record contains exempt information, the agency generally must segregate or redact the exempt information and disclose the remainder of the record. If an agency improperly withholds records, a member of the public may enforce, in court, his or her right to inspect or copy the records and receive payment for court costs and attorney’s fees . . .

In enacting the CPRA, the Legislature stated that access to information concerning the conduct of the public’s business is a fundamental and necessary right for every person in the State. Cases interpreting the CPRA also have emphasized that its primary purpose is to give the public an opportunity to monitor the functioning of their government. The greater and more unfettered the public official’s power, the greater the public’s interest in monitoring the governmental action . . .

the question of disclosure depends upon whether the invasion of an individual’s privacy is sufficiently invasive so as to outweigh the public interest in disclosure . . .

Writings held by state or local government are public records. A writing includes all forms of recorded information that currently exist or that may exist in the future.  The essence of the CPRA is to provide access to information, not merely documents and files . . .

In order to invoke the CPRA, the request for records must be both specific and focused . . .

To the extent reasonable, agencies are generally required to assist members of the public in making focused and effective requests for identifiable records.  One legislatively-approved method of providing assistance is to make available an index of the agency’s records. A request for records may be made orally or in writing. When an oral request is received, the agency may wish to consider confirming the request in writing in order to eliminate any confusion regarding the request . . .

When a person seeks a record in an electronic format, the agency shall, upon request, make the information available in any electronic format in which it holds the information . . .

All state and local government agencies are covered by the CPRA . . .

Public records in the possession of government agencies. Persons who have filed claims or litigation against the government, or who are investigating the possibility of so doing, generally retain their identity as members of the public . . .

Records may be inspected at an agency during its regular office hours. The CPRA contains no provision for a charge to be imposed in connection with the mere inspection of records . . .

A person need not give notice in order to inspect public records at an agency’s offices during normal working hours. However, if the records are not readily accessible or if portions of the records must be redacted in order to protect exempt material, the agency must be given a reasonable period of time to perform these functions . . .

When a copy of a record is requested, the agency shall determine within ten days whether to comply with the request, and shall promptly inform the requester of its decision and the reasons therefor . . .

The Public Records Act does not permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. Finally, when a written request is denied, it must be denied in writing . . ."

>>> End of quotes - CA Law

When Mr. Bolman's logic in any argument has been shown to be faulty, he retreats to statements like "that's your interpretation" as if that somehow dismisses the truth and upholds his faulty view. None of the quotes above require interpretation. The language is clear to any lay person and I would say even to any 8th grader.

My requests have met all of the tests; the PCSD has no basis for denying access to these records. The format of the information (paper or electronic) is immaterial.

I am demanding access to the following public records. The PCSD must comply. I will drop by both Valley Vista School and the Petaluma City School District to inspect the records that both branches of our local government must produce in accordance with CA State Law.

I need the Petaluma School Board members to ensure that PCSD employees follow CA State law.


Thank you,



[Parent]
Hi, Sheri.

Making sure that PCSD Superintendent Steve Bolman follow the law is not micro-managing District Superintendent Steve Bolman. It is ensuring that he acts legally when discharging his duties. Will you please help?

I am also still looking for a thorough response to my earlier email. My passion or the merit of the issue is not the important point. It is the welfare of the children and the lack of action taken by any Board Member to improve the situation.

I am looking for actions and thorough responses to the important questions I posed to you.

Thank you,

[Parent]
Dear Ms. Kleinholz:

I wish to treat everyone with respect during this process and talk in even, measured, tones, but sometimes the collective frustration of people not facing the realities in front of them, bubbles through.

I believe I am correct in stating that a few teachers' inconvenience of having to walk to the back of the classroom to hook up his/her personal computer to an Ethernet wire in order to access the internet is not even close to the importance of the health and safety of everyone else: all other PCSD staff and students.

I should have just said that. I apologize for not saying it that way in our meeting yesterday.

Regards,

[Parent]
To Petaluma City School District (PCSD) Board Members:

Troy Sanderson, Board of Education Member, President
Michael Baddeley, Board of Education Member, Clerk
Mary Schafer, Board of Education Member
Sheri Chlebowski, Board of Education Member
Phoebe Ellis, Board of Education Member

Dear Board Members,

Five minutes in public comment at the 9/10/13 School Board Meeting is hardly enough time to address the important issue of the current dangerous RF/EMF exposure levels in Petaluma City School District (PCSD) classrooms. Will you please make the health and safety concerns regarding the PCSD's current technology plans and practices an agenda item in one of the October school board meetings: either Oct 8, 2013 or Oct 22, 2013?

We will need each of you to weigh in on this important topic, as you are each personally responsible for understanding this information and liable, along with the PCSD superintendent and all of the PCSD principals, for ignoring this information and persisting in creating unsafe learning environments in PCSD classrooms. The buck stops with each of you. You cannot hide from your legal duties.

Will you please carefully read the article and the links to the sources cited in the two pages that I handed to each of you last night in the PCSD School Board Meeting regarding the dangers of using iPads in classrooms? Here is the link to the video that I showed last night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snt2uaQd_Ps

Will you then please explain why the PCSD has chosen to standardize on $600 9.7 inch iPad tablets, which offers no wired connectivity option, over the equally capable and less expensive $500 Google Nexus 10.1 inch tablet, the $350 Lenovo Lynx tablet or the $250 Google/Samsung Chromebook Series 3 laptop -- all of which offer safe wired connectivity options?

Of course, none of these options are actually safe if one does not turn of all the devices' transceiver antennas (Wi-Fi, 3G/4G, GPS, and Bluetooth) and does not provide the Ethernet wires and USB-to-Ethernet adapters to enable wired connectivity. Why are none of these basic safety instructions included in the current 2013-2018 PCSD Technology Plan? When can we add these basic safety instructions to the technology plan?

Persisting on authorizing the purchases of the most expensive and most dangerous device for our students is negligent from both the financial and health and safety perspectives. What are your reasons for authorizing this poor choice? What are your reasons for not adding to the 2013-2018 Technology Plan the basic basic safety instructions of turning of all devices' antennas when they are not in use? For completeness, I have attached to this email the pages that I handed out to you last night.

In the following four slides, which we could not view last night because I reached my 5-minute time limit, please find the data and analysis which senior OSHA and FCC officials inspected and certified in August/September 2013 as the correct way to calculate the total RF/EMF work (power over time) that teachers and students face in a six-hour school day in a classroom with wireless connectivity. It is important to note the same classrooms with wired connectivity would face none of this dangerous RF/EMF.

You can independently verify these calculations yourselves. I am happy to explain the content of these four slides to each of you personally, if you wish. Just email me or call me.

Here is the other information that requires your careful attention:

http://wifiinschools.com/

The following video and documents can be downloaded to one's hard drive:

Edit of "Resonance, Beings of Frequency"
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/resonance-edit.mp4

11:38 - 12:20
Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe, MD states:
"On a cellular level, 100% of people are reacting [to RF/EMF]. That means that the health care consequences of not taking this seriously and not recognizing it are potentially huge and the numbers of people who have mild or moderate electrical sensitivity are probably far higher than we estimate."

17:06 - 18:00
Professor Denis Henshaw, Bristol University states:
"None of the current rules have anything to do with chronic health effects or cancer. None of them, not one of them. They are all set for heating effects and acute effects, like prickling of the skin . . . None of them are for long term health effects. [The current guidelines] are meaningless. They are not intended to protect from long-term health effects."

18:00 - 22:35
Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy, Department of Biology, Imperial College, UK states:
"The people who do work on wireless technologies are by and large engineers. They have no idea what is going on in a living cell, but they are pontificating on this. They make the assumption that the only thing that can affect the well-being of a living organism is if [the level of RF/EMF] is powerful enough to heat the tissue. But that's like saying they know if they boil an egg, it goes hard; what they don't know is that if they don't boil the egg, it turns into a chicken. They don't have the slightest idea how that happens, but yet they pontificate as if they do."

WHO-IARC-monograph-102.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/WHO-IARC-monograph-102.pdf

BioInitiativeReport-2012.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/BioInitiativeReport-2012.pdf

EMF-RF-MW-Health-Effects.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/EMF-RF-MW-Health-Effects.pdf

Primer-FCC-for-Smart-Meter-Age.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/Primer-FCC-for-Smart-Meter-Age.pdf

I am certain of the correctness of the analysis: it has been vetted by both OSHA and the FCC. Therefore, I will be now sharing this information broadly with PCSD employees and parents of PCSD students through all legal means available to me.

I will also be sharing the PCSD's track record on how poorly it has complied with my California Public Records Act GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48 (CPRA) information requests to date: the PCSD has persisted in delaying access to public information has been incomplete in nearly all of the requests. I am asking you to please direct Superintendent Steve Bolman to handle any future CPRA information requests in a more timely and responsible manner. Not doing so has contributed to unnecessary stress on the Valley Vista and PCSD office clerical personnel, whom PCSD officials have used as shields, enabling their non-compliance with CA State laws.

Every dollar that you authorize the PCSD to spend on wireless connectivity and wireless-only devices (such as iPads) may be wasted. The only way to ensure a safe learning environment for PCSD classrooms is to standardize on the use of wired connectivity and wired devices in the classrooms.

The PCSD's current choice to use/expand wireless connectivity and wireless devices in PCSD classrooms is one that gambles with the health of PCSD employees and students for nothing more than convenience. There is no certainty about the safety of using wireless connectivity in schools and there are no educational goals envisioned for wireless connectivity that cannot be achieved with safer, faster, more secure and less expensive wired connectivity.

Not listening might be more convenient or pleasant for you, but it is negligence. Attacking the messenger and attempting to impede the free flow of information will not change the facts or solve the problem. Turning a blind eye to Superintendent Steve Bolman's illegal actions to attempt to do both, just adds to your liabilities. The PCSD is digging itself into a larger and larger hole. This is a serious problem that deserves your attention.

This email formally puts each of you on notice that you have the legal responsibility to address the documented problem of dangerous RF/EMF levels in PCSD classrooms that is creating unsafe learning environments and is endangering PCSD employees and students during the 2013-2014 school year.

Your progress or lack of progress on addressing this important health and safety concern will be addressed in detail at upcoming School Board Meetings one way or the other. It would be most efficient to add the issue to an October, 2013 School Board meeting agenda, so we can get a response from each of you, responses that the public deserves.

In short, please participate in this important debate.
Dear Petaluma City School Board (PCSD) Members,

     Troy Sanderson, Board of Education Member, President
     Michael Baddeley, Board of Education Member, Clerk
     Mary Schafer, Board of Education Member
     Sheri Chlebowski, Board of Education Member
     Phoebe Ellis, Board of Education Member

. . . and PCSD Principals,

    David Stirrat  Principal, Petaluma High
    Linda Scheele  Principal, Casa Grande High
    Rusty Sims  Principal, Sonoma Mountain High & Carpe Diem High
    Lyn Moreno  Principal, San Antonio High & Valley Oaks Elementary

    John Lehmann  Principal, Petaluma Junior High & 6th Grade Academy
    Emily Dunnagan  Principal, Kenilworth Junior High

    Catrina Haugen  Principal, Grant Elementary
    Maureen Rudder  Principal, McDowell Elementary
    Matthew Harris  Principal, McKinley Elementary
    Sheila Garvey   Principal, McNear Elementary
    Amy Fadeji  Principal, Penngrove Elementary
    Emily Kleinholz  Principal, Valley Vista Elementary
    Matthew Morgan  Principal, Live Oak Charter
    Chad Carvey  Incoming Principal, Mary Collins at Cherry Valley
    Greg Stevenson  Principal, Crossroads Community Day

The liabilities of the PCSD School Board members, of the PCSD superintendent of each PCSD principal continue to increase every day that you choose to do nothing to reduce the levels of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF) in PCSD classrooms. Your principals have a legal duty to provide a safe learning environment for PCSD teachers and students and they have no evidence that the levels of RF/EMF in their classrooms are at safe levels.

As I have now verified with the FCC and OSHA how I can now correctly calculate and report the cumulative levels of RF/EMF that teachers and students are facing in PCSD classrooms, your decision to continue to ignore this information and do nothing to address this problem has now become  negligence.

Principals, you are officials in our local government agency, the Petaluma City School District (PCSD). I verified with the CA State Dept. of Education that individual school technology implementation decisions rest with each of you. There are no federal, state, county or local government laws or mandates that force your school into one technology implementation or another. The existing 2013-2018 PCSD Technology plan is merely a set of recommendations from the PCSD executive management team, approved by the PCSD School Board members. There are no binding laws or directives in this plan. The decisions and the liabilities for technology implementation decisions rest with each school principal for their school environment.

Each principal has a legal responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for their employees and students, a critical point that is missing from the 2013-2018 technology plan. Each principal will be held accountable for understanding the information about the long-term chronic exposure to RF/EMF in their school environments and must establish that their school's RF/EMF environments are safe for their employees and students. You are accountable and liable.

The slides that I emailed to the PCSD School Board members on 9/11/13 show the data and analysis which senior OSHA and FCC officials inspected and certified in August/September 2013 as the correct way to calculate the total RF/EMF work (power over time) that teachers and students face in a six-hour school day in classrooms with wireless connectivity. It is important to note the same classrooms with the use of only wired connectivity and wired devices would face none of this dangerous RF/EMF.

You can independently verify the calculations in the slides. Just as I offered to the PCSD School Board members, I will also offer to explain the content of these four slides to each of you, personally, if you wish. Just email me or call me.

