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.
Disclaimer: The content of this website is based on research conducted by TTAC Publishing, LLC, unless otherwise noted. The information is presented for educational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose or prescribe for any medical or psychological condition, nor to prevent, treat, mitigate or cure such conditions. The information contained herein is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a doctor or qualified healthcare professional. Therefore, this information is not intended as medical advice, but rather a sharing of knowledge and information based on research and experience. TTAC Publishing encourages you to make your own health care decisions based on your judgment and research in partnership with a qualified healthcare professional.

Prime free trial and invitee customers: We will automatically apply an Amazon.com Gift Card to your Gift Card Balance in the amount equal to the Prime exclusive discount after you become a paid Prime member. If you cancel your paid Prime membership or return the qualifying smartphone within the first 3 months of your paid Prime membership, we may void your Gift Card or charge you in the amount of the Gift Card. Terms and Conditions apply.
2. The power, or heating effect, of the phone is only one of many possible factors impacting cell phone ‘safety.’ Certainly it is useful to know if your phone has a high SAR value, but exposures to the radiation from the cell phone at non-heating levels have been linked to many serious biological effects, and the SAR value is not capturing anything about these harmful non-thermal exposures.
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?!
The World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer’s classification of wireless radiofrequency frequencies a Class 2B carcinogen includes wireless radiation from any transmitting source such as cellphones, baby monitors, tablets, cell towers, radar, other wifi, etc. The radiofrequency classification applies to RF-EMF in the range of 30 KHz to 300 GHz emitted from any device. Cell phone frequencies commonly start at 900 MHz (with some cell phones having up to 7 antennas all at different frequencies) and Wi-Fi device frequencies are at 2.45 GHz and 5GHz.
The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation (2 h/day for 35 days) on the male rat brain. MWR-exposed rats showed significantly increased comet head, tail length and tail movement, as well as decrease of antioxidant enzymes. Researchers conclude that the chronic exposure to these radiations may cause significant damage to brain, which may be an indication of possible tumour promotion.

The key factor when selecting a cell phone case is making sure that you choose the exact one your phone needs. Cases are specific to not only brands of cell phone, but specific models as well. For example, if you have version three of a cell phone model, it may not fit a version six, and vice versa. Make sure that you know exactly what case you need. The cases protect the corners and back of the phone, and a clear tempered glass or Plexiglas shield protects the face. This glass or film is usually scratch- and smudge-resistant, and the cases are rubber or polycarbonate. Some cases have clips on the back that allow you to connect the phone to a belt or bag. Many cases are black, but multiple colors and patterns are available too.
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. [6]

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."
The study was conducted on 16 adult male Wistar-Albino rats. The rats in the experimental group (n=8) were exposed to 2.4GHz frequency radiation for over a year. The rats in the sham control group (n=8) were subjected to the same experimental conditions except the Wi-Fi generator was turned off. After the exposure period was complete the possible DNA damage on the rat's brain, liver, kidney, skin, and testicular tissues was detected through the single cell gel electrophoresis assay (comet) method. The amount of DNA damage was measured as percentage tail DNA value.

You are being trolled people. This article is so obviously not correct. All of the examples given are so subjective and there are hints in there that they are having a laugh at you for believing this. “When a group of Danish ninth graders experienced difficulty concentrating after sleeping” Come on, really? It wasn’t because they were playing games or chatting to their friends that their minds were too stimulated to sleep straight away?

Although uterine lipid peroxidation increased in the EMR groups, uterine glutathione peroxidase activity (4th and 5th weeks) and plasma prolactin levels (6th week) in developing rats decreased in these groups. In the maternal rats, the plasma prolactin, estrogen, and progesterone levels decreased in the EMR groups, while the plasma total oxidant status, and body temperatures increased. There were no changes in the levels of reduced glutathione, total antioxidants, or vitamins A, C, and E in the uterine and plasma samples of maternal rats.

