Our recommendation is to reduce your exposure from wireless sources. We advocate what’s referred to as the Precautionary Principle. Basically, this means that because there’s research, lots of it actually, saying the energy that powers our cellphones (RF radiation) could be causing health concerns like tumors and cancer. We ought to take care when using our cell phones and all devices that emit RF, using them mindfully.
I don’t understand why only the lab tests are accurate. I just purchases two SafeSleeve cases and tested them myself with the same meter they use on their website in the promotional video. I made sure there were no other electronics nearby and I had the meter at zero without the cell phone next to it. I did not get the results they show in the video. I tested the phone with and without the case and it did not make any difference. The meter was peaking no mater what, with the flap opened or closed. If the meter is picking up radiation through the case, then my head is too. SafeSleeve is willing to reimburse me for the cases, but I am concerned that this might be a case of false advertising.
3. A lab setting is the only legitimate way to show the effectiveness of our technology for a few main reasons: one, a controlled source is the only way to conduct a scientific study. Note that the controlled source that we used was specifically designed to simulate emissions from wireless electronics (RF and ELF emissions of various frequencies). Two, ambient levels in a non-controlled environment will affect readings, rendering the results inaccurate. Three, at-home equipment such as the meter used in the video is not suitable for the types of emissions by a wireless device, nor are they reliable.
Use the speaker mode on the phone or a hands-free device such as a corded or cordless earpiece. This moves the antenna away from your head, which decreases the amount of RF waves that reach the head. Corded earpieces emit virtually no RF waves (although the phone itself still emits small amounts of RF waves that can reach parts of the body if close enough, such as on the waist or in a pocket). Bluetooth® earpieces have an SAR value of around 0.001 watts/kg (less than one thousandth the SAR limit for cell phones as set by the FDA and FCC).
There are few if any references to actual studies in published, peer-reviewed journals that support the claim that Aires, or any other, cell phone shield actually works. The "Researches" page contains a superficially impressive list of sciencey-sounding titles and findings supposedly demonstrating the importance of using cell phone shields, all of them in Russia for some reason.
There were no biological hypotheses tested in the study. It was therefore only a numbers game. Ignored were mechanisms of disease found in other studies of cell phone radiation effects, including genetic damage, blood-brain barrier leakage, and disrupted intercellular communication. The study did not discuss any research supporting the notion that cell phones could cause problems in users.
Many mobile phone protection stick on shields, chips or buttons make claims to manage the radiation problem in ways that are not verifiable by recognised scientific methods. We have evaluated a number of such products and have found in many cases that many of them simply do not work. On the other hand, our Anti-radiation phone covers, headsets and other solutions offer outstanding levels of protection (up to 100%) and are proven by verifiable SAR testing in accredited laboratories. In fact we are proud to say that our range includes some of the most effective radiation reducing solutions available anywhere in the world.
For example, cellphone manufacturers currently test these devices for compliance with FCC standards by placing them against the head, and near the torso with some separation. Just check out Apple’s iPhone manual: The company tests the specific absorption rate at a 5mm separation from the body. But if you wear your device in your pocket, you’re probably not going to have that 5mm separation, meaning you may be exposed to more radiation — perhaps enough to exceed current standards.
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.
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.
As a good thing to keep in mind, there are hundreds of thousands of people suffering from EHS in the world. Some of them live in forests, tents, and anywhere they can get away from society and EMFs because their symptoms are so bad when exposed. I have not heard one single EHS person claim that any of these types of devices work. They sure don’t for me. Most EHS sufferers are so desperate that they have researched and tried just about everything. Getting away from EMFs, or blocking them with material that does actually block them, like as a Faraday cage, is what works. And this is clearly what the scientific evidence shows. If these devices worked, that would be fabulous. One could spend $100 and be well, instead of having their life turned upside down, and in the worst cases as with some, committing suicide due to complete hopelessness and helplessness.. However, that is not the case. To further prove whether they work or not, one could wear one, and measure with a meter designed to measure EMF absorption in the body (they exist now). Has the manufacturer had this done, and is their evidence of it? An EHS person can tell without a meter anyway, but to prove to others, this might be a good idea.
