The FCC sets the maximum amount of thermal radiation (heat) that cell phones are permitted to emit. [3] This limit is measured as the amount of radiation absorbed by a user and is known as the specific absorption rate (SAR). In 1996 the SAR for cell phone radiation was set at a maximum of 1.6 watts of energy absorbed per kilogram of body weight. Manufactures of cell phones must test their products to ensure that they meet this standard. Random tests of phones on the market by FCC scientists further ensure that radiation levels meet FCC guidelines. [48]

You hit the nail on the head when you say that distance is key when it comes to EMF exposure. The solutions you sell will definitely help provide that separation. That said, our products are different in that they shield the user from EMF while allowing them to use the device as they normally would, without needing to hold their device by a rope or placing it in a faraday cage that eliminates signal altogether.

The FCC provides information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cell phones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds with the relative amount of radiofrequency radiation absorbed by the head of a cell phone user (47). Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCC’s ID search form.
If you're looking for ways to limit your exposure to the electromagnetic emissions from your cell phone, know that, according to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduce exposure from these electromagnetic emissions. In fact, products that block only the earpiece – or another small portion of the phone – are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits electromagnetic waves. What's more, these shields may interfere with the phone's signal, cause it to draw even more power to communicate with the base station, and possibly emit more radiation.
We did not simply measure energy coming from the front of the case which is the area of the case where the phone would be "shielded" from radiation. If we had taken readings with a directional meter, specifically measuring energy coming from only the front or flap cover where the shielding material is, we assume as the manufacturers claim, that we would have seen a drop in the radiation readings.
Intrinsically Safe Cell Phones and Intrinsically Safe Smartphones are starting to replace dedicated camera units. If you are wanting to consolidate devices and combine an Intrinsically Safe Camera with an Intrinsically Safe Cell Phone you now can. However, there still is a need for our clients in Oil & Gas, Manufacturing, Field Services, etc. that need that extra edge in their Hazardous Areas.

For 17 years Airvoice Wireless has provided customer service department based right here in the United States. Our customer service staff are biligual and are all housed in one department so you won't have to jump around from department to department looking for a solution. Feelsafe Wireless prides itself on our nationwide coverage as well as making our services more accessible to our paid cellular customers and our Feelsafe Wireless Government Lifeline Program customers through our customer service that's a cut above the rest.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: 70 male Wistar rats weighing 200-250 g were randomly divided into 7 groups (10 rats in each group).The first stage one-day test: Group A (received vitamin C 250 mg/kg/day orally together with 8- hour/day Wi-Fi exposure). Group B (exposed to Wi-Fi radiation). Group C (received vitamin C). Group D or Control (was neither exposed to radiation of Wi-Fi modem nor did receive vitamin C). The second phase of experiment had done for five consecutive days. It involved Group E (received vitamin C), Group F (exposed to Wi-Fi radiation), Group G (received vitamin C together with Wi-Fi radiation). The distance between animals' restrainers was 20 cm away from the router antenna. Finally, blood samples were collected and assayed the level of hepatic enzymes including alkaline phosphatase (ALP), alanine amino transferase (ALT) aspartate amino transferase (ASL), gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT) and the concentration of Blood Glucose, Cholesterol, Triglyceride (TG), High density lipoprotein (HDL) and low density lipoprotein (LDL).
The authors of these studies noted that the results were preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism in humans were unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in people (4). Some factors that can contribute to inconsistencies across such studies include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.
The key factor when selecting a cell phone case is making sure that you choose the exact one your phone needs. Cases are specific to not only brands of cell phone, but specific models as well. For example, if you have version three of a cell phone model, it may not fit a version six, and vice versa. Make sure that you know exactly what case you need. The cases protect the corners and back of the phone, and a clear tempered glass or Plexiglas shield protects the face. This glass or film is usually scratch- and smudge-resistant, and the cases are rubber or polycarbonate. Some cases have clips on the back that allow you to connect the phone to a belt or bag. Many cases are black, but multiple colors and patterns are available too.

