Our homemade demonstration of all the cases uses a working phone. Not the shielding material by itself, but the actual "shielding" SafeSleeve, Pong, Reach,  Vest, ShieldMe, and Defender Shield cases. First we get RF power density measurements from a phone that's on a call and then, in the same location, within minutes of the first reading, we place the same phone as it's engaged in a call into each case and we take additional reading with the meter.
Children may have an increased risk of adverse health effects from cell phone radiation. According to American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Robert Block, when cell phones are used by children, "the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull," than for adults. [68] A July 2008 peer-reviewed study shows that children under the age of eight absorb twice the amount of radiation into their brain tissue as adults due to their lower skull thickness. [17]
36. Teach your kids to ignore anonymous calls or texts. It’s one thing for adults to choose to answer anonymous calls or text messages, but kids may not always know how to detect a scammer and may unknowingly reveal personal information that could be used in malicious ways. “An anonymous call could be someone trying to extract personal information. An anonymous text could be phishing.” – Rob Zidar, 13 Cell Phone Safety Tips for Teens, Pre-Teens and Their Parents, Lawrenceville Patch; Twitter: @LawvilleNJPatch
I used to have an iPhone (see Why I Got Rid of My Smartphone) and discovered that no case kept the radiation from emitting. I tried the Pong Case, the Otterbox, and an RF Safe Pouch. The pouch by far was the most effective. The Pong Case was better than the Otterbox, but still showed higher levels than I would like to see. You’ll see the various levels in the video below.
The animals were exposed to an access point (AP) from WIFI device (D-Link DWL-3200 AP with 802.11 g mode and WPA2 network protection) as previously described in Salah et al. (2013). WIFI integrated two omnidirectional antennas that were setup for internet broadcast via wireless at 2.45 GHz. The sham control rabbits were placed under the same condition without applying RF (0 Hz). Antennas of WIFI were placed at 25 cm at the right side near the heart (animal in dorsal decubitus).
That comes at something of a price though, and the chunky bezels mean it’s not the most stylish phone — though we do like the bronze edges. Still, it’s powerful, outstripping most other phones under $300, which makes it the perfect companion for a gaming-happy generation. The camera suffers from poor performance in low light, but is otherwise good. It’s also running on Google’s Android One operating system, which means the phone will be updated with the latest security patches and new features quickly and often, helping to keep your kid’s phone secure. It’s a great choice if solid performance and durability are preferred to flashy looks.

A group of 30 healthy volunteers, 15 men and 15 women, were given a simple memory test. First, the entire group was tested without any exposure to Wi-Fi radiation — no problem. Then, they were exposed to 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi from a wireless access point for about 45 minutes. During that portion of the testing, brain activity was measured and the women had a noticeable change in brain activity and energy levels. [8] Sorry ladies! But guys, don’t get too comfortable…

†Results may vary. Information and statements made are for education purposes and are not intended to replace the advice of your doctor. Global Healing Center does not dispense medical advice, prescribe, or diagnose illness. The views and nutritional advice expressed by Global Healing Center are not intended to be a substitute for conventional medical service. If you have a severe medical condition or health concern, see your physician.
It’s unfortunate, but kids are a clumsy lot, and even the best behaved little ones will often knock their precious phone flying across a room. With that in mind, it’s often worth making sure that their phone can take those sorts of knocks and come out without much of an issue. The Nokia 6.1 is a such a phone. It bucks the recent trend for glass with an all-metal build that feels extremely solid. It’s not exactly a rugged phone, but it should be able to take some accidental drops and knocks better than a glass phone.
Lloyd is correct. I’ve worked in wireless equipment design for over 30 years, from 30kHz to 3GHz, milliwatts to many-watts. In the late 2000’s I personally set the safety standards for wireless charging (WPC’s “Qi” format) after lengthy research. Starting at 400MHz and above, DNA strands can be broken or inflicted with sequence translocation when the applied fields excite mechanical shake, twist, and compression resonances of the helixes. Those would be cancer-provoking damage. Below 300MHz I’m not aware of significant non-thermal biological effects, which explain how we’ve been “lucky” with AM/FM radio, walkie talkies, CB’s, shortwave, and VHF TV not harming people en masse.
31. Read the fine print. “Buried in cell phone manuals, cell phone companies specifically instruct us that phones should not be held close to the body. For example, the iPhone 5 manual states “Carry iPhone at least 10mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as—tested levels. Cases with metal parts may change the RF performance of the device, including its compliance with RF exposure guidelines, in a manner that has not been tested or certified.” The Blackberry Bold states, “keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.59 in. (15 mm) from your body (including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers) when the BlackBerry device is turned on and connected to the wireless network.
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.
The very next day, a livid Tom Wheeler began publicly trashing Carlo to the media. In a letter he shared with the CEOs, Wheeler told Carlo that the CTIA was “certain that you have never provided CTIA with the studies you mention”—an apparent effort to shield the industry from liability in the lawsuits that had led to Carlo’s hiring in the first place. Wheeler charged further that the studies had not been published in peer-reviewed journals, casting doubt on their validity.10
A closer look reveals the industry’s sleight of hand. When Henry Lai, the professor whom Carlo tried to get fired, analyzed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2005, he learned that 56 percent found a biological effect from cell-phone radiation and 44 percent did not; the scientific community apparently was split. But when Lai recategorized the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67 percent of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28 percent of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives that concluded industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find a health effect.23
These general findings and data presented earlier on Wi-Fi effects were used to assess the Foster and Moulder (F&M) review of Wi-Fi. The F&M study claimed that there were seven important studies of Wi-Fi that each showed no effect. However, none of these were Wi-Fi studies, with each differing from genuine Wi-Fi in three distinct ways. F&M could, at most conclude that there was no statistically significant evidence of an effect. The tiny numbers studied in each of these seven F&M-linked studies show that each of them lack power to make any substantive conclusions.
BACKGROUND: The use of devices emitted microwave radiation such as mobile phones, wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) routers, etc. is increased rapidly. It has caused a great concern; the researchers should identify its effects on people's health. We evaluated the protective role of Vitamin C on the metabolic and enzymatic activities of the liver after exposure to Wi-Fi routers.

In a separate study by the same Swedish team, they found more than seven times the risk among people using a cell phone more than 20 years and 6.5 times the risk for long-term users of cordless phones. As expected, most of the gliomas and acoustic neuromas were on the same side of the head, which was usually exposed to the phone. In the 2013 official report on the medical evidence for brain tumors, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that radiation from cell phones is “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.