What does this tell us about Wi-Fi? Wi-fi routers are weaker transmitters even than mobile phone masts, and users sit away from them. The level of energy produced by a Wi-Fi router is very low, far too low to be able to disrupt DNA, so there is no mechanism for it to be carcinogenic. It’s true that it’s the same frequency as microwave radiation, but it’s so low power that there isn’t even a noticeable heating effect, never mind breakdown of genetic material. The ‘hot ear’ effect that you notice after a long call comes from the battery warming up, not radiation. It’s just too weak to do anything, even if you’re sitting close to it.

Research on glioma brain tumors shows the average latency period is 20-30 years. [56] Although cell phones were introduced in 1983, it was not until 2003 that over 50% of the US population had a wireless subscription, so the 20 year mark for mass cell phone use has not yet been reached. [44] [71] The May 17, 2010 INTERPHONE study, the largest study ever to examine possible links between cell phones and brain tumors, concluded that overall there was "no increase in risk" for glioma or meningioma brain tumors, [57] but the average user in the study had less than eight years of cell phone exposure. [56] In his review of the INTERPHONE study results, Dr. Rodolfo Saracci stated that "none of today’s established carcinogens, including tobacco, could have been firmly identified as increasing risk in the first 10 years or so since first exposure." [58]
To see if ShippingPass is right for you, try a 30-day free trial. Also, with ShippingPass, there is no need to worry about commitment. If you decide you want to discontinue the service, you can cancel your subscription at any time. No matter what your shipping needs, Walmart's got you covered. Sign up for ShippingPass so you can shop more, save money and live better.

The aim of this study was to investigate electromagnetic radiation (EMR) transmitted by wireless devices (2.45 GHz, 3h/day for 30 days), which may cause physiopathological or ultrastructural changes, in the testes of rats and address if the supplemental gallic acid (GA) may reduce these adverse effects. EMR only group was shown to have higher oxidative stress, decreased testosterone and VEGF levels, increased prostaglandin E2 and CGRP, as well as decreased numbers of spermatozoa. Long term EMR exposure resulted in testicular physiopathology via oxidative damage and inflammation. GA may have ameliorative effects on the prepubertal rat testes physiopathology.
High frequency, specifically 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi radiation, induces a decrease in sperm parameters along with an increase in apoptosis-positive cells and caspase-3 activity in the seminiferous tubules of Wistar rats, specially in 7-hour group. It reduced seminal vesicle weight following 2.45 GHz exposure. Considering the progressive privilege of 2.45 GHz wireless networks in our environment, we concluded that there should be a major concern about the time-dependent exposure of our body to the higher frequencies of Wi-Fi antenna.
Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked. The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.
 I have treated patients with cancer for over thirty years as a board-certified radiation oncologist and I am familiar with every carcinogenic agent known to man. I'll tell you with absolute certainty that radio waves cannot harm you (unless perhaps you were in the path of a multi-megawatt microwave beam, in which case they might cook you. But as far as I know, there is no likelihood that this danger even exists).
Legally there is nothing you can do to oblige your neighbors to remove their WiFi so you need to have a softly softly approach. Go and see them, have a friendly chat. Ideally take an RF meter with you, show them the radiation levels they are exposing both you and themselves to. Take some print outs of some of the studies that have been done on the dangers of radio frequency radiation.
The legislators themselves say that no link has been demonstrated (Le Monde reports them as having been unable to identify ‘a causal link between the biological effects described on cellular models, animals or humans and possible health effects that result.’) and there is only limited evidence (one study, unconfirmed by any others) to suggest risk even for intensive users of mobile phones.
Purpose: This article is a systematic review of studies on the effects of non-ionizing radiation at the microwave (MW) frequency of 2.45 GHz (2450 MHz), which is predominantly used in WLAN/Wi-Fi applications (wireless local area network) and microwave ovens. Newer WLAN standards also use the frequency ranges of 5 GHz, 6 GHz, and 60 GHz. WLAN, referred to generically in this review also as Wi-Fi, has become the technology of choice for many wireless applications because providers do not require a license, making the service free to users. To meet users’ desire to be online all the time, more and more WLAN antennas (access points, femtocells, routers) emitting pulsed 2.45 GHz radiation are being installed at libraries, hospitals, hotels, airports, railway stations, shopping malls, public places, and in buses, subways, and passenger trains. Wi-Fi consoles are used to play games. Office and household appliances are also fitted with Wi-Fi antennas. Residential routers often contain two Wi-Fi transmitters. As part of its digital learning initiative, the German Conference of Ministers of Education has decided to provide all schools with Wi-Fi networks. The extensive body of research on the health risks of Wi-Fi radiation is generally not considered by policy-makers or in the public debate.
