It’s worth remembering that Wi-Fi occupies the same part of the spectrum as microwaves, which sounds terribly alarming. If it can boil water, surely it’s bad for us too? Well, no. Not at such low power. This is also the frequency of the cosmic background radiation, the echoes of the big bang that fill the sky. There is literally nowhere in the universe that does not have microwaves pinging around in it.
I’ve started to shut off my WIFI from midnight until about sundown the next day. The results have been astounding. I’ve been having serious joint aches and I’m not THAT old. Enough that it was hampering my quality of life. So I did an experiment. I turned off my WIFI router and took out the battery. Been doing this now for 2 days and I’m telling you I’m a new woman. I’m a little stiff getting out of bed in the morning but nothing like I was.
The device comes in a variety of forms ranging from the $39 Aries Shield ("a silicon based micro processor that ... decomposes oscillations of electromagnetic fields") to the $249 Aires Defender Utility (which "has two next generation 9 core silicon based micro processor (sic) that provide universal protection from electromagnetic smog of the broadband frequencies").
the Environmental Working Group is suspending publication of the EWG guide to cell phones until the FCC makes the responsible decision to require cell phone makers to generate and disclose data about device and network emissions under real-world conditions. We strongly believe that as cell phones become more powerful and ubiquitous, it is critical that people have a right to know how much radiation they can expect their cell phones to generate. As things now stand, the FCC’s cell phone safety rules are as obsolete as the StarTac.
The RF EME emissions from wi-fi and other wireless devices used for communication are regulated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The ACMA’s regulatory arrangements require wireless devices to comply with the exposure limits in the ARPANSA RF Standard. The ARPANSA Standard is designed to protect people of all ages and health status against all known adverse health effects from exposure to RF EME. The ARPANSA Standard is based on scientific research that shows the levels at which harmful effects occur and it sets limits, based on international guidelines, well below these harmful levels.
The key factor when selecting a cell phone case is making sure that you choose the exact one your phone needs. Cases are specific to not only brands of cell phone, but specific models as well. For example, if you have version three of a cell phone model, it may not fit a version six, and vice versa. Make sure that you know exactly what case you need. The cases protect the corners and back of the phone, and a clear tempered glass or Plexiglas shield protects the face. This glass or film is usually scratch- and smudge-resistant, and the cases are rubber or polycarbonate. Some cases have clips on the back that allow you to connect the phone to a belt or bag. Many cases are black, but multiple colors and patterns are available too.
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.
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.
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 -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.
Most of the research is attributed to "SPSU," which is presumably St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University, and some of the research, it is suggested, was conducted at the Kirov Military Medical Academy, though it's unclear why a military academy would conduct clinical research on civilian cell phone radiation. The names of the scientists who conducted these studies are conspicuously absent, as are any published results.
8. 911 is free—call for an emergency. “Your cell phone is one of the greatest tools you can own to protect yourself and your family in dangerous situations – with your phone at your side, help is only three numbers away. Dial 911 or another local emergency number in emergencies such as a fire, traffic accident, road hazard or medical emergency. Remember, an emergency call is a free call on your cell phone!” – Cell Phone Safety Tips, Mize Centers; Twitter: @mizesales1
Wireless devices run on radio waves. Antennas emit varying levels of radio frequencies (RFs) that at some point are absorbed into the human body. The measurement of absorption, the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), is an indicator of this absorption. What’s the SAR of a cell phone? The FCC requires that all models of cell phones sold in the U.S. fall below 1.6 watts per kilogram. If you’re confused by the complex science, you’re not alone.
The purpose of this study was to reveal whether long term exposure (over a year) of 2.4GHz frequency RF radiation will cause DNA damage of different tissues such as brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissue and testicular tissues of rats. Based on the DNA damage results determined by the single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) method, it was found that the % tail DNA values of the brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissues of the rats in the experimental group increased more than those in the control group. The increase of the DNA damage in all tissues was not significant (p>0.05), however the increase of the DNA damage in rat testes tissue was significant (p<0.01). In conclusion, long-term exposure to 2.4GHz RF radiation (Wi-Fi) does not cause DNA damage of the organs investigated in this study except testes indicating  that testes are more sensitive organ to RF radiation.
The answer is yes, it can.  Will it always make people sick? No. Dr. George Carlo explains that there is most definitely a biological response to what he refers to as Information Carrying Radio Waves (ICRW-energy fields from many wireless devices).  When you're exposed to ICRW  a process of adaptation and compensation occurs in your body.  He has a great program that can help people adapt. 
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.

What does this tell us about Wi-Fi? Wi-fi routers are weaker transmitters even than mobile phone masts, and users sit away from them. The level of energy produced by a Wi-Fi router is very low, far too low to be able to disrupt DNA, so there is no mechanism for it to be carcinogenic. It’s true that it’s the same frequency as microwave radiation, but it’s so low power that there isn’t even a noticeable heating effect, never mind breakdown of genetic material. The ‘hot ear’ effect that you notice after a long call comes from the battery warming up, not radiation. It’s just too weak to do anything, even if you’re sitting close to it.


