The Effects of Cell Phones & Bluetooth on Nerve Function

The Effects of Cell Phones & Bluetooth on Nerve Function
4.75 (94.94%) 83 votes

What impact might cell phone and Bluetooth radiation have on the inner ear?

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“Given the huge number of [cell phone] users [these] days, even [small] simple, adverse health effects could have major implications.” “The major concern…is that [cell phones] are usually held close to the head, resulting in significant exposure to the brain.” But, what “other tissues are on the side of the head where the phone is usually placed”? Like, how about your inner ear? That’s the organ most frequently and directly exposed to cell phone radiation. So, what about possible adverse effects on hearing? In fact, the ear canal may provide “a natural route” by which emissions can go deeper into your skull.

Okay. Well, a first natural question to ask might be: do long-term cell phone users have worse hearing? Apparently so; cell phone “users were found to have [detectable] hearing loss,” though not enough to be noticeable, suggesting long-term cell phone use might damage the inner ear. “The damage done was bilateral,” detectable in both ears, which may be more consistent with a radiation effect than just a constant loud-noise-in-one-ear effect.

Now, this was comparing users to complete non-users. If you compare heavy to light users, there appears to be a dose response, meaning the longer the duration of daily cell phone use, up to four or five hours a day, the more the hearing loss, the higher the sound threshold before they could hear the hearing test tone—clearly revealing, the researchers concluded, “the hazardous effects of mobile phone use on auditory function.” “[B]ased on the study,” they recommend that cell phones be used “judiciously,” as there does not seem to be any difference between non-users and those that just used it 10 to 20 minutes a day, However, two hours a day did appear to be associated with a certain amount of hearing loss, blamed on the exposure to the electromagnetic fields generated by the phones. But, to make a claim like that, you can’t just use observational studies like these; you need to put it to the test.

To see if cell phone signals could affect the auditory nerve at all, period, they directly exposed the nerve to a cell phone hovering right over it in the middle of brain surgery for five minutes, and saw a dramatic deterioration of the nerve impulses—so much so, they decided to stop the experiment early, so as “to avoid possible permanent damage.” So, obviously, this is a very unnatural situation. “[C]learly far from reproducing EMF exposure,” where you have things like skin, bone, blood, and brain in the way. But, it does show that cell phone emissions are powerful enough to at least potentially affect nerve function.

Okay. But, how about an interventional study on the effects of cell phones on hearing with your skull actually on? The “first study” ever published, and 10 minutes of cell phone exposure had: “no effect.” Okay. So far, so good. What about longer than 10 minutes?

No effect at 15, 20, or 30 minutes, either. That’s a relief. What about 60? 60 minutes did appear to have an immediate impact on hearing threshold levels at specific frequencies. Again, not to the extent someone would notice, but enough to be picked up on these hearing tests.

What if you wear a Bluetooth headset? Does Bluetooth radiation affect hearing? No effect…on your pet rat, but what about the other members of your family? “Thirty…volunteers were exposed to a Bluetooth headset device on ‘standby’ for 6 hours [then] full power for 10 minutes” and…”no…changes in hearing” detected. Maybe Bluetooth emissions just don’t have the power to affect nerves? Too bad that brain surgery group didn’t try waving around some Bluetooth headsets, too.

Oh, but they did! After showing that cell phone fields could deteriorate nerve impulses, they decided to repeat the experiment to see if the same thing happened with Bluetooth fields. Bluetooth operates at a higher frequency, which at the same power might be “more hazardous,” but Bluetooth operates at nearly a thousand times lower strength. No surprise then, that the Bluetooth device had “no…effect” on the auditory nerve, even when it was completely exposed.

“Taken together,” the researchers conclude that “these findings indicate that [using] a Bluetooth headset [may be] safer in terms of…effects on the nervous system and, therefore represents a viable solution for safer [cell phone] operation.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Aaina Sharma via Unsplash. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“Given the huge number of [cell phone] users [these] days, even [small] simple, adverse health effects could have major implications.” “The major concern…is that [cell phones] are usually held close to the head, resulting in significant exposure to the brain.” But, what “other tissues are on the side of the head where the phone is usually placed”? Like, how about your inner ear? That’s the organ most frequently and directly exposed to cell phone radiation. So, what about possible adverse effects on hearing? In fact, the ear canal may provide “a natural route” by which emissions can go deeper into your skull.

Okay. Well, a first natural question to ask might be: do long-term cell phone users have worse hearing? Apparently so; cell phone “users were found to have [detectable] hearing loss,” though not enough to be noticeable, suggesting long-term cell phone use might damage the inner ear. “The damage done was bilateral,” detectable in both ears, which may be more consistent with a radiation effect than just a constant loud-noise-in-one-ear effect.

Now, this was comparing users to complete non-users. If you compare heavy to light users, there appears to be a dose response, meaning the longer the duration of daily cell phone use, up to four or five hours a day, the more the hearing loss, the higher the sound threshold before they could hear the hearing test tone—clearly revealing, the researchers concluded, “the hazardous effects of mobile phone use on auditory function.” “[B]ased on the study,” they recommend that cell phones be used “judiciously,” as there does not seem to be any difference between non-users and those that just used it 10 to 20 minutes a day, However, two hours a day did appear to be associated with a certain amount of hearing loss, blamed on the exposure to the electromagnetic fields generated by the phones. But, to make a claim like that, you can’t just use observational studies like these; you need to put it to the test.

To see if cell phone signals could affect the auditory nerve at all, period, they directly exposed the nerve to a cell phone hovering right over it in the middle of brain surgery for five minutes, and saw a dramatic deterioration of the nerve impulses—so much so, they decided to stop the experiment early, so as “to avoid possible permanent damage.” So, obviously, this is a very unnatural situation. “[C]learly far from reproducing EMF exposure,” where you have things like skin, bone, blood, and brain in the way. But, it does show that cell phone emissions are powerful enough to at least potentially affect nerve function.

Okay. But, how about an interventional study on the effects of cell phones on hearing with your skull actually on? The “first study” ever published, and 10 minutes of cell phone exposure had: “no effect.” Okay. So far, so good. What about longer than 10 minutes?

No effect at 15, 20, or 30 minutes, either. That’s a relief. What about 60? 60 minutes did appear to have an immediate impact on hearing threshold levels at specific frequencies. Again, not to the extent someone would notice, but enough to be picked up on these hearing tests.

What if you wear a Bluetooth headset? Does Bluetooth radiation affect hearing? No effect…on your pet rat, but what about the other members of your family? “Thirty…volunteers were exposed to a Bluetooth headset device on ‘standby’ for 6 hours [then] full power for 10 minutes” and…”no…changes in hearing” detected. Maybe Bluetooth emissions just don’t have the power to affect nerves? Too bad that brain surgery group didn’t try waving around some Bluetooth headsets, too.

Oh, but they did! After showing that cell phone fields could deteriorate nerve impulses, they decided to repeat the experiment to see if the same thing happened with Bluetooth fields. Bluetooth operates at a higher frequency, which at the same power might be “more hazardous,” but Bluetooth operates at nearly a thousand times lower strength. No surprise then, that the Bluetooth device had “no…effect” on the auditory nerve, even when it was completely exposed.

“Taken together,” the researchers conclude that “these findings indicate that [using] a Bluetooth headset [may be] safer in terms of…effects on the nervous system and, therefore represents a viable solution for safer [cell phone] operation.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Aaina Sharma via Unsplash. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Doctor's Note

This is part of my extended video series on cell phone radiation, not because it has anything to do with food, but, like nutrition, it has multibillion dollar industries vying to distort the science. And so, I wanted to help people sort fact from fiction. I did a recent series on mammograms for the same reason (starting with 9 out of 10 Women Misinformed about Mammograms).

For more on cell phones and Wi-Fi:

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

93 responses to “The Effects of Cell Phones & Bluetooth on Nerve Function

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. Good video.
    I live 100 yards or so from a fairly well traveled two lane road. It is not uncommon I hear motorcycles with outside speakers attuned to usually country music from speakers on the bike. And boom boxes occasionally as well from the interior of cars with usually the windows rolled up passing by. Coupled occasionally with extreme loud exhaust from motorcycles and the rider with no helmet. Though I live by the forest this road is in the front of my property.

    I can not do not cannot figure out what people as regards hearing are thinking. Virtually every rock musician of age from back in the day suffers from deafness to some degree.
    In rest homes in future dates they will be completely filled with people that are all deaf.
    It is so sad I think the result of inattention to this subject and the pain being deaf may cause. I even as a kid began to feel we must protect ears and hearing. In todays world with knowledge about the subject it is really remarkable more do not attend to the subject.

