Everyone should be sleeping at bed time, and WiFi signal may interferes with the brain during sleep, so it is a good idea to turn it off before going to bed. This allows the body to rest more deeply. By turning it off at night, you are effectively cutting down exposure by 33%. (Aside from the WiFi reduction, many security experts also recommend turning off your internet when not using it).
Kitchen & DiningBakeware,Coffee, Tea, & Espresso,Cookboo...30724 LuggageBackpacks,Briefcases & Laptop Bags,Carry...6386 Mattresses & AccessoriesMattress Toppers & Pads,Mattresses527 Office & School SuppliesDesk Accessories,Home Office Furniture,N...21088 Outdoor DécorDoormats, Flags & Wind Chimes,Lighting,P...17817 Patio & GardenBird Feeders & Food,Fire Pits & Outdoor...29239 Seasonal DécorChristmas,Easter,General Seasons,Hallowe...14663 Storage & OrganizationBathroom Storage,Closet Storage,Entryway...15842
This study aimed to assess the potential harmful effects of radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation on sperm parameters. There was no significant difference between sperm counts and sperm morphology excluding sperm motility, due to mobile phone usage period, however total motile sperm count and the progressive motile sperm count decreased due to the increase of internet usage and progressive motile sperm count also decreased with wireless Internet usage compared with the wired Internet connection usage.
38. Does your child need that phone feature? Parental control apps allow parents to exert greater control over the features and functions their children can access on their smartphones. Making use of these apps and other tools to restrict access to the features you deem safe and appropriate can go a long way in keeping your kids safe while giving you much-needed peace of mind. “Determine what features your child needs based on his age. Does your 10-year-old really need web browsing capabilities?” – Laura Willard, Cell Phone Safety Tips for Kids, Tweens and Teens, SheKnows; Twitter: @SheKnows
“Without following these instructions, we risk being exposed to levels of radiation that are too high- higher than radiation limits set by our federal government. The reality is that radiation emissions from devices are tested before going on the market- with a space between the device and your body. For cell phones the distance varies depending on the manufacturer and is under an inch.” Cell Phone Radiation FAQ’s, Environmental Health Trust; Twitter: @saferphones
People who say cell phones are not safe cite peer-reviewed studies showing an association between cell phone use and tumor growth, DNA damage, and decreased fertility. They say cancers take 20-30 years to develop and cell phone studies have monitored periods of 10 years or less. They highlight the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen. Read more background...
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." 
The objective of this study was to investigate effects of 2.437 GHz radiofrequency radiation (24h/day for 20 weeks) emitted from indoor Wi-Fi Internet access devices on rat testes using histological and immunohistochemical methods. Researchers observed significant increases in serum 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine levels and 8-hydroxyguanosine staining in the testes of the experimental group indicating DNA damage due to exposure (p < 0.05) as well as decreased levels of catalase and glutathione peroxidase activity in the experimental group, which may have been due to radiofrequency effects on enzyme activity (p < 0.05). These findings raise questions about the safety of radiofrequency exposure from Wi-Fi Internet access devices for growing organisms of reproductive age, with a potential effect on both fertility and the integrity of germ cells.
Next up, our Ultrasuede Slide Out Wallet Case! This is a LIFE SAVER. This slim case comes with 5 card slots, a detachable wristlet, and a cash sleeve. Want a different color to match your new outfit? No worries! This wallet phone case comes in 4 different colors options of black, blue, purple, and pink. You’ll never meet another case like it. Hurry and shop while supplies last!
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.
The RF signals from cell phones, as well as Bluetooth and WiFi, are considered nonionizing forms of radiation. That means unlike ionizing radiation—from, say, ultraviolet light from the sun, medical tests such as CT scans or X-rays, or nuclear explosions—they don’t carry enough energy to directly break or alter your DNA, which is one way cancer can occur.
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.
Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important component of this strategy, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided. Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage—as Carlo’s WTR did in 1999; as the WHO’s Interphone study did in 2010; and as the US National Toxicology Program did in 2016—industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree. “[T]he overall balance of the evidence” gives no cause for alarm, asserted Jack Rowley, research and sustainability director for the Groupe Special Mobile Association (GSMA), Europe’s wireless trade association, speaking to reporters about the WHO’s findings.22
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.
