This study aimed to investigate the effect of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation (12 h/day for 30 days) on multisensory integration in male rats. 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 and 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.

I’m so glad I stumbled on this article as I thought I was the only one around my area that gets badly affected by Wi-Fi signals. It started when I used to visit my son I would get heart palpitations and my throat felt like it was tightening up, after leaving it would eventually calm down but every time I went it got worse. I then also got Wi-Fi and was really ill for about eight weeks felt like I was slowly being poisoned, tight throat, palpitations, weakness and really bad sleep, just felt like I was dying. I then realised it
EMF emissions sourced from the various types of wireless pose various potential health risks, ranging from fertility to vision problems to headaches, and severe cases such as cancer tumors. Dr. Carlos's book on the landmark study of wireless energy safety, Cell phones, the Invisible Hazards of the Wireless age, noted biological damage over 15 years ago.
Researchers have carried out several types of epidemiologic studies in humans to investigate the possibility of a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of malignant (cancerous) brain tumors, such as gliomas, as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuroma (tumors in the cells of the nerve responsible for hearing that are also known as vestibular schwannomas), meningiomas (usually benign tumors in the membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord), and parotid gland tumors (tumors in the salivary glands) (3).
Cell phone radiation may disrupt the functioning of pacemakers. A 2005 study in the International Journal of Cardiology found that mobile phones may have "adverse effects" on pacemaker functions under certain conditions. [59] According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), radiofrequency energy from cell phones can create electromagnetic interference (EMI) that may disrupt the functioning of pacemakers, especially if the cell phone is placed close to the heart. [21] The American Heart Association includes cell phones on its list of "devices that may interfere with pacemakers." [60]
This study aimed to assess the potential harmful effects of radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation on sperm parameters. There was no significant difference between sperm counts and sperm morphology excluding sperm motility, due to mobile phone usage period, however total motile sperm count and the progressive motile sperm count decreased due to the increase of internet usage and progressive motile sperm count also decreased with wireless Internet usage compared with the wired Internet connection usage.
This study elucidates the effect of short (15 days) and long-term (30 and 60 days) low level 2.45 GHz MW radiation induced local stress on the hippocampal spatial memory formation pathway in adult male mice. Researchers observed that 2.45 GHz MW irradiated mice showed slow learning and significantly increased number of working and reference memory errors in RAM task. Further, 2.45 GHz MW radiation exposure increases serum corticosterone level and the expression of CRH, CRH-R1 and i-NOS, while the expression of iGluRs, n-NOS, PSD-95, PKCε, PKA, ERK-p-ERK, CREB and p-CREB decreases in above mentioned hippocampal subregions in a duration dependent manner. “Our findings led us to conclude that 2.45 GHz MW radiation exposure induced local stress suppresses signaling mechanism(s) of hippocampal memory formation.”
Children may have an increased risk of adverse health effects from cell phone radiation. According to American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Robert Block, when cell phones are used by children, "the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull," than for adults. [68] A July 2008 peer-reviewed study shows that children under the age of eight absorb twice the amount of radiation into their brain tissue as adults due to their lower skull thickness. [17]
Who can master dropping their phone down that tiny slit that exists when the elevator doors open? This girl! My iPhone 5s SURVIVED an eight story plummet down the elevator shaft at work thanks to my Commuter Series case!!! I thought for sure the screen would be cracked and the phone would be in a million pieces, but the screen wasn’t cracked or even scratched for that matter and it fully functions! The case took a little beating and there is a dent on the phone, but that’s nothing compared to the alternative! Thanks for making such a great product!!!! And to think, I was just complaining that I wanted something less bulky!!!
Hi August and Tech Wellness Team. We at SafeSleeve salute you for your effort to educate and provide solutions for the hidden dangers of EMF radiation exposure from wireless electronics. Like you, we’ve worked extremely hard to provide a practical solution for EMF exposure and, as verified by our independent lab testing, we believe we’ve found an extremely effective and practical solution. While I cannot speak for the other devices you tested here, there are some key points about our SafeSleeve technology that we wanted to make sure you took into consideration:
The presented data collectively suggest that microwave irradiation constitute a stress to the plants, resulting in enhanced emissions of GLV, up-regulation of terpenoid emissions and modification in essential oil content and foliage anatomy. Anatomical and emission traits suggested that WLAN-frequency irradiation resulted in more severe stress than GSM-frequency irradiation, but the effect of WLAN-frequency irradiation on essential oil was inhibitory. There was an agreement between anatomical and chemical traits with anatomically most resistant species Apium graveolens being chemically least responsive.
Another thing, a WiFi router is not continuously sending data, when devices don’t communicate to the internet. In an idle situation, a WiFi router just sends beacon signal, like “Hello I’m a WiFi router” every x miliseconds and your smartphone just listen to it, like a radio. The same is for GSM/3G/4G. Your mobile is not communicating to the GSM antenna continuously, otherwise it would drain your battery in minutes and your mobile gets very hot. Further more, the government forced the mobile companies to lower the transmit power, that’s why you see more GSM antennas (actually called basestations) in places like cities for better coverage.

