In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, appointed an expert Working Group to review all available evidence on the use of cell phones. The Working Group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency radiation and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent evidence from mechanistic studies (4).
The increasing use of Wi-Fi in schools and other places has given rise to public concern that the radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields from Wi-Fi have the potential to adversely affect children. The current study measured typical and peak RF levels from Wi-Fi and other sources in 23 schools in Australia. All of the RF measurements were much lower than the reference levels recommended by international guidelines for protection against established health effects. The typical and peak RF levels from Wi-Fi in locations occupied by children in the classroom were of the order of 10-4 and 10-2% of the exposure guidelines, respectively. Typical RF levels in the classroom were similar between Wi-Fi and radio but higher than other sources. In the schoolyard typical RF levels were higher for radio, TV and mobile phone base stations compared to Wi-Fi. The results of this study showed that the typical RF exposure of children from Wi-Fi at school is very low and comparable or lower to other sources in the environment.
Add Negative Ions: Exposure to WiFi can result in the build-up of positive ions that can have negative effects on our bodies. We can neutralize this by adding negative ions to our lifestyle, negative ions are highest after a thunderstorm and are present from the energy caused by the crashing waves on the beach. You can also try a negative ion generator.
While that’s all scary as heck, I think it’s everything we don’t know about EMF exposure that scares me the most. That, and how seldom EMFs are discussed. If it hadn’t been for my dear friend August Brice, a Tech Wellness Advocate, I don’t think I would have ever considered the safety hazards associated with everyday cell phone use. Or had any knowledge of the subject whatsoever. Let’s be real, this topic has certainly never appeared in the trending tab on Twitter, and I’ve yet to see it spark a viral video.
Wireless internet (Wi-Fi) electromagnetic waves (2.45 GHz) have widespread usage almost everywhere, especially in our homes. Considering the recent reports about some hazardous effects of Wi-Fi signals on the nervous system, this study aimed to investigate the effect of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation on multisensory integration in rats. This experimental study was done on 80 male Wistar rats that were allocated into exposure and sham groups. Wi-Fi exposure to 2.4 GHz microwaves [in Service Set Identifier mode (23.6 dBm and 3% for power and duty cycle, respectively)] was done for 30 days (12 h/day). Cross-modal visual-tactile object recognition (CMOR) task was performed by four variations of spontaneous object recognition (SOR) test including standard SOR, tactile SOR, visual SOR, and CMOR tests. A discrimination ratio was calculated to assess the preference of animal to the novel object. The expression levels of M1 and GAT1 mRNA in the hippocampus were assessed by quantitative real-time RT-PCR. Results demonstrated that rats in Wi-Fi exposure groups could not discriminate significantly between the novel and familiar objects in any of the standard SOR, tactile SOR, visual SOR, and CMOR tests. The expression of M1 receptors increased following Wi-Fi exposure. In conclusion, results of this study showed that chronic exposure to Wi-Fi electromagnetic waves might impair both unimodal and cross-modal encoding of information.
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.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen. On May 31, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a press release announcing it had added cell phone radiation to its list of physical agents that are "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (group 2B agents). [38] The classification was made after a working group of 31 scientists completed a review of previously published studies and found "limited evidence of carcinogenicity" from the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by wireless phones, radio, television, and radar. [37]
In 2015, scientists from around the world united for the International EMF Scientist Appeal based on the results of over 2,000 research papers. The appeal is the collective voice of 190 scientists from 39 different countries. They are calling for tighter regulations and more security measures when dealing with electromagnetic field exposures generally, and WiFi in particular.
An excessive production of reactive oxygen substances (ROS) and reduced antioxidant defence systems resulting from electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure may lead to oxidative brain and liver damage and degradation of membranes during pregnancy and development of rat pups. 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 β-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. In conclusion, Wi-Fi-induced oxidative stress in the brain and liver of developing rats was the result of reduced GSH-Px, GSH and antioxidant vitamin concentrations. Moreover, the brain seemed to be more sensitive to oxidative injury compared to the liver in the development of newborns.
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
1. Be careful what you share. “Use the same good sense about what you post from your phone as from a computer. Once they’re posted, text, photos, and video are tough to take back, can be copied and pasted elsewhere, and are up there pretty much forever. Think about the people in them (including you!). Reputations are at stake.” – Tips for Smart Cellphone Use, Connect Safely; Twitter: @ConnectSafely
The present study was undertaken to determine the influence of low intensity microwave radiation (900, 1800, or 2450 MHz for 2h/day, 5days/week, for 60 days) on oxidative stress, inflammatory response and DNA damage in rat brain. Low intensity microwave exposure resulted in a frequency dependent significant increase in oxidative stress markers, reduced levels of GSH and SOD, increased levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, and significant DNA damage in microwave exposed groups compared to controls. In conclusion, the present study suggests that low intensity microwave radiation induces oxidative stress, inflammatory response and DNA damage in brain by exerting a frequency dependent effect. The study also indicates that increased oxidative stress and inflammatory response might be the factors involved in DNA damage following low intensity microwave exposure.
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.
The potential health impact of Wi-Fi, even at low exposure levels, can no longer be called into question or relativized away, not even by those studies that found no effects. The decision-makers in government, school boards, and health agencies have a responsibility to deal with the available body of research and not to be deceived by the arguments of the industry lobby or boilerplates of government institutions. Health risks are a reality. It would be particularly important to carry out further research regarding the effects on the brain and young people. The application of the precautionary principle, which is recognized in all European countries, only allows for one conclusion: Wi-Fi must not be used continuously and close to the human body. I is no coincidence that the user guide of the Telekom Wi-Fi router states: “The integrated antennas of your Speedport transmit and receive wireless signals, for example, to provide Wi-Fi connectivity. Avoid placing your Speedport in close proximity to bedrooms, children’s rooms, as well as common rooms and lounges to keep the exposure to electromagnetic field as low as possible.” In their joint appeal with regard to Wi-Fi, the Cyprus and Austrian medical associations call on decision-makers to "promote age-related rational application of digital technology and not allow at schools, particular at preschool, kindergarten and elementary schools wireless networks and opt for wired connections" (ibid). Lawmakers are called upon to adjust protective legislation to the current state of research and to support research into alternatives to Wi-Fi such as VLC technologies (visible light communication, Li-Fi).
On the opposite side of things, we have non-ionizing radiation. This radiation does not have enough energy to ionize atoms, and includes everything else on the radiation spectrum including infrared radiation, visible light, and radio waves  — including everything from the kind of low-energy radio waves we use for walkie-talkies to higher energy radio waves like those in the microwave portion of the spectrum.

Nevertheless, a group of scientists got together in the mid-2000s, calling themselves the BioInitiative Working Group. This group, which largely consisted of wireless radiation researchers, has written a harsh reply as feedback to the reports claiming that posed no health risks.  The reply lists a wide range of health effects scientists at the European Commission have unfortunately either ignored or dismissed.
×