In 2015, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the epidemiologic studies on cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of other cancers of the head and neck region (2). The Committee also stated that epidemiologic studies do not indicate increased risk for other malignant diseases, including childhood cancer (2).
Also of note, in a study by Henrietta Nittby et al (2009), the lowest exposure SARs were worse than the higher SAR exposures. Some scientists consider blood brain barrier effects at these very low levels of radiation exposure (i.e. 30-45x lower than the ‘Top 10’ lowest SAR phones ranked by the Environmental Working Group) to be of equal or even greater concern for the population than the increase in brain tumors from cell phone use that is expected.
As iPhones go, the iPhone SE is a bargain, but it doesn’t come cheap. Don’t let the pint-sized package fool you, however. The iPhone SE has a fast A9 processor, which is the same processor used in the iPhone 6S. It also comes with a crisp display and runs the latest version of iOS. The iPhone SE is a great choice for a child, too, given it features built-in parental controls. You can prevent your child from accessing the internet and using specific apps, for instance, or prevent them from making purchases in the App Store.
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."
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.
This study was an in-vitro pilot study which established the effect of radiofrequency radiation from 2.4 GHz laptop antenna on human semen. A test of significance between results of semen parameters using Mann-Whitney U- test at 0.05 level of significance showed a significant effect of RFR exposure on sperm concentration, motility and morphology grading.
When a group of Danish ninth graders experienced difficulty concentrating after sleeping with their cell phones by their head, they performed an experiment to test the effect of wireless Wi-Fi routers on garden cress. One set of plants was grown in a room free of wireless radiation; the other group grew next to two routers that released the same amount of radiation as a cell phone. The results? The plants nearest the radiation didn’t grow. 
We can’t stop people from misleading others for profit, but we can respond to their nonsense. We’ve received more than a few letters here at How-To Geek from concerned readers asking if they should turn off their wireless equipment when not in use, or get rid of it altogether. So we’ve decided to add a reasonable voice to the conversation so, hopefully, people will find this and breathe a much deserved sigh of relief.
This study analyzed cellular stress levels in rat thymus after exposure to a 2.45 GHz radio frequency (RF) using an experimental diathermic model in a Gigahertz Transverse Electromagnetic (GTEM) chamber. The thymus tissue presented several morphological changes, including increased distribution of blood vessels along with the appearance of red blood cells and hemorrhagic reticuloepithelial cells, while the glucocorticoid receptors presented greater immunomarking on the thymic cortex in exposed animals. These results indicate that non-ionizing sub-thermal radiation causes changes in the endothelial permeability and vascularization of the thymus, and is a tissue-modulating agent for Hsp90 and GR.
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. However, wireless laptops are typically used close to humans. WiFi had been anecdotally linked to electromagnetic hypersensitivity but research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity has found no systematic evidence supporting claims made by sufferers.
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.
This Ethernet cable can be a source of RF radiation and so needs to be shielded. There are lots of different qualities of cable category 5, 6, 7 etc. I recommend buying at least Cat 6a SSTP (screened shielded twisted pair) Ethernet cable. Maybe the cable that came with your modem/router is Cat 6a SSTP. In that case you’re OK. If in doubt change it.
These general findings and data presented earlier on Wi-Fi effects were used to assess the Foster and Moulder (F&M) review of Wi-Fi. The F&M study claimed that there were seven important studies of Wi-Fi that each showed no effect. However, none of these were Wi-Fi studies, with each differing from genuine Wi-Fi in three distinct ways. F&M could, at most conclude that there was no statistically significant evidence of an effect. The tiny numbers studied in each of these seven F&M-linked studies show that each of them lack power to make any substantive conclusions.
The present study was designed to determine the effects of 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi exposure (60min/day for 30 days) on the lens oxidant and antioxidant redox systems of rats, as well as the possible protective effects of melatonin on the lens injury induced by electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Results showed poor oxidative toxic effects of one hour of Wi-Fi exposure on the lens in the animals. However, melatonin supplementation in the lens seems to have protective effects on the oxidant system by modulation of GSH-Px activity.
Exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is rapidly increasing in everyday environment, consequently conferring potential health effects. Oxidative stress is emerging as a mechanism implicated in pathophysiology and progression of various diseases. To our knowledge, no report has been made on the status of antioxidant redox systems after continuous exposure to radiofrequency radiation emitted from a Wi-Fi access point in animal model so far. Therefore, we aimed to continuously subject rats in the experimental group to radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted from a commercially available Wi-Fi device. Male Wister rats were exposed to 2.45 GHz RF radiation emitted from a Wi-Fi for 24 h/day for 10 consecutive weeks. In order to assess the change in antioxidant redox system of plasma after continuous exposure to a Wi-Fi device, the total antioxidant capacity of plasma, level of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances, concentration of reduced glutathione (GSH), and activity of different enzymatic antioxidants, e.g., superoxide dismutase [SOD], catalase [CAT], glutathione peroxidase [GSH-Px], and glutathione S-transferase [GST], were measured. In the Wi-Fi exposed group, a significant decrease was detected in total antioxidant capacity of plasma and the activities of several antioxidant enzymes, including CAT, GSH-Px, and SOD (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the GST activity was significantly increased in this group (P < 0.05). However, no significant changes were found in GSH and TBARS levels following exposure to RF radiation. According to the results, oxidative defense system in rats exposed to Wi-Fi signal was significantly affected compared to the control group. Further studies are needed to better understand the possible biological mechanisms of EMR emitted from Wi-Fi device and relevant outcomes.
Members of the public often ask about the cumulative exposure that a child receives when using a Wi-Fi device in a classroom in which a number of children are simultaneously using Wi-Fi. When downloading files, most of the transmissions will be from the access point, not the students’ device. When downloading and uploading only a portion of the maximum capacity of a network would be used even in a classroom filled with children using Wi-Fi. The Wi-Fi network divides RF transmissions among the access points and client devices therefore the individual RF exposure to a child in a classroom that is using a device consists of sequential exposures from all active devices, the majority of which are located at some distance away(15). For the majority of schools (20) the measurements in the current study were conducted in an empty classroom (to avoid lesson disruption) with an access point and one laptop. In three schools, measurements were conducted with students or teachers present and using Wi-Fi devices. A comparison between measurements conducted in empty classrooms and classrooms with multiple students/teachers using Wi-Fi showed no significant difference in the RF levels (p > 0.1 for all); although this may have been due to low numbers (only three schools measured with multiple users in the classroom).
The WHO began to study the health effects of electric- and magnetic-field radiation (EMF) in 1996 under the direction of Michael Repacholi, an Australian biophysicist. Although Repacholi claimed on disclosure forms that he was “independent” of corporate influence, in fact Motorola had funded his research: While Repacholi was director of the WHO’s EMF program, Motorola paid $50,000 a year to his former employer, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which then transferred the money to the WHO program. When journalists exposed the payments, Repacholi denied that there was anything untoward about them because Motorola had not paid him personally. Eventually, Motorola’s payments were bundled with other industry contributions and funneled through the Mobile and Wireless Forum, a trade association that gave the WHO’s program $150,000 annually. In 1999, Repacholi helped engineer a WHO statement that “EMF exposures below the limits recommended in international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health.”34
49. Get insurance on your child’s phone. “54% of kids plan on spending their summer playing outside. With so many opportunities for their cellphone to become broken, stolen or misplaced, it’s important to protect their device with mobile protection, considering that nearly 30% of parents have had to replace a child’s cellphone in the past 18 months. This will protect their device against damage (including water damage), loss and theft. Ask your carrier about getting the most comprehensive coverage available for your device.” – 5 Summer Cellphone Safety Tips for Kids, Asurion; Twitter: @Asurion
Activewear & Athletic ShoesMen's Activewear,Men's Athletic Shoes,Wo...13123 CyclingBikes,Clothing & Footwear,Parts & Access...949 Exercise & FitnessBalance & Recovery,Books & Magazines,Car...7978 Fan ShopMemorabilia,MLB,NASCAR,NBA,NCAA,NFL,NHL...4269 Golf ProductsGolf Accessories,Golf Bags and Carts,Gol...681 OutdoorsAction Sports,Boats & Water Sports,Campi...12549
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.  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.”  In short, bathing the developmentally young in Wi-Fi increases their risk of developmental issues.
The present study was undertaken to determine the influence of low intensity microwave radiation (900, 1800, or 2450 MHz for 2h/day, 5days/week, for 60 days) on oxidative stress, inflammatory response and DNA damage in rat brain. Low intensity microwave exposure resulted in a frequency dependent significant increase in oxidative stress markers, reduced levels of GSH and SOD, increased levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, and significant DNA damage in microwave exposed groups compared to controls. In conclusion, the present study suggests that low intensity microwave radiation induces oxidative stress, inflammatory response and DNA damage in brain by exerting a frequency dependent effect. The study also indicates that increased oxidative stress and inflammatory response might be the factors involved in DNA damage following low intensity microwave 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
“If you’re experiencing eye discomfort, make your phone’s font size bigger. Mark Rosenfield, O.D., Ph.D., told Men’s Health that phone users should try to hold their phones at least 16 inches away from their faces. Every few minutes look up from your screen at something far away for short breaks, and don’t forget to blink.” – Amanda Hawkins, 5 Seriously Bad Side Effects of Your Smartphone Addiction, Good Housekeeping; Twitter: @goodhousemag