The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted from an internet-connected laptop via Wi-Fi for 4 hours on human sperm motility, viability, and DNA fragmentation. Donor sperm samples, mostly normozoospermic, exposed to a wireless internet-connected laptop showed a significant decrease in progressive sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation. We speculate that keeping a laptop connected wirelessly to the internet on the lap near the testes may result in decreased male fertility.
Exposure to non-thermal radio frequency radiation from Wi-Fi and cellular phones can disrupt normal cellular development, especially fetal development. A 2004 animal study linked exposure to delayed kidney development. [4] These findings were supported by a 2009 Austrian study. In fact, the disruption of protein synthesis is so severe that authors specifically noted, “this cell property is especially pronounced in growing tissues, that is, in children and youth. Consequently, these population groups would be more susceptible than average to the described effects.” [5] In short, bathing the developmentally young in Wi-Fi increases their risk of developmental issues.
In addition, electrical and electronic devices of all kinds emit EM fields around their working circuits, generated by oscillating currents. Humans are in daily contact with computers, video display monitors, television screens, microwave ovens, fluorescent lamps, electric motors of several kinds (such as washing machines, kitchen appliances [like electric can openers, blenders, and mixers], water pumps, etc.) and many others. A study of bedroom exposure in 2009 showed the highest ELF-EF from bedside lights and the highest ELF-MF from transformer devices, while the highest RF-ELF came from DECT cordless phones and outside cellphone base stations; all exposures were well below International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guideline levels.[16]
International guidelines on exposure levels to microwave frequency EMFs such as ICNIRP limit the power levels of wireless devices and it is uncommon for wireless devices to exceed the guidelines. These guidelines only take into account thermal effects, as nonthermal effects have not been conclusively demonstrated.[3] The official stance of the British Health Protection Agency is that “[T]here is no consistent evidence to date that WiFi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population”, but also that “...it is a sensible precautionary approach...to keep the situation under ongoing review...”.[4]
Low frequency sound wave? what? They are HIGH frequency microwaves, AS IN THE SAME FREQUENCY YOUR MICROWAVE USES THAT HEATS UP FOOD! Please don’t be that guy that has no idea about this and tries to “debunk” something that is literally destroying people’s lives. – And it just simply BAFFLES me how you don’t even read the research done on the matter and boldly claim it has no effect! How ignorant and completely oblivious can one person be?!
The study was conducted on 16 adult male Wistar-Albino rats. The rats in the experimental group (n=8) were exposed to 2.4GHz frequency radiation for over a year. The rats in the sham control group (n=8) were subjected to the same experimental conditions except the Wi-Fi generator was turned off. After the exposure period was complete the possible DNA damage on the rat's brain, liver, kidney, skin, and testicular tissues was detected through the single cell gel electrophoresis assay (comet) method. The amount of DNA damage was measured as percentage tail DNA value.
In September 2014, Californian oncologists reported four similar case histories of young women who had developed breast cancer in precisely the areas where they normally carried their smartphones. What shocked the doctors was that these women were aged 21 to 39 and had no family history or other risk factors relating to cancer. All their cancers “had striking similarity, all tumours were hormone positive… (with) an extensive intraductal component and… near-identical morphology.” (CaseRepMed., 2013).
×