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.
You hit the nail on the head when you say that distance is key when it comes to EMF exposure. The solutions you sell will definitely help provide that separation. That said, our products are different in that they shield the user from EMF while allowing them to use the device as they normally would, without needing to hold their device by a rope or placing it in a faraday cage that eliminates signal altogether.
According to a peer-reviewed Dec. 2006 study of 420,095 cell phone users in Denmark, the results showed a "reduced brain tumor risk" among long-term subscribers. [1] Two other peer-reviewed studies also found that cell phone users had a slightly decreased risk of developing brain tumors. A July 20, 2005 Danish study [41] found a "decreased risk for high-grade glioma," a malignant brain tumor, and a 2005 Swedish study [42] also found a "decreased odds ratio" for developing glioma as well as meningioma, another type of brain tumor.
PURPOSE: MicroRNAs (miRNA) play a paramount role in growth, differentiation, proliferation and cell death by suppressing one or more target genes. However, their interaction with radiofrequencies is still unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted from a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) system on some of the miRNA in brain tissue.
Disclosure: This post is brought to you by Business Insider's Insider Picks team. We aim to highlight products and services you might find interesting, and if you buy them, we get a small share of the revenue from the sale from our commerce partners, including Amazon. Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, is an investor in Business Insider through his personal investment company Bezos Expeditions. We frequently receive products free of charge from manufacturers to test. This does not drive our decision as to whether or not a product is featured or recommended. We operate independently from our advertising sales team. We welcome your feedback. Have something you think we should know about? Email us at insiderpicks@businessinsider.com.
Legal Disclaimer: EWG's cell phone database is dynamic, which means that the cell phone ranking numbers may change based on evolving science, new information on SAR radiation exposures, market conditions, or other factors. Please be advised that EWG does not recommend that companies create marketing materials based on the EWG rating system, given that the rankings may change as the database is updated. EWG makes no representations or warranties about any of the products rated on this site. EWG hereby disclaims all warranties with regard to the products on the site, including express, statutory, implied warranties of merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose.
41. Use a monitoring service for your child’s phone. “One option [for keeping your kids safer while allowing them to use a cell phone or smartphone] is a phone or monitoring service that provides parental controls. Parental controls let your parents control how and when you use your cell phone, and who is able to contact you. (You and your parents can determine the rules together.) With parental controls, you won’t have to worry about receiving unwanted calls or texts—or the temptation to text during science class!” – Jennifer Dignan, Cell Phone Safety Helpful Tips for Kid Communications, Scholastic Teachers; Twitter: @ScholasticTeach
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 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.
Participation bias, which can happen when people who are diagnosed with brain tumors are more likely than healthy people (known as controls) to enroll in a research study. Also, controls who did not or rarely used cell phones were less likely to participate in the Interphone study than controls who used cell phones regularly. For example, the Interphone study reported participation rates of 78% for meningioma patients (range among the individual studies 56–92%), 64% for glioma patients (range 36–92%), and 53% for control subjects (range 42–74%) (6).

The word radiation is, to the lay person, a scary word. Radiation is the stuff that 1960s school children were taught to climb under their desks to avoid, and what prompted Cold-War-terrified Americans to build backyard bomb shelters. Radiation is the stuff that leads meltdowns at nuclear power plants to contaminate the ocean and make land uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
In subsequent analyses of Interphone data, investigators addressed issues of risk according to specific location of the tumor and estimated exposures. One analysis of data from seven of the countries in the Interphone study found no relationship between brain tumor location and regions of the brain that were exposed to the highest level of radiofrequency radiation from cell phones (9). However, another study, using data from five of the countries, reported suggestions of an increased risk of glioma and, to a lesser extent, of meningioma developing in areas of the brain experiencing the highest exposure (10).
Two wireless trade associations contributed $4.7 million to the Interphone study launched by the WHO’s International Agency for Cancer Research in 2000. That $4.7 million represented 20 percent of the $24 million budget for the Interphone study, which convened 21 scientists from 13 countries to explore possible links between cell phones and two common types of brain tumor: glioma and meningioma. The money was channeled through a “firewall” mechanism intended to prevent corporate influence on the IACR’s findings, but whether such firewalls work is debatable. “Industry sponsors know [which scientists] receive funding; sponsored scientists know who provides funding,” Dariusz Leszczynski, an adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki, has explained.35