    1. ron, I agree about the need to protect our hearing. That being said, being deaf isn’t terrible. I have several deaf family members (born that way), and they are fine with ASL (American Sign Language). It is a beautiful and expressive language. Though tough to learn as an adult, but then, all languages are. But it is the attitude of hearing folks that make being deaf so difficult. Especially trying to raise deaf infants and children without ASL. That’s nuts — actually, child abuse. More of us should learn ASL; it opens up a new culture. Plus, it’s useful as we age, and can’t hear in restaurants and other crowded venues.

      1. Born that way is different.

        Every language is more challenging to learn as an adult and most people don’t become proficient if they start as adults and the fact that this topic is saying that teens and adults will be losing their hearing, the chance that they will learn ASL is highly unlikely. Even parents of the kids born deaf struggle to learn it.

        I do know some people who are good at learning languages, but I also know people who have no ability to learn languages at all. Barely even English.

      2. Thanks for the comment on it Dr J.
        Yes I could see that and that life as being equal to any other in enjoyment.

        Loosing ones hearing to self inspired cause though I would say is terrible. Just having it happen or born that way sure….
        Foolish peoples seem to be inviting it.
        I can see a kid thinking oneself invulnerable but most on motorcycles with the country music….they are forties fifties if not later.

  2. Good to know, but somehow I suspect far more hearing damage is happening from listening to music on headsets for hours on end with the volume cranked up. That might also explain the bilateral loss seen in the observational study.

  3. Interesting topic. Speaking of the inner ear, I wonder if daily use of phones, tablets etc can influence the onset or duration of vertigo ? It’s a very frustrating condition.

    1. I personally doubt it, but have no authority in this specific.
      If I had vertigo and it was not studied as to cause, I would certainly advise my MD and have it studied for cause.

      I would consider it absolutely necessary I do so.

  4. Thank you for this very helpful info! I already have hereditary hearing loss, so definitely would like to avoid making it worse. I don’t use my cell phone a lot to talk, but I do listen to music through the hearing aids via bluetooth. Glad to hear that this sounds safe.

  5. I have to admit, I’m surprised! I thought for sure that having a Bluetooth headset stuck in your ear all day would be worse.

    Thanks, Dr. Greger! Would love to have you on our Health Awakening Show again!

    1. Why would it?

      The radiation intensity emitted from Bluettoh headset is order of magnitude lower.
      Remember, the cellphone has antennae built-in which focus the GSM waves when using on your ear.
      Bluettooth is designed to pick up only signals emitted by sources only strong enough to be detected within 10m – quite a difference from a cell phone tower.

  6. The not so safe FCC safe limit:

    http://www.freedom2sayno2smartmeters.org/science/

    Of particular interest with respect to very low level exposures on nerves:

    Increased blood-brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073

    “There was a low, but significant correlation between the exposure level (SAR-value) and occurrence of focal albumin extravasation (r(s)=0.33; p=0.04). The present findings are in agreement with our earlier studies where we have seen increased BBB permeability immediately and 14 days after exposure. We here discuss the present findings as well as the previous results of altered BBB permeability from our and other laboratories.”

    Leakage of the blood-brain barrier in animals after low level exposures to microwaves – persisting even after a two week recovery period, has become a well replicated effect in a number of different laboratories.

    A 2015 study done in Japan: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25598203

    Exposure to 900 MHz electromagnetic fields activates the mkp-1/ERK pathway and causes blood-brain barrier damage and cognitive impairment in rats.

    “Moreover, 28 days of EMF exposure induced cellular edema and neuronal cell organelle degeneration in the rat. In addition, damaged BBB permeability, which resulted in albumin and HO-1 extravasation were observed in the hippocampus and cortex. Thus, for the first time, we found that EMF exposure for 28 days induced the expression of mkp-1, resulting in ERK dephosphorylation. Taken together, these results demonstrated that exposure to 900 MHz EMF radiation for 28 days can significantly impair spatial memory and damage BBB permeability in rat by activating the mkp-1/ERK pathway.”

  7. alef…are you a one trick pony?.
    Any time a thing even remotely connected to this comes up you dredge up the same things on this form of radiation.

    This video is about hearing loss… It touches briefly on that positive result in the study done in a operating room but really that is not replicated in a intact skull as the video attests.
    Yes their are nerves which are affected and account for hearing loss but this is not remotely connected to microwave radiation by this study.
    Or do you have some new information which you have not already stated every time any device is mentioned in video?

    If it simply a rehash of the same I think we are better served just reviewing all the old videos.Do you have some new specific on hearing in relation to this form of radiation? If not I for one can just go to the hundred or so old videos and review what you post each time one of these issues comes up.
    .
    If you have some new specific related to hearing please verse it. You cite a number of studies of a general manner and then say well these all involve nerves or all involve the brain cognition….well most I think are now completely familiar with those.

    Do you have new stuff on hearing? You provided a lot tell me which one…. they cannot be all about hearing?

    1. “Any time a thing even remotely connected to this comes up you dredge up the same things on this form of radiation.”

      Remotely connected?

      Please note the title of this video: The Effects of Cell Phones & Bluetooth on Nerve Function

      While this video does focus on auditory function, it does so as AN EXAMPLE of damage within the broader context of neuronal damage:

      ““The major concern…is that [cell phones] are usually held close to the head, resulting in significant exposure to the brain.”

      As you might suspect, I consider this a very important issue, and as new people look at these threads, I do post this information when relevant, with updates. If you have seen some of it before, feel free to skip it. And this post includes new information not posted here before, e.g. the 2015 Japanese study ( Brain Res. 2015 Mar 19;1601:92-101 ), which replicates and extends others studies, and demonstrates not just leakage in the blood-brain barrier, but impairment of spatial memory, which may relate to inner ear damage This study also discovered a mechanism though which microwaves damages nerves – including one presumes the auditory nerve (“Thus, for the first time, we found that EMF exposure for 28 days induced the expression of mkp-1, resulting in ERK dephosphorylation. “)

      All these links have to do with neuronal damage, effects and mechanisms from RF exposure, and presumably applies to the auditory nerve as well.

      1. Do you have something new on hearing?
        Yes I think most know your stance on this thing.
        I can now assume that you have nothing specific to hearing and thus it is little relevant.

        Please do continue..it is your business not mine. I could go back and dredge up the various refuting statements presented in previous video discussion but know it to be of no aim nor result.

        So do continue unless you have something new on the specific of hearing which I may find of interest.

      2. Ron,

        I like that alef does his thing.

        The audience here changes frequently and coming from the perspective of someone who had serious brain problems, learning that I could damage my blood brain barrier is something I need to be reminded of every now and then.

        I am grateful that the arguments from both sides don’t go round and round every time cell phone comes up, but, if there is a new person, go back to the last cell phone post and you will find a more complete disagreement and you may learn something.

        1. Well yes Deb…. some may like it.
          But it is virtually the same tune all the time.
          It gets old even if it is Led Zepplin.

          If his stuff was newly related to hearing loss It would actually be very relevant and on point.
          He can I repeat do what he wants. But I may comment about that as well with the same liberty. His statement of a 2015 study as new….well no that is three years old and I do not doubt he has already included similar content to the same effect many times before.
          Seeing the same post any time anything is remotely connected by microwave oven cell phone Bluetooth or this or that device is tiresome.

          To my opinion which is not yours though I value your comment.
          I wonder if any will bother to provide refute. I will not it is plainly a waste of time and generally serves only to deviate from topic. It will go on and on to no end in a discussion on radiation.

          All those talking about hearing will be lost in the flow. Which is the subject.
          If approached differently perhaps that would seem better as well..such as here..a new study this is it proves this type of radiation causes this…..one study most may read it, everyone should read it it is directly relevant to hearing loss…… A bunch of stuff thrown on a wall and seeing what sticks….how many will look at that?

          Which I repeat is my personal opinion. He may do as he wants.
          I expect his cohort in study though I forget his name will now appear. It is all tiresome.

      3. I appreciate Aleff’s comments. My first thought when Dr. G veered off toward hearing was “What about brain function, cancer, dirty electricity and EMF factors in Alzheimer’s?” but it was not to be. You don’t think powerful corporations would be trying to limit our knowledge about information that would make their highly profitable businesses less appealing, do you?

        1. John assuming your comment is viable one not a agenda driven one, as yours are seemingly rarely if ever are ….they are excellent comments in all…
          WHO has taken on apple with their comments and decision on cell phone radiation and its dangers. They state it exists and has to have precautions of use or we suffer harm.

          So I depend upon WHO to determine levels of safe use in this sort of things. They have taken on the biggest monster in the room and not blinked.

          Do say they cringe in fear of microwave oven industry or blue tooth industry which are tiny compared to the monster of apple….well no if they have taken on apple they are not afraid of much smaller concerns.
          So it is as simple as going to WHO for their readings on the particular products to determine safe use. Unless brand new data presents. If Dr Greger finds new concerning research of course we must also be worried

          1. If you are concerned John with those other issues and this form of radiation, I seriously doubt any will bother to refute this stuff here any more.
            So if you want Alef’s opinion to be yours, by all means stay with this thread and his comments. I would not interfere with that nor stand in your way.

