Most smartphones have settings that will help you manage your privacy and safety. You can find these controls through the settings on your phone or through the settings of a specific app. These settings may allow you to limit an application’s access to the data on your phone, including access to your location, pictures, contacts, notes, etc. You may even be able to block cookies and limit what data your mobile browser collects.
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. By contrast, the same exposure failed to alter maximum amplitude and P waves. After intravenously injection of dopamine (0.50 ml/kg) and epinephrine (0.50 ml/kg) under acute exposure to RF we found that, WIFI alter catecholamines (dopamine, epinephrine) action on heart variability and blood pressure compared to control. 
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.

Don’t text or handle your phone while driving. Texting or even touching your phone while driving is dangerous and illegal in many states. If you must speak on the phone, use a speaker or headset and hands-free controls. Never text, send or read email or post online and if you use your phone for navigation or listening to music or podcasts, set it before you leave or use hands-free voice recognition.

48. Encourage your children to talk to you about their conversations with friends and experiences online. Make them feel comfortable talking to you if they are made to feel uncomfortable by anyone through any service while using their device. “Tell an adult you trust if you receive anything on your phone—a call, a text message, an email, a picture, or voicemail message—that makes you uncomfortable.” – Cell Phone Savvy, National Crime Prevention Council; Twitter: @McGruffatNCPC
If you are concerned about the possible health effects of radio wave radiation emitted by your cell phone, your options are simple and cheap. This kind of radiation is at its highest levels nearest the antenna. Also, not all cell phones are created equal. Sar Shield offers a useful radiation chart for cell phones that provides an accurate "Sar rating" for every cell phone model. It's important to realize that at these low radiation levels, if you keep the cell phone away from your head and body, you are perfectly safe. However, if you'd rather not use a headset, then there are plenty of resources to obtain a radiation shield for your phone.
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.

45. Keep it organized. “Always keep your child’s cell phone charger in the same place. It’s best to find a central location — like maybe the kitchen counter, or a table by the door. Mark the end of the monthly billing cycle on a calendar to remind her how long those dwindling minutes have to last.” – Fayette Woman, 10 Cell Phone Safety Tips for Parents, Fayette Woman; Twitter: @faywoman
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 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.

CONCLUSION: The available literature on the effect of RF-EMFs on plants to date observed the significant trend of radiofrequency radiation influence on plants. Hence, this study provides new evidence supporting our hypothesis. Nonetheless, this endorses the need for more experiments to observe the effects of RF-EMFs, especially for the longer exposure durations, using the whole organisms. The above observation agrees with our earlier study, in that it supported that it is not a well-grounded method to characterize biological effects without considering the exposure duration. Nevertheless, none of these findings can be directly associated with human; however, on the other hand, this cannot be excluded, as it can impact the human welfare and health, either directly or indirectly, due to their complexity and varied effects (calcium metabolism, stress proteins, etc.). This study should be useful as a reference for researchers conducting epidemiological studies and the long-term experiments, using whole organisms, to observe the effects of RF-EMFs.
Keep it kind. Because people socialize on cellphones as much as online, cyberbullying can be mobile too. Treat people on phones and the web the way you would in person, and the risk of being bullied goes down. Be aware, too, of people randomly taking pictures at parties, in locker rooms, etc. – you may not want to be tagged in their social-network photo albums!
Turkish Telecommunication and Information Technology Agency declared that the daily usage of internet is nearly 6 hours in Turkey [15]. Therefore, according to us, Wi-Fi usage needs to get more attention than cell phone usage due to its higher frequency ranges and longer exposure times [16]. Even though there are some studies performed on the effects of  RF-EMR and cell phones on male fertility, there is not so much scientific data about the association between Wi-Fi internet usage and male fertility [17]. Unlike other RF-EMR sources, devices such as laptops and tablets usually stay near the reproductive organs.

Many wireless routers automatically kick wifi back on when there is a firmware update, or the device gets restarted. When our internet is running slow or not working, the first thing our internet provider will tell us to do is power cycle the router and modem (basically just turning them both off and back on). Make sure that when your router comes back on it doesn’t automatically turn the wifi back on.