After seven months of efforts to educate the PCSD board members, the PCSD superintendent and the PCSD principals, of which there is ample video evidence, the PCSD's continued advocacy for a very irresponsible position is hard to understand: PCSD administrator convenience is more important than protecting the health and safety of PCSD employees and students.

What will the PCSD employees, parents of PCSD students and the PCSD students themselves think about the PCSD School Board members' irresponsible position, once they learn the truth? I guess we are about to find out.

It is important to recognize that the PCSD's educational goals can be reached using only wired connectivity and devices; the educational goals do not depend on the use of wireless connectivity and devices. The use of wireless connectivity and devices is a voluntary action that unnecessarily pollutes the classrooms with the 'second-hand smoke' of RF/EMF.

The PCSD School Board members' inaction on this important health and safety issue is also unnecessarily exposing its principals' to higher and higher liabilities: the legal responsibilities to provide a safe learning environment for their schools fall squarely on their shoulders, yet the Board is leading the principals down a path that creates unsafe learning environments by approving and refusing to change the misguided 2013-2018 PCSD technology plan -- a plan that still does not include a health and safety section, in direct opposition to written PCSD policy. The principals, however, are the ones legally responsible for the safety of their own school's learning environments. Beware of your bosses' decisions; their actions or inaction will not absolve each of you from your legal duties.

The evidence that should be sufficient to convince the PCSD School Board members to take actions to eliminate RF/EMF in PCSD classrooms continues to grow with every passing week:

Safe & Smart For Your Kids - Reduce Wireless Radiation, Aug 17, 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJPTzaNkcUk#t=551
0:00 to 6:55

. . . is a more recent video from the same group that produced the following video that I played at a PCSD school Board meeting in May, 2013:

WiFi in Schools - The Facts, Dec 11, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmcAXZ-o1K4

Also, please find attached a pdf of the August 29, 2013 letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the FCC and the FDA. I found the letter on the FCC's web site: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941318

One can insert the phrase 'use of wireless connectivity and devices' at every place where the letter refers to 'use of cell phones' because the measurable radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF) emanating from wireless access points and wirelessly-connected devices (i.e. laptops, tablets, Chromebooks) is identical in nearly all ways to RF/EMF emanating from cell phones, except that

[a] the RF/EMF exposure from wireless access points and wirelessly-connected devices is much greater than from cell phones because the devices are in more prolonged active use

[b] the wireless access points are needlessly on 24 hours a day (is that a good idea?)

[c] the wirelessly-connected devices send beacon signals whenever they have power on and antennas on (which includes the times when the devices are put in 'sleep mode')

[d] when wirelessly-connected devices are in active use, the measured RF/EMF 18" from the device (where the child's head and torso would be) is between 15,000 and 20,000 μW/m2 (microwatts per square meter). Scientists consider this to be a dangerously high level.

The following are the best RF/EMF guidelines I could find, because they based on current science. These guidelines are orders of magnitude lower than our government's FCC and OSHA guidelines of 10,000,000 μW/m2, which are currently up for review.

SBM 2008 (Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods)
=======================================================
http://emfwise.com/emf-safety-standards.php

No Concern    Slight Concern         Severe concern           Extreme concern
----------   -------------------     --------------------    ---------------
<0.1μW/m2    0.1μW/m2 to 10μW/m2     10μW/m2 to 1000μW/m2      > 1000μW/m2

This new evidence adds to the volumes of evidence I have already shared with the PCSD over the last seven months:

http://www.wifiinschools.com/

http://www.wifi-in-schools-australia.org/

People are living organisms, their cells operate electrically and the RF/EMF Work (power over time) absorbed by people causes many kinds of well-documented effects, including mutations, bottle cap formations and clumping of red blood cells, as seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JDEspdx58

EMF-RF-MW-Health-Effects.pdf (a one pager)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/EMF-RF-MW-Health-Effects.pdf

Edit of "Resonance, Beings of Frequency": the following video can be downloaded to one's hard drive (a 30 minute video).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/resonance-edit.mp4

WHO-IARC-monograph-102.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/WHO-IARC-monograph-102.pdf

BioInitiativeReport-2012.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/BioInitiativeReport-2012.pdf

Invisible RF/EMF is the second-hand cigarette smoke or our children's generation. We, as a society, have taken the important steps to remove the sources of second-hand cigarette smoke from our airplanes, restaurants, schools, public parks and other public places -- using OSHA employee-protection as the mechanism. We protected the health of restaurant and airline employees and protected the health of the general public at the same time.

We are very much in the same situation right now with respect to RF/EMF. The health effects from second-hand cigarette smoke are due to long-term, chronic exposure to this toxic pollutant: it takes 15-20 years to develop cancer from cigarette smoke. Research from Hardell and others has shown that long-term chronic exposure to the toxic pollutant of RF/EMF can lead to increased cancer rates in just 10 years: a 500% increase for young people who have been exposed to RF/EMF for 30 minutes a day -- just 1,640 hours of exposure. Employees in public schools today are getting over 1,200 hours or RF/EMF exposure each year, or over 12,000 hours of exposure in ten years.

We, as a society, now need to take the important steps to remove the unnecessary sources of RF/EMF from our public schools, public parks and other public places -- using OSHA employee-protection as the mechanism. We can protect the health of teachers and school employees and in doing so also protect the health of the general public at the same time.

So, what should we do? Eliminate RF/EMF exposures in classrooms and not allow any misguided educational 'visions' to cause us to make irresponsible financial or health-and-safety decisions.


Regards,



[Parent]
Why did I have to make the measurement on 8/22/13? After many months of me requesting that the PCSD do the responsible thing and evaluate the safety of the RF/EMF environment in PCSD classrooms, you decided not to do so:

As I have written to your principals:

Superintendent Steve Bolman seems unconcerned about the health and safety of PCSD employees and students. He is equally unconcerned about his principals' liabilities. Despite recommendations made by the PCSD's own insurance company, Redwood Empire Schools' Insurance Group (RESIG) for the PCSD to hire an outside consultant to conduct an RF/EMF study of PCSD schools in realistic usage scenarios, Mr. Bolman recently declined to do so:

Here is the evidence procured from a California Public Records Act request:

>>> On Wed at Jul 3 2013 at 9:05 AM, Will Davis wrote to Steve Bolman:

"Alex Stadtner is a consultant with Healthy Building Science in Marin. He does monitoring/sampling for EMFs. He can be reached at 415-785-7986. Please let me know if you decide to proceed with monitoring"

>>> On Wed at Jul 3 2013 at 9:09 AM, Steve Bolman wrote to Will Davis:

"Unless Cal/OSHA ask[s] us to do monitoring, I am not planning on using Alex Stadtner's services."

When I first discovered that RESIG completed a magnetic field study instead of an RF/EMF study, I assumed this was an honest mistake/miscommunication between Will Davis and Steve Bolman, but it's worse than that. Steve Bolman knowingly chose to not spend $750-$1,000 for an outside consultant to complete the RF/EMF study. Instead, Bolman chose a (lower cost?) option and ordered a superfluous magnetic field study, even though Will Davis said to Steve Bolman about the study:

. . . on 7/12 (before the 7/16/13 MCCV study): "I doubt this would satisfy this individual, but it would give us some exposure data."

. . . on 7/20/13 (after the 7/16/13 MCCV study): "I'm pretty sure that it will in no way satisfy the parent, however, it probably will show good faith to Cal/OSHA."

Davis' magnetic field studies communicate nothing about the levels of RF/EMF faced by PCSD employees and students in PCSD classrooms. Reporting Davis' results is like giving humidity readings to someone who needs temperature readings. What's the point?

Well, I learned last night. After a one hour presentation to parents about the dangers of RF/EMF in classrooms at Cherry Valley, I then heard Principal Chad Carvey tell parents that the school's insurance company evaluated the school environment and found it safe. He declined to point out the obvious deception here: the insurance company, by its own admission, did not evaluate RF/EMF, the relevant health and safety issue in question. The insurance company measured an unrelated item, magnetic fields, and hoped that parents would not understand the difference. Clever, but very, very wrong.

How much does Superintendent Steve Bolman value the health and safety of his 878 staff members and his 7,500 students? Bolman is unwilling to spend as little as $1.00 per staff member or about $0.10 per student to determine what is the actual RF/EMF environment in PCSD classrooms.

The Board Members and Mr. Bolman continue to spend limited PCSD funds on expanding sources of a Class 2B carcinogen (RF/EMF from industrial-strength wi-fi wireless access points) into PCSD public school classrooms and keeping these sources on at all times, whether they are being used or not. These WAPs stay on 24 hours a day, wasting energy, money and endangering PCSD employees and students. Through sheer ignorance, the PCSD is being irresponsible from both a financial and a health and safety perspective.

As this inaction has a direct bearing on the liabilities of PCSD principals, which could lead to law suits (the number, which will be determined by how many kids get sick), potential million dollar settlements, high legal fees and, eventually higher insurance premiums -- all of which would siphon even more money from the education of our students, you have to ask yourself:

Is Mr. Bolman acting in the best interests of his principals, employees, and students? Principals, only you can answer that question for yourselves. Teachers and parents will have the opportunity to answer the questions for themselves, as well.

The Petaluma City School District is a branch of our local government and is required to conduct its business in the open. Any member of the public has the right to inspect the records, except for a few personnel-related exemptions, and communicate their opinions about these records.

After inspecting PCSD technology purchases over the last five years, reading the last three PCSD Technology Plans, and armed with the communications, yet to be disclosed, about the planning and execution of the installation of 11 wireless access points into the Valley Vista school, with no effective prior safety evaluation, no parental notice and no parental consent, the public has the grounds to reverse these irresponsible actions. The amount of money the PCSD is spending on wireless installations and devices is way too high; it is financially irresponsible to continue down this path.

Any parents who do not wish to treat their children as guinea pigs in the "grand experiment" of conducting their child's public education in an always-on RF/EMF environment that exceeds Federal maximum public exposure guidelines by at least 7.5 times in PCSD classrooms every day, have the right to demand that the PCSD educate their students in an environment without this dangerous and superfluous RF/EMF exposure.

In short, since there is no educational benefit of wireless connectivity for the kindergarten students at Valley Vista and Cherry Valley, as we have been assured by both principals of these schools that their kindergarten students do not and will not use wirelessly connected devices for their education at this level, then the PCSD should turn off the WAPS in the rooms of these sensitive 5-6 year-old students immediately.

Not turning off the WAPs in the kindergarten room shows a reckless disregard for the students' health and safety and a slavish devotion to some meaningless adult-driven agenda.

The PCSD does not have the right to force these high levels of RF/EMF onto and through their students' brains and bodies in their classrooms as a condition of receiving a public education. The PCSD must act responsibly and accommodate the needs of the students, so identified by their parents' non-consent forms. We filed non-consent forms for our daughter with Superintendent Steve Bolman the very morning my daughter started kindergarten on 8/20/13. Mr Bolman ignored our registered non-consent and the school has not accommodated the needs of our daughter, in any way, to receive her education in a safe, RF/EMF-free environment.

Since there are no published studies on the use of Wi-Fi in schools, the PCSD has no evidence to justify their actions of forcing these high levels of RF/EMF into every classroom and has no way to establish that the current classroom RF/EMF levels are safe. We will have to wait the 10-12 years or longer for the results of any planned studies. That is why we are in the "guinea pig stage" and that is why the PCSD must choose the only known safe connectivity option for school classrooms: using only wired connectivity and wired devices.

The less convenient option of wired connectivity is less expensive, faster, more reliable, safe for all and can fulfill all of PCSD's educational goals.

Mr. Bolman, I will need your cooperation while I notice PCSD parents and teachers about the dangerous learning environments in PCSD classrooms and the rights parents have to register their non-consent.

At any time, as I communicated to you back in May, I would welcome the chance to work together with the PCSD to accurately evaluate the levels of RF/EMF in PCSD classrooms in realistic usage scenarios. We can do that by securing detailed product specifications of the wireless access points and devices owned by the schools, by metering the power density emanating from these devices during different educational activities and then by calculating the total cumulative RF/EMF exposure that students and teachers face during their school days, using the calculations already approved by the FCC and OSHA.

This would provide the important and accurate information that could lead to the much needed changes that we need to make to the 2013-2018 PCSD Technology Plan (the plan that still lacks the important student health and safety section that Board Member Sheri Chlebowski agreed to address in May, 2013) and changes to the current PCSD technology practices to ensure that PCSD provides a safe RF/EMF learning environment.

Please, stop shooting the messenger and start solving the problem.


Regards,


[Parent]
Dear Ms. Kleinholz,

I called twice today and left messages for you to please call me at xxx-yyy-zzzz. I have not yet heard back from you.

I need three things from you:

[1] Will you please respond to this email, so I will have a formal written invitation from you granting me permission to come to the Valley Vista campus so I can attend my daughter's scheduled Parent-Teacher conference on Wed Nov 13 at 12:30 pm? You may need to check with Steve Bolman on this matter. I believe I need explicit written permission from you to abide by the terms of a letter Mr. Bolman sent me on 8/22/13.

[2] Will you please turn off the unnecessary wireless access point in the Valley Vista Kindergarten room for all of the good reasons I outlined in my 11/7 email to you and Mr. Bolman? If you choose not turn off the unnecessary wireless access point in the Valley Vista Kindergarten room, will you please provide the reasons why the benefits of keeping the unnecessary wireless access point in the Valley Vista Kindergarten outweigh the health and safety concerns for the children?

[3] Do you have any information that refutes any of Dr. Martin Blank's findings and conclusions? I am open to listening to and considering any reasonable evidence that you may have.

