Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
Schools in California and beyond are transitioning away from books to computer based learning. In many cases they’re using wireless computers (iPads) to teach at least two subjects, math and language arts. This is part of a new federal curriculum called Common Core.
Meanwhile Kaiser, and the American Academy of Pediatrics advocates for screen time to be limited for kids. Kaiser states, "Health experts recommend limiting screen time to less than 2 hours a day for teens, less than 1 hour a day for children ages 3 through 12, and no screen time for children under 3."
A survey from 2010 found that kids between 8-18 spend an average of over 7 hours on technology.
How many more hours will computer based learning add?
Will kids have to do homework on computers too?
In my comments to the Sebastopol Union School District I advocate for an alternative technology plan creating a hardwired computer lab for testing and test preparation based on warnings and recommendations from medical and science experts.
Click here to read my letter to SUSD
https://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-cont...er-to-SUSD.pdf
In Sebastopol the school district is presenting their technology plan on Wednesday September 18 at 4:30 at 7611 Huntley Ave.
Sandi Maurer
www.emfsafetynetwork.org
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:
Meanwhile Kaiser, and the American Academy of Pediatrics advocates for screen time to be limited for kids. Kaiser states, "Health experts recommend limiting screen time to less than 2 hours a day for teens, less than 1 hour a day for children ages 3 through 12, and no screen time for children under 3." ...
www.emfsafetynetwork.org
there's not enough evidence about the EMF dangers posed by computers and tablets to restrict their use in education. Kaiser's comments in their recommendation to limit time have to do with the issues of obesity and exposure to violence, not to its use as a substitute medium for paper. There's no suggestion that they consider the purported risks of low-energy radiation from electronic devices a factor.
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
Here's the article from Kaiser which includes computers, cell phones, videos and TV's in what they call screen time. Also I did not include it in the letter, but Kaiser did an EMF study led by Dr., De Kun Li who found EMF increased asthma risk in children.
Limit screen time for healthier kids
A lot of kids spend more time in front of a screen than they do reading, talking with family and friends, or playing outside. It's also affecting their health.
Too much screen time is associated with:
violent behavior
poor school performance
lower reading scores
sleep pattern disturbances
being overweight
consumption of junk food
bad habits later in life (like tobacco and alcohol abuse)
Although some screen time can be educational and even encourage physical activity, it's all too easy to get sucked in. Health experts recommend limiting screen time to less than 2 hours a day for teens, less than 1 hour a day for children ages 3 through 12, and no screen time for children under 3. Help your kids find other things to do.
Tips for reducing screen time
Turn off the TV during meals, which encourages everyone to eat and talk together.
Keep computers, TVs, and video game consoles out of kids' bedrooms, and keep cell phones and iPods out of the bedroom at night.
Don't use screen time as a reward.
Designate certain days of the week as screen-free days.
What you can do instead
Exercise as a family by taking walks, riding bikes, or playing sports or active games together.
Do something active for at least 60 minutes each day.
Set up screen-free play dates.
Encourage your kids to write a story, draw, or create an art project.
If you have a toddler or preschooler
Keep your little one busy, safe, and happy when you are trying to get something done. Here are alternatives to screen time when you're preparing meals and for other occasions:
Set up a kitchen play station with a spoon and small bowl, plastic containers, or other safe household materials or toys.
Get kids 3 and older to help (set the table, tear lettuce for salad, or decorate place cards).
Engage an older sibling or neighbor to keep the kids safely amused.
Recorded books on tape or CD (often available from libraries) are a great alternative when you can't do the reading yourself.
Young children can be marvelously creative with some tape or glue and household materials, such as toilet paper tubes, cereal cartons, fabric scraps (or worn-out clothes), egg cartons, yogurt containers, and lids.
Where to get more information
American Academy of Pediatrics
Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood
Center on Media and Child Health
Reviewed by: Mark Groshek, MD, December 2011
Additional Kaiser Permanente reviewers
© Kaiser Permanente, 2013
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
there's not enough evidence about the EMF dangers posed by computers and tablets to restrict their use in education. Kaiser's comments in their recommendation to limit time have to do with the issues of obesity and exposure to violence, not to its use as a substitute medium for paper. There's no suggestion that they consider the purported risks of low-energy radiation from electronic devices a factor.
