Still, despite the odds, these fears could be around for a while — because it’s hard to prove that cellphone radiation doesn’t cause harm. There are just too many combinations of genes, environmental exposures, patterns of cellphone use, plus a healthy helping of random chance to consider. It’s why we’re still having the conversation about whether coffee, for example, is good or bad for us. So while the bulk of evidence points to no health effects from cellphone radiation, the scientific literature is still somewhat mixed, Foster says. “Someone who wants to worry can pick and choose and find a lot of evidence that would support their theories.”
Since speaking with Samet, further details came out from a large study that beamed high levels of phone radiation at rats and mice. While there remain quirks in the findings, the latest evidence still doesn’t find a link between phone radiation and cancer. In response, the FDA said, “Taken together, all of this research ... [has] given us the confidence that the current safety limits for cell phone radiation remain acceptable for protecting the public health.”
We did not simply measure energy coming from the front of the case which is the area of the case where the phone would be "shielded" from radiation. If we had taken readings with a directional meter, specifically measuring energy coming from only the front or flap cover where the shielding material is, we assume as the manufacturers claim, that we would have seen a drop in the radiation readings.
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.
If not, then how can the seller claim that the reported effects on cell cultures, muscle strength testing, plants, skin heating, or other biological effects are due to electromagnetic changes (see http://www.cellphone-health.com/mret-howitworks.htm for example)? Electromagnetic field characteristics are well known and easy to measure. If there is truly an electromagnetic change, that change will be easy to detect and measure.
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.
These cases work by redirecting the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) that is produced by phones, away from the user. All phones produce EMR when connected to the mobile network, and the effect of this energy is measured as a Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR: a measurement describing the radiation absorbed by kilogram of tissue. Government regulations in Australia dictate that all phones in Australia must emit a SAR less than 2 W/kg under the worst case scenario, and while all phones comply, most modern phones emit, at most, only half of this safe level, or approximately 1 W/kg.
The researchers found other strange effects that muddied the interpretation of the studies: The rats exposed to cellphones seemed to outlive the rats in the control group, for example. There was no clear linear relationship between higher levels of cellphone exposure and more cancer at some tissue sites, and the cancer rate in the control group was lower than it should have been at other tissue sites.
Like we talked about in the last section, SAR limits that are reported are the maximum possible radiation emitted from the device, however, this level is not what is common with the regular use of the device. Just because one cell phone has a higher maximum SAR level, doesn’t mean that the radiation level of normal use isn’t higher or lower than another device with a different maximum SAR level.
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.
Mobile phones emit radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, which can be absorbed by tissues close to the phone. The amount of radiofrequency energy a mobile phone user is exposed depend on many factors as the technology of the phone, the distance between the phone and the user, the extent and type of mobile phone use and the user’s distance from cell phone towers. (2)
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.
The study also found that about 5 to 7 percent of the male rats exposed to the highest level of radiation developed certain heart tumors, called malignant schwannomas, compared to none in the control group. Malignant schwannomas are similar to acoustic neuromas, benign tumors that can develop in people, in the nerve that connects the ear to the brain.
From the FCC website: "The FCC ID number is usually shown somewhere on the case of the phone or device. In many cases, you will have to remove the battery pack to find the number. Once you have the number proceed as follows. Go to the following Web address: www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid. Once you are there... Enter the FCC ID number (in two parts as indicated: 'Grantee Code' is comprised of the first three characters, the 'Equipment Product Code' is the remainder of the FCC ID). Then click on 'Start Search.' The grant of equipment authorization for this particular ID number should appear. The highest SAR values reported in the equipment certification test data are usually included in the comments section of the grant of equipment certification."
California officials issued the new report in response to increasing smartphone use in the United States, especially among children. About 95% of Americans own a cell phone, according to a press release from the California Department of Public Health, and the average age for a first cell phone is now 10 years old. About 12% of people use their smartphones for daily Internet access.
Fears that the low-energy radiation emitted by cellphones could cause cancer seem to have been simmering ever since cellphones went mainstream. The latest flare up is probably thanks to two things: an article in The Nation about “Big Wireless” and a government study that recently reported some male rats exposed to huge doses of full-body cellphone radiation developed a rare type of heart tumor.
ShieldMe On the ShieldMe site is a message from Wireless Connection CEO Rose Vitale addressing issues with the cellphone industry and she makes some good points. As far as how ShieldMe works she states, " Our ShieldMe cases help deflect up to 99% of the harmful EMF, RF or microwave radiation emitted from a cellphone while carrying around or when on a call." The demonstration of the SheildMe case shows levels that like the "EMF protection cellphone cases" is many many times higher than levels EMF expert Larry Gust follows as a certified building biologist.
Although common sense, spending as little time on your computer as possible, and when you’re not using it, disabling the Wi-Fi connection or even turning your computer off completely, is recommended to help keep EMF pollution to a minimum. These devices emit a constant stream of EMFs when plugged in and “synced” up to a router or other wireless device.
A series of studies testing different scenarios (called simulations by the study authors) were carried out using incidence data from the Nordic countries to determine the likelihood of detecting various levels of risk as reported in studies of cell phone use and brain tumors between 1979 and 2008. The results were compatible with no increased risks from cell phones, as reported by most epidemiologic studies. The findings did suggest that the increase reported among the subset of heaviest regular users in the Interphone study could not be ruled out but was unlikely. The highly increased risks reported in the Swedish pooled analysis were strongly inconsistent with the observed glioma rates in the Nordic countries (24).