The answer is yes, it can. Will it always make people sick? No. Dr. George Carlo explains that there is most definitely a biological response to what he refers to as Information Carrying Radio Waves (ICRW-energy fields from many wireless devices). When you're exposed to ICRW a process of adaptation and compensation occurs in your body. He has a great program that can help people adapt.
Several studies that will provide more information are under way. Researchers from the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Spain are conducting another international case–control study—Mobi-Kids—that will include 2000 young people (aged 10–24 years) with newly diagnosed brain tumors and 4000 healthy young people. The goal of the study is to learn more about risk factors for childhood brain tumors.
Custom Baby & Kids ItemsPersonalized Kids Books,Personalized Ted...13 Custom JewelryCustom Bracelets,Personalized Earrings,P...67 Custom Kitchen AccessoriesCustom Kitchen Utensils,Custom Mugs,Pers...62 Custom Novelty ItemsCustom Bobbleheads,Custom Electronic Acc...38 Custom Photo PrintsAcrylic Prints,Canvas Prints,Custom Post...440 Personalized Bags6
This study used Drosophila as model organisms to assess the effects of various EMF sources (short time daily for 3-7 days) on apoptotic cell death of follicles during oogenesis and reproductive capacity (fecundity) decline. Sources included: 900/1800 MHz mobile phone, 1880-1900 MHz wireless base, wireless handset, mobile phone-handset combination, 2.44 GHz wireless network (Wi-Fi), 2.44 GHz bluetooth, 92.8 MHz FM generator, 27.15 MHz baby monitor, 900 MHz CW RF generator and microwave oven’s 2.44 GHz RF and magnetic field components. All EMF sources used created statistically significant effects regarding fecundity and cell death-apoptosis induction, even at very low intensity levels well below ICNIRP’s guidelines, suggesting that Drosophila oogenesis system is suitable to be used as a biomarker for exploring potential EMF bioactivity.
The purpose of this study was to reveal whether long term exposure (over a year) of 2.4GHz frequency RF radiation will cause DNA damage of different tissues such as brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissue and testicular tissues of rats. Based on the DNA damage results determined by the single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) method, it was found that the % tail DNA values of the brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissues of the rats in the experimental group increased more than those in the control group. The increase of the DNA damage in all tissues was not significant (p>0.05), however the increase of the DNA damage in rat testes tissue was significant (p<0.01). In conclusion, long-term exposure to 2.4GHz RF radiation (Wi-Fi) does not cause DNA damage of the organs investigated in this study except testes indicating that testes are more sensitive organ to RF radiation.
Things didn’t end well between George Carlo and Tom Wheeler; the last time the two met face-to-face, Wheeler had security guards escort Carlo off the premises. As president of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), Wheeler was the wireless industry’s point man in Washington. Carlo was the scientist handpicked by Wheeler to defuse a public-relations crisis that threatened to strangle his infant industry in its crib. This was back in 1993, when there were only six cell-phone subscriptions for every 100 adults in the United States. But industry executives were looking forward to a booming future.1
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
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) on the pancreas tissue of young rats and the ameliorative effect of Gallic acid (GA). Six-week-old, 48 male rats were equally divided into four groups: Sham group, EMR group (2.45 GHz), EMR (2.45 GHz)+GA group (30 mg/kg/daily) orally and GA group (30 mg/kg/daily). After 30 days, serum and pancreatic tissue samples were harvested for biochemical, histopathological and immunohistochemical analysis. Serum amylase, lipase, glucose, and tissue malondialdehyde, total oxidant status and oxidative stress index were increased, whereas total antioxidant status decreased in the EMR group. The histopathological examination of the pancreases indicated slight degenerative changes in some pancreatic endocrine and exocrine cells and slight inflammatory cell infiltrations in the EMR group. At the immunohistochemical examination, marked increase was observed in calcitonin gene related protein and Prostaglandin E2 expressions in pancreatic cells in this group. There were no changes in interleukin-6 expirations. GA ameliorated biochemical and pathological findings in the EMR+GA group. These findings clearly demonstrate that EMR can cause degenerative changes in both endocrine and exocrine pancreas cells in rats during the developmental period and GA has an ameliorative effect.
