We aimed to investigate the effects of distance from sources on calcium signaling, cytosolic ROS production, cell viability, apoptosis, plus caspase-3 and -9 values induced by mobile phones and Wi-Fi in breast cancer cells. The cytosolic ROS production, Ca2+ concentrations, apoptosis, caspase-3 and caspase-9 values were higher in groups exposed to 900 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2450 MHz compared to controls at 0 cm, 1 cm and 5 cm distances although cell viability (MTT) values were increased by the distances. There was no statistically significant difference in the values between control, 20 and 25 cm. Wi-Fi and mobile phone EMR placed within 10 cm of the cells induced excessive oxidative responses and apoptosis via TRPV1-induced cytosolic Ca2+ accumulation in the cancer cells. Using cell phones and Wi-Fi sources which are farther away than 10 cm may provide useful protection against oxidative stress, apoptosis and overload of intracellular Ca2+.
Radiofrequency radiation from cell phones is non-ionizing and is not powerful enough to cause cancer. Ionizing radiation, including x-rays and ultraviolet light, produces molecules called ions that have either too many or too few electrons. Ions are known to damage DNA and cause cancer. Cell phone radiation, like radio, TV, and visible light radiation, is non-ionizing and lacks sufficient energy to add or remove electrons from molecules, and therefore it cannot ionize and cause cancer.  According to the authors of a 2005 peer-reviewed study of 3.7 million Swedish residents, a "biologic mechanism that could explain any possible carcinogenic effect from radiofrequency radiation has not been identified." 
As with exposure to ‘anything’ sun, pollen, pharmaceuticals, there will be a certain percent of population that is ‘sensitive or hypersensitive’ to wifi / emf frequency. I am definitely sensitive with my husband doing his own control experiment by holding his wifi phone behind by head without my knowledge and me In pain from a piercing wave going through my head. Why is it that it must be all or nothing. There are those who will never be sick from wifi/ emf and those of us who live with it everyday.
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.
The recent report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) about the potential connection between cell phone use and cancer is big news to media outposts and the general public. Prior to the report, scientists told us no evidence existed that cell phones were carcinogenic. And now? According to the IARC, research now proves that there is evidence that cell phones might in fact be carcinogenic. The potential villains in this scenario are radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, which are emitted by a cell phone’s antenna, and which the agency says may be linked to two types of brain cancer.
The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation (24h/day for 12 months) emitted from a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) system on some of the miRNA in brain tissue in male rats. The results revealed that long-term exposure of RFR radiation can alter expression of some of the miRNAs, indicating that this type of exposure may lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative diseases originated from the alteration of some miRNA expression and more studies should be devoted to the effects of RF radiation on miRNA expression levels.
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
Purpose: This article is a systematic review of studies on the effects of non-ionizing radiation at the microwave (MW) frequency of 2.45 GHz (2450 MHz), which is predominantly used in WLAN/Wi-Fi applications (wireless local area network) and microwave ovens. Newer WLAN standards also use the frequency ranges of 5 GHz, 6 GHz, and 60 GHz. WLAN, referred to generically in this review also as Wi-Fi, has become the technology of choice for many wireless applications because providers do not require a license, making the service free to users. To meet users’ desire to be online all the time, more and more WLAN antennas (access points, femtocells, routers) emitting pulsed 2.45 GHz radiation are being installed at libraries, hospitals, hotels, airports, railway stations, shopping malls, public places, and in buses, subways, and passenger trains. Wi-Fi consoles are used to play games. Office and household appliances are also fitted with Wi-Fi antennas. Residential routers often contain two Wi-Fi transmitters. As part of its digital learning initiative, the German Conference of Ministers of Education has decided to provide all schools with Wi-Fi networks. The extensive body of research on the health risks of Wi-Fi radiation is generally not considered by policy-makers or in the public debate.
Information and statements made are for education purposes and are not intended to replace the advice of your treating 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. This Web site contains links to Web sites operated by other parties. Such links are provided for your convenience and reference only. We are not responsible for the content or products of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site. Global Healing Center does not adopt any medical claims which may have been made in 3rd party references. Where Global Healing Center has control over the posting or other communications of such claims to the public, Global Healing Center will make its best effort to remove such claims.
There are theoretical considerations as to why the possible risk should be investigated separately in children. Their nervous systems are still developing and, therefore, more vulnerable to factors that may cause cancer. Their heads are smaller than those of adults and consequently have a greater proportional exposure to the field of radiofrequency radiation that is emitted by cell phones. And, children have the potential of accumulating more years of cell phone exposure than adults do.
To date, there are a few long-term studies, very few in humans and even fewer epidemiological studies, apart from the studies on laptops with small numbers of study subjects. It is also far too early to generate reliable figures at this time. However, there are indications that especially newborns, children, or adolescents are particularly vulnerable as has been presented in detail by the research teams of Nazırogˇ lu, Atasoy, Margaritis/ Panagopoulos, Orendacˇ ova, Othmann, Ozorak, Sangun, Shahin and Yuksel. The experiments were carried out with rats or mice, in some cases as long-term studies (up to 1 year). In this context, it is important to note that rats and mice used in laboratories have a life expectancy of perhaps two years. This at least allows us to infer that human children and adolescents have to be protected from possible increased risks. In the study of Margaritis et al. (2014), the authors point out that the exposure levels from Bluetooth (0.3 V/m) and Wi-Fi routers (here 2.1 V/m) showed greater effects than cell phone radiation sources with much higher field strengths. This may coincide with the findings of the papers by von Klitzing, which stated that the power-dependent pulse of 10 Hz (1 ms) from Wi-Fi routers triggered reactions. Kumari et al. observed in a study from 2012 that higher levels of ROS in the liver suppress antioxidant enzymes and that lower levels cause an increase. This could be a key to further mechanisms as to how or whether tissue damage occurs or perhaps not. Likewise, the polarization of RF radiation (Meena et al. 2014, Panagopoulos et al. 2015) should also receive additional attention.
