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.
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.
The aim of this study was to investigate electromagnetic radiation (EMR) transmitted by wireless devices (2.45 GHz, 3h/day for 30 days), which may cause physiopathological or ultrastructural changes, in the testes of rats and address if the supplemental gallic acid (GA) may reduce these adverse effects. EMR only group was shown to have higher oxidative stress, decreased testosterone and VEGF levels, increased prostaglandin E2 and CGRP, as well as decreased numbers of spermatozoa. Long term EMR exposure resulted in testicular physiopathology via oxidative damage and inflammation. GA may have ameliorative effects on the prepubertal rat testes physiopathology.
The very next day, a livid Tom Wheeler began publicly trashing Carlo to the media. In a letter he shared with the CEOs, Wheeler told Carlo that the CTIA was “certain that you have never provided CTIA with the studies you mention”—an apparent effort to shield the industry from liability in the lawsuits that had led to Carlo’s hiring in the first place. Wheeler charged further that the studies had not been published in peer-reviewed journals, casting doubt on their validity.10
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.
Electrocardiogram and arterial pressure measurements were studied under acute exposures to WIFI (2.45GHz) during one hour in adult male rabbits. Acute exposure of rabbits to WIFI increased heart frequency (+22%) and arterial blood pressure (+14%). Moreover, analysis of ECG revealed that WIFI induced a combined increase of PR and QT intervals, but failed to alter maximum amplitude and P waves. After intravenously injection of dopamine (0.50ml/kg) and epinephrine (0.50ml/kg) under acute exposure to RF we found that, WIFI alter catecholamines (dopamine, epinephrine) action on heart variability and blood pressure compared to control. These results suggest for the first time, as far as we know, that exposure to WIFI affect heart rhythm, blood pressure, and catecholamines efficacy on cardiovascular system; indicating that radiofrequency can act directly and/or indirectly on cardiovascular system.
PURPOSE: MicroRNAs (miRNA) play a paramount role in growth, differentiation, proliferation and cell death by suppressing one or more target genes. However, their interaction with radiofrequencies is still unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted from a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) system on some of the miRNA in brain tissue.
The FCC provides information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cell phones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds with the relative amount of radiofrequency radiation absorbed by the head of a cell phone user (47). Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCC’s ID search form.
Free Standard Shipping on purchases of $34.99 or more applies in the U.S. only. Free Returns in the U.S. and Canada. Large, oversized items and products delivered by special or white glove carriers are not eligible for free shipping or free returns. Free returns are not applicable to final sale/non-returnable items. As always, check the deal's Fine Print for restrictions. Learn More
George Carlo seemed like a good bet to fulfill Wheeler’s mission. He was an epidemiologist who also had a law degree, and he’d conducted studies for other controversial industries. After a study funded by Dow Corning, Carlo had declared that breast implants posed only minimal health risks. With chemical-industry funding, he had concluded that low levels of dioxin, the chemical behind the Agent Orange scandal, were not dangerous. In 1995, Carlo began directing the industry-financed Wireless Technology Research project (WTR), whose eventual budget of $28.5 million made it the best-funded investigation of cell-phone safety to date.4
Legal Disclaimer: EWG's cell phone database is dynamic, which means that the cell phone ranking numbers may change based on evolving science, new information on SAR radiation exposures, market conditions, or other factors. Please be advised that EWG does not recommend that companies create marketing materials based on the EWG rating system, given that the rankings may change as the database is updated. EWG makes no representations or warranties about any of the products rated on this site. EWG hereby disclaims all warranties with regard to the products on the site, including express, statutory, implied warranties of merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose.
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
If you search hard enough, you'll be able to locate legitimate scientific studies that indicate there may be a cancer risk from the radio wave radiation that's emitted from your cell phone. On the other hand, you'll be able to find just as many studies that prove there's no danger from the levels of radiation coming from your phone. What do you believe?
Custom Baby & Kids ItemsPersonalized Kids Books,Personalized Ted...13 Custom JewelryCustom Bracelets,Personalized Earrings,P...67 Custom Kitchen AccessoriesCustom Kitchen Utensils,Custom Mugs,Pers...62 Custom Novelty ItemsCustom Bobbleheads,Custom Electronic Acc...38 Custom Photo PrintsAcrylic Prints,Canvas Prints,Custom Post...440 Personalized Bags6
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
In February of 2008, a research study was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. The study, conducted at Tel Aviv University, examined 500 Israelis who had developed salivary gland cancer and compared their level of mobile phone usage to 1,300 healthy adults. The researchers discovered that within the entire group, those who used their cell phone for a few hours a day had 50 percent higher odds of developing a salivary gland tumor.
