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.
Scientists have reported adverse health effects of using mobile phones including changes in brain activity, reaction times, and sleep patterns. More studies are underway to try to confirm these findings. When mobile phones are used very close to some medical devices (including pacemakers, implantable defibrillators, and certain hearing aids) there is the possibility of causing interference with their operation. There is also the potential of interference between mobile phones signals and aircraft electronics. Some countries have licensed mobile phone use on aircraft during flight using systems that control the phone output power.
Dr. Carlo, however, refused to be an easy target. He quickly recruited a group of prominent scientists to work with him, bulletproof experts owning long lists of credentials and reputations that would negate any perception that the research was predestined to be a sham. He also created a Peer Review Board chaired by Harvard University School of Public Health’s Dr. John Graham, something that made FDA officials more comfortable since, at the time, the agency was making negative headlines due to the breast implant controversy. In total, more than 200 doctors and scientists were involved in the project.
People can also reduce their exposure by limiting cell-phone use when the cellular signal is weak; when traveling in a high-speed car, bus or train; to stream audio or video; or to download or upload large files. All of these circumstances cause phones to put out higher-than-normal levels of RF energy. Phones also emit RF energy when connected to WiFi or Bluetooth devices, but at lower levels.
In one type of study, called a case–control study, cell phone use is compared between people with these types of tumors and people without them. In another type of study, called a cohort study, a large group of people who do not have cancer at study entry is followed over time and the rate of these tumors in people who did and didn’t use cell phones is compared. Cancer incidence data can also be analyzed over time to see if the rates of brain tumors changed in large populations during the time that cell phone use increased dramatically. These studies have not shown clear evidence of a relationship between cell phone use and cancer. However, researchers have reported some statistically significant associations for certain subgroups of people.
Radiation is all around us. Power lines, appliances, and electronic devices all emit electromagnetic frequencies. One source that many of us keep close, perhaps too close, are cell phones, tablets, and other mobile devices. They all use radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy, a form of non-ionizing radiation, to communicate. Research has shown that this type of radiation is not benign or harmless to the human body, especially children. Exposure to cell phone and Wifi radiation has been linked to fatigue, dizziness, mental fog, and even worse. As a result, the demand for products that reduce exposure to device radiation is on the rise. In fact, "How can I protect myself from cell phone radiation? What do you recommend?" is a question we get all the time. So, to help, I wanted to offer my thoughts on five products I've found that I believe are worth a look if you're interested in reducing your exposure to cell phone and mobile device radiation.
In addition, cellphones potentially harm our health in ways that have nothing to do with cancer. The effect on sperm is concerning to Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the Berkeley School of Public Health, and he noted that our current cellphone regulations also don’t account for these potential effects. Plus, we still don’t know what steady exposure to this kind of radiation from devices means for kids.

Compatible Phone Models Samsung Galaxy S6 iPhone 7, iPhone 6, iPhone 8 Apple iPhone 5s,iPhone 5c,iPhone 5,iPhone 4S,iPhone 4,3,ipod touch,ipod nano..., Samsung Galaxy Series: Galaxy Ace 3 / S7272 / S7275 , Galaxy S4 / i9295 , S3, Galaxy Mega 5.8 i9150 / i9152 , Galaxy Mega 6.3 / i9200 , S4/ i9500 , Galaxy Grand Duos / i9082 , Galaxy Note 2 / N7100 , i8000 , S3650c i7500, Nokia:Lumia 1020,Lumia 928,Lumia 925,Lumia 920,Lumia 820,lumia 720,lumia 620,lumia 625,lumia 520,N8,N9... Galaxy 7 Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge SAMSUNG GALAXY S6 edge+ (Plus)

As Jonathan Samet — the dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, who advised the World Health Organization on cellphone radiation and cancer — told me, you can argue anything based on the science we currently have “because there’s not enough evidence to start with.” Actually, there’s not enough high-quality evidence. Before we get into why, and what we know, we need a quick primer on cellphone radiation.


