RESULTS: Our analysis demonstrates that the data from a substantial amount of the studies on RF-EMFs from mobile phones show physiological and/or morphological effects (89.9%, p < 0.001). Additionally, our analysis of the results from these reported studies demonstrates that the maize, roselle, pea, fenugreek, duckweeds, tomato, onions and mungbean plants seem to be very sensitive to RF-EMFs. Our findings also suggest that plants seem to be more responsive to certain frequencies, especially the frequencies between (i) 800 and 1500 MHz (p < 0.0001), (ii) 1500 and 2400 MHz (p < 0.0001) and (iii) 3500 and 8000 MHz (p = 0.0161).
The information on this website has not been evaluated by the Food & Drug Administration or any other medical body. We do not aim to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any illness or disease. Information is shared for educational purposes only. You must consult your doctor before acting on any content on this website, especially if you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication or have a medical condition.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of prenatal and postnatal 2450 MHz electromagnetic field exposure (1hy/day from intrauterine or postnatal period) on the growth and development of female Wistar rats. Birth masses of the groups were similar (p > 0.05), however mass gain per day was significantly lower and the puberty was significantly later in the prenatal group. Brain and ovary TOS and OSI values in the prenatal group were significantly increased (p < 0.05) compared to the control group and serum LH levels of the prenatal and postnatal groups were increased, although serum FSH, and E2 values did not differ among the groups (p > 0.05). Histological examinations of the specimens revealed no statistically significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). Exposure to 2450 MHz EMF, particularly in the prenatal period, resulted in postnatal growth restriction and delayed puberty in female Wistar rats. Increased TOS and OSI values in the brain and ovary tissues can be interpreted as a sign of chronic stress induced by EMF.
For those thinking that wireless keyboards and mice are OK, these things can put out quite a significant signal and some at frequencies of 2.4 GHz. I have personally experienced terrible symptoms from one of these. The 27MHz analog transmitters are more benign but probably still significant for the electrosensitive, and can probably still harm anyone.
We did not simply measure energy coming from the front of the case which is the area of the case where the phone would be "shielded" from radiation. If we had taken readings with a directional meter, specifically measuring energy coming from only the front or flap cover where the shielding material is, we assume as the manufacturers claim, that we would have seen a drop in the radiation readings.
Anti-radiation or radiation blocking or phone shield cases. Do they Work? SafeSleeve, DefenderShield, Vest, Alara, Pong, Reach and ShieldMe and other EMF protection phone cases claim to block the radiation from your cellphone or smartphone. Anti-radiation cellphone case brands make enticing claims like this: ". . .eliminate up to 99% of the harmful radiation coming from the phone!"
Irradiation was performed during three weeks, after which plants were removed from the chambers for measurements of volatile organic compound (VOC) emission and analyses of leaf structure and essential oil content. All measurements of VOC emission and analyses of leaf structure and essential oil content have been replicated with eight different plants.
†Results may vary. Information and statements made are for education purposes and are not intended to replace the advice of your doctor. Global Healing Center does not dispense medical advice, prescribe, or diagnose illness. The views and nutritional advice expressed by Global Healing Center are not intended to be a substitute for conventional medical service. If you have a severe medical condition or health concern, see your physician.
And, it’s not just sperm. The results of an animal study suggest that some wireless frequencies may prevent egg implantation. During the study, mice exposed 2 hours a day for 45 days had significantly increased oxidative stress levels. The cellular damage and impact on DNA structure from exposure suggest a strong possibility of abnormal pregnancy or failure of the egg to implant. 
This study used Drosophila as model organisms to assess the effects of various EMF sources (short time daily for 3-7 days) on apoptotic cell death of follicles during oogenesis and reproductive capacity (fecundity) decline. Sources included: 900/1800 MHz mobile phone, 1880-1900 MHz wireless base, wireless handset, mobile phone-handset combination, 2.44 GHz wireless network (Wi-Fi), 2.44 GHz bluetooth, 92.8 MHz FM generator, 27.15 MHz baby monitor, 900 MHz CW RF generator and microwave oven’s 2.44 GHz RF and magnetic field components. All EMF sources used created statistically significant effects regarding fecundity and cell death-apoptosis induction, even at very low intensity levels well below ICNIRP’s guidelines, suggesting that Drosophila oogenesis system is suitable to be used as a biomarker for exploring potential EMF bioactivity.
