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
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.
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.

I am suffering such pain from other peoples’ wifi that I have to drive out to a wood at night in order to sleep.The pain is all in the middle of my body,my legs tremble,I feel sick and my heart races.I keep telling everybody but nobody cares because all they want to do is be online,they are all addicted.One day people like me will be the only ones left as everyone else will have died with brain cancer.But why should their stupidity and ignorant selfishness be able to inflict all this misery on me,and also on all the birds,animals insects and plants which will all die out too.All that is good in the world is being destroyed for the sake of people chatting online whenever they just feel like it,are humans really this shallow,because I’m not.I feel like I’m living in a terrible nightmare or ‘The Bodysnatchers’ because nobody will believe what I can feel EMFs are doing to us.

In the Lancet article outlining their considerations, that IARC states that epidemiological studies that follow humans who use WiFi and cell phones for a few years are not conclusive. However, rodent studies that follow the animals throughout their lifetime find that wireless radiation does cause cancer or worsen cancer prognosis. The same animal studies also observed other changes in the brain and blood brain barrier in animals that are exposed to the radiation.
There has been no rise in the rate of brain cancers despite a massive increase in the use of cell phones. If cell phones were causing cancer we could expect a significant rise in the rate of brain and other related cancers. According to the National Cancer Institute, there was no increase in the incidence of brain or other nervous system cancers between the years 1987 and 2005 despite the fact that cell phone use dramatically increased during those same years. [6] Between 2004 and 2010 there was still no significant change in the incidence rate of brain tumors. Between 2004 and 2010 there was a slight increase from 209 cases to 221.8 cases per 100,000 people, but this slight increase was attributed to better tracking and recording of cases. [43] During the same time period, cell phone use increased 62.7% from 182,140,362 subscribers in 2004 to 296,285,629 in 2010. [44]
Listeria monocytogenes response to each antibiotic was different, for DOX (doxycycline), and the window response occurred after 6 hours of exposure to Wi-Fi and RF simulator radiation. However, for other antibiotics, these changes were only observed at the ninth hour of exposure to Wi-Fi while this response could not be observed for RF simulator radiation. After 9 hours of exposure to Wi-Fi for CIPR and SXT antibiotics, bacteria had a tendency to become more resistant. This was in contrast to the pattern observed for LEVO, CTX, and CTR antibiotics, which an increased sensitivity was observed.
Want an official word on the matter? The World Health Organization, which tends to err on the side of caution before outright dismissing something as toxic, carcinogenic, or otherwise harmful, is very clear that there is no health risk from radio-frequency communication devices. (Their briefing on the matter is actually a great read that highlights how low the risk is and how even people in Wi-Fi dense locations like schools and hospitals are exposed to radio-frequency radiation at thousands of times lower than international safety standards designed to protect individuals working in related industries).

you really are stuck with “electricity”. How much electricity do gamma rays produce in human body yet so damaging to human and animal tissues because of their high level of energy. it seems any discussion with you is a waste of time considering your demonstrably shaky fundamentals of physics. you appear to be a very good technician rather than physicist of any kind.
The present study was designed to determine the possible protective effects of melatonin on oxidative stress-dependent testis injury induced by 2.45-GHz electromagnetic radiation exposure (60 min/day for 30 days). Lipid peroxidation levels were shown to be higher in melatonin-supplemented group compared to EMR only and controls, as well as reduced glutathione and glutathione peroxidase levels. Vitamin A and E concentrations decreased in exposure group, and melatonin prevented the decrease in vitamin E levels. In conclusion, wireless (2.45 GHz) EMR caused oxidative damage in testis by increasing the levels of lipid peroxidation and decreasing in vitamin A and E levels. Melatonin supplementation prevented oxidative damage induced by EMR and also supported the antioxidant redox system in the testis.
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.  

Safety standards do exist for radio frequency radiation emissions, but these standards are only based on thermal heating effects. That is to say they only consider these exposures to be harmful if they heat tissue. But these safety standards do not protect us from adverse biological effects which are thought to be the precursor to serious diseases. Scientists have already raised the alarm regarding this issue.
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).

There has been no rise in the rate of brain cancers despite a massive increase in the use of cell phones. If cell phones were causing cancer we could expect a significant rise in the rate of brain and other related cancers. According to the National Cancer Institute, there was no increase in the incidence of brain or other nervous system cancers between the years 1987 and 2005 despite the fact that cell phone use dramatically increased during those same years. [6] Between 2004 and 2010 there was still no significant change in the incidence rate of brain tumors. Between 2004 and 2010 there was a slight increase from 209 cases to 221.8 cases per 100,000 people, but this slight increase was attributed to better tracking and recording of cases. [43] During the same time period, cell phone use increased 62.7% from 182,140,362 subscribers in 2004 to 296,285,629 in 2010. [44]
We do have evidence that cellphones (or WiFi) do NOT cause an increase in brain tumors. Look at the time period over which cellphone use became common -- say, over the last twenty years. During that time, the incidence of brain tumors has remained absolutely flat. With over four billion people using cellphones (or WiFi) today, if there was any influence on the development of brain tumors, we would be seeing that by now.
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.
Next up, our Ultrasuede Slide Out Wallet Case! This is a LIFE SAVER. This slim case comes with 5 card slots, a detachable wristlet, and a cash sleeve. Want a different color to match your new outfit? No worries! This wallet phone case comes in 4 different colors options of black, blue, purple, and pink. You’ll never meet another case like it. Hurry and shop while supplies last!
According to an anonymous questionnaire, daily active cell phone usage was divided into three groups as following: Group A, < 30 min/d; Group B, from 30 min/d to 2 h/d; and Group C, > 2 h/d. Habits of carrying a mobile phone was recorded as (A) in the pocket of trousers, (B) in a handbag, or (C) in the pocket of jackets. Wireless internet usage was divided in to three groups, Group A: < 30 min/d; Group B, from 30 min/d to 2 h/d; and Group C, > 2 h/d. Internet usage types recorded as wireless or not.
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.

