This is extremely important for a lot of reasons but will be crucial for any step to reducing radiation. Having a quality EMF meter will allow you to determine what kind of radiation devices in your home are emitted, as well as how much. This will also be crucial in understanding how different changes are improving this I would highly recommend either the TriField TF2 (read my review), or Meterk (read my review) if you need a lower cost EMF meter.
In response, we would state that all wireless frequencies currently used by the public are categorized as radiofrequency radiation. People have not been using Wi-Fi for as long as they have been using cell phones, so the research that has looked at long term use of cell phones is very important in considering the long term health risks from wireless and Wi-Fi specifically.
Our gorgeous wallet phone cases make it possible to carry all of the essentials in one place. They’re all super functional, holding at least a few credit cards. Some even include a mirror or room to hold a little bit of cash when you’re out for the evening. If you’re looking for a slim design that still offers room for credit cards, check out the cardholder phone case available in black, white, turquoise, red, and a variety of other colors. If you need a mirror, check out the retro mirror wallet phone cases, available in many colors. If you want more room to hold credit cards, cash, and more, be sure to check out the ultimate wallet phone case today.
We investigated the long-term effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from Wi-Fi systems on hearing. Sixteen Wistar albino rats were divided equally into two groups: sham control and exposure groups. The rats in the experimental group were exposed to 2.4 GHz RFR emitted from a Wi-Fi generator for 24 h/day for one year. The same procedure was applied to the rats in the sham group, except that the Wi-Fi generator was turned off. All groups were kept in Faraday cages during the 12 months to eliminate external electromagnetic fields. The distance between the Wi-Fi generator antenna and the exposure cages was 50 cm. Pre-exposure distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) of all rats were measured at the beginning, 6th and 12th months of the study. The DPOAE values of the sham, baseline and exposure groups were compared statistically. For the 6000 Hz hearing frequency, the DPOAE values in the exposure group were lower than those in the sham group (p < 0.05). Similarly, the 6000 Hz hearing frequency values obtained at the end of the 12th month were also lower than the baseline and 6-month values in the exposure group (p < 0.05). In contrast, the DPOAE values at the 6th and 12th months of exposure for the 2000 Hz hearing frequency were higher than the baseline value (p < 0.05). These results indicated that 12 months of RFR (24 h/day) at 50 cm from a 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi source can affect hearing. However, further studies are necessary.
I used to have an iPhone (see Why I Got Rid of My Smartphone) and discovered that no case kept the radiation from emitting. I tried the Pong Case, the Otterbox, and an RF Safe Pouch. The pouch by far was the most effective. The Pong Case was better than the Otterbox, but still showed higher levels than I would like to see. You’ll see the various levels in the video below.
In this study, the effect of Wi-Fi radiation exposure as a threat to brain health was studied using genomic analysis and histopathological study which showed the high risk of its genotoxicity especially in prolonged exposure spectrum through the findings from this study. The genomic analysis confirmed DNA damage due to Wi-Fi radiation toxicity and DNA damage effect which was seen through the RAPD profiles of animals from the exposed groups. The histopathological analyses also confirmed significant deleterious alterations in the brain tissues of Wi-Fi-exposed animals. Hence, the need to exhibit caution in handling smart devices that are used from day to day is fast becoming a threat to human health and wellness.
“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
Because these are complex diseases that develop over decades, it is difficult to conclusively show that the increase in wireless signal exposures directly cause the diseases. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considers wireless radiation as a class 2B possible carcinogen due to limited evidence. These small number of studies are leaning towards showing that electromagnetic radiations, including WiFi, are not safe.
According to the results of the current research, long-term exposure to EMR emitted from wireless devices had adverse effects on the antioxidant potential of blood. Therefore, to protect individuals from harmful effects of Wi-Fi signals, it is advised to limit the use of such devices for household and occupational activities, if possible. This study may stimulate future helpful research in the development of new protective or therapeutic approaches. In addition, it is recommended that the target tissues of EMR emitted from wireless devices and the level of other mediators be investigated to understand the exact molecular mechanism and site of action upon continuous exposure to such radiations.
Like their tobacco and fossil-fuel brethren, wireless executives have chosen not to publicize what their own scientists have said about the risks of their products. On the contrary, the industry—in America, Europe, and Asia—has spent untold millions of dollars in the past 25 years proclaiming that science is on its side, that the critics are quacks, and that consumers have nothing to fear. This, even as the industry has worked behind the scenes—again like its Big Tobacco counterpart—to deliberately addict its customers. Just as cigarette companies added nicotine to hook smokers, so have wireless companies designed cell phones to deliver a jolt of dopamine with each swipe of the screen.19
Mouse embryo 3T3 cells were irradiated with 2450 MHz continuous and low frequency (16 Hz) square modulated waves of absorbed energy. The low frequency modulated microwave irradiation yielded more morphological cell changes than did the continuous microwave fields of the same intensity. The amount of free negative charges (cationized ferritin binding) on cell surfaces decreased following irradiation by modulated waves but remained unchanged under the effect of a continuous field of the same dose. Modulated waves of 0.024 mW/g dose increased the ruffling activity of the cells, and caused ultrastructural alteration in the cytoplasm. Similar effects were experienced by continuous waves at higher (0.24 and 2.4 mW/g) doses.
