My phone is a very large concentration of value in an easy-to-lose, easy-to-break package that I’m constantly waving around recklessly. The next time you plop your phone down on a bar, which is a dark place buzzing with dizzy people holding containers full of liquid, remember that what you’re really doing is placing $600 to $1,000 in a situation in which it might instantly vaporize.
Phone cases for smartphones serve many purposes. From charging your cell phone to storing your credit cards, to transforming your phone into a waterproof device, your protective phone cases functionality is key. Let’s be honest, you probably need more than one to cater to different aspects of your lifestyle. Use the trendy and stylish phone case to hit the town and save the re-charging case for your next big road trip or cross-country adventure. Browse our selection of protective cases for smartphones and you’re sure to find something for your every need. Our wholesale smartphone cases have an affordable price point and high-quality user experience. Looking for cheap cases? Grab yours today!
The wireless communications industry is rushing to blanket the nation with next-generation networks whose health effects are unknown. Despite studies linking radiation from existing networks to cancer in lab animals, the Federal Communications Commission and state legislators are bowing to industry lobbyists and clearing the way for the new networks.
An excessive production of reactive oxygen substances (ROS) and reduced antioxidant defence systems resulting from electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure may lead to oxidative brain and liver damage and degradation of membranes during pregnancy and development of rat pups. In the EMR groups, lipid peroxidation levels in the brain and liver were increased following EMR exposure; however, the glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity, and vitamin A, vitamin E and β-carotene concentrations were decreased in the brain and liver. Glutathione (GSH) and vitamin C concentrations in the brain were also lower in the EMR groups than in the controls; however, their concentrations did not change in the liver. In conclusion, Wi-Fi-induced oxidative stress in the brain and liver of developing rats was the result of reduced GSH-Px, GSH and antioxidant vitamin concentrations. Moreover, the brain seemed to be more sensitive to oxidative injury compared to the liver in the development of newborns.
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.
“See a name you don’t recognize? Get the lowdown on the mystery texter by conducting an online background check. Pull their criminal records to discover if they’ve potentially been convicted of anything serious, such as a sexual offense or other violent crimes. Being armed with this information is the first step to squashing your teen’s inappropriate relationship.” – Logan Strain, Who Has Your Kid Been Texting? Guarantee Cell Phone Safety with These Tips, Instant Checkmate; Twitter: @instntcheckmate
Critics also attacked what they regarded as the slow pace of WTR research. The WTR was merely “a confidence game” designed to placate the public but stall real research, according to Louis Slesin, editor of the trade publication Microwave News. “By dangling a huge amount of money in front of the cash-starved [scientific] community,” Slesin argued, “Carlo guaranteed silent obedience. Anyone who dared complain risked being cut off from his millions.” Carlo denies the allegation.6
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 HARApad is the one I like best. It is a rigid, rugged, easy-to-use laptop pad that contains perfectly safe, military-grade electromagnetic radiation (EMR) shielding. You simply place it underneath your laptop and it protects you from heat, radiation and organ damage caused by the computer. HARApad uses “root technology”, which means each pad is each manufactured from environmentally safe, natural and organic materials.
All values were far below International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s (ICNIRP) reference values, but most mean levels measured were above the precautionary target level of 3–6 µW/m2 as proposed by the Bioinitiative Report ….however the ICNIRP guidelines are based on short-term heating (thermal) effects, and are therefore not relevant to decide on the appropriateness of long-term exposure.
To date, there are a few long-term studies, very few in humans and even fewer epidemiological studies, apart from the studies on laptops with small numbers of study subjects. It is also far too early to generate reliable figures at this time. However, there are indications that especially newborns, children, or adolescents are particularly vulnerable as has been presented in detail by the research teams of Nazırogˇ lu, Atasoy, Margaritis/ Panagopoulos, Orendacˇ ova, Othmann, Ozorak, Sangun, Shahin and Yuksel. The experiments were carried out with rats or mice, in some cases as long-term studies (up to 1 year). In this context, it is important to note that rats and mice used in laboratories have a life expectancy of perhaps two years. This at least allows us to infer that human children and adolescents have to be protected from possible increased risks. In the study of Margaritis et al. (2014), the authors point out that the exposure levels from Bluetooth (0.3 V/m) and Wi-Fi routers (here 2.1 V/m) showed greater effects than cell phone radiation sources with much higher field strengths. This may coincide with the findings of the papers by von Klitzing, which stated that the power-dependent pulse of 10 Hz (1 ms) from Wi-Fi routers triggered reactions. Kumari et al. observed in a study from 2012 that higher levels of ROS in the liver suppress antioxidant enzymes and that lower levels cause an increase. This could be a key to further mechanisms as to how or whether tissue damage occurs or perhaps not. Likewise, the polarization of RF radiation (Meena et al. 2014, Panagopoulos et al. 2015) should also receive additional attention.
If cell phones were causing cancer we could expect a significant rise in the rate of brain and other related cancers. According to the National Cancer Institute, there was no increase in the incidence of brain or other nervous system cancers between the years 1987 and 2005 despite the fact that cell phone use dramatically increased during those same years.  Between 2004 and 2010 there was still no significant change in the incidence rate of brain tumors. Between 2004 and 2010 there was a slight increase from 209 cases to 221.8 cases per 100,000 people, but this slight increase was attributed to better tracking and recording of cases.  During the same time period, cell phone use increased 62.7% from 182,140,362 subscribers in 2004 to 296,285,629 in 2010. 
