The animals were exposed to an access point (AP) from WIFI device (D-Link DWL-3200 AP with 802.11 g mode and WPA2 network protection) as previously described in Salah et al. (2013). WIFI integrated two omnidirectional antennas that were setup for internet broadcast via wireless at 2.45 GHz. The sham control rabbits were placed under the same condition without applying RF (0 Hz). Antennas of WIFI were placed at 25 cm at the right side near the heart (animal in dorsal decubitus).
The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency radiation. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature. There are no other clearly established effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.
The aim of this study was to investigate electromagnetic radiation (EMR) transmitted by wireless devices (2.45 GHz, 3h/day for 30 days), which may cause physiopathological or ultrastructural changes, in the testes of rats and address if the supplemental gallic acid (GA) may reduce these adverse effects. EMR only group was shown to have higher oxidative stress, decreased testosterone and VEGF levels, increased prostaglandin E2 and CGRP, as well as decreased numbers of spermatozoa. Long term EMR exposure resulted in testicular physiopathology via oxidative damage and inflammation. GA may have ameliorative effects on the prepubertal rat testes physiopathology.
When the Interphone conclusions were released in 2010, industry spokespeople blunted their impact by deploying what experts on lying call “creative truth-telling.” “Interphone’s conclusion of no overall increased risk of brain cancer is consistent with conclusions reached in an already large body of scientific research on this subject,” John Walls, the vice president for public affairs at the CTIA, told reporters. The wiggle word here is “overall”: Since some of the Interphone studies did not find increased brain-cancer rates, stipulating “overall” allowed Walls to ignore those that did. The misleading spin confused enough news organizations that their coverage of the Interphone study was essentially reassuring to the industry’s customers. The Wall Street Journal announced “Cell Phone Study Sends Fuzzy Signal on Cancer Risk,” while the BBC’s headline declared: “No Proof of Mobile Cancer Risk.”37
Carlo sent letters to each of the industry’s chieftains on October 7, 1999, reiterating that the WTR’s research had found the following: “The risk of rare neuro-epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain was more than doubled…in cell phone users”; there was an apparent “correlation between brain tumors occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head”; and “the ability of radiation from a phone’s antenna to cause functional genetic damage [was] definitely positive….”8
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.
The study was an attempt to draw attention towards the adverse effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiations (NI-EMR) in the frequency that is used widely in the field of telecommunication. Many studies have captured the impact of the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz frequencies, however the frequency of radiation in Wi-Fi range has not been much explored. Along with the use of cell phones there is a growing concern with the use of Wi-Fi devices which continuously emit radiations in the frequency of 2.4 GHz. Hence we thought it prudent to investigate the impact of radiation of the frequency of 2.45 GHz. It can be concluded that the exposure to non-ionizing radiation of 2.45 GHz caused detrimental changes in rat brain leading to learning and memory decline and expression of anxiety behavior along with fall in brain antioxidants. The exposure triggered the gene expression of caspase 3 which plays a major role in the apoptotic pathway. The chronic impact of non-ionizing radiation needs to be thoroughly evaluated in humans so that combative steps can be taken.
Children may have an increased risk of adverse health effects from cell phone radiation. According to American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Robert Block, when cell phones are used by children, "the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull," than for adults.  A July 2008 peer-reviewed study shows that children under the age of eight absorb twice the amount of radiation into their brain tissue as adults due to their lower skull thickness. 
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.
Wireless devices run on radio waves. Antennas emit varying levels of radio frequencies (RFs) that at some point are absorbed into the human body. The measurement of absorption, the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), is an indicator of this absorption. What’s the SAR of a cell phone? The FCC requires that all models of cell phones sold in the U.S. fall below 1.6 watts per kilogram. If you’re confused by the complex science, you’re not alone.
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
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.  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  found a "decreased risk for high-grade glioma," a malignant brain tumor, and a 2005 Swedish study  also found a "decreased odds ratio" for developing glioma as well as meningioma, another type of brain tumor.
It’s also packing a decent camera, so your kid can share selfies without worrying about the quality. It’s not perfect, and the battery life might not last as long as you’d like — but Motorola’s TurboPower charging means 15 minutes of charging can give six hours of battery life. Sit your kid down to dinner and plug their phone in, and it should be more than ready to see them through to bedtime. All in all, the Moto G6 is an extremely solid phone that should serve your child well.
I am a certified Building Biology Advocate, a former journalist, mother of nine, and avid CrossFitter who likes to think outside the box. After our family's health crisis in 2008, I learned to ask questions about what's in our food, our water, and our air. I hope to empower you as you seek to live safely in a complex world. Thankfully, small steps lead to big changes. Let's travel this road together, one step at a time.
We actually debated including some links to some of the worst offenders just to show you how outlandish (and unscientific) the claims they make are, but we couldn’t stomach giving them even a penny of ad revenue. If you want to see how bad things are you can search for “Wi-Fi dangers” on Google where, it becomes clear, the page rank algorithm doesn’t always reward pages with the most scientific merit.
I have just received my wifi connection home first time In my life and I can tell you it has not been a pleasant experience since installation. In the beginning my wifi router was emitting horrible smell that made me feel sick and I also experienced some kind of invasion on my body and head I did not know how to call it until the technician described it for me as being radiations. At night my brain was suffering noise and my vision freckles like that of after tv trasmission would end in the past. I do not mean to be funny but this is the best way I can describe it. And the previously described is also combined with noise in the ears. Now the smell is a bit less but it is still there. I am able to sleep but with all that noise in my head. I also suffered feeling as if very tired although I do not know if it was all due to the wifi. After that I am busy looking for safer internet connection but have not found any yet especially after I read about the hazards.
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.
Remarkably, cell phones had been allowed onto the US consumer market a decade earlier without any government safety testing. Now, some customers and industry workers were being diagnosed with cancer. In January 1993, David Reynard sued the NEC America Company, claiming that his wife’s NEC phone caused her lethal brain tumor. After Reynard appeared on national TV, the story went viral. A congressional subcommittee announced an investigation; investors began dumping their cell-phone stocks; and Wheeler and the CTIA swung into action.2
That result enabled the industry to continue proclaiming that there was no scientifically established proof that cell phones are dangerous. Jack Rowley of the GSMA trade association said that “interpretation should be based on the overall balance of the evidence.” Once again, the slippery word “overall” downplayed the significance of scientific research that the industry didn’t like.43
“There are 25,000 brain tumor cases in India’s Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states, and most of them are attributed to excessive use of cell phones, as per a recent medical survey”. Girish Kumar said that World Health Organization warned of increasing risk of cell phone brain tumor and cancer cases caused by the use of cell phones and location of cell towers in residential areas.