How-To Protect Yourself From Cell Phone Radiation


How-To Protect Yourself From Cell Phone Radiation

If you haven’t yet, it’s time to get very serious about cell phone safety. Last month, California officially issued groundbreaking guidelines advising cell phone users to keep phones away from their bodies and limit use when reception is weak. State officials caution that studies link radiation and RF energy exposure from long-term cell phone use to an increased risk of brain cancer, lower sperm counts and other health problems, and note that children’s developing brains could be at greater risk.

What is RF energy? Cell phones work by sending and receiving signals to and from cell phone towers. These signals are a form of electromagnetic radiation called radiofrequency (RF) energy. Other sources of RF energy include cell phone towers, TV and radio transmitters, smart meters, and microwave ovens.  When a phone sends signals to a tower, the RF energy goes from the phone’s antenna out in all directions, including into the head and body of the person using the phone. Cell phones also emit RF energy when using Wi -Fi and/or Bluetooth, but at lower levels. RF energy is not as powerful or as  damaging to cells or DNA as some other kinds of electromagnetic radiation, such as X -rays. Some scientific studies have, however, suggested  that there may be increased health risks from exposure to RF energy.

Here are some things to do to make sure your limiting your risk:

Use airplane mode as often as possible

Airplane mode turns off cellular, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth. This includes while you’re asleep, while the phone is in your pocket and while you’re in a fast -moving car, bus, or train (your phone puts out more RF energy to maintain connections to avoid dropping calls as it switches connections from one cell tower to the next).

Do not sleep with your cell phone near you

Especially under your pillow, something that is common for teens, and if you do, place it on airplane mode as mentioned above.

Keep the phone away from your body

Keep the phone away from your body as much as you can, avoid placing it in pockets, your bra, etc. and if you do, be sure to place it on airplane mode (<– important one for the men out there). Especially if you’re streaming or downloading or sending large files.

Keep the phone away from your head

When you talk on your phone, keep it away from your head, wireless bluetooth and headset emit much less RF energy. Especially if you’re streaming or downloading or sending large files

Avoid products that claim to block radio frequency energy

These products may actually increase your exposure.

Reduce cell phone use when the signal is weak

Cell phones put out more RF energy to connect with cell towers when the signal is weak.

Remove your headsets when not on a call

Headsets release small amounts of RF energy even when you are not using your phone.

Sorry to stress you out if you’re addicted to your phone, but these simple changes may have a big impact on your health.

Cell Phone Radiation Unlikely to Cause Cancer


Rare cancer in rats likely not an issue for humans

Radiation exposure from cell phones appears to pose little, if any, cancer risk for humans, despite an association with a rare type of cancer in male rats and mice, government researchers concluded.

Male animals, but not females, had a higher rate of malignant schwannomas — arising in nerves in the heart — compared with animals not exposed to cell phone radiofrequency radiation. The increased risk occurred only in male animals exposed to the highest levels of radiofrequency radiation, which exceeded the exposure levels associated with typical cell phone usage.

“The typical cell phone call has radiofrequency radiation emissions that are very, very, very much lower than what we studied,” John Bucher, PhD, senior scientist at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), said during a media teleconference to summarize the study results. “We studied the maximum that one could achieve during a call in a poorer-connection situation. We studied it over 9 hours a day for over 2 years. This is a situation, obviously, that people are not going to be encountering in utilizing cell phones. It’s a situation that allows us to find a potential biological event if one is going to occur.

“I think the message is that typical cell phone use is not going to be directly related to the kind of exposure we used in these studies.”

The complete results, extracted from studies involving about 3,000 laboratory animals, led NTP scientists to conclude the increased rate of malignant schwannomas in male rats was caused by exposure to the radiofrequency radiation. Male rats exposed to the highest levels of radiofrequency radiation had about a 6% incidence of malignant schwannomas versus none in the control groups.

Bucher and colleagues suggested that the evidence for malignant schwannomas met the risk classification standard of “some evidence of carcinogenic activity.” That descriptor ranked just below the highest standard, “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity.” The schwannoma evidence is “the strongest cancer finding in our study,” said Bucher.

