The potential health impact of Wi-Fi, even at low exposure levels, can no longer be called into question or relativized away, not even by those studies that found no effects. The decision-makers in government, school boards, and health agencies have a responsibility to deal with the available body of research and not to be deceived by the arguments of the industry lobby or boilerplates of government institutions. Health risks are a reality. It would be particularly important to carry out further research regarding the effects on the brain and young people. The application of the precautionary principle, which is recognized in all European countries, only allows for one conclusion: Wi-Fi must not be used continuously and close to the human body. I is no coincidence that the user guide of the Telekom Wi-Fi router states: “The integrated antennas of your Speedport transmit and receive wireless signals, for example, to provide Wi-Fi connectivity. Avoid placing your Speedport in close proximity to bedrooms, children’s rooms, as well as common rooms and lounges to keep the exposure to electromagnetic field as low as possible.” In their joint appeal with regard to Wi-Fi, the Cyprus and Austrian medical associations call on decision-makers to "promote age-related rational application of digital technology and not allow at schools, particular at preschool, kindergarten and elementary schools wireless networks and opt for wired connections" (ibid). Lawmakers are called upon to adjust protective legislation to the current state of research and to support research into alternatives to Wi-Fi such as VLC technologies (visible light communication, Li-Fi).
Feelsafe Wireless provides qualified customers with a free lifeline government phone and Free Monthly Phone Service. How do you qualify for a free phone? Start by entering your zip code into the text box at the top of the page. You will then be directed to information pertaining to your area. A paper application must be filled out and mailed or faxed in for evaluation. Qualified applicants for a free lifeline government cell phone will will need to participate in a qualifying government assistance program or have a household income level will have a household income that meets the income requirements. Applications can be filled out as tribal or non-tribal households. Once qualified, certification is good for up to one year from the date of account activation with Feelsafe Wireless. Certification must be updated annually to avoid program termination.
46. Tape your home number on your phone (or a parent’s cell phone number). “Imagine your child’s phone (or your own) is lost. Even if the person who finds it wants to return it, they have to go through your private information to find a number to dial. Make it easy. Tape your home number (or whatever number is suitable) to the back of the phone, along with information about a reward, if you like. That way, even with a password locking the keypad or screen, a do-gooder can get you your phone back!” – marianmerritt, Cell Phone Safety Tips for Kids, Norton Community by Symantec; Twitter: @NortonSupport
To date, there are a few long-term studies, very few in humans and even fewer epidemiological studies, apart from the studies on laptops with small numbers of study subjects. It is also far too early to generate reliable figures at this time. However, there are indications that especially newborns, children, or adolescents are particularly vulnerable as has been presented in detail by the research teams of Nazırogˇ lu, Atasoy, Margaritis/ Panagopoulos, Orendacˇ ova, Othmann, Ozorak, Sangun, Shahin and Yuksel. The experiments were carried out with rats or mice, in some cases as long-term studies (up to 1 year). In this context, it is important to note that rats and mice used in laboratories have a life expectancy of perhaps two years. This at least allows us to infer that human children and adolescents have to be protected from possible increased risks. In the study of Margaritis et al. (2014), the authors point out that the exposure levels from Bluetooth (0.3 V/m) and Wi-Fi routers (here 2.1 V/m) showed greater effects than cell phone radiation sources with much higher field strengths. This may coincide with the findings of the papers by von Klitzing, which stated that the power-dependent pulse of 10 Hz (1 ms) from Wi-Fi routers triggered reactions. Kumari et al. observed in a study from 2012 that higher levels of ROS in the liver suppress antioxidant enzymes and that lower levels cause an increase. This could be a key to further mechanisms as to how or whether tissue damage occurs or perhaps not. Likewise, the polarization of RF radiation (Meena et al. 2014, Panagopoulos et al. 2015) should also receive additional attention.
These articles and websites don’t exist because the threat is real, however. They exist because they are a vehicle for turning people’s fear into money. The more people share nonsense articles about the dangers of Wi-Fi (or other harmless modern things) the more people click on them, the more ad-revenue is generated, and the more motivation the people peddling these rubbish articles have to keep creating and promoting them.
