What the study showed: Most published analyses from this study have shown no statistically significant increases in brain or central nervous system cancers related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One analysis showed a statistically significant, although modest, increase in the risk of glioma among the small proportion of study participants who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, the researchers considered this finding inconclusive because they felt that the amount of use reported by some respondents was unlikely and because the participants who reported lower levels of use appeared to have a slightly reduced risk of brain cancer compared with people who did not use cell phones regularly (4–6).
"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."
If you think your heart races when surrounded by wireless networks or 3G or LTE cell phones, it may not be in your head. A study involving 69 subjects reported that many of them experienced a real physical response to electromagnetic frequencies. Exactly what was the physical response? Increased heart rate — similar to the heart rate of an individual under stress. 
But this was not the message that media coverage of the NTP study conveyed, as the industry blanketed reporters with its usual “more research is needed” spin. “Seriously, stop with the irresponsible reporting on cell phones and cancer,” demanded a Vox headline. “Don’t Believe the Hype,” urged The Washington Post. Newsweek, for its part, stated the NTP’s findings in a single paragraph, then devoted the rest of the article to an argument for why they should be ignored.49
Most wireless LAN equipment is designed to work within predefined standards. Wireless access points are also often close to humans, but the drop off in power over distance is fast, following the inverse-square law. However, wireless laptops are typically used close to humans. WiFi had been anecdotally linked to electromagnetic hypersensitivity but research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity has found no systematic evidence supporting claims made by sufferers.
For example, the latency period for radiation induced malignancies is, on the average, say 20 years, but epidemiologic studies of large groups of people (that only require a few thousand patients to reach statistical significance) exposed to ionizing radiation start showing an increase above baseline by seven years. So conservatively, there should be at least a few excess cases of glioma caused by cellular (or WiFi) electromagnetic radiation by now.
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
In a real-world setting, August, having ES herself, hopes people who are trying to control their exposures, will refer to the following chart: The lowest level August recommends EVER being exposed to--for even a brief time is less than 1 Volts per meter--which is actually the level of exposure you can get from most WiFi's when you're between 15 and 20 fee away. And August level is for people who are not experiencing symptoms of sensitivity, live in real-world(WiFi's, cellphone connected) situations.
I have treated patients with cancer for over thirty years as a board-certified radiation oncologist and I am familiar with every carcinogenic agent known to man. I'll tell you with absolute certainty that radio waves cannot harm you (unless perhaps you were in the path of a multi-megawatt microwave beam, in which case they might cook you. But as far as I know, there is no likelihood that this danger even exists).
DefenderShield Cellphone Radiation Case also claims independent testing and says in their website: That a "sophisticated layering of separate non-toxic, human safe materials processed for maximum radiation blocking efficiency. Each material has unique and targeted radiation-shielding characteristics designed to work in unison to eliminate all radiation emissions from 0 to 10 GHZ and Defender Shield technology refracts, conducts and finally absorbs all these potentially harmful emissions." In this demonstration, the radiation level measured when DefendeShield case was on is still quite a bit above the level of exposure that I would recommend. I personally do not recommend-holding a phone with a shielding case to your head as the DefenderShield website shows a young woman doing as she demonstrates the product.
You are being trolled people. This article is so obviously not correct. All of the examples given are so subjective and there are hints in there that they are having a laugh at you for believing this. “When a group of Danish ninth graders experienced difficulty concentrating after sleeping” Come on, really? It wasn’t because they were playing games or chatting to their friends that their minds were too stimulated to sleep straight away?
Consumers need -- now more than ever -- real-world, relevant data on how much radiation their phones emit under various circumstances. The FCC does not require the cell phone industry to disclose these data. One important study showing that certain networks could expose consumers to 30 to 300 times more radiation than other networks was hidden from the public until the information was dated to the point of irrelevancy.
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
"Love it...it's ok...This iphone case is worth buying.Leather case with slot for your cards.i drop my phone accidentally and it really protect my phone and nothing even a scratch on the casing.when I bought this casing theres a coupon inside for worth $25....I'm an adult male whom has always purchased my wallets based on how many cards and what I could stuff in ... In my years of travel , I've finally realized to carry a shoulder bag for the reason I can get a Iphone case that's manufactured well & more importantly for me I'm finally limited on wallet card holders ."
Studies by five independent research groups regarding cell phones and brain tumors have revealed significantly increased risks of a benign tumour of the cranial nerve supplying the ear. This grows slowly and must be removed in a major operation that can result in permanent facial paralysis. Other risks found were cancer of the glial cells (including neurons) of the nervous system and cancer of the meninges, the membrane covering the brain and spinal cord.