The advent of Wi-Fi connected high technology devices in executing day-to-day activities is fast evolving especially in developing countries of the world and hence the need to assess its safety among others. The present study was conducted to investigate the injurious effect of radiofrequency emissions from installed Wi-Fi devices in brains of young male rats. Animals were divided into four equal groups; group 1 served as control while groups 2, 3, and 4 were exposed to 2.5 Ghz at intervals of 30, 45, and 60 consecutive days with free access to food and water ad libitum. Alterations in harvested brain tissues were confirmed by histopathological analyses which showed vascular congestion and DNA damage in the brain was assayed using agarose gel electrophoresis. Histomorphometry analyses of their brain tissues showed perivascular congestion and tissue damage as well.

BACKGROUND: The use of devices emitted microwave radiation such as mobile phones, wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) routers, etc. is increased rapidly. It has caused a great concern; the researchers should identify its effects on people's health. We evaluated the protective role of Vitamin C on the metabolic and enzymatic activities of the liver after exposure to Wi-Fi routers.
Lloyd is correct. I’ve worked in wireless equipment design for over 30 years, from 30kHz to 3GHz, milliwatts to many-watts. In the late 2000’s I personally set the safety standards for wireless charging (WPC’s “Qi” format) after lengthy research. Starting at 400MHz and above, DNA strands can be broken or inflicted with sequence translocation when the applied fields excite mechanical shake, twist, and compression resonances of the helixes. Those would be cancer-provoking damage. Below 300MHz I’m not aware of significant non-thermal biological effects, which explain how we’ve been “lucky” with AM/FM radio, walkie talkies, CB’s, shortwave, and VHF TV not harming people en masse.
I am a certified Building Biology Advocate, a former journalist, mother of nine, and avid CrossFitter who likes to think outside the box. After our family's health crisis in 2008, I learned to ask questions about what's in our food, our water, and our air. I hope to empower you as you seek to live safely in a complex world. Thankfully, small steps lead to big changes. Let's travel this road together, one step at a time.
The wireless industry has sought to downplay concerns about cell phones’ safety, and the Federal Communications Commission has followed its example. In 1996, the FCC established cell-phone safety levels based on “specific absorption rate,” or SAR. Phones were required to have a SAR of 1.6 watts or less per kilogram of body weight. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised the FCC that its guidelines “do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children.” Nevertheless, the FCC has declined to update its standards.30

