There is only one legitimate method of measuring cell phone radiation recognized by every major health authority and government in the world as well as by the cell phone industry itself, referred to as "SAR". SAR testing measures the "Specific Absorption Rate" of radiation at multiple depths and locations on the head and body in order to quantify how much radiation is actually penetrating it with and without certain safety devices. You can see a SAR test of the R2L device by watching the video below.

So of course now that we understand that the cases are not tested and just the material--it makes sense! We measured power density levels all around the case-the shielding material most likely isn't used "all over" because then the phone couldn't receive signal and wouldn't be able to engage in a call.  That's why we did not see even close to a 99% reduction when some cases were on the phone.  In fact, watch the video and you'll see some readings are more than 20% higher with a case on vs the naked phone.
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.
Before making a purchase from a Fry's Electronics store or online, if you see the same item at a lower current price at a local authorized competitor (including their online prices) or shipped from and sold by these major online retailers -,,,, and - Fry's will be happy to match the competition's promised price. If a Fry's Promo Code is offered on an item, and the competitor's final price is still lower after the Promo Code is applied, Fry's will cheerfully discount our price by 110% of the difference.
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 determined the effects of prenatal and postnatal exposure to 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi-induced electromagnetic radiation (2h/day for 21 days during pregnancy and 21 days during lactation) on tooth and surrounding tissue development as well as the element levels in growing rats. Histological and immunohistochemical examinations between the experimental and control groups showed that exposure to 2.45 GHz EMR for 2 h per day does not interfere with the development of teeth and surrounding tissues. However, there were alterations in the elemental composition of the teeth, especially affecting such oxidative stress-related elements as copper, zinc, and iron, suggesting that short-term exposure to Wi-Fi-induced EMR may cause an imbalance in the oxidative stress condition in the teeth of growing rats.
When using your phone or tablet, consider keeping it away from your head and body. That is particularly true in areas where the cellular signal from towers is weak—when your phone has only one bar, for example—because phones may increase their power then to compensate. To do that, you could try texting or video-calling when possible, using the speaker phone on your device or a wired or Bluetooth headset, carrying your phone in a bag instead of stowing it in your pocket, and not resting your tablet on your body for a long period of time. When you go to bed, consider storing your phone away from where you sleep, switch it to airplane mode, or turn it off entirely.
Purpose: This article is a systematic review of studies on the effects of non-ionizing radiation at the microwave (MW) frequency of 2.45 GHz (2450 MHz), which is predominantly used in WLAN/Wi-Fi applications (wireless local area network) and microwave ovens. Newer WLAN standards also use the frequency ranges of 5 GHz, 6 GHz, and 60 GHz. WLAN, referred to generically in this review also as Wi-Fi, has become the technology of choice for many wireless applications because providers do not require a license, making the service free to users. To meet users’ desire to be online all the time, more and more WLAN antennas (access points, femtocells, routers) emitting pulsed 2.45 GHz radiation are being installed at libraries, hospitals, hotels, airports, railway stations, shopping malls, public places, and in buses, subways, and passenger trains. Wi-Fi consoles are used to play games. Office and household appliances are also fitted with Wi-Fi antennas. Residential routers often contain two Wi-Fi transmitters. As part of its digital learning initiative, the German Conference of Ministers of Education has decided to provide all schools with Wi-Fi networks. The extensive body of research on the health risks of Wi-Fi radiation is generally not considered by policy-makers or in the public debate.

In February of 2008, a research study was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. The study, conducted at Tel Aviv University, examined 500 Israelis who had developed salivary gland cancer and compared their level of mobile phone usage to 1,300 healthy adults. The researchers discovered that within the entire group, those who used their cell phone for a few hours a day had 50 percent higher odds of developing a salivary gland tumor.

