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.
This 2017 review, published in Neurological Sciences, looked at case-control studies on cellphone use, focusing on glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuromas. This review was interesting because the researchers divided the studies by quality, and higher-quality studies — which tended to be funded by the government and not the cellphone industry — showed a trend toward an increased risk of brain tumors, while lower-quality studies did not. Overall, though, their meta-analysis found an increased risk of brain cancers (mostly gliomas) among people who were using cellphones for 10 or more years, and no increase in the risk of acoustic neuroma.
When you talk, your voice is transmitted from the antenna as radio frequency radiation (RFR) between 800 MHz and 2,200 MHz. A range equal to the middle of microwave frequency and 20% to 80% of the radiation emitted is deposited in the user's head. The microwave radiation is absorbed and penetrates the area around the head, some reaching an inch, to an inch and a half into the brain. Exposure to this microwave RFR has shown to have serious health consequences. Laboratory studies have shown that radiation from cell phones expose the user to a wide range of health problems including:
In fact, nobody can really explain how exactly cellphone radiation could cause cancer, says Christopher Labos, a cardiologist and biostatistician at McGill University. “You don’t necessarily have to understand how something works to prove that it’s dangerous, but it would certainly make the case more compelling,” says Labos, who wrote a detailed analysis for Science-Based Medicine about the recent government cellphone radiation study.
None of the three cases contain metallic parts, which are known to affect SAR, but all increased the user’s radiation exposure. The effect on radiation exposure would likely vary with each of the hundreds of cases on the market, and each would have to be tested individually to come up with an exact measure. The results in Table 1, however, are believed to reflect the range of radiation increases.
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.
The European Union is currently running the Mobi-Kids, a case-control study in 14 countries, to better understand the effects of electromagnetic fields radiation on children and adolescents. One of the early publications from the project, looking at data on the use of wireless devices among 10- to 25-year-olds in France, found that kids are started to rely on these devices earlier and earlier in life. But the researchers are still analyzing the main results on any health impacts, and haven’t yet published their findings.
Nice quality vinyl bumper sticker is a not-so-gentle reminder to fellow motorists of the one of the many dangers of cellphone use: distraction! If you ever get the chance, you can also explain the other hazards as well: reaction time, increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier, and possibly brain tumors. Good for cars, trucks, bikes, skates and just about any other moving vehicle.
Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is an indicator for calculating the level of radiation absorbed in the body. This indicator represents the rate of energy absorption by the tissue and is expressed in units of Watt/kg. The Consumer Protection Regulations (information on non-ionizing radiation from mobile phones) of 2002, stipulate the duty to label the product, specifying the radiation level of the phone’s model and the maximum permitted radiation level. This regulation allows to compare the emitted radiation level between different instruments and to take this into consideration when weighing the factors determining the choice of a new instrument at the time of its purchase.
Parents and consumer advocacy groups occasionally capture attention for voicing concerns about cellphones and other types of non-ionizing radio-frequency radiation exposure, such as the energy emitted from wifi routers in schools. In some cases, they have exaggerated what we know about the risks to kids, and rarely note that cellphones are also just one of many radiation sources we all live with. (Even the Earth itself, the air we breathe, and the sun and stars in our galaxy constantly give off radiation.)
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.
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.
Moving the meter around the case, we detect readings on the side, back and front of the case. We use the multi-directional TES 593 meter which measures 10 MHz to 8GHz. We use the unit of micro-watts per square centimeter, which looks like this little symbol: μW/cm² and we use it on the max setting which shows the maximum measured value. In non-science speak: the highest level of RF we see, which could be from the back the side or the front.
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.
The peer reviewers did have some quibbles with the study; some wished it could have lasted longer (the rodents were exposed to radiation for two years) to catch later-developing tumors, for example, but others on the panel noted that the longer a rodent lives, the more likely it is to develop tumors regardless of radiation, making it harder to find the signal in the noise. Others wanted the researchers to have dissected the rodent brains more than they did, to seek hard-to-find tumors. But they noted that science is an iterative process; the study wasn’t perfect, but it’s better than anything that’s been done so far.
The guidelines, issued last week, note that “some laboratory experiments and human health studies have suggested the possibility that long-term, high use of cell phones may be linked to certain types of cancer and other health effects.” These include brain cancer, tumors of the acoustic nerve and salivary glands, lower sperm count, headaches and effects on learning, memory, hearing, behavior and sleep.
Still, despite the odds, these fears could be around for a while — because it’s hard to prove that cellphone radiation doesn’t cause harm. There are just too many combinations of genes, environmental exposures, patterns of cellphone use, plus a healthy helping of random chance to consider. It’s why we’re still having the conversation about whether coffee, for example, is good or bad for us. So while the bulk of evidence points to no health effects from cellphone radiation, the scientific literature is still somewhat mixed, Foster says. “Someone who wants to worry can pick and choose and find a lot of evidence that would support their theories.”
Tame the radiation! We know how much you love your iPhone. Now enjoy it without radiating your head. Stylish black handset plugs into iPhone 4, 4S, 5, 6 providing clear sound without bending your neck. Allows you to keep the phone at a distance from your body, reducing radiation by 95% or more. Less echo than some hands free sets, it also offers an answer key and volume control. 3.5mm plug. 4-foot coiled cord. Great for home, office, or travel. Makes a great gift too!
But this study also has some drawbacks. First, it is based only on whether or not people had a cell phone subscription at the time. It didn’t measure how often these people used their phones (if at all), or if people who didn’t have a subscription used someone else’s phone. There are also limits as to how well this study might apply to people using cell phones today. For example, while the cell phones used at the time of the study tended to require more power than modern cell phones, people also probably used the phones quite a bit less than people use their phones today.
SAR LEVELS ARE very deceptive when it comes to health hazards! The Pong case is taking advantage of the fact that current safety regulatory guidelines provide no non-thermal assurances of safety what so ever! Other-words Pong is using inadequate safety standards to prove the legitimacy of the Pong cell phone case – Citing official documents being reviewed by the FCC’s “Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radio-frequency Exposure Limits and Policies” (Proceeding Number 13-84), as it turns out, the level SAR rating of your phone is almost irrelevant, as it doesn’t consider health effects from non-thermal levels of radiation exposure at all.
The authors of these studies noted that the results were preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism in humans were unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in people (4). Some factors that can contribute to inconsistencies across such studies include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.