Based on the DNA damage results determined by the single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) method, it was found that the% tail DNA values of the brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissues of the rats in the experimental group increased more than those in the control group. The increase of the DNA damage in all tissues was not significant (p>0.05). However the increase of the DNA damage in rat testes tissue was significant (p<0.01).

“There are 25,000 brain tumor cases in India’s Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states, and most of them are attributed to excessive use of cell phones, as per a recent medical survey”. Girish Kumar said that World Health Organization warned of increasing risk of cell phone brain tumor and cancer cases caused by the use of cell phones and location of cell towers in residential areas.

The cell phone pocket shield allows you to use your earbuds or headphones during a call but at the same time, safely place your cell phone in your pocket, purse, etc. This means you are protected both when the phone is connected on a call or sitting idle. The shield will not interfere with your cellular signal and will not negatively affect battery life.
Purpose: This article is a systematic review of studies on the effects of non-ionizing radiation at the microwave (MW) frequency of 2.45 GHz (2450 MHz), which is predominantly used in WLAN/Wi-Fi applications (wireless local area network) and microwave ovens. Newer WLAN standards also use the frequency ranges of 5 GHz, 6 GHz, and 60 GHz. WLAN, referred to generically in this review also as Wi-Fi, has become the technology of choice for many wireless applications because providers do not require a license, making the service free to users. To meet users’ desire to be online all the time, more and more WLAN antennas (access points, femtocells, routers) emitting pulsed 2.45 GHz radiation are being installed at libraries, hospitals, hotels, airports, railway stations, shopping malls, public places, and in buses, subways, and passenger trains. Wi-Fi consoles are used to play games. Office and household appliances are also fitted with Wi-Fi antennas. Residential routers often contain two Wi-Fi transmitters. As part of its digital learning initiative, the German Conference of Ministers of Education has decided to provide all schools with Wi-Fi networks. The extensive body of research on the health risks of Wi-Fi radiation is generally not considered by policy-makers or in the public debate.

Do cell phones cause cancer? The preliminary results of a massive, government-funded study suggest they could. This makes cell phone safety an incredibly important topic. The early findings in the $25 million U.S. National Toxicology Program animal study show exposure to very high signal cell phone radiation led to a slightly increased risk of malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas of the heart in male rats. Schwannomas are tumors that form in the nerve sheath. (1)

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.
"So Neat...It's OK...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......This is a nice case but when using wireless charging and listening to music, every time a song changes the case lights up and the phone stops charging."
Two wireless trade associations contributed $4.7 million to the Interphone study launched by the WHO’s International Agency for Cancer Research in 2000. That $4.7 million represented 20 percent of the $24 million budget for the Interphone study, which convened 21 scientists from 13 countries to explore possible links between cell phones and two common types of brain tumor: glioma and meningioma. The money was channeled through a “firewall” mechanism intended to prevent corporate influence on the IACR’s findings, but whether such firewalls work is debatable. “Industry sponsors know [which scientists] receive funding; sponsored scientists know who provides funding,” Dariusz Leszczynski, an adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki, has explained.35

But this was not the message that media coverage of the NTP study conveyed, as the industry blanketed reporters with its usual “more research is needed” spin. “Seriously, stop with the irresponsible reporting on cell phones and cancer,” demanded a Vox headline. “Don’t Believe the Hype,” urged The Washington Post. Newsweek, for its part, stated the NTP’s findings in a single paragraph, then devoted the rest of the article to an argument for why they should be ignored.49
This is extremely controversial but we can’t ignore that plenty of animal models indicate that exposure to electromagnetic radiation increases the risk of tumor development. While human studies are rare, reports and case studies abound. One such case involves a young 21-year-old woman who developed breast cancer. What makes this case unique was that her family did not have a predisposition to breast cancer… and she developed the tumor right on the spot she carried her cell phone in her bra. [15]
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.
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

