The industry’s $4.7 million contribution to the WHO appears to have had its most telling effect in May 2011, when the WHO convened scientists in Lyon, France, to discuss how to classify the cancer risk posed by cell phones. The industry not only secured “observer” status at Lyon for three of its trade associations; it placed two industry-funded experts on the working group that would debate the classification, as well as additional experts among the “invited specialists” who advised the group.38
It is concluded that radiofrequency radiations are genotoxic as they induced chromosomal aberrations in chickpea mitotic cells and the presence of ghost cells is clear indication of their carcinogenic potential. To avoid reported DNA damages in this work cell phones should always be used either for short duration or with hands-free for long duration and they should not be kept in pockets or near body. Laptops should not be used unnecessarily for enjoyment purpose. It must be placed on desk top rather lap to minimize their exposure to human body. Further assay of carcinogenity are recommended on mouse and human cell lines.
Keep it kind. Because people socialize on cellphones as much as online, cyberbullying can be mobile too. Treat people on phones and the web the way you would in person, and the risk of being bullied goes down. Be aware, too, of people randomly taking pictures at parties, in locker rooms, etc. – you may not want to be tagged in their social-network photo albums!

Industry-funded scientists had been pressuring their colleagues for a decade by then, according to Leszczynski, another member of the Lyon working group. Leszczynski was an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School when he first experienced such pressure, in 1999. He had wanted to investigate the effects of radiation levels higher than the SAR levels permitted by government, hypothesizing that this might better conform to real-world practices. But when he proposed the idea at scientific meetings, Leszczynski said, it was shouted down by Mays Swicord, Joe Elder, and C.K. Chou—scientists who worked for Motorola. As Leszczynski recalled, “It was a normal occurrence at scientific meetings—and I attended really a lot of them—that whenever [a] scientist reported biological effects at SAR over [government-approved levels], the above-mentioned industry scientists, singularly or as a group, jumped up to the microphone to condemn and to discredit the results.”44

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.
Cooper's prototype arrived on the market a decade later at the staggering price of $3,995. Designed by Rudy Krolopp, it was known as the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X, or simply "the brick.” Featuring 20 large buttons and a long rubber antenna, it measured about 11 inches high, weighed almost 2 pounds, provided one hour of battery life and could store 30 phone numbers.
Activewear & Athletic ShoesMen's Activewear,Men's Athletic Shoes,Wo...13123 CyclingBikes,Clothing & Footwear,Parts & Access...949 Exercise & FitnessBalance & Recovery,Books & Magazines,Car...7978 Fan ShopMemorabilia,MLB,NASCAR,NBA,NCAA,NFL,NHL...4269 Golf ProductsGolf Accessories,Golf Bags and Carts,Gol...681 OutdoorsAction Sports,Boats & Water Sports,Campi...12549
Question for Dr. Group & Associates. What is the interaction of EMF and vaccines? There has to be a connection, either unintentional and intentional, with the metals included in the vaccine ingredients, how they interact with the EMF and the resultant effects on the human body. As if we were being turned into antennas to in a more enhanced manner, receive the transmissions and output. This could have a connection with the documented and patented EMF behavior modification technologies.

While that’s all scary as heck, I think it’s everything we don’t know about EMF exposure that scares me the most. That, and how seldom EMFs are discussed. If it hadn’t been for my dear friend August Brice, a Tech Wellness Advocate, I don’t think I would have ever considered the safety hazards associated with everyday cell phone use. Or had any knowledge of the subject whatsoever. Let’s be real, this topic has certainly never appeared in the trending tab on Twitter, and I’ve yet to see it spark a viral video.
Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important component of this strategy, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided. Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage—as Carlo’s WTR did in 1999; as the WHO’s Interphone study did in 2010; and as the US National Toxicology Program did in 2016—industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree. “[T]he overall balance of the evidence” gives no cause for alarm, asserted Jack Rowley, research and sustainability director for the Groupe Special Mobile Association (GSMA), Europe’s wireless trade association, speaking to reporters about the WHO’s findings.22
Hundreds of clinical studies have attempted to troll the netherworld of cell phone emissions. To echo the FDA: so far no conclusive evidence exists that proves a health risk from cell phone RFs. BUT studies still need to be done. Scientists have argued that research suffers when forced into short-term constraints. Consumers demand quick and speedy results, a demand that short-circuits authentic scientific study.