Some people might consider choosing a phone with a low SAR value. Different models of phones can give off different levels of RF waves. But as noted above, according to the FCC the SAR value is not always a good indicator of a person’s exposure to RF waves during normal cell phone use. One way to get information on the SAR level for a specific phone model is to visit the phone maker’s website. The FCC has links to some of these sites here: www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones. If you know the FCC identification (ID) number for a phone model (which can often be found somewhere on the phone or in the user manual), you can also go to the following web address: www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid. On this page, you will see instructions for entering the FCC ID number.
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.
When the draft results of the papers were published earlier this year, all results were labeled “equivocal,” meaning the study authors felt the data weren’t clear enough to determine if the radiation caused the health effects or not. But the panel of peer reviewers (among them brain and heart pathologists, toxicologists, biostaticians, and engineers) re-evaluated the data and upgraded several of the conclusions to “some evidence” and “clear evidence.”
Cordless Phones - Most homes have cordless phones. Many of these cordless phones operate within 2.4GHz 5.8 GHz. These phones are high in electromagnetic radiation particularly when they get over 2.4 GHz. At this level they are operating at the same frequency as a cell phone. We suggest using Safe Cell on your cordless phone as well as your cell phone. 
Stick on anti-radiation protection shields etc are often made of metal which may block signal and prevent reliable mobile phone communications with signal towers. Mobile phones recognise the potential for a dropped signal and actually increase power to compensate. The result is a fast draining battery and an even higher radiation output as a result of using the product (an exception to this are shields that are placed in between the phone and the user as these do not impede signal to cell towers to any significant degree)
We couldn't find one legit EMF expert online or anywhere else that would recommend a radiation blocking case or anti-radiation case. Not the Environmental Health Trust or Magda Havas, or Joel Moskowitz, in fact his site, safeEMR cautions against scams and claims for radiation protection.  So if a so-called "EMF expert" is recommending any kind of anti-radiation case, they probably aren't that much of an expert. 
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.

The reason we’re talking about cellphones and cancer — why there’s a concern here — is because they emit radiation, the invisible waves of electric and magnetic energy, of varying power, organized on the electromagnetic spectrum. You can see in the graphic below that less powerful (or lower-frequency) types of radiation are on the left, moving to the more powerful (or higher-frequency) types of radiation on the right.

Epidemiology studies investigating cell phone use patterns with human cancer risk have produced inconsistent results. Some studies enrolled people who already had tumors with suspected links to RF radiation, such as gliomas, acoustic neuromas and salivary gland tumors. Researchers compared the self-reported cell phone use habits of the cancer patients with those of other people who did not have the same diseases. Other studies enrolled people while they were still healthy, and then followed them over time to see if new cancer diagnoses tracked with how they used cell phones. All the epidemiology studies, however, have troubling limitations, including that enrolled subjects often do not report their cell phone use habits accurately on questionnaires.
Jump up ^ "Téléphones mobiles : santé et sécurité" (in French). Le ministère de la santé, de la jeunesse et des sports. 2 January 2008. Retrieved 19 January 2008. Lay article in (in English) making comment at Gitlin, Jonathan M. (3 January 2008). "France: Beware excessive cell phone use?: despite lack of data". Ars Technica. Retrieved 19 January 2008.
For now, it’s probably better not to spend too much of your time worrying: you’re surrounded by cellphone signals, Wi-Fi signals, and all other kinds of radio frequency radiation day in and out — not just when you put your phone up to your face. And until the evidence suggests otherwise, all of this is still considered less of a cancer risk than eating red meat (which you shouldn't freak out about that much either).

If you would like to reproduce some or all of this content, see Reuse of NCI Information for guidance about copyright and permissions. In the case of permitted digital reproduction, please credit the National Cancer Institute as the source and link to the original NCI product using the original product's title; e.g., “Cell Phones and Cancer Risk was originally published by the National Cancer Institute.”

Our homemade demonstration of all the cases uses a working phone. Not the shielding material by itself, but the actual "shielding" SafeSleeve, Pong, Reach,  Vest, ShieldMe, and Defender Shield cases. First we get RF power density measurements from a phone that's on a call and then, in the same location, within minutes of the first reading, we place the same phone as it's engaged in a call into each case and we take additional reading with the meter.
We couldn't find one legit EMF expert online or anywhere else that would recommend a radiation blocking case or anti-radiation case. Not the Environmental Health Trust or Magda Havas, or Joel Moskowitz, in fact his site, safeEMR cautions against scams and claims for radiation protection.  So if a so-called "EMF expert" is recommending any kind of anti-radiation case, they probably aren't that much of an expert. 
“It’s quite informative that the NTP data found evidence of an increased tumor risk in the male rats for glial cells and in the [heart] Schwann cells,” said Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the Berkeley School of Public Health (who writes about electromagnetic radiation here). “That’s compelling evidence that what we’re seeing in humans — even though the signal is not clear — is highly suggestive, and that there is indeed something real going on with regard to tumor risk in humans.”
We really do not recommend any kind of chip, guard, anti-radiation "filters" or incomplete shielding case because honestly, how could they NOT provide a false sense of security? Folks could believe these products make them “invincible” against radiation so they are comfortable holding the case right up to their heads-and the radiation seeping from the back and the side of the phone case is in very close proximity to their precious brains. Oh no!