The study produced some evidence of an increased incidence of brain tumors in male rats, but the data left the NTP scientists with a “lower level of certainty” that exposure to cell phone radiofrequency radiation caused the tumors. Bucher said the findings related to brain tumors rose only to the level of “equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity.”

When the NTP released an interim report in 2016, scientists said tumors observed up to that point were “likely related” to cell phone radiofrequency radiation exposures but they had more confidence in the association for the malignant schwannomas and the brain tumors. At the time, they noted the overall tumor incidence was low, even though increased in the exposed versus control groups.

The FDA has yet to finish its review of the NTP data, but a top official said the initial impression is that cell phone radiofrequency radiation does not pose a cancer threat to humans.

“Based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue and taking into account all available scientific evidence we have received, we have not found sufficient evidence that there are adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits,” Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“Even with frequent daily use by the vast majority of adults, we have not seen an increase in events like brain tumors. Based on this current information, we believe the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.”

Bucher briefly reviewed the study design. Animals were assigned to control groups or to groups exposed to various levels of radiofrequency radiation. Radiation exposure began in utero and continued for 2 years. Bucher noted that a 2-year-old rat is the age equivalent of a 70-year-old human.

Animals were exposed to radiofrequency radiation associated with the two most common types of cell phone networks: global system mobile communications (GSM) and code division multiple access (CDMA).

Bucher said NTP scientists will continue to evaluate data from the study, including studies of the effects of cell phone radiofrequency radiation on different types of tissue and DNA. Separate reports of studies involving rats and mice are available on the NTP website.

Mobile Phone Companies Do NOT Want You To know this – Cell Phone Radiation and Cancer Exposed. 


If you think the jury’s still out on whether cell phones can be dangerous to your health, then you might want to take the time to watch to this shocking video exposing how radition emmited by these devices can cause irreversible damage and health implications.


Last year, an Israeli research group reported a sharp increase in the incidence of parotid gland tumors over the last 30 years, with the steepest increase happening after 2001. Your parotid gland is a type of salivary gland, located closest to your cheek—the same area where most people typically hold their cell phones. 

The researchers found a four-fold increase in parotid gland cancers from 1970 to 2006, while rates of other salivary gland cancers remained stableiv.

That same year, Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, the principal investigator of a 2008 study, testified at a U.S. Senate Hearing that cell phones were identified as a contributor to salivary gland tumors.

The report states that your risk of getting a parotid tumor on the same side of your head that you use for listening to the mobile phone increases by:

  • 34 percent if you are a regular cell phone user and have used a mobile phone for 5 years.
  • 58 percent if you had more than about 5,500 calls in your lifetime.
  • 49 percent if you have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours during your lifetime.

Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions


Exposure to radio-frequency radiation linked to tumor formation in rats.

Federal scientists released partial findings Friday from a $25-million animal study that tested the possibility of links between cancer and chronic exposure to the type of radiation emitted from cell phones and wireless devices. The findings, which chronicle an unprecedented number of rodents subjected to a lifetime of electromagnetic radiation starting in utero, present some of the strongest evidence to date that such exposure is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats. The results, which were posted on a prepublication Web site run by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, are poised to reignite controversy about how such everyday exposure might affect human health.

Researchers at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a federal interagency group under the National Institutes of Health, led the study. They chronically exposed rodents to carefully calibrated radio-frequency (RF) radiation levels designed to roughly emulate what humans with heavy cell phone use or exposure could theoretically experience in their daily lives. The animals were placed in specially built chambers that dosed their whole bodies with varying amounts and types of this radiation for approximately nine hours per day throughout their two-year life spans. “This is by far—far and away—the most carefully done cell phone bioassay, a biological assessment. This is a classic study that is done for trying to understand cancers in humans,” says Christopher Portier, a retired head of the NTP who helped launch the study and still sometimes works for the federal government as a consultant scientist. “There will have to be a lot of work after this to assess if it causes problems in humans, but the fact that you can do it in rats will be a big issue. It actually has me concerned, and I’m an expert.”

