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.
Remarkably, cell phones had been allowed onto the US consumer market a decade earlier without any government safety testing. Now, some customers and industry workers were being diagnosed with cancer. In January 1993, David Reynard sued the NEC America Company, claiming that his wife’s NEC phone caused her lethal brain tumor. After Reynard appeared on national TV, the story went viral. A congressional subcommittee announced an investigation; investors began dumping their cell-phone stocks; and Wheeler and the CTIA swung into action.2
Say someone found a potential association between carrying coins in your pocket and the risk of a particular type of tumor. It would set off a frenzy of activity among a group of people who were convinced that this association was real. They would lobby for a law requiring that warning signs be placed on change machines. The effect would snowball until some people would demand that the government stop minting coins.
Merely injecting us with vaccines and their toxic metals is one thing. Then EMF out there is another. However, putting the two together, what do we have? Now let’s look at the push to increased the saturation in the environment with cell towers in and around school grounds with mandatory vaccinations for kids. Makes you wonder. The general population is encourage to get vaccines while SmartMeters, the ubiquity of WiFi and cell phones surround us.

Not only are these devices of radically different operating powers, but they are equally at the mercy of the Inverse-square law. The Inverse-square law is a physical law which states that the quantity or intensity of linear-wave radiation is directly inverse to the distance the observing/affected body is from the source of the radiation. In the illustration above, you can see how the further the given area (A) is from the source of the radiation (S), the less exposure it receives. This law applies to radio, microwaves, visible light, and all manner of waves we experience around us in the natural world.

On the basis of current scientific information, ARPANSA sees no reason why wi-fi should not continue to be used in schools and in other places. However, ARPANSA recognises that exposure to RF EME from wi-fi and other wireless devices can be of concern to some parents. ARPANSA will continue to review the research into potential health effects of RF EME emissions from wi-fi and other devices in order to provide accurate and up‑to‑date advice.


It’s worth remembering that Wi-Fi occupies the same part of the spectrum as microwaves, which sounds terribly alarming. If it can boil water, surely it’s bad for us too? Well, no. Not at such low power. This is also the frequency of the cosmic background radiation, the echoes of the big bang that fill the sky. There is literally nowhere in the universe that does not have microwaves pinging around in it.
Children may have an increased risk of adverse health effects from cell phone radiation. According to American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Robert Block, when cell phones are used by children, "the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull," than for adults. [68] A July 2008 peer-reviewed study shows that children under the age of eight absorb twice the amount of radiation into their brain tissue as adults due to their lower skull thickness. [17]
Katie Wells, CTNC, MCHC, Founder and CEO of Wellness Mama, has a background in research, journalism, and nutrition. As a mom of six, she turned to research and took health into her own hands to find answers to her health problems. WellnessMama.com is the culmination of her thousands of hours of research and all posts are medically reviewed and verified by the Wellness Mama research team. Katie is also the author of the bestselling books The Wellness Mama Cookbook and The Wellness Mama 5-Step Lifestyle Detox.

