Monday, June 25, 2012

FIGHT THE WI-FI WOO!

FIGHT THE Wi-Fi WOO! 
Do you know what your neighbor is doing to schools?

Cash strapped Portland Public Schools is being forced to shell out over $170, 000 to fight a bogus lawsuit instigated by David Mark Morrison.

Story:http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-19350-wireless_waste.html
Contact author:cpein@wweek.com

 Morrison is part of an extreme right-wing "libertarian" conspiracy network.
Google: David Morrison Wi-fi Fraud
Google: David Morrison Chemtrails
Google: David Morrison Holocaust denial

Listed business addresses:
The Needle, 1420-A SE 37th Ave, Portland, Oregon.(Next to Buffalo Exchange)
David Morrison Books, 602 NE Prescott St, Portland, OR 97211

Help fight this frivolous suit by donating to Portland Public Schools at this link:
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/community/index.htm

No amount is too small! Fight the Wi-Fi Woo!

 




... http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/2872/woo2o.jpg

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Wi-Fi Woo-Woo


July 13th, 2011 COREY PEIN | News
 

Wi-Fi Woo-Woo

Pseudo-science strikes again in a parent’s lawsuit against Portland Public Schools.

news2_wireless_3736ILLUSTRATION: Keith Warren Greiman
36 Comments
           
Tags:
The parent of a student at Mount Tabor Middle School has sued Portland Public Schools, claiming that its use of Wi-Fi is “genotoxic, carcinogenic, neurotoxic and otherwise…harmful” to his daughter.
Yes, this is the same kind of Wi-Fi that provides wireless Internet connections in public buildings, coffee shops and homes across America.
There’s virtually no scientific basis for the belief that Wi-Fi is a health threat. But the federal civil suit against PPS is the latest expression of anxiety by a growing community of Wi-Fi-phobic and self-diagnosed “electrosensitive” individuals who believe a laundry list of physical ailments can be traced to the proliferation of consumer electronics.
Last year in Santa Fe, N.M., a man sued his neighbor over her use of an iPhone, claiming it interfered with his digestion. Earlier this year in Portland, a group of neighborhood activists monkey-wrenched Clearwire’s plans to install new towers to expand its 4G wireless Internet service, citing health concerns. Wi-Fi fears have spawned a cottage industry around the sale of protective amulets and field-disruptors.

 To many physicists, radio engineers and psychiatrists, all this is quackery. “Nobody has ever claimed, as far as I can see—a legitimate organization with legitimate credentials—that Wi-Fi was dangerous,” says Sam Churchill, a Pearl District resident whose blog, dailywireless.org, tracks the wireless industry.
In his suit filed June 17 against the Portland schools, David Morrison doesn’t want money. He just wants to publicize what he says is the threat Wi-Fi, cellphones and cell towers pose to us all. “The telecom companies know this,” Morrison says. “They will someday be sued like the tobacco companies.”
Morrison, a bookseller with no science background, says he went down the “rabbit hole” of online research after the private school where he used to send his daughter allowed a cell tower to be installed on its grounds. He later enrolled his daughter at Mount Tabor only to learn the school used Wi-Fi; he filed his suit after the school district declined to rewire its computer systems.
On June 30, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman denied Morrison’s request for an injunction barring the district’s use of Wi-Fi. PPS has yet to file a response.
A district spokesman says Morrison is the first parent to complain about the Wi-Fi.  “The majority of the evidence says there’s not adverse health impacts,” Robb Cowie says.
There’s no proof Wi-Fi makes people sick. Advocates like Morrison cite many studies that experts say are flawed by design and often are not peer-reviewed. But neither can scientists say with absolute certainty that exposure to low-level radio-frequency electromagnetic field, or RF EMF, radiation has no long-term health effects. The key, experts say, is proximity, intensity and duration of exposure. Federal Communications Commission guidelines put RF EMF exposure from cell towers and Wi-Fi routers well within the safety zone.
Still, the anti-wireless activists have been emboldened by a June decision from the World Health Organization. After reviewing a large body of research, WHO classified EMF radiation, such as that emitted by cell phones and wireless routers, as a “possible carcinogen,” like welding fumes or coffee.
But Wi-Fi signals are a long way from being a proven carcinogen as identified by the WHO—such as cigarette smoke, plutonium-239, the X-rays used at dentists’ offices and airport security checkpoints, and solar radiation (i.e., sunlight).

Monday, June 27, 2011

Declaration of Barrie Trower



Page 1 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
Shawn E. Abrell, WSBA No. 41054, Pro Hac Vice
3405 NW 31st Circle, Camas, Washington 98607
Tel.: 503.512.7712; Fax: 503.222.0693
E-Mail: shawn.e.abrell@gmail.com
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

Tyl W. Bakker, OSB No. 90200
621 SW Alder, Suite 621, Portland, Oregon 97205
Tel.: 503.244.4157; Fax: 503.220.1913
E-Mail: twbpc@pcez.com
Local Counsel for Plaintiffs

United States District Court
District of Oregon
Portland Division

Alexandra Helene Morrison, by and through
her Guardian ad litem and father,
David Mark Morrison, and
David Mark Morrison, individually,
v.
Portland Public Schools,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. Cv-739-MO
Declaration of Barrie Trower

I, Barrie Trower, under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby make the
following declaration in support of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining
Portland Public Schools’ use of WI-FI:
Page 2 – Declaration of Barrie Trower

