Researchers have carried out several types of epidemiologic studies in humans to investigate the possibility of a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of malignant (cancerous) brain tumors, such as gliomas, as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuroma (tumors in the cells of the nerve responsible for hearing that are also known as vestibular schwannomas), meningiomas (usually benign tumors in the membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord), and parotid gland tumors (tumors in the salivary glands) (3).

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.


I think it might be part of the problem with all these kids losing it in the last decade and a half. Just something to think about. Maybe they should start building “wifi free”restaurants and buildings. They have been warning people since before they even started using it on a commercial bases that wifi was going to have serious effects on the human body. There’s just so much of a “hey as long as it doesn’t bother me I don’t care” attitude. I mean think about it. Now I’m not saying this in a negative way but look at the turnaround in public opinion about gay marriage. I mean it went from a hotly debated topic to “ah well they ain’t hurting anybody so let them do what they want. Except in the red states and if you notice a lot of those states are lacking saturated wifi signals. Just something to think about

Shopping links are provided by eBay Commerce Network and Amazon, which makes it easy to find the right product from a variety of online retailers. Clicking any of the links will take you to the retailer's website to shop for this product. Please note that Consumer Reports collects fees from both eBay Commerce Network and Amazon for referring users. We use 100% of these fees to fund our testing programs.


The wireless communications industry is rushing to blanket the nation with next-generation networks whose health effects are unknown. Despite studies linking radiation from existing networks to cancer in lab animals, the Federal Communications Commission and state legislators are bowing to industry lobbyists and clearing the way for the new networks.  

The RF signals from cell phones, as well as Bluetooth and WiFi, are considered nonionizing forms of radiation. That means unlike ionizing radiation—from, say, ultraviolet light from the sun, medical tests such as CT scans or X-rays, or nuclear explosions—they don’t carry enough energy to directly break or alter your DNA, which is one way cancer can occur.

Have you ever felt more awake after using Wi-Fi or even struggled to sleep through the night? Reports of these phenomena have been frequent and even prompted a study in 2007 that evaluated low-frequency modulation from cell phones and its impact on sleep. Participants were exposed to the electromagnetic signals from real phones or no signal from fake phones. Those exposed to the electromagnetic radiation had a significantly more difficult time falling asleep and changes in brainwave patterns were observed. [2]

Cell phone storage in front pockets has been linked to poor fertility and higher chances of miscarriage and childhood cancer. [18] According to the Cleveland Clinic Center for Reproductive Medicine, semen quality "tended to decline as daily cell phone use increased." [19] According to a May-June 2012 meta-study in the Journal of Andrology, "men using mobile phones have decreased sperm concentration" in addition to "decreased viability" of their sperm. [64]
If you’re one of the millions who missed the WHO’s news then it’s likely you also missed the fine print in Apple’s official iPhone User Guide. The part that states cell phones should be kept “5mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below” Standard Absorption Rate (SAR). In plain language, cell phones should be at least 5mm away from you at all times, dammit.
There is great variability in survival by brain tumor subtype, and by age at diagnosis. Overall, the 5-year relative survival for brain cancers diagnosed from 2008 through 2014 was 33.2% (49). This is the percentage of people diagnosed with brain cancer who will still be alive 5 years after diagnosis compared with the survival of a person of the same age and sex who does not have cancer.
Sixteen years later, cell phones -- with 6 billion subscriptions worldwide and counting -- have revolutionized how we communicate. The technology that powers them has changed just as dramatically. Today’s smartphones vibrate, rock out, show high-def movies, make photos and videos, issue voice commands, check email, go underwater, navigate with global positioning systems and surf the web in 3-D. They sport dual core processors and batteries that let you – or your kid -- talk for close to 20 hours. (The StarTac maxed out at just 3 hours.)
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.
Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload. Each of these effects are also caused by exposures to other microwave frequency EMFs, with each such effect being documented in from 10 to 16 reviews. Therefore, each of these seven EMF effects are established effects of Wi-Fi and of other microwave frequency EMFs. Each of these seven is also produced by downstream effects of the main action of such EMFs, voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. While VGCC activation via EMF interaction with the VGCC voltage sensor seems to be the predominant mechanism of action of EMFs, other mechanisms appear to have minor roles. Minor roles include activation of other voltage-gated ion channels, calcium cyclotron resonance and the geomagnetic magnetoreception mechanism. 