Disclaimer: While we work to ensure that product information is correct, on occasion manufacturers may alter their ingredient lists. Actual product packaging and materials may contain more and/or different information than that shown on our Web site. We recommend that you do not solely rely on the information presented and that you always read labels, warnings, and directions before using or consuming a product. For additional information about a product, please contact the manufacturer. Content on this site is for reference purposes and is not intended to substitute for advice given by a physician, pharmacist, or other licensed health-care professional. You should not use this information as self-diagnosis or for treating a health problem or disease. Contact your health-care provider immediately if you suspect that you have a medical problem. Information and statements regarding dietary supplements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or health condition. assumes no liability for inaccuracies or misstatements about products.
The present study was designed to determine the possible protective effects of melatonin on oxidative stress-dependent testis injury induced by 2.45-GHz electromagnetic radiation exposure (60 min/day for 30 days). Lipid peroxidation levels were shown to be higher in melatonin-supplemented group compared to EMR only and controls, as well as reduced glutathione and glutathione peroxidase levels. Vitamin A and E concentrations decreased in exposure group, and melatonin prevented the decrease in vitamin E levels. In conclusion, wireless (2.45 GHz) EMR caused oxidative damage in testis by increasing the levels of lipid peroxidation and decreasing in vitamin A and E levels. Melatonin supplementation prevented oxidative damage induced by EMR and also supported the antioxidant redox system in the testis.
There is an alternative approach, rooted in what some scientists and ethicists call the “precautionary principle,” which holds that society doesn’t need absolute proof of hazard to place limits on a given technology. If the evidence is sufficiently solid and the risks sufficiently great, the precautionary principle calls for delaying the deployment of that technology until further research clarifies its impacts. The scientists’ petition discussed earlier urges government regulators to apply the precautionary principle to 5G technology. Current safety guidelines “protect industry—not health,” contends the petition, which “recommend[s] a moratorium on the roll-out of [5G]…until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.”54

The purpose of this study was to reveal whether long term exposure (over a year) of 2.4GHz frequency RF radiation will cause DNA damage of different tissues such as brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissue and testicular tissues of rats. Based on the DNA damage results determined by the single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) method, it was found that the % tail DNA values of the brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissues of the rats in the experimental group increased more than those in the control group. The increase of the DNA damage in all tissues was not significant (p>0.05), however the increase of the DNA damage in rat testes tissue was significant (p<0.01). In conclusion, long-term exposure to 2.4GHz RF radiation (Wi-Fi) does not cause DNA damage of the organs investigated in this study except testes indicating  that testes are more sensitive organ to RF radiation.

Jump up ^ "Electromagnetic fields (EMF)". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2008-01-22. “Electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed to varying degrees of EMF, and the levels will continue to increase as technology advances.”

Why, after such acrimony, Carlo was allowed to make one last appearance before the CTIA board is a mystery. Whatever the reason, Carlo flew to New Orleans in February 2000 for the wireless industry’s annual conference, where he submitted the WTR’s final report to the CTIA board. According to Carlo, Wheeler made sure that none of the hundreds of journalists covering the event could get anywhere near him.12
Listeria monocytogenes ... was recognized as the main cause of neonatal infection, meningitis, and sepsis. Listeria infection in adult patients is related to immunocompromised systems like HIV infection, organ transplants, individuals who have received corticosteroids, and immunosuppressant drugs for their malignancies. Escherichia coli known as E coli is a common cause of life-threatening infections such as bloodstream and urinary tract infections, otitis media, and other complications.

IntimatesBras,Lingerie,Lounge & Sleepwear,Panties...4372 Maternity ClothingMaternity Activewear,Maternity Bottoms,M...444 Plus Size ClothingPlus Size Activewear,Plus Size Bottoms,P...1305 Women's AccessoriesWomen's Belts,Women's Eyewear,Women's Gl...9830 Women's ClothingDresses,Leggings,Skirts,Sweaters & Cardi...32625 Women's ShoesBoots & Booties,Pumps & Heels,Women's At...4011

Based on the DNA damage results determined by the single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) method, it was found that the% tail DNA values of the brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissues of the rats in the experimental group increased more than those in the control group. The increase of the DNA damage in all tissues was not significant (p>0.05). However the increase of the DNA damage in rat testes tissue was significant (p<0.01).
... our review shows that there is a substantial amount of studies which indicate that plants have experienced physiological or morphological changes due to radiofrequency radiation and show statistically significant changes for the short-term exposure duration (up to 13 weeks). In contrast, the results obtained from the long-term exposure studies (two publications using nine different exposures with exposure duration between 3 months to 6 years) support no physiological effects on plants when exposed to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone radiation. This would bring a remarkable point to the discussion about the apparent absence of response to the long-term exposure that may be interpreted as adaptations. On the other hand, phenotypic plasticity of plants will permit them to change their structure and function; hence, plants to adapt to environmental change (Nicotra et al., 2010). Plants are naturally affected by environmental stresses due to their immobility. Plants could respond to the environmental factors of wind, rain, electric field and ultraviolet radiation and adjust its physiological condition to adapt to the change of environment (Braam and Davis, 1990; Braam et al., 1996; Mary and Braam, 1997) .... our previous findings (Halgamuge et al., 2015) indicate that the biological effects considerably relied on field strength and amplitude modulation of the applied field.
Also of note, in a study by Henrietta Nittby et al (2009), the lowest exposure SARs were worse than the higher SAR exposures. Some scientists consider blood brain barrier effects at these very low levels of radiation exposure (i.e. 30-45x lower than the ‘Top 10’ lowest SAR phones ranked by the Environmental Working Group) to be of equal or even greater concern for the population than the increase in brain tumors from cell phone use that is expected.

