“In addition to protecting your phone from scratches and breaks, a basic case can help conceal a distinctive phone’s telltale markings. That’s a detriment if you’re trying to show off your handset’s badass styling, but a benefit for maintaining a lower profile. Note: Even though they look better, a flashy designer case is like sticking a “steal me” marquee on your phone.” – Jessica Dolcourt, Keep Your Phone from Getting Stolen (and What to Do If It Is), CNET; Twitter: @CNET

We do have evidence that cellphones (or WiFi) do NOT cause an increase in brain tumors. Look at the time period over which cellphone use became common -- say, over the last twenty years. During that time, the incidence of brain tumors has remained absolutely flat. With over four billion people using cellphones (or WiFi) today, if there was any influence on the development of brain tumors, we would be seeing that by now.


The most compelling evidence though comes from a Swedish team of cancer experts whose research stretches back 15 years. The results clearly demonstrate “a consistent association between long-term use of cell phone and cordless phones and glioma and acoustic neuroma”. Overall, they found that using a cell phone for more than a decade significantly increases the risk of a malignant tumour by almost two times with an analogue cell phone and by nearly four times with a digital phone. Interestingly, the risks were even higher for people who had started using mobiles as teenagers.
“It’s because WiFi is just a low frequency sound wave.” For me, the jury is still out concerning the link between WiFi and sleep disturbance. But I’m sorry, you are wrong about WiFi being a low frequency sound wave. It is a radio wave, i.e. electromagnetic, and it runs at 2.3 GHz and/or 5 GHz, which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as low frequency.

49. Get insurance on your child’s phone. “54% of kids plan on spending their summer playing outside. With so many opportunities for their cellphone to become broken, stolen or misplaced, it’s important to protect their device with mobile protection, considering that nearly 30% of parents have had to replace a child’s cellphone in the past 18 months. This will protect their device against damage (including water damage), loss and theft. Ask your carrier about getting the most comprehensive coverage available for your device.” – 5 Summer Cellphone Safety Tips for Kids, Asurion; Twitter: @Asurion
When a group of Danish ninth graders experienced difficulty concentrating after sleeping with their cell phones by their head, they performed an experiment to test the effect of wireless Wi-Fi routers on garden cress. One set of plants was grown in a room free of wireless radiation; the other group grew next to two routers that released the same amount of radiation as a cell phone. The results? The plants nearest the radiation didn’t grow. [6]

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.
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
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)
Released in 1993 as a joint creation of IBM and BellSouth, this was the first smartphone. A fax machine, a PDA, a pager and a mobile phone, the IBM Simon featured no physical keys, but used a touchscreen and optional stylus. Amazingly, it included applications such as games, email, a notepad, calculator, world clock, address book and a calendar. It only sold in the United States, for $899.

In 2015, scientists from around the world united for the International EMF Scientist Appeal based on the results of over 2,000 research papers. The appeal is the collective voice of 190 scientists from 39 different countries. They are calling for tighter regulations and more security measures when dealing with electromagnetic field exposures generally, and WiFi in particular.


