Moving the meter around the case, we detect readings on the side, back and front of the case. We use the multi-directional TES 593 meter which measures 10 MHz to 8GHz. We use the unit of micro-watts per square centimeter, which looks like this little symbol: μW/cm² and we use it on the max setting which shows the maximum measured value. In non-science speak: the highest level of RF we see, which could be from the back the side or the front. 
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).
Changing technology and methods of use. Older studies evaluated radiofrequency radiation exposure from analog cell phones. Today, cell phones use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency and a lower power level than analog phones. Digital cell phones have been in use for more than two decades in the United States, and cellular technology continues to change (3). Texting and other applications, for example, are common uses of cell phones that do not require bringing the phone close to the head. Furthermore, the use of hands-free technology, such as wired and wireless headsets, is increasing and may reduce exposure by distancing the phone from the body (36, 37).
Wireless internet using durations: When we compare the wireless internet users regarding the duration of internet usage, there were a significant decrease of total motile sperm count and progressive motile sperm count (p = 0.032 and p = 0.033; respectively; Table 3) ... there were no significance among the semen parameters regarding the wired internet group (p = 0.128).
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.
We really do not recommend any kind of chip, guard, anti-radiation "filters" or incomplete shielding case because honestly, how could they NOT provide a false sense of security? Folks could believe these products make them “invincible” against radiation so they are comfortable holding the case right up to their heads-and the radiation seeping from the back and the side of the phone case is in very close proximity to their precious brains. Oh no!

gamma rays produce virtually no electricity in the human body because the actual inherent energy of gamma rays that actually hits molecules is next to 0. for gamma rays to produce any electricity they would need to hit something much more dense – like lead and for you to generate any significant electricity from gamma rays hitting the earth you would need a huge slab of it.

That may be true today. But some experts have grave concerns about the types of low-intensity radiation our wireless devices produce. “We have animal studies suggesting even low-level exposures to the kind of radio wave radiation associated with Wi-Fi could have a variety of negative health effects,” says Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley. (Moskowitz has collected much of that research here.)

This study was performed to understand the effect of short (15 days) and long-term (30 and 60 days) low-level 2.45 GHz MW radiation exposure on hippocampus with special reference to spatial learning and memory and its underlying mechanism in Swiss strain male mice, Mus musculus. We observed that, short-term as well as long-term 2.45 GHz MW radiation exposure increases the oxidative/nitrosative stress leading to enhanced apoptosis in hippocampal subfield neuronal and nonneuronal cells. Present findings also suggest that learning and spatial memory deficit which increases with the increased duration of MW exposure (15 < 30 < 60 days) is correlated with a decrease in hippocampal subfield neuronal arborization and dendritic spines. These findings led us to conclude that exposure to CW MW radiation leads to oxidative/nitrosative stress induced p53-dependent/independent activation of hippocampal neuronal and nonneuronal apoptosis associated with spatial memory loss.
We actually debated including some links to some of the worst offenders just to show you how outlandish (and unscientific) the claims they make are, but we couldn’t stomach giving them even a penny of ad revenue. If you want to see how bad things are you can search for “Wi-Fi dangers” on Google where, it becomes clear, the page rank algorithm doesn’t always reward pages with the most scientific merit.

The present study was designed to determine the effects of 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi exposure (60min/day for 30 days) on the lens oxidant and antioxidant redox systems of rats, as well as the possible protective effects of melatonin on the lens injury induced by electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Results showed poor oxidative toxic effects of one hour of Wi-Fi exposure on the lens in the animals. However, melatonin supplementation in the lens seems to have protective effects on the oxidant system by modulation of GSH-Px activity.
The present study was designed to determine the effects of 2.45 GHz radiation (1, 2, 12, or 24 hours) on the antioxidant redox system, calcium ion signaling, cell count and viability in human leukemia 60 cells.The extent of lipid peroxidation, cytosolic free Ca²⁺ and cell numbers were higher in 2.45 GHz groups than in the controls and was time-dependent. 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation appears to induce proliferative effects through oxidative stress and Ca²⁺ influx although blocking of transient receptor potential melastatin 2 channels by 2-aminoethyl diphenylborinate seems to counteract the effects on Ca²⁺ ions influx.
We investigated the long-term effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from Wi-Fi systems on hearing. Sixteen Wistar albino rats were divided equally into two groups: sham control and exposure groups. The rats in the experimental group were exposed to 2.4 GHz RFR emitted from a Wi-Fi generator for 24 h/day for one year. The same procedure was applied to the rats in the sham group, except that the Wi-Fi generator was turned off. All groups were kept in Faraday cages during the 12 months to eliminate external electromagnetic fields. The distance between the Wi-Fi generator antenna and the exposure cages was 50 cm. Pre-exposure distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) of all rats were measured at the beginning, 6th and 12th months of the study. The DPOAE values of the sham, baseline and exposure groups were compared statistically. For the 6000 Hz hearing frequency, the DPOAE values in the exposure group were lower than those in the sham group (p < 0.05). Similarly, the 6000 Hz hearing frequency values obtained at the end of the 12th month were also lower than the baseline and 6-month values in the exposure group (p < 0.05). In contrast, the DPOAE values at the 6th and 12th months of exposure for the 2000 Hz hearing frequency were higher than the baseline value (p < 0.05). These results indicated that 12 months of RFR (24 h/day) at 50 cm from a 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi source can affect hearing. However, further studies are necessary.
All of our wallet phone cases are made from premium materials to protect your phone and make sure they last as long as possible. We design our wallet cases to fit the phone exactly, providing the maximum amount of protection without adding too much bulk to the phone. We do drop test all of the wallet phone cases before release to ensure they’re design and materials will provide the protection your phone needs in case of accidental drops or falls. We want you to be able to have the phone case you want without worrying about the durability or whether it’ll really protect your phone when you’re out having fun.
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.
The potential health impact of Wi-Fi, even at low exposure levels, can no longer be called into question or relativized away, not even by those studies that found no effects. The decision-makers in government, school boards, and health agencies have a responsibility to deal with the available body of research and not to be deceived by the arguments of the industry lobby or boilerplates of government institutions. Health risks are a reality. It would be particularly important to carry out further research regarding the effects on the brain and young people. The application of the precautionary principle, which is recognized in all European countries, only allows for one conclusion: Wi-Fi must not be used continuously and close to the human body. I is no coincidence that the user guide of the Telekom Wi-Fi router states: “The integrated antennas of your Speedport transmit and receive wireless signals, for example, to provide Wi-Fi connectivity. Avoid placing your Speedport in close proximity to bedrooms, children’s rooms, as well as common rooms and lounges to keep the exposure to electromagnetic field as low as possible.” In their joint appeal with regard to Wi-Fi, the Cyprus and Austrian medical associations call on decision-makers to "promote age-related rational application of digital technology and not allow at schools, particular at preschool, kindergarten and elementary schools wireless networks and opt for wired connections" (ibid). Lawmakers are called upon to adjust protective legislation to the current state of research and to support research into alternatives to Wi-Fi such as VLC technologies (visible light communication, Li-Fi).
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 only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency radiation. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature. There are no other clearly established effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.

