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).
41. Use a monitoring service for your child’s phone. “One option [for keeping your kids safer while allowing them to use a cell phone or smartphone] is a phone or monitoring service that provides parental controls. Parental controls let your parents control how and when you use your cell phone, and who is able to contact you. (You and your parents can determine the rules together.) With parental controls, you won’t have to worry about receiving unwanted calls or texts—or the temptation to text during science class!” – Jennifer Dignan, Cell Phone Safety Helpful Tips for Kid Communications, Scholastic Teachers; Twitter: @ScholasticTeach
Electrocardiogram and arterial pressure measurements were studied under acute exposures to WIFI (2.45GHz) during one hour in adult male rabbits. Acute exposure of rabbits to WIFI increased heart frequency (+22%) and arterial blood pressure (+14%). Moreover, analysis of ECG revealed that WIFI induced a combined increase of PR and QT intervals, but failed to alter maximum amplitude and P waves. After intravenously injection of dopamine (0.50ml/kg) and epinephrine (0.50ml/kg) under acute exposure to RF we found that, WIFI alter catecholamines (dopamine, epinephrine) action on heart variability and blood pressure compared to control. These results suggest for the first time, as far as we know, that exposure to WIFI affect heart rhythm, blood pressure, and catecholamines efficacy on cardiovascular system; indicating that radiofrequency can act directly and/or indirectly on cardiovascular system.
In a real-world setting, August, having ES herself, hopes people who are trying to control their exposures, will refer to the following chart: The lowest level August recommends EVER being exposed to--for even a brief time is less than 1 Volts per meter--which is actually the level of exposure you can get from most WiFi's when you're between 15 and 20 fee away. And August level is for people who are not experiencing symptoms of sensitivity, live in real-world(WiFi's, cellphone connected) situations.
That result enabled the industry to continue proclaiming that there was no scientifically established proof that cell phones are dangerous. Jack Rowley of the GSMA trade association said that “interpretation should be based on the overall balance of the evidence.” Once again, the slippery word “overall” downplayed the significance of scientific research that the industry didn’t like.43
Wireless internet using durations: When we compare the wireless internet users regarding the duration of internet usage, there were a significant decrease of total motile sperm count and progressive motile sperm count (p = 0.032 and p = 0.033; respectively; Table 3) ... there were no significance among the semen parameters regarding the wired internet group (p = 0.128).
The quality of the product is really good, just as good as the more expensive stickers I have purchased in the past. Its not a big deal, but the stickers I received are not star shaped. They are round/circle. I have been able to test them yet to see if they actually work. Waiting to see my brother who can test them for me. Will update this review when I find out.
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.
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.
The scientific evidence that cell phones and wireless technologies in general can cause cancer and genetic damage is not definitive, but it is abundant and has been increasing over time. Contrary to the impression that most news coverage has given the public, 90 percent of the 200 existing studies included in the National Institutes of Health’s PubMed database on the oxidative effects of wireless radiation—its tendency to cause cells to shed electrons, which can lead to cancer and other diseases—have found a significant impact, according to a survey of the scientific literature conducted by Henry Lai. Seventy-two percent of neurological studies and 64 percent of DNA studies have also found effects.52
The FCC’s safety standards for cell phone radiation were based on studies conducted in the 1980s, These studies have long since been rendered obsolete by newer research. Yet for years the FCC refused to update or even review its standards. Instead, the federal agency simply sat on its hands while cell phones became ever more powerful and ubiquitous.
c) and before you raise the argument that visible light is itself electromagnetic radiation, with even shorter wavelengths than microwaves, electromagnetic radiation within the visible light range does not penetrate living cells and other molecular materials as X-Rays (ionising radiation) or microwaves (non-ioninsing radiation) do. Practically all visible light is reflected by our bodies, and therefore it’s energy is not absorbed by our cells and is therefore harmless.
