This study used Drosophila as model organisms to assess the effects of various EMF sources (short time daily for 3-7 days) on apoptotic cell death of follicles during oogenesis and reproductive capacity (fecundity) decline. Sources included: 900/1800 MHz mobile phone, 1880-1900 MHz wireless base, wireless handset, mobile phone-handset combination, 2.44 GHz wireless network (Wi-Fi), 2.44 GHz bluetooth, 92.8 MHz FM generator, 27.15 MHz baby monitor, 900 MHz CW RF generator and microwave oven’s 2.44 GHz RF and magnetic field components. All EMF sources used created statistically significant effects regarding fecundity and cell death-apoptosis induction, even at very low intensity levels well below ICNIRP’s guidelines, suggesting that Drosophila oogenesis system is suitable to be used as a biomarker for exploring potential EMF bioactivity.

…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]
WiFi operates in the 2 to 5 GHz range -- part of the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is in the same part of the spectrum where cell phones operate so I may refer to WiFi or cellphone electromagnetic radiation interchangeably. These are radio waves -- no different from those used to broadcast television programs, except that they are higher in frequency. They aren't nearly as high a frequency as visible light, and no one worries about getting cancer from visible light (ultraviolet light, on the other hand, causes skin cancer, but this is the minimum energy necessary to cause ionizations that can cause breaks in strands of DNA, which is the mechanism by which cancer cells can be created). There is no credible evidence that non-ionizing radiation has any adverse health effects at all. There is no radiobiologic mechanism that could explain such an association -- and absolutely no scientifically valid evidence that this has ever happened.
Recall bias, which can occur when data about prior habits and exposures are collected from study participants using questionnaires administered after diagnosis of a disease in some of the participants. It is possible that study participants who have brain tumors may remember their cell phone use differently from individuals without brain tumors. Many epidemiologic studies of cell phone use and brain cancer risk lack verifiable data about the total amount of cell phone use over time. In addition, people who develop a brain tumor may have a tendency to recall cell phone use mostly on the same side of the head where their tumor was found, regardless of whether they actually used their phone on that side of the head a lot or only a little.

The industry’s $4.7 million contribution to the WHO appears to have had its most telling effect in May 2011, when the WHO convened scientists in Lyon, France, to discuss how to classify the cancer risk posed by cell phones. The industry not only secured “observer” status at Lyon for three of its trade associations; it placed two industry-funded experts on the working group that would debate the classification, as well as additional experts among the “invited specialists” who advised the group.38


When you make a call, text, or use data, your phone sends and receives RF signals back and forth between its antenna and nearby cell towers. The radiation from Bluetooth and WiFi devices falls into the same basic range on the electromagnetic spectrum—between FM radios and microwave ovens—as the RF waves from cell phones. But because the distances traveled by WiFi and Bluetooth signals tend to be much shorter (between your router and your laptop, for instance, or your smartphone and your wireless speaker) the RF can be transmitted at a much lower power than from a cell phone, which could reduce the effect it has on living tissue.
Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. In truth, the safety of wireless technology has been an unsettled question since the industry’s earliest days. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a massive public-health experiment: Use a cell phone today, find out later if it causes cancer or genetic damage. Meanwhile, the wireless industry has obstructed a full and fair understanding of the current science, aided by government agencies that have prioritized commercial interests over human health and news organizations that have failed to inform the public about what the scientific community really thinks. In other words, this public-health experiment has been conducted without the informed consent of its subjects, even as the industry keeps its thumb on the scale.27
The FCC provides information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cell phones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds with the relative amount of radiofrequency radiation absorbed by the head of a cell phone user (47). Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCC’s ID search form.
As a result, it is observed that the long-term exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency radiation caused an increase in the DNA damage of the brain, liver, kidney, and skin tissue of rats, but this increase was not significant. Therefore it is determined that the long-term exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency radiation does not cause the DNA damage of the brain, liver, kidney, and skin tissue of the rats. However it is concluded that the long-term usage of 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency wireless internet providers could cause a potential risk of DNA damage in the testes.

33. Avoid Electro Hypersensitivity (EHS) due to the location of an Electromotive Force (EMF) source. “Don’t wear metal-rimmed glasses when using a cell phone,” advises the Center for Safer Wireless. Additionally, the Center for Safer Wireless suggests that you should “refrain from using your cell phone in a car, bus or train. Metal reflects wireless radiation, and it bounces around you when on a cell phone in this environment.”– Cell Phone Safety Tips, Center for Safer Wireless; Twitter: @SaferEMF
Wireless internet (Wi-Fi) providers have become essential in our daily lives, as wireless technology is evolving at a dizzying pace. Although there are different frequency generators, one of the most commonly used Wi-Fi devices are 2.4GHz frequency generators. These devices are heavily used in all areas of life but the effect of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emission on users is generally ignored. Yet, an increasing share of the public expresses concern on this issue. Therefore, this study intends to respond to the growing public concern. The purpose of this study is to reveal whether long term exposure 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.

