There are ongoing worries about whether cellphones can give you cancer — especially brain cancer, since our phones spend so much time near our faces. It’s true that cell phones do emit radiation. But it’s radiofrequency radiation, which is much lower energy than the ionizing radiation you’d get from an X-ray, or, say, nuclear fallout. Ionizing radiation can cause DNA damage that can eventually lead to cancer. But the radiofrequency radiation from a cellphone doesn’t work that way — and today’s results support that.
✅ STOP CRIPPLING YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM: Radiation waves have been shown to attack the human immune system, lowering our defences and making us prone to diseases and ailments. The special combination of crystals and minerals used in our EMF protection cell phone radiation shield will restore balance and increase the body’s defense against harmful radiation.
A 2012 study by NCI researchers (25) compared observed glioma incidence rates in U.S. SEER data with rates simulated from the small risks reported in the Interphone study (6) and the greatly increased risk of brain cancer among cell phone users reported in the Swedish pooled analysis (19). The authors concluded that overall, the incidence rates of glioma in the United States did not increase over the study period. They noted that the US rates could be consistent with the small increased risk seen among the subset of heaviest users in the Interphone study. The observed incidence trends were inconsistent with the high risks reported in the Swedish pooled study. These findings suggest that the increased risks observed in the Swedish study are not reflected in U.S. incidence trends.
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:
Wherever you come out on the cellphone and cancer question, one thing is clear: How we live with cellphones, along with our exposure to the radiation they emit, has changed dramatically over the past several decades. That has policy implications; it’s something regulators, researchers, and cellphone companies need to pay attention to. In that context, a few things should happen:
The average radiation level of a Bluetooth earpiece is 0.23 watts per kilogram (W/Kg) according to RF Safe. This is 10 to 100 times higher than the amount of radio frequency (RF) exposure needed to create “leaks” in the blood-brain barrier, allowing for toxins (not to mention the radiation itself!) to pass through into the brain. It’s best to just say NO to Bluetooth!
Because of inconsistent findings from epidemiologic studies in humans and the lack of clear data from previous experimental studies in animals, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration nominated radiofrequency radiation exposure associated with cell phone exposures for study in animal models by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency program that coordinates toxicology research and testing across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of NIH.
While driving, it is best to talk as little as possible on the mobile phone, and in any event, follow regulation 28(b) of the traffic regulations. This regulation stipulates that: “While a vehicle is in motion, the driver of the vehicle will not hold a stationary or mobile phone, and will not use then in the vehicle unless when using a speakerphone; and will not send or read a text message (SMS)”.
Instead, we have to rely on “observational” data, tracking people’s real-world cellphone use and their disease incidence. Studies using observational data tend to be weaker, messier, and less clear-cut than experimental studies like RCTs. They can only tell us about associations between phenomena, not whether one thing caused another to happen. So that opens up a lot of the ambiguity we’re going to delve into next.
I recently had a tumor removed from my abdomen that was stage 1 cancer. I was shocked considering my lifestyle is very clean – organic, vegetarian, active, live on acreage in semi-countryside, happy, stress free, etc….I immediately realized where it came from. It was right where I would set my iPAD in my lap when I am not at a table. There is no way to know for certain, but it is the only thing that makes sense.
Rats were exposed to radiation with a frequency of 900 megahertz, typical of the cellphones in use when the study was conceived in the 90s, for about nine hours per day for two years, The New York Times reports. The lowest levels of radiation used in the study were equivalent to the maximum exposure a phone can cause and still receive federal regulatory approval; the highest levels to which the animals were exposed were four times that.
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.
It also means regulators need to make sure their policies reflect new levels of exposure. The Federal Communications Commission currently oversees cellphone safety and sets the limits for how much radiation people should be exposed to. (This is measured by the specific absorption rate — the rate at which the body absorbs radio frequency energy — and the current limit for cellphones is 1.6 watts of energy per kilogram of tissue. The whole-body threshold is a SAR value of 0.08 watts per kilogram, and the tower radiation limit is 10 watts per square meter.)
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.
I love this case. However, I don't understand what happens to the radiation that must collect under the case; isn't there a burst of radiation when the case is opened? I posted this question but the answers were from people who hadn't thought of that issue; they didn't have the answer, except for one who theorized that the radiation is slowly leaking out the top, bottom, and sides. I assume the case keeps radiation off the hand that holds the case with the phone in it, which is great, but I do wonder about the stored radiation when, for example, I'm listening to a podcast with the case closed, then open it later.
SAR LEVELS ARE very deceptive when it comes to health hazards! The Pong case is taking advantage of the fact that current safety regulatory guidelines provide no non-thermal assurances of safety what so ever! Other-words Pong is using inadequate safety standards to prove the legitimacy of the Pong cell phone case – Citing official documents being reviewed by the FCC’s “Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radio-frequency Exposure Limits and Policies” (Proceeding Number 13-84), as it turns out, the level SAR rating of your phone is almost irrelevant, as it doesn’t consider health effects from non-thermal levels of radiation exposure at all.
An analysis of data from all 13 countries participating in the Interphone study reported a statistically significant association between intracranial distribution of tumors within the brain and self-reported location of the phone (7). However, the authors of this study noted that it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about cause and effect based on their findings.