Background

1. I trained at the Government (Ministry of Defense) microwave warfare establishment(s) early
in the 1960s covering all aspects of microwave technology, uses and health dangers. Later works
included under water bomb-disposal which incorporated microwave technology.
2. In the late 1960’s and 1970’s a part of my task was to extract confidential (hitherto secret)
information from master criminals, terrorists, and spies. This included Cold War microwave
technology.
3. My first degree is in Physics with a specialization in microwaves. My second degree is a
research degree. I have a teaching diploma in human physiology. Before retiring, I taught
advanced physics and mathematics at South Dartmoor College.
4. I am Scientific Advisor to the Radiation Research Trust and the H.E.S.E.
(Human Ecological Social Economical) Project.
5. I am the author of both Tetra Reports for the Police Federation of England and Wales and
the Public and Commercial Service Union.
6. My work is done entirely free of charge and I have never accepted money from any
person or organization in the years I have been doing this research. I consider myself absolutely
independent.
Origins
7. To my knowledge, 'microwave or radiowave sickness' was first reported in August 1932
with the symptoms of: severe tiredness, fatigue, fitful sleep, headaches, intolerability and high
susceptibility to infection. Hecht, K et al., Overloading of Towns and Cities with Radio
Transmitters (Cellular Transmitter): a hazard for the human health and a disturbance of
ecoethics, International Research Centre of Healthy Ecological Technology (IRCHET),
Berlin-Germany, at l ¶ 3 (2007). These symptoms were reported to be from athermal effects.
Page 3 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
8. By 1971, the US Naval Medical Research Institute (NMRI) referenced 2300 research
articles listing in excess of 120 illnesses attributed to radio frequency and non-ionizing microwave
radiation. Biography of Reported Biological Phenonomena ('Effect') and Clinical Manifestations
Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation, Research Report.
MF12.524.015-0004B, Report No. 2. NMRI, National Naval Medical Centre (1971). Under the
Freedom of Information Act, extracts from published US Defence Intelligence Agency Documents
confirmed the NMRI research and stated: 'If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in
enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavourable effects on industrial
output and military functions.' Defence Intelligence Agency Documents: DST - 1810S - 076-76,
ST-c5-01-169-72, DST-18105-074-76 (1972-1983).
9. In 1975, after an extensive study, the United States Defence Intelligence Agency warned
all of its personnel of the risk from low level microwaves including illnesses ranging from
microwave sickness (flu like symptoms, depression, suicidal tendencies) to cancers and
leukaemia. Biological effects of electromagnetic radiation (radiowaves and microwaves) –
Eurasian Communist Countries, Defence Intelligence Agency: DST-1810S-074-76, March
(1976).
10. During the Cold War, the Russian Embassy microwaved the United States Embassy in
Moscow with low level microwaves for many years from across the road; why and how is outside
the scope of this Declaration. After many changes of staff for multiple cancers / leukaemias and
other illnesses to both male and female employees and their children, the late
John R. Goldsmith, M.D., was invited to investigate this matter. His investigative report on this
incident showed that continuous long term low level microwaves were responsible for those
illnesses. Goldsmith, J. R., Radiofrequency Epidemiology, Environmental Health Perspectives,
Vol 105, at 1585, Supp 6, Table 8, Dec (1997). Dr. Goldsmith held 11 Professorships and was the
Page 4 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
World Health Organization (WHO) representative for Europe. Interestingly the power of the
microwaves used by the Russians in some cases was less that the power used by modern day
transmitters. Dr. Golsworthy, http://www.radiationresearch.org/goldsworthy_bio_weak_em_07.p
df; Warning on health and fertility, http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1755556/.
11. Debriefing spies during The Cold War extended my military education into the full
diversity of stealth microwave warfare and communication systems. In so doing, I learned a list of
approximately 30 pulse frequencies that could induce some 50 mental and physical ailments by
entrainment.
12. As soon as ordinary microwave transmitters became common place residents started to
complain of illnesses and cancer clusters. Independent researcher Sue Webster took data from
just 19 transmitters and found approx 92 cancers (breast, thyroid, bowel, leukaemia) the average
age of those affected was roughly 39. Health Dangers from Wireless Laptops, Sue Webster was
quoted in Canceractive’s ICON magazine in January 2003 article, http://www.canceractive.com/s
hop/product.php?productid=16157&cat=255&page=1.
13. Microwave sickness was well documented by 1997 where over 100 further research
documents were referenced. Grant, L., Microwave Sickness, Electrical Sensitivity News,
Vol I No 6, Vol 2 Nos 1-4 (1997).
14. Portland Public Schools is transmitting electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) at low levels
(2.5 GHz to 5 GHz frequency that means between 2.4 and 5.8 billion Hz). When I realized that
similar frequencies and powers that were used as weapons during the Cold War were being used
as WI-FI in schools, I decided to come out of retirement and travel around the world free of
charge and explain exactly what the problem is going to be in the future.
Page 5 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
15. HAARP was originally researched by Sister Dr. Rosalie Bertell who was concerned about
electromagnetic interference to our atmosphere. HAARP reflects electromagnetic waves off the
ionosphere and can influence any part of the air or land on this Planet. This has the potential to
cause physiological and neurological effects on humans, animals and plants.
16. The paradox of course is how can microwave radiation be used as a weapon to cause
illness or death and at the same time be used as a safe communications instrument. Therefore, I
fail to see how WI-FI can possibly be safe for the school children and teachers exposed to it. Also,
why is there a still an on-going stealth microwave warfare industry, continuing from the 1950’s.
Technology
17. The International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) classifies
microwaves as electromagnetic waves from 300 MHz to 300 GHz. ICNIRP Guidelines,
Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic
Fields (Up to 300 GHz), Health Physics April 1998, Vol 74, No 4, 522,
www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf. Therefore, everything discussed in this report is in the
microwave ‘band.’
18. Microwaves react very differently in our water-based bodies to radio waves. The
term ‘Radio Frequency’ is often used to describe microwave based communication systems. It is
important that the term ‘Radio Frequency’ is not associated with Radio Waves, but associated
with microwaves. Microwaves are the preferred medium for communication, over radiowaves,
due to their superior penetrative properties.
19. What is all this really about? Imagine the field around a magnet and imagine
ordinary everyday static electricity. If you put the force field from the magnet with the force field
from the static electricity you make a wave. This wave is called an electromagnetic wave. There
are lots of different types of electromagnetic waves but they are all made of the same two things,
magnetic and static fields. The main difference between these waves is their wavelength or the
Page 6 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
length of the wave hence the number of waves that can be produced per second, i.e. the
frequency. All electromagnetic waves are put into a table called the electromagnetic spectrum.
20. At one end of this electromagnetic spectrum you have the very short waves,
namely gamma rays and x-rays, and at the other end of the spectrum you have the very long
ways, namely TV and radio. All waves have the same properties. They can be reflected,
diffracted, and they all travel at the same speed, which is the speed of light. For interest, if you
were one wave of light you would be able to travel around the world nearly seven times every
second; that is the speed of light. The electromagnetic spectrum is ordered; starting with the
short wave end you have gamma rays, x-rays, ultra-violet, visible light, infra red, microwaves,
TV and radio being the longest, in that order. The ultra-violet and above are known as ionizing
waves and there is no argument as to the damage they can cause when entering the body. Longer
than ultraviolet is said to be non-ionizing and this is where arguments occur between scientists as
to whether damage can occur inside the human body through exposure to these waves. The
microwaves used in the WI-FI system are in the non-ionizing section of the electromagnetic
spectrum and I will be discussing the arguments concerning microwaves and health herein.
Adverse Health Effects
21. There is a plethora of extensive, well-researched documents highlighting illnesses
caused by microwave sickness around the world. These papers (in their thousands) highlight the
illnesses caused by low level (below thermal) microwaves as: arrhythmia, heart attack, cell death,
diseases of the blood, interference to bone marrow, brain tumours, DNA damage, altered calcium
level in cells, reduction in night-time melatonin, suppression of the immune system, arthritis,
rheumatism, skin problem, lymphatic diseases, vaginal discharge, vascular system disease,
tinnitus, leukaemia, childhood cancer, sleep problems, mental problems involving depression,
irritability, memory loss, difficulty in concentrating, headache, dizziness and fatigue, suicidal
tendencies, miscarriage and infertility.
Page 7 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
22. It is often argued that these illnesses are psychosomatic. For example, when
a neighbourhood sees the erection of a transmitter, any illness is instantly blamed on that
transmitter. Psychologically the mast is deemed to have caused the illnesses.
However, an argument against this are the many cases where disguised, stealth, or concealed
transmitters have been erected without local knowledge and similar illnesses still occur.
23. Before I go further, I wish to comment on the telecommunication industry’s own
research. In February 2007, I was invited to give a short presentation concerning low-level
microwave irradiation and cancer at London's Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children.
One of the other speakers present was Dr. George Carlo. Sharing the same hotel afforded me the
opportunity to engage in several conversations with Dr. Carlo during the two days we were in
London. Dr. Carlo explained how he was commissioned by the mobile industry to conduct
research on its products. His study (www.health/concerns.org) involved 200 research doctors
and 15 epidemiological studies (1993-1999), at a cost of 28.5 million US dollars. ‘Our data
showed increased risk to children, concerning tumours, genetic damage and other problems,’
explained Dr Carlo. He continued, ‘my results were suppressed by the
telecommunications industry.’
24. Further discussion of industry influence is warranted as The University of Berne,
Switzerland, published a data synthesis of 59 research studies involving possible ill health from
low level microwave irradiation. Concluding, the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine
stated: 'Studies funded exclusively by industry reported the largest number of outcomes, but were
least likely to report 0 statistically significant result. The interpretation of results * * * should
take sponsorship into account.’ Huss, A. et al., Source of Funding and Results of Studies of
Health effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of experimental Studies, (2006),
University of Berne, Finkenhubelweg II, Switzerland (egger@ispm.unibe.ch).
Page 8 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
25. Moreover, the 'Journal of Industrial Medicine' published its concern over industrial
affiliation being concealed by research scientists; suggesting biases from conflicting interests in
risk assessments cannot be evaluated properly. Hardell, L., et al., Secret Ties to Industry and
Conflicting Interests in Cancer Research, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, at l, May
(2006), [Wiley-Liss Inc.]; www.interscience.wiley.com; Dept of Oncology, University Hospital,
Orebro University, Sweden.. Examples of these problems from Sweden, the United Kingdom
and the United States are presented.
26. Notwithstanding industry’s attempts to influence research, even their own studies
continued to find adverse health effects. One example is a worldwide epidemiological study
(commissioned by T-Mobile, on its own product) that concluded, ‘On the cellular level, a
multitude of studies found the type of damage from high frequency electromagnetic fields which
is important for cancer initiation and cancer promotion.’ Mobile Telecommunications and
Health, ECOLOG Institute, Sec 7, April (2000) (mailbox@ecolog-institut.de). This document
also describes DNA damage on the same page.
27. Nearer in time, following a spate of illnesses in their surgeries, On October 9, 2002,
a group of doctors produced the Freiburger Appeal. http://omega.twoday.net/stories/555926/,
scroll down for cluster listing. Initially signed by 270 medical consultants, scientists, GPs, MPs
and physicians, it now has many thousands of Signatories worldwide. It is a warning to decision
makers concerning illnesses from low level microwaves. This appeal lists 13 severe chronic
illnesses and various disorders involving: behaviour, blood, heart, cancers, migraines, tinnitus,
susceptibility to infections and sleeplessness, all ascribed to: 'pulsed microwaves from mobile
communications technology.' Interdisziplina re Gesellschaft fur Umweltmedizin e. V.,
http://www.e-smognrw.denews/skandal/wewelsburg/HESEProject!FreiburgerAppell/Livelistende
runterschriftensammlungfurdenFreiburgerAppellArztelists.htm.
Page 9 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
28. International schools published a list of illnesses amongst staff and students with
frightening numbers of cancer clusters/illnesses. Schools and Cell Tower Antennaes,
(2003), http://members.aol.com/gotemf/emf/schools.htm; www.omega.twoday.net/stories/55592
6 (47 cancer clusters around schools).
29. Another report (School References (school and cell tower antennas)) from 138 schools
dated November 2003, lists miscarriages, brain tumours, cancers, breast cancers and teachers ill
within this report. One single school had transmitters on its roof in the Saint-Cyr-l’Ecole quarter
of France where eight cases of cancer were confirmed among children in the district.
30. The Stewart Report 2004 asks that anecdotal evidence be taken seriously in the absence
of long-term epidemiological studies, concerning illnesses around the area of mobile phone
transmitters. Such anecdotal evidence produced July 2002 refers to 92 cases of cancer around
just 19 mobile phone transmitters. Other illnesses on the same paper refer to breast cancers,
thyroid, bowel and blood problems.
31. In 2007, an international group of scientists studied 2000 peer reviews and published
research papers. They recommended an acceptable level of radiation of not more than 0.6 v/m
(outdoors) and 0.2 v/m indoors, based on the interaction between low-level microwaves and the
cellular processes. This became known as the Bioiniative Level.
32. A project called EU-Reflex or European Union Risk Evaluation of Potential
Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure using sensitive in
Vitro Methods shows that cells exposed to cell phone radiation exhibit chromosomal damage
well below the exposure guidelines of the WHO.
33. NAILA/WOLF/HUTTER/SANTINI/OBERFELD/BAMBERG etc. All show increased
cancers/illnesses from low-level microwave irradiation. A good summary of these studies, with
details, can be found on the Radiation Research Trust’s website www.radiationresearch.org.
Page 10 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
34. The International Association of Fire Fighters oppose the use of fire stations as
transmitter sites, because of the health problems of its members. International Association of
Fire Fighters, www.iaff.org/safe/content/celltower/celltowerfinal.htm.
35. The world renound winning Irish Doctors Association listed 70 research papers showing
the dangers from low level microwaves, Dr. Santini listed 20 similar studies, the
EM Radiation Research Trust listed 9 studies, Dr. Blackwell listed 6 similar studies in his report,
and finally 4 international universities completed the Spanish Study, which verified all of these
known illnesses. The authors of the Spanish study (The Microwave Syndrome-Further Aspects of
a Spanish Study 2004) recommended a level 10 million times below ICNIRP guidelines
(discussed below). Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, one of the authors of the study, is the Director of the
Public Health Office in Salzburg, Austria, which lowered its precautionary value for indoor
exposures to GSM frequencies to comply with the recommendation made by the study.
See: http://www.ideaireland.org/emrresearch.htm; Santini paper (2006): http://next-up.org/p
df/Roger_SANTINI_Scientific_arguments_to_prove_application_of_precaution_principle_mobil
_phone.pdf, Dr. Grahame - Six studies showing ill effect: http://www.starweave.com/masts/; The
Microwave Syndrome Further Aspects of a Spanish Study: http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/
en/papers/navarro_n%20045%20_p353%20-%20p358_.pdf.
36. Listing and referencing all such epidemiological studies would be too extensive and
repetitive for this article; suffice to say, by 2006, it was reported that 80 percent of the
epidemiological studies on the WHO database lists illnesses from microwave sickness to a
fourfold increase in cancers from low level microwaves. Guilmot, Jean-luc.,
WHO EMF Database, Watch - Understand - Act 26, Sept (2006), www.001be.cx. I was curious
to investigate the remaining 20 percent that showed no symptoms. However, this had already
been looked at by Swiss scientists who said ‘the interpretation of results * * * should take
Page 11 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
sponsorship into account.’ By that time, Michael Meacher, Minister for the Environment 1997-
2003 (United Kingdom), had published a report blaming some universities for accepting lucrative
contracts in favour of reporting favourable results from scientific research. In the same month,
United States Congressman Henry Waxman published a similar report in Scientific
American stating that science was being corrupted by industry. http://www.next-up.org/pdf/Ope
nLetterWHODrvanDeventer.pdf; Swiss Study on funding sources; http://www.ehponline.org/doc
s/2006/9149/abstract.html; Michael Meacher quote, http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/M
ichael+Meacher/c8afdecc-b15e-41ad-b9cf-25354790d2dc.htm, also published in The Times,
May (2004); Henry Waxmann in The Scientific American, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ar
ticleID=0000FF81-A7DD-1084-A73E83414B7F0000 (May 2004).
37. Likewise, the WHO’s Guidelines are based on the short-term effects of this radiation. No
long-term experiments have been done in terms of safety levels.
Current Regulations and Thermal Heating
38. It is a serious thing, even low levels of microwave radiation! Emphasis supplied.
39. Advancement in microwave technology since the Cold War necessitated concurrent
experimentation. Thousands of research studies exist concerning ill effects from low level,
below thermal irradiation levels, involving almost every organ in the body. Possibly the most
comprehensive explanation for this phenomenon is written by Dr. A. Goldsworthy of
Imperial College London: The biological effects of weak electromagnetic fields (2007),
http:tinyurl.com/2nfujj; also: a.goldsworthy@imperial.acuk.
40. The safety levels set by ICNIRP and the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB),
and which are followed by the United States, are the highest in the world. Being thermally based
(no account whatsoever is given to the effect of the electric and magnetic of the wave interacting
with the physiology of the body) it is very unlikely, if not impossible for any person to receive the
Page 12 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
warming of the body to exceed their safety levels if this person is not sitting right on top of the
transmitter. As an example of safety levels in units of Microwatts per cm2, the maximum levels
for 400,900 and 1,800 MHz transmitters are 2,640, 3,300 and 10,000 of these units. By contrast
Russia and China have a total maximum of 10 of these units, Toronto has a maximum of 6 and in
Salzburg, The June 2000 International Conference at Salzburg, consisting of 19 of the world's top
scientists in this field, set the level already given as 0.1 units.
41. The EU Parliament on September 4, 2008, by 522 votes to 16, stated that the 'ICNIRP
guidelines were obsolete and out of date.' Mast Action UK - Legal Services (2010).
42. By way of example, Russia is banning any children under 18 from microwave exposure,
when possible, and in Britain, children under 12 should have no microwave radiation exposure at all.
Also, as a result of research that documents the harmful effects of microwave radiation on fetuses,
the British government warned pregnant women to avoid exposure to microwave radiation.
43. NRPB and ICNIRP's safety levels are based purely on thermal effects. Looking at