More than 90 percent of American adults use cell phones. Relatively little is known about their safety, however, because current exposure guidelines are based largely on knowledge about acute injury from thermal effects, not long-term, low-level exposure. The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2011 classified RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen. But data from human studies has been “inconsistent,” the NTP has said on its website. Such studies are also hampered by the realities of testing in humans, such as recall bias—meaning cancer patients have to try to remember their cell phone use from years before, and how they held their handsets. Those data gaps prompted the NTP to engage in planning these new animal studies back in 2009.

The researchers found that as the thousands of rats in the new study were exposed to greater intensities of RF radiation, more of them developed rare forms of brain and heart cancer that could not be easily explained away, exhibiting a direct dose–response relationship. Overall, the incidence of these rare tumors was still relatively low, which would be expected with rare tumors in general, but the incidence grew with greater levels of exposure to the radiation. Some of the rats had glioma—a tumor of the glial cells in the brain—or schwannoma of the heart. Furthering concern about the findings: In prior epidemiological studies of humans and cell phone exposure, both types of tumors have also cropped up as associations.

In contrast, none of the control rats—those not exposed to the radiation—developed such tumors. But complicating matters was the fact that the findings were mixed across sexes: More such lesions were found in male rats than in female rats. The tumors in the male rats “are considered likely the result of whole-body exposure” to this radiation, the study authors wrote. And the data suggests the relationship was strongest between the RF exposure and the lesions in the heart, rather than the brain: Cardiac schwannomas were observed in male rats at all exposed groups, the authors note. But no “biologically significant effects were observed in the brain or heart of female rats regardless of modulation.” Based on these findings, Portier said that this is not just an associated finding—but that the relationship between radiation exposure and cancer is clear. “I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure.”

Earlier studies had never found that this type of radiation was associated with the formation of these cancers in animals at all. But none of those studies followed as many animals, for as long or with the same larger intensity exposures, says Ron Melnick, a scientist who helped design the study and is now retired from the NTP.

The new results, published on Web site bioRXiv, involved experiments on multiple groups of 90 rats. The study was designed to give scientists a better sense of the magnitude of exposure that would be associated with cancer in rodents. In the study rats were exposed to RF at 900 megahertz. There were three test groups with each species of each sex, tested at different radiation intensities (1.5, three and six watts per kilogram, or W/kg), and one control group. (The lowest-intensity level roughly approximates the levels allowed by U.S. cell phone companies, which is1.6 W/kg.)  “There are only 90 animals per group, so because there is a trend—and this is the purpose of these assays where you do multiple doses you extrapolate downward and calculate a risk for humans from those trends—so that information is useful. Probably what caused cancer at the high doses will cause cancer at lower doses but to a lesser degree,” Portier says.

Rodents across all the test groups were chronically exposed to RF for approximately nine hours spread out over the course of the day. (Their entire bodies were exposed because people are exposed to such radiation beyond their heads, especially when they carry them or store them in their bras, says John Bucher, the associate director of the NTP.) During the study the rats were able to run around in their cages, and to eat and sleep as usual. The experiments also included both types of modulations emitted from today’s cell phones: Code Division Multiple Access and Global System for Mobile. (Modulations are the way the information is carried, so although the total radiation levels were roughly the same across both types, there were differences in how radiation is emitted from the antenna—either a higher exposure for a relatively short time or a lower exposure for a longer time.) Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the number of tumors that developed in the animals exposed to CDMA versus GSM modulations. With both modulations and tumor types, there was also a statistically significant trend upward—meaning the incidence increased with more radiation exposure. Yet, drilling down into the data, in the male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RF radiation the number of brain tumors at all levels of exposure was not statistically different than in control males—those who had no exposure at all.  “The trend here is important. The question is, ‘Should one be concerned?’ The answer is clearly ‘Yes.’ But it raises a number of questions that couldn’t be fully answered, ” says David Carpenter, a public health clinician and the director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, S.U.N.Y.

The findings are not definitive, and there were other confusing findings that scientists cannot explain—including that male rats exposed to the radiation seemed to live longer than those in the control group. “Overall we feel that the tumors are likely related to the exposures,” says Bucher, but such unanswered questions “have been the subject of very intense discussions here.”

