But this study also has some drawbacks. First, it is based only on whether or not people had a cell phone subscription at the time. It didn’t measure how often these people used their phones (if at all), or if people who didn’t have a subscription used someone else’s phone. There are also limits as to how well this study might apply to people using cell phones today. For example, while the cell phones used at the time of the study tended to require more power than modern cell phones, people also probably used the phones quite a bit less than people use their phones today.

Jump up ^ Repacholi MH, Lerchl A, Röösli M, Sienkiewicz Z, Auvinen A, Breckenkamp J, d'Inzeo G, Elliott P, Frei P, Heinrich S, Lagroye I, Lahkola A, McCormick DL, Thomas S, Vecchia P (2012). "Systematic review of wireless phone use and brain cancer and other head tumors". Bioelectromagnetics (Systematic review). 33 (3): 187–206. doi:10.1002/bem.20716. PMID 22021071.

INTEGRITY: Many manufactures claim near 100% EMF protection, referring to the radiation blocking material, NOT the protection you receive on a call. If you covered your whole phone with EMF blocking material, then you'd have no signal. Our EMF blocking material is used on the front cover only, providing you real EMF protection with no sacrifice in reception.


Initially leaked in 2016, results from that $25-million study provided the most compelling evidence yet that RF energy may be linked to cancer in lab rodents. The strongest finding connected RF with heart schwannomas in male rats, but the researchers also reported elevated rates of lymphoma as well as cancers affecting the prostate, skin, lung, liver and brain in the exposed animals. Rates for those cancers increased as the doses got higher but the evidence linking them with cell phone radiation specifically was weak by comparison, and the researchers could not rule out that they might have increased for reasons other than RF exposure. Paradoxically, the radiation-treated animals also lived longer than the nonexposed controls. The study results were reviewed by a panel of outside experts during a three-day meeting that ended on March 28. They concluded there was "clear evidence" linking RF radiation with heart schwannomas and "some evidence" linking it to gliomas of the brain. It is now up to the NTP to either accept or reject the reviewer's conclusions. A final report is expected within several months.
I hope anyone with a damaged RF safe accessory takes the time to call the phone number on the top of RF Safe’s website. The hard plastic cases in six colors with flip covers shielded by hand at RF safe are part of each cases product lifecycle – the case shown in review is a well-tested 1st gen case. Hard plastic case with shielding applied by hand.

The phone is placed in various positions on the head and body, including held to both ears, and all measurements are taken and reported to the FCC when the manufacturer is seeking approval. However, it should be noted that only the very highest SAR values for each type of radiation are included in final consideration for compliance with the FCC’s guidelines.
Researchers need funding to move fast to study the potential health effects of 5G networks and how they might change our exposures to radiation. “So far, we’ve got research that’s done on 3G and 4G but not 5G,” said Brawley of the American Cancer Society. “We do think the answers [about cell radiation’s cancer effects] for 5G may be different from the answers for 4G or 3G. ... As these types of radio waves and energy change over time, the answers [about their health effects] may change.”