W. Kim Johnson, a retired physicist and past president of the New Mexico Academy of Science, reviewed the Aires web site for Discovery News and described the material as gibberish, saying that the authors "of the technical description of the ‘Aires' device reads like a random selection of technical terminology. The working description for this device is made up of jargon that, in the end, really says nothing."

We have a safe search tools for kids. It is more of a phone friendly version of our site that automatically ensures safe search is on at http://www.safesearchkids.com/app.html or enter “Safe Search Kids” in your phones app store to get the links. Having your tweens and teens agree to use this version of search will automatically ensure safe filtering is always on. That said, you still need to set up guidelines that allow you to view history on their phone when needed, as well has having them promise to not delete their history knowing you may look at it.


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]
The aim of this study was to investigate long-term effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation (24 h/day for 1 year) emitted from a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) system on the testes of male rats. Results showed that sperm head defects increased in the exposure group (p < 0.05) while weight of the epididymis and seminal vesicles, seminiferous tubules diameter and tunica albuginea thickness were decreased in the exposure group (p < 0.01, p < 0.001, p < 0.0001). However, other alterations of other parameters were not found significant (p > 0.05). We suggest Wi-Fi users to avoid long-term exposure of RF emissions from Wi-Fi equipment.
Why, after such acrimony, Carlo was allowed to make one last appearance before the CTIA board is a mystery. Whatever the reason, Carlo flew to New Orleans in February 2000 for the wireless industry’s annual conference, where he submitted the WTR’s final report to the CTIA board. According to Carlo, Wheeler made sure that none of the hundreds of journalists covering the event could get anywhere near him.12

DefenderShield Cellphone Radiation Case also claims independent testing and says in their website: That a "sophisticated layering of separate non-toxic, human safe materials processed for maximum radiation blocking efficiency. Each material has unique and targeted radiation-shielding characteristics designed to work in unison to eliminate all radiation emissions from 0 to 10 GHZ and Defender Shield technology refracts, conducts and finally absorbs all these potentially harmful emissions."  In this demonstration, the radiation level measured when DefendeShield case was on is still quite a bit above the level of exposure that I would recommend. I personally do not recommend-holding a phone with a shielding case to your head as the DefenderShield website shows a young woman doing as she demonstrates the product. 
You’ll find no shortage of articles on the dangers of just about anything if you look around the Internet. Articles about how dangerous modern medicines are, how dangerous cell phones are, how dangerous cooking your food in a microwave is, and yes, how dangerous Wi-Fi is. People claim that Wi-Fi routers keep them awake at night, cause cancer, cause hyperactivity in children, and all manner of unsupported and nonsensical claims.
What makes the Fusion Excel Shield, such a different Anti-Radiation protection? And why you should equip all of your wireless devices? 1 -So Simple! because the FE Shield is Universal. Only 1 model for all devices: Regardless of the size's device to be equipped. Which gives you protection from the impact of radiation from your cell phone but also computers (desktop or laptop), Cordless Phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, iPad, iPod, TV, GPS, Internet Box, Baby monitor... 2 -New Patented cuting edge EMF Protection Technology! Its New Multi-Harmonic phase shifts Technology really takes into account the biological aspect of our body and brings a decrease in your overall level of stress 3 -Biological Effectiveness Scientifically proven: The positive effects are not only on physical data, but also by biologically tests by means of several biofeedback devices 4 -Sexy, slender size! Its extreme fineness will please you! This avoids having a too big system stuck behind your smartphone when you pout it on a table: half a millimeter thick! 5 -Virtually unlimited Lifetime - Best quality/price: It works for life! (as long as the antennas remain intact). Very reasonable price in relation to its High Technology. Unlike most other competing products, FE Shield don't must be replaced every year 90 Days 100% Money back Guarantee == Protect all your family Today = These edgy FE Shield EMF Protectors are going fast at this price Add to cart now by clicking on the yellow button and you will be safe protected in matter of days
Belgium recently adopted new cell phone regulations that bar mobile phone models designed for, and marketed to children ages 7 and younger.  Under Belgium’s new rules, slated to take effect next March, cell phone retailers will be required to disclose phones’ maximum emission levels, known as specific absorption rates, or SAR, at the point of sale.  Belgium becomes the latest in a rapidly lengthening list of nations to attempt to shield children from too much cell phone radiation and to inform everyone about the risks of exposure to these emissions. At least a dozen other nations have taken steps to protect children from cell phone radiation.
Like their tobacco and fossil-fuel brethren, wireless executives have chosen not to publicize what their own scientists have said about the risks of their products. On the contrary, the industry—in America, Europe, and Asia—has spent untold millions of dollars in the past 25 years proclaiming that science is on its side, that the critics are quacks, and that consumers have nothing to fear. This, even as the industry has worked behind the scenes—again like its Big Tobacco counterpart—to deliberately addict its customers. Just as cigarette companies added nicotine to hook smokers, so have wireless companies designed cell phones to deliver a jolt of dopamine with each swipe of the screen.19