            If you want to explore the counters you may research the other videos Dr Greger has provided on any subject even remotely related to this form of radiation to include microwave ovens and find reasonable claims and counters.

            The microwave over one I did participate in but I am certain others have provided counters on many of the other videos.

            1. In is not I am against adverse content..
              Floyd’s comment down below is adverse and seem a good valid criticism which is certainly directly on point. A excellent comment as I read it to the inverse. All about the study of hearing.

          2. “So I depend upon WHO to determine levels of safe use in this sort of things. They have taken on the biggest monster in the room and not blinked.”

            WHO’s most up- to-date pronouncement on this issue – from 2006:

            “”Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research.” http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html

            If one pays attention to what this rather qualified statement says, you’ll note that the opposite statement, that “the WHO concluded that current evidence does not deny the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields” seems equally true, and that in no way shape or form did WHO actually affirm the safety of exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. In essence, one can sum up the position of this WHO panel of experts as a carefully spun “at this time we don’t know and we admit that need for further research.

            But given all of the new research evidence that has appeared since WHO made this rather equivocal statement 12 years ago, why has WHO, a generally well respected organization, failed to update their position on the potential effects of RF on health? After all, in 2011, even before the 2016 NTP and 2018 RI studies, the IARC reclassified RF radiation into Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen.

            Something new on the dependability of WHO in the area of RF safety, from a 2017 article from the International Journal of Oncology:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

            World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack (Review), Lennart Hardell Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden

            Abstract
            “In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association. In spite of this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation. On the contrary ambient levels have increased. In 2014 the WHO launched a draft of a Monograph on RF fields and health for public comments. It turned out that five of the six members of the Core Group in charge of the draft are affiliated with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an industry loyal NGO, and thus have a serious conflict of interest. Just as by ICNIRP, evaluation of non-thermal biological effects from RF radiation are dismissed as scientific evidence of adverse health effects in the Monograph. This has provoked many comments sent to the WHO. However, at a meeting on March 3, 2017 at the WHO Geneva office it was stated that the WHO has no intention to change the Core Group.”

            What about the FCC – that has not changed its safety standard or position on RF since 1996 – any possible conflicts of interest there? Well, how about Ajit Pai, the Director of the FCC reappointed by President Trump in January 2017. Does Ajit Pai, like the group at WHO have any conflicts of interest or ties to the telecommunication industry, which would become severely and adversely impacted by any change in the FCC standard? Yes he does. From 2001 to 2003 he served as the Associate General Counsel for Verizon Communications Inc. (https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai )

            So if I don’t see WHO, or the FCC, as credible authorities for providing information on the issue of the potential adverse health effects of low level RF exposure, who would I recommend? The BioInitiative group (http://www.bioinitiative.org/) which makes available compelling research evidence on the harmful effects of very low level microwave exposures, meticulously compiled by an experienced group of scientists, some of whom I knew back in the days I worked in this field and respected, who have worked in this field for decades.

            1. Alef…you have to stop reading just your own posts I stated this at 6:02 further on down on this thread….
              Sort of hard to read through your post but it is clear that WHO declared cell phone radiation a carcinogenic hazard in 2011.

              WHO has this now as a known proven fact..
              “(CNN) — Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same “carcinogenic hazard” category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.
              Before its announcement Tuesday, WHO had assured consumers that no adverse health effects had been established.
              A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
              State of California as well.

              1. For a more authoritative statement on WHO’s decision, this from the FDA….

                “The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer Classified Radiofrequency Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans on May 31, 2011.
                The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), through the Monographs program, seeks to identify environmental factors that can increase the risk of cancer in humans. IARC uses the following categories to classify environmental agents:
                Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans.
                Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans.
                Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans.
                Group 3: Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
                Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans.
                IARC has classified radiofrequency fields in Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans.
                IARC interprets the 2B classification as meaning there is limited evidence showing radiofrequency carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”

                That was of about end of year 2017
                :

                1. I find your faith in WHO, the FDA, not to mention CNN, if misguided. And just for the record, do you have any scientific background at all in this area, or any other?

                  As I quoted in an earlier post, “In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen.”

                  From my perspective, cancer seems the least of it, as if whether RF causes cancer seems the only thing to feel concerned about, as if if RF does not cancer, that makes it safe. Research makes it clear that RF, like lead can cause a great deal of damage – including neurological damage as this video illustrates – that has nothing to do with cancer. And WHO, and the FDA, and the FCC, has for the most part simply ignored or minimized this research.

                  You clearly do not agree with me on the seriousness of this issue, but I still have a faint hope (very, very faint) that you may agree that there exists great deal of scientific research on whether microwave radiation causes significant harm on both sides of this issue – research done by credentialed, respected scientists. This remains an area of intense controversy between industry scientists and independent scientists – and citizens have the right to feel legitimately concerned, especially given that the most recent research on animals has come down firmly on the “low level microwave radiation below the FCC safe limit does cause biological harm” side. In most situations like this, where legitimate scientific controversy exists over a potential environment hazard, the precautionary principle would have come into play many years ago. It hasn’t.

                  1. No reason to get personal here or combative. I express contention to your presenting this stuff over and over again to the same effect but make no personal claims on you nor your ability to verse opinion. I say you are not reading all the responses which seems true. I do this at times myself as it takes a bit to go through it all on each access.

                    AS to this..” where legitimate scientific controversy exists over a potential environment hazard, the precautionary principle would have come into play many years ago. It hasn’t.”

                    This falls now into the generally recognized as sate category. Not all of it certainly not cell phones, and blue tooth seems a ongoing study. These are not drugs but implements. Drugs are required that standard natural substances no. This is considered of nature natural and not subject to a drug standard prior to use. They require safety study but not to the same extend.

                    Microwave ovens relatedly …no in use now for 60 years commonly observational data shows nothing.
                    The FDA I happen to agree with you. They have declared the boatload safe which is unwarranted.
                    WHO no they are a good body who spit in the face of apple

                    1. There is some merit to what you say I never deny that. It is just you go overboard. You overstate and to widely apply the potential of negative.

                      WHO is a good body per example they took on the meat industry…who does that?
                      They took on apple…..who does that?
                      CNN was just in that specific reporting a fact. The problem is you overstate and overreach. You lump in the FDA a grossly influenced body with WHO a minimally influenced body. Then wonder why few are buying your thing.
                      Perfect example you by lumping both in are doing a disservice to discriminatory ability. Most all know WHO what they do which is largly good.Most all know the FDA as politically influenced…but you lump them both in together.
                      How can we trust your appraisal as result…we cannot.

                      You fail the test. You actually by throwing in them both in the same boat, you hinder your side. Most here are vegan and they know what WHO did on meat and processed meat…and you demonize them our saviors.

                      Yes you have a few who do not and are not vegan but really most of us fairly appreciate where we would be without WHO..up the creek without a paddle. YOu do not and demonize them and wonder when objection is versed.

                    2. You do not understand the actual consequences of me being able to go into kids school and say….why are you serving this filth it is cancer causing and point to WHO study.

                      And you throw them in with the FDA because of their disagreement with you on this form of radiation…you should be ashamed of yourself. They are our friends. They help us functionally right here and now so kids will not eat filth and be strong and healthy.

                    3. Maybe you are from their side. Really I have not followed you.
                      If you are from our side be advised right here and now there is a war going on and their side does not play fair, not a whit.

                      We on our side do not disrespect our trusted allies even if they do not a great job in all things.
                      If you are on their side, yes there firmly are sides, I have nothing to say you are a adversary. I will deal with you not talk to you.

                    4. For the record I’ve eaten – and recommended that others eat – a low AGE WFPB diet for many years before Dr. Greger set up NFO.

                      I’ve posted here for years, and except for my posts on microwaves, I do not recall you ever having objected to my posts on other topics.

                      I agree that WHO has done a much better job with respect to their recommendations on food than the FDA has. However, compared to the sort of recommendations Dr. Greger makes here on NFO, they have a long way to go.

                      On the question of the hazards of microwaves, although better than the FCC, I find WHO’s recommendations on RF outdated, ambiguous, and the panel of experts they have appointed compromised by their association with the RF dependent tech industry – a clear conflict of interest. I even provided a link to a 2017 article published in the International Journal of Oncology documenting this, in support of my position. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

                      In a previous post I asked “if you had any scientific background at all in this area, or any other?” – something you apparently considered a personal attack. You did not answer my question, by which I’ll assume that you do not. That of course seems fine – few people do – and as they can not understand or evaluate research papers themselves, that means they have to look for sources of information they can trust – like Dr. Greger here at NFO – who can do this for them.

