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]

We’re living in a wireless technology age, but there’s some evidence that exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and wireless devices could increase your risk of certain cancers and tumors. However, more research is needed. In the meantime, I recommend practicing the precautionary principle. Some great cell phone safety tips include:
The NTP study was to be peer-reviewed at a meeting on March 26–28, amid signs that the program’s leadership is pivoting to downplay its findings. The NTP had issued a public-health warning when the study’s early results were released in 2016. But when the NTP released essentially the same data in February 2018, John Bucher, the senior scientist who directed the study, announced in a telephone press conference that “I don’t think this is a high-risk situation at all,” partly because the study had exposed the rats and mice to higher levels of radiation than a typical cell-phone user experienced.50
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).
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]
High frequency, specifically 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi radiation, induces a decrease in sperm parameters along with an increase in apoptosis-positive cells and caspase-3 activity in the seminiferous tubules of Wistar rats, specially in 7-hour group. It reduced seminal vesicle weight following 2.45 GHz exposure. Considering the progressive privilege of 2.45 GHz wireless networks in our environment, we concluded that there should be a major concern about the time-dependent exposure of our body to the higher frequencies of Wi-Fi antenna.

Years later, a study that Leszczynski described as a “game changer” discovered that even phones meeting government standards, which in Europe were a SAR of 2.0 watts per kilogram, could deliver exponentially higher peak radiation levels to certain skin and blood cells. (SAR levels reached a staggering 40 watts per kilogram—20 times higher than officially permitted.) In other words, the official safety levels masked dramatically higher exposures in hot spots, but industry-funded scientists obstructed research on the health impacts.45
Why, after such acrimony, Carlo was allowed to make one last appearance before the CTIA board is a mystery. Whatever the reason, Carlo flew to New Orleans in February 2000 for the wireless industry’s annual conference, where he submitted the WTR’s final report to the CTIA board. According to Carlo, Wheeler made sure that none of the hundreds of journalists covering the event could get anywhere near him.12
“So what can you do? Straighten up, first of all, says Kenneth Hansraj, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon in Poughkeepsie, New York. And carry device at chest height with head up, chest open and shoulder blades back. Move just your eyes downward. And then, take a break. Your neck is not supposed to stay stuck in one position for a long period. If you’re reading on a tablet or phone, stop every so often to swivel and tilt your head — up and down, then side to side.” – 3 Dumb Things We Do with Smartphones, Good Housekeeping; Twitter: @goodhousemag
Performance is good, delivered by the Snapdragon 450, though it might struggle a little bit with multitasking. We found swapping between demanding apps caused the phone to slow down a bit — but it also handled simple games fairly well, and provided solid enough performance most of the time. There are plenty of storage options too, with 32GB available as a base option, and the ability to add a MicroSD card for extra room.
Mobile phones and Wi-Fi radiofrequency radiation are among the main sources of the exposure of the general population to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Previous studies have shown that exposure of microorganisms to RF-EMFs can be associated with a wide spectrum of changes ranged from the modified bacterial growth to the alterations of the pattern of antibiotic resistance. Our laboratory at the nonionizing department of the Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center has performed experiments on the health effects of exposure to animal models and humans to different sources of electromagnetic fields such as cellular phones, mobile base stations, mobile phone jammers, laptop computers, radars, dentistry cavitrons, magnetic resonance imaging, and Helmholtz coils. On the other hand, we have previously studied different aspects of the challenging issue of the ionizing or nonionizing radiation-induced alterations in the susceptibility of microorganisms to antibiotics. In this study, we assessed if the exposure to 900 MHz GSM mobile phone radiation and 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from common Wi-Fi routers alters the susceptibility of microorganisms to different antibiotics. The pure cultures of Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli were exposed to RF-EMFs generated either by a GSM 900 MHz mobile phone simulator and a common 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi router. It is also shown that exposure to RF-EMFs within a narrow level of irradiation (an exposure window) makes microorganisms resistant to antibiotics. This adaptive phenomenon and its potential threats to human health should be further investigated in future experiments. Altogether, the findings of this study showed that exposure to Wi-Fi and RF simulator radiation can significantly alter the inhibition zone diameters and growth rate for L monocytogenes and E coli. These findings may have implications for the management of serious infectious diseases.
The aim of this study was to investigate long-term effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation (24 h/day for 1 year) emitted from a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) system on the testes of male rats. Results showed that sperm head defects increased in the exposure group (p < 0.05) while weight of the epididymis and seminal vesicles, seminiferous tubules diameter and tunica albuginea thickness were decreased in the exposure group (p < 0.01, p < 0.001, p < 0.0001). However, other alterations of other parameters were not found significant (p > 0.05). We suggest Wi-Fi users to avoid long-term exposure of RF emissions from Wi-Fi equipment.

The agency is finally moving to meet the realities of the 21st century and the Information Age. On June 15, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski circulated a proposal to his four fellow commissioners calling for formal review of the 1996 regulations. To advance, his plan must be approved by a majority of the commissioners. If they agree, the FCC could take the long overdue step of modernizing its safety standards. But the pace is likely to be glacial.

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).

was since I had Wi-Fi that it had started so turned it off and after a few days I had improved just to check I turned it back on and immediately I felt the effect and stared feeling ill. I no longer go to my sons as he lives in a block of flats with lots of signals also have avoid shops and areas with Wi-Fi cannot visit friends and family even church, I’ve had to put foil on my walls to reduce the neighbours signals, feel like a prisoner and can hardly go anywhere, really hard when needing doctors, dentist, hospital, council etc. I’m sick of it now there’s no need for so much and one day more people will suffer these affects.

