Cell-phone designs have changed a lot since the studies described above were completed. For example, the antennas—where most of the radiation from cell phones is emitted—are no longer located outside of phones near the top, closest to your brain when you talk, but are inside the phone, and they can be toward the bottom. As a result, the antenna may not be held against your head when you’re on the phone. That’s important because when it comes to cell-phone radiation, every millimeter counts: The strength of exposure drops dramatically as the distance from your body increases.
Great article. I learned several things that I will put into use with my electronic technology. Thank you. There are numerous EMF/EMR blockers that you can stick on your cell phones, computers, (even microwave ovens for people who still use these). Each brand I’ve researched has the same goal but they’re all different. Are some brands more effective than others? If you can recommend some good brands, I would appreciate your advice. What are good features to look for when selecting the EMF blockers?
During the years 1996-1999, due to the sharp increase in mobile phone use, several expert committees convened worldwide to discuss the question whether the radiowave radiation that is emitted from the mobile phone is harmful to health. Their conclusion was that existing scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine the existence or absence of harm to health.
A recent large study by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) exposed large groups of lab rats and mice to RF energy over their entire bodies for about 9 hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for up to 2 years (which is the equivalent of about 70 years for humans, according to NTP scientists). The study found an increased risk of tumors called malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats exposed to RF radiation, as well as possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and adrenal glands. But some aspects of this study make it hard to know just how well these results might be applied to cell phone use in people. For example, there was no clear increased risk among female rats or among male or female mice in the study. The doses of RF radiation in the study were also generally higher than those used in cell phones (ranging from 1.5 W/kg to 6 W/kg in rats, and 2.5 W/kg to 10 W/kg in mice), the animals’ entire bodies were exposed, and the amount of time they were exposed was longer than most people typically spend on the phone each day. The male rats in the study exposed to RF waves also lived longer, on average, than the rats who were not exposed, for unclear reasons. Because of this, the NTP has noted that the study results cannot be directly applied to humans. Still, the results add to the evidence that cell phone signals might potentially impact human health.
But the results of these two rat studies align with those of the biggest cell phone-radiation human study to date, INTERPHONE. The INTERPHONE study, published in 2011, was a coordinated effort by researchers at 16 institutions across 13 countries, and found that the heaviest mobile phone users were more likely to develop glioma—the same type of brain cancer the NTP study found in the male rats. “So there’s a concordance between the animal and human data,” Melnick says.
Transmitters, including cell phones, emit radio signals on more than the assigned frequency. These other signals on other frequencies are “harmonics” and/or “noise” and/or “dirty” signals from less than optimal transmitters, antennae, and/or resonating frequencies emitted from metallic objects in close proximity to the transmitter, like the other components of the cell phone.
As in the NTP study, Ramazzini investigators detected statistically elevated rates of heart schwannomas in male rats at the highest dose. They also had weaker findings linking RF exposure to cancer of glial cells in the brain, which were limited to females. Ronald Melnick, a retired NTP toxicologist who designed the NTP study, says a measure of consistency between the two studies is important, because “reproducibility in science increases our confidence in the observed results.”
Specific Absorption Rate is an indicator of how much EMF radiation body tissue absorbs when you’re using a cell phone and is one way to measure and compare the harm of different devices. In this article, I wanted to provide a resource to compare and contrast the SAR levels of many popular phones and talk a bit about what Specific Absorption Rate is, and how we can use it.
When the draft results of the papers were published earlier this year, all results were labeled “equivocal,” meaning the study authors felt the data weren’t clear enough to determine if the radiation caused the health effects or not. But the panel of peer reviewers (among them brain and heart pathologists, toxicologists, biostaticians, and engineers) re-evaluated the data and upgraded several of the conclusions to “some evidence” and “clear evidence.”
The bulk of scientific evidence says that cellphone radiation doesn’t harm humans, according to the Food and Drug Administration: our cellphones are much more likely to kill us when we glance down at them while driving. But people are bad at judging risk. And the word “radiation” combined with the fact that we can’t see or control the invisible forces emanating from our cellphones becomes a perfect recipe for fear.
The owner of a damaged case are always encouraged send it in for a replacement and when available a 2nd generation final production case is always sent. As demand increases for a particular color and model — silicon cases are made with RF Safe’s peel-n-shield embedded inside the flip cover. The 2nd Gen cover also includes room for a credit card but this is discouraged because excessive conductive RFID material that pushes the shielding at an angle from a phones surface can compromise shielding effectiveness.
The magnet is not nearly as strong as it should be. If the higher priced value is based on antiradiation technology - with quality control testing - how could they not install a magnet that is strong enough to withstand a drop or at least a smaller magnet on the cardholder side? You have to put the magnet flap in-between the back/front which is very annoying...and we all know the leather is not from Florence.
Stick on anti-radiation protection shields etc are often made of metal which may block signal and prevent reliable mobile phone communications with signal towers. Mobile phones recognise the potential for a dropped signal and actually increase power to compensate. The result is a fast draining battery and an even higher radiation output as a result of using the product (an exception to this are shields that are placed in between the phone and the user as these do not impede signal to cell towers to any significant degree)
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.
As a good thing to keep in mind, there are hundreds of thousands of people suffering from EHS in the world. Some of them live in forests, tents, and anywhere they can get away from society and EMFs because their symptoms are so bad when exposed. I have not heard one single EHS person claim that any of these types of devices work. They sure don’t for me. Most EHS sufferers are so desperate that they have researched and tried just about everything. Getting away from EMFs, or blocking them with material that does actually block them, like as a Faraday cage, is what works. And this is clearly what the scientific evidence shows. If these devices worked, that would be fabulous. One could spend $100 and be well, instead of having their life turned upside down, and in the worst cases as with some, committing suicide due to complete hopelessness and helplessness.. However, that is not the case. To further prove whether they work or not, one could wear one, and measure with a meter designed to measure EMF absorption in the body (they exist now). Has the manufacturer had this done, and is their evidence of it? An EHS person can tell without a meter anyway, but to prove to others, this might be a good idea.