This is a 2 pieces of plastic sandwiched together by glue. Don't believe me? Take it apart. This item works no better than the existing case on your phone. If you are that concerned with cellphone radiation, you should be equally concerned about the cheap plastic and toxic glue that this is comprised of. Also know the fact that they've stolen $25 from your wallet when you purchase this hokey product...Technology at it's finest.
Cell phones work by sending signals to (and receiving them from) nearby cell towers (base stations) using RF waves. This is a form of electromagnetic energy that falls between FM radio waves and microwaves. Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, RF waves are a form of non-ionizing radiation. They don’t have enough energy to cause cancer by directly damaging the DNA inside cells. RF waves are different from stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light, which can break the chemical bonds in DNA.
We began by getting a baseline of ambient RF in the room at the location of our testing. We then recorded a baseline of the cellphone RF while on an active call with no case. And finally, we measured the reduction in that baseline (still on the active call) using a variety of different cases and RF reducing products – all at the same set distance from the phone.
Peer review is a vital part of any scientific study; it brings several more lifetimes of expertise into the room to rigorously check a study for any weak points. Melnick calls the peer reviewers’ choice to change some conclusions an unusual move; “It’s quite uncommon that the peer review panel changes the final determination,” he says, noting if anything, he’s seen peer reviewers downgrade findings, not upgrade them. “Typically when NTP presents their findings, the peer review almost in all cases goes along with that.” In this case, the peer reviewers felt the data—when combined with their knowledge of the cancers and with the study design itself—was significant enough to upgrade several of the findings.
(Some common flaws in these studies: The summaries of the evidence weren’t comprehensive, the researchers often didn’t look at the quality of the studies they found, and they failed to do other simple things that would limit bias from creeping in. They also relied on case-control studies, a poor method to determine causality — more on that soon.) So we didn’t include these eight reviews in our analysis.
SafeSleeve Anti Radiation Case: Safe Sleeve website says they integrate FCC accredited independent lab tested "shielding technology" in their products. There are many links to "SafeSleeve, Is it a Scam?" and "Does SafeSleeve work?" online, but if you follow those links you'll find they go to the actual SafeSleeve site where the question of SafeSleeve protection is addressed.  You'll see in this demonstration that the radiation level was higher with the SafeSleeve Case on.

We couldn't find one legit EMF expert online or anywhere else that would recommend a radiation blocking case or anti-radiation case. Not the Environmental Health Trust or Magda Havas, or Joel Moskowitz, in fact his site, safeEMR cautions against scams and claims for radiation protection.  So if a so-called "EMF expert" is recommending any kind of anti-radiation case, they probably aren't that much of an expert. 

Since use of mobile phones by children began at a later stage compared to use by adults, the effects of exposure to mobile phones in this population have not yet been investigated. Considering their health sensitivity, the long life expectancy in the young population (probably involving the accumulation of significant exposure and development of morbidity in the long-run), and ethical issues involved in decision making regarding the population of minors, additional precaution is required in this population. Therefore, the Ministry of Health advises parents to reduce children’s exposure to mobile phones as much as possible, consider the age they start using them, reduce the amount of time mobile phones are used, and in any event, make sure they use earphones (not wireless) or a speaker when using the mobile phone.
Using a speaker/personal speakerphone or earplug (not wireless) during conversation - distancing the mobile phone from the user’s body reduces his exposure to the radiowave radiation. Therefore, keep the mobile phone at a distance from the body (do not carry it on the body, such as in the belt, pocket or on a neck strap). Obviously, reducing the amount and duration of calls on the mobile phone is another simple measure to reduce exposure.
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!
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.
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.
I don’t understand why only the lab tests are accurate. I just purchases two SafeSleeve cases and tested them myself with the same meter they use on their website in the promotional video. I made sure there were no other electronics nearby and I had the meter at zero without the cell phone next to it. I did not get the results they show in the video. I tested the phone with and without the case and it did not make any difference. The meter was peaking no mater what, with the flap opened or closed. If the meter is picking up radiation through the case, then my head is too. SafeSleeve is willing to reimburse me for the cases, but I am concerned that this might be a case of false advertising.
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.

I also searched around to see if cell phone radiation was anything to worry about anyway. I turned up enough information from a lot of different credible sources to convince me it was worth protecting against the possible damaging effects of this radiation. IF there is no real health impact, then having a protective device would be overkill, but I figured better overkill than discover in time people started developing problems as a result of heavy cell phone use.


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).

×