Because of inconsistent findings from epidemiologic studies in humans and the lack of clear data from previous experimental studies in animals, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration nominated radiofrequency radiation exposure associated with cell phone exposures for study in animal models by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency program that coordinates toxicology research and testing across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of NIH.

Unfortunately, the current state of cell phone radiation research is similar to the early days of tobacco research. It wasn't until 1999 when the U.S. Department of Justice finally filed a racketeering lawsuit against the major tobacco companies for engaging in a "50 year scheme" to counteract any scientific evidence that showed that cigarettes are harmful to a person's health. Is the potential cell phone cancer link the same sort of scenario? Are cell phone companies funding and promoting research that "proves" no link from cell phone radio radiation in an effort to discredit those studies that are uncovering problems?
There’s little chance you’d want to hand a Galaxy S8 to a child, but what about Samsung’s other offerings? Samsung’s A-range has been coming on in leaps-and-bounds the last few years, and the humble A5 makes a great choice as your kid’s phone. A 5.2-inch AMOLED screen is joined by good midrange specs that won’t let you down any time soon. It’s a metal-and glass-build, so you’re risking breakages (grabbing a case is advised), but it’s fully IP68-rated, so it’ll be able to survive a quick dip with no issues. The 3,000mAh is also impressive, so your kid shouldn’t be caught short. So what’s the catch? Like the Honor phone above, this phone will not work with either Verizon or Sprint, so think twice if you’re with either of those two — unless you’re looking to switch your plan soon.
The present study was designed to determine the effects of 2.45 GHz radiation (1, 2, 12, or 24 hours) on the antioxidant redox system, calcium ion signaling, cell count and viability in human leukemia 60 cells.The extent of lipid peroxidation, cytosolic free Ca²⁺ and cell numbers were higher in 2.45 GHz groups than in the controls and was time-dependent. 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation appears to induce proliferative effects through oxidative stress and Ca²⁺ influx although blocking of transient receptor potential melastatin 2 channels by 2-aminoethyl diphenylborinate seems to counteract the effects on Ca²⁺ ions influx.
Recall bias, which can occur when data about prior habits and exposures are collected from study participants using questionnaires administered after diagnosis of a disease in some of the participants. It is possible that study participants who have brain tumors may remember their cell phone use differently from individuals without brain tumors. Many epidemiologic studies of cell phone use and brain cancer risk lack verifiable data about the total amount of cell phone use over time. In addition, people who develop a brain tumor may have a tendency to recall cell phone use mostly on the same side of the head where their tumor was found, regardless of whether they actually used their phone on that side of the head a lot or only a little.
The WHO began to study the health effects of electric- and magnetic-field radiation (EMF) in 1996 under the direction of Michael Repacholi, an Australian biophysicist. Although Repacholi claimed on disclosure forms that he was “independent” of corporate influence, in fact Motorola had funded his research: While Repacholi was director of the WHO’s EMF program, Motorola paid $50,000 a year to his former employer, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which then transferred the money to the WHO program. When journalists exposed the payments, Repacholi denied that there was anything untoward about them because Motorola had not paid him personally. Eventually, Motorola’s payments were bundled with other industry contributions and funneled through the Mobile and Wireless Forum, a trade association that gave the WHO’s program $150,000 annually. In 1999, Repacholi helped engineer a WHO statement that “EMF exposures below the limits recommended in international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health.”34

Keep it kind. Because people socialize on cellphones as much as online, cyberbullying can be mobile too. Treat people on phones and the web the way you would in person, and the risk of being bullied goes down. Be aware, too, of people randomly taking pictures at parties, in locker rooms, etc. – you may not want to be tagged in their social-network photo albums!
In 2015, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the epidemiologic studies on cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of other cancers of the head and neck region (2). The Committee also stated that epidemiologic studies do not indicate increased risk for other malignant diseases, including childhood cancer (2).
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.

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

As a result, it is observed that the long-term exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency radiation caused an increase in the DNA damage of the brain, liver, kidney, and skin tissue of rats, but this increase was not significant. Therefore it is determined that the long-term exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency radiation does not cause the DNA damage of the brain, liver, kidney, and skin tissue of the rats. However it is concluded that the long-term usage of 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency wireless internet providers could cause a potential risk of DNA damage in the testes.


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?

Acute exposure of rabbits to WIFI increased heart frequency (+22%) and arterial blood pressure (+14%). Moreover, analysis of ECG revealed that WIFI induced a combined increase of PR and QT intervals. By contrast, the same exposure failed to alter maximum amplitude and P waves. After intravenously injection of dopamine (0.50 ml/kg) and epinephrine (0.50 ml/kg) under acute exposure to RF we found that, WIFI alter catecholamines (dopamine, epinephrine) action on heart variability and blood pressure compared to control. 
This study investigated the effect of 2GHz EMR (1h) on the growth dynamics of Myriophyllum aquaticum (Parrot feather) by measuring the nanometric elongation rate fluctuation (NERF) using a statistical interferometry technique. After continuous exposure to EMR, M. aquaticum plants exhibited a statistically significant reduction in NERF standard deviation, therefore, the reduced NERF was due to a non-thermal effect caused by EMR exposure. The alteration in NERF continued for at least 2.5 h after EMR exposure and no significant recovery was found in post-EMR NERF during the experimental period.
Turkish Telecommunication and Information Technology Agency declared that the daily usage of internet is nearly 6 hours in Turkey [15]. Therefore, according to us, Wi-Fi usage needs to get more attention than cell phone usage due to its higher frequency ranges and longer exposure times [16]. Even though there are some studies performed on the effects of  RF-EMR and cell phones on male fertility, there is not so much scientific data about the association between Wi-Fi internet usage and male fertility [17]. Unlike other RF-EMR sources, devices such as laptops and tablets usually stay near the reproductive organs.
"S8 Good...Love it...Dropped it a few times no cracks with rhis case so far, cool leds tell time or do a little dance of music whenever you do close it, it saves my battery as well because ir prevenrs the screen from turning on when rhe case is on which prevents always on display...It's a great case, the led notifications and functions are handy, it protects the phone really well; the problem is that we bought Dex and having to remove the case to be able to use Dex with my phone is a bummer; if not this will be a 5 stars review."
CONCLUSION: The available literature on the effect of RF-EMFs on plants to date observed the significant trend of radiofrequency radiation influence on plants. Hence, this study provides new evidence supporting our hypothesis. Nonetheless, this endorses the need for more experiments to observe the effects of RF-EMFs, especially for the longer exposure durations, using the whole organisms. The above observation agrees with our earlier study, in that it supported that it is not a well-grounded method to characterize biological effects without considering the exposure duration. Nevertheless, none of these findings can be directly associated with human; however, on the other hand, this cannot be excluded, as it can impact the human welfare and health, either directly or indirectly, due to their complexity and varied effects (calcium metabolism, stress proteins, etc.). This study should be useful as a reference for researchers conducting epidemiological studies and the long-term experiments, using whole organisms, to observe the effects of RF-EMFs.
I have noticed that whenever I set the location settings so the apps can access my location, I get a fuzzy feeling in my head. This is followed by feelings of confusion for however long the setting is enabled and often continues for a while even after I switch the settings off. I have also noticed that the effect is magnified by bringing the phone closer to my head. At arms length, the effect is negilable but up close the effect is more dramatic- a space at the back of my eyes start to itch and I find it difficult to concentrate. Anyone else feel anything like this?
“If you’re experiencing eye discomfort, make your phone’s font size bigger. Mark Rosenfield, O.D., Ph.D., told Men’s Health that phone users should try to hold their phones at least 16 inches away from their faces. Every few minutes look up from your screen at something far away for short breaks, and don’t forget to blink.” – Amanda Hawkins, 5 Seriously Bad Side Effects of Your Smartphone Addiction, Good Housekeeping; Twitter: @goodhousemag
