Because these are complex diseases that develop over decades, it is difficult to conclusively show that the increase in wireless signal exposures directly cause the diseases. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considers wireless radiation as a class 2B possible carcinogen due to limited evidence. These small number of studies are leaning towards showing that electromagnetic radiations, including WiFi, are not safe.
Most wireless LAN equipment is designed to work within predefined standards. Wireless access points are also often close to humans, but the drop off in power over distance is fast, following the inverse-square law.[9] However, wireless laptops are typically used close to humans. WiFi had been anecdotally linked to electromagnetic hypersensitivity[10] but research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity has found no systematic evidence supporting claims made by sufferers.[11][12]
“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
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.

According to a peer-reviewed Nov. 2008 study in the journal Epidemiology, exposure to cell phone radiation while in the womb "was associated with behavior difficulties such as emotional and hyperactivity problems around the age of school entry." [65] A Dec. 2010 study replicated those findings. [67] A peer-reviewed Mar. 15, 2012 study found that mice exposed to cell phone radiation in the womb "were hyperactive and had impaired memory" as adults. [66]


37. Be careful when sharing your phone number. Teenagers may be so excited to finally have their own cell phone or smartphone that they immediately give out their number to everyone they know – or worse, publish it online on their social media profiles. “Only give out your phone number to people you know for sure you can trust.” – Sameer Hinduja, Ph.D. and Justin W. Patchin, Ph.D., Cell Phone Safety Ten Tips for Teens, Cyberbullying Research Center; Twitter: @onlinebullying
What makes the Fusion Excel Shield, such a different Anti-Radiation protection? And why you should equip all of your wireless devices? 1 -So Simple! because the FE Shield is Universal. Only 1 model for all devices: Regardless of the size's device to be equipped. Which gives you protection from the impact of radiation from your cell phone but also computers (desktop or laptop), Cordless Phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, iPad, iPod, TV, GPS, Internet Box, Baby monitor... 2 -New Patented cuting edge EMF Protection Technology! Its New Multi-Harmonic phase shifts Technology really takes into account the biological aspect of our body and brings a decrease in your overall level of stress 3 -Biological Effectiveness Scientifically proven: The positive effects are not only on physical data, but also by biologically tests by means of several biofeedback devices 4 -Sexy, slender size! Its extreme fineness will please you! This avoids having a too big system stuck behind your smartphone when you pout it on a table: half a millimeter thick! 5 -Virtually unlimited Lifetime - Best quality/price: It works for life! (as long as the antennas remain intact). Very reasonable price in relation to its High Technology. Unlike most other competing products, FE Shield don't must be replaced every year 90 Days 100% Money back Guarantee == Protect all your family Today = These edgy FE Shield EMF Protectors are going fast at this price Add to cart now by clicking on the yellow button and you will be safe protected in matter of days
The following is an excerpt of a typical conclusion published in a scientific journal about the links between EMFs, cell phones and health: "Epidemiologic research shows a low degree of association, inconsistency and missing dose-effect relations. A biologic mechanism of action is still debatable. No harm to human health has been shown. Conclusion: There is no scientific basis as to the harmful effects of EMFs on human health."

The present study was designed to determine the effects of both Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz)- and mobile phone (900 and 1800 MHz)-induced electromagnetic radiation (60 min/day during pregnancy and growth) on oxidative stress and trace element levels in the kidney and testis of growing rats from pregnancy to 6 weeks of age. In conclusion, Wi-Fi- and mobile phone-induced EMR caused oxidative damage by increasing the extent of lipid peroxidation and the iron level, while decreasing total antioxidant status, copper, and GSH values. Wi-Fi- and mobile phone-induced EMR may cause precocious puberty and oxidative kidney and testis injury in growing rats.