In subsequent analyses of Interphone data, investigators addressed issues of risk according to specific location of the tumor and estimated exposures. One analysis of data from seven of the countries in the Interphone study found no relationship between brain tumor location and regions of the brain that were exposed to the highest level of radiofrequency radiation from cell phones (9). However, another study, using data from five of the countries, reported suggestions of an increased risk of glioma and, to a lesser extent, of meningioma developing in areas of the brain experiencing the highest exposure (10).
Of course, trying to avoid radio wave exposure is more or less impossible if you live in modern society. Moskowitz advises keeping wireless devices away from your body and turning off wireless networks when they’re not in use. While any health risks are still theoretical, “I think trying to minimize exposure is the best advice at this point,” Moskowitz adds.
It is concluded that radiofrequency radiations are genotoxic as they induced chromosomal aberrations in chickpea mitotic cells and the presence of ghost cells is clear indication of their carcinogenic potential. To avoid reported DNA damages in this work cell phones should always be used either for short duration or with hands-free for long duration and they should not be kept in pockets or near body. Laptops should not be used unnecessarily for enjoyment purpose. It must be placed on desk top rather lap to minimize their exposure to human body. Further assay of carcinogenity are recommended on mouse and human cell lines.
This paper presents the results of a replication study performed to investigate earlier Soviet studies conducted between 1974 and 1991 that showed immunological and reproductive effects of long-term low-level exposure of rats to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (continuous wave 2450 MHz for 7h/day, 5days/week for 30 days). The RF exposure resulted in minor increases in formation of antibodies in brain tissue extract and the exposure did not appear to be pathological. In addition, a study was conducted to replicate a previous Soviet study on effects from the injection of blood serum from RF-exposed rats on pregnancy and foetal and offspring development of rats, using a similar animal model and protocol. Our results showed the same general trends as the earlier study, suggesting possible adverse effects of the blood serum from exposed rats on pregnancy and foetal development of intact rats, however, application of these results in developing exposure standards is limited.
Want an official word on the matter? The World Health Organization, which tends to err on the side of caution before outright dismissing something as toxic, carcinogenic, or otherwise harmful, is very clear that there is no health risk from radio-frequency communication devices. (Their briefing on the matter is actually a great read that highlights how low the risk is and how even people in Wi-Fi dense locations like schools and hospitals are exposed to radio-frequency radiation at thousands of times lower than international safety standards designed to protect individuals working in related industries).
Consumers need -- now more than ever -- real-world, relevant data on how much radiation their phones emit under various circumstances. The FCC does not require the cell phone industry to disclose these data. One important study showing that certain networks could expose consumers to 30 to 300 times more radiation than other networks was hidden from the public until the information was dated to the point of irrelevancy.
Responsibility for driver cell phone safety is the part of so many distinct factions. Consumer safety advocates oppose telecommunications lobbyists, and state lawmakers seem to avoid the larger issue of driver distractions. But without all participants it’s likely that the cell phone safety debate would lose the thrust required to effect real change. And there will be change.

IntimatesBras,Lingerie,Lounge & Sleepwear,Panties...4372 Maternity ClothingMaternity Activewear,Maternity Bottoms,M...444 Plus Size ClothingPlus Size Activewear,Plus Size Bottoms,P...1305 Women's AccessoriesWomen's Belts,Women's Eyewear,Women's Gl...9830 Women's ClothingDresses,Leggings,Skirts,Sweaters & Cardi...32625 Women's ShoesBoots & Booties,Pumps & Heels,Women's At...4011