In 2011, the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation of the type used by WiFi devices as a Group 2B possible carcinogen. A study conducted by the University of Vienna have found WiFi exposures to cause genotoxicity as they break single and double strand DNAs in our body. This indicates that there are effects that may potentially surface with our future generations.
The energy of electromagnetic radiation is determined by its frequency; ionizing radiation is high frequency, and therefore high energy, whereas non-ionizing radiation is low frequency, and therefore low energy. The NCI fact sheet Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer lists sources of radiofrequency radiation. More information about ionizing radiation can be found on the Radiation page.
Radiofrequency radiation from cell phones is non-ionizing and is not powerful enough to cause cancer. Ionizing radiation, including x-rays and ultraviolet light, produces molecules called ions that have either too many or too few electrons. Ions are known to damage DNA and cause cancer. Cell phone radiation, like radio, TV, and visible light radiation, is non-ionizing and lacks sufficient energy to add or remove electrons from molecules, and therefore it cannot ionize and cause cancer.  According to the authors of a 2005 peer-reviewed study of 3.7 million Swedish residents, a "biologic mechanism that could explain any possible carcinogenic effect from radiofrequency radiation has not been identified." 
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.
AAP also advocates for more research into the human health impacts of cell phone radiation, particularly when it comes to children. One current problem? Federal Communications Commission tests used to determine cell phone radiation is based on the devices’ possible effect on large adults — not kids. Children’s skulls are thinner and can absorb more radiation (4)
Sexting: The vast majority of kids are smart and don’t take, send, or post or even store nude photos of themselves or peers on their phones. People who do so can be charged with production, distribution, or possession of child pornography, a serious crime. They can also be subjected to jokes, bullying, blackmail, expulsion from school, loss of a job, etc. and the images can circulate forever. Just don’t go there.
BACKGROUND: The use of devices emitted microwave radiation such as mobile phones, wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) routers, etc. is increased rapidly. It has caused a great concern; the researchers should identify its effects on people's health. We evaluated the protective role of Vitamin C on the metabolic and enzymatic activities of the liver after exposure to Wi-Fi routers.
This study aimed to investigate the major cause of male infertility during short- (1h/day for 2 months) and long-term (7h/day for 2 months) exposure of 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi radiation. Both 1-hour and 7-hour groups showed a decrease in sperm parameters in a time dependent pattern and the number of apoptosis-positive cells and caspase-3 activity increased in the seminiferous tubules of exposed rats. The seminal vesicle weight reduced significantly in both1-hour or 7-hour groups in comparison to the control group. Researchers concluded that there should be a major concern regarding the time dependent exposure of whole-body to the higher frequencies of Wi-Fi networks existing in the vicinity of our living places.
“See a name you don’t recognize? Get the lowdown on the mystery texter by conducting an online background check. Pull their criminal records to discover if they’ve potentially been convicted of anything serious, such as a sexual offense or other violent crimes. Being armed with this information is the first step to squashing your teen’s inappropriate relationship.” – Logan Strain, Who Has Your Kid Been Texting? Guarantee Cell Phone Safety with These Tips, Instant Checkmate; Twitter: @instntcheckmate
“If you're looking for ways to limit your exposure to the electromagnetic emissions from your cell phone, know that, according to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduced exposure from these electromagnetic emissions. In fact, products that block only the earpiece—or another small portion of the phone—are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits electromagnetic waves. What's more, these shields may interfere with the phone's signal, cause it to draw even more power to communicate with the base station, and possibly emit more radiation.”
The HPA's position is that “...radio frequency (RF) exposures from WiFi are likely to be lower than those from mobile phones.” It also saw “...no reason why schools and others should not use WiFi equipment.” In October 2007, the HPA launched a new “systematic” study into the effects of WiFi networks on behalf of the UK government, in order to calm fears that had appeared in the media in a recent period up to that time". Dr Michael Clark, of the HPA, says published research on mobile phones and masts does not add up to an indictment of WiFi.