Mobile phones and Wi-Fi radiofrequency radiation are among the main sources of the exposure of the general population to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Previous studies have shown that exposure of microorganisms to RF-EMFs can be associated with a wide spectrum of changes ranged from the modified bacterial growth to the alterations of the pattern of antibiotic resistance. Our laboratory at the nonionizing department of the Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center has performed experiments on the health effects of exposure to animal models and humans to different sources of electromagnetic fields such as cellular phones, mobile base stations, mobile phone jammers, laptop computers, radars, dentistry cavitrons, magnetic resonance imaging, and Helmholtz coils. On the other hand, we have previously studied different aspects of the challenging issue of the ionizing or nonionizing radiation-induced alterations in the susceptibility of microorganisms to antibiotics. In this study, we assessed if the exposure to 900 MHz GSM mobile phone radiation and 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from common Wi-Fi routers alters the susceptibility of microorganisms to different antibiotics. The pure cultures of Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli were exposed to RF-EMFs generated either by a GSM 900 MHz mobile phone simulator and a common 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi router. It is also shown that exposure to RF-EMFs within a narrow level of irradiation (an exposure window) makes microorganisms resistant to antibiotics. This adaptive phenomenon and its potential threats to human health should be further investigated in future experiments. Altogether, the findings of this study showed that exposure to Wi-Fi and RF simulator radiation can significantly alter the inhibition zone diameters and growth rate for L monocytogenes and E coli. These findings may have implications for the management of serious infectious diseases.
The FCC has granted the industry’s wishes so often that it qualifies as a “captured agency,” argued journalist Norm Alster in a report that Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics published in 2015. The FCC allows cell-phone manufacturers to self-report SAR levels, and does not independently test industry claims or require manufacturers to display the SAR level on a phone’s packaging. “Industry controls the FCC through a soup-to-nuts stranglehold that extends from its well-placed campaign spending in Congress through its control of the FCC’s congressional oversight committees to its persistent agency lobbying,” Alster wrote. He also quoted the CTIA website praising the FCC for “its light regulatory touch.”31
Morbidity and mortality among study participants who have brain cancer. Gliomas are particularly difficult to study, for example, because of their high death rate and the short survival of people who develop these tumors. Patients who survive initial treatment are often impaired, which may affect their responses to questions. Furthermore, for people who have died, next-of-kin are often less familiar with the cell phone use patterns of their deceased family member and may not accurately describe their patterns of use to an interviewer.
"Love's ok...This iphone case is worth buying.Leather case with slot for your cards.i drop my phone accidentally and it really protect my phone and nothing even a scratch on the casing.when I bought this casing theres a coupon inside for worth $25....I'm an adult male whom has always purchased my wallets based on how many cards and what I could stuff in ... In my years of travel , I've finally realized to carry a shoulder bag for the reason I can get a Iphone case that's manufactured well & more importantly for me I'm finally limited on wallet card holders ."
In subsequent analyses of Interphone data, investigators addressed issues of risk according to specific location of the tumor and estimated exposures. One analysis of data from seven of the countries in the Interphone study found no relationship between brain tumor location and regions of the brain that were exposed to the highest level of radiofrequency radiation from cell phones (9). However, another study, using data from five of the countries, reported suggestions of an increased risk of glioma and, to a lesser extent, of meningioma developing in areas of the brain experiencing the highest exposure (10).
These general findings and data presented earlier on Wi-Fi effects were used to assess the Foster and Moulder (F&M) review of Wi-Fi. The F&M study claimed that there were seven important studies of Wi-Fi that each showed no effect. However, none of these were Wi-Fi studies, with each differing from genuine Wi-Fi in three distinct ways. F&M could, at most conclude that there was no statistically significant evidence of an effect. The tiny numbers studied in each of these seven F&M-linked studies show that each of them lack power to make any substantive conclusions.
In 2011, the American Cancer Society (ACS) stated that the IARC classification means that there could be some cancer risk associated with radiofrequency radiation, but the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal and needs to be investigated further. Individuals who are concerned about radiofrequency radiation exposure can limit their exposure, including using an ear piece and limiting cell phone use, particularly among children.
The study was an attempt to draw attention towards the adverse effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiations (NI-EMR) in the frequency that is used widely in the field of telecommunication. Many studies have captured the impact of the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz frequencies, however the frequency of radiation in Wi-Fi range has not been much explored. Along with the use of cell phones there is a growing concern with the use of Wi-Fi devices which continuously emit radiations in the frequency of 2.4 GHz. Hence we thought it prudent to investigate the impact of radiation of the frequency of 2.45 GHz. It can be concluded that the exposure to non-ionizing radiation of 2.45 GHz caused detrimental changes in rat brain leading to learning and memory decline and expression of anxiety behavior along with fall in brain antioxidants. The exposure triggered the gene expression of caspase 3 which plays a major role in the apoptotic pathway. The chronic impact of non-ionizing radiation needs to be thoroughly evaluated in humans so that combative steps can be taken.
We aimed to investigate the effects of distance from sources on calcium signaling, cytosolic ROS production, cell viability, apoptosis, plus caspase-3 and -9 values induced by mobile phones and Wi-Fi in breast cancer cells. The cytosolic ROS production, Ca2+ concentrations, apoptosis, caspase-3 and caspase-9 values were higher in groups exposed to 900 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2450 MHz compared to controls at 0 cm, 1 cm and 5 cm distances although cell viability (MTT) values were increased by the distances. There was no statistically significant difference in the values between control, 20 and 25 cm. Wi-Fi and mobile phone EMR placed within 10 cm of the cells induced excessive oxidative responses and apoptosis via TRPV1-induced cytosolic Ca2+ accumulation in the cancer cells. Using cell phones and Wi-Fi sources which are farther away than 10 cm may provide useful protection against oxidative stress, apoptosis and overload of intracellular Ca2+.

