Trouble Sleeping – This one is extremely common, as peoples bedrooms have become a hotbed for EMF radiation. From cell-phones next to the bed, metal spring mattresses acting as antennas, to the WiFi in our homes, EMF radiation while we sleep is extremely common. In fact, I wrote a whole article about how to rid your bedroom of EMFs and finally get a restful nights sleep, check it out here.
RESULTS: Our data showed that the weight gain in the WI-FI exposed group was significantly lower than the control group (p<0.05). Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) exposed group showed hyperglycemia. Plasma insulin level and glucose-stimulated insulin secretion from pancreatic islet were significantly reduced in the Wi-Fi exposed group. EMR emitted from Wi-Fi caused a significant increase in lipid peroxidation and a significant decrease in GSH level, SOD and GPx activities of the pancreas.

Merely injecting us with vaccines and their toxic metals is one thing. Then EMF out there is another. However, putting the two together, what do we have? Now let’s look at the push to increased the saturation in the environment with cell towers in and around school grounds with mandatory vaccinations for kids. Makes you wonder. The general population is encourage to get vaccines while SmartMeters, the ubiquity of WiFi and cell phones surround us.
Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) are invisible. You can’t see, touch, or feel them, but doesn’t mean they’re not there. As awareness about possible negative effects of wireless energy grows, curiosity simultaneously rises. More and more people ask me about how far they need to be and where the optimal placement is of their routers are for they’re health and safety.

Users of wireless devices are typically exposed for much longer periods than for mobile phones and the strength of wireless devices is not significantly less. Whereas a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) mobile phone can range from 21 dBm (125 mW) for Power Class 4 to 33 dBm (2W) for Power class 1, a wireless router can range from a typical 15 dBm (30 mW) strength to 27 dBm (500 mW) on the high end.[6]
This study elucidates the effect of short (15 days) and long-term (30 and 60 days) low level 2.45 GHz MW radiation induced local stress on the hippocampal spatial memory formation pathway in adult male mice. Researchers observed that 2.45 GHz MW irradiated mice showed slow learning and significantly increased number of working and reference memory errors in RAM task. Further, 2.45 GHz MW radiation exposure increases serum corticosterone level and the expression of CRH, CRH-R1 and i-NOS, while the expression of iGluRs, n-NOS, PSD-95, PKCε, PKA, ERK-p-ERK, CREB and p-CREB decreases in above mentioned hippocampal subregions in a duration dependent manner. “Our findings led us to conclude that 2.45 GHz MW radiation exposure induced local stress suppresses signaling mechanism(s) of hippocampal memory formation.”

Even so, the industry’s neutralizing of the safety issue has opened the door to the biggest, most hazardous prize of all: the proposed revolutionary transformation of society dubbed the “Internet of Things.” Lauded as a gigantic engine of economic growth, the Internet of Things will not only connect people through their smartphones and computers but will connect those devices to a customer’s vehicles and home appliances, even their baby’s diapers—all at speeds faster than can currently be achieved.25
The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation (2 h/day for 35 days) on the male rat brain. MWR-exposed rats showed significantly increased comet head, tail length and tail movement, as well as decrease of antioxidant enzymes. Researchers conclude that the chronic exposure to these radiations may cause significant damage to brain, which may be an indication of possible tumour promotion.
When it comes to cell phones, scientists have looked at findings from animal research and cells in test tubes exposed to RF radiation in a lab, as well as observational studies in humans. These human studies have tried to see whether heavy users of cell phones have higher rates of brain cancers and other health problems compared with people who use cell phones less often.
I’m so glad I stumbled on this article as I thought I was the only one around my area that gets badly affected by Wi-Fi signals. It started when I used to visit my son I would get heart palpitations and my throat felt like it was tightening up, after leaving it would eventually calm down but every time I went it got worse. I then also got Wi-Fi and was really ill for about eight weeks felt like I was slowly being poisoned, tight throat, palpitations, weakness and really bad sleep, just felt like I was dying. I then realised it
"S8 Good...Love it...Dropped it a few times no cracks with rhis case so far, cool leds tell time or do a little dance of music whenever you do close it, it saves my battery as well because ir prevenrs the screen from turning on when rhe case is on which prevents always on display...It's a great case, the led notifications and functions are handy, it protects the phone really well; the problem is that we bought Dex and having to remove the case to be able to use Dex with my phone is a bummer; if not this will be a 5 stars review."
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 levels are tested and certified to remain within levels deemed safe by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC sets the maximum amount of thermal radiation (heat) that cell phones are permitted to emit. [3] This limit is measured as the amount of radiation absorbed by a user and is known as the specific absorption rate (SAR). In 1996 the SAR for cell phone radiation was set at a maximum of 1.6 watts of energy absorbed per kilogram of body weight. Manufactures of cell phones must test their products to ensure that they meet this standard. Random tests of phones on the market by FCC scientists further ensure that radiation levels meet FCC guidelines. [48]
AAP also advocates for more research into the human health impacts of cell phone radiation, particularly when it comes to children. One current problem? Federal Communications Commission tests used to determine cell phone radiation is based on the devices’ possible effect on large adults — not kids. Children’s skulls are thinner and can absorb more radiation (4)