Whether you call them cell phones, smart phones or mobile devices, it seems like everyone has one. According to the wireless telecommunications industry, the U.S. now has an estimated 300 million mobile subscribers, compared to 110 million subscribers a decade ago. The increase in cell phone use has generated concern about possible health risks related to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from this technology, and a market for shields as possible protection against the radio waves the phones emit. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation's consumer protection agency, has some practical tips to help you avoid scams and limit your exposure to electromagnetic emissions from your cell phone.
✅ STOP CRIPPLING YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM: Radiation waves have been shown to attack the human immune system, lowering our defences and making us prone to diseases and ailments. The special combination of crystals and minerals used in our EMF protection cell phone radiation shield will restore balance and increase the body’s defense against harmful radiation.
SAR stands for specific absorption rate, a measure of the amount of radio frequency energy absorbed by the body when using a mobile phone. The SAR rating of your cell phone can be found in your instruction manual or possibly online at this Federal Communications Commission website. In the United States, the SAR cannot exceed 1.6 watts per kilogram.
Camera, Video & SurveillanceAction Cameras & Drones,Camcorders,Dash...5178 Car Electronics & GPSCar Audio,Car Mounts & Accessories,Car S...2415 Cell Phones & AccessoriesBackup Batteries,Bluetooth Devices,Cable...15705 Computers & TabletsComputer Accessories,Desktops, Monitors...8313 Musical InstrumentsAccessories,Amplifiers & Effects,Brass &...2083 Office Electronics & SuppliesNetworking,Printers & Scanners,Scanners...2449 Portable AudioBluetooth & Wireless Speakers,Docks, Rad...3630 Smart HomeCameras & Surveillance,Door Locks,Garage...136
You can search for the most popular cell phone cases and covers, browse cases and covers by brand, and even refine your search by need. Cell phone cases provide a variety of protection. Some people put a large emphasis on military-grade protection, to ensure that all angles of their case are secure, no matter the terrain. Others may desire cases that give easy access to headphone ports or charging outlets, to have access to home speakers or audio cables. The engineering of cases can become even more specific—right down to the beveled edges that raise your screen protectively above a flat surface or the grip finish smoothly designed onto the back of your phone to ensure maximum ease in typing. Whatever your need, Amazon is sure to carry the brand, features, and colors you care about. Check the Deals page regularly to even see some of your favorite cases on discount. Amazon is sure to carry the widest selection of cases; you just worry about carrying yours.
SafeSleeve Anti Radiation Case: Safe Sleeve website says they integrate FCC accredited independent lab tested "shielding technology" in their products. There are many links to "SafeSleeve, Is it a Scam?" and "Does SafeSleeve work?" online, but if you follow those links you'll find they go to the actual SafeSleeve site where the question of SafeSleeve protection is addressed.  You'll see in this demonstration that the radiation level was higher with the SafeSleeve Case on.
42. Limit your child’s time on the phone. There’s much discussion about how much screen time is good for kids and teens today, and today’s wireless devices provide access to all the games, chatting features, web browsers, media, and apps they could possibly consume in a lifetime. Setting clear limits on smartphone usage will help you keep screen time within reasonable limits. “Half an hour of screen time is recommended for children 4-5 years old; an hour for ages 5-10; and two hours for high school aged kids.” – Melanie Medina, Growing up Digital – Cell Phone Safety for Kids, Identity Force; Twitter: @IdentityForce
The present study was performed to investigate the effect of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation (2 h/day for 35 days) on reproductive pattern of male Wistar rats. Chronic exposure to these radiations produced formation of apoptotic cells in testis. In addition, a significant decrease in the levels of antioxidant enzymes glutathione and superoxide dismutase activities as well as an increase in catalase activity was observed in the exposed group. These results indicate that a low level exposure of microwave radiations exerts a negative impact on male reproductive system function.
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).
The present work investigated the effects of prenatal exposure to radiofrequency waves of conventional WiFi devices on postnatal development and behavior of rat offspring. Ten Wistar albino pregnant rats were randomly assigned to two groups (n=5). The experimental group was exposed to a 2.45GHz WiFi signal for 2h a day throughout gestation period. Control females were subjected to the same conditions as treated group without applying WiFi radiations. After delivery, the offspring was tested for physical and neurodevelopment during its 17 postnatal days (PND), then for anxiety (PND 28) and motricity (PND 40-43), as well as for cerebral oxidative stress response and cholinesterase activity in brain and serum (PND 28 and 43). Our main results showed that the in-utero WiFi exposure impaired offspring neurodevelopment during the first seventeen postnatal days without altering emotional and motor behavior at adult age. Besides, prenatal WiFi exposure induced cerebral oxidative stress imbalance (increase in malondialdehyde level (MDA) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) levels and decrease in catalase (CAT) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) activities) at 28 but not 43days old, also the exposure affected acethylcolinesterase activity at both cerebral and seric levels. Thus, the current study revealed that maternal exposure to WiFi radiofrequencies led to various adverse neurological effects in the offspring by affecting neurodevelopment, cerebral stress equilibrium and cholinesterase activity.

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
This is a stupid article. We get electromagnetic radiation from radios, baby monitors, alarm systems, even the Earth itself. And even if we own none of that we still get it from out neighbors. It’s harmless, after all we been exposed to it forever from our planet. Unless you plan on wrapping yourself in foil you will escape it. Not that it matters, it does no harm in these low doses.

In my home and work environment I long ago made the decision to completely steer clear of WiFi. You might not feel you want to go “the whole nine yards” on this. Here are some ways you can reduce the burden of radio frequency radiation from WiFi on your body. You can pick and choose from this list according to how much you want to reduce WiFi radiation exposure in your life.
Since they're hybrids of the two accessories you generally carry, there's obviously less room for your stuff. However, most guys — when push comes to shove — can get by with just a few frequently used credit cards and IDs. We're sharing seven of our favorite wallet cases for you to take a look at, below. If space is too big of a compromise here, but you still want something that's on the slim side, there are always card cases to consider.
US government agencies conclude there is no scientific evidence proving that cell phones cause cancer or other health problems. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), [4] US Government Accountability Office (GAO), [5] and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), [47] have all concluded that there is no evidence in the scientific literature proving that cell phones cause brain tumors or other health problems. According to the FDA, "attempts to replicate and confirm the few studies that did show a connection [between cell phone radiation and head tumors] have failed." [69]
In September 2014, Californian oncologists reported four similar case histories of young women who had developed breast cancer in precisely the areas where they normally carried their smartphones. What shocked the doctors was that these women were aged 21 to 39 and had no family history or other risk factors relating to cancer. All their cancers “had striking similarity, all tumours were hormone positive… (with) an extensive intraductal component and… near-identical morphology.” (CaseRepMed., 2013).