Ok, update: Crownstarqi very kindly sent me 2 cell phone shield stickers, but I originally ordered the 6 pack of much thinner rectangular stickers that I could stick more places. I'm too electromagnetically intolerant to even own a cell phone, so I don't know what to do with these! I don't dare bother them about this, b/c they sent me the shield things all the way from China, but I was really hoping to just put more of the rectangular 6-pack stickers on my laptop, to see if more made a difference. It was a very nice gesture on their part, but I'm now concerned that they thought my initial review was of the shield-shaped stickers, when it was a review for these rectangular ones. I noticed that someone else thought they were ordering the 6-pack, and ended up getting a single shield-shaped sticker, instead. This is very confusing & I'm going to just...count my blessings & get on w/ my life. I don't trust any stickers that make the "negative ion" claim, b/c they're often radioactive. I don't realy know what to say, or what review to give, at this point, but I think Cronstarqi are very kind to have sent me something for the trouble w/ my original order, even though what they sent as a replacement was NOT what I had originally ordered. Maybe this was deliberate? I don't know. The package on the shield-shaped stickers says, "The product can only be used as health care instead of replacing the professional medical treatment." I'm so confused, but thanks anyway, to the seller, and the shield-shaped stickers are very pretty. I'd review them, but I have no cell phone & no verified purchase to back up my review. -Account holder's progeny.
Recent research has resurfaced concerns among scientists about a potential link between cell-phone radiation and cancer. But that research—a 10-year, $25 million government study in rodents—left a lot of key questions unanswered. That includes how relevant the findings are to newer wireless technologies such as Bluetooth and WiFi that have become widespread since the study was designed in the early 2000s.  
The presented data collectively suggest that microwave irradiation constitute a stress to the plants, resulting in enhanced emissions of GLV, up-regulation of terpenoid emissions and modification in essential oil content and foliage anatomy. Anatomical and emission traits suggested that WLAN-frequency irradiation resulted in more severe stress than GSM-frequency irradiation, but the effect of WLAN-frequency irradiation on essential oil was inhibitory. There was an agreement between anatomical and chemical traits with anatomically most resistant species Apium graveolens being chemically least responsive.

I am a certified Building Biology Advocate, a former journalist, mother of nine, and avid CrossFitter who likes to think outside the box. After our family's health crisis in 2008, I learned to ask questions about what's in our food, our water, and our air. I hope to empower you as you seek to live safely in a complex world. Thankfully, small steps lead to big changes. Let's travel this road together, one step at a time.
If you’ve bought a computer any time in the last 5 years, there is almost a certainty that it has wifi built in. We’re far past the days of getting separate wifi cards or adapters for our computers. The problem is, Wifi does emit RF radiation, a type of EMF radiation that is very harmful. Whether you have a desktop computer or a laptop that you use, it likely uses Wifi, so let’s take care of that.
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.”

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.

Foster was Moulder’s coauthor on that 2013 review of Wi-Fi’s health effects. He says that, based on our current understanding of radio wave strengths and risks, world health authorities have set safety standards for all devices and appliances that emit electromagnetic radiation—from phones and microwaves to your car’s keyless entry fob. “The exposure you get from your Wi-Fi router is orders and orders of magnitude below those safety limits,” he explains.
The wireless industry has sought to downplay concerns about cell phones’ safety, and the Federal Communications Commission has followed its example. In 1996, the FCC established cell-phone safety levels based on “specific absorption rate,” or SAR. Phones were required to have a SAR of 1.6 watts or less per kilogram of body weight. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised the FCC that its guidelines “do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children.” Nevertheless, the FCC has declined to update its standards.30
Prenatal exposure to radiation from cell phones may increase the risk of ADHD and other behavior problems in children. According to a peer-reviewed Nov. 2008 study in the journal Epidemiology, exposure to cell phone radiation while in the womb "was associated with behavior difficulties such as emotional and hyperactivity problems around the age of school entry." [65] A Dec. 2010 study replicated those findings. [67] A peer-reviewed Mar. 15, 2012 study found that mice exposed to cell phone radiation in the womb "were hyperactive and had impaired memory" as adults. [66]
Nevertheless, a group of scientists got together in the mid-2000s, calling themselves the BioInitiative Working Group. This group, which largely consisted of wireless radiation researchers, has written a harsh reply as feedback to the reports claiming that posed no health risks.  The reply lists a wide range of health effects scientists at the European Commission have unfortunately either ignored or dismissed.
×