If you’re one of the millions who missed the WHO’s news then it’s likely you also missed the fine print in Apple’s official iPhone User Guide. The part that states cell phones should be kept “5mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below” Standard Absorption Rate (SAR). In plain language, cell phones should be at least 5mm away from you at all times, dammit.
"In conclusion, contrary to the assurances implied by Karipidis et al., existing scientific evidence clearly indicates that there are potential health risks for students and staff from microwave RF-EMR exposure levels found at schools from internal and external wireless infrastructure. ARPANSA should immediately recommend that schools use wired Internet instead of WiFi as several responsible government agencies in other parts of the world have already done to reduce exposure of children, a sensitive population that need particular protection."
What a dishonest shit article. There is no evidence that Wi-Fi does anything mentioned here. I read one of your “citations” about its link to insomnia and the study you link doesn’t even come close to mentioning WiFi. Your vague “link to cancer” citation is a local news piece. This kind of shit just reinforces people’s pseudoscientific nonsense beliefs.
46. Tape your home number on your phone (or a parent’s cell phone number). “Imagine your child’s phone (or your own) is lost. Even if the person who finds it wants to return it, they have to go through your private information to find a number to dial. Make it easy. Tape your home number (or whatever number is suitable) to the back of the phone, along with information about a reward, if you like. That way, even with a password locking the keypad or screen, a do-gooder can get you your phone back!” – marianmerritt, Cell Phone Safety Tips for Kids, Norton Community by Symantec; Twitter: @NortonSupport
When a group of Danish ninth graders experienced difficulty concentrating after sleeping with their cell phones by their head, they performed an experiment to test the effect of wireless Wi-Fi routers on garden cress. One set of plants was grown in a room free of wireless radiation; the other group grew next to two routers that released the same amount of radiation as a cell phone. The results? The plants nearest the radiation didn’t grow. [6]
Safety standards do exist for radio frequency radiation emissions, but these standards are only based on thermal heating effects. That is to say they only consider these exposures to be harmful if they heat tissue. But these safety standards do not protect us from adverse biological effects which are thought to be the precursor to serious diseases. Scientists have already raised the alarm regarding this issue.
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.

It is concluded that radiofrequency radiations are genotoxic as they induced chromosomal aberrations in chickpea mitotic cells and the presence of ghost cells is clear indication of their carcinogenic potential. To avoid reported DNA damages in this work cell phones should always be used either for short duration or with hands-free for long duration and they should not be kept in pockets or near body. Laptops should not be used unnecessarily for enjoyment purpose. It must be placed on desk top rather lap to minimize their exposure to human body. Further assay of carcinogenity are recommended on mouse and human cell lines.
Unfortunately, the current state of cell phone radiation research is similar to the early days of tobacco research. It wasn't until 1999 when the U.S. Department of Justice finally filed a racketeering lawsuit against the major tobacco companies for engaging in a "50 year scheme" to counteract any scientific evidence that showed that cigarettes are harmful to a person's health. Is the potential cell phone cancer link the same sort of scenario? Are cell phone companies funding and promoting research that "proves" no link from cell phone radio radiation in an effort to discredit those studies that are uncovering problems?
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.
All values were far below International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s (ICNIRP) reference values, but most mean levels measured were above the precautionary target level of 3–6 µW/m2 as proposed by the Bioinitiative Report ….however the ICNIRP guidelines are based on short-term heating (thermal) effects, and are therefore not relevant to decide on the appropriateness of long-term exposure.
We requested semen for analyses from the male patients coming to our infertility division and also asked them to fill out an anonymous questionnaire. We queried their mobile phone and wireless internet usage frequencies in order to determine their radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation exposure. A total of 1082 patients filled the questionnaire but 51 of them were excluded from the study because of azoospermia. 

Disclosure: This post is brought to you by Business Insider's Insider Picks team. We aim to highlight products and services you might find interesting, and if you buy them, we get a small share of the revenue from the sale from our commerce partners, including Amazon. Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, is an investor in Business Insider through his personal investment company Bezos Expeditions. We frequently receive products free of charge from manufacturers to test. This does not drive our decision as to whether or not a product is featured or recommended. We operate independently from our advertising sales team. We welcome your feedback. Have something you think we should know about? Email us at insiderpicks@businessinsider.com.