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
in the quick summary to introduce the letter to SUSD I did not include the warnings regarding wireless. Below is an excerpt from the letter.
There is also much in the letter to SUSD I did not say. For example the WHO's classification of possible carcinogen is the same category as DDT and lead. Would we be using DDT or leaded paint in schools? I also did not provide an extensive list of the possible health risks, for example the studies indicate wireless can cause stress, concentration and learning difficulties, immune system effects, DNA damage, reproductive risks and more.
In addition will families be forced to have wireless routers for homework, or not be able to attend public school because of medical conditions? iPads cannot be hardwired. For links and footnotes see https://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Letter-to-SUSD.pdf
Wireless is a Health Risk and a Possible Carcinogen
In May 2011, the World Health Organization classified wireless radiation a possible carcinogen. This classification is based on studies linking cell phone radiation to brain cancer, but it also applies to all wireless devices, including wi-fi routers and computers.
The American Academy of Environment Medicine (AAEM) in a letter to Los Angeles Unified School district (LAUSD) discusses why precaution for wireless is warranted and strongly recommends hardwiring computers in schools. AAEM writes, "There is consistent emerging science that shows people, especially children are affected by the increasing exposure to wireless radiation....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”. The AAEM states 3% of children and staff will be immediately affected 30% will have time-delayed reactions.
Apple provides warnings about health risks of iPads8 including headaches, blackouts, seizures, convulsion, eye or muscle twitching, loss of awareness, involuntary movement, or disorientation. There are consumer complaints about iPad health symptoms on the Apple support Forum.“Is it just me or someone else also feels dizzy or nausea after using iPad for a while?
"YOU ARE NOT ALONE!!! I've been getting it too...”
" I have the same problem you have... I looove the ipad but I don't think I can keep it as I get nausea and feel a bit dizzy just using it for a few minutes.”
"... just today finished series of tests...echocardiogram, brainscan, ultrasound on carotid artery,..the works...to diagnose dizziness, and even one fainting episode..since Xmas. Guess what I got for Christmas...iPad..."
Federal Safety Guidelines Don’t Protect Children
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wireless guidelines are for short term (30 minutes) thermal exposures only. There are no safety guidelines specific to children. The FCC is currently reviewing their guidelines, based on a US Government Accountability Office request.
Dr. Martha Herbert, a Harvard pediatric neurologist and neuroscientist writes,“Children are more vulnerable than adults, and children with chronic illnesses and/or neurodevelopmental disabilities are even more vulnerable... 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.”
Dr. Ted Litovitz, physicist, stated many studies are showing biological effects below the FCC thermal limit, including psychological changes, stress response, DNA damage, and affects on the immune system, heart, and blood brain barrier. According to Dr. Litovitz biological effects are seen at 75,000 times below the FCC guideline!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
there's not enough evidence about the EMF dangers posed by computers and tablets to restrict their use in education. Kaiser's comments in their recommendation to limit time have to do with the issues of obesity and exposure to violence, not to its use as a substitute medium for paper. There's no suggestion that they consider the purported risks of low-energy radiation from electronic devices a factor.
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:
in the quick summary to introduce the letter to SUSD I did not include the warnings regarding wireless. Below is an excerpt from the letter. ...
Just to clarify, the info that Sasu provided in her reply is not from Kaiser.
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Just to clarify, the info that Sasu provided in her reply is not from Kaiser.
Not to confuse your readers Barry,
But to be certain this info [posted in its entirety here] is from Kaiser's website:
Limit screen time for healthier kids
A lot of kids spend more time in front of a screen than they do reading, talking with family and friends, or playing outside. It's also affecting their health.
Too much screen time is associated with:
....
[This was posted in its entirety here, earlier in this thread. Barry]
© Kaiser Permanente, 2013
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:
Not to confuse your readers Barry, ...But to be certain this info is from Kaisers website:
I think Barry's point was (and I know my point was) there's nothing here about EMF.
