Lloyd’s precautions are good ones, although he doesn’t cover cell phone use. I’ve worked on cellular telephony for the last 18 years, coming to the same conclusions about cell phones about ten years ago, the science had gotten conclusive enough for me, as I doubted at first that they could be a problem. As you may have heard, you don’t want to talk on them next to your head if you can help it, use speakerphone mode or wired or Bluetooth headset (BT is very low power, usually keeping itself around only a milliwatt, although wired or speakerphone is better). Don’t park it all day long on any body parts you want to keep cancer-free, especially the pelvic and pectoral regions (trying to keep it classy here). I wouldn’t advise living within a third of a mile of a cell phone tower, or within a mile of a TV tower, if you can help it. Best wishes all.

42. Limit your child’s time on the phone. There’s much discussion about how much screen time is good for kids and teens today, and today’s wireless devices provide access to all the games, chatting features, web browsers, media, and apps they could possibly consume in a lifetime. Setting clear limits on smartphone usage will help you keep screen time within reasonable limits. “Half an hour of screen time is recommended for children 4-5 years old; an hour for ages 5-10; and two hours for high school aged kids.” – Melanie Medina, Growing up Digital – Cell Phone Safety for Kids, Identity Force; Twitter: @IdentityForce


Influence of environmental stress factors on both crop and wild plants of nutritional value is an important research topic. The past research has focused on rising temperatures, drought, soil salinity and toxicity, but the potential effects of increased environmental contamination by human-generated electromagnetic radiation on plants have little been studied.
An Oct. 20, 2011 study of 358,403 Danish citizens – the largest study of its kind to date – concluded that "there was no association between tumors of the central nervous system or brain and long term (10 years +) use of mobile phones." [39] A July 27, 2011 study found that there was no association between cell phone use and brain tumor risks among children and adolescents. [50] Numerous other studies published from 2001-2013 have similarly concluded that there is no association between cell phone use and the development of brain tumors. [1] [41] [42] [45] [46] [49]
The 5.93-inch screen is massive, with plenty of room for most games and movies. The Kirin 659 processor is powerful and capable of standing with any other similarly priced phone on the market. The 3,340mAh battery is long-lasting, and kids who like to take snaps (most kids have an Instagram game that’s on point) will appreciate the extremely good dual-sensor camera suite on the back of the phone. The metal unibody is strong and should be fairly durable, and since it’s running Android there are tons of great parental control apps out there. The only real downside is that Honor’s phones do not support Verizon or Sprint, so if you’re on a family plan with either of those two, this isn’t your best choice. Otherwise, the Honor 7X is a fantastic budget smartphone that kids will love.
The FCC’s safety standards for cell phone radiation were based on studies conducted in the 1980s, These studies have long since been rendered obsolete by newer research. Yet for years the FCC refused to update or even review its standards. Instead, the federal agency simply sat on its hands while cell phones became ever more powerful and ubiquitous.
You hit the nail on the head when you say that distance is key when it comes to EMF exposure. The solutions you sell will definitely help provide that separation. That said, our products are different in that they shield the user from EMF while allowing them to use the device as they normally would, without needing to hold their device by a rope or placing it in a faraday cage that eliminates signal altogether.
Due to the relatively recent adoption of cell phones, the long-term safety of the technology cannot be determined conclusively and caution is warranted. Research on glioma brain tumors shows the average latency period is 20-30 years. [56] Although cell phones were introduced in 1983, it was not until 2003 that over 50% of the US population had a wireless subscription, so the 20 year mark for mass cell phone use has not yet been reached. [44] [71] The May 17, 2010 INTERPHONE study, the largest study ever to examine possible links between cell phones and brain tumors, concluded that overall there was "no increase in risk" for glioma or meningioma brain tumors, [57] but the average user in the study had less than eight years of cell phone exposure. [56] In his review of the INTERPHONE study results, Dr. Rodolfo Saracci stated that "none of today’s established carcinogens, including tobacco, could have been firmly identified as increasing risk in the first 10 years or so since first exposure." [58]
People who say cell phones are safe reference statements by the FCC and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and point to peer-reviewed studies which conclude that cell phone use is not associated with an increased risk of brain tumors or the onset of other health problems. They contend there has been no increase in brain tumor rates despite hundreds of millions of people now using cell phones.
Last night unfortunately I had to sleep part of the night near a wifi router, and I felt I was being fried… as if been cooked in a microwave oven (though I never experienced that). I could hardly sleep at all until I moved (into the garden). I felt like my ovaries were directly being damaged, and felt that cyst or tumour growth would start if under longer exposure.
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
Carlo’s story underscores the need for caution, however, particularly since it evokes eerie parallels with two of the most notorious cases of corporate deception on record: the campaigns by the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to obscure the dangers of smoking and climate change, respectively. Just as tobacco executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1960s) that smoking was deadly, and fossil-fuel executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1980s) that burning oil, gas, and coal would cause a “catastrophic” temperature rise, so Carlo’s testimony reveals that wireless executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1990s) that cell phones could cause cancer and genetic damage.17
In the low dose, in the low intensity range we are dealing with biological effects which are clearly not linear to the SAR value, they are not linear to the energy transmitted and measured and communicated by the SAR value. So for the low intensity experiments, or the so called ‘athermal’ effects, we are very suspicious whether the SAR value is valid at all.”
Even so, the industry’s neutralizing of the safety issue has opened the door to the biggest, most hazardous prize of all: the proposed revolutionary transformation of society dubbed the “Internet of Things.” Lauded as a gigantic engine of economic growth, the Internet of Things will not only connect people through their smartphones and computers but will connect those devices to a customer’s vehicles and home appliances, even their baby’s diapers—all at speeds faster than can currently be achieved.25
Thirty-two rats and their forty newborn offspring were divided into the following four groups according to the type of EMR exposure they were subjected to: the control, 900, 1800, and 2450 MHz groups. Each experimental group was exposed to EMR for 60 min/day during the pregnancy and growth periods. The pregnant rats were allowed to stand for four generations (total 52 weeks) before, plasma and uterine samples were obtained. During the 4th, 5th, and 6th weeks of the experiment, plasma and uterine samples were also obtained from the developing rats. [The electric field density was set at 20 dB and 11 V/m in order to obtain 0.1 W/kg whole-body average specific absorption rate (SAR).]