My son likes to listen to music when he sleeps. He subscribes to Spotify, and has his playlists downloaded to his phone. He now uses airplane mode at night & uses Spotify this way–but of course he sleeps w/ his phone. (He also sleeps in a basement.) Is this still dangerous? If so, what do you suggest he do to be able to listen to continuous music safely at night? He is 21 and resistant to put down the phone… but he does listen, esp. if others (esp non-Mom others!), particularly “professionals” give solid researched reasons. I am going to print this article and share it with him. (My other 3 teenagers don’t have an issue and several don’t even have a phone… but he’s my firstborn, and more into the phone…)


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)
Acute exposure of rabbits to WIFI increased heart frequency (+22%) and arterial blood pressure (+14%). Moreover, analysis of ECG revealed that WIFI induced a combined increase of PR and QT intervals. By contrast, the same exposure failed to alter maximum amplitude and P waves. After intravenously injection of dopamine (0.50 ml/kg) and epinephrine (0.50 ml/kg) under acute exposure to RF we found that, WIFI alter catecholamines (dopamine, epinephrine) action on heart variability and blood pressure compared to control. 
Jump up ^ Frei, Patrizia; Mohler, Evelyn; Neubauer, Georg; Theis, Gaston; Bürgi, Alfred; Fröhlich, Jürg; Braun-Fahrländer, Charlotte; Bolte, John; Egger, Matthias; Röösli, Martin (August 2009). "Temporal and spatial variability of personal exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields". Environmental Research. 109 (6): 779–785. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2009.04.015. PMID 19476932.

In the current study, the pattern of the response of E coli to Wi-Fi and RF simulator radiation was identical. The maximum differences in the diameters of inhibition zones were observed between 6 and 9 hours of the bacterial exposure to radiation (Figures 1 and 2). After 12 hours of exposure, the bacterial responses to radiation as a stressor led to returning to the preexposure status.


Protect your iPhone and keep your ID and credit cards handy with a stylish, customizable wallet case from Zazzle! Tired of that bulky wallet? Well, you've come to the right place. iPhone Cases Wallet cases from Zazzle eliminate the need for a separate wallet while keeping your precious phone protected. These sleek new cases aren't just some boring monotone color, either. The front can be fully personalized with your photos, logo, or text. Not only will it carry your most important belongings, it can carry your memories or show off your attitude, too!
Lloyd’s precautions are good ones, although he doesn’t cover cell phone use. I’ve worked on cellular telephony for the last 18 years, coming to the same conclusions about cell phones about ten years ago, the science had gotten conclusive enough for me, as I doubted at first that they could be a problem. As you may have heard, you don’t want to talk on them next to your head if you can help it, use speakerphone mode or wired or Bluetooth headset (BT is very low power, usually keeping itself around only a milliwatt, although wired or speakerphone is better). Don’t park it all day long on any body parts you want to keep cancer-free, especially the pelvic and pectoral regions (trying to keep it classy here). I wouldn’t advise living within a third of a mile of a cell phone tower, or within a mile of a TV tower, if you can help it. Best wishes all.
Prenatal exposure to radiation from cell phones may increase the risk of ADHD and other behavior problems in children. According to a peer-reviewed Nov. 2008 study in the journal Epidemiology, exposure to cell phone radiation while in the womb "was associated with behavior difficulties such as emotional and hyperactivity problems around the age of school entry." [65] A Dec. 2010 study replicated those findings. [67] A peer-reviewed Mar. 15, 2012 study found that mice exposed to cell phone radiation in the womb "were hyperactive and had impaired memory" as adults. [66]
I have noticed that whenever I set the location settings so the apps can access my location, I get a fuzzy feeling in my head. This is followed by feelings of confusion for however long the setting is enabled and often continues for a while even after I switch the settings off. I have also noticed that the effect is magnified by bringing the phone closer to my head. At arms length, the effect is negilable but up close the effect is more dramatic- a space at the back of my eyes start to itch and I find it difficult to concentrate. Anyone else feel anything like this?
Result: More than 100 studies on 2.45 GHz radiation were analyzed, most of which found changes compared to the control groups at levels below the safety guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) (issued as exposure limits of the 26th Federal Pollution Control Ordinance (BImSchV) in Germany). The available studies document damage to the reproductive system, impacts on the EEG and brain functions, as well as effects on the heart, liver, thyroid, gene expression, cell cycle, cell membranes, bacteria, and plants. As a mechanism of action, many studies identify oxidative stress. Adverse effects on learning, memory, attention, and behavior are the result of cytotoxic effects.

