There are few if any references to actual studies in published, peer-reviewed journals that support the claim that Aires, or any other, cell phone shield actually works. The "Researches" page contains a superficially impressive list of sciencey-sounding titles and findings supposedly demonstrating the importance of using cell phone shields, all of them in Russia for some reason.
Remarkably, cell phones had been allowed onto the US consumer market a decade earlier without any government safety testing. Now, some customers and industry workers were being diagnosed with cancer. In January 1993, David Reynard sued the NEC America Company, claiming that his wife’s NEC phone caused her lethal brain tumor. After Reynard appeared on national TV, the story went viral. A congressional subcommittee announced an investigation; investors began dumping their cell-phone stocks; and Wheeler and the CTIA swung into action.2
Thank you for this information. I will be looking in to all of this. We have shut off our wifi and have hardwired our house. A cell tower was put in to our neighborhood .08 mile away 5 years ago and we’re just now looking in to the implications of living so close to one. We have a 3 1/2 year old and a 9 month old. My 3 1/2 year old is always complaining of her eyes hurting or a headache. I’m thinking it’s time to sell and move. Thank you again! I appreciate you getting back with me.
40. Set clear rules and guidelines for downloading media and apps. Giving your kids free reign to use all the features on their smartphones can quickly rack up your wireless bill and introduce security risks to their devices. “Downloading new ringtones or games can add unwanted expenses or hidden bugs. Set limits and rules about downloads.” – Amanda Martin, Cell Phone Safety Tips for your Child, Securemama.com; Twitter: @securemama
The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation (2 h/day for 35 days) on the male rat brain. MWR-exposed rats showed significantly increased comet head, tail length and tail movement, as well as decrease of antioxidant enzymes. Researchers conclude that the chronic exposure to these radiations may cause significant damage to brain, which may be an indication of possible tumour promotion.
The present study tested the effects of Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz for 1h) exposure on Ca(2+) influx, oxidative stress and apoptosis through TRPV1 channel in the murine dorsal root ganglion (DRG) and hippocampus of pentylentetrazol (PTZ)-induced epileptic rats. The cytosolic free Ca(2+), reactive oxygen species production, apoptosis, mitochondrial membrane depolarization, caspase-3 and -9 values in hippocampus were higher in the PTZ group than in the control although cell viability values decreased. The Wi-Fi exposure induced additional effects on the cytosolic Ca(2+) increase. However, pretreatment of the neurons with CPZ, results in a protection against epilepsy-induced Ca(2+) influx, apoptosis and oxidative damages. In conclusion, epilepsy and Wi-Fi in our experimental model is involved in Ca(2+) influx and oxidative stress-induced hippocampal and DRG death through activation of TRPV1 channels, and negative modulation of this channel activity by CPZ pretreatment may account for the neuroprotective activity against oxidative stress.
BACKGROUND: Dental amalgam is composed of approximately 50% elemental mercury. Despite concerns over the toxicity of mercury, amalgam is still the most widely used restorative material. Wi-Fi is a rapidly using local area wireless computer networking technology. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that evaluates the effect of exposure to Wi-Fi signals on mercury release from amalgam restorations.
Sixteen years later, cell phones -- with 6 billion subscriptions worldwide and counting -- have revolutionized how we communicate. The technology that powers them has changed just as dramatically. Today’s smartphones vibrate, rock out, show high-def movies, make photos and videos, issue voice commands, check email, go underwater, navigate with global positioning systems and surf the web in 3-D. They sport dual core processors and batteries that let you – or your kid -- talk for close to 20 hours. (The StarTac maxed out at just 3 hours.)