No scientist can say with certainty how many wireless-technology users are likely to contract cancer, but that is precisely the point: We simply don’t know. Nevertheless, we are proceeding as if we do know the risk, and that the risk is vanishingly small. Meanwhile, more and more people around the world, including countless children and adolescents, are getting addicted to cell phones every day, and the shift to radiation-heavy 5G technology is regarded as a fait accompli. Which is just how Big Wireless likes it.55
Legal Disclaimer: EWG's cell phone database is dynamic, which means that the cell phone ranking numbers may change based on evolving science, new information on SAR radiation exposures, market conditions, or other factors. Please be advised that EWG does not recommend that companies create marketing materials based on the EWG rating system, given that the rankings may change as the database is updated. EWG makes no representations or warranties about any of the products rated on this site. EWG hereby disclaims all warranties with regard to the products on the site, including express, statutory, implied warranties of merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose.
Sexting: The vast majority of kids are smart and don’t take, send, or post or even store nude photos of themselves or peers on their phones. People who do so can be charged with production, distribution, or possession of child pornography, a serious crime. They can also be subjected to jokes, bullying, blackmail, expulsion from school, loss of a job, etc. and the images can circulate forever. Just don’t go there.
That may be true today. But some experts have grave concerns about the types of low-intensity radiation our wireless devices produce. “We have animal studies suggesting even low-level exposures to the kind of radio wave radiation associated with Wi-Fi could have a variety of negative health effects,” says Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley. (Moskowitz has collected much of that research here.)
Standard Wifi works on the 2,45Ghz frequency, you talk about microwaves from the frequency of 1Ghz or higher, below that they are called radiowaves (radiofrequency), so your statement is false. Your microwave works on 2,45Ghz as well, hence MICROWAVEs. Your Wifi-router, when not connected to a device still sends out pulses “Beacon Interval” which is on the default settings 10 pulses per second. An Eco-Router has the setting changed to 1 pulse per second, reducing exposure when it is idle. Many Wifi-routers with a 10/s Beacon Interval can give induced “Panic Attacks” to people who are sensitized to the High Frequency EMF.
Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. In truth, the safety of wireless technology has been an unsettled question since the industry’s earliest days. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a massive public-health experiment: Use a cell phone today, find out later if it causes cancer or genetic damage. Meanwhile, the wireless industry has obstructed a full and fair understanding of the current science, aided by government agencies that have prioritized commercial interests over human health and news organizations that have failed to inform the public about what the scientific community really thinks. In other words, this public-health experiment has been conducted without the informed consent of its subjects, even as the industry keeps its thumb on the scale.27
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of low level electromagnetic field (low level-EMF) exposure, as frequently encountered in daily life (2.45 GHz, 2h/day for 21 days), on the normal adult male rat cornea using histological and stereological method. There was no statistically significant difference in mean corneal thicknesses between the groups (p > 0.05), however there were statistically differences between the groups with regard to the thickness of anterior epithelium (p < 0.05). Results of this preliminary study show that exposure to MW radiation might cause alterations in the rat cornea.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) on the pancreas tissue of young rats and the ameliorative effect of Gallic acid (GA). Six-week-old, 48 male rats were equally divided into four groups: Sham group, EMR group (2.45 GHz), EMR (2.45 GHz)+GA group (30 mg/kg/daily) orally and GA group (30 mg/kg/daily). After 30 days, serum and pancreatic tissue samples were harvested for biochemical, histopathological and immunohistochemical analysis. Serum amylase, lipase, glucose, and tissue malondialdehyde, total oxidant status and oxidative stress index were increased, whereas total antioxidant status decreased in the EMR group. The histopathological examination of the pancreases indicated slight degenerative changes in some pancreatic endocrine and exocrine cells and slight inflammatory cell infiltrations in the EMR group. At the immunohistochemical examination, marked increase was observed in calcitonin gene related protein and Prostaglandin E2 expressions in pancreatic cells in this group. There were no changes in interleukin-6 expirations. GA ameliorated biochemical and pathological findings in the EMR+GA group. These findings clearly demonstrate that EMR can cause degenerative changes in both endocrine and exocrine pancreas cells in rats during the developmental period and GA has an ameliorative effect.