The company's "Researches" page, for example, states that "Aires Technologies are more than 12 years (sic). For this period there have been conducted a number of studies on mechanisms of coherent transformers that effect on physical, chemical, technological and biological processes (sic). The studies were carried out in close collaboration with leading research and academic institutions."
A study by the Corporate EME Research Laboratory and Motorola Florida Research Laboratories tested 9 different cell phone radiation shields, 5 of which claimed to block 99% of cell phone radiation. The other 4 shields tested claimed to emit a reverse radiation that would cancel out the harmful radiation from cell phones. The study found that all of the radiation shields had no effect on the amount of radiofrequency radiation a cell phone user is exposed to from their phone.[2]
Last night unfortunately I had to sleep part of the night near a wifi router, and I felt I was being fried… as if been cooked in a microwave oven (though I never experienced that). I could hardly sleep at all until I moved (into the garden). I felt like my ovaries were directly being damaged, and felt that cyst or tumour growth would start if under longer exposure.
These general findings and data presented earlier on Wi-Fi effects were used to assess the Foster and Moulder (F&M) review of Wi-Fi. The F&M study claimed that there were seven important studies of Wi-Fi that each showed no effect. However, none of these were Wi-Fi studies, with each differing from genuine Wi-Fi in three distinct ways. F&M could, at most conclude that there was no statistically significant evidence of an effect. The tiny numbers studied in each of these seven F&M-linked studies show that each of them lack power to make any substantive conclusions.
Belgium recently adopted new cell phone regulations that bar mobile phone models designed for, and marketed to children ages 7 and younger.  Under Belgium’s new rules, slated to take effect next March, cell phone retailers will be required to disclose phones’ maximum emission levels, known as specific absorption rates, or SAR, at the point of sale.  Belgium becomes the latest in a rapidly lengthening list of nations to attempt to shield children from too much cell phone radiation and to inform everyone about the risks of exposure to these emissions. At least a dozen other nations have taken steps to protect children from cell phone radiation.

“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.


In the Lancet article outlining their considerations, that IARC states that epidemiological studies that follow humans who use WiFi and cell phones for a few years are not conclusive. However, rodent studies that follow the animals throughout their lifetime find that wireless radiation does cause cancer or worsen cancer prognosis. The same animal studies also observed other changes in the brain and blood brain barrier in animals that are exposed to the radiation.
These days it takes more than simply ringing the steel triangle on your deck to round up the kids for supper. Technology has advanced, and the need for a more efficient way to maintain contact with children from afar has only increased, bolstered by their growing thirst for independence and reliance on consumer technology. Despite the fact that cell phones have become the obvious solution for basic communication and contact in lieu of the landline — and to a lesser degree, the steel triangle — they still pose both a financial and safety risk.
SAR stands for specific absorption rate, a measure of the amount of radio frequency energy absorbed by the body when using a mobile phone. The SAR rating of your cell phone can be found in your instruction manual or possibly online at this Federal Communications Commission website. In the United States, the SAR cannot exceed 1.6 watts per kilogram.
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

I am 60 years old, single. I got a tumor on my left breast when I took a bath on Sunday, Sep. 4th. I came to HCM City Medic Hoa Hao Clinic on Sep. 5th for an X-ray then a biopsy test. In the afternoon I came back to have the result, my case fell as ‘invasive ductal carcinoma. Then I came to Ho Chi Minh City Oncology Hospital on September 7th for some more tests: blood, urine, X-ray, mammogram, ECG. Can I drink ‘Ensure Original nutrition shake’ as my students offer me 12 bottles (8 FL oz /237 mL), I am looking forward to your soonest consideration.


Asked for specifics, Foster says it helps to understand how Wi-Fi works. While most people assume their wireless router is constantly sending and receiving information, Foster says these devices actually transmit just 0.1% of the time. “Maybe that goes up somewhat if you’re streaming video,” he says, “but most of the time your router is just sitting idly waiting for something to happen.”
We did not simply measure energy coming from the front of the case which is the area of the case where the phone would be "shielded" from radiation. If we had taken readings with a directional meter, specifically measuring energy coming from only the front or flap cover where the shielding material is, we assume as the manufacturers claim, that we would have seen a drop in the radiation readings.
Consider parental-control tools. There are actually two major types of parental controls. The first is family rules or guidelines that you establish with your children, and the second is technology tools provided by cellphone companies, smartphone makers and app developers. If you do use technology to monitor or limit your child’s phone activities, in most cases it’s a good idea to be up front with them and revisit it every now and then as they mature.

On the basis of current scientific information, ARPANSA sees no reason why wi-fi should not continue to be used in schools and in other places. However, ARPANSA recognises that exposure to RF EME from wi-fi and other wireless devices can be of concern to some parents. ARPANSA will continue to review the research into potential health effects of RF EME emissions from wi-fi and other devices in order to provide accurate and up‑to‑date advice.


Nevertheless, a group of scientists got together in the mid-2000s, calling themselves the BioInitiative Working Group. This group, which largely consisted of wireless radiation researchers, has written a harsh reply as feedback to the reports claiming that posed no health risks.  The reply lists a wide range of health effects scientists at the European Commission have unfortunately either ignored or dismissed.
×