"So nice...Love it...Well what I have to say, may be just that I love this case, love the LED on the front I can even customize it to either names or images whatever I like, I have to say that I recommend this case may be the price when I get it was to expensive now I think the price worth it, protect my phone pretty well actually I have drop it couple of times already and there is only a hit on corners of the case and my phone like nothing happened......I really liked this case when I first got it but it does not protect your phone, Phone pops out of the case a lot or even when it just drops gently on the bed."
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.
While that’s all scary as heck, I think it’s everything we don’t know about EMF exposure that scares me the most. That, and how seldom EMFs are discussed. If it hadn’t been for my dear friend August Brice, a Tech Wellness Advocate, I don’t think I would have ever considered the safety hazards associated with everyday cell phone use. Or had any knowledge of the subject whatsoever. Let’s be real, this topic has certainly never appeared in the trending tab on Twitter, and I’ve yet to see it spark a viral video.
This article is not correct. Wifi waves are just a low frequency sound wave. Everyone is having a placebo effect, or doing the equivalence of listening to music using ear buds all night by having the router too close to their heads. This article was made to play on your fears and to have you buy products like iPad radiation shields and other junk. This article is harmful to people.
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.
This study aimed to investigate the effect of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation (12 h/day for 30 days) on multisensory integration in male rats. 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 and 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.
31. Read the fine print. “Buried in cell phone manuals, cell phone companies specifically instruct us that phones should not be held close to the body. For example, the iPhone 5 manual states “Carry iPhone at least 10mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as—tested levels. Cases with metal parts may change the RF performance of the device, including its compliance with RF exposure guidelines, in a manner that has not been tested or certified.” The Blackberry Bold states, “keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.59 in. (15 mm) from your body (including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers) when the BlackBerry device is turned on and connected to the wireless network.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency radiation have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and health problems. The FDA, which originally nominated this exposure for review by the NTP in 1999, issued a statement on the draft NTP reports released in February 2018, saying “based on this current information, we believe the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.” FDA and the Federal Communications Commission share responsibility for regulating cell phone technologies.
Because of this physical law, even if holding a Wi-Fi router directly against your forehead was very dangerous (and, we assure you, it is not) working in your home office 45 feet away from the Wi-Fi router would not be dangerous simply because the microwave radiation of the already minuscule 1 watt Wi-Fi router would have radically decreased in intensity. When you factor in that the Wi-Fi radiation is already harmless, you see that there is no situation in which the Wi-Fi signal from your router, your laptop, your media center, or any other Wi-Fi device in your home could possibly hurt you.
Consumers need -- now more than ever -- real-world, relevant data on how much radiation their phones emit under various circumstances. The FCC does not require the cell phone industry to disclose these data. One important study showing that certain networks could expose consumers to 30 to 300 times more radiation than other networks was hidden from the public until the information was dated to the point of irrelevancy.
This study measured the levels of blood lipid peroxidation, glutathione peroxidase, reduced glutathione, and vitamin C to follow the level of oxidative damage caused by 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation exposure (60 min/day for 28 days) in rats. The possible protective effects of selenium and L-carnitine were also tested and compared to untreated controls. Researchers found that 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation caused oxidative stress in blood of rat. L-carnitine seems to have protective effects on the 2.45-GHz-induced blood toxicity by inhibiting free radical supporting antioxidant redox system although selenium has no effect on the investigated values.
The present study aimed to investigate the effects of chronic low-intensity microwave exposure (900, 1800 or 2450 MHz for 180 days) on cognitive function, heat shock protein 70 (HSP70), and DNA damage in the rat brain. The results showed declined cognitive function, elevated HSP70 level, and DNA damage in the brain of microwave-exposed animals. The results indicated that, chronic low-intensity microwave exposure in the frequency range of 900 to 2450 MHz may cause hazardous effects on the brain.
