In a recent commentary, former state schools superintendent Nancy Grasmick concludes that "our goal should be for the education community to work hand-in-hand with businesses to deliver 'personalized' learning opportunities" ("An inextricable bond between education, business," Jan. 15).
Yet to our dismay, the relationship between business and the public schools is lauded without a single mention of the policies and ethics that must underlie such "conversations" and "bonds."
A key issue is conflict of interest in the business-educational technology relationship: How much are our school leaders allowing themselves to be influenced by corporate concerns, particularly in the field of educational technology, rather than focusing on the needs of students, teachers and schools?
Consider an example from the field of medicine, where there is wide recognition of the unwarranted influence business interests can have. Influence by pharmaceutical companies makes it more likely for a physician to prescribe a medication manufactured by those companies. Consequently, both of our state's medical schools and policy-making organizations at the state and federal level have very strict rules about such interactions.
The issue in our public schools is not that different when one considers the increasingly cozy relationship between educational technology companies and school administrations. As technology proliferates in school settings, an increasing number of companies vie to gain influence over its use.
The primary motive of business is to make a profit; the primary goal of public education is to serve the public good.
This doesn't mean that business and education cannot work together. But in contrast to Ms. Grasmick's view, the ultimate purpose of education is not to further success in the global marketplace.
Education technology is big business; with the ed-tech market totaling more than $8 billion in 2012-2013 and investors flocking to the K-12 market, according to a recent article in the Atlantic.
Ms. Grasmick argues that the use of “computers, the Internet and social media” should be at the forefront of education. Technology as a learning tool certainly has its place, but the positive and negative consequences of “using a wide array of technology to deliver academic content” have yet to be thoroughly researched, both in terms of educational and even health outcomes. The costs of such programs should also be considered. For example, Baltimore County Public Schools is spending over $270 million on tablet-style computers and personalized learning, and the district is planning to spend $40 million on classroom projectors. The opportunity costs (a concept any supporter of business should understand) here are considerable; imagine what such money could buy in terms of smaller class sizes and safer school buildings.
Within the Baltimore County Public Schools system, the STAT (Students and Teachers Accessing Tomorrow) initiative is now pressing ahead with a 1-to-1 computer environment in elementary classrooms, with a focus on online educational programs and “personalized learning” to achieve the goals of which Ms. Grasmick writes. School administrators, whose official role is to educate 110,000 children, have been participating in speaking engagements, technology tradeshows, and even advisory committees that connect them closely with the very same companies contracting with their schools. They have received awards from technology organizations backed by those same technology companies. The annual BCPS State of the Schools program is also sponsored by companies with a financial interest in selling to the system; this includes the supplier of computers for the 1-to-1 program. Are we “hand-in-hand with business to deliver ‘personalized’ learning opportunities” or have we already crossed directly into conflict of interest?
Ethical boundaries are necessary in leadership, in both education and business, to maintain both objectivity and clarity of purpose. Breaking down such essential barriers by blurring the lines between the needs of the market and the purpose of education will shortchange our children."
Advocates for healthy practices for cellphones, computers and other devices have organized “Wired Health Now 2016” April 19-21 to offset “Wi-Fi Now 2016” in Tysons Corner, Va., on the same dates.
“Wired Health” will be a cyber conference with dozens of participants not only from the U.S. but Canada, U.K., France, Germany and other countries.
BULLETIN: After accepting a press reservation for O'Dwyer's, Heidi Jepsen, chief administrator of Wi-Fi Now 2016, today said no O'Dwyer reporter will be allowed to cover the conference, cancelling the reservation.
Attempts to place health advocate speakers on the Wi-Fi conference have been rebuffed by the organizers.
Claus Hetting, CEO and chairman of Wi-Fi Now and CEO of Hetting Consulting, Arhus, Denmark, told this website that the conference “is not a forum for discussing health issues of any kind.”
