W. Kim Johnson, a retired physicist and past president of the New Mexico Academy of Science, reviewed the Aires web site for Discovery News and described the material as gibberish, saying that the authors "of the technical description of the ‘Aires' device reads like a random selection of technical terminology. The working description for this device is made up of jargon that, in the end, really says nothing."
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.

They get upset to learn that the video game console requires them to use their hands to play it, and one exclaims “That’s a baby’s game!” I’m thinking “Whoa, I never want to be that dependent on technology that I don’t want to use my hands. I’ve heard many people say “my cell phone is my right arm, or I can’t live without my cell phone. How many of you recall the movie “Johnny Mnemonic(1995)” It was about the effect technology was having on the human body. Nerve Attenuation Syndrome (NAS)
That’s because cell phones emit electromagnetic fields (EMFs) or electromagnetic radiation, which has the potential to damage the cells in the body. In fact, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies EMFs from cell phones as possible carcinogens. EMFs can interfere with the body’s natural electrical system and disrupt sleep, immune system function, hormone production, and the healing process. Kevin Byrne, president of EMF Solutions, also points out the simultaneous increase in conditions such as chronic pain, depression, anxiety, chronic fatigue syndrome, and Alzheimer’s disease and the significant rise in EMF exposure.
By not formally reassessing its current limit, FCC cannot ensure it is using a limit that reflects the latest research on RF energy exposure. FCC has also not reassessed its testing requirements to ensure that they identify the maximum RF energy exposure a user could experience. Some consumers may use mobile phones against the body, which FCC does not currently test, and could result in RF energy exposure higher than the FCC limit.
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?
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.
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.
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.

"Partner Content" allows today's industry thought leaders to share their unique insight and perspective with the greater ASPENCORE audience. Material published as "Partner Content" was created by or on behalf of ASPENCORE's partner(s) in conjunction with the ASPENCORE Studio team and may not reflect the views of the site and editors to which it is published.For more information on this program, email support@aspencore.com


It also means regulators need to make sure their policies reflect new levels of exposure. The Federal Communications Commission currently oversees cellphone safety and sets the limits for how much radiation people should be exposed to. (This is measured by the specific absorption rate — the rate at which the body absorbs radio frequency energy — and the current limit for cellphones is 1.6 watts of energy per kilogram of tissue. The whole-body threshold is a SAR value of 0.08 watts per kilogram, and the tower radiation limit is 10 watts per square meter.)
Take a closer look at the product claims. Many refer to their “shielding technology” and not the product itself. In many cases, the “FCC Certified” labs they cite are actually testing how much RF the raw shielding material can block. They’re testing the materials used in the products. They’re not testing how much RF the actual products block while on a real-world phone.
*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.

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.
That’s because cell phones emit electromagnetic fields (EMFs) or electromagnetic radiation, which has the potential to damage the cells in the body. In fact, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies EMFs from cell phones as possible carcinogens. EMFs can interfere with the body’s natural electrical system and disrupt sleep, immune system function, hormone production, and the healing process. Kevin Byrne, president of EMF Solutions, also points out the simultaneous increase in conditions such as chronic pain, depression, anxiety, chronic fatigue syndrome, and Alzheimer’s disease and the significant rise in EMF exposure.
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
Wherever you come out on the cellphone and cancer question, one thing is clear: How we live with cellphones, along with our exposure to the radiation they emit, has changed dramatically over the past several decades. That has policy implications; it’s something regulators, researchers, and cellphone companies need to pay attention to. In that context, a few things should happen:
"Partner Content" allows today's industry thought leaders to share their unique insight and perspective with the greater ASPENCORE audience. Material published as "Partner Content" was created by or on behalf of ASPENCORE's partner(s) in conjunction with the ASPENCORE Studio team and may not reflect the views of the site and editors to which it is published.For more information on this program, email support@aspencore.com
If you're concerned that talking on your cell phone could cook your brain, you may want to invest in an anti-radiation phone case. The basic idea behind these cases is that they redirect the radiation produced by the phone away from the user, so it isn't constantly bombarding your skull. They can accomplish this in a variety of ways; one involves using antennas to redirect the waves, and another uses silicone or other materials to block the waves.
Independently tested DefenderShield® technology uses a patent-pending sophisticated layering of separate non-toxic, human safe exotic materials processed for maximum radiation blocking efficiency. Each material has unique and targeted radiation shielding characteristics designed to work in unison to up to eliminate all radiation emissions from 0 to 10 GHz.
Pong’s research indicates that badly designed cell phone cases can partially block a phone’s antenna, making the device work harder to transmit signals. Due to gaps in the FCC’s cell phone regulations, a phone worn right next to the body and enclosed by a case that obstructs the antenna could expose the user to more radiation than the FCC’s legal limit.
For those of you who experience (or want to prevent) ES symptoms in your hands when using a computer keyboard, laptop, cell phone or other electronic devices, these gloves form a conductive enclosure and effectively shield radiowaves and electric fields. Soft, light weight, with ribbed cuff, and offering good tactile sensitivity. Polyester fiber is twisted with pure Silver fibers, then knit into a stretchy glove shape in basic gray color. Each glove has a 1.7 mm snap for a ground cord. Fully hand washable and tested for 50 cycles with no appreciable loss of conductivity. All fibers are conductive, achieving resistivity of less than 10 Ohm/sq. These gloves are also used in industry for static control when working with delicate static sensitive components and can even be used for TENS applications. Grounding is not necessary for Faraday Cage shielding effect, but is necessary for static control. Also useful on touch screens like an iGlove. We do not have the ground cord which fits this snap on these gloves. Shielded Gloves:

