The wireless communications industry is rushing to blanket the nation with next-generation networks whose health effects are unknown. Despite studies linking radiation from existing networks to cancer in lab animals, the Federal Communications Commission and state legislators are bowing to industry lobbyists and clearing the way for the new networks.  
I wear a hat and shirt made of gold silver and nickel in the cotton. It is a German invention available from YSHIELD. My walls are painted with graphite paint and the windows laminated to shield, me from neighbours wifi. I am OK living this way but the NBN requires wifi router and ADSL 2+ will, not be available after a few weeks. I am now looking to move to another country leaving my many descendants to fry and me alone in my 80s. I want to live but here it is becoming impossible.
The legislators themselves say that no link has been demonstrated (Le Monde reports them as having been unable to identify ‘a causal link between the biological effects described on cellular models, animals or humans and possible health effects that result.’) and there is only limited evidence (one study, unconfirmed by any others) to suggest risk even for intensive users of mobile phones.

One thing I am totally shocked by is the resistance that people seem to have to believing that something that promotes “Convenience” for them, could be dangerous. I am Electromagnetic Hypersensitive and I am involved with numerous groups of people worldwide who are suffering from the detrimental effects of wireless radiation. These groups are growing substantially as people become more and more aware that their health issues can be traced back to consistent exposure to microwave radiation that has NO proven record or research to prove its safety. From my own experience, placed in a Wi-Fi field, every muscle in my body contracts like I’m being electrocuted, lumps begin to form from the effect of blood thickening, I get massive headaches, chest pain (the heart struggling due to sticky red blood cells), and eventually total paralysis from the severe fatigue that even makes it hard to breath. So many people are suffering from illnesses they haven’t even traced back to Wi-Fi but if they succeed at globalizing it, I’m sure you’ll all find out eventually as you accumulate the effects. Thank you Dr Edward Group for posting this invaluable information.
For 17 years Airvoice Wireless has provided customer service department based right here in the United States. Our customer service staff are biligual and are all housed in one department so you won't have to jump around from department to department looking for a solution. Feelsafe Wireless prides itself on our nationwide coverage as well as making our services more accessible to our paid cellular customers and our Feelsafe Wireless Government Lifeline Program customers through our customer service that's a cut above the rest.
Many wireless routers automatically kick wifi back on when there is a firmware update, or the device gets restarted. When our internet is running slow or not working, the first thing our internet provider will tell us to do is power cycle the router and modem (basically just turning them both off and back on). Make sure that when your router comes back on it doesn’t automatically turn the wifi back on.
Since we have this subconscious, ever-present fear of death, we employ magical thinking to give us a false sense of power over it. When we create artificial threats to our survival in our imagination, and then avoid practicing behaviors that make us vulnerable to those threats, we feel we have some power over whether we live or die. These are also known as superstitions.
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]
When it comes to cell phones, scientists have looked at findings from animal research and cells in test tubes exposed to RF radiation in a lab, as well as observational studies in humans. These human studies have tried to see whether heavy users of cell phones have higher rates of brain cancers and other health problems compared with people who use cell phones less often.
Cell phone storage in front pockets has been linked to poor fertility and higher chances of miscarriage and childhood cancer. [18] According to the Cleveland Clinic Center for Reproductive Medicine, semen quality "tended to decline as daily cell phone use increased." [19] According to a May-June 2012 meta-study in the Journal of Andrology, "men using mobile phones have decreased sperm concentration" in addition to "decreased viability" of their sperm. [64]

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.
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
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]

In recent years there has been a tremendous increase in use of Wi-Fi devices along with mobile phones, globally. Wi-Fi devices make use of 2.4 GHz frequency. The present study evaluated the impact of 2.45 GHz radiation exposure for 4h/day for 45 days on behavioral and oxidative stress parameters in female Sprague Dawley rats. Behavioral tests of anxiety, learning and memory were started from day 38. Oxidative stress parameters were estimated in brain homogenates after sacrificing the rats on day 45. In morris water maze, elevated plus maze and light dark box test, the 2.45 GHz radiation exposed rats elicited memory decline and anxiety behavior. Exposure decreased activities of super oxide dismutase, catalase and reduced glutathione levels whereas increased levels of brain lipid peroxidation was encountered in the radiation exposed rats, showing compromised anti-oxidant defense. Expression of caspase 3 gene in brain samples were quantified which unraveled notable increase in the apoptotic marker caspase 3 in 2.45 GHz radiation exposed group as compared to sham exposed group. No significant changes were observed in histopathological examinations and brain levels of TNF-α. Analysis of dendritic arborization of neurons showcased reduction in number of dendritic branching and intersections which corresponds to alteration in dendritic structure of neurons, affecting neuronal signaling. The study clearly indicates that exposure of rats to microwave radiation of 2.45GHz leads to detrimental changes in brain leading to lowering of learning and memory and expression of anxiety behavior in rats along with fall in brain antioxidant enzyme systems.

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.
The objective of this study was to investigate effects of 2.437 GHz radiofrequency radiation (24h/day for 20 weeks) emitted from indoor Wi-Fi Internet access devices on rat testes using histological and immunohistochemical methods. Researchers observed significant increases in serum 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine levels and 8-hydroxyguanosine staining in the testes of the experimental group indicating DNA damage due to exposure (p < 0.05) as well as decreased levels of catalase and glutathione peroxidase activity in the experimental group, which may have been due to radiofrequency effects on enzyme activity (p < 0.05). These findings raise questions about the safety of radiofrequency exposure from Wi-Fi Internet access devices for growing organisms of reproductive age, with a potential effect on both fertility and the integrity of germ cells.
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).
×