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).

In my home and work environment I long ago made the decision to completely steer clear of WiFi. You might not feel you want to go “the whole nine yards” on this. Here are some ways you can reduce the burden of radio frequency radiation from WiFi on your body. You can pick and choose from this list according to how much you want to reduce WiFi radiation exposure in your life.
Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important component of this strategy, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided. Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage—as Carlo’s WTR did in 1999; as the WHO’s Interphone study did in 2010; and as the US National Toxicology Program did in 2016—industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree. “[T]he overall balance of the evidence” gives no cause for alarm, asserted Jack Rowley, research and sustainability director for the Groupe Special Mobile Association (GSMA), Europe’s wireless trade association, speaking to reporters about the WHO’s findings.22
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 purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of low level electromagnetic field (low level-EMF) exposure, as frequently encountered in daily life (2.45 GHz, 2h/day for 21 days), on the normal adult male rat cornea using histological and stereological method. There was no statistically significant difference in mean corneal thicknesses between the groups (p > 0.05), however there were statistically differences between the groups with regard to the thickness of anterior epithelium (p < 0.05). Results of this preliminary study show that exposure to MW radiation might cause alterations in the rat cornea.
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. 

Next up, our Ultrasuede Slide Out Wallet Case! This is a LIFE SAVER. This slim case comes with 5 card slots, a detachable wristlet, and a cash sleeve. Want a different color to match your new outfit? No worries! This wallet phone case comes in 4 different colors options of black, blue, purple, and pink. You’ll never meet another case like it. Hurry and shop while supplies last!

18. Hang up when necessary. “Just because you can talk in the car doesn’t mean you always should. If you’re getting into a hairy traffic situation or the skies open up with buckets of rain, don’t try to power through it. These hazardous situations require your full attention, so end your call and focus up.” – Taking a Call? Use These Tips for Cell Phone Safety While Driving, PMC Insurance Group; Twitter: @PMCInsurance


The aim of the present study was to investigate oxidative stress and apoptosis in kidney tissues of male Wistar rats that pre- and postnatally exposed to 2.45 GHz wireless electromagnetic field (EMF) for 1 h/day until puberty. Based on this study, it is thought that chronic pre- and post-natal period exposure to wireless internet frequency of EMF may cause chronic kidney damages; staying away from EMF source in especially pregnancy and early childhood period may reduce negative effects of exposure on kidney.
Researchers at Wageningen University in the Netherlands have reported that radiation from WiFi networks is harmful to trees. Problems observed included growth variations, and bleeding and fissures in tree bark. The researchers exposed 20 ash trees to various sources of radiation for three months. The tress closest to the WiFi source exhibited a lead-like shine on the leaves. The researchers also found that WiFi radiation is harmful to growing corn.

The HPA's position is that “...radio frequency (RF) exposures from WiFi are likely to be lower than those from mobile phones.” It also saw “...no reason why schools and others should not use WiFi equipment.”[4] In October 2007, the HPA launched a new “systematic” study into the effects of WiFi networks on behalf of the UK government, in order to calm fears that had appeared in the media in a recent period up to that time".[13] Dr Michael Clark, of the HPA, says published research on mobile phones and masts does not add up to an indictment of WiFi.[14][15]
Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. In truth, the safety of wireless technology has been an unsettled question since the industry’s earliest days. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a massive public-health experiment: Use a cell phone today, find out later if it causes cancer or genetic damage. Meanwhile, the wireless industry has obstructed a full and fair understanding of the current science, aided by government agencies that have prioritized commercial interests over human health and news organizations that have failed to inform the public about what the scientific community really thinks. In other words, this public-health experiment has been conducted without the informed consent of its subjects, even as the industry keeps its thumb on the scale.27
3. A lab setting is the only legitimate way to show the effectiveness of our technology for a few main reasons: one, a controlled source is the only way to conduct a scientific study. Note that the controlled source that we used was specifically designed to simulate emissions from wireless electronics (RF and ELF emissions of various frequencies). Two, ambient levels in a non-controlled environment will affect readings, rendering the results inaccurate. Three, at-home equipment such as the meter used in the video is not suitable for the types of emissions by a wireless device, nor are they reliable.
†Results may vary. Information and statements made are for education purposes and are not intended to replace the advice of your doctor. Global Healing Center does not dispense medical advice, prescribe, or diagnose illness. The views and nutritional advice expressed by Global Healing Center are not intended to be a substitute for conventional medical service. If you have a severe medical condition or health concern, see your physician.
Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked. The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.
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?!
Some implanted medical devices use radio frequency communication - both to report status, and to allow changing device behavior. Emissions from wireless electronic devices can interfere with the functioning of these devices, thereby adversely affecting the health of the user. Users of such implanted devices are usually cautioned to avoid close exposure to other wireless devices.
We couldn't find one legit EMF expert online or anywhere else that would recommend a radiation blocking case or anti-radiation case. Not the Environmental Health Trust or Magda Havas, or Joel Moskowitz, in fact his site, safeEMR cautions against scams and claims for radiation protection.  So if a so-called "EMF expert" is recommending any kind of anti-radiation case, they probably aren't that much of an expert. 
US government agencies conclude there is no scientific evidence proving that cell phones cause cancer or other health problems. 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 the spirit of adventure, I tried the snazzy TwelveSouth case pictured in this post, and I admit, there were some things I liked. I got very used to not carrying around a bulk in my back pocket. I even put my keycard for the office in it, and it felt very futuristic to unlock the office door by holding my phone up to the fob sensor. But in the end, I took the case off before a trip. It just seemed too foolish to risk losing everything at once.