They're ok, though there's a nasty chemical processing smell to the stickers. I'm still not sure they're worth what they're made of. No instructions, testimonials, or even a product insert label, when you get them in a pretty, smelly gold sleeve, though you don't really need instructions for stickers, lol. They're very durable and don't wear easily, despite pressure and contact w/ many surfaces & objects. The price increased $4 since I ordered them. That said, the designs on them are beautiful. I just don't understand what I paid for, & it would be nice if there were tests on devices like this, proving that they actually absorb or render harmless, various wireless frequencies, and at what range. If they were cheaper, I might order 2 more packs just to see if they made a difference if placed closer together in larger quantity. I have 3 on my laptop & have noticed a very slight reduction in sensitivity to EMF. I didn't notice this slight difference until I put 1 sticker where my right hand rests on the keyboard. I had originally placed 2 on the base of the laptop, 1 over the wifi card, & 1 over the processor, and it made zero difference. I left things like that for 2 weeks, before I decided to try putting one of the stickers on the keyboard area. I'm still not clear on whether or not I'd buy this product again, but like the seller, Crownstarqi, b/c they are sending me a few more stickers so that I can see if multiple stickers on more devices makes a difference. This is very kind of them, & they have great customer follow-up. -Account holder's progeny.
Ionizing radiation, including x-rays and ultraviolet light, produces molecules called ions that have either too many or too few electrons. Ions are known to damage DNA and cause cancer. Cell phone radiation, like radio, TV, and visible light radiation, is non-ionizing and lacks sufficient energy to add or remove electrons from molecules, and therefore it cannot ionize and cause cancer. [2] According to the authors of a 2005 peer-reviewed study of 3.7 million Swedish residents, a "biologic mechanism that could explain any possible carcinogenic effect from radiofrequency radiation has not been identified." [42]
Increasingly, more people are reporting symptoms associated with WiFi radiation, or non-ionizing radiation, such as headaches, nausea, dizziness, and loss of concentration. Some governments and public bodies are choosing to take precautionary measures, as this topic continues to be studied, by banning or regulating WiFi in public places and schools.
The energy of electromagnetic radiation is determined by its frequency; ionizing radiation is high frequency, and therefore high energy, whereas non-ionizing radiation is low frequency, and therefore low energy. The NCI fact sheet Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer lists sources of radiofrequency radiation. More information about ionizing radiation can be found on the Radiation page.
SafeSleeve Anti Radiation Case: Safe Sleeve website says they integrate FCC accredited independent lab tested "shielding technology" in their products. There are many links to "SafeSleeve, Is it a Scam?" and "Does SafeSleeve work?" online, but if you follow those links you'll find they go to the actual SafeSleeve site where the question of SafeSleeve protection is addressed.  You'll see in this demonstration that the radiation level was higher with the SafeSleeve Case on.
High frequency, specifically 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi radiation, induces a decrease in sperm parameters along with an increase in apoptosis-positive cells and caspase-3 activity in the seminiferous tubules of Wistar rats, specially in 7-hour group. It reduced seminal vesicle weight following 2.45 GHz exposure. Considering the progressive privilege of 2.45 GHz wireless networks in our environment, we concluded that there should be a major concern about the time-dependent exposure of our body to the higher frequencies of Wi-Fi antenna.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency radiation have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and health problems. The FDA, which originally nominated this exposure for review by the NTP in 1999, issued a statement on the draft NTP reports released in February 2018, saying “based on this current information, we believe the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.” FDA and the Federal Communications Commission share responsibility for regulating cell phone technologies.
This study investigated the effect of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation (2 h/day for 45 days) on biomarkers within Wistar rats. A significant decrease (P < 0.05) was recorded in the level of pineal melatonin of exposed group as compared with sham exposed, while a  significant increase (P < 0.05) in creatine kinase, caspase 3, and calcium ion concentration was observed in whole brain of exposed group of animals as compared to sham exposed. The study concludes that a reduction in melatonin or an increase in caspase-3, creatine kinase, and calcium ion may cause significant damage in brain due to chronic exposure of these radiations. These biomarkers clearly indicate possible health implications of such exposures.
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.
×