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 reduce 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.
Wifi does affect your health and well being. I put up a wifi router nearby a couple of bee hives in different places. The bees left the hives. I removed the wifi router, the bees gradually returned; I see how arrogant and stupid the population has turned. Cattle, simple cattle. as Osiah in old testmanent states ” Father, my people lack knowledge”…. this applies today to all subjects
There are few if any references to actual studies in published, peer-reviewed journals that support the claim that Aires, or any other, cell phone shield actually works. The "Researches" page contains a superficially impressive list of sciencey-sounding titles and findings supposedly demonstrating the importance of using cell phone shields, all of them in Russia for some reason.
Last year, 15-year-old English schoolgirl Jenny Fry was found hanged in woodland near her home. According to her parents she suffered from electrical sensitivity, making it impossible for her to sit in WiFi classrooms and have WiFi at home. The school refused to remove the WiFi. Speaking at the inquest her mother said, “I believe that WiFi killed my daughter.”
“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
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
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.
Legal Disclaimer: EWG's cell phone database is dynamic, which means that the cell phone ranking numbers may change based on evolving science, new information on SAR radiation exposures, market conditions, or other factors. Please be advised that EWG does not recommend that companies create marketing materials based on the EWG rating system, given that the rankings may change as the database is updated. EWG makes no representations or warranties about any of the products rated on this site. EWG hereby disclaims all warranties with regard to the products on the site, including express, statutory, implied warranties of merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose.
When it comes to cell phones, scientists have looked at findings from animal research and cells in test tubes exposed to RF radiation in a lab, as well as observational studies in humans. These human studies have tried to see whether heavy users of cell phones have higher rates of brain cancers and other health problems compared with people who use cell phones less often.
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.
Released in 1993 as a joint creation of IBM and BellSouth, this was the first smartphone. A fax machine, a PDA, a pager and a mobile phone, the IBM Simon featured no physical keys, but used a touchscreen and optional stylus. Amazingly, it included applications such as games, email, a notepad, calculator, world clock, address book and a calendar. It only sold in the United States, for $899.
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…)
Outside critics soon came to suspect that Carlo would be the front man for an industry whitewash. They cited his dispute with Henry Lai, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington, over a study that Lai had conducted examining whether cell-phone radiation could damage DNA. In 1999, Carlo and the WTR’s general counsel sent a letter to the university’s president urging that Lai be fired for his alleged violation of research protocols. Lai accused the WTR of tampering with his experiment’s results. Both Carlo and Lai deny the other’s accusations.5
There was no significant difference between sperm counts and sperm morphology excluding sperm motility, due to mobile phone usage period, (p = 0.074, p = 0.909, and p = 0.05, respectively). The total motile sperm count and the progressive motile sperm count decreased due to the increase of internet usage (p = 0.032 and p = 0.033, respectively). In line with the total motile sperm count, progressive motile sperm count also decreased with wireless internet usage compared with the wired internet connection usage (p = 0.009 and p = 0.018, respectively). There was a negative correlation between wireless internet usage duration and the total sperm count (r = −0.089, p = 0.039). 
Hundreds of clinical studies have attempted to troll the netherworld of cell phone emissions. To echo the FDA: so far no conclusive evidence exists that proves a health risk from cell phone RFs. BUT studies still need to be done. Scientists have argued that research suffers when forced into short-term constraints. Consumers demand quick and speedy results, a demand that short-circuits authentic scientific study.
Influence of environmental stress factors on both crop and wild plants of nutritional value is an important research topic. The past research has focused on rising temperatures, drought, soil salinity and toxicity, but the potential effects of increased environmental contamination by human-generated electromagnetic radiation on plants have little been studied.
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.