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.
EMF’s? Most everyone has grown up with EMF’s. It is not so much in your wifi as it is in your homes wiring. Check your walls and plugs with a meter. Also, every modern car is off the charts with EMF. Way I see it, people are living just fine. My grandmother is 86, living under power lines and house full of EMF electric wiring. She is fine. Unless I see 50% of the population dying early and having serious, serious issues, I will not panic over EMF’s
The guidelines recommend keeping phones away from the body when they’re not in use—in a backpack, for example, rather than a pocket—and sleeping with phones away from the bed. People may also choose to use speakerphone or a headset to make calls, rather than holding the phone to their heads. (They should remove their headsets when they’re not in use, though, as these devices also emit small amounts of RF frequency.)

Generally speaking, the near-field refers to the RF field close to the antenna and the far-field is the RF field further away from the antenna. Often times when you use your cell phone, your body is often located in the near-field (one wavelength or less) of the cell phone antenna. It is especially concerning when you hold your phone next to your head or wear it on your body as you can be exposed to very intense near-field radiation from the phone.
I liked the way Blocsock implemented this protection and the quality of the product construction, combined with the validated test results, so I recently ordered ones for the rest of my family. I think Blocsock is the BMW-class of what I could find for products that protect against cell phone radiation. My wife has a larger Droid phone and it fits in the case (just barely though)! I hope the makers consider making a larger model for all the new, larger smartphones that recently came out with the larger screen sizes. Again, check to make sure your phone fits, which a friendly message to the company will answer if you are not sure.
The next day, telecommunications stocks took a big hit on Wall Street and the media had a field day. The industry trade association at the time, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), went into crisis mode, claiming thousands of studies proved cell phones were safe and what Reynard and his attorney said was bunk. TIA reassured the public that the government had approved cell phones, so that meant they were safe. The media demanded to see the studies, but, says Dr. Carlo, “The industry had lied. The only studies in existence then were on microwave ovens. At that time, 15 million people were using cell phones, a product that had never been tested for safety.”
I debated whether to give it 3 or 4 stars: on features, speed of delivery, and quality of construction, it definitely deserves 4 stars. If I can measure and verify the emf reduction, then I will change the rating to 5 stars. Since the whole point of using it is to block excess em radiation, I can't really give it 5 stars without more proof that it really does so.

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.”