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).
Hundreds of clinical studies have attempted to troll the netherworld of cell phone emissions. To echo the FDA: so far no conclusive evidence exists that proves a health risk from cell phone RFs. BUT studies still need to be done. Scientists have argued that research suffers when forced into short-term constraints. Consumers demand quick and speedy results, a demand that short-circuits authentic scientific study.
The agency is finally moving to meet the realities of the 21st century and the Information Age. On June 15, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski circulated a proposal to his four fellow commissioners calling for formal review of the 1996 regulations. To advance, his plan must be approved by a majority of the commissioners. If they agree, the FCC could take the long overdue step of modernizing its safety standards. But the pace is likely to be glacial.
We did not simply measure energy coming from the front of the case which is the area of the case where the phone would be "shielded" from radiation. If we had taken readings with a directional meter, specifically measuring energy coming from only the front or flap cover where the shielding material is, we assume as the manufacturers claim, that we would have seen a drop in the radiation readings.
According to a peer-reviewed Dec. 2006 study of 420,095 cell phone users in Denmark, the results showed a "reduced brain tumor risk" among long-term subscribers. [1] Two other peer-reviewed studies also found that cell phone users had a slightly decreased risk of developing brain tumors. A July 20, 2005 Danish study [41] found a "decreased risk for high-grade glioma," a malignant brain tumor, and a 2005 Swedish study [42] also found a "decreased odds ratio" for developing glioma as well as meningioma, another type of brain tumor.
Unfortunately, the current state of cell phone radiation research is similar to the early days of tobacco research. It wasn't until 1999 when the U.S. Department of Justice finally filed a racketeering lawsuit against the major tobacco companies for engaging in a "50 year scheme" to counteract any scientific evidence that showed that cigarettes are harmful to a person's health. Is the potential cell phone cancer link the same sort of scenario? Are cell phone companies funding and promoting research that "proves" no link from cell phone radio radiation in an effort to discredit those studies that are uncovering problems?
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.
The cell phone pocket shield allows you to use your earbuds or headphones during a call but at the same time, safely place your cell phone in your pocket, purse, etc. This means you are protected both when the phone is connected on a call or sitting idle. The shield will not interfere with your cellular signal and will not negatively affect battery life.
All that research has taught us that at high frequencies, electromagnetic radiation can promote tumor growth and cancer. The sun’s ultraviolet rays and their links to skin cancer are one example. Even at lower frequencies, very high levels of electromagnetic radiation exposure can hurt you. “But we’re talking skin burns, not cancer or tumors,” says Kenneth Foster, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania.
The HPA also says that due to the mobile phone's adaptive power ability, a DECT cordless phone's radiation could actually exceed the radiation of a mobile phone. The HPA explains that while the DECT cordless phone's radiation has an average output power of 10 mW, it is actually in the form of 100 bursts per second of 250 mW, a strength comparable to some mobile phones.[8]
A 2012 study by NCI researchers (25) compared observed glioma incidence rates in U.S. SEER data with rates simulated from the small risks reported in the Interphone study (6) and the greatly increased risk of brain cancer among cell phone users reported in the Swedish pooled analysis (19). The authors concluded that overall, the incidence rates of glioma in the United States did not increase over the study period. They noted that the US rates could be consistent with the small increased risk seen among the subset of heaviest users in the Interphone study. The observed incidence trends were inconsistent with the high risks reported in the Swedish pooled study. These findings suggest that the increased risks observed in the Swedish study are not reflected in U.S. incidence trends.

I have just received my wifi connection home first time In my life and I can tell you it has not been a pleasant experience since installation. In the beginning my wifi router was emitting horrible smell that made me feel sick and I also experienced some kind of invasion on my body and head I did not know how to call it until the technician described it for me as being radiations. At night my brain was suffering noise and my vision freckles like that of after tv trasmission would end in the past. I do not mean to be funny but this is the best way I can describe it. And the previously described is also combined with noise in the ears. Now the smell is a bit less but it is still there. I am able to sleep but with all that noise in my head. I also suffered feeling as if very tired although I do not know if it was all due to the wifi. After that I am busy looking for safer internet connection but have not found any yet especially after I read about the hazards.
Why, after such acrimony, Carlo was allowed to make one last appearance before the CTIA board is a mystery. Whatever the reason, Carlo flew to New Orleans in February 2000 for the wireless industry’s annual conference, where he submitted the WTR’s final report to the CTIA board. According to Carlo, Wheeler made sure that none of the hundreds of journalists covering the event could get anywhere near him.12

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.

10. Your house may be burglarized due to social media. “If you spend any time with social media, (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) You have probably found that you can “check-in” somewhere to let all your friends know what you’re up to, and maybe even stop by for coffee. But if your security settings on the social networks are not set properly, you could just as easily be telling robbers that your house is vacant right now, which they will find most helpful when they clean you out. Sometimes, they will come back in a couple of months, to get this stuff you bought with the insurance money, too. Occasionally, they will look for important documents to commit identity theft. All told, checking-in may be one of the most reckless cell phone safety errors we can commit.” – Cell Phone Safety Identity Theft and Cell Phone Security, About Money; Twitter: @AboutMoney
×