EWG also reviewed data in the FCC filings on tests of battery life during a continuous call, measured on an iPhone 4 without a case and on the same phone with an Incipio Le Deux case. This case was chosen because it contains metallic parts (a stainless steel back plate). The presence of metallic components influences the phone’s radiation properties, as the FCC acknowledges (FCC 2001; FCC 2014). Under the test conditions with constant signal strength, an iPhone 4 without a case had 85 percent of battery capacity after a one-hour call and 70 percent after two hours. When the test was repeated with the Incipio Le Deux case, the phone had only 65 percent of battery capacity after a one-hour call and only 10 percent after two hours (Pong 2012).
I love these radiation protection cases. It's a great size for my iphone, and I can even talk on the phone with the phone inside the pouch - perfect sound quality. The only thing I would recommend is that a snap be added to the opening -- it is slippery material. You can tell the company took care in producing a quality product -- it is constructed very well. I recommend this product to cell phone users! Oh, I also got this so quickly!! It arrived within 2-3 days of ordering, and it comes from the UK!! Amazing service!!
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
"To expect relief from radiation exposure from one specific device, is nearly impossible. It’s crucial to weigh in the MANY environmental factors; such as, temperature, atmospheric pressure, other radio waves, emissions from other devices, energy shifts from others around you, and Schumann Resonance shifts. Therefore," he explains that “relying on alteration of the environment as a safety precaution is always a game of chance…and signals affect people differently,” which adds another variables in the game of chance.
Manufacturers conduct government-required certification tests using a bare phone, set to transmit at maximum power, with no accessories. The recorded maximum SAR is reported to the FCC and listed in the phone’s manual. A phone tested with accessories under the same conditions can produce a higher SAR because the materials surrounding the antenna can affect the amount of radiation that reaches and is absorbed by the user’s body. A case can influence both the overall amount of emitted radiation and how it is directed.

Did you watch any of the videos? A healthy amount of skepticism is appropriate but be careful about just being a Debbie Downer. Admittedly, you haven’t tried all the products and probably aren’t even familiar with them yet quickly offer blanket assessments that it’s all marketing hype perpetuated by an evil Monopoly-man looking guy who just wants to take your money and snicker about what a sucker you are. Good luck with that.

The bulk of scientific evidence says that cellphone radiation doesn’t harm humans, according to the Food and Drug Administration: our cellphones are much more likely to kill us when we glance down at them while driving. But people are bad at judging risk. And the word “radiation” combined with the fact that we can’t see or control the invisible forces emanating from our cellphones becomes a perfect recipe for fear.
Some scientists have reported that the RF waves from cell phones produce effects in human cells (in lab dishes) that might possibly help tumors grow. However, several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion.
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.
Powerful shielding material lines the back of the holster and reflects up to 99% of cell phone radiation away from your body. It uses well established science– inside each holster is a layer of metalized high tech fabric that forms a barrier to EMF radiation. Just attach the holster to your belt and slip in your phone. The shield doesn’t alter the behavior of your phone, nor cause increased drain of your phone’s battery. The shielding simply blocks the radiation that would have otherwise been absorbed by your body and reflects it away. Lifetime mfr wty.
He believes the FDA should put out guidance based on the results of the rat studies. “I would think it would be irresponsible to not put out indications to the public,” Melnick says. “Maintain a distance from this device from your children. Don’t sleep with your phone near your head. Use wired headsets. This would be something that the agencies could do right now.”
Hi Ty. I’m an EHS sufferer so now I try to live as free from technology as possible. My landline is connected with a cable, my router is linked to my desktop with a cable. My cell phone just does texts and calls and is switched off 99% of the time. My car is an old Skoda with no Sat Nav, no blue tooth technology and I have an earthing strap running off the rear chassis to remove the EMF’s to earth. At night I dump the power upstairs off along with the lighting circuit, I sleep on an organic mattress with no springs – so no aeril effect attracting EMFs whilst I sleep. Even the alarm clock is a wind up and with black out curtains I get the best sleep ever. Living in a mid terrace house can be a problem but Y-Sheilding both walls has blocked the majority of the neighbours harmful radiation. Guess what, no more EHS symptons.
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."
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.

