When you make a phone call, just flip the shielded front cover down when you put the phone against your head. It’s that simple. By keeping the shielded front cover closed while against any part of your body, a barrier is created to protect from a broad spectrum of potentially harmful cell phone radiation emissions, yet won’t affect signal quality. You can use your cell phone with a higher sense of safety by simply keeping the shielded flip cover between your body and radiation-emitting source.

Changing technology and methods of use. Older studies evaluated radiofrequency radiation exposure from analog cell phones. Today, cell phones use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency and a lower power level than analog phones. Digital cell phones have been in use for more than two decades in the United States, and cellular technology continues to change (3). Texting and other applications, for example, are common uses of cell phones that do not require bringing the phone close to the head. Furthermore, the use of hands-free technology, such as wired and wireless headsets, is increasing and may reduce exposure by distancing the phone from the body (36, 37).
According to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduce exposure from electromagnetic emissions. Products that block only the earpiece – or another small portion of the phone – are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits electromagnetic waves. Such 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."[47] The FTC has enforced false advertising claims against companies that sell such products.[48]
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.
EMF’s? Most everyone has grown up with EMF’s. It is not so much in your wifi as it is in your homes wiring. Check your walls and plugs with a meter. Also, every modern car is off the charts with EMF. Way I see it, people are living just fine. My grandmother is 86, living under power lines and house full of EMF electric wiring. She is fine. Unless I see 50% of the population dying early and having serious, serious issues, I will not panic over EMF’s

I recently had a tumor removed from my abdomen that was stage 1 cancer. I was shocked considering my lifestyle is very clean – organic, vegetarian, active, live on acreage in semi-countryside, happy, stress free, etc….I immediately realized where it came from. It was right where I would set my iPAD in my lap when I am not at a table. There is no way to know for certain, but it is the only thing that makes sense.
Specifically, we looked for studies that measured rates of acoustic neuromas, gliomas, meningiomas, and thyroid cancers. We also narrowed our search to studies that looked at the effect of radio-frequency radiation originating from an actual cellphone, rather than experimental equipment. We did this because we wanted evidence that could apply to real life, not specific laboratory settings or hypothetical outcomes.

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?


Phone radiation isn’t like the radiation from, say, a nuclear meltdown. That’s what’s known as “ionizing” radiation — it’s high energy and capable of damaging your DNA, which researchers have determined leads to cancer. Phones emit a much lower energy radiation (lower even than visible light) that’s considered to be “non-ionizing.” We know non-ionizing radiation doesn’t damage DNA the way that ionizing radiation does. But the question remains whether it could still react with the body in some other way that might lead to problems from longterm exposure.
To check for radiowave emissions, use an RF meter with Near Field antenna. Again, position the antenna loop on the phone (because the entire antenna stem has some sensitivity, it is best to position the entire antenna over the area that will be shielded). Note carefully where the loop is positioned. Make a call and watch the readings. Notice the highest and lowest readings, and make a mental note of the "average" reading. Now, insert the shield, and repeat.

The cell phone industry is fully aware of the dangers. In fact, enough scientific evidence exists that some companies’ service contracts prohibit suing the cell phone manufacturer or service provider, or joining a class action lawsuit. Still, the public is largely ignorant of the dangers, while the media regularly trumpets new studies showing cell phones are completely safe to use. Yet, Dr. Carlo points out, “None of those studies can prove safety, no matter how well they’re conducted or who’s conducting them.” What’s going on here? While the answer in itself is simplistic, how we got to this point is complex.


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.
In 1993, the cell phone industry was pressured by Congress to invest $28 million into studying cell phone safety. The cause of this sudden concern was massive publicity about a lawsuit filed by Florida businessman David Reynard against cell phone manufacturer NEC. Reynard’s wife, Susan, died of a brain tumor, and he blamed cell phones for her death. Reynard revealed the suit to the public on the Larry King Live show, complete with dramatic x-rays showing the tumor close to where Susan held her cell phone to her head for hours each day.
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.
In March, however, a peer-review panel of 11 experts from industry and academia voted to advise the agency that it should raise the confidence level from “equivocal evidence” to “some evidence” of a link between cellphone radiation and brain tumors in male rats. (The female rats did not show evidence of a link between the radiation and such tumors.) Two panel members, Lydia Andrews-Jones of Allergan and Susan Felter of Procter & Gamble, proposed the risk upgrade.
However, there have been some studies that have shown that rats can develop a specific type of brain tumor, called a schwannoma, if they're subjected to prolonged radiofrequency radiation. These studies examined thousands of rats and mice, and exposed them to a variety of radiations — everything from "near-field" (which is what you get holding a phone to your ear) to "far-field" (which is what you get walking through everyone's Wi-Fi signals at Starbucks).