Most wireless LAN equipment is designed to work within predefined standards. Wireless access points are also often close to humans, but the drop off in power over distance is fast, following the inverse-square law.[9] However, wireless laptops are typically used close to humans. WiFi had been anecdotally linked to electromagnetic hypersensitivity[10] but research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity has found no systematic evidence supporting claims made by sufferers.[11][12]
This study aimed to assess the potential harmful effects of radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation on sperm parameters. There was no significant difference between sperm counts and sperm morphology excluding sperm motility, due to mobile phone usage period, however total motile sperm count and the progressive motile sperm count decreased due to the increase of internet usage and progressive motile sperm count also decreased with wireless Internet usage compared with the wired Internet connection usage.
Exposure to non-thermal radio frequency radiation from Wi-Fi and cellular phones can disrupt normal cellular development, especially fetal development. A 2004 animal study linked exposure to delayed kidney development. [4] These findings were supported by a 2009 Austrian study. In fact, the disruption of protein synthesis is so severe that authors specifically noted, “this cell property is especially pronounced in growing tissues, that is, in children and youth. Consequently, these population groups would be more susceptible than average to the described effects.” [5] In short, bathing the developmentally young in Wi-Fi increases their risk of developmental issues.
So of course now that we understand that the cases are not tested and just the material--it makes sense! We measured power density levels all around the case-the shielding material most likely isn't used "all over" because then the phone couldn't receive signal and wouldn't be able to engage in a call.  That's why we did not see even close to a 99% reduction when some cases were on the phone.  In fact, watch the video and you'll see some readings are more than 20% higher with a case on vs the naked phone.
If you have invested in the latest iPhone, or you are rocking a super-cool Samsung Galaxy S7 or S6, you don't want to wrap it up in an ugly case that hide's the phone's designer charms. Shop hot brands such as OtterBox and LifeProof, and ensure your phone has optimum protection without sacrificing style. Sellers on eBay have a wide inventory of top-name brands in bran new condition, making it possible to pick out a case that is a true reflection of your fashion-forward personality.
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.
Radiation syndrome acute chronic Health physics Dosimetry Electromagnetic radiation and health Laser safety Lasers and aviation safety Medical radiography Mobile phone radiation and health Radiation protection Radiation therapy Radioactivity in the life sciences Radioactive contamination Radiobiology Biological dose units and quantities Wireless electronic devices and health Radiation Heat-transfer
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats in the weight range of 230 to 260 g were divided into control, sham, Wi-Fi exposed groups. After long term exposure (4 h/day for 45 days) to Wi-Fi electromagnetic radiation, plasma levels of glucose and insulin during intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test were measured. Islet insulin secretion and content, lipid peroxidation and antioxidant status in pancreas of rats were determined.
Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) are invisible. You can’t see, touch, or feel them, but doesn’t mean they’re not there. As awareness about possible negative effects of wireless energy grows, curiosity simultaneously rises. More and more people ask me about how far they need to be and where the optimal placement is of their routers are for they’re health and safety.
In those cases, however, there are two important things to note. The person exposed to the non-ionizing microwave radiation would be exposed to a very high power dose at a very close range. The magnetron in your average consumer microwave produces about 700 watts of microwave energy, and that microwave discharge is safely contained within the body of the microwave thanks to proper shielding. Even if the microwave was malfunctioning and the shielding was beginning to fail, you wouldn’t even feel anything standing in the same room as the device.
2. Our products are designed to provide an anti-radiation barrier between the device and the body. This way, the devices are still usable and able to send and receive signal out of the non-shielded side while shielding the EMF away from the body. Because of this, you will only see a reduction in EMF levels on the shielded side of the device. The test you have conducted shows the highest levels from anywhere around the device.
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).
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]
Numerous peer-reviewed studies have found that cell phone use is not associated with an increased risk of brain tumors. An Oct. 20, 2011 study of 358,403 Danish citizens – the largest study of its kind to date – concluded that "there was no association between tumors of the central nervous system or brain and long term (10 years +) use of mobile phones." [39] A July 27, 2011 study found that there was no association between cell phone use and brain tumor risks among children and adolescents. [50] Numerous other studies published from 2001-2013 have similarly concluded that there is no association between cell phone use and the development of brain tumors. [1] [41] [42] [45] [46] [49]
Low frequency sound wave? what? They are HIGH frequency microwaves, AS IN THE SAME FREQUENCY YOUR MICROWAVE USES THAT HEATS UP FOOD! Please don’t be that guy that has no idea about this and tries to “debunk” something that is literally destroying people’s lives. – And it just simply BAFFLES me how you don’t even read the research done on the matter and boldly claim it has no effect! How ignorant and completely oblivious can one person be?!