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.
These articles and websites don’t exist because the threat is real, however. They exist because they are a vehicle for turning people’s fear into money. The more people share nonsense articles about the dangers of Wi-Fi (or other harmless modern things) the more people click on them, the more ad-revenue is generated, and the more motivation the people peddling these rubbish articles have to keep creating and promoting them.
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).
Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important component of this strategy, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided. Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage—as Carlo’s WTR did in 1999; as the WHO’s Interphone study did in 2010; and as the US National Toxicology Program did in 2016—industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree. “[T]he overall balance of the evidence” gives no cause for alarm, asserted Jack Rowley, research and sustainability director for the Groupe Special Mobile Association (GSMA), Europe’s wireless trade association, speaking to reporters about the WHO’s findings.22
We actually debated including some links to some of the worst offenders just to show you how outlandish (and unscientific) the claims they make are, but we couldn’t stomach giving them even a penny of ad revenue. If you want to see how bad things are you can search for “Wi-Fi dangers” on Google where, it becomes clear, the page rank algorithm doesn’t always reward pages with the most scientific merit.
These studies are not definitive. Much more research is needed. But they raise serious questions that cast doubt on the adequacy of the FCC rules to safeguard public health. The FCC emissions cap allows 20 times more radiation to reach the head than the body as a whole, does not account for risks to children’s developing brains and smaller bodies and considers only short-term cell phone use, not frequent calling patterns over decades.
Although mainstream outlets may ignore the proven dangers, especially in the US and Canada, researchers have identified several methods that can offer a level of defense. First off, reduced melatonin seems to correspond with exposure. Thus, increasing melatonin through supplementation may help offset some of the effects.    In animal tests, L-Carnitine provides antioxidant support for nutrients negatively affected by 2.4 GHz radiation.  
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.
How often do you go out and wish you could leave the bulky purse at home? If you’re ready to head out for the night, but only want to bring the necessities, a wallet phone case is the perfect option. You’ll be able to easily carry a few credit cards with your phone and, with the right wallet case, you’ll have a mirror handy whenever you need it. At Cases A La Mode, we have durable and easy to use wallet phone cases you’ll enjoy.
This study used Drosophila as model organisms to assess the effects of various EMF sources (short time daily for 3-7 days) on apoptotic cell death of follicles during oogenesis and reproductive capacity (fecundity) decline. Sources included: 900/1800 MHz mobile phone, 1880-1900 MHz wireless base, wireless handset, mobile phone-handset combination, 2.44 GHz wireless network (Wi-Fi), 2.44 GHz bluetooth, 92.8 MHz FM generator, 27.15 MHz baby monitor, 900 MHz CW RF generator and microwave oven’s 2.44 GHz RF and magnetic field components. All EMF sources used created statistically significant effects regarding fecundity and cell death-apoptosis induction, even at very low intensity levels well below ICNIRP’s guidelines, suggesting that Drosophila oogenesis system is suitable to be used as a biomarker for exploring potential EMF bioactivity.
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.
Most smartphones have settings that will help you manage your privacy and safety. You can find these controls through the settings on your phone or through the settings of a specific app. These settings may allow you to limit an application’s access to the data on your phone, including access to your location, pictures, contacts, notes, etc. You may even be able to block cookies and limit what data your mobile browser collects.
This study investigated if supplemental selenium (Se) and L-carnitine may reduce the adverse effect 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation can have on testicular apoptosis using rats as a study animal. Electromagnetic radiation exposure resulted in testicular apoptosis in rats, mainly by the intrinsic pathways by down-regulated expression of caspase-8. Reduction in the activation of the intrinsic pathway of apoptosis was found higher with selenium administration compared with L-carnitine administration.
Wireless internet (Wi-Fi) providers have become essential in our daily lives, as wireless technology is evolving at a dizzying pace. Although there are different frequency generators, one of the most commonly used Wi-Fi devices are 2.4GHz frequency generators. These devices are heavily used in all areas of life but the effect of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emission on users is generally ignored. Yet, an increasing share of the public expresses concern on this issue. Therefore, this study intends to respond to the growing public concern. The purpose of this study is to reveal whether long term exposure of 2.4GHz frequency RF radiation will cause DNA damage of different tissues such as brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissue and testicular tissues of rats.
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.
Remarkably, cell phones had been allowed onto the US consumer market a decade earlier without any government safety testing. Now, some customers and industry workers were being diagnosed with cancer. In January 1993, David Reynard sued the NEC America Company, claiming that his wife’s NEC phone caused her lethal brain tumor. After Reynard appeared on national TV, the story went viral. A congressional subcommittee announced an investigation; investors began dumping their cell-phone stocks; and Wheeler and the CTIA swung into action.2
†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 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.”