As a result, it is observed that the long-term exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency radiation caused an increase in the DNA damage of the brain, liver, kidney, and skin tissue of rats, but this increase was not significant. Therefore it is determined that the long-term exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency radiation does not cause the DNA damage of the brain, liver, kidney, and skin tissue of the rats. However it is concluded that the long-term usage of 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency wireless internet providers could cause a potential risk of DNA damage in the testes.
The wireless communications industry is rushing to blanket the nation with next-generation networks whose health effects are unknown. Despite studies linking radiation from existing networks to cancer in lab animals, the Federal Communications Commission and state legislators are bowing to industry lobbyists and clearing the way for the new networks.  
Electrocardiogram and arterial pressure measurements were studied under acute exposures to WIFI (2.45GHz) during one hour in adult male rabbits. Acute exposure of rabbits to WIFI increased heart frequency (+22%) and arterial blood pressure (+14%). Moreover, analysis of ECG revealed that WIFI induced a combined increase of PR and QT intervals, but failed to alter maximum amplitude and P waves. After intravenously injection of dopamine (0.50ml/kg) and epinephrine (0.50ml/kg) under acute exposure to RF we found that, WIFI alter catecholamines (dopamine, epinephrine) action on heart variability and blood pressure compared to control. These results suggest for the first time, as far as we know, that exposure to WIFI affect heart rhythm, blood pressure, and catecholamines efficacy on cardiovascular system; indicating that radiofrequency can act directly and/or indirectly on cardiovascular system.
Keep it kind. Because people socialize on cellphones as much as online, cyberbullying can be mobile too. Treat people on phones and the web the way you would in person, and the risk of being bullied goes down. Be aware, too, of people randomly taking pictures at parties, in locker rooms, etc. – you may not want to be tagged in their social-network photo albums!
✝✝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
DefenderShield Cellphone Radiation Case also claims independent testing and says in their website: That a "sophisticated layering of separate non-toxic, human safe materials processed for maximum radiation blocking efficiency. Each material has unique and targeted radiation-shielding characteristics designed to work in unison to eliminate all radiation emissions from 0 to 10 GHZ and Defender Shield technology refracts, conducts and finally absorbs all these potentially harmful emissions."  In this demonstration, the radiation level measured when DefendeShield case was on is still quite a bit above the level of exposure that I would recommend. I personally do not recommend-holding a phone with a shielding case to your head as the DefenderShield website shows a young woman doing as she demonstrates the product. 
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.
This study investigated the effects of long-term exposure to 2.45 GHz pulsed microwave radiation. The major emphasis was to expose a large sample of experimental animals throughout their lifetimes (21.5h/day for 25 months, starting at 8 weeks) and to monitor them for effects on general health and longevity. Results showed negative overall effects of RFR on general health, longevity, cause of death, or lesions associated with aging and benign neoplasia. Positive findings of effects were found on corticosterone levels and immune system. A statistically significant increase in primary malignancies in exposed rats vs. incidence in control was also found.
“When symptoms are not addressed comprehensively– for example, using symptom amelioration without simultaneous elimination of exposure – cell membrane adverse reaction and damage continue to occur while the patient is assuming the cause of the problem has been eliminated. This lulls patients into a false sense of security, causing them to aggravate their exposures through the increased use of their wireless devices. When the damage reaches a critically harmful level, even the symptom amelioration can no longer be sustained by the damaged cells.”
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
RF radiation, which includes both radio waves, and microwaves, is at the far end of the electromagnetic spectrum and is a low energy wave. This makes RF and microwave radiation a form of “non-ionizing radiation” which just means that there is enough energy to move the atoms in a molecule around and cause friction, but not enough energy to actually remove a charged particle (ionizing).
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.  
×