Hi August and Tech Wellness Team. We at SafeSleeve salute you for your effort to educate and provide solutions for the hidden dangers of EMF radiation exposure from wireless electronics. Like you, we’ve worked extremely hard to provide a practical solution for EMF exposure and, as verified by our independent lab testing, we believe we’ve found an extremely effective and practical solution. While I cannot speak for the other devices you tested here, there are some key points about our SafeSleeve technology that we wanted to make sure you took into consideration:
“Everyone knows that if your research results show that radiation has effects, the funding flow dries up,” Leszczynski said in an interview in 2011. Sure enough, the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland, where Leszczynski had a long career, discontinued research on the biological effects of cell phones and discharged him a year later.46
There is great variability in survival by brain tumor subtype, and by age at diagnosis. Overall, the 5-year relative survival for brain cancers diagnosed from 2008 through 2014 was 33.2% (49). This is the percentage of people diagnosed with brain cancer who will still be alive 5 years after diagnosis compared with the survival of a person of the same age and sex who does not have cancer.
The CERENAT study, another case–control study conducted in multiple areas in France from 2004 to 2006 using data collected in face-to-face interviews using standardized questionnaires (18). This study found no association for either gliomas or meningiomas when comparing regular cell phone users with non-users. However, the heaviest users had significantly increased risks of both gliomas and meningiomas.
Here we studied the influence of microwave irradiation at bands corresponding to wireless router (WLAN) and mobile devices (GSM) on leaf anatomy, essential oil content and volatile emissions in Petroselinum crispum, Apium graveolens and Anethum graveolens. Microwave irradiation resulted in thinner cell walls, smaller chloroplasts and mitochondria, and enhanced emissions of volatile compounds, in particular, monoterpenes and green leaf volatiles. There was a direct relationship between microwave-induced structural and chemical modifications of the three plant species studied. These data collectively demonstrate that human-generated microwave pollution can potentially constitute a stress to the plants.
An analysis of data from all 13 countries participating in the Interphone study reported a statistically significant association between intracranial distribution of tumors within the brain and self-reported location of the phone (7). However, the authors of this study noted that it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about cause and effect based on their findings.
Radiation from cell phones can damage sperm. Cell phone storage in front pockets has been linked to poor fertility and higher chances of miscarriage and childhood cancer. [18] According to the Cleveland Clinic Center for Reproductive Medicine, semen quality "tended to decline as daily cell phone use increased." [19] According to a May-June 2012 meta-study in the Journal of Andrology, "men using mobile phones have decreased sperm concentration" in addition to "decreased viability" of their sperm. [64]
You are eligible for a full refund if no ShippingPass-eligible orders have been placed. You cannot receive a refund if you have placed a ShippingPass-eligible order. In this case, the Customer Care team will remove your account from auto-renewal to ensure you are not charged for an additional year and you can continue to use the subscription until the end of your subscription term.
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.

We did not simply measure energy coming from the front of the case which is the area of the case where the phone would be "shielded" from radiation. If we had taken readings with a directional meter, specifically measuring energy coming from only the front or flap cover where the shielding material is, we assume as the manufacturers claim, that we would have seen a drop in the radiation readings.
The authors of these studies noted that the results were preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism in humans were unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in people (4). Some factors that can contribute to inconsistencies across such studies include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.
I've spent years tackling subjects from urban health to medical marijuana to behavioral science—both as a city reporter for my hometown public radio station in Tulsa, Okla., and as a freelance writer. Now I cover health and food at Consumer Reports. My hobbies include tinkering with computer code and watching trashy TV. Follow me on Twitter: @catharob. 

According to a Mar. 2008 meta-analysis of cell phone studies there is a "consistent pattern" connecting cell phone use and an increased risk of developing glioma, a type of brain tumor. [12] A Mar. 31, 2009 study found that long term cell phone use (10 years +) "approximately doubles the risk" of being diagnosed with glioma on the same side of the head where the cell phone is held. [51] In Apr. 2013 another study of Swedish cell phone users also found an association between cell phone use and the development of glioma and acoustic neuroma - a benign tumor formation on the nerve near the ear. [52] That study’s conclusions were confirmed by a different study in Apr. 2014. [84] Other studies published from 2005-2013 have similarly concluded that there is an association between cell phone use and increased risk of developing brain and head tumors. [13] [53] [54] [55]


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]
Microwave News’s Slesin speculated on potential explanations for the NTP’s apparent backtracking: new leadership within the program, where a former drug-company executive, Brian Berridge, now runs the day-to-day operations; pressure from business-friendly Republicans on Capitol Hill and from the US military, whose weapons systems rely on wireless radiation; and the anti-science ideology of the Trump White House. The question now: Will the scientists doing the peer review endorse the NTP’s newly ambivalent perspective, or challenge it?51
Nevertheless, a group of scientists got together in the mid-2000s, calling themselves the BioInitiative Working Group. This group, which largely consisted of wireless radiation researchers, has written a harsh reply as feedback to the reports claiming that posed no health risks.  The reply lists a wide range of health effects scientists at the European Commission have unfortunately either ignored or dismissed.
×