But meanwhile know for certain that research is confirming that exposure to ICRW or Information Carrying Radio Waves, also called wireless energy, can do all kinds of things from compromising immunity and causing the body to react by forming tumors to creating symptoms like headaches, trouble sleeping, anxiety and ringing in the ears. Other common sources of this same type of "non-ionizing radiation" include: cell phones, baby monitors, and computers and Smart Meters. Studies of symptoms from exposure to RF microwave(yes this EMF energy goes by many titles!) include heart racing, tingling sensations, numbness, dizziness, and fatigue.
31. Read the fine print. “Buried in cell phone manuals, cell phone companies specifically instruct us that phones should not be held close to the body. For example, the iPhone 5 manual states “Carry iPhone at least 10mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as—tested levels. Cases with metal parts may change the RF performance of the device, including its compliance with RF exposure guidelines, in a manner that has not been tested or certified.” The Blackberry Bold states, “keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.59 in. (15 mm) from your body (including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers) when the BlackBerry device is turned on and connected to the wireless network.
As with exposure to ‘anything’ sun, pollen, pharmaceuticals, there will be a certain percent of population that is ‘sensitive or hypersensitive’ to wifi / emf frequency. I am definitely sensitive with my husband doing his own control experiment by holding his wifi phone behind by head without my knowledge and me In pain from a piercing wave going through my head. Why is it that it must be all or nothing. There are those who will never be sick from wifi/ emf and those of us who live with it everyday.
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 present study was carried out to investigate the potential combined influence of maternal restraint stress and 2.45 GHz WiFi signal exposure on postnatal development and behavior in the offspring of exposed rats. 24 pregnant albino Wistar rats were randomly assigned to four groups: Control, WiFi-exposed, restrained and both WiFi-exposed and restrained groups. Each of WiFi exposure and restraint occurred 2 h/day along gestation till parturition. The pups were evaluated for physical development and neuromotor maturation. Moreover, elevated plus maze test, open field activity and stationary beam test were also determined on postnatal days 28, 30 and 31, respectively. After behavioral tests, the rats were anesthetized and their brains were removed for biochemical analysis. Our main findings showed no detrimental effects on gestation progress and outcomes at delivery in all groups. Subsequently, WiFi and restraint, per se and mainly in concert altered physical development of pups with slight differences between genders. Behaviorally, the gestational WiFi irradiation, restraint and especially the associated treatment affected the neuromotor maturation mainly in male progeny. At adult age, we noticed anxiety, motor deficit and exploratory behavior impairment in male offspring co-exposed to WiFi radiation and restraint, and in female progeny subjected to three treatments. The biochemical investigation showed that, all three treatments produced global oxidative stress in brain of both sexes. As for serum biochemistry, phosphorus, magnesium, glucose, triglycerides and calcium levels were disrupted. Taken together, prenatal WiFi radiation and restraint, alone and combined, provoked several behavioral and biochemical impairments at both juvenile and adult age of the offspring.
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.
Consider parental-control tools. There are actually two major types of parental controls. The first is family rules or guidelines that you establish with your children, and the second is technology tools provided by cellphone companies, smartphone makers and app developers. If you do use technology to monitor or limit your child’s phone activities, in most cases it’s a good idea to be up front with them and revisit it every now and then as they mature.
The aim of the present study was to investigate oxidative stress and apoptosis in kidney tissues of male Wistar rats that pre- and postnatally exposed to 2.45 GHz wireless electromagnetic field (EMF) for 1 h/day until puberty. Based on this study, it is thought that chronic pre- and post-natal period exposure to wireless internet frequency of EMF may cause chronic kidney damages; staying away from EMF source in especially pregnancy and early childhood period may reduce negative effects of exposure on kidney.
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.
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.”
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
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.
Foster was Moulder’s coauthor on that 2013 review of Wi-Fi’s health effects. He says that, based on our current understanding of radio wave strengths and risks, world health authorities have set safety standards for all devices and appliances that emit electromagnetic radiation—from phones and microwaves to your car’s keyless entry fob. “The exposure you get from your Wi-Fi router is orders and orders of magnitude below those safety limits,” he explains.
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.