The FCC has granted the industry’s wishes so often that it qualifies as a “captured agency,” argued journalist Norm Alster in a report that Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics published in 2015. The FCC allows cell-phone manufacturers to self-report SAR levels, and does not independently test industry claims or require manufacturers to display the SAR level on a phone’s packaging. “Industry controls the FCC through a soup-to-nuts stranglehold that extends from its well-placed campaign spending in Congress through its control of the FCC’s congressional oversight committees to its persistent agency lobbying,” Alster wrote. He also quoted the CTIA website praising the FCC for “its light regulatory touch.”31
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
Even though a phone is a great way for parents to maintain contact with their children, picking the right one isn’t always easy. Parents must address crucial factors, such as cost and control, while simultaneously appeasing their children with features such as games, apps, photos, and texting, among other things. Here are our top picks for the best smartphones and cell phones for kids, so you can keep in contact with your loved ones at all times (even if they don’t want you to). Consider pairing your chosen phone with one of the best parental control apps or, if you opt for an Android device, take a look at Google’s Family Link for more peace of mind.
When you make a call, text, or use data, your phone sends and receives RF signals back and forth between its antenna and nearby cell towers. The radiation from Bluetooth and WiFi devices falls into the same basic range on the electromagnetic spectrum—between FM radios and microwave ovens—as the RF waves from cell phones. But because the distances traveled by WiFi and Bluetooth signals tend to be much shorter (between your router and your laptop, for instance, or your smartphone and your wireless speaker) the RF can be transmitted at a much lower power than from a cell phone, which could reduce the effect it has on living tissue.
Over time, the number of cell phone calls per day, the length of each call, and the amount of time people use cell phones have increased. Because of changes in cell phone technology and increases in the number of base stations for transmitting wireless signals, the exposure from cell phone use—power output—has changed, mostly lowered, in many regions of the United States (1).
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
gamma rays produce virtually no electricity in the human body because the actual inherent energy of gamma rays that actually hits molecules is next to 0. for gamma rays to produce any electricity they would need to hit something much more dense – like lead and for you to generate any significant electricity from gamma rays hitting the earth you would need a huge slab of it.
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.

Numerous peer-reviewed studies have shown an association between cell phone use and the development of brain tumors. According to a Mar. 2008 meta-analysis of cell phone studies there is a "consistent pattern" connecting cell phone use and an increased risk of developing glioma, a type of brain tumor. [12] A Mar. 31, 2009 study found that long term cell phone use (10 years +) "approximately doubles the risk" of being diagnosed with glioma on the same side of the head where the cell phone is held. [51] In Apr. 2013 another study of Swedish cell phone users also found an association between cell phone use and the development of glioma and acoustic neuroma - a benign tumor formation on the nerve near the ear. [52] That study’s conclusions were confirmed by a different study in Apr. 2014. [84] Other studies published from 2005-2013 have similarly concluded that there is an association between cell phone use and increased risk of developing brain and head tumors. [13] [53] [54] [55]
The potential health impact of Wi-Fi, even at low exposure levels, can no longer be called into question or relativized away, not even by those studies that found no effects. The decision-makers in government, school boards, and health agencies have a responsibility to deal with the available body of research and not to be deceived by the arguments of the industry lobby or boilerplates of government institutions. Health risks are a reality. It would be particularly important to carry out further research regarding the effects on the brain and young people. The application of the precautionary principle, which is recognized in all European countries, only allows for one conclusion: Wi-Fi must not be used continuously and close to the human body. I is no coincidence that the user guide of the Telekom Wi-Fi router states: “The integrated antennas of your Speedport transmit and receive wireless signals, for example, to provide Wi-Fi connectivity. Avoid placing your Speedport in close proximity to bedrooms, children’s rooms, as well as common rooms and lounges to keep the exposure to electromagnetic field as low as possible.” In their joint appeal with regard to Wi-Fi, the Cyprus and Austrian medical associations call on decision-makers to "promote age-related rational application of digital technology and not allow at schools, particular at preschool, kindergarten and elementary schools wireless networks and opt for wired connections" (ibid). Lawmakers are called upon to adjust protective legislation to the current state of research and to support research into alternatives to Wi-Fi such as VLC technologies (visible light communication, Li-Fi).
It’s unfortunate, but kids are a clumsy lot, and even the best behaved little ones will often knock their precious phone flying across a room. With that in mind, it’s often worth making sure that their phone can take those sorts of knocks and come out without much of an issue. The Nokia 6.1 is a such a phone. It bucks the recent trend for glass with an all-metal build that feels extremely solid. It’s not exactly a rugged phone, but it should be able to take some accidental drops and knocks better than a glass phone.
Oral CareChildren's Oral Care,Dental Floss & Gum...1393 Personal CareBody Treatments,Deodorants & Antiperspir...3971 Sexual WellnessAdult Books,Anal Toys,Arousal & Massage...2370 Shaving & GroomingHair Removal,Men's Shave,Shave Accessori...1716 Skin CareCellulite & Stretch Marks,Cleanse,Exfoli...8862 Vitamins & SupplementsDetox & Superfoods,Protein,Sports Nutrit...4122
According to a Mar. 2008 meta-analysis of cell phone studies there is a "consistent pattern" connecting cell phone use and an increased risk of developing glioma, a type of brain tumor. [12] A Mar. 31, 2009 study found that long term cell phone use (10 years +) "approximately doubles the risk" of being diagnosed with glioma on the same side of the head where the cell phone is held. [51] In Apr. 2013 another study of Swedish cell phone users also found an association between cell phone use and the development of glioma and acoustic neuroma - a benign tumor formation on the nerve near the ear. [52] That study’s conclusions were confirmed by a different study in Apr. 2014. [84] Other studies published from 2005-2013 have similarly concluded that there is an association between cell phone use and increased risk of developing brain and head tumors. [13] [53] [54] [55]
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
Legal Disclaimer: EWG's cell phone database is dynamic, which means that the cell phone ranking numbers may change based on evolving science, new information on SAR radiation exposures, market conditions, or other factors. Please be advised that EWG does not recommend that companies create marketing materials based on the EWG rating system, given that the rankings may change as the database is updated. EWG makes no representations or warranties about any of the products rated on this site. EWG hereby disclaims all warranties with regard to the products on the site, including express, statutory, implied warranties of merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose.
The Working Group indicated that, although the human studies were susceptible to bias, the findings could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone, and that a causal interpretation could not be excluded. The Working Group noted that any interpretation of the evidence should also consider that the observed associations could reflect chance, bias, or confounding rather than an underlying causal effect. In addition, the Working Group stated that the investigation of risk of cancer of the brain associated with cell phone use poses complex methodologic challenges in the conduct of the research and in the analysis and interpretation of findings.

The potential health impact of Wi-Fi, even at low exposure levels, can no longer be called into question or relativized away, not even by those studies that found no effects. The decision-makers in government, school boards, and health agencies have a responsibility to deal with the available body of research and not to be deceived by the arguments of the industry lobby or boilerplates of government institutions. Health risks are a reality. It would be particularly important to carry out further research regarding the effects on the brain and young people. The application of the precautionary principle, which is recognized in all European countries, only allows for one conclusion: Wi-Fi must not be used continuously and close to the human body. I is no coincidence that the user guide of the Telekom Wi-Fi router states: “The integrated antennas of your Speedport transmit and receive wireless signals, for example, to provide Wi-Fi connectivity. Avoid placing your Speedport in close proximity to bedrooms, children’s rooms, as well as common rooms and lounges to keep the exposure to electromagnetic field as low as possible.” In their joint appeal with regard to Wi-Fi, the Cyprus and Austrian medical associations call on decision-makers to "promote age-related rational application of digital technology and not allow at schools, particular at preschool, kindergarten and elementary schools wireless networks and opt for wired connections" (ibid). Lawmakers are called upon to adjust protective legislation to the current state of research and to support research into alternatives to Wi-Fi such as VLC technologies (visible light communication, Li-Fi).
In 2011, two small studies were published that examined brain glucose metabolism in people after they had used cell phones. The results were inconsistent; whereas one study showed increased glucose metabolism in the region of the brain close to the antenna compared with tissues on the opposite side of the brain (26), the other study (27) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where the phone was used.

