Of course they’re not. But they are banning wireless communication in nursery schools, because that’s new and parents aren’t entirely sure about what makes it work. Parents are, quite rightly, very worried about how any new thing will affect their children. Some things, like the effect of texting using proper grammar or how more screen time affects attention spans, are difficult to measure and we don’t really know how people will be when they grow up. But Wi-Fi as a cause of cancer or even headaches? We can test for that. We have tested for that. It’s fine.
To date, there are a few long-term studies, very few in humans and even fewer epidemiological studies, apart from the studies on laptops with small numbers of study subjects. It is also far too early to generate reliable figures at this time. However, there are indications that especially newborns, children, or adolescents are particularly vulnerable as has been presented in detail by the research teams of Nazırogˇ lu, Atasoy, Margaritis/ Panagopoulos, Orendacˇ ova, Othmann, Ozorak, Sangun, Shahin and Yuksel. The experiments were carried out with rats or mice, in some cases as long-term studies (up to 1 year). In this context, it is important to note that rats and mice used in laboratories have a life expectancy of perhaps two years. This at least allows us to infer that human children and adolescents have to be protected from possible increased risks. In the study of Margaritis et al. (2014), the authors point out that the exposure levels from Bluetooth (0.3 V/m) and Wi-Fi routers (here 2.1 V/m) showed greater effects than cell phone radiation sources with much higher field strengths. This may coincide with the findings of the papers by von Klitzing, which stated that the power-dependent pulse of 10 Hz (1 ms) from Wi-Fi routers triggered reactions. Kumari et al. observed in a study from 2012 that higher levels of ROS in the liver suppress antioxidant enzymes and that lower levels cause an increase. This could be a key to further mechanisms as to how or whether tissue damage occurs or perhaps not. Likewise, the polarization of RF radiation (Meena et al. 2014, Panagopoulos et al. 2015) should also receive additional attention.
The aim of this study was to investigate electromagnetic radiation (EMR) transmitted by wireless devices (2.45 GHz, 3h/day for 30 days), which may cause physiopathological or ultrastructural changes, in the testes of rats and address if the supplemental gallic acid (GA) may reduce these adverse effects. EMR only group was shown to have higher oxidative stress, decreased testosterone and VEGF levels, increased prostaglandin E2 and CGRP, as well as decreased numbers of spermatozoa. Long term EMR exposure resulted in testicular physiopathology via oxidative damage and inflammation. GA may have ameliorative effects on the prepubertal rat testes physiopathology.
George Carlo seemed like a good bet to fulfill Wheeler’s mission. He was an epidemiologist who also had a law degree, and he’d conducted studies for other controversial industries. After a study funded by Dow Corning, Carlo had declared that breast implants posed only minimal health risks. With chemical-industry funding, he had concluded that low levels of dioxin, the chemical behind the Agent Orange scandal, were not dangerous. In 1995, Carlo began directing the industry-financed Wireless Technology Research project (WTR), whose eventual budget of $28.5 million made it the best-funded investigation of cell-phone safety to date.4

Within a relatively short time, WiFi has increased its presence in homes, offices, public spaces, coffee shops, various modes of transportation, schools, hospitals, and throughout the world. WiFi is an integral part of our lives, and it has provided unimaginable convenience: We can get information instantly, and work from most anywhere with a laptop. 