We aimed to investigate the protective effects of melatonin and 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation (60 min/day for 30 days) on brain and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neuron antioxidant redox system, Ca(2+) influx, cell viability and electroencephalography (EEG) records in the rat. Lipid peroxidation (LP), cell viability and cytosolic Ca(2+) values in DRG neurons were higher in EMR-exposed groups than in controls, although their concentrations were increased by melatonin, 2-aminoethyldiphenyl borinate (2-APB), diltiazem and verapamil supplementation. Lower numbers of EEG spikes were recorded in EMR+melatonin groups than in EMR only, while brain cortex vitamin E concentrations were higher in the melatonin-supplemented group. In conclusion, Melatonin supplementation in DRG neurons and brain seems to have protective effects on the 2.45 GHz-induced increase Ca(2+) influx, EEG records and cell viability of the hormone through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels.
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.
The FCC has granted the industry’s wishes so often that it qualifies as a “captured agency,” argued journalist Norm Alster in a report that Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics published in 2015. The FCC allows cell-phone manufacturers to self-report SAR levels, and does not independently test industry claims or require manufacturers to display the SAR level on a phone’s packaging. “Industry controls the FCC through a soup-to-nuts stranglehold that extends from its well-placed campaign spending in Congress through its control of the FCC’s congressional oversight committees to its persistent agency lobbying,” Alster wrote. He also quoted the CTIA website praising the FCC for “its light regulatory touch.”31
According to a peer-reviewed Nov. 2008 study in the journal Epidemiology, exposure to cell phone radiation while in the womb "was associated with behavior difficulties such as emotional and hyperactivity problems around the age of school entry." [65] A Dec. 2010 study replicated those findings. [67] A peer-reviewed Mar. 15, 2012 study found that mice exposed to cell phone radiation in the womb "were hyperactive and had impaired memory" as adults. [66]

In June of 2008, a Japanese study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, considered how mobile phone radiation levels affected different parts of the brain. After studying the mobile phone use of 322 brain cancer patients and 683 healthy adults, the study concluded that using a mobile phone "regularly" did not increase the risk of brain cancer.
Asked for specifics, Foster says it helps to understand how Wi-Fi works. While most people assume their wireless router is constantly sending and receiving information, Foster says these devices actually transmit just 0.1% of the time. “Maybe that goes up somewhat if you’re streaming video,” he says, “but most of the time your router is just sitting idly waiting for something to happen.”

If you use a USB Wi-Fi adapter (for PCs that don’t have a built in wireless network interface card) use it on a USB extension cable (10 feet or more). The same goes if you use a 3G or 4G USB internet stick, or dongle, to connect to the Internet while you’re traveling. A USB extension cable will significantly reduce your exposure. Tip: the further the USB internet stick is from you when you’re surfing the Web, the less you will be exposed.  Buy a USB extension that’s a good 10 to 15 feet long.
Low frequency sound wave? what? They are HIGH frequency microwaves, AS IN THE SAME FREQUENCY YOUR MICROWAVE USES THAT HEATS UP FOOD! Please don’t be that guy that has no idea about this and tries to “debunk” something that is literally destroying people’s lives. – And it just simply BAFFLES me how you don’t even read the research done on the matter and boldly claim it has no effect! How ignorant and completely oblivious can one person be?!
The company's "Researches" page, for example, states that "Aires Technologies are more than 12 years (sic). For this period there have been conducted a number of studies on mechanisms of coherent transformers that effect on physical, chemical, technological and biological processes (sic). The studies were carried out in close collaboration with leading research and academic institutions."
Central to keeping the scientific argument going is making it appear that not all scientists agree. Again like the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, the wireless industry has “war gamed” science, as a Motorola internal memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science involves playing offense as well as defense: funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies like the World Health Organization; and seeking to discredit scientists whose views depart from the industry’s.21
"For example," Johnson said, "what does a fractal like pattern have to do with a hologram? The answer is, of course, nothing that is apparent. Then there is a truly convoluted assertion that cell phones can be instrumental in ‘psychoemotional' effects on humans because of their lower-frequency outputs. This too, is gibberish. In short, this is technobabble that will potentially snow someone who has no science background."