These articles and websites don’t exist because the threat is real, however. They exist because they are a vehicle for turning people’s fear into money. The more people share nonsense articles about the dangers of Wi-Fi (or other harmless modern things) the more people click on them, the more ad-revenue is generated, and the more motivation the people peddling these rubbish articles have to keep creating and promoting them.
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] 

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. 
Anything you can do to keep the phone away from your head will help. (Even cell phone manufacturers warn consumers about this. See the previous post Cell Phone Manual Warnings for examples of warnings from Samsung, Apple and more.) If you hold the phone 2 inches away, the signal is about one-fourth the original strength. At four inches away, it’s about 1/16th as strong. Even better is a hands-free kit with a wireless air tube nearest the earpiece. (A regular wired headset can act as an antenna and make matters worse.)
Moving the meter around the case, we detect readings on the side, back and front of the case. We use the multi-directional TES 593 meter which measures 10 MHz to 8GHz. We use the unit of micro-watts per square centimeter, which looks like this little symbol: μW/cm² and we use it on the max setting which shows the maximum measured value. In non-science speak: the highest level of RF we see, which could be from the back the side or the front. 
You probably can’t get away from the effects of Wi-Fi. Even if you disconnect your own router – which probably would be very disruptive to your life – you are exposed to Wi-Fi at work, where you shop and in your neighborhood. You can protect yourself, though, with a range of effective and affordable products from SafeSpace. For more information, click here.
We have a safe search tools for kids. It is more of a phone friendly version of our site that automatically ensures safe search is on at http://www.safesearchkids.com/app.html or enter “Safe Search Kids” in your phones app store to get the links. Having your tweens and teens agree to use this version of search will automatically ensure safe filtering is always on. That said, you still need to set up guidelines that allow you to view history on their phone when needed, as well has having them promise to not delete their history knowing you may look at it.