In the years to come, the WTR’s cautionary findings would be replicated by numerous other scientists in the United States and around the world, leading the World Health Organization in 2011 to classify cell-phone radiation as a “possible” human carcinogen and the governments of Great Britain, France, and Israel to issue strong warnings on cell-phone use by children. But as the taxi carried Carlo to Louis Armstrong International Airport, the scientist wondered whether his relationship with the industry might have turned out differently if cell phones had been safety-tested before being allowed onto the consumer market, before profit took precedence over science. But it was too late: Wheeler and his fellow executives had made it clear, Carlo told The Nation, that “they would do what they had to do to protect their industry, but they were not of a mind to protect consumers or public health.”14
In my home and work environment I long ago made the decision to completely steer clear of WiFi. You might not feel you want to go “the whole nine yards” on this. Here are some ways you can reduce the burden of radio frequency radiation from WiFi on your body. You can pick and choose from this list according to how much you want to reduce WiFi radiation exposure in your life.
Also of note, in a study by Henrietta Nittby et al (2009), the lowest exposure SARs were worse than the higher SAR exposures. Some scientists consider blood brain barrier effects at these very low levels of radiation exposure (i.e. 30-45x lower than the ‘Top 10’ lowest SAR phones ranked by the Environmental Working Group) to be of equal or even greater concern for the population than the increase in brain tumors from cell phone use that is expected.
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]
Most of the research is attributed to "SPSU," which is presumably St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University, and some of the research, it is suggested, was conducted at the Kirov Military Medical Academy, though it's unclear why a military academy would conduct clinical research on civilian cell phone radiation. The names of the scientists who conducted these studies are conspicuously absent, as are any published results.
When it comes to cell phones, scientists have looked at findings from animal research and cells in test tubes exposed to RF radiation in a lab, as well as observational studies in humans. These human studies have tried to see whether heavy users of cell phones have higher rates of brain cancers and other health problems compared with people who use cell phones less often.

This study aimed to investigate the effect of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation (12 h/day for 30 days) on multisensory integration in male rats. Results demonstrated that rats in Wi-Fi exposure groups could not discriminate significantly between the novel and familiar objects in any of the standard SOR, tactile SOR, visual SOR, and CMOR tests and the expression of M1 receptors increased following Wi-Fi exposure. In conclusion, results of this study showed that chronic exposure to Wi-Fi electromagnetic waves might impair both unimodal and cross-modal encoding of information.
Hello! I noticed that in your cell phone case section, you recommend RF Safe and then the patches and products from Less EMF.com. Have you ever used the patches? I am also considering the Pong case….do you know anything about this one? I’m trying to also find a product that my husband would use, and I’m not sure he’d bother with a pouch, so I am considering either the patches to put on a phone or an actual phone case. It’s just hard to know if these things really work….

The present study was performed to investigate the effect of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation (2 h/day for 35 days) on reproductive pattern of male Wistar rats. Chronic exposure to these radiations produced formation of apoptotic cells in testis. In addition, a significant decrease in the levels of antioxidant enzymes glutathione and superoxide dismutase activities as well as an increase in catalase activity was observed in the exposed group. These results indicate that a low level exposure of microwave radiations exerts a negative impact on male reproductive system function.
In June of 2008, a Japanese study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, considered how mobile phone radiation levels affected different parts of the brain. After studying the mobile phone use of 322 brain cancer patients and 683 healthy adults, the study concluded that using a mobile phone "regularly" did not increase the risk of brain cancer.
Feelsafe Wireless provides qualified customers with a free lifeline government phone and Free Monthly Phone Service. How do you qualify for a free phone? Start by entering your zip code into the text box at the top of the page. You will then be directed to information pertaining to your area. A paper application must be filled out and mailed or faxed in for evaluation. Qualified applicants for a free lifeline government cell phone will will need to participate in a qualifying government assistance program or have a household income level will have a household income that meets the income requirements. Applications can be filled out as tribal or non-tribal households. Once qualified, certification is good for up to one year from the date of account activation with Feelsafe Wireless. Certification must be updated annually to avoid program termination.
People who say cell phones are not safe cite peer-reviewed studies showing an association between cell phone use and tumor growth, DNA damage, and decreased fertility. They say cancers take 20-30 years to develop and cell phone studies have monitored periods of 10 years or less. They highlight the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen. Read more background...