The World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer’s classification of wireless radiofrequency frequencies a Class 2B carcinogen includes wireless radiation from any transmitting source such as cellphones, baby monitors, tablets, cell towers, radar, other wifi, etc. The radiofrequency classification applies to RF-EMF in the range of 30 KHz to 300 GHz emitted from any device. Cell phone frequencies commonly start at 900 MHz (with some cell phones having up to 7 antennas all at different frequencies) and Wi-Fi device frequencies are at 2.45 GHz and 5GHz.
Even though a phone is a great way for parents to maintain contact with their children, picking the right one isn’t always easy. Parents must address crucial factors, such as cost and control, while simultaneously appeasing their children with features such as games, apps, photos, and texting, among other things. Here are our top picks for the best smartphones and cell phones for kids, so you can keep in contact with your loved ones at all times (even if they don’t want you to). Consider pairing your chosen phone with one of the best parental control apps or, if you opt for an Android device, take a look at Google’s Family Link for more peace of mind.
Children's Jewelry392 Diamond JewelryBracelets,Collections & Sets,Diamond Acc...4320 Fashion JewelryBracelets,Earrings,Fashion Collections &...43818 Fine Metal JewelryBracelets,Collections & Sets,Earrings,Ne...8298 Gemstone & Pearl JewelryBracelets,Collections & Sets,Earrings,Ne...10329 Jewelry Accessories & StorageBoxes & Holders,Cleaners & Accessories594
This study investigated the effect of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation (2 h/day for 45 days) on biomarkers within Wistar rats. A significant decrease (P < 0.05) was recorded in the level of pineal melatonin of exposed group as compared with sham exposed, while a  significant increase (P < 0.05) in creatine kinase, caspase 3, and calcium ion concentration was observed in whole brain of exposed group of animals as compared to sham exposed. The study concludes that a reduction in melatonin or an increase in caspase-3, creatine kinase, and calcium ion may cause significant damage in brain due to chronic exposure of these radiations. These biomarkers clearly indicate possible health implications of such exposures.
Do cell phones cause cancer? The preliminary results of a massive, government-funded study suggest they could. This makes cell phone safety an incredibly important topic. The early findings in the $25 million U.S. National Toxicology Program animal study show exposure to very high signal cell phone radiation led to a slightly increased risk of malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas of the heart in male rats. Schwannomas are tumors that form in the nerve sheath. (1)
Last, but not least! Our Limited Edition Multi-Card Wallet Case! This is the card holder for phone accessory that you NEED if you have a bit of a loyalty card addiction. With 6 inner card slots, an additional 3 outer card slots and a detailed and durable design, this TPU case will keep you wanting more. Discover the array of colors that this multi-use credit card phone case comes in! Don’t let it split away. Get yours today!
Our homemade demonstration of all the cases uses a working phone. Not the shielding material by itself, but the actual "shielding" SafeSleeve, Pong, Reach,  Vest, ShieldMe, and Defender Shield cases. First we get RF power density measurements from a phone that's on a call and then, in the same location, within minutes of the first reading, we place the same phone as it's engaged in a call into each case and we take additional reading with the meter.
WiFi operates in the 2 to 5 GHz range -- part of the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is in the same part of the spectrum where cell phones operate so I may refer to WiFi or cellphone electromagnetic radiation interchangeably. These are radio waves -- no different from those used to broadcast television programs, except that they are higher in frequency. They aren't nearly as high a frequency as visible light, and no one worries about getting cancer from visible light (ultraviolet light, on the other hand, causes skin cancer, but this is the minimum energy necessary to cause ionizations that can cause breaks in strands of DNA, which is the mechanism by which cancer cells can be created). There is no credible evidence that non-ionizing radiation has any adverse health effects at all. There is no radiobiologic mechanism that could explain such an association -- and absolutely no scientifically valid evidence that this has ever happened.