                      As far as my background goes, I earned a Ph.D in biochemistry, and have in fact done research and published scientific papers in the field of bioelectromagnetics. I do not depend on others for the views I hold, as I have the requisite scientific background to not only read the papers on RF, but to understand them, and to tell the difference between a solid well controlled studies and a flawed ones. I disagree with the WHO panel of experts as a scientist who actually has actually read much of the research.

                      So if I don’t see WHO, or the FCC, as credible authorities for providing information on the issue of the potential adverse health effects to the public on low level RF exposure, who would I recommend? The BioInitiative group (http://www.bioinitiative.org/) who have made available compelling research evidence on the harmful effects of very low level microwave exposures, meticulously compiled by an experienced group of scientists, some of whom I knew back in the days I worked in this field and respect, who have worked in this field for decades.

                      Who makes up the BioInitiative group? “The BioInitiative 2012 Report has been prepared by 29 authors from ten countries*, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs. Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and five full members of BEMS. One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency.” (Check out their qualifications: http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec25_participants.pdf )

                      You wrote: “If you are from our side be advised right here and now there is a war going on and their side does not play fair, not a whit.’

                      I agree – but this applies not just to the food industry, but to the RF dependent tech industry.

                    5. I don’t state nor challenge that you do not follow a WFPB diet. I state I have not followed you, so do not know,
                      Once again you display your characteristic overreach.

                      AS to the rest, you do know there are hundreds of studies relevant to this issue that verse opposition or support for your view. Do you claim that not true?
                      Yes of course we must depend upon others to make this determination for us.
                      Am I to trust you, some internet blogger or joe shmoe some other internet blogger in this…I think not.
                      I do support a credible organization who has done great good to support us the common folk against common interest. I do support Dr Greger in general on the issue, as usually he provides unbiased view which is as there are so many sides to this a makes such a necessity.

                      Claims of qualification and this and that I claim none, as they are not slightly relevant. I never claim authority even when I hold authority. I may add to a conversation my experience to qualify view if someone truly doubts my ability to know a subject, but the argument here should serve, not some true or not authority. If not all bloggersphere would only be experts telling us how to think on things. And usually this specific challenge is only meant to discredit argument and does in no manner serve to further communication nor knowledge on the subject.

                      My specific functional training and expertise I will add, is of formal nuclear radiation study. I am no expert, but I do have training qualification and did seat back in the day on a board of medical professionals and such, tasked with reviewing the patency of emergency response to WIPP specific issues. I have spoken at length in open forums and on visual media extensively on this subject, back in the day, and did participate in a volunteer fashion also at Southwest Research and information center years ago working with Dr. Dan Hancock on the issue. I also have qualification and training specific, some supplied by the defense dept, specific to Kirtland air force base where the training was conducted, on the issue of mitigation of issues which involve hazardous radiations emissions. Which means absolutely nothing, my argument has to stand or fall on its own merits.
                      Hazardous radiation and protection has been in some regard my study.

                      So I explain it is not specific to this form of radiation, but I do have training and study in the field of radiation.
                      But again that means nothing. You are the only one that verse opinion on this subject..think not that.

                      You fail to produce a argument without holes on the through and through and now claim qualification…..sorry no that is not the thing. The thing is to produce arguments without holes in them.

                    6. In essence in qualification you have study in the science of this thing, I have study in protection from this thing.
                      So I claim not that my education nor training is superior, but what is this subject about if not protection from this thing?
                      It is truly all about that. None claim there is not a hazard involved. So your claim of authority based upon qualification is rejected with counter.

                    7. I will add as a aside…your arguments must now stand on their own merits not on some likes or dislikes provided.
                      Without such to drive off opposition, determined by claimed popular agreement, it seems their lack shows through.

                      I did in my profession use opinions of those with strict qualification similar to yours many many times, as auxiliary notions that may be important for me to know to actually protect others from harm from radiation and similar hazard. I often found the scientists in disagreement and in no manner qualified to make final appraisals of situation from which best outcome action could be determined.
                      That was my purview the actual protection from harm.

                      So you claim of qualification as opposed to mine…I state again you overreach, there is no valid claim. But that to state once again is to my observation a personal characteristic of your in discussion is to overreach .

                      AS you have overreached in many forms prior to challenge, lumping in the FDA on this subject with WHO, two very different ententies with significant differing means of operation and regard. Most can could see they are different..you do not as you overreach, extending one thing of truth into another which is not so true.

                      Assuming your qualification is the only qualification that matters in a thing of protection of harm by radiation. So you remain true …to form

  8. I’m surprised that this topic has arisen. If there’s one thing that distinguishes “smart” phone users from non-users is that they seem to have a lot of nerve. Whether driving dangerously inattentively, filling open, heretofore public spaces, including concert halls and theaters, with loud and inane chatter, ignoring companions in social settings, or disrupting classrooms or doctors’ waiting rooms with ringtones and quotidian blather, users have some nerve.

    The psychological and social effects of this technology (integrated with the internet) are already being “put to the test,” on a world-wide scale. Any day now, the highly vaunted Information Age will deliver a more highly informed and educated public through the complete integration of all aspects of daily life, in a Smart house, on an App filled Earth. What could go wrong?

    1. What could go wrong?…..hmmm…AI takeover and corporation control of our wants and desires to provide profit.
      Which is the problem with AI stated by Elon Musk….AI has no limits it may start a war to serve a better bottom line result for a defense corporation as it is productive of profit in that sector.

      So it may be in the end to sell things of food and who knows what….we manipulated to provide the consumption of the most profitable not necessarily healthful thing.

      Which will be by my guess a life of eggs bacon and beef with statin therepy considered a necessary upon adulthood…a consecration of sorts upon entering adulthood perhaps accompanied by ceremony. And continual medical care and treatment of the various ills intentionally created to reap profit. A diet producing such. As AI cares not for human carbon based things or anything for that matter but its inputted goal.

      Horrowshow…the future looks not bright unregulated. If Musk is saying it…..there may be something to it. A facbook founder says the same(not that fool running it now) and others.

      1. The deregulation and antiregulation aspect of one sides politic in the regard of corporate issues and the continual reliance on jobs as being a single most thought of necessity…virtually guarantees a poor outcome here in the states.
        AI and manipulation by social media to improve consumption patterns will have virtually no resistance by government.

      2. I know little about Mr. Musk–only what I read in the newspapers (Will Rogers RIP), but it seems as if his attitude toward workers on the Tesla assembly line is a match for Jeff Bezos’s, at Amazon. Then, in the newspaper on 4 February of this year, it was reported that Mr. Musk has begun selling flame throwers to the general public (it’s reported that he sold 20,000, in the first few days). I can’t imagine anything bad coming out of that, can you? Nobody is going to get drunk and go visit the wife who just dumped him, or the boss who just fired him, or the boss who just fired him after sleeping with the employee’s wife. I expect to hear nothing about accidents or crimes, involving this $500 bargain.

        But, I’ve never met the man, and I’m sure his mother loves him dearly.

        1. Slow down there Steven..

          I followed Musk somewhat I am not his brother or anything but the industry is aligned against him and will do whatever it takes.
          I saw them purposely rig a road test by a well watched BBC video car review guy to have the first tesla run out of charge. And then to state concluding that this is basically to early as the industry said for all electric videos.

          Tesla did a review of the car and found it was impossible to have happened. And certainly it is now known that they have great battery technology and that was impossible. Forget the other specifics on the story I think someone videoed the deception but honestly forget all the specifics on how it was proven fraud.

          Since then I am very careful with bad reviews of Elona and his company. It is the most shorted company on wall street hands down.
          So a lot of big money is aligned against him and on general principal they want the whole idea to fail.
          Tesla is home grown. Take a look sometimes at the working conditions and pay of any car company in mexico for instance…..they are paid pennies on the dollar and the conditions of work suck.

          The idea someone is in the industry complaining about teslas work force…is absud considering that.

          If you wanted a honest answer. If you have agenda and are from or represent the industry I will be prepared to go right here and now and take the effort to prove or disprove any contention made …..so you want that steven?
          I like renewables and all that he is doing and that side is doing…so I consider it a well necessary fight if I see unwarranted slams coming his way. And I like the guy though I have no financial interest, Tesla is presently uninvestable.
          So I am ready to go…up for it.?

          Again if you wanted a simple answer I have provided it.

          1. Here to start…this flamethrower is really a blowtorch glorified with his and the companies name to flamethrower.
            There is no law against calling a blowtorch a flamethrower apparently.

            And at the prices he was getting I think he has realized a quick 2.5 M. Which is the why of it.
            Business is business to my eye. Some right wing nut wants to say they own a flamethrower to match their AK47…..I am all for it. WE could go to harbor fright and buy a blow torch and modify it slightly and say the same thing at about 50 USD but they never are going to use the AK nor the flamethrower.

            I can provide link to document my statement.f you feel necessary.

            1. His first child was a SID death. South African by birth.
              On his family I could research if necessary but I think probably it is not very relevant.

