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).
Since we have this subconscious, ever-present fear of death, we employ magical thinking to give us a false sense of power over it. When we create artificial threats to our survival in our imagination, and then avoid practicing behaviors that make us vulnerable to those threats, we feel we have some power over whether we live or die. These are also known as superstitions.
That comes at something of a price though, and the chunky bezels mean it’s not the most stylish phone — though we do like the bronze edges. Still, it’s powerful, outstripping most other phones under $300, which makes it the perfect companion for a gaming-happy generation. The camera suffers from poor performance in low light, but is otherwise good. It’s also running on Google’s Android One operating system, which means the phone will be updated with the latest security patches and new features quickly and often, helping to keep your kid’s phone secure. It’s a great choice if solid performance and durability are preferred to flashy looks.

As a result, it is observed that the long-term exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency radiation caused an increase in the DNA damage of the brain, liver, kidney, and skin tissue of rats, but this increase was not significant. Therefore it is determined that the long-term exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency radiation does not cause the DNA damage of the brain, liver, kidney, and skin tissue of the rats. However it is concluded that the long-term usage of 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency wireless internet providers could cause a potential risk of DNA damage in the testes.

Enter: Radiation. Lots of radiation. According to some research studies, there’s enough EMF radiation emitted by our cell phones to penetrate two inches into the adult brain, and all cell phones hazardously heat our biological tissue, wreaking havoc on many parts of our body. Which leads to serious health issues like fatigue, headaches, brain tumors, DNA alteration, impaired immune system, damaged brain activity and a variety of cancers. At least, that’s what we know now.

I wear a hat and shirt made of gold silver and nickel in the cotton. It is a German invention available from YSHIELD. My walls are painted with graphite paint and the windows laminated to shield, me from neighbours wifi. I am OK living this way but the NBN requires wifi router and ADSL 2+ will, not be available after a few weeks. I am now looking to move to another country leaving my many descendants to fry and me alone in my 80s. I want to live but here it is becoming impossible.
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]
Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important component of this strategy, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided. Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage—as Carlo’s WTR did in 1999; as the WHO’s Interphone study did in 2010; and as the US National Toxicology Program did in 2016—industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree. “[T]he overall balance of the evidence” gives no cause for alarm, asserted Jack Rowley, research and sustainability director for the Groupe Special Mobile Association (GSMA), Europe’s wireless trade association, speaking to reporters about the WHO’s findings.22
“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 reduced 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.”
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.
was since I had Wi-Fi that it had started so turned it off and after a few days I had improved just to check I turned it back on and immediately I felt the effect and stared feeling ill. I no longer go to my sons as he lives in a block of flats with lots of signals also have avoid shops and areas with Wi-Fi cannot visit friends and family even church, I’ve had to put foil on my walls to reduce the neighbours signals, feel like a prisoner and can hardly go anywhere, really hard when needing doctors, dentist, hospital, council etc. I’m sick of it now there’s no need for so much and one day more people will suffer these affects.
This study investigated the effect of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation (2 h/day for 45 days) on biomarkers within Wistar rats. A significant decrease (P < 0.05) was recorded in the level of pineal melatonin of exposed group as compared with sham exposed, while a  significant increase (P < 0.05) in creatine kinase, caspase 3, and calcium ion concentration was observed in whole brain of exposed group of animals as compared to sham exposed. The study concludes that a reduction in melatonin or an increase in caspase-3, creatine kinase, and calcium ion may cause significant damage in brain due to chronic exposure of these radiations. These biomarkers clearly indicate possible health implications of such exposures.
i say to be as proactive as possible, limited wifi use and all of the above, but we can’t live in bubbles and if all this powerful God given food, supplements, exercise and sunshine is so good for us… then focus on that more than anything. stress of all the unknowns will kill us faster if we obsess about it. live like God wants you to, laugh a lot and stop worrying.

Don’t text or handle your phone while driving. Texting or even touching your phone while driving is dangerous and illegal in many states. If you must speak on the phone, use a speaker or headset and hands-free controls. Never text, send or read email or post online and if you use your phone for navigation or listening to music or podcasts, set it before you leave or use hands-free voice recognition.
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.
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]
Now, what if I took that already precious treasure and stuck it in case that substantially increased the accumulation of value in one place by adding my driver’s license, MetroCard, ATM card, and credit card to the package? What if such a case made it possible to combine the pain of losing my phone with the inconvenience of losing my wallet in a brief moment of carelessness? We need not wonder, because that’s exactly what a wallet case does.
✅ PROTECT YOUR HEAD & BODY FROM RADIATION: It is scientifically proven that it’s best to keep your phone away from your body because the radiation exposure often exceeds FCC regulations. That’s why our emf protection cell phone radiation shield will immediately negate symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, memory loss, anxiety, fatigue and much more.
The HARApad laptop pad is available in 3 sizes and multiple colors. There's even an attractive wood option, which allows for a beautiful, natural approach to laptop radiation shielding. There are size options for 13″, 15″ and 17″ laptops, and even a 25″ LapDesk version that will allow for the convenient use of a mouse, if you use a mouse instead of a trackpad.
BACKGROUND: The use of devices emitted microwave radiation such as mobile phones, wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) routers, etc. is increased rapidly. It has caused a great concern; the researchers should identify its effects on people's health. We evaluated the protective role of Vitamin C on the metabolic and enzymatic activities of the liver after exposure to Wi-Fi routers.
A closer look reveals the industry’s sleight of hand. When Henry Lai, the professor whom Carlo tried to get fired, analyzed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2005, he learned that 56 percent found a biological effect from cell-phone radiation and 44 percent did not; the scientific community apparently was split. But when Lai recategorized the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67 percent of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28 percent of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives that concluded industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find a health effect.23

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. 
Radiofrequency radiation from cell phones is non-ionizing and is not powerful enough to cause cancer. 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]
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.
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.
The easiest thing for you to do is to put a passcode on your phone. Having a passcode will make it harder for someone to pick up your phone to scroll through, access your accounts, or install something malicious. In the event that your phone gets stolen or you lose it, it’ll make it a bit harder for others to get into your phone. Most phones just ask for a 4-digit passcode, but some phones will allow you to use a more complex passcode.
We investigated the long-term effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from Wi-Fi systems on hearing. Sixteen Wistar albino rats were divided equally into two groups: sham control and exposure groups. The rats in the experimental group were exposed to 2.4 GHz RFR emitted from a Wi-Fi generator for 24 h/day for one year. The same procedure was applied to the rats in the sham group, except that the Wi-Fi generator was turned off. All groups were kept in Faraday cages during the 12 months to eliminate external electromagnetic fields. The distance between the Wi-Fi generator antenna and the exposure cages was 50 cm. Pre-exposure distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) of all rats were measured at the beginning, 6th and 12th months of the study. The DPOAE values of the sham, baseline and exposure groups were compared statistically. For the 6000 Hz hearing frequency, the DPOAE values in the exposure group were lower than those in the sham group (p < 0.05). Similarly, the 6000 Hz hearing frequency values obtained at the end of the 12th month were also lower than the baseline and 6-month values in the exposure group (p < 0.05). In contrast, the DPOAE values at the 6th and 12th months of exposure for the 2000 Hz hearing frequency were higher than the baseline value (p < 0.05). These results indicated that 12 months of RFR (24 h/day) at 50 cm from a 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi source can affect hearing. However, further studies are necessary.
As with exposure to ‘anything’ sun, pollen, pharmaceuticals, there will be a certain percent of population that is ‘sensitive or hypersensitive’ to wifi / emf frequency. I am definitely sensitive with my husband doing his own control experiment by holding his wifi phone behind by head without my knowledge and me In pain from a piercing wave going through my head. Why is it that it must be all or nothing. There are those who will never be sick from wifi/ emf and those of us who live with it everyday.

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.

