Disclaimer: While we work to ensure that product information is correct, on occasion manufacturers may alter their ingredient lists. Actual product packaging and materials may contain more and/or different information than that shown on our Web site. We recommend that you do not solely rely on the information presented and that you always read labels, warnings, and directions before using or consuming a product. For additional information about a product, please contact the manufacturer. Content on this site is for reference purposes and is not intended to substitute for advice given by a physician, pharmacist, or other licensed health-care professional. You should not use this information as self-diagnosis or for treating a health problem or disease. Contact your health-care provider immediately if you suspect that you have a medical problem. Information and statements regarding dietary supplements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or health condition. Amazon.com assumes no liability for inaccuracies or misstatements about products.
We aimed to investigate the protective effects of melatonin and 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation (60 min/day for 30 days) on brain and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neuron antioxidant redox system, Ca(2+) influx, cell viability and electroencephalography (EEG) records in the rat. Lipid peroxidation (LP), cell viability and cytosolic Ca(2+) values in DRG neurons were higher in EMR-exposed groups than in controls, although their concentrations were increased by melatonin, 2-aminoethyldiphenyl borinate (2-APB), diltiazem and verapamil supplementation. Lower numbers of EEG spikes were recorded in EMR+melatonin groups than in EMR only, while brain cortex vitamin E concentrations were higher in the melatonin-supplemented group. In conclusion, Melatonin supplementation in DRG neurons and brain seems to have protective effects on the 2.45 GHz-induced increase Ca(2+) influx, EEG records and cell viability of the hormone through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels.
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.
Carlo’s October 7, 1999, letters to wireless-industry CEOs are the smoking-gun equivalent of the November 12, 1982, memo that M.B. Glaser, Exxon’s manager of environmental-affairs programs, sent to company executives explaining that burning oil, gas, and coal could raise global temperatures by a destabilizing 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. For the tobacco industry, Carlo’s letters are akin to the 1969 proposal that a Brown & Williamson executive wrote for countering anti-tobacco advocates. “Doubt is our product,” the memo declared. “It is also the means of establishing a controversy…at the public level.”18
Electrocardiogram and arterial pressure measurements were studied under acute exposures to WIFI (2.45GHz) during one hour in adult male rabbits. 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, but failed to alter maximum amplitude and P waves. After intravenously injection of dopamine (0.50ml/kg) and epinephrine (0.50ml/kg) under acute exposure to RF we found that, WIFI alter catecholamines (dopamine, epinephrine) action on heart variability and blood pressure compared to control. These results suggest for the first time, as far as we know, that exposure to WIFI affect heart rhythm, blood pressure, and catecholamines efficacy on cardiovascular system; indicating that radiofrequency can act directly and/or indirectly on cardiovascular system.
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.
Wi-Fi transmissions consist of sequences of RF burst signals or pulses ranging in duration depending on the amount of data being carried by a pulse(15). The proportion of time that Wi-Fi transmits RF signals is called the duty cycle. Joseph et al.(14) in measuring Wi-Fi in 176 different urban locations (outdoors, homes, offices) found a median duty cycle of 1.4% over all the measurements. Particularly in schools, Khalid et al.(10) in measuring Wi-Fi in six schools found a mean duty cycle from the access points of 4.8%. In our study duty cycle was measured separately for the 2.45 and 5 GHz transmissions when performing the stationary Wi-Fi measurements in the centre of the classroom. The median duty cycle for 23 schools that were measured in the current study was 6.3 and 2.4% for 2.45 and 5 GHz transmissions, respectively.
We’re living in a wireless technology age, but there’s some evidence that exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and wireless devices could increase your risk of certain cancers and tumors. However, more research is needed. In the meantime, I recommend practicing the precautionary principle. Some great cell phone safety tips include:
So I am not surprised at all then today to find this article, which just confirms what my body was very clearly telling me already. I am only surprised that more people don’t feel the effects of this kind of radiation in their body, and bother to argue about it. If our whole society (especially western countries) had not become so desensitized, and out of touch with their bodies, there would not be any controversy or discussion about it, anyone could just feel the effects of radiation… and would act accordingly.
We couldn't find one legit EMF expert online or anywhere else that would recommend a radiation blocking case or anti-radiation case. Not the Environmental Health Trust or Magda Havas, or Joel Moskowitz, in fact his site, safeEMR cautions against scams and claims for radiation protection. So if a so-called "EMF expert" is recommending any kind of anti-radiation case, they probably aren't that much of an expert.
We’ve rounded up 50 valuable tips from experts on mobile devices, wireless, safe Internet usage, and more to help you get the most from your cell phone. Play it safe by using your device when it’s safe to do so, avoiding calls and texts from anonymous numbers to steer clear of phishing and other scams, learn strategies for monitoring your kids’ cell phone use to stay on top of potential problems, and teach your kids about smart mobile usage.