The cell phone industry constantly guards its financial interests, but unfortunately, an unwitting public can be harmed in the process, says Dr. Carlo. “Industry-funded studies in many cases now produce industry-desired outcomes. By tampering with the integrity of scientists, scientific systems and public information steps over the lines of propriety that are appropriate for protecting business interests—especially when the casualty of the interference is public health and safety.”

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.
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.
In a February 2 statement, Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote that despite the NTP study’s results, the combined evidence on RF exposure and human cancer—which by now amounts to hundreds of studies—has “given us confidence that the current safety limits for cell phone radiation remain acceptable for protecting the public health.” Chonock says that for him, evidence from the Ramazzini study does not alter that conclusion. “We continue to agree with the FDA statement,” he says.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. The IARC has classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. (For more information on the IARC classification system, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.)
Still think Pong’s SAR testing prove you are safer? Take this for example, the Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-920V FCC ID A3LSMN920V (Official FCC Doc) made for Verizon has an FCC measured SAR of only 0.21 W/kg (watts per kilogram) and the Apple iPhone 6 Plus exposes a user’s head to a whopping 1.18 W/kg FCC ID: BCG – E2817 Apple iPhone 6 SAR  (Official Doc Page 138).  That’s a dramatic difference of several hundred percent from highest SAR to lowest SAR on these high-end smartphone devices.
Recall bias, which can occur when data about prior habits and exposures are collected from study participants using questionnaires administered after diagnosis of a disease in some of the participants. It is possible that study participants who have brain tumors may remember their cell phone use differently from individuals without brain tumors. Many epidemiologic studies of cell phone use and brain cancer risk lack verifiable data about the total amount of cell phone use over time. In addition, people who develop a brain tumor may have a tendency to recall cell phone use mostly on the same side of the head where their tumor was found, regardless of whether they actually used their phone on that side of the head a lot or only a little.

A decline in male sperm quality has been observed over several decades.[11][12][13] Studies on the impact of mobile radiation on male fertility are conflicting, and the effects of the radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) emitted by these devices on the reproductive systems are currently under active debate.[14][15][16][17] A 2012 review concluded that "together, the results of these studies have shown that RF-EMR decreases sperm count and motility and increases oxidative stress".[18][19] A 2017 study of 153 men that attended an academic fertility clinic in Boston, Massachusetts found that self-reported mobile phone use was not related to semen quality, and that carrying a mobile phone in the pants pocket was not related to semen quality.[20]


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").
Features an outstanding 38-pound puncture resistance. The multiple layer construction provides full protection against ESD, EMI/RFI and tribocharging. Because its moisture barrier performance exceeds foil laminates for low Moisture Vapor Transmission Rate (MVTR), particularly after flexing, whatever you place in the bag and seal properly is going to stay dry also! Does not provide magnetic shielding.

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 purchased a cell phone case directly from SafeSleeve. Once received, we attempted to determine how much radiation protection is actually possible from the product. What we learned is that NONE of the products SafeSleeve sells are actually tested by an FCC approved lab. Their advertising is very misleading! The testing results they use as "proof" that their products are tested was a single test done ONLY on a piece of material they claim is used inside their products. NONE OF THEIR PRODUCTS HAVE EVER BEEN TESTED BY AN FCC APPROVED TESTING LAB. We read the test report from SafeSleeve's website and called the testing lab listed on the report who verified this information. We also called an independent, FCC approved cell phone testing lab and they explained the same thing. We were informed that radiation comes from all sides and edges of a cell phone, so when you use the SafeSleeve cell phone case, you are NOT being protected. SafeSleeve cell phone cases offer you no more protection than using a cell phone without a case. To protect yourself from cell phone radiation, you still need to use hold the phone at least 6-8 inches from your body, use the speaker for conversations, text more than talk, and don't use or carry your cell phone against your body. We attempted to have the SafeSleeve cell phone case tested and were informed that to have it properly tested would require paying thousands of dollars in a lab equipped for such testing; using an RF meter or similar device to test a cell phone case will not provide meaningful or accurate results. If SafeSleeve were an honest company, they would have each of their products tested in an FCC approved lab, the same type of lab that cell phones are tested in. However, SafeSleeve is not willing to spend the money. If you don't believe us, call an FCC approved cell phone testing lab and ask a few questions. In the meantime, don't waste your money on SafeSleeve products. Note: SafeSleeve attempts to protect themselves by not listing any business phone number or business address on their website. Any questions/complaints you may have with SafeSleeve are strictly handled via email. They refused our request to speak to a "real person" regarding our questions or issues with their products. Does the word SCAM apply here? We think so.
“Epidemiological studies are targets for fixing the outcome because they’re observational in nature instead of experimental,” Dr. Carlo explains. “It’s possible to design studies with pre-determined outcomesthat still fall within the range of acceptable science. Thus, even highly flawed epidemiological studies can be published in peer-reviewed journals because they’re judged against a pragmatic set of standards that assume the highest integrity among the investigators.”
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.  
It might be invisible to the naked eye, but electric and magnetic fields (EMFs), including electromagnetic radiation, are everywhere these days, and chances are it’s taking a major toll on your health. High-tech devices including your mobile phone, laptop, tablet, and wearable tech like the Apple Watch® all generate a near-continuous source of unseen pollution that can be stressful and toxic to your cells. If your goal is to be as healthy as possible, it’s important to address the issues that cell phone radiation and other technology create.

A 2012 study by NCI researchers (25) compared observed glioma incidence rates in U.S. SEER data with rates simulated from the small risks reported in the Interphone study (6) and the greatly increased risk of brain cancer among cell phone users reported in the Swedish pooled analysis (19). The authors concluded that overall, the incidence rates of glioma in the United States did not increase over the study period. They noted that the US rates could be consistent with the small increased risk seen among the subset of heaviest users in the Interphone study. The observed incidence trends were inconsistent with the high risks reported in the Swedish pooled study. These findings suggest that the increased risks observed in the Swedish study are not reflected in U.S. incidence trends.
×