The pacemaker studies were a harbinger of bad things to come. Results showed that cell phones do indeed interfere with pacemakers, but moving the phone away from the pacemaker would correct the problem. Amazingly, the industry was extremely upset with the report, complaining that the researchers went off target. When Dr. Carlo and his colleagues published their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997,11 the industry promptly cut off funding for the overall program. It took nine months for the FDA and the industry to agree on a scaled-down version of the program to continue going forward. Dr. Carlo had volunteered to step down, since he was clearly not seeing eye-to-eye with the industry, but his contract was extended instead, as no one wanted to look bad from a public relations standpoint.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) states that the IARC classification means that there could be some risk associated with cancer, but the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal and needs to be investigated further. Individuals who are concerned about radiofrequency exposure can limit their exposure, including using an ear piece and limiting cell phone use, particularly among children. (5)

The dangers of driving and texting are old news; if someone were to be harmed by their cellphone’s radiation, though, that would make headlines because novelty grabs people’s attention. In psychological experiments where people have to choose images, they gravitate towards ones they haven’t seen before — a phenomenon known as the novelty bonus. So if I wanted to grab a reader’s attention, I’d bet on a hypothetical headline that said “For the first time, cellphone radiation causes brain cancer in humans” over “Another person has died today from driving and texting.”
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.

And even with these unusually high levels of exposure, the links to cancer were still “mostly equivocal, or ambiguous,” according to the FDA’s statement. In fact, the rats exposed to cell phone radiation actually appeared to live longer than the ones that weren’t, a finding that the FDA’s Shuren says the agency is assessing. The difference could simply be the result of chance, STAT News reports.

Laptop computers are best placed on a table at as much of an arm’s length away as possible to minimize radioactive contact. If you must use your laptop on your lap, you can purchase a laptop cooling pad which will add a bit of extra space between the device and your body. Even better are laptop cases specifically designed to shield against radiation.

