Reject ComEd Smart Meters Scheduled for June: OpEd

Reject ComEd Smart Meters Scheduled for June: OpEd

New York PTA Calls For Wi-Fi To Be Turned Off

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

New York PTA Calls For Wi-Fi To Be Turned Off: Major Wifi Controvery as School District is Served With Legal Liability Notice

In this video an Onteora School District Trustee reads the Phoenicia PTA’s Letter
where the PTA calls for the Wi-Fi to be turned OFF. 


Facts About the New York State Onteora School District Wi-Fi Debate

1. Parents initiated a dialogue on the health risks of Wireless radiation. The Board grappled with the decision to turn the Wi-Fi off while gathering data. The local Woodstock Times paper covered some of the debate. 

Listen to a Sixth grader talk about her WiFi concerns.

2. The District created a Wi-Fi Task Force

According to the Board minutes, the Task force was charged to “Review studies and determine if precautionary principle should be done for our youngest students, which is to remove Wi-Fi from the elementary building until the industry proves it is safe. Look at both sides of the research and most up-to-date research. They were to consider the health implications and pros and cons in terms of technology in 21stcentury learning and get Input from administrators and school personnel.” They were to make a recommendation to the Board. Read about it in the Onteroa meeting minutes of August 11, 2015 (page 27, point 11) here. 

Watch a video where the Board discusses the WiFi Task Force  here.
3. In March a Notice of Wi-Fi Radiation Legal  Liability Was Served to New York School District Board of Education Members
The Wi-Fi Task Force was formed to gather information. Then  it was disbanded by the Board of Education without any transparency in the process. 

Parents served the New York Onteroa School District Superintendent Victoria Mclaren and Board of Education members a notice of their liability concerning the health risks from the wi-fi installation in this New York school district on the March 15, 2016 Board of Education Meeting.

“You have been urged to hardwire all your computers in the schools.”
” Ignoring the above documented information and documented statements and proceeding with the use of WiFi routers in the schools, you are committing willful blindness and can be liable for child negligence, or possibly even “negligent endangerment of child” which carries with it criminal law repercussions if any student gets injured from the schools WiFi system and a parent decides to press charges.”

Please watch below the video where parents served the Board members with this notice  If you are wondering why we cannot see the parents, we were wondering the same thing. You can watch the full Board meeting at this link to the School District website. 


  1. Board members who voted in for keeping the Wi-Fi are now personally liable if a child is harmed by the wireless radiation exposures. 
  2. They could be  sued for “willful blindness”,”child negligence” or possibly even charged with  “reckless endangerment of a child” of which the latter carries criminal penalties.
  3. The BOE is held liable for violating  “Open Government Law,” by  misusing  “Executive Session” option designed  to  keep public  agencies court strategies private   when  litigation  is  in process. The Board apparently disbanded the Wi-Fi Task Force  and denied access of  the minutes of that meeting to the public. The BOE then stated “the efficacy  of the group”  was the reason for disbanding it. 
Concerned parents in the United States can also send   notarized  ” No-Consent to WiFi ”  letters  to their BOE. This an important step towards accountability. 

Examples of A Parents Do NOT CONSENT Letter For Schools:

Watch a video of Onteroa School Parent call for the Wi-Fi to be turned off 
in an October 27, 2015 Board Meeting. 

Mike Repacholi responds to “ICNIRP did it again…” (recommended reading!)

Mike Repacholi responds to “ICNIRP did it again…” (recommended reading!)

My comment to the below blog from Dariusz Lesczcynski:

Mike Repacholi’s response to Dariusz Lesczcynski’s blog posting on ICNIRP is clear evidence of the international influence that Dariusz’s blog is having. Repacholi does not like criticism of the creature (ICNIRP) he created in order to maintain the disingenuous paradigm that the only hazardous biological effect of radiofrequency/microwave EMR is thermal. I note that Repacholi states that “ICNIRP Main Commission members are selected for their scientific integrity, no industry conflict of interest, range of expertise to cover all scientific disciplines to review EMF research, as well as excellent and reliable scientific publications themselves.” The current commission members are here:

Repacholi’s definition of “scientific integrity” means a firm adherence to ICNIRP’s orthodoxy as well as a viewpoint that all the claimed athermal health effects of exposure are psychosomatic, a chant which ICNIRP Main Commission member Rodney Croft knows all too well. As for “no industry conflict of interest”, perhaps Repacholi hopes that if he repeats that falsehood often enough it somehow transmogrifies into being true. I have written on this false claim here and here.


Now over to Dariusz:
From Dariusz Leszczynski’s blog; Between a Rock and A Hard Place:


Following yesterday’s (April 4, 2016) publication of the blog “ICNIRP did it again…“, I received today (April 5, 2016) message from Mike Repacholi, Chairman Emeritus of ICNIRP.

With Mike’s permission I am posting his entire message with my responses and clarifications. List of persons “CC” in Mike’s message I covered, out of my own desire of preserving privacy.

Message from Mike RepacholiQuoting Michael Repacholi :

Repacholi: “Dariusz why is it that some people just don’t get it. You have been told many times that ICNIRP Main Commission members are selected for their scientific integrity, no industry conflict of interest, range of expertise to cover all scientific disciplines to review EMF research, as well as excellent and reliable scientific publications themselves.”

Leszczynski: No argument here. The members of the Main Commission of ICNIRP are experts, and so I said in the end of my post. What you describe is an ideal situation. As we well know, real life differs from the ideal. Furthermore, the only assurance of the fulfilment of these requirements is via self-policing. It has been shown in scientific studies that the self-policing does not work unless there is a possibility that some higher authority may check whether indeed all requirements are met and the self-policing works. Without such overlook, self-policing does not work, no matter what ICNIRP says. As I said in my post “…ICNIRP consensus” is not the scientific consensus…” ICNIRP’s avoidance of real scientific debate leads to problems – dissatisfied scientists and citizens go to politicians and courts. I can reverse your question and ask “why it is that ICNIRP just doesn’t get it”.


%d bloggers like this: