Responsibility for driver cell phone safety is the part of so many distinct factions. Consumer safety advocates oppose telecommunications lobbyists, and state lawmakers seem to avoid the larger issue of driver distractions. But without all participants it’s likely that the cell phone safety debate would lose the thrust required to effect real change. And there will be change.
"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 ."

My son likes to listen to music when he sleeps. He subscribes to Spotify, and has his playlists downloaded to his phone. He now uses airplane mode at night & uses Spotify this way–but of course he sleeps w/ his phone. (He also sleeps in a basement.) Is this still dangerous? If so, what do you suggest he do to be able to listen to continuous music safely at night? He is 21 and resistant to put down the phone… but he does listen, esp. if others (esp non-Mom others!), particularly “professionals” give solid researched reasons. I am going to print this article and share it with him. (My other 3 teenagers don’t have an issue and several don’t even have a phone… but he’s my firstborn, and more into the phone…)


Asked for specifics, Foster says it helps to understand how Wi-Fi works. While most people assume their wireless router is constantly sending and receiving information, Foster says these devices actually transmit just 0.1% of the time. “Maybe that goes up somewhat if you’re streaming video,” he says, “but most of the time your router is just sitting idly waiting for something to happen.”
Researchers have carried out several types of epidemiologic studies in humans to investigate the possibility of a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of malignant (cancerous) brain tumors, such as gliomas, as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuroma (tumors in the cells of the nerve responsible for hearing that are also known as vestibular schwannomas), meningiomas (usually benign tumors in the membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord), and parotid gland tumors (tumors in the salivary glands) (3).
Outside critics soon came to suspect that Carlo would be the front man for an industry whitewash. They cited his dispute with Henry Lai, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington, over a study that Lai had conducted examining whether cell-phone radiation could damage DNA. In 1999, Carlo and the WTR’s general counsel sent a letter to the university’s president urging that Lai be fired for his alleged violation of research protocols. Lai accused the WTR of tampering with his experiment’s results. Both Carlo and Lai deny the other’s accusations.5
One key player has not been swayed by all this wireless-friendly research: the insurance industry. The Nation has not been able to find a single insurance company willing to sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation. “Why would we want to do that?” one executive chuckled before pointing to more than two dozen lawsuits outstanding against wireless companies, demanding a total of $1.9 billion in damages. Some judges have affirmed such lawsuits, including a judge in Italy who refused to allow industry-funded research as evidence.24

In one type of study, called a case–control study, cell phone use is compared between people with these types of tumors and people without them. In another type of study, called a cohort study, a large group of people who do not have cancer at study entry is followed over time and the rate of these tumors in people who did and didn’t use cell phones is compared. Cancer incidence data can also be analyzed over time to see if the rates of brain tumors changed in large populations during the time that cell phone use increased dramatically. These studies have not shown clear evidence of a relationship between cell phone use and cancer. However, researchers have reported some statistically significant associations for certain subgroups of people.
Carlo sent letters to each of the industry’s chieftains on October 7, 1999, reiterating that the WTR’s research had found the following: “The risk of rare neuro-epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain was more than doubled…in cell phone users”; there was an apparent “correlation between brain tumors occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head”; and “the ability of radiation from a phone’s antenna to cause functional genetic damage [was] definitely positive….”8
Because these are complex diseases that develop over decades, it is difficult to conclusively show that the increase in wireless signal exposures directly cause the diseases. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considers wireless radiation as a class 2B possible carcinogen due to limited evidence. These small number of studies are leaning towards showing that electromagnetic radiations, including WiFi, are not safe.
Industry-funded scientists had been pressuring their colleagues for a decade by then, according to Leszczynski, another member of the Lyon working group. Leszczynski was an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School when he first experienced such pressure, in 1999. He had wanted to investigate the effects of radiation levels higher than the SAR levels permitted by government, hypothesizing that this might better conform to real-world practices. But when he proposed the idea at scientific meetings, Leszczynski said, it was shouted down by Mays Swicord, Joe Elder, and C.K. Chou—scientists who worked for Motorola. As Leszczynski recalled, “It was a normal occurrence at scientific meetings—and I attended really a lot of them—that whenever [a] scientist reported biological effects at SAR over [government-approved levels], the above-mentioned industry scientists, singularly or as a group, jumped up to the microphone to condemn and to discredit the results.”44
The present experiment was designed to study the  2.45 GHz low-level microwave irradiation-induced stress response (continuous wave exposure for 2h/day for 45 days) and its effect on implantation or pregnancy in female mice. Researchers observed that implantation sites were affected significantly in MW-irradiated mice as compared to control and in addition to a significant increase in ROS, hemoglobin, RBC and WBC counts, N/L ratio, DNA damage in brain cells, and plasma estradiol concentration, a significant decrease was observed in NO level and antioxidant enzyme activities of MW-exposed mice. Our findings led us to conclude that a low level of MW irradiation-induced oxidative stress not only suppresses implantation, but it may also lead to deformity of the embryo in case pregnancy continues. We also suggest that MW radiation-induced oxidative stress by increasing ROS production in the body may lead to DNA strand breakage in the brain cells and implantation failure/resorption or abnormal pregnancy in mice.
the Environmental Working Group is suspending publication of the EWG guide to cell phones until the FCC makes the responsible decision to require cell phone makers to generate and disclose data about device and network emissions under real-world conditions. We strongly believe that as cell phones become more powerful and ubiquitous, it is critical that people have a right to know how much radiation they can expect their cell phones to generate. As things now stand, the FCC’s cell phone safety rules are as obsolete as the StarTac.

The FCC provides information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cell phones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds with the relative amount of radiofrequency radiation absorbed by the head of a cell phone user (47). Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCC’s ID search form.
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.
Asked for specifics, Foster says it helps to understand how Wi-Fi works. While most people assume their wireless router is constantly sending and receiving information, Foster says these devices actually transmit just 0.1% of the time. “Maybe that goes up somewhat if you’re streaming video,” he says, “but most of the time your router is just sitting idly waiting for something to happen.”
48. Encourage your children to talk to you about their conversations with friends and experiences online. Make them feel comfortable talking to you if they are made to feel uncomfortable by anyone through any service while using their device. “Tell an adult you trust if you receive anything on your phone—a call, a text message, an email, a picture, or voicemail message—that makes you uncomfortable.” – Cell Phone Savvy, National Crime Prevention Council; Twitter: @McGruffatNCPC
You can search for the most popular cell phone cases and covers, browse cases and covers by brand, and even refine your search by need. Cell phone cases provide a variety of protection. Some people put a large emphasis on military-grade protection, to ensure that all angles of their case are secure, no matter the terrain. Others may desire cases that give easy access to headphone ports or charging outlets, to have access to home speakers or audio cables. The engineering of cases can become even more specific—right down to the beveled edges that raise your screen protectively above a flat surface or the grip finish smoothly designed onto the back of your phone to ensure maximum ease in typing. Whatever your need, Amazon is sure to carry the brand, features, and colors you care about. Check the Deals page regularly to even see some of your favorite cases on discount. Amazon is sure to carry the widest selection of cases; you just worry about carrying yours.

Hello! I noticed that in your cell phone case section, you recommend RF Safe and then the patches and products from Less EMF.com. Have you ever used the patches? I am also considering the Pong case….do you know anything about this one? I’m trying to also find a product that my husband would use, and I’m not sure he’d bother with a pouch, so I am considering either the patches to put on a phone or an actual phone case. It’s just hard to know if these things really work….
In today's world, 2.45-GHz radio-frequency radiation (RFR) from industrial, scientific, medical, military and domestic applications is the main part of indoor-outdoor electromagnetic field exposure. Long-term effects of 2.45-GHz Wi-Fi radiation on male reproductive system was not known completely. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the major cause of male infertility during short- and long-term exposure of Wi-Fi radiation.
Conclusions: Based on the extensive body of research and the adverse health effects demonstrated in the majority of the studies, it is recommended that steps should be taken to minimize RF radiation exposure in accordance with official recommendations. Wired solutions should be given preference. Current exposure limits and SAR values do not protect from health risks associated with Wi-Fi radiation. The adverse effects on learning, attention, and behavior serve as a basis for educational institutions of all age groups to forgo the use of Wi-Fi applications. Due to cytotoxic effects, Wi-Fi technologies are not suitable for hospitals and telemedicine. Wi-Fi technologies should not be used in bedrooms, work spaces, common lounges, hospital rooms, lecture halls, classrooms, and public transport. The possible risks associated with Wi-Fi radiation could be avoided by testing alternative technologies at other frequency bands like optical VLC/Li-Fi technologies (visible light communication). When Wi-Fi cannot be avoided as a transition solution, the ALARA principle must be applied: no continuous transmission, instead Wi-Fi networks that can be turned off and feature dynamic power management.

Also of note, in a study by Henrietta Nittby et al (2009), the lowest exposure SARs were worse than the higher SAR exposures. Some scientists consider blood brain barrier effects at these very low levels of radiation exposure (i.e. 30-45x lower than the ‘Top 10’ lowest SAR phones ranked by the Environmental Working Group) to be of equal or even greater concern for the population than the increase in brain tumors from cell phone use that is expected.


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.
I think it might be part of the problem with all these kids losing it in the last decade and a half. Just something to think about. Maybe they should start building “wifi free”restaurants and buildings. They have been warning people since before they even started using it on a commercial bases that wifi was going to have serious effects on the human body. There’s just so much of a “hey as long as it doesn’t bother me I don’t care” attitude. I mean think about it. Now I’m not saying this in a negative way but look at the turnaround in public opinion about gay marriage. I mean it went from a hotly debated topic to “ah well they ain’t hurting anybody so let them do what they want. Except in the red states and if you notice a lot of those states are lacking saturated wifi signals. Just something to think about
Hello! I noticed that in your cell phone case section, you recommend RF Safe and then the patches and products from Less EMF.com. Have you ever used the patches? I am also considering the Pong case….do you know anything about this one? I’m trying to also find a product that my husband would use, and I’m not sure he’d bother with a pouch, so I am considering either the patches to put on a phone or an actual phone case. It’s just hard to know if these things really work….
Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important component of this strategy, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided. Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage—as Carlo’s WTR did in 1999; as the WHO’s Interphone study did in 2010; and as the US National Toxicology Program did in 2016—industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree. “[T]he overall balance of the evidence” gives no cause for alarm, asserted Jack Rowley, research and sustainability director for the Groupe Special Mobile Association (GSMA), Europe’s wireless trade association, speaking to reporters about the WHO’s findings.22
 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).
Radiofrequency radiation from cell phones is non-ionizing and is not powerful enough to cause cancer. 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]
4. Erase your data with a swipe. “Apps like Find My iPhone and Lost will…allow you to remotely wipe the phone, erasing your personal data and restoring it to its original settings should it become stolen. This will help keep your passwords, logins, and online accounts safe.” – Amanda Perez, Cell Phone Safety Tips For Stolen Devices, ABC30; Twitter: @ABC30
×