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
The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of 2.45-GHz electromagnetic radiation (60min/day for 4 weeks) on the oxidant and antioxidant status of skin and to examine the possible protective effects of β-glucans (50 mg/kg/day before each EMR exposure) against the oxidative injury in male rats. EMR exposure caused a significant increase in malondialdehyde levels and catalase activity, while the activities of superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase decreased in skin tissues. Systemic β-glucan significantly reversed the elevation of MDA levels and the reduction of SOD activities. β-glucan treatment also slightly enhanced the activity of CAT and prevented the depletion of GSH-Px activity caused by EMR, but not statistically significantly. The present study demonstrated the role of oxidative mechanisms in EMR-induced skin tissue damages and that β-glucan could ameliorate oxidative skin injury via its antioxidant properties.
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]
As with exposure to ‘anything’ sun, pollen, pharmaceuticals, there will be a certain percent of population that is ‘sensitive or hypersensitive’ to wifi / emf frequency. I am definitely sensitive with my husband doing his own control experiment by holding his wifi phone behind by head without my knowledge and me In pain from a piercing wave going through my head. Why is it that it must be all or nothing. There are those who will never be sick from wifi/ emf and those of us who live with it everyday.
Cell phone radiation may disrupt the functioning of pacemakers. A 2005 study in the International Journal of Cardiology found that mobile phones may have "adverse effects" on pacemaker functions under certain conditions. [59] According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), radiofrequency energy from cell phones can create electromagnetic interference (EMI) that may disrupt the functioning of pacemakers, especially if the cell phone is placed close to the heart. [21] The American Heart Association includes cell phones on its list of "devices that may interfere with pacemakers." [60]
In February of 2008, a research study was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. The study, conducted at Tel Aviv University, examined 500 Israelis who had developed salivary gland cancer and compared their level of mobile phone usage to 1,300 healthy adults. The researchers discovered that within the entire group, those who used their cell phone for a few hours a day had 50 percent higher odds of developing a salivary gland tumor.
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.