10. Your house may be burglarized due to social media. “If you spend any time with social media, (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) You have probably found that you can “check-in” somewhere to let all your friends know what you’re up to, and maybe even stop by for coffee. But if your security settings on the social networks are not set properly, you could just as easily be telling robbers that your house is vacant right now, which they will find most helpful when they clean you out. Sometimes, they will come back in a couple of months, to get this stuff you bought with the insurance money, too. Occasionally, they will look for important documents to commit identity theft. All told, checking-in may be one of the most reckless cell phone safety errors we can commit.” – Cell Phone Safety Identity Theft and Cell Phone Security, About Money; Twitter: @AboutMoney
The FCC’s safety standards for cell phone radiation were based on studies conducted in the 1980s, These studies have long since been rendered obsolete by newer research. Yet for years the FCC refused to update or even review its standards. Instead, the federal agency simply sat on its hands while cell phones became ever more powerful and ubiquitous.
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. 
George Carlo seemed like a good bet to fulfill Wheeler’s mission. He was an epidemiologist who also had a law degree, and he’d conducted studies for other controversial industries. After a study funded by Dow Corning, Carlo had declared that breast implants posed only minimal health risks. With chemical-industry funding, he had concluded that low levels of dioxin, the chemical behind the Agent Orange scandal, were not dangerous. In 1995, Carlo began directing the industry-financed Wireless Technology Research project (WTR), whose eventual budget of $28.5 million made it the best-funded investigation of cell-phone safety to date.4
There is only one legitimate method of measuring cell phone radiation recognized by every major health authority and government in the world as well as by the cell phone industry itself, referred to as "SAR". SAR testing measures the "Specific Absorption Rate" of radiation at multiple depths and locations on the head and body in order to quantify how much radiation is actually penetrating it with and without certain safety devices. You can see a SAR test of the R2L device by watching the video below.
One key player has not been swayed by all this wireless-friendly research: the insurance industry. The Nation has not been able to find a single insurance company willing to sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation. “Why would we want to do that?” one executive chuckled before pointing to more than two dozen lawsuits outstanding against wireless companies, demanding a total of $1.9 billion in damages. Some judges have affirmed such lawsuits, including a judge in Italy who refused to allow industry-funded research as evidence.24
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.
The Working Group indicated that, although the human studies were susceptible to bias, the findings could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone, and that a causal interpretation could not be excluded. The Working Group noted that any interpretation of the evidence should also consider that the observed associations could reflect chance, bias, or confounding rather than an underlying causal effect. In addition, the Working Group stated that the investigation of risk of cancer of the brain associated with cell phone use poses complex methodologic challenges in the conduct of the research and in the analysis and interpretation of findings.
29. Carry your phone properly when you must carry it close to you. “If you must carry your cellphone on you, keep the keypad position toward your body and the back toward the outside to have the electromagnetic fields move away from you, rather than through you, according to Consumerist.” – Lizette Borreli, Teenage Girl Wakes to Samsung Galaxy S4 Catching Fire Under Pillow: 4 Ways to Make Your Cell Phone Safer, Medical Daily; Twitter: @lizcelineb
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency radiation have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and health problems. The FDA, which originally nominated this exposure for review by the NTP in 1999, issued a statement on the draft NTP reports released in February 2018, saying “based on this current information, we believe the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.” FDA and the Federal Communications Commission share responsibility for regulating cell phone technologies.
... 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.
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
The present work investigated the effects of prenatal exposure to radiofrequency waves of conventional WiFi devices on postnatal development and behavior of rat offspring. Ten Wistar albino pregnant rats were randomly assigned to two groups (n=5). The experimental group was exposed to a 2.45GHz WiFi signal for 2h a day throughout gestation period. Control females were subjected to the same conditions as treated group without applying WiFi radiations. After delivery, the offspring was tested for physical and neurodevelopment during its 17 postnatal days (PND), then for anxiety (PND 28) and motricity (PND 40-43), as well as for cerebral oxidative stress response and cholinesterase activity in brain and serum (PND 28 and 43). Our main results showed that the in-utero WiFi exposure impaired offspring neurodevelopment during the first seventeen postnatal days without altering emotional and motor behavior at adult age. Besides, prenatal WiFi exposure induced cerebral oxidative stress imbalance (increase in malondialdehyde level (MDA) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) levels and decrease in catalase (CAT) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) activities) at 28 but not 43days old, also the exposure affected acethylcolinesterase activity at both cerebral and seric levels. Thus, the current study revealed that maternal exposure to WiFi radiofrequencies led to various adverse neurological effects in the offspring by affecting neurodevelopment, cerebral stress equilibrium and cholinesterase activity.
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.
Like their tobacco and fossil-fuel brethren, wireless executives have chosen not to publicize what their own scientists have said about the risks of their products. On the contrary, the industry—in America, Europe, and Asia—has spent untold millions of dollars in the past 25 years proclaiming that science is on its side, that the critics are quacks, and that consumers have nothing to fear. This, even as the industry has worked behind the scenes—again like its Big Tobacco counterpart—to deliberately addict its customers. Just as cigarette companies added nicotine to hook smokers, so have wireless companies designed cell phones to deliver a jolt of dopamine with each swipe of the screen.19
Wi-Fi transmissions consist of sequences of RF burst signals or pulses ranging in duration depending on the amount of data being carried by a pulse(15). The proportion of time that Wi-Fi transmits RF signals is called the duty cycle. Joseph et al.(14) in measuring Wi-Fi in 176 different urban locations (outdoors, homes, offices) found a median duty cycle of 1.4% over all the measurements. Particularly in schools, Khalid et al.(10) in measuring Wi-Fi in six schools found a mean duty cycle from the access points of 4.8%. In our study duty cycle was measured separately for the 2.45 and 5 GHz transmissions when performing the stationary Wi-Fi measurements in the centre of the classroom. The median duty cycle for 23 schools that were measured in the current study was 6.3 and 2.4% for 2.45 and 5 GHz transmissions, respectively.
Researchers at Wageningen University in the Netherlands have reported that radiation from WiFi networks is harmful to trees. Problems observed included growth variations, and bleeding and fissures in tree bark. The researchers exposed 20 ash trees to various sources of radiation for three months. The tress closest to the WiFi source exhibited a lead-like shine on the leaves. The researchers also found that WiFi radiation is harmful to growing corn.
Feelsafe Wireless believes that everyone deserves a phone and being connected through your cell phone today is essential. Having the ability to contact family, friends and employers can make life much easier. Feelsafe is committed to helping low income families get an advantage by connecting them with unlimited talk, text and data that is affordable on the nation's most dependable wireless network.
Critics also attacked what they regarded as the slow pace of WTR research. The WTR was merely “a confidence game” designed to placate the public but stall real research, according to Louis Slesin, editor of the trade publication Microwave News. “By dangling a huge amount of money in front of the cash-starved [scientific] community,” Slesin argued, “Carlo guaranteed silent obedience. Anyone who dared complain risked being cut off from his millions.” Carlo denies the allegation.6
You can search for the most popular cell phone cases and covers, browse cases and covers by brand, and even refine your search by need. Cell phone cases provide a variety of protection. Some people put a large emphasis on military-grade protection, to ensure that all angles of their case are secure, no matter the terrain. Others may desire cases that give easy access to headphone ports or charging outlets, to have access to home speakers or audio cables. The engineering of cases can become even more specific—right down to the beveled edges that raise your screen protectively above a flat surface or the grip finish smoothly designed onto the back of your phone to ensure maximum ease in typing. Whatever your need, Amazon is sure to carry the brand, features, and colors you care about. Check the Deals page regularly to even see some of your favorite cases on discount. Amazon is sure to carry the widest selection of cases; you just worry about carrying yours.
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?
EMF emissions sourced from the various types of wireless pose various potential health risks, ranging from fertility to vision problems to headaches, and severe cases such as cancer tumors. Dr. Carlos's book on the landmark study of wireless energy safety, Cell phones, the Invisible Hazards of the Wireless age, noted biological damage over 15 years ago.
Wi-Fi certainly isn’t going to do you in, but something else you forgot to worry about while you were worrying about your Wi-Fi router might: put that worry to good use and make sure there are fresh batteries in your smoke detectors, that you’re planning on getting a yearly physical this year, and you floss before bed (you know, those things you’ve been putting off that might actually, sooner or later, harm you).
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. 
“If you're looking for ways to limit your exposure to the electromagnetic emissions from your cell phone, know that, according to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduced exposure from these electromagnetic emissions. In fact, products that block only the earpiece—or another small portion of the phone—are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits electromagnetic waves. What's more, these shields may interfere with the phone's signal, cause it to draw even more power to communicate with the base station, and possibly emit more radiation.”
Exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is rapidly increasing in everyday environment, consequently conferring potential health effects. Oxidative stress is emerging as a mechanism implicated in pathophysiology and progression of various diseases. To our knowledge, no report has been made on the status of antioxidant redox systems after continuous exposure to radiofrequency radiation emitted from a Wi-Fi access point in animal model so far. Therefore, we aimed to continuously subject rats in the experimental group to radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted from a commercially available Wi-Fi device. Male Wister rats were exposed to 2.45 GHz RF radiation emitted from a Wi-Fi for 24 h/day for 10 consecutive weeks. In order to assess the change in antioxidant redox system of plasma after continuous exposure to a Wi-Fi device, the total antioxidant capacity of plasma, level of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances, concentration of reduced glutathione (GSH), and activity of different enzymatic antioxidants, e.g., superoxide dismutase [SOD], catalase [CAT], glutathione peroxidase [GSH-Px], and glutathione S-transferase [GST], were measured. In the Wi-Fi exposed group, a significant decrease was detected in total antioxidant capacity of plasma and the activities of several antioxidant enzymes, including CAT, GSH-Px, and SOD (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the GST activity was significantly increased in this group (P < 0.05). However, no significant changes were found in GSH and TBARS levels following exposure to RF radiation. According to the results, oxidative defense system in rats exposed to Wi-Fi signal was significantly affected compared to the control group. Further studies are needed to better understand the possible biological mechanisms of EMR emitted from Wi-Fi device and relevant outcomes.
4. Erase your data with a swipe. “Apps like Find My iPhone and Lost will…allow you to remotely wipe the phone, erasing your personal data and restoring it to its original settings should it become stolen. This will help keep your passwords, logins, and online accounts safe.” – Amanda Perez, Cell Phone Safety Tips For Stolen Devices, ABC30; Twitter: @ABC30