Wearable tech such as the Apple Watch might as well be called a wearable EMF device. These watches are even worse than mobile phones in that they remain in constant, direct contact with your skin. New York Times columnist Nick Bilton covered this issue in March 2015, noting that constant, low-level radiation from such devices can trigger the formation of cancerous tumors, blood abnormalities, and more.

We’ll see how it holds up, but out of the box this case is wonderful. No problems at all with it interfering with the cameras or the four microphones in the iPhone 7. In fact, my last case must have interfered with the mics because people I call often are now saying the sound is much better on their end, and this is when the case is closed with speakerphone on. // This case is put together nicely. Good stitching, nice texture. I am a vegan so I feel good using it. // I haven’t used the card or money slots so I can’t speak about those. It’s not important to me anyway. // All-in-all I’m very pleased. I was a little apprehensive spending $35 or whatever amount it was, but this case is quality. Hope it blocks the bad stuff like they say it does. I feel the company is very straightforward and honest in their product information and didn’t make outlandish claims. Great case! // Update, 5 months later. Perfect. Not a stitch broken. It’s holding up extremely well. Very pleased.
"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.
Because of inconsistent findings from epidemiologic studies in humans and the lack of clear data from previous experimental studies in animals, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration nominated radiofrequency radiation exposure associated with cell phone exposures for study in animal models by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency program that coordinates toxicology research and testing across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of NIH.
Whether you call them cell phones, smart phones or mobile devices, it seems like everyone has one. According to the wireless telecommunications industry, the U.S. now has an estimated 300 million mobile subscribers, compared to 110 million subscribers a decade ago. The increase in cell phone use has generated concern about possible health risks related to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from this technology, and a market for shields as possible protection against the radio waves the phones emit. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation's consumer protection agency, has some practical tips to help you avoid scams and limit your exposure to electromagnetic emissions from your cell phone.
SafeSleeve products are not tested by an FCC-approved lab. They have grossly mislead consumers. They only had tested one piece of material they claim is in their products. The consumer is given no proof that any of SafeSleeve products reduce any type of radiation. Do not bother testing their products with an RF meter because accurate testing requires a special lab that costs thousands of dollars. That’s why SafeSleeve has never had their products tested.
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.)
But this study also has some drawbacks. First, it is based only on whether or not people had a cell phone subscription at the time. It didn’t measure how often these people used their phones (if at all), or if people who didn’t have a subscription used someone else’s phone. There are also limits as to how well this study might apply to people using cell phones today. For example, while the cell phones used at the time of the study tended to require more power than modern cell phones, people also probably used the phones quite a bit less than people use their phones today.
EWG met with representatives of Pong Research and fully agrees with its business premise that cell phone cases should decrease, not increase, radiation exposure. Pong hopes to carve out a niche by selling cases that lower the phones’ radiation exposure. We anticipate that as awareness of the potential risks of cell phone radiation grows, Pong and other companies will respond by marketing cell phones and cases that offer users good communication with less radiation.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. The IARC has classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. (For more information on the IARC classification system, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.)
This high quality Blocsock cell phone radiation pouch is made in the UK and is something very special, it has radiation protective material that will cover the whole of the front of your phone whilst you speak and reduce your exposure to harmful cell phone radiation to the brain by 96%. If you want to use a cell phone held to the head this is the only way we know to effectively protect your brain from the two kinds of radiation emitted by your phone. Also you can use the Blocsock to protect your organs if you have to carry a phone on your person
So you decided you are going to use your cell phone in your car, despite all the warnings. But you have the good sense to keep it away from your head and body! This handy mount can securely hold your phone, iPod, MP3 player or GPS unit with confidence as your drive. Allows easy access and a clear view. Can be used by anyone in the car: driver, passenger, or even in the back seat. Plugs securely into a cup holder and is fully adjustable to any position. Cradle adjusts and can securely accommodate devices up 3.5 inches wide. Completely hands free. Can also be used on boats, recliners or anywhere a cup holder is waiting. You can even do his’n’hers!
But, dear reader, don’t think we’ve reached a “case closed” moment: Unfortunately, even the best evidence on cellphones and brain tumors is far from ideal. Remember, these cohort studies are still observational research — not experimental studies like RCTs. That means they can’t tell us about causation, and there are still many ways they could be biased.
First, studies have not yet been able to follow people for very long periods of time. When tumors form after a known cancer-causing exposure, it often takes decades for them to develop. Because cell phones have been in widespread use for only about 20 years in most countries, it is not possible to rule out future health effects that have not yet appeared.
There is no strong or consistent evidence that mobile phone use increases the risk of getting brain cancer or other head tumors. The United States National Cancer Institute points out that "Radiofrequency energy, unlike ionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage that can lead to cancer. Its only consistently observed biological effect in humans is tissue heating. In animal studies, it has not been found to cause cancer or to enhance the cancer-causing effects of known chemical carcinogens." The majority of human studies have failed to find a link between cell phone use and cancer. In 2011 a World Health Organization working group classified cell phone use as "possibly carcinogenic to humans". The CDC states that no scientific evidence definitively answers whether cell phone use causes cancer.[5][7][8]
The company's "Researches" page, for example, states that "Aires Technologies are more than 12 years (sic). For this period there have been conducted a number of studies on mechanisms of coherent transformers that effect on physical, chemical, technological and biological processes (sic). The studies were carried out in close collaboration with leading research and academic institutions."

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.
4. For the reasons mentioned in #3 above, an at-home meter test is extremely inaccurate and unreliable. That said, a far field RF meter such as the one you are using is highly influenced by ambient RF levels that exist almost everywhere. Again, we do not aim to eliminate the radiation from the device, nor from your surroundings, but our technology does deflect the radiation away from the body.
This is the second Cell Shield protector I have purchased. I have had one for my cell phone for almost a year now and it has been wonderful! When my husband upgraded to a new phone, I knew I needed to purchase one for him. The application of the button is very simple and it stays on well. Due to the fact that it is a 'raised' button (a few millimeters thick), some may find it difficult to know where to apply it. I have an i4 phone with an Otterbox case. There is a round cut-out hole in the case that lines up with the 'apple' symbol on the back of the phone. I was able to place the button in that cut-out and it lines up flush with the cover. I highly recommend this Protector to anyone looking to significantly and effectively block EMF's.
The main difference between our product and other radiation shields available on the internet is simple. OUR PRODUCT WORKS. We are the only cell phone radiation shield that provides full testing on our product by a leading SAR testing lab, IMST which tested the cell phones in the now famous ABC News 20/20 report, and publish these SAR Shield radiation tests on our website for everyone to scrutinize. In 2002 the US government tested various shields, and found that many did not work. The FTC then sued several makers of radiation blockers including, Wave Scrambler, Safety Cell and SafeTshield. This action was taken after Good Housekeeping Institute found that 5 shields did not reduce the radiation they claimed, these five shields were Wave Scrambler by Rhino International, Radiation Free Shield, Wave Shield by Interact Communications, Safe-T-Shield by SV1 Inc, and Safety Caps by Safety Cell. It is easy to say a product reduces radiation, but why don’t our “competitors” publish these results so we can actually see the claims they make are real?
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)
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.