The company's "Researches" page, for example, states that "Aires Technologies are more than 12 years (sic). For this period there have been conducted a number of studies on mechanisms of coherent transformers that effect on physical, chemical, technological and biological processes (sic). The studies were carried out in close collaboration with leading research and academic institutions."
Many wireless routers automatically kick wifi back on when there is a firmware update, or the device gets restarted. When our internet is running slow or not working, the first thing our internet provider will tell us to do is power cycle the router and modem (basically just turning them both off and back on). Make sure that when your router comes back on it doesn’t automatically turn the wifi back on.
In today's world, 2.45-GHz radio-frequency radiation (RFR) from industrial, scientific, medical, military and domestic applications is the main part of indoor-outdoor electromagnetic field exposure. Long-term effects of 2.45-GHz Wi-Fi radiation on male reproductive system was not known completely. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the major cause of male infertility during short- and long-term exposure of Wi-Fi radiation.
Result: More than 100 studies on 2.45 GHz radiation were analyzed, most of which found changes compared to the control groups at levels below the safety guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) (issued as exposure limits of the 26th Federal Pollution Control Ordinance (BImSchV) in Germany). The available studies document damage to the reproductive system, impacts on the EEG and brain functions, as well as effects on the heart, liver, thyroid, gene expression, cell cycle, cell membranes, bacteria, and plants. As a mechanism of action, many studies identify oxidative stress. Adverse effects on learning, memory, attention, and behavior are the result of cytotoxic effects.
Listeria monocytogenes response to each antibiotic was different, for DOX (doxycycline), and the window response occurred after 6 hours of exposure to Wi-Fi and RF simulator radiation. However, for other antibiotics, these changes were only observed at the ninth hour of exposure to Wi-Fi while this response could not be observed for RF simulator radiation. After 9 hours of exposure to Wi-Fi for CIPR and SXT antibiotics, bacteria had a tendency to become more resistant. This was in contrast to the pattern observed for LEVO, CTX, and CTR antibiotics, which an increased sensitivity was observed.
“It’s because WiFi is just a low frequency sound wave.” For me, the jury is still out concerning the link between WiFi and sleep disturbance. But I’m sorry, you are wrong about WiFi being a low frequency sound wave. It is a radio wave, i.e. electromagnetic, and it runs at 2.3 GHz and/or 5 GHz, which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as low frequency.
There is a catch, though: The Internet of Things will require augmenting today’s 4G technology with 5G, thus “massively increasing” the general population’s exposure to radiation, according to a petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide who have published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed studies and represent “a significant portion of the credentialed scientists in the radiation research field,” according to Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, who helped circulate the petition. Nevertheless, like cell phones, 5G technology is on the verge of being introduced without pre-market safety testing.26
If you search hard enough, you'll be able to locate legitimate scientific studies that indicate there may be a cancer risk from the radio wave radiation that's emitted from your cell phone. On the other hand, you'll be able to find just as many studies that prove there's no danger from the levels of radiation coming from your phone. What do you believe?
I’m so glad I stumbled on this article as I thought I was the only one around my area that gets badly affected by Wi-Fi signals. It started when I used to visit my son I would get heart palpitations and my throat felt like it was tightening up, after leaving it would eventually calm down but every time I went it got worse. I then also got Wi-Fi and was really ill for about eight weeks felt like I was slowly being poisoned, tight throat, palpitations, weakness and really bad sleep, just felt like I was dying. I then realised it
Participation bias, which can happen when people who are diagnosed with brain tumors are more likely than healthy people (known as controls) to enroll in a research study. Also, controls who did not or rarely used cell phones were less likely to participate in the Interphone study than controls who used cell phones regularly. For example, the Interphone study reported participation rates of 78% for meningioma patients (range among the individual studies 56–92%), 64% for glioma patients (range 36–92%), and 53% for control subjects (range 42–74%) (6).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats in the weight range of 230 to 260 g were divided into control, sham, Wi-Fi exposed groups. After long term exposure (4 h/day for 45 days) to Wi-Fi electromagnetic radiation, plasma levels of glucose and insulin during intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test were measured. Islet insulin secretion and content, lipid peroxidation and antioxidant status in pancreas of rats were determined.
Cell phone storage in front pockets has been linked to poor fertility and higher chances of miscarriage and childhood cancer.  According to the Cleveland Clinic Center for Reproductive Medicine, semen quality "tended to decline as daily cell phone use increased."  According to a May-June 2012 meta-study in the Journal of Andrology, "men using mobile phones have decreased sperm concentration" in addition to "decreased viability" of their sperm. 
For adults and children alike, the process by which wireless radiation may cause cancer remains uncertain, but it is thought to be indirect. Wireless radiation has been shown to damage the blood-brain barrier, a vital defense mechanism that shields the brain from carcinogenic chemicals elsewhere in the body (resulting, for example, from secondhand cigarette smoke). Wireless radiation has also been shown to interfere with DNA replication, a proven progenitor of cancer. In each of these cases, the risks are higher for children: Their skulls, being smaller, absorb more radiation than adults’ skulls do, while children’s longer life span increases their cumulative exposure.29