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.
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 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.
*SAR values are from tests conducted by Pong Research Corp on March 29, 2012 and submitted to the FCC on May 31, 2012. Because the SAR values were submitted to the FCC in graph form, EWG estimated numerical SAR values based on the chart available in WT Docket 11-186 (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021921006). Pong’s filing to the FCC did not indicate whether SAR measurements were done at the head or in a body-worn configuration. In a personal communication, Pong informed EWG that the SAR measurements were done in a body-worn configuration, with the same distance from the test mannequin used by the phone manufacturer. Tests in the body-worn configuration were done at a 10 millimeter separation distance.
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.  
We used a few measuring devices to test and see if this product actually blocks radiation and RFID, including a very sophisticated EMF reader. I am glad to say that this is actually a very effective way to reduce radiation. It is most effective on the front side, and when you have it closed and latched, there is very little exposure - only along the top, side and bottom opening.
Cell phones emit low levels of radio frequency energy (i.e., radio frequency radiation) in the microwave range while being used. It is well known that high levels of RF can produce biological damage through heating effects (this is how your microwave oven is able to cook food). However, it is not known to what extent or through what mechanism, lower levels of RF might cause adverse health effects as well. Several research studies have shown that the radio frequency radiation from wireless phone antennae “appears to cause genetic damage in human blood,” while another case study uncovered a “statistically significant increase” in neuro-epithelial brain tumors among cell phone users. Other research has shown little or no adverse effects. ABC’s 20/20 News (May 26, 2000) took the five most popular phones sold in the US and tested them at a highly respected German laboratory. Four out of the five phones tested were above the SAR limit. One thing is for certain, similar to the case of cigarette smoking, it will take several tests and many years before the effects of radio frequency radiation on the human body are known.
Dr. Carlo, wrote a  Medical Alert ten years ago. He cautioned people with EMF sensitivity against relying upon widely-available EMR Protection Products to prevent the effects of EMF exposure. He noted that EMF sensitive individuals were reporting the opposite effect: people found their symptoms and/or sensitivity worsened. Specifically, severe “symptom relapses.” Dr. Carlo noted:
Since 2011 RF radiation has been classified as a Group 2B “possible” human carcinogen by the International Agency on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization. Based on the new animal findings, and limited epidemiological evidence linking heavy and prolonged cell phone use with brain gliomas in humans, Fiorella Belpoggi, director of research at the Ramazzini Institute and the study’s lead author, says IARC should consider changing the RF radiation designation to a “probable” human carcinogen. Even if the hazard is low, billions of people are exposed, she says, alluding to the estimated number of wireless subscriptions worldwide. Véronique Terrasse, an IARC spokesperson, says a reevaluation may occur after the NTP delivers its final report.
Unfortunately, however, we’ll probably never have an RCT on cellphones and cancer in humans. It’d be too difficult and too expensive to randomly assign particular levels of cellphone use to thousands of people and have them stick with those plans for enough time (we’re talking at least five years) to figure out whether certain types of phones or phone use patterns cause cancer to develop. That’s not to mention the fact it’d be nearly impossible to find a group of people willing to not use cellphones and then make sure they actually stick to their promise.
Dr. Carlo, wrote a  Medical Alert ten years ago. He cautioned people with EMF sensitivity against relying upon widely-available EMR Protection Products to prevent the effects of EMF exposure. He noted that EMF sensitive individuals were reporting the opposite effect: people found their symptoms and/or sensitivity worsened. Specifically, severe “symptom relapses.” Dr. Carlo noted:

We’re also exposed to radio-frequency radiation from the networks that connect our phones. And while the coming rollout of 5G, or fifth-generation, wireless networks is expected to transmit data faster than ever, it will also increase the number of antennas sending signals to mobile devices, and potentially our exposure to radiation, with unclear health effects.
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?
The government’s policies must change. Cell phone users should make their voices heard to prompt the FCC and manufacturers of cell phones and cases to ensure that these accessories never increase and, to the extent possible, decrease, users’ radiation exposure. At minimum, the FCC must take cell phone cases into consideration when it updates its standards to ensure that the use of a case will not expose people to more radiation than its legal SAR limit.  
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").
These stick on “blockers” don’t work. I am EHS and can tell you with certainty (because I feel the fields) that they are not blocking anything. You must use substantial materials like those used in faraday cages (silver and copper), which are now manufactured in materials and fabrics, or avoid EMF use period. Just look at military use for example. They are not using stick on blockers. Follow Ty’s advice for minimizing and avoiding EMF, and look up EMF blocking fabrics, building materials, etc… for the real blockers.
Wow so glad I read this article tonight. I have been suspicious of my tablet and phone and in my car – I was experiencing tingling and some irregular pain in odd areas of the body. When I was in my car is when I noticed it – then I realized the same thing would happen when I was reading on my tablet. I just had the discussion with my husband as the body does have an electrical field around it the EMP’s are interrupting that field and damaging the body., which is exactly what I suspected. I also recently read an article that two college girls conducted a “test” project they put a cell phone in one room with and tray of seedlings in soil and put the same tray in another room, very carefully monitoring both room with the exact same temperatures etc. And I believe they let the plants grow for over a week. In the room with the cell phone the seeds had not even sprouted and in the room without the cell phone the seed sprouted and the plants were at least and inch in growth – that is a simple but proven test that cell phones interrupt cellular growth and damage cells. Thank you to all who commented here. I do have to look up what is EHS. Also have to get this info to my daughter who gets headaches.
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 [3]. This is the same dielectric heating which is the operating principle behind microwave ovens (which operate at 2450 MHz [4] 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.

When we think of harmful radiation, things like X-rays or gamma rays usually come to mind, but these types of radiation are different from mobile phone radiation in important ways. Radiation on the ultraviolet side of visible light, like those types just mentioned, has a wavelength that is short enough to alter some of the chemical properties of the objects it interacts with. It is referred to as ionizing radiation, for this reason. Non-ionizing radiation, which includes visible light, microwaves and radio waves, is typically regarded as harmless. Large amounts of it can produce a heating effect, like in a microwave oven, but no short-term damage has been linked to exposure to non-ionizing radiation.


Cell phones work by sending signals to (and receiving them from) nearby cell towers (base stations) using RF waves. This is a form of electromagnetic energy that falls between FM radio waves and microwaves. Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, RF waves are a form of non-ionizing radiation. They don’t have enough energy to cause cancer by directly damaging the DNA inside cells. RF waves are different from stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light, which can break the chemical bonds in DNA.
Dr Devra Davis is an internationally recognised expert on electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones and other wireless transmitting devices. She is currently the Visiting Professor of Medicine at the Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, and Visiting Professor of Medicine at Ondokuz Mayis University, Turkey. Dr Davis was Founding Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at The University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute —­ the first institute of its kind in the world, to examine the environmental factors that contribute to the majority of cases of cancer.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, appointed an expert Working Group to review all available evidence on the use of cell phones. The Working Group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency radiation and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent evidence from mechanistic studies (4).
×