Merely injecting us with vaccines and their toxic metals is one thing. Then EMF out there is another. However, putting the two together, what do we have? Now let’s look at the push to increased the saturation in the environment with cell towers in and around school grounds with mandatory vaccinations for kids. Makes you wonder. The general population is encourage to get vaccines while SmartMeters, the ubiquity of WiFi and cell phones surround us.
So for example, if you have a Samsung Galaxy S 5 you could turn it off completely (briefly pulling the battery if you need to) push the power button to turn the phone back on until you see the Samsung Galaxy S5 logo screen, release the power button and then immediately press and hold the Volume Down key until the phone booted up with Safe Mode activated displaying “Safe mode” in the bottom left hand corner of the phones display.
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 -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.
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
A closer look reveals the industry’s sleight of hand. When Henry Lai, the professor whom Carlo tried to get fired, analyzed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2005, he learned that 56 percent found a biological effect from cell-phone radiation and 44 percent did not; the scientific community apparently was split. But when Lai recategorized the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67 percent of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28 percent of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives that concluded industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find a health effect.23

Because of this physical law, even if  holding a Wi-Fi router directly against your forehead was very dangerous (and, we assure you, it is not) working in your home office 45 feet away from the Wi-Fi router would not be dangerous simply because the microwave radiation of the already minuscule 1 watt Wi-Fi router would have radically decreased in intensity. When you factor in that the Wi-Fi radiation is already harmless, you see that there is no situation in which the Wi-Fi signal from your router, your laptop, your media center, or any other Wi-Fi device in your home could possibly hurt you.
The wireless communications industry is rushing to blanket the nation with next-generation networks whose health effects are unknown. Despite studies linking radiation from existing networks to cancer in lab animals, the Federal Communications Commission and state legislators are bowing to industry lobbyists and clearing the way for the new networks.  
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.”

Due to the relatively recent adoption of cell phones, the long-term safety of the technology cannot be determined conclusively and caution is warranted. Research on glioma brain tumors shows the average latency period is 20-30 years. [56] Although cell phones were introduced in 1983, it was not until 2003 that over 50% of the US population had a wireless subscription, so the 20 year mark for mass cell phone use has not yet been reached. [44] [71] The May 17, 2010 INTERPHONE study, the largest study ever to examine possible links between cell phones and brain tumors, concluded that overall there was "no increase in risk" for glioma or meningioma brain tumors, [57] but the average user in the study had less than eight years of cell phone exposure. [56] In his review of the INTERPHONE study results, Dr. Rodolfo Saracci stated that "none of today’s established carcinogens, including tobacco, could have been firmly identified as increasing risk in the first 10 years or so since first exposure." [58]
Like cell phones, routers use radio frequency (RF) energy—a form of electromagnetic radiation—to bring wireless internet to your computer, TV, and other devices. Bluetooth headphones and speakers also rely on RF signals to play music. Smartwatches use RF to connect to your phone. And any WiFi-connected smart devices in your home also receive and transmit data using this type of energy. Do you need to worry about any of that?
The potential health impact of Wi-Fi, even at low exposure levels, can no longer be called into question or relativized away, not even by those studies that found no effects. The decision-makers in government, school boards, and health agencies have a responsibility to deal with the available body of research and not to be deceived by the arguments of the industry lobby or boilerplates of government institutions. Health risks are a reality. It would be particularly important to carry out further research regarding the effects on the brain and young people. The application of the precautionary principle, which is recognized in all European countries, only allows for one conclusion: Wi-Fi must not be used continuously and close to the human body. I is no coincidence that the user guide of the Telekom Wi-Fi router states: “The integrated antennas of your Speedport transmit and receive wireless signals, for example, to provide Wi-Fi connectivity. Avoid placing your Speedport in close proximity to bedrooms, children’s rooms, as well as common rooms and lounges to keep the exposure to electromagnetic field as low as possible.” In their joint appeal with regard to Wi-Fi, the Cyprus and Austrian medical associations call on decision-makers to "promote age-related rational application of digital technology and not allow at schools, particular at preschool, kindergarten and elementary schools wireless networks and opt for wired connections" (ibid). Lawmakers are called upon to adjust protective legislation to the current state of research and to support research into alternatives to Wi-Fi such as VLC technologies (visible light communication, Li-Fi).
According to scientists involved in the process, the WHO may decide later this year to reconsider its categorization of the cancer risk posed by cell phones; the WHO itself told The Nation that before making any such decision, it will review the final report of the National Toxicology Program, a US government initiative. The results reported by the NTP in 2016 seem to strengthen the case for increasing the assessment of cell-phone radiation to a “probable” or even a “known” carcinogen. Whereas the WHO’s Interphone study compared the cell-phone usage of people who had contracted cancer with that of people who hadn’t, the NTP study exposed rats and mice to cell-phone radiation and observed whether the animals got sick.47
The study was an attempt to draw attention towards the adverse effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiations (NI-EMR) in the frequency that is used widely in the field of telecommunication. Many studies have captured the impact of the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz frequencies, however the frequency of radiation in Wi-Fi range has not been much explored. Along with the use of cell phones there is a growing concern with the use of Wi-Fi devices which continuously emit radiations in the frequency of 2.4 GHz. Hence we thought it prudent to investigate the impact of radiation of the frequency of 2.45 GHz. It can be concluded that the exposure to non-ionizing radiation of 2.45 GHz caused detrimental changes in rat brain leading to learning and memory decline and expression of anxiety behavior along with fall in brain antioxidants. The exposure triggered the gene expression of caspase 3 which plays a major role in the apoptotic pathway. The chronic impact of non-ionizing radiation needs to be thoroughly evaluated in humans so that combative steps can be taken.
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)

29. Carry your phone properly when you must carry it close to you. “If you must carry your cellphone on you, keep the keypad position toward your body and the back toward the outside to have the electromagnetic fields move away from you, rather than through you, according to Consumerist.” – Lizette Borreli, Teenage Girl Wakes to Samsung Galaxy S4 Catching Fire Under Pillow: 4 Ways to Make Your Cell Phone Safer, Medical Daily; Twitter: @lizcelineb


PURPOSE: MicroRNAs (miRNA) play a paramount role in growth, differentiation, proliferation and cell death by suppressing one or more target genes. However, their interaction with radiofrequencies is still unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted from a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) system on some of the miRNA in brain tissue.


the Environmental Working Group is suspending publication of the EWG guide to cell phones until the FCC makes the responsible decision to require cell phone makers to generate and disclose data about device and network emissions under real-world conditions. We strongly believe that as cell phones become more powerful and ubiquitous, it is critical that people have a right to know how much radiation they can expect their cell phones to generate. As things now stand, the FCC’s cell phone safety rules are as obsolete as the StarTac.

The following 50 helpful tips include advice for keeping your children safe when they venture into the wireless world, information about reducing radiation from cell phone use, driving safely while using your cellphone, and everyday safety tips that everyone can use. These tips aren’t listed in any particular order of importance, but they are categorized to make it easy to locate the advice you’re looking for.
×