Whether you’re just running to the store or you’re heading out to meet up with friends for the evening, carrying everything you need is easier with our beautiful wallet phone cases. At Cases A La Mode, we offer wallet phone cases that are protective, stylish, and super functional so you have what you need with you at all times. Check out our wallet phone cases today to find the perfect one to fit your phone and to show off your individual style.
According to scientists involved in the process, the WHO may decide later this year to reconsider its categorization of the cancer risk posed by cell phones; the WHO itself told The Nation that before making any such decision, it will review the final report of the National Toxicology Program, a US government initiative. The results reported by the NTP in 2016 seem to strengthen the case for increasing the assessment of cell-phone radiation to a “probable” or even a “known” carcinogen. Whereas the WHO’s Interphone study compared the cell-phone usage of people who had contracted cancer with that of people who hadn’t, the NTP study exposed rats and mice to cell-phone radiation and observed whether the animals got sick.47

Most smartphones have settings that will help you manage your privacy and safety. You can find these controls through the settings on your phone or through the settings of a specific app. These settings may allow you to limit an application’s access to the data on your phone, including access to your location, pictures, contacts, notes, etc. You may even be able to block cookies and limit what data your mobile browser collects.

The answer is yes, it can.  Will it always make people sick? No. Dr. George Carlo explains that there is most definitely a biological response to what he refers to as Information Carrying Radio Waves (ICRW-energy fields from many wireless devices).  When you're exposed to ICRW  a process of adaptation and compensation occurs in your body.  He has a great program that can help people adapt. 

Increases your Body Natural Energy Against Harmful EMF Waves. Vortex BioShield is Safe to Use, It Protects Your Immune System From Penetrating EMF radiation. The Special Combination of Crystals and Minerals Delivers Safe, All-Natural Energy to Defense and Balance Natural Energy Field Also called AURA Best in EMF Radiation Protection - Slim Design Provides Maximum Body Contact.
Thus far, the data from studies in children with cancer do not support this theory. The first published analysis came from a large case–control study called CEFALO, which was conducted in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland. The study included children who were diagnosed with brain tumors between 2004 and 2008, when their ages ranged from 7 to 19 years. Researchers did not find an association between cell phone use and brain tumor risk either by time since initiation of use, amount of use, or by the location of the tumor (21).
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.
In those cases, however, there are two important things to note. The person exposed to the non-ionizing microwave radiation would be exposed to a very high power dose at a very close range. The magnetron in your average consumer microwave produces about 700 watts of microwave energy, and that microwave discharge is safely contained within the body of the microwave thanks to proper shielding. Even if the microwave was malfunctioning and the shielding was beginning to fail, you wouldn’t even feel anything standing in the same room as the device.

The HPA also says that due to the mobile phone's adaptive power ability, a DECT cordless phone's radiation could actually exceed the radiation of a mobile phone. The HPA explains that while the DECT cordless phone's radiation has an average output power of 10 mW, it is actually in the form of 100 bursts per second of 250 mW, a strength comparable to some mobile phones.[8]

