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.”
Some scientists have reported that the RF waves from cell phones produce effects in human cells (in lab dishes) that might possibly help tumors grow. However, several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion.

Don’t rely on a “radiation shield” or other products claiming to block RF energy, electromagnetic fields, or radiation from cell phones. According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, products that interfere with the phone’s signal may force it to work harder and emit more RF energy in order to stay connected, possibly increasing your exposure. It is best to use wired solutions to reduce RF rather than rely on an untested  product.
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.
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.

This was the best vegan EMR-blocking phone case .... I need to carry two IDs and four cards plus cash.. This was too much, so it started to split within months. Eventually it split to the point where my cards would all fall out if I tipped it the wrong way, so I had to put a rubber band on it. After that, the part that holds the phone started to slip so I have to jam it up before I can take a picture. And the case is looking worn. The upshot is that it lasted about a year. That's fine, I guess, but I would prefer something more durable.
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.
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.
“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.”
There’s a broad range of radiation types, and lots of harmless things emit radiation — like bananas, Brazil nuts, and granite countertops, according to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. The type of radiation that comes out of our cellphones isn’t the same radiation that’s released by nuclear fallout or X-rays. Cellphone radiation, also known as radiofrequency radiation, is much weaker — so it can’t cause the same kind of cell damage that can lead to cancer.
This substantially changes the debate on whether cell phone use is a cancer risk. Up until this point, the federal government and cell phone manufacturers operated on the assumption that cell phones cannot by their very nature cause cancer, because they emit non-ionizing radiation. Whereas ionizing radiation—the kind associated with x-rays, CT scans, and nuclear power plants, among others—definitely causes cancer at high enough doses, non-ionizing radiation was believed to not emit enough energy to break chemical bonds. That meant it couldn’t damage DNA, and therefore couldn’t lead to mutations that cause cancer.
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.
To be fair I haven’t tried every single one on the list, but that just be careful in investing your sense of security, let alone good health, in a misplaced sense of something working just because someone says it does and they have “studies” to prove it. Every single company now claims “independently scientific studies” where as this is just usually falsified information and a marketing tactic.

Yes, the information transferred between the base unit (the phone’s stationary unit) and the wireless phone’s mobile unit is transferred as radiowave radiation. Therefore, the “precautionary principle” should also be adopted regarding wireless phones. In addition to the guidelines regarding mobile phones, the Ministry of Health recommends regarding wireless phones:


*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.

First, you must have a proper meter. To check for magnetic field emissions, an AC Gaussmeter will work. Most AC gaussmeters will have an internal probe. Simply position the gaussmeter on the phone. Note carefully where the meter is positioned. Make a call and watch the readings. Notice the highest and lowest readings, and make a mental note of the "average" reading. Now, insert the magnetic shield, and repeat.


“One thing all these conditions have in common is a disruption, to varying degrees, of intercellular communication. When we were growing up, TV antennas were on top of our houses and such waves were up in the sky. Cell phones and Wi-Fi have brought those things down to the street, integrated them into the environment, and that’s absolutely new. The recognition mechanism, where protein vibration sensors on the cell membrane pick up a signal and interpret it as an invader, only works because the body recognizes something it’s never seen before.”
There’s no question that portable phones and computers offer many conveniences and have made our lives easier in countless ways. For many people this convenience outweighs the worry of EMFs. My hope is that by becoming aware of the sources and dangers of cell phone radiation and EMFs, you’ll take steps to minimize exposure for both you and your family.

However, there have been some studies that have shown that rats can develop a specific type of brain tumor, called a schwannoma, if they're subjected to prolonged radiofrequency radiation. These studies examined thousands of rats and mice, and exposed them to a variety of radiations — everything from "near-field" (which is what you get holding a phone to your ear) to "far-field" (which is what you get walking through everyone's Wi-Fi signals at Starbucks).

Dr. Carlo, wrote a  Medical Alert ten years ago. He cautioned people with EMF sensitivity against relying upon widely-available EMR Protection Products to prevent the effects of EMF exposure. He noted that EMF sensitive individuals were reporting the opposite effect: people found their symptoms and/or sensitivity worsened. Specifically, severe “symptom relapses.” Dr. Carlo noted:
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.
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.

In addition, the findings might be influenced by the fact that the study subjects owned cell phones that were in some cases manufactured two decades ago. The way we use cell phones and the networks they’re operated on have also changed since then. Last, cancer can develop slowly over decades, yet the studies have analyzed data over only about a five- to 20-year span.
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.”
Homeopathic remedies, credit cards and passports with chips, and electronic equipment can all be compromised by exposure to electromagnetic fields. The EMP Can™ is a great air-tight way to store these items and protect them from outside EMF influences including low grade EMP. Shields both radiofrequency and magnetic fields by 95% or more. All metal construction, nice wide mouth and quick-close latch keep contents secure.

The peer reviewers did have some quibbles with the study; some wished it could have lasted longer (the rodents were exposed to radiation for two years) to catch later-developing tumors, for example, but others on the panel noted that the longer a rodent lives, the more likely it is to develop tumors regardless of radiation, making it harder to find the signal in the noise. Others wanted the researchers to have dissected the rodent brains more than they did, to seek hard-to-find tumors. But they noted that science is an iterative process; the study wasn’t perfect, but it’s better than anything that’s been done so far.


And even with these unusually high levels of exposure, the links to cancer were still “mostly equivocal, or ambiguous,” according to the FDA’s statement. In fact, the rats exposed to cell phone radiation actually appeared to live longer than the ones that weren’t, a finding that the FDA’s Shuren says the agency is assessing. The difference could simply be the result of chance, STAT News reports.
This is why it’s important to always use either your phone’s speakerphone or an appropriate wired earpiece whenever possible, avoiding direct contact between your phone and your ear or hand. The best earpieces are those equipped with hollow tubing between the antenna in the wire and the earpiece, as these help maximize the distance between the radiation-emitting antenna and your head.
A series of studies testing different scenarios (called simulations by the study authors) were carried out using incidence data from the Nordic countries to determine the likelihood of detecting various levels of risk as reported in studies of cell phone use and brain tumors between 1979 and 2008. The results were compatible with no increased risks from cell phones, as reported by most epidemiologic studies. The findings did suggest that the increase reported among the subset of heaviest regular users in the Interphone study could not be ruled out but was unlikely. The highly increased risks reported in the Swedish pooled analysis were strongly inconsistent with the observed glioma rates in the Nordic countries (24).
×