In February of 2008, a research study was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. The study, conducted at Tel Aviv University, examined 500 Israelis who had developed salivary gland cancer and compared their level of mobile phone usage to 1,300 healthy adults. The researchers discovered that within the entire group, those who used their cell phone for a few hours a day had 50 percent higher odds of developing a salivary gland tumor.
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.
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.” 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". Dr Michael Clark, of the HPA, says published research on mobile phones and masts does not add up to an indictment of WiFi.
Cracked a screen…or two? We know how you feel. We’ve been there, done that! The answer to your problem? Isn’t it obvious? Get a protective case! With our protective cases, we have a huge range of heavy-duty to simple and sleek TPU cases that’ll have you wishing you had picked one up two or three cracks ago. Don’t wait. Be safe and get a mobile cover to keep your phone protected today!
METHODS: Standard class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of 20 non-carious extracted human premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 10). The control group was stored in non-environment. The specimens in the experimental groups were exposed to a radiofrequency radiation emitted from standard Wi Fi devices at 2.4 GHz for 20 min. The distance between the Wi-Fi router and samples was 30 cm and the router was exchanging data with a laptop computer that was placed 20 m away from the router. The concentration of mercury in the artificial saliva in the groups was evaluated by using a cold-vapor atomic absorption Mercury Analyzer System. The independent t test was used to evaluate any significant differences in mercury release between the two groups.
Present study was under taken to predict the possible DNA damages (genotoxicity) and carcinogenicity caused by radiofrequency radiations (RF) to living tissue. Dry seeds of chickpea were treated with GSM cell phone (900 MHz) and laptop (3.31 GHz) as RF source for 24 and 48 h. Untreated seeds were used as (0 h) negative control and Gamma rays (250 Gray) as positive control. Plant chromosomal aberration assay was used as genotoxicity marker. All the treatment of RF inhibits seed germination percentage. 48 h laptop treatment has the most negative effect as compared to untreated control. A decrease was observed in mitotic index (M.I) and increase in abnormality index (A.I) with the increase in exposure duration and frequency in (Hz). Cell membrane damages were also observed only in 48 h exposure of cell phone and laptop (RF). Maximum nuclear membrane damages and ghost cells were again recorded in 48 h exposure of cell phone and laptop. The radiofrequency radiations (900 MHz and 3.31 GHz) are only genotoxic as they induce micronuclei, bi-nuclei, multi-nuclei and scattered nuclei but could be carcinogenic as 48 h incubation of RF induced fragmentation and ghost cells. Therefore cell phones and laptop should not be used unnecessarily to avoid possible genotoxic and carcinogenic effects.
Thank you for this information. I will be looking in to all of this. We have shut off our wifi and have hardwired our house. A cell tower was put in to our neighborhood .08 mile away 5 years ago and we’re just now looking in to the implications of living so close to one. We have a 3 1/2 year old and a 9 month old. My 3 1/2 year old is always complaining of her eyes hurting or a headache. I’m thinking it’s time to sell and move. Thank you again! I appreciate you getting back with me.
Carlo’s story underscores the need for caution, however, particularly since it evokes eerie parallels with two of the most notorious cases of corporate deception on record: the campaigns by the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to obscure the dangers of smoking and climate change, respectively. Just as tobacco executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1960s) that smoking was deadly, and fossil-fuel executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1980s) that burning oil, gas, and coal would cause a “catastrophic” temperature rise, so Carlo’s testimony reveals that wireless executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1990s) that cell phones could cause cancer and genetic damage.17
Our cell phones for hazardous areas ensure the safety of your workers in all situations. We offer intrinsically safe cell phones for Zone 1 / Class I (ATEX, IECEx) and explosion proof cell phones for Zone 2 / Class II (NEC). Our cell phones are available with lone worker protection (LWP) and our range of products also includes an intrinsically safe smartphone, the Smart-Ex® 01.
1. Be careful what you share. “Use the same good sense about what you post from your phone as from a computer. Once they’re posted, text, photos, and video are tough to take back, can be copied and pasted elsewhere, and are up there pretty much forever. Think about the people in them (including you!). Reputations are at stake.” – Tips for Smart Cellphone Use, Connect Safely; Twitter: @ConnectSafely