Our studies point that WIFI is not completely safe at home near the animal or human body because it employ harmful radio waves. But it is safer compared to cellphone that it is close to our brain during communications. WIFI signals are everywhere. If you switched off your WiFi at night, you are still exposed to the WIFI signals coming in from neighbors but we have a significant reduction of the bioeffects of WIFI with distance from the router. Future investigations will focus on the long term bioeffects of WIFI placed at an important distance from the animal or the human.
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.
Although uterine lipid peroxidation increased in the EMR groups, uterine glutathione peroxidase activity (4th and 5th weeks) and plasma prolactin levels (6th week) in developing rats decreased in these groups. In the maternal rats, the plasma prolactin, estrogen, and progesterone levels decreased in the EMR groups, while the plasma total oxidant status, and body temperatures increased. There were no changes in the levels of reduced glutathione, total antioxidants, or vitamins A, C, and E in the uterine and plasma samples of maternal rats.
Hundreds of clinical studies have attempted to troll the netherworld of cell phone emissions. To echo the FDA: so far no conclusive evidence exists that proves a health risk from cell phone RFs. BUT studies still need to be done. Scientists have argued that research suffers when forced into short-term constraints. Consumers demand quick and speedy results, a demand that short-circuits authentic scientific study.
An analysis of data from all 13 countries participating in the Interphone study reported a statistically significant association between intracranial distribution of tumors within the brain and self-reported location of the phone (7). However, the authors of this study noted that it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about cause and effect based on their findings.
Thirty-two rats and their forty newborn offspring were divided into the following four groups according to the type of EMR exposure they were subjected to: the control, 900, 1800, and 2450 MHz groups. Each experimental group was exposed to EMR for 60 min/day during the pregnancy and growth periods. The pregnant rats were allowed to stand for four generations (total 52 weeks) before, plasma and uterine samples were obtained. During the 4th, 5th, and 6th weeks of the experiment, plasma and uterine samples were also obtained from the developing rats. [The electric field density was set at 20 dB and 11 V/m in order to obtain 0.1 W/kg whole-body average specific absorption rate (SAR).]
This study used Drosophila as model organisms to assess the effects of various EMF sources (short time daily for 3-7 days) on apoptotic cell death of follicles during oogenesis and reproductive capacity (fecundity) decline. Sources included: 900/1800 MHz mobile phone, 1880-1900 MHz wireless base, wireless handset, mobile phone-handset combination, 2.44 GHz wireless network (Wi-Fi), 2.44 GHz bluetooth, 92.8 MHz FM generator, 27.15 MHz baby monitor, 900 MHz CW RF generator and microwave oven’s 2.44 GHz RF and magnetic field components. All EMF sources used created statistically significant effects regarding fecundity and cell death-apoptosis induction, even at very low intensity levels well below ICNIRP’s guidelines, suggesting that Drosophila oogenesis system is suitable to be used as a biomarker for exploring potential EMF bioactivity.
Think I have a Fungus problem. Never had WiFi sensitivity until a super hot night without ac, sweat horribly, hottest day I ever remember. Didn’t take a shower the next day and seem to get athletes foot on my balls from my underwear I guess. My crotch would itch around WiFi and hot temperatures. When I get hot I can itch in areas which will produce small blisters that disappear quick. It has went from my crotch to my butt now and every time i go #2 I itch around my exit area. Since I got this rash thing I cant get ride of it and have become extremely sensitive to WiFi with itching, burning, tingling that will last after I unplug the router. Whole house I wired with NO WiFi now, but I have yet to find a remedy for my itch. Went to a friends house the other day and was not effected by his WiFi.
Warning is hereby given that not all Project Ideas are appropriate for all individuals or in all circumstances. Implementation of any Science Project Idea should be undertaken only in appropriate settings and with appropriate parental or other supervision. Reading and following the safety precautions of all materials used in a project is the sole responsibility of each individual. For further information, consult your state's handbook of Science Safety.
For those thinking that wireless keyboards and mice are OK, these things can put out quite a significant signal and some at frequencies of 2.4 GHz. I have personally experienced terrible symptoms from one of these. The 27MHz analog transmitters are more benign but probably still significant for the electrosensitive, and can probably still harm anyone.