Due to the relatively recent adoption of cell phones, the long-term safety of the technology cannot be determined conclusively and caution is warranted. Research on glioma brain tumors shows the average latency period is 20-30 years. [56] Although cell phones were introduced in 1983, it was not until 2003 that over 50% of the US population had a wireless subscription, so the 20 year mark for mass cell phone use has not yet been reached. [44] [71] The May 17, 2010 INTERPHONE study, the largest study ever to examine possible links between cell phones and brain tumors, concluded that overall there was "no increase in risk" for glioma or meningioma brain tumors, [57] but the average user in the study had less than eight years of cell phone exposure. [56] In his review of the INTERPHONE study results, Dr. Rodolfo Saracci stated that "none of today’s established carcinogens, including tobacco, could have been firmly identified as increasing risk in the first 10 years or so since first exposure." [58]
The increasing use of Wi-Fi in schools and other places has given rise to public concern that the radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields from Wi-Fi have the potential to adversely affect children. The current study measured typical and peak RF levels from Wi-Fi and other sources in 23 schools in Australia. All of the RF measurements were much lower than the reference levels recommended by international guidelines for protection against established health effects. The typical and peak RF levels from Wi-Fi in locations occupied by children in the classroom were of the order of 10-4 and 10-2% of the exposure guidelines, respectively. Typical RF levels in the classroom were similar between Wi-Fi and radio but higher than other sources. In the schoolyard typical RF levels were higher for radio, TV and mobile phone base stations compared to Wi-Fi. The results of this study showed that the typical RF exposure of children from Wi-Fi at school is very low and comparable or lower to other sources in the environment.

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.

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.
What a dishonest shit article. There is no evidence that Wi-Fi does anything mentioned here. I read one of your “citations” about its link to insomnia and the study you link doesn’t even come close to mentioning WiFi. Your vague “link to cancer” citation is a local news piece. This kind of shit just reinforces people’s pseudoscientific nonsense beliefs.
…Because we’ve known for a long time that the heat generated by laptops kills sperm. Well, now it turns out that heat isn’t the only threat to a man’s virility. Research has found exposure to Wi-Fi frequencies reduce sperm movement and cause DNA fragmentation. [9] Both human and animal testing has confirmed that exposure negatively affects sperm. [10] [11]
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]

We investigated the effect of olive leaves extract administration on glucose metabolism and oxidative response in liver and kidneys of rats exposed to 2.45 GHz radiofrequency radiation (1h/day for 21 days). This exposure was shown to induce a diabetes-like status and also decreased the activities of glutathione peroxidase, catalase, superoxide dismutase, and groups thiol amount in liver and kidneys. Olive leaves extract administration (100 mg/kg, ip) in RF-exposed rats prevented glucose metabolism disruption and restored the activities of GPx, CAT and SOD and thiol group amount in liver and kidneys and was able to bring down the elevated levels of MDA in liver but not in kidneys. Our investigations suggested that RF exposure induced a diabetes-like status through alteration of oxidative response, while olive leaves extract was able to correct glucose metabolism disorder by minimizing oxidative stress induced by RF in rat tissues.

Radiation is also the thing that bathes the world in warm sunlight, and makes life on Earth possible. Radiation is also the reason we can turn on a radio and hear music without wires. Radiation is how we change the channels on our television (and for anyone getting their TV fix via over-the-air channels or satellite TV, how the programming gets delivered to their home in the first place).

A 2005 study in the International Journal of Cardiology found that mobile phones may have "adverse effects" on pacemaker functions under certain conditions. [59] According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), radiofrequency energy from cell phones can create electromagnetic interference (EMI) that may disrupt the functioning of pacemakers, especially if the cell phone is placed close to the heart. [21] The American Heart Association includes cell phones on its list of "devices that may interfere with pacemakers." [60]
gamma rays are constantly going through you as we speak as are wifi. that doesn’t mean however that you can create much usable electricity from them. you cannot. because the amount of energy inherent in these is miniscule. actually for somebody making judgements about what other people may or may not be you seem to be very ignorant about basic facts.
AAP also advocates for more research into the human health impacts of cell phone radiation, particularly when it comes to children. One current problem? Federal Communications Commission tests used to determine cell phone radiation is based on the devices’ possible effect on large adults — not kids. Children’s skulls are thinner and can absorb more radiation (4)
Although melatonin and L-Carnitine offer a nutritional defense, they don’t block exposure. And that’s very hard to accomplish anyway. Look at coverage maps from cell phone companies, or notice how many Wi-Fi networks your smart phone prompts for you to join. We’re surrounded and bombarded by electromagnetic radiation. Blocking exposure is difficult but there are a few small steps you can take. For one, do not keep cell phones, laptops, and tablets close to your body. And if it’s not being used, shut them off (your wireless router too). There are also a number of devices available to counteract electromagnetic frequencies. Check out these ways to protect yourself from laptop radiation and cell phone radiation, too.