"To expect relief from radiation exposure from one specific device, is nearly impossible. It’s crucial to weigh in the MANY environmental factors; such as, temperature, atmospheric pressure, other radio waves, emissions from other devices, energy shifts from others around you, and Schumann Resonance shifts. Therefore," he explains that “relying on alteration of the environment as a safety precaution is always a game of chance…and signals affect people differently,” which adds another variables in the game of chance.
The wireless industry has sought to downplay concerns about cell phones’ safety, and the Federal Communications Commission has followed its example. In 1996, the FCC established cell-phone safety levels based on “specific absorption rate,” or SAR. Phones were required to have a SAR of 1.6 watts or less per kilogram of body weight. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised the FCC that its guidelines “do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children.” Nevertheless, the FCC has declined to update its standards.30
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.

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)

Central to keeping the scientific argument going is making it appear that not all scientists agree. Again like the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, the wireless industry has “war gamed” science, as a Motorola internal memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science involves playing offense as well as defense: funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies like the World Health Organization; and seeking to discredit scientists whose views depart from the industry’s.21

Most smartphones have settings that will help you manage your privacy and safety. You can find these controls through the settings on your phone or through the settings of a specific app. These settings may allow you to limit an application’s access to the data on your phone, including access to your location, pictures, contacts, notes, etc. You may even be able to block cookies and limit what data your mobile browser collects.
We asked Dr. George Carlo his thoughts on EMF cases and shielding products, “most offer some protection, some of the time, to some people, because they can alter the immediate electromagnetic field environment around the person,” and immediately emphasizes the importance of “some,” which seems to tell us that it’s vastly unpredictable. “All waveforms in the environment are highly variable and they interact with other factors in the environment that make them even more variable.” This pretty much sums up that the artificial electromagnetic energy universe is vastly unpredictable.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of  prenatal and postnatal 2450 MHz electromagnetic field exposure (1hy/day from intrauterine or postnatal period) on the growth and development of female Wistar rats. Birth masses of the groups were similar (p > 0.05), however mass gain per day was significantly lower and the puberty was significantly later in the prenatal group. Brain and ovary TOS and OSI values in the prenatal group were significantly increased (p < 0.05) compared to the control group and serum LH levels of the prenatal and postnatal groups were increased, although serum FSH, and E2 values did not differ among the groups (p > 0.05). Histological examinations of the specimens revealed no statistically significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). Exposure to 2450 MHz EMF, particularly in the prenatal period, resulted in postnatal growth restriction and delayed puberty in female Wistar rats. Increased TOS and OSI values in the brain and ovary tissues can be interpreted as a sign of chronic stress induced by EMF.
We aimed to investigate the protective effects of melatonin and 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation (60 min/day for 30 days) on brain and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neuron antioxidant redox system, Ca(2+) influx, cell viability and electroencephalography (EEG) records in the rat. Lipid peroxidation (LP), cell viability and cytosolic Ca(2+) values in DRG neurons were higher in EMR-exposed groups than in controls, although their concentrations were increased by melatonin, 2-aminoethyldiphenyl borinate (2-APB), diltiazem and verapamil supplementation. Lower numbers of EEG spikes were recorded in EMR+melatonin groups than in EMR only, while brain cortex vitamin E concentrations were higher in the melatonin-supplemented group. In conclusion, Melatonin supplementation in DRG neurons and brain seems to have protective effects on the 2.45 GHz-induced increase Ca(2+) influx, EEG records and cell viability of the hormone through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels.
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
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of low level electromagnetic field (low level-EMF) exposure, as frequently encountered in daily life (2.45 GHz, 2h/day for 21 days), on the normal adult male rat cornea using histological and stereological method. There was no statistically significant difference in mean corneal thicknesses between the groups (p > 0.05), however there were statistically differences between the groups with regard to the thickness of anterior epithelium (p < 0.05). Results of this preliminary study show that exposure to MW radiation might cause alterations in the rat cornea.
Although uterine lipid peroxidation increased in the EMR groups, uterine glutathione peroxidase activity (4th and 5th weeks) and plasma prolactin levels (6th week) in developing rats decreased in these groups. In the maternal rats, the plasma prolactin, estrogen, and progesterone levels decreased in the EMR groups, while the plasma total oxidant status, and body temperatures increased. There were no changes in the levels of reduced glutathione, total antioxidants, or vitamins A, C, and E in the uterine and plasma samples of maternal rats.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen. On May 31, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a press release announcing it had added cell phone radiation to its list of physical agents that are "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (group 2B agents). [38] The classification was made after a working group of 31 scientists completed a review of previously published studies and found "limited evidence of carcinogenicity" from the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by wireless phones, radio, television, and radar. [37]
Our cell phones for hazardous areas ensure the safety of your workers in all situations. We offer intrinsically safe cell phones for Zone 1 / Class I (ATEX, IECEx) and explosion proof cell phones for Zone 2 / Class II (NEC). Our cell phones are available with lone worker protection (LWP) and our range of products also includes an intrinsically safe smartphone, the Smart-Ex® 01.
This study aimed to assess the potential harmful effects of radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation on sperm parameters. There was no significant difference between sperm counts and sperm morphology excluding sperm motility, due to mobile phone usage period, however total motile sperm count and the progressive motile sperm count decreased due to the increase of internet usage and progressive motile sperm count also decreased with wireless Internet usage compared with the wired Internet connection usage.
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.)
BACKGROUND: Dental amalgam is composed of approximately 50% elemental mercury. Despite concerns over the toxicity of mercury, amalgam is still the most widely used restorative material. Wi-Fi is a rapidly using local area wireless computer networking technology. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that evaluates the effect of exposure to Wi-Fi signals on mercury release from amalgam restorations.
We requested semen for analyses from the male patients coming to our infertility division and also asked them to fill out an anonymous questionnaire. We queried their mobile phone and wireless internet usage frequencies in order to determine their radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation exposure. A total of 1082 patients filled the questionnaire but 51 of them were excluded from the study because of azoospermia. 