These experimental findings raise new questions as to the potential for radiofrequency radiation to result in cellular changes and offer potential avenues for further laboratory studies. Cancers in the heart are extremely rare in humans, where the primary outcomes of potential concern with respect to radiofrequency radiation exposure from cell phones are tumors in the brain and central nervous system. Schwann cells of the heart in rodents are similar to the kind of cells in humans that give rise to acoustic neuromas (also known as vestibular schwannomas), which some studies have suggested are increased in people who reported the heaviest use of cell phones. The NTP has stated that they will continue to study this exposure in animal models to further advance our understanding of the biological underpinnings of the effects reported above.


This paper presents the results of a replication study performed to investigate earlier Soviet studies conducted between 1974 and 1991 that showed immunological and reproductive effects of long-term low-level exposure of rats to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (continuous wave 2450 MHz for 7h/day, 5days/week for 30 days). The RF exposure resulted in minor increases in formation of antibodies in brain tissue extract and the exposure did not appear to be pathological. In addition, a study was conducted to replicate a previous Soviet study on effects from the injection of blood serum from RF-exposed rats on pregnancy and foetal and offspring development of rats, using a similar animal model and protocol. Our results showed the same general trends as the earlier study, suggesting possible adverse effects of the blood serum from exposed rats on pregnancy and foetal development of intact rats, however, application of these results in developing exposure standards is limited.
Hi August and Tech Wellness Team. We at SafeSleeve salute you for your effort to educate and provide solutions for the hidden dangers of EMF radiation exposure from wireless electronics. Like you, we’ve worked extremely hard to provide a practical solution for EMF exposure and, as verified by our independent lab testing, we believe we’ve found an extremely effective and practical solution. While I cannot speak for the other devices you tested here, there are some key points about our SafeSleeve technology that we wanted to make sure you took into consideration:

If you are concerned about the possible health effects of radio wave radiation emitted by your cell phone, your options are simple and cheap. This kind of radiation is at its highest levels nearest the antenna. Also, not all cell phones are created equal. Sar Shield offers a useful radiation chart for cell phones that provides an accurate "Sar rating" for every cell phone model. It's important to realize that at these low radiation levels, if you keep the cell phone away from your head and body, you are perfectly safe. However, if you'd rather not use a headset, then there are plenty of resources to obtain a radiation shield for your phone.
When it comes to cell phones, scientists have looked at findings from animal research and cells in test tubes exposed to RF radiation in a lab, as well as observational studies in humans. These human studies have tried to see whether heavy users of cell phones have higher rates of brain cancers and other health problems compared with people who use cell phones less often.
Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. In truth, the safety of wireless technology has been an unsettled question since the industry’s earliest days. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a massive public-health experiment: Use a cell phone today, find out later if it causes cancer or genetic damage. Meanwhile, the wireless industry has obstructed a full and fair understanding of the current science, aided by government agencies that have prioritized commercial interests over human health and news organizations that have failed to inform the public about what the scientific community really thinks. In other words, this public-health experiment has been conducted without the informed consent of its subjects, even as the industry keeps its thumb on the scale.27