Microwave News’s Slesin speculated on potential explanations for the NTP’s apparent backtracking: new leadership within the program, where a former drug-company executive, Brian Berridge, now runs the day-to-day operations; pressure from business-friendly Republicans on Capitol Hill and from the US military, whose weapons systems rely on wireless radiation; and the anti-science ideology of the Trump White House. The question now: Will the scientists doing the peer review endorse the NTP’s newly ambivalent perspective, or challenge it?51

Do cell phones cause cancer? The preliminary results of a massive, government-funded study suggest they could. This makes cell phone safety an incredibly important topic. The early findings in the $25 million U.S. National Toxicology Program animal study show exposure to very high signal cell phone radiation led to a slightly increased risk of malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas of the heart in male rats. Schwannomas are tumors that form in the nerve sheath. (1)

There are many “personal safety apps” available for download that offer to increase the users’ personal safety – immediately connecting them with 911 or select trusted individuals. Several of these apps are designed and marketed specifically to survivors of violence. Before relying on any safety app in an emergency, be sure to test it out with friends and family to be sure that it works correctly for you. Your trusted friend may not receive your location with your emergency call or may not receive your call for help at all. Always know the quickest way to access 911 on your phone in case of an emergency. Many phones have a quick emergency call button that you can even dial without entering the phone’s passcode. 

Long-term exposure to Radio Frequency waves or microwave radiation has long been studied and shown to produce all sorts of adverse health effects. See my post on EMF Radiation Exposure Symptoms for a full list of common symptoms. Even the American Cancer Society, who in large part will not fully say that EMF radiation causes long-term harm, and instead errs on the side of not enough research, admits on their website, that:

"S8 Good...Love it...Dropped it a few times no cracks with rhis case so far, cool leds tell time or do a little dance of music whenever you do close it, it saves my battery as well because ir prevenrs the screen from turning on when rhe case is on which prevents always on display...It's a great case, the led notifications and functions are handy, it protects the phone really well; the problem is that we bought Dex and having to remove the case to be able to use Dex with my phone is a bummer; if not this will be a 5 stars review."
39. Beware of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is yet another reason to monitor your child’s smartphone usage including call and text message records. While your child may not always tell you when they’re being mistreated by a friend or acquaintance, seeing threatening or bullying messages on your child’s phone will allow you to address issues before they escalate to dangerous levels. “Cyber bullies, adults and children alike, harass others by sending threatening or rude texts to cell phones.” – What Are Some Cell Phone Safety Tips For Kids?, How Stuff Works; Twitter: @HowStuffWorks
"So nice...Love it...Well what I have to say, may be just that I love this case, love the LED on the front I can even customize it to either names or images whatever I like, I have to say that I recommend this case may be the price when I get it was to expensive now I think the price worth it, protect my phone pretty well actually I have drop it couple of times already and there is only a hit on corners of the case and my phone like nothing happened......I really liked this case when I first got it but it does not protect your phone, Phone pops out of the case a lot or even when it just drops gently on the bed."
We’ve rounded up 50 valuable tips from experts on mobile devices, wireless, safe Internet usage, and more to help you get the most from your cell phone. Play it safe by using your device when it’s safe to do so, avoiding calls and texts from anonymous numbers to steer clear of phishing and other scams, learn strategies for monitoring your kids’ cell phone use to stay on top of potential problems, and teach your kids about smart mobile usage.