To shed a bit more light on it – powerline electromagnetic fields have different (though not necessarily better) biological effects. 50/60Hz powerline fields alter ion transport across intra- and inter-cellular membranes, accelerating or inhibiting chemical reactions, depending on the reaction. Also within the reception range of bulk brainwave action. So not the greatest thing for physical and mental health. As you go higher in freq range, the effects become more just thermal and neurostimulative at high enough field strength. From 400MHz on up the issue becomes field-excitation of mechanical shaking of DNA strands resulting in sequence breakage and translocations – not great for cancer risk… for those really bored and curious, read the studies bibliography of IEEE C95.1-2005. I found C95 and its underlying studies to be the most helpful body of work when setting the safety standards for inductive wireless charging.
The CERENAT study, another case–control study conducted in multiple areas in France from 2004 to 2006 using data collected in face-to-face interviews using standardized questionnaires (18). This study found no association for either gliomas or meningiomas when comparing regular cell phone users with non-users. However, the heaviest users had significantly increased risks of both gliomas and meningiomas.
The present study examined the biological effects of continuous wave 2.45 GHz microwave radiation (2h/day for 30 days) in Parkes strain mice. The results show that microwave radiation caused an increase in erythrocyte and leukocyte counts, a significant DNA strand break in brain cells and the loss of spatial memory in mice. This report for the first time provides experimental evidence that continuous exposure to low intensity microwave radiation may have an adverse effect on the brain function by altering circadian system and rate of DNA damage.
Low frequency sound wave? what? They are HIGH frequency microwaves, AS IN THE SAME FREQUENCY YOUR MICROWAVE USES THAT HEATS UP FOOD! Please don’t be that guy that has no idea about this and tries to “debunk” something that is literally destroying people’s lives. – And it just simply BAFFLES me how you don’t even read the research done on the matter and boldly claim it has no effect! How ignorant and completely oblivious can one person be?!
What the study showed: Self-reported cell phone use was not associated with an increased risk of glioma, meningioma, or non-central nervous system tumors. Although the original published findings reported an association with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma (14), this association disappeared after additional years of follow-up of the cohort (15).
Ok, update: Crownstarqi very kindly sent me 2 cell phone shield stickers, but I originally ordered the 6 pack of much thinner rectangular stickers that I could stick more places. I'm too electromagnetically intolerant to even own a cell phone, so I don't know what to do with these! I don't dare bother them about this, b/c they sent me the shield things all the way from China, but I was really hoping to just put more of the rectangular 6-pack stickers on my laptop, to see if more made a difference. It was a very nice gesture on their part, but I'm now concerned that they thought my initial review was of the shield-shaped stickers, when it was a review for these rectangular ones. I noticed that someone else thought they were ordering the 6-pack, and ended up getting a single shield-shaped sticker, instead. This is very confusing & I'm going to just...count my blessings & get on w/ my life. I don't trust any stickers that make the "negative ion" claim, b/c they're often radioactive. I don't realy know what to say, or what review to give, at this point, but I think Cronstarqi are very kind to have sent me something for the trouble w/ my original order, even though what they sent as a replacement was NOT what I had originally ordered. Maybe this was deliberate? I don't know. The package on the shield-shaped stickers says, "The product can only be used as health care instead of replacing the professional medical treatment." I'm so confused, but thanks anyway, to the seller, and the shield-shaped stickers are very pretty. I'd review them, but I have no cell phone & no verified purchase to back up my review. -Account holder's progeny.
There is no clearly-defined safe distance as this new issue has yet been studied enough. While EMF emissions from different routers vary, for most home WiFi routers, a distance of 40 feet (ideally, or 10 feet at a minimum) will help your body and shouldn’t impact your WiFi connection too much. And beware that radiation from WiFi routers can pass through the walls in your home so keep this in mind as you evaluate the safety of your bed's location. Those who are sensitive to EMFs should take extra efforts to reduce EMFs and chronic proximity to the sources.
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
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.
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
Drivers that talk on cell phones while they drive may be at risk for accidents. A handful of states have made hand-held cell phone use illegal while operating a motor vehicle. Plug into a headset or hands-free device and then you’re safe, or so seems the message. But a growing stable of studies suggests that drivers engaged in complex conversations, hands-free or otherwise, are a leading roadway danger.
Cell phone safety is a top priority for people all over the world—especially those with children. There are many tips for ensuring that both you and your kids are using your cell phone or smartphone safely—from being careful when you cross the road, to learning the driving laws in your area, which way to carry your phone for radiation reduction, and monitoring and limiting the amount of time your child or teen spends using their device.