Jump up ^ For example, Finland "Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority: Children's mobile phone use should be limited". Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK). 7 January 2009. Archived from the original on 11 January 2010. Retrieved 20 January 2010. and France "Téléphone mobile, DAS et santé" [Mobile telephones, SAR and health] (PDF). Votre enfant et le téléphone mobile [Your child and mobile telephony]. Association Française des Opérateurs Mobiles (AFOM)[French Mobile Phone Operators' Association] et l’Union Nationale des Associations Familiales (UNAF) [National Federation of Family Associations]. 31 January 2007. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
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).
Universal Cell Phone EMF Radiation Shield – Wallet Case (Small: 3.3"x5.6" Cell Phones, Universal Cell Phone EMF Radiation Shield – Wallet Case (Large: Up to 3.2"x6.2" Cell Phones, iPhone X EMF Radiation Shield & RFID Blocker- Wallet Case, iPhone 8 / 7 EMF Radiation Shield – Wallet Case, iPhone 8 / 7+ (Plus) EMF Radiation Shield – Wallet Case, iPhone 8 / 7 EMF Radiation Shield – SlimFlip Case, iPhone 8 / 7+ (Plus) EMF Radiation Shield – SlimFlip Case, iPhone 6/6S EMF Radiation Shield – Wallet Case, iPhone 6 / 6S+ (Plus) EMF Radiation Shield – Wallet Case, iPhone 6/6S EMF Radiation Shield – SlimFlip Case, iPhone 6 / 6S+ (Plus) EMF Radiation Shield – SlimFlip Case, iPhone 5/5s/SE EMF Radiation Shield – SlimFlip Case, Galaxy S7 EMF Radiation Shield – Wallet Case, Galaxy S7 EMF Radiation Shield – SlimFlip Case, Galaxy S6/S6 Edge EMF Radiation Shield – SlimFlip Case, iPhone 5/5S/SE Case -Wallet
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.)
But there’s a huge public health crisis looming from one particular threat: EMR from cellular phones—both the radiation from the handsets and from the tower-based antennas carrying the signals—which studies have linked to development of brain tumors, genetic damage, and other exposure-related conditions.1-9 Yet the government and a well-funded cell phone industry media machine continue to mislead the unwary public about the dangers of a product used by billions of people. Most recently, a Danish epidemiological study announced to great fanfare the inaccurate conclusion that cell phone use is completely safe.10

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).
A few other health concerns have been raised about cell phone use. One has been whether the RF waves from cell phones might interfere with medical devices such as heart pacemakers. According to the FDA, cell phones should not pose a major risk for the vast majority of pacemaker wearers. Still, people with pacemakers may want to take some simple precautions to help ensure that their cell phones don’t cause a problem, such as not putting the phone in a shirt pocket close to the pacemaker.
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.
×