There is only one legitimate method of measuring cell phone radiation recognized by every major health authority and government in the world as well as by the cell phone industry itself, referred to as "SAR". SAR testing measures the "Specific Absorption Rate" of radiation at multiple depths and locations on the head and body in order to quantify how much radiation is actually penetrating it with and without certain safety devices. You can see a SAR test of the R2L device by watching the video below.
In the spirit of adventure, I tried the snazzy TwelveSouth case pictured in this post, and I admit, there were some things I liked. I got very used to not carrying around a bulk in my back pocket. I even put my keycard for the office in it, and it felt very futuristic to unlock the office door by holding my phone up to the fob sensor. But in the end, I took the case off before a trip. It just seemed too foolish to risk losing everything at once.
My son likes to listen to music when he sleeps. He subscribes to Spotify, and has his playlists downloaded to his phone. He now uses airplane mode at night & uses Spotify this way–but of course he sleeps w/ his phone. (He also sleeps in a basement.) Is this still dangerous? If so, what do you suggest he do to be able to listen to continuous music safely at night? He is 21 and resistant to put down the phone… but he does listen, esp. if others (esp non-Mom others!), particularly “professionals” give solid researched reasons. I am going to print this article and share it with him. (My other 3 teenagers don’t have an issue and several don’t even have a phone… but he’s my firstborn, and more into the phone…)
RESULTS: Our analysis demonstrates that the data from a substantial amount of the studies on RF-EMFs from mobile phones show physiological and/or morphological effects (89.9%, p < 0.001). Additionally, our analysis of the results from these reported studies demonstrates that the maize, roselle, pea, fenugreek, duckweeds, tomato, onions and mungbean plants seem to be very sensitive to RF-EMFs. Our findings also suggest that plants seem to be more responsive to certain frequencies, especially the frequencies between (i) 800 and 1500 MHz (p < 0.0001), (ii) 1500 and 2400 MHz (p < 0.0001) and (iii) 3500 and 8000 MHz (p = 0.0161).

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

International guidelines on exposure levels to microwave frequency EMFs such as ICNIRP limit the power levels of wireless devices and it is uncommon for wireless devices to exceed the guidelines. These guidelines only take into account thermal effects, as nonthermal effects have not been conclusively demonstrated.[3] The official stance of the British Health Protection Agency is that “[T]here is no consistent evidence to date that WiFi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population”, but also that “...it is a sensible precautionary approach...to keep the situation under ongoing review...”.[4]

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.
Everyone should be sleeping at bed time, and WiFi signal may interferes with the brain during sleep, so it is a good idea to turn it off before going to bed. This allows the body to rest more deeply. By turning it off at night, you are effectively cutting down exposure by 33%. (Aside from the WiFi reduction, many security experts also recommend turning off your internet when not using it).
This study examined the possible ability of  2.45 GHz microwave radiation exposure (30 min) to modify the expression of genes that codify heat shock proteins (HSP) in the thyroid gland. Ninety minutes after radiation, HSP-90 and HSP-70 had decreased significantly (P<0.01); Twenty-four hours after radiation, HSP-90 had partially recovered and HSP-70 had recovered completely. There were few indications of lesions in the glandular structure and signs of apoptosis were negative in all radiated animals. The results suggest that acute sub-thermal radiation at 2.45 GHz may alter levels of cellular stress in rat thyroid gland without initially altering their anti-apoptotic capacity.

Based on our results, it can be concluded that the bacterial strains used in this study respond differently to EMFs. These bacteria were capable of responding to environmental stresses that act by activating some specific systems such as ion channels, change via the membrane, DNA repair system, and probably ion efflux pumps in the membrane as well as interactions of molecules and antibacterial agents.  There are some ambiguities that need further investigations regarding answering questions such as which cellular mechanism is responsible for adaptation? Which factors are involved in alterations of antibacterial sensitivity? And subsequently, what are the differences in the response to radiation in gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria? Moreover, experiments on different bacterial strains with various electromagnetic fields should be performed in the future to better clarify these uncertainties.

Jump up ^ "Electromagnetic fields (EMF)". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2008-01-22. “Electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed to varying degrees of EMF, and the levels will continue to increase as technology advances.”


The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted from an internet-connected laptop via Wi-Fi for 4 hours on human sperm motility, viability, and DNA fragmentation. Donor sperm samples, mostly normozoospermic, exposed to a wireless internet-connected laptop showed a significant decrease in progressive sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation. We speculate that keeping a laptop connected wirelessly to the internet on the lap near the testes may result in decreased male fertility.
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).
×