The use of Wi-fi has increased rapidly in recent years. Through the use of this technology, electronic devices are connected to a computer network wirelessly using radio waves, or radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy (EME), thereby eliminating or reducing the need for network cables. A common example is a laptop connected to the internet using a wi-fi modem at home. Wi-fi access points can also be found in schools and many public areas. People in a wi-fi enabled environment will be exposed to low level RF EME from time to time when using the network on computers and also from the access points. There is some public concern about potential health effects associated with RF EME emissions from wi-fi in homes, schools and other places.
We investigated the effect of olive leaves extract administration on glucose metabolism and oxidative response in liver and kidneys of rats exposed to 2.45 GHz radiofrequency radiation (1h/day for 21 days). This exposure was shown to induce a diabetes-like status and also decreased the activities of glutathione peroxidase, catalase, superoxide dismutase, and groups thiol amount in liver and kidneys. Olive leaves extract administration (100 mg/kg, ip) in RF-exposed rats prevented glucose metabolism disruption and restored the activities of GPx, CAT and SOD and thiol group amount in liver and kidneys and was able to bring down the elevated levels of MDA in liver but not in kidneys. Our investigations suggested that RF exposure induced a diabetes-like status through alteration of oxidative response, while olive leaves extract was able to correct glucose metabolism disorder by minimizing oxidative stress induced by RF in rat tissues.
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.
In subsequent analyses of Interphone data, investigators addressed issues of risk according to specific location of the tumor and estimated exposures. One analysis of data from seven of the countries in the Interphone study found no relationship between brain tumor location and regions of the brain that were exposed to the highest level of radiofrequency radiation from cell phones (9). However, another study, using data from five of the countries, reported suggestions of an increased risk of glioma and, to a lesser extent, of meningioma developing in areas of the brain experiencing the highest exposure (10).
37. Be careful when sharing your phone number. Teenagers may be so excited to finally have their own cell phone or smartphone that they immediately give out their number to everyone they know – or worse, publish it online on their social media profiles. “Only give out your phone number to people you know for sure you can trust.” – Sameer Hinduja, Ph.D. and Justin W. Patchin, Ph.D., Cell Phone Safety Ten Tips for Teens, Cyberbullying Research Center; Twitter: @onlinebullying
We investigated the long-term effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from Wi-Fi systems on hearing. Sixteen Wistar albino rats were divided equally into two groups: sham control and exposure groups. The rats in the experimental group were exposed to 2.4 GHz RFR emitted from a Wi-Fi generator for 24 h/day for one year. The same procedure was applied to the rats in the sham group, except that the Wi-Fi generator was turned off. All groups were kept in Faraday cages during the 12 months to eliminate external electromagnetic fields. The distance between the Wi-Fi generator antenna and the exposure cages was 50 cm. Pre-exposure distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) of all rats were measured at the beginning, 6th and 12th months of the study. The DPOAE values of the sham, baseline and exposure groups were compared statistically. For the 6000 Hz hearing frequency, the DPOAE values in the exposure group were lower than those in the sham group (p < 0.05). Similarly, the 6000 Hz hearing frequency values obtained at the end of the 12th month were also lower than the baseline and 6-month values in the exposure group (p < 0.05). In contrast, the DPOAE values at the 6th and 12th months of exposure for the 2000 Hz hearing frequency were higher than the baseline value (p < 0.05). These results indicated that 12 months of RFR (24 h/day) at 50 cm from a 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi source can affect hearing. However, further studies are necessary.
Recent research has resurfaced concerns among scientists about a potential link between cell-phone radiation and cancer. But that research—a 10-year, $25 million government study in rodents—left a lot of key questions unanswered. That includes how relevant the findings are to newer wireless technologies such as Bluetooth and WiFi that have become widespread since the study was designed in the early 2000s.
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?
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.
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. 
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.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen. On May 31, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a press release announcing it had added cell phone radiation to its list of physical agents that are "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (group 2B agents).  The classification was made after a working group of 31 scientists completed a review of previously published studies and found "limited evidence of carcinogenicity" from the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by wireless phones, radio, television, and radar. 
Last night unfortunately I had to sleep part of the night near a wifi router, and I felt I was being fried… as if been cooked in a microwave oven (though I never experienced that). I could hardly sleep at all until I moved (into the garden). I felt like my ovaries were directly being damaged, and felt that cyst or tumour growth would start if under longer exposure.
Consumers need -- now more than ever -- real-world, relevant data on how much radiation their phones emit under various circumstances. The FCC does not require the cell phone industry to disclose these data. One important study showing that certain networks could expose consumers to 30 to 300 times more radiation than other networks was hidden from the public until the information was dated to the point of irrelevancy.
This argument implies that the safest legislation totally bans use of cell phones in cars. This platform faces steep opposition from telecommunications lobbyists and auto manufacturers. If everyone on the road right now were unable to dial into his or her cell phones, life would be vastly different. Business transactions would slow and wireless providers would lose millions of dollars. But maybe, just maybe, auto accidents would drop drastically.
Due to the relatively recent adoption of cell phones, the long-term safety of the technology cannot be determined conclusively and caution is warranted. Research on glioma brain tumors shows the average latency period is 20-30 years.  Although cell phones were introduced in 1983, it was not until 2003 that over 50% of the US population had a wireless subscription, so the 20 year mark for mass cell phone use has not yet been reached.   The May 17, 2010 INTERPHONE study, the largest study ever to examine possible links between cell phones and brain tumors, concluded that overall there was "no increase in risk" for glioma or meningioma brain tumors,  but the average user in the study had less than eight years of cell phone exposure.  In his review of the INTERPHONE study results, Dr. Rodolfo Saracci stated that "none of today’s established carcinogens, including tobacco, could have been firmly identified as increasing risk in the first 10 years or so since first exposure." 
Who can master dropping their phone down that tiny slit that exists when the elevator doors open? This girl! My iPhone 5s SURVIVED an eight story plummet down the elevator shaft at work thanks to my Commuter Series case!!! I thought for sure the screen would be cracked and the phone would be in a million pieces, but the screen wasn’t cracked or even scratched for that matter and it fully functions! The case took a little beating and there is a dent on the phone, but that’s nothing compared to the alternative! Thanks for making such a great product!!!! And to think, I was just complaining that I wanted something less bulky!!!
“In addition to protecting your phone from scratches and breaks, a basic case can help conceal a distinctive phone’s telltale markings. That’s a detriment if you’re trying to show off your handset’s badass styling, but a benefit for maintaining a lower profile. Note: Even though they look better, a flashy designer case is like sticking a “steal me” marquee on your phone.” – Jessica Dolcourt, Keep Your Phone from Getting Stolen (and What to Do If It Is), CNET; Twitter: @CNET