MARTIN BLANK earned PhDs in physical chemistry (1957) from Columbia University and in colloid science (1960) from University of Cambridge. He came to the department in 1959, retired as Associate Professor in 2011 and is now a Special Lecturer. His research has been on membranes, transport processes, excitation, and recently on health effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). His book on health effects of EMR is due out at the end of 2013.

http://vimeo.com/17266941

Thank you. I will look forward to your thoughtful and timely reply.

Regards,


[Parent]
Dear Ms. Kleinholz and Mr. Bolman,

I trust everything is in order for both my wife and I to attend my daughter's 11/13/13 Parent-Teacher conference at 12:30 pm with her teacher, Mrs. Neufeld. Thank you for the formal invitation, Ms. Kleinholz.

Your reply email, however, did not address the two very important items, quoted below.

I understand, Ms. Kleinholz, that you were going to check with Mr. Bolman today so you could provide me a thoughtful and timely reply to my requests, each dealing with important student/teacher health and safety issues. As I have given you strong evidence and solid rationale re: why you should immediately turn off Cisco 4410N wireless access point (WAP) in the kindergarten classrooms, I am asking for your evidence and rationale of why keeping the WAP on is more important than protecting the health and safety of the kindergarten teachers and students in the Valley Vista kindergarten classrooms.

This is a very serious matter. Ms. Kleinholz, you have the legal responsibility to provide a safe learning environment in Valley Vista classrooms. I have provided you evidence, vetted by the FCC and OSHA, that shows that the RF/EMF levels in the kindergarten rooms are 7.5x higher than our FCC Maximum Public Exposure guideline. I am expecting you to act responsibly and address this issue with the care and professionalism that it deserves. We will be looking forward to your response later today or tomorrow when we come to the parent-teacher conference.

Thank you,

[Parent]
Dear Ms. Kleinholz,

Thank you for meeting with me today to discuss my daughter's education present and future.

My wife and I remain very concerned about your decision to keep the unnecessary wireless access point (WAP) in the kindergarten room on even though there is no educational benefit or compelling reason for leaving it on.  We are asking you to, once again, turn off this unnecessary wireless access point immediately.

I provided you the evidence that the levels of RF/EMF that this router pumps into the classroom exceeds the FCC's maximum public exposure nearly 8 times each day that the router is on. Through today, Friday Nov 22, there have been 66 school days and the Valley Vista WAP has pumped a total of nearly 5 Billion microjoules per meter of RF/EMF into the Kindergarten room, which is 500x higher than the FCC Maximum public exposure guideline.

I pointed out to you that these calculations have been vetted by senior engineers in both the FCC and OSHA. Finally, I showed you the animation which will serve as the radiation counter on the web site and will accurately track the total RF/EMF Valley Vista is pumping into the kindergarten classroom every day, so the parents can plainly see for themselves.

I did all of this so you could . . .

  a. carefully evaluate the accurate information: the RF/EMF measurements I made with you on 8/22/13, the FCC-OSHA-approved calculations and the health impacts of radiation at these levels, and

  b. make an informed decision of what to do to protect the health and safety of teachers and children in the Valley Vista classroom.

Unbelievably, this information was not sufficient for you to decide to simply turn off the wireless access point in the kindergarten room.

As you are well-aware from reading over 30 emails from me and the links and attachments contained in these emails, there are many documented  health consequences caused by chronic long-term exposure to wireless signals. You, of course had this information, before you decided to install the WAP, shown below, and ten others like it — without any effective prior safety testing, parental notice or consent.

There is a very easy, no-cost solution to this problem: you can simply decide to turn off the WAP. The kindergarteners aren't even using wireless for their education, so there is no compelling reason for operating this WAP at all. If one focuses on the health and safety of children, instead of the agendas of adults, then this decision should be a no-brainer. Any school board's, superintendent's or principals' potential concerns over setting a precedent or losing some operating convenience are utterly trivial compared to risking permanent damage to the health of our teachers and children.

It is the principal's decision because the principal has a legal duty to provide a safe learning environment. Many scientists are urging school principals to choose safe, wired connectivity over dangerous wireless connectivity: in short, it is better to be safe than sorry.

You admitted in our meeting that as the principal of Valley Vista School, you are the person who has the legal responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for Valley Vista. When I asked you for your evidence that operating the wireless access point was safe, you provided nothing.

I then repeated the question that you did not answer in my 11/12/13 email, quoted below my signature. I looked you in the eye, and asked you for an honest answer:

[Parent]: "Ms. Kleinholz, why will you not turn off the wireless access point in the kindergarten room? Will you please provide your evidence and rationale of why keeping the WAP on is more important than protecting the health and safety of the kindergarten teachers and students in the Valley Vista kindergarten classroom?"

What was your response?

Ms. Kleinholz: "No comment." And then you ended our meeting after just ten minutes.

The concern for RF/EMF exposure is from long-term, chronic exposure (180 days in a school year x 6 hours a day): the longer exposure time the worse, the shorter the distance to the source (either a WAP or a wirelessly-connected laptop, iPad or ChromeBook), the worse.

It seemed to me that you have not read much of the information I provided to you. When I asked you which of the information you had read and what you thought of it, you offered nothing.

The one or two meetings/forums that you mentioned that VV and MCCV provided, reached a total of 8-10 people and are not sufficient for effective parent education.  Where is the effective parent education on this issue? Have parents given the school their informed consent to irradiate their children at levels that exceed federal guidelines by 500x-1500x per year?

Your stonewalling approach is not an appropriate or responsible response to the important health and safety information you have been given from February 22, 2013 to the present.

My daughter likes Valley Vista and wishes to continue her education there. She and all other students deserve a safe learning environment. Please take the steps to provide what we can all agree is a safe RF/EMF environment: no sources of RF/EMF on the campus.

Regards,

[Parent]
Dear Ms. Kleinholz,

I am a professional photographer and a parent of a Valley Vista kindergartener. Several weeks ago, at a birthday party, I discussed taking photos of the 12/20/13 Santa Claus visit with the Valley Vista kindergarten parent who is the granddaughter of the professional Santa Clause showing up today. I mentioned to her that I own very nice professional photography gear and could capture some nice moments of the kids' reactions to Santa's visit.

This morning around 10:00 am, I contacted Carmen to find out the following three things:

[1] Would it be OK for me to take photographs of the event this morning? I would make the photographs free to all the parents. Carmen said she would get back to me.

[2] How many children in the kindergarten class did not give permission for their to be photo taken? Carmen said it was just one child in Mrs. H.'s class, and that Mrs. H. could point that child out to me.

[3] Would I be able to get an email invitation from Valley Vista, so there would be no question about my presence on campus this morning to donate my time to do this nice thing for the teachers and the students?

As I was being very responsible in my request, I was very surprised and disappointed to hear back from you at 10:30 am by telephone to tell me that I did not have your permission to take the photographs of this joyous and precious holiday event. What could possibly be the reason for your decision?

I thanked you for your Holiday cheer, wished you a Happy Holiday and asked if you could do something for the children? I asked if you would please turn off the unnecessary and dangerous wireless router/access point in the Valley Vista kindergarten classroom? Once again, you declined to answer the question and hung up the phone.

Ms. Kleinholz, I am asking you for an answer to my question and the rationale of why keeping the wireless router/access point on is more important than protecting the health and safety of our children? All the kindergarten parents deserve an answer to this question. Not answering the question is neither responsible nor caring.

Ms. Kleinholz, you will eventually have to turn off the unnecessary and dangerous wireless router/access point in the Valley Vista kindergarten classroom. You have no evidence to refute the evidence I have already presented to you.  It's just a matter of time. You are on the wrong side of this issue. You are against the health and safety of children. For the life of me, I cannot understand why you take that position, unless you are being forced into that position by your boss, Steve Bolman.

Mr. Bolman's wishes and directives do nothing to shield you from the responsibility, accountability and liability of your irresponsible and uncaring position. The longer you delay, the worse it will be for everyone.

Regards,


[Parent]
January 17, 2014

Re: January 16, 2014 Argus Courier Coverage Had Both Errors and Omissions

To: Argus Courier
-----------------
Emily Charrier , Editor
Janelle Wetzstein , Reporter

cc To: Petaluma City School District Board Members
-----------------------------------------------
Troy Sanderson , Board of Education Member, President
Michael Baddeley , Board of Education Member, Clerk
Mary Schafer , Board of Education Member
Sheri Chlebowski , Board of Education Member
Phoebe Ellis , Board of Education Member

Hi, Emily.

Charrier-Botts, Emily wrote:
> [Parent] -
> The name on your letter was inadvertently cut off by our printers in
> today's edition. My apologies. I am going to run a correction next week
> and ensure it ends up on the online version.
> Take care,
>
> Emily Charrier
> Managing Editor
> Petaluma Argus-Courier
> 707-776-8458
> Petaluma360.com
No worries. No need to run the correction. Feel free to include or not include the name in the online edition, as you see fit. When will it appear online?

I prefer not having the name printed; it is not necessary for the message and protects our family and my child from any small-minded or unprincipled backlash, of which we have already faced more than our fair share.

I am on the road on the East Coast until Jan 24, but my wife emailed me a photo of John Jackson's article entitled "New Tech Needed to Aide Schools" and I read through it and I am concerned.

The big news, not reported by the Argus Courier, is that the PCSD did not properly notice the School Board Members or the public before irresponsibly voting on 1/14/14 to approve a $750,000 AMS.net contract to expand industrial-strength wireless connectivity to every school in the Petaluma City School District -- even to schools that already have sufficient bandwidth and wireless connectivity, which, by definition, is a waste of money.

I was surprised that the article's coverage of public comments on the contract was neither complete nor representative of the public's comments. None of my comments on the contract were reported, of which there were several well-reasoned and well-researched comments. I certainly hope that the obvious errors in this article and the lack of even coverage cannot be traced to the close personal relationship between Board President Troy Sanderson and the Argus Courier reporter, evidence of which is clearly seen in the videotape of the meeting available at Petaluma Community Access Television.

Considering the group of five Petaluma City School District Board Members and myself, I was the only one of the six who made the effort to read through the details of the AMS.net contract in time for the meeting or the vote.

I received access to the contract details only between 2:30 pm and 4:30 pm on 1/14/14. The details of the contract were not posted on the school web site at all (so not 72 hours in advance of the meeting) and a member of the public was illegally denied immediate access to the contract details (public records, requested by CPRA request) from 1:30 pm to 2:30 pm. This illegal attempt to block/limit public inspection of public records was documented in video files that have been uploaded to YouTube. I am happy to give you the links/access to view these videos.

Two hours was not sufficient time for a thorough contract analysis. During the meeting, I shared what I could and pleaded that the Board please not vote on the contract on 1/14/14. I, instead, recommended that the Board table the contract vote for two weeks to allow them to complete more research, review the details of this $750,000 commitment (not a small amount in anyone's book), make any changes/adjustments needed in the contract and bring it back for a vote on 1/28/14 - just as they chose to do for the 775-unit Chromebook purchase, details of which was posted with sufficient detail on the school web site.

That was a reasonable request from the public that was ignored by both the Petaluma City Board Members and by the Argus Courier reporter. Why?

My two-hour review revealed that the $750,000 AMS.net contract is a waste of public money. For example, I emailed all Board Members just before the meeting (and discussed during the meeting) a pdf file called "WAP-vs-Switch.pdf" (also attached to this email) that documents how expensive the Meraki MR16 600 Mbps Wireless access points are vs. a simple Cisco/Linksys 1000 Mbps $50 wired switch. I also pointed out errors in pricing, padded labor costs and the fact that I did not get answers to my list of questions that I sent to the Board members: answers to which any responsible party would need to know before committing $750,000 of public money. See the questions quoted in the emails below my signature.

A review of the meeting's videotape available at Petaluma Community Access television shows that I made the following additional comments, none of which were included in the Argus Courier article:

[1] The total cumulative RF/EMF microwave radiation that is currently being pumped into one Petaluma City School District classroom through the brains and bodies of our children/its students, who are excellent RF/EMF antennas, has exceeded our federal maximum public exposure guideline by over 600 times since the beginning of the school year.

I showed this web page during the meeting (it's on the meeting video tape).

http://rfemf.com/counter.html#counter

which says "To date, there have been 90 school days [in 2013-2014 in the Valley Vista kindergarten room]. Total cumulative exposure is more than 6.804 billion microjoules, which is 680 times higher than the FCC MPE [Maximum Public Exposure] guideline."

The page further explains that the equations used for the totals and the animation have been reviewed and approved, in writing, by senior engineers at both the FCC (Edwin Mantiply) and Federal OSHA (Jeffrey Lodwig). In short, we can count on the math.

This information and the fact that the School Board completely ignores this valid information, approved by Federal government officials, is not newsworthy enough to make the article? Hard to believe . . .

This fact is a major argument made by a parent whose child is affected by this unfortunate practice. PCSD classrooms need both additional bandwidth, and the bandwidth delivered in a way that is universally-accepted as safe: through Ethernet wires.

Again, not reported by the Argus Courier.

The RF/EMF counter page has a link to a quote by Barrie Trower, whose video, I was not able to play because Troy Sanderson (illegally?) truncated my time to comment on an agendized item. Mr. Trower is an RF/EMF microwave radiation expert trained by Britain's royal navy. He reports that RF/EMF -- at the same levels used in PCSD school rooms today -- was used as a weapon by many government forces throughout the Cold War years and states the following in the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z99_SzoXZdY

>>> Start of quote
 I think anyone who puts Wi-Fi into a school should be locked up for the rest of their life. I really do. I think they are not fit to walk on the surface of this planet because they haven't looked at the research and whatever incentive they have, it is not worth the genetic problems that parents are going to face with their children . . .