The present study tested the effects of Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz for 1h) exposure on Ca(2+) influx, oxidative stress and apoptosis through TRPV1 channel in the murine dorsal root ganglion (DRG) and hippocampus of pentylentetrazol (PTZ)-induced epileptic rats. The cytosolic free Ca(2+), reactive oxygen species production, apoptosis, mitochondrial membrane depolarization, caspase-3 and -9 values in hippocampus were higher in the PTZ group than in the control although cell viability values decreased. The Wi-Fi exposure induced additional effects on the cytosolic Ca(2+) increase. However, pretreatment of the neurons with CPZ, results in a protection against epilepsy-induced Ca(2+) influx, apoptosis and oxidative damages. In conclusion, epilepsy and Wi-Fi in our experimental model is involved in Ca(2+) influx and oxidative stress-induced hippocampal and DRG death through activation of TRPV1 channels, and negative modulation of this channel activity by CPZ pretreatment may account for the neuroprotective activity against oxidative stress.
And yet, a lot of people do use these, including people I know and respect. I see people on the subway playing Candy Crush, the cover of their folio-style wallet case folded back, all of their cards just flapping in the wind. And don’t just take my word for it: The Silk iPhone wallet case has nearly 2,000 reviews on Amazon with an average score of 4.5 stars. People not only use these cases—they love them!
Because these are complex diseases that develop over decades, it is difficult to conclusively show that the increase in wireless signal exposures directly cause the diseases. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considers wireless radiation as a class 2B possible carcinogen due to limited evidence. These small number of studies are leaning towards showing that electromagnetic radiations, including WiFi, are not safe.
We’re living in a wireless technology age, but there’s some evidence that exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and wireless devices could increase your risk of certain cancers and tumors. However, more research is needed. In the meantime, I recommend practicing the precautionary principle. Some great cell phone safety tips include:
The possible effects of RF-EMR due to cellular phone and Wi-Fi usage should be investigated by researchers in more detail because the harmful effects should be proven instead of just implying the possible detrimental effects. Our findings display contrast results when we compared them with existing information and beliefs. We have not seen any difference between sperm parameters and cell phone and wireless internet usage. Larger population based studies combined with the laboratory results are needed to reach a definitive conclusion.
Mouse embryo 3T3 cells were irradiated with 2450 MHz continuous and low frequency (16 Hz) square modulated waves of absorbed energy. The low frequency modulated microwave irradiation yielded more morphological cell changes than did the continuous microwave fields of the same intensity. The amount of free negative charges (cationized ferritin binding) on cell surfaces decreased following irradiation by modulated waves but remained unchanged under the effect of a continuous field of the same dose. Modulated waves of 0.024 mW/g dose increased the ruffling activity of the cells, and caused ultrastructural alteration in the cytoplasm. Similar effects were experienced by continuous waves at higher (0.24 and 2.4 mW/g) doses.

Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans (2).

Hi August and Tech Wellness Team. We at SafeSleeve salute you for your effort to educate and provide solutions for the hidden dangers of EMF radiation exposure from wireless electronics. Like you, we’ve worked extremely hard to provide a practical solution for EMF exposure and, as verified by our independent lab testing, we believe we’ve found an extremely effective and practical solution. While I cannot speak for the other devices you tested here, there are some key points about our SafeSleeve technology that we wanted to make sure you took into consideration:
Radiofrequency radiation from cell phones is non-ionizing and is not powerful enough to cause cancer. Ionizing radiation, including x-rays and ultraviolet light, produces molecules called ions that have either too many or too few electrons. Ions are known to damage DNA and cause cancer. Cell phone radiation, like radio, TV, and visible light radiation, is non-ionizing and lacks sufficient energy to add or remove electrons from molecules, and therefore it cannot ionize and cause cancer. [2] According to the authors of a 2005 peer-reviewed study of 3.7 million Swedish residents, a "biologic mechanism that could explain any possible carcinogenic effect from radiofrequency radiation has not been identified." [42]
Thirty-two rats and their forty newborn offspring were divided into the following four groups according to the type of EMR exposure they were subjected to: the control, 900, 1800, and 2450 MHz groups. Each experimental group was exposed to EMR for 60 min/day during the pregnancy and growth periods. The pregnant rats were allowed to stand for four generations (total 52 weeks) before, plasma and uterine samples were obtained. During the 4th, 5th, and 6th weeks of the experiment, plasma and uterine samples were also obtained from the developing rats. [The electric field density was set at 20 dB and 11 V/m in order to obtain 0.1 W/kg whole-body average specific absorption rate (SAR).]
Yes! Wow! Finally someone brave and smart enough to take that into account. Well, that would be due to propaganda. Because there has been studies that indicate we can still experience internet WITHOUT these levels of electronic magnetic frequencies being emitted from wireless devices. You see, people misunderstand Wifi for internet. That’s how they have sold us and confused us. Surely you know wifi is not Internet, but a hub of shared networks working together to connect.
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).

