“The absence of absolute proof does not mean the absence of risk,” Annie Sasco, the former director of epidemiology for cancer prevention at France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research, told the attendees of the 2012 Childhood Cancer conference. “The younger one starts using cell phones, the higher the risk,” Sasco continued, urging a public-education effort to inform parents, politicians, and the press about children’s exceptional susceptibility.28
This review presents the findings of more than 100 studies that were published in reputable scientific journals. Most of these studies confirm potential health impacts as were summarized in the joint "Nicosia Declaration on Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Radiation" by the Cyprus and Austrian medical associations in 2017: “Potential health impacts of non-ionizing radiation from EMF/RF (electromagnetic fields/radiofrequencies) of 30 KHz – 300 GHz include carcinogenicity (Class B, IARC 2011), developmental neurotoxicity, effects on DNA, fertility, hypersensitivity and other serious effects are well documented in peer reviewed studies. RFR can increase oxidative stress in cells and lead to increase of pro-inflammatory cytokines and lower capacity to repair DNA single- and double-strand breaks. Cognitive impairments in learning and memory have also been shown. These effects can occur at levels well below existing limits of ICNIRP. ... Exposure to EMF/RF at an early developmental stage is of particular concern due, amongst other, to greater absorption and potential effects on the developing developing brain, nervous system as well as their reproductive system, may induce cancer, cognitive effects, etc.” (www.diagnose-funk.org/publikationen/artikel/detail&newsid=1242 and www.cyprus-child-environment.org/easyconsole.cfm/id/428).
The very next day, a livid Tom Wheeler began publicly trashing Carlo to the media. In a letter he shared with the CEOs, Wheeler told Carlo that the CTIA was “certain that you have never provided CTIA with the studies you mention”—an apparent effort to shield the industry from liability in the lawsuits that had led to Carlo’s hiring in the first place. Wheeler charged further that the studies had not been published in peer-reviewed journals, casting doubt on their validity.10
The purpose of this study was to reveal whether long term exposure (over a year) of 2.4GHz frequency RF radiation will cause DNA damage of different tissues such as brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissue and testicular tissues of rats. Based on the DNA damage results determined by the single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) method, it was found that the % tail DNA values of the brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissues of the rats in the experimental group increased more than those in the control group. The increase of the DNA damage in all tissues was not significant (p>0.05), however the increase of the DNA damage in rat testes tissue was significant (p<0.01). In conclusion, long-term exposure to 2.4GHz RF radiation (Wi-Fi) does not cause DNA damage of the organs investigated in this study except testes indicating  that testes are more sensitive organ to RF radiation.
As our video points out: Measurements will vary with signal strength and other factors and that includes ambient energy. I talk about ambient energy in a lot of my videos-it's the energy that's in whatever environment I happen to be measuring in that's coming from a source of wireless energy that isn't the subject of what I'm measuring.  My home is not a lab of course, but fortunately it's always measured very low for RF radiation. 
Cancer is the obvious start. An early concern with mobile technology was clusters of the disease around those living near phone masts. One study in Israel found a 4.5-fold increase in cancers of all kinds in the immediate vicinity of a mast (Int. J. Cancer Prev., 2004). In 2009, a Korean team of researchers carried out a pool analysis of the results of 23 studies, which involved almost 38,000 subjects.