In March, however, a peer-review panel of 11 experts from industry and academia voted to advise the agency that it should raise the confidence level from “equivocal evidence” to “some evidence” of a link between cellphone radiation and brain tumors in male rats. (The female rats did not show evidence of a link between the radiation and such tumors.) Two panel members, Lydia Andrews-Jones of Allergan and Susan Felter of Procter & Gamble, proposed the risk upgrade.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, appointed an expert Working Group to review all available evidence on the use of cell phones. The Working Group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency radiation and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent evidence from mechanistic studies (4).
The effect of mobile phone radiation on human health is a subject of interest and study worldwide, as a result of the enormous increase in mobile phone usage throughout the world. As of 2015, there were 7.4 billion subscriptions worldwide, though the actual number of users is lower as many users own more than one mobile phone.[1] Mobile phones use electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range (450–3800 MHz and 24-80GHz in 5G mobile). Other digital wireless systems, such as data communication networks, produce similar radiation.
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.
To find out about the state of research on the link between phones and cancer, we spoke with Jonathan Samet, dean of the Colorado School of Public Health and an expert in phone radiation who led a World Health Organization working group on the subject. In 2011, the WHO group deemed phone radiation “possibly carcinogenic,” which is less certain than other classifications, but isn’t an outright “no” either. Six years later, Samet said the evidence in either direction is still mixed and that for the time being, there remains “some indication” of risk.

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").
I received mine yesterday in the mail. I have a Samsung Galaxy Note 3, and I cannot use this sock unless I take the case off. This is one thing I did not know when I was purchasing this material. I am trying it out as stated, however even when I use a rubber case or a very thin case with the sock its very tight to get off. I think the manufacturer needs to allow more room in these and or not state that it fits the larger phones at 6 inch. They should state that without the case it will fit. I am in the first day of walking around without a case, and just the sleeve. Its different, and if I drop my phone I'm in a world of hurt. I like the idea of this, but I was also surprised when the material really only feels like felt. It's not like the RF fabric that I have seen, and hopefully this is some kind of special blocking material as stated. I do like the idea, and I agree that cell phone radiation exist. Ill come back and give five stars if I really notice a difference, however if I drop my phone because I dont have a case I'm going to be posting less stars.
Did you watch any of the videos? A healthy amount of skepticism is appropriate but be careful about just being a Debbie Downer. Admittedly, you haven’t tried all the products and probably aren’t even familiar with them yet quickly offer blanket assessments that it’s all marketing hype perpetuated by an evil Monopoly-man looking guy who just wants to take your money and snicker about what a sucker you are. Good luck with that.
Generally, the Ministry of Health adopts the instructions of most international entities, recommending to follow the “precautionary principle” regarding mobile phone use. The instructions of the Ministry take into account the technological need of the population in Israel, along with the measure of precaution necessary according to the recent scientific information in order to balance between the population’s needs and the preservation of its health.
Finally, the measurement of cell phone use in most studies has been crude. Most have been case-control studies, which have relied on people’s memories about their past cell phone use. In these types of studies, it can be hard to interpret any possible link between cancer and an exposure. People with cancer are often looking for a possible reason for it, so they may sometimes (even subconsciously) recall their phone usage differently than people without cancer.
Several studies have investigated the other health effects (other than cancer) of mobile phone usage on human health. Hypotheses connecting mobile phone use to effects such as headaches, fatigue, sleep disorders, memory, vision or hearing impairment, have not been proven in established studies. A connection with reduced fertility has also not been scientifically proven.
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.”
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.
The use of "hands-free" was not recommended by the British Consumers' Association in a statement in November 2000, as they believed that exposure was increased.[41] However, measurements for the (then) UK Department of Trade and Industry[42] and others for the French Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale [fr][43] showed substantial reductions. In 2005, Professor Lawrie Challis and others said clipping a ferrite bead onto hands-free kits stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head.[44]
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.