scientific papers, most of the rest of the world disagrees with this assessment. Dr. Cletus Kanavy,
Chief of the Biological Effects Group of the Phillips Laboratory's Electromagnetic Effects
Division at Kirkfield Air Force Base in New Mexico, says there is a 'Large amount of data, both
animal, experimental and human clinical to support the existence of chronic non thermal effects *
* * these include behavioural, neural, fetal, blood, metabolic, endocrine and immune problems.’
44. Professor John R. Goldsmith who holds 11 Professorships, WHO Officer for Europe and
International Consultant for RF Communication, possibly the world's leading expert in this field
(now deceased), wrote in his paper The End of Innocence, 'to use the lack of significant heating
effect as evidence of lack of risk is the red herring.’
45. During September 2002 at the University of Vienna, 19 of the world's top scientists met
to discuss electromagnetic waves. This was known as the Catania Resolution. They stated 'we
Page 13 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
take exception to arguments suggesting that weak, low intensity EMF cannot interact with tissue.
There are plausible mechanistic explanations for EMF induced effects that occur below present
ICNRP guidelines and exposure recommendations by the EU.
46. A confidential note (document number DST-1810S-074-76) to its military personnel in
March 1976, states, 'personnel exposed to microwave radiation below thermal effects experience
more neurological, cardio-vascular and haemodynamic disturbances than do their unexposed
counterparts.’ This document from the United States Defence Intelligence Agency continues to
warn personnel of headache, fatigue, dizziness, menstrual disorders, sleeplessness, depression,
anxiety and so on.
47. Professor Adey, a Fellow of the American Academy of Scientists and a distinguished
visitor of the Royal Society of Medicine said 'of his own research in parallel with similar studies
in Russia in the early 1980's showed that radio frequency and the lower microwave range affected
enzyme systems that regulate growth and division of white blood cells.
48. Clearly there is experts' world opinion both military and from Universities showing that
radiation below thermal effects can impinge on our physiological functions.
49. In its 2009 report, the ICNRP writes: "Another gap in the research is children. No study
population to date has included children * * *." ICNRP, ICNRP Statement on the "Guidelines for
Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to 300
GHz.), Health Physics, Vol 97, No 3, at 257, Sept (2009). No matter the level of radiation in the
room, there is no safety level for microwave radiation for children.
50. Further, It should be noted that whilst professional bodies have noticed the effects of
pulsed microwaves on the physiology of the body, no experiments have been done to determine
the safety levels from the pulsed microwaves exhibited by all microwave communication systems,
Page 14 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
and that no safety levels exists for pulses microwave radiation. All mobile communication
systems pulse in some way.
Pulse and Modulation
51. Carrier waves may be used to carry information (video or audio data) that can be
superimposed on them by modulation.
52. Sometimes academic arguments arise where the word 'pulsing' is not used and a word like
'modulated' substituted. Theoretically, there can be very little difference between a modulated
wave and a pulsed wave.
53. Scientists argue over what constitutes a modulation or pulse. A modulation is a
superimposition of data upon a carrier wave; modulations are usually connected with an
infinitesimally thin thread of 'energy.' A pulse has no such attachment to the following pulse.
A reader may wonder why this distinction is relevant. Some scientists blame pulsed microwaves
for various biological reactions within our cellular structures, which they believe cause illness.
54. An opposing view is that these pulses are in fact modulations and will not cause such
reactions. Further arguments suggest that there is no biological difference between a frequency
modulated transmission or pulse when it comes to resonance with our cyclotronic and circadian
rhythms.
55. Transmissions may be directional or isotropic (equal in all directions), may be analogue
(continuously variable quantity e.g. spatial position) or digital (sometime called
'frequency modulated'). However, all transmissions are electromagnetically propagated. In the
world of nuclear and atomic physics, electronic switches can make tens of millions of decisions a
second and all transmissions travel at the speed of light (roughly seven times around the World
each second).
Page 15 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
56. Transmissions can be increased, by possibly up to 40 percent, with side lobe technology.
Vector mathematics can demonstrate whether any of these transmissions are incident upon
another transmitted wave such as a low frequency radio wave, as there can be a piggy-back effect
(constructive interference). It is argued (Curry, Dr. BP, Amplification of the Radiation from two
Collated Cellular System Antennas by the Ground Wave of and AM Broadcast Station, (undated),
BPCurry@MCS.com) that this amplification of electromagnetic signal can pose a health risk for
those in close proximity to a transmitter.
57. The Health Council of the Netherlands Radio Frequency Radiation Committee say in
their 200 page 1997 report, concerning frequencies of 300 Hz to 300 GHz: 'The experimental
data indicate that the effects of EM fields occur at lower power densities when the object is
exposed to pulsed electromagnetic fields.’ In other words, you will get illnesses quicker if the
microwaves are pulsed. Health Council of the Netherlands: Radiofrequency Radiation
Committee, Radiofrequente elektromagnetische velden (300 Hz – 300 GHz), at 134 (1997).
58. Professor Salford at Lund University in Sweden has shown in his work in the year 2000
that pulsing can alter the permeability of the blood/brain barrier in rats. If occurring in humans,
this could have profound effects on brain function.
59. The Freiburger Appeal (2002) signed by approximately 2,000 doctors and scientists says
‘One can no longer evade these pulsed microwaves. They heighten the risk of already present
chemical/physical influences, stress the body's immune system and can bring the body's still
functioning regulatory mechanisms to a halt. Pregnant women, children, adolescents, elderly and
sick people are especially at risk.’
60. Assimilating knowledge from the Cold War and other sources, I accumulated a plethora
of data describing how pulsed / modulated microwaves interfere with our cellular biochemistry.
Believing the communications industry to be spiralling out of control with its new innovations,
Page 16 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
I published my list on the internet (The Communications Industry is in the position where it is
spiralling out of any person's ability to control it, An open letter from Barrie Trower (undated);
http://omega.twoday.net/search?qBarry+Trower; http://www.mastsani ty.org), in the hope that the
industry would take note.
Children
61. I find Portland Public School’s decision to install WI-FI in conflict with its decision
against (see Correspondence, Patrick Wolfe, Complaint Ex. B) installing any cell mast
technology on its buildings when a classroom of computers could exceed the power from an
ordinary mobile phone transmitter. It is a common misconception that as WI-FI uses a small
transmitter, such a low dose of radiation must be harmless (see further discussion below,
¶ 75-80). As shown earlier there are now many studies showing illnesses from these transmitters,
and this is confirmed by the WHO.
62. What should be happening is you should be measuring the amount of radiation in the
room to determine if it is safe for children. However, I can tell you without looking that it is not.
Because unlike medication, where there is an adult dose and a children’s dose, there is no safety
level for microwave radiation for children, not one. My position as scientific advisor requires that
I read and translate papers from all around the world, and, I have never, ever, no matter which
country I lecture in, which paper I have read, I have never seen a single scientist brave enough to
submit for peer review a safety level of microwave radiation for a child or embryo. There is not
one that exists.
63. Children are particularly susceptible to microwaves, they do not have our immune
systems, and they are not developed. As well, their skulls are thin and their bones (which are
producing stem cells that make their immune systems and all other parts of their bodies) are soft
allowing the microwaves to penetrate very easily (Cherry (1998),
Page 17 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
http://www.emfguru.org/EMF/genotoxic/Genotoxic-EMR-paper.htm, scroll down to figure 45,
(there is research to show that stem cells, in the bone marrow can absorb microwaves)). Finally,
they act like antennas and absorb more radiation than adults because they are smaller, they are
nearer the wavelength.
64. Children are not small adults. Children are physiologically and neurologically immature;
their systems have not yet formed. Microwave radiation alters the blood brain barrier so toxins
leak into the brain, which can cause psychiatric problems amongst many other problems.
Auditory hallucinations that make people think they are hearing sounds, difficulty concentrating,
sleeplessness and irritability are among the symptoms of blood brain barrier damage. Likewise, a
child’s immune system, which fights off infection, takes 18 years to develop. Additionally 122
layers of protein insulate the electrically generated signals used by the nervous system to control
muscles and organs. These layers of protein take 22 years to develop: microwave radiation has
been shown to affect protein synthesis. This could lead to muscular dystrophy like symptoms in
later life.
65. I have always predicted that any school which allows itself to be 'bathed' in microwaves
from whatever source will see its sicknesses rise and behaviour fall. I have received many phone
calls to confirm this. In all of the schools I have visited around the world with WI-FI, every one
has reported the same symptoms in students: fatigue, headaches, nausea, chest pain, vision
problems. I argue that you could experience psychiatric problems, increase in aggression and other
bad behaviour, as well as reduced immune systems, leading to more colds, coughs, longer colds,
longer coughs, longer illnesses, depression, anxiety, thence, suicidal tendencies or taken to its
ultimate – leukaemia.
Page 18 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
66. Research suggests children and women (females have more complex hormone based
systems to be disrupted than males) exhibit more vulnerability to illnesses from irradiation than
adult males.
67. The problem with young girls is that microwave irradiation has been shown to damage the
genetic structure in their ovaries. Girls are born with all of the eggs they need in their ovaries at
birth. They are immature eggs, hence susceptible to damage during growth. Microwaves are
genotoxic (experiments can be linked to children showing low level mobile telephony radiation
disrupts the bio-chemistry of follicle cells in a mammalian egg chamber), hence the microwaves
irradiation could affect the genetic structure within the eggs. The problem here is that the
mitochondrial DNA, the genes inside the ovaries, is irreparable. If you have a little girl who
damages, through this mechanism, the genetic structure in one of her eggs and she has a daughter,
that daughter will carry that genetic problem, because it is irreparable. And her daughter will carry
that genetic problem, because it is irreparable. And every female forever, in that line, will carry that
problem in perpetuity, because it is irreparable.
68. I believe the most important research I have read is from Dr. Goldsworthy, The biological
effects of weak electromagnetic fields (2007), http:tinyurl.com/2nfuj; also, a.goldsworthy@imperi
al.ac.uk. Dr. Goldsworthy not only shows the mechanism by which microwaves disrupt cells, but
also predicts that a genetically damaged sperm and egg can lead to mutant offspring maybe
generations away. If you think of children with these transmitters near their laps, the question
must be, ‘why take this risk for the sake of a piece of cable and a plug, which could replace WI-FI
with no loss of performance?
69. The mechanics of this process is understood as permanent low level microwave
exposure induces chronic nitrosative and oxidative stress. Warnke, http://www.hese-project.org/d
e/emf/WissenschaftForschung/Warnke_Dr.%20rer.%20nat._Ulrich/20050219_VortragDrWarnke.
Page 19 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
pdf (2005) (in German, English translation in progress). It is known that chronic
nitrosative/oxidative stress damages the mitochondria, the “powerhouses” of each cell in the body.
Mitochondropathy is at the root of many of today’s chronic illnesses, such as MS, Alzheimers,
Parkinsons, Fibromyalgia Diabetes, Artherosclerosis and Obesity. Kuklinsli, http://www.kpuberlin.
de/For_Neu_Kuklinski_1_en.html (2004). Even more disturbingly, when chronic
nitrosative and oxidative stress is present, irreversible mitochondrial DNA damage will
occur sooner or later (see also Kuklinski, http://www.kpu-berlin.de/For_Neu_Kuklinski_1_en.htm
l (2004)). The mitochondrial DNA is ten times more susceptible to nitrosative / oxidative stress
than the DNA in the cell nucleus. Whilst regular cell DNA has in-built repair mechanisms,
mitochondrial DNA is irreparable due to its low histone protein content. The mitochondropathy is
therefore irreversibly transmitted to the children by the maternal egg cell causing cumulative
irreparable damage to future generations.
70. No matter the level of radiation in the room, there is no safety level for microwave radiation
for children.
Electro-sensitivity
71. The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes and describes electro-sensitivity.
Electro-sensitivity is best described rather like a food allergy that can only get worse the more
you are exposed to it.
72. In Sweden, it is published that 3.15 percent of its population is medically recognized and
registered as being handicapped from electro-sensitivity. This number is comparable in
California and it is believed Australia. However, the Irish Doctors Association believe this figure
may be as high as 15 percent.
73. Therefore, if this number were compared with the population of the Mount Tabor Middle
School, at a minimum, 20 to 90 schoolchildren (out of an approximate enrolment of 600
Page 20 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
children) are electro-sensitive and could be at a greater risk of developing neurological and
physiological illnesses. This is not to say that non electro-sensitive children could not also be
affected.
Experimentation
74. In 2008, the European Parliament wrote to its 27 countries urging them to ignore WHO
guidelines and set exposure limits at lower levels. Ries, European Parliament 2004-2009
Commission on the Environment. Public Health and Food Safety, 2008/2211/INI (translation by
www.nexyt-up.org) Editor: Frederique Ries (2008). In response, the WHO (which only began
studying microwave radiation effects on children in 2009) stated they will not comment on
microwave radiation effects on people until 2015, when it will be able to establish effects on
human beings. They are watching people to see how many will become sick. We are being
experimented upon.
The Accumulative Dose
75. Professors Sosskind, Provsnitz, Lai, and Cherry and a Russian International Medical
Commission have all warned about the cumulative effect of these microwaves.
76. Professor Sosskind and Provsnitz write, ‘an accumulated cellular level damage
mechanism is not necessarily related to the intensity but can relate to total dose.’ This is not
surprising; a property of the electromagnetic spectrum is that these waves are accumulative.
By way of example, if we go out on a cloudy day we can still get sunburned, it just takes longer.
77. In the report Mobile telephones, their base stations and health, from the
French Health General Directorate, January (2001), they warn of the cumulative exposure over
the lifetime of a child. This body concluded with an interesting sentence stating, ‘biological
effects occur at energy levels that do not cause any rise in local temperature.’ As it may be
argued that biological effects may not be hazardous, the responsibility for this decision
Page 21 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
concerning children should lay with the parents, guardians or those in loco-parentis and not the
school.
78. Based upon a review of the Mount Tablor WI-FI Floor Plan (Complaint, Ex. A),
schoolchildren will be exposed to as much as 30-40 hours per week of constant digitally encoded
pulsed WI-FI signals from each wireless device in the child’s vicinity, making the cumulative
exposure over a child’s lifetime successively higher.
79. As the amount of WI-FI radiation is accumulative, when reviewing this case, it occurred
to me, to compare the relative accumulative dose of WI-FI in the classrooms with a commonly
known device that emits the same frequencies. That device is a microwave oven. Both WI-FI
and microwave ovens operate at 2.4 GHz. An average WI-FI transmitter operates at 0.2 J/s
[0.2 Watts]. Therefore, if using only 20 computer/laptop transmitters in a classroom, there is a
combined 4 J/s [4 Watts]. A typical microwave oven (output) is 800 J/s [800 Watts] (magnetron
input equals 1,200 J/s [1,200 Watts]). Therefore, a classroom equals 4 J/s [4 Watts];
a microwave oven 800 J/s [800 Watts]. A ratio of 1:200. Therefore, if WI-FI is used in morning
and afternoon sessions, 200 seconds in a classroom (at 4 J/s [4 Watts]) equals 1 second inside
a microwave oven (at 800 J/s [800 Watts]); over a school day the equivalent of 2 minutes in
a microwave oven; 10 minutes per week.1
1 It should be noted these calculations will vary according to the following factors:
i. There can be approximately 13 mathematical variations to wave formulae;
ii. The 1/d2 rule will apply to distance;
iii. The wall transmitter and main transmitter are not included/calculated;
iv. Constructive interference patterns are not calculated;
v. WI-FI sets and transmitters in nearby classrooms are not included/calculated; and
vi. Reflective materials are unknown: i.e. wall insulation.
Ideally, a reading will be taken in a classroom with 20 or more fully operational computers and
WI-FI transmission devices next to other classrooms (below, above, adjacent, etc.) with 20 or
more fully operational transmission devices in each of those rooms.
Page 22 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
80. As a final word about accumulative dose, it must be stressed that a long-low dose can be
more dangerous than a short-high dose. By way of example, as I wrote in my published paper
(Co-written with Scientist Andrea Klein), Wireless Laptops and Their Transmitters Using
Microwaves in Schools, http://www.mastsanity.org/wifi/17/154-wireless-laptops-and-theirtransmitters-
using-microwaves-in-schools-a-report-by-barrie-trower.html, permanent low level
microwave exposure can induce chronic nitrosative/oxidative stress; hence damage to
mitochondrial DNA.
Conclusion
81. There is a simple solution, use a cable and a plug to deliver the internet, or fibre optic cable.
82. With all of this evidence pointing to mental, physical and long term disorders (cancers ~
mutant newborns), is this honestly worth the risk to our next generations for the sake of just a
few metres of wire and a plug. As shown, the dangers of low level, below thermal microwaves,
have been known to governments for 50 years. I was educated in microwave technology by the
Military (United Kingdom) in the early 1960's, and even then we were instructed of these
dangers. Nothing has changed to suddenly make microwaves safe.
83. The evidence for adverse effects of low-level microwave irradiation is currently strong and
grows stronger with each new study. Using a cabled internet system does not increase exposure.
84. I ask you, if a drink was reported in the 1950's to cause cancer, countless reports and
studies since showed this hypotheses to be correct, and the WHO printed a list of an 80 percent
likelihood of illness/cancer from drinking it, which was confirmed by international studies,
would you give this to your child to drink, knowing they have their whole lives ahead of them?
So what is the difference? It is simple. This product is backed and financed by the most
powerful industry on the planet. An industry that does not have to prove its product is safe
(unlike a drug company). You have to prove it is not! Thence take this industry to court with
Page 23 – Declaration of Barrie Trower
your list of illnesses, cancers, leukaemia’s, deaths, etc. It seems few are prepared to stand
against such a Goliath in defence of our children.
85. Within the relevant scientific community it is generally accepted that that many bioeffects
and adverse health effects occur at far lower levels of radiofrequency exposure where no
measurable heating occurs; some effects are shown to occur at several hundred thousand times
below the existing public safety limits.
86. In my opinion, Portland Public Schools’ use of WI-FI is causing and will continue to cause
Alexandra Morrison, other students, and school staff and faculty adverse health effects and should
be discontinued immediately.
Dated this ____ day of June 2011.
/s/ Barrie Trower
BARRIE TROWER
3 Flowers Meadow
Liverton
Devon, United Kingdom
TQ12 6UP