Cell phone radiation levels are tested and certified to remain within levels deemed safe by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC sets the maximum amount of thermal radiation (heat) that cell phones are permitted to emit. [3] This limit is measured as the amount of radiation absorbed by a user and is known as the specific absorption rate (SAR). In 1996 the SAR for cell phone radiation was set at a maximum of 1.6 watts of energy absorbed per kilogram of body weight. Manufactures of cell phones must test their products to ensure that they meet this standard. Random tests of phones on the market by FCC scientists further ensure that radiation levels meet FCC guidelines. [48]
There is a catch, though: The Internet of Things will require augmenting today’s 4G technology with 5G, thus “massively increasing” the general population’s exposure to radiation, according to a petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide who have published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed studies and represent “a significant portion of the credentialed scientists in the radiation research field,” according to Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, who helped circulate the petition. Nevertheless, like cell phones, 5G technology is on the verge of being introduced without pre-market safety testing.26
We aimed to investigate the effects of distance from sources on calcium signaling, cytosolic ROS production, cell viability, apoptosis, plus caspase-3 and -9 values induced by mobile phones and Wi-Fi in breast cancer cells. The cytosolic ROS production, Ca2+ concentrations, apoptosis, caspase-3 and caspase-9 values were higher in groups exposed to 900 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2450 MHz compared to controls at 0 cm, 1 cm and 5 cm distances although cell viability (MTT) values were increased by the distances. There was no statistically significant difference in the values between control, 20 and 25 cm. Wi-Fi and mobile phone EMR placed within 10 cm of the cells induced excessive oxidative responses and apoptosis via TRPV1-induced cytosolic Ca2+ accumulation in the cancer cells. Using cell phones and Wi-Fi sources which are farther away than 10 cm may provide useful protection against oxidative stress, apoptosis and overload of intracellular Ca2+.
The present study was performed to investigate the effect of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation (2 h/day for 35 days) on reproductive pattern of male Wistar rats. Chronic exposure to these radiations produced formation of apoptotic cells in testis. In addition, a significant decrease in the levels of antioxidant enzymes glutathione and superoxide dismutase activities as well as an increase in catalase activity was observed in the exposed group. These results indicate that a low level exposure of microwave radiations exerts a negative impact on male reproductive system function.
i say to be as proactive as possible, limited wifi use and all of the above, but we can’t live in bubbles and if all this powerful God given food, supplements, exercise and sunshine is so good for us… then focus on that more than anything. stress of all the unknowns will kill us faster if we obsess about it. live like God wants you to, laugh a lot and stop worrying.

These studies are not definitive. Much more research is needed. But they raise serious questions that cast doubt on the adequacy of the FCC rules to safeguard public health. The FCC emissions cap allows 20 times more radiation to reach the head than the body as a whole, does not account for risks to children’s developing brains and smaller bodies and considers only short-term cell phone use, not frequent calling patterns over decades.
This study was aimed at investigating the alteration of antibiotic resistance of Klebsiella pneumonia, after exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation from a Wi-Fi router for 3, 4.5 or 8 hours. The findings of this study show a statistically significant rise in the sensitivity of Klebsiella pneumoniae to different antibiotics after 4.5 hours of exposure to 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation, followed by a fall after 8 hours of exposure. These observations can be interpreted by the concept of non-linearity in the responses of Klebsiella pneumoniae to different antibiotics after exposure to electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation.
48. Encourage your children to talk to you about their conversations with friends and experiences online. Make them feel comfortable talking to you if they are made to feel uncomfortable by anyone through any service while using their device. “Tell an adult you trust if you receive anything on your phone—a call, a text message, an email, a picture, or voicemail message—that makes you uncomfortable.” – Cell Phone Savvy, National Crime Prevention Council; Twitter: @McGruffatNCPC
This review presents the findings of more than 100 studies that were published in reputable scientific journals. Most of these studies confirm potential health impacts as were summarized in the joint "Nicosia Declaration on Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Radiation" by the Cyprus and Austrian medical associations in 2017: “Potential health impacts of non-ionizing radiation from EMF/RF (electromagnetic fields/radiofrequencies) of 30 KHz – 300 GHz include carcinogenicity (Class B, IARC 2011), developmental neurotoxicity, effects on DNA, fertility, hypersensitivity and other serious effects are well documented in peer reviewed studies. RFR can increase oxidative stress in cells and lead to increase of pro-inflammatory cytokines and lower capacity to repair DNA single- and double-strand breaks. Cognitive impairments in learning and memory have also been shown. These effects can occur at levels well below existing limits of ICNIRP. ... Exposure to EMF/RF at an early developmental stage is of particular concern due, amongst other, to greater absorption and potential effects on the developing developing brain, nervous system as well as their reproductive system, may induce cancer, cognitive effects, etc.” (www.diagnose-funk.org/publikationen/artikel/detail&newsid=1242 and www.cyprus-child-environment.org/easyconsole.cfm/id/428).
If you’re a family that typically opts for Apple devices, you can share your iTunes content and easily keep track of your child’s location. It certainly isn’t the cheapest smartphone you could buy for your child, but it has great specs, terrific software, and it’s a manageable size for smaller hands. If mom and dad have iPhones already, it’s definitely the most convenient choice. Check out our full review for more information.