What the study showed: Most published analyses from this study have shown no statistically significant increases in brain or central nervous system cancers related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One analysis showed a statistically significant, although modest, increase in the risk of glioma among the small proportion of study participants who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, the researchers considered this finding inconclusive because they felt that the amount of use reported by some respondents was unlikely and because the participants who reported lower levels of use appeared to have a slightly reduced risk of brain cancer compared with people who did not use cell phones regularly (4–6).
In the low dose, in the low intensity range we are dealing with biological effects which are clearly not linear to the SAR value, they are not linear to the energy transmitted and measured and communicated by the SAR value. So for the low intensity experiments, or the so called ‘athermal’ effects, we are very suspicious whether the SAR value is valid at all.”
Enter: Radiation. Lots of radiation. According to some research studies, there’s enough EMF radiation emitted by our cell phones to penetrate two inches into the adult brain, and all cell phones hazardously heat our biological tissue, wreaking havoc on many parts of our body. Which leads to serious health issues like fatigue, headaches, brain tumors, DNA alteration, impaired immune system, damaged brain activity and a variety of cancers. At least, that’s what we know now.
✅ STOP CRIPPLING YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM: Radiation waves have been shown to attack the human immune system, lowering our defences and making us prone to diseases and ailments. The special combination of crystals and minerals used in our EMF protection cell phone radiation shield will restore balance and increase the body’s defense against harmful radiation.
Anything you can do to keep the phone away from your head will help. (Even cell phone manufacturers warn consumers about this. See the previous post Cell Phone Manual Warnings for examples of warnings from Samsung, Apple and more.) If you hold the phone 2 inches away, the signal is about one-fourth the original strength. At four inches away, it’s about 1/16th as strong. Even better is a hands-free kit with a wireless air tube nearest the earpiece. (A regular wired headset can act as an antenna and make matters worse.)
The frequency of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation ranges from 30 kilohertz (30 kHz, or 30,000 Hz) to 300 gigahertz (300 GHz, or 300 billion Hz). Electromagnetic fields in the radiofrequency range are used for telecommunications applications, including cell phones, televisions, and radio transmissions. The human body absorbs energy from devices that emit radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. The dose of the absorbed energy is estimated using a measure called the specific absorption rate (SAR), which is expressed in watts per kilogram of body weight.
As our video points out: Measurements will vary with signal strength and other factors and that includes ambient energy. I talk about ambient energy in a lot of my videos-it's the energy that's in whatever environment I happen to be measuring in that's coming from a source of wireless energy that isn't the subject of what I'm measuring.  My home is not a lab of course, but fortunately it's always measured very low for RF radiation. 
What a dishonest shit article. There is no evidence that Wi-Fi does anything mentioned here. I read one of your “citations” about its link to insomnia and the study you link doesn’t even come close to mentioning WiFi. Your vague “link to cancer” citation is a local news piece. This kind of shit just reinforces people’s pseudoscientific nonsense beliefs.

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. 

Anti-radiation or radiation blocking or phone shield cases. Do they Work? SafeSleeve, DefenderShield, Vest, Alara, Pong, Reach and ShieldMe  and other EMF protection phone cases claim to block the radiation from your cellphone or smartphone. Anti-radiation cellphone case brands make enticing claims like this: ". . .eliminate up to 99% of the harmful radiation coming from the phone!"
Keep in mind that even if someone doesn’t have access to your phone, it might be possible for them to access your online account. Online accounts can include your wireless carrier account, call logs, your email or social media accounts, your Google Play/Apple AppStore, or iCloud account. Update the passwords and security questions for those accounts to ensure someone else can’t get access.
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.
According to a peer-reviewed Dec. 2006 study of 420,095 cell phone users in Denmark, the results showed a "reduced brain tumor risk" among long-term subscribers. [1] Two other peer-reviewed studies also found that cell phone users had a slightly decreased risk of developing brain tumors. A July 20, 2005 Danish study [41] found a "decreased risk for high-grade glioma," a malignant brain tumor, and a 2005 Swedish study [42] also found a "decreased odds ratio" for developing glioma as well as meningioma, another type of brain tumor.
Of course they’re not. But they are banning wireless communication in nursery schools, because that’s new and parents aren’t entirely sure about what makes it work. Parents are, quite rightly, very worried about how any new thing will affect their children. Some things, like the effect of texting using proper grammar or how more screen time affects attention spans, are difficult to measure and we don’t really know how people will be when they grow up. But Wi-Fi as a cause of cancer or even headaches? We can test for that. We have tested for that. It’s fine.
Hardell had already attracted the industry’s displeasure back in 2002, when he began arguing that children shouldn’t use cell phones. Two scientists with industry ties quickly published a report with the Swedish Radiation Authority dismissing Hardell’s research. His detractors were John D. Boice and Joseph K. McLaughlin of the International Epidemiology Institute, a company that provided “Litigation Support” and “Corporate Counseling” to various industries, according to its website. Indeed, at the very time Boice and McLaughlin were denigrating Hardell’s work, the institute was providing expert-witness services to Motorola in a brain-tumor lawsuit against the company.41
gamma rays are constantly going through you as we speak as are wifi. that doesn’t mean however that you can create much usable electricity from them. you cannot. because the amount of energy inherent in these is miniscule. actually for somebody making judgements about what other people may or may not be you seem to be very ignorant about basic facts.