One of the convenient features of having a smartphone is to quickly access email or social media accounts with just a tap of a finger. However, this also means that you are always connected to accounts that may contain sensitive information. Consider logging out of certain accounts if you can so that others can’t access those accounts if they are using your phone. Keep in mind that depending on the type of phone you have, you might not be able to log out of some accounts, such as email accounts, but may have to remove the entire account from your phone. In this case, make your decision based on your own privacy and safety risk. While it may be inconvenient to access the account through the browser instead, it may be safer.
We investigated the long-term effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from Wi-Fi systems on hearing. Sixteen Wistar albino rats were divided equally into two groups: sham control and exposure groups. The rats in the experimental group were exposed to 2.4 GHz RFR emitted from a Wi-Fi generator for 24 h/day for one year. The same procedure was applied to the rats in the sham group, except that the Wi-Fi generator was turned off. All groups were kept in Faraday cages during the 12 months to eliminate external electromagnetic fields. The distance between the Wi-Fi generator antenna and the exposure cages was 50 cm. Pre-exposure distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) of all rats were measured at the beginning, 6th and 12th months of the study. The DPOAE values of the sham, baseline and exposure groups were compared statistically. For the 6000 Hz hearing frequency, the DPOAE values in the exposure group were lower than those in the sham group (p < 0.05). Similarly, the 6000 Hz hearing frequency values obtained at the end of the 12th month were also lower than the baseline and 6-month values in the exposure group (p < 0.05). In contrast, the DPOAE values at the 6th and 12th months of exposure for the 2000 Hz hearing frequency were higher than the baseline value (p < 0.05). These results indicated that 12 months of RFR (24 h/day) at 50 cm from a 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi source can affect hearing. However, further studies are necessary.
These studies are not definitive. Much more research is needed. But they raise serious questions that cast doubt on the adequacy of the FCC rules to safeguard public health. The FCC emissions cap allows 20 times more radiation to reach the head than the body as a whole, does not account for risks to children’s developing brains and smaller bodies and considers only short-term cell phone use, not frequent calling patterns over decades.
Ok, update: Crownstarqi very kindly sent me 2 cell phone shield stickers, but I originally ordered the 6 pack of much thinner rectangular stickers that I could stick more places. I'm too electromagnetically intolerant to even own a cell phone, so I don't know what to do with these! I don't dare bother them about this, b/c they sent me the shield things all the way from China, but I was really hoping to just put more of the rectangular 6-pack stickers on my laptop, to see if more made a difference. It was a very nice gesture on their part, but I'm now concerned that they thought my initial review was of the shield-shaped stickers, when it was a review for these rectangular ones. I noticed that someone else thought they were ordering the 6-pack, and ended up getting a single shield-shaped sticker, instead. This is very confusing & I'm going to just...count my blessings & get on w/ my life. I don't trust any stickers that make the "negative ion" claim, b/c they're often radioactive. I don't realy know what to say, or what review to give, at this point, but I think Cronstarqi are very kind to have sent me something for the trouble w/ my original order, even though what they sent as a replacement was NOT what I had originally ordered. Maybe this was deliberate? I don't know. The package on the shield-shaped stickers says, "The product can only be used as health care instead of replacing the professional medical treatment." I'm so confused, but thanks anyway, to the seller, and the shield-shaped stickers are very pretty. I'd review them, but I have no cell phone & no verified purchase to back up my review. -Account holder's progeny.