The NTP released the partial findings on Friday after an online publication called Microwave News reported them earlier this week. The program will still be putting out other results about the work in rats and additional findings about similar testing conducted in mice. The NIH toldScientific American in a statement, “This study in mice and rats is under review by additional experts. It is important to note that previous human, observational data collected in earlier, large-scale population-based studies have found limited evidence of an increased risk for developing cancer from cell phone use.” Still, the NTP was clearly expecting these findings to carry some serious weight: Ahead of Friday’s publication the NTP said on its Web site that the study (and prior work leading to these experiments) would “provide critical information regarding the safety of exposure to radio-frequency radiation and strengthen the science base for determining any potential health effects in humans.”

In response to media queries, cell phone industry group CTIA–The Wireless Association issued a statement Friday saying that it and the wireless industry are still reviewing the study’s findings. “Numerous international and U.S. organizations including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization and American Cancer Society have determined that the already existing body of peer-reviewed and published studies shows that there are no established health effects from radio frequency signals used in cellphones,” the CTIA statement said.

The Federal Communications Commission, which had been briefed by NIH officials, told Scientific American in a statement, “We are aware that the National Toxicology Program is studying this important issue.  Scientific evidence always informs FCC rules on this matter. We will continue to follow all recommendations from federal health and safety experts including whether the FCC should modify its current policies and RF exposure limits.”

This animal study was designed primarily to answer questions about cancer risks humans might experience when they use phones themselves, as opposed to smaller levels of exposure from wireless devices in the workplace or from living or working near cell phone towers. But it may have implications for those smaller levels as well, Portier says.

The findings shocked some scientists who had been closely tracking the study. “I was surprised because I had thought it was a waste of money to continue to do animal research in this area. There had been so many studies before that had pretty consistently not shown elevations in cancer. In retrospect the reason for that is that nobody maintained a sufficient number of animals for a sufficient period of time to get results like this,” Carpenter says.

Exposing rodents to radiation for this type of experiment is a tricky business. First, scientists need to be able to calculate exactly how much the rats should be exposed to relative to humans. Too much exposure would not be a good proxy for human use. And with finely calculated low-level exposure rates, scientists still need to be sure they are not going to heat the animals enough to kill them or to cause other health problems. (Subsequent work will be published on the animals’ temperatures.)

The fact that scientists were able to expose animals to nonionizing radiation (like that emitted by cell phones) and those animals went on to develop tumors but that exposure did not significantly raise the animals’ body temperatures was “important” to release, Bucher says.

There are safety steps individuals can take, Carpenter says. Using the speakerphone, keeping the phone on the desk instead of on the body and using a wired headset whenever possible would help limit RF exposure. “We are certainly not going to go back to a pre-wireless age,” he says. But there are a number of ways to reduce exposure, particularly among sensitive populations.”

Ways To Reduce The Cancer-Causing Effects of Cell Phones


Ever since the World Health Organizationadmitted in 2011 that cell phone radiation is “possibly carcinogenic“, and may be contributing to the global uptick in brain cancer cases, it’s far harder to label someone a hypochondriac for being concerned about the long-term health consequences of exposure.[i]

Ways To Reduce The Cancer Causing Effects of Cell Phones  300x234 Ways To Reduce The Cancer Causing Effects of Cell Phones

In fact, one study cited in their report showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10-year period) – not exactly a small effect.

Now, a more recent study published in the journal Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology confirms that the microwave radiation given off by mobile phones is capable of transforming normal cells into cancerous ones.

Titled “Cellular Neoplastic Transformation Induced by 916 MHz Microwave Radiation“, researchers exposed fibroblast cells, a connective tissue-producing type of cell, to 916 MHz electromagnetic frequencies (which have already been shown to alter brain biomolecules), and found that after 5-8 weeks exposure they changed their form and rate of proliferation to a cancerous phenotype. These cells were also found to be tumor-forming when transplanted into mice.

What You Can Do To Protect Yourself

Realistically, most people reading this article will not be decommissioning their iPhones or Androids any time soon. These devices enable us to stay closely connected to our loved ones, as well as to connect to the global brain which is the internet. But what this research does implore us to do is to exercise caution.

Here are a few steps to take to reduce exposure:

  • Wear a headset or earphones to keep the device as far away from your head and/or other vital organs as possible.
  • Turn the device off whenever it is not being used.

