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?


When we think of harmful radiation, things like X-rays or gamma rays usually come to mind, but these types of radiation are different from mobile phone radiation in important ways. Radiation on the ultraviolet side of visible light, like those types just mentioned, has a wavelength that is short enough to alter some of the chemical properties of the objects it interacts with. It is referred to as ionizing radiation, for this reason. Non-ionizing radiation, which includes visible light, microwaves and radio waves, is typically regarded as harmless. Large amounts of it can produce a heating effect, like in a microwave oven, but no short-term damage has been linked to exposure to non-ionizing radiation.

(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.
In subsequent analyses of Interphone data, investigators addressed issues of risk according to specific location of the tumor and estimated exposures. One analysis of data from seven of the countries in the Interphone study found no relationship between brain tumor location and regions of the brain that were exposed to the highest level of radiofrequency radiation from cell phones (9). However, another study, using data from five of the countries, reported suggestions of an increased risk of glioma and, to a lesser extent, of meningioma developing in areas of the brain experiencing the highest exposure (10).
Perhaps more importantly, what types of radiation are causing, or likely to cause, or are suspected of causing, harm to humans? Is it the “harmonics” from the transmitter? Is it the RF from the circuitry? Is it the primary frequency on which the cell phone operates? This is important to understand. If the problem is the primary frequency on which the cell phone operates then forget the case and ditch the cell phone.

If you paid an electrical engineer to shield something for you, depending on the application, they would either use MuMetal or this type of mesh shielding. It’s not some new technology, so there’s no question of whether it works, because it does. Regardless, it would still be nice for them to publish third-party independent testing to reassure people of this.
It’s easy to call any case a product designed to block smartphone radiation.  What you need to look for is credible, quantifiable claims that highlight a case’s ability to reduce your exposure to the harmful radiation. Look for relevant  certifications from credible organizations (such as FCC accredited laboratories) that will vouch for product claims, and read product reviews online.

In addition, cellphones potentially harm our health in ways that have nothing to do with cancer. The effect on sperm is concerning to Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the Berkeley School of Public Health, and he noted that our current cellphone regulations also don’t account for these potential effects. Plus, we still don’t know what steady exposure to this kind of radiation from devices means for kids.
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.
Dr Davis holds a B.S. in physiological psychology and an M.A. in sociology from the University of Pittsburgh, 1967. She completed a PhD in science studies at the University of Chicago as a Danforth Foundation Graduate Fellow, 1972 and a M.P.H. in epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University as a Senior National Cancer Institute Post-­Doctoral Fellow, 1982. She has authored more than 200 publications and has been published in Lancet and Journal of the American Medical Association as well as the Scientific American and the New York Times.
The energy of electromagnetic radiation is determined by its frequency; ionizing radiation is high frequency, and therefore high energy, whereas non-ionizing radiation is low frequency, and therefore low energy. The NCI fact sheet Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer lists sources of radiofrequency radiation. More information about ionizing radiation can be found on the Radiation page.
×