Health Concerns Cited by EHS Victim
An immediate response went to Hetting from Norm Ryder of Canada, who has electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Ryder wrote:
“I understand you think health concerns about Wi-Fi are groundless and not founded in science. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject and the overwhelming weight of evidence supports the contention that low levels of radiation are harmful.
“The level of radiation is many orders of magnitude higher than historic natural levels and the radiation is different today than the natural radiation. Most man made radiation today is digital, pulsed and modulated, historically it has been none of these.
”In addition the radiation is polarized today, naturally it is not, and we are also frequently within the near and intermediate field zones of radiation where there can be spectacular peaks of radiation. Man made radiation is an entirely different beast from the minuscule natural radiation mankind has evolved with.
“As a person with EHS, I am well aware of the various illnesses and poor health experiences I and many others feel when subjected to electromagnetic radiation. The two videos below cover some of the issues of electromagnetic radiation to a greater depth
Organizers of Wired Health Now 2016 say they will seek to have an FCC commissioner speak at their conference.
Another session will explore “Why porn free Wi-Fi in America is possible and profitable." Speaking will be Donna Rice Hughes of Enough is Enough and Friendly Wi-Fi.
She has been advocating an internet that would be safer for children and families since 1994 and has appeared on more than 4,000 outlets as an expert on internet safety, child sexual exploitation, prevention, digital technology, public policy, family issues and cyber-parenting. She has testified to committees of the Senate and House orf Representatives.
Other speakers include executives of Google, Samsung, Qualcomm, Microsoft, Core Networks for Carrier Wi-Fi Everywhere, Time Warner Cable, Oracle and WiFiForward.
Oregon Candidate Focuses on Wi-Fi and Children
David Morrison, candidate for the Portland City Council, is basing his campaign on his effort to curb use of Wi-Fi in schools.
“Microwave radiation from wireless devices is a serious public health issue that should be investigated by the City Council who should then inform the public of their findings.
“The health and genetic integrity of our children should not be compromised by industry pressure and financial kickbacks. School officials may be personally liable in eventual lawsuits for physical damage caused by chronic Wi-Fi radiation exposure in schools. Telecommunications industries are no longer eligible for liability insurance.
“Oregon House Bill 3350 introduced in 2015 would require that parents, teachers and school employees be advised that the World Health Organization has determined microwave radiation from Wi-Fi and cell towers in schools is a Class 2B carcinogen.”
Zonya Marcenaro Townsend, a candidate for the Board of Education in Orange County, Calif., has said she supports removal of Wi-Fi from schools and replacement with hard wiring. She has received support from the National Assn. for Children and Safe Technology."...
"The world of parenting has changed. In 1980, parents had home phones without answering machines, televisions without remote controls, cars without screens, and maybe if they had older children they owned an Atari video game console. Today, toddlers tell parents to “google it” when they can’t answer one of their million “why” questions, there are 24-hour cable channels created just for infants and toddlers, video game systems that read your body movements, and people carry mini-computers (smartphones) in their pockets that allow them to call friends, email co-workers, search the Internet, and download age-appropriate games for their child to play on the go.
The technological boom has impacted us all, but how has it influenced parents? This was the main question behind the nationally representative survey of over 2300 parents of children under age 8. In a report titledParenting in the Age of Digital Technology, which was released on June 4, 2013 in Washington, DC, we examined the details and intricacies of parenting young children in an age in which technology and media are increasingly mobile, accessible, and constantly available.
This survey recognized that children spend substantial amounts of time with media including television, computers, and mobile devices and rather than focusing solely on child screen time, this survey sought to understand the role of the parents in creating the home media environment in which children are being raised today."...
"Will the U.S. Department of Education take action on recommendations made by scientists and medical doctors who document the need for safety precautions regarding the use of wireless devices in schools? The answer remains to be seen. On Tuesday, January 19th, the U.S. Department of Education held a Public Hearing at UCLA to gather comments for transition to the new ESSA Every Student Succeeds Act. Approximately eighty speakers from a variety of educational institutions and organizations made statements and recommendations related to the new law. Each speaker had five minutes to comment. I spoke during the afternoon session and am posting here an adapted version of the written statement submitted to the regulations page."...
"The risk with most cyberattacks is data loss. That's no laughing matter, but when you consider the rise of connected cars, the risks include serious injury or even death.
All connected devices are at risk of some kind of attack, but automobiles are far more ingrained in most societies than, say, a connected light bulb, which would likely be of interest only to the more techie-minded section of the population."
"New laws that require employers to protect their workers from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) according to minimum safety requirements of the European Union Directive 2013/35/EU (pdf) will be mandatory from 1 July 2016.
A practical guide to applying the Directive has been published by the EU to help employers understand how they need to assess the risks of EMF in their workplace.
“A practical guide has been prepared to assist employers, particularly small to medium sized enterprises, to understand what they will need to do to comply with the Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Directive (2013/35/EU)” the guide said.
All employers must refer to this Directive to make an informed assessment of the exposure levels in their workplace. They should then utilize the guide to implement the Directive and ensure their workplace complies with the minimum health and safety requirements of the legislation.
The guide is designed to advise employers on exposure risk assessment in common work situations.
“Three columns indicate situations requiring specific assessments for workers with active implants, other workers at particular risk, and all workers. This table should help the majority of employers to establish that there are no risks from EMF in their workplaces,” the guide said.
Employers must also be informed about workers that could be at more risk from EMF exposure, notably those who have medical devices or are pregnant.
“Some workers may be at particular risk from electromagnetic fields. These workers include those wearing active implanted medical devices, those wearing passive medical devices, those using body-worn medical devices, and pregnant workers,” the guide continued.
In respect of routine health surveillance the guide says:
“Routine health surveillance of workers should be carried out if required by national law or practice. However, in the absence of known risks or symptoms from exposures to electromagnetic fields below the ELVs [exposure limit values] there is no basis for regular medical examinations. Surveillance may be justified on other grounds.”
For mobile operators, the guide specifically mentions “Base station antennas, inside operator’s designated exclusion zone” as areas where workers will be at an increased risk.
The Directive also highlights the need for employers to have someone in charge of these assessments within their business.
Paul Laidler, Business Director for Machinery Safety at TUV SUD Product Service said (pdf) for EMF, this means that suitable persons should be appointed with defined responsibilities for EMF safety, with their role summarised as follows:
Completion of relevant training on EMF sources, measurement and calculation procedures.
Comprehension of and access to the current EMF Directive, guidance and standards.
Liaise with the employer/operator with regard to specific hazards for the site.
Regular risk assessments, calculation and measurement using appropriate test equipment.
Writing up of reports and records for employer/operator.
Ensure safety controls are identified and applied correctly.
Consult with other workers.
Provide training in safe operation/maintenance of EMF sources where necessary for workers/visitors.
Assist with EMF exposure incident investigations.
Accompanying the practical guide is a publication with twelve case studies of generic workplaces that show employers how to approach assessments and illustrate some of the preventive and protective measures that might be selected and implemented. There is also guide for SMEs on good practice in implementation.
The EMF Directive was agreed on in 2004, however delays occurred due to concerns raised by the medical community about potential negative impacts on the use and development of certain MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) (pdf) activities. In addition to this, wider concerns were also raised about the costs and complications of the risk assessments to employers.
In 2008 an interim Directive was adopted while the Commission and Member States tried to resolve the issues raised. This took some time, with the revised Directive, which includes a derogation for MRI, finally being agreed on 26 March 2013. The finalised Directive was published on 29 June 2013 and Member States are required to bring into force any laws, regulations and or administrative provisions needed to ensure they comply with the Directive by 1 July 2016."...
"Devra Davis PhD MPH delivered the Dean’s Lecture at Melbourne School of Engineering on November 30, 2015 entitled, "The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation: what we know, what we need to find out, and what you can do now." Speaking before the deans of the colleges of engineering medicine and law at the University of Melbourne on Monday November 30, 2015 visiting professor of medicine from the Hebrew University Hadassah Medical Center Devra Davis PhD, MPH revealed stunning new animations showing the greater exposure of the young developing brain to mobile phone radiation. Current standards for mobile devices are nearly 2 decades old, Davis told the interdisciplinary conference.
Discussing the complex policy history of mobile devices in her newly released book–Disconnect–the truth about mobile phone radiation– Davis explains that the nations of Israel, India and France–and other high tech countries–require that all devices be sold with headsets and safety information. In Belgium, it is against the law to sell or design mobile phones for children ages 7 and younger. 20 countries have enacted various precautionary policy to reduce cell phone exposure and protect public health. Secondary insurers will not insure companies against health damages from mobile phones and other wireless devices.
...
This Dean’s Lecture was presented by the Melbourne School of Engineering, in partnership with the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, the Faculty of Science and the Melbourne Networked Society Institute, at the University of Melbourne.
Children absorb more microwave radiation (MWR) than adults.
MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen.
The fetus is in greater danger than children from exposure to MWR.
The legal exposure limits have remained unchanged for decades.
Cellphone manuals warnings and the 20 cm rule for tablets/laptops violate the “normal operating position” regulation.
__________________________________
"Abstract
Computer simulation using MRI scans of children is the only possible way to determine the microwave radiation (MWR) absorbed in specific tissues in children. Children absorb more MWR than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is smaller. MWR from wireless devices has been declared a possible human carcinogen. Children are at greater risk than adults when exposed to any carcinogen. Because the average latency time between first exposure and diagnosis of a tumor can be decades, tumors induced in children may not be diagnosed until well into adulthood. The fetus is particularly vulnerable to MWR. MWR exposure can result in degeneration of the protective myelin sheath that surrounds brain neurons. MWR-emitting toys are being sold for use by young infants and toddlers. Digital dementia has been reported in school age children. A case study has shown when cellphones are placed in teenage girls’ bras multiple primary breast cancer develop beneath where the phones are placed. MWR exposure limits have remained unchanged for 19 years. All manufacturers of smartphones have warnings which describe the minimum distance at which phone must be kept away from users in order to not exceed the present legal limits for exposure to MWR. The exposure limit for laptop computers and tablets is set when devices are tested 20 cm away from the body. Belgium, France, India and other technologically sophisticated governments are passing laws and/or issuing warnings about children's use of wireless devices."
"Is your mobile phone, Wi-fi, Smart meter, or baby monitor safe? Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe highlights the health concerns regarding use of radiofrequency (Group 2b Carcinogen) communication devices in this concise summary. Aimed especially at protecting the health of children, but valuable to all, this presentation highlights the current cautions from independent scientists globally on the issue of unregulated microwave exposure from rapidly escalating use of such devices and cell towers, etc. Unprecedented revenue has blocked appropriate precaution to protect health, and all should watch this informative, factual, easily understandable explanation of the real hazards of electromagnetic technology on living systems, and how to protect health."
"Key Takeaway: Increasing numbers opting for online and blended learning schools despite evidence of poor performance."
[Selected quote]:
“Measures of school performance consistently show virtual school outcomes that lag significantly behind those of traditional brick-and-mortar schools,” said Gulosino. “While this finding did not surprise us, given past research with similar findings, we were surprised to find that blended schools tended to score similar or lower on performance measures than virtual schools.” "Nevertheless, enrollment growth has continued, assisted by vigorous advertising campaigns, corporate lobbying, and favorable legislation."