The industry’s $4.7 million contribution to the WHO appears to have had its most telling effect in May 2011, when the WHO convened scientists in Lyon, France, to discuss how to classify the cancer risk posed by cell phones. The industry not only secured “observer” status at Lyon for three of its trade associations; it placed two industry-funded experts on the working group that would debate the classification, as well as additional experts among the “invited specialists” who advised the group.38
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 “ is a sensible precautionary keep the situation under ongoing review...”.[4]

One thing I am totally shocked by is the resistance that people seem to have to believing that something that promotes “Convenience” for them, could be dangerous. I am Electromagnetic Hypersensitive and I am involved with numerous groups of people worldwide who are suffering from the detrimental effects of wireless radiation. These groups are growing substantially as people become more and more aware that their health issues can be traced back to consistent exposure to microwave radiation that has NO proven record or research to prove its safety. From my own experience, placed in a Wi-Fi field, every muscle in my body contracts like I’m being electrocuted, lumps begin to form from the effect of blood thickening, I get massive headaches, chest pain (the heart struggling due to sticky red blood cells), and eventually total paralysis from the severe fatigue that even makes it hard to breath. So many people are suffering from illnesses they haven’t even traced back to Wi-Fi but if they succeed at globalizing it, I’m sure you’ll all find out eventually as you accumulate the effects. Thank you Dr Edward Group for posting this invaluable information.
In the EMR groups, lipid peroxidation levels in the brain and liver were increased following EMR exposure; however, the glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity, and vitamin A, vitamin E and -carotene concentrations were decreased in the brain and liver. Glutathione (GSH) and vitamin C concentrations in the brain were also lower in the EMR groups than in the controls; however, their concentrations did not change in the liver.
We investigated the long-term effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from Wi-Fi systems on hearing. Sixteen Wistar albino rats were divided equally into two groups: sham control and exposure groups. The rats in the experimental group were exposed to 2.4 GHz RFR emitted from a Wi-Fi generator for 24 h/day for one year. The same procedure was applied to the rats in the sham group, except that the Wi-Fi generator was turned off. All groups were kept in Faraday cages during the 12 months to eliminate external electromagnetic fields. The distance between the Wi-Fi generator antenna and the exposure cages was 50 cm. Pre-exposure distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) of all rats were measured at the beginning, 6th and 12th months of the study. The DPOAE values of the sham, baseline and exposure groups were compared statistically. For the 6000 Hz hearing frequency, the DPOAE values in the exposure group were lower than those in the sham group (p < 0.05). Similarly, the 6000 Hz hearing frequency values obtained at the end of the 12th month were also lower than the baseline and 6-month values in the exposure group (p < 0.05). In contrast, the DPOAE values at the 6th and 12th months of exposure for the 2000 Hz hearing frequency were higher than the baseline value (p < 0.05). These results indicated that 12 months of RFR (24 h/day) at 50 cm from a 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi source can affect hearing. However, further studies are necessary.
*The ability to browse the internet (for tweens and teens that have access to the internet on their cell phone) opens up an entirely new area of safety concerns. Not only can kids search the web more discreetly, most parents do not view this activity as of much of a risk as they do allowing their kids to search on a regular computer. The fact is, the dangers are just as real and even worse when you consider that with a smart phone, kids can search the internet outside of the watchful eye of parents while using their cell phone in school.
I've spent years tackling subjects from urban health to medical marijuana to behavioral science—both as a city reporter for my hometown public radio station in Tulsa, Okla., and as a freelance writer. Now I cover health and food at Consumer Reports. My hobbies include tinkering with computer code and watching trashy TV. Follow me on Twitter: @catharob. 
This study was an in-vitro pilot study which established the effect of radiofrequency radiation from 2.4 GHz laptop antenna on human semen. A test of significance between results of semen parameters using Mann-Whitney U- test at 0.05 level of significance showed a significant effect of RFR exposure on  sperm concentration, motility and morphology grading.

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.