Jump up ^ "Electromagnetic fields (EMF)". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2008-01-22. “Electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed to varying degrees of EMF, and the levels will continue to increase as technology advances.”
Before making a purchase from a Fry's Electronics store or online, if you see the same item at a lower current price at a local authorized competitor (including their online prices) or shipped from and sold by these major online retailers - Amazon.com, Bhphotovideo.com, Dell.com, HP.com, and Newegg.com - Fry's will be happy to match the competition's promised price. If a Fry's Promo Code is offered on an item, and the competitor's final price is still lower after the Promo Code is applied, Fry's will cheerfully discount our price by 110% of the difference.
They're ok, though there's a nasty chemical processing smell to the stickers. I'm still not sure they're worth what they're made of. No instructions, testimonials, or even a product insert label, when you get them in a pretty, smelly gold sleeve, though you don't really need instructions for stickers, lol. They're very durable and don't wear easily, despite pressure and contact w/ many surfaces & objects. The price increased $4 since I ordered them. That said, the designs on them are beautiful. I just don't understand what I paid for, & it would be nice if there were tests on devices like this, proving that they actually absorb or render harmless, various wireless frequencies, and at what range. If they were cheaper, I might order 2 more packs just to see if they made a difference if placed closer together in larger quantity. I have 3 on my laptop & have noticed a very slight reduction in sensitivity to EMF. I didn't notice this slight difference until I put 1 sticker where my right hand rests on the keyboard. I had originally placed 2 on the base of the laptop, 1 over the wifi card, & 1 over the processor, and it made zero difference. I left things like that for 2 weeks, before I decided to try putting one of the stickers on the keyboard area. I'm still not clear on whether or not I'd buy this product again, but like the seller, Crownstarqi, b/c they are sending me a few more stickers so that I can see if multiple stickers on more devices makes a difference. This is very kind of them, & they have great customer follow-up. -Account holder's progeny.
The answer is yes, it can. Will it always make people sick? No. Dr. George Carlo explains that there is most definitely a biological response to what he refers to as Information Carrying Radio Waves (ICRW-energy fields from many wireless devices). When you're exposed to ICRW a process of adaptation and compensation occurs in your body. He has a great program that can help people adapt.
No, it isn’t. It is true that International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the World Health Organisation) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from wireless phones as ‘2b’ in its monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. But that’s by no means proof of danger. You see 2b is ‘possibly carcinogenic’ and as well as Wi-Fi, the category includes coffee, carpentry and pickled vegetables. Some evidence has to be present (except when insufficient evidence is accepted) but the case does not have to be proven.
Belgium recently adopted new cell phone regulations that bar mobile phone models designed for, and marketed to children ages 7 and younger. Under Belgium’s new rules, slated to take effect next March, cell phone retailers will be required to disclose phones’ maximum emission levels, known as specific absorption rates, or SAR, at the point of sale. Belgium becomes the latest in a rapidly lengthening list of nations to attempt to shield children from too much cell phone radiation and to inform everyone about the risks of exposure to these emissions. At least a dozen other nations have taken steps to protect children from cell phone radiation.
Results Renal tissue malondialdehyde (MDA) and total oxidant (TOS) levels of pre-natal group were high and total antioxidant (TAS) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) levels were low. Spot urine NAG/creatinine ratio was significantly higher in pre- and post-natal groups (p < 0.001). Tubular injury was detected in most of the specimens in post-natal groups. Immunohistochemical analysis showed low-intensity staining with Bax in cortex, high-intensity staining with Bcl-2 in cortical and medullar areas of pre-natal group (p values, 0.000, 0.002, 0.000, respectively) when compared with sham group. Bcl2/Bax staining intensity ratios of medullar and cortical area was higher in pre-natal group than sham group (p = 0.018, p = 0.011).
In conclusion, although EMR exposure decreased the prolactin, estrogen, and progesterone levels in the plasma of maternal rats and their offspring, EMR-induced oxidative stress in the uteri of maternal rats increased during the development of offspring. Mobile phone- and Wi-Fi-induced EMR may be one cause of increased oxidative uterine injury in growing rats and decreased hormone levels in maternal rats. TRPV1 cation channels are the possible molecular pathways responsible for changes in the hormone, oxidative stress, and body temperature levels in the uterus of maternal rats following a year-long exposure to electromagnetic radiation exposure from mobile phones and Wi-Fi devices. It is likely that TRPV1-mediated Ca2+ entry in the uterus of pregnant rats involves accumulation of oxidative stress and opening of mitochondrial membrane pores that consequently leads to mitochondrial dysfunction, substantial swelling of the mitochondria with rupture of the outer membrane and release of oxidants such as superoxide (O2 -) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). The superoxide radical is converted to H2O2 by superoxide dismutase (SOD) enzyme. Glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) is an important antioxidant enzyme for removing lipid hydroperoxides and hydrogen peroxide and it catalyzes the reduction of H2O2 to water.
