The scientific evidence that cell phones and wireless technologies in general can cause cancer and genetic damage is not definitive, but it is abundant and has been increasing over time. Contrary to the impression that most news coverage has given the public, 90 percent of the 200 existing studies included in the National Institutes of Health’s PubMed database on the oxidative effects of wireless radiation—its tendency to cause cells to shed electrons, which can lead to cancer and other diseases—have found a significant impact, according to a survey of the scientific literature conducted by Henry Lai. Seventy-two percent of neurological studies and 64 percent of DNA studies have also found effects.52
Listeria monocytogenes ... was recognized as the main cause of neonatal infection, meningitis, and sepsis. Listeria infection in adult patients is related to immunocompromised systems like HIV infection, organ transplants, individuals who have received corticosteroids, and immunosuppressant drugs for their malignancies. Escherichia coli known as E coli is a common cause of life-threatening infections such as bloodstream and urinary tract infections, otitis media, and other complications.
The aim of this study was to investigate the possible protective role of melatonin on oxidative stress induced by Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz, 60min/day for 28 days) EMR in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat. In comparison to control and sham groups, RFR-exposed animals had higher lipid peroxidation levels and lower glutathione peroxidase levels, while the RFR-exposed animals treated with melatonin had significantly lower lipid peroxidation levels and increased glutathione peroxidase activity compared with controls. Results show that there is an apparent protective effect of melatonin on the Wi-Fi-induced oxidative stress in the laryngotracheal mucosa of rats by inhibition of free radical formation and support of the glutathione peroxidase antioxidant system.
An analysis of data from NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program evaluated trends in cancer incidence in the United States. This analysis found no increase in the incidence of brain or other central nervous system cancers between 1992 and 2006, despite the dramatic increase in cell phone use in this country during that time (22).
The present study focused on the possible gender-related effects of Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields on these processes in human males and females. P300 amplitude values at 18 electrodes were found to be significantly lower in the response inhibition condition than in the response initiation and baseline conditions and independent of this effect, within the response inhibition condition there was also a significant gender X radiation interaction effect of males in comparison to female subjects only at the presence of EMF. In conclusion, the present findings suggest that Wi-Fi exposure may exert gender-related alterations on neural activity associated with the amount of attentional resources engaged during a linguistic test adjusted to induce WM.
In addition, electrical and electronic devices of all kinds emit EM fields around their working circuits, generated by oscillating currents. Humans are in daily contact with computers, video display monitors, television screens, microwave ovens, fluorescent lamps, electric motors of several kinds (such as washing machines, kitchen appliances [like electric can openers, blenders, and mixers], water pumps, etc.) and many others. A study of bedroom exposure in 2009 showed the highest ELF-EF from bedside lights and the highest ELF-MF from transformer devices, while the highest RF-ELF came from DECT cordless phones and outside cellphone base stations; all exposures were well below International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guideline levels.[16]

The authors of these studies noted that the results were preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism in humans were unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in people (4). Some factors that can contribute to inconsistencies across such studies include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.
ArtCanvas,Framed Art,Mixed Media,Photograph...33315 BathBath Accessories & Sets,Bath Rugs,Bath S...4932 BeddingBed Pillows,Blankets & Throws,Comforter...4114 Floor Care & CleaningBrooms, Mops & Dusters,Vacuums1325 FurnitureAccent Furniture,Baby & Kid's Furniture...9995 Heating, Cooling & Air QualityAir Conditioners,Air Purifiers,Dehumidif...1610 Home AppliancesIrons & Garment Care,Sewing Machines,Sma...6472 Home DecorCandles & Holders,Home Accents,Lamps & L...15328
SafeSleeve's report is right up front about showing that they do not test or certify the Safe Sleeve case, rather they are simply testing the material they put into the case in a completely artificial environment, in a laboratory setting, using a signal generator and a power amplifier. Safe Sleeve includes photos showing how the measurements are taken. But that may not be how anyone will ever use their phone.

Our recommendation is to reduce your exposure from wireless sources. We advocate what’s referred to as the Precautionary Principle. Basically, this means that because there’s research, lots of it actually, saying the energy that powers our cellphones (RF radiation) could be causing health concerns like tumors and cancer. We ought to take care when using our cell phones and all devices that emit RF, using them mindfully.
In September 2014, Californian oncologists reported four similar case histories of young women who had developed breast cancer in precisely the areas where they normally carried their smartphones. What shocked the doctors was that these women were aged 21 to 39 and had no family history or other risk factors relating to cancer. All their cancers “had striking similarity, all tumours were hormone positive… (with) an extensive intraductal component and… near-identical morphology.” (CaseRepMed., 2013).
×