This study investigated the effects of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation (exposed once or repeatedly – ten times in two weeks) on the cellular activation within the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus, extracted from rat brains. High SAR triggered an increase of the c-Fos marker 90 min or 24 h after radiation, and low SAR resulted in c-Fos counts higher than in control rats after 24 h. Repeated irradiation at 3 W increased cellular activation of PVN by more than 100% compared to animals subjected to acute irradiation and to repeated non-radiated repeated session control animals. The results suggest that PVN is sensitive to 2.45 GHz microwave radiation at non-thermal SAR levels.
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
42. Limit your child’s time on the phone. There’s much discussion about how much screen time is good for kids and teens today, and today’s wireless devices provide access to all the games, chatting features, web browsers, media, and apps they could possibly consume in a lifetime. Setting clear limits on smartphone usage will help you keep screen time within reasonable limits. “Half an hour of screen time is recommended for children 4-5 years old; an hour for ages 5-10; and two hours for high school aged kids.” – Melanie Medina, Growing up Digital – Cell Phone Safety for Kids, Identity Force; Twitter: @IdentityForce
This is a stupid article. We get electromagnetic radiation from radios, baby monitors, alarm systems, even the Earth itself. And even if we own none of that we still get it from out neighbors. It’s harmless, after all we been exposed to it forever from our planet. Unless you plan on wrapping yourself in foil you will escape it. Not that it matters, it does no harm in these low doses.
I’ve tried to stop using my laptop PC whose WiFi antennas I think were at the front edge on my lap since a highly skeevy lesion manifested at about my waistline. Same for any other wifi devices; I use a table or desk or bench or another chair to set it on now, not the lap. Testing the lesion naturally as if it might be cancerous, making it go away.
As I demonstrate in the video, you can see that with this router, I am exposed to about 100 times more Radio Frequency (RF) energy when I’m next to the router versus standing 20 feet away. This measurement video, like the others in our Video Library, give you an example of the varying levels of energy coming from our WiFi Routers.  If I was using the same meter on say, your WiFi, the measurements could vary widely. 
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. [12]
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
Unfortunately, the current state of cell phone radiation research is similar to the early days of tobacco research. It wasn't until 1999 when the U.S. Department of Justice finally filed a racketeering lawsuit against the major tobacco companies for engaging in a "50 year scheme" to counteract any scientific evidence that showed that cigarettes are harmful to a person's health. Is the potential cell phone cancer link the same sort of scenario? Are cell phone companies funding and promoting research that "proves" no link from cell phone radio radiation in an effort to discredit those studies that are uncovering problems?
Some implanted medical devices use radio frequency communication - both to report status, and to allow changing device behavior. Emissions from wireless electronic devices can interfere with the functioning of these devices, thereby adversely affecting the health of the user. Users of such implanted devices are usually cautioned to avoid close exposure to other wireless devices.

In the years to come, the WTR’s cautionary findings would be replicated by numerous other scientists in the United States and around the world, leading the World Health Organization in 2011 to classify cell-phone radiation as a “possible” human carcinogen and the governments of Great Britain, France, and Israel to issue strong warnings on cell-phone use by children. But as the taxi carried Carlo to Louis Armstrong International Airport, the scientist wondered whether his relationship with the industry might have turned out differently if cell phones had been safety-tested before being allowed onto the consumer market, before profit took precedence over science. But it was too late: Wheeler and his fellow executives had made it clear, Carlo told The Nation, that “they would do what they had to do to protect their industry, but they were not of a mind to protect consumers or public health.”14
“The absence of absolute proof does not mean the absence of risk,” Annie Sasco, the former director of epidemiology for cancer prevention at France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research, told the attendees of the 2012 Childhood Cancer conference. “The younger one starts using cell phones, the higher the risk,” Sasco continued, urging a public-education effort to inform parents, politicians, and the press about children’s exceptional susceptibility.28

“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 reduced 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.”

Sixteen years later, cell phones -- with 6 billion subscriptions worldwide and counting -- have revolutionized how we communicate. The technology that powers them has changed just as dramatically. Today’s smartphones vibrate, rock out, show high-def movies, make photos and videos, issue voice commands, check email, go underwater, navigate with global positioning systems and surf the web in 3-D. They sport dual core processors and batteries that let you – or your kid -- talk for close to 20 hours. (The StarTac maxed out at just 3 hours.)
W. Kim Johnson, a retired physicist and past president of the New Mexico Academy of Science, reviewed the Aires web site for Discovery News and described the material as gibberish, saying that the authors "of the technical description of the ‘Aires' device reads like a random selection of technical terminology. The working description for this device is made up of jargon that, in the end, really says nothing."
Prenatal exposure to radiation from cell phones may increase the risk of ADHD and other behavior problems in children. According to a peer-reviewed Nov. 2008 study in the journal Epidemiology, exposure to cell phone radiation while in the womb "was associated with behavior difficulties such as emotional and hyperactivity problems around the age of school entry." [65] A Dec. 2010 study replicated those findings. [67] A peer-reviewed Mar. 15, 2012 study found that mice exposed to cell phone radiation in the womb "were hyperactive and had impaired memory" as adults. [66] 

