Legally there is nothing you can do to oblige your neighbors to remove their WiFi so you need to have a softly softly approach. Go and see them, have a friendly chat. Ideally take an RF meter with you, show them the radiation levels they are exposing both you and themselves to. Take some print outs of some of the studies that have been done on the dangers of radio frequency radiation.
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).
Wi-Fi certainly isn’t going to do you in, but something else you forgot to worry about while you were worrying about your Wi-Fi router might: put that worry to good use and make sure there are fresh batteries in your smoke detectors, that you’re planning on getting a yearly physical this year, and you floss before bed (you know, those things you’ve been putting off that might actually, sooner or later, harm you).
The World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer’s classification of wireless radiofrequency frequencies a Class 2B carcinogen includes wireless radiation from any transmitting source such as cellphones, baby monitors, tablets, cell towers, radar, other wifi, etc. The radiofrequency classification applies to RF-EMF in the range of 30 KHz to 300 GHz emitted from any device. Cell phone frequencies commonly start at 900 MHz (with some cell phones having up to 7 antennas all at different frequencies) and Wi-Fi device frequencies are at 2.45 GHz and 5GHz.
The increasing use of Wi-Fi in schools and other places has given rise to public concern that the radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields from Wi-Fi have the potential to adversely affect children. The current study measured typical and peak RF levels from Wi-Fi and other sources in 23 schools in Australia. All of the RF measurements were much lower than the reference levels recommended by international guidelines for protection against established health effects. The typical and peak RF levels from Wi-Fi in locations occupied by children in the classroom were of the order of 10-4 and 10-2% of the exposure guidelines, respectively. Typical RF levels in the classroom were similar between Wi-Fi and radio but higher than other sources. In the schoolyard typical RF levels were higher for radio, TV and mobile phone base stations compared to Wi-Fi. The results of this study showed that the typical RF exposure of children from Wi-Fi at school is very low and comparable or lower to other sources in the environment.
Members of the public often ask about the cumulative exposure that a child receives when using a Wi-Fi device in a classroom in which a number of children are simultaneously using Wi-Fi. When downloading files, most of the transmissions will be from the access point, not the students’ device. When downloading and uploading only a portion of the maximum capacity of a network would be used even in a classroom filled with children using Wi-Fi. The Wi-Fi network divides RF transmissions among the access points and client devices therefore the individual RF exposure to a child in a classroom that is using a device consists of sequential exposures from all active devices, the majority of which are located at some distance away(15). For the majority of schools (20) the measurements in the current study were conducted in an empty classroom (to avoid lesson disruption) with an access point and one laptop. In three schools, measurements were conducted with students or teachers present and using Wi-Fi devices. A comparison between measurements conducted in empty classrooms and classrooms with multiple students/teachers using Wi-Fi showed no significant difference in the RF levels (p > 0.1 for all); although this may have been due to low numbers (only three schools measured with multiple users in the classroom).
My phone is a very large concentration of value in an easy-to-lose, easy-to-break package that I’m constantly waving around recklessly. The next time you plop your phone down on a bar, which is a dark place buzzing with dizzy people holding containers full of liquid, remember that what you’re really doing is placing $600 to $1,000 in a situation in which it might instantly vaporize.
In the spirit of adventure, I tried the snazzy TwelveSouth case pictured in this post, and I admit, there were some things I liked. I got very used to not carrying around a bulk in my back pocket. I even put my keycard for the office in it, and it felt very futuristic to unlock the office door by holding my phone up to the fob sensor. But in the end, I took the case off before a trip. It just seemed too foolish to risk losing everything at once.