So what do you do when you need a wireless radiation emitting device but you want to limit the exposure to the people? Perhaps you use a wireless baby monitor, have a cordless phone base station, or you sleep with your cell phone on your nightstand. Maybe there is a wifi router right next to you at work or school. RadiaFence is the answer. It’s a free-standing, semi-transparent microwave barrier that you can put almost anywhere you need. It blocks most of the radiation emitted in one direction by “casting a shadow” (typically 70-90% reduction), while still allowing the wireless device to work. Like sitting in the shade on a sunny day. Portable, inexpensive, attractive. And it couldn’t be easier to use. If you like, you can add a decorative photo or warning sign to change the appearance. Available in 5 styles. Pick the sizes which meet your needs. Style may differ from images.
Today’s report, the final one, was about a decade in the making and is the last of several versions that have been released since preliminary results were presented in May 2016. It represents the consensus of NTP scientists and a group of external reviewers, according to the release. In the future, the NTP plans to conduct studies in smaller exposure chambers and to use biomarkers such as DNA damage to gauge cancer risk. These changes in the experimental setup should mean that future studies will take less time.
Anyway, several phone models that my wife and I considered buying emitted radiation levels simply too high for my comfort level. They’re measured in SAR -- “specific absorption rate” -- which is essentially the amount of radiation a human body will absorb from using or being near a cell phone. The lower the rate, the less radiation will be absorbed.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) states that the IARC classification means that there could be some risk associated with cancer, but the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal and needs to be investigated further. Individuals who are concerned about radiofrequency exposure can limit their exposure, including using an ear piece and limiting cell phone use, particularly among children. (5)
Information and statements made are for education purposes and are not intended to replace the advice of your treating doctor. Global Healing Center does not dispense medical advice, prescribe, or diagnose illness. The views and nutritional advice expressed by Global Healing Center are not intended to be a substitute for conventional medical service. If you have a severe medical condition or health concern, see your physician. This Web site contains links to Web sites operated by other parties. Such links are provided for your convenience and reference only. We are not responsible for the content or products of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site. Global Healing Center does not adopt any medical claims which may have been made in 3rd party references. Where Global Healing Center has control over the posting or other communications of such claims to the public, Global Healing Center will make its best effort to remove such claims.
The amount of RF energy absorbed from the phone into the user’s body is known as the specific absorption rate (SAR). Different cell phones have different SAR levels. Cell phone makers are required to report the maximum SAR level of their product to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This information can often be found on the manufacturer’s website or in the user manual for the phone. The upper limit of SAR allowed in the United States is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg) of body weight.
Another part of the INTERPHONE study compared more than 1,000 people with acoustic neuromas to more than 2,000 people without tumors, who served as matched controls. As with gliomas and meningiomas, there was no overall link between cell phone use and acoustic neuromas. There was again a suggestion of a possible increased risk in the 10% of people who used their cell phones the most, but this was hard to interpret because some people reported implausibly high cell phone use, as well as other issues.
Safe Cell was successfully tested by an Independent laboratory. The Shielding Effectiveness test as a cell phone radiation protection shield, was conducted by The California Institute of Material Sciences which results proved that "Safe Cell possesses Shielding Effectiveness in the cell phone test frequency range 0.800 GHz to 10.525 GHz". (click here to view the full test report)
The following charts list SAR levels for the Apple iPhone, Samsung Galaxy S, as well as 20 of the highest SAR level cellphones and 20 of the lowest SAR level cellphones. The list provides the maximum possible SAR level from the phone (many phones have differing SAR levels depending on where and how the phone is used). If your phone is not on either list, you can find the SAR level for your specific phone by checking the online FCC database.

There is no strong or consistent evidence that mobile phone use increases the risk of getting brain cancer or other head tumors. The United States National Cancer Institute points out that "Radiofrequency energy, unlike ionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage that can lead to cancer. Its only consistently observed biological effect in humans is tissue heating. In animal studies, it has not been found to cause cancer or to enhance the cancer-causing effects of known chemical carcinogens." The majority of human studies have failed to find a link between cell phone use and cancer. In 2011 a World Health Organization working group classified cell phone use as "possibly carcinogenic to humans". The CDC states that no scientific evidence definitively answers whether cell phone use causes cancer.[5][7][8]
It isn’t just cell phones. When you get the phantom twitch, it is not from a nervous system reaction to the phone vibrator as many suggest. Why do I say that? One, I rarely experience phone vibration, yet I get the phantom twitch. Two, as I have to use a rental car for work and they always give you two electronic keys (they do NOT vibrate), that is in my pocket with my own car key, bringing the total of non-vibrating keys to three. They do not vibrate, but I still get the phantom twitch.
I debated whether to give it 3 or 4 stars: on features, speed of delivery, and quality of construction, it definitely deserves 4 stars. If I can measure and verify the emf reduction, then I will change the rating to 5 stars. Since the whole point of using it is to block excess em radiation, I can't really give it 5 stars without more proof that it really does so.
We did not simply measure energy coming from the front of the case which is the area of the case where the phone would be "shielded" from radiation. If we had taken readings with a directional meter, specifically measuring energy coming from only the front or flap cover where the shielding material is, we assume as the manufacturers claim, that we would have seen a drop in the radiation readings.
As Jonathan Samet — the dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, who advised the World Health Organization on cellphone radiation and cancer — told me, you can argue anything based on the science we currently have “because there’s not enough evidence to start with.” Actually, there’s not enough high-quality evidence. Before we get into why, and what we know, we need a quick primer on cellphone radiation.

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.
SafeSleeve's report is right up front about showing that they do not test or certify the Safe Sleeve case, rather they are simply testing the material they put into the case in a completely artificial environment, in a laboratory setting, using a signal generator and a power amplifier. Safe Sleeve includes photos showing how the measurements are taken. But that may not be how anyone will ever use their phone.
The study also found that about 5 to 7 percent of the male rats exposed to the highest level of radiation developed certain heart tumors, called malignant schwannomas, compared to none in the control group. Malignant schwannomas are similar to acoustic neuromas, benign tumors that can develop in people, in the nerve that connects the ear to the brain.
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.
×