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.
The authors of these studies noted that the results were preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism in humans were unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in people (4). Some factors that can contribute to inconsistencies across such studies include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.
We asked Dr. George Carlo his thoughts on EMF cases and shielding products, “most offer some protection, some of the time, to some people, because they can alter the immediate electromagnetic field environment around the person,” and immediately emphasizes the importance of “some,” which seems to tell us that it’s vastly unpredictable. “All waveforms in the environment are highly variable and they interact with other factors in the environment that make them even more variable.” This pretty much sums up that the artificial electromagnetic energy universe is vastly unpredictable.

when i bring my hand very close to a tuned-in radio transistor, the volume drops to almost zero and i can no longer hear the music or news unless i take my hand away from the transistor radio set. if that is the effect of em radiations from a human body on the audible signal of an electronic device reducing its audio signal to almost zero then the long-term effect of powerful em radiation of 1- 2GH frequency from a wi-fi router or a celphone must be dramatically traumatic for the human health. this has to be so because human body almost entirely functions on signals generated by ions and molecules in the body cells which are likely to be severely disrupted in the presence of such strong em radiation fields emitted by man-made external sources such as wi-fi routers and mobile phones.

I had a wireless router installed about a month ago, since then I have had trouble sleeping and also it was like something was inflaming my brain (don’t know how else to describe it). I stumbled onto the discussion about WiFi and problems associated with it and decided to turn off the WiFi on my router and just go with a wired connection. Instantly the pressure on brain was gone, its like my brain began to relax once the wireless was off. How can they say there is no evidence?

There is no clearly-defined safe distance as this new issue has yet been studied enough. While EMF emissions from different routers vary, for most home WiFi routers, a distance of 40 feet (ideally, or 10 feet at a minimum) will help your body and shouldn’t impact your WiFi connection too much. And beware that radiation from WiFi routers can pass through the walls in your home so keep this in mind as you evaluate the safety of your bed's location. Those who are sensitive to EMFs should take extra efforts to reduce EMFs and chronic proximity to the sources.
Responsibility for driver cell phone safety is the part of so many distinct factions. Consumer safety advocates oppose telecommunications lobbyists, and state lawmakers seem to avoid the larger issue of driver distractions. But without all participants it’s likely that the cell phone safety debate would lose the thrust required to effect real change. And there will be change.
Shopping links are provided by eBay Commerce Network and Amazon, which makes it easy to find the right product from a variety of online retailers. Clicking any of the links will take you to the retailer's website to shop for this product. Please note that Consumer Reports collects fees from both eBay Commerce Network and Amazon for referring users. We use 100% of these fees to fund our testing programs.
An Oct. 20, 2011 study of 358,403 Danish citizens – the largest study of its kind to date – concluded that "there was no association between tumors of the central nervous system or brain and long term (10 years +) use of mobile phones." [39] A July 27, 2011 study found that there was no association between cell phone use and brain tumor risks among children and adolescents. [50] Numerous other studies published from 2001-2013 have similarly concluded that there is no association between cell phone use and the development of brain tumors. [1] [41] [42] [45] [46] [49]

According to scientists involved in the process, the WHO may decide later this year to reconsider its categorization of the cancer risk posed by cell phones; the WHO itself told The Nation that before making any such decision, it will review the final report of the National Toxicology Program, a US government initiative. The results reported by the NTP in 2016 seem to strengthen the case for increasing the assessment of cell-phone radiation to a “probable” or even a “known” carcinogen. Whereas the WHO’s Interphone study compared the cell-phone usage of people who had contracted cancer with that of people who hadn’t, the NTP study exposed rats and mice to cell-phone radiation and observed whether the animals got sick.47
“If you're looking for ways to limit your exposure to the electromagnetic emissions from your cell phone, know that, according to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduced exposure from these electromagnetic emissions. In fact, products that block only the earpiece—or another small portion of the phone—are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits electromagnetic waves. What's more, these shields may interfere with the phone's signal, cause it to draw even more power to communicate with the base station, and possibly emit more radiation.”
The NTP studied radiofrequency radiation (2G and 3G frequencies) in rats and mice (33, 34). This large project was conducted in highly specialized labs that specified and controlled sources of radiation and measured their effects. The rodents experienced whole-body exposures of 3, 6, or 9 watts per kilogram of body weight for 5 or 7 days per week for 18 hours per day in cycles of 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off. A research overview of the rodent studies, with links to the peer-review summary, is available on NTP website. The primary outcomes observed were a small number of cancers of Schwann cells in the heart and non-cancerous changes (hyperplasia) in the same tissues for male rats, but not female rats, nor in mice overall.
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).
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.