All that research has taught us that at high frequencies, electromagnetic radiation can promote tumor growth and cancer. The sun’s ultraviolet rays and their links to skin cancer are one example. Even at lower frequencies, very high levels of electromagnetic radiation exposure can hurt you. “But we’re talking skin burns, not cancer or tumors,” says Kenneth Foster, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania.
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 recent years there has been a tremendous increase in use of Wi-Fi devices along with mobile phones, globally. Wi-Fi devices make use of 2.4 GHz frequency. The present study evaluated the impact of 2.45 GHz radiation exposure for 4h/day for 45 days on behavioral and oxidative stress parameters in female Sprague Dawley rats. Behavioral tests of anxiety, learning and memory were started from day 38. Oxidative stress parameters were estimated in brain homogenates after sacrificing the rats on day 45. In morris water maze, elevated plus maze and light dark box test, the 2.45 GHz radiation exposed rats elicited memory decline and anxiety behavior. Exposure decreased activities of super oxide dismutase, catalase and reduced glutathione levels whereas increased levels of brain lipid peroxidation was encountered in the radiation exposed rats, showing compromised anti-oxidant defense. Expression of caspase 3 gene in brain samples were quantified which unraveled notable increase in the apoptotic marker caspase 3 in 2.45 GHz radiation exposed group as compared to sham exposed group. No significant changes were observed in histopathological examinations and brain levels of TNF-α. Analysis of dendritic arborization of neurons showcased reduction in number of dendritic branching and intersections which corresponds to alteration in dendritic structure of neurons, affecting neuronal signaling. The study clearly indicates that exposure of rats to microwave radiation of 2.45GHz leads to detrimental changes in brain leading to lowering of learning and memory and expression of anxiety behavior in rats along with fall in brain antioxidant enzyme systems.
The present study shows that as prolonged exposure to RF radiation emitted from Wi-Fi devices causes DNA damage, a low intensity RF radiation could affect male fertility. Further longitudinal studies with oxidative stress parameters and DNA damage markers are needed to determine whether DNA damage in reproduction cells that indicates infertility is formed due to oxidative stress caused by prolonged exposure to Wi-Fi usage.
My phone is a very large concentration of value in an easy-to-lose, easy-to-break package that I’m constantly waving around recklessly. The next time you plop your phone down on a bar, which is a dark place buzzing with dizzy people holding containers full of liquid, remember that what you’re really doing is placing $600 to $1,000 in a situation in which it might instantly vaporize.
29. Carry your phone properly when you must carry it close to you. “If you must carry your cellphone on you, keep the keypad position toward your body and the back toward the outside to have the electromagnetic fields move away from you, rather than through you, according to Consumerist.” – Lizette Borreli, Teenage Girl Wakes to Samsung Galaxy S4 Catching Fire Under Pillow: 4 Ways to Make Your Cell Phone Safer, Medical Daily; Twitter: @lizcelineb
The word radiation is, to the lay person, a scary word. Radiation is the stuff that 1960s school children were taught to climb under their desks to avoid, and what prompted Cold-War-terrified Americans to build backyard bomb shelters. Radiation is the stuff that leads meltdowns at nuclear power plants to contaminate the ocean and make land uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
High frequency, specifically 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi radiation, induces a decrease in sperm parameters along with an increase in apoptosis-positive cells and caspase-3 activity in the seminiferous tubules of Wistar rats, specially in 7-hour group. It reduced seminal vesicle weight following 2.45 GHz exposure. Considering the progressive privilege of 2.45 GHz wireless networks in our environment, we concluded that there should be a major concern about the time-dependent exposure of our body to the higher frequencies of Wi-Fi antenna.
Of course they’re not. But they are banning wireless communication in nursery schools, because that’s new and parents aren’t entirely sure about what makes it work. Parents are, quite rightly, very worried about how any new thing will affect their children. Some things, like the effect of texting using proper grammar or how more screen time affects attention spans, are difficult to measure and we don’t really know how people will be when they grow up. But Wi-Fi as a cause of cancer or even headaches? We can test for that. We have tested for that. It’s fine.
Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans (2).
Cancer is the obvious start. An early concern with mobile technology was clusters of the disease around those living near phone masts. One study in Israel found a 4.5-fold increase in cancers of all kinds in the immediate vicinity of a mast (Int. J. Cancer Prev., 2004). In 2009, a Korean team of researchers carried out a pool analysis of the results of 23 studies, which involved almost 38,000 subjects.