David Mark Morrison v. Portland Public Schools





 
Shawn E. Abrell, WSBA No. 41054, Pro Hac Vice
3405 NW 31st Circle, Camas, Washington 98607
Tel.: 503.512.7712; Fax: 503.222.0693
E-Mail: shawn.e.abrell@gmail.com
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

Tyl W. Bakker, OSB No. 90200
621 SW Alder, Suite 621, Portland, Oregon 97205
Tel.: 503.244.4157; Fax: 503.220.1913
E-Mail: twbpc@pcez.com
Local Counsel for Plaintiffs

United States District Court
District of Oregon
Portland Division

Alexandra Helene Morrison, by and through
her Guardian ad litem and father,
David Mark Morrison, and
David Mark Morrison, individually,

v.

Portland Public Schools,
Defendant.

Civil Action No.
Memorandum in Support of
Preliminary Injunction Motion

Alexandra Helen Morrison and David Mark Morrison offer the following Memorandum
in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction as their fundamental rights are violated by
Portland Public Schools’ policy of educating via the internet by use of WI-FI.

Page 1 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

Table of Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………...... 3
Facts………………………………………………….……….…………….………………….. 3
Argument………………………………………………………………………………………... 3
I. David and Alexandra Morrison are likely to succeed on the merits …..………… 3
(a) Alexandra Morrison has a fundamental right to life, liberty, and health .. 4
(b) Alexandra Morrison has a fundamental right to procreation ……...……. 4
(c) David Morrison has a fundamental right to the care and control of his
child’s health and continued well-being ......…………..………..……...... 4
(d) Portland Public Schools has a higher duty than even parents. …..…….... 6
(e) Portland Public policy of using WI-FI takes, limits, and burdens
Alexandra and David Morrison’s fundamental civil rights and liberties ... 7
i. Electromagnetic radiation …………………………………….. 7
ii. Children are electrical beings………………………..…………. 8
iii. Children are more vulnerable than adults……………………… 8
iv. WI-FI causes adverse health effects………………………….. 11
v. Children are captive…...……………………………………… 18
vi. WI-FI is an experiment ………………………………………. 19
vii. The mere existence of a well-known controversy violates
David Morrison’s fundamental right to the care and control
of his child’s health and continued well-being……………….. 21
viii. Claims are not preempted …………………………………… 22
(f) Application of strict scrutiny: Portland Public Schools’ policy is not
narrowly tailored to a compelling interest ..……………………….…… 26
(g) Scope of injection .…………………………………………………....... 28
II. Alexandra and David Morrison will suffer irreparable injury if the
injunction is not granted …………..……………………………………………. 28
III. Equities tip in favor of granting the injunction ..……………..………...………. 28
IV. Public interest is furthered by the injunction ..…………....……………………. 29
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………...… 30
Page 2 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

Introduction

This case will establish that a child’s fundamental rights and liberties to a life and health
free from ill health and disease, and a parent’s fundamental rights and liberties to the
care and control of his child’s health and continuing well-being are violated by
Portland Public Schools’ policy of educating via the internet by way of WI-FI and must be
permanently enjoined as it is not narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest.

Facts

After deciding against installing any cell mast technology on its buildings
(see Correspondence, Patrick Wolfe, Portland Public Schools’ Health and Safety Manager,
July 15, 2010, Abrell Dec., Ex. B), Portland Public Schools nevertheless chose to install nonionizing
pulsed radiation WI-FI routers inside their schools, ‘when a classroom of computers
could exceed the power from an ordinary mobile phone transmitter.’ Trower Dec. ¶ 61.

Argument

The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate
that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable
harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S Ct 365, 172 L Ed 249 (2008).
As seen next, Plaintiffs meet these requirements, so preliminary injunctive relief should be
granted.