In one type of study, called a case–control study, cell phone use is compared between people with these types of tumors and people without them. In another type of study, called a cohort study, a large group of people who do not have cancer at study entry is followed over time and the rate of these tumors in people who did and didn’t use cell phones is compared. Cancer incidence data can also be analyzed over time to see if the rates of brain tumors changed in large populations during the time that cell phone use increased dramatically. These studies have not shown clear evidence of a relationship between cell phone use and cancer. However, researchers have reported some statistically significant associations for certain subgroups of people.


Because of inconsistent findings from epidemiologic studies in humans and the lack of clear data from previous experimental studies in animals, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration nominated radiofrequency radiation exposure associated with cell phone exposures for study in animal models by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency program that coordinates toxicology research and testing across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of NIH.

If you use a USB Wi-Fi adapter (for PCs that don’t have a built in wireless network interface card) use it on a USB extension cable (10 feet or more). The same goes if you use a 3G or 4G USB internet stick, or dongle, to connect to the Internet while you’re traveling. A USB extension cable will significantly reduce your exposure. Tip: the further the USB internet stick is from you when you’re surfing the Web, the less you will be exposed.  Buy a USB extension that’s a good 10 to 15 feet long.


We asked Dr. George Carlo his thoughts on EMF cases and shielding products, “most offer some protection, some of the time, to some people, because they can alter the immediate electromagnetic field environment around the person,” and immediately emphasizes the importance of “some,” which seems to tell us that it’s vastly unpredictable. “All waveforms in the environment are highly variable and they interact with other factors in the environment that make them even more variable.” This pretty much sums up that the artificial electromagnetic energy universe is vastly unpredictable.

One of the convenient features of having a smartphone is to quickly access email or social media accounts with just a tap of a finger. However, this also means that you are always connected to accounts that may contain sensitive information. Consider logging out of certain accounts if you can so that others can’t access those accounts if they are using your phone. Keep in mind that depending on the type of phone you have, you might not be able to log out of some accounts, such as email accounts, but may have to remove the entire account from your phone. In this case, make your decision based on your own privacy and safety risk. While it may be inconvenient to access the account through the browser instead, it may be safer.
Researchers at Wageningen University in the Netherlands have reported that radiation from WiFi networks is harmful to trees. Problems observed included growth variations, and bleeding and fissures in tree bark. The researchers exposed 20 ash trees to various sources of radiation for three months. The tress closest to the WiFi source exhibited a lead-like shine on the leaves. The researchers also found that WiFi radiation is harmful to growing corn.
The WHO began to study the health effects of electric- and magnetic-field radiation (EMF) in 1996 under the direction of Michael Repacholi, an Australian biophysicist. Although Repacholi claimed on disclosure forms that he was “independent” of corporate influence, in fact Motorola had funded his research: While Repacholi was director of the WHO’s EMF program, Motorola paid $50,000 a year to his former employer, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which then transferred the money to the WHO program. When journalists exposed the payments, Repacholi denied that there was anything untoward about them because Motorola had not paid him personally. Eventually, Motorola’s payments were bundled with other industry contributions and funneled through the Mobile and Wireless Forum, a trade association that gave the WHO’s program $150,000 annually. In 1999, Repacholi helped engineer a WHO statement that “EMF exposures below the limits recommended in international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health.”34
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 industry’s $4.7 million contribution to the WHO appears to have had its most telling effect in May 2011, when the WHO convened scientists in Lyon, France, to discuss how to classify the cancer risk posed by cell phones. The industry not only secured “observer” status at Lyon for three of its trade associations; it placed two industry-funded experts on the working group that would debate the classification, as well as additional experts among the “invited specialists” who advised the group.38
All values were far below International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s (ICNIRP) reference values, but most mean levels measured were above the precautionary target level of 3–6 µW/m2 as proposed by the Bioinitiative Report ….however the ICNIRP guidelines are based on short-term heating (thermal) effects, and are therefore not relevant to decide on the appropriateness of long-term exposure.