Based on our results, it can be concluded that the bacterial strains used in this study respond differently to EMFs. These bacteria were capable of responding to environmental stresses that act by activating some specific systems such as ion channels, change via the membrane, DNA repair system, and probably ion efflux pumps in the membrane as well as interactions of molecules and antibacterial agents. There are some ambiguities that need further investigations regarding answering questions such as which cellular mechanism is responsible for adaptation? Which factors are involved in alterations of antibacterial sensitivity? And subsequently, what are the differences in the response to radiation in gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria? Moreover, experiments on different bacterial strains with various electromagnetic fields should be performed in the future to better clarify these uncertainties.
The microwave irradiation was performed at bands corresponding to mobile devices (GSM) using a modified AP5200 generator (D-LINK, China), operating in four bands (860–910 MHz frequency range, Pout 29 dBm), and to wireless router (WLAN) using a D-LINK wireless router 802.11 g/2.4 GHz (2.412–2.48 GHz frequency range, Pout 19 dBm). In the irradiation chamber there is one stick antenna placed in the center of the ceiling. The exposure levels where chosen in agreement with the microwave irradiation levels measured in open space for heavily used GSM networks (100 mW/m2) and for indoor WLAN (70 mW/m2) communication protocols.
I used to keep my Bsnl wifi modem close to my bed and I saw lots of negative impact of it.I cannot sleep in time since I started using anroid phone and wifi. It’s very difficult for me to wake up early in the morning in time.I have become lazy and dull nowadays.I am not able to concentrate in anything properly.I cannot remember things.I forget to do many things .I feel that my brain has become very much inactive. I don’t feel like doing any works like in the past I was very active in doing my official works and other home works.two months back I came to know that I have a diabetic as well.give me some suggestion to live a healthy life and to make my brain more active .
Lloyd is correct. I’ve worked in wireless equipment design for over 30 years, from 30kHz to 3GHz, milliwatts to many-watts. In the late 2000’s I personally set the safety standards for wireless charging (WPC’s “Qi” format) after lengthy research. Starting at 400MHz and above, DNA strands can be broken or inflicted with sequence translocation when the applied fields excite mechanical shake, twist, and compression resonances of the helixes. Those would be cancer-provoking damage. Below 300MHz I’m not aware of significant non-thermal biological effects, which explain how we’ve been “lucky” with AM/FM radio, walkie talkies, CB’s, shortwave, and VHF TV not harming people en masse.
A method of simulating thermal mapping of positioning laptop on laps of an adult man was developed. To tackle this problem, we exploited computer simulation and, to make the simulation close to the actual problem, we created 3D models of an actual laptop (Sony FW 590 Gab), antennas, and human phantom with inhomogeneous body, large number of tissues, and dispersion properties. We employed a commercial laptop Wi-Fi antenna at 2.4 GHz and a dipole antenna at 5 GHz, thermal sources with radiation powers, and human body voxel consisting of 97 tissues which were described previously. In the simulation, maximum SAR in human body was calculated 0.37 × 10−3 and 0.13 × 10−1 (W/kg) at 2.4 and 5 GHz, respectively, which was negligible according to IEEE standards; thus, the major calculated temperature elevation was due to laptop thermal sources. The temperature in glans penis, lap skin, lap muscles, and testes increased up to 37.8, 42.9, 38.8, and 37.2 °C, respectively, which was in line with clinical studies of thermal effect. Hence, the proposed method can be replicated for other scenarios. It is worth noting that the presented result cannot be easily generalized to other devices or human models. However, the whole method is replicable for similar phenomena. The recommended subject for future works can be used with the presented method for determining the effect of laptop and other devices on adult pregnant women and similar cases.
This investigation concerns with the effect of low intensity microwave (2.45 and 16.5 GHz, SAR 1.0 and 2.01 W/kg, respectively) radiation on developing rat brain when exposed for 35 days. Results showed that the chronic exposure to these radiations caused statistically significant (p<0.001) increase in DNA single strand breaks in brain cells of rat.
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.