          2. If you think bellicosity is an invitation to converse, you’re wrong.

            “So I am ready to go…up for it?” No, I’m neither on a playground nor in a bar, two places where I might hear such bluster. Whatever the merits of your argument, and I don’t doubt that they exist, I’m not “up for it.”

            Six and a half hours after your nasty response to what I had intended as a humorous aside, you began a response to another person with these words: “No reason to get personal here or combative.” That’s some good advice.

            I’ve learned my lesson and won’t engage with you again. I apologize if I offended you by my remarks. You certainly did so, by yours.

            1. Oh well.. I have no gain in slamming you nor your motivation.
              But in the same regard I speak highly of Elon Musk and you provide some clap trap you have heard which you admit may or may not be true.

              And you get personal in his regard spouting about this divorce and that affair.
              Then when challenged on it you devolve from it and claim foul.

              So oh well. If you want to slam someone who has as much notoriarity and following as Elon I suggest be well prepared for a counter.
              I can only suppose you have spouted off in a unsupported manner and when confronted with it can indeed not garnish support for it.
              I have not called you names or done any of the things common in internet discourse. I have challenged you. That is not always only the purview of the schoolyard.
              In fact if we challenged notions peoples spread such as Pizzagate, the notion sandy hook and Parkland were all actors…I think we would all be better off. Unchallenged falsehoods is largly why we are in this pickle we are in right now..

  9. still on the fence about physiological effects of RF. I’ve not seen a convincing mechanism for how RF would induce changes in the nerve. The nerve has some short range electrochemistry sodium/potassium ions at synapses. is that really going to couple strongly with cm-wavelength RF?
    people have been blasted with high levels of RF, I guess, and some studies have shown little effects. However, the evidence shown here adds to the case.

  10. So is the only issue then with putting the phone up to your ear? I’m on my phone a lot, but I rarely talk on the phone. I run my business on it, but it’s mostly through apps and texting. I make no more than a handful of calls per month if even that. My phone sits on my desk, and I pick it up often to do stuff on it, but not make phone calls. Most people I deal with are really busy and so with texting, it’s really easy to send messages and reply when you have time, sometimes hours go by before I get a reply, or before I’m able to make a reply. So texting works better than phone calls in that sense. And now after all you have posted on cell phones, I think I’m glad of that fact.

    1. I think it is much safer to text if there is a problem. It is remote. And it serves very handy in my regard as well. It is a record and I retain it as a calendar or prompt on this or that necessity. I have a appointment to make today…the time and date requested is still there in my text file.
      One click away.
      Gotta be safer it is remote. Cell phones are a hazard of potentiality proven by WHO recommendation of use.

  11. Thank you so much for posting this, I had written to you months ago wondering about the new hear aids that have blu tooth in them.
    They are really handy to have and I’m so glad their is no harm in their use. I was worried since they are in your head and worn for so many hours a day. Thank you!

    1. Thanks, Jan. I hadn’t even thought about the I’m connected to bluetooth via the hearing aids all day, whether I’m using them to listen to music or not. While I’m reassured by Dr. G’s report here, maybe I should think about disconnecting when not in use.

  12. As an audiologist, I would say that a “good” study of the sort being reported here, would have the audiologists and the patients blind to the purpose of audiological testing. There is a very large subjective component to hearing testing; so patient bias is possible, as is experimenter (audiologist) bias.
    Because hearing tends to degenerate with age, it would be important to have nearly exact age matching of heavy phone use group compared to the low phone use group. A half-decade difference in ages is not a good age match. Then there is the issue of why are some people heavy users of cell phones and other are low users of cell phones? That most likely relates to socio-economic status. Long-duration and frequent cell phones users probably come with families with more money, less noise exposure, less stress, etc. It is possible, for example, that cell phone hearing impairment of wealthy people is being compared to noise-exposure hearing impairment of lower income people, finding no difference. Finally, there is the matter of journal bias; studies that find no significant effects of cell phone use are not likely to get published. This topic is one that should wait for well done meta-analyses that systematically seek unpublished studies.

    1. Good criticism. To early to say basically, good read it seems.

      Disagree on one minor assumption however ;) the peoples in America I see walking about on the streets of any city with a phone virtually attached to their head seemingly at every moment it is possible……are all invariably from the lower income percentile to my opinion. If one has the quite unfortunate circumstance to be stuck in a room with them and forced to listen to the discourse it is quite evidential of lower social income status and subject matter which reflects generally(with some exception) that grouping..

      Though that opinion will garnish no favor if any who do that read and have one so attached, do see that comment ;)

  13. It’s interesting to see how the negative biological effects from (the IARC Class 2B Carcinogen) Microwave Radiation painfully slowly is coming to the surface. The problem is that most of the negative effects have been there in the open at least from the early 70ties. This link goes to a database that for years has been classifying research within the area and currently contain 9.260 research papers. I sincerely hope that you will continue to review these issues. https://www.emf-portal.org/en/topics

    1. Yes the EMF portal
      Here is a little rundown..
      “Germany’s EMF-Portal
      The EMF-Portal (www.emf-portal.org) is a scientific literature database on the effects of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields on human health and biological systems. This open-access website is operated by the Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction (femu), part of the Institute of Occupational Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Germany.
      The EMF-Portal is, worldwide, the most comprehensive scientific literature database on biological and health-related effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (frequency range 0-300 GHz) with unrestricted access. As of April 2015, the database included a total of approx. 21,000 scientific paper entries and other relevant publications (e.g. laws, recommendations, and guidelines) that can be found by a sophisticated search tool. Detailed summaries of the biomedical content exist for more than 4,800 articles.
      Users of the EMF-Portal can get additional information via the extensive directly text-linked glossary (2,900 entries), graphical and tabular overviews on specific research topics, and a database of electromagnetic field emitting sources. The web portal will be of use to, equally, scientists, politicians, physicians, lawyers, journalists, and the general public. On request, femu provides tailored packages or lists of EMF literature, serving specific needs of international working groups”

      1. I see a great potentially realized problem with the extensive base of informative studies there is so much to choose from it is a cherry pickers world of delight. ONe may prove virtually anything by one study in isolation considered.
        Which is why I depend on WHO and the state of California to ascertain the science generally coupled with information by Dr Greger.

  14. The Harmful Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/09/03/electromagnetic-fields-harmful-effects.aspx

    1) Microwave EMFs activate voltage-gated Ca2+ channels (VGCCs) concentrated in the brain), (elevates blood pressure and/or heart rate)
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000599?via%3Dihub

    2) neuronal cell demyelination (Long-term exposure to 835 MHz RF-EMF induces hyperactivity, autophagy and demyelination in the cortical neurons of mice
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5247706/)

    3) autophagic degradation in cortical neurons against a stress of 835 MHz RF Activation of autophagy at cerebral cortex and apoptosis at brainstem are differential responses to 835 MHz RF-EMF exposure.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5343051/

  15. 4) The results showed that EMF caused a significant decrease in total pyramidal and granular cell numbers in the hippocampus, and DG and in Purkinje cell numbers in the cerebellum in the EMF group compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). Effects of 900-MHz radiation on the hippocampus and cerebellum
    https://emmind.net/openpapers_repos/Applied_Fields-Hazads/Microwave_Effects/Phone_2G-3G/2017_Effects_of_900MHz_radiation_on_the_hippocampus_and_cerebellum_of_adult_rats_and_attenuation_of_such_effects_by.pdf

    5) Effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on microRNA expression in brain tissue. Long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz RF may lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative diseases originated from the alteration of some miRNA expression
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273637962_Effects_of_24_GHz_radiofrequency_radiation_emitted_from_Wi-Fi_equipment_on_microRNA_expression_in_brain_tissue
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09553002.2015.1028599?journalCode=irab20

    6) Radiation From Mobile Phones Changes Protein Expression In Living People, Study Suggests
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080224100008.htm

    7) Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure and Brain Glucose Metabolism (increases barin glucose metabolism)
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/645719?redirect=true

  16. 8) Exposure to 835 MHz RF-EMF decreases the expression of calcium channels, inhibits apoptosis, but induces autophagy in the mouse hippocampus
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5928341/pdf/kjpp-22-277.pdf

    9) RF-EMF-exposed cases: (1) significant morphological lesions in the myelin sheath of rats; (2) a greater risk of multiple sclerosis in a study subgroup; (3) effects in proteins related to myelin production; and (4) physical symptoms in individuals with functional impairment electrohypersensitivity, many of which are the same as if myelin were affected by RF-EMF exposure, giving rise to symptoms of demyelination. In the latter, there are exceptions; headache is common only in electrohypersensitivity, while ataxia is typical of demyelination but infrequently found in the former group. Overall, evidence from in vivo and in vitro and epidemiological studies suggests an association between RF-EMF exposure and either myelin deterioration or a direct impact on neuronal conduction, which may account for many electrohypersensitivity symptoms.