The presented data collectively suggest that microwave irradiation constitute a stress to the plants, resulting in enhanced emissions of GLV, up-regulation of terpenoid emissions and modification in essential oil content and foliage anatomy. Anatomical and emission traits suggested that WLAN-frequency irradiation resulted in more severe stress than GSM-frequency irradiation, but the effect of WLAN-frequency irradiation on essential oil was inhibitory. There was an agreement between anatomical and chemical traits with anatomically most resistant species Apium graveolens being chemically least responsive.
Due to the relatively recent adoption of cell phones, the long-term safety of the technology cannot be determined conclusively and caution is warranted. Research on glioma brain tumors shows the average latency period is 20-30 years. [56] Although cell phones were introduced in 1983, it was not until 2003 that over 50% of the US population had a wireless subscription, so the 20 year mark for mass cell phone use has not yet been reached. [44] [71] The May 17, 2010 INTERPHONE study, the largest study ever to examine possible links between cell phones and brain tumors, concluded that overall there was "no increase in risk" for glioma or meningioma brain tumors, [57] but the average user in the study had less than eight years of cell phone exposure. [56] In his review of the INTERPHONE study results, Dr. Rodolfo Saracci stated that "none of today’s established carcinogens, including tobacco, could have been firmly identified as increasing risk in the first 10 years or so since first exposure." [58]
The present study was carried out to investigate the potential combined influence of maternal restraint stress and 2.45 GHz WiFi signal exposure on postnatal development and behavior in the offspring of exposed rats. 24 pregnant albino Wistar rats were randomly assigned to four groups: Control, WiFi-exposed, restrained and both WiFi-exposed and restrained groups. Each of WiFi exposure and restraint occurred 2 h/day along gestation till parturition. The pups were evaluated for physical development and neuromotor maturation. Moreover, elevated plus maze test, open field activity and stationary beam test were also determined on postnatal days 28, 30 and 31, respectively. After behavioral tests, the rats were anesthetized and their brains were removed for biochemical analysis. Our main findings showed no detrimental effects on gestation progress and outcomes at delivery in all groups. Subsequently, WiFi and restraint, per se and mainly in concert altered physical development of pups with slight differences between genders. Behaviorally, the gestational WiFi irradiation, restraint and especially the associated treatment affected the neuromotor maturation mainly in male progeny. At adult age, we noticed anxiety, motor deficit and exploratory behavior impairment in male offspring co-exposed to WiFi radiation and restraint, and in female progeny subjected to three treatments. The biochemical investigation showed that, all three treatments produced global oxidative stress in brain of both sexes. As for serum biochemistry, phosphorus, magnesium, glucose, triglycerides and calcium levels were disrupted. Taken together, prenatal WiFi radiation and restraint, alone and combined, provoked several behavioral and biochemical impairments at both juvenile and adult age of the offspring.
If you search hard enough, you'll be able to locate legitimate scientific studies that indicate there may be a cancer risk from the radio wave radiation that's emitted from your cell phone. On the other hand, you'll be able to find just as many studies that prove there's no danger from the levels of radiation coming from your phone. What do you believe?
No, it isn’t. It is true that International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the World Health Organisation) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from wireless phones as ‘2b’ in its monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. But that’s by no means proof of danger. You see 2b is ‘possibly carcinogenic’ and as well as Wi-Fi, the category includes coffee, carpentry and pickled vegetables. Some evidence has to be present (except when insufficient evidence is accepted) but the case does not have to be proven.

To be sure, the industry could not have been pleased with some of the Interphone study’s conclusions. The study found that the heaviest cell-phone users were 80 percent more likely to develop glioma. (The initial finding of 40 percent was increased to 80 to correct for selection bias.) The Interphone study also concluded that individuals who had owned a cell phone for 10 years or longer saw their risk of glioma increase by nearly 120 percent. However, the study did not find any increased risk for individuals who used their cell phones less frequently; nor was there evidence of any connection with meningioma.36
The environmental exposure to RF radiation in some schools is higher than reported levels for non-thermal biological effects. In order to reduce children’s exposure to RF radiation, schools should prefer wired network connections, allow laptop, tablets, and mobile phone usage only in flight mode and deactivate Wi-Fi access points when internet is not needed for learning purposes.

Joel Moskowitz (@berkeleyprc) of the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health, US, says: “This is the largest technological experiment in the history of our species, with potential health risks we still know next to nothing about.” This view is shared by Denis Henshaw, professor of human radiation effects at Bristol University, UK, who said: “Vast numbers of people are using cell phones and this could be a time bomb of health problems.”
×