What the study showed: Most published analyses from this study have shown no statistically significant increases in brain or central nervous system cancers related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One analysis showed a statistically significant, although modest, increase in the risk of glioma among the small proportion of study participants who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, the researchers considered this finding inconclusive because they felt that the amount of use reported by some respondents was unlikely and because the participants who reported lower levels of use appeared to have a slightly reduced risk of brain cancer compared with people who did not use cell phones regularly (4–6).
Researchers at Wageningen University in the Netherlands have reported that radiation from WiFi networks is harmful to trees. Problems observed included growth variations, and bleeding and fissures in tree bark. The researchers exposed 20 ash trees to various sources of radiation for three months. The tress closest to the WiFi source exhibited a lead-like shine on the leaves. The researchers also found that WiFi radiation is harmful to growing corn.
Researchers have carried out several types of epidemiologic studies in humans to investigate the possibility of a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of malignant (cancerous) brain tumors, such as gliomas, as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuroma (tumors in the cells of the nerve responsible for hearing that are also known as vestibular schwannomas), meningiomas (usually benign tumors in the membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord), and parotid gland tumors (tumors in the salivary glands) (3).
Years later, a study that Leszczynski described as a “game changer” discovered that even phones meeting government standards, which in Europe were a SAR of 2.0 watts per kilogram, could deliver exponentially higher peak radiation levels to certain skin and blood cells. (SAR levels reached a staggering 40 watts per kilogram—20 times higher than officially permitted.) In other words, the official safety levels masked dramatically higher exposures in hot spots, but industry-funded scientists obstructed research on the health impacts.45
We have essentially no control over whether we live or die -- except that we should avoid dangerous behaviors like smoking, becoming obese, not wearing seat belts, texting while driving, etc. Otherwise, over a trillion cells carry on countless biochemical processes that we have no control over. One out of four people will get cancer. Beyond avoiding foolish behavior, we can't influence that risk.
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.
WiFi operates in the 2 to 5 GHz range -- part of the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is in the same part of the spectrum where cell phones operate so I may refer to WiFi or cellphone electromagnetic radiation interchangeably. These are radio waves -- no different from those used to broadcast television programs, except that they are higher in frequency. They aren't nearly as high a frequency as visible light, and no one worries about getting cancer from visible light (ultraviolet light, on the other hand, causes skin cancer, but this is the minimum energy necessary to cause ionizations that can cause breaks in strands of DNA, which is the mechanism by which cancer cells can be created). There is no credible evidence that non-ionizing radiation has any adverse health effects at all. There is no radiobiologic mechanism that could explain such an association -- and absolutely no scientifically valid evidence that this has ever happened.
According to American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Robert Block, when cell phones are used by children, "the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull," than for adults.  A July 2008 peer-reviewed study shows that children under the age of eight absorb twice the amount of radiation into their brain tissue as adults due to their lower skull thickness. 
Listeria monocytogenes ... was recognized as the main cause of neonatal infection, meningitis, and sepsis. Listeria infection in adult patients is related to immunocompromised systems like HIV infection, organ transplants, individuals who have received corticosteroids, and immunosuppressant drugs for their malignancies. Escherichia coli known as E coli is a common cause of life-threatening infections such as bloodstream and urinary tract infections, otitis media, and other complications.
Hundreds of clinical studies have attempted to troll the netherworld of cell phone emissions. To echo the FDA: so far no conclusive evidence exists that proves a health risk from cell phone RFs. BUT studies still need to be done. Scientists have argued that research suffers when forced into short-term constraints. Consumers demand quick and speedy results, a demand that short-circuits authentic scientific study.
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
Merely injecting us with vaccines and their toxic metals is one thing. Then EMF out there is another. However, putting the two together, what do we have? Now let’s look at the push to increased the saturation in the environment with cell towers in and around school grounds with mandatory vaccinations for kids. Makes you wonder. The general population is encourage to get vaccines while SmartMeters, the ubiquity of WiFi and cell phones surround us.
And yet, a lot of people do use these, including people I know and respect. I see people on the subway playing Candy Crush, the cover of their folio-style wallet case folded back, all of their cards just flapping in the wind. And don’t just take my word for it: The Silk iPhone wallet case has nearly 2,000 reviews on Amazon with an average score of 4.5 stars. People not only use these cases—they love them!