    10) Could myelin damage from radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure help explain the functional impairment electrohypersensitivity? A review of the evidence.
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/35db/a82a5e14856f7b6df436802216789935d249.pdf?_ga=2.253408137.1279364102.1527829483-646547381.1527829483

  17. 11) The influence of direct mobile phone radiation on sperm quality
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4074720/
    A correlation exists between mobile phone radiation exposure, DNA–fragmentation level and decreased sperm motility.

    Symptoms: Among the more commonly reported changes are sleep disturbance/insomnia, headache, depression/depressive symptoms, fatigue/tiredness, dysesthesia, concentration/attention dysfunction, memory changes, dizziness, irritability, loss of appetite/body weight, restlessness/anxiety, nausea, skin burning/tingling/dermographism and EEG changes.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000599?via%3Dihub

    To recap, it takes a pretty short time frame to cause neuronal damage/death 60 min/day, once per day (workplaces, schools, churches, stores). The EMF, EFA and EBS groups were exposed
    to 900-MHz EMF radiation inside a tube once daily over 21 days (60 min/day). The solution is to ask to turn off WIFIs, smart phones (flip phones, non 5G, emit far less EMFs.), use an Ethernet (hard wired) connection and to measure. The new 5G cell technology emit much greater EMF signals.
    https://emmind.net/openpapers_repos/Applied_Fields-Hazads/Microwave_Effects/Phone_2G-3G/2017_Effects_of_900-MHz_radiation_on_the_hippocampus_and_cerebellum_of_adult_rats_and_attenuation_of_such_effects_by.pdf

    If you do want the hard evidence is to measure, I purchased a meter Acoustimeter AM-10 (but doesn’t do a good job at measuring at 5Ghz levels), the cost is about $370, but I find it very useful. The is also Gigahertz Solutions HF35C RF Meter (You wouldn’t believe the levels at some places and public parks, the new 5G technology is much worse in terms of EMFs.) I purchased from slt.co a Canadian company. There is a company here in the States, lessemf.com, but they hype up their products. I have no affiliations with either company. slt.co is also available through Amazon.

    1. Thanks for all of the pointers to research papers, Sam.

      This is one reason I like to read the Comments section of Nutrition Facts Org.

      1. WHO has this now as a known proven fact..
        “(CNN) — Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same “carcinogenic hazard” category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.
        Before its announcement Tuesday, WHO had assured consumers that no adverse health effects had been established.
        A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

        State of California as well.

  18. Thank you, Ron. The video talks about phone radiation, but the studies above show a clear link between WIFI exposure and DNA damage.

      1. You may find these of interest…
        “WHO EMF Studies
        The following 32 WHO EMF studies conclude that there are no non-thermal effects for all non-ionising EMF radiation.
        Repacholi MH 24 Studies
        Kheifets L 15 Studies
        van Deventer TE 10 Studies
        Repacholi MH, Cardis E (1997) Criteria for EMF health risk assessment. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 72:305-312.
        Repacholi MH (ed) (1998) Low-level exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics, 19:1-19.
        McKinlay AF and Repacholi MH (eds) (1999) Exposure metrics and dosimetry for EMF epidemiology. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 83(1-2):194.
        Repacholi MH and Greenebaum B (eds) (1999) Interaction of static and extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields with living systems: Health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics, 20:133-160.
        Foster KH, Vecchia P, Repacholi MH (2000) Science and the precautionary policy. Science, 288:979-981.
        Kheifets L (2001) Electric and magnetic field exposure and brain cancer. Bioelectromagnetics 5: S120-S131.
        Kheifets L (2001) Electric and Magnetic Fields and Occupational Health. Patty’s Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, Fifth Edition 100: 141-198.
        Kheifets L, Greenberg R, Neutra R, Hester G, Poole C, Rall D, Banerjee G (2001) From epidemiology to policy: An EMF case study. American Journal of Epidemiology 154(12): S50-59.
        Kheifets L, Hester G, Banerjee G (2001) The Precautionary Principle and EMF: Implementation and Evaluation. Journal of Risk Research 4(2): 113-125.
        Mezei G, Kheifets L (2001) “Is There any Evidence for Differential Misclassification or Bias Away from the Null in the Swedish Childhood Cancer Study?” Letter to the Editor, Epidemiology 12(6):750.
        Repacholi MH (2001) Health risks from the use of mobile phones. Toxicology Letters 120: 323-331.
        Foster KR, Osepchuk JM, and Repacholi MH (2002) Environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields from major electrical technologies. Environmental Health Perspectives
        Goldstein LS, Kheifets L, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2002) Comments on the paper “Long-term exposure of Em -Pim1 transgenic mice to 898.4 MHz microwaves does not increase lymphoma incidence” Radiation Research. Radiation Research 158: 357-364.
        Goldstein LS, Kheifets L, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2002) Further comments on “Long-term Exposure of E&mgr;-Pim1 Transgenic Mice to 898.4 MHz Microwaves Does Not Increase Lymphoma Incidence” by Utteridge et al., Radiation Research 158, 357-364 (2002)
        Kheifets L, Thrall N (2002) Electromagnetic Fields and Health. Macmillians Guide to Pollution
        Litvak E, Foster KR, and Repacholi MH (2002) Health and safety implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields in the frequency range 300 Hz to 10 MHz., Bioelectromagnetics, 23(1):68-82.
        Mezei G, Kheifets L (2002) Clues to the possible viral etiology of childhood leukemia. Technology 9: 3-14.
        Repacholi MH (2002) Assessment of the Health Effects of EMF Exposure. The Radio Science Bulletin 301: 14-24.
        Sahl J, Mezei G, Kavet R, McMillan A, Silvers A, Sastre A, Kheifets L (2002) Occupational magnetic field exposures and cardiovascular mortality in a cohort of electric utility workers. American Journal of Epidemiology 156:913-918.
        Dewhirst MW, Lora-Michiels M, Viglianti BL, Dewey WC, and Repacholi MH (2003) Carcinogenic effects of hyperthermia. International Journal of Hyperthermia, 19(3):236-251
        Goldstein LS, Dewhirst MW, Repacholi MH, and Kheifets L (2003) Summary, conclusions and recommendations: adverse temperature levels in the human body, International Journal of Hyperthermia, 19(3):373-384
        Kheifets L, Repacholi MH, and Saunders R (2003) Thermal stress and radiation protection principles. International Journal of Hyperthermia, 19(3):215-224
        McKinlay A, Repacholi MH (2003) (eds) Weak electric fields effects in the body. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 106 (4) 2003
        Repacholi MH (2003) WHO’s health risk assessment of ELF fields. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 106(4):297-299
        Riadh W. Habash Y, Brodsky LM, Leiss W, Krewski D, Repacholi MH (2003) Health Risks of Electromagnetic Fields. Part I: Evaluation and Assessment of Electric and Magnetic Fields. Critical Review in Biomedical Engineering, 31(3&4):219–273
        van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2004) Effet de la Téléphonie mobile su la santé humaine: état des connaissances scientifiques, Droit de l’environnement dans la pratique, 8, 708-724
        Kheifets L, Repacholi M, Saunders R, van Deventer TE (2005) Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields, Pediatrics, August 2005, 303-313
        Kheifets L, Sahl J, Shimkhada R, Repacholi MH (2005) Developing policy in the face of scientific uncertainty: interpreting 0.3 µT or 0.4 µT cut points from EMF epidemiologic studies, Risk Analysis, 25 (4), vol. 5, no.1, 927-935
        van Deventer TE, Saunders R, Repacholi MH (2005) WHO health risk assessment process for static fields, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 87, 355-363
        Kheifets L, van Deventer TE, Lundel G, Swanson J (2006) Le principe de précaution et les champs électriques et magnétiques : mise en œuvre et évaluation, Environnement, risques et santé, Jan-Feb 2006, 43-53
        van Rongen E, Saunders R, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2006) Static fields: Biological effects and mechanisms relevant to exposure limits. Health Physics, June 2007, vol. 92, no. 6, 584-590
        Valberg P, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2007) Workgroup Report: Base Stations and Wireless Networks: Radiofrequency (RF) Exposures and Health Consequences. Environmental Health Perspectives, March 2007, vol. 115, no. 3, 416-424
        van Deventer TE, Simunic D, Repacholi MH (2007) EMF standards for human health, chapter in Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, 3rd ed., Biological and Medical Aspects of Electromagnetic Fields, F. Barnes and B Greenebaum, eds., 277-292
        van Deventer E, Foster K (2008) Risk Assessment and Risk Communication for Electromagnetic Fields: A World Health Organization Perspective, chapter in book The Role of Evidence in Risk Characterization: Making Sense of Conflicting Data, P. Wiedemann and H. Schütz, eds., WILEY-VCH, 13-24″

