Numerous peer-reviewed studies have shown an association between cell phone use and the development of brain tumors. According to a Mar. 2008 meta-analysis of cell phone studies there is a "consistent pattern" connecting cell phone use and an increased risk of developing glioma, a type of brain tumor. [12] A Mar. 31, 2009 study found that long term cell phone use (10 years +) "approximately doubles the risk" of being diagnosed with glioma on the same side of the head where the cell phone is held. [51] In Apr. 2013 another study of Swedish cell phone users also found an association between cell phone use and the development of glioma and acoustic neuroma - a benign tumor formation on the nerve near the ear. [52] That study’s conclusions were confirmed by a different study in Apr. 2014. [84] Other studies published from 2005-2013 have similarly concluded that there is an association between cell phone use and increased risk of developing brain and head tumors. [13] [53] [54] [55]
“If you’re experiencing eye discomfort, make your phone’s font size bigger. Mark Rosenfield, O.D., Ph.D., told Men’s Health that phone users should try to hold their phones at least 16 inches away from their faces. Every few minutes look up from your screen at something far away for short breaks, and don’t forget to blink.” – Amanda Hawkins, 5 Seriously Bad Side Effects of Your Smartphone Addiction, Good Housekeeping; Twitter: @goodhousemag
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").
This overview shows that effects of 2.45 GHz radiation have been found by different research teams, repeatedly, in different study objects, and at different exposure levels. A broad spectrum of issues has been investigated such as the effects of 2.45 GHz radiation emitted by a Wi-Fi router on the release of mercury from amalgam fillings. The mercury levels were significantly increased (Paknahad et al. 2016).
I think it might be part of the problem with all these kids losing it in the last decade and a half. Just something to think about. Maybe they should start building “wifi free”restaurants and buildings. They have been warning people since before they even started using it on a commercial bases that wifi was going to have serious effects on the human body. There’s just so much of a “hey as long as it doesn’t bother me I don’t care” attitude. I mean think about it. Now I’m not saying this in a negative way but look at the turnaround in public opinion about gay marriage. I mean it went from a hotly debated topic to “ah well they ain’t hurting anybody so let them do what they want. Except in the red states and if you notice a lot of those states are lacking saturated wifi signals. Just something to think about
A 2005 study in the International Journal of Cardiology found that mobile phones may have "adverse effects" on pacemaker functions under certain conditions. [59] According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), radiofrequency energy from cell phones can create electromagnetic interference (EMI) that may disrupt the functioning of pacemakers, especially if the cell phone is placed close to the heart. [21] The American Heart Association includes cell phones on its list of "devices that may interfere with pacemakers." [60]
“There are 25,000 brain tumor cases in India’s Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states, and most of them are attributed to excessive use of cell phones, as per a recent medical survey”. Girish Kumar said that World Health Organization warned of increasing risk of cell phone brain tumor and cancer cases caused by the use of cell phones and location of cell towers in residential areas.
The RF signals from cell phones, as well as Bluetooth and WiFi, are considered nonionizing forms of radiation. That means unlike ionizing radiation—from, say, ultraviolet light from the sun, medical tests such as CT scans or X-rays, or nuclear explosions—they don’t carry enough energy to directly break or alter your DNA, which is one way cancer can occur.
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]
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.
Like their tobacco and fossil-fuel brethren, wireless executives have chosen not to publicize what their own scientists have said about the risks of their products. On the contrary, the industry—in America, Europe, and Asia—has spent untold millions of dollars in the past 25 years proclaiming that science is on its side, that the critics are quacks, and that consumers have nothing to fear. This, even as the industry has worked behind the scenes—again like its Big Tobacco counterpart—to deliberately addict its customers. Just as cigarette companies added nicotine to hook smokers, so have wireless companies designed cell phones to deliver a jolt of dopamine with each swipe of the screen.19
The animals were exposed to an access point (AP) from WIFI device (D-Link DWL-3200 AP with 802.11 g mode and WPA2 network protection) as previously described in Salah et al. (2013). WIFI integrated two omnidirectional antennas that were setup for internet broadcast via wireless at 2.45 GHz. The sham control rabbits were placed under the same condition without applying RF (0 Hz). Antennas of WIFI were placed at 25 cm at the right side near the heart (animal in dorsal decubitus).

It should be noted that the given values of SAR were normalized to 1 W peak antenna power output, while typically a WLAN antenna radiates about 10 mW; therefore, for a real world operating system, maximum SAR of 0.37 × 10−3 and 0.18 × 10−3 (W/kg) is expected for 2 and 1 active antennas, respectively, which are 104 times lower than the European safety limit (2 W/kg) [IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Humans, 2005].
Our cell phones for hazardous areas ensure the safety of your workers in all situations. We offer intrinsically safe cell phones for Zone 1 / Class I (ATEX, IECEx) and explosion proof cell phones for Zone 2 / Class II (NEC). Our cell phones are available with lone worker protection (LWP) and our range of products also includes an intrinsically safe smartphone, the Smart-Ex® 01.
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.
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.
42. Limit your child’s time on the phone. There’s much discussion about how much screen time is good for kids and teens today, and today’s wireless devices provide access to all the games, chatting features, web browsers, media, and apps they could possibly consume in a lifetime. Setting clear limits on smartphone usage will help you keep screen time within reasonable limits. “Half an hour of screen time is recommended for children 4-5 years old; an hour for ages 5-10; and two hours for high school aged kids.” – Melanie Medina, Growing up Digital – Cell Phone Safety for Kids, Identity Force; Twitter: @IdentityForce
Outside critics soon came to suspect that Carlo would be the front man for an industry whitewash. They cited his dispute with Henry Lai, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington, over a study that Lai had conducted examining whether cell-phone radiation could damage DNA. In 1999, Carlo and the WTR’s general counsel sent a letter to the university’s president urging that Lai be fired for his alleged violation of research protocols. Lai accused the WTR of tampering with his experiment’s results. Both Carlo and Lai deny the other’s accusations.5

This is a 2 pieces of plastic sandwiched together by glue. Don't believe me? Take it apart. This item works no better than the existing case on your phone. If you are that concerned with cellphone radiation, you should be equally concerned about the cheap plastic and toxic glue that this is comprised of. Also know the fact that they've stolen $25 from your wallet when you purchase this hokey product...Technology at it's finest.
EMF Academy is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to EMF Academy also participates in affiliate programs with Clickbank, ShareASale, and other sites. EMF Academy is compensated for referring traffic and business to these companies.
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.
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.
I’m so glad I stumbled on this article as I thought I was the only one around my area that gets badly affected by Wi-Fi signals. It started when I used to visit my son I would get heart palpitations and my throat felt like it was tightening up, after leaving it would eventually calm down but every time I went it got worse. I then also got Wi-Fi and was really ill for about eight weeks felt like I was slowly being poisoned, tight throat, palpitations, weakness and really bad sleep, just felt like I was dying. I then realised it
In September 2014, Californian oncologists reported four similar case histories of young women who had developed breast cancer in precisely the areas where they normally carried their smartphones. What shocked the doctors was that these women were aged 21 to 39 and had no family history or other risk factors relating to cancer. All their cancers “had striking similarity, all tumours were hormone positive… (with) an extensive intraductal component and… near-identical morphology.” (CaseRepMed., 2013).