But he cautioned that the exposure levels and durations were far greater than what people typically encounter, and thus cannot “be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience.” Moreover, the rat study examined the effects of a radio frequency associated with an early generation of cellphone technology, one that fell out of routine use years ago. Any concerns arising from the study thus would seem to apply mainly to early adopters who used those bygone devices, not to users of current models.

But manipulation by the industry had begun almost immediately at the start of research. While Dr. Carlo and his team had never defined their research as being done to prove the safety of cell phones, the industry internally defined it as an insurance policy to prove that phones were safe. From the outset, what was being said by the cell phone industry in public was different from what was being said by the scientists behind closed doors.
To find out about the state of research on the link between phones and cancer, we spoke with Jonathan Samet, dean of the Colorado School of Public Health and an expert in phone radiation who led a World Health Organization working group on the subject. In 2011, the WHO group deemed phone radiation “possibly carcinogenic,” which is less certain than other classifications, but isn’t an outright “no” either. Six years later, Samet said the evidence in either direction is still mixed and that for the time being, there remains “some indication” of risk.
Morbidity and mortality among study participants who have brain cancer. Gliomas are particularly difficult to study, for example, because of their high death rate and the short survival of people who develop these tumors. Patients who survive initial treatment are often impaired, which may affect their responses to questions. Furthermore, for people who have died, next-of-kin are often less familiar with the cell phone use patterns of their deceased family member and may not accurately describe their patterns of use to an interviewer.
We asked Dr. George Carlo his thoughts on EMF cases and shielding products, “most offer some protection, some of the time, to some people, because they can alter the immediate electromagnetic field environment around the person,” and immediately emphasizes the importance of “some,” which seems to tell us that it’s vastly unpredictable. “All waveforms in the environment are highly variable and they interact with other factors in the environment that make them even more variable.” This pretty much sums up that the artificial electromagnetic energy universe is vastly unpredictable.
If you would like to reproduce some or all of this content, see Reuse of NCI Information for guidance about copyright and permissions. In the case of permitted digital reproduction, please credit the National Cancer Institute as the source and link to the original NCI product using the original product's title; e.g., “Cell Phones and Cancer Risk was originally published by the National Cancer Institute.”
SAR Shield was developed using the P.A.M. SYSTEM® technology. The materials used in the construction of the SAR Shield attract and dissipate electro-magnetic waves. As radiation travels it uses up its energy. What SAR Shield does is it acts like a radiation magnet, constantly attracting the radiation towards it, therefore making it release its energy closer to the phone. This causes most of the radiation to dissapate away from the head and body. SAR Shield does not cause noticeable reduction in signal strength.
Powerful shielding material lines the back of the holster and reflects up to 99% of cell phone radiation away from your body. It uses well established science– inside each holster is a layer of metalized high tech fabric that forms a barrier to EMF radiation. Just attach the holster to your belt and slip in your phone. The shield doesn’t alter the behavior of your phone, nor cause increased drain of your phone’s battery. The shielding simply blocks the radiation that would have otherwise been absorbed by your body and reflects it away. Lifetime mfr wty.
Okay, so Antenna Search isn't really a device but it is a handy service that will tell you how close you are to cellular towers. I punched in my address and found there are SEVENTY-TWO cellular towers and antennas within a 4 mile radius. It lists all the details for each tower – owner, coordinates, installation date, etc. It's a really useful tool for finding out the surrounding risks.
For instance, our tests found that same case in the same location blocked more RF on a Verizon iPhone than it did on an AT&T iPhone. Neuert and other independent EMF experts tell us that was likely due to our proximity to the nearest respective cellphone towers. In a different location, or even facing a different direction, we may have seen different results.

Okay, so Antenna Search isn't really a device but it is a handy service that will tell you how close you are to cellular towers. I punched in my address and found there are SEVENTY-TWO cellular towers and antennas within a 4 mile radius. It lists all the details for each tower – owner, coordinates, installation date, etc. It's a really useful tool for finding out the surrounding risks.
There are alternate technologies that can be considered when looking to reduce cell phone radiation exposure which we don’t use. Why don’t we use them? Incorporating technologies such as antennas into a case can greatly reduce outgoing cell phone radiation levels when close to the cell tower, but not totally. If farther away, the cell phone signal levels increase, as does the radiation exposure to the body, possibly to unacceptable output power levels. This design does not reduce radiation exposure from the WiFi and Bluetooth RF because cell phones do not have the capacity to reduce their power levels whether or not an antenna is present. Maybe just as important, this design does not have the shielding capacity for ELF emissions which have the same dangers as the RF emissions. Other device attachments like buttons and stickers are minimally effective to totally ineffective, with no scientific basis. In short, there are no other technologies capable of up to eliminating all of the many potentially harmful cell phone emissions from hitting the body.
To answer this question, Lloyd uses an analogy of “smoke and a chimney” to explain how a Pong case works.  It is unfortunate — given Lloyd’s personal experience with electrohypersensitivity and his straightforward knowledge of how to measure RF exposure — that pure “smoke and mirrors” clouded his better judgement when reviewing the Pong case for cell phone radiation safety.
Radiation is all around us. Power lines, appliances, and electronic devices all emit electromagnetic frequencies. One source that many of us keep close, perhaps too close, are cell phones, tablets, and other mobile devices. They all use radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy, a form of non-ionizing radiation, to communicate. Research has shown that this type of radiation is not benign or harmless to the human body, especially children. Exposure to cell phone and Wifi radiation has been linked to fatigue, dizziness, mental fog, and even worse. As a result, the demand for products that reduce exposure to device radiation is on the rise. In fact, "How can I protect myself from cell phone radiation? What do you recommend?" is a question we get all the time. So, to help, I wanted to offer my thoughts on five products I've found that I believe are worth a look if you're interested in reducing your exposure to cell phone and mobile device radiation.
Several studies have investigated the other health effects (other than cancer) of mobile phone usage on human health. Hypotheses connecting mobile phone use to effects such as headaches, fatigue, sleep disorders, memory, vision or hearing impairment, have not been proven in established studies. A connection with reduced fertility has also not been scientifically proven.
A 2012 study by NCI researchers (25) compared observed glioma incidence rates in U.S. SEER data with rates simulated from the small risks reported in the Interphone study (6) and the greatly increased risk of brain cancer among cell phone users reported in the Swedish pooled analysis (19). The authors concluded that overall, the incidence rates of glioma in the United States did not increase over the study period. They noted that the US rates could be consistent with the small increased risk seen among the subset of heaviest users in the Interphone study. The observed incidence trends were inconsistent with the high risks reported in the Swedish pooled study. These findings suggest that the increased risks observed in the Swedish study are not reflected in U.S. incidence trends.