To shed a bit more light on it – powerline electromagnetic fields have different (though not necessarily better) biological effects. 50/60Hz powerline fields alter ion transport across intra- and inter-cellular membranes, accelerating or inhibiting chemical reactions, depending on the reaction. Also within the reception range of bulk brainwave action. So not the greatest thing for physical and mental health. As you go higher in freq range, the effects become more just thermal and neurostimulative at high enough field strength. From 400MHz on up the issue becomes field-excitation of mechanical shaking of DNA strands resulting in sequence breakage and translocations – not great for cancer risk… for those really bored and curious, read the studies bibliography of IEEE C95.1-2005. I found C95 and its underlying studies to be the most helpful body of work when setting the safety standards for inductive wireless charging.
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 highest typical daily exposure, according to a study of 2009, came from cellphone base stations, cellphones and DECT cordless phones, with the highest exposure locations in trains, airports and buses. The typical background power of electromagnetic fields in the home can vary from zero to 5 milliwatts per meter squared. Long-term effects of these electromagnetic fields on human and animal health are still unknown.
Disclosure: This post is brought to you by Business Insider's Insider Picks team. We aim to highlight products and services you might find interesting, and if you buy them, we get a small share of the revenue from the sale from our commerce partners, including Amazon. Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, is an investor in Business Insider through his personal investment company Bezos Expeditions. We frequently receive products free of charge from manufacturers to test. This does not drive our decision as to whether or not a product is featured or recommended. We operate independently from our advertising sales team. We welcome your feedback. Have something you think we should know about? Email us at email@example.com.
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.
Studies conducted by numerous scientific teams in several nations have raised troubling questions about possible associations between heavy cell phone use and serious health dangers. The World Health Organization has declared that cell phone radiation may be linked to brain cancer. Ten studies connect cell phone radiation to diminished sperm count and sperm damage. Others raise health concerns such as altered brain metabolism, sleep disturbance and behavioral changes in children.
This is an animal experimental study, which was conducted in the Department of Anatomical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, IRAN, from June to August 2014. Three-month-old male Wistar rats (n=27) were exposed to the 2.45 GHz radiation in a chamber with two Wi-Fi antennas on opposite walls. Animals were divided into the three following groups: I. control group (n=9) including healthy animals without any exposure to the antenna, II. 1-hour group (n=9) exposed to the 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi radiation for 1 hour per day during two months and III.7-hour group (n=9) exposed to the 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi radiation for 7 hours per day during 2 months. Sperm parameters, caspase-3 concentrations, histomorphometric changes of testis in addition to the apoptotic indexes were evaluated in the exposed and control animals.
Wireless internet (Wi-Fi) providers have become essential in our daily lives, as wireless technology is evolving at a dizzying pace. Although there are different frequency generators, one of the most commonly used Wi-Fi devices are 2.4GHz frequency generators. These devices are heavily used in all areas of life but the effect of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emission on users is generally ignored. Yet, an increasing share of the public expresses concern on this issue. Therefore, this study intends to respond to the growing public concern. The purpose of this study is to reveal whether long term exposure of 2.4GHz frequency RF radiation will cause DNA damage of different tissues such as brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissue and testicular tissues of rats.
SafeSleeve Anti Radiation Case: Safe Sleeve website says they integrate FCC accredited independent lab tested "shielding technology" in their products. There are many links to "SafeSleeve, Is it a Scam?" and "Does SafeSleeve work?" online, but if you follow those links you'll find they go to the actual SafeSleeve site where the question of SafeSleeve protection is addressed. You'll see in this demonstration that the radiation level was higher with the SafeSleeve Case on.
The company's "Researches" page, for example, states that "Aires Technologies are more than 12 years (sic). For this period there have been conducted a number of studies on mechanisms of coherent transformers that effect on physical, chemical, technological and biological processes (sic). The studies were carried out in close collaboration with leading research and academic institutions."
SUBJECT AND METHODS: In this study, we performed an analysis of the data extracted from the 45 peer-reviewed scientific publications (1996-2016) describing 169 experimental observations to detect the physiological and morphological changes in plants due to the non-thermal RF-EMF effects from mobile phone radiation. Twenty-nine different species of plants were considered in this work.
Cell phones emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and RF radiation has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer in laboratory animals. 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. 
