Wheeler’s tactics succeeded in dousing the controversy. Although Carlo had in fact repeatedly briefed Wheeler and other senior industry officials on the studies, which had indeed undergone peer review and would soon be published, reporters on the technology beat accepted Wheeler’s discrediting of Carlo and the WTR’s findings. (Wheeler would go on to chair the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the wireless industry. He agreed to an interview for this article but then put all of his remarks off the record, with one exception: his statement that he has always taken scientific guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration, which, he said, “has concluded, ‘the weight of scientific evidence had not linked cell phones with any health problems.’”)11
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency radiation have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and health problems. The FDA, which originally nominated this exposure for review by the NTP in 1999, issued a statement on the draft NTP reports released in February 2018, saying “based on this current information, we believe the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.” FDA and the Federal Communications Commission share responsibility for regulating cell phone technologies.
While cell phones localize the highest microwave exposure to the brain, Wi-Fi exposures are often localized to the abdomen, leg and chest area. However this is not always the case as some people sleep in rooms with Wi-Fi baby monitors, Wi-Fi routers or Wi-Fi gaming devices near their pillow. Wi-Fi printers may be in offices next to a person’s desk and most people are unaware that they transmit continuously. All in all, for some people- especially children- the Wi-Fi exposure is quite significant to overall cumulative exposure.
But this was not the message that media coverage of the NTP study conveyed, as the industry blanketed reporters with its usual “more research is needed” spin. “Seriously, stop with the irresponsible reporting on cell phones and cancer,” demanded a Vox headline. “Don’t Believe the Hype,” urged The Washington Post. Newsweek, for its part, stated the NTP’s findings in a single paragraph, then devoted the rest of the article to an argument for why they should be ignored.49
Sexting: The vast majority of kids are smart and don’t take, send, or post or even store nude photos of themselves or peers on their phones. People who do so can be charged with production, distribution, or possession of child pornography, a serious crime. They can also be subjected to jokes, bullying, blackmail, expulsion from school, loss of a job, etc. and the images can circulate forever. Just don’t go there.
EcomEcom a Pepperl+Fuchs is a manufacturer of Automation equipmeny. In 1945, Walter Pepperl and Ludwig Fuchs founded a small radio workshop in Mannheim, Germany, based on the principles of inventiveness, entrepreneurial foresight, and self-reliance. The experience they acquired was transformed into new ideas, and they continued to enjoy developing products for customers. The eventual result was the invention of the proximity switch. This innovation represented the starting point of the company’s success story. Today, Pepperl+Fuchs is knowns around the world as a pioneer and an innovator in electrical explosion protection, Intrinsically Safe / Hazardous area and sensor technology. Their main focus is always on individual requirements: With a passion for automation and groundbreaking technology, they are committed to working in partnership with their customers now and in the future. They understand the demands of their customer’s markets, developing specific solutions, and integrating them into their processes. In October 2016 Pepperl+Fuchs Group announced the take over of ecom instruments GmbH. Ecom is a world market leader for mobile industrial devices for hazardous areas. As an industry pioneer, ecom has developed explosion protection for mobile devices since 1986 and has demonstrated its technological expertise with numerous innovations. Thus, ecom is also the…
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
The recent report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) about the potential connection between cell phone use and cancer is big news to media outposts and the general public. Prior to the report, scientists told us no evidence existed that cell phones were carcinogenic. And now? According to the IARC, research now proves that there is evidence that cell phones might in fact be carcinogenic. The potential villains in this scenario are radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, which are emitted by a cell phone’s antenna, and which the agency says may be linked to two types of brain cancer.
"In conclusion, contrary to the assurances implied by Karipidis et al., existing scientific evidence clearly indicates that there are potential health risks for students and staff from microwave RF-EMR exposure levels found at schools from internal and external wireless infrastructure. ARPANSA should immediately recommend that schools use wired Internet instead of WiFi as several responsible government agencies in other parts of the world have already done to reduce exposure of children, a sensitive population that need particular protection."
If you think your heart races when surrounded by wireless networks or 3G or LTE cell phones, it may not be in your head. A study involving 69 subjects reported that many of them experienced a real physical response to electromagnetic frequencies. Exactly what was the physical response? Increased heart rate — similar to the heart rate of an individual under stress. 
One key player has not been swayed by all this wireless-friendly research: the insurance industry. The Nation has not been able to find a single insurance company willing to sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation. “Why would we want to do that?” one executive chuckled before pointing to more than two dozen lawsuits outstanding against wireless companies, demanding a total of $1.9 billion in damages. Some judges have affirmed such lawsuits, including a judge in Italy who refused to allow industry-funded research as evidence.24
Users of wireless devices are typically exposed for much longer periods than for mobile phones and the strength of wireless devices is not significantly less. Whereas a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) mobile phone can range from 21 dBm (125 mW) for Power Class 4 to 33 dBm (2W) for Power class 1, a wireless router can range from a typical 15 dBm (30 mW) strength to 27 dBm (500 mW) on the high end.
The purpose of this investigation was to analyze the effects of chronic 2.45 GHz leakage microwave irradiation on thyroid hormones and behavior of male rats. Behavioral changes were found to be significantly changed from controls for immobilization, rearing and ambulation behavior. Changes in behavioral parameters are also correlated with the trend of changes, compared to control animals, in hormonal blood levels of T3 and T4. Researchers concluded that low energy microwave irradiation may be harmful as it is sufficient to alter the levels of thyroid hormones as well as the emotional reactivity of the irradiated compared to control animals.
Keep in mind that even if someone doesn’t have access to your phone, it might be possible for them to access your online account. Online accounts can include your wireless carrier account, call logs, your email or social media accounts, your Google Play/Apple AppStore, or iCloud account. Update the passwords and security questions for those accounts to ensure someone else can’t get access.
These articles and websites don’t exist because the threat is real, however. They exist because they are a vehicle for turning people’s fear into money. The more people share nonsense articles about the dangers of Wi-Fi (or other harmless modern things) the more people click on them, the more ad-revenue is generated, and the more motivation the people peddling these rubbish articles have to keep creating and promoting them.
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?
And, it’s not just sperm. The results of an animal study suggest that some wireless frequencies may prevent egg implantation. During the study, mice exposed 2 hours a day for 45 days had significantly increased oxidative stress levels. The cellular damage and impact on DNA structure from exposure suggest a strong possibility of abnormal pregnancy or failure of the egg to implant. 
This study aimed to investigate the effect of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation (12 h/day for 30 days) on multisensory integration in male rats. Results demonstrated that rats in Wi-Fi exposure groups could not discriminate significantly between the novel and familiar objects in any of the standard SOR, tactile SOR, visual SOR, and CMOR tests and the expression of M1 receptors increased following Wi-Fi exposure. In conclusion, results of this study showed that chronic exposure to Wi-Fi electromagnetic waves might impair both unimodal and cross-modal encoding of information.
Nevertheless, a group of scientists got together in the mid-2000s, calling themselves the BioInitiative Working Group. This group, which largely consisted of wireless radiation researchers, has written a harsh reply as feedback to the reports claiming that posed no health risks. The reply lists a wide range of health effects scientists at the European Commission have unfortunately either ignored or dismissed.