Pong Research also makes cases for the iPad and its technology is arguably better suited for that. Why? Because serving as a stand to prop up your iPad or tablet, it means you don’t really need to hold it. That’s an ideal setup because higher amounts of radiation are going out the back, versus the front of the screen which you are touching with your fingers and palms.
Just why Schwann and glial cells appear to be targets of cell phone radiation is not clear. David Carpenter, a physician who directs the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, S.U.N.Y., explained the purpose of these cells is to insulate nerve fibers throughout the body. These are electrical systems, so that may be some sort of factor, he wrote in an e-mail. “But this is only speculation.”
One of the many advantages of TI22 is that after applying TI22 to your device it will have an invisible layer that will protect your device from harmful EMF radiation scratches and scuffs for up to one year. This layer reaches the full hardness of 9H on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, which is a scale that characterizes scratch resistance, and is similar to Sapphire, Ruby or Corundum. Its almost as hard as a Diamond.
The research continued, and what it uncovered would be a dire warning to cell phone users and the industry’s worst nightmare. When the findings were ready for release in 1998, the scientists were suddenly confronted with another challenge: the industry wanted to take over public dissemination of the information, and it tried everything it could to do so. It was faced with disaster and had a lot to lose.
So, what types of RF are these cases intended to block? If they block the frequency being used by the phone than if the blocking is complete the phone won’t work. If it’s partial than, as noted by the FCC and related in the article, the phone may attempt to compensate for the weakened signal by increasing it’s signal strength, thereby emitting higher levels of radiation itself, and reducing battery life in the process.

Our homemade demonstration of all the cases uses a working phone. Not the shielding material by itself, but the actual "shielding" SafeSleeve, Pong, Reach,  Vest, ShieldMe, and Defender Shield cases. First we get RF power density measurements from a phone that's on a call and then, in the same location, within minutes of the first reading, we place the same phone as it's engaged in a call into each case and we take additional reading with the meter.
Until the FCC establishes testing procedures that fully correspond to real-world cell phone use and reviews its radiation standards to ensure that they are fully protective for all users, including young children, EWG advises phone users to adopt these simple measures to minimize radiation exposure: Use a headset, keep the phone away from the body and text rather than talk.  
RF waves from cell phones have also been shown to produce “stress” proteins in human cells, according to research from Martin Blank, Ph.D., a special lecturer in the department of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University and another signer of the recent letter to the WHO and U.N. “These proteins are used for protection,” Blank says. “The cell is saying that RF is bad for me and it has to do something about it.”
So, you've read the numerous studies about the potentially harmful health effects of cell phone radiation and you are ready to something about it. Of course, you can use your phone sparingly and put it in airplane mode when possible, use a wired headset or speakerphone when on calls, and never store it in your pocket. However, is that realistic? How about for your kids? In today's world, with our increasing dependence on our cell phones, probably not!
Although recall bias is minimized in studies such as COSMOS that link participants to their cell phone records, such studies face other problems. For example, it is impossible to know who is using the listed cell phone or whether that individual also places calls using other cell phones. To a lesser extent, it is not clear whether multiple users of a single phone, for example family members who may share a device, will be represented on a single phone company account. Additionally, for many long-term cohort studies, participation tends to decline over time.
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)”.

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.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) released a fact sheet about these issues, shortly after the IARC re-classification, entitled "Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones". The fact sheet points to the findings of the IARC and describes some of the known short-term and long-term effects of phone use, but ultimately, it lands on the side of where the most conclusive evidence exists:
As a result, stories about a single nuclear meltdown or possible link between cellphone radiation and cancer will be amplified much more than news about the nine people who probably died today in the US from distracted driving. “This possible health effect from radiation is pretty esoteric at this point. If there is anything there, it seems to me like it’s going to be very, very small,” says Kenneth R. Foster, a bioengineering professor at the University of Pennsylvania who has been investigating whether there are biological effects from radio waves since the 1970s. “Driving and texting, people get killed doing that — but it’s not a very exciting risk to worry about.”

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.

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.

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]
Independently tested DefenderShield technology uses a patent-pending sophisticated layering of separate non-toxic, human safe materials processed for maximum radiation blocking efficiency. Each material has unique and targeted radiation shielding characteristics designed to work in unison to up to eliminate all radiation emissions from 0 to 10 GHz.

Just why Schwann and glial cells appear to be targets of cell phone radiation is not clear. David Carpenter, a physician who directs the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, S.U.N.Y., explained the purpose of these cells is to insulate nerve fibers throughout the body. These are electrical systems, so that may be some sort of factor, he wrote in an e-mail. “But this is only speculation.”
Could you please provide me with evidence that non-ionizing radiation is damaging to humans? In another post illustrating the threats of non-ionizing radiation you have said that this radiation is damaging to children, and link an article by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. However, this linked page contains no mention of non-ionizing radiation, and instead suggests that children are simply addicted to use of mobile phones, thus using them instead of sleeping. You also provided a link to a PubChem page on the negative effects of this radiation, but this page appears to no longer exist.
So you decided you are going to use your cell phone in your car, despite all the warnings. But you have the good sense to keep it away from your head and body! This handy mount can securely hold your phone, iPod, MP3 player or GPS unit with confidence as your drive. Allows easy access and a clear view. Can be used by anyone in the car: driver, passenger, or even in the back seat. Plugs securely into a cup holder and is fully adjustable to any position. Cradle adjusts and can securely accommodate devices up 3.5 inches wide. Completely hands free. Can also be used on boats, recliners or anywhere a cup holder is waiting. You can even do his’n’hers!
The main difference between our product and other radiation shields available on the internet is simple. OUR PRODUCT WORKS. We are the only cell phone radiation shield that provides full testing on our product by a leading SAR testing lab, IMST which tested the cell phones in the now famous ABC News 20/20 report, and publish these SAR Shield radiation tests on our website for everyone to scrutinize. In 2002 the US government tested various shields, and found that many did not work. The FTC then sued several makers of radiation blockers including, Wave Scrambler, Safety Cell and SafeTshield. This action was taken after Good Housekeeping Institute found that 5 shields did not reduce the radiation they claimed, these five shields were Wave Scrambler by Rhino International, Radiation Free Shield, Wave Shield by Interact Communications, Safe-T-Shield by SV1 Inc, and Safety Caps by Safety Cell. It is easy to say a product reduces radiation, but why don’t our “competitors” publish these results so we can actually see the claims they make are real?

The device comes in a variety of forms ranging from the $39 Aries Shield ("a silicon based micro processor that ... decomposes oscillations of electromagnetic fields") to the $249 Aires Defender Utility (which "has two next generation 9 core silicon based micro processor (sic) that provide universal protection from electromagnetic smog of the broadband frequencies").
Could you please provide me with evidence that non-ionizing radiation is damaging to humans? In another post illustrating the threats of non-ionizing radiation you have said that this radiation is damaging to children, and link an article by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. However, this linked page contains no mention of non-ionizing radiation, and instead suggests that children are simply addicted to use of mobile phones, thus using them instead of sleeping. You also provided a link to a PubChem page on the negative effects of this radiation, but this page appears to no longer exist.
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.
×