We aimed to investigate the effects of Wi-Fi-induced EMR on the brain and liver antioxidant redox systems in the rat during pregnancy and development. Sixteen pregnant rats and their 48 newborns were equally divided into control and EMR groups. The EMR groups were exposed to 2.45GHz EMR (1hour/day for 5 days/week) from pregnancy to 3 weeks of age. Brain cortex and liver samples were taken from the newborns between the first and third weeks.
The use of Wi-fi has increased rapidly in recent years. Through the use of this technology, electronic devices are connected to a computer network wirelessly using radio waves, or radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy (EME), thereby eliminating or reducing the need for network cables. A common example is a laptop connected to the internet using a wi-fi modem at home. Wi-fi access points can also be found in schools and many public areas. People in a wi-fi enabled environment will be exposed to low level RF EME from time to time when using the network on computers and also from the access points. There is some public concern about potential health effects associated with RF EME emissions from wi-fi in homes, schools and other places.
They're ok, though there's a nasty chemical processing smell to the stickers. I'm still not sure they're worth what they're made of. No instructions, testimonials, or even a product insert label, when you get them in a pretty, smelly gold sleeve, though you don't really need instructions for stickers, lol. They're very durable and don't wear easily, despite pressure and contact w/ many surfaces & objects. The price increased $4 since I ordered them. That said, the designs on them are beautiful. I just don't understand what I paid for, & it would be nice if there were tests on devices like this, proving that they actually absorb or render harmless, various wireless frequencies, and at what range. If they were cheaper, I might order 2 more packs just to see if they made a difference if placed closer together in larger quantity. I have 3 on my laptop & have noticed a very slight reduction in sensitivity to EMF. I didn't notice this slight difference until I put 1 sticker where my right hand rests on the keyboard. I had originally placed 2 on the base of the laptop, 1 over the wifi card, & 1 over the processor, and it made zero difference. I left things like that for 2 weeks, before I decided to try putting one of the stickers on the keyboard area. I'm still not clear on whether or not I'd buy this product again, but like the seller, Crownstarqi, b/c they are sending me a few more stickers so that I can see if multiple stickers on more devices makes a difference. This is very kind of them, & they have great customer follow-up. -Account holder's progeny.
*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.
The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of 2.45-GHz electromagnetic radiation (60min/day for 4 weeks) on the oxidant and antioxidant status of skin and to examine the possible protective effects of β-glucans (50 mg/kg/day before each EMR exposure) against the oxidative injury in male rats. EMR exposure caused a significant increase in malondialdehyde levels and catalase activity, while the activities of superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase decreased in skin tissues. Systemic β-glucan significantly reversed the elevation of MDA levels and the reduction of SOD activities. β-glucan treatment also slightly enhanced the activity of CAT and prevented the depletion of GSH-Px activity caused by EMR, but not statistically significantly. The present study demonstrated the role of oxidative mechanisms in EMR-induced skin tissue damages and that β-glucan could ameliorate oxidative skin injury via its antioxidant properties.
Industry-funded scientists had been pressuring their colleagues for a decade by then, according to Leszczynski, another member of the Lyon working group. Leszczynski was an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School when he first experienced such pressure, in 1999. He had wanted to investigate the effects of radiation levels higher than the SAR levels permitted by government, hypothesizing that this might better conform to real-world practices. But when he proposed the idea at scientific meetings, Leszczynski said, it was shouted down by Mays Swicord, Joe Elder, and C.K. Chou—scientists who worked for Motorola. As Leszczynski recalled, “It was a normal occurrence at scientific meetings—and I attended really a lot of them—that whenever [a] scientist reported biological effects at SAR over [government-approved levels], the above-mentioned industry scientists, singularly or as a group, jumped up to the microphone to condemn and to discredit the results.”44
We investigated the long-term effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from Wi-Fi systems on hearing. Sixteen Wistar albino rats were divided equally into two groups: sham control and exposure groups. The rats in the experimental group were exposed to 2.4 GHz RFR emitted from a Wi-Fi generator for 24 h/day for one year. The same procedure was applied to the rats in the sham group, except that the Wi-Fi generator was turned off. All groups were kept in Faraday cages during the 12 months to eliminate external electromagnetic fields. The distance between the Wi-Fi generator antenna and the exposure cages was 50 cm. Pre-exposure distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) of all rats were measured at the beginning, 6th and 12th months of the study. The DPOAE values of the sham, baseline and exposure groups were compared statistically. For the 6000 Hz hearing frequency, the DPOAE values in the exposure group were lower than those in the sham group (p < 0.05). Similarly, the 6000 Hz hearing frequency values obtained at the end of the 12th month were also lower than the baseline and 6-month values in the exposure group (p < 0.05). In contrast, the DPOAE values at the 6th and 12th months of exposure for the 2000 Hz hearing frequency were higher than the baseline value (p < 0.05). These results indicated that 12 months of RFR (24 h/day) at 50 cm from a 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi source can affect hearing. However, further studies are necessary.

There is great variability in survival by brain tumor subtype, and by age at diagnosis. Overall, the 5-year relative survival for brain cancers diagnosed from 2008 through 2014 was 33.2% (49). This is the percentage of people diagnosed with brain cancer who will still be alive 5 years after diagnosis compared with the survival of a person of the same age and sex who does not have cancer.


If you would like to reproduce some or all of this content, see Reuse of NCI Information for guidance about copyright and permissions. In the case of permitted digital reproduction, please credit the National Cancer Institute as the source and link to the original NCI product using the original product's title; e.g., “Cell Phones and Cancer Risk was originally published by the National Cancer Institute.”
Disclaimer: The content of this website is based on research conducted by TTAC Publishing, LLC, unless otherwise noted. The information is presented for educational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose or prescribe for any medical or psychological condition, nor to prevent, treat, mitigate or cure such conditions. The information contained herein is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a doctor or qualified healthcare professional. Therefore, this information is not intended as medical advice, but rather a sharing of knowledge and information based on research and experience. TTAC Publishing encourages you to make your own health care decisions based on your judgment and research in partnership with a qualified healthcare professional.
In a separate study by the same Swedish team, they found more than seven times the risk among people using a cell phone more than 20 years and 6.5 times the risk for long-term users of cordless phones. As expected, most of the gliomas and acoustic neuromas were on the same side of the head, which was usually exposed to the phone. In the 2013 official report on the medical evidence for brain tumors, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that radiation from cell phones is “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.
×