The tricky part about measuring the radiation from a cell phone is that the emission strength varies widely over time. There will be strong bursts of varying intensity, followed by quiet periods. This makes it hard to compare "apples to apples". Also, because you are measuring up close to the source, you must use a near field meter AND you must maintain the position of the meter very precisely.

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.

Several national and international agencies study different exposures and substances in the environment to determine if they can cause cancer. (Something that causes cancer or helps cancer grow is called a carcinogen.) The American Cancer Society looks to these organizations to evaluate the risks based on evidence from laboratory and human research studies.

Take a closer look at the product claims. Many refer to their “shielding technology” and not the product itself. In many cases, the “FCC Certified” labs they cite are actually testing how much RF the raw shielding material can block. They’re testing the materials used in the products. They’re not testing how much RF the actual products block while on a real-world phone.

Just as inevitably, worries about brain cancer spawned a market for products that supposedly protect cell phone users. For $62, you can order a Delta Shield, a thin polyester patch that contains a microchip that allegedly renders cell phones harmless. Users are instructed to place the patch on their cell phone battery. The similar BIOPRO Cell Chip, sold online for $35, attaches to the outside of the phone. The penny-size WaveShield 2000 Gold, selling for about $25, fits on the earpiece.

The electromagnetic spectrum is broken up into two parts based on whether small doses of that radiation can cause harm: ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation—UV, x-rays, and gamma rays—has enough energy in one photon (quantized minimum packet of light) to remove electrons from atoms or break apart chemical bonds. It is because of this potential for cancer-causing DNA damage that you wear a lead vest when you get x-rays at the dentist and you are advised to wear sunblock when you go out in the sun. One can’t avoid natural (radon, cosmic rays when you are up in an airplane) and man made (diagnostic x-rays) sources of ionizing radiation completely, but it is reasonable advice to minimize exposure when possible.
The average radiation level of a Bluetooth earpiece is 0.23 watts per kilogram (W/Kg) according to RF Safe. This is 10 to 100 times higher than the amount of radio frequency (RF) exposure needed to create “leaks” in the blood-brain barrier, allowing for toxins (not to mention the radiation itself!) to pass through into the brain. It’s best to just say NO to Bluetooth!
The tricky part about measuring the radiation from a cell phone is that the emission strength varies widely over time. There will be strong bursts of varying intensity, followed by quiet periods. This makes it hard to compare "apples to apples". Also, because you are measuring up close to the source, you must use a near field meter AND you must maintain the position of the meter very precisely.
We tested the garments in a similar setup with the fabric between the phone and the meters. We also tested the garments while sitting on a couch, holding the Gigahertz Solutions monitor against my pregnant belly under the product (blanket/nursing cover) and measuring the reduction of the RF from my cellphone in my hand at normal texting/web-surfing distance.
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.
The perfect way to shield your ears. Comfortable enough to sleep in, and stylish enough to wear in public. High shielding performance silver stretch fabric gives excellent radiofrequency and microwave shielding. Made of double thickness 2" wide 71% polyamide + 29% elastomer fiber. Ideal for cellphone shielding or any other activity when you need to shield your ears and forehead. Thin enough to fit under a hat or helmet. Durable and unwrinkleable, washable too (no bleach). Silver provides anti-bacterial properties and suppresses odor. Folds small for easy transport. Pretty Silver color.
The city council of Berkeley, Calif., has also acted. In May 2015, it approved a “Right to Know” law that requires electronics retailers to notify consumers about the proper handling of cell phones. CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group, is now trying to block that law from going into effect, as it successfully did after San Francisco passed its own Right to Know law five years ago.
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.
In conclusion: It is still unclear whether use of cellular technology is associated with an increased risk to develop malignant and benign tumors, but taking into account the results of recent studies, the Ministry of Health adopts the precautionary principle and follows the recommendations listed in the “Ministry of Health Recommendations” (below).
Generally speaking, the near-field refers to the RF field close to the antenna and the far-field is the RF field further away from the antenna. Often times when you use your cell phone, your body is often located in the near-field (one wavelength or less) of the cell phone antenna. It is especially concerning when you hold your phone next to your head or wear it on your body as you can be exposed to very intense near-field radiation from the phone.

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.”
Rats were exposed to radiation with a frequency of 900 megahertz, typical of the cellphones in use when the study was conceived in the 90s, for about nine hours per day for two years, The New York Times reports. The lowest levels of radiation used in the study were equivalent to the maximum exposure a phone can cause and still receive federal regulatory approval; the highest levels to which the animals were exposed were four times that. 
Until the FCC establishes testing procedures that fully correspond to real-world cell phone use and reviews its radiation standards to ensure that they are fully protective for all users, including young children, EWG advises phone users to adopt these simple measures to minimize radiation exposure: Use a headset, keep the phone away from the body and text rather than talk.  
Read the “fine print” from the manufacturer’s instruction manual which tells users to put a distance between the phone and your head and body. These fine print warnings range  from a few millimeters to almost an inch. The fine print warnings on other wireless devices (such as Wi-Fi routers, wireless printers, home cordless phone base stations and baby monitors) generally state the distance should be at least 20 cm, or about 8 inches. If people are closer than the manufacturer stated separation distance, then they can be exposed to RF levels that violate the US government FCC limits for this radiation.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) released a fact sheet about these issues, shortly after the IARC re-classification, entitled "Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones". The fact sheet points to the findings of the IARC and describes some of the known short-term and long-term effects of phone use, but ultimately, it lands on the side of where the most conclusive evidence exists:

Cell phone radiation refers to radiation in the form of electromagnetic waves that is emitted from mobile phones. This type of radiation takes the form of radio waves that are near the microwave range. The amount of radiation that a given cell phone will emit depends on the exact frequency of the radiation, as well as whether the device is using an analog signal or a digital one. There has been speculation that large amounts of cell phone radiation could be hazardous to the user's health, but there are no conclusive scientific findings on the subject.
This 2009 meta-analysis, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, looked at 23 case-control studies of the risk of both malignant and benign tumors from mobile phone use. When the authors included all 23, they found no increased risk of tumors. When they crunched certain subsets of the data — like looking only at studies that were blinded, or people who used cellphones for 10 or more years — they did find increases in tumor risks. Confusingly, when they divided up the analysis by tumor type, they found no increase in risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and a decrease in risk of meningioma.
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).
The tricky part about measuring the radiation from a cell phone is that the emission strength varies widely over time. There will be strong bursts of varying intensity, followed by quiet periods. This makes it hard to compare "apples to apples". Also, because you are measuring up close to the source, you must use a near field meter AND you must maintain the position of the meter very precisely.
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.