Things didn’t end well between George Carlo and Tom Wheeler; the last time the two met face-to-face, Wheeler had security guards escort Carlo off the premises. As president of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), Wheeler was the wireless industry’s point man in Washington. Carlo was the scientist handpicked by Wheeler to defuse a public-relations crisis that threatened to strangle his infant industry in its crib. This was back in 1993, when there were only six cell-phone subscriptions for every 100 adults in the United States. But industry executives were looking forward to a booming future.1
The 5.93-inch screen is massive, with plenty of room for most games and movies. The Kirin 659 processor is powerful and capable of standing with any other similarly priced phone on the market. The 3,340mAh battery is long-lasting, and kids who like to take snaps (most kids have an Instagram game that’s on point) will appreciate the extremely good dual-sensor camera suite on the back of the phone. The metal unibody is strong and should be fairly durable, and since it’s running Android there are tons of great parental control apps out there. The only real downside is that Honor’s phones do not support Verizon or Sprint, so if you’re on a family plan with either of those two, this isn’t your best choice. Otherwise, the Honor 7X is a fantastic budget smartphone that kids will love.
That result enabled the industry to continue proclaiming that there was no scientifically established proof that cell phones are dangerous. Jack Rowley of the GSMA trade association said that “interpretation should be based on the overall balance of the evidence.” Once again, the slippery word “overall” downplayed the significance of scientific research that the industry didn’t like.43
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.
Wireless devices run on radio waves. Antennas emit varying levels of radio frequencies (RFs) that at some point are absorbed into the human body. The measurement of absorption, the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), is an indicator of this absorption. What’s the SAR of a cell phone? The FCC requires that all models of cell phones sold in the U.S. fall below 1.6 watts per kilogram. If you’re confused by the complex science, you’re not alone.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 70 male Wistar rats weighing 200-250 g were randomly divided into 7 groups (10 rats in each group).The first stage one-day test: Group A (received vitamin C 250 mg/kg/day orally together with 8- hour/day Wi-Fi exposure). Group B (exposed to Wi-Fi radiation). Group C (received vitamin C). Group D or Control (was neither exposed to radiation of Wi-Fi modem nor did receive vitamin C). The second phase of experiment had done for five consecutive days. It involved Group E (received vitamin C), Group F (exposed to Wi-Fi radiation), Group G (received vitamin C together with Wi-Fi radiation). The distance between animals' restrainers was 20 cm away from the router antenna. Finally, blood samples were collected and assayed the level of hepatic enzymes including alkaline phosphatase (ALP), alanine amino transferase (ALT) aspartate amino transferase (ASL), gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT) and the concentration of Blood Glucose, Cholesterol, Triglyceride (TG), High density lipoprotein (HDL) and low density lipoprotein (LDL).
For example, the latency period for radiation induced malignancies is, on the average, say 20 years, but epidemiologic studies of large groups of people (that only require a few thousand patients to reach statistical significance) exposed to ionizing radiation start showing an increase above baseline by seven years. So conservatively, there should be at least a few excess cases of glioma caused by cellular (or WiFi) electromagnetic radiation by now.
A peer-reviewed Jan. 2012 study in the Journal of Neuro-Oncology concluded that RF radiation "may damage DNA and change gene expression in brain cells" in mice.  An Aug. 2009 meta-study found that RF radiation "can alter the genetic material of exposed cells."  A 2004 European Union-funded study also found that cell phone radiation can damage genes.  On May 26, 2016, the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) released the first results of its study on cell phone radiation, finding an increased incidence of malignant tumors of the brain (gliomas) and heart tumors (schwannomas) in rats exposed to RF radiation.  The NTP researchers also found DNA damage in the rats exposed to the highest levels of RF radiation.  On Nov. 1, 2018, the NTP released its final peer-reviewed report, concluding that there is "clear evidence of carcinogenic activity” in male rats exposed to RF radiation. 
Cancer is the obvious start. An early concern with mobile technology was clusters of the disease around those living near phone masts. One study in Israel found a 4.5-fold increase in cancers of all kinds in the immediate vicinity of a mast (Int. J. Cancer Prev., 2004). In 2009, a Korean team of researchers carried out a pool analysis of the results of 23 studies, which involved almost 38,000 subjects.