That result enabled the industry to continue proclaiming that there was no scientifically established proof that cell phones are dangerous. Jack Rowley of the GSMA trade association said that “interpretation should be based on the overall balance of the evidence.” Once again, the slippery word “overall” downplayed the significance of scientific research that the industry didn’t like.43
Years later, a study that Leszczynski described as a “game changer” discovered that even phones meeting government standards, which in Europe were a SAR of 2.0 watts per kilogram, could deliver exponentially higher peak radiation levels to certain skin and blood cells. (SAR levels reached a staggering 40 watts per kilogram—20 times higher than officially permitted.) In other words, the official safety levels masked dramatically higher exposures in hot spots, but industry-funded scientists obstructed research on the health impacts.45
The FCC sets the maximum amount of thermal radiation (heat) that cell phones are permitted to emit. [3] This limit is measured as the amount of radiation absorbed by a user and is known as the specific absorption rate (SAR). In 1996 the SAR for cell phone radiation was set at a maximum of 1.6 watts of energy absorbed per kilogram of body weight. Manufactures of cell phones must test their products to ensure that they meet this standard. Random tests of phones on the market by FCC scientists further ensure that radiation levels meet FCC guidelines. [48]
The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of 2.45-GHz electromagnetic radiation (60min/day for 4 weeks) on the oxidant and antioxidant status of skin and to examine the possible protective effects of β-glucans (50 mg/kg/day before each EMR exposure) against the oxidative injury in male rats. EMR exposure caused a significant increase in malondialdehyde levels and catalase activity, while the activities of superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase decreased in skin tissues. Systemic β-glucan significantly reversed the elevation of MDA levels and the reduction of SOD activities. β-glucan treatment also slightly enhanced the activity of CAT and prevented the depletion of GSH-Px activity caused by EMR, but not statistically significantly. The present study demonstrated the role of oxidative mechanisms in EMR-induced skin tissue damages and that β-glucan could ameliorate oxidative skin injury via its antioxidant properties.
You’ll find no shortage of articles on the dangers of just about anything if you look around the Internet. Articles about how dangerous modern medicines are, how dangerous cell phones are, how dangerous cooking your food in a microwave is, and yes, how dangerous Wi-Fi is. People claim that Wi-Fi routers keep them awake at night, cause cancer, cause hyperactivity in children, and all manner of unsupported and nonsensical claims.
Studies have shown an association between cell phone use and a decreased risk of certain brain tumors. 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.
The wireless industry has sought to downplay concerns about cell phones’ safety, and the Federal Communications Commission has followed its example. In 1996, the FCC established cell-phone safety levels based on “specific absorption rate,” or SAR. Phones were required to have a SAR of 1.6 watts or less per kilogram of body weight. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised the FCC that its guidelines “do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children.” Nevertheless, the FCC has declined to update its standards.30
In the EMR groups, lipid peroxidation levels in the brain and liver were increased following EMR exposure; however, the glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity, and vitamin A, vitamin E and -carotene concentrations were decreased in the brain and liver. Glutathione (GSH) and vitamin C concentrations in the brain were also lower in the EMR groups than in the controls; however, their concentrations did not change in the liver.

28. At night turn it off to lower EMF exposure. “This is one of the best ways to protect your immune system and, therefore, your dental health. Give your body a break by keeping your cell phone far from your head while sleeping. Invest in a landline if needed and turn off all routers before bed. There are lots of ways to protect your body’s critical restorative process.” – Andrea Fabry, Cell Phones and Tooth Decay, It Takes Time; Twitter: @AndreaFabry