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).


"Love it...S8 Good...Dropped it a few times no cracks with rhis case so far, cool leds tell time or do a little dance of music whenever you do close it, it saves my battery as well because ir prevenrs the screen from turning on when rhe case is on which prevents always on display...It's a great case, the led notifications and functions are handy, it protects the phone really well; the problem is that we bought Dex and having to remove the case to be able to use Dex with my phone is a bummer; if not this will be a 5 stars review."
In the Lancet article outlining their considerations, that IARC states that epidemiological studies that follow humans who use WiFi and cell phones for a few years are not conclusive. However, rodent studies that follow the animals throughout their lifetime find that wireless radiation does cause cancer or worsen cancer prognosis. The same animal studies also observed other changes in the brain and blood brain barrier in animals that are exposed to the radiation.
A 2012 study by NCI researchers (25) compared observed glioma incidence rates in U.S. SEER data with rates simulated from the small risks reported in the Interphone study (6) and the greatly increased risk of brain cancer among cell phone users reported in the Swedish pooled analysis (19). The authors concluded that overall, the incidence rates of glioma in the United States did not increase over the study period. They noted that the US rates could be consistent with the small increased risk seen among the subset of heaviest users in the Interphone study. The observed incidence trends were inconsistent with the high risks reported in the Swedish pooled study. These findings suggest that the increased risks observed in the Swedish study are not reflected in U.S. incidence trends.
A series of studies testing different scenarios (called simulations by the study authors) were carried out using incidence data from the Nordic countries to determine the likelihood of detecting various levels of risk as reported in studies of cell phone use and brain tumors between 1979 and 2008. The results were compatible with no increased risks from cell phones, as reported by most epidemiologic studies. The findings did suggest that the increase reported among the subset of heaviest regular users in the Interphone study could not be ruled out but was unlikely. The highly increased risks reported in the Swedish pooled analysis were strongly inconsistent with the observed glioma rates in the Nordic countries (24).

Cell phone radiation may disrupt the functioning of pacemakers. A 2005 study in the International Journal of Cardiology found that mobile phones may have "adverse effects" on pacemaker functions under certain conditions. [59] According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), radiofrequency energy from cell phones can create electromagnetic interference (EMI) that may disrupt the functioning of pacemakers, especially if the cell phone is placed close to the heart. [21] The American Heart Association includes cell phones on its list of "devices that may interfere with pacemakers." [60]


“When symptoms are not addressed comprehensively– for example, using symptom amelioration without simultaneous elimination of exposure – cell membrane adverse reaction and damage continue to occur while the patient is assuming the cause of the problem has been eliminated. This lulls patients into a false sense of security, causing them to aggravate their exposures through the increased use of their wireless devices. When the damage reaches a critically harmful level, even the symptom amelioration can no longer be sustained by the damaged cells.”
"To expect relief from radiation exposure from one specific device, is nearly impossible. It’s crucial to weigh in the MANY environmental factors; such as, temperature, atmospheric pressure, other radio waves, emissions from other devices, energy shifts from others around you, and Schumann Resonance shifts. Therefore," he explains that “relying on alteration of the environment as a safety precaution is always a game of chance…and signals affect people differently,” which adds another variables in the game of chance.
I am suffering such pain from other peoples’ wifi that I have to drive out to a wood at night in order to sleep.The pain is all in the middle of my body,my legs tremble,I feel sick and my heart races.I keep telling everybody but nobody cares because all they want to do is be online,they are all addicted.One day people like me will be the only ones left as everyone else will have died with brain cancer.But why should their stupidity and ignorant selfishness be able to inflict all this misery on me,and also on all the birds,animals insects and plants which will all die out too.All that is good in the world is being destroyed for the sake of people chatting online whenever they just feel like it,are humans really this shallow,because I’m not.I feel like I’m living in a terrible nightmare or ‘The Bodysnatchers’ because nobody will believe what I can feel EMFs are doing to us.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, appointed an expert Working Group to review all available evidence on the use of cell phones. The Working Group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency radiation and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent evidence from mechanistic studies (4).

A phone's specific absorption rate (SAR) reveals the maximum amount of radiation the human body absorbs from the phone while it's transmitting. SAR testing ensures that the devices sold in the U.S. comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) SAR exposure limit, but the single, worst-case value obtained from this SAR testing is not necessarily representative of the absorption during actual use, and therefore it is not recommended for comparisons among phones. In short, selecting a lower SAR phone will not reliably ensure lower radiation absorption during use. The FCC has more information at Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) For Cell Phones: What It Means For You.
“In addition to protecting your phone from scratches and breaks, a basic case can help conceal a distinctive phone’s telltale markings. That’s a detriment if you’re trying to show off your handset’s badass styling, but a benefit for maintaining a lower profile. Note: Even though they look better, a flashy designer case is like sticking a “steal me” marquee on your phone.” – Jessica Dolcourt, Keep Your Phone from Getting Stolen (and What to Do If It Is), CNET; Twitter: @CNET
No smartphone is complete without the right accessories. Get all the equipment you need to protect, charge, and clean your cell phone, including accessories by top manufacturers like OtterBox, Incipio and ZAGG. And because your cell phone is a reflection of your personal style, we have a broad palette of case colors to match just about any look - so go ahead, accessorize!
“There is a carcinogenic effect,” announced Ron Melnick, the designer of the study. Male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation developed cancer at a substantially higher rate, though the same effect was not seen in female rats. Rats exposed to radiation also had lower birth rates, higher infant mortality, and more heart problems than those in the control group. The cancer effect occurred in only a small percentage of the rats, but that small percentage could translate into a massive amount of human cancers. “Given the extremely large number of people who use wireless communications devices, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease…could have broad implications for public health,” the NTP’s draft report explained.48
Thus far, the data from studies in children with cancer do not support this theory. The first published analysis came from a large case–control study called CEFALO, which was conducted in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland. The study included children who were diagnosed with brain tumors between 2004 and 2008, when their ages ranged from 7 to 19 years. Researchers did not find an association between cell phone use and brain tumor risk either by time since initiation of use, amount of use, or by the location of the tumor (21).
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.

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.

And, it’s not just sperm. The results of an animal study suggest that some wireless frequencies may prevent egg implantation. During the study, mice exposed 2 hours a day for 45 days had significantly increased oxidative stress levels. The cellular damage and impact on DNA structure from exposure suggest a strong possibility of abnormal pregnancy or failure of the egg to implant. [12]
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. 

Last year, 15-year-old English schoolgirl Jenny Fry was found hanged in woodland near her home. According to her parents she suffered from electrical sensitivity, making it impossible for her to sit in WiFi classrooms and have WiFi at home. The school refused to remove the WiFi. Speaking at the inquest her mother said, “I believe that WiFi killed my daughter.”


Changing technology and methods of use. Older studies evaluated radiofrequency radiation exposure from analog cell phones. Today, cell phones use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency and a lower power level than analog phones. Digital cell phones have been in use for more than two decades in the United States, and cellular technology continues to change (3). Texting and other applications, for example, are common uses of cell phones that do not require bringing the phone close to the head. Furthermore, the use of hands-free technology, such as wired and wireless headsets, is increasing and may reduce exposure by distancing the phone from the body (36, 37).
7. Keep it locked. “Make sure that you have a secret PIN (personal identification number), a password, fingerprint setting or other security measures in place so that only you can access your phone.” – National Cyber Security Alliance, June is Internet Safety Month! The National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA) and ConnectSafely Share Tips to Ensure Online Safety and Summertime Fun, PR Newswire; Twitter: @PRNewswire
×