I. Likelihood of success on the merits.

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because Portland Public Schools’ policy of
educating via the internet by way of WI-FI limits, burdens, and takes Alexandra and
David Morrison’s Fundamental Rights and is not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
Further, the preamble to The Bill of Rights provides:
in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory
and restrictive clauses should be added: and as extending the ground of public
confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its
institution. The Preamble to The Bill of Rights: A Transcription,
The U.S. National Archives & Records Administration, www.archives.gov (2010).

Page 3 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

Portland Public Schools’ policy fails to ensure the public confidence nor the beneficent ends of
school children, because it fails to protect them from adverse health effects and because it
interferes with parents’ rights to the care and control of their children’s health and continued
well-being.

(a) Alexandra Morrison has a fundamental right to life, liberty, and health.

In 1776, the United States Declaration of Independence declared that all men are
endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that ‘among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.’
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law.’
Children have the fundamental right to be free from communicable disease, ill health, and
death. People v. Pierson, 176 NY 201, 68 NE 243 (1903).

(b) Alexandra Morrison has a fundamental right to procreation.

The Supreme Court has legally recognized some fundamental rights not specifically
enumerated in the Constitution, including the right to procreation. The Supreme Court
established a broader view of privacy in Eisenstaedt v. Baird, 405 US 438, 454 (1972), finding
that the right to privacy belongs to the individual person, and prevents government interference
with ‘matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a
child.’

(c) David Morrison has a fundamental right to the care and control of his child’s
health and continued well-being.

Parental interest in the health and continued well-being of a child is a
Fourteenth Amendment constitutionally protected right.
In 1923, the Supreme Court of the United States first recognized family autonomy and the
right of parents to control the upbringing of their children. The Court explained,

Page 4 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

privileges long recognized at common law are essential to the orderly pursuit of
happiness by free men. [And] * * * the established doctrine is that this liberty
may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, [nor]
by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some
purpose within the competency of the State to effect. [Where] determination by
the Legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of * * * Power is not final or
conclusive but is subject to supervision by the courts. (Italics added)
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 25 (1923).
In 1925, the Supreme Court in Pierce v. Society of the Sisters, et al., 268 US 519, 10
(1925), an Oregon case, stated that ‘a child is no mere creature of the State’ and that the parent
has the high duty to care for and nurture his child that cannot be interfered with.
In 1944, the Supreme Court recognized the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside
first in the parents and that this was a private realm of family life the State cannot enter:
it is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in
the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for
obligations the State can neither supply nor hinder. And it is in recognition of this
that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the State
cannot enter. (Italics added) Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US 158, 15 (1944).
‘[T]he history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental
concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the
upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American
tradition.’ (Italics added). Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 US 20, 46 (1972).
In 1983, ‘the Court has found that the relationship of love and duty in recognized family
unit is an interest in liberty entitled to Constitutional protection * * *.’
Lehr v. Robertson, 463 US 248 (1983). In 2000, the Supreme Court held:
In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to
make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.
(Italics added) Troxel v. Granvill, 530 US 57, 66 (2000).

Page 5 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

Further in Troxel is established the precedent that a parent’s decisions are presumed to be
in the best interest of the child as ‘natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best
interests of their children.’ Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57, 87 (2000), Parham v. J.R.,
442 US 584, 602 (1979). Thus, shifting the burden to Portland Public Schools to prove it is safe,
which it cannot do.
Thus, we return to the originating case, Meyer, where interference with parental rights
with respect to the health and continued well-being of their child is a constitutionally protected
right within the upbringing of a child.

(d) Portland Public Schools has a higher duty than even parents.

Notwithstanding the high duty of parents to their children’s health and continued
well-being, Portland Public Schools has an even higher duty than parents while standing in the
stead of the parents via compulsory education. This includes providing an environment to learn,
play, develop and thrive that does not ‘expos * * * the child to * * * ill health or death.’
People v. Pierson, 176 NY 201, 68 NE 243 (1903).
Prince v. Massachusetts, is an opposite case of the ability of the State to infringe, even
revoke, rights of parental interest when the health or freedom of the child is at issue.
Further embedded in Prince is the delineation that even in pursuit of the parent’s high right to
practice freedom of religion, the right of a child is above the exercise of religion. This time the
child is protected by the State, not the parent, when that protection is from exposure to
communicable disease, or ill health. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US 158, Pp. 16 (1944),
quoting People v. Pierson, 176 NY 201, 68 NE 243 (1903).
The high duty to children’s health extends through to the State and its bodies, including
Portland Public Schools, broadly creating a doctrine that activities generally accepted as safe for
adults are not synonymous with those of children:

Page 6 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

The State’s authority over children’s activities is broader than other like actions
of adults * * * a democratic society rests, for its continuance, upon the healthy,
well rounded growth of young people into full maturity as citizens, with all that
implies. It may secure this against impeding restraints and dangers within a broad
range of selection. (Italics added) Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US 158, at 16
(1944).
Portland Public Schools has the high duty to protect its schoolchildren from genotoxins
(see Carpenter ¶ 8; Trower ¶ 67), carcinogens, and neurotoxins (see Carpenter Dec. ¶ 12) such as
WI-FI.

(e) Portland Public School’s policy takes, limits, and burdens Alexandra and
David Morrison’s fundamental rights.

i. Electro-magnetic radiation.

At one end of the electromagnetic spectrum you have the very short waves, namely
gamma rays and x-rays, and at the other end of the spectrum you have the very long ways,
namely radio, TV and waves from overhead power cables. All of these waves have the same
properties, in that they all behave the same. They can all be reflected, refracted, absorbed by the
human body, and they all travel at the same speed, which is the speed of light.
The electromagnetic spectrum is ordered so that at the short wave end you have the gamma rays,
x-rays, ultra-violet, visible light, infra red, microwaves, radar, TV and radio in that order.
Trower Dec. ¶ 20 (para.).
The ultra-violet and above are known as ionizing waves and there is no argument as to
the damage they can cause when entering the body. Below ultraviolet is said to be non-ionizing
and this is where arguments occur between scientists as to whether damage can occur inside the
human body through exposure to these waves. The microwaves used in Portland Public Schools’
WI-FI system are in the non-ionizing section of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Trower Dec. ¶ 20 (para.).
The digital wireless signals in used in WI-FI are pulsed, ultra high frequency signals,
emitted in bursts, at regular intervals, in very rapid succession. Imposed on these pulsed, ultra high
frequency microwaves are extremely low frequency (ELF) modulations of the radio frequency (RF)

Page 7 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

carrier waves. Carrier waves transport data and are also referred to as information carrying radio
waves (ICRW). This man-made and very complex radio frequency electromagnetic radiation
product cannot be compared to the naturally occurring and biologically compatible radiation of our
environment where electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) are billions of times higher than EMF
levels from which all life evolved. Bennett Dec. ¶ 15 (para.); see also H.E.S.E., Electromagnetic
fields from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation: discussion, http://www.hese-project.org/heseuk/
en/niemr/index.php (‘Electromagnetic fields (EMF) from man-made NIEMR [non-ionizing
electromagnetic radiation] are phenomenally in excess of that in the natural environment; it may be
called ‘low level’ but it is perhaps 1013 higher than nature.’).

ii. Children are electrical beings.

Children, teachers, and staff are very precise, as well as intricate, electrical beings that
operate at 7.8 Hz and 25 to 100 mV. Bennett Dec. ¶ 9(c). Portland Public Schools WI-FI
installation, which is a 2.5 GHz to 5 GHz frequency or between 2.4 and 5.8 billion Hz.
See, Bennett Dec. ¶ 10; Trower Dec. ¶ 14.
Children at the Mount Tabor Middle School are subject to multiple WI-FI transmitters and
rooms full of students transmitting numerous laptop or other wireless signals.
See Mount Tabor Middle School WI-FI Floor Plan, Complaint, Ex. A; Bennett Dec. ¶ 11;
Trower ¶ 78. Each child has different DNA, hydration, toxicity, nutrition, lifestyle, etc., with the
point being every one of them is a different electrical device in the WI-FI application.
Bennett Dec. ¶ 12. WI-FI is interacting with each of them differently and as it goes through
walls, it is going through these children, as well as teachers and staff. Id.
EMFs will interact differently with all material depending on that material's emissivity.
Emissivity is a materials ability to absorb or emit wavelengths of radiation. The more absorbent
the material, the higher the emissivity. Reflective materials will reflect the EMF radiation and it
may hit absorbent material with the reflected angle. The children, and other absorbent material
will be interacting with the frequencies. The EMFs are ultimately absorbed by children’s body
tissue, which is one of several substances that absorbs the radiation. Bennett Dec. ¶ 12. (para).

Page 8 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

iii. Children are more vulnerable than adults.

Children are not small adults. Trower Dec. ¶ 64. It is commonly established that
pregnant women and children are afforded special regard with respect to their special sensitivities
to unknown actors/agents upon their health. Title 45, Public Welfare, Subtitle A,
Department of Health and Human Resources, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects.
Children, by Interior Department definition, are not considered part of the general population and
are routinely afforded special consideration because of their unique health vulnerabilities
(i.e., rapidly developing bodies). Title 45, part 46, Subpart D, Additional Protections for
Children Involved As Subjects for Research.
The Presidential Cancer Panel found that children ‘are at special risk due to their smaller
body mass and rapid physical development, both of which magnify their vulnerability to known
carcinogens, including radiation.’ Carpenter Dec. ¶ 15.
Children are more vulnerable to RF fields because of the susceptibility of their developing
nervous systems. Carpenter Dec. ¶ 15; see also Trower Dec. ¶ 64. Growth and development of the
central nervous system is still occurring well into the teenage years so that neurological changes
may be of great importance to normal development, cognition, learning, and behavior.
Carpenter Dec. ¶ 17. Likewise, a child’s immune system, which fights off damage, takes 18 years
to develop. Trower Dec. ¶ 64.
Children are more vulnerable to microwaves because they do not have our immune
systems, they are not developed; their skulls are thin and their bones are soft
allowing the microwaves to penetrate very easily; and, they act like antennas and absorb more
radiation than adults because they are smaller, they are nearer the wavelength.
See Trower Dec. ¶ 63. The following shows how the thickness of a child’s skull allows
electromagnectic radiation (from a cell phone) to penetrate far deeper than adults.

Page 9 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

Estimation on the absorption of electromagnetic radiation from a cell phone based
on age (Frequency GSM 900 MHz) (Color scale shows the Specific Absorption
Rate in W/kg). Children’s heads and brains are not miniature adult heads.
Their skulls are thinner, the proportion of water is higher, myelin (thought to
be like wire insulation for neurons) is still developing, etc. As a result, * * *
radiation from a cell phone or PDA penetrates a far larger proportion of the
brain. Gandhi et al., IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques
(1996). Quoted from Morgan et al., Cellphones and Brain Tumors –
15 Reasons for Concern, at 25 (2009).
The problem with young girls is that microwaves can damage the genetic structure in their
ovaries. Girls are born with all of the eggs they need in their ovaries at birth. Because microwaves
are genotoxic (some experiments that can be linked to children found low level mobile telephony
radiation disrupts the bio-chemistry of follicle cells in a mammalian egg chamber), there is a
possibility that the microwaves can affect the genetic structure within the eggs. The problem here
is that the mitochondrial DNA, the genes inside the ovaries, is irreparable. So if you have a little
girl who damages, through this mechanism, the genetic structure in one of her eggs and she has a
daughter, that daughter will carry that genetic problem, because it is irreparable. And her daughter
will carry that genetic problem, and every female forever, in that line, will carry that problem in
perpetuity, because it is irreparable. Trower ¶ 67 (para.).
The exposure of children to RF has not been studied extensively, although one study from
Sweden reports that regular use of a cell phone by children increases risk of development of brain
cancer by a factor five times greater than that observed in adults. Carpenter Dec. ¶ 16.

