HEy Guys!! i recently moved to my fiancee place and its a huge buidling with 36floors ..when i turn on my wifi on my phone it shows me like 30wifi options around me:((( i am gonna write a letter for all the people living in the bulding to turn it off at least for the night when they go to sleep….do you have any idea how should i formulate it or what should i write so it doesnt sound like i am telling them what to do…i just wanna educate them what it does to the body..i live in manhattan and the city is toxic..so it would be great to have home that is EMF free:(( thanks for the ideas!!
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]
Kitchen & DiningBakeware,Coffee, Tea, & Espresso,Cookboo...30724 LuggageBackpacks,Briefcases & Laptop Bags,Carry...6386 Mattresses & AccessoriesMattress Toppers & Pads,Mattresses527 Office & School SuppliesDesk Accessories,Home Office Furniture,N...21088 Outdoor DécorDoormats, Flags & Wind Chimes,Lighting,P...17817 Patio & GardenBird Feeders & Food,Fire Pits & Outdoor...29239 Seasonal DécorChristmas,Easter,General Seasons,Hallowe...14663 Storage & OrganizationBathroom Storage,Closet Storage,Entryway...15842
The FCC provides information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cell phones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds with the relative amount of radiofrequency radiation absorbed by the head of a cell phone user (47). Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCC’s ID search form.
We aimed to investigate the protective effects of melatonin and 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation (60 min/day for 30 days) on brain and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neuron antioxidant redox system, Ca(2+) influx, cell viability and electroencephalography (EEG) records in the rat. Lipid peroxidation (LP), cell viability and cytosolic Ca(2+) values in DRG neurons were higher in EMR-exposed groups than in controls, although their concentrations were increased by melatonin, 2-aminoethyldiphenyl borinate (2-APB), diltiazem and verapamil supplementation. Lower numbers of EEG spikes were recorded in EMR+melatonin groups than in EMR only, while brain cortex vitamin E concentrations were higher in the melatonin-supplemented group. In conclusion, Melatonin supplementation in DRG neurons and brain seems to have protective effects on the 2.45 GHz-induced increase Ca(2+) influx, EEG records and cell viability of the hormone through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels.

The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation (24h/day for 12 months) emitted from a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) system on some of the miRNA in brain tissue in male rats. The results revealed that long-term exposure of RFR radiation can alter expression of some of the miRNAs, indicating that this type of exposure may lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative diseases originated from the alteration of some miRNA expression and more studies should be devoted to the effects of RF radiation on miRNA expression levels.

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]


Present study was under taken to predict the possible DNA damages (genotoxicity) and carcinogenicity caused by radiofrequency radiations (RF) to living tissue. Dry seeds of chickpea were treated with GSM cell phone (900 MHz) and laptop (3.31 GHz) as RF source for 24 and 48 h. Untreated seeds were used as (0 h) negative control and Gamma rays (250 Gray) as positive control. Plant chromosomal aberration assay was used as genotoxicity marker. All the treatment of RF inhibits seed germination percentage. 48 h laptop treatment has the most negative effect as compared to untreated control. A decrease was observed in mitotic index (M.I) and increase in abnormality index (A.I) with the increase in exposure duration and frequency in (Hz). Cell membrane damages were also observed only in 48 h exposure of cell phone and laptop (RF). Maximum nuclear membrane damages and ghost cells were again recorded in 48 h exposure of cell phone and laptop. The radiofrequency radiations (900 MHz and 3.31 GHz) are only genotoxic as they induce micronuclei, bi-nuclei, multi-nuclei and scattered nuclei but could be carcinogenic as 48 h incubation of RF induced fragmentation and ghost cells. Therefore cell phones and laptop should not be used unnecessarily to avoid possible genotoxic and carcinogenic effects.
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.
Niels Kuster, a Swiss engineer, initially filed a conflict-of-interest statement affirming only that his research group had taken money from “various governments, scientific institutions and corporations.” But after Kuster co-authored a summary of the WHO’s findings in The Lancet Oncology, the medical journal issued a correction expanding on Kuster’s conflict-of-interest statement, noting payments from the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, Motorola, Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung, Sony, GSMA, and Deutsche Telekom. Nevertheless, Kuster participated in the entire 10 days of deliberations.39
RF Safe methodologies for shielding the cell phone radiation only use technologies to deflect radiation which is directed towards the user’s body and will not cause the phone to increase output power. RF Safe’s technical goal is only blocking RF radiation that your body would have absorbed (line-of-sight radiation, in relationship to the device itself and your body) — radiation absorbed into your body wasn’t helping the cell tower connection or your health either. Keeping this in mind, only the front shielded part of the phone should be facing your body at all times.
US government agencies conclude there is no scientific evidence proving that cell phones cause cancer or other health problems. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), [4] US Government Accountability Office (GAO), [5] and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), [47] have all concluded that there is no evidence in the scientific literature proving that cell phones cause brain tumors or other health problems. According to the FDA, "attempts to replicate and confirm the few studies that did show a connection [between cell phone radiation and head tumors] have failed." [69]
Not only are these devices of radically different operating powers, but they are equally at the mercy of the Inverse-square law. The Inverse-square law is a physical law which states that the quantity or intensity of linear-wave radiation is directly inverse to the distance the observing/affected body is from the source of the radiation. In the illustration above, you can see how the further the given area (A) is from the source of the radiation (S), the less exposure it receives. This law applies to radio, microwaves, visible light, and all manner of waves we experience around us in the natural world.

✝✝With PromoCode, We Pay Your Sales Tax Obligations in California, Arizona, Washington, and Georgia. Sales tax is included in the price in Nevada and Texas. Sales Tax Collected and Remitted Pursuant to Applicable State Law. Offer Valid for In-Store and Online Purchases in California, Arizona, Washington, Georgia, Texas and Nevada. Offer Not Valid in Indiana, Illinois, Oregon, and Tennessee. Offer not valid for shipping for the Processor and Gaming Console categories. Click here to get your Instant PromoCode


The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of  prenatal and postnatal 2450 MHz electromagnetic field exposure (1hy/day from intrauterine or postnatal period) on the growth and development of female Wistar rats. Birth masses of the groups were similar (p > 0.05), however mass gain per day was significantly lower and the puberty was significantly later in the prenatal group. Brain and ovary TOS and OSI values in the prenatal group were significantly increased (p < 0.05) compared to the control group and serum LH levels of the prenatal and postnatal groups were increased, although serum FSH, and E2 values did not differ among the groups (p > 0.05). Histological examinations of the specimens revealed no statistically significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). Exposure to 2450 MHz EMF, particularly in the prenatal period, resulted in postnatal growth restriction and delayed puberty in female Wistar rats. Increased TOS and OSI values in the brain and ovary tissues can be interpreted as a sign of chronic stress induced by EMF.

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. 


When a group of Danish ninth graders experienced difficulty concentrating after sleeping with their cell phones by their head, they performed an experiment to test the effect of wireless Wi-Fi routers on garden cress. One set of plants was grown in a room free of wireless radiation; the other group grew next to two routers that released the same amount of radiation as a cell phone. The results? The plants nearest the radiation didn’t grow. [6]
Joel Moskowitz (@berkeleyprc) of the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health, US, says: “This is the largest technological experiment in the history of our species, with potential health risks we still know next to nothing about.” This view is shared by Denis Henshaw, professor of human radiation effects at Bristol University, UK, who said: “Vast numbers of people are using cell phones and this could be a time bomb of health problems.”
×