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).
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.
That comes at something of a price though, and the chunky bezels mean it’s not the most stylish phone — though we do like the bronze edges. Still, it’s powerful, outstripping most other phones under $300, which makes it the perfect companion for a gaming-happy generation. The camera suffers from poor performance in low light, but is otherwise good. It’s also running on Google’s Android One operating system, which means the phone will be updated with the latest security patches and new features quickly and often, helping to keep your kid’s phone secure. It’s a great choice if solid performance and durability are preferred to flashy looks.
A series of studies testing different scenarios (called simulations by the study authors) were carried out using incidence data from the Nordic countries to determine the likelihood of detecting various levels of risk as reported in studies of cell phone use and brain tumors between 1979 and 2008. The results were compatible with no increased risks from cell phones, as reported by most epidemiologic studies. The findings did suggest that the increase reported among the subset of heaviest regular users in the Interphone study could not be ruled out but was unlikely. The highly increased risks reported in the Swedish pooled analysis were strongly inconsistent with the observed glioma rates in the Nordic countries (24).
This study investigated the effects of mobile phone (900 and 1800 MHz)- and Wi-Fi (2450 MHz)-induced electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure (60 min/day during pregnancy and growth periods) on uterine oxidative stress and plasma hormone levels in pregnant rats and their offspring. Although EMR exposure decreased the prolactin, estrogen, and progesterone levels in the plasma of maternal rats and their offspring, EMR-induced oxidative stress in the uteri of maternal rats increased during the development of offspring. Mobile phone- and Wi-Fi-induced EMR may be one cause of increased oxidative uterine injury in growing rats and decreased hormone levels in maternal rats.
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.
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?
Wireless devices run on radio waves. Antennas emit varying levels of radio frequencies (RFs) that at some point are absorbed into the human body. The measurement of absorption, the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), is an indicator of this absorption. What’s the SAR of a cell phone? The FCC requires that all models of cell phones sold in the U.S. fall below 1.6 watts per kilogram. If you’re confused by the complex science, you’re not alone.
I had a wireless router installed about a month ago, since then I have had trouble sleeping and also it was like something was inflaming my brain (don’t know how else to describe it). I stumbled onto the discussion about WiFi and problems associated with it and decided to turn off the WiFi on my router and just go with a wired connection. Instantly the pressure on brain was gone, its like my brain began to relax once the wireless was off. How can they say there is no evidence?

Wireless devices run on radio waves. Antennas emit varying levels of radio frequencies (RFs) that at some point are absorbed into the human body. The measurement of absorption, the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), is an indicator of this absorption. What’s the SAR of a cell phone? The FCC requires that all models of cell phones sold in the U.S. fall below 1.6 watts per kilogram. If you’re confused by the complex science, you’re not alone.


RESULTS: Data obtained from the One day test showed an increase in concentration of blood glucose, decrease in Triglyceride level and GGT factor (P<0.05), however no observed significant difference on the Cholesterol, HDL, LDL level and hepatic enzymes activities in compare to control group. Groups of the five-day test showed reduction in the amount of blood glucose, elevation of cholesterol level and LDL relative to control group (P<0.05).
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
The king is dead — long live the king. If you’re looking for a smartphone that doesn’t break the bank and won’t sting too much if it’s lost, but still offers good performance, then Motorola’s G-range is usually where you’d start. This year, the Moto G6 has upped the ante, delivering a glass-and-metal design that your sprog won’t be ashamed to be seen with. A protective case is included in the package, but you might want to pick from our range of the best Moto G6 cases, since glass is prone to breaking.
In 2015, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the epidemiologic studies on cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of other cancers of the head and neck region (2). The Committee also stated that epidemiologic studies do not indicate increased risk for other malignant diseases, including childhood cancer (2).
Standard Wifi works on the 2,45Ghz frequency, you talk about microwaves from the frequency of 1Ghz or higher, below that they are called radiowaves (radiofrequency), so your statement is false. Your microwave works on 2,45Ghz as well, hence MICROWAVEs. Your Wifi-router, when not connected to a device still sends out pulses “Beacon Interval” which is on the default settings 10 pulses per second. An Eco-Router has the setting changed to 1 pulse per second, reducing exposure when it is idle. Many Wifi-routers with a 10/s Beacon Interval can give induced “Panic Attacks” to people who are sensitized to the High Frequency EMF.
Brain Fog – or cognitive decline, it is noticeable when you feel that your memory has been declining, or you’re having trouble recalling names, or places or events. It is also noticeable if you are having a tough time concentrating. Some scientists believe that the dramatic rise in Alzheimers Disease can be partially attributed to EMF damage and our wireless age.
Don’t text or handle your phone while driving. Texting or even touching your phone while driving is dangerous and illegal in many states. If you must speak on the phone, use a speaker or headset and hands-free controls. Never text, send or read email or post online and if you use your phone for navigation or listening to music or podcasts, set it before you leave or use hands-free voice recognition.
The industry’s $4.7 million contribution to the WHO appears to have had its most telling effect in May 2011, when the WHO convened scientists in Lyon, France, to discuss how to classify the cancer risk posed by cell phones. The industry not only secured “observer” status at Lyon for three of its trade associations; it placed two industry-funded experts on the working group that would debate the classification, as well as additional experts among the “invited specialists” who advised the group.38
I've spent years tackling subjects from urban health to medical marijuana to behavioral science—both as a city reporter for my hometown public radio station in Tulsa, Okla., and as a freelance writer. Now I cover health and food at Consumer Reports. My hobbies include tinkering with computer code and watching trashy TV. Follow me on Twitter: @catharob. 
Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) are invisible. You can’t see, touch, or feel them, but doesn’t mean they’re not there. As awareness about possible negative effects of wireless energy grows, curiosity simultaneously rises. More and more people ask me about how far they need to be and where the optimal placement is of their routers are for they’re health and safety.
According to American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Robert Block, when cell phones are used by children, "the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull," than for adults. [68] A July 2008 peer-reviewed study shows that children under the age of eight absorb twice the amount of radiation into their brain tissue as adults due to their lower skull thickness. [17]
In April, the city of Berkeley, Calif., won a major decision in a federal appeals court, allowing the city to go forward with its ordinance requiring cellphone retailers to provide consumers with information about safe cellphone use. The court denied a request by the the mobile phone industry's lobby, CTIA-The Wireless Association, which had fought the city’s attempts to educate its citizens.
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. [1] 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 [41] found a "decreased risk for high-grade glioma," a malignant brain tumor, and a 2005 Swedish study [42] also found a "decreased odds ratio" for developing glioma as well as meningioma, another type of brain tumor. 