While that’s all scary as heck, I think it’s everything we don’t know about EMF exposure that scares me the most. That, and how seldom EMFs are discussed. If it hadn’t been for my dear friend August Brice, a Tech Wellness Advocate, I don’t think I would have ever considered the safety hazards associated with everyday cell phone use. Or had any knowledge of the subject whatsoever. Let’s be real, this topic has certainly never appeared in the trending tab on Twitter, and I’ve yet to see it spark a viral video.
gamma rays are constantly going through you as we speak as are wifi. that doesn’t mean however that you can create much usable electricity from them. you cannot. because the amount of energy inherent in these is miniscule. actually for somebody making judgements about what other people may or may not be you seem to be very ignorant about basic facts.
Disclaimer: The content of this website is based on research conducted by TTAC Publishing, LLC, unless otherwise noted. The information is presented for educational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose or prescribe for any medical or psychological condition, nor to prevent, treat, mitigate or cure such conditions. The information contained herein is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a doctor or qualified healthcare professional. Therefore, this information is not intended as medical advice, but rather a sharing of knowledge and information based on research and experience. TTAC Publishing encourages you to make your own health care decisions based on your judgment and research in partnership with a qualified healthcare professional.
✅ THE EMF PROTECTION CELL PHONE RADIATION SHIELD IS HERE: All 4-10 Personal Quantum Schumann Frequency Generator. Universal Quantum Resonates with users energy field increases and maintains high energy field. Use directly on any mobile phones and 7’’ tablets or carry it in the wallet, on the body, bag. Our stylish radiation reducing shield will decimate the amount of radiation you are being exposed to every minute of every day –the same radiation that WHO has listed as a class 2B Carcinogen!
Long-term exposure to Radio Frequency waves or microwave radiation has long been studied and shown to produce all sorts of adverse health effects. See my post on EMF Radiation Exposure Symptoms for a full list of common symptoms. Even the American Cancer Society, who in large part will not fully say that EMF radiation causes long-term harm, and instead errs on the side of not enough research, admits on their website, that:
Because of inconsistent findings from epidemiologic studies in humans and the lack of clear data from previous experimental studies in animals, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration nominated radiofrequency radiation exposure associated with cell phone exposures for study in animal models by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency program that coordinates toxicology research and testing across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of NIH.
To date, there are a few long-term studies, very few in humans and even fewer epidemiological studies, apart from the studies on laptops with small numbers of study subjects. It is also far too early to generate reliable figures at this time. However, there are indications that especially newborns, children, or adolescents are particularly vulnerable as has been presented in detail by the research teams of Nazırogˇ lu, Atasoy, Margaritis/ Panagopoulos, Orendacˇ ova, Othmann, Ozorak, Sangun, Shahin and Yuksel. The experiments were carried out with rats or mice, in some cases as long-term studies (up to 1 year). In this context, it is important to note that rats and mice used in laboratories have a life expectancy of perhaps two years. This at least allows us to infer that human children and adolescents have to be protected from possible increased risks. In the study of Margaritis et al. (2014), the authors point out that the exposure levels from Bluetooth (0.3 V/m) and Wi-Fi routers (here 2.1 V/m) showed greater effects than cell phone radiation sources with much higher field strengths. This may coincide with the findings of the papers by von Klitzing, which stated that the power-dependent pulse of 10 Hz (1 ms) from Wi-Fi routers triggered reactions. Kumari et al. observed in a study from 2012 that higher levels of ROS in the liver suppress antioxidant enzymes and that lower levels cause an increase. This could be a key to further mechanisms as to how or whether tissue damage occurs or perhaps not. Likewise, the polarization of RF radiation (Meena et al. 2014, Panagopoulos et al. 2015) should also receive additional attention.

An excessive production of reactive oxygen substances (ROS) and reduced antioxidant defence systems resulting from electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure may lead to oxidative brain and liver damage and degradation of membranes during pregnancy and development of rat pups. 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 β-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. In conclusion, Wi-Fi-induced oxidative stress in the brain and liver of developing rats was the result of reduced GSH-Px, GSH and antioxidant vitamin concentrations. Moreover, the brain seemed to be more sensitive to oxidative injury compared to the liver in the development of newborns.