We aimed to investigate the effects of Wi-Fi-induced EMR on the brain and liver antioxidant redox systems in the rat during pregnancy and development. Sixteen pregnant rats and their 48 newborns were equally divided into control and EMR groups. The EMR groups were exposed to 2.45GHz EMR (1hour/day for 5 days/week) from pregnancy to 3 weeks of age. Brain cortex and liver samples were taken from the newborns between the first and third weeks.
This study investigated the effect of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation (2 h/day for 45 days) on biomarkers within Wistar rats. A significant decrease (P < 0.05) was recorded in the level of pineal melatonin of exposed group as compared with sham exposed, while a  significant increase (P < 0.05) in creatine kinase, caspase 3, and calcium ion concentration was observed in whole brain of exposed group of animals as compared to sham exposed. The study concludes that a reduction in melatonin or an increase in caspase-3, creatine kinase, and calcium ion may cause significant damage in brain due to chronic exposure of these radiations. These biomarkers clearly indicate possible health implications of such exposures.
I am an Independent Representative of the Dr Smirnoff technology. Here is my website, you are welcome to contact me to get info on the 10 years of experience I have with this technology personally and as a Health Practitioner. Here is my website http://www.giawellness.com/kedzimorgan I am passionate about helping people discover solutions for the way they are feeling not up to par through no fault of their own. People eating, organic, exercising, working on relationships and personal growth etc, but still have obstacles to total wellness. This is a huge part of the puzzle and getting more problematic by the day as more ways to use technology cause us to be in closer proximity to devices. I have a huge part of the Health Story that I had to discover 10 years ago, and find a potent solution for, which is definitely MRET. Kedzi
EcomEcom a Pepperl+Fuchs is a manufacturer of Automation equipmeny. In 1945, Walter Pepperl and Ludwig Fuchs founded a small radio workshop in Mannheim, Germany, based on the principles of inventiveness, entrepreneurial foresight, and self-reliance. The experience they acquired was transformed into new ideas, and they continued to enjoy developing products for customers. The eventual result was the invention of the proximity switch. This innovation represented the starting point of the company’s success story. Today, Pepperl+Fuchs is knowns around the world as a pioneer and an innovator in electrical explosion protection, Intrinsically Safe / Hazardous area and sensor technology. Their main focus is always on individual requirements: With a passion for automation and groundbreaking technology, they are committed to working in partnership with their customers now and in the future. They understand the demands of their customer’s markets, developing specific solutions, and integrating them into their processes. In October 2016 Pepperl+Fuchs Group announced the take over of ecom instruments GmbH. Ecom is a world market leader for mobile industrial devices for hazardous areas. As an industry pioneer, ecom has developed explosion protection for mobile devices since 1986 and has demonstrated its technological expertise with numerous innovations. Thus, ecom is also the…
This is a stupid article. We get electromagnetic radiation from radios, baby monitors, alarm systems, even the Earth itself. And even if we own none of that we still get it from out neighbors. It’s harmless, after all we been exposed to it forever from our planet. Unless you plan on wrapping yourself in foil you will escape it. Not that it matters, it does no harm in these low doses.
“Without following these instructions, we risk being exposed to levels of radiation that are too high- higher than radiation limits set by our federal government. The reality is that radiation emissions from devices are tested before going on the market- with a space between the device and your body. For cell phones the distance varies depending on the manufacturer and is under an inch.” Cell Phone Radiation FAQ’s, Environmental Health Trust; Twitter: @saferphones
Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload. Each of these effects are also caused by exposures to other microwave frequency EMFs, with each such effect being documented in from 10 to 16 reviews. Therefore, each of these seven EMF effects are established effects of Wi-Fi and of other microwave frequency EMFs. Each of these seven is also produced by downstream effects of the main action of such EMFs, voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. While VGCC activation via EMF interaction with the VGCC voltage sensor seems to be the predominant mechanism of action of EMFs, other mechanisms appear to have minor roles. Minor roles include activation of other voltage-gated ion channels, calcium cyclotron resonance and the geomagnetic magnetoreception mechanism. 
A 2012 study by NCI researchers (25) compared observed glioma incidence rates in U.S. SEER data with rates simulated from the small risks reported in the Interphone study (6) and the greatly increased risk of brain cancer among cell phone users reported in the Swedish pooled analysis (19). The authors concluded that overall, the incidence rates of glioma in the United States did not increase over the study period. They noted that the US rates could be consistent with the small increased risk seen among the subset of heaviest users in the Interphone study. The observed incidence trends were inconsistent with the high risks reported in the Swedish pooled study. These findings suggest that the increased risks observed in the Swedish study are not reflected in U.S. incidence trends.

