Released in 1993 as a joint creation of IBM and BellSouth, this was the first smartphone. A fax machine, a PDA, a pager and a mobile phone, the IBM Simon featured no physical keys, but used a touchscreen and optional stylus. Amazingly, it included applications such as games, email, a notepad, calculator, world clock, address book and a calendar. It only sold in the United States, for $899.
If you’re thinking of buying a phone case with ‘radiation blocking material’ believing it will reduce radiation, you should know this: Phones have automatic power control, such cases act as shields  and make the phone work harder, transmitting more power, increasing heat and reducing battery life, The incoming signal to the phone will also be reduced so your phone may not work in areas of poor signal.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), [4] US Government Accountability Office (GAO), [5] and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), [47] have all concluded that there is no evidence in the scientific literature proving that cell phones cause brain tumors or other health problems. According to the FDA, "attempts to replicate and confirm the few studies that did show a connection [between cell phone radiation and head tumors] have failed." [69]
Increasingly, more people are reporting symptoms associated with WiFi radiation, or non-ionizing radiation, such as headaches, nausea, dizziness, and loss of concentration. Some governments and public bodies are choosing to take precautionary measures, as this topic continues to be studied, by banning or regulating WiFi in public places and schools.
RESULTS: Data obtained from the One day test showed an increase in concentration of blood glucose, decrease in Triglyceride level and GGT factor (P<0.05), however no observed significant difference on the Cholesterol, HDL, LDL level and hepatic enzymes activities in compare to control group. Groups of the five-day test showed reduction in the amount of blood glucose, elevation of cholesterol level and LDL relative to control group (P<0.05).

In 2011, the World Health Organization  classified radio frequency radiation of the type used by WiFi devices as a Group 2B possible carcinogen. A study conducted by the University of Vienna have found WiFi exposures to cause genotoxicity as they break single and double strand DNAs in our body. This indicates that there are effects that may potentially surface with our future generations.
The advent of Wi-Fi connected high technology devices in executing day-to-day activities is fast evolving especially in developing countries of the world and hence the need to assess its safety among others. The present study was conducted to investigate the injurious effect of radiofrequency emissions from installed Wi-Fi devices in brains of young male rats. Animals were divided into four equal groups; group 1 served as control while groups 2, 3, and 4 were exposed to 2.5 Ghz at intervals of 30, 45, and 60 consecutive days with free access to food and water ad libitum. Alterations in harvested brain tissues were confirmed by histopathological analyses which showed vascular congestion and DNA damage in the brain was assayed using agarose gel electrophoresis. Histomorphometry analyses of their brain tissues showed perivascular congestion and tissue damage as well.
✝✝With PromoCode, We Pay Your Sales Tax Obligations in California, Arizona, Washington, and Georgia. Sales tax is included in the price in Nevada and Texas. Sales Tax Collected and Remitted Pursuant to Applicable State Law. Offer Valid for In-Store and Online Purchases in California, Arizona, Washington, Georgia, Texas and Nevada. Offer Not Valid in Indiana, Illinois, Oregon, and Tennessee. Offer not valid for shipping for the Processor and Gaming Console categories. Click here to get your Instant PromoCode

SafeSleeve Anti Radiation Case: Safe Sleeve website says they integrate FCC accredited independent lab tested "shielding technology" in their products. There are many links to "SafeSleeve, Is it a Scam?" and "Does SafeSleeve work?" online, but if you follow those links you'll find they go to the actual SafeSleeve site where the question of SafeSleeve protection is addressed.  You'll see in this demonstration that the radiation level was higher with the SafeSleeve Case on.