The microwave irradiation was performed at bands corresponding to mobile devices (GSM) using a modified AP5200 generator (D-LINK, China), operating in four bands (860–910 MHz frequency range, Pout 29 dBm), and to wireless router (WLAN) using a D-LINK wireless router 802.11 g/2.4 GHz (2.412–2.48 GHz frequency range, Pout 19 dBm). In the irradiation chamber there is one stick antenna placed in the center of the ceiling. The exposure levels where chosen in agreement with the microwave irradiation levels measured in open space for heavily used GSM networks (100 mW/m2) and for indoor WLAN (70 mW/m2) communication protocols.
There’s little chance you’d want to hand a Galaxy S8 to a child, but what about Samsung’s other offerings? Samsung’s A-range has been coming on in leaps-and-bounds the last few years, and the humble A5 makes a great choice as your kid’s phone. A 5.2-inch AMOLED screen is joined by good midrange specs that won’t let you down any time soon. It’s a metal-and glass-build, so you’re risking breakages (grabbing a case is advised), but it’s fully IP68-rated, so it’ll be able to survive a quick dip with no issues. The 3,000mAh is also impressive, so your kid shouldn’t be caught short. So what’s the catch? Like the Honor phone above, this phone will not work with either Verizon or Sprint, so think twice if you’re with either of those two — unless you’re looking to switch your plan soon.
Results Renal tissue malondialdehyde (MDA) and total oxidant (TOS) levels of pre-natal group were high and total antioxidant (TAS) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) levels were low. Spot urine NAG/creatinine ratio was significantly higher in pre- and post-natal groups (p < 0.001). Tubular injury was detected in most of the specimens in post-natal groups. Immunohistochemical analysis showed low-intensity staining with Bax in cortex, high-intensity staining with Bcl-2 in cortical and medullar areas of pre-natal group (p values, 0.000, 0.002, 0.000, respectively) when compared with sham group. Bcl2/Bax staining intensity ratios of medullar and cortical area was higher in pre-natal group than sham group (p = 0.018, p = 0.011).
“It’s because WiFi is just a low frequency sound wave.” For me, the jury is still out concerning the link between WiFi and sleep disturbance. But I’m sorry, you are wrong about WiFi being a low frequency sound wave. It is a radio wave, i.e. electromagnetic, and it runs at 2.3 GHz and/or 5 GHz, which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as low frequency.
If you’re one of the millions who missed the WHO’s news then it’s likely you also missed the fine print in Apple’s official iPhone User Guide. The part that states cell phones should be kept “5mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below” Standard Absorption Rate (SAR). In plain language, cell phones should be at least 5mm away from you at all times, dammit.

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. By contrast, the same exposure failed to alter maximum amplitude and P waves. After intravenously injection of dopamine (0.50 ml/kg) and epinephrine (0.50 ml/kg) under acute exposure to RF we found that, WIFI alter catecholamines (dopamine, epinephrine) action on heart variability and blood pressure compared to control. 
And David Carpenter, M.D., director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, says that while exposure from a single router in your home may be small, the risks could be greater in places that have dozens of laptops and routers working at the same time—such as school classrooms. Phillips notes that children’s developing bodies may be more vulnerable to all forms of radiation from devices.

Low frequency sound wave? what? They are HIGH frequency microwaves, AS IN THE SAME FREQUENCY YOUR MICROWAVE USES THAT HEATS UP FOOD! Please don’t be that guy that has no idea about this and tries to “debunk” something that is literally destroying people’s lives. – And it just simply BAFFLES me how you don’t even read the research done on the matter and boldly claim it has no effect! How ignorant and completely oblivious can one person be?!

Radiation is also the thing that bathes the world in warm sunlight, and makes life on Earth possible. Radiation is also the reason we can turn on a radio and hear music without wires. Radiation is how we change the channels on our television (and for anyone getting their TV fix via over-the-air channels or satellite TV, how the programming gets delivered to their home in the first place).


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
"Love it...In love...This case works as advertised, no pocket dialing and everything shows through the case clearly as expected, this is the second case of this type I have purchased and both although a bit pricy at $59 work to perfection....Love the case and that you don't have to have the case open to talk on the phone...the only negative is that only the number shows up on the outside when someone calls, not the name."
I really want to caution you to be careful of any "expert" or EMF blogger recommending anti-radiation filtering cases, stickers that attach to the phone or necklaces to "ward off" EMF.  I get it, when I first realized 25 years ago that I was sensitive to electromagnetic energy and then later, when I understood that without a doubt, man made electromagnetic radiation has a biological effect on my body, I wanted an easy fix.  I tried the shielding materials and cases and I just did not feel any better.  Then I bought meters to see if the energy changed and I actually noticed what the California Department of Health now says and it's what the FTC and FCC post warnings about:  "Some shielding materials can make exposures worse". So please, be careful and read on for what you can do to avoid electromagnetic radiation exposure.
The present study investigated the influence of 2.4GHz electromagnetic fields, similar to that emitted by Wi-Fi system, on human brain activity. The presence of radiation had no effect on the energies of alpha and beta band of male subjects, while it reduced these energies of female subjects, resulting in significantly lower energies, as compared to those of males. Delta and theta band energies did not experience any noteworthy effect from gender, radiation condition and their interaction. Conversely, there was a significant interaction effect (gender x radiation) on the energies of alpha and beta rhythms. The present data support the idea that Wi-Fi signal may influence normal physiology through changes in gender related cortical excitability, as reflected by alpha and beta EEG frequencies.
Listeria monocytogenes response to each antibiotic was different, for DOX (doxycycline), and the window response occurred after 6 hours of exposure to Wi-Fi and RF simulator radiation. However, for other antibiotics, these changes were only observed at the ninth hour of exposure to Wi-Fi while this response could not be observed for RF simulator radiation. After 9 hours of exposure to Wi-Fi for CIPR and SXT antibiotics, bacteria had a tendency to become more resistant. This was in contrast to the pattern observed for LEVO, CTX, and CTR antibiotics, which an increased sensitivity was observed.
This is a stupid article. We get electromagnetic radiation from radios, baby monitors, alarm systems, even the Earth itself. And even if we own none of that we still get it from out neighbors. It’s harmless, after all we been exposed to it forever from our planet. Unless you plan on wrapping yourself in foil you will escape it. Not that it matters, it does no harm in these low doses.
Responsibility for driver cell phone safety is the part of so many distinct factions. Consumer safety advocates oppose telecommunications lobbyists, and state lawmakers seem to avoid the larger issue of driver distractions. But without all participants it’s likely that the cell phone safety debate would lose the thrust required to effect real change. And there will be change.
Changing technology and methods of use. Older studies evaluated radiofrequency radiation exposure from analog cell phones. Today, cell phones use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency and a lower power level than analog phones. Digital cell phones have been in use for more than two decades in the United States, and cellular technology continues to change (3). Texting and other applications, for example, are common uses of cell phones that do not require bringing the phone close to the head. Furthermore, the use of hands-free technology, such as wired and wireless headsets, is increasing and may reduce exposure by distancing the phone from the body (36, 37).