The 13-country INTERPHONE study, the largest case-control study done to date, looked at cell phone use among more than 5,000 people who developed brain tumors (gliomas or meningiomas) and a similar group of people without tumors. Overall, the study found no link between brain tumor risk and the frequency of calls, longer call time, or cell phone use for 10 or more years. There was a suggestion of a possible increased risk of glioma, and a smaller suggestion of an increased risk of meningioma, in the 10% of people who used their cell phones the most. But this finding was hard to interpret because some people in the study reported implausibly high cell phone use, as well as other issues. The researchers noted that the shortcomings of the study prevented them from drawing any firm conclusions, and that more research was needed.
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.
It might be invisible to the naked eye, but electric and magnetic fields (EMFs), including electromagnetic radiation, are everywhere these days, and chances are it’s taking a major toll on your health. High-tech devices including your mobile phone, laptop, tablet, and wearable tech like the Apple Watch® all generate a near-continuous source of unseen pollution that can be stressful and toxic to your cells. If your goal is to be as healthy as possible, it’s important to address the issues that cell phone radiation and other technology create.
Stephen Chanock, who directs the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at the National Cancer Institute, remains skeptical, however. Cancer monitoring by the institute and other organizations has yet to show increasing numbers of brain tumors in the general population, he says. Tracking of benign brain tumors, such as acoustic neuromas, was initiated in 2004 by investigators at the institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program, which monitors and publishes statistics on cancer incidence rates. According to Chanock’s spokesperson, the acoustic neuroma data “haven’t accumulated to the point that we can say something meaningful about them.”
But scientists disagree on how real—or how serious—these risks really are, and studies have not established any definitive links between health problems and radiofrequency (RF) energy, the type of radiation emitted by cell phones. “This document is intended to provide guidance for people who want to reduce their own and their families’ exposure to RF energy from cell phones,” the guidelines state, “despite this uncertainty.”
A recent small study in people has shown that cell phones may also have some other effects on the brain, although it’s not clear if they’re harmful. The study found that when people had an active cell phone held up to their ear for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone used more glucose than did tissues on the other side of the brain. Glucose is a sugar that normally serves as the brain’s fuel. Glucose use goes up in certain parts of the brain when it is in use, such as when we are thinking, speaking, or moving. The possible health effect, if any, from the increase in glucose use from cell phone energy is unknown.
Mobile devices work by sending radio waves in the air. And while the National Cancer Institute has pointed out that the radio-frequency (RF) energy cell phone emits is low, it does not discount the possible long term health risks it poses. Some of the most recent smartphones (such as the iPhone 7 in particular), release a higher level of radiation than older cellphones; and with people spending more and more time on their devices, it’s only a matter of time before adverse effects might catch up.
Unfortunately, however, we’ll probably never have an RCT on cellphones and cancer in humans. It’d be too difficult and too expensive to randomly assign particular levels of cellphone use to thousands of people and have them stick with those plans for enough time (we’re talking at least five years) to figure out whether certain types of phones or phone use patterns cause cancer to develop. That’s not to mention the fact it’d be nearly impossible to find a group of people willing to not use cellphones and then make sure they actually stick to their promise.
Although recall bias is minimized in studies such as COSMOS that link participants to their cell phone records, such studies face other problems. For example, it is impossible to know who is using the listed cell phone or whether that individual also places calls using other cell phones. To a lesser extent, it is not clear whether multiple users of a single phone, for example family members who may share a device, will be represented on a single phone company account. Additionally, for many long-term cohort studies, participation tends to decline over time.
The next scientific step will be to determine what this means for humans. The peer-reviewed papers will be passed on to the US Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for determining human risk and issuing any guidelines to the public, and the Federal Communications Commission, which develops safety standards for cell phones. The FDA was part of the group of federal agencies who commissioned the studies back in the early 2000s.
Of course, scientific seesawing like that doesn’t provide a lot of clarity or confidence for the 90 percent of American adults and roughly 80 percent of teens who report having a cell phone. So how concerned should you be about cell-phone radiation? Consumer Reports’ health and safety experts conducted a thorough review of the research and offer some guidance.
In the US, a small number of personal injury lawsuits have been filed by individuals against cellphone manufacturers (including Motorola,[28] NEC, Siemens, and Nokia) on the basis of allegations of causation of brain cancer and death. In US federal courts, expert testimony relating to science must be first evaluated by a judge, in a Daubert hearing, to be relevant and valid before it is admissible as evidence. In a 2002 case against Motorola, the plaintiffs alleged that the use of wireless handheld telephones could cause brain cancer and that the use of Motorola phones caused one plaintiff's cancer. The judge ruled that no sufficiently reliable and relevant scientific evidence in support of either general or specific causation was proffered by the plaintiffs, accepted a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts, and denied a motion to exclude the testimony of the defendants' experts.[29]
Some scientists have reported that the RF waves from cell phones produce effects in human cells (in lab dishes) that might possibly help tumors grow. However, several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion.