There's nothing there to distinguish the use of electronics from the use of printed material, except for the implication that electronics are somehow intrinsically more compelling and thus prevent young children from other activities. The same complaints were made (and equally validly!) when printed materials, especially fiction and most especially pulp fiction and comics, became available to children.
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
My reference to Kaiser was for their recommendations on limiting screen time only. I posted LOTS of EMF info plus additional links including the WHO classification of possible carcinogen.
Is paper a possible carcinogen? No
Are lead, DDT and chloroform possible carcinogens? YES
Is EMF/wireless a possible carcinogen? YES
Here's a recent TV news on the same subject. Watch the video here: www.emfsafetynetwork.org
Sandi
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
I think Barry's point was (and I know my point was) there's nothing here about EMF.
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
Since it is so often quoted...I went to the WHO website on EMF and it says
( https://www.who.int/peh-emf/standards/en/ )
A number of national and international organizations have formulated guidelines establishing limits for occupational and residential EMF exposure. The exposure limits for EMF fields developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) - a non-governmental organization formally recognised by WHO, were developed following reviews of all the peer-reviewed scientific literature, including thermal and non-thermal effects. The standards are based on evaluations of biological effects that have been established to have health consequences. The main conclusion from the WHO reviews is that EMF exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health.
Also says:
Concerns about other so-called non-thermal effects arising from exposure to mobile phone frequencies have also been raised. These include suggestions of subtle effects on cells that could have an effect on cancer development. Effects on electrically excitable tissues that may influence the function of the brain and nervous tissue have also been hypothesized. However, the overall evidence available to date does not suggest that the use of mobile phones has any detrimental effect on human health.
From today's WHO website on EMF.... (you may return to your tin-foil hats)
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
Not sure why after over two years the WHO does not update its website, however...
Here's the WHO press release: https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/...fs/pr208_E.pdf
"Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 ‐‐ The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use...."
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
Since it is so often quoted...I went to the WHO website on EMF and it says
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:
Not sure why after over two years the WHO does not update its website, however...
Perhaps because the conclusions are unchanged....
But, even using your numbers (effects are seen at 75,000 times lower than FCC limits), and referring to WiFi in the classroom, and with these conditions:
Average distance from a router > 10 feet (~3 meters),
Average cell phone distance 1 inch (~0.03 meters)
Max cell phone power 2W
Max Wifi power 0.1 W
Makes the power density of wifi 200,000 times lower than the power density experienced by a cell phone user...
Oh yeah, homeopathic theory, I forgot... the less of something the more effect it has..
Really, the problem is kids SITTING in front of computers (as it is a problem for adults, includiing me) not the wifi:
https://www.medicaldaily.com/sitting...xercise-248119
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
Here's a link to the NIH's site, which I quote from below. It's pretty dense if you haven't studied statistics since 6th grade, but the gist is clear. Still, it's not all that long, and I include it to give context.
Quote:
Abstract
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at WHO evaluation of the carcinogenic effect of RF-EMF on humans took place during a 24-31 May 2011 meeting at Lyon in France. The Working Group consisted of 30 scientists and categorised the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phones, and from other devices that emit similar non-ionising electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), as Group 2B, i.e., a 'possible', human carcinogen. The decision on mobile phones was based mainly on the Hardell group of studies from Sweden and the IARC Interphone study. We give an overview of current epidemiological evidence for an increased risk for brain tumours including a meta-analysis of the Hardell group and Interphone results for mobile phone use. Results for cordless phones are lacking in Interphone. The meta-analysis gave for glioma in the most exposed part of the brain, the temporal lobe, odds ratio (OR)=1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.04-2.81 in the ≥10 years (>10 years in the Hardell group) latency group. Ipsilateral mobile phone use ≥1640h in total gave OR=2.29, 95% CI=1.56-3.37. The results for meningioma were OR=1.25, 95% CI=0.31-4.98 and OR=1.35, 95% CI=0.81-2.23, respectively. Regarding acoustic neuroma ipsilateral mobile phone use in the latency group ≥10 years gave OR=1.81, 95% CI=0.73-4.45. For ipsilateral cumulative use ≥1640h OR=2.55, 95% CI=1.50-4.40 was obtained. Also use of cordless phones increased the risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma in the Hardell group studies. Survival of patients with glioma was analysed in the Hardell group studies yielding in the >10 years latency period hazard ratio (HR)=1.2, 95% CI=1.002-1.5 for use of wireless phones. This increased HR was based on results for astrocytoma WHO grade IV (glioblastoma multiforme). Decreased HR was found for low-grade astrocytoma, WHO grades I-II, which might be caused by RF-EMF exposure leading to tumour-associated symptoms and earlier detection and surgery with better prognosis. Some studies show increasing incidence of brain tumours whereas other studies do not. It is concluded that one should be careful using incidence data to dismiss results in analytical epidemiology. The IARC carcinogenic classification does not seem to have had any significant impact on governments' perceptions of their responsibilities to protect public health from this widespread source of radiation.