It’s worth remembering that Wi-Fi occupies the same part of the spectrum as microwaves, which sounds terribly alarming. If it can boil water, surely it’s bad for us too? Well, no. Not at such low power. This is also the frequency of the cosmic background radiation, the echoes of the big bang that fill the sky. There is literally nowhere in the universe that does not have microwaves pinging around in it.

Ionizing radiation, including x-rays and ultraviolet light, produces molecules called ions that have either too many or too few electrons. Ions are known to damage DNA and cause cancer. Cell phone radiation, like radio, TV, and visible light radiation, is non-ionizing and lacks sufficient energy to add or remove electrons from molecules, and therefore it cannot ionize and cause cancer. [2] According to the authors of a 2005 peer-reviewed study of 3.7 million Swedish residents, a "biologic mechanism that could explain any possible carcinogenic effect from radiofrequency radiation has not been identified." [42]
One key player has not been swayed by all this wireless-friendly research: the insurance industry. The Nation has not been able to find a single insurance company willing to sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation. “Why would we want to do that?” one executive chuckled before pointing to more than two dozen lawsuits outstanding against wireless companies, demanding a total of $1.9 billion in damages. Some judges have affirmed such lawsuits, including a judge in Italy who refused to allow industry-funded research as evidence.24
The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation (24h/day for 12 months) emitted from a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) system on some of the miRNA in brain tissue in male rats. The results revealed that long-term exposure of RFR radiation can alter expression of some of the miRNAs, indicating that this type of exposure may lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative diseases originated from the alteration of some miRNA expression and more studies should be devoted to the effects of RF radiation on miRNA expression levels.

The increasing use of Wi-Fi in schools and other places has given rise to public concern that the radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields from Wi-Fi have the potential to adversely affect children. The current study measured typical and peak RF levels from Wi-Fi and other sources in 23 schools in Australia. All of the RF measurements were much lower than the reference levels recommended by international guidelines for protection against established health effects. The typical and peak RF levels from Wi-Fi in locations occupied by children in the classroom were of the order of 10-4 and 10-2% of the exposure guidelines, respectively. Typical RF levels in the classroom were similar between Wi-Fi and radio but higher than other sources. In the schoolyard typical RF levels were higher for radio, TV and mobile phone base stations compared to Wi-Fi. The results of this study showed that the typical RF exposure of children from Wi-Fi at school is very low and comparable or lower to other sources in the environment.
Here at CellularOutfitter, we know it’s a challenge to find your perfect match, so we’ve hand-picked some of our best-selling cell phone wallets! To start with, we wanted to introduce the Embossed Butterfly Wallet Case that’s been stealing our hearts! Available in about 7 different colors, this wallet phone case also comes with amazing features like it’s detachable matching case, extra card slots, and a wristlet! Why wait? Have all your cards in one place and grab this wallet case so you’ll always be ready on the go.
In addition, electrical and electronic devices of all kinds emit EM fields around their working circuits, generated by oscillating currents. Humans are in daily contact with computers, video display monitors, television screens, microwave ovens, fluorescent lamps, electric motors of several kinds (such as washing machines, kitchen appliances [like electric can openers, blenders, and mixers], water pumps, etc.) and many others. A study of bedroom exposure in 2009 showed the highest ELF-EF from bedside lights and the highest ELF-MF from transformer devices, while the highest RF-ELF came from DECT cordless phones and outside cellphone base stations; all exposures were well below International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guideline levels.[16]
We do have evidence that cellphones (or WiFi) do NOT cause an increase in brain tumors. Look at the time period over which cellphone use became common -- say, over the last twenty years. During that time, the incidence of brain tumors has remained absolutely flat. With over four billion people using cellphones (or WiFi) today, if there was any influence on the development of brain tumors, we would be seeing that by now.
“Without following these instructions, we risk being exposed to levels of radiation that are too high- higher than radiation limits set by our federal government. The reality is that radiation emissions from devices are tested before going on the market- with a space between the device and your body. For cell phones the distance varies depending on the manufacturer and is under an inch.” Cell Phone Radiation FAQ’s, Environmental Health Trust; Twitter: @saferphones