When you make a call, text, or use data, your phone sends and receives RF signals back and forth between its antenna and nearby cell towers. The radiation from Bluetooth and WiFi devices falls into the same basic range on the electromagnetic spectrum—between FM radios and microwave ovens—as the RF waves from cell phones. But because the distances traveled by WiFi and Bluetooth signals tend to be much shorter (between your router and your laptop, for instance, or your smartphone and your wireless speaker) the RF can be transmitted at a much lower power than from a cell phone, which could reduce the effect it has on living tissue.
TRPV1 cation channels are the possible molecular pathways responsible for changes in the hormone, oxidative stress, and body temperature levels in the uterus of maternal rats following a year-long exposure to electromagnetic radiation exposure from mobile phones and Wi-Fi devices. It is likely that TRPV1-mediated Ca2+ entry in the uterus of pregnant rats involves accumulation of oxidative stress and opening of mitochondrial membrane pores that consequently leads to mitochondrial dysfunction, substantial swelling of the mitochondria with rupture of the outer membrane and release of oxidants such as superoxide (O2 −) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). The superoxide radical is converted to H2O2 by superoxide dismutase (SOD) enzyme. Glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) is an important antioxidant enzyme for removing lipid hydroperoxides and hydrogen peroxide and it catalyzes the reduction of H2O2 to water.
SafeSleeve Anti Radiation Case: Safe Sleeve website says they integrate FCC accredited independent lab tested "shielding technology" in their products. There are many links to "SafeSleeve, Is it a Scam?" and "Does SafeSleeve work?" online, but if you follow those links you'll find they go to the actual SafeSleeve site where the question of SafeSleeve protection is addressed.  You'll see in this demonstration that the radiation level was higher with the SafeSleeve Case on.

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
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
The NTP studied radiofrequency radiation (2G and 3G frequencies) in rats and mice (33, 34). This large project was conducted in highly specialized labs that specified and controlled sources of radiation and measured their effects. The rodents experienced whole-body exposures of 3, 6, or 9 watts per kilogram of body weight for 5 or 7 days per week for 18 hours per day in cycles of 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off. A research overview of the rodent studies, with links to the peer-review summary, is available on NTP website. The primary outcomes observed were a small number of cancers of Schwann cells in the heart and non-cancerous changes (hyperplasia) in the same tissues for male rats, but not female rats, nor in mice overall.
Ok, update: Crownstarqi very kindly sent me 2 cell phone shield stickers, but I originally ordered the 6 pack of much thinner rectangular stickers that I could stick more places. I'm too electromagnetically intolerant to even own a cell phone, so I don't know what to do with these! I don't dare bother them about this, b/c they sent me the shield things all the way from China, but I was really hoping to just put more of the rectangular 6-pack stickers on my laptop, to see if more made a difference. It was a very nice gesture on their part, but I'm now concerned that they thought my initial review was of the shield-shaped stickers, when it was a review for these rectangular ones. I noticed that someone else thought they were ordering the 6-pack, and ended up getting a single shield-shaped sticker, instead. This is very confusing & I'm going to just...count my blessings & get on w/ my life. I don't trust any stickers that make the "negative ion" claim, b/c they're often radioactive. I don't realy know what to say, or what review to give, at this point, but I think Cronstarqi are very kind to have sent me something for the trouble w/ my original order, even though what they sent as a replacement was NOT what I had originally ordered. Maybe this was deliberate? I don't know. The package on the shield-shaped stickers says, "The product can only be used as health care instead of replacing the professional medical treatment." I'm so confused, but thanks anyway, to the seller, and the shield-shaped stickers are very pretty. I'd review them, but I have no cell phone & no verified purchase to back up my review. -Account holder's progeny.
This Nation investigation reveals that the wireless industry not only made the same moral choices that the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries did; it also borrowed from the same public-relations playbook those industries pioneered. The playbook’s key insight is that an industry doesn’t have to win the scientific argument about safety; it only has to keep the argument going. That amounts to a win for the industry, because the apparent lack of certainty helps to reassure customers, even as it fends off government regulations and lawsuits that might pinch profits.20
Last night unfortunately I had to sleep part of the night near a wifi router, and I felt I was being fried… as if been cooked in a microwave oven (though I never experienced that). I could hardly sleep at all until I moved (into the garden). I felt like my ovaries were directly being damaged, and felt that cyst or tumour growth would start if under longer exposure.
SUBJECT AND METHODS: In this study, we performed an analysis of the data extracted from the 45 peer-reviewed scientific publications (1996-2016) describing 169 experimental observations to detect the physiological and morphological changes in plants due to the non-thermal RF-EMF effects from mobile phone radiation. Twenty-nine different species of plants were considered in this work.
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]
While that’s all scary as heck, I think it’s everything we don’t know about EMF exposure that scares me the most. That, and how seldom EMFs are discussed. If it hadn’t been for my dear friend August Brice, a Tech Wellness Advocate, I don’t think I would have ever considered the safety hazards associated with everyday cell phone use. Or had any knowledge of the subject whatsoever. Let’s be real, this topic has certainly never appeared in the trending tab on Twitter, and I’ve yet to see it spark a viral video.

Thus far, the data from studies in children with cancer do not support this theory. The first published analysis came from a large case–control study called CEFALO, which was conducted in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland. The study included children who were diagnosed with brain tumors between 2004 and 2008, when their ages ranged from 7 to 19 years. Researchers did not find an association between cell phone use and brain tumor risk either by time since initiation of use, amount of use, or by the location of the tumor (21).
It is useful to be aware of new health research regarding cell phone usage and cell phone radiation. The first cell phone call was made in 1985 and that phone cost $5,000 and weighed about 9 pounds. The change in size, weight and cost of devices today has probably led to over 50% of the human race owning a mobile device, the fastest growing technology on the planet.
×