Want an official word on the matter? The World Health Organization, which tends to err on the side of caution before outright dismissing something as toxic, carcinogenic, or otherwise harmful, is very clear that there is no health risk from radio-frequency communication devices. (Their briefing on the matter is actually a great read that highlights how low the risk is and how even people in Wi-Fi dense locations like schools and hospitals are exposed to radio-frequency radiation at thousands of times lower than international safety standards designed to protect individuals working in related industries).
For example, the latency period for radiation induced malignancies is, on the average, say 20 years, but epidemiologic studies of large groups of people (that only require a few thousand patients to reach statistical significance) exposed to ionizing radiation start showing an increase above baseline by seven years. So conservatively, there should be at least a few excess cases of glioma caused by cellular (or WiFi) electromagnetic radiation by now.
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.
30. There isn’t one cell phone that is safer than another. “Don’t assume one cell phone is safer than another. There’s no such thing as a “safe” cell phone. This is particularly true for industry promoted SAR ratings, which are virtually useless in measuring the true potential biological danger as most all of the damage is not done by heat transfer, which SAR measures.” – Dr. Mercola, NEW Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users, Mercola.com; Twitter: @mercola
“If you're looking for ways to limit your exposure to the electromagnetic emissions from your cell phone, know that, according to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduced exposure from these electromagnetic emissions. In fact, products that block only the earpiece—or another small portion of the phone—are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits electromagnetic waves. What's more, these shields may interfere with the phone's signal, cause it to draw even more power to communicate with the base station, and possibly emit more radiation.”
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, appointed an expert Working Group to review all available evidence on the use of cell phones. The Working Group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency radiation and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent evidence from mechanistic studies (4).
Changing technology and methods of use. Older studies evaluated radiofrequency radiation exposure from analog cell phones. Today, cell phones use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency and a lower power level than analog phones. Digital cell phones have been in use for more than two decades in the United States, and cellular technology continues to change (3). Texting and other applications, for example, are common uses of cell phones that do not require bringing the phone close to the head. Furthermore, the use of hands-free technology, such as wired and wireless headsets, is increasing and may reduce exposure by distancing the phone from the body (36, 37).
Wheeler’s tactics succeeded in dousing the controversy. Although Carlo had in fact repeatedly briefed Wheeler and other senior industry officials on the studies, which had indeed undergone peer review and would soon be published, reporters on the technology beat accepted Wheeler’s discrediting of Carlo and the WTR’s findings. (Wheeler would go on to chair the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the wireless industry. He agreed to an interview for this article but then put all of his remarks off the record, with one exception: his statement that he has always taken scientific guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration, which, he said, “has concluded, ‘the weight of scientific evidence had not linked cell phones with any health problems.’”)11
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).
In addition, earthing allows our bodies to synch with the Schumann resonance (7.83 Hz), which is earth’s own electromagnetic frequency that we are naturally built to be exposed to. A Japanese study in 2005 showed that the Schumann resonance can reduce blood pressure and produce some positive health outcomes. By synching with earth’s natural frequency, we reduce the risks of WiFi waves interfering with our bodily functions.
Lloyd Burrell was running a successful small business when one day in 2002 he began to feel unwell when using his cell phone. Within a matter of days he developed highly debilitating symptoms when using his phone, computer, and all types of electromagnetic devices in his home and workplace. When his doctors and the medical community drew a complete blank, Lloyd set out to find his own solutions. Lloyd has now made it his life mission to raise awareness about the dangers of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and share the remarkable discoveries he’s made on his quest to recover his health. Lloyd writes for numerous magazines and websites, hosts EMF teleseminars, and is a regular guest on radio shows and other events. You can download his free EMF Health Report at his website www.ElectricSense.com
On the opposite side of things, we have non-ionizing radiation. This radiation does not have enough energy to ionize atoms, and includes everything else on the radiation spectrum including infrared radiation, visible light, and radio waves — including everything from the kind of low-energy radio waves we use for walkie-talkies to higher energy radio waves like those in the microwave portion of the spectrum.
That may be true today. But some experts have grave concerns about the types of low-intensity radiation our wireless devices produce. “We have animal studies suggesting even low-level exposures to the kind of radio wave radiation associated with Wi-Fi could have a variety of negative health effects,” says Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley. (Moskowitz has collected much of that research here.)
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.