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.
This is a 2 pieces of plastic sandwiched together by glue. Don't believe me? Take it apart. This item works no better than the existing case on your phone. If you are that concerned with cellphone radiation, you should be equally concerned about the cheap plastic and toxic glue that this is comprised of. Also know the fact that they've stolen $25 from your wallet when you purchase this hokey product...Technology at it's finest.
We requested semen for analyses from the male patients coming to our infertility division and also asked them to fill out an anonymous questionnaire. We queried their mobile phone and wireless internet usage frequencies in order to determine their radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation exposure. A total of 1082 patients filled the questionnaire but 51 of them were excluded from the study because of azoospermia.
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.
There has been no rise in the rate of brain cancers despite a massive increase in the use of cell phones. If cell phones were causing cancer we could expect a significant rise in the rate of brain and other related cancers. According to the National Cancer Institute, there was no increase in the incidence of brain or other nervous system cancers between the years 1987 and 2005 despite the fact that cell phone use dramatically increased during those same years.  Between 2004 and 2010 there was still no significant change in the incidence rate of brain tumors. Between 2004 and 2010 there was a slight increase from 209 cases to 221.8 cases per 100,000 people, but this slight increase was attributed to better tracking and recording of cases.  During the same time period, cell phone use increased 62.7% from 182,140,362 subscribers in 2004 to 296,285,629 in 2010. 
Wheeler’s tactics succeeded in dousing the controversy. Although Carlo had in fact repeatedly briefed Wheeler and other senior industry officials on the studies, which had indeed undergone peer review and would soon be published, reporters on the technology beat accepted Wheeler’s discrediting of Carlo and the WTR’s findings. (Wheeler would go on to chair the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the wireless industry. He agreed to an interview for this article but then put all of his remarks off the record, with one exception: his statement that he has always taken scientific guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration, which, he said, “has concluded, ‘the weight of scientific evidence had not linked cell phones with any health problems.’”)11
This argument implies that the safest legislation totally bans use of cell phones in cars. This platform faces steep opposition from telecommunications lobbyists and auto manufacturers. If everyone on the road right now were unable to dial into his or her cell phones, life would be vastly different. Business transactions would slow and wireless providers would lose millions of dollars. But maybe, just maybe, auto accidents would drop drastically.
People who say cell phones are safe reference statements by the FCC and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and point to peer-reviewed studies which conclude that cell phone use is not associated with an increased risk of brain tumors or the onset of other health problems. They contend there has been no increase in brain tumor rates despite hundreds of millions of people now using cell phones.
We designed the wallet phone cases to fit all popular iPhone and Samsung Galaxy phones to ensure you can find a case you love that works with your phone. Check out the wallet cases for all models including the iPhone 5/5S/SE, iPhone 6/S, iPhone 6/S Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone X, iPhone XS, iPhone XR, iPhone XS MAX, Samsung Galaxy S8, Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus, Samsung Galaxy S9, Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus, Samsung Galaxy Note 8, and the Samsung Galaxy Note 9.
DefenderShield Cellphone Radiation Case also claims independent testing and says in their website: That a "sophisticated layering of separate non-toxic, human safe materials processed for maximum radiation blocking efficiency. Each material has unique and targeted radiation-shielding characteristics designed to work in unison to eliminate all radiation emissions from 0 to 10 GHZ and Defender Shield technology refracts, conducts and finally absorbs all these potentially harmful emissions." In this demonstration, the radiation level measured when DefendeShield case was on is still quite a bit above the level of exposure that I would recommend. I personally do not recommend-holding a phone with a shielding case to your head as the DefenderShield website shows a young woman doing as she demonstrates the product.
The quality of the product is really good, just as good as the more expensive stickers I have purchased in the past. Its not a big deal, but the stickers I received are not star shaped. They are round/circle. I have been able to test them yet to see if they actually work. Waiting to see my brother who can test them for me. Will update this review when I find out.