So, what do these results in rodents mean for people? Not a whole lot, experts say. “Even with frequent daily use by the vast majority of adults, we have not seen an increase in events like brain tumors,” the FDA’s statement says. Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society’s chief medical officer, agreed in an interview with The Associated Press. “The evidence for an association between cellphones and cancer is weak, and so far, we have not seen a higher cancer risk in people,” Brawley told the AP in a phone interview. “I am actually holding my cellphone up to my ear.”
Taken together, the findings “confirm that RF radiation exposure has biological effects” in rats, some of them “relevant to carcinogenesis,” says Jon Samet, a professor of preventive medicine and dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, who did not participate in either study. Samet, however, cautioned the jury is still out as to whether wireless technology is similarly risky to people. Indeed, heart schwannomas are exceedingly rare in humans; only a handful of cases have ever been documented in the medical literature.
Also noteworthy is that the studies evaluated radiation exposures in different ways. The NTP looked at “near-field” exposures, which approximate how people are dosed while using cell phones. Ramazzini researchers looked at “far-field” exposures, which approximate the wireless RF radiation that bombards us from sources all around us, including wireless devices such as tablet and laptop computers. Yet they generated comparable results: Male rats in both studies (but not mice or female animals) developed schwannomas of the heart at statistically higher rates than control animals that were not exposed.
RadiArmor’s anti-radiation material blocks over 99% of EMF radiation. However, since covering your entire phone with this material would result in no reception, only the front cover is lined with this material. This still provides an effective EMF reduction of 91% with no loss in reception. The front cover has a hole for sound to pass through so that you can close the case and talk at the same time.
Okay, so Antenna Search isn't really a device but it is a handy service that will tell you how close you are to cellular towers. I punched in my address and found there are SEVENTY-TWO cellular towers and antennas within a 4 mile radius. It lists all the details for each tower – owner, coordinates, installation date, etc. It's a really useful tool for finding out the surrounding risks.
The dangers of driving and texting are old news; if someone were to be harmed by their cellphone’s radiation, though, that would make headlines because novelty grabs people’s attention. In psychological experiments where people have to choose images, they gravitate towards ones they haven’t seen before — a phenomenon known as the novelty bonus. So if I wanted to grab a reader’s attention, I’d bet on a hypothetical headline that said “For the first time, cellphone radiation causes brain cancer in humans” over “Another person has died today from driving and texting.”
Overall, the reviews of case-control studies seem to suggest there is perhaps no risk of cancer with cellphone use — unless you look at some subgroups (like people in blinded studies or people with long-term exposures). But these reviews are based on case-control studies — which are like the National Enquirer of the science world: cheap and often misleading.
That mystery probably stokes fears about cellphone radiation instead of soothing them, though — in part because of how we in the media cover the rare and frightening. We’ve seen the same thing with fear over nuclear power plants, according to a paper published in Science in the 1980s by psychologist Paul Slovic. “Because nuclear risks are perceived as unknown and potentially catastrophic, even small accidents will be highly publicized and may produce large ripple effects,” Slovic wrote.
For instance, our tests found that same case in the same location blocked more RF on a Verizon iPhone than it did on an AT&T iPhone. Neuert and other independent EMF experts tell us that was likely due to our proximity to the nearest respective cellphone towers. In a different location, or even facing a different direction, we may have seen different results.
Also noteworthy is that the studies evaluated radiation exposures in different ways. The NTP looked at “near-field” exposures, which approximate how people are dosed while using cell phones. Ramazzini researchers looked at “far-field” exposures, which approximate the wireless RF radiation that bombards us from sources all around us, including wireless devices such as tablet and laptop computers. Yet they generated comparable results: Male rats in both studies (but not mice or female animals) developed schwannomas of the heart at statistically higher rates than control animals that were not exposed.

Over time, the number of cell phone calls per day, the length of each call, and the amount of time people use cell phones have increased. Because of changes in cell phone technology and increases in the number of base stations for transmitting wireless signals, the exposure from cell phone use—power output—has changed, mostly lowered, in many regions of the United States (1).
×