In the Lancet article outlining their considerations, that IARC states that epidemiological studies that follow humans who use WiFi and cell phones for a few years are not conclusive. However, rodent studies that follow the animals throughout their lifetime find that wireless radiation does cause cancer or worsen cancer prognosis. The same animal studies also observed other changes in the brain and blood brain barrier in animals that are exposed to the radiation.

The word radiation is, to the lay person, a scary word. Radiation is the stuff that 1960s school children were taught to climb under their desks to avoid, and what prompted Cold-War-terrified Americans to build backyard bomb shelters. Radiation is the stuff that leads meltdowns at nuclear power plants to contaminate the ocean and make land uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
This article is not correct. Wifi waves are just a low frequency sound wave. Everyone is having a placebo effect, or doing the equivalence of listening to music using ear buds all night by having the router too close to their heads. This article was made to play on your fears and to have you buy products like iPad radiation shields and other junk. This article is harmful to people.
How often do you go out and wish you could leave the bulky purse at home? If you’re ready to head out for the night, but only want to bring the necessities, a wallet phone case is the perfect option. You’ll be able to easily carry a few credit cards with your phone and, with the right wallet case, you’ll have a mirror handy whenever you need it. At Cases A La Mode, we have durable and easy to use wallet phone cases you’ll enjoy.
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. 
What the study showed: Self-reported cell phone use was not associated with an increased risk of glioma, meningioma, or non-central nervous system tumors. Although the original published findings reported an association with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma (14), this association disappeared after additional years of follow-up of the cohort (15).
30. There isn’t one cell phone that is safer than another. “Don’t assume one cell phone is safer than another. There’s no such thing as a “safe” cell phone. This is particularly true for industry promoted SAR ratings, which are virtually useless in measuring the true potential biological danger as most all of the damage is not done by heat transfer, which SAR measures.” – Dr. Mercola, NEW Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users,; Twitter: @mercola