Page 10 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

i. WI-FI causes adverse health effects.

Like second-hand smoke, EMF is a complex mixture, where different frequencies,
intensities, durations of exposure(s), modulation, waveform and other factors are known to
produce variable effects. Carpenter Dec. ¶ 12. Many years of scientific study has produced
substantial evidence that EMF may be considered both carcinogenic and neurotoxic. Id.
Guterman J., Wrapped Microstrip Antennas for Laptops, IEEE Antennas and
Propagation Magazine, Vol 51, No 4, at 35, August 2009; available at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5338680 (‘the entire
laptop’s structure participates in the radiation mechanism, and the human being
belongs to the near-field zone of such a defined antenna-plus-laptop radiator. * * *
In all the analyzed scenarios * * * , the human tissue partially reflected and
partially absorbed the incident electromagnetic waves.’)
As seen in the foregoing, a laptop transmitting radiofrequencies causes a heating effect on
the user. As well, a variety of bioeffects and adverse health effects occur at energy levels that do
not cause any measurable rise in local temperature. Carpenter Dec. ¶ 7; Trower Dec. ¶ 85.

Page 11 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

Adverse health effects from this long-term low level electromagnetic radiation include:
arrhythmia, heart attack, cell death, diseases of the blood, interference to bone marrow,
brain tumors, altered calcium level in cells, reduction in night-time melatonin, suppression of the
immune system, arthritis, rheumatism, skin problem, lymphatic diseases, vaginal discharge,
vascular system disease, tinnitus, leukemia, childhood cancer, sleep problems, mental problems
involving depression, irritability, memory loss, difficulty in concentrating, headache,
dizziness and fatigue, suicidal tendencies, miscarriage and infertility. Trower Dec. ¶ 21.
Other health endpoints that have been reported to be associated with ELF and/or RF
include childhood leukemia, adult brain tumors, childhood brain tumors, genotoxic effects
(DNA damage and micronucleation), neurological effects and neurodegenerative disease
(like ALS and Alzheimer's), immune system disregulation, allergic and inflammatory responses,
breast cancer in men and women, miscarriage and some cardiovascular effects.
Carpenter Dec. ¶ 8.
There is suggestive to strongly suggestive evidence that RF exposures may cause changes
in cell membrane function, cell communication, metabolism, activation of proto-oncogenes and
can trigger the production of stress proteins at exposure levels below current regulatory limits.
Carpenter Dec. ¶ 10. Resulting effects can include DNA breaks and chromosome aberrations,
cell death including death of brain neurons, increased free radical production, activation of the
endogenous opioid system, cell stress and premature aging, changes in brain function including
memory loss, retarded learning, performance impairment in children, headaches and fatigue,
sleep disorders, neurodegenerative conditions, changes in immune function (allergic and
inflammatory responses), reduction in melatonin secretion and cancers. Id.
The Seletun Panel (February, 2011), consisting of international scientists and experts,
including Lloyd Morgan, recommends wired internet access in schools, and
strongly recommends that schools do not install wireless internet connections that create
pervasive and prolonged EMF exposures for children. http://www.sagereports.com/smart-meterPage

12 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

rf/docs/Fragopoulou_et_al_2010b.pdf. The Panel was led by Professor Olle Johansson, Ph.D.
(Associate Professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience,
Karolinska Institute, Stockhom, Sweden) who submitted an open letter to Canada’s Greater
Victoria School District stating further explaining his concern that, ‘WI-FI routers can not be
regarded as safe in schools, but must be deemed highly hazardous and unsafe for the children as
well as for the staff.’ See http://www.heartmdinstitute.com/wireless-safety/why-get-wiredschools.
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA 2011; 305(8);
808-813; available at http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/8/808), a United States Government
funded team of researchers led by the director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse,
Psychiatrist Nora D. Volkow, unsettled many people this year (February, 2011) when it reported
that using a cell phone could alter brain activity, and do so at non-thermal levels of microwave
radiation, levels which have long been argued by industry and regulatory bodies that they do not
have enough intensity to create biological effects. The study reported two important findings.
First, exposed radiation from a cell phone for 50 minutes increased significantly affected brain
function and metabolism of glucose, the brain’s main fuel. Second, a significant linear
correlation was observed between enhanced neural metabolic rate and the estimated rate of
radiofrequency energy absorption expected in brain regions. The results point to the conclusion
that cell phones [and similar devices such as WI-FI] are affecting brain function, and specific
effects may depend on the regions of the brain affected. See, Editorial by Henry Lai, Ph.D., and
Lennart Hardell, M.D., Ph.D., Id. Dr. Ronal B. Herberman, M.D., chair of the
Environmental Health Trust’s Board and renowned cancer biologist and physician, indicated that
‘even short-term exposure to nerve cells from cell phones can increase glucose in the brain.’
Press Release: Environmental Health Trust Experts Warn That Cell Phone Radiation Excites the

Page 13 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

Brain of Healthy Adults, http://www.environmentalhealthtrust.org/content/press-release-environ
mental-health-trust-experts-warn-cell-phone-radiation-excites-brain-hea. Dr. Heberman further
noted, this results in adverse health effects because, ‘increased glucose also occurs with
infections and other inflammatory processes, and leads to the production of potentially damaging
reactive oxygen radicals that can alter the ways that cells and genes work.’
New research from China, by Duan Y, et al., Correlation between cellular phone use and
epithelial parotid gland malignancies, Int J Oral Maxofacial Surgery (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2011.03.007, www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/parotidas_cancer_estudio_chino.pdf,
showed a dose-response relationship between cell phone use and parotid gland tumors, and as
much as a 3,000 percent increased risk of parotid gland tumors with greater than 2.5 hours of cell
phone use per day. According to Lloyd Morgan, ‘The magnitude of the risk of parotid gland
tumors found in the Duan Y, et al. study on the risk of parotid gland cancer from cellphone use
were of the same magnitude as the risk of lung cancer from smoking.’ Morgan ¶ 11.
In April 2011, the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(RNCNIRP) found:
Prevention childhood and juvenile diseases from exposure to EMF sources is of
paramount social and economic importance. * * * This problem has been already
recognized by the international community: in May 2011, the
World Health Organization (WHO) will be organizing the
Second International Conference: “Non-ionizing Radiation and Children’s Health”
dedicated to health protection of children exposed to EMF sources of various
frequency ranges. It is the WHO’s opinion that a “child is more vulnerable to
environmental factors.” * * *
Human brain and the nervous system tissues directly perceive EMF
and react irrespective of its intensity, and in certain cases it depends on EMF
modulation. * * * Analysis of scientific peer-reviewed national and international
publications as well as analysis of actual population exposure to EMF have allowed
the RNCNIRP to formulate 10 postulates. * * *
1. For the first time in human evolution, the brain is daily exposed to modulated
EMF at all developmental stages.

Page 14 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

2. Absorption of EMF in a child’s brain is greater than in adult phone users; larger
brain areas including those responsible for intellectual development are exposed in a
child’s brain.
3. A child’s brain is undergoing development and its intellectual development are
exposed in a child’s brain. * * *
5. A child, due to its perception features, is unable to recognize the mobile phone as
the source of harmful EMF exposure. * * *
9. The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) used for declaration of a mobile phone
safety, equal to 2 W/kg averaged over ten grams of brain tissue, in the opinion of the
RNCNIRP, cannot be viewed as sufficiently scientifically grounded in this case, and
its use does not guarantee protection of children and juvenile health.
10. Global changes in the electromagnetic background caused by the development
of modern mobile technologies, is an evolutionary factor requiring adaptation of
children and adolescents to this harmful environmental factor. * * *
It is reasonable to set limits on mobile telecommunications use by children and
adolescents, including ban on all types of advertisement of mobile
telecommunications for children (teenagers) and with their participation. * * *
Better safety criteria for children and teenagers are required in the nearest term.
Features of the developing organism should be taken into account, as well as the
significance of bioelectric process for human life and activities, present and future
conditions of EMF, prospects of technological and technical development should be
addressed in a document of legal status. (Italics added). RNCNIRP,
Electromagnetic Fields From Mobile Phones: Health Effects on Children and
Teenagers, (Italics added) April 2011, www.scribd.com/doc/55420788/Electromagn
etic-Fields-from-Mobile-Phones-Health-Effect-on-Children-and-Teenagers.
On May 6, 2011, the European Parliament was presented with a report recommending that
wireless networks and mobile phones be totally banned from schools on health grounds.
Council of Europe, The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the
environment, Parliamentary Assembly, Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and
Regional Affairs, assembly.coe.int/documents/workingdocs/doc11/edoc12608.pdf. It highlights
that young people are most at risk. Id at 2. It requires that we take all reasonable measures to
reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields on ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ (ALARA) (Id.)
principles, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to

Page 15 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

children and young people who seem to be at most long-term risk from head tumors. It asked
education and health authorities to develop information campaigns ‘aimed at teachers, parents and
children to alert them to the specific risks of early, ill-considered and prolonged use of mobiles and
other devices emitting microwaves.’ Id at 3. Also, that Governments ‘ban all mobile phones,
DECT phones or WI-FI or WLAN systems from classrooms and schools, as advocated by some
regional authorities, medical associations and civil society organizations.’ (Italics added) Id.
On May 31, 2011, an international panel of World Health Organization experts found that
cell phones may cause cancer. A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United
States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. World Health
Organization, IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to
Humans, International Agency for Research on Cancer, www.iarc.fr/en/mediacentre/
pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf, May 31, 2011. The team found enough evidence to categorize
personal exposure as ‘possibly carcinogenic,’1 a finding that differs from the WHO’s earlier
conclusion that there were no cancer risks. The rating is the third highest, falling below
‘carcinogenic’ (including cigarettes), and ‘possibly carcinogenic.’ See, Agents Classified by the
IARC Monographs, Volumes 1-100, monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsAlphaO
rder.pdf. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same ‘carcinogenic hazard’ category as
lead, the pesticide DDT, engine exhaust, creosote, and chloroform. Id. What they found was
evidence of increase in glioma, a rare but often deadly form of brain tumor, and acoustic neuroma
1‘Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in human
and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used
when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence
of carcinoenicity in experimental animals. * * * An agent may be classified in this category
solely on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data.’
World Health Organization, IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly
Carcinogenic to Humans, International Agency for Research on Cancer, at 5,
www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf, May 31, 2011.