Central to keeping the scientific argument going is making it appear that not all scientists agree. Again like the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, the wireless industry has “war gamed” science, as a Motorola internal memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science involves playing offense as well as defense: funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies like the World Health Organization; and seeking to discredit scientists whose views depart from the industry’s.21
35. Check your child’s cell phone records. “Review cell phone records for any unknown numbers and late night phone calls and texts.” While it may feel as though you’re snooping on your kids, reviewing their calling and texting records can help you identify warning signs such as strange calling patterns or unfamiliar numbers that could indicate that your child is communicating with someone they shouldn’t be such as a potential predator. – Help children use cell phones safely, NetSmartz Workshop; Twitter: @NetSmartz
Based on the DNA damage results determined by the single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) method, it was found that the% tail DNA values of the brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissues of the rats in the experimental group increased more than those in the control group. The increase of the DNA damage in all tissues was not significant (p>0.05). However the increase of the DNA damage in rat testes tissue was significant (p<0.01).
45. Keep it organized. “Always keep your child’s cell phone charger in the same place. It’s best to find a central location — like maybe the kitchen counter, or a table by the door. Mark the end of the monthly billing cycle on a calendar to remind her how long those dwindling minutes have to last.” – Fayette Woman, 10 Cell Phone Safety Tips for Parents, Fayette Woman; Twitter: @faywoman
Anti-radiation or radiation blocking or phone shield cases. Do they Work? SafeSleeve, DefenderShield, Vest, Alara, Pong, Reach and ShieldMe and other EMF protection phone cases claim to block the radiation from your cellphone or smartphone. Anti-radiation cellphone case brands make enticing claims like this: ". . .eliminate up to 99% of the harmful radiation coming from the phone!"
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.
A wallet case turns an essential, expensive object into a thing that’s basically invaluable and super hard to replace. Suddenly every important and useful thing you need every day is stored in one teensy container. What would you even do if you lost this? I don’t have landline! I can’t call the bank to cancel my cards. I can’t buy a phone to call the bank because I have no money. My passport is expired, so when I go to the bank, I can’t identify myself to get an ATM card. I suppose my first course of action would be to dredge up my birth certificate and go to the DMV to get a new license. THE DMV! Rest in peace Mario, he starved to death in the waiting room.
RF Safe methodologies for shielding the cell phone radiation only use technologies to deflect radiation which is directed towards the user’s body and will not cause the phone to increase output power. RF Safe’s technical goal is only blocking RF radiation that your body would have absorbed (line-of-sight radiation, in relationship to the device itself and your body) — radiation absorbed into your body wasn’t helping the cell tower connection or your health either. Keeping this in mind, only the front shielded part of the phone should be facing your body at all times.
We aimed to investigate the effects of distance from sources on calcium signaling, cytosolic ROS production, cell viability, apoptosis, plus caspase-3 and -9 values induced by mobile phones and Wi-Fi in breast cancer cells. The cytosolic ROS production, Ca2+ concentrations, apoptosis, caspase-3 and caspase-9 values were higher in groups exposed to 900 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2450 MHz compared to controls at 0 cm, 1 cm and 5 cm distances although cell viability (MTT) values were increased by the distances. There was no statistically significant difference in the values between control, 20 and 25 cm. Wi-Fi and mobile phone EMR placed within 10 cm of the cells induced excessive oxidative responses and apoptosis via TRPV1-induced cytosolic Ca2+ accumulation in the cancer cells. Using cell phones and Wi-Fi sources which are farther away than 10 cm may provide useful protection against oxidative stress, apoptosis and overload of intracellular Ca2+.
All that research has taught us that at high frequencies, electromagnetic radiation can promote tumor growth and cancer. The sun’s ultraviolet rays and their links to skin cancer are one example. Even at lower frequencies, very high levels of electromagnetic radiation exposure can hurt you. “But we’re talking skin burns, not cancer or tumors,” says Kenneth Foster, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania.
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.