Note they don't feel this is an urgent health issue. They are extremely careful to be very narrow in their statements - you can't lift a few words like "cordless phones increased the risk for glioma" out of here and assume they apply to the general population. There are a lot of words around it, intended to qualify phrases like that - in this case, it's followed by "in the Hardell group studies". I haven't encountered anything like you see with climate researchers, where they're concerned enough about the implication of their results that they go several steps farther, and try to alert the general public in terms they'll understand that there are dangers for everyone. Here, they're still cautious. There's not enough in this to invoke the 'precautionary principle', where something should be avoided because its risks are unknown. Trying to purge the environment of electronic devices, or even going to the extent of limiting proximity at the expense of educational benefits, isn't warranted. Sure, don't keep phones glued to your ear all day; I'm not sure what the benefit of that is supposed to be anyway. But there's no reason to deprive kids of educational practices that may benefit them for their whole lives because of a marginally plausible threat to their health.
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
IPad SAR value is higher than cell phone. Its not just the routers kids will be exposed to. There are five antennas in each iPad and thirty kids in the classroom. Factor that in.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
Technology is addictive and dangerous. Children's time using it should be limited. It should be hardwired in a lab, not in every classroom with routers on all the time.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
... there's no reason to deprive kids of educational practices that may benefit them for their whole lives because of a marginally plausible threat to their health.
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:
Technology is addictive and dangerous.
a position that I suspect influences your fears of EMF.
I'll freely admit my relative unconcern about it is influenced by the fact I think technology is a huge overall benefit to the world. That doesn't mean I don't recognize that technology can be "addictive and dangerous". So can sex, but we don't outlaw that. (Oh wait, in many case we do... never mind).
We live in the world we've got, to paraphrase the great thinker Donald Rumsfeld. Eden was great, but we left there long ago. So we have to make tradeoffs between harm and benefit all the time. It's good that some people crusade a bit against technology, because its promoters won't be as reliable about pointing out its harms. That leaves it to the rest of us to weigh the tradeoffs.
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
Really, the problem is kids SITTING in front of computers (as it is a problem for adults, includiing me) not the wifi:
a beautiful example of what we all fall into. It's way easier to get excited about things that are unusual rather than the mundane - but most people's health is far more compromised by activities and exposures they accept without thinking. For example, the particulates from campfires and barbeques probably do more damage to your lungs than the fallout from chemtrails ever will.
Re: Letter to SUSD re: technology plan for Common Core
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:
IPad SAR value is higher than cell phone. Its not just the routers kids will be exposed to. There are five antennas in each iPad and thirty kids in the classroom. Factor that in.
First, most of the concern has been about "router's in the classroom" regardless if most students have ipads, and that issue has to be seen as non-consequential from any reasonable perspective.
Second: Once again, 5 minutes with google will help to quantify the topic, which is, most Ipads are less than most Iphones, and all are within a 10ish percent of each other: https://www.sardatabase.com/apple/
Further, one would expect Iphones are used within 3 cm of the body, Ipads more like 30 cm (1 meter in my case, if I don't have my readers on), and thus at 10x distance the energy density is 100 times smaller.
So, I'm gonna have to say "bzzzzzzt, not correct, but thanks for playing 'making up scary EMF stories' "
(yes, a little snarky, but still, 5 minutes on google ain't that much effort into finding out what situation is, and r^2 math ain't all that hard).