Dr. Carlo, wrote a Medical Alert ten years ago. He cautioned people with EMF sensitivity against relying upon widely-available EMR Protection Products to prevent the effects of EMF exposure. He noted that EMF sensitive individuals were reporting the opposite effect: people found their symptoms and/or sensitivity worsened. Specifically, severe “symptom relapses.” Dr. Carlo noted:
✅ PROTECT YOUR HEAD & BODY FROM RADIATION: It is scientifically proven that it’s best to keep your phone away from your body because the radiation exposure often exceeds FCC regulations. That’s why our emf protection cell phone radiation shield will immediately negate symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, memory loss, anxiety, fatigue and much more.
The present experiment was designed to study the 2.45 GHz low-level microwave irradiation-induced stress response (continuous wave exposure for 2h/day for 45 days) and its effect on implantation or pregnancy in female mice. Researchers observed that implantation sites were affected significantly in MW-irradiated mice as compared to control and in addition to a significant increase in ROS, hemoglobin, RBC and WBC counts, N/L ratio, DNA damage in brain cells, and plasma estradiol concentration, a significant decrease was observed in NO level and antioxidant enzyme activities of MW-exposed mice. Our findings led us to conclude that a low level of MW irradiation-induced oxidative stress not only suppresses implantation, but it may also lead to deformity of the embryo in case pregnancy continues. We also suggest that MW radiation-induced oxidative stress by increasing ROS production in the body may lead to DNA strand breakage in the brain cells and implantation failure/resorption or abnormal pregnancy in mice.
An excessive production of reactive oxygen substances (ROS) and reduced antioxidant defence systems resulting from electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure may lead to oxidative brain and liver damage and degradation of membranes during pregnancy and development of rat pups. In the EMR groups, lipid peroxidation levels in the brain and liver were increased following EMR exposure; however, the glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity, and vitamin A, vitamin E and β-carotene concentrations were decreased in the brain and liver. Glutathione (GSH) and vitamin C concentrations in the brain were also lower in the EMR groups than in the controls; however, their concentrations did not change in the liver. In conclusion, Wi-Fi-induced oxidative stress in the brain and liver of developing rats was the result of reduced GSH-Px, GSH and antioxidant vitamin concentrations. Moreover, the brain seemed to be more sensitive to oxidative injury compared to the liver in the development of newborns.
RESULTS: Our data showed that the weight gain in the WI-FI exposed group was significantly lower than the control group (p<0.05). Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) exposed group showed hyperglycemia. Plasma insulin level and glucose-stimulated insulin secretion from pancreatic islet were significantly reduced in the Wi-Fi exposed group. EMR emitted from Wi-Fi caused a significant increase in lipid peroxidation and a significant decrease in GSH level, SOD and GPx activities of the pancreas.
In recent years there has been a tremendous increase in use of Wi-Fi devices along with mobile phones, globally. Wi-Fi devices make use of 2.4 GHz frequency. The present study evaluated the impact of 2.45 GHz radiation exposure for 4h/day for 45 days on behavioral and oxidative stress parameters in female Sprague Dawley rats. Behavioral tests of anxiety, learning and memory were started from day 38. Oxidative stress parameters were estimated in brain homogenates after sacrificing the rats on day 45. In morris water maze, elevated plus maze and light dark box test, the 2.45 GHz radiation exposed rats elicited memory decline and anxiety behavior. Exposure decreased activities of super oxide dismutase, catalase and reduced glutathione levels whereas increased levels of brain lipid peroxidation was encountered in the radiation exposed rats, showing compromised anti-oxidant defense. Expression of caspase 3 gene in brain samples were quantified which unraveled notable increase in the apoptotic marker caspase 3 in 2.45 GHz radiation exposed group as compared to sham exposed group. No significant changes were observed in histopathological examinations and brain levels of TNF-α. Analysis of dendritic arborization of neurons showcased reduction in number of dendritic branching and intersections which corresponds to alteration in dendritic structure of neurons, affecting neuronal signaling. The study clearly indicates that exposure of rats to microwave radiation of 2.45GHz leads to detrimental changes in brain leading to lowering of learning and memory and expression of anxiety behavior in rats along with fall in brain antioxidant enzyme systems.