The wireless industry has sought to downplay concerns about cell phones’ safety, and the Federal Communications Commission has followed its example. In 1996, the FCC established cell-phone safety levels based on “specific absorption rate,” or SAR. Phones were required to have a SAR of 1.6 watts or less per kilogram of body weight. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised the FCC that its guidelines “do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children.” Nevertheless, the FCC has declined to update its standards.30

The aim of this study was to determine the structural changes in the frontal cortex, brainstem and cerebellum in the male rat brain due to electromagnetic wave exposure (900, 1800, 2450 MHz, 1h/day for 2 months). While the histopathological changes in the frontal cortex and brainstem were normal in the control group, there were severe degenerative changes, shrunken cytoplasm and extensively dark pyknotic nuclei in the EMR groups. Biochemical analysis demonstrated that the Total Antioxidative Capacity level was significantly decreased in the EMR groups and also Total Oxidative Capacity and Oxidative Stress Index levels were significantly increased in the frontal cortex, brainstem and cerebellum. Researchers concluded that EMR causes structural changes in the frontal cortex, brainstem and cerebellum and impairs the oxidative stress and inflammatory cytokine system. This deterioration can cause to disease including loss of these areas function and cancer development.

This study measured the levels of blood lipid peroxidation, glutathione peroxidase, reduced glutathione, and vitamin C to follow the level of oxidative damage caused by 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation exposure (60 min/day for 28 days) in rats. The possible protective effects of selenium and L-carnitine were also tested and compared to untreated controls.  Researchers found that 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation caused oxidative stress in blood of rat. L-carnitine seems to have protective effects on the 2.45-GHz-induced blood toxicity by inhibiting free radical supporting antioxidant redox system although selenium has no effect on the investigated values.
This is extremely controversial but we can’t ignore that plenty of animal models indicate that exposure to electromagnetic radiation increases the risk of tumor development. While human studies are rare, reports and case studies abound. One such case involves a young 21-year-old woman who developed breast cancer. What makes this case unique was that her family did not have a predisposition to breast cancer… and she developed the tumor right on the spot she carried her cell phone in her bra. [15]
“There is a carcinogenic effect,” announced Ron Melnick, the designer of the study. Male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation developed cancer at a substantially higher rate, though the same effect was not seen in female rats. Rats exposed to radiation also had lower birth rates, higher infant mortality, and more heart problems than those in the control group. The cancer effect occurred in only a small percentage of the rats, but that small percentage could translate into a massive amount of human cancers. “Given the extremely large number of people who use wireless communications devices, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease…could have broad implications for public health,” the NTP’s draft report explained.48
Recall bias, which can occur when data about prior habits and exposures are collected from study participants using questionnaires administered after diagnosis of a disease in some of the participants. It is possible that study participants who have brain tumors may remember their cell phone use differently from individuals without brain tumors. Many epidemiologic studies of cell phone use and brain cancer risk lack verifiable data about the total amount of cell phone use over time. In addition, people who develop a brain tumor may have a tendency to recall cell phone use mostly on the same side of the head where their tumor was found, regardless of whether they actually used their phone on that side of the head a lot or only a little.
My phone is a very large concentration of value in an easy-to-lose, easy-to-break package that I’m constantly waving around recklessly. The next time you plop your phone down on a bar, which is a dark place buzzing with dizzy people holding containers full of liquid, remember that what you’re really doing is placing $600 to $1,000 in a situation in which it might instantly vaporize.
Although recall bias is minimized in studies such as COSMOS that link participants to their cell phone records, such studies face other problems. For example, it is impossible to know who is using the listed cell phone or whether that individual also places calls using other cell phones. To a lesser extent, it is not clear whether multiple users of a single phone, for example family members who may share a device, will be represented on a single phone company account. Additionally, for many long-term cohort studies, participation tends to decline over time.
We have a safe search tools for kids. It is more of a phone friendly version of our site that automatically ensures safe search is on at http://www.safesearchkids.com/app.html or enter “Safe Search Kids” in your phones app store to get the links. Having your tweens and teens agree to use this version of search will automatically ensure safe filtering is always on. That said, you still need to set up guidelines that allow you to view history on their phone when needed, as well has having them promise to not delete their history knowing you may look at 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).
×