The wireless industry has sought to downplay concerns about cell phones’ safety, and the Federal Communications Commission has followed its example. In 1996, the FCC established cell-phone safety levels based on “specific absorption rate,” or SAR. Phones were required to have a SAR of 1.6 watts or less per kilogram of body weight. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised the FCC that its guidelines “do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children.” Nevertheless, the FCC has declined to update its standards.30
Long-term exposure to Radio Frequency waves or microwave radiation has long been studied and shown to produce all sorts of adverse health effects. See my post on EMF Radiation Exposure Symptoms for a full list of common symptoms. Even the American Cancer Society, who in large part will not fully say that EMF radiation causes long-term harm, and instead errs on the side of not enough research, admits on their website, that:
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.
c) and before you raise the argument that visible light is itself electromagnetic radiation, with even shorter wavelengths than microwaves, electromagnetic radiation within the visible light range does not penetrate living cells and other molecular materials as X-Rays (ionising radiation) or microwaves (non-ioninsing radiation) do. Practically all visible light is reflected by our bodies, and therefore it’s energy is not absorbed by our cells and is therefore harmless.
The objective of this study was to investigate effects of 2.437 GHz radiofrequency radiation (24h/day for 20 weeks) emitted from indoor Wi-Fi Internet access devices on rat testes using histological and immunohistochemical methods. Researchers observed significant increases in serum 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine levels and 8-hydroxyguanosine staining in the testes of the experimental group indicating DNA damage due to exposure (p < 0.05) as well as decreased levels of catalase and glutathione peroxidase activity in the experimental group, which may have been due to radiofrequency effects on enzyme activity (p < 0.05). These findings raise questions about the safety of radiofrequency exposure from Wi-Fi Internet access devices for growing organisms of reproductive age, with a potential effect on both fertility and the integrity of germ cells.
Cell phones emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and RF radiation has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer in laboratory animals. A peer-reviewed Jan. 2012 study in the Journal of Neuro-Oncology concluded that RF radiation "may damage DNA and change gene expression in brain cells" in mice.  An Aug. 2009 meta-study found that RF radiation "can alter the genetic material of exposed cells."  A 2004 European Union-funded study also found that cell phone radiation can damage genes.  On May 26, 2016, the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) released the first results of its study on cell phone radiation, finding an increased incidence of malignant tumors of the brain (gliomas) and heart tumors (schwannomas) in rats exposed to RF radiation.  The NTP researchers also found DNA damage in the rats exposed to the highest levels of RF radiation.  On Nov. 1, 2018, the NTP released its final peer-reviewed report, concluding that there is "clear evidence of carcinogenic activity” in male rats exposed to RF radiation. 
Also of note, in a study by Henrietta Nittby et al (2009), the lowest exposure SARs were worse than the higher SAR exposures. Some scientists consider blood brain barrier effects at these very low levels of radiation exposure (i.e. 30-45x lower than the ‘Top 10’ lowest SAR phones ranked by the Environmental Working Group) to be of equal or even greater concern for the population than the increase in brain tumors from cell phone use that is expected.
†Results may vary. Information and statements made are for education purposes and are not intended to replace the advice of your doctor. Global Healing Center does not dispense medical advice, prescribe, or diagnose illness. The views and nutritional advice expressed by Global Healing Center are not intended to be a substitute for conventional medical service. If you have a severe medical condition or health concern, see your physician.
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.
The Working Group indicated that, although the human studies were susceptible to bias, the findings could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone, and that a causal interpretation could not be excluded. The Working Group noted that any interpretation of the evidence should also consider that the observed associations could reflect chance, bias, or confounding rather than an underlying causal effect. In addition, the Working Group stated that the investigation of risk of cancer of the brain associated with cell phone use poses complex methodologic challenges in the conduct of the research and in the analysis and interpretation of findings.
gamma rays are constantly going through you as we speak as are wifi. that doesn’t mean however that you can create much usable electricity from them. you cannot. because the amount of energy inherent in these is miniscule. actually for somebody making judgements about what other people may or may not be you seem to be very ignorant about basic facts.
The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation (2 h/day for 35 days) on the male rat brain. MWR-exposed rats showed significantly increased comet head, tail length and tail movement, as well as decrease of antioxidant enzymes. Researchers conclude that the chronic exposure to these radiations may cause significant damage to brain, which may be an indication of possible tumour promotion.
The FCC sets the maximum amount of thermal radiation (heat) that cell phones are permitted to emit.  This limit is measured as the amount of radiation absorbed by a user and is known as the specific absorption rate (SAR). In 1996 the SAR for cell phone radiation was set at a maximum of 1.6 watts of energy absorbed per kilogram of body weight. Manufactures of cell phones must test their products to ensure that they meet this standard. Random tests of phones on the market by FCC scientists further ensure that radiation levels meet FCC guidelines.