        1. And….
          these are WHO studies on EMF drawing the conclusion of no harm to EMF in normal use of devices that produce them.. That does not imply that EMF may be hazardous in other applications.
          EMF Project Scientific Articles
          in chronological order
          Repacholi MH, Cardis E (1997) Criteria for EMF health risk assessment. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 72:305-312.
          Repacholi MH (ed) (1998) Low-level exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics, 19:1-19.
          McKinlay AF and Repacholi MH (eds) (1999) Exposure metrics and dosimetry for EMF epidemiology. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 83(1-2):194.
          Repacholi MH and Greenebaum B (eds) (1999) Interaction of static and extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields with living systems: Health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics, 20:133-160.
          Foster KH, Vecchia P, Repacholi MH (2000) Science and the precautionary policy. Science, 288:979-981.
          Kheifets L (2001) Electric and magnetic field exposure and brain cancer. Bioelectromagnetics 5: S120-S131.
          Kheifets L (2001) Electric and Magnetic Fields and Occupational Health. Patty’s Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, Fifth Edition 100: 141-198.
          Kheifets L, Greenberg R, Neutra R, Hester G, Poole C, Rall D, Banerjee G (2001) From epidemiology to policy: An EMF case study. American Journal of Epidemiology 154(12): S50-59.
          Kheifets L, Hester G, Banerjee G (2001) The Precautionary Principle and EMF: Implementation and Evaluation. Journal of Risk Research 4(2): 113-125.
          Mezei G, Kheifets L (2001) “Is There any Evidence for Differential Misclassification or Bias Away from the Null in the Swedish Childhood Cancer Study?” Letter to the Editor, Epidemiology 12(6):750.
          Repacholi MH (2001) Health risks from the use of mobile phones. Toxicology Letters 120: 323-331.
          Foster KR, Osepchuk JM, and Repacholi MH (2002) Environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields from major electrical technologies. Environmental Health Perspectives
          Goldstein LS, Kheifets L, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2002) Comments on the paper “Long-term exposure of Em -Pim1 transgenic mice to 898.4 MHz microwaves does not increase lymphoma incidence” Radiation Research. Radiation Research 158: 357-364.
          Goldstein LS, Kheifets L, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2002) Further comments on “Long-term Exposure of E&mgr;-Pim1 Transgenic Mice to 898.4 MHz Microwaves Does Not Increase Lymphoma Incidence” by Utteridge et al., Radiation Research 158, 357-364 (2002)
          Kheifets L, Thrall N (2002) Electromagnetic Fields and Health. Macmillians Guide to Pollution
          Litvak E, Foster KR, and Repacholi MH (2002) Health and safety implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields in the frequency range 300 Hz to 10 MHz., Bioelectromagnetics, 23(1):68-82.
          Mezei G, Kheifets L (2002) Clues to the possible viral etiology of childhood leukemia. Technology 9: 3-14.
          Repacholi MH (2002) Assessment of the Health Effects of EMF Exposure. The Radio Science Bulletin 301: 14-24.
          Sahl J, Mezei G, Kavet R, McMillan A, Silvers A, Sastre A, Kheifets L (2002) Occupational magnetic field exposures and cardiovascular mortality in a cohort of electric utility workers. American Journal of Epidemiology 156:913-918.
          Goldstein LS, Kheifets L, van Deventer E, Repacholi M. (2003) Comments on “Long-term exposure of Emicro-Pim1 transgenic mice to 898.4 MHz microwaves does not increase lymphoma incidence” by Utteridge et al., Radiat. Res. 158, 357-364 (2002). Radiat Res. 2003 Feb;159(2):275-6; author reply 276-8. No abstract available.
          Goldstein LS, Kheifets L, Van Deventer E, Repacholi M. (2003) Further comments on “Long-term exposure of Emu-Pim1 transgenic mice to 898.4 MHz microwaves does not increase lymphoma incidence” by Utteridge et al. (Radiat. Res. 158, 357-364 2002). Radiat Res., 2003 Jun;159(6):835; author reply 835-6. No abstract available.
          Dewhirst MW, Lora-Michiels M, Viglianti BL, Dewey WC, and Repacholi MH (2003) Carcinogenic effects of hyperthermia. International Journal of Hyperthermia, 19(3):236-251
          Goldstein LS, Dewhirst MW, Repacholi MH, and Kheifets L (2003) Summary, conclusions and recommendations: adverse temperature levels in the human body, International Journal of Hyperthermia, 19(3):373-384
          Kheifets L, Repacholi MH, and Saunders R (2003) Thermal stress and radiation protection principles. International Journal of Hyperthermia, 19(3):215-224
          McKinlay A, Repacholi MH (2003) (eds) Weak electric fields effects in the body. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 106 (4) 2003
          Repacholi MH (2003) WHO’s health risk assessment of ELF fields. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 106(4):297-299
          Riadh W. Habash Y, Brodsky LM, Leiss W, Krewski D, Repacholi MH (2003) Health Risks of Electromagnetic Fields. Part I: Evaluation and Assessment of Electric and Magnetic Fields. Critical Review in Biomedical Engineering, 31(3&4):219–273
          van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2004) Effet de la Téléphonie mobile su la santé humaine: état des connaissances scientifiques, Droit de l’environnement dans la pratique, 8, 708-724
          Repacholi M, Saunders R, van Deventer E, Kheifets L. (2005) Guest editors’ introduction: is EMF a potential environmental risk for children? Bioelectromagnetics, 2005;Suppl 7:S2-4. No abstract available.
          Kheifets L, Repacholi M, Saunders R, van Deventer TE (2005) Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields, Pediatrics, August 2005, 303-313
          van Deventer TE, Saunders R, Repacholi MH (2005) WHO health risk assessment process for static fields, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 87, 355-363
          Kheifets L, Repacholi M, Saunders R, van Deventer E, (2005) The sensitivity of children to electromagnetic fields. Pediatrics, 2005 Aug;116(2):e303-13.
          Kheifets L, Sahl J, Shimkhada R, Repacholi MH (2005) Developing policy in the face of scientific uncertainty: interpreting 0.3 µT or 0.4 µT cut points from EMF epidemiologic studies, Risk Analysis, 25 (4), vol. 5, no.1, 927-935
          Kheifets L, van Deventer TE, Lundel G, Swanson J (2006) Le principe de précaution et les champs électriques et magnétiques : mise en œuvre et évaluation, Environnement, risques et santé, Jan-Feb 2006, 43-53
          van Rongen E, Saunders R, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2006) Static fields: Biological effects and mechanisms relevant to exposure limits. Health Physics, June 2007, vol. 92, no. 6, 584-590
          Valberg P, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH (2007) Workgroup Report: Base Stations and Wireless Networks: Radiofrequency (RF) Exposures and Health Consequences. Environmental Health Perspectives, March 2007, vol. 115, no. 3, 416-424
          van Deventer TE, Simunic D, Repacholi MH (2007) EMF standards for human health, chapter in Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, 3rd ed., Biological and Medical Aspects of Electromagnetic Fields, F. Barnes and B Greenebaum, eds., 277-292
          van Deventer E, Foster K (2008) Risk Assessment and Risk Communication for Electromagnetic Fields: A World Health Organization Perspective, chapter in book The Role of Evidence in Risk Characterization: Making Sense of Conflicting Data, P. Wiedemann and H. Schütz, eds., WILEY-VCH, 13-24
          van Deventer E, van Rongen E, Saunders R, (2011) WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields. Bioelectromagnetics, Jul;32(5):417-21. doi: 10.1002/bem.20660.