"Dr Victoria Dunckley is a Board Certified integrative child psychiatrist and author of "Reset Your Child's Brain: A Four-Week Plan to End Meltdowns, Raise Grades and Boost Social Skills by Reversing the Effects of Electronic Screen Time". She discusses the identification and management of screen-time's physiological effects on mood regulation, cognition, sleep, and behavior in children. She uses the phrase Electronic Screen Syndrome (ESS) to describe a disorder that many parents recognize but often do not know how to address. ESS and electronic addiction are on the rise in many countries. She offers an effective protocol for parents that has been successful for many of her young patients who exhibit the adverse behavioral and mood effects of too much screen time. http://www.drdunckley.com. This speech is part of a Wireless Technology and Public Health conference held Oct 10, 2015 in Mountain View, California sponsored by the Santa Clara County Medical Association Alliance Foundation."
"The telecom business and U.S. Department of Defence have had considerable influence on radiation safety exposure limits. The maximum limits are higher in Norway than in many other countries.
You cannot see, taste or smell it, but the continued increase in so-called electromagnetic frequency radiation has had a significant environmental impact on industrialised nations. New antennae pop up daily, not least in Norway, and this happens against a backdrop of wrangling between research communities and the industry about how much radiation is safe for humans.
When concerns are voiced or possible side effects reported, the Radiation Protection Agency, usually after performing surveys in the area, often produces a standardised reply: According to current internationally recommended guidelines, the exposure is within limits not proven to be harmful to humans. We trust the Radiation Protection Agency, and the international guidelines, even though most people have no idea who set them."
According to the CDC, about 15 percent of teens report they’ve considered hurting themselves over the past 12 months. Suicide rates in adolescents have tripled in the last few decades, and climbed even further during the last several years.[1] Experts speculate that bullying, and in particular cyberbullying, is a major driver behind the rise.
But while the subject of bullying has received media attention leading to more research and improved resources, another more insidious culprit lurks undetected: the ubiquitous use of screen media by adolescents at night, aka “light-at-night.”
Research linking light-at-night to adolescent depression and suicidality:
The correlation between light-at-night, depression and suicidality is not surprising. Consider the following: sleep disturbance (including irregular sleep patterns, nightmares[5] and nighttime awakenings[6]) predicts suicidality behavior [7] and suicide completion in adolescents. [8] Excessive screen-time in general is associated with depression and other psychiatric disorders,[9][10] and screen-time disturbs sleep –a major issue with adolescents. [11] Furthermore, a recent Harvard Health newsletter(link is external) discussed how light-at-night from electronics and even energy efficient lightbulbs[*] disrupts sleep rhythms and harms health, highlighting the ever-growing influence of technology on mental health.
Removing light-at-night sources is an essential intervention Light-at-night may contribute to depression and suicidal thoughts and gestures by suppressing sleep signals, elevating stress hormones, altering mood chemistry, and disrupting the body’s internal rhythms (the subject of a future post). When it comes to addressing teen depression in today’s world, conventional treatments are not enough. Electronic light-at-night devices (smartphones, laptops, iPads, tablets, televisions) are a ubiquitous and overlooked factor in depression and suicide, andtheir removal from the bedroom should be a mandatory component of any treatment plan."...
For full post and links to research/citations, click on title above or here:
“I think this is going to be one of the major issues in the next few years. Most people are not aware of this, and the people who are mostly know the old data and there’s a lot of new stuff on this that’s extremely, extremely important”. ~ Prof Martin Pall, Oslo, October 2014.
According to some governments, it is not possible for microwaves from mobile phones, WiFi, 'smart' meters, etc. to cause harm, that research in the field is inconsistent and that there is no proof that such radiation can cause health issues.
According to the eminent physicist, geneticist and cell biologist, Prof. Emeritus Martin L. Pall, they are wrong on all counts.
In this video, Pall argues that research results showing harm are not "inconsistent" as is sometimes claimed, and that the health of the public now urgently needs to be protected.
Pall's extensive research over recent decades (some of his peer-reviewed studies on this subject are listed in the final two minutes of this presentation) shows that:
• Microwaves damage humans at levels far below present radiation limits, through mechanisms at the cellular level • These biological mechanisms can - completely or partially - be behind growing "unexplained illnesses" like sudden cardiac death, ME, weakened immune system, fibromyalgia, post-traumatic stress, and increased DNA breakage, etc. • The effects can in principle affect all multicellular animals, and is proven, for example, in mussels • You need neither New Age, tendentious science or conspiracy theories to justify this.