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").
A phone's specific absorption rate (SAR) reveals the maximum amount of radiation the human body absorbs from the phone while it's transmitting. SAR testing ensures that the devices sold in the U.S. comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) SAR exposure limit, but the single, worst-case value obtained from this SAR testing is not necessarily representative of the absorption during actual use, and therefore it is not recommended for comparisons among phones. In short, selecting a lower SAR phone will not reliably ensure lower radiation absorption during use. The FCC has more information at Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) For Cell Phones: What It Means For You.
Baby DiaperingChanging Pads & Covers,Changing Tables,D...592 Baby FeedingBaby Food & Formula,Baby Food Prep,Bibs...779 Baby Toys1227 Baby's FashionBaby's Fashion Accessories,Clothing,Sock...1508 Bath & PottyBaby Bath Tubs,Baby Toiletries,Baby Wash...515 Books, Music & MoviesKid's Music,Kids & Family Movies,Kids Bo...401 Car SeatsBases,Booster,Car Seat & Stroller Toys,C...180 Gear & ActivityBaby Carriers,Diaper Bags,Entertainers &...509
The very next day, a livid Tom Wheeler began publicly trashing Carlo to the media. In a letter he shared with the CEOs, Wheeler told Carlo that the CTIA was “certain that you have never provided CTIA with the studies you mention”—an apparent effort to shield the industry from liability in the lawsuits that had led to Carlo’s hiring in the first place. Wheeler charged further that the studies had not been published in peer-reviewed journals, casting doubt on their validity.10
Reading the last paragraph of the previous section you might be saying “Ah hah! Microwaves! Microwaves are bad, they make things very hot and they could burn you!” That’s absolutely true. You would not want to build a human size microwave oven and stand inside it. Nor would you particularly enjoy being the target of the crowd-dispersing microwave cannons built and deployed by the U.S. military.
The company's "Researches" page, for example, states that "Aires Technologies are more than 12 years (sic). For this period there have been conducted a number of studies on mechanisms of coherent transformers that effect on physical, chemical, technological and biological processes (sic). The studies were carried out in close collaboration with leading research and academic institutions."
38. Does your child need that phone feature? Parental control apps allow parents to exert greater control over the features and functions their children can access on their smartphones. Making use of these apps and other tools to restrict access to the features you deem safe and appropriate can go a long way in keeping your kids safe while giving you much-needed peace of mind. “Determine what features your child needs based on his age. Does your 10-year-old really need web browsing capabilities?” – Laura Willard, Cell Phone Safety Tips for Kids, Tweens and Teens, SheKnows; Twitter: @SheKnows
These general findings and data presented earlier on Wi-Fi effects were used to assess the Foster and Moulder (F&M) review of Wi-Fi. The F&M study claimed that there were seven important studies of Wi-Fi that each showed no effect. However, none of these were Wi-Fi studies, with each differing from genuine Wi-Fi in three distinct ways. F&M could, at most conclude that there was no statistically significant evidence of an effect. The tiny numbers studied in each of these seven F&M-linked studies show that each of them lack power to make any substantive conclusions.
I have treated patients with cancer for over thirty years as a board-certified radiation oncologist and I am familiar with every carcinogenic agent known to man. I'll tell you with absolute certainty that radio waves cannot harm you (unless perhaps you were in the path of a multi-megawatt microwave beam, in which case they might cook you. But as far as I know, there is no likelihood that this danger even exists).
The study was conducted on 16 adult male Wistar-Albino rats. The rats in the experimental group (n=8) were exposed to 2.4GHz frequency radiation for over a year. The rats in the sham control group (n=8) were subjected to the same experimental conditions except the Wi-Fi generator was turned off. After the exposure period was complete the possible DNA damage on the rat's brain, liver, kidney, skin, and testicular tissues was detected through the single cell gel electrophoresis assay (comet) method. The amount of DNA damage was measured as percentage tail DNA value.