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.

3. A lab setting is the only legitimate way to show the effectiveness of our technology for a few main reasons: one, a controlled source is the only way to conduct a scientific study. Note that the controlled source that we used was specifically designed to simulate emissions from wireless electronics (RF and ELF emissions of various frequencies). Two, ambient levels in a non-controlled environment will affect readings, rendering the results inaccurate. Three, at-home equipment such as the meter used in the video is not suitable for the types of emissions by a wireless device, nor are they reliable.
Wireless internet (Wi-Fi) electromagnetic waves (2.45 GHz) have widespread usage almost everywhere, especially in our homes. Considering the recent reports about some hazardous effects of Wi-Fi signals on the nervous system, this study aimed to investigate the effect of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation on multisensory integration in rats. This experimental study was done on 80 male Wistar rats that were allocated into exposure and sham groups. Wi-Fi exposure to 2.4 GHz microwaves [in Service Set Identifier mode (23.6 dBm and 3% for power and duty cycle, respectively)] was done for 30 days (12 h/day). Cross-modal visual-tactile object recognition (CMOR) task was performed by four variations of spontaneous object recognition (SOR) test including standard SOR, tactile SOR, visual SOR, and CMOR tests. A discrimination ratio was calculated to assess the preference of animal to the novel object. The expression levels of M1 and GAT1 mRNA in the hippocampus were assessed by quantitative real-time RT-PCR. 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. 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.
These studies are not definitive. Much more research is needed. But they raise serious questions that cast doubt on the adequacy of the FCC rules to safeguard public health. The FCC emissions cap allows 20 times more radiation to reach the head than the body as a whole, does not account for risks to children’s developing brains and smaller bodies and considers only short-term cell phone use, not frequent calling patterns over decades.

Brain Fog – or cognitive decline, it is noticeable when you feel that your memory has been declining, or you’re having trouble recalling names, or places or events. It is also noticeable if you are having a tough time concentrating. Some scientists believe that the dramatic rise in Alzheimers Disease can be partially attributed to EMF damage and our wireless age.

In the current study, the pattern of the response of E coli to Wi-Fi and RF simulator radiation was identical. The maximum differences in the diameters of inhibition zones were observed between 6 and 9 hours of the bacterial exposure to radiation (Figures 1 and 2). After 12 hours of exposure, the bacterial responses to radiation as a stressor led to returning to the preexposure status.
26. Learn about the potential effects of radiation on reproductive health. “I would recommend that [Consumer Reports] forewarn its readers not to keep their cell phones near their genitals. We have substantial evidence that cell phone radiation damages sperm in males and some evidence of reproductive health effects (i.e., neurological disorders) in human offspring as well as mice for females exposed to cell phone radiation during pregnancy. We also have preliminary evidence of increased breast cancer risk for women who kept cell phones in their bras.” – Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, The 4 Cell Phone Safety Tips Offered By Consumer Reports Isn’t Enough, RFSafe; Twitter: @rfsafe