WiFi operates in the 2 to 5 GHz range -- part of the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is in the same part of the spectrum where cell phones operate so I may refer to WiFi or cellphone electromagnetic radiation interchangeably. These are radio waves -- no different from those used to broadcast television programs, except that they are higher in frequency. They aren't nearly as high a frequency as visible light, and no one worries about getting cancer from visible light (ultraviolet light, on the other hand, causes skin cancer, but this is the minimum energy necessary to cause ionizations that can cause breaks in strands of DNA, which is the mechanism by which cancer cells can be created). There is no credible evidence that non-ionizing radiation has any adverse health effects at all. There is no radiobiologic mechanism that could explain such an association -- and absolutely no scientifically valid evidence that this has ever happened.
While cell phones localize the highest microwave exposure to the brain, Wi-Fi  exposures are often localized to the abdomen, leg and chest area. However this is not always the case as some people sleep in rooms with Wi-Fi baby monitors, Wi-Fi routers or Wi-Fi gaming devices near their pillow. Wi-Fi printers may be in offices next to a person’s desk and most people are unaware that they transmit continuously. All in all, for some people- especially children- the Wi-Fi exposure is quite significant to overall cumulative exposure.
The wireless communications industry is rushing to blanket the nation with next-generation networks whose health effects are unknown. Despite studies linking radiation from existing networks to cancer in lab animals, the Federal Communications Commission and state legislators are bowing to industry lobbyists and clearing the way for the new networks.  
38. Does your child need that phone feature? Parental control apps allow parents to exert greater control over the features and functions their children can access on their smartphones. Making use of these apps and other tools to restrict access to the features you deem safe and appropriate can go a long way in keeping your kids safe while giving you much-needed peace of mind. “Determine what features your child needs based on his age. Does your 10-year-old really need web browsing capabilities?” – Laura Willard, Cell Phone Safety Tips for Kids, Tweens and Teens, SheKnows; Twitter: @SheKnows

25. Use your cell phone for emergencies or important calls only. “Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. If you’re pregnant, avoiding or reducing your cell phone use may be especially important.” – Dr. Mercola, NEW Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users, Mercola.com; Twitter: @mercola
There is a catch, though: The Internet of Things will require augmenting today’s 4G technology with 5G, thus “massively increasing” the general population’s exposure to radiation, according to a petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide who have published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed studies and represent “a significant portion of the credentialed scientists in the radiation research field,” according to Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, who helped circulate the petition. Nevertheless, like cell phones, 5G technology is on the verge of being introduced without pre-market safety testing.26

There is an alternative approach, rooted in what some scientists and ethicists call the “precautionary principle,” which holds that society doesn’t need absolute proof of hazard to place limits on a given technology. If the evidence is sufficiently solid and the risks sufficiently great, the precautionary principle calls for delaying the deployment of that technology until further research clarifies its impacts. The scientists’ petition discussed earlier urges government regulators to apply the precautionary principle to 5G technology. Current safety guidelines “protect industry—not health,” contends the petition, which “recommend[s] a moratorium on the roll-out of [5G]…until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.”54


In the spirit of adventure, I tried the snazzy TwelveSouth case pictured in this post, and I admit, there were some things I liked. I got very used to not carrying around a bulk in my back pocket. I even put my keycard for the office in it, and it felt very futuristic to unlock the office door by holding my phone up to the fob sensor. But in the end, I took the case off before a trip. It just seemed too foolish to risk losing everything at once.
Some of the leading case brands available on Amazon include OtterBox, Speck, LifeProof, CM4, Belkin, Urban Armor Gear (UAG), Mophie, Spigen, and Samsung—and the selection continues to grow. You can choose from leather card holder cases, belt holsters, slim fabric sleeves, silicone cases, wallet cases, waterproof carrying cases with lanyards, battery charging cases, flip cover cases, and even customizable cases. With Amazon, you have thousands of options to choose from. Phones cases are compatible with many different brands, including Apple, Samsung, Amazon Fire, LG, BlackBerry, Motorola, Nokia, HTC, Kyocera, ASUS, ZTE, Blu, Sony, Pantech, and Casio.
The HARApad is the one I like best. It is a rigid, rugged, easy-to-use laptop pad that contains perfectly safe, military-grade electromagnetic radiation (EMR) shielding. You simply place it underneath your laptop and it protects you from heat, radiation and organ damage caused by the computer. HARApad uses “root technology”, which means each pad is each manufactured from environmentally safe, natural and organic materials.
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
Because of this physical law, