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.
Last year, 15-year-old English schoolgirl Jenny Fry was found hanged in woodland near her home. According to her parents she suffered from electrical sensitivity, making it impossible for her to sit in WiFi classrooms and have WiFi at home. The school refused to remove the WiFi. Speaking at the inquest her mother said, “I believe that WiFi killed my daughter.”
The present study was designed to determine the effects of 2.45 GHz EMR (60 min/day for 28 days) on the brain antioxidant redox system and electroencephalography (EEG) records in rat, as well as examine the possible protective effects of selenium and L-carnitine. EMR-exposed animals showed lower concentration of vitamins A, C, and E than controls, although their concentrations were increased by selenium and L-carnitine supplementation. Animals which received selenium and L-carnitine in addition to EMR also showed lower levels of lipid peroxidation. Results indicate that L-carnitine and selenium seem to have protective effects on the 2.45 GHz-induced decrease of the vitamins by supporting antioxidant redox system.
SAR stands for specific absorption rate, a measure of the amount of radio frequency energy absorbed by the body when using a mobile phone. The SAR rating of your cell phone can be found in your instruction manual or possibly online at this Federal Communications Commission website. In the United States, the SAR cannot exceed 1.6 watts per kilogram.
The increasing use of Wi-Fi in schools and other places has given rise to public concern that the radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields from Wi-Fi have the potential to adversely affect children. The current study measured typical and peak RF levels from Wi-Fi and other sources in 23 schools in Australia. All of the RF measurements were much lower than the reference levels recommended by international guidelines for protection against established health effects. The typical and peak RF levels from Wi-Fi in locations occupied by children in the classroom were of the order of 10-4 and 10-2% of the exposure guidelines, respectively. Typical RF levels in the classroom were similar between Wi-Fi and radio but higher than other sources. In the schoolyard typical RF levels were higher for radio, TV and mobile phone base stations compared to Wi-Fi. The results of this study showed that the typical RF exposure of children from Wi-Fi at school is very low and comparable or lower to other sources in the environment.
Of course, trying to avoid radio wave exposure is more or less impossible if you live in modern society. Moskowitz advises keeping wireless devices away from your body and turning off wireless networks when they’re not in use. While any health risks are still theoretical, “I think trying to minimize exposure is the best advice at this point,” Moskowitz adds.
8. 911 is free—call for an emergency. “Your cell phone is one of the greatest tools you can own to protect yourself and your family in dangerous situations – with your phone at your side, help is only three numbers away. Dial 911 or another local emergency number in emergencies such as a fire, traffic accident, road hazard or medical emergency. Remember, an emergency call is a free call on your cell phone!” – Cell Phone Safety Tips, Mize Centers; Twitter: @mizesales1
This article is not correct. Wifi waves are just a low frequency sound wave. Everyone is having a placebo effect, or doing the equivalence of listening to music using ear buds all night by having the router too close to their heads. This article was made to play on your fears and to have you buy products like iPad radiation shields and other junk. This article is harmful to people.
The recent report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) about the potential connection between cell phone use and cancer is big news to media outposts and the general public. Prior to the report, scientists told us no evidence existed that cell phones were carcinogenic. And now? According to the IARC, research now proves that there is evidence that cell phones might in fact be carcinogenic. The potential villains in this scenario are radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, which are emitted by a cell phone’s antenna, and which the agency says may be linked to two types of brain cancer.
The king is dead — long live the king. If you’re looking for a smartphone that doesn’t break the bank and won’t sting too much if it’s lost, but still offers good performance, then Motorola’s G-range is usually where you’d start. This year, the Moto G6 has upped the ante, delivering a glass-and-metal design that your sprog won’t be ashamed to be seen with. A protective case is included in the package, but you might want to pick from our range of the best Moto G6 cases, since glass is prone to breaking.
The present study was designed to investigate the possible DNA damaging effects of low-level microwave radiation (900, 1800, or 2450 MHz for 30 days) in brain of Fischer rats. Researchers demonstrated DNA damaging effects of low level microwave radiation in brain and concluded that low SAR microwave radiation exposure at these frequencies may induce DNA strand breaks in brain tissue.
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."  A Dec. 2010 study replicated those findings.  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. 
In the Lancet article outlining their considerations, that IARC states that epidemiological studies that follow humans who use WiFi and cell phones for a few years are not conclusive. However, rodent studies that follow the animals throughout their lifetime find that wireless radiation does cause cancer or worsen cancer prognosis. The same animal studies also observed other changes in the brain and blood brain barrier in animals that are exposed to the radiation.
W. Kim Johnson, a retired physicist and past president of the New Mexico Academy of Science, reviewed the Aires web site for Discovery News and described the material as gibberish, saying that the authors "of the technical description of the ‘Aires' device reads like a random selection of technical terminology. The working description for this device is made up of jargon that, in the end, really says nothing."
“There is a carcinogenic effect,” announced Ron Melnick, the designer of the study. Male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation developed cancer at a substantially higher rate, though the same effect was not seen in female rats. Rats exposed to radiation also had lower birth rates, higher infant mortality, and more heart problems than those in the control group. The cancer effect occurred in only a small percentage of the rats, but that small percentage could translate into a massive amount of human cancers. “Given the extremely large number of people who use wireless communications devices, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease…could have broad implications for public health,” the NTP’s draft report explained.48