4. For the reasons mentioned in #3 above, an at-home meter test is extremely inaccurate and unreliable. That said, a far field RF meter such as the one you are using is highly influenced by ambient RF levels that exist almost everywhere. Again, we do not aim to eliminate the radiation from the device, nor from your surroundings, but our technology does deflect the radiation away from the body.
Hardell had already attracted the industry’s displeasure back in 2002, when he began arguing that children shouldn’t use cell phones. Two scientists with industry ties quickly published a report with the Swedish Radiation Authority dismissing Hardell’s research. His detractors were John D. Boice and Joseph K. McLaughlin of the International Epidemiology Institute, a company that provided “Litigation Support” and “Corporate Counseling” to various industries, according to its website. Indeed, at the very time Boice and McLaughlin were denigrating Hardell’s work, the institute was providing expert-witness services to Motorola in a brain-tumor lawsuit against the company.41
†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.
Industry-funded scientists had been pressuring their colleagues for a decade by then, according to Leszczynski, another member of the Lyon working group. Leszczynski was an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School when he first experienced such pressure, in 1999. He had wanted to investigate the effects of radiation levels higher than the SAR levels permitted by government, hypothesizing that this might better conform to real-world practices. But when he proposed the idea at scientific meetings, Leszczynski said, it was shouted down by Mays Swicord, Joe Elder, and C.K. Chou—scientists who worked for Motorola. As Leszczynski recalled, “It was a normal occurrence at scientific meetings—and I attended really a lot of them—that whenever [a] scientist reported biological effects at SAR over [government-approved levels], the above-mentioned industry scientists, singularly or as a group, jumped up to the microphone to condemn and to discredit the results.”44
In recent years there has been a tremendous increase in use of Wi-Fi devices along with mobile phones, globally. Wi-Fi devices make use of 2.4 GHz frequency. The present study evaluated the impact of 2.45 GHz radiation exposure for 4h/day for 45 days on behavioral and oxidative stress parameters in female Sprague Dawley rats. Behavioral tests of anxiety, learning and memory were started from day 38. Oxidative stress parameters were estimated in brain homogenates after sacrificing the rats on day 45. In morris water maze, elevated plus maze and light dark box test, the 2.45 GHz radiation exposed rats elicited memory decline and anxiety behavior. Exposure decreased activities of super oxide dismutase, catalase and reduced glutathione levels whereas increased levels of brain lipid peroxidation was encountered in the radiation exposed rats, showing compromised anti-oxidant defense. Expression of caspase 3 gene in brain samples were quantified which unraveled notable increase in the apoptotic marker caspase 3 in 2.45 GHz radiation exposed group as compared to sham exposed group. No significant changes were observed in histopathological examinations and brain levels of TNF-α. Analysis of dendritic arborization of neurons showcased reduction in number of dendritic branching and intersections which corresponds to alteration in dendritic structure of neurons, affecting neuronal signaling. The study clearly indicates that exposure of rats to microwave radiation of 2.45GHz leads to detrimental changes in brain leading to lowering of learning and memory and expression of anxiety behavior in rats along with fall in brain antioxidant enzyme systems.
DefenderShield Cellphone Radiation Case also claims independent testing and says in their website: That a "sophisticated layering of separate non-toxic, human safe materials processed for maximum radiation blocking efficiency. Each material has unique and targeted radiation-shielding characteristics designed to work in unison to eliminate all radiation emissions from 0 to 10 GHZ and Defender Shield technology refracts, conducts and finally absorbs all these potentially harmful emissions." In this demonstration, the radiation level measured when DefendeShield case was on is still quite a bit above the level of exposure that I would recommend. I personally do not recommend-holding a phone with a shielding case to your head as the DefenderShield website shows a young woman doing as she demonstrates the product.
A study by the Corporate EME Research Laboratory and Motorola Florida Research Laboratories tested 9 different cell phone radiation shields, 5 of which claimed to block 99% of cell phone radiation. The other 4 shields tested claimed to emit a reverse radiation that would cancel out the harmful radiation from cell phones. The study found that all of the radiation shields had no effect on the amount of radiofrequency radiation a cell phone user is exposed to from their phone.
This article is not correct. Wifi waves are just a low frequency sound wave. Everyone is having a placebo effect, or doing the equivalence of listening to music using ear buds all night by having the router too close to their heads. This article was made to play on your fears and to have you buy products like iPad radiation shields and other junk. This article is harmful to people.
Another place that you want to use your cell phone hands-free is in your vehicle. Driving and texting or driving and talking on a mobile device that you hold in one of your hands is dangerous and one of the leading causes of traffic accidents and deaths. However, there are times when it's necessary to use your cell phone while driving, such as when you're using a GPS app. For these times, a car-mounted mobile device holder is the answer. These attach to your vehicle's dash or windshield in several ways, including suction cups, magnets and double-sided adhesive tape. These devices allow you to rotate the cell phone so you can see it vertically and horizontally, and some make it so you can adjust the angle of sight.
The highest typical daily exposure, according to a study of 2009, came from cellphone base stations, cellphones and DECT cordless phones, with the highest exposure locations in trains, airports and buses. The typical background power of electromagnetic fields in the home can vary from zero to 5 milliwatts per meter squared. Long-term effects of these electromagnetic fields on human and animal health are still unknown.
gamma rays produce virtually no electricity in the human body because the actual inherent energy of gamma rays that actually hits molecules is next to 0. for gamma rays to produce any electricity they would need to hit something much more dense – like lead and for you to generate any significant electricity from gamma rays hitting the earth you would need a huge slab of it.
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).