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.
RESULTS: Data obtained from the One day test showed an increase in concentration of blood glucose, decrease in Triglyceride level and GGT factor (P<0.05), however no observed significant difference on the Cholesterol, HDL, LDL level and hepatic enzymes activities in compare to control group. Groups of the five-day test showed reduction in the amount of blood glucose, elevation of cholesterol level and LDL relative to control group (P<0.05).
We asked Dr. George Carlo his thoughts on EMF cases and shielding products, “most offer some protection, some of the time, to some people, because they can alter the immediate electromagnetic field environment around the person,” and immediately emphasizes the importance of “some,” which seems to tell us that it’s vastly unpredictable. “All waveforms in the environment are highly variable and they interact with other factors in the environment that make them even more variable.” This pretty much sums up that the artificial electromagnetic energy universe is vastly unpredictable.
Since children’s skulls are thinner than adults’ and their nervous systems are still developing, researchers believe they may be at a greater risk for cell phone-related cancers. They’ll also be exposed to the potentially harmful radiation significantly longer than their parents’ generation. Until more is known about the possible carcinogenic effects of cell phone use, curb your kids’ cell phone habits by encouraging texting or using a landline instead—if they can actually recognize a landline anymore, that is.
I am a certified Building Biology Advocate, a former journalist, mother of nine, and avid CrossFitter who likes to think outside the box. After our family's health crisis in 2008, I learned to ask questions about what's in our food, our water, and our air. I hope to empower you as you seek to live safely in a complex world. Thankfully, small steps lead to big changes. Let's travel this road together, one step at a time.
We do have evidence that cellphones (or WiFi) do NOT cause an increase in brain tumors. Look at the time period over which cellphone use became common -- say, over the last twenty years. During that time, the incidence of brain tumors has remained absolutely flat. With over four billion people using cellphones (or WiFi) today, if there was any influence on the development of brain tumors, we would be seeing that by now.
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 reduce 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.
I thought I was getting Alzheimers until I read this study. I also had insomnia. I couldn’t focus, concentrate or remember anything. My energy levels were tanked. I felt like I was turning into a vegetable. I was ready to leave the planet, I was getting So depressed… I immediately disabled the wifi and put 2 laptops on an ether net and EVERY SINGLE SYMPTOM CLEARED UP!!!
I am 60 years old, single. I got a tumor on my left breast when I took a bath on Sunday, Sep. 4th. I came to HCM City Medic Hoa Hao Clinic on Sep. 5th for an X-ray then a biopsy test. In the afternoon I came back to have the result, my case fell as ‘invasive ductal carcinoma. Then I came to Ho Chi Minh City Oncology Hospital on September 7th for some more tests: blood, urine, X-ray, mammogram, ECG. Can I drink ‘Ensure Original nutrition shake’ as my students offer me 12 bottles (8 FL oz /237 mL), I am looking forward to your soonest consideration.
Say someone found a potential association between carrying coins in your pocket and the risk of a particular type of tumor. It would set off a frenzy of activity among a group of people who were convinced that this association was real. They would lobby for a law requiring that warning signs be placed on change machines. The effect would snowball until some people would demand that the government stop minting coins.
A 2012 study by NCI researchers (25) compared observed glioma incidence rates in U.S. SEER data with rates simulated from the small risks reported in the Interphone study (6) and the greatly increased risk of brain cancer among cell phone users reported in the Swedish pooled analysis (19). The authors concluded that overall, the incidence rates of glioma in the United States did not increase over the study period. They noted that the US rates could be consistent with the small increased risk seen among the subset of heaviest users in the Interphone study. The observed incidence trends were inconsistent with the high risks reported in the Swedish pooled study. These findings suggest that the increased risks observed in the Swedish study are not reflected in U.S. incidence trends.

WiFi operates in the 2 to 5 GHz range -- part of the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is in the same part of the spectrum where cell phones operate so I may refer to WiFi or cellphone electromagnetic radiation interchangeably. These are radio waves -- no different from those used to broadcast television programs, except that they are higher in frequency. They aren't nearly as high a frequency as visible light, and no one worries about getting cancer from visible light (ultraviolet light, on the other hand, causes skin cancer, but this is the minimum energy necessary to cause ionizations that can cause breaks in strands of DNA, which is the mechanism by which cancer cells can be created). There is no credible evidence that non-ionizing radiation has any adverse health effects at all. There is no radiobiologic mechanism that could explain such an association -- and absolutely no scientifically valid evidence that this has ever happened.

“So what can you do? Straighten up, first of all, says Kenneth Hansraj, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon in Poughkeepsie, New York. And carry device at chest height with head up, chest open and shoulder blades back. Move just your eyes downward. And then, take a break. Your neck is not supposed to stay stuck in one position for a long period. If you’re reading on a tablet or phone, stop every so often to swivel and tilt your head — up and down, then side to side.” – 3 Dumb Things We Do with Smartphones, Good Housekeeping; Twitter: @goodhousemag
×