When called to help with the cell phone issue, Dr. Carlo was working with the FDA on silicone breast implant research. The choice of Dr. Carlo to head WTR seemed unusual to industry observers. An epidemiologist whose expertise was in public health and how epidemic diseases affect the population, he appeared to lack any experience in researching the effects of EMR on human biology. Based on this, a premature conclusion was drawn by many: Dr. Carlo was an “expert” handpicked by the cell phone industry, and therefore his conclusions would only back up the industry’s claim that cell phones are safe.
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.
Scientists have reported adverse health effects of using mobile phones including changes in brain activity, reaction times, and sleep patterns. More studies are underway to try to confirm these findings. When mobile phones are used very close to some medical devices (including pacemakers, implantable defibrillators, and certain hearing aids) there is the possibility of causing interference with their operation. There is also the potential of interference between mobile phones signals and aircraft electronics. Some countries have licensed mobile phone use on aircraft during flight using systems that control the phone output power.
In this frequency range, the interaction between matter and light is via the electric field component of light (totally different from how ionizing radiation messes you up). In particular, an oscillating electric field causes polar molecules to rotate or attempt to rotate, and the lag between the applied field and the response of the molecules manifests as dissipation—i.e. heating [3]. This is the same dielectric heating which is the operating principle behind microwave ovens (which operate at 2450 MHz [4] similar to wifi). So if cell phones were to cause damage to tissue, the mechanism would be the same as what happens in a microwave oven—boiling the water in your head/body.
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.
While driving, it is best to talk as little as possible on the mobile phone, and in any event, follow regulation 28(b) of the traffic regulations. This regulation stipulates that: “While a vehicle is in motion, the driver of the vehicle will not hold a stationary or mobile phone, and will not use then in the vehicle unless when using a speakerphone; and will not send or read a text message (SMS)”.
As a result, stories about a single nuclear meltdown or possible link between cellphone radiation and cancer will be amplified much more than news about the nine people who probably died today in the US from distracted driving. “This possible health effect from radiation is pretty esoteric at this point. If there is anything there, it seems to me like it’s going to be very, very small,” says Kenneth R. Foster, a bioengineering professor at the University of Pennsylvania who has been investigating whether there are biological effects from radio waves since the 1970s. “Driving and texting, people get killed doing that — but it’s not a very exciting risk to worry about.”
You are so correct Agogo. I purchased a Guass meter that measures EMF’s recently and the area where it shows the most waves and literally screams is when I move it close to the walls! The other place, believe it or not, is close to my electric clock in the bedroom. So, I move the clock away from the bed at night. And…I pull the plugs from the wall on my desk top computer at night also. Not much I can do about the walls except move my bed to the middle of the room…LOL
An analysis of an "eagerly anticipated" study using rats and mice by the National Toxicology Program indicates that due such issues as the inconsistent appearances of "signals for harm" within and across species and the increased chances of false positives due to the multiplicity of tests, the positive results seen are more likely due to random chance. The full results of the study were released in February 2018.[10]
We purchased a cell phone case directly from SafeSleeve. Once received, we attempted to determine how much radiation protection is actually possible from the product. What we learned is that NONE of the products SafeSleeve sells are actually tested by an FCC approved lab. Their advertising is very misleading! The testing results they use as "proof" that their products are tested was a single test done ONLY on a piece of material they claim is used inside their products. NONE OF THEIR PRODUCTS HAVE EVER BEEN TESTED BY AN FCC APPROVED TESTING LAB. We read the test report from SafeSleeve's website and called the testing lab listed on the report who verified this information. We also called an independent, FCC approved cell phone testing lab and they explained the same thing. We were informed that radiation comes from all sides and edges of a cell phone, so when you use the SafeSleeve cell phone case, you are NOT being protected. SafeSleeve cell phone cases offer you no more protection than using a cell phone without a case. To protect yourself from cell phone radiation, you still need to use hold the phone at least 6-8 inches from your body, use the speaker for conversations, text more than talk, and don't use or carry your cell phone against your body. We attempted to have the SafeSleeve cell phone case tested and were informed that to have it properly tested would require paying thousands of dollars in a lab equipped for such testing; using an RF meter or similar device to test a cell phone case will not provide meaningful or accurate results. If SafeSleeve were an honest company, they would have each of their products tested in an FCC approved lab, the same type of lab that cell phones are tested in. However, SafeSleeve is not willing to spend the money. If you don't believe us, call an FCC approved cell phone testing lab and ask a few questions. In the meantime, don't waste your money on SafeSleeve products. Note: SafeSleeve attempts to protect themselves by not listing any business phone number or business address on their website. Any questions/complaints you may have with SafeSleeve are strictly handled via email. They refused our request to speak to a "real person" regarding our questions or issues with their products. Does the word SCAM apply here? We think so.

Another animal study, in which rats were exposed 7 days per week for 19 hours per day to radiofrequency radiation at 0.001, 0.03, and 0.1 watts per kilogram of body weight was reported by investigators at the Italian Ramazzini Institute (35). Among the rats with the highest exposure levels, the researchers noted an increase in heart schwannomas in male rats and non-malignant Schwann cell growth in the heart in male and female rats. However, key details necessary for interpretation of the results were missing: exposure methods, other standard operating procedures, and nutritional/feeding aspects. The gaps in the report from the study raise questions that have not been resolved.