Electrocardiogram and arterial pressure measurements were studied under acute exposures to WIFI (2.45GHz) during one hour in adult male rabbits. 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, but failed to alter maximum amplitude and P waves. After intravenously injection of dopamine (0.50ml/kg) and epinephrine (0.50ml/kg) under acute exposure to RF we found that, WIFI alter catecholamines (dopamine, epinephrine) action on heart variability and blood pressure compared to control. These results suggest for the first time, as far as we know, that exposure to WIFI affect heart rhythm, blood pressure, and catecholamines efficacy on cardiovascular system; indicating that radiofrequency can act directly and/or indirectly on cardiovascular system.
Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. In truth, the safety of wireless technology has been an unsettled question since the industry’s earliest days. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a massive public-health experiment: Use a cell phone today, find out later if it causes cancer or genetic damage. Meanwhile, the wireless industry has obstructed a full and fair understanding of the current science, aided by government agencies that have prioritized commercial interests over human health and news organizations that have failed to inform the public about what the scientific community really thinks. In other words, this public-health experiment has been conducted without the informed consent of its subjects, even as the industry keeps its thumb on the scale.27

The aim of this study was to investigate the possible protective role of melatonin on oxidative stress induced by Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz, 60min/day for 28 days) EMR in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat. In comparison to control and sham groups, RFR-exposed animals had higher lipid peroxidation levels and lower glutathione peroxidase levels, while the RFR-exposed animals treated with melatonin had significantly lower lipid peroxidation levels and increased glutathione peroxidase activity compared with controls. Results show that there is an apparent protective effect of melatonin on the Wi-Fi-induced oxidative stress in the laryngotracheal mucosa of rats by inhibition of free radical formation and support of the glutathione peroxidase antioxidant system.
Influence of environmental stress factors on both crop and wild plants of nutritional value is an important research topic. The past research has focused on rising temperatures, drought, soil salinity and toxicity, but the potential effects of increased environmental contamination by human-generated electromagnetic radiation on plants have little been studied.
This paper presents the results of a replication study performed to investigate earlier Soviet studies conducted between 1974 and 1991 that showed immunological and reproductive effects of long-term low-level exposure of rats to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (continuous wave 2450 MHz for 7h/day, 5days/week for 30 days). The RF exposure resulted in minor increases in formation of antibodies in brain tissue extract and the exposure did not appear to be pathological. In addition, a study was conducted to replicate a previous Soviet study on effects from the injection of blood serum from RF-exposed rats on pregnancy and foetal and offspring development of rats, using a similar animal model and protocol. Our results showed the same general trends as the earlier study, suggesting possible adverse effects of the blood serum from exposed rats on pregnancy and foetal development of intact rats, however, application of these results in developing exposure standards is limited.
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.

gamma rays produce virtually no electricity in the human body because the actual inherent energy of gamma rays that actually hits molecules is next to 0. for gamma rays to produce any electricity they would need to hit something much more dense – like lead and for you to generate any significant electricity from gamma rays hitting the earth you would need a huge slab of it.
People who say cell phones are safe reference statements by the FCC and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and point to peer-reviewed studies which conclude that cell phone use is not associated with an increased risk of brain tumors or the onset of other health problems. They contend there has been no increase in brain tumor rates despite hundreds of millions of people now using cell phones.
Brain Fog – or cognitive decline, it is noticeable when you feel that your memory has been declining, or you’re having trouble recalling names, or places or events. It is also noticeable if you are having a tough time concentrating. Some scientists believe that the dramatic rise in Alzheimers Disease can be partially attributed to EMF damage and our wireless age.

These studies are not definitive. Much more research is needed. But they raise serious questions that cast doubt on the adequacy of the FCC rules to safeguard public health. The FCC emissions cap allows 20 times more radiation to reach the head than the body as a whole, does not account for risks to children’s developing brains and smaller bodies and considers only short-term cell phone use, not frequent calling patterns over decades.
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]
“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

Shopping links are provided by eBay Commerce Network and Amazon, which makes it easy to find the right product from a variety of online retailers. Clicking any of the links will take you to the retailer's website to shop for this product. Please note that Consumer Reports collects fees from both eBay Commerce Network and Amazon for referring users. We use 100% of these fees to fund our testing programs.
"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."

Foster was Moulder’s coauthor on that 2013 review of Wi-Fi’s health effects. He says that, based on our current understanding of radio wave strengths and risks, world health authorities have set safety standards for all devices and appliances that emit electromagnetic radiation—from phones and microwaves to your car’s keyless entry fob. “The exposure you get from your Wi-Fi router is orders and orders of magnitude below those safety limits,” he explains.
Because of inconsistent findings from epidemiologic studies in humans and the lack of clear data from previous experimental studies in animals, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration nominated radiofrequency radiation exposure associated with cell phone exposures for study in animal models by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency program that coordinates toxicology research and testing across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of NIH.
26. Learn about the potential effects of radiation on reproductive health. “I would recommend that [Consumer Reports] forewarn its readers not to keep their cell phones near their genitals. We have substantial evidence that cell phone radiation damages sperm in males and some evidence of reproductive health effects (i.e., neurological disorders) in human offspring as well as mice for females exposed to cell phone radiation during pregnancy. We also have preliminary evidence of increased breast cancer risk for women who kept cell phones in their bras.” – Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, The 4 Cell Phone Safety Tips Offered By Consumer Reports Isn’t Enough, RFSafe; Twitter: @rfsafe
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.
As a result, it is observed that the long-term exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency radiation caused an increase in the DNA damage of the brain, liver, kidney, and skin tissue of rats, but this increase was not significant. Therefore it is determined that the long-term exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency radiation does not cause the DNA damage of the brain, liver, kidney, and skin tissue of the rats. However it is concluded that the long-term usage of 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency wireless internet providers could cause a potential risk of DNA damage in the testes.
All values were far below International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s (ICNIRP) reference values, but most mean levels measured were above the precautionary target level of 3–6 µW/m2 as proposed by the Bioinitiative Report ….however the ICNIRP guidelines are based on short-term heating (thermal) effects, and are therefore not relevant to decide on the appropriateness of long-term exposure.
Our studies point that WIFI is not completely safe at home near the animal or human body because it employ harmful radio waves. But it is safer compared to cellphone that it is close to our brain during communications. WIFI signals are everywhere. If you switched off your WiFi at night, you are still exposed to the WIFI signals coming in from neighbors but we have a significant reduction of the bioeffects of WIFI with distance from the router. Future investigations will focus on the long term bioeffects of WIFI placed at an important distance from the animal or the human.
“When symptoms are not addressed comprehensively– for example, using symptom amelioration without simultaneous elimination of exposure – cell membrane adverse reaction and damage continue to occur while the patient is assuming the cause of the problem has been eliminated. This lulls patients into a false sense of security, causing them to aggravate their exposures through the increased use of their wireless devices. When the damage reaches a critically harmful level, even the symptom amelioration can no longer be sustained by the damaged cells.”

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.
The purpose of this study was to reveal whether long term exposure (over a year) of 2.4GHz frequency RF radiation will cause DNA damage of different tissues such as brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissue and testicular tissues of rats. Based on the DNA damage results determined by the single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) method, it was found that the % tail DNA values of the brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissues of the rats in the experimental group increased more than those in the control group. The increase of the DNA damage in all tissues was not significant (p>0.05), however the increase of the DNA damage in rat testes tissue was significant (p<0.01). In conclusion, long-term exposure to 2.4GHz RF radiation (Wi-Fi) does not cause DNA damage of the organs investigated in this study except testes indicating  that testes are more sensitive organ to RF radiation.

PURPOSE: MicroRNAs (miRNA) play a paramount role in growth, differentiation, proliferation and cell death by suppressing one or more target genes. However, their interaction with radiofrequencies is still unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted from a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) system on some of the miRNA in brain tissue.
SafeSleeve's report is right up front about showing that they do not test or certify the Safe Sleeve case, rather they are simply testing the material they put into the case in a completely artificial environment, in a laboratory setting, using a signal generator and a power amplifier. Safe Sleeve includes photos showing how the measurements are taken. But that may not be how anyone will ever use their phone.
Studies tell us that the biggest danger with WiFi radiation comes from nighttime exposures; cellular regeneration,rejuvenation, and detoxification is impeded. Notably melatonin production can be significantly reduced. If you really can’t bring yourself to remove your wireless router you can install a simple mechanical electrical timer (see attached image) on the socket where you plug your router in. Then just set it to turn the power off during sleep time.
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.
The most critical concept when it comes to talking about radiation is the distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is the dangerous stuff and includes x-ray radiation, gamma radiation, and some amount of ultra-violet light on the high end of the ultra-violet spectrum. The key element here is the wavelength of the radiation type.

You’ll find no shortage of articles on the dangers of just about anything if you look around the Internet. Articles about how dangerous modern medicines are, how dangerous cell phones are, how dangerous cooking your food in a microwave is, and yes, how dangerous Wi-Fi is. People claim that Wi-Fi routers keep them awake at night, cause cancer, cause hyperactivity in children, and all manner of unsupported and nonsensical claims.
Education.com provides the Science Fair Project Ideas for informational purposes only. Education.com does not make any guarantee or representation regarding the Science Fair Project Ideas and is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage, directly or indirectly, caused by your use of such information. By accessing the Science Fair Project Ideas, you waive and renounce any claims against Education.com that arise thereof. In addition, your access to Education.com's website and Science Fair Project Ideas is covered by Education.com's Privacy Policy and site Terms of Use, which include limitations on Education.com's liability.

ShieldMe  On the ShieldMe site is a message from Wireless Connection CEO Rose Vitale addressing issues with the cellphone industry and she makes some good points.  As far as how ShieldMe works she states, " Our ShieldMe cases help deflect up to 99% of the harmful EMF, RF or microwave radiation emitted from a cellphone while carrying around or when on a call." The demonstration of the SheildMe case shows levels that like the "EMF protection cellphone cases" is many many times higher than levels EMF expert Larry Gust follows as a certified building biologist.   

