Another part of the INTERPHONE study compared more than 1,000 people with acoustic neuromas to more than 2,000 people without tumors, who served as matched controls. As with gliomas and meningiomas, there was no overall link between cell phone use and acoustic neuromas. There was again a suggestion of a possible increased risk in the 10% of people who used their cell phones the most, but this was hard to interpret because some people reported implausibly high cell phone use, as well as other issues.
Use a corded home phone whenever possible, to minimize the need for a cell phone. Cordless home phones emit RF, so replace cordless phones with corded home phones. One initial step is to unplug the electrical cord of the cordless phone base station when the phone is not in use, because otherwise that base station will emit RF nonstop. Note: you can plug a corded phone handset or corded headset into your VoIP connection.  
The Specific Absorption Rate that the FCC, with input from many other government institutions, decided on, is defined using an average of a 30-minute phone call with the cell phone held directly to the ear. Since modern cell phones are used in all sorts of manners, ie speakerphone, scrolling through social media, browsing the web, etc, a base had to be set.
Still think Pong’s SAR testing prove you are safer? Take this for example, the Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-920V FCC ID A3LSMN920V (Official FCC Doc) made for Verizon has an FCC measured SAR of only 0.21 W/kg (watts per kilogram) and the Apple iPhone 6 Plus exposes a user’s head to a whopping 1.18 W/kg FCC ID: BCG – E2817 Apple iPhone 6 SAR  (Official Doc Page 138).  That’s a dramatic difference of several hundred percent from highest SAR to lowest SAR on these high-end smartphone devices.
"Someone claiming they need to reduce [the safe SAR level of 2 W/kg] by 90-percent — they just have no evidence to make that claim, and they are actually playing on the fact that people will be concerned enough about the possible cancer risk, although they don't understand that there's no sufficient data yet to make a statement about an actual cancer risk," said Professor Olver.
Taken together, the findings “confirm that RF radiation exposure has biological effects” in rats, some of them “relevant to carcinogenesis,” says Jon Samet, a professor of preventive medicine and dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, who did not participate in either study. Samet, however, cautioned the jury is still out as to whether wireless technology is similarly risky to people. Indeed, heart schwannomas are exceedingly rare in humans; only a handful of cases have ever been documented in the medical literature.
The only sure way is to stop using a cell phone. Most people however would prefer to play safe by simply reducing their exposure to radio frequency radiation. Bluetooth devices emit only 10% of the radiation of a cell phone. A hands-free set enables the user to keep the phone away from the head but usually leaves the phone near some other part of the body. It is safe to say that in the event that radio frequency radiation causes damage, you would like to protect other parts of your body. Therefore the only way to reduce your risk is to reduce the radio frequency radiation your body absorbs. SAR Shield reduces radio frequency radiation by up to 89%. 
The guidelines recommend keeping phones away from the body when they’re not in use—in a backpack, for example, rather than a pocket—and sleeping with phones away from the bed. People may also choose to use speakerphone or a headset to make calls, rather than holding the phone to their heads. (They should remove their headsets when they’re not in use, though, as these devices also emit small amounts of RF frequency.)
It’s also possible that longer-term studies and cancer incidence tracking will find larger cancer effects in another five or 10 years — or that how we use cellphones is evolving such that the devices may cause cancer in ways these studies didn’t account for. (These days, many people text instead of talking, and hold their cellphones in their pockets but not on their heads and necks.) That’s why some people look to animal studies to supplement our understanding of the potential biological effects of cellphones.
Another part of the INTERPHONE study compared more than 1,000 people with acoustic neuromas to more than 2,000 people without tumors, who served as matched controls. As with gliomas and meningiomas, there was no overall link between cell phone use and acoustic neuromas. There was again a suggestion of a possible increased risk in the 10% of people who used their cell phones the most, but this was hard to interpret because some people reported implausibly high cell phone use, as well as other issues.

Researchers need funding to move fast to study the potential health effects of 5G networks and how they might change our exposures to radiation. “So far, we’ve got research that’s done on 3G and 4G but not 5G,” said Brawley of the American Cancer Society. “We do think the answers [about cell radiation’s cancer effects] for 5G may be different from the answers for 4G or 3G. ... As these types of radio waves and energy change over time, the answers [about their health effects] may change.”
To be fair I haven’t tried every single one on the list, but that just be careful in investing your sense of security, let alone good health, in a misplaced sense of something working just because someone says it does and they have “studies” to prove it. Every single company now claims “independently scientific studies” where as this is just usually falsified information and a marketing tactic.
There was also “equivocal” evidence that it raised the risk of heart conditions, and led to evidence of DNA damage. Baby rats born to mothers during the trial had lower birth weights. The scientists also found a statistically significant increase in lymphoma (cancer of the lymph nodes) among female mice and heightened rates of liver cancer in the male mice. All those findings were labeled “equivocal.”