*The ability to browse the internet (for tweens and teens that have access to the internet on their cell phone) opens up an entirely new area of safety concerns. Not only can kids search the web more discreetly, most parents do not view this activity as of much of a risk as they do allowing their kids to search on a regular computer. The fact is, the dangers are just as real and even worse when you consider that with a smart phone, kids can search the internet outside of the watchful eye of parents while using their cell phone in school.
According to a Mar. 2008 meta-analysis of cell phone studies there is a "consistent pattern" connecting cell phone use and an increased risk of developing glioma, a type of brain tumor.  A Mar. 31, 2009 study found that long term cell phone use (10 years +) "approximately doubles the risk" of being diagnosed with glioma on the same side of the head where the cell phone is held.  In Apr. 2013 another study of Swedish cell phone users also found an association between cell phone use and the development of glioma and acoustic neuroma - a benign tumor formation on the nerve near the ear.  That study’s conclusions were confirmed by a different study in Apr. 2014.  Other studies published from 2005-2013 have similarly concluded that there is an association between cell phone use and increased risk of developing brain and head tumors.    
Radiation syndrome acute chronic Health physics Dosimetry Electromagnetic radiation and health Laser safety Lasers and aviation safety Medical radiography Mobile phone radiation and health Radiation protection Radiation therapy Radioactivity in the life sciences Radioactive contamination Radiobiology Biological dose units and quantities Wireless electronic devices and health Radiation Heat-transfer
This study examined the possible ability of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation exposure (30 min) to modify the expression of genes that codify heat shock proteins (HSP) in the thyroid gland. Ninety minutes after radiation, HSP-90 and HSP-70 had decreased significantly (P<0.01); Twenty-four hours after radiation, HSP-90 had partially recovered and HSP-70 had recovered completely. There were few indications of lesions in the glandular structure and signs of apoptosis were negative in all radiated animals. The results suggest that acute sub-thermal radiation at 2.45 GHz may alter levels of cellular stress in rat thyroid gland without initially altering their anti-apoptotic capacity.
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.
Cell phone cases can make matters worse because they may block the phone’s antenna. The device must work harder to transmit signals which may lead to more radiation exposure for the user. (See safety tip #6 for more on the importance of a strong signal.) Certification testing done by phone manufacturers are done with bare phones with no accessories.
Present study was under taken to predict the possible DNA damages (genotoxicity) and carcinogenicity caused by radiofrequency radiations (RF) to living tissue. Dry seeds of chickpea were treated with GSM cell phone (900 MHz) and laptop (3.31 GHz) as RF source for 24 and 48 h. Untreated seeds were used as (0 h) negative control and Gamma rays (250 Gray) as positive control. Plant chromosomal aberration assay was used as genotoxicity marker. All the treatment of RF inhibits seed germination percentage. 48 h laptop treatment has the most negative effect as compared to untreated control. A decrease was observed in mitotic index (M.I) and increase in abnormality index (A.I) with the increase in exposure duration and frequency in (Hz). Cell membrane damages were also observed only in 48 h exposure of cell phone and laptop (RF). Maximum nuclear membrane damages and ghost cells were again recorded in 48 h exposure of cell phone and laptop. The radiofrequency radiations (900 MHz and 3.31 GHz) are only genotoxic as they induce micronuclei, bi-nuclei, multi-nuclei and scattered nuclei but could be carcinogenic as 48 h incubation of RF induced fragmentation and ghost cells. Therefore cell phones and laptop should not be used unnecessarily to avoid possible genotoxic and carcinogenic effects.
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.
Anything you can do to keep the phone away from your head will help. (Even cell phone manufacturers warn consumers about this. See the previous post Cell Phone Manual Warnings for examples of warnings from Samsung, Apple and more.) If you hold the phone 2 inches away, the signal is about one-fourth the original strength. At four inches away, it’s about 1/16th as strong. Even better is a hands-free kit with a wireless air tube nearest the earpiece. (A regular wired headset can act as an antenna and make matters worse.)
The scientific journal umwelt · medizin · gesellschaft addresses environmental medicine topics on a scientific basis--and their interdependence with today's society. The specialist journal reports on the latest medical findings and examines ecologically explosive, socially relevant topics. The UMG magazine is the official association organ of the environmental and medical associations dbu, DEGUZ, DGUHT, EUROPAEM, IGUMED, KMT and ÖÄB.
Hey Debra, I agree with you, since lgetting WiFi in our apartment it has been affecting my health, I feel crawling on my skin in bed at night, energy levels are low, exhaustion. I get heart palpitations, generally horrible. My son was so into getting WiFi when he was living with us, it started with headaches in my sleep, but also feeling like being cooked in a microwave..
By comparison, even a very powerful high-end Wi-Fi router only produces around 1 watt of microwave energy and, unlike the magnetron in a microwave oven, a Wi-Fi router radiates that minuscule 1 watt of power in a bubble-like-cloud around the router. In other words, if you wanted to heat up even a milliliter of water above room temperature using this energy, you’d be waiting…well, forever.
"Love it...In love...This case works as advertised, no pocket dialing and everything shows through the case clearly as expected, this is the second case of this type I have purchased and both although a bit pricy at $59 work to perfection....Love the case and that you don't have to have the case open to talk on the phone...the only negative is that only the number shows up on the outside when someone calls, not the name."
4. Erase your data with a swipe. “Apps like Find My iPhone and Lost will…allow you to remotely wipe the phone, erasing your personal data and restoring it to its original settings should it become stolen. This will help keep your passwords, logins, and online accounts safe.” – Amanda Perez, Cell Phone Safety Tips For Stolen Devices, ABC30; Twitter: @ABC30