The recent report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) about the potential connection between cell phone use and cancer is big news to media outposts and the general public. Prior to the report, scientists told us no evidence existed that cell phones were carcinogenic. And now? According to the IARC, research now proves that there is evidence that cell phones might in fact be carcinogenic. The potential villains in this scenario are radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, which are emitted by a cell phone’s antenna, and which the agency says may be linked to two types of brain cancer.
Mobile phones and Wi-Fi radiofrequency radiation are among the main sources of the exposure of the general population to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Previous studies have shown that exposure of microorganisms to RF-EMFs can be associated with a wide spectrum of changes ranged from the modified bacterial growth to the alterations of the pattern of antibiotic resistance. Our laboratory at the nonionizing department of the Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center has performed experiments on the health effects of exposure to animal models and humans to different sources of electromagnetic fields such as cellular phones, mobile base stations, mobile phone jammers, laptop computers, radars, dentistry cavitrons, magnetic resonance imaging, and Helmholtz coils. On the other hand, we have previously studied different aspects of the challenging issue of the ionizing or nonionizing radiation-induced alterations in the susceptibility of microorganisms to antibiotics. In this study, we assessed if the exposure to 900 MHz GSM mobile phone radiation and 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from common Wi-Fi routers alters the susceptibility of microorganisms to different antibiotics. The pure cultures of Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli were exposed to RF-EMFs generated either by a GSM 900 MHz mobile phone simulator and a common 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi router. It is also shown that exposure to RF-EMFs within a narrow level of irradiation (an exposure window) makes microorganisms resistant to antibiotics. This adaptive phenomenon and its potential threats to human health should be further investigated in future experiments. Altogether, the findings of this study showed that exposure to Wi-Fi and RF simulator radiation can significantly alter the inhibition zone diameters and growth rate for L monocytogenes and E coli. These findings may have implications for the management of serious infectious diseases.
Most wireless LAN equipment is designed to work within predefined standards. Wireless access points are also often close to humans, but the drop off in power over distance is fast, following the inverse-square law.[9] However, wireless laptops are typically used close to humans. WiFi had been anecdotally linked to electromagnetic hypersensitivity[10] but research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity has found no systematic evidence supporting claims made by sufferers.[11][12]

I am shin datuin..a radiologic technologist..I never thought that electromagnetic radiation is harmful to our health because according to our studies.. EMR is safe (example:radiation of MRI..wifi..) I became hypersensitive to EMR after using the USB modem (the 4G internet)..Because when you download a file.. the EMR of 4G internet/USB modem boost it’s signal capacity/transmission rate and damages your cells in the body specifically to the brain.. 16 hours or above of downloading will break your immune system to electromagnetic radiation (maybe it varies on your body size)..But after the 16 hours of exposure.. my body inhibits the symptoms of feeling tired.. headache.. dizziness..nausea..fast heartbeat..I felt like someone is touching at the back of my head (occipital region).. So i shut off the USB modem and the symptoms were gone after few hours of rest.. But even now.. i’m having this problem when i’m at the High EMR areas.. so i minimize using our wifi router.. Anyway.. wifi signal or transmission can be setup to minimum capacity..So set it up before it’s too late.. Be safe guys!

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.