The conclusion to be drawn from Pall's findings is that we face a new and increasingly present environmental pollutant. Some have called it the "21st century environmental bomb", with implications for the environment, human health, construction of mobile towers, computers in schools, and handling of individuals presenting with symptoms of EHS.
Martin Pall, prof. Em. at Washington State University, has an impressive body of work. His first article on EMFs and their role in VGCC activation earned a place in the "Global Medical Discovery" list of the most important articles in medicine in 2013.
The video is footage from Arne Naess seminar 18th October 2014 Oslo.
"By now, the power hogs on your smartphone and PC are well known: the display, the CPU, and the need to power up your Wi-Fi or 3G radio to send and receive data, all consume power and chip away at your battery life. But researchers have found a way to almost eliminate the power consumed by Wi-Fi, although you’ll need some new chips inside your router and your smartphone.
What researchers at the University of Washington are calling “passive Wi-Fi” slashes the power used by 802.11b transmissions to just 59 microwatts, or about 10,000 times less than a conventional Wi-Fi chip would consume. A spinoff, called Jeeva Wireless, has been formed with the intention of commercializing the so-called backscatter technology, the university said.
Here’s how it works: Imagine Wi-Fi as a flashlight of sorts, beaming data back and forth. Your router has a flashlight, pointed at your phone, and your phone has one as well. Passive Wi-Fi eliminates one of these flashlights and replaces it with a mirror. Your router still uses its existing Wi-Fi signal to send data to your mobile device; it’s just that the passive Wi-Fi technology simply reflects it back. The stream of reflected, backscattered “off” and “on” signals transmits the data at up to 802.11b speeds, or 11Mbps. Researchers say that they’ve been able to transmit this data between 30 and 100 feet, using both line-of-sight and through-wall scenarios.
Why this matters: It’s possible that this could have a significant impact on how your phone sends and receives data. Unfortunately, it will probably require new hardware, both routers and mobile devices. But there’s another scenario: passive Wi-Fi could emerge as an ultra-low-power alternative to Bluetooth, whose Low Energy derivative consumes power in the hundredths of watts, rather than the millionths of watts that passive Wi-Fi requires. That could make it an ideal solution for the Internet of Things.
The nitty-gritty
Passive Wi-Fi works on a few assumptions, one of the more important being that the analog and digital portions of the the wireless radio have become increasingly decoupled.
Passively listening for a digital signal doesn’t take much power, relatively speaking; it’s the analog broadcasting of a response signal that consumes most of it. Simply reflecting the signal eliminates the vast majority of this power.
But something has to generate the transmission power—and in this case, it’s a plugged-in device like a router. A router would require some form of a transceiver that could broadcast a wireless “tone” on a frequency that wouldn’t interfere with the existing Wi-Fi channel. The passive Wi-Fi chip could then “reflect” that tone back at the receiver. But the researchers also said that the technical process of backscattering that information at a given frequency would also bring that tone back into the frequency range used by the Wi-Fi channel—allowing the router or receiver to make sense of it all.
The problem is that a passive Wi-Fi system also means that the passive sensor can’t call for attention, or signal the router that it’s ready to transmit data. Instead, routers will have to “order” the passive Wi-Fi device to send data at a given time. That’s not a big deal, although the latency might be a bit higher than normal.
In any event, the promise of passive Wi-Fi is still a couple of years off. But it’s a possible future that looks more and more intriguing as we use our mobile devices ever more frequently.
To get content containing either thought or leadership enter:
To get content containing both thought and leadership enter:
To get content containing the expression thought leadership enter:
You can enter several keywords and you can refine them whenever you want. Our suggestion engine uses more signals but entering a few keywords here will rapidly give you great content to curate.
Your new post is loading...