It's what I call intentional ignorance. They are offered some sort of incentive and they think: 'Oh this is going to be good, we'll have it.' Now the problem is: imagine you are a 15-year old school girl. All of the 400,000 eggs in your ovaries were with you at birth . . . they are ten times more susceptible to radiation than all of the other DNA in the body . . . [wireless devices] are all transmitting [radiation] through your ovaries. So you are risking the DNA damage of your [future] child every time you sit down and you use Wi-Fi. It's like saying if I smoke a cigarette, which one will cause the damage? The answer is I don't know, it could be the one today. So you now have a child that has a probability of being genetically damaged.

If you are a teacher or a mature student [who becomes pregnant], the embryo inside your womb, in the first 100 days, is forming all of those 400,000 eggs . . . the eggs [at this stage] have absolutely no protection. It hasn't been developed, yet. [The eggs] are at maximum risk from radiation. We already see this in animal studies . . . it has been published . . . we know this happens. It's also been documented in the Cold War when women were deliberately microwaved. The documents are there.

What you are risking by putting Wi-Fi into schools are the future generations of all of these girls, but it gets worse because this particular DNA, the mitochondrial DNA, you can trace unchanged [for many generations], so if you damage it, it will continue to be passed onto future generations . . . When you put Wi-Fi in schools, what you are saying is for the sake of a little bit of money . . . because it is cheaper, we are just going to put Wi-Fi in but you can have genetically damaged children for the rest of your family's lineage.

>>> end of quote

A careful review of the PCSD's bylaws shows that the public faces no time limits in making their comments on agendized items, unlike during public comment period. I had much more information to share with the Board for why they should not vote for the $750,000 AMS.net contract but I was denied my first amendment rights by the President of the PCSD School Board, Troy Sanderson. This denial of my first amendment rights can be clearly seen on the meeting's videotape and, this important event, was not reported by the Argus Courier.

[2] I am also surprised that the Argus Courier got it wrong on who was the dissenting Board Member: it was Michael Baddeley that voted against the $750,000 AMS.net contract, not Sheri Chlebowski. I called the District this morning to confirm this. Why did Sheri make the comments that she did (and that the Argus Courier reported) and then vote the opposite -- in favor of the contract? I think that this reversal of position is very newsworthy.

A factual error reported by the Argus Courier.

[3] The following argument was another backed by solid evidence that I offered to the Board Members on why they should not vote on the $750,000 AMS.net contract on 1/14/14. I shared a a cost/value comparison of two different connectivity devices. I compared the bandwidth per user and cost per user for two devices: the Meraki MR16 WAPs used throughout the PCSD (600 Mbps for $784.00 in year 1, $1,024.81 in year 4, $1,265.62 in year 7 per WAP) vs. a Linksys SE2800 8-Port Gigabit Ethernet Switch (1000 Mbps for $50).

Just in case you missed it. Buying a Meraki MR16 WAP requires a school to spend an additional $240.81 per router in licensing fees (extra profit) every three years. The licensing fee is charged per router. That is a terrible deal that should be rejected by any sophisticated buyer. There are many alternatives, wired or wireless, that do not include this onerous licensing fee.

The wired switch provides 10-20x the bandwidth per user at half the cost per user compared to the WAP. See the attachment called "WAP-vs-Switch.pdf".

Stop. Read that again. Ask yourself why $1,265.62 ( + $240.81 every 3 years) for only 600 Mbps per WAP is better than $50 for 1000 Mbps per switch? It only takes fifth-grade math skills to make a smart decision here. Apparently, the Board didn't choose to use those skills. They voted for $1,265.62 ( + $240.81 every 3 years) for many, many WAPS.

There is no requirement, federal mandate or state mandate that schools spend money on wireless technology with the newly available common core funds. Wired technology is less-expensive, offers higher bandwidth and is universally accepted as safe to used by children. Wireless technology is worse on all these measures.

Are all the Board Members asleep or just negligent in performing their fiduciary responsibilities?

Prices from Amazon.com as of 1/12/14:

http://www.amazon.com/Meraki-Dual-Radio-Cloud-Managed-Wireless-MR16/dp/B006ON7JWE/
$779.00 Meraki Dual-Radio 600 Mbps Cloud-Managed Wireless 802.11n Access Point (MR16)

http://www.amazon.com/Linksys-SE2800-8-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet/dp/B004TLIVBG/
$48.48 Linksys SE2800 8-Port Gigabit Ethernet Switch
$40.47 Linksys SE2500 5-Port Gigabit Ethernet Switch

Here is how you can make a wired solution work:

Assume we standardize on Linksys SE2800 8-Port Gigabit Ethernet Switch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 switches per classroom x $50 each = $250 per classroom, accommodates 36 connections

One switch in center of ceiling
Drops wires to each corner and to the mid-point of each wall
This creates 8 possible connection points in the classroom
To each connection point, attach either a single device or another 8-port switch
This make classrooms uber-flexible;
Orient collaborative work groups around perimeter of the classroom

Only buy what you need now; one can easily expand later:

[1] $ 50 for  8 connections, equips 15 classrooms for cost of one Meraki MR16
[2] $100 for 15 connections, equips  7 classrooms for cost of one Meraki MR16
[3] $150 for 22 connections, equips  5 classrooms for cost of one Meraki MR16
[4] $200 for 29 connections, equips  4 classrooms for cost of one Meraki MR16
[5] $250 for 36 connections, equips  3 classrooms for cost of one Meraki MR16

This also spreads the risk: If any one switch fails, it only costs $50 to replace it.

This represents the high tech, high intelligence solution

Why was none of this reported by the Argus Courier?

[4] The PCSD is wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars duplicating connectivity that they already have in place: as I posed in my questions, which they did not answer:

Why are we spending any money at Valley Vista in this contract?
Didn't we already address their wireless needs over the summer with the surplus Cisco 4410N routers/access points removed from Kenilworth?
Didn't this work cover all of their needs there?
If not, why not and why did the PCSD implement the half-measure?

Why are we spending any money at Kenilworth in this contract?
Didn't we already address their wireless needs over the summer with the new routers/access points that allegedly replaced their old surplus Cisco 4410N routers/access points that were removed and placed in Valley Vista?
Didn't this work cover all of their needs there?
If not, why not and why did the PCSD implement the half-measure?

This is very big news that was not reported by the Argus Courier.

A lot of money being spent unnecessarily in our community that could endanger our school's finances and the health and safety of our children -- is news. The community needs to understand how the PCSD operates and the irresponsible actions taken by the School Board Members.

The Petaluma City School Board Is Negligent
-------------------------------------------
Authorizing the PCSD to spend $750,000 on a contract, without proper due diligence, without adequate review of the contract's details and witthout answers to the basic questions, listed below, is evidence that the Board has ignored its legal and fiduciary duties. This may have to go to court to block the contract, get an injunction to prevent installation and force a thorough review of the contract to ensure that we do not waste $300,000 or more of public money. The additional legal costs for both parties may eventually come out of the District's coffers. What a waste of time, effort and money.

Here is what I emailed a Board member following the vote:

>>> Start of quote

The AMS.net contract is very bad contract. You could increase the PCSD's bandwidth to meet the its bandwidth objectives for about half the price, assuming the PCSD has bandwidth objectives. Do they? Do you know what they are?

What else could we do the PCSD do with $375,000? A lot. I guess the other Board Members don't think it is appropriate to look at the details and save $375,000.  The Board tabled the Chromebook purchase and not this $750,000 contract? Based on what? Some emotional comment from an overworked staff member? You all needed to spend another two weeks looking at this. There is way too much blind trust in the PCSD staff. Do you really think the PCSD staff did a good job on this contract?

How to waste $375,000: don't bid out your contact, don't have specific, measurable bandwidth objectives, pay top dollar for the Ferrari of Switches when a Ford Focus of switches would do just fine and carpet bomb your children with industrial strength wireless routers that increase in price as time marches on ($784.00 in year 1, $1,024.81 in year 4, $1,265.62 in year 7 per router) that only achieve 600 Mbps, instead of the full 1000 Mbps of a $50 8-port wired switch.

And four out of five board members voted for this contract without even looking at the details? Four of the five should be ashamed of themselves. I cannot think of a more irresponsible response from allegedly educated, intelligent leaders. I am flabbergasted.

Bandwidth is simple. It's dictated by your source (SCOE) and the capacity of your existing wired switches. Bandwidth is all about wired networking first. Wireless is the last piece in the chain.

Someone should take the two hours it would require to get a bid from Comcast to provide internet service to every classroom. I offered to foot the bill for the Cherry Valley kindergarten room. They can do cabling to each classroom for free. The monthly fee for many years would work out to be a lot less than $750,000.

First you need to understand what is the current bandwidth in the existing wired infrastructure. It is easily measured. Someone could measure every school in the District in two days. Has anyone done this? Do you think they should? You could easily hire an outside consultant to get the info. You will recover this cost many times over.

Please work with the technology committee, trim the unnecessary labor in this contract and start trading out some items. The Meraki MR16 is a very inappropriate device for schools. We can do a lot better at a much lower cost. I have had deep technical discussions with Cisco/Meraki technical support about this. Troy Sanderson muzzles the only person in the room with expertise on this subject?

>>> End of quote

There is no major rush required for this AMS.net contract. All the PCSD has to do to ensure that there is enough technology in place to complete their CA State assessment testing requirements is to wire up their existing computers in one or two rooms on each campus and cycle the students through these rooms, scheduling access to their existing resources. There is sufficient bandwidth and a sufficient number of computers in school right now to meet this assessment testing requirement, without this contract. Can the District prove otherwise?

This approach was piloted and proven by Valley Vista last Spring. They completed their online testing, as a pilot school, without using any wireless access points or wireless computers/Chromebooks; Valley Vista used the computers in their existing wired computer lab. Nearly all schools in the PCSD have this infrastructure already in place.

The AMS.net $750,000 increased bandwidth/expanded wireless infrastructure contract is a reckless, throw-money-at-the wall, hodge-podge rush job. We need much more careful planning to show that the money the District wants to spend meets carefully crafted objectives, uses the most efficient equipment and labor to reach these objectives and does so in a way that meets our technological, financial and our health and safety goals.

The vote on 1/14/14 for the $750,000 AMS.net contract fails on all of these measures.

I fear that some folks might be getting paid under the table on this one. I have no other explanation for this irresponsible behavior.


Regards,



[Parent]


>>> On 1/14/14 @ 5:55 pm [Parent]  wrote to Board Members Troy Sanderson, Mary Schafer, Sheri Chlebowski, Michael Baddely and Phoebe Ellis:

Re: What's the better deal? WAP vs. Switch


What's the better deal for cost per user and bandwidth per user?

WAP vs. Switch

The 8-Port Gigabit switch is half the cost and offers over 10x the bandwidth.

See the attachment for the details.

Regards,


[Parent]



>>> On 1/14/14 @ 2:24 pm [Parent]  wrote to Board Members Sheri Chlebowski, Michael Baddely and Phoebe Ellis:

> Dear Sheri, Mike and Phoebe,
>
> After a lot of wrangling and video taping of my requests for the records, Jane Escobedo just handed me a stack of papers for the AMS.Net contract with the detail anyone would need to see to determine if the contract was worth voting on.
>
> Do you guys have this detail?
>
> David and Jane told me that you did, but I heard from Sheri yesterday that you didn't.
>
> I am going to review the contract at the District office, take some photos of it, flesh out the spreadsheet and send this back out to you, if you wish.
>
> I am also waiting for Steve Bolman to return to the office to get access to the records that Chad Carvey compiled yesterday and sent to the Steve Bolman.
>
> My strong recommendation is that you all vote this AMS.net contract down because there was not proper detail/notice to the School Board or the public.
>
> Do you want this additional information?
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
[Parent]

--
Regards,



[Parent]



>>> On 1/14/14 @ 1:09 pm [Parent]  wrote to Board Members Troy Sanderson, Mary Schafer, Sheri Chlebowski, Michael Baddely and Phoebe Ellis:

