The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency radiation have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and health problems. The FDA, which originally nominated this exposure for review by the NTP in 1999, issued a statement on the draft NTP reports released in February 2018, saying “based on this current information, we believe the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.” FDA and the Federal Communications Commission share responsibility for regulating cell phone technologies.
We spent 45 hours on research, videography, and editing, to review the top choices for this wiki. Sure, there may not currently be any hard proof that cell phones release enough radiation to be harmful, but do you really want to take the chance when you can easily block almost all emissions from reaching your body with one of these anti-radiation phone cases? Most look just as stylish as traditional cases, and some even double as anti-spying and RFID blockers. When users buy our independently chosen editorial picks, we may earn commissions to support our work. Skip to the best anti-radiation phone case on Amazon.
And don’t get me started on the immersion headgear they are coming out with for gaming. Anyway, I figured I would get a cell phone eventually and use it just as a phone, no bells and whistles. However after this article and a podcast on privacy, where I learned your cell phone is a tracking device, this goes to the towers, I’ve decided on a Definite no.
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.”
A few epidemiology studies have reported higher rates of tumors inside the skull among people who use cell phones heavily for 10 years or more. Of particular concern are benign Schwann cell tumors called acoustic neuromas, which affect nerve cells connecting the inner ear with structures inside the brain. These growths can in some instances progress to malignant cancer with time. But other studies have found no evidence of acoustic neuromas or brain tumors in heavy cell phone users.
In 2015, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the epidemiologic studies on cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of other cancers of the head and neck region (2). The Committee also stated that epidemiologic studies do not indicate increased risk for other malignant diseases, including childhood cancer (2).
Open the “Step 2” packet and remove the cloth and rub the glass surface with the Ti22 Liquid Titanium Shield Nano liquid treated wipe which will coat the surface with the protective Nano liquid. The liquid needs to be applied for at least 90 seconds rubbing every part of the glass. Pushing gently into the glass to absorb the advanced formula. You can also use your finger to rub the liquid into the glass and don’t forget to apply to the camera lens and back-glass if you have a glass back. Allow the Ti22 Liquid Titanium Shield liquid to dry for at least 60-90 seconds before handling. Wash your hands carefully after the treatment.
As far as which of those match your device, that really depends on your carrier. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile all have different frequencies. To further complicate things, in one geographic region of the country they may use one frequency, while another is used elsewhere. It all depends on which FCC licenses they have the rights to in each region.
W. Kim Johnson, a retired physicist and past president of the New Mexico Academy of Science, reviewed the Aires web site for Discovery News and described the material as gibberish, saying that the authors "of the technical description of the ‘Aires' device reads like a random selection of technical terminology. The working description for this device is made up of jargon that, in the end, really says nothing."
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 Stewart report recommended that children should only use mobile phones in emergencies. The recommendation was based on the theory that children could be more at risk from the radiowaves emitted by mobile phones. This is because their brains are still developing and their skulls are thinner, making it easier for the radiowaves to penetrate them. Also if they start using mobiles at a young age, their cumulative lifetime use will be higher than adults. According to the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation, “little has been published specifically on childhood exposures” since 2000. As a result, children are still advised only to use mobile phones in emergencies. However, surveys suggest that many children are ignoring the advice. A survey of 1,000 British children, carried out in 2001, found 90% of under-16s own a mobile and one in 10 spends more than 45 minutes a day using it.
While talking on your cell phone, prefer to position the cell phone away from your body as far as possible. Whenever possible, use the speakerphone mode or an airtube wired headset (not a wireless headset, not a wireless earpiece). The electromagnetic field (radiation) is one-fourth the strength at a distance of two inches and fifty times lower at three feet.
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 . This is the same dielectric heating which is the operating principle behind microwave ovens (which operate at 2450 MHz  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.
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.
Current regulatory standards (SAR Test) only protect us from thermal or heating risks; yet, many hundreds of laboratory studies have found that low-intensity, non-thermal exposure to cell phone radiation can promote carcinogenic mechanisms. Moreover, research on humans has found that 25 years of mobile phone use is associated with a three-fold risk of brain cancer. –Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. School of Public Health. University of California, Berkeley
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.
A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on waves to a base station. The carrier signal generates two types of radiation fields: a near-field plume and a far-field plume. Living organisms, too, generate electromagnetic fields at the cellular, tissue, organ, and organism level; this is called the biofield. Both the near-field and far-field plumes from cell phones and in the environment can wreak havoc with the human biofield, and when the biofield is compromised in any way, says Dr. Carlo, so is metabolism and physiology.
“If you’re looking for ways to limit your exposure to the electromagnetic emissions from your cell phone, know that, according to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduce exposure from these electromagnetic emissions. In fact, products that block only the earpiece – or another small portion of the phone – are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits electromagnetic waves. What’s more, these 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.”
A series of studies testing different scenarios (called simulations by the study authors) were carried out using incidence data from the Nordic countries to determine the likelihood of detecting various levels of risk as reported in studies of cell phone use and brain tumors between 1979 and 2008. The results were compatible with no increased risks from cell phones, as reported by most epidemiologic studies. The findings did suggest that the increase reported among the subset of heaviest regular users in the Interphone study could not be ruled out but was unlikely. The highly increased risks reported in the Swedish pooled analysis were strongly inconsistent with the observed glioma rates in the Nordic countries (24).