METHODS: Standard class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of 20 non-carious extracted human premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 10). The control group was stored in non-environment. The specimens in the experimental groups were exposed to a radiofrequency radiation emitted from standard Wi Fi devices at 2.4 GHz for 20 min. The distance between the Wi-Fi router and samples was 30 cm and the router was exchanging data with a laptop computer that was placed 20 m away from the router. The concentration of mercury in the artificial saliva in the groups was evaluated by using a cold-vapor atomic absorption Mercury Analyzer System. The independent t test was used to evaluate any significant differences in mercury release between the two groups.

This is extremely controversial but we can’t ignore that plenty of animal models indicate that exposure to electromagnetic radiation increases the risk of tumor development. While human studies are rare, reports and case studies abound. One such case involves a young 21-year-old woman who developed breast cancer. What makes this case unique was that her family did not have a predisposition to breast cancer… and she developed the tumor right on the spot she carried her cell phone in her bra. [15]


Feelsafe Wireless believes that everyone deserves a phone and being connected through your cell phone today is essential. Having the ability to contact family, friends and employers can make life much easier. Feelsafe is committed to helping low income families get an advantage by connecting them with unlimited talk, text and data that is affordable on the nation's most dependable wireless network.
For adults and children alike, the process by which wireless radiation may cause cancer remains uncertain, but it is thought to be indirect. Wireless radiation has been shown to damage the blood-brain barrier, a vital defense mechanism that shields the brain from carcinogenic chemicals elsewhere in the body (resulting, for example, from secondhand cigarette smoke). Wireless radiation has also been shown to interfere with DNA replication, a proven progenitor of cancer. In each of these cases, the risks are higher for children: Their skulls, being smaller, absorb more radiation than adults’ skulls do, while children’s longer life span increases their cumulative exposure.29
RESULTS: Data obtained from the One day test showed an increase in concentration of blood glucose, decrease in Triglyceride level and GGT factor (P<0.05), however no observed significant difference on the Cholesterol, HDL, LDL level and hepatic enzymes activities in compare to control group. Groups of the five-day test showed reduction in the amount of blood glucose, elevation of cholesterol level and LDL relative to control group (P<0.05).

The legislators themselves say that no link has been demonstrated (Le Monde reports them as having been unable to identify ‘a causal link between the biological effects described on cellular models, animals or humans and possible health effects that result.’) and there is only limited evidence (one study, unconfirmed by any others) to suggest risk even for intensive users of mobile phones.


50. Model the behavior you want to see from your child. “Model the manners and behavior you want to see. Avoid texting in the car. Consider narrating your phone use (“I’m looking up directions to the party”) so young kids understand the utility of the device. Make sure to excuse yourself if you have to interrupt a family moment to attend to your phone.” – My Kid Texts Constantly! What Can I Do?, Common Sense Media; Twitter: @CommonSense
×