Page 16 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

brain cancer for mobile phone users. See World Health Organization, IARC Classifies
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans, International Agency
for Research on Cancer, at 2, www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf,
May 31, 2011.
On the same day of the IARC’s reclassification, the Supreme Court asked the United States
Solicitor General to file a brief on whether the Supreme Court should review the Third Circuit’s
dismissal of class action (holding it was preempted by federal law) brought by mobile device users
who accused several companies in the cellphone market of conspiring to market cellphones without
adequate warnings or headsets. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courorders/053111zor.pdf; see also
Farina v. Nokia discussion below; see also, http://www.abajournal.com/news/articl/supreme court
seeks us vies on cell phone suit as who announces cancer dan/. At issue in the Supreme Court case
is whether the state law claims are pre-empted because they frustrate federal regulations. The
Supreme Court’s action speaks for itself given the Third Circuit’s dismissal.
The Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology
recently conducted research that concluded, ‘A considerable body of evidence proves,
beyond reasonable doubt, that microwave radiation from mobile phones and cordless phones
cause a significantly increased risk for brain tumours. * * * In addition, increasing evidence is
indicating that it causes disturbed brain function, damage to the genes and other disturbances.’
(Italics added) www.psrast.org/mobileng/mobilstarteng.htm, June 4, 2011.
In summary, many bioeffects and adverse health effects occur at far lower levels of
radiofrequency exposure where no measured heating occurs. Bennett Dec. ¶ 15;
Carpenter Dec. ¶ 21; Morgan Dec. ¶ 10; Trower Dec. ¶ 85. Because Portland Public Schools’ use
of WI-FI is causing and will continue to cause Alexandra Morrison (and other students, and school
faculty and staff) adverse health effects, it burdens, limits, and takes of her and her father’s

Page 17 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

fundamental rights and should be discontinued immediately. See, Bennett Dec. ¶ 16,
Carpenter Dec. ¶ 22; Morgan Dec. ¶ 13; Trower Dec. ¶86.
ii. Children are captive.
When WI-FI is installed in a school, children and their parents have no choice but to allow
the school to expose themselves/their children, their exposure is involuntary.
See Carpenter Dec. ¶ 17-18.
Further in Meyer, is enumerated conditions under which is the power of the State to
‘compel’ attendance. This power, however, is limited by ‘matters * * * within the present
controversy’ (Meyers at 24) that are indicative of an ‘emergency’ with respect to protection of
a child’s health. Meyers at 25. Because there is, at a minimum, a well-known controversy,
a parent’s normative experience and knowledge is sufficient to suborn the State’s limitation,
which underpins a standard of actions that affect the child under its statutory authority that must
‘not [be] injurious to the health * * * of the ordinary child.’ (Italics added)
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 24-25 (1923).
Based upon are review of the Mount Tabor WI-FI Floor Plan, a given child is subject to
signals from multiple WI-FI transmitters and rooms full of students transmitting numerous laptop
or other wireless signals. Bennett Dec. ¶ 11; Carpenter Dec. ¶ 18. Under this compulsion, children
attending Portland Public Schools will be exposed to as much as 30-40 hours per week of constant
digitally encoded pulsed WI-FI signals from each wireless device in the child’s vicinity
(Carpenter Dec. ¶ 18), making the cumulative exposure over a child’s lifetime successively
higher. Trower Dec. ¶ 78. There is a major difference between an exposure that an individual
chooses to accept and one that is forced on an individual who can do nothing about it, especially a
child. Carpenter Dec. ¶ 18.
Because her exposure to WI-FI is compulsory and involuntary, Alexandra Morrison’s
fundamental right of liberty is violated.

Page 18 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion
iii. WI-FI is an experiment.

WI-FI is an experiment by the United States and the WHO in violation of domestic and
international law.
In 2008, the European Parliament wrote to its 27 countries urging them to ignore WHO
guidelines and set exposure limits at lower levels. Ries, European Parliament 2004-2009
Commission on the Environment. Public Health and Food Safety, 2008/2211/INI (translation by
www.nexyt-up.org), Editor: Frederique Ries (2008). In response, the WHO (which only began
studying microwave radiation effects on children in 2009) stated they will not comment on
microwave radiation effects on people until 2015, when it will be able to establish effects on
human beings. ‘They are watching people to see how many will become sick. We are being
experimented upon.’ Trower Dec. ¶ 74.
According to the underlying premise defined in the ten points of the Nuremberg Code,
WI-FI is an experiment. The Nuremberg Code provides:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that
the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent * * * before the
acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be
made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method
and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards
reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may
possibly come from his participation in the experiment.’ http//ohsr.od.nih.gov/guid
elines/Nuremberg.html (Reprinted from Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremb
erg Military Tribunals Under Control Council, Law No10, Vol 2, at 181-182, ¶ 1,
Washington D.C.; U.S. Gov. Printing Office (1949).
No experiment should be conducted where there is a priori reason to believe that
death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the
experimental physicians also serve as subjects. Id. ¶ 2
During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring
the experiment to an end * * *. Id. ¶ 9.
Because Alexandra and David Morrison have not provided consent nor are they at liberty
to bring the experiment to an end, the WHO’s experiment is in violation of international law.

Page 19 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

Although the legal force of the document is not established in American jurisprudence, the
Nuremberg Code and the related Declaration of Helsinki are the basis for the
Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Part 46.
Institutions, both private and State, are subject to regulation of
Health and Human Services (HHS) under Federal Code of Regulations, Title 45,
The Public Welfare, Part 46, Subpart A, sec. 46.101(a). Regulatory compliance under HHS
defines ‘research on human subjects’ when undertaken by institutions, public or private, under
HHS, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, The Public Welfare, Part 46, Subpart A, sec 46.103.
Institutions, both private and Federal, are subject to definitions of actions deemed ‘research,’
under Title 45, The Public Welfare, Subpart A, 46.102(d), where,
Research means a systematic investigation, including * * * evaluation, designed
to * * * contribute to generalizable knowledge. Activities which meet this
definition constitute research for purposes of this policy, whether or not they are
conducted or supported under a program which is considered research for other
purposes.
The National Toxicology Program (NTP), headquartered at the
National Institute of Health (NIH), Health and Human Services (HHS), states the need for
evaluation and for the research contributive to generalizable knowledge about WI-FI, where
The weight of scientific evidence [is not conclusive]. The NTP is conducting
studies on RF radiation in three phases * * * [on young, old, pregnant female, and
non-human test subjects] * * * with anticipated completion in 2012 * * * and will
provide critical information regarding safety of exposure * * *.
NIH, NTP announcement at NIH.gov (2010).
‘Research’ undertaken without the intention of involving human subjects, but is later
proposed to involve human subjects in the research, provides that the human subject research
shall first be reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board under sec. 46.119.
Additional Protections for Children are required under statutory definitions in
HHS, Title 45, The Public Welfare, Subpart D, titled Additional Protections for Children,
46.401-4, providing definitions and protections for children involved in research on the topic not

Page 20 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

to involve greater than minimal risk, and specifically, but not limited to 46.408(c), requiring
appropriate mechanisms for HHS regulatory compliance consistent with the mitigation of risk to
subjects and considering their age, maturity, condition, etc., requiring said research to be of
reasonable experiences inherent to actual and normative educative settings.
Because WI-FI is an ongoing experiment by the National Toxicology Program, and, upon
information and belief, such research on children has not been approved by the
Institutional Review Board nor has any consideration been given to the children’s age or any
attempt to mitigate the risks of this research, it is in violation of Title 45, The Public Welfare,
Part 46, Subparts A and D.
WI-FI is illegal and should be removed from Portland Public Schools.

iv. The mere existence of a well-known controversy violates

David Morrison’s fundamental right to the care and control of his
child’s health and continued well-being.

If the Court finds WI-FI is violative of Alexandra Morrison’s fundamental rights,
David Morrison’s fundamental rights are necessarily violated. However, even if the Court does
not find a violation of Alexandra Morrison’s rights, the mere existence of a well-known
controversy regarding WI-FI safety violates David Morrison’s fundamental parental right to the
care and control of his child’s health and continued well-being. Further, judicial notice
establishes that a well-known controversy exists that any well-informed person can know about,
In sum, if, as the GAO report says, the print and the broadcast media had given
widespread attention to the debate over safety, the manufacturers have included
with their products the FDA update discussing concerns over it, a book had been
published about cell phone safety, and lawsuits had been filed, a jury would be
compelled to find that a reasonably well-informed consumer * * * would have
learned about the [safety] debate. Sarah Dahlgren v. Audiovoxx Corporation,
et. al., trial court opinion at 62-63 (2010), www.sheller.com/uploads/dahlgren_dec
ision.pdf.
The well-known health controversy about the safety of cell phone use and the chronic
exposure to RF irradiation has increased dramatically since Dahlgren.

Page 21 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

State and Federal actions taken under State authority under the compulsory laws requiring
a child to attend school presupposes a high duty (Pierce, 268 US 519, 10) to children’s health as
it extends through to the State and its bodies, including Portland Public Schools.
A parent, surrendering his child into the care and custody of the Portland Public School
system has the Constitutionally protected right to the presumption (Troxel, 530 US 57, 87) that
school policy has ‘best ensured’ (The Preamble to The Bill of Rights) his reasonable confidence
to the care and nurture of his child.
In the case of a controversy, the State’s duty has been made clear that the ultimate
decision must ‘not [be] injurious to the health * * * of the ordinary child.’ (Italics added)
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 24 & 25 (1923).
David Morrison’s has a fundamental right to choose, in light of a well-known
controversy, what environmental toxins his child is exposed to, within reason. Limiting his
daughter’s exposure to WI-FI, which is genotoxic (Carpenter Dec. ¶ 8; Trower Dec. ¶ 67),
carcinogenic and neurotoxic (Carpenter Dec. ¶ 12) experiment is well within reason.

i. Alexandra and David Morrison’s claims are not preempted.

WI-FI is a choice unlike cell towers, which the State must respond to requests to
‘place, construct, or modify.’ See 47 USC § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). This means
Portland Public Schools is acting in a proprietary capacity rather than a regulatory capacity, and,
therefore, its decision whether or not to use WI-FI is not preempted.
It is anticipated that Portland Public Schools will argue that a decision to remove WI-FI is
preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) that provides:
No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the
placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities
on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the
extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's
[Federal Communications Commission] regulations concerning such emissions.
47 USC § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).

Page 22 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

This issue was squarely addressed by the Second Circuit in Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mill,
283 F3d 404 (2002). In Sprint v. Mills, in September 1998, Sprint and the School District
entered into a five-year lease agreement permitting Sprint to locate a cell cite on the roof of the
High School in exchange for rent of $30,000.00 per year. One month later, Sprint and the
School District agreed to incorporate in the lease an addendum dealing with density of
radio emissions from the proposed antenna in terms of the number of microwaves (‘uw’)
per square centimeter. In 2000, Sprint demanded to update the equipment on the transmitter as
allowed by contract, because technological advances had made Sprint’s originally planned
equipment obsolete. With the new technology, Sprint could not operate at the low
radiofrequency emissions levels outlined in the addendum. Although Sprint guaranteed the
School District that the new antenna would operate at levels below the maxima set by
federal safety standards, the School District insisted that it would not allow construction unless
Sprint operated at or below the levels set forth in the addendum, which were 13,000 times below
the federal maxima. After applying a two-part test2 (from Cardinal Towing & Auto Repair, Inc.
v. City of Bedford, 180 F3d 686, 693 (5th Cir 1999)) to determine, under Boston Harbor [507 US
218, 113 S Ct 1190, 122 L Ed 2d 565 (1993)], the Second Circuit squarely evaluated preemption
under the TCA. Notwithstanding the district court’s findings in heavy favor of preemption, the
Second Circuit noted, in its point-by-point rebuttal, ‘we see nothing in the TCA to suggest that
Congress meant to preempt a governmental entity's conduct that does not amount to regulation;
and the structure and language of the TCA suggest precisely the contrary intent.’
2 [I]in order to determine, under Boston Harbor, whether ‘a class of government interactions with the
market [is] so narrowly focused, and so in keeping with the ordinary behavior of private parties, that a
regulatory impulse can be safely ruled out,’ a court must consider (1) whether ‘the challenged action
essentially reflect[s] the entity's own interest in its efficient procurement of needed goods and services, as
measured by comparison with the typical behavior of private parties in similar circumstances,’ and (2)
whether the narrow scope of the challenged action defeat[s] an inference that its primary goal was to
encourage a general policy rather than address a specific proprietary problem. Sprint Spectrum L.P. v.
Mills, ¶ 101.