The World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer’s classification of wireless radiofrequency frequencies a Class 2B carcinogen includes wireless radiation from any transmitting source such as cellphones, baby monitors, tablets, cell towers, radar, other wifi, etc. The radiofrequency classification applies to RF-EMF in the range of 30 KHz to 300 GHz emitted from any device. Cell phone frequencies commonly start at 900 MHz (with some cell phones having up to 7 antennas all at different frequencies) and Wi-Fi device frequencies are at 2.45 GHz and 5GHz.
So of course now that we understand that the cases are not tested and just the material--it makes sense! We measured power density levels all around the case-the shielding material most likely isn't used "all over" because then the phone couldn't receive signal and wouldn't be able to engage in a call.  That's why we did not see even close to a 99% reduction when some cases were on the phone.  In fact, watch the video and you'll see some readings are more than 20% higher with a case on vs the naked phone.
Members of the public often ask about the cumulative exposure that a child receives when using a Wi-Fi device in a classroom in which a number of children are simultaneously using Wi-Fi. When downloading files, most of the transmissions will be from the access point, not the students’ device. When downloading and uploading only a portion of the maximum capacity of a network would be used even in a classroom filled with children using Wi-Fi. The Wi-Fi network divides RF transmissions among the access points and client devices therefore the individual RF exposure to a child in a classroom that is using a device consists of sequential exposures from all active devices, the majority of which are located at some distance away(15). For the majority of schools (20) the measurements in the current study were conducted in an empty classroom (to avoid lesson disruption) with an access point and one laptop. In three schools, measurements were conducted with students or teachers present and using Wi-Fi devices. A comparison between measurements conducted in empty classrooms and classrooms with multiple students/teachers using Wi-Fi showed no significant difference in the RF levels (p > 0.1 for all); although this may have been due to low numbers (only three schools measured with multiple users in the classroom).
Disclosure: This post is brought to you by Business Insider's Insider Picks team. We aim to highlight products and services you might find interesting, and if you buy them, we get a small share of the revenue from the sale from our commerce partners, including Amazon. Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, is an investor in Business Insider through his personal investment company Bezos Expeditions. We frequently receive products free of charge from manufacturers to test. This does not drive our decision as to whether or not a product is featured or recommended. We operate independently from our advertising sales team. We welcome your feedback. Have something you think we should know about? Email us at insiderpicks@businessinsider.com.

“There is a carcinogenic effect,” announced Ron Melnick, the designer of the study. Male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation developed cancer at a substantially higher rate, though the same effect was not seen in female rats. Rats exposed to radiation also had lower birth rates, higher infant mortality, and more heart problems than those in the control group. The cancer effect occurred in only a small percentage of the rats, but that small percentage could translate into a massive amount of human cancers. “Given the extremely large number of people who use wireless communications devices, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease…could have broad implications for public health,” the NTP’s draft report explained.48
This study was aimed at investigating the alteration of antibiotic resistance of Klebsiella pneumonia, after exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation from a Wi-Fi router for 3, 4.5 or 8 hours. The findings of this study show a statistically significant rise in the sensitivity of Klebsiella pneumoniae to different antibiotics after 4.5 hours of exposure to 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation, followed by a fall after 8 hours of exposure. These observations can be interpreted by the concept of non-linearity in the responses of Klebsiella pneumoniae to different antibiotics after exposure to electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation.

The easiest thing for you to do is to put a passcode on your phone. Having a passcode will make it harder for someone to pick up your phone to scroll through, access your accounts, or install something malicious. In the event that your phone gets stolen or you lose it, it’ll make it a bit harder for others to get into your phone. Most phones just ask for a 4-digit passcode, but some phones will allow you to use a more complex passcode.

"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.
7. Keep it locked. “Make sure that you have a secret PIN (personal identification number), a password, fingerprint setting or other security measures in place so that only you can access your phone.” – National Cyber Security Alliance, June is Internet Safety Month! The National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA) and ConnectSafely Share Tips to Ensure Online Safety and Summertime Fun, PR Newswire; Twitter: @PRNewswire
×