Stick on anti-radiation protection shields etc are often made of metal which may block signal and prevent reliable mobile phone communications with signal towers. Mobile phones recognise the potential for a dropped signal and actually increase power to compensate. The result is a fast draining battery and an even higher radiation output as a result of using the product (an exception to this are shields that are placed in between the phone and the user as these do not impede signal to cell towers to any significant degree)
But according to the FCC, comparing SAR values between phones can be misleading. The listed SAR value is based only on the phone operating at its highest power, not on what users would typically be exposed to with normal phone use. The actual SAR value during use varies based on a number of factors, so it’s possible that a phone with a lower listed SAR value might actually expose a person to more RF energy than one with a higher listed SAR value in some cases.

Several nations have advised moderate use of mobile phones for children.[45] A journal by Gandhi et al. in 2006 states that children receive higher levels of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). When 5- and 10-year olds are compared to adults, they receive about 153% higher SAR levels. Also, with the permittivity of the brain decreasing as one gets older and the higher relative volume of the exposed growing brain in children, radiation penetrates far beyond the mid-brain.[46]


Then there is non-ionizing radiation, which encompasses the vast majority of light we are exposed to: visible light from lightbulbs, infrared light from an oven and from people, gigahertz light from our wifi, megahertz light to/from our cell phones, and radio waves hitting our car radio. They are not harmful in small doses because one photon does not have enough energy to ionize atoms and/or break apart molecules. In very large doses, non-ionizing radiation can be harmful. For example, a visible light laser with sufficient power (at least several hundred times more than a legal laser pointer) which is concentrated in a small enough spot will burn your skin and do worse things to your eye if it gets in there. And those of us who are old enough, remember the gerbil-in-a-microwave flash animations which went viral 17 years ago [1] as a humorous (but not exactly factual) representation of what would happen if you microwaved a live rodent.
He believes the FDA should put out guidance based on the results of the rat studies. “I would think it would be irresponsible to not put out indications to the public,” Melnick says. “Maintain a distance from this device from your children. Don’t sleep with your phone near your head. Use wired headsets. This would be something that the agencies could do right now.”
A large, long-term study has been comparing all of the people in Denmark who had a cell phone subscription between 1982 and 1995 (about 400,000 people) to those without a subscription to look for a possible increase in brain tumors. The most recent update of the study followed people through 2007. Cell phone use, even for more than 13 years, was not linked with an increased risk of brain tumors, salivary gland tumors, or cancer overall, nor was there a link with any brain tumor subtypes or with tumors in any location within the brain.
In order to protect the population living around base stations and users of mobile handsets, governments and regulatory bodies adopt safety standards, which translate to limits on exposure levels below a certain value. There are many proposed national and international standards, but that of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is the most respected one, and has been adopted so far by more than 80 countries. For radio stations, ICNIRP proposes two safety levels: one for occupational exposure, another one for the general population. Currently there are efforts underway to harmonise the different standards in existence.[26]
Searching PubMed for studies published in the past 10 years, we found 102 studies that ultimately resulted in 12 relevant systematic reviews. To limit bias in our assessment of the literature, we used a validated critical appraisal tool called AMSTAR to determine the quality of each review. Eight of the reviews were critically low quality, two were low quality, and two were moderate quality.
A recent large study by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) exposed large groups of lab rats and mice to RF energy over their entire bodies for about 9 hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for up to 2 years (which is the equivalent of about 70 years for humans, according to NTP scientists). The study found an increased risk of tumors called malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats exposed to RF radiation, as well as possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and adrenal glands. But some aspects of this study make it hard to know just how well these results might be applied to cell phone use in people. For example, there was no clear increased risk among female rats or among male or female mice in the study. The doses of RF radiation in the study were also generally higher than those used in cell phones (ranging from 1.5 W/kg to 6 W/kg in rats, and 2.5 W/kg to 10 W/kg in mice), the animals’ entire bodies were exposed, and the amount of time they were exposed was longer than most people typically spend on the phone each day. The male rats in the study exposed to RF waves also lived longer, on average, than the rats who were not exposed, for unclear reasons. Because of this, the NTP has noted that the study results cannot be directly applied to humans. Still, the results add to the evidence that cell phone signals might potentially impact human health.
Single studies have alternately suggested cellphones are driving up cancer rates and that they pose no health threat at all. In 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the devices are a “Class 2B carcinogen,” meaning they possibly can cause cancer in humans — but that’s also a distinction they share with pickles, aloe vera, and being a carpenter.
Could you please provide me with evidence that non-ionizing radiation is damaging to humans? In another post illustrating the threats of non-ionizing radiation you have said that this radiation is damaging to children, and link an article by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. However, this linked page contains no mention of non-ionizing radiation, and instead suggests that children are simply addicted to use of mobile phones, thus using them instead of sleeping. You also provided a link to a PubChem page on the negative effects of this radiation, but this page appears to no longer exist.