The microwave irradiation was performed at bands corresponding to mobile devices (GSM) using a modified AP5200 generator (D-LINK, China), operating in four bands (860–910 MHz frequency range, Pout 29 dBm), and to wireless router (WLAN) using a D-LINK wireless router 802.11 g/2.4 GHz (2.412–2.48 GHz frequency range, Pout 19 dBm). In the irradiation chamber there is one stick antenna placed in the center of the ceiling. The exposure levels where chosen in agreement with the microwave irradiation levels measured in open space for heavily used GSM networks (100 mW/m2) and for indoor WLAN (70 mW/m2) communication protocols.
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.
We do have evidence that cellphones (or WiFi) do NOT cause an increase in brain tumors. Look at the time period over which cellphone use became common -- say, over the last twenty years. During that time, the incidence of brain tumors has remained absolutely flat. With over four billion people using cellphones (or WiFi) today, if there was any influence on the development of brain tumors, we would be seeing that by now.
gamma rays produce virtually no electricity in the human body because the actual inherent energy of gamma rays that actually hits molecules is next to 0. for gamma rays to produce any electricity they would need to hit something much more dense – like lead and for you to generate any significant electricity from gamma rays hitting the earth you would need a huge slab of it.
The scientific journal umwelt · medizin · gesellschaft  addresses environmental medicine topics on a scientific basis--and their interdependence with today's society. The specialist journal reports on the latest medical findings and examines ecologically explosive, socially relevant topics. The UMG magazine is the official association organ of the environmental and medical associations dbu, DEGUZ, DGUHT, EUROPAEM, IGUMED, KMT and ÖÄB.
Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked. The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.
Industry-funded scientists had been pressuring their colleagues for a decade by then, according to Leszczynski, another member of the Lyon working group. Leszczynski was an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School when he first experienced such pressure, in 1999. He had wanted to investigate the effects of radiation levels higher than the SAR levels permitted by government, hypothesizing that this might better conform to real-world practices. But when he proposed the idea at scientific meetings, Leszczynski said, it was shouted down by Mays Swicord, Joe Elder, and C.K. Chou—scientists who worked for Motorola. As Leszczynski recalled, “It was a normal occurrence at scientific meetings—and I attended really a lot of them—that whenever [a] scientist reported biological effects at SAR over [government-approved levels], the above-mentioned industry scientists, singularly or as a group, jumped up to the microphone to condemn and to discredit the results.”44
The aim of this study was to investigate long-term effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation (24 h/day for 1 year) emitted from a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) system on the testes of male rats. Results showed that sperm head defects increased in the exposure group (p < 0.05) while weight of the epididymis and seminal vesicles, seminiferous tubules diameter and tunica albuginea thickness were decreased in the exposure group (p < 0.01, p < 0.001, p < 0.0001). However, other alterations of other parameters were not found significant (p > 0.05). We suggest Wi-Fi users to avoid long-term exposure of RF emissions from Wi-Fi equipment.

There was no significant difference between sperm counts and sperm morphology excluding sperm motility, due to mobile phone usage period, (p = 0.074, p = 0.909, and p = 0.05, respectively). The total motile sperm count and the progressive motile sperm count decreased due to the increase of internet usage (p = 0.032 and p = 0.033, respectively). In line with the total motile sperm count, progressive motile sperm count also decreased with wireless internet usage compared with the wired internet connection usage (p = 0.009 and p = 0.018, respectively). There was a negative correlation between wireless internet usage duration and the total sperm count (r = −0.089, p = 0.039). 

The NTP study was to be peer-reviewed at a meeting on March 26–28, amid signs that the program’s leadership is pivoting to downplay its findings. The NTP had issued a public-health warning when the study’s early results were released in 2016. But when the NTP released essentially the same data in February 2018, John Bucher, the senior scientist who directed the study, announced in a telephone press conference that “I don’t think this is a high-risk situation at all,” partly because the study had exposed the rats and mice to higher levels of radiation than a typical cell-phone user experienced.50
When you make a call, text, or use data, your phone sends and receives RF signals back and forth between its antenna and nearby cell towers. The radiation from Bluetooth and WiFi devices falls into the same basic range on the electromagnetic spectrum—between FM radios and microwave ovens—as the RF waves from cell phones. But because the distances traveled by WiFi and Bluetooth signals tend to be much shorter (between your router and your laptop, for instance, or your smartphone and your wireless speaker) the RF can be transmitted at a much lower power than from a cell phone, which could reduce the effect it has on living tissue.
When the Interphone conclusions were released in 2010, industry spokespeople blunted their impact by deploying what experts on lying call “creative truth-telling.” “Interphone’s conclusion of no overall increased risk of brain cancer is consistent with conclusions reached in an already large body of scientific research on this subject,” John Walls, the vice president for public affairs at the CTIA, told reporters. The wiggle word here is “overall”: Since some of the Interphone studies did not find increased brain-cancer rates, stipulating “overall” allowed Walls to ignore those that did. The misleading spin confused enough news organizations that their coverage of the Interphone study was essentially reassuring to the industry’s customers. The Wall Street Journal announced “Cell Phone Study Sends Fuzzy Signal on Cancer Risk,” while the BBC’s headline declared: “No Proof of Mobile Cancer Risk.”37
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.

In September 2014, Californian oncologists reported four similar case histories of young women who had developed breast cancer in precisely the areas where they normally carried their smartphones. What shocked the doctors was that these women were aged 21 to 39 and had no family history or other risk factors relating to cancer. All their cancers “had striking similarity, all tumours were hormone positive… (with) an extensive intraductal component and… near-identical morphology.” (CaseRepMed., 2013).