Kids are a perceptive lot, and they won’t like it if they’re given a device that doesn’t look the part. Thankfully for them (and for your wallet), the Honor 7X looks the business, for a bargain price. It’s one of the first devices in the budget price range to come with a bezel-less design akin to the Galaxy S8 and iPhone X — at a fraction of the price.
Many wireless routers automatically kick wifi back on when there is a firmware update, or the device gets restarted. When our internet is running slow or not working, the first thing our internet provider will tell us to do is power cycle the router and modem (basically just turning them both off and back on). Make sure that when your router comes back on it doesn’t automatically turn the wifi back on.
A series of studies testing different scenarios (called simulations by the study authors) were carried out using incidence data from the Nordic countries to determine the likelihood of detecting various levels of risk as reported in studies of cell phone use and brain tumors between 1979 and 2008. The results were compatible with no increased risks from cell phones, as reported by most epidemiologic studies. The findings did suggest that the increase reported among the subset of heaviest regular users in the Interphone study could not be ruled out but was unlikely. The highly increased risks reported in the Swedish pooled analysis were strongly inconsistent with the observed glioma rates in the Nordic countries (24).

For adults and children alike, the process by which wireless radiation may cause cancer remains uncertain, but it is thought to be indirect. Wireless radiation has been shown to damage the blood-brain barrier, a vital defense mechanism that shields the brain from carcinogenic chemicals elsewhere in the body (resulting, for example, from secondhand cigarette smoke). Wireless radiation has also been shown to interfere with DNA replication, a proven progenitor of cancer. In each of these cases, the risks are higher for children: Their skulls, being smaller, absorb more radiation than adults’ skulls do, while children’s longer life span increases their cumulative exposure.29
Outside critics soon came to suspect that Carlo would be the front man for an industry whitewash. They cited his dispute with Henry Lai, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington, over a study that Lai had conducted examining whether cell-phone radiation could damage DNA. In 1999, Carlo and the WTR’s general counsel sent a letter to the university’s president urging that Lai be fired for his alleged violation of research protocols. Lai accused the WTR of tampering with his experiment’s results. Both Carlo and Lai deny the other’s accusations.5

The NTP study was to be peer-reviewed at a meeting on March 26–28, amid signs that the program’s leadership is pivoting to downplay its findings. The NTP had issued a public-health warning when the study’s early results were released in 2016. But when the NTP released essentially the same data in February 2018, John Bucher, the senior scientist who directed the study, announced in a telephone press conference that “I don’t think this is a high-risk situation at all,” partly because the study had exposed the rats and mice to higher levels of radiation than a typical cell-phone user experienced.50
Critics also attacked what they regarded as the slow pace of WTR research. The WTR was merely “a confidence game” designed to placate the public but stall real research, according to Louis Slesin, editor of the trade publication Microwave News. “By dangling a huge amount of money in front of the cash-starved [scientific] community,” Slesin argued, “Carlo guaranteed silent obedience. Anyone who dared complain risked being cut off from his millions.” Carlo denies the allegation.6
For adults and children alike, the process by which wireless radiation may cause cancer remains uncertain, but it is thought to be indirect. Wireless radiation has been shown to damage the blood-brain barrier, a vital defense mechanism that shields the brain from carcinogenic chemicals elsewhere in the body (resulting, for example, from secondhand cigarette smoke). Wireless radiation has also been shown to interfere with DNA replication, a proven progenitor of cancer. In each of these cases, the risks are higher for children: Their skulls, being smaller, absorb more radiation than adults’ skulls do, while children’s longer life span increases their cumulative exposure.29
The present study tested the effects of Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz for 1h) exposure on Ca(2+) influx, oxidative stress and apoptosis through TRPV1 channel in the murine dorsal root ganglion (DRG) and hippocampus of pentylentetrazol (PTZ)-induced epileptic rats. The cytosolic free Ca(2+), reactive oxygen species production, apoptosis, mitochondrial membrane depolarization, caspase-3 and -9 values in hippocampus were higher in the PTZ group than in the control although cell viability values decreased. The Wi-Fi exposure induced additional effects on the cytosolic Ca(2+) increase. However, pretreatment of the neurons with CPZ, results in a protection against epilepsy-induced Ca(2+) influx, apoptosis and oxidative damages. In conclusion, epilepsy and Wi-Fi in our experimental model is involved in Ca(2+) influx and oxidative stress-induced hippocampal and DRG death through activation of TRPV1 channels, and negative modulation of this channel activity by CPZ pretreatment may account for the neuroprotective activity against oxidative stress.
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]

We really do not recommend any kind of chip, guard, anti-radiation "filters" or incomplete shielding case because honestly, how could they NOT provide a false sense of security? Folks could believe these products make them “invincible” against radiation so they are comfortable holding the case right up to their heads-and the radiation seeping from the back and the side of the phone case is in very close proximity to their precious brains. Oh no!
“So what can you do? Straighten up, first of all, says Kenneth Hansraj, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon in Poughkeepsie, New York. And carry device at chest height with head up, chest open and shoulder blades back. Move just your eyes downward. And then, take a break. Your neck is not supposed to stay stuck in one position for a long period. If you’re reading on a tablet or phone, stop every so often to swivel and tilt your head — up and down, then side to side.” – 3 Dumb Things We Do with Smartphones, Good Housekeeping; Twitter: @goodhousemag
×