Even so, the industry’s neutralizing of the safety issue has opened the door to the biggest, most hazardous prize of all: the proposed revolutionary transformation of society dubbed the “Internet of Things.” Lauded as a gigantic engine of economic growth, the Internet of Things will not only connect people through their smartphones and computers but will connect those devices to a customer’s vehicles and home appliances, even their baby’s diapers—all at speeds faster than can currently be achieved.25
So for example, if you have a Samsung Galaxy S 5 you could turn it off completely (briefly pulling the battery if you need to) push the power button to turn the phone back on until you see the Samsung Galaxy S5 logo screen, release the power button and then immediately press and hold the Volume Down key until the phone booted up with Safe Mode activated displaying “Safe mode” in the bottom left hand corner of the phones display.
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.”
This study investigated the effects of long-term exposure to 2.45 GHz pulsed microwave radiation. The major emphasis was to expose a large sample of experimental animals throughout their lifetimes (21.5h/day for 25 months, starting at 8 weeks) and to monitor them for effects on general health and longevity. Results showed negative overall effects of RFR on general health, longevity, cause of death, or lesions associated with aging and benign neoplasia. Positive findings of effects were found on corticosterone levels and immune system. A statistically significant increase in primary malignancies in exposed rats vs. incidence in control was also found.
When you make a call, text, or use data, your phone sends and receives RF signals back and forth between its antenna and nearby cell towers. The radiation from Bluetooth and WiFi devices falls into the same basic range on the electromagnetic spectrum—between FM radios and microwave ovens—as the RF waves from cell phones. But because the distances traveled by WiFi and Bluetooth signals tend to be much shorter (between your router and your laptop, for instance, or your smartphone and your wireless speaker) the RF can be transmitted at a much lower power than from a cell phone, which could reduce the effect it has on living tissue.
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.
A method of simulating thermal mapping of positioning laptop on laps of an adult man was developed. To tackle this problem, we exploited computer simulation and, to make the simulation close to the actual problem, we created 3D models of an actual laptop (Sony FW 590 Gab), antennas, and human phantom with inhomogeneous body, large number of tissues, and dispersion properties. We employed a commercial laptop Wi-Fi antenna at 2.4 GHz and a dipole antenna at 5 GHz, thermal sources with radiation powers, and human body voxel consisting of 97 tissues which were described previously. In the simulation, maximum SAR in human body was calculated 0.37 × 10−3 and 0.13 × 10−1 (W/kg) at 2.4 and 5 GHz, respectively, which was negligible according to IEEE standards; thus, the major calculated temperature elevation was due to laptop thermal sources. The temperature in glans penis, lap skin, lap muscles, and testes increased up to 37.8, 42.9, 38.8, and 37.2 °C, respectively, which was in line with clinical studies of thermal effect. Hence, the proposed method can be replicated for other scenarios. It is worth noting that the presented result cannot be easily generalized to other devices or human models. However, the whole method is replicable for similar phenomena. The recommended subject for future works can be used with the presented method for determining the effect of laptop and other devices on adult pregnant women and similar cases.
There is an alternative approach, rooted in what some scientists and ethicists call the “precautionary principle,” which holds that society doesn’t need absolute proof of hazard to place limits on a given technology. If the evidence is sufficiently solid and the risks sufficiently great, the precautionary principle calls for delaying the deployment of that technology until further research clarifies its impacts. The scientists’ petition discussed earlier urges government regulators to apply the precautionary principle to 5G technology. Current safety guidelines “protect industry—not health,” contends the petition, which “recommend[s] a moratorium on the roll-out of [5G]…until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.”54
According to scientists involved in the process, the WHO may decide later this year to reconsider its categorization of the cancer risk posed by cell phones; the WHO itself told The Nation that before making any such decision, it will review the final report of the National Toxicology Program, a US government initiative. The results reported by the NTP in 2016 seem to strengthen the case for increasing the assessment of cell-phone radiation to a “probable” or even a “known” carcinogen. Whereas the WHO’s Interphone study compared the cell-phone usage of people who had contracted cancer with that of people who hadn’t, the NTP study exposed rats and mice to cell-phone radiation and observed whether the animals got sick.47
The most compelling evidence though comes from a Swedish team of cancer experts whose research stretches back 15 years. The results clearly demonstrate “a consistent association between long-term use of cell phone and cordless phones and glioma and acoustic neuroma”. Overall, they found that using a cell phone for more than a decade significantly increases the risk of a malignant tumour by almost two times with an analogue cell phone and by nearly four times with a digital phone. Interestingly, the risks were even higher for people who had started using mobiles as teenagers.