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
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.”[4] 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".[13] Dr Michael Clark, of the HPA, says published research on mobile phones and masts does not add up to an indictment of WiFi.[14][15]
The most critical concept when it comes to talking about radiation is the distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is the dangerous stuff and includes x-ray radiation, gamma radiation, and some amount of ultra-violet light on the high end of the ultra-violet spectrum. The key element here is the wavelength of the radiation type.

Say someone found a potential association between carrying coins in your pocket and the risk of a particular type of tumor. It would set off a frenzy of activity among a group of people who were convinced that this association was real. They would lobby for a law requiring that warning signs be placed on change machines. The effect would snowball until some people would demand that the government stop minting coins.
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).
If you think your heart races when surrounded by wireless networks or 3G or LTE cell phones, it may not be in your head. A study involving 69 subjects reported that many of them experienced a real physical response to electromagnetic frequencies. Exactly what was the physical response? Increased heart rate — similar to the heart rate of an individual under stress. [14]
The best things you can do are to dramatically lower the EMF radiation in your home by using less wifi, using ethernet instead, and a ton of other steps. Check out my posts “11 Ways To Reduce Computer EMF Exposure,” “11 Ways To Reduce EMF Exposure,” and “How To Eliminate EMFs In The Bedroom” for a whole wealth of helpful tips at lowering your exposure to EMF radiation.
That comes at something of a price though, and the chunky bezels mean it’s not the most stylish phone — though we do like the bronze edges. Still, it’s powerful, outstripping most other phones under $300, which makes it the perfect companion for a gaming-happy generation. The camera suffers from poor performance in low light, but is otherwise good. It’s also running on Google’s Android One operating system, which means the phone will be updated with the latest security patches and new features quickly and often, helping to keep your kid’s phone secure. It’s a great choice if solid performance and durability are preferred to flashy looks.
We investigated the long-term effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from Wi-Fi systems on hearing. Sixteen Wistar albino rats were divided equally into two groups: sham control and exposure groups. The rats in the experimental group were exposed to 2.4 GHz RFR emitted from a Wi-Fi generator for 24 h/day for one year. The same procedure was applied to the rats in the sham group, except that the Wi-Fi generator was turned off. All groups were kept in Faraday cages during the 12 months to eliminate external electromagnetic fields. The distance between the Wi-Fi generator antenna and the exposure cages was 50 cm. Pre-exposure distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) of all rats were measured at the beginning, 6th and 12th months of the study. The DPOAE values of the sham, baseline and exposure groups were compared statistically. For the 6000 Hz hearing frequency, the DPOAE values in the exposure group were lower than those in the sham group (p < 0.05). Similarly, the 6000 Hz hearing frequency values obtained at the end of the 12th month were also lower than the baseline and 6-month values in the exposure group (p < 0.05). In contrast, the DPOAE values at the 6th and 12th months of exposure for the 2000 Hz hearing frequency were higher than the baseline value (p < 0.05). These results indicated that 12 months of RFR (24 h/day) at 50 cm from a 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi source can affect hearing. However, further studies are necessary.
Feelsafe Wireless provides qualified low-income customers with free government assisted cell phones and free monthly phone service. To find out if you are eligible for a free phone, enter your zip code into the "Apply Now" box at the top of the page. Qualified low-income households can apply by filling out the paper application and mailing or faxing it in to check eligibility. Once you are qualified, Feelsafe makes it easy to add minutes to your free government cell phone. Just come back to the site, select the Add Minutes tab under Current Customers and choose the amount you would like to add. Feelsafe is here for you. If ever you have a question that you can't answer with the website, one of our US based customer service agents is ready to assist.
This study investigated the effect of 2GHz EMR (1h) on the growth dynamics of Myriophyllum aquaticum (Parrot feather) by measuring the nanometric elongation rate fluctuation (NERF) using a statistical interferometry technique. After continuous exposure to EMR, M. aquaticum plants exhibited a statistically significant reduction in NERF standard deviation, therefore, the reduced NERF was due to a non-thermal effect caused by EMR exposure. The alteration in NERF continued for at least 2.5 h after EMR exposure and no significant recovery was found in post-EMR NERF during the experimental period.
3. A lab setting is the only legitimate way to show the effectiveness of our technology for a few main reasons: one, a controlled source is the only way to conduct a scientific study. Note that the controlled source that we used was specifically designed to simulate emissions from wireless electronics (RF and ELF emissions of various frequencies). Two, ambient levels in a non-controlled environment will affect readings, rendering the results inaccurate. Three, at-home equipment such as the meter used in the video is not suitable for the types of emissions by a wireless device, nor are they reliable.
I used to keep my Bsnl wifi modem close to my bed and I saw lots of negative impact of it.I cannot sleep in time since I started using anroid phone and wifi. It’s very difficult for me to wake up early in the morning in time.I have become lazy and dull nowadays.I am not able to concentrate in anything properly.I cannot remember things.I forget to do many things .I feel that my brain has become very much inactive. I don’t feel like doing any works like in the past I was very active in doing my official works and other home works.two months back I came to know that I have a diabetic as well.give me some suggestion to live a healthy life and to make my brain more active .
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
Carlo sent letters to each of the industry’s chieftains on October 7, 1999, reiterating that the WTR’s research had found the following: “The risk of rare neuro-epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain was more than doubled…in cell phone users”; there was an apparent “correlation between brain tumors occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head”; and “the ability of radiation from a phone’s antenna to cause functional genetic damage [was] definitely positive….”8

As I demonstrate in the video, you can see that with this router, I am exposed to about 100 times more Radio Frequency (RF) energy when I’m next to the router versus standing 20 feet away. This measurement video, like the others in our Video Library, give you an example of the varying levels of energy coming from our WiFi Routers.  If I was using the same meter on say, your WiFi, the measurements could vary widely. 


... 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 purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation (2 h/day for 35 days) on the male rat brain. MWR-exposed rats showed significantly increased comet head, tail length and tail movement, as well as decrease of antioxidant enzymes. Researchers conclude that the chronic exposure to these radiations may cause significant damage to brain, which may be an indication of possible tumour promotion.

In 2015, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the epidemiologic studies on cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of other cancers of the head and neck region (2). The Committee also stated that epidemiologic studies do not indicate increased risk for other malignant diseases, including childhood cancer (2).
This study aimed to assess the potential harmful effects of radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation on sperm parameters. There was no significant difference between sperm counts and sperm morphology excluding sperm motility, due to mobile phone usage period, however total motile sperm count and the progressive motile sperm count decreased due to the increase of internet usage and progressive motile sperm count also decreased with wireless Internet usage compared with the wired Internet connection usage.

The most compelling evidence though comes from a Swedish team of cancer experts whose research stretches back 15 years. The results clearly demonstrate “a consistent association between long-term use of cell phone and cordless phones and glioma and acoustic neuroma”. Overall, they found that using a cell phone for more than a decade significantly increases the risk of a malignant tumour by almost two times with an analogue cell phone and by nearly four times with a digital phone. Interestingly, the risks were even higher for people who had started using mobiles as teenagers.
×