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
Another animal study, in which rats were exposed 7 days per week for 19 hours per day to radiofrequency radiation at 0.001, 0.03, and 0.1 watts per kilogram of body weight was reported by investigators at the Italian Ramazzini Institute (35). Among the rats with the highest exposure levels, the researchers noted an increase in heart schwannomas in male rats and non-malignant Schwann cell growth in the heart in male and female rats. However, key details necessary for interpretation of the results were missing: exposure methods, other standard operating procedures, and nutritional/feeding aspects. The gaps in the report from the study raise questions that have not been resolved.
It’s unfortunate, but kids are a clumsy lot, and even the best behaved little ones will often knock their precious phone flying across a room. With that in mind, it’s often worth making sure that their phone can take those sorts of knocks and come out without much of an issue. The Nokia 6.1 is a such a phone. It bucks the recent trend for glass with an all-metal build that feels extremely solid. It’s not exactly a rugged phone, but it should be able to take some accidental drops and knocks better than a glass phone.
METHODS: Standard class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of 20 non-carious extracted human premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 10). The control group was stored in non-environment. The specimens in the experimental groups were exposed to a radiofrequency radiation emitted from standard Wi Fi devices at 2.4 GHz for 20 min. The distance between the Wi-Fi router and samples was 30 cm and the router was exchanging data with a laptop computer that was placed 20 m away from the router. The concentration of mercury in the artificial saliva in the groups was evaluated by using a cold-vapor atomic absorption Mercury Analyzer System. The independent t test was used to evaluate any significant differences in mercury release between the two groups.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats in the weight range of 230 to 260 g were divided into control, sham, Wi-Fi exposed groups. After long term exposure (4 h/day for 45 days) to Wi-Fi electromagnetic radiation, plasma levels of glucose and insulin during intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test were measured. Islet insulin secretion and content, lipid peroxidation and antioxidant status in pancreas of rats were determined.
We’re living in a wireless technology age, but there’s some evidence that exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and wireless devices could increase your risk of certain cancers and tumors. However, more research is needed. In the meantime, I recommend practicing the precautionary principle. Some great cell phone safety tips include:
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).
c) and before you raise the argument that visible light is itself electromagnetic radiation, with even shorter wavelengths than microwaves, electromagnetic radiation within the visible light range does not penetrate living cells and other molecular materials as X-Rays (ionising radiation) or microwaves (non-ioninsing radiation) do. Practically all visible light is reflected by our bodies, and therefore it’s energy is not absorbed by our cells and is therefore harmless.
The recent report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) about the potential connection between cell phone use and cancer is big news to media outposts and the general public. Prior to the report, scientists told us no evidence existed that cell phones were carcinogenic. And now? According to the IARC, research now proves that there is evidence that cell phones might in fact be carcinogenic. The potential villains in this scenario are radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, which are emitted by a cell phone’s antenna, and which the agency says may be linked to two types of brain cancer.
Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans (2).

TRPV1 cation channels are the possible molecular pathways responsible for changes in the hormone, oxidative stress, and body temperature levels in the uterus of maternal rats following a year-long exposure to electromagnetic radiation exposure from mobile phones and Wi-Fi devices. It is likely that TRPV1-mediated Ca2+ entry in the uterus of pregnant rats involves accumulation of oxidative stress and opening of mitochondrial membrane pores that consequently leads to mitochondrial dysfunction, substantial swelling of the mitochondria with rupture of the outer membrane and release of oxidants such as superoxide (O2 −) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). The superoxide radical is converted to H2O2 by superoxide dismutase (SOD) enzyme. Glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) is an important antioxidant enzyme for removing lipid hydroperoxides and hydrogen peroxide and it catalyzes the reduction of H2O2 to water.
Released in 1993 as a joint creation of IBM and BellSouth, this was the first smartphone. A fax machine, a PDA, a pager and a mobile phone, the IBM Simon featured no physical keys, but used a touchscreen and optional stylus. Amazingly, it included applications such as games, email, a notepad, calculator, world clock, address book and a calendar. It only sold in the United States, for $899.
It is useful to be aware of new health research regarding cell phone usage and cell phone radiation. The first cell phone call was made in 1985 and that phone cost $5,000 and weighed about 9 pounds. The change in size, weight and cost of devices today has probably led to over 50% of the human race owning a mobile device, the fastest growing technology on the planet.