One thing I am totally shocked by is the resistance that people seem to have to believing that something that promotes “Convenience” for them, could be dangerous. I am Electromagnetic Hypersensitive and I am involved with numerous groups of people worldwide who are suffering from the detrimental effects of wireless radiation. These groups are growing substantially as people become more and more aware that their health issues can be traced back to consistent exposure to microwave radiation that has NO proven record or research to prove its safety. From my own experience, placed in a Wi-Fi field, every muscle in my body contracts like I’m being electrocuted, lumps begin to form from the effect of blood thickening, I get massive headaches, chest pain (the heart struggling due to sticky red blood cells), and eventually total paralysis from the severe fatigue that even makes it hard to breath. So many people are suffering from illnesses they haven’t even traced back to Wi-Fi but if they succeed at globalizing it, I’m sure you’ll all find out eventually as you accumulate the effects. Thank you Dr Edward Group for posting this invaluable information.
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 aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation (24h/day for 12 months) emitted from a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) system on some of the miRNA in brain tissue in male rats. The results revealed that long-term exposure of RFR radiation can alter expression of some of the miRNAs, indicating that this type of exposure may lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative diseases originated from the alteration of some miRNA expression and more studies should be devoted to the effects of RF radiation on miRNA expression levels.
2. The power, or heating effect, of the phone is only one of many possible factors impacting cell phone ‘safety.’ Certainly it is useful to know if your phone has a high SAR value, but exposures to the radiation from the cell phone at non-heating levels have been linked to many serious biological effects, and the SAR value is not capturing anything about these harmful non-thermal exposures.
What the study showed: Most published analyses from this study have shown no statistically significant increases in brain or central nervous system cancers related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One analysis showed a statistically significant, although modest, increase in the risk of glioma among the small proportion of study participants who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, the researchers considered this finding inconclusive because they felt that the amount of use reported by some respondents was unlikely and because the participants who reported lower levels of use appeared to have a slightly reduced risk of brain cancer compared with people who did not use cell phones regularly (4–6).
Carlo’s October 7, 1999, letters to wireless-industry CEOs are the smoking-gun equivalent of the November 12, 1982, memo that M.B. Glaser, Exxon’s manager of environmental-affairs programs, sent to company executives explaining that burning oil, gas, and coal could raise global temperatures by a destabilizing 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. For the tobacco industry, Carlo’s letters are akin to the 1969 proposal that a Brown & Williamson executive wrote for countering anti-tobacco advocates. “Doubt is our product,” the memo declared. “It is also the means of establishing a controversy…at the public level.”18
Reading the last paragraph of the previous section you might be saying “Ah hah! Microwaves! Microwaves are bad, they make things very hot and they could burn you!” That’s absolutely true. You would not want to build a human size microwave oven and stand inside it. Nor would you particularly enjoy being the target of the crowd-dispersing microwave cannons built and deployed by the U.S. military.
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
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.
*The ability to browse the internet (for tweens and teens that have access to the internet on their cell phone) opens up an entirely new area of safety concerns. Not only can kids search the web more discreetly, most parents do not view this activity as of much of a risk as they do allowing their kids to search on a regular computer. The fact is, the dangers are just as real and even worse when you consider that with a smart phone, kids can search the internet outside of the watchful eye of parents while using their cell phone in school.
Most smartphones have settings that will help you manage your privacy and safety. You can find these controls through the settings on your phone or through the settings of a specific app. These settings may allow you to limit an application’s access to the data on your phone, including access to your location, pictures, contacts, notes, etc. You may even be able to block cookies and limit what data your mobile browser collects.
41. Use a monitoring service for your child’s phone. “One option [for keeping your kids safer while allowing them to use a cell phone or smartphone] is a phone or monitoring service that provides parental controls. Parental controls let your parents control how and when you use your cell phone, and who is able to contact you. (You and your parents can determine the rules together.) With parental controls, you won’t have to worry about receiving unwanted calls or texts—or the temptation to text during science class!” – Jennifer Dignan, Cell Phone Safety Helpful Tips for Kid Communications, Scholastic Teachers; Twitter: @ScholasticTeach
In the EMR groups, lipid peroxidation levels in the brain and liver were increased following EMR exposure; however, the glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity, and vitamin A, vitamin E and -carotene concentrations were decreased in the brain and liver. Glutathione (GSH) and vitamin C concentrations in the brain were also lower in the EMR groups than in the controls; however, their concentrations did not change in the liver.