Disclaimer: While we work to ensure that product information is correct, on occasion manufacturers may alter their ingredient lists. Actual product packaging and materials may contain more and/or different information than that shown on our Web site. We recommend that you do not solely rely on the information presented and that you always read labels, warnings, and directions before using or consuming a product. For additional information about a product, please contact the manufacturer. Content on this site is for reference purposes and is not intended to substitute for advice given by a physician, pharmacist, or other licensed health-care professional. You should not use this information as self-diagnosis or for treating a health problem or disease. Contact your health-care provider immediately if you suspect that you have a medical problem. Information and statements regarding dietary supplements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or health condition. Amazon.com assumes no liability for inaccuracies or misstatements about products.
Cell phone cases can make matters worse because they may block the phone’s antenna. The device must work harder to transmit signals which may lead to  more radiation exposure for the user. (See safety tip #6 for more on the importance of a strong signal.)  Certification testing done by phone manufacturers are done with bare phones with no accessories.
Cell phone accessories like cases serve the dual purpose of protection and showing off your sense of style. Although there have been great strides made in making cell phones and other mobile devices durable, it's still an excellent idea to protect your technology as much as you can. You also want to be able to enjoy your devices and use them as much as possible, so ensuring that your phone remains charged affords you that opportunity. No matter what kind of cell phone accessory you need, we have it for you. Save money when you buy from us thanks to the fact that we offer Every Day Low Prices.
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.
George Carlo seemed like a good bet to fulfill Wheeler’s mission. He was an epidemiologist who also had a law degree, and he’d conducted studies for other controversial industries. After a study funded by Dow Corning, Carlo had declared that breast implants posed only minimal health risks. With chemical-industry funding, he had concluded that low levels of dioxin, the chemical behind the Agent Orange scandal, were not dangerous. In 1995, Carlo began directing the industry-financed Wireless Technology Research project (WTR), whose eventual budget of $28.5 million made it the best-funded investigation of cell-phone safety to date.4
"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 fact that this case gets it's power wireless(y) from the phone rather than a battery within the case itself which would wear out rather quickly."
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.
We asked Dr. George Carlo his thoughts on EMF cases and shielding products, “most offer some protection, some of the time, to some people, because they can alter the immediate electromagnetic field environment around the person,” and immediately emphasizes the importance of “some,” which seems to tell us that it’s vastly unpredictable. “All waveforms in the environment are highly variable and they interact with other factors in the environment that make them even more variable.” This pretty much sums up that the artificial electromagnetic energy universe is vastly unpredictable.
2. Our products are designed to provide an anti-radiation barrier between the device and the body. This way, the devices are still usable and able to send and receive signal out of the non-shielded side while shielding the EMF away from the body. Because of this, you will only see a reduction in EMF levels on the shielded side of the device. The test you have conducted shows the highest levels from anywhere around the device.
Cooper's prototype arrived on the market a decade later at the staggering price of $3,995. Designed by Rudy Krolopp, it was known as the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X, or simply "the brick.” Featuring 20 large buttons and a long rubber antenna, it measured about 11 inches high, weighed almost 2 pounds, provided one hour of battery life and could store 30 phone numbers.
In 2008, the most surprising news article reported that Dr. Ronald Herbermann, the director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, advised his 3,000 faculty and staff to keep the cell phone away from the head by using a headset and to keep children from using cell phones except in emergencies. He cites unpublished scientific studies as the source of his concern.
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
The industry’s $4.7 million contribution to the WHO appears to have had its most telling effect in May 2011, when the WHO convened scientists in Lyon, France, to discuss how to classify the cancer risk posed by cell phones. The industry not only secured “observer” status at Lyon for three of its trade associations; it placed two industry-funded experts on the working group that would debate the classification, as well as additional experts among the “invited specialists” who advised the group.38

I used to have an iPhone (see Why I Got Rid of My Smartphone) and discovered that no case kept the radiation from emitting. I tried the Pong Case, the Otterbox, and an RF Safe Pouch. The pouch by far was the most effective. The Pong Case was better than the Otterbox, but still showed higher levels than I would like to see. You’ll see the various levels in the video below.