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).

An analysis of an "eagerly anticipated" study using rats and mice by the National Toxicology Program indicates that due such issues as the inconsistent appearances of "signals for harm" within and across species and the increased chances of false positives due to the multiplicity of tests, the positive results seen are more likely due to random chance. The full results of the study were released in February 2018.[10]
Consumer Reports is an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to helping consumers. We make it easy to buy the right product from a variety of retailers. Clicking a retailer link will take you to that retailer’s website to shop. When you shop through retailer links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission – 100% of the fees we collect are used to support our mission. Learn more. Our service is unbiased: retailers can’t influence placement. All prices are subject to change.

The U.S. government doesn’t seem very troubled, either. The Food and Drug Administration says on its website that research generally doesn’t link cell phones to any health problem. And although the Federal Communications Commission requires manufacturers to include information in user manuals about cell-phone handling, that’s often buried deep in the fine print.
Many mobile phone protection stick on shields, chips or buttons make claims to manage the radiation problem in ways that are not verifiable by recognised scientific methods. We have evaluated a number of such products and have found in many cases that many of them simply do not work. On the other hand, our Anti-radiation phone covers, headsets and other solutions offer outstanding levels of protection (up to 100%) and are proven by verifiable SAR testing in accredited laboratories. In fact we are proud to say that our range includes some of the most effective radiation reducing solutions available anywhere in the world.
“One thing all these conditions have in common is a disruption, to varying degrees, of intercellular communication. When we were growing up, TV antennas were on top of our houses and such waves were up in the sky. Cell phones and Wi-Fi have brought those things down to the street, integrated them into the environment, and that’s absolutely new. The recognition mechanism, where protein vibration sensors on the cell membrane pick up a signal and interpret it as an invader, only works because the body recognizes something it’s never seen before.”
Cellsafe backs its claims by publishing independent test results on its site. These test reports are detailed, complex and confusing, but the results are available for you to interpret. For example, their tests found that an iPhone 4S produced a SAR of 1.069 W/kg on the 3G 2100Mhz frequency without a case, and 0.267 W/kg with a Cellsafe case. But what in the world does that actually mean? Is a SAR of 1 W/kg dangerous? Is a reduction to 0.267 W/kg actually better, or are we just splitting hairs?
We’ll see how it holds up, but out of the box this case is wonderful. No problems at all with it interfering with the cameras or the four microphones in the iPhone 7. In fact, my last case must have interfered with the mics because people I call often are now saying the sound is much better on their end, and this is when the case is closed with speakerphone on. // This case is put together nicely. Good stitching, nice texture. I am a vegan so I feel good using it. // I haven’t used the card or money slots so I can’t speak about those. It’s not important to me anyway. // All-in-all I’m very pleased. I was a little apprehensive spending $35 or whatever amount it was, but this case is quality. Hope it blocks the bad stuff like they say it does. I feel the company is very straightforward and honest in their product information and didn’t make outlandish claims. Great case! // Update, 5 months later. Perfect. Not a stitch broken. It’s holding up extremely well. Very pleased.
Searching PubMed for studies published in the past 10 years, we found 102 studies that ultimately resulted in 12 relevant systematic reviews. To limit bias in our assessment of the literature, we used a validated critical appraisal tool called AMSTAR to determine the quality of each review. Eight of the reviews were critically low quality, two were low quality, and two were moderate quality.
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.
What the study showed: Most published analyses from this study have shown no statistically significant increases in brain or central nervous system cancers related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One analysis showed a statistically significant, although modest, increase in the risk of glioma among the small proportion of study participants who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, the researchers considered this finding inconclusive because they felt that the amount of use reported by some respondents was unlikely and because the participants who reported lower levels of use appeared to have a slightly reduced risk of brain cancer compared with people who did not use cell phones regularly (4–6).
×