But meanwhile know for certain that research is confirming that exposure to ICRW or Information Carrying Radio Waves, also called wireless energy, can do all kinds of things from compromising immunity and causing the body to react by forming tumors to creating symptoms like headaches, trouble sleeping, anxiety and ringing in the ears. Other common sources of this same type of "non-ionizing radiation" include: cell phones, baby monitors, and computers and Smart Meters. Studies of symptoms from exposure to RF microwave(yes this EMF energy goes by many titles!) include heart racing, tingling sensations, numbness, dizziness, and fatigue.
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).
I really want to caution you to be careful of any "expert" or EMF blogger recommending anti-radiation filtering cases, stickers that attach to the phone or necklaces to "ward off" EMF. I get it, when I first realized 25 years ago that I was sensitive to electromagnetic energy and then later, when I understood that without a doubt, man made electromagnetic radiation has a biological effect on my body, I wanted an easy fix. I tried the shielding materials and cases and I just did not feel any better. Then I bought meters to see if the energy changed and I actually noticed what the California Department of Health now says and it's what the FTC and FCC post warnings about: "Some shielding materials can make exposures worse". So please, be careful and read on for what you can do to avoid electromagnetic radiation exposure.
As with exposure to ‘anything’ sun, pollen, pharmaceuticals, there will be a certain percent of population that is ‘sensitive or hypersensitive’ to wifi / emf frequency. I am definitely sensitive with my husband doing his own control experiment by holding his wifi phone behind by head without my knowledge and me In pain from a piercing wave going through my head. Why is it that it must be all or nothing. There are those who will never be sick from wifi/ emf and those of us who live with it everyday.
The FCC’s safety standards for cell phone radiation were based on studies conducted in the 1980s, These studies have long since been rendered obsolete by newer research. Yet for years the FCC refused to update or even review its standards. Instead, the federal agency simply sat on its hands while cell phones became ever more powerful and ubiquitous.
We really do not recommend any kind of chip, guard, anti-radiation "filters" or incomplete shielding case because honestly, how could they NOT provide a false sense of security? Folks could believe these products make them “invincible” against radiation so they are comfortable holding the case right up to their heads-and the radiation seeping from the back and the side of the phone case is in very close proximity to their precious brains. Oh no!
For adults and children alike, the process by which wireless radiation may cause cancer remains uncertain, but it is thought to be indirect. Wireless radiation has been shown to damage the blood-brain barrier, a vital defense mechanism that shields the brain from carcinogenic chemicals elsewhere in the body (resulting, for example, from secondhand cigarette smoke). Wireless radiation has also been shown to interfere with DNA replication, a proven progenitor of cancer. In each of these cases, the risks are higher for children: Their skulls, being smaller, absorb more radiation than adults’ skulls do, while children’s longer life span increases their cumulative exposure.29
Microwave irradiation resulted in thinner cell walls, smaller chloroplasts and mitochondria, and enhanced emissions of volatile compounds, in particular, monoterpenes and green leaf volatiles (GLV). These effects were stronger for WLAN-frequency microwaves. Essential oil content was enhanced by GSM-frequency microwaves, but the effect of WLAN-frequency microwaves was inhibitory. There was a direct relationship between microwave-induced structural and chemical modifications of the three plant species studied.
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.
Industry-funded scientists had been pressuring their colleagues for a decade by then, according to Leszczynski, another member of the Lyon working group. Leszczynski was an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School when he first experienced such pressure, in 1999. He had wanted to investigate the effects of radiation levels higher than the SAR levels permitted by government, hypothesizing that this might better conform to real-world practices. But when he proposed the idea at scientific meetings, Leszczynski said, it was shouted down by Mays Swicord, Joe Elder, and C.K. Chou—scientists who worked for Motorola. As Leszczynski recalled, “It was a normal occurrence at scientific meetings—and I attended really a lot of them—that whenever [a] scientist reported biological effects at SAR over [government-approved levels], the above-mentioned industry scientists, singularly or as a group, jumped up to the microphone to condemn and to discredit the results.”44
The presented data collectively suggest that microwave irradiation constitute a stress to the plants, resulting in enhanced emissions of GLV, up-regulation of terpenoid emissions and modification in essential oil content and foliage anatomy. Anatomical and emission traits suggested that WLAN-frequency irradiation resulted in more severe stress than GSM-frequency irradiation, but the effect of WLAN-frequency irradiation on essential oil was inhibitory. There was an agreement between anatomical and chemical traits with anatomically most resistant species Apium graveolens being chemically least responsive.