The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of low level electromagnetic field (low level-EMF) exposure, as frequently encountered in daily life (2.45 GHz, 2h/day for 21 days), on the normal adult male rat cornea using histological and stereological method. There was no statistically significant difference in mean corneal thicknesses between the groups (p > 0.05), however there were statistically differences between the groups with regard to the thickness of anterior epithelium (p < 0.05). Results of this preliminary study show that exposure to MW radiation might cause alterations in the rat cornea.
We’re living in a wireless technology age, but there’s some evidence that exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and wireless devices could increase your risk of certain cancers and tumors. However, more research is needed. In the meantime, I recommend practicing the precautionary principle. Some great cell phone safety tips include:
We aimed to investigate the protective effects of melatonin and 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation (60 min/day for 30 days) on brain and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neuron antioxidant redox system, Ca(2+) influx, cell viability and electroencephalography (EEG) records in the rat. Lipid peroxidation (LP), cell viability and cytosolic Ca(2+) values in DRG neurons were higher in EMR-exposed groups than in controls, although their concentrations were increased by melatonin, 2-aminoethyldiphenyl borinate (2-APB), diltiazem and verapamil supplementation. Lower numbers of EEG spikes were recorded in EMR+melatonin groups than in EMR only, while brain cortex vitamin E concentrations were higher in the melatonin-supplemented group. In conclusion, Melatonin supplementation in DRG neurons and brain seems to have protective effects on the 2.45 GHz-induced increase Ca(2+) influx, EEG records and cell viability of the hormone through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels.
You can actually get a completely mechanical timer on Amazon for super cheap. Then all you have to do is plug your router into it, and set a time period, say from midnight to 7 am, and it will automatically turn your router off and then back on again. Depending on your sensitivity to EMF radiation, you could quickly notice better and more restful sleep.
The easiest thing for you to do is to put a passcode on your phone. Having a passcode will make it harder for someone to pick up your phone to scroll through, access your accounts, or install something malicious. In the event that your phone gets stolen or you lose it, it’ll make it a bit harder for others to get into your phone. Most phones just ask for a 4-digit passcode, but some phones will allow you to use a more complex passcode.
Electromagnetic fields have been shown to disrupt melatonin production. In turn, sleep and overall health are disrupted. Charge your phone in another room. If you must be available to loved ones during the night, keep a corded phone next to your bed, or keep the cell phone on the other side of the room. (See more about safe sleeping in the post Sleep, Melatonin and Electronic Devices.)
... our review shows that there is a substantial amount of studies which indicate that plants have experienced physiological or morphological changes due to radiofrequency radiation and show statistically significant changes for the short-term exposure duration (up to 13 weeks). In contrast, the results obtained from the long-term exposure studies (two publications using nine different exposures with exposure duration between 3 months to 6 years) support no physiological effects on plants when exposed to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone radiation. This would bring a remarkable point to the discussion about the apparent absence of response to the long-term exposure that may be interpreted as adaptations. On the other hand, phenotypic plasticity of plants will permit them to change their structure and function; hence, plants to adapt to environmental change (Nicotra et al., 2010). Plants are naturally affected by environmental stresses due to their immobility. Plants could respond to the environmental factors of wind, rain, electric field and ultraviolet radiation and adjust its physiological condition to adapt to the change of environment (Braam and Davis, 1990; Braam et al., 1996; Mary and Braam, 1997) .... our previous findings (Halgamuge et al., 2015) indicate that the biological effects considerably relied on field strength and amplitude modulation of the applied field.
26. Learn about the potential effects of radiation on reproductive health. “I would recommend that [Consumer Reports] forewarn its readers not to keep their cell phones near their genitals. We have substantial evidence that cell phone radiation damages sperm in males and some evidence of reproductive health effects (i.e., neurological disorders) in human offspring as well as mice for females exposed to cell phone radiation during pregnancy. We also have preliminary evidence of increased breast cancer risk for women who kept cell phones in their bras.” – Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, The 4 Cell Phone Safety Tips Offered By Consumer Reports Isn’t Enough, RFSafe; Twitter: @rfsafe
×