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 easiest thing for you to do is to put a passcode on your phone. Having a passcode will make it harder for someone to pick up your phone to scroll through, access your accounts, or install something malicious. In the event that your phone gets stolen or you lose it, it’ll make it a bit harder for others to get into your phone. Most phones just ask for a 4-digit passcode, but some phones will allow you to use a more complex passcode.
Critics also attacked what they regarded as the slow pace of WTR research. The WTR was merely “a confidence game” designed to placate the public but stall real research, according to Louis Slesin, editor of the trade publication Microwave News. “By dangling a huge amount of money in front of the cash-starved [scientific] community,” Slesin argued, “Carlo guaranteed silent obedience. Anyone who dared complain risked being cut off from his millions.” Carlo denies the allegation.6
Lloyd’s precautions are good ones, although he doesn’t cover cell phone use. I’ve worked on cellular telephony for the last 18 years, coming to the same conclusions about cell phones about ten years ago, the science had gotten conclusive enough for me, as I doubted at first that they could be a problem. As you may have heard, you don’t want to talk on them next to your head if you can help it, use speakerphone mode or wired or Bluetooth headset (BT is very low power, usually keeping itself around only a milliwatt, although wired or speakerphone is better). Don’t park it all day long on any body parts you want to keep cancer-free, especially the pelvic and pectoral regions (trying to keep it classy here). I wouldn’t advise living within a third of a mile of a cell phone tower, or within a mile of a TV tower, if you can help it. Best wishes all.
The FCC has granted the industry’s wishes so often that it qualifies as a “captured agency,” argued journalist Norm Alster in a report that Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics published in 2015. The FCC allows cell-phone manufacturers to self-report SAR levels, and does not independently test industry claims or require manufacturers to display the SAR level on a phone’s packaging. “Industry controls the FCC through a soup-to-nuts stranglehold that extends from its well-placed campaign spending in Congress through its control of the FCC’s congressional oversight committees to its persistent agency lobbying,” Alster wrote. He also quoted the CTIA website praising the FCC for “its light regulatory touch.”31
There are theoretical considerations as to why the possible risk should be investigated separately in children. Their nervous systems are still developing and, therefore, more vulnerable to factors that may cause cancer. Their heads are smaller than those of adults and consequently have a greater proportional exposure to the field of radiofrequency radiation that is emitted by cell phones. And, children have the potential of accumulating more years of cell phone exposure than adults do.
Long-term exposure to Radio Frequency waves or microwave radiation has long been studied and shown to produce all sorts of adverse health effects. See my post on EMF Radiation Exposure Symptoms for a full list of common symptoms. Even the American Cancer Society, who in large part will not fully say that EMF radiation causes long-term harm, and instead errs on the side of not enough research, admits on their website, that:
The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation (24h/day for 12 months) emitted from a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) system on some of the miRNA in brain tissue in male rats. The results revealed that long-term exposure of RFR radiation can alter expression of some of the miRNAs, indicating that this type of exposure may lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative diseases originated from the alteration of some miRNA expression and more studies should be devoted to the effects of RF radiation on miRNA expression levels.
So of course now that we understand that the cases are not tested and just the material--it makes sense! We measured power density levels all around the case-the shielding material most likely isn't used "all over" because then the phone couldn't receive signal and wouldn't be able to engage in a call. That's why we did not see even close to a 99% reduction when some cases were on the phone. In fact, watch the video and you'll see some readings are more than 20% higher with a case on vs the naked phone.
In September 2014, Californian oncologists reported four similar case histories of young women who had developed breast cancer in precisely the areas where they normally carried their smartphones. What shocked the doctors was that these women were aged 21 to 39 and had no family history or other risk factors relating to cancer. All their cancers “had striking similarity, all tumours were hormone positive… (with) an extensive intraductal component and… near-identical morphology.” (CaseRepMed., 2013).