Although mainstream outlets may ignore the proven dangers, especially in the US and Canada, researchers have identified several methods that can offer a level of defense. First off, reduced melatonin seems to correspond with exposure. Thus, increasing melatonin through supplementation may help offset some of the effects. [16] [17] [18] In animal tests, L-Carnitine provides antioxidant support for nutrients negatively affected by 2.4 GHz radiation. [19] [20]

The 5.93-inch screen is massive, with plenty of room for most games and movies. The Kirin 659 processor is powerful and capable of standing with any other similarly priced phone on the market. The 3,340mAh battery is long-lasting, and kids who like to take snaps (most kids have an Instagram game that’s on point) will appreciate the extremely good dual-sensor camera suite on the back of the phone. The metal unibody is strong and should be fairly durable, and since it’s running Android there are tons of great parental control apps out there. The only real downside is that Honor’s phones do not support Verizon or Sprint, so if you’re on a family plan with either of those two, this isn’t your best choice. Otherwise, the Honor 7X is a fantastic budget smartphone that kids will love.
There is a catch, though: The Internet of Things will require augmenting today’s 4G technology with 5G, thus “massively increasing” the general population’s exposure to radiation, according to a petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide who have published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed studies and represent “a significant portion of the credentialed scientists in the radiation research field,” according to Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, who helped circulate the petition. Nevertheless, like cell phones, 5G technology is on the verge of being introduced without pre-market safety testing.26
Lloyd is correct. I’ve worked in wireless equipment design for over 30 years, from 30kHz to 3GHz, milliwatts to many-watts. In the late 2000’s I personally set the safety standards for wireless charging (WPC’s “Qi” format) after lengthy research. Starting at 400MHz and above, DNA strands can be broken or inflicted with sequence translocation when the applied fields excite mechanical shake, twist, and compression resonances of the helixes. Those would be cancer-provoking damage. Below 300MHz I’m not aware of significant non-thermal biological effects, which explain how we’ve been “lucky” with AM/FM radio, walkie talkies, CB’s, shortwave, and VHF TV not harming people en masse.
Unfortunately, the current state of cell phone radiation research is similar to the early days of tobacco research. It wasn't until 1999 when the U.S. Department of Justice finally filed a racketeering lawsuit against the major tobacco companies for engaging in a "50 year scheme" to counteract any scientific evidence that showed that cigarettes are harmful to a person's health. Is the potential cell phone cancer link the same sort of scenario? Are cell phone companies funding and promoting research that "proves" no link from cell phone radio radiation in an effort to discredit those studies that are uncovering problems?
In a separate study by the same Swedish team, they found more than seven times the risk among people using a cell phone more than 20 years and 6.5 times the risk for long-term users of cordless phones. As expected, most of the gliomas and acoustic neuromas were on the same side of the head, which was usually exposed to the phone. In the 2013 official report on the medical evidence for brain tumors, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that radiation from cell phones is “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.