If you think your heart races when surrounded by wireless networks or 3G or LTE cell phones, it may not be in your head. A study involving 69 subjects reported that many of them experienced a real physical response to electromagnetic frequencies. Exactly what was the physical response? Increased heart rate — similar to the heart rate of an individual under stress. [14]
In today's world, 2.45-GHz radio-frequency radiation (RFR) from industrial, scientific, medical, military and domestic applications is the main part of indoor-outdoor electromagnetic field exposure. Long-term effects of 2.45-GHz Wi-Fi radiation on male reproductive system was not known completely. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the major cause of male infertility during short- and long-term exposure of Wi-Fi radiation.

A study by the Corporate EME Research Laboratory and Motorola Florida Research Laboratories tested 9 different cell phone radiation shields, 5 of which claimed to block 99% of cell phone radiation. The other 4 shields tested claimed to emit a reverse radiation that would cancel out the harmful radiation from cell phones. The study found that all of the radiation shields had no effect on the amount of radiofrequency radiation a cell phone user is exposed to from their phone.[2]

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.
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.
Turn Off WiFi Before Bed: This is one of our favorites in our Tech Wellness Top 10 easy ways to make wireless safer: We call it our Wi-Fi Kill-switch so you don't have to get close the Router. It's as important as WiFi Router placement. The simple step of hitting the off switch can lead to a better night’s sleep. Or, try this timer that can shut or kill that nasty Wifi energy any time of day or night. When on, a WiFi signal may interfere with our brains during sleep, so by turning it off we reduce exposure and hopefully rest more deeply.
One of the convenient features of having a smartphone is to quickly access email or social media accounts with just a tap of a finger. However, this also means that you are always connected to accounts that may contain sensitive information. Consider logging out of certain accounts if you can so that others can’t access those accounts if they are using your phone. Keep in mind that depending on the type of phone you have, you might not be able to log out of some accounts, such as email accounts, but may have to remove the entire account from your phone. In this case, make your decision based on your own privacy and safety risk. While it may be inconvenient to access the account through the browser instead, it may be safer.
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.[17] The typical background power of electromagnetic fields in the home can vary from zero to 5 milliwatts per meter squared.[citation needed] Long-term effects of these electromagnetic fields on human and animal health are still unknown.
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).