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.

This Ethernet cable can be a source of RF radiation and so needs to be shielded. There are lots of different qualities of cable category 5, 6, 7 etc. I recommend buying at least Cat 6a SSTP (screened shielded twisted pair) Ethernet cable. Maybe the cable that came with your modem/router is Cat 6a SSTP. In that case you’re OK. If in doubt change it.
In a real-world setting, August, having ES herself, hopes people who are trying to control their exposures, will refer to the following chart: The lowest level August recommends EVER being exposed to--for even a brief time is less than 1 Volts per meter--which is actually the level of exposure you can get from most WiFi's when you're between 15 and 20 fee away.  And August level is for people who are not experiencing symptoms of sensitivity, live in real-world(WiFi's, cellphone connected) situations. 
✅ STOP CRIPPLING YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM: Radiation waves have been shown to attack the human immune system, lowering our defences and making us prone to diseases and ailments. The special combination of crystals and minerals used in our EMF protection cell phone radiation shield will restore balance and increase the body’s defense against harmful radiation.
“If you're looking for ways to limit your exposure to the electromagnetic emissions from your cell phone, know that, according to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduced exposure from these electromagnetic emissions. In fact, products that block only the earpiece—or another small portion of the phone—are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits electromagnetic waves. What's more, these shields may interfere with the phone's signal, cause it to draw even more power to communicate with the base station, and possibly emit more radiation.”
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.
Ionizing radiation, including x-rays and ultraviolet light, produces molecules called ions that have either too many or too few electrons. Ions are known to damage DNA and cause cancer. Cell phone radiation, like radio, TV, and visible light radiation, is non-ionizing and lacks sufficient energy to add or remove electrons from molecules, and therefore it cannot ionize and cause cancer. [2] According to the authors of a 2005 peer-reviewed study of 3.7 million Swedish residents, a "biologic mechanism that could explain any possible carcinogenic effect from radiofrequency radiation has not been identified." [42]
Now, what if I took that already precious treasure and stuck it in case that substantially increased the accumulation of value in one place by adding my driver’s license, MetroCard, ATM card, and credit card to the package? What if such a case made it possible to combine the pain of losing my phone with the inconvenience of losing my wallet in a brief moment of carelessness? We need not wonder, because that’s exactly what a wallet case does.
The company's "Researches" page, for example, states that "Aires Technologies are more than 12 years (sic). For this period there have been conducted a number of studies on mechanisms of coherent transformers that effect on physical, chemical, technological and biological processes (sic). The studies were carried out in close collaboration with leading research and academic institutions."
You know what’s equally as concerning? Even though we don’t fully understand the impacts of long-term wireless radiation, we’re forging ahead with 5G wireless technology. Within a few years, this technology could mean millions of mini cell towers could pop up on street corners, according to the Federal Communications Commission chairman. (3) Developing a 5G network is moving forward despite the fact that we don’t even remotely understand 5G health effects.
“There is a carcinogenic effect,” announced Ron Melnick, the designer of the study. Male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation developed cancer at a substantially higher rate, though the same effect was not seen in female rats. Rats exposed to radiation also had lower birth rates, higher infant mortality, and more heart problems than those in the control group. The cancer effect occurred in only a small percentage of the rats, but that small percentage could translate into a massive amount of human cancers. “Given the extremely large number of people who use wireless communications devices, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease…could have broad implications for public health,” the NTP’s draft report explained.48

The aim of this study was to investigate the possible protective role of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress induced by 2.45-GHz radiation (60min/day for 28 days) in heart of rat. Electromagnetic radiation exposure was found to cause oxidative stress in the heart of rats. There is also an apparent protective effect of selenium and L-carnitine by inhibition of free radical formation and support of the antioxidant redox system.

Oral CareChildren's Oral Care,Dental Floss & Gum...1393 Personal CareBody Treatments,Deodorants & Antiperspir...3971 Sexual WellnessAdult Books,Anal Toys,Arousal & Massage...2370 Shaving & GroomingHair Removal,Men's Shave,Shave Accessori...1716 Skin CareCellulite & Stretch Marks,Cleanse,Exfoli...8862 Vitamins & SupplementsDetox & Superfoods,Protein,Sports Nutrit...4122

The FCC has granted the industry’s wishes so often that it qualifies as a “captured agency,” argued journalist Norm Alster in a report that Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics published in 2015. The FCC allows cell-phone manufacturers to self-report SAR levels, and does not independently test industry claims or require manufacturers to display the SAR level on a phone’s packaging. “Industry controls the FCC through a soup-to-nuts stranglehold that extends from its well-placed campaign spending in Congress through its control of the FCC’s congressional oversight committees to its persistent agency lobbying,” Alster wrote. He also quoted the CTIA website praising the FCC for “its light regulatory touch.”31
In September 2014, Californian oncologists reported four similar case histories of young women who had developed breast cancer in precisely the areas where they normally carried their smartphones. What shocked the doctors was that these women were aged 21 to 39 and had no family history or other risk factors relating to cancer. All their cancers “had striking similarity, all tumours were hormone positive… (with) an extensive intraductal component and… near-identical morphology.” (CaseRepMed., 2013).