Cell phone radiation levels are tested and certified to remain within levels deemed safe by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC sets the maximum amount of thermal radiation (heat) that cell phones are permitted to emit. [3] This limit is measured as the amount of radiation absorbed by a user and is known as the specific absorption rate (SAR). In 1996 the SAR for cell phone radiation was set at a maximum of 1.6 watts of energy absorbed per kilogram of body weight. Manufactures of cell phones must test their products to ensure that they meet this standard. Random tests of phones on the market by FCC scientists further ensure that radiation levels meet FCC guidelines. [48]


According to American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Robert Block, when cell phones are used by children, "the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull," than for adults. [68] A July 2008 peer-reviewed study shows that children under the age of eight absorb twice the amount of radiation into their brain tissue as adults due to their lower skull thickness. [17]
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).]
When the Interphone conclusions were released in 2010, industry spokespeople blunted their impact by deploying what experts on lying call “creative truth-telling.” “Interphone’s conclusion of no overall increased risk of brain cancer is consistent with conclusions reached in an already large body of scientific research on this subject,” John Walls, the vice president for public affairs at the CTIA, told reporters. The wiggle word here is “overall”: Since some of the Interphone studies did not find increased brain-cancer rates, stipulating “overall” allowed Walls to ignore those that did. The misleading spin confused enough news organizations that their coverage of the Interphone study was essentially reassuring to the industry’s customers. The Wall Street Journal announced “Cell Phone Study Sends Fuzzy Signal on Cancer Risk,” while the BBC’s headline declared: “No Proof of Mobile Cancer Risk.”37
Since children’s skulls are thinner than adults’ and their nervous systems are still developing, researchers believe they may be at a greater risk for cell phone-related cancers. They’ll also be exposed to the potentially harmful radiation significantly longer than their parents’ generation. Until more is known about the possible carcinogenic effects of cell phone use, curb your kids’ cell phone habits by encouraging texting or using a landline instead—if they can actually recognize a landline anymore, that is.

Wi-Fi certainly isn’t going to do you in, but something else you forgot to worry about while you were worrying about your Wi-Fi router might: put that worry to good use and make sure there are fresh batteries in your smoke detectors, that you’re planning on getting a yearly physical this year, and you floss before bed (you know, those things you’ve been putting off that might actually, sooner or later, harm you).
One key player has not been swayed by all this wireless-friendly research: the insurance industry. The Nation has not been able to find a single insurance company willing to sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation. “Why would we want to do that?” one executive chuckled before pointing to more than two dozen lawsuits outstanding against wireless companies, demanding a total of $1.9 billion in damages. Some judges have affirmed such lawsuits, including a judge in Italy who refused to allow industry-funded research as evidence.24
Over time, the number of cell phone calls per day, the length of each call, and the amount of time people use cell phones have increased. Because of changes in cell phone technology and increases in the number of base stations for transmitting wireless signals, the exposure from cell phone use—power output—has changed, mostly lowered, in many regions of the United States (1).
Because of this physical law, even if  holding a Wi-Fi router directly against your forehead was very dangerous (and, we assure you, it is not) working in your home office 45 feet away from the Wi-Fi router would not be dangerous simply because the microwave radiation of the already minuscule 1 watt Wi-Fi router would have radically decreased in intensity. When you factor in that the Wi-Fi radiation is already harmless, you see that there is no situation in which the Wi-Fi signal from your router, your laptop, your media center, or any other Wi-Fi device in your home could possibly hurt you.

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).

×