If you are a heavy user, consider incorporating one of the following proven cell-phone radiation mitigating substances:

  • Bee Propolis – A compound found within bee propolis, which is like the mortar the bees use to repair and maintain the structural integrity of their hive, known as caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE), has been experimentally tested to protect the kidneys, hearts and retinas of cell-phone exposed mice.  Our bee propolis research page actually lists 12 studies on its radioprotective properties, including protecting against diagnostic and/or “therapeutic” (e.g. radiotherapy) gamma-radiation.
  • Melatonin – Melatonin is released during deep, restful sleep – which is always the best way to obtain this natural protective secretion. Melatonin has been studied for its ability to protect against cell-phone induced retinal and kidney damage.  Like propolis, melatonin has also been shown to have powerful radioprotective properties against gamma-radiation induced oxidative stress and tissue injury.
  • EGCG (green tea polyphenol) – Green tea contains a potent antioxidant known as EGCG (epigallocatechin-gallate) and which has been shown to protect the liver against mobile-phone induced radiation damage.
  • Ginkgo Biloba – This plant never ceases to amaze. Not only is Ginkgo Biloba the oldest living plant (a “living fossil”) known to man, but it seems to provide a broad range of benefits to brain and cognitive health.  It has been experimentally confirmed to prevent mobile-phone induced oxidative stress in the rat brain.
  • N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC) – the the precursor to glutathione, N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC) a powerful cell-protective antioxidant that your body produces, given it has adequate cofactors available.  It has been shown to protect the liver against mobile-phone induced damage.

 

Cell phone radiation – is your cell phone killing your sperm?


Storing your cellphone in your pants pocket might be killing your sperm, and it might also explain the global drop in sperm count due to exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation emitted by your cellphone, a new study suggests.

radiation

Researchers at the University of Exeter in the UK found a small but consistent drop in sperm quality in men’s sperm that had been exposed to cell phone radiation. This finding could throw some light into understanding the global drop in sperm count.

Studies indicate that approximately 14% of couples in industrialized countries experience difficulty conceiving. Male infertility is believed to be responsible in approximately 40% of cases.

10 studies analyzed

The team, headed by Fiona Matthews, Ph.D., analyzed 10 studies comprising 1,492 total samples and ranging from lab studies with sperm samples to observational studies. Dr. Matthews found that, in both types of studies, exposure to RF radiation from mobile phones was associated with an average 8.1 percent reduction in sperm motility and an average 9.1 percent decrease in sperm viability.

Other studies on male sperm

A 2011 review of studies on cell phone radiation and male fertility by Catania University researchers concluded that sperm exposed to RF radiation in a laboratory experienced decreased motility, morphometric abnormalities and increased oxidative stress. Decreased motility indicates sperm’s reduced ability to move toward eggs. Morphometric abnormalities indicate that the sperm have an abnormal shape or form. Oxidative stress is cellular damage caused by free radicals, which is linked to many diseases, notably cancer.

Non-ionizing does not equal non-dangerous

Mobile phones emit a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) called radio frequency, or RF, radiation at a frequency of between 800 and 2,200 MHz. Although termed non-ionizing radiation, this does not mean that this radiation is not dangerous. It simply means that it does not have enough energy to break electrons from molecules. Nevertheless, this radiation is absorbed by the human body and there is much evidence pointing to diverse adverse biological effects.

Diverse adverse biological effects

Electromagnetic radiation of the type emitted by cell phones is linked to a long list of adverse biological effects and illnesses, including:

  • Cancer
  • Brain tumors
  • DNA damage
  • Heart attacks
  • Suppression of the immune system
  • Tinnitus
  • Depression
  • Miscarriages and infertility
  • Suppression of the immune system
  • Arthritis
  • Rheumatism
  • Skin problems

Cell phones don’t belong in pant pockets

Dr. Matthews, the author of this new study, said in a statement, “This study strongly suggests that being exposed to radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation from carrying mobiles in trouser pockets negatively affects sperm quality.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.livescience.com

http://www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

http://science.naturalnews.com

%d bloggers like this: