What the study showed: Self-reported cell phone use was not associated with an increased risk of glioma, meningioma, or non-central nervous system tumors. Although the original published findings reported an association with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma (14), this association disappeared after additional years of follow-up of the cohort (15).
Since children’s skulls are thinner than adults’ and their nervous systems are still developing, researchers believe they may be at a greater risk for cell phone-related cancers. They’ll also be exposed to the potentially harmful radiation significantly longer than their parents’ generation. Until more is known about the possible carcinogenic effects of cell phone use, curb your kids’ cell phone habits by encouraging texting or using a landline instead—if they can actually recognize a landline anymore, that is.
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
This study aimed to investigate the effect of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation (12 h/day for 30 days) on multisensory integration in male rats. Results demonstrated that rats in Wi-Fi exposure groups could not discriminate significantly between the novel and familiar objects in any of the standard SOR, tactile SOR, visual SOR, and CMOR tests and the expression of M1 receptors increased following Wi-Fi exposure. In conclusion, results of this study showed that chronic exposure to Wi-Fi electromagnetic waves might impair both unimodal and cross-modal encoding of information.

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.
Depends on if you have other sources present in your home as well. Cordless home phone+base station, Smart Meter, Non-eco Wifi-Router (Eco will reduce the 10 pulses to 1 pulse per second on your Router, even when it has no connected devices.) An ethernetcable will work great, but make sure to disable the active wifi connection on your Laptop or Pc.
Shopping links are provided by eBay Commerce Network and Amazon, which makes it easy to find the right product from a variety of online retailers. Clicking any of the links will take you to the retailer's website to shop for this product. Please note that Consumer Reports collects fees from both eBay Commerce Network and Amazon for referring users. We use 100% of these fees to fund our testing programs.

My son likes to listen to music when he sleeps. He subscribes to Spotify, and has his playlists downloaded to his phone. He now uses airplane mode at night & uses Spotify this way–but of course he sleeps w/ his phone. (He also sleeps in a basement.) Is this still dangerous? If so, what do you suggest he do to be able to listen to continuous music safely at night? He is 21 and resistant to put down the phone… but he does listen, esp. if others (esp non-Mom others!), particularly “professionals” give solid researched reasons. I am going to print this article and share it with him. (My other 3 teenagers don’t have an issue and several don’t even have a phone… but he’s my firstborn, and more into the phone…)
Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important component of this strategy, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided. Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage—as Carlo’s WTR did in 1999; as the WHO’s Interphone study did in 2010; and as the US National Toxicology Program did in 2016—industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree. “[T]he overall balance of the evidence” gives no cause for alarm, asserted Jack Rowley, research and sustainability director for the Groupe Special Mobile Association (GSMA), Europe’s wireless trade association, speaking to reporters about the WHO’s findings.22
“There is a carcinogenic effect,” announced Ron Melnick, the designer of the study. Male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation developed cancer at a substantially higher rate, though the same effect was not seen in female rats. Rats exposed to radiation also had lower birth rates, higher infant mortality, and more heart problems than those in the control group. The cancer effect occurred in only a small percentage of the rats, but that small percentage could translate into a massive amount of human cancers. “Given the extremely large number of people who use wireless communications devices, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease…could have broad implications for public health,” the NTP’s draft report explained.48
Although recall bias is minimized in studies such as COSMOS that link participants to their cell phone records, such studies face other problems. For example, it is impossible to know who is using the listed cell phone or whether that individual also places calls using other cell phones. To a lesser extent, it is not clear whether multiple users of a single phone, for example family members who may share a device, will be represented on a single phone company account. Additionally, for many long-term cohort studies, participation tends to decline over time.
In those cases, however, there are two important things to note. The person exposed to the non-ionizing microwave radiation would be exposed to a very high power dose at a very close range. The magnetron in your average consumer microwave produces about 700 watts of microwave energy, and that microwave discharge is safely contained within the body of the microwave thanks to proper shielding. Even if the microwave was malfunctioning and the shielding was beginning to fail, you wouldn’t even feel anything standing in the same room as the device.
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.
In the spirit of adventure, I tried the snazzy TwelveSouth case pictured in this post, and I admit, there were some things I liked. I got very used to not carrying around a bulk in my back pocket. I even put my keycard for the office in it, and it felt very futuristic to unlock the office door by holding my phone up to the fob sensor. But in the end, I took the case off before a trip. It just seemed too foolish to risk losing everything at once.

"So nice...Love it...Well what I have to say, may be just that I love this case, love the LED on the front I can even customize it to either names or images whatever I like, I have to say that I recommend this case may be the price when I get it was to expensive now I think the price worth it, protect my phone pretty well actually I have drop it couple of times already and there is only a hit on corners of the case and my phone like nothing happened......I really liked this case when I first got it but it does not protect your phone, Phone pops out of the case a lot or even when it just drops gently on the bed."
This study aimed to investigate the major cause of male infertility during short- (1h/day for 2 months) and long-term (7h/day for 2 months) exposure of 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi radiation. Both 1-hour and 7-hour groups showed a decrease in sperm parameters in a time dependent pattern and the number of apoptosis-positive cells and caspase-3 activity increased in the seminiferous tubules of exposed rats. The seminal vesicle weight reduced significantly in both1-hour or 7-hour groups in comparison to the control group. Researchers concluded that there should be a major concern regarding the time dependent exposure of whole-body to the higher frequencies of Wi-Fi networks existing in the vicinity of our living places.
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. 
Studies by five independent research groups regarding cell phones and brain tumors have revealed significantly increased risks of a benign tumour of the cranial nerve supplying the ear. This grows slowly and must be removed in a major operation that can result in permanent facial paralysis. Other risks found were cancer of the glial cells (including neurons) of the nervous system and cancer of the meninges, the membrane covering the brain and spinal cord.
×