In those cases, however, there are two important things to note. The person exposed to the non-ionizing microwave radiation would be exposed to a very high power dose at a very close range. The magnetron in your average consumer microwave produces about 700 watts of microwave energy, and that microwave discharge is safely contained within the body of the microwave thanks to proper shielding. Even if the microwave was malfunctioning and the shielding was beginning to fail, you wouldn’t even feel anything standing in the same room as the device.
Researchers have carried out several types of epidemiologic studies in humans to investigate the possibility of a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of malignant (cancerous) brain tumors, such as gliomas, as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuroma (tumors in the cells of the nerve responsible for hearing that are also known as vestibular schwannomas), meningiomas (usually benign tumors in the membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord), and parotid gland tumors (tumors in the salivary glands) (3).
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
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.
This overview shows that effects of 2.45 GHz radiation have been found by different research teams, repeatedly, in different study objects, and at different exposure levels. A broad spectrum of issues has been investigated such as the effects of 2.45 GHz radiation emitted by a Wi-Fi router on the release of mercury from amalgam fillings. The mercury levels were significantly increased (Paknahad et al. 2016).
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.
The study was conducted on 16 adult male Wistar-Albino rats. The rats in the experimental group (n=8) were exposed to 2.4GHz frequency radiation for over a year. The rats in the sham control group (n=8) were subjected to the same experimental conditions except the Wi-Fi generator was turned off. After the exposure period was complete the possible DNA damage on the rat's brain, liver, kidney, skin, and testicular tissues was detected through the single cell gel electrophoresis assay (comet) method. The amount of DNA damage was measured as percentage tail DNA value.
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.
Free Standard Shipping on purchases of $34.99 or more applies in the U.S. only. Free Returns in the U.S. and Canada. Large, oversized items and products delivered by special or white glove carriers are not eligible for free shipping or free returns. Free returns are not applicable to final sale/non-returnable items. As always, check the deal's Fine Print for restrictions. Learn More

When the Interphone conclusions were released in 2010, industry spokespeople blunted their impact by deploying what experts on lying call “creative truth-telling.” “Interphone’s conclusion of no overall increased risk of brain cancer is consistent with conclusions reached in an already large body of scientific research on this subject,” John Walls, the vice president for public affairs at the CTIA, told reporters. The wiggle word here is “overall”: Since some of the Interphone studies did not find increased brain-cancer rates, stipulating “overall” allowed Walls to ignore those that did. The misleading spin confused enough news organizations that their coverage of the Interphone study was essentially reassuring to the industry’s customers. The Wall Street Journal announced “Cell Phone Study Sends Fuzzy Signal on Cancer Risk,” while the BBC’s headline declared: “No Proof of Mobile Cancer Risk.”37


We aimed to investigate the effects of distance from sources on calcium signaling, cytosolic ROS production, cell viability, apoptosis, plus caspase-3 and -9 values induced by mobile phones and Wi-Fi in breast cancer cells. The cytosolic ROS production, Ca2+ concentrations, apoptosis, caspase-3 and caspase-9 values were higher in groups exposed to 900 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2450 MHz compared to controls at 0 cm, 1 cm and 5 cm distances although cell viability (MTT) values were increased by the distances. There was no statistically significant difference in the values between control, 20 and 25 cm. Wi-Fi and mobile phone EMR placed within 10 cm of the cells induced excessive oxidative responses and apoptosis via TRPV1-induced cytosolic Ca2+ accumulation in the cancer cells. Using cell phones and Wi-Fi sources which are farther away than 10 cm may provide useful protection against oxidative stress, apoptosis and overload of intracellular Ca2+.
The present study was designed to determine the effects of 2.45 GHz EMR (60 min/day for 28 days) on the brain antioxidant redox system and electroencephalography (EEG) records in rat, as well as examine the possible protective effects of selenium and L-carnitine. EMR-exposed animals showed lower concentration of vitamins A, C, and E than controls, although their concentrations were increased by selenium and L-carnitine supplementation. Animals which received selenium and L-carnitine in addition to EMR also showed lower levels of lipid peroxidation. Results indicate that L-carnitine and selenium seem to have protective effects on the 2.45 GHz-induced decrease of the vitamins by supporting antioxidant redox system.
36. Teach your kids to ignore anonymous calls or texts. It’s one thing for adults to choose to answer anonymous calls or text messages, but kids may not always know how to detect a scammer and may unknowingly reveal personal information that could be used in malicious ways. “An anonymous call could be someone trying to extract personal information. An anonymous text could be phishing.” – Rob Zidar, 13 Cell Phone Safety Tips for Teens, Pre-Teens and Their Parents, Lawrenceville Patch; Twitter: @LawvilleNJPatch
×