Outside critics soon came to suspect that Carlo would be the front man for an industry whitewash. They cited his dispute with Henry Lai, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington, over a study that Lai had conducted examining whether cell-phone radiation could damage DNA. In 1999, Carlo and the WTR’s general counsel sent a letter to the university’s president urging that Lai be fired for his alleged violation of research protocols. Lai accused the WTR of tampering with his experiment’s results. Both Carlo and Lai deny the other’s accusations.5
In this study, the effect of Wi-Fi radiation exposure as a threat to brain health was studied using genomic analysis and histopathological study which showed the high risk of its genotoxicity especially in prolonged exposure spectrum through the findings from this study. The genomic analysis confirmed DNA damage due to Wi-Fi radiation toxicity and DNA damage effect which was seen through the RAPD profiles of animals from the exposed groups. The histopathological analyses also confirmed significant deleterious alterations in the brain tissues of Wi-Fi-exposed animals. Hence, the need to exhibit caution in handling smart devices that are used from day to day is fast becoming a threat to human health and wellness.

The RF EME emissions from wi-fi and other wireless devices used for communication are regulated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The ACMA’s regulatory arrangements require wireless devices to comply with the exposure limits in the ARPANSA RF Standard. The ARPANSA Standard is designed to protect people of all ages and health status against all known adverse health effects from exposure to RF EME. The ARPANSA Standard is based on scientific research that shows the levels at which harmful effects occur and it sets limits, based on international guidelines, well below these harmful levels.

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.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of low level electromagnetic field (low level-EMF) exposure, as frequently encountered in daily life (2.45 GHz, 2h/day for 21 days), on the normal adult male rat cornea using histological and stereological method. There was no statistically significant difference in mean corneal thicknesses between the groups (p > 0.05), however there were statistically differences between the groups with regard to the thickness of anterior epithelium (p < 0.05). Results of this preliminary study show that exposure to MW radiation might cause alterations in the rat cornea.

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.

This investigation concerns with the effect of low intensity microwave (2.45 and 16.5 GHz, SAR 1.0 and 2.01 W/kg, respectively) radiation on developing rat brain when exposed for 35 days.  Results showed that the chronic exposure to these radiations caused statistically significant (p<0.001) increase in DNA single strand breaks in brain cells of rat.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the oxidative damage and protective effect of garlic (daily 500 mg/kg during study period) on rats exposed to low level of electromagnetic fields (EMF) at 2.45 GHz Microwave radiation (MWR) for 1 h/day for 30 consecutive days. Researchers concluded that low level EMF at 2.45 GHz MWR increases the DNA damage in both brain tissues and plasma of the rats whereas it increases protein oxidation only in plasma. They also be argued that the use of garlic decreases these effects.

... our review shows that there is a substantial amount of studies which indicate that plants have experienced physiological or morphological changes due to radiofrequency radiation and show statistically significant changes for the short-term exposure duration (up to 13 weeks). In contrast, the results obtained from the long-term exposure studies (two publications using nine different exposures with exposure duration between 3 months to 6 years) support no physiological effects on plants when exposed to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone radiation. This would bring a remarkable point to the discussion about the apparent absence of response to the long-term exposure that may be interpreted as adaptations. On the other hand, phenotypic plasticity of plants will permit them to change their structure and function; hence, plants to adapt to environmental change (Nicotra et al., 2010). Plants are naturally affected by environmental stresses due to their immobility. Plants could respond to the environmental factors of wind, rain, electric field and ultraviolet radiation and adjust its physiological condition to adapt to the change of environment (Braam and Davis, 1990; Braam et al., 1996; Mary and Braam, 1997) .... our previous findings (Halgamuge et al., 2015) indicate that the biological effects considerably relied on field strength and amplitude modulation of the applied field.
In the EMR groups, lipid peroxidation levels in the brain and liver were increased following EMR exposure; however, the glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity, and vitamin A, vitamin E and -carotene concentrations were decreased in the brain and liver. Glutathione (GSH) and vitamin C concentrations in the brain were also lower in the EMR groups than in the controls; however, their concentrations did not change in the liver.
And yet, a lot of people do use these, including people I know and respect. I see people on the subway playing Candy Crush, the cover of their folio-style wallet case folded back, all of their cards just flapping in the wind. And don’t just take my word for it: The Silk iPhone wallet case has nearly 2,000 reviews on Amazon with an average score of 4.5 stars. People not only use these cases—they love them!
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.

†Results may vary. Information and statements made are for education purposes and are not intended to replace the advice of your doctor. Global Healing Center does not dispense medical advice, prescribe, or diagnose illness. The views and nutritional advice expressed by Global Healing Center are not intended to be a substitute for conventional medical service. If you have a severe medical condition or health concern, see your physician.
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?
18. Hang up when necessary. “Just because you can talk in the car doesn’t mean you always should. If you’re getting into a hairy traffic situation or the skies open up with buckets of rain, don’t try to power through it. These hazardous situations require your full attention, so end your call and focus up.” – Taking a Call? Use These Tips for Cell Phone Safety While Driving, PMC Insurance Group; Twitter: @PMCInsurance