Most wireless LAN equipment is designed to work within predefined standards. Wireless access points are also often close to humans, but the drop off in power over distance is fast, following the inverse-square law.[9] However, wireless laptops are typically used close to humans. WiFi had been anecdotally linked to electromagnetic hypersensitivity[10] but research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity has found no systematic evidence supporting claims made by sufferers.[11][12]

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.


25. Use your cell phone for emergencies or important calls only. “Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. If you’re pregnant, avoiding or reducing your cell phone use may be especially important.” – Dr. Mercola, NEW Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users, Mercola.com; Twitter: @mercola
An excessive production of reactive oxygen substances (ROS) and reduced antioxidant defence systems resulting from electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure may lead to oxidative brain and liver damage and degradation of membranes during pregnancy and development of rat pups. In the EMR groups, lipid peroxidation levels in the brain and liver were increased following EMR exposure; however, the glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity, and vitamin A, vitamin E and β-carotene concentrations were decreased in the brain and liver. Glutathione (GSH) and vitamin C concentrations in the brain were also lower in the EMR groups than in the controls; however, their concentrations did not change in the liver. In conclusion, Wi-Fi-induced oxidative stress in the brain and liver of developing rats was the result of reduced GSH-Px, GSH and antioxidant vitamin concentrations. Moreover, the brain seemed to be more sensitive to oxidative injury compared to the liver in the development of newborns.

Oral CareChildren's Oral Care,Dental Floss & Gum...1393 Personal CareBody Treatments,Deodorants & Antiperspir...3971 Sexual WellnessAdult Books,Anal Toys,Arousal & Massage...2370 Shaving & GroomingHair Removal,Men's Shave,Shave Accessori...1716 Skin CareCellulite & Stretch Marks,Cleanse,Exfoli...8862 Vitamins & SupplementsDetox & Superfoods,Protein,Sports Nutrit...4122


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.
The purpose of this study was to reveal whether long term exposure (over a year) of 2.4GHz frequency RF radiation will cause DNA damage of different tissues such as brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissue and testicular tissues of rats. Based on the DNA damage results determined by the single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) method, it was found that the % tail DNA values of the brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissues of the rats in the experimental group increased more than those in the control group. The increase of the DNA damage in all tissues was not significant (p>0.05), however the increase of the DNA damage in rat testes tissue was significant (p<0.01). In conclusion, long-term exposure to 2.4GHz RF radiation (Wi-Fi) does not cause DNA damage of the organs investigated in this study except testes indicating  that testes are more sensitive organ to RF radiation.
These articles and websites don’t exist because the threat is real, however. They exist because they are a vehicle for turning people’s fear into money. The more people share nonsense articles about the dangers of Wi-Fi (or other harmless modern things) the more people click on them, the more ad-revenue is generated, and the more motivation the people peddling these rubbish articles have to keep creating and promoting them.
The scientific journal umwelt · medizin · gesellschaft  addresses environmental medicine topics on a scientific basis--and their interdependence with today's society. The specialist journal reports on the latest medical findings and examines ecologically explosive, socially relevant topics. The UMG magazine is the official association organ of the environmental and medical associations dbu, DEGUZ, DGUHT, EUROPAEM, IGUMED, KMT and ÖÄB.
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
Why, after such acrimony, Carlo was allowed to make one last appearance before the CTIA board is a mystery. Whatever the reason, Carlo flew to New Orleans in February 2000 for the wireless industry’s annual conference, where he submitted the WTR’s final report to the CTIA board. According to Carlo, Wheeler made sure that none of the hundreds of journalists covering the event could get anywhere near him.12
A study by the Corporate EME Research Laboratory and Motorola Florida Research Laboratories tested 9 different cell phone radiation shields, 5 of which claimed to block 99% of cell phone radiation. The other 4 shields tested claimed to emit a reverse radiation that would cancel out the harmful radiation from cell phones. The study found that all of the radiation shields had no effect on the amount of radiofrequency radiation a cell phone user is exposed to from their phone.[2]
“The absence of absolute proof does not mean the absence of risk,” Annie Sasco, the former director of epidemiology for cancer prevention at France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research, told the attendees of the 2012 Childhood Cancer conference. “The younger one starts using cell phones, the higher the risk,” Sasco continued, urging a public-education effort to inform parents, politicians, and the press about children’s exceptional susceptibility.28

Some of the leading case brands available on Amazon include OtterBox, Speck, LifeProof, CM4, Belkin, Urban Armor Gear (UAG), Mophie, Spigen, and Samsung—and the selection continues to grow. You can choose from leather card holder cases, belt holsters, slim fabric sleeves, silicone cases, wallet cases, waterproof carrying cases with lanyards, battery charging cases, flip cover cases, and even customizable cases. With Amazon, you have thousands of options to choose from. Phones cases are compatible with many different brands, including Apple, Samsung, Amazon Fire, LG, BlackBerry, Motorola, Nokia, HTC, Kyocera, ASUS, ZTE, Blu, Sony, Pantech, and Casio.
On the basis of current scientific information, ARPANSA sees no reason why wi-fi should not continue to be used in schools and in other places. However, ARPANSA recognises that exposure to RF EME from wi-fi and other wireless devices can be of concern to some parents. ARPANSA will continue to review the research into potential health effects of RF EME emissions from wi-fi and other devices in order to provide accurate and up‑to‑date advice.
“When symptoms are not addressed comprehensively– for example, using symptom amelioration without simultaneous elimination of exposure – cell membrane adverse reaction and damage continue to occur while the patient is assuming the cause of the problem has been eliminated. This lulls patients into a false sense of security, causing them to aggravate their exposures through the increased use of their wireless devices. When the damage reaches a critically harmful level, even the symptom amelioration can no longer be sustained by the damaged cells.”