Prime free trial and invitee customers: We will automatically apply an Amazon.com Gift Card to your Gift Card Balance in the amount equal to the Prime exclusive discount after you become a paid Prime member. If you cancel your paid Prime membership or return the qualifying smartphone within the first 3 months of your paid Prime membership, we may void your Gift Card or charge you in the amount of the Gift Card. Terms and Conditions apply.
The NTP study was to be peer-reviewed at a meeting on March 26–28, amid signs that the program’s leadership is pivoting to downplay its findings. The NTP had issued a public-health warning when the study’s early results were released in 2016. But when the NTP released essentially the same data in February 2018, John Bucher, the senior scientist who directed the study, announced in a telephone press conference that “I don’t think this is a high-risk situation at all,” partly because the study had exposed the rats and mice to higher levels of radiation than a typical cell-phone user experienced.50
It should be noted that the given values of SAR were normalized to 1 W peak antenna power output, while typically a WLAN antenna radiates about 10 mW; therefore, for a real world operating system, maximum SAR of 0.37 × 10−3 and 0.18 × 10−3 (W/kg) is expected for 2 and 1 active antennas, respectively, which are 104 times lower than the European safety limit (2 W/kg) [IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Humans, 2005].
Lloyd is correct. I’ve worked in wireless equipment design for over 30 years, from 30kHz to 3GHz, milliwatts to many-watts. In the late 2000’s I personally set the safety standards for wireless charging (WPC’s “Qi” format) after lengthy research. Starting at 400MHz and above, DNA strands can be broken or inflicted with sequence translocation when the applied fields excite mechanical shake, twist, and compression resonances of the helixes. Those would be cancer-provoking damage. Below 300MHz I’m not aware of significant non-thermal biological effects, which explain how we’ve been “lucky” with AM/FM radio, walkie talkies, CB’s, shortwave, and VHF TV not harming people en masse.
Conclusions: Based on the extensive body of research and the adverse health effects demonstrated in the majority of the studies, it is recommended that steps should be taken to minimize RF radiation exposure in accordance with official recommendations. Wired solutions should be given preference. Current exposure limits and SAR values do not protect from health risks associated with Wi-Fi radiation. The adverse effects on learning, attention, and behavior serve as a basis for educational institutions of all age groups to forgo the use of Wi-Fi applications. Due to cytotoxic effects, Wi-Fi technologies are not suitable for hospitals and telemedicine. Wi-Fi technologies should not be used in bedrooms, work spaces, common lounges, hospital rooms, lecture halls, classrooms, and public transport. The possible risks associated with Wi-Fi radiation could be avoided by testing alternative technologies at other frequency bands like optical VLC/Li-Fi technologies (visible light communication). When Wi-Fi cannot be avoided as a transition solution, the ALARA principle must be applied: no continuous transmission, instead Wi-Fi networks that can be turned off and feature dynamic power management.
Participation bias, which can happen when people who are diagnosed with brain tumors are more likely than healthy people (known as controls) to enroll in a research study. Also, controls who did not or rarely used cell phones were less likely to participate in the Interphone study than controls who used cell phones regularly. For example, the Interphone study reported participation rates of 78% for meningioma patients (range among the individual studies 56–92%), 64% for glioma patients (range 36–92%), and 53% for control subjects (range 42–74%) (6).
BACKGROUND: The use of devices emitted microwave radiation such as mobile phones, wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) routers, etc. is increased rapidly. It has caused a great concern; the researchers should identify its effects on people's health. We evaluated the protective role of Vitamin C on the metabolic and enzymatic activities of the liver after exposure to Wi-Fi routers.
The FCC provides information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cell phones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds with the relative amount of radiofrequency radiation absorbed by the head of a cell phone user (47). Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCC’s ID search form.
8. 911 is free—call for an emergency. “Your cell phone is one of the greatest tools you can own to protect yourself and your family in dangerous situations – with your phone at your side, help is only three numbers away. Dial 911 or another local emergency number in emergencies such as a fire, traffic accident, road hazard or medical emergency. Remember, an emergency call is a free call on your cell phone!” – Cell Phone Safety Tips, Mize Centers; Twitter: @mizesales1