This study analyzed cellular stress levels in rat thymus after exposure to a 2.45 GHz radio frequency (RF) using an experimental diathermic model in a Gigahertz Transverse Electromagnetic (GTEM) chamber. The thymus tissue presented several morphological changes, including increased distribution of blood vessels along with the appearance of red blood cells and hemorrhagic reticuloepithelial cells, while the glucocorticoid receptors presented greater immunomarking on the thymic cortex in exposed animals. These results indicate that non-ionizing sub-thermal radiation causes changes in the endothelial permeability and vascularization of the thymus, and is a tissue-modulating agent for Hsp90 and GR.
... 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.
The present study was undertaken to determine the influence of low intensity microwave radiation (900, 1800, or 2450 MHz for 2h/day, 5days/week, for 60 days) on oxidative stress, inflammatory response and DNA damage in rat brain. Low intensity microwave exposure resulted in a frequency dependent significant increase in oxidative stress markers, reduced levels of GSH and SOD, increased levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, and significant DNA damage in microwave exposed groups compared to controls. In conclusion, the present study suggests that low intensity microwave radiation induces oxidative stress, inflammatory response and DNA damage in brain by exerting a frequency dependent effect. The study also indicates that increased oxidative stress and inflammatory response might be the factors involved in DNA damage following low intensity microwave exposure.
While cell phones localize the highest microwave exposure to the brain, Wi-Fi exposures are often localized to the abdomen, leg and chest area. However this is not always the case as some people sleep in rooms with Wi-Fi baby monitors, Wi-Fi routers or Wi-Fi gaming devices near their pillow. Wi-Fi printers may be in offices next to a person’s desk and most people are unaware that they transmit continuously. All in all, for some people- especially children- the Wi-Fi exposure is quite significant to overall cumulative exposure.
Last year, 15-year-old English schoolgirl Jenny Fry was found hanged in woodland near her home. According to her parents she suffered from electrical sensitivity, making it impossible for her to sit in WiFi classrooms and have WiFi at home. The school refused to remove the WiFi. Speaking at the inquest her mother said, “I believe that WiFi killed my daughter.”
The present study was designed to determine the effects of 2.45 GHz EMR (60 min/day for 28 days) on the brain antioxidant redox system and electroencephalography (EEG) records in rat, as well as examine the possible protective effects of selenium and L-carnitine. EMR-exposed animals showed lower concentration of vitamins A, C, and E than controls, although their concentrations were increased by selenium and L-carnitine supplementation. Animals which received selenium and L-carnitine in addition to EMR also showed lower levels of lipid peroxidation. Results indicate that L-carnitine and selenium seem to have protective effects on the 2.45 GHz-induced decrease of the vitamins by supporting antioxidant redox system.
By comparison, even a very powerful high-end Wi-Fi router only produces around 1 watt of microwave energy and, unlike the magnetron in a microwave oven, a Wi-Fi router radiates that minuscule 1 watt of power in a bubble-like-cloud around the router. In other words, if you wanted to heat up even a milliliter of water above room temperature using this energy, you’d be waiting…well, forever.
“When symptoms are not addressed comprehensively– for example, using symptom amelioration without simultaneous elimination of exposure – cell membrane adverse reaction and damage continue to occur while the patient is assuming the cause of the problem has been eliminated. This lulls patients into a false sense of security, causing them to aggravate their exposures through the increased use of their wireless devices. When the damage reaches a critically harmful level, even the symptom amelioration can no longer be sustained by the damaged cells.”
Even so, the industry’s neutralizing of the safety issue has opened the door to the biggest, most hazardous prize of all: the proposed revolutionary transformation of society dubbed the “Internet of Things.” Lauded as a gigantic engine of economic growth, the Internet of Things will not only connect people through their smartphones and computers but will connect those devices to a customer’s vehicles and home appliances, even their baby’s diapers—all at speeds faster than can currently be achieved.25
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