I have not gotten a cell phone, I was gifted a tablet, but it stays off most of the time, I use a desktop PC and my home phone is still landline but cordless. For me it’s been a bit of mixed bag in that I don’t want to rely so heavily on technology to do and remember things for me. When I hear about the new and latest tech that can now do X,Y, or Z for you, I think of the two little boys in the 80’s Cafe in BTTF.


The science is still out on whether the long-term use of cell phones—which emit electromagnetic radiation when they send and receive signals from towers or WiFi devices—can affect human health. But for people who want to reduce their exposure to this type of energy, the California Department of Public Health has published new guidelines on how to do just that.
EMP Faraday Bags are designed to protect against damaging EMP current, static discharge, microwave transmission, RFID snooping and moisture damage. Protect your sensitive electronics (laptops, cellphones, iPads etc), precious memories (flash drives, floppy disks, tape recordings, etc) homeopathic remedies and medications, passports, credit cards and other devices from damage and spying. Could make all the difference if there is an EMP event or solar flare. Opening can be heat sealed with a hot iron for security reasons or long term storage. Manufacturer recommends that you “nest” items inside multiple layers of protection (double bagging) for best results.
That’s because cell phones emit electromagnetic fields (EMFs) or electromagnetic radiation, which has the potential to damage the cells in the body. In fact, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies EMFs from cell phones as possible carcinogens. EMFs can interfere with the body’s natural electrical system and disrupt sleep, immune system function, hormone production, and the healing process. Kevin Byrne, president of EMF Solutions, also points out the simultaneous increase in conditions such as chronic pain, depression, anxiety, chronic fatigue syndrome, and Alzheimer’s disease and the significant rise in EMF exposure.

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.


To check for radiowave emissions, use an RF meter with Near Field antenna. Again, position the antenna loop on the phone (because the entire antenna stem has some sensitivity, it is best to position the entire antenna over the area that will be shielded). Note carefully where the loop is positioned. Make a call and watch the readings. Notice the highest and lowest readings, and make a mental note of the "average" reading. Now, insert the shield, and repeat.

That’s why randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often yield fairly clear answers about the effectiveness of treatments compared to other study designs. (Fun fact: Scottish doctor James Lind, a clinical trial pioneer, figured out that citrus fruits seemed to have an effect on scurvy using one of the earliest RCTs.) RCTs can also be used to study whether something, like cellphone radiation, can cause disease.
As a rule, modern medical equipment is well protected against exposure to radiowave radiation. Therefore, there is generally no need for concern regarding the effects of mobile phones on the normal function of the equipment. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Health recommends not to have a mobile phone in the immediate proximity (a distance of 30-50 cm from the portable medical equipment or from medical equipment implanted in the patient's body).
I can’t count how many times I’ve heard people speculate, joke, or jokingly speculate that their cellphone might be giving them cancer. It comes from a very reasonable place of discomfort — few people understand how radiation works, we put our phones right beside our brains all the time, and technology in general often feels like it ought to be causing some sort of societal ill.
Hi August and Tech Wellness Team. We at SafeSleeve salute you for your effort to educate and provide solutions for the hidden dangers of EMF radiation exposure from wireless electronics. Like you, we’ve worked extremely hard to provide a practical solution for EMF exposure and, as verified by our independent lab testing, we believe we’ve found an extremely effective and practical solution. While I cannot speak for the other devices you tested here, there are some key points about our SafeSleeve technology that we wanted to make sure you took into consideration:

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.
These experimental findings raise new questions as to the potential for radiofrequency radiation to result in cellular changes and offer potential avenues for further laboratory studies. Cancers in the heart are extremely rare in humans, where the primary outcomes of potential concern with respect to radiofrequency radiation exposure from cell phones are tumors in the brain and central nervous system. Schwann cells of the heart in rodents are similar to the kind of cells in humans that give rise to acoustic neuromas (also known as vestibular schwannomas), which some studies have suggested are increased in people who reported the heaviest use of cell phones. The NTP has stated that they will continue to study this exposure in animal models to further advance our understanding of the biological underpinnings of the effects reported above.
×