Many respected scientists join them. “We found no evidence of an increased risk of brain tumors or any other form of cancer” from cell-phone radiation, says John Boice Jr., Sc.D., president of the National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements and a professor of medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn. “The worry should instead be in talking or texting with your cell phone while driving.”
We tested a variety of cellphone cases and garment shielding products including the Safe Sleeve, Defender Shield, RF Safe cellphone “flip” cases, and the Pong cellphone case which does not have a cover over of the face of the phone. We also tested the Belly Armor blanket, nursing cover and boxers as well as an anti-radiation tank top sold by OurSure on Amazon.
I can’t count how many times I’ve heard people speculate, joke, or jokingly speculate that their cellphone might be giving them cancer. It comes from a very reasonable place of discomfort — few people understand how radiation works, we put our phones right beside our brains all the time, and technology in general often feels like it ought to be causing some sort of societal ill.
Finally, Brawley reminded me that cellphones kill humans in another way that we’re already certain about: because of inattention through distracted driving. In the US alone, there were 3,157 fatal crashes in 2016 that involved distracted driving, 14 percent of which included cellphone use, according to the latest data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That’s not the focus of this piece, but perhaps state and federal regulators could follow places like Washington state, California, New York, and Nevada and heavily crack down on distracted driving with bans or stricter laws.
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.
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.
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?
That’s why randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often yield fairly clear answers about the effectiveness of treatments compared to other study designs. (Fun fact: Scottish doctor James Lind, a clinical trial pioneer, figured out that citrus fruits seemed to have an effect on scurvy using one of the earliest RCTs.) RCTs can also be used to study whether something, like cellphone radiation, can cause disease.
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.
Another thing that many people fail to realize is that EMF-emitting devices such as laptop computers are exceptionally more harmful when plugged in as opposed to when they’re operating on battery power alone. Tests have shown that working on a laptop that’s plugged in can result in up to 100 times more radiation exposure than using one that’s operating on battery power.
These cases work by redirecting the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) that is produced by phones, away from the user. All phones produce EMR when connected to the mobile network, and the effect of this energy is measured as a Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR: a measurement describing the radiation absorbed by kilogram of tissue. Government regulations in Australia dictate that all phones in Australia must emit a SAR less than 2 W/kg under the worst case scenario, and while all phones comply, most modern phones emit, at most, only half of this safe level, or approximately 1 W/kg.
In conclusion: It is still unclear whether use of cellular technology is associated with an increased risk to develop malignant and benign tumors, but taking into account the results of recent studies, the Ministry of Health adopts the precautionary principle and follows the recommendations listed in the “Ministry of Health Recommendations” (below).
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.
But the 5G signals are weaker at traveling long distances, and weaker signals mean we need more antennas to amplify, or strengthen, the 5G network. According to the New York Times, “Instead of relying on large towers placed far apart, the new signals will come from smaller equipment placed an average of 500 feet apart in neighborhoods and business districts.” They’ll also emit a different kind of higher-frequency radio waves, known as millimeter waves.
Manufacturers conduct government-required certification tests using a bare phone, set to transmit at maximum power, with no accessories. The recorded maximum SAR is reported to the FCC and listed in the phone’s manual. A phone tested with accessories under the same conditions can produce a higher SAR because the materials surrounding the antenna can affect the amount of radiation that reaches and is absorbed by the user’s body. A case can influence both the overall amount of emitted radiation and how it is directed.
Mobile or cell phones are now a days an integral part of modern telecommunications in every individual life. In many countries, over half of the population use mobile phones and the mobile phone market is growing rapidly. Saudi Arabia rank first among the countries of the gulf region with highest proportion of mobile users, a study conducted by United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). In gulf countries, Oman ranked second, followed by Kuwait and the UAE. As billions of people use mobile phones globally, a small increase in the incidence of adverse effects on health could have major public health implications on long term basis. Besides the number of cell phone calls per day, the length of each call and the amount of time people use cell phones are important factors which enhance the health related risk. (1)
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.
The authors of these studies noted that the results were preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism in humans were unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in people (4). Some factors that can contribute to inconsistencies across such studies include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.