But scientists disagree on how real—or how serious—these risks really are, and studies have not established any definitive links between health problems and radiofrequency (RF) energy, the type of radiation emitted by cell phones. “This document is intended to provide guidance for people who want to reduce their own and their families’ exposure to RF energy from cell phones,” the guidelines state, “despite this uncertainty.”
Phone radiation isn’t like the radiation from, say, a nuclear meltdown. That’s what’s known as “ionizing” radiation — it’s high energy and capable of damaging your DNA, which researchers have determined leads to cancer. Phones emit a much lower energy radiation (lower even than visible light) that’s considered to be “non-ionizing.” We know non-ionizing radiation doesn’t damage DNA the way that ionizing radiation does. But the question remains whether it could still react with the body in some other way that might lead to problems from longterm exposure.
But scientists disagree on how real—or how serious—these risks really are, and studies have not established any definitive links between health problems and radiofrequency (RF) energy, the type of radiation emitted by cell phones. “This document is intended to provide guidance for people who want to reduce their own and their families’ exposure to RF energy from cell phones,” the guidelines state, “despite this uncertainty.”
Cables can act as an antenna, especially if they pass close to a strong source of radiofrequency radiation. One study has suggested that if the cable of a hands free mic passes near the phone's antenna, it can pick up some radiation and transmit it to your ear. Our ferrite snap bead is designed to reduce RF radiation in the cable. Made in 2 halves, you simply press it around the hands free wire at any convenient location near the earpiece end. Couldn't be simpler. It is small and lightweight enough to be almost unnoticable, yet powerful enough (50 ohm impedence minimum) to control nasty radiation. These are brand new, top quality and will accommodate wires up to 5 mm (3/16 inch) in diameter. About 1 inch long, grey color. If you are concerned about radiation from your hands free ear mic, this is the answer. Useful from 200-1000 MHz.
Single studies have alternately suggested cellphones are driving up cancer rates and that they pose no health threat at all. In 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the devices are a “Class 2B carcinogen,” meaning they possibly can cause cancer in humans — but that’s also a distinction they share with pickles, aloe vera, and being a carpenter.
Well, either the sleeve blocks 99.9% of all emissions or it doesn’t. The point is, anything less than what the company is advertising constitutes FRAUD. If they had said a 50% reduction would be seen, then the RF meter should have reflected that. Methinks that this company is duping a lot of customers. While the product ‘looks’ good, my experience was that it made NO difference at all. In fact, it was worse having this case and the notion of false security. I ended up getting horrific migraines right after I started using it. I was falsely confident that I was being protected. Perhaps part of the case blocked the signal which forced the phone to work that much harder, therefore nullifying any benefit. Please note, consumers. I would not recommend SafeSleeve based on my experience.
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.
Since speaking with Samet, further details came out from a large study that beamed high levels of phone radiation at rats and mice. While there remain quirks in the findings, the latest evidence still doesn’t find a link between phone radiation and cancer. In response, the FDA said, “Taken together, all of this research ... [has] given us the confidence that the current safety limits for cell phone radiation remain acceptable for protecting the public health.”

I really want to caution you to be careful of any "expert" or EMF blogger recommending anti-radiation filtering cases, stickers that attach to the phone or necklaces to "ward off" EMF.  I get it, when I first realized 25 years ago that I was sensitive to electromagnetic energy and then later, when I understood that without a doubt, man made electromagnetic radiation has a biological effect on my body, I wanted an easy fix.  I tried the shielding materials and cases and I just did not feel any better.  Then I bought meters to see if the energy changed and I actually noticed what the California Department of Health now says and it's what the FTC and FCC post warnings about:  "Some shielding materials can make exposures worse". So please, be careful and read on for what you can do to avoid electromagnetic radiation exposure.
2. Our products are designed to provide an anti-radiation barrier between the device and the body. This way, the devices are still usable and able to send and receive signal out of the non-shielded side while shielding the EMF away from the body. Because of this, you will only see a reduction in EMF levels on the shielded side of the device. The test you have conducted shows the highest levels from anywhere around the device.
Though some findings were reassuring, others do raise concerns. Specifically, three of the studies—one from Sweden, another from France, and a third that combined data from 13 countries—suggest a connection between heavy cell-phone use and gliomas, tumors that are usually cancerous and often deadly. One of those studies also hinted at a link between cell phones and acoustic neuromas (noncancerous tumors), and two studies hinted at meningiomas, a relatively common but usually not deadly brain tumor.
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?
The World Health Organization states that "A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use."[2] In a 2018 statement, the FDA said that "the current safety limits are set to include a 50-fold safety margin from observed effects of radiofrequency energy exposure".[3]

The energy of electromagnetic radiation is determined by its frequency; ionizing radiation is high frequency, and therefore high energy, whereas non-ionizing radiation is low frequency, and therefore low energy. The NCI fact sheet Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer lists sources of radiofrequency radiation. More information about ionizing radiation can be found on the Radiation page.
×