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.


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
A few years ago, the science regarding links between cell phone radiation and various health ailments was a very emergent science. Even today, most scientists disagree about many of the findings. However, the fact that so many new studies are discovering effects that cell phone radiation can have on human biology, it makes sense to play it safe. If there are no negative health effects, then you're only out a few bucks. But if it turns out there really are serious health issues related to cell phone radiation, then by protecting yourself early, you can protect your health and potentially save your life by getting a cell phone anti-radiation shield.
Most mobile phones come with a charger upon purchase, but sometimes the phone outlasts the charger. Cell phone chargers also have a history of being left behind at work, home or at a hotel room when you need them the most. Make sure that you have an extra one on hand when you need it, and consider adding a charger that you can use in your vehicle. Chargers are powered either with a wall adapter or via a USB adapter that connects to a PC, tablet or similar device. Car chargers are usually powered by connecting it to the vehicle through the DC connector, which is located in or around the vehicle's dash.
when i bring my hand very close to a tuned-in radio transistor, the volume drops to almost zero and i can no longer hear the music or news unless i take my hand away from the transistor radio set. if that is the effect of em radiations from a human body on the audible signal of an electronic device reducing its audio signal to almost zero then the long-term effect of powerful em radiation of 1- 2GH frequency from a wi-fi router or a celphone must be dramatically traumatic for the human health. this has to be so because human body almost entirely functions on signals generated by ions and molecules in the body cells which are likely to be severely disrupted in the presence of such strong em radiation fields emitted by man-made external sources such as wi-fi routers and mobile phones.

Exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is rapidly increasing in everyday environment, consequently conferring potential health effects. Oxidative stress is emerging as a mechanism implicated in pathophysiology and progression of various diseases. To our knowledge, no report has been made on the status of antioxidant redox systems after continuous exposure to radiofrequency radiation emitted from a Wi-Fi access point in animal model so far. Therefore, we aimed to continuously subject rats in the experimental group to radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted from a commercially available Wi-Fi device. Male Wister rats were exposed to 2.45 GHz RF radiation emitted from a Wi-Fi for 24 h/day for 10 consecutive weeks. In order to assess the change in antioxidant redox system of plasma after continuous exposure to a Wi-Fi device, the total antioxidant capacity of plasma, level of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances, concentration of reduced glutathione (GSH), and activity of different enzymatic antioxidants, e.g., superoxide dismutase [SOD], catalase [CAT], glutathione peroxidase [GSH-Px], and glutathione S-transferase [GST], were measured. In the Wi-Fi exposed group, a significant decrease was detected in total antioxidant capacity of plasma and the activities of several antioxidant enzymes, including CAT, GSH-Px, and SOD (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the GST activity was significantly increased in this group (P < 0.05). However, no significant changes were found in GSH and TBARS levels following exposure to RF radiation. According to the results, oxidative defense system in rats exposed to Wi-Fi signal was significantly affected compared to the control group. Further studies are needed to better understand the possible biological mechanisms of EMR emitted from Wi-Fi device and relevant outcomes.
Yes, it takes a while for the symptoms to re-appear again but they all come back within 20 minutes of turning it back on. Now whenever my mom wants some rest in her own home she turns off the modem (basically Wi-fi) and can relax. The only trouble will be the “Smart Meters” the electic provider is handing out “for free” who communicate through Wi-Fi with eachother, creating a mesh. In my country we can decline it and I urge people to do so. Even if you don’t feel it, you are being exposed to it, and most likely your children.
Another thing, a WiFi router is not continuously sending data, when devices don’t communicate to the internet. In an idle situation, a WiFi router just sends beacon signal, like “Hello I’m a WiFi router” every x miliseconds and your smartphone just listen to it, like a radio. The same is for GSM/3G/4G. Your mobile is not communicating to the GSM antenna continuously, otherwise it would drain your battery in minutes and your mobile gets very hot. Further more, the government forced the mobile companies to lower the transmit power, that’s why you see more GSM antennas (actually called basestations) in places like cities for better coverage.

Jump up ^ "Electromagnetic fields (EMF)". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2008-01-22. “Electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed to varying degrees of EMF, and the levels will continue to increase as technology advances.”


“If you’re experiencing eye discomfort, make your phone’s font size bigger. Mark Rosenfield, O.D., Ph.D., told Men’s Health that phone users should try to hold their phones at least 16 inches away from their faces. Every few minutes look up from your screen at something far away for short breaks, and don’t forget to blink.” – Amanda Hawkins, 5 Seriously Bad Side Effects of Your Smartphone Addiction, Good Housekeeping; Twitter: @goodhousemag
×