On the basis of current scientific information, ARPANSA sees no reason why wi-fi should not continue to be used in schools and in other places. However, ARPANSA recognises that exposure to RF EME from wi-fi and other wireless devices can be of concern to some parents. ARPANSA will continue to review the research into potential health effects of RF EME emissions from wi-fi and other devices in order to provide accurate and up‑to‑date advice.
Our homemade demonstration of all the cases uses a working phone. Not the shielding material by itself, but the actual "shielding" SafeSleeve, Pong, Reach,  Vest, ShieldMe, and Defender Shield cases. First we get RF power density measurements from a phone that's on a call and then, in the same location, within minutes of the first reading, we place the same phone as it's engaged in a call into each case and we take additional reading with the meter.

Disclaimer: While we work to ensure that product information is correct, on occasion manufacturers may alter their ingredient lists. Actual product packaging and materials may contain more and/or different information than that shown on our Web site. We recommend that you do not solely rely on the information presented and that you always read labels, warnings, and directions before using or consuming a product. For additional information about a product, please contact the manufacturer. Content on this site is for reference purposes and is not intended to substitute for advice given by a physician, pharmacist, or other licensed health-care professional. You should not use this information as self-diagnosis or for treating a health problem or disease. Contact your health-care provider immediately if you suspect that you have a medical problem. Information and statements regarding dietary supplements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or health condition. Amazon.com assumes no liability for inaccuracies or misstatements about products.

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.


As our video points out: Measurements will vary with signal strength and other factors and that includes ambient energy. I talk about ambient energy in a lot of my videos-it's the energy that's in whatever environment I happen to be measuring in that's coming from a source of wireless energy that isn't the subject of what I'm measuring.  My home is not a lab of course, but fortunately it's always measured very low for RF radiation. 

Although uterine lipid peroxidation increased in the EMR groups, uterine glutathione peroxidase activity (4th and 5th weeks) and plasma prolactin levels (6th week) in developing rats decreased in these groups. In the maternal rats, the plasma prolactin, estrogen, and progesterone levels decreased in the EMR groups, while the plasma total oxidant status, and body temperatures increased. There were no changes in the levels of reduced glutathione, total antioxidants, or vitamins A, C, and E in the uterine and plasma samples of maternal rats.
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]
TEXT MORE THAN TALK! Moving a cell phone even a 1/4 inch from the body can greatly reduce radiation exposure, at one inch the intensity is 16 fold less than 1/4 inch. Signal strength falls off as the square of the distance from the source. This means that if you double the distance to the source, RF intensity is four times less since two squared is four.

8. 911 is free—call for an emergency. “Your cell phone is one of the greatest tools you can own to protect yourself and your family in dangerous situations – with your phone at your side, help is only three numbers away. Dial 911 or another local emergency number in emergencies such as a fire, traffic accident, road hazard or medical emergency. Remember, an emergency call is a free call on your cell phone!” – Cell Phone Safety Tips, Mize Centers; Twitter: @mizesales1

×