Whether you’re just running to the store or you’re heading out to meet up with friends for the evening, carrying everything you need is easier with our beautiful wallet phone cases. At Cases A La Mode, we offer wallet phone cases that are protective, stylish, and super functional so you have what you need with you at all times. Check out our wallet phone cases today to find the perfect one to fit your phone and to show off your individual style.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, appointed an expert Working Group to review all available evidence on the use of cell phones. The Working Group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency radiation and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent evidence from mechanistic studies (4).
The following 50 helpful tips include advice for keeping your children safe when they venture into the wireless world, information about reducing radiation from cell phone use, driving safely while using your cellphone, and everyday safety tips that everyone can use. These tips aren’t listed in any particular order of importance, but they are categorized to make it easy to locate the advice you’re looking for.
Belgium recently adopted new cell phone regulations that bar mobile phone models designed for, and marketed to children ages 7 and younger.  Under Belgium’s new rules, slated to take effect next March, cell phone retailers will be required to disclose phones’ maximum emission levels, known as specific absorption rates, or SAR, at the point of sale.  Belgium becomes the latest in a rapidly lengthening list of nations to attempt to shield children from too much cell phone radiation and to inform everyone about the risks of exposure to these emissions. At least a dozen other nations have taken steps to protect children from cell phone radiation.
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]
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. [68] 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. [17]
42. Limit your child’s time on the phone. There’s much discussion about how much screen time is good for kids and teens today, and today’s wireless devices provide access to all the games, chatting features, web browsers, media, and apps they could possibly consume in a lifetime. Setting clear limits on smartphone usage will help you keep screen time within reasonable limits. “Half an hour of screen time is recommended for children 4-5 years old; an hour for ages 5-10; and two hours for high school aged kids.” – Melanie Medina, Growing up Digital – Cell Phone Safety for Kids, Identity Force; Twitter: @IdentityForce
Radiofrequency radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorized into two types: ionizing (e.g., x-rays, radon, and cosmic rays) and non-ionizing (e.g., radiofrequency and extremely low frequency, or power frequency). Electromagnetic radiation is defined according to its wavelength and frequency, which is the number of cycles of a wave that pass a reference point per second. Electromagnetic frequencies are described in units called hertz (Hz).
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]
In subsequent analyses of Interphone data, investigators addressed issues of risk according to specific location of the tumor and estimated exposures. One analysis of data from seven of the countries in the Interphone study found no relationship between brain tumor location and regions of the brain that were exposed to the highest level of radiofrequency radiation from cell phones (9). However, another study, using data from five of the countries, reported suggestions of an increased risk of glioma and, to a lesser extent, of meningioma developing in areas of the brain experiencing the highest exposure (10).
To shed a bit more light on it – powerline electromagnetic fields have different (though not necessarily better) biological effects. 50/60Hz powerline fields alter ion transport across intra- and inter-cellular membranes, accelerating or inhibiting chemical reactions, depending on the reaction. Also within the reception range of bulk brainwave action. So not the greatest thing for physical and mental health. As you go higher in freq range, the effects become more just thermal and neurostimulative at high enough field strength. From 400MHz on up the issue becomes field-excitation of mechanical shaking of DNA strands resulting in sequence breakage and translocations – not great for cancer risk… for those really bored and curious, read the studies bibliography of IEEE C95.1-2005. I found C95 and its underlying studies to be the most helpful body of work when setting the safety standards for inductive wireless charging.

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. [68] 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. [17]
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…)
An Oct. 20, 2011 study of 358,403 Danish citizens – the largest study of its kind to date – concluded that "there was no association between tumors of the central nervous system or brain and long term (10 years +) use of mobile phones." [39] A July 27, 2011 study found that there was no association between cell phone use and brain tumor risks among children and adolescents. [50] Numerous other studies published from 2001-2013 have similarly concluded that there is no association between cell phone use and the development of brain tumors. [1] [41] [42] [45] [46] [49]

Responsibility for driver cell phone safety is the part of so many distinct factions. Consumer safety advocates oppose telecommunications lobbyists, and state lawmakers seem to avoid the larger issue of driver distractions. But without all participants it’s likely that the cell phone safety debate would lose the thrust required to effect real change. And there will be change.
Cell phone cases can make matters worse because they may block the phone’s antenna. The device must work harder to transmit signals which may lead to  more radiation exposure for the user. (See safety tip #6 for more on the importance of a strong signal.)  Certification testing done by phone manufacturers are done with bare phones with no accessories.
These articles and websites don’t exist because the threat is real, however. They exist because they are a vehicle for turning people’s fear into money. The more people share nonsense articles about the dangers of Wi-Fi (or other harmless modern things) the more people click on them, the more ad-revenue is generated, and the more motivation the people peddling these rubbish articles have to keep creating and promoting them.
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?
“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
These articles and websites don’t exist because the threat is real, however. They exist because they are a vehicle for turning people’s fear into money. The more people share nonsense articles about the dangers of Wi-Fi (or other harmless modern things) the more people click on them, the more ad-revenue is generated, and the more motivation the people peddling these rubbish articles have to keep creating and promoting them.
... 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.
So I am not surprised at all then today to find this article, which just confirms what my body was very clearly telling me already. I am only surprised that more people don’t feel the effects of this kind of radiation in their body, and bother to argue about it. If our whole society (especially western countries) had not become so desensitized, and out of touch with their bodies, there would not be any controversy or discussion about it, anyone could just feel the effects of radiation… and would act accordingly.
This is a stupid article. We get electromagnetic radiation from radios, baby monitors, alarm systems, even the Earth itself. And even if we own none of that we still get it from out neighbors. It’s harmless, after all we been exposed to it forever from our planet. Unless you plan on wrapping yourself in foil you will escape it. Not that it matters, it does no harm in these low doses.
Since the development of communication devices and expansion of their applications, there have been concerns about their harmful health effects. The main aim of this study was to investigate laptop thermal effects caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields and thermal sources simultaneously; propose a nondestructive, replicable process that is less expensive than clinical measurements; and to study the effects of positioning any new device near the human body in steady state conditions to ensure safety by U.S. and European standard thresholds. A computer simulation was designed to obtain laptop heat flux from SolidWorks flow simulation. Increase in body temperature due to heat flux was calculated, and antenna radiation was calculated using Computer Simulation Technology (CST) Microwave Studio software. Steady state temperature and specific absorption rate (SAR) distribution in user's body, and heat flux beneath the laptop, were obtained from simulations. The laptop in its high performance mode caused 420 (W/m2 ) peak two-dimensional heat flux beneath it. The cumulative effect of laptop in high performance mode and 1 W antenna radiation resulted in temperatures of 42.9, 38.1, and 37.2 °C in lap skin, scrotum, and testis, that is, 5.6, 2.1, and 1.4 °C increase in temperature, respectively. Also, 1 W antenna radiation caused 0.37 × 10-3 and 0.13 × 10-1.
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?!