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.
To see if ShippingPass is right for you, try a 30-day free trial. Also, with ShippingPass, there is no need to worry about commitment. If you decide you want to discontinue the service, you can cancel your subscription at any time. No matter what your shipping needs, Walmart's got you covered. Sign up for ShippingPass so you can shop more, save money and live better.
Exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is rapidly increasing in everyday environment, consequently conferring potential health effects. Oxidative stress is emerging as a mechanism implicated in pathophysiology and progression of various diseases. To our knowledge, no report has been made on the status of antioxidant redox systems after continuous exposure to radiofrequency radiation emitted from a Wi-Fi access point in animal model so far. Therefore, we aimed to continuously subject rats in the experimental group to radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted from a commercially available Wi-Fi device. Male Wister rats were exposed to 2.45 GHz RF radiation emitted from a Wi-Fi for 24 h/day for 10 consecutive weeks. In order to assess the change in antioxidant redox system of plasma after continuous exposure to a Wi-Fi device, the total antioxidant capacity of plasma, level of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances, concentration of reduced glutathione (GSH), and activity of different enzymatic antioxidants, e.g., superoxide dismutase [SOD], catalase [CAT], glutathione peroxidase [GSH-Px], and glutathione S-transferase [GST], were measured. In the Wi-Fi exposed group, a significant decrease was detected in total antioxidant capacity of plasma and the activities of several antioxidant enzymes, including CAT, GSH-Px, and SOD (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the GST activity was significantly increased in this group (P < 0.05). However, no significant changes were found in GSH and TBARS levels following exposure to RF radiation. According to the results, oxidative defense system in rats exposed to Wi-Fi signal was significantly affected compared to the control group. Further studies are needed to better understand the possible biological mechanisms of EMR emitted from Wi-Fi device and relevant outcomes.
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.
When using your phone or tablet, consider keeping it away from your head and body. That is particularly true in areas where the cellular signal from towers is weak—when your phone has only one bar, for example—because phones may increase their power then to compensate. To do that, you could try texting or video-calling when possible, using the speaker phone on your device or a wired or Bluetooth headset, carrying your phone in a bag instead of stowing it in your pocket, and not resting your tablet on your body for a long period of time. When you go to bed, consider storing your phone away from where you sleep, switch it to airplane mode, or turn it off entirely.
A closer look reveals the industry’s sleight of hand. When Henry Lai, the professor whom Carlo tried to get fired, analyzed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2005, he learned that 56 percent found a biological effect from cell-phone radiation and 44 percent did not; the scientific community apparently was split. But when Lai recategorized the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67 percent of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28 percent of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives that concluded industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find a health effect.23
You are being trolled people. This article is so obviously not correct. All of the examples given are so subjective and there are hints in there that they are having a laugh at you for believing this. “When a group of Danish ninth graders experienced difficulty concentrating after sleeping” Come on, really? It wasn’t because they were playing games or chatting to their friends that their minds were too stimulated to sleep straight away?
The scientific evidence that cell phones and wireless technologies in general can cause cancer and genetic damage is not definitive, but it is abundant and has been increasing over time. Contrary to the impression that most news coverage has given the public, 90 percent of the 200 existing studies included in the National Institutes of Health’s PubMed database on the oxidative effects of wireless radiation—its tendency to cause cells to shed electrons, which can lead to cancer and other diseases—have found a significant impact, according to a survey of the scientific literature conducted by Henry Lai. Seventy-two percent of neurological studies and 64 percent of DNA studies have also found effects.52
In a separate study by the same Swedish team, they found more than seven times the risk among people using a cell phone more than 20 years and 6.5 times the risk for long-term users of cordless phones. As expected, most of the gliomas and acoustic neuromas were on the same side of the head, which was usually exposed to the phone. In the 2013 official report on the medical evidence for brain tumors, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that radiation from cell phones is “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.