          1. This may interest you as well this access site for further research…..
            Here is a way to access several thousand more studies on the issue…
            “Electromagnetic fields (EMF)
            EMF Home
            About electromagnetic fields
            EMF Project
            Research
            Standards
            EMF publications & information resources
            Meetings
            EMF research databases
            Germany’s EMF-Portal
            The EMF-Portal (www.emf-portal.org) is a scientific literature database on the effects of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields on human health and biological systems. This open-access website is operated by the Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction (femu), part of the Institute of Occupational Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Germany.
            The EMF-Portal is, worldwide, the most comprehensive scientific literature database on biological and health-related effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (frequency range 0-300 GHz) with unrestricted access. As of April 2015, the database included a total of approx. 21,000 scientific paper entries and other relevant publications (e.g. laws, recommendations, and guidelines) that can be found by a sophisticated search tool. Detailed summaries of the biomedical content exist for more than 4,800 articles.
            Users of the EMF-Portal can get additional information via the extensive directly text-linked glossary (2,900 entries), graphical and tabular overviews on specific research topics, and a database of electromagnetic field emitting sources. The web portal will be of use to, equally, scientists, politicians, physicians, lawyers, journalists, and the general public. On request, femu provides tailored packages or lists of EMF literature, serving specific needs of international working groups”

            1. This explains a bit the developmental process which went into producing the first 32 studies listed…
              Here is WHO general standards developmental process..
              Electromagnetic fields (EMF)
              EMF Home
              About electromagnetic fields
              EMF Project
              Research
              Standards
              EMF publications & information resources
              Meetings
              Standards and Guidelines
              See also
              Framework for developing health-based EMF standards
              Model Legislation
              A number of national and international organizations have formulated guidelines establishing limits for occupational and residential EMF exposure. The exposure limits for EMF fields developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) – a non-governmental organization formally recognised by WHO, were developed following reviews of all the peer-reviewed scientific literature, including thermal and non-thermal effects. The standards are based on evaluations of biological effects that have been established to have health consequences. The main conclusion from the WHO reviews is that EMF exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health.
              The WHO has compiled a database which includes worldwide standards for countries who have legislation on exposure to electromagnetic fields. Please click on the link, below:
              Link to the WHO’s Global Health Observatory (GHO) data
              ICNIRP works with WHO in a subsidiary fashion to assist WHO in their guidelines and development of those. ICNIRP identifies specific acceptable exposure ranges by attention to study which meets their criteria.
              Every section in their site is clickable. Click on a item and it puts you there. One can then explore every area of consideration going as in depth as one wants.

              1. On sperm damage there are thousands of mechanisms that generate DNA damage on a daily basis. My personal conclusion is that if a person or group has agenda, look to DNA damage to prove a fault in what they want demonized. I find this with marijuana discussions always.
                Cause in study can be found claimed genetic damage by pot use. Does it translate to lower active sperm count….unknown.

                So many factors affect sperm count it is very hard to identify items in isolation…tobacco alcohol lack of exercise to mention a few.
                Here is a study which rererences the issue…. http://www.cmaj.ca/content/175/5/495

                1. Here is a refresh for those who may need it(not you Sam) on DNA damage from Wiki..

                  It is perhaps necessary to keep this in mind..DNA damage occurs from various sources literally thousands of times daily..
                  “ Types of DNA Damage[edit]
                  Damage to DNA that occurs naturally can result from metabolic or hydrolytic processes. Metabolism releases compounds that damage DNA including reactive oxygen species, reactive nitrogen species, reactive carbonyl species, lipid peroxidation products and alkylating agents, among others, while hydrolysis cleaves chemical bonds in DNA.[8] Naturally occurring oxidative DNA damages arise at least 10,000 times per cell per day in humans and 50,000 times or more per cell per day in rats,[9] as documented below.
                  Oxidative DNA damage can produce more than 20 types of altered bases[10][11] as well as single strand breaks.[12]
                  Other types of endogeneous DNA damages, given below with their frequencies of occurrence, include depurinations, depyrimidinations, double-strand breaks, O6-methylguanines and cytosine deamination.
                  DNA can be damaged via environmental factors as well. Environmental agents such as UV light, ionizing radiation, ”

                  Luckily we have DNA repair mechanisms which prevent damage translating down to our sperm in many eventualities.

  19. DING!

    Popups are one thing that drive me batty (amongst a few).

    Popups with a DING attached are even worse and got past my pop-ups and ads blockers (so I’ll have to update all that).

    And as a radio operator with RF flying around all the time (and understood better than most), I’m not too concerned with devices I don’t use and I’ll not watch this video. But mostly because of the popup announcement about some “live” thing which I also abhor as time wasters (not possible to FFWD or accelerate).

    DING!

  20. AS it DINGED me again on exit, I have now turned my sound off and came back to say that this sounds like the DEATH BELL for my viewing of videos here for a while. Sorry but that is EXACTLY how obnoxious I find your BELL.

    sincerely

    wp

    1. Well that is a shame Wade.
      I don’t know if this is how it is for everyone, but my popup seems to only show on the initial visit. So to my opinion it is not so much a burden the one or two we may get but to each their own I guess.
      Dr Greger has a lot of followers here provides this stuff for free, and I expect many benefit from it being shown in popup form initially. I certainly would not pay attention if it was not in this form. So it is and I know of it. I have other duties and may not attend to it, but I appreciate that being drawn to my attention

  21. Thank you for covering this topic. I wonder about the proximity of the phone to my head. When I use the phone for calls or to listen to music or videos I use wired ear buds. Would it be safer to purchase a Bluetooth set? Also at night I charge my phone next to my bed. Could this be causing damage simply by being too close to my head even tough not in use?

  22. The earbuds have been shown to act as an antennae and transmit the damaging RF energy to your head. Blue tooth would likely be better.

    You wouldn’t want your phone too close to your head when charging. Distance is your friend as the RF energy decreases inversely with the square of the distance (the inverse-square law) so if you double the distance you’ll only receive 1/4 the RF.

    Dr. Ben

  23. I have a left-sided acoustic neuroma (also known as vestibular schwannoma), a benign tumor on the 8th cranial nerve in my internal auditory canal. My symptoms include hearing loss and occasionally vertigo, and I am being monitored for growth. I have mainly used my left ear for phone calls (wireless and cell phone) but more recently, am trying to minimize exposure through speaker phone or the bluetooth paired with my vehicle. I have used wired headphones, which after viewing this video, I will decrease that practice too. https://www.anausa.org/learn-about-acoustic-neuroma/what-is-acoustic-neuroma

    It would be interesting to find out if any research was done specific for this condition, although it is relatively rare.

  24. Hi Judi,

    The Doctors here might have a final say, but from all the studies it is clear that you may by unintentionally exposed to EMFs from other sources. You may live in the close proximity to Cell towers or your neighbors’ WIFI is too strong or you work/ go to church and being subjected to high levels of EMFs.

    The other side are magnetic fields, like power lines or uninsulated wiring running near your bed. I also have a magnetic meter by Gigahertz Solutions from slt.co. I measured high levels of *magnetic fields* right next to my head from a wall. It turned out to be wiring from a Cadet in wall heater. I never used it, but the magnetic fields were still through the roof. I turned off the circuit breaker that controlled that wiring and no other parts of my home were impacted. So the Cadet couldn’t be turned on from a dial, but I had lights and other electrical components were fine. You can un-do later on, if you wish.

    EMFs= smoking. Even if you don’t smoke, if you breath in the fumes it’s already causing damage, the same with WIFIs. The effects of EMFs are cumulative, they add on the longer you are near EMF sources, the worse the symptoms. You have to measure and ask places to turn off wifis.

  25. Paula and Dr. Ben,

    Agree w/ Dr. Ben about the earbuds, there is such a thing as AirTube or as Dr Mercola calls it:” blue-tube-headset.” Which would be safer.

    Now as far as the distance, you may not realize how powerful today’s devises are. I purchased an Iphone Se and did a bit of reading/web browsing and within 20 mins developed crushing headaches. Imagine the distance from the head (would say 15 inches), further away then talking/listening. My meter’s readings ware through the roof. People tend to hold a phone close to their stomach when surfing, well guess what stomach, liver, pancreas, heart are all being exposed.

    The newer 5G technology is even worse, I purchased a 5G flip phone. Had to be 4-5 feet away, and I mean away from all of my body organs.
    Ladies and gentlemen there are no safe EMFs (even Bluetooth).

  26. I don’t mean to create a panic, but do you want to wait 20 years until we have solid evidence of adverse effects of EMFs because it takes that long to develop a cancer or other diseases. Same w/ Roundup sprayed *VEGETABLE* fields, there is no FDA admitted evidence of harm. Or growth hormone injections for cows to produce more milk, it is all considered safe, maybe not !

  27. Don’t mean to overtake your thread, but one more thing if I may:

    The SAR ratings are *not* reflective of true real life use of phones or other devices. My phones showed lowe SAR, but the measurements were high. And also consider your exposure from WIFIs.

  28. I am 76 years old and I have been suffering from hearing loss for the last 15 years or more and I have hearing aids. I suffer pain when flying and cannot equalise and with every flight things get worse. I have been plant based for most of my life, do not drink or smoke and do regular, moderate excercise. I am in perfect health except for my hearing. How can I improve or reverse this problem? I am desperate for help as it is getting worse and I don’t want to end up deaf. I would appreciate any advice.

  29. Draudi,

    May I suggest a visit to your physician ? You many have a number of issues present however, without a proper workup it would be hard to assess or give any advise.

    When you see your provider, please inquire specifically about your eustachian tubes and also have them explore allergies, should the tubes be constricted from inflammation. Inclusion of both the food and inhalants for evaluation would be highly suggested. You could also try a gluten free approach, as an example, and see if it makes a difference by noting if you can clear your ears. Be observant and while in different places also try to clear your ears. If there is a difference take note and add this to the conversation with your provider. If necessary and after some of the less invasive tests, consider imaging.

    Dr. Alan Kadish Health Support volunteer for Dr. Greger http://www.CenterofHealth.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This