In today's world, 2.45-GHz radio-frequency radiation (RFR) from industrial, scientific, medical, military and domestic applications is the main part of indoor-outdoor electromagnetic field exposure. Long-term effects of 2.45-GHz Wi-Fi radiation on male reproductive system was not known completely. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the major cause of male infertility during short- and long-term exposure of Wi-Fi radiation.
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).
WiFi radiation exposures drop off significantly with distance (called the inverse square law). Many routers have a strong enough signal to maintain a connection up to 100m from the router. Make sure you put as much distance between you and your wireless router as you can without diminishing the efficiency of your connection. Remember: walls don’t stop wireless radiation, never situate a wireless router behind a bedroom wall.

Radiation syndrome acute chronic Health physics Dosimetry Electromagnetic radiation and health Laser safety Lasers and aviation safety Medical radiography Mobile phone radiation and health Radiation protection Radiation therapy Radioactivity in the life sciences Radioactive contamination Radiobiology Biological dose units and quantities Wireless electronic devices and health Radiation Heat-transfer
33. Avoid Electro Hypersensitivity (EHS) due to the location of an Electromotive Force (EMF) source. “Don’t wear metal-rimmed glasses when using a cell phone,” advises the Center for Safer Wireless. Additionally, the Center for Safer Wireless suggests that you should “refrain from using your cell phone in a car, bus or train. Metal reflects wireless radiation, and it bounces around you when on a cell phone in this environment.”– Cell Phone Safety Tips, Center for Safer Wireless; Twitter: @SaferEMF

A few years ago, the science regarding links between cell phone radiation and various health ailments was a very emergent science. Even today, most scientists disagree about many of the findings. However, the fact that so many new studies are discovering effects that cell phone radiation can have on human biology, it makes sense to play it safe. If there are no negative health effects, then you're only out a few bucks. But if it turns out there really are serious health issues related to cell phone radiation, then by protecting yourself early, you can protect your health and potentially save your life by getting a cell phone anti-radiation shield.


We asked Dr. George Carlo his thoughts on EMF cases and shielding products, “most offer some protection, some of the time, to some people, because they can alter the immediate electromagnetic field environment around the person,” and immediately emphasizes the importance of “some,” which seems to tell us that it’s vastly unpredictable. “All waveforms in the environment are highly variable and they interact with other factors in the environment that make them even more variable.” This pretty much sums up that the artificial electromagnetic energy universe is vastly unpredictable.

To date, there are a few long-term studies, very few in humans and even fewer epidemiological studies, apart from the studies on laptops with small numbers of study subjects. It is also far too early to generate reliable figures at this time. However, there are indications that especially newborns, children, or adolescents are particularly vulnerable as has been presented in detail by the research teams of Nazırogˇ lu, Atasoy, Margaritis/ Panagopoulos, Orendacˇ ova, Othmann, Ozorak, Sangun, Shahin and Yuksel. The experiments were carried out with rats or mice, in some cases as long-term studies (up to 1 year). In this context, it is important to note that rats and mice used in laboratories have a life expectancy of perhaps two years. This at least allows us to infer that human children and adolescents have to be protected from possible increased risks. In the study of Margaritis et al. (2014), the authors point out that the exposure levels from Bluetooth (0.3 V/m) and Wi-Fi routers (here 2.1 V/m) showed greater effects than cell phone radiation sources with much higher field strengths. This may coincide with the findings of the papers by von Klitzing, which stated that the power-dependent pulse of 10 Hz (1 ms) from Wi-Fi routers triggered reactions. Kumari et al. observed in a study from 2012 that higher levels of ROS in the liver suppress antioxidant enzymes and that lower levels cause an increase. This could be a key to further mechanisms as to how or whether tissue damage occurs or perhaps not. Likewise, the polarization of RF radiation (Meena et al. 2014, Panagopoulos et al. 2015) should also receive additional attention.
This is an animal experimental study, which was conducted in the Department of Anatomical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, IRAN, from June to August 2014. Three-month-old male Wistar rats (n=27) were exposed to the 2.45 GHz radiation in a chamber with two Wi-Fi antennas on opposite walls. Animals were divided into the three following groups: I. control group (n=9) including healthy animals without any exposure to the antenna, II. 1-hour group (n=9) exposed to the 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi radiation for 1 hour per day during two months and III.7-hour group (n=9) exposed to the 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi radiation for 7 hours per day during 2 months. Sperm parameters, caspase-3 concentrations, histomorphometric changes of testis in addition to the apoptotic indexes were evaluated in the exposed and control animals.
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]
Turkish Telecommunication and Information Technology Agency declared that the daily usage of internet is nearly 6 hours in Turkey [15]. Therefore, according to us, Wi-Fi usage needs to get more attention than cell phone usage due to its higher frequency ranges and longer exposure times [16]. Even though there are some studies performed on the effects of  RF-EMR and cell phones on male fertility, there is not so much scientific data about the association between Wi-Fi internet usage and male fertility [17]. Unlike other RF-EMR sources, devices such as laptops and tablets usually stay near the reproductive organs.
Although melatonin and L-Carnitine offer a nutritional defense, they don’t block exposure. And that’s very hard to accomplish anyway. Look at coverage maps from cell phone companies, or notice how many Wi-Fi networks your smart phone prompts for you to join. We’re surrounded and bombarded by electromagnetic radiation. Blocking exposure is difficult but there are a few small steps you can take. For one, do not keep cell phones, laptops, and tablets close to your body. And if it’s not being used, shut them off (your wireless router too). There are also a number of devices available to counteract electromagnetic frequencies. Check out these ways to protect yourself from laptop radiation and cell phone radiation, too.
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]
There are theoretical considerations as to why the possible risk should be investigated separately in children. Their nervous systems are still developing and, therefore, more vulnerable to factors that may cause cancer. Their heads are smaller than those of adults and consequently have a greater proportional exposure to the field of radiofrequency radiation that is emitted by cell phones. And, children have the potential of accumulating more years of cell phone exposure than adults do.
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.

