It’s also possible that longer-term studies and cancer incidence tracking will find larger cancer effects in another five or 10 years — or that how we use cellphones is evolving such that the devices may cause cancer in ways these studies didn’t account for. (These days, many people text instead of talking, and hold their cellphones in their pockets but not on their heads and necks.) That’s why some people look to animal studies to supplement our understanding of the potential biological effects of cellphones.
Though some findings were reassuring, others do raise concerns. Specifically, three of the studies—one from Sweden, another from France, and a third that combined data from 13 countries—suggest a connection between heavy cell-phone use and gliomas, tumors that are usually cancerous and often deadly. One of those studies also hinted at a link between cell phones and acoustic neuromas (noncancerous tumors), and two studies hinted at meningiomas, a relatively common but usually not deadly brain tumor.
I debated whether to give it 3 or 4 stars: on features, speed of delivery, and quality of construction, it definitely deserves 4 stars. If I can measure and verify the emf reduction, then I will change the rating to 5 stars. Since the whole point of using it is to block excess em radiation, I can't really give it 5 stars without more proof that it really does so.
Perhaps more importantly, what types of radiation are causing, or likely to cause, or are suspected of causing, harm to humans? Is it the “harmonics” from the transmitter? Is it the RF from the circuitry? Is it the primary frequency on which the cell phone operates? This is important to understand. If the problem is the primary frequency on which the cell phone operates then forget the case and ditch the cell phone.
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.
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.

The recent study [5] about cell phones causing cancer in rats should be taken with a grain of salt when making the connection to humans [6]. In particular, the rats in the study were exposed to radiation power densities of 0, 1.5, 3, or 6 W/kg (see p 7 in ref. 4 below). This would be equivalent of the 100 kg human getting up to 600 Watts — basically getting microwaved. As discussed earlier, cell phones are hundreds of times weaker.
Some people might consider choosing a phone with a low SAR value. Different models of phones can give off different levels of RF waves. But as noted above, according to the FCC the SAR value is not always a good indicator of a person’s exposure to RF waves during normal cell phone use. One way to get information on the SAR level for a specific phone model is to visit the phone maker’s website. The FCC has links to some of these sites here: www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones. If you know the FCC identification (ID) number for a phone model (which can often be found somewhere on the phone or in the user manual), you can also go to the following web address: www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid. On this page, you will see instructions for entering the FCC ID number.

This substantially changes the debate on whether cell phone use is a cancer risk. Up until this point, the federal government and cell phone manufacturers operated on the assumption that cell phones cannot by their very nature cause cancer, because they emit non-ionizing radiation. Whereas ionizing radiation—the kind associated with x-rays, CT scans, and nuclear power plants, among others—definitely causes cancer at high enough doses, non-ionizing radiation was believed to not emit enough energy to break chemical bonds. That meant it couldn’t damage DNA, and therefore couldn’t lead to mutations that cause cancer.

As in the NTP study, Ramazzini investigators detected statistically elevated rates of heart schwannomas in male rats at the highest dose. They also had weaker findings linking RF exposure to cancer of glial cells in the brain, which were limited to females. Ronald Melnick, a retired NTP toxicologist who designed the NTP study, says a measure of consistency between the two studies is important, because “reproducibility in science increases our confidence in the observed results.”


“The near field plume is the one we’re most concerned with. This plume that’s generated within five or six inches of the center of a cell phone’s antenna is determined by the amount of power necessary to carry the signal to the base station,” he explains. “The more power there is, the farther the plume radiates the dangerous information-carrying radio waves.”
Most of the research is attributed to "SPSU," which is presumably St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University, and some of the research, it is suggested, was conducted at the Kirov Military Medical Academy, though it's unclear why a military academy would conduct clinical research on civilian cell phone radiation. The names of the scientists who conducted these studies are conspicuously absent, as are any published results.
✅ PROTECT YOUR HEAD & BODY FROM RADIATION: It is scientifically proven that it’s best to keep your phone away from your body because the radiation exposure often exceeds FCC regulations. That’s why our emf protection cell phone radiation shield will immediately negate symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, memory loss, anxiety, fatigue and much more.
“The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone,” John Bucher, a senior scientist at the NTP, a government program within the department of Health and Human Services, says in a press release. “In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience.”
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.
The device comes in a variety of forms ranging from the $39 Aries Shield ("a silicon based micro processor that ... decomposes oscillations of electromagnetic fields") to the $249 Aires Defender Utility (which "has two next generation 9 core silicon based micro processor (sic) that provide universal protection from electromagnetic smog of the broadband frequencies").
Radio base licensing procedures have been established in the majority of urban spaces regulated either at municipal/county, provincial/state or national level. Mobile telephone service providers are, in many regions, required to obtain construction licenses, provide certification of antenna emission levels and assure compliance to ICNIRP standards and/or to other environmental legislation.
There’s no question that portable phones and computers offer many conveniences and have made our lives easier in countless ways. For many people this convenience outweighs the worry of EMFs. My hope is that by becoming aware of the sources and dangers of cell phone radiation and EMFs, you’ll take steps to minimize exposure for both you and your family.
Also noteworthy is that the studies evaluated radiation exposures in different ways. The NTP looked at “near-field” exposures, which approximate how people are dosed while using cell phones. Ramazzini researchers looked at “far-field” exposures, which approximate the wireless RF radiation that bombards us from sources all around us, including wireless devices such as tablet and laptop computers. Yet they generated comparable results: Male rats in both studies (but not mice or female animals) developed schwannomas of the heart at statistically higher rates than control animals that were not exposed.
The research continued, and what it uncovered would be a dire warning to cell phone users and the industry’s worst nightmare. When the findings were ready for release in 1998, the scientists were suddenly confronted with another challenge: the industry wanted to take over public dissemination of the information, and it tried everything it could to do so. It was faced with disaster and had a lot to lose.
SafeSleeve Anti Radiation Case: Safe Sleeve website says they integrate FCC accredited independent lab tested "shielding technology" in their products. There are many links to "SafeSleeve, Is it a Scam?" and "Does SafeSleeve work?" online, but if you follow those links you'll find they go to the actual SafeSleeve site where the question of SafeSleeve protection is addressed.  You'll see in this demonstration that the radiation level was higher with the SafeSleeve Case on.
Many respected scientists join them. “We found no evidence of an increased risk of brain tumors or any other form of cancer” from cell-phone radiation, says John Boice Jr., Sc.D., president of the National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements and a professor of medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn. “The worry should instead be in talking or texting with your cell phone while driving.”
A large, long-term study has been comparing all of the people in Denmark who had a cell phone subscription between 1982 and 1995 (about 400,000 people) to those without a subscription to look for a possible increase in brain tumors. The most recent update of the study followed people through 2007. Cell phone use, even for more than 13 years, was not linked with an increased risk of brain tumors, salivary gland tumors, or cancer overall, nor was there a link with any brain tumor subtypes or with tumors in any location within the brain.
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. 
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.
×