Page 23 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mill, 283 F3d 404, ¶ 102. ‘In sum, [the Second Circuit] conclude[d] that
the Telecommunications Act does not preempt nonregulatory decisions of a local governmental
entity or instrumentality acting in its proprietary capacity; that the School District acted in a
proprietary capacity, not a regulatory capacity.’ Id. ¶ 109. In context of our case, the
Second Circuit essentially addressed the issue on point, ‘The School District has the same right
in its proprietary capacity as property owner to refuse to lease the High School roof for the
construction of such a facility. Under Boston Harbor, such a refusal by the District would not
have been preempted.’ Id. ¶ 106.
Even if removing WI-FI is considered a regulatory decision,
WI-FI (an end-use indoor product) is not part of the infrastructure Congress intended3 to roll out.
To find as such, this Court would have to expand the holding in Farina v. Nokia, Inc.,
578 Supp 2d 740 (ED Pa 2008), which found cell phones were a facility4 within the meaning of
the TCA and Farina’s tort and consumer protection sounding claims preempted by the
Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) radiofrequency regulations. Because indoor
end-use of WI-FI by a school is not part of the infrastructure Congress intended, the claims
herein are not preempted. Fortunately, the Court need not address this issue as it is a proprietary
decision.
3 The court had noted in Sprint I (Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mills, 65 F Supp 2d 148 (1999),
that federal law expresses a strong interest in establishing national wireless communications service
`for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property
through the use of wire and radio communication,' 65 F Supp 2d, 155 (quoting 47 USC § 151); that
‘[t]he Act is designed to provide for a pro-competitive, deregulatory national policy framework
designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and
information technology and services to all Americans and by opening all telecommunications
markets to competition,’ 65 F Supp 2d, 160-61 (internal quotation marks omitted); and that the Act
"mandate[s] that aggrieved parties be granted relief on an expedited basis," id., 161.
4 47 USC § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) provides, ‘No State or local government or instrumentality thereof
may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities
on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such
facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.’

Page 24 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

Regarding current regulations5, there are no SAR values for children, pulsed frequencies,
or long-term exposure6, and, therefore, there is no conflict preemption. This is because
SAR values are based on a short-term (6-minute average) exposure to protect solely against
heating a 6-foot, 200-pound adult male, not a child. Because SAR guidelines do not apply to
children, a jury verdict in this case, unlike one in Farina (‘Allowing juries to impose liability on
5 In 1995 [through political compromise], the FCC adopted a maximum specific absorption rate
(SAR) – which measures the amount of energy absorbed in human tissue – in ‘uncontrolled’
environments of .08 watts/kilogram (W/kg) as averaged over the whole body and a 1.6 W.kg
spatial peak as averaged over any 1 gram of tissue, as measured for frequencies between 100 kHz
and 6 GHz. See, Farina opinion at 19, http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084034p.pdf.
6 ‘The current federal guideline is base on short-term heating effect set at 6-minutes for those
occupationally exposed and 30 minutes for public exposure. An FCC guideline based on a
30-minute exposure is unrealistic for exposure that is likely to be 24/7 for decades. However,
if this guideline is extrapolated for long-term exposure, the exposure limit decreases and
approaches guidelines established by other countries (Table 1) * * *
According to Table 1, if the goal is to protect people who use a wireless computer daily for
one year, their exposure should not exceed 0.33 microwW/cm2 (a value similar to the
Salzburg guideline) and to protect them for 10 years their exposure should not exceed
0.03 microW/cm2. The FCC will tell you their guideline is not intended for long-term
extrapolation in this manner. However, since the FCC doesn’t have a long-term guideline and
since the extrapolated values fit the scientific data for long-term health effects the
0.33 microW/cm2 and 0.03 microW/cm2 guidelines are more appropriate to determine
‘relative safe’ exposure limits * * *.' Havas, M., Analysis of Health and Environmental Effects of
Proposed San Fancisco Earthlink Wi-Fi Network, Environmental & Recourses Studies,
Trent University, at 4 (May 2007), http://www.vws.org/documents/16DrMagdaHavas_WiFi51pg
s_000.pdf.

Page 25 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

cell phone companies for claims like Farina’s would conflict with the FCC’s regulations.’
Farina, 64-65) cannot be considered to second guess the FCC’s conclusion on how to balance its
objectives as it has made no conclusions regarding safe exposure levels of non-ionizing radiation
in children. Furthermore, ‘Under the law, FDA does not review the safety of radiation-emitting
consumer products such as mobile phones before marketing * * *’ (there is no premarket
testing). FCC website as of October, 2010; see also, Cell Phone Safety Bill LC 1273 Introduced
by Oregon Senator Chip Shields February 3rd That Will Require Warning Labels on Cell Phones
Sold in Oregon, weepnews.blogspot.com/2011/02/scientists-recommend-new-exposure.html.
Because there is no premarket testing nor any safe exposure levels for children, the burden shifts
to Portland Public Schools to prove WI-FI is safe, which it cannot do.
For the foregoing reasons, the claims herein are not preempted.

(f) Application of Strict Scrutiny: Portland Public School’s policy is not
narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.

Alexandra and David Morrison prevail because a narrower way exists to carry out the
school’s interest in educating via the internet that is not violative of their fundamental rights.
The burdening and limiting of Alexandra Morrison’s life, ability to procreate, health,
well-being, and liberty and David Morrison’s right to the health, care, nurture, and continuing
well-being of his child violates fundamental rights and liberties and invokes strict scrutiny.
Pierce, 268 US 510 (1925), is a famous Oregon case that reiterated the high scrutiny
standard for interfering with Fourteenth Amendment protected parental rights.
The Supreme Court required that the State’s compelling interest in compulsory education of
every child must be met in a way less intrusive to parental rights (the right to send their children
to a religious school so long as State standards are met).

Page 26 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

Portland Public Schools’ policy is not narrowly tailored because it could use a cabled
system to educate via the internet. Cabled systems do not emit WI-FI and do not violate
Alexandra and David Morrison’s fundamental rights, are superior systems that are faster and
more secure. See Bennett ¶ 14. Moreover, Portland Public Schools may not be required to
rewire its schools as dLAN adaptors are available that transmit the internet signal by way of
ordinary electrical wiring. Speaking from a principal who made the switch to a hard-wired
system:
On educating myself through the information provided me, I immediately
removed all wireless technology from our school and banned the use of cell
phones within our building. It was not a major change to hard-wire all computers.
In our older classes, every child has a laptop, which connects to the internet
through one of several hard-wired internet connections. We have advanced
technology without any of the dangers of wireless radio waves. Kristin Cassie,
Principal, Roots and Wings Montessori Place, Surry, B.C., November 1, 2010,
www.wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/Letter+from+Principal.pdf.
The school’s compelling interest, and high duty, in protecting a child from engaging in
activities that are ‘not injurious to the health * * * of the ordinary child’ (Meyer at 25), outweighs
the school’s not so important interest of using WI-FI to educate via the internet. Moreover, the
school’s compelling interest in compulsory education (Pierce at 10) is met by using a cabled
system while not increasing exposure. See Trower Dec. ¶ 83.
WI-FI is not mandatory in any sense, it is voluntary. It does not require city permits or
meet signal coverage requirements. It is not an essential public safety service. It is a want, not a
need. It is a proprietary choice.
Portland Public Schools’ policy of using WI-FI to educate via the internet is not narrowly
tailored and does not survive strict scrutiny.

Page 27 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

(g) The scope of the injunction is warranted and constitutional.

The remedy sought is an injunction against Portland Public Schools’ use of WI-FI in all
of its schools. The scope of this remedy (as opposed to limiting the injunction to the
Mount Tabor Middle School, where Alexandra Morrison attends) is warranted because of the
public interest in protecting the health and well-being of children when they are in school.
Alternatively, the remedy sought is the enjoining Portland Public Schools’ use of WI-FI
at the Mount Tabor Middle School. However, this will lead to future litigation as
Alexandra Morrison progresses through school.

II. Irreparable Injury.

Substantial, cumulative, and progressive exposure to WI-FI during her developmental
growth stages while at school deprives and burdens Alexandra Morrison’s rights to life, liberty,
health and procreation guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and causes irreparable harm as
a direct result of Portland Public Schools’ violations of her constitutional rights.
David Morrison’s inability to care for and control his child’s health and continuing
well-being deprives him of rights and basic liberties guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
and causes irreparable harm as a direct result of Portland Public Schools’ violations of his
constitutional rights.
Alexandra and David Morrison’s injuries will be redressed only if this Court declares
Portland Public Schools’ policy of educating via the internet by way of WI-FI unconstitutional
and enjoins the use thereof.

III. Equities tip in favor of injunction.

Because of the superior performance (faster speed and increased security) of a cabled
system (Bennett Dec ¶ 14), Portland Public Schools cannot argue any other reason for continuing
its policy than cost.

Page 28 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

To the extent there are costs of converting to a cabled internet, they are not significant
and do not outweigh our children’s right to life, liberty, and procreation unfettered by exposure to
ill health, or a parent’s right to the control of his child’s health and continuing well-being.
Cost is de minimus in light of the potential costs of using this technology, including:
(i) the costs of sheer human suffering as children and teachers, who are all guinea pigs for this
technology, become ill or die; (ii) the costs of unnecessary illness; and (iii) the costs of the
inevitable litigation that will come. Additionally, the staff and equipment required to manage
wireless capacity and to monitor usage, puts the overall costs much higher. Bennett Dec. ¶ 14.
Smart wireless devices associated with wireless networks can cause unexpected congestion,
adding to the costs. Id. The demand from these devices will only increase and result in the need
for more powerful transmitters. Id. Truly, the school will benefit the most from the injunction.
Additionally, Portland Public Schools’ interest in educating via the internet will not be
negatively affected by converting to a cabled system, but will, in fact, be enhanced as cabled
systems deliver data faster, safer, and more sustainable, while providing economy and advancing
technology in education. See Bennett Dec. ¶ 14. How often is an injunction a win-win?

IV. Public Interest.

Public interest is strongly furthered by an injunction. The most important asset of our
nation must be our children. Providing our children an educational environment in which they
can learn, play, develop and thrive is strongly in the public interest. Providing our children with
an educational environment that is free from exposure to ill health and disease is strongly in the
public interest. The public interest is also furthered by the scope of the injunction and should not
be limited to Portland Public Schools’ Mount Tabor Middle School.

Page 29 – Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion

Conclusion

Portland Public Schools’ policy of educating via the internet by using WI-FI is
unconstitutional as it violates Alexandra and David Morrison’s fundamental rights and liberties
guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and is an ongoing experiment in violation
of Title 45. All the required elements for preliminary injunctive relief are met.
This Court should expeditiously grant the requested injunctive relief, assuring it is in place at the
earliest possible time.


Respectfully submitted this 27th day of June, 2011,

/s/ Shawn E. Abrell                             /s/ Tyl W. Bakker
SHAWN E. ABRELL, WSBA No. 41054            TYL W. BAKKER, OSB No. 90200
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs                                  Local Counsel for Plaintiffs
*Pro Hac Vice