Wireless internet (Wi-Fi) providers have become essential in our daily lives, as wireless technology is evolving at a dizzying pace. Although there are different frequency generators, one of the most commonly used Wi-Fi devices are 2.4GHz frequency generators. These devices are heavily used in all areas of life but the effect of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emission on users is generally ignored. Yet, an increasing share of the public expresses concern on this issue. Therefore, this study intends to respond to the growing public concern. The purpose of this study is to reveal whether long term exposure 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.

This study investigated the effect of 2GHz EMR (1h) on the growth dynamics of Myriophyllum aquaticum (Parrot feather) by measuring the nanometric elongation rate fluctuation (NERF) using a statistical interferometry technique. After continuous exposure to EMR, M. aquaticum plants exhibited a statistically significant reduction in NERF standard deviation, therefore, the reduced NERF was due to a non-thermal effect caused by EMR exposure. The alteration in NERF continued for at least 2.5 h after EMR exposure and no significant recovery was found in post-EMR NERF during the experimental period.


It can be inferred from the aforementioned works that increase in scrotal temperature can result in reduction of sperm motility, which consequently enhances the probability of infertility, lessens sperm production, decreases sperm concentration by 56% [Hjollund et al., 2002], increases ROS, and negatively affects sperm morphology, increasing the number of sperm with physical dimensions different from those of normal sperm.

RESULTS: Data obtained from the One day test showed an increase in concentration of blood glucose, decrease in Triglyceride level and GGT factor (P<0.05), however no observed significant difference on the Cholesterol, HDL, LDL level and hepatic enzymes activities in compare to control group. Groups of the five-day test showed reduction in the amount of blood glucose, elevation of cholesterol level and LDL relative to control group (P<0.05).
Recent research has resurfaced concerns among scientists about a potential link between cell-phone radiation and cancer. But that research—a 10-year, $25 million government study in rodents—left a lot of key questions unanswered. That includes how relevant the findings are to newer wireless technologies such as Bluetooth and WiFi that have become widespread since the study was designed in the early 2000s.  
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.

The HPA's position is that “...radio frequency (RF) exposures from WiFi are likely to be lower than those from mobile phones.” It also saw “...no reason why schools and others should not use WiFi equipment.”[4] In October 2007, the HPA launched a new “systematic” study into the effects of WiFi networks on behalf of the UK government, in order to calm fears that had appeared in the media in a recent period up to that time".[13] Dr Michael Clark, of the HPA, says published research on mobile phones and masts does not add up to an indictment of WiFi.[14][15]
This study was an in-vitro pilot study which established the effect of radiofrequency radiation from 2.4 GHz laptop antenna on human semen. A test of significance between results of semen parameters using Mann-Whitney U- test at 0.05 level of significance showed a significant effect of RFR exposure on  sperm concentration, motility and morphology grading.
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
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. 
Don’t text or handle your phone while driving. Texting or even touching your phone while driving is dangerous and illegal in many states. If you must speak on the phone, use a speaker or headset and hands-free controls. Never text, send or read email or post online and if you use your phone for navigation or listening to music or podcasts, set it before you leave or use hands-free voice recognition.

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.   


Many modems provided by internet service providers are also routers pushing wifi. So even if you bought your own router and use it for your internet, you’re modem may also be pushing wifi into your home. I just ran into this personally. I was helping my mother in law set up internet in her new home. She had a router that she wanted me to set up, but when doing so I found out the modem her internet company gave her was already pushing out a wifi. Obviously, I disabled that and set up a few ethernet cables in her home.
CONCLUSION: The available literature on the effect of RF-EMFs on plants to date observed the significant trend of radiofrequency radiation influence on plants. Hence, this study provides new evidence supporting our hypothesis. Nonetheless, this endorses the need for more experiments to observe the effects of RF-EMFs, especially for the longer exposure durations, using the whole organisms. The above observation agrees with our earlier study, in that it supported that it is not a well-grounded method to characterize biological effects without considering the exposure duration. Nevertheless, none of these findings can be directly associated with human; however, on the other hand, this cannot be excluded, as it can impact the human welfare and health, either directly or indirectly, due to their complexity and varied effects (calcium metabolism, stress proteins, etc.). This study should be useful as a reference for researchers conducting epidemiological studies and the long-term experiments, using whole organisms, to observe the effects of RF-EMFs.

30. There isn’t one cell phone that is safer than another. “Don’t assume one cell phone is safer than another. There’s no such thing as a “safe” cell phone. This is particularly true for industry promoted SAR ratings, which are virtually useless in measuring the true potential biological danger as most all of the damage is not done by heat transfer, which SAR measures.” – Dr. Mercola, NEW Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users, Mercola.com; Twitter: @mercola

×