The present study aimed to investigate the effects of chronic low-intensity microwave exposure (900, 1800 or 2450 MHz for 180 days) on cognitive function, heat shock protein 70 (HSP70), and DNA damage in the rat brain. The results showed declined cognitive function, elevated HSP70 level, and DNA damage in the brain of microwave-exposed animals. The results indicated that, chronic low-intensity microwave exposure in the frequency range of 900 to 2450 MHz may cause hazardous effects on the brain.
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.
The HPA also says that due to the mobile phone's adaptive power ability, a DECT cordless phone's radiation could actually exceed the radiation of a mobile phone. The HPA explains that while the DECT cordless phone's radiation has an average output power of 10 mW, it is actually in the form of 100 bursts per second of 250 mW, a strength comparable to some mobile phones.[8]
We did not simply measure energy coming from the front of the case which is the area of the case where the phone would be "shielded" from radiation. If we had taken readings with a directional meter, specifically measuring energy coming from only the front or flap cover where the shielding material is, we assume as the manufacturers claim, that we would have seen a drop in the radiation readings.
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

Users of wireless devices are typically exposed for much longer periods than for mobile phones and the strength of wireless devices is not significantly less. Whereas a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) mobile phone can range from 21 dBm (125 mW) for Power Class 4 to 33 dBm (2W) for Power class 1, a wireless router can range from a typical 15 dBm (30 mW) strength to 27 dBm (500 mW) on the high end.[6]
Although recall bias is minimized in studies such as COSMOS that link participants to their cell phone records, such studies face other problems. For example, it is impossible to know who is using the listed cell phone or whether that individual also places calls using other cell phones. To a lesser extent, it is not clear whether multiple users of a single phone, for example family members who may share a device, will be represented on a single phone company account. Additionally, for many long-term cohort studies, participation tends to decline over time.
The potential health impact of Wi-Fi, even at low exposure levels, can no longer be called into question or relativized away, not even by those studies that found no effects. The decision-makers in government, school boards, and health agencies have a responsibility to deal with the available body of research and not to be deceived by the arguments of the industry lobby or boilerplates of government institutions. Health risks are a reality. It would be particularly important to carry out further research regarding the effects on the brain and young people. The application of the precautionary principle, which is recognized in all European countries, only allows for one conclusion: Wi-Fi must not be used continuously and close to the human body. I is no coincidence that the user guide of the Telekom Wi-Fi router states: “The integrated antennas of your Speedport transmit and receive wireless signals, for example, to provide Wi-Fi connectivity. Avoid placing your Speedport in close proximity to bedrooms, children’s rooms, as well as common rooms and lounges to keep the exposure to electromagnetic field as low as possible.” In their joint appeal with regard to Wi-Fi, the Cyprus and Austrian medical associations call on decision-makers to "promote age-related rational application of digital technology and not allow at schools, particular at preschool, kindergarten and elementary schools wireless networks and opt for wired connections" (ibid). Lawmakers are called upon to adjust protective legislation to the current state of research and to support research into alternatives to Wi-Fi such as VLC technologies (visible light communication, Li-Fi).
Question for Dr. Group & Associates. What is the interaction of EMF and vaccines? There has to be a connection, either unintentional and intentional, with the metals included in the vaccine ingredients, how they interact with the EMF and the resultant effects on the human body. As if we were being turned into antennas to in a more enhanced manner, receive the transmissions and output. This could have a connection with the documented and patented EMF behavior modification technologies.
Nevertheless, a group of scientists got together in the mid-2000s, calling themselves the BioInitiative Working Group. This group, which largely consisted of wireless radiation researchers, has written a harsh reply as feedback to the reports claiming that posed no health risks.  The reply lists a wide range of health effects scientists at the European Commission have unfortunately either ignored or dismissed.