This study aimed to examine the therapeutic effects of a 100 Hz pulsed electromagnetic field (2 h/day for 60 days) on the reproductive systems of male Wistar rats (70 days old).The results showed significant increases in caspase and creatine kinase and significant decreases in testosterone and melatonin in the exposed groups. This finding emphasizes that reactive oxygen species (a potential inducer of cancer) are the primary cause of DNA damage. However, pulsed electromagnetic field exposure relieves the effect of microwave exposure by inducing Faraday currents.
For those thinking that wireless keyboards and mice are OK, these things can put out quite a significant signal and some at frequencies of 2.4 GHz. I have personally experienced terrible symptoms from one of these. The 27MHz analog transmitters are more benign but probably still significant for the electrosensitive, and can probably still harm anyone.
You are being trolled people. This article is so obviously not correct. All of the examples given are so subjective and there are hints in there that they are having a laugh at you for believing this. “When a group of Danish ninth graders experienced difficulty concentrating after sleeping” Come on, really? It wasn’t because they were playing games or chatting to their friends that their minds were too stimulated to sleep straight away?
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]
Five properties of non-thermal EMF effects are discussed. These are that pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, more active than are non-pulsed EMFs; artificial EMFs are polarized and such polarized EMFs are much more active than non-polarized EMFs; dose-response curves are non-linear and non-monotone; EMF effects are often cumulative; and EMFs may impact young people more than adults.
Also of note, in a study by Henrietta Nittby et al (2009), the lowest exposure SARs were worse than the higher SAR exposures. Some scientists consider blood brain barrier effects at these very low levels of radiation exposure (i.e. 30-45x lower than the ‘Top 10’ lowest SAR phones ranked by the Environmental Working Group) to be of equal or even greater concern for the population than the increase in brain tumors from cell phone use that is expected.
There is an alternative approach, rooted in what some scientists and ethicists call the “precautionary principle,” which holds that society doesn’t need absolute proof of hazard to place limits on a given technology. If the evidence is sufficiently solid and the risks sufficiently great, the precautionary principle calls for delaying the deployment of that technology until further research clarifies its impacts. The scientists’ petition discussed earlier urges government regulators to apply the precautionary principle to 5G technology. Current safety guidelines “protect industry—not health,” contends the petition, which “recommend[s] a moratorium on the roll-out of [5G]…until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.”54
Several studies that will provide more information are under way. Researchers from the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Spain are conducting another international case–control study—Mobi-Kids—that will include 2000 young people (aged 10–24 years) with newly diagnosed brain tumors and 4000 healthy young people. The goal of the study is to learn more about risk factors for childhood brain tumors.
You hit the nail on the head when you say that distance is key when it comes to EMF exposure. The solutions you sell will definitely help provide that separation. That said, our products are different in that they shield the user from EMF while allowing them to use the device as they normally would, without needing to hold their device by a rope or placing it in a faraday cage that eliminates signal altogether.
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

35. Check your child’s cell phone records. “Review cell phone records for any unknown numbers and late night phone calls and texts.” While it may feel as though you’re snooping on your kids, reviewing their calling and texting records can help you identify warning signs such as strange calling patterns or unfamiliar numbers that could indicate that your child is communicating with someone they shouldn’t be such as a potential predator. – Help children use cell phones safely, NetSmartz Workshop; Twitter: @NetSmartz
×