30. There isn’t one cell phone that is safer than another. “Don’t assume one cell phone is safer than another. There’s no such thing as a “safe” cell phone. This is particularly true for industry promoted SAR ratings, which are virtually useless in measuring the true potential biological danger as most all of the damage is not done by heat transfer, which SAR measures.” – Dr. Mercola, NEW Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users, Mercola.com; Twitter: @mercola
As iPhones go, the iPhone SE is a bargain, but it doesn’t come cheap. Don’t let the pint-sized package fool you, however. The iPhone SE has a fast A9 processor, which is the same processor used in the iPhone 6S. It also comes with a crisp display and runs the latest version of iOS. The iPhone SE is a great choice for a child, too, given it features built-in parental controls. You can prevent your child from accessing the internet and using specific apps, for instance, or prevent them from making purchases in the App Store.

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.
Non-ionizing radiation at 2.45 GHz may modify the morphology and expression of genes that codify heat shock proteins (HSP) in the thyroid gland. The present study used a diathermy model – the therapeutic application of non-ionizing radiation – on laboratory rats subjected to maximum exposure non-ionizing radiation (30 min, 10 times in two weeks) in the left front leg, in order to study the effects of radiation on the nearby thyroid tissue.Ninety minutes after radiation with the highest SAR, the central and peripheral follicles presented increased size and the thickness of the peripheral septa had decreased. Twenty-four hours after radiation, only peripheral follicles radiated at 12 W were found to be smaller. Morphological changes in the thyroid tissue may indicate a glandular response to acute or repeated stress from radiation in the hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis.
A closer look reveals the industry’s sleight of hand. When Henry Lai, the professor whom Carlo tried to get fired, analyzed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2005, he learned that 56 percent found a biological effect from cell-phone radiation and 44 percent did not; the scientific community apparently was split. But when Lai recategorized the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67 percent of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28 percent of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives that concluded industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find a health effect.23
Do cell phones cause cancer? The preliminary results of a massive, government-funded study suggest they could. This makes cell phone safety an incredibly important topic. The early findings in the $25 million U.S. National Toxicology Program animal study show exposure to very high signal cell phone radiation led to a slightly increased risk of malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas of the heart in male rats. Schwannomas are tumors that form in the nerve sheath. (1)
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?

The word radiation is, to the lay person, a scary word. Radiation is the stuff that 1960s school children were taught to climb under their desks to avoid, and what prompted Cold-War-terrified Americans to build backyard bomb shelters. Radiation is the stuff that leads meltdowns at nuclear power plants to contaminate the ocean and make land uninhabitable for hundreds of years.

Present study was under taken to predict the possible DNA damages (genotoxicity) and carcinogenicity caused by radiofrequency radiations (RF) to living tissue. Dry seeds of chickpea were treated with GSM cell phone (900 MHz) and laptop (3.31 GHz) as RF source for 24 and 48 h. Untreated seeds were used as (0 h) negative control and Gamma rays (250 Gray) as positive control. Plant chromosomal aberration assay was used as genotoxicity marker. All the treatment of RF inhibits seed germination percentage. 48 h laptop treatment has the most negative effect as compared to untreated control. A decrease was observed in mitotic index (M.I) and increase in abnormality index (A.I) with the increase in exposure duration and frequency in (Hz). Cell membrane damages were also observed only in 48 h exposure of cell phone and laptop (RF). Maximum nuclear membrane damages and ghost cells were again recorded in 48 h exposure of cell phone and laptop. The radiofrequency radiations (900 MHz and 3.31 GHz) are only genotoxic as they induce micronuclei, bi-nuclei, multi-nuclei and scattered nuclei but could be carcinogenic as 48 h incubation of RF induced fragmentation and ghost cells. Therefore cell phones and laptop should not be used unnecessarily to avoid possible genotoxic and carcinogenic effects.

