RESULTS: Our data showed that the weight gain in the WI-FI exposed group was significantly lower than the control group (p<0.05). Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) exposed group showed hyperglycemia. Plasma insulin level and glucose-stimulated insulin secretion from pancreatic islet were significantly reduced in the Wi-Fi exposed group. EMR emitted from Wi-Fi caused a significant increase in lipid peroxidation and a significant decrease in GSH level, SOD and GPx activities of the pancreas.
The aim of this study was to investigate the possible protective role of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress induced by 2.45-GHz radiation (60min/day for 28 days) in heart of rat. Electromagnetic radiation exposure was found to cause oxidative stress in the heart of rats. There is also an apparent protective effect of selenium and L-carnitine by inhibition of free radical formation and support of the antioxidant redox system.
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.
According to scientists involved in the process, the WHO may decide later this year to reconsider its categorization of the cancer risk posed by cell phones; the WHO itself told The Nation that before making any such decision, it will review the final report of the National Toxicology Program, a US government initiative. The results reported by the NTP in 2016 seem to strengthen the case for increasing the assessment of cell-phone radiation to a “probable” or even a “known” carcinogen. Whereas the WHO’s Interphone study compared the cell-phone usage of people who had contracted cancer with that of people who hadn’t, the NTP study exposed rats and mice to cell-phone radiation and observed whether the animals got sick.47
Microwave News’s Slesin speculated on potential explanations for the NTP’s apparent backtracking: new leadership within the program, where a former drug-company executive, Brian Berridge, now runs the day-to-day operations; pressure from business-friendly Republicans on Capitol Hill and from the US military, whose weapons systems rely on wireless radiation; and the anti-science ideology of the Trump White House. The question now: Will the scientists doing the peer review endorse the NTP’s newly ambivalent perspective, or challenge it?51
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.
"In conclusion, contrary to the assurances implied by Karipidis et al., existing scientific evidence clearly indicates that there are potential health risks for students and staff from microwave RF-EMR exposure levels found at schools from internal and external wireless infrastructure. ARPANSA should immediately recommend that schools use wired Internet instead of WiFi as several responsible government agencies in other parts of the world have already done to reduce exposure of children, a sensitive population that need particular protection."
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.
Hi August and Tech Wellness Team. We at SafeSleeve salute you for your effort to educate and provide solutions for the hidden dangers of EMF radiation exposure from wireless electronics. Like you, we’ve worked extremely hard to provide a practical solution for EMF exposure and, as verified by our independent lab testing, we believe we’ve found an extremely effective and practical solution. While I cannot speak for the other devices you tested here, there are some key points about our SafeSleeve technology that we wanted to make sure you took into consideration:
EMF emissions sourced from the various types of wireless pose various potential health risks, ranging from fertility to vision problems to headaches, and severe cases such as cancer tumors. Dr. Carlos's book on the landmark study of wireless energy safety, Cell phones, the Invisible Hazards of the Wireless age, noted biological damage over 15 years ago.
There are theoretical considerations as to why the possible risk should be investigated separately in children. Their nervous systems are still developing and, therefore, more vulnerable to factors that may cause cancer. Their heads are smaller than those of adults and consequently have a greater proportional exposure to the field of radiofrequency radiation that is emitted by cell phones. And, children have the potential of accumulating more years of cell phone exposure than adults do.
A phone's specific absorption rate (SAR) reveals the maximum amount of radiation the human body absorbs from the phone while it's transmitting. SAR testing ensures that the devices sold in the U.S. comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) SAR exposure limit, but the single, worst-case value obtained from this SAR testing is not necessarily representative of the absorption during actual use, and therefore it is not recommended for comparisons among phones. In short, selecting a lower SAR phone will not reliably ensure lower radiation absorption during use. The FCC has more information at Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) For Cell Phones: What It Means For You.
26. Learn about the potential effects of radiation on reproductive health. “I would recommend that [Consumer Reports] forewarn its readers not to keep their cell phones near their genitals. We have substantial evidence that cell phone radiation damages sperm in males and some evidence of reproductive health effects (i.e., neurological disorders) in human offspring as well as mice for females exposed to cell phone radiation during pregnancy. We also have preliminary evidence of increased breast cancer risk for women who kept cell phones in their bras.” – Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, The 4 Cell Phone Safety Tips Offered By Consumer Reports Isn’t Enough, RFSafe; Twitter: @rfsafe
7. Keep it locked. “Make sure that you have a secret PIN (personal identification number), a password, fingerprint setting or other security measures in place so that only you can access your phone.” – National Cyber Security Alliance, June is Internet Safety Month! The National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA) and ConnectSafely Share Tips to Ensure Online Safety and Summertime Fun, PR Newswire; Twitter: @PRNewswire