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
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
Industry-funded scientists had been pressuring their colleagues for a decade by then, according to Leszczynski, another member of the Lyon working group. Leszczynski was an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School when he first experienced such pressure, in 1999. He had wanted to investigate the effects of radiation levels higher than the SAR levels permitted by government, hypothesizing that this might better conform to real-world practices. But when he proposed the idea at scientific meetings, Leszczynski said, it was shouted down by Mays Swicord, Joe Elder, and C.K. Chou—scientists who worked for Motorola. As Leszczynski recalled, “It was a normal occurrence at scientific meetings—and I attended really a lot of them—that whenever [a] scientist reported biological effects at SAR over [government-approved levels], the above-mentioned industry scientists, singularly or as a group, jumped up to the microphone to condemn and to discredit the results.”44
Information and statements made are for education purposes and are not intended to replace the advice of your treating doctor. Global Healing Center does not dispense medical advice, prescribe, or diagnose illness. The views and nutritional advice expressed by Global Healing Center are not intended to be a substitute for conventional medical service. If you have a severe medical condition or health concern, see your physician. This Web site contains links to Web sites operated by other parties. Such links are provided for your convenience and reference only. We are not responsible for the content or products of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site. Global Healing Center does not adopt any medical claims which may have been made in 3rd party references. Where Global Healing Center has control over the posting or other communications of such claims to the public, Global Healing Center will make its best effort to remove such claims.
US government agencies conclude there is no scientific evidence proving that cell phones cause cancer or other health problems. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC),  US Government Accountability Office (GAO),  and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),  have all concluded that there is no evidence in the scientific literature proving that cell phones cause brain tumors or other health problems. According to the FDA, "attempts to replicate and confirm the few studies that did show a connection [between cell phone radiation and head tumors] have failed." 
Influence of environmental stress factors on both crop and wild plants of nutritional value is an important research topic. The past research has focused on rising temperatures, drought, soil salinity and toxicity, but the potential effects of increased environmental contamination by human-generated electromagnetic radiation on plants have little been studied.
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.
This study aimed to investigate the major cause of male infertility during short- (1h/day for 2 months) and long-term (7h/day for 2 months) exposure of 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi radiation. Both 1-hour and 7-hour groups showed a decrease in sperm parameters in a time dependent pattern and the number of apoptosis-positive cells and caspase-3 activity increased in the seminiferous tubules of exposed rats. The seminal vesicle weight reduced significantly in both1-hour or 7-hour groups in comparison to the control group. Researchers concluded that there should be a major concern regarding the time dependent exposure of whole-body to the higher frequencies of Wi-Fi networks existing in the vicinity of our living places.
Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload. Each of these effects are also caused by exposures to other microwave frequency EMFs, with each such effect being documented in from 10 to 16 reviews. Therefore, each of these seven EMF effects are established effects of Wi-Fi and of other microwave frequency EMFs. Each of these seven is also produced by downstream effects of the main action of such EMFs, voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. While VGCC activation via EMF interaction with the VGCC voltage sensor seems to be the predominant mechanism of action of EMFs, other mechanisms appear to have minor roles. Minor roles include activation of other voltage-gated ion channels, calcium cyclotron resonance and the geomagnetic magnetoreception mechanism.
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.  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  found a "decreased risk for high-grade glioma," a malignant brain tumor, and a 2005 Swedish study  also found a "decreased odds ratio" for developing glioma as well as meningioma, another type of brain tumor.
This study was aimed at investigating the alteration of antibiotic resistance of Klebsiella pneumonia, after exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation from a Wi-Fi router for 3, 4.5 or 8 hours. The findings of this study show a statistically significant rise in the sensitivity of Klebsiella pneumoniae to different antibiotics after 4.5 hours of exposure to 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation, followed by a fall after 8 hours of exposure. These observations can be interpreted by the concept of non-linearity in the responses of Klebsiella pneumoniae to different antibiotics after exposure to electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation.
Cell phone safety is a top priority for people all over the world—especially those with children. There are many tips for ensuring that both you and your kids are using your cell phone or smartphone safely—from being careful when you cross the road, to learning the driving laws in your area, which way to carry your phone for radiation reduction, and monitoring and limiting the amount of time your child or teen spends using their device.