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. [61] An Aug. 2009 meta-study found that RF radiation "can alter the genetic material of exposed cells." [62] A 2004 European Union-funded study also found that cell phone radiation can damage genes. [63] 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. [85] The NTP researchers also found DNA damage in the rats exposed to the highest levels of RF radiation. [86] 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. [87]

"Love it...In love...This case works as advertised, no pocket dialing and everything shows through the case clearly as expected, this is the second case of this type I have purchased and both although a bit pricy at $59 work to perfection....Love the case and that you don't have to have the case open to talk on the phone...the only negative is that only the number shows up on the outside when someone calls, not the name."

Five properties of non-thermal EMF effects are discussed. These are that pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, more active than are non-pulsed EMFs; artificial EMFs are polarized and such polarized EMFs are much more active than non-polarized EMFs; dose-response curves are non-linear and non-monotone; EMF effects are often cumulative; and EMFs may impact young people more than adults.
The present study was designed to determine the possible protective effects of melatonin on oxidative stress-dependent testis injury induced by 2.45-GHz electromagnetic radiation exposure (60 min/day for 30 days). Lipid peroxidation levels were shown to be higher in melatonin-supplemented group compared to EMR only and controls, as well as reduced glutathione and glutathione peroxidase levels. Vitamin A and E concentrations decreased in exposure group, and melatonin prevented the decrease in vitamin E levels. In conclusion, wireless (2.45 GHz) EMR caused oxidative damage in testis by increasing the levels of lipid peroxidation and decreasing in vitamin A and E levels. Melatonin supplementation prevented oxidative damage induced by EMR and also supported the antioxidant redox system in the testis.
In one type of study, called a case–control study, cell phone use is compared between people with these types of tumors and people without them. In another type of study, called a cohort study, a large group of people who do not have cancer at study entry is followed over time and the rate of these tumors in people who did and didn’t use cell phones is compared. Cancer incidence data can also be analyzed over time to see if the rates of brain tumors changed in large populations during the time that cell phone use increased dramatically. These studies have not shown clear evidence of a relationship between cell phone use and cancer. However, researchers have reported some statistically significant associations for certain subgroups of people.
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?
Information and statements made are for education purposes and are not intended to replace the advice of your treating doctor. Global Healing Center does not dispense medical advice, prescribe, or diagnose illness. The views and nutritional advice expressed by Global Healing Center are not intended to be a substitute for conventional medical service. If you have a severe medical condition or health concern, see your physician. This Web site contains links to Web sites operated by other parties. Such links are provided for your convenience and reference only. We are not responsible for the content or products of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site. Global Healing Center does not adopt any medical claims which may have been made in 3rd party references. Where Global Healing Center has control over the posting or other communications of such claims to the public, Global Healing Center will make its best effort to remove such claims.

In response to public concern, the WHO established the International EMF Project in 1996 to assess the scientific evidence of possible health effects of EMF in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHz. They have stated that although extensive research has been conducted into possible health effects of exposure to many parts of the frequency spectrum, all reviews conducted so far have indicated that, as long as exposures are below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP (1998) EMF guidelines, which cover the full frequency range from 0–300 GHz, such exposures do not produce any known adverse health effect.[2] Stronger or more frequent exposures to EMF can be unhealthy, and in fact serve as the basis for electromagnetic weaponry.
Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked. The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.
The device comes in a variety of forms ranging from the $39 Aries Shield ("a silicon based micro processor that ... decomposes oscillations of electromagnetic fields") to the $249 Aires Defender Utility (which "has two next generation 9 core silicon based micro processor (sic) that provide universal protection from electromagnetic smog of the broadband frequencies").

11. Sign out of your banking app when finished. “Don’t save your banking app ID on your device: Most apps give consumers the option to save their ID to that device. But if the smartphone or tablet falls into the wrong hands, the thief will have access to sensitive information, including balances and critical account numbers. Also make sure you sign out of the app after each session. Most apps automatically sign users out after a set time without detecting activity, but it’s safer to sign out immediately after each use.” – Stephen Ebbett, 6 Tips for Avoiding Identity Theft When Mobile Banking, About Money; Twitter: @AboutMoney