If you're looking for ways to limit your exposure to the electromagnetic emissions from your cell phone, know that, according to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduce exposure from these electromagnetic emissions. In fact, products that block only the earpiece – or another small portion of the phone – are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits electromagnetic waves. What's more, these shields may interfere with the phone's signal, cause it to draw even more power to communicate with the base station, and possibly emit more radiation.


The study specifically used 2G and 3G frequencies — not the frequencies used on more advanced 4G or 5G networks. Researchers exposed the rodents’ entire bodies to the radiowaves for more than nine hours per day, for up to two years. (“A rat that is 2 years old is roughly equivalent to a 70-year-old person,” STAT News reports.) These exposure levels were much higher than what people would experience, John Bucher, senior scientist with the NTP, says in a statement. “So, these findings should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage,” he says.

With our Phone Pouch, you can carry your phone at a safer distance. And with our powerful shielding material that lines the back of the Phone Pouch and deflects up to 99% of cell phone radiation (65-80 dB attenuation of frequencies from 30MHz to 1GHz), you’re exposed to even less harmful cell phone radiation. Our Phone Pouch uses well established science– inside each Pouch is a layer of fabric, interwoven with gossamer thin metallic threads that form a shield to deflect EMF radiation, working much like a Faraday cage.
Some products (http://www.safecell.net/reports01.html for example) are tested using a piece of shielding material in a laboratory test jig. These tests legitimately show the amount of radiation which penetrates the shield, but results will be very different when compared to putting a small amount of the same shield on a large transmitter like a cellphone. Remember, the entire phone radiates. Placing a small amount of shielding, even if it is an effective shielding material, only shields that small area at best. Think about this analogy: no light will penetrate a penny as it is a very effective light shield, but it is silly to think that holding a penny up to the sun will put you in darkness.

There’s not a lot of research on the effects of cell-phone use on children’s and teens’ health, the report acknowledges, but some studies have suggested that it may be associated with hearing loss, ringing in the ears, headaches and decreased well-being. Children who use cell phones will also have more years of exposure to RF energy over their lifetimes than people who started using them as adults, which leads some doctors to recommend added caution.
In conclusion: It is still unclear whether use of cellular technology is associated with an increased risk to develop malignant and benign tumors, but taking into account the results of recent studies, the Ministry of Health adopts the precautionary principle and follows the recommendations listed in the “Ministry of Health Recommendations” (below).
Generally, the Ministry of Health adopts the instructions of most international entities, recommending to follow the “precautionary principle” regarding mobile phone use. The instructions of the Ministry take into account the technological need of the population in Israel, along with the measure of precaution necessary according to the recent scientific information in order to balance between the population’s needs and the preservation of its health.
This substantially changes the debate on whether cell phone use is a cancer risk. Up until this point, the federal government and cell phone manufacturers operated on the assumption that cell phones cannot by their very nature cause cancer, because they emit non-ionizing radiation. Whereas ionizing radiation—the kind associated with x-rays, CT scans, and nuclear power plants, among others—definitely causes cancer at high enough doses, non-ionizing radiation was believed to not emit enough energy to break chemical bonds. That meant it couldn’t damage DNA, and therefore couldn’t lead to mutations that cause cancer.
The authors of these studies noted that the results were preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism in humans were unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in people (4). Some factors that can contribute to inconsistencies across such studies include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.
×