> January 14, 2014
>
> Re: PCSD Must Move All Vote/Discussion Items to 1/28/14 Meeting Due to Improper Public Notice
>
> To: Petaluma City School District Board Members
> -----------------------------------------------
> Troy Sanderson , Board of Education Member, President
> Michael Baddeley , Board of Education Member, Clerk
> Mary Schafer , Board of Education Member
> Sheri Chlebowski , Board of Education Member
> Phoebe Ellis , Board of Education Member
>
>
> To Petaluma City School District Personnel
> ------------------------------------------
> Mr. Steve Bolman 
> Ms. Jane Escobedo 
> Mr. David Rose 
> Mr. Mike Cole 
> Petaluma City School District
> 200 Douglas Street
> Petaluma, CA 94952
>
> There are significant problems with the PCSD Web Site which has prevented proper notice for the 1/14/14 School Board meeting items. No votes can be taken because proper notice was not given to the public. This needs to be addressed before the School board can vote on the 1/14/14 agenda items.
>
> There have been significant changes to the PCSD web site for accessing the board packet with insufficient instructions. I am afraid many member of the public may be confused when presented with the new interface and will not be able to find the board packet for their required review.
>
> When one goes to
>
> http://petalumacityschools.org/
>
> . . . and selects from the menus to the left:
>
> Board of Education --> Agenda, Packets and Minutes --> February 2012 to November 2013
>    is a simple interface with one download link to get the entire packet in pdf form.
>
> Board of Education --> Agenda, Packets and Minutes --> December 2013 to the latest
>   Is an interface showing the agenda with insufficient instructions:
>
> [1] There is confusion caused by using new terms without explanation:
>    (D) Discussion Item: can the public comment on discussion items? It is not clear.
>
>    (V) Vote: can the public comment on vote items? It is not clear.
>
>    (C) Consent: this must mean consent as it did on the old agenda and the public cannot comment on these items, right?
>
> [2] How does one get the full packet as we did all through 2013? It is not clear. I still haven't found out how to get it.
>
> [3] The underlined portions do not appear as standard html links (they are not blue or any other distinguishing color). It is not obvious to anyone that someone should click on these underlined items to get supporting information. There are no instructions to do so. The instructions are to click the following text symbols: "v EXPAND ^ COLLAPSE", characters which appear no where on the page.
>
> [4] So through persistent trial and error, a motivated member of the public overcame frustration to discover how to work the triangle icons to the left of each agenda item and to click the uncolored underlined items to get some supporting documents.
>
> The problem is that that the new process requires users to download/manage many individual pdf documents instead of getting one full board packet by clicking one familiar Adobe PDF icon, as one did in the old interface. I think most people will just give up.
>
> This is too confusing. The PCSD either has to go back to the old interface or post much better instructions for the new interface. This lack of attention to detail, which is rampant throughout every PCSD technology effort I have reviewed over the last nine months, has prevented proper notice for the 1/14/14 School Board meeting. No votes can be taken on 1/14/14 because of these errors; the School Board will have to move all vote and discussion items to the 1/28/14 School Board Meeting.
>
> The PCSD can easily fix its notice process in time for the 1/28/14 School Board meeting, but they did not fix it in time for the 1/14/14 School Board Meeting.
>
> Separately, the PCSD did not post the full, itemized AMS.NET contract in the amount of $748,156.45 online or in the School Board packet within 72 hours of the 1/14/14 School Board meeting. Please find two attachments to this email:
>
> [Attachment 1] 2014-0114-amsnet.pdf (a four page pdf)
> -----------------------------------------------------
> The boiler plate is on pages 1-2 and the important stuff is on page 3.
>
> [Attachment 2] 2014-0114-AMS-Contract.pdf (a three page pdf)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> This is a simple spreadsheet that shows the missing information from the AMS.net contract.
>
> Would any responsible person (i.e. a School Board Member) be able to make an intelligent evaluation about whether this contract was a good spend of District money, based on the information of these four pdf pages? No.
>
> Here are the questions a review of this four page pdf raises:
>
> Is this contract a good deal?
> How can we tell?
> Is this the full contract?
> Where is the itemized detail?
> How many units of each item is the PCSD contracting to buy?
> What is the price per unit?
> Are these the lowest prices for each unit? How do we know?
> What are the comparisons of other units from other vendors?
> Are these premium products? Do we absolutely need them?
> Are there other lower cost products that will still do the job?
> What are the lower cost alternatives and their prices?
> How much money could we save with lower cost alternatives?
>
> How many hours of management labor are we buying at what rate?
> How many hours of worker/installation labor are we buying at what rate?
> Do we need any outside labor hours? Note: Every other wireless network installation at PCSD was handled with low cost internal labor, as I was informed by Mike Cole in response to an earlier CA Public Records request.
> Why should we be spending money for any labor in this contract?
>
> Does the PCSD even need to spend this $750,000?
> You can't just spend $750,000 based on anecdotal complaints such as "I am having problems connecting".
> What we already have might be perfectly adequate, but just needs to be repaired, tuned or adjusted.
> Are we sure that we can't solve our problems by repairing, tuning or adjusting our existing network infrastructure?
> We can't just take someone's word for this. Before we spend $750,000 we need hard evidence.
>
> Many reflecting/absorbing surfaces in the schools interfere with wireless signals, degrading the bandwidth; it requires careful analysis and network tuning to get the most out of any wireless network. I am guessing that the PCSD has done very little, if any, tuning of its existing wireless network. I am certain that higher sustained connection speeds can be achieved with wired switches and Ethernet wires, a solution that doesn't require such time-consuming and costly tuning.
>
> We need measurable connectivity bandwidth objectives, as well, right?
> What are the connectivity bandwidth objectives for each school?
> Why are these the right objectives?
> What is the current bandwidth measurement of the existing wired network in each school? How does it compare to the objectives?
> What is the current bandwidth measurement of the existing wireless network in each school? How does it compare to the objectives?
> What are the comparative costs of achieving connectivity bandwidth objectives with a wired solution vs. a wireless solution?
> We need to know this before we spend $750,000.
>
> Why do we need to meet these bandwidth targets all at once?
> Certainly we do not yet have 1:1 student:device ratios in the PCSD, and may not have them over the next five years.
> Why do we need all this connectivity bandwidth right now?
> What about layering in several different strategies, comparing them over time and expanding the ones that are best for the children: for both their education and for their health and safety?
>
> Why are we spending any money at McDowell and McKinley schools in this contract?
> Didn't the previous e-Rate $250,000 contract with AMS.net cover all of our needs there?
> If not, why not?
>
> Why are we spending any money at Valley Vista in this contract?
> Didn't we already address their wireless needs over the summer with the surplus Cisco 4410N routers/access points removed from Kenilworth?
> Didn't this work cover all of their needs there?
> If not, why not and why did the PCSD implement the half-measure?
>
> Why are we spending any money at Kenilworth in this contract?
> Didn't we already address their wireless needs over the summer with the new routers/access points that allegedly replaced their old surplus Cisco 4410N routers/access points that were removed and placed in Valley Vista?
> Didn't this work cover all of their needs there?
> If not, why not and why did the PCSD implement the half-measure?
>
> Where is the fat/excess profit/contingency factor in this contract? Every contract has one.
> What happens if the contract comes in under budget?
> Is that savings given back to the School District?
>
> Thank you for using your intelligence and good judgment to recognize that proper public notice and complete information are required for both the Board members and for the public to review before the Board can vote on any item, particularly a $748,156.45 that may be a completely unnecessary expense.
>

>>> On 1/14/14 at 12:46 pm [Parent] wrote to Steve Bolman:
> Dear Mr. Bolman,
>
> You are listening to your lawyers, but that is not keeping the PCSD or its principals from violating CA State law. You are digging a bigger hole for the District, unnecessarily. All 19 PCSD principals are still violating CA State law on 1/14/14.
>
> Via my 1/8/14 and 1/14/14 CPRA requests, I have properly requested access for on-site inspections to the records that Chad Carvey has already compiled for my inspection. When I went to his site to do so, he admitted that he had the records on site, and he illegally denied me access to the records. Instead, he directed me to inspect the records at the District office.
>
> I told Mr. Carvey that I needed to inspect the records that he had already compiled this afternoon to be able to have the time to review them, gather information and prepare for my comments against the vote for Item M.9 on tonight's school board agenda.
>
> I told Mr. Carvey that I was very concerned that the District office would also illegally deny my access to immediately inspect the records that we now know are at the District office. Perhaps you can pleasantly surprise me and provide the access to the records to which I am afforded by CA state law. Of course, I will not now know which records you have chosen to filter out. That is why I want to inspect the records at the School sites.
>
> I don't need to remind you, Mr. Bolman, that I am not seeking copies, just on-site inspection of these records, so the District cannot invoke a ten day delay to my access of these records, per CA State law, so your 1/10/14 letter to me is meaningless.
>
> I am writing to set up an appointment to inspect the records requested by my 1/8/14, 1/9/14 and 1/14/14 CPRA requests to Chad Carvey and to the records requested by my 1/14/14 CPRA request directly to you.
>
> I will wait for your reply until 1:15 pm and then will proceed to the District office to make my lawful request to inspect the public records to which I am entitled immediate access by CA State law.
>
>
> [Parent] wrote to Chad Carvey:
>> Hi, Chad.
>>
>> Good news.
>>
>> As you have reported to me in your previous emails . . .
>>
>> yesterday, you completed four hours of work to compile the records from the 1/18/14 CPRA request . . .
>>
>>
>> On 1/14/14 @ 7:53 am, Chad Carvey wrote to [Parent]:
>>> I gathered the documents you requested for inspection yesterday, for you to inspect
>>
>> and you have the record requested in  my 1/14/14 CPRA request,a simple two-pager, in your possession.
>>
>> On 1/14/14 @ 8:20 am, Chad Carvey wrote to [Parent]:
>>
>> Thank you for your timely efforts.
>>
>> I need these records for an important 1/14/14 School Board meeting tonight and I need them directly from you, not from Steve Bolman.
>>
>> Now that you have informed me that the records have been compiled and ready for my inspection, I thank you for the invitation to do so and will
>> now come to the MCCV campus, per my CPRA request and CA State law.
>>
>> On 1/14/14 @ 10:58 am  Chad Carvey wrote to [Parent]:
>>> [Parent] , as you well know,
>>>
>>> When a request is made, for records that are not readily accessible (taking 4 hours to compile, of time that--as a principal--is a massive amount--would usually be something that a principal would need a couple of weeks to schedule)
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Chad Carvey




Regards,



[Parent]

January 30, 2014

Re: An Effective Solution to the PCSD's Problematic Technology Plan

To the PCSD School Board Members and PCSD School Principals,

What do you want to do?

On 1/29/14 @ 9:51 am, [Parent] to Petaluma School Board Members:
> January 29, 2013
>
> The following Petaluma City School District Employees have violated CA State law with respect to CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48 and are still violating CA state law through January 28, 2014.
>
>     Steve Bolman 
>     Jane Escobedo 
>     Mike Cole 
>
>     David Stirrat  Principal, Petaluma High
>     Linda Scheele  Principal, Casa Grande High
>     Gregory Stevenson , Principal, Carpe Diem High & Sonoma Mountain High
>     Rusty Sims  Principal, San Antonio High & Valley Oaks School
>
>     Emily Dunnagan  Principal, Kenilworth Junior High
>     Rebecca Lofton , Crossroads Community Day School
>     Renee Semik  Principal, Petaluma Junior High,& 6th Grade Academy
>
>     Catrina Haugen  Principal, Grant Elementary
>     Maureen Rudder  Principal, McDowell Elementary
>     Matthew Harris  Principal, McKinley Elementary
>     Sheila Garvey   Principal, McNear Elementary
>     Amy Fadeji  Principal, Penngrove Elementary
>     Emily Kleinholz  Principal, Valley Vista Elementary
>     Matthew Morgan  Principal, Live Oak Charter
>     Chad Carvey  Principal, Mary Collins at Cherry Valley
>
> In short, these employees are illegally blocking access to public information requested via CPRA requests on 1/8/18, 1/914, 1/13/14 and 1/14/14 and are not providing assistance, i.e. they are not helping to identify information relevant to the requests and they are not suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access, as specified by CA State law.
Will I get a response, any response, from the School Board members about its disregard for CA State law and its approval of the Petaluma City School District's practices to illegally and repeatedly block access to public information, properly requested by CPRA information requests?

Will I get a response, any response, from the school principals about providing access to the public information that is on-site at each of their schools: information that could not possibly be at the District Office?

Would you like me to retract my CPRA information requests, make everyone's lives easier and instead collaborate on a good solution? I offered just that to Steve Bolman on 1/28/14. He turned me down. He would rather fight.

How about all of you? Do you want to stop fighting? I do.

An Effective Solution
``````````````````````
I think you all understand by now that I am not going away.

I will be attached to a public school district for the next 13 years. I will outlast Steve Bolman, Mike Cole and probably most of the School Board Members. Let's not allow their uninformed, rigid thinking to saddle us with a big problem that we may need to solve all over again several years down the line. Let's be smarter and more careful about how we spend our $748,000+ of public money to expand our internet bandwidth in our schools in a cost-effective, well-managed and safe way.

We don't need to settle for the AMS.net $748,000+ increased bandwidth/expanded wireless infrastructure contract. It is a reckless, throw-money-at-the wall, hodge-podge rush job. We need much more careful planning to show that the money the District wants to spend meets carefully crafted objectives, uses the most efficient equipment and labor to reach these objectives and does so in a way that meets our educational, technological, financial and our health and safety goals.

I am well-informed, have the law on my side and have the backing of some pretty large groups at this point. I also have some pretty good, low cost ideas on how to solve these issues: ideas I first shared privately with Steve Bolman and then at the School Board meeting on 1/28/14.

The solution is simple. Follow the warnings/advice of the manufacturers of these wireless devices. They are telling you to sip, not gulp wireless signals. That is the best design principle to guide our infrastructure improvements. It is not the design principle used to construct the current PCSD increased bandwidth/expanded wireless infrastructure plan. AMS.NET created that plan to maximize their profits with no regard for student health and safety.

Surprise. The solution isn't "No Wireless". The solution is ALARA - As Low as Reasonably Achievable. I use wireless every day, but I do it in a very limited and conscious manner. Think of wireless signals just like water or natural gas in your homes. We turn on the faucet/burner only when we need to use this limited/dangerous resource, we do the work we need to do, and then we turn off the faucet/burner to save money. The same thing goes for wireless.

Turn it on when you need it and then turn it off when you don't. You will save the school lots of energy, oodles of money, give important classroom-focus control back to the teachers and increase the safety of every classroom in the District.

Who is suggesting this strategy? Apple and all other manufacturers of wireless devices.

Let me teach you something. Do you own/have an iPhone or iPad? If not, borrow one from the person next to you. Make sure it is running iOS 7, the latest system software, and do the following:

1. Go to Settings

2. Go to the very first setting in the list: it is called 'Airplane Mode', which is listed first, because it is the most important setting on any wireless device. Turn Airplane Mode On (which turns all antennas off).

3. Check to make sure that 'Wi-Fi', 'BlueTooth' and 'Cellular Data' are all 'Off'.

4. Only after doing this, is an iPhone or iPad safe to give to a child. Don't believe me? Read on.

5. In Settings select/touch General --> About --> Legal --> RF Exposure (the description is more complete on the iPhone than the iPad).

If you don't have a device, you can find the language here: http://www.apple.com/legal/rfexposure/iphone5,1/en/

"To reduce exposure to RF energy, use a hands-free option, such as the built-in speakerphone, the supplied headphones or other similar accessories. Carry iPhone at least 10mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as-tested levels. Cases with metal parts may change the RF performance of the device, including its compliance with RF exposure guidelines, in a manner that has not been tested or certified."

What's that about 10mm (which is about 1/2")? What's that about metal parts and its compliance with RF exposure guidelines, in a manner that has not been tested or certified? Are there metal parts on these devices?

You need to understand a bit about radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF) microwave radiation to make sense of these words. RF/EMF microwave radiation swirls around a wireless device whenever it's antennas are on and even more so when it is uploading/downloading any data (text -- low levels, images -- medium levels or video -- huge levels). It creates a 3D cloud around the device (think of a balloon that you depress to create more of a doughnut shape) with a radius of 18-36". Anything in that cloud is being exposed, which includes any child's brain and internal organs. The RF/EMF microwave radiation penetrates deeply into any child's skull, bone marrow and tissues. In fact it penetrates 2x-10x deeper into children than into adults.

RF/EMF microwave radiation is absorbed by anything that contains water or fat (people) and reflected by metal surfaces (iPad cases, filing cabinets, braces, jewelry, watch bands).

RF/EMF microwave radiation instantly affects one's blood; it causes the blood to clump, change shape and not transport oxygen efficiently - which affects learning and cognitive abilities. You can see blood degradation in the following video, caused by SmartMeters, which emanate similar levels of RF/EMF microwave radiation. This affects every single child in a classroom. Not just an unlucky few -- every single child. Simple blood tests show the effects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JDEspdx58

The big players know all about this. Insurance companies will not insure manufacturers of wireless devices for future health damage claims. Apple's words/warnings are legal fudge factors designed to prevent anyone from making claims against Apple in case the devices cause you or your child harm down the line. What kind of harm? Seriously bad stuff which you can read about here
   http://rfemf.com/health.html
   http://rfemf.com/presentation

How much down the line? 7-10 years or about half way through one's public education.

Trust me. You want our children/your students to sip, not gulp wireless signals during their public education. How can we do that and still meet all of our 21st century educational goals?

You install into the middle of every classroom ceiling one low power, low cost access point and give the teacher the ability to turn it on and off, as needed: a timer switch is the best solution. Instead of trying to get many classrooms to share the bandwidth of one overly-powerful WAP, give each classroom one much lower power consumer-grade WAP so 25-30 people in that classroom can share the bandwidth from that one classr0om WAP. This is a simple change of perspective. Instead of maximizing reach, right-size it for the classroom.

How can we afford to do that? Again. It's simple. Eliminate every Meraki MR16 and Cisco 4410N Wireless Access Point (WAP) currently installed in PCSD schools and do not buy the 156 Meraki MR16 WAPS that the PCSD is currently planning to purchase at a cost of, wait for it, nearly $200,000 (which is over 25% of the cost of the entire AMS.net contract).

Steve Bolman and all of the School Board Members were not aware that each Meraki MR16 router would cost the District an additional $240.81 in licensing fees for each router every three years before the School board voted on this contract. The School Board members did not feel it was worth their time to delve into these details.

This means that the cost of each Meraki MR16 WAP will be $1265.62 by year 7. Why are we spending $722.43 in licensing fees for each WAP? To make Mike Cole's job a little easier; a guy who will not be in that job 7 years from now; he may not even be in that job next year.

Instead, we can spend this $200,000 on many more much lower cost ($25-50 each) access points (either wired and wireless), install many more low-cost Ethernet wires in intelligent ways and create flexibility to prepare for our changing world. The maintenance costs of replacing any defective unit would also be much lower.

Folks, there is no certainty about the safety of wireless signals, but there are many concerning data points on the horizon. The goal is to not experiment on our children/your students, but to invest in maximum infrastructure flexibility. I am quite sure, if we wire up the schools correctly right now (the smallest portion of the $748,000+ contract), it will pay many dividends down the line.

Here is what a wireless classroom could be in this plan:
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
1. Single Ethernet cable to the center of the ceiling

2. One low cost ($25-50 each), consumer-grade WAP 300 Mbps installed at the center of the ceiling

3. One timer switch on the wall near the teacher's desk to turn on/turn off the ceiling-mounted WAP.


Here is what a wired classroom could be in this plan:
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````
1. Single Ethernet cable to the center of the ceiling

2. One low cost ($25-50 each), consumer-grade 8-port 1000 Mbps wired switch installed at the center of the ceiling

3. Eight additional wires emanating from this ceiling-mounted switch like spider legs: four legs to each corner and four legs to the mid-point of each wall -- and then extend the Ethernet cables down the wall to desk height.

4. At the end of these legs, one could connect either one device or another low-cost ($25-50 each), consumer-grade 8-port 1000 Mbps wired switch, creating access for collaborative work groups of 6-8 students, just like the study groups advocated for in the new common core curriculum.

5. One timer switch on the wall near the teacher's desk to turn on/turn off the ceiling-mounted switch.

The $200,000 earmarked for Meraki MR 16 WAPS could purchase 5,000 to 7,500 low cost ($25-50 each) consumer grade WAPS or switches. How many classrooms do we have in the Petaluma City School District? 600? 1,000? Looks like we could cut our WAP/Switch costs by half or more, saving over $100,000.

The key to this solution is flexibility. Some classrooms can be wireless, some can be wired. The PCSD can accommodate students/parents who wish either technology for their children, while we learn more about the health effects of wireless signals.

Why commit to only one strategy? You couldn't possibly know at this point which one is the best. Do some of both and build out the infrastructure with flexibility in mind.

This is an effective proposal. Can we work together to implement this and avoid unnecessary, expensive legal proceedings? There are no clear winners in legal proceedings. Let's get to a more creative solution, like this one.

What do you think? Steve Bolman blinked, but you don't have to do the same.

What do you want to do?


Regards,



[Parent]
January 31, 2014

Re: Reporting PCSD's Illegal Activities and a New CPRA Information Request per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48

To the PCSD School Board Members and PCSD School Principals,

I am asking each of you to please read this email carefully, all the way through, and then choose how you wish to respond. You will each be asked for your response in the next few days.

What will be the subject of my upcoming guest commentary in the Argus Courier? How much illegal activity will I have to report?

Does anyone want to talk about solutions to our current problems?  If so, please call me at [redacted phone number]. I am open to reasonable solutions. In fact, I made a very good offer yesterday in my 1/30/14 email to the School Board Members and to the Principals to retract my CPRA information requests and collaborate on a workable solution to the PCSD's problematic technology plans currently specified in the 1/14/14 AMS.net contract.

If my offer is not accepted, I am interested in the most peaceful, safest and efficient way to review properly requested public information at no additional cost to me. I am using the law, but not yet a team of lawyers; the PCSD is just trying to weasel out of complying with the law. Why does blocking access to public information or hiding the truth benefit anyone?

If you want to save time, money and aggravation, please cooperate, provide access and follow the law. It's pretty simple. Just make appointments for any convenient day/time (90-120 minutes per school) over the next two weeks, when no students are present on campus. I can probably complete inspections at the smaller schools in under an hour. I can accommodate any reasonable time between 6:00 am and 8:00 pm, 7 days a week. The law states that I have the right to immediate access. I will bring copies of the law with me.

Further, as I explained in my 1/10/14 email to you all, the PCSD has already set a precedent for providing such access in response to an earlier CPRA information request on 8/22/13, results of which are shown here: http://rfemf.com/counter.html. In short, the PCSD does not have a basis for blocking access to this public information. The PCSD's lawerly attempts to weasel out of their legal obligations will only result in unnecessary delays and unnecessary legal costs that will have to be paid by taxpayer money that could more productively be spent on educating our children. What a waste of time, effort and money -- and for what gain?

On 1/29/14 @ 9:51 am, [Parent] to Petaluma School Board Members:
> January 29, 2013
>
> The following Petaluma City School District Employees have violated CA State law with respect to CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48 and are still violating CA state law through January 28, 2014.
>
>     Steve Bolman 
>     Jane Escobedo 
>     Mike Cole 
>
>     David Stirrat  Principal, Petaluma High
>     Linda Scheele  Principal, Casa Grande High
>     Gregory Stevenson , Principal, Carpe Diem High & Sonoma Mountain High
>     Rusty Sims  Principal, San Antonio High & Valley Oaks School
>
>     Emily Dunnagan  Principal, Kenilworth Junior High
>     Rebecca Lofton , Crossroads Community Day School
>     Renee Semik  Principal, Petaluma Junior High,& 6th Grade Academy
>
>     Catrina Haugen  Principal, Grant Elementary
>     Maureen Rudder  Principal, McDowell Elementary
>     Matthew Harris  Principal, McKinley Elementary
>     Sheila Garvey   Principal, McNear Elementary
>     Amy Fadeji  Principal, Penngrove Elementary
>     Emily Kleinholz  Principal, Valley Vista Elementary
>     Matthew Morgan  Principal, Live Oak Charter
>     Chad Carvey  Principal, Mary Collins at Cherry Valley
>
> In short, these employees are illegally blocking access to public information requested via CPRA requests on 1/8/18, 1/914, 1/13/14 and 1/14/14 and are not providing assistance, i.e. they are not helping to identify information relevant to the requests and they are not suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access, as specified by CA State law.
Will I get a response, any response, from the School Board members about its disregard for CA State law and its approval of the Petaluma City School District's practices to illegally and repeatedly block access to public information, properly requested by CPRA information requests?

Will I get a response, any response, from the school principals about providing access to the public information that is on-site at each of their schools: information that could not possibly be at the District Office?

Public Information at the District Office
`````````````````````````````````````````
[1] For the public information at the District Office, we are talking about a half of box of documents, folks. One could copy or scan all of these documents in less than two hours. There was plenty of time to do that on 1/29/14 or 1/30/14. I have received no scanned documents from the Petaluma City School District in the last 48 hours. There is no credible reason to introduce further delay into my access to these records.

The PCSD will no longer allow me to inspect the information on-site at the District Office, as I did on 1/27/14 and 1/28/14. I have also heard that the PCSD does not want me to visit each school site seeking the information that was properly requested of each school principal via CPRA. Visiting each school site to request access to the public information that was properly-requested by CPRA is well within my legal rights, as I cleared with the Petaluma Police on 1/29/14. The District, by blocking my access to public information at the District Office, is leaving me no choice.

When Petaluma City School district desires and policies contradict federal, state or local law, the law prevails every time. This is the fourth time, I have uncovered such discrepancies. I choose to follow the law.

School Board Members and Principals, what do you each want to do? I will do whatever I can lawfully do to get access to the public information. What's going to be the solution to this problem, folks? Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Ignoring the problem continues to place each of you in violation of CA State law.

Public Information at the School Sites
``````````````````````````````````````
[2] For the public information at each of the schools (information that is not and could not be at the District Office), we are talking about public information that we know exists: the wired and wireless equipment is currently up and running at all your school sites. The public needs to understand what running this equipment 24 hours a day (an arbitrary, unnecessary, irresponsible and unsafe PCSD decision) means to the health and safety of their children, who have the right to a safe learning environment, per CA State law.

The PCSD cannot hide behind its poor record-keeping and irresponsible practices of deploying dangerous technology in its schools in direct opposition to its stated safety goals (documented here http://rfemf.com/presentation/index.html#/9) with no prior safety testing, no parental knowledge and no parental consent for doing so.

The truth about all of this will come out. It's just a matter of time. You can make the process easy and cost-free for everyone or you can make the process difficult and costly for everyone. It's up to you. What a waste of time, money and effort not cooperating may turn out to be. Maybe the PCSD will win a small battle here or there, but they cannot prevent access to public information under the CPRA.

Please take a moment, put your egos and your visceral dislike of me aside and ask yourselves, is not cooperating worth the costs: personal, financial and institutional? What behaviors is the PCSD modeling for its students? Isn't pursuit of the truth an important goal for everyone? Blocking access to public information that hides the truth is intentional ignorance which is not far from negligence.

Important and Relevant Items For Your Consideration:
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
- The good folks at http://rfemf.com (people with ties to national groups in the Washington, DC area) have been kind enough to document my efforts to protect the students in the Petaluma City School District

- These groups are watching the actions/decisions of the PCSD very carefully right now

- Others' decisions will be made in response to the actions/decisions of the PCSD School Board Members, Superintendent and Principals in the coming days

- Who knew? Little Petaluma may become a national case.

- PCSD students are very aware of the pages of http://rfemf.com. Editors of PCSD school newspapers have contacted the site, asking to interview the publishers of http://rfemf.com

- Perhaps the students became aware of http://rfemf.com from the emails that the publishers of http://rfemf.com sent to many PCSD teachers on 12/17/13 and 1/13/14. The teachers names and email addresses are public records, as they are employees of our local government agency known as the Petaluma City School District. It is legal to email the teachers. The purpose of the emails to the teachers was to educate them about the existing conditions in their workplace (classrooms) and how much these conditions exceed our federal maximum public exposure guidelines for radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF), i.e. microwave radiation. The classroom environments are not safe and the PCSD School Board voted on 1/14/14 to spend $750,000 of tax payer money to make the environments much less safe, by filling the classrooms with even more of a proven Class 2B carcinogen: RF/EMF from all sources was classified as a Class 2B carcinogen by the World Health Organization in 2011.

- Perhaps the students became aware of http://rfemf.com from the recent Argus Courier coverage that discussed the questionable actions of Superintendent Steve Bolman to arbitrarily censor information on the PCSD school computer network for no principled reasons. Mr. Bolman blocked access to http://rfemf.com from the PCSD computer network within a week of its launch. Details can be found here (http://rfemf.com/news/2013-1219.html) and here (http://www.petaluma360.com/article/20140116/COMMUNITY/140119691/0/community?p=2&tc=pg )

- Janelle Wetzstein wrote an article in the 1/16/14 Argus Courier titled "Citizen Raises Issue of Digital Free Speech". Here are some quotes from that article:

" the school district said that rfemf.com was blocked for sending one spam email directly to every teacher in the district. Mr. Bolman stated 'We went through the typical protocol of looking into the complaints, making sure they were valid and then blocking the website. Had the website not sent out mass spam email, I may not have heard of the site' . . . Bolman said the decision to block rfemf.com had nothing to do with its criticism of the district. 'We concluded that the new science isn't backing up the information on the site. But that is not why we blocked it. It was merely an issue of blocking sites that spam faculty' "

Oh my goodness, how uninformed, confused, unprincipled and dishonest can a Superintendent be? Only lazy thinkers could accept Mr. Bolman's statements as informed truth.

First, there are two separate actions needed to block email and to block domain access to web sites. It is not one action. If Mr. Bolman were concerned about receiving emails from rfemf.com, his technology people just needed to make changes to the MX record filters on the email servers. This would leave access to the web site intact. Changing the MX record filters would serve Mr. Bolman's goals: to handle some complaints about the email. He did not need to block access to the rfemf.com web site at all. Email and web sites are served and managed on separate servers and by different software.

Mr. Bolman and his technology people took a separate and unrelated action to manually edit the blocked site list. I obtained evidence of this action from a CPRA information request and then gave the list to the rfemf.com web site folks, so they could post it here: http://rfemf.com/news/2013-1219.html.

Busted. Mr. Bolman is either lying, confused or both. We should all be very concerned about any of these possibilities.

We should also be very concerned that the 12/17/14 CPRA information request uncovered that the PCSD has no policy in place to govern which sites it chooses to block. Our local government agency just censors any content that it wishes whenever it wishes to do so, without any oversight by the School Board.

In this email, I am asking the Petaluma City School Board to direct Steve Bolman to end this arbitrary censorship, unblock access to http://rfemf.com from the PCSD computer network and demand clarity and truthfulness from its employees in the future. What say you, Board Members? Will you restore access to http://rfemf.com from the PCSD computer network? If not, why not? You don't want to be guilty of the same confusion and mistruths that repeatedly plague Mr. Bolman's decisions and actions, do you?

There is no credible basis for the school to block access to http://rfemf.com from the school's computer network. Access to the web site has no impact on the teachers receiving emails. In fact, the teachers can be sent another email at anytime, as evidenced by two separate mass emails, one on 12/17/13, before the PCSD blocked access to http://rfemf.com and one on 1/13/14, nearly a month after the PCSD blocked access to http://rfemf.com.

Blocking access to http://rfemf.com did not and could not have any effect on future emails sent to Petaluma City School teachers. Why? Because emails are sent by people, not web sites and there are an infinite number of domains from which emails can be sent. Was Mr. Bolman confused about this or lying? Either way, the School Board cannot allow this arbitrary censorship to continue.

http://rfemf.com does not contain profane or sexually explicit content. The site contains information about how Petalumans can make simple changes to protect themselves from an unnecessary, continuous, voluntary toxic pollutant – a carcinogen that the PCSD voluntarily pumps into its classrooms every day.

Second, Mr. Bolman understands very little of the science of RF/EMF microwave radiation, by his own admission. I can tell you first-hand. I have spent over eight hours educating Mr. Bolman in School Board meetings and in face-to-face meetings.

Mr. Bolman has demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of Dr. Martin Blank's conclusions in this video (http://vimeo.com/17266941), dismissed the conclusions of the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that released its initial findings in 2011 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4E2i5XFX9M) and published their monograph in 2013.

WHO-IARC-monograph-102.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/WHO-IARC-monograph-102.pdf

Mr. Bolman even ignores the December, 2013 findings cited by Dr. Devra Davis, a nobel-prize winning scientist and founder of the Environmental Health Trust (watch her video here http://rfemf.com/news/2013-1214.html)

When Mr. Bolman states that "the new science isn't backing up the information on the site" he couldn't be any more uninformed. Spreading this misinformation is not what any Superintendent should do. I refer you to the work of Professor Hugh Taylor, Chairman of Obstetrics/Gynecology at Yale Medical School and his work also published in 2013, who states

"As a research scientist and physician who studies how microwave radiation affects the outcomes of pregnancy, I am deeply concerned about growing exposures to cell phone and other wireless radiation. As a father, I applaud the American Academy of Pediatricians for advising families to come up with their own media plans to set limits on the uses of these devices in the home."

All of this is reported here: http://rfemf.com/news/2013-1214.html

Here are links to still other information that Mr. Bolman and the School Board Members have been ignoring for months.

Please view this, carefully:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/resonance-edit.mp4

BioInitiativeReport-2012.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/BioInitiativeReport-2012.pdf

EMF-RF-MW-Health-Effects.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/EMF-RF-MW-Health-Effects.pdf

Primer-FCC-for-Smart-Meter-Age.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33504620/Primer-FCC-for-Smart-Meter-Age.pdf

Who Is Qualified to Make Such Important Decisions and To Represent the PCSD?
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Superintendent Steve Bolman? How have his decisions been working out so far?

Has Mr. Bolman taken the time to educate himself to make informed decisions? There is much evidence to the contrary.

Is Mr. Bolman seeking solutions to our problems in our District's technology practices to ensure that these practices meet all of the important educational, technological, financial and our health and safety goals? The evidence shows that he has not completed sufficient due diligence in the AMS.net contract (he admitted he was unaware of very large and unnecessary charges in the contract) and he has consistently ignored all efforts to address student health and safety goals, which is fully described here: http://rfemf.com/science.html (scroll until you see Mr. Bolman's photo).

On 1/28/14, I had a 20-minute face-to-face and heart-to-stone discussion with Mr. Bolman about some very good solutions to the problems created by the PCSD's recent actions and School Board votes. I proposed to him that he and I should not square off and that we should work together to create a good solution to provide additional bandwidth for all PCSD teachers and students, enable reasonable BYOD/1:1 student:device programs and do so in a way that intelligently manages the school's wired and wireless networks so that it is as safe as possible for students and staff. I explained to him, and later that night to the School Board, a proposal that is described in full in my 1/30/14 email, also reported here: http://rfemf.com/evidence.html#emails (scroll all the way to the bottom of the page). Mr. Bolman declined to work together and chose to square off, evidence of which started flowing on 1/29/14: additional acts of harassment towards me, a member of the public trying to merely get the PCSD to follow CA State law.

PCSD cooperation and respect for CA State law will go along way to lower everyone's stress and efficiently and promptly provide access to the public information properly requested in my January, 2014 CPRA requests. In fact, we have a model to reference here: a similar CPRA request was in front of the Valley Vista School in August, 2013 and the principal properly allowed the inspection and measurement of the Cisco 4410N wireless access point installed in the Valley Vista kindergarten room. Evidence of this response was cited in a letter from the PCSD lawyers and on this web page: http://rfemf.com/counter.html

What kinds of games is the Petaluma City School District attempting to play? Are these games worth the time and effort it is costing our taxpayers? Will any of you respond? Does any School Board member care? This is all happening on your watches, folks.

During the 1/28/14 School Board Meeting, I asked for a response from the School Board Members about the Petaluma City School District's practices of illegally and repeatedly blocking access to public information. That much we can all see on Petaluma Community Access Television. I asked you all again on 1/29/14:

On 1/29/14 @ 9:51 am, [Parent] wrote to the School Board Members:
> In short, [PCSD] employees are illegally blocking access to public information requested via CPRA requests on 1/8/14, 1/9/14, 1/13/14 and 1/14/14 and are not providing assistance, i.e. they are not helping to identify information relevant to the requests and they are not suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access, as specified by CA State law. Instead, these employees are playing childish games to hide information from the public. Just one such example, as evidence, is last night's presentation made by Mike Cole during the meeting, records/information of which existed yesterday, when I was on site to inspect such information.
>
> I brought this to the attention of the School Board last night during the 1/28/14 PCSD School Board Meeting, but I did not receive any resolution to this problem during the meeting. What say you, School Board Members? What did you direct Mr. Bolman and other PCSD employees to do about this problem? This email asks for your response on this matter.
The School Board already knows how to respond to these problems. The School Board did so back on May 28, 2013 when the PCSD vainly attempted nearly identical methods to block access to public information properly requested by the CPRA. Petaluma Community Access Television preserved an accurate record of these events:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM4bYQxI9FQ#t=7257

skip to 1:58:22 --> 2:00:00

A timely response from the School Board is required. It's now Friday, 1/30/14. What say you, School Board Members? What did you direct Mr. Bolman and other PCSD employees to do about this problem? This email, once again, asks for your response on this matter.

1/29/14 CPRA Information Request per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
I made a CPRA information request from Sue Merill over the phone on 1/29/14 for all records and information that was used to create Mike Cole's presentation that he presented to the School Board on 1/28/14. Again, I did not ask for copies, so there is no automatic 10-day delay or charge allowed. I asked to inspect the records on-site. I am willing to inspect the records on-site on the sidewalk, if necessary, in order to inspect this information -- the very information that was illegally hidden from me on 1/28/14, the day of the School Board meeting. I can accept electronic records of this information, but cannot accept any delays to my access to this information. Will you please email this information today or allow me access today at a mutually-agreeable site to inspect this information. The PCSD cannot block access to this public information.

I am asking for a timely response from each of you. How do you want to solve this problem? I am awaiting your replies.


Regards,


[Parent]
February 2, 2014

To: Jane Escobedo, Steve Bolman and the PCSD School Board Members,

Re: CA State Law Violations by PCSD Employees Continue and New CPRA Information Request per CA GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48

Dear Ms. Escobedo,

I am not your employee. I am a law-abiding member of the public who is insisting that the local government agency, known as the Petaluma City School District, follows CA State law. I have full rights as a citizen, rights which you cannot abridge with your letter.

This documents the inaccuracies in Ms. Escobedo's January 29, 2014 letter emailed to my [redacted email address].

Please find quoted below, the text of a letter that I just found. Jane, you apparently sent the letter to my [redacted email address], which I haven't used for correspondence to the Petaluma City School District for many months. Will you please send all future correspondence to [redacted email address]? Thank you.

Allow me to quote the text of your letter here and provide some context and corrections:

>>> Start of quote

January 29, 2014


Dear [Parent],

This is to inform you that as of today, January 29, 2014, you are no longer permitted to enter the Petaluma City Schools district office. [ . . . redacted . . .]  you are required to submit requests for information and records in writing to [redacted email address].

Thank you for your cooperation,

Jane Escobedo
Assistant Superintendent
Petaluma City Schools

>>> End of quote

Your letter alleges that I said [redacted], which is incorrect. I made several statements directly to you and Mike Cole, but not that one. We may be aided by the Petaluma Community Access television coverage for the most accurate record of what we said to each other.

I have video, audio and other hard evidence of the PCSD employees' intimidation and harassment of me.

Let me accurately document the events of 1/28/14 and 1/14/14, which provides the appropriate context.

First, we need to understand the context of what happened on 1/28/14 from 10:00 am to 4:30 pm.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
On 1/28/14, I spent all but about five minutes of my time at the District Office in the Oak Room, reviewing the documents. I emerged from the room four times in the following order:

1. Once around 11:00 am, to tell Debi Winkler that I needed to speak to someone responsible (Steve, you and/or Mike Cole) about the missing public information, information that was properly requested via my 1/8/14, 1/9/14, and my 1/13/14 CPRA requests, quoted below my signature of this email.