Wireless internet (Wi-Fi) providers have become essential in our daily lives, as wireless technology is evolving at a dizzying pace. Although there are different frequency generators, one of the most commonly used Wi-Fi devices are 2.4GHz frequency generators. These devices are heavily used in all areas of life but the effect of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emission on users is generally ignored. Yet, an increasing share of the public expresses concern on this issue. Therefore, this study intends to respond to the growing public concern. The purpose of this study is to reveal whether long term exposure 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.
To be sure, the industry could not have been pleased with some of the Interphone study’s conclusions. The study found that the heaviest cell-phone users were 80 percent more likely to develop glioma. (The initial finding of 40 percent was increased to 80 to correct for selection bias.) The Interphone study also concluded that individuals who had owned a cell phone for 10 years or longer saw their risk of glioma increase by nearly 120 percent. However, the study did not find any increased risk for individuals who used their cell phones less frequently; nor was there evidence of any connection with meningioma.36
Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important component of this strategy, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided. Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage—as Carlo’s WTR did in 1999; as the WHO’s Interphone study did in 2010; and as the US National Toxicology Program did in 2016—industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree. “[T]he overall balance of the evidence” gives no cause for alarm, asserted Jack Rowley, research and sustainability director for the Groupe Special Mobile Association (GSMA), Europe’s wireless trade association, speaking to reporters about the WHO’s findings.22
Enter: Radiation. Lots of radiation. According to some research studies, there’s enough EMF radiation emitted by our cell phones to penetrate two inches into the adult brain, and all cell phones hazardously heat our biological tissue, wreaking havoc on many parts of our body. Which leads to serious health issues like fatigue, headaches, brain tumors, DNA alteration, impaired immune system, damaged brain activity and a variety of cancers. At least, that’s what we know now.
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:
Cell phone cases can make matters worse because they may block the phone’s antenna. The device must work harder to transmit signals which may lead to more radiation exposure for the user. (See safety tip #6 for more on the importance of a strong signal.) Certification testing done by phone manufacturers are done with bare phones with no accessories.
"To expect relief from radiation exposure from one specific device, is nearly impossible. It’s crucial to weigh in the MANY environmental factors; such as, temperature, atmospheric pressure, other radio waves, emissions from other devices, energy shifts from others around you, and Schumann Resonance shifts. Therefore," he explains that “relying on alteration of the environment as a safety precaution is always a game of chance…and signals affect people differently,” which adds another variables in the game of chance.
The WHO began to study the health effects of electric- and magnetic-field radiation (EMF) in 1996 under the direction of Michael Repacholi, an Australian biophysicist. Although Repacholi claimed on disclosure forms that he was “independent” of corporate influence, in fact Motorola had funded his research: While Repacholi was director of the WHO’s EMF program, Motorola paid $50,000 a year to his former employer, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which then transferred the money to the WHO program. When journalists exposed the payments, Repacholi denied that there was anything untoward about them because Motorola had not paid him personally. Eventually, Motorola’s payments were bundled with other industry contributions and funneled through the Mobile and Wireless Forum, a trade association that gave the WHO’s program $150,000 annually. In 1999, Repacholi helped engineer a WHO statement that “EMF exposures below the limits recommended in international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health.”34
The authors of these studies noted that the results were preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism in humans were unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in people (4). Some factors that can contribute to inconsistencies across such studies include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.
There is only one legitimate method of measuring cell phone radiation recognized by every major health authority and government in the world as well as by the cell phone industry itself, referred to as "SAR". SAR testing measures the "Specific Absorption Rate" of radiation at multiple depths and locations on the head and body in order to quantify how much radiation is actually penetrating it with and without certain safety devices. You can see a SAR test of the R2L device by watching the video below.
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.