2. Once around 12:00 pm, after hearing from no one, I went to see if Steve Bolman had returned to the office. Since no one had responded to me, I was checking to see if I could talk to Mr. Bolman about this. When I walked towards Mr. Bolman's office, I was approached by several PCSD employees, including you, Jane, and Mike Cole. It was my action that lead to you responding, albeit briefly.

3. Once around 1:00 pm to go the bathroom.

4. Once around 2:30 pm, to get something to eat and bring back to the Oak room, so I wouldn't miss any follow up from you or Mr. Bolman.

Other than that, I had no interactions with PCSD employees until about 4:00 pm when I had about a 20-minute private conversation with Mr. Bolman in the Oak Room behind a closed door.

Second, We Need to Understand the Context of Your Repeated Violations of CA State Law in Attempting to Block Access to Public Information
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Recall that on 1/14/28, Jane, you and I had several conversations about the AMS.net contract and my need to review the full contract and its details for the School Board Meeting that evening. I arrived at 1:30 pm and talked to both you and Mr. Rose. Recall also, that my 1/13/14 CPRA request referenced the AMS.NET contract and had a typo for the contract amount: "This is a CA Public Records Request for the immediate on-site inspection of the full, itemized AMS.NET contract in the amount of $478,156.45 at the District offices." My bad. It was a typo. Of course, we all understood the AMS.NET contract was for $748,156.45, as that was the amount specified in the School Board Meeting packet.

You, however, actually told me that the PCSD did not have to show me the AMS.NET contract I requested because you had no contract for $478,156.45. Remember? I pointed out to you that the presence of a typo was not sufficient reason to block public access to the contract.

You next told me that I could not review the contract because no one, other than Steve Bolman, who was away from the office at the time, had access to the contract. I told you that using the schedule of the Superintendent, arguably the busiest person in the district, was not a legal method to block public access to the contract, as this tactic was also tried back in August, 2013.  In a face-to-face conversation with Mr. Bolman on 8/15/13, Mr. Bolman admitted that he had in the office at that time the completed RF/EMF study report from RESIG, the District's insurance company, but he illegally blocked my immediate access to the study report because we was going into a meeting. Hard to believe that no one else could bring the report to me. I have all of this documented on digital recordings which have been posted on YouTube.

>>> On 8/16/13 @ 3:17 pm, [Parent] wrote to Steve Bolman and Jane Escobedo:

"This email serves as a confirmation of my 8/15/13 CPRA information request that I delivered to you personally face-to-face for the records of any actions that PCSD or the MCCV has taken between February 21, 2013, through 2013 August 16, 2013  to determine the levels of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF/EMF) in any PCSD classroom environment. Yesterday, you illegally denied access to these records. This request is for all correspondence to all parties involved in the decision to measure the RF/EMF levels in any environment in the PCSD school system, for any methodologies used and for any results (preliminary or final) for all schools. This is a complete request. I will treat any omission as an illegal act on your part. This request is an extension of an existing CPRA information that you and the PCSD has illegally ignored from 7/16/13."

Jane, I also have much of the event on 1/14/14 documented on digital recording and posted on YouTube, including your refusal to provide me immediate access to the contract and your threat to call the police on me, hardly an appropriate response to someone asking the PCSD to follow CA State law and properly provide access to public information.

I had to argue quite a bit with both you and Dave Rose for over an hour to eventually get my hands on the contract exhibits. I did not, however, receive the full contract on 1/14/14.  More violations of CA State law.

It is important to note, and Debi Winkler can corroborate, that after I received the exhibits on 1/14/14, I quietly worked on them for two hours from 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm in the district office, left on time, thanked everyone for their cooperation and went on my way without incident.

I had very similar experiences in June, 2013, when I spent five days working at the District Office reading and documenting technology invoices.

The only times I have had any incidents at the PCSD offices is when the District attempts to violate CA State law; something no one should tolerate.

My 1/28/2014 @ 1:04 email to you, Jane (quoted in full below), documents your illegal activity in how you and Mike Cole blocked access to public information on 1/28/14, preventing me from fully preparing for my comments to the School Board members during the 1/28/14 School Board meeting. I asked you for a follow up appointment:

"I am requesting that you make an appointment with me this afternoon so we can have a productive conversation on how you can provide assistance by helping to identify records and information relevant to my CPRA requests and suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access.

I quoted the following law to both you and Mr. Cole:

CA GOVT. CODE §§ 6253.1: 'the agency must provide assistance by helping to identify records and information relevant to the request and suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access.'

. . . and you neglected to respond to me for the rest of the day.

I had a series of clarifying questions for both you and Mike Cole. In the midst of asking you these questions during our brief conversations on 1/28/14, conversations which lasted only five minutes each, instead of providing assistance, you each rudely turned and walked away in the middle of our conversation.

Following the 1/28/14 school board meeting, when I asked you and Mike Cole why you both hid Mike Cole's presentation from me and my CPRA request, earlier in the day; you said that I had not asked for it. I told you that Mike's presentation was covered by my existing CPRA requests and then I informed you both that you would be sued if you did not provide full disclosure and access to all of the information relevant to my CPRA requests the following day. Do you remember that, Jane?

Finally, Jane, you have a history of quoting PCSD Policy that is not consistent with federal, state or local law. In the past, you told me that members of the public could not be on the sidewalk/public right-of-way adjacent to the school while handing out public information. I clarified with Petaluma Police that all members of the public have such a right, regardless of what the school policy might say. The important thing to note is the PCSD policies cannot contradict federal, state or local law.

In that context, I must examine your requests in your 1/29/14 letter to determine which are consistent with law and which are not.

1. "You are no longer permitted to enter the Petaluma City Schools district office."

   Unless the PCSD provides an alternate way to access public information on a timely basis, your request is not legal. How about I inspect the public information on the sidewalk/public right-of-way outside of the district office? That would seem to meet everyone's needs.

2. "You are required to submit requests for information and records in writing to [redacted email address."

  You cannot restrict my ability to communicate to whomever I wish. I have no problem including [redacted email address] in my distribution list, if that is important to anyone, but you cannot require that I communicate to no one else.

3. "You will receive follow-up information regarding your presence at board meetings and on our school sites."

  I have cleared with the Petaluma Police that it is within my rights to go to the school sites to request access to the public information properly requested of these school principals via the CPRA information requests. Let's review the maze that the PCSD is trying to construct to illegally block timely access to public information.

  - On 1/8/14 I sent the CPRA information requests to each school, not to the District Office

  - It is imperative to ensure that the public information at the school sites are not censored in anyway by the District office personnel; there is evidence that the District office personnel have already lied about and censored information in the past.

  - The PCSD stated their preference that I review the public information at the District Office. I did what the PCSD requested.

  - I was in the midst of reviewing the records at the District Office, by invitation of the Superintendent. I completed some of the work on 1/27/14 and 1/28/14, but when I returned on 1/29/14, I was told by Mr. Rose that I could no longer review the public information at the District Office. Mr. Rose told me that the District would scan the documents and email them to me.

  - Through February 2, 2014, I have not received any scanned documents from the PCSD and no communication about when I will receive them.

  - I go to the school sites to get access to the public information directly from them; they tell me to go back to the District Office.

  - . . . but I am not allowed to go the District Office.

  - Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Catch 22.

Yes. This is untenable. If you all would just cooperate, there would be no tension. And the School Board is fully aware of all of this and remains silent, which places them in violation of CA State law, as well.

Your allegations, Jane, remain just that: allegations. The PCSD is throwing up another smoke screen to block access to public information. I was reviewing the public information at the District Office because that is what the PCSD wanted me to do. Will you now please transfer the public information back to the school sites so I can review it there? I am open to any other immediate solution to this problem.

I am happy to receive any future public information via email as long as there is no delay or additional charge to me.

I hope to get immediate access to the public information requested by my CPRA requests on 2/3/14. I will follow up with you, Mr. Bolman and all of the Board members daily, until I finally get the access that is guaranteed by CA State Law. Every day you delay could result in larger fines.


2/2/14 CPRA Information Request per CAGOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
At 12:30 pm on 1/28/14, Jane Escobedo told me about some initial walk-throughs conducted by AMS.net consultants prior to the 1/14/14 School Board vote. She indicated that records of these walk-throughs exist and that she did not have the records on site. We discussed that via CA GOVT. CODE §§  6250-6276.48 that I can request that she get the records on site and that I can gain access to these records and any other information (including future scheduled dates) regarding any past and future AMS.NET walk-throughs for any wired or wireless installation on any Petaluma City School Campus for the period May 1 2013 to May 31, 2014. Again I am not asking for copies of these records, just access to them, so there is no 10-day delay allowed and no charge for my access.

Regards,



[Parent]


On 1/28/2014 @ 1:04 pm [Parent] wrote to Jane Escobedo:
> Dear Jane,
>
> It is 12:35 pm and I am still in the Oak room at the Petaluma City School District Office, reviewing the incomplete records the District has provided and identifying the missing information from my 1/8/14, 1/9/14 and 1/14/14 CPRA information requests. As Mr. Bolman has been out all day, you are second in command at the the District Office, present in the office and in charge of the technology purchases, so you are the appropriate party to assist me, a member of the public, per CA State Law.
>
> I am requesting that you make an appointment with me this afternoon so we can have a productive conversation on how you can provide assistance by helping to identify records and information relevant to my CPRA requests and suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access.
>
> I quoted the following law to both you and Mr. Cole:
>
> CA GOVT. CODE §§ 6253.1: "the agency must provide assistance by helping to identify records and information relevant to the request and suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access."
>
> At 12:10 pm today, Mr. Cole refused to provide any such assistance in violation of CA State law. In the course of discussing how the District arrived at the quantity and distribution of equipment specified in the $748,000+ AMS.net contract, Mr. Cole offered just vague and dismissive generalities. It was clear in our conversation that he is not critically thinking about whether the AMS.net consultants recommendations are appropriate for each PCSD school. He offered no information about the initial walk-throughs conducted by AMS.net consultants prior to the 1/14/14 vote. Mr. Cole refused to answer any other questions, provided no assistance and just walked away.
>
> At 12:30 pm today, you, Ms. Escobedo, provided some substantive assistance in telling me about the initial walk-throughs conducted by AMS.net consultants prior to the 1/14/14 vote. You indicated that records of these walk-throughs exist and that you did not have the records on site. We discussed that CA GOVT. CODE §§ 6253.1 compels you to get these records and provide them to the public, in response to the 1/14/14 in CPRA request sent to both you and Mr. Bolman. You agreed to get the records, but provided no timing on when you would have them.
>
> I was encouraged by this first answer and I had many other questions to ask you and was hopeful we could finally get to the bottom of this issue. Unfortunately, you then assigned this task back to the (not present) Mr. Bolman and violated CA State law by refusing any additional assistance and you just walked away, refusing to make an appointment with me.
>
> This game has to stop. CA State law requires it.
>
> Ms. Escobedo, please respond to this email, look over the questions from the 1/14/14 email quoted below my signature and provide a time when we can go over these questions in this email
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> [Parent]

>>> Start quote

1/13/14 CA Public Records Request per CA Public Records Act, GOVT. CODE §§ 6250-6276.48
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This CPRA request requires your immediate attention in order to comply with CA State Law. For this 1/13/14 CPRA request, I seek to inspect records on site and am not asking for copies, so there is no reason for any delay. Access is immediate, as afforded by CA State law. I am asking to inspect the records Tuesday morning, 1/14/14, as I am quite certain that these records are on site at the District Office:

[1] This is a CA Public Records Request for the immediate on-site inspection of the full, itemized AMS.NET contract in the amount of $748,156.45 at the District offices. No copies of this AMS.NET contract are being requested, just inspection of the records on-site at the District office.

[2] This is a CA Public Records Request for the immediate on-site inspection of all plans, records, diagrams and manufacturers' installation recommendations and installation guides and any other relevant information for the wired and wireless installations planned for each of the following schools mentioned in the AMS.net contract:

Grant Elementary
McDowell Elementary
McKinley Elementary
McNear Elementary
MCS-Cherry Valley Charter
Penngrove Elementary
Valley Vista Elementary
Petaluma Jr. High
Kenilworth Jr. High
Petaluma High
Casa Grande    High
San Antonio High

. . . for the following time periods:

    January, 2014 through July 2014
    August, 2014 through July 2015
    August, 2015 through July 2016

No copies of these installation plans are being requested, just inspection of the records on-site at the District office. Let's hope there is more detail now, since a CA Public Records Request for the same information in July, 2013 yielded nothing.

[3] This is a CA Public Records Request for all meeting agendas, meeting minutes, meeting summaries, agreements reached in meetings discussed in emails, text messages or letters for every PCSD Technology Committee meeting in 2013. No copies of these records are being requested, just inspection of the records on-site at the District office.

All PCSD employees are bound by the same CA State law: CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250, August, 2004.  I have attached the full pdf for your reference at the bottom of this email.

Quotes of just the key provisions of this law follow:

"In enacting the CPRA, the Legislature stated that access to information concerning the conduct of the public's business is a fundamental and necessary right for every person in the State. Cases interpreting the CPRA also have emphasized that its primary purpose is to give the public an opportunity to monitor the functioning of their government. The greater and more unfettered the public official's power, the greater the public's interest in monitoring the governmental action . . .

Writings held by state or local government are public records. A writing includes all forms of recorded information that currently exist or that may exist in the future.  The essence of the CPRA is to provide access to information, not merely documents and files . . .

To the extent reasonable, agencies are generally required to assist members of the public in making focused and effective requests for identifiable records."

The intent of this state law is for all PCSD employees to assist members of the public to get the information that they request. Members of the public will not always know on which artifacts (reports, email, calendar entries, text messages, hand-written notes, financial records, phone records, memories) the information they request will reside, so it puts the public at a disadvantage. Hence the need for assistance from the PCSD, as stated in CA law.

The PCSD is not a private company and is not afforded the same levels of confidentiality that a private company might enjoy. The PCSD is a branch of our local government and must conduct its business in the open -- nearly all of it in the open, except for personnel matters. All of the information that is not covered by exemptions is available for inspection by members of the public.

Please note, the CPRA says "Records may be inspected at an agency during its regular office hours. The CPRA contains no provision for a charge to be imposed in connection with the mere inspection of records." My plan is to read the documents at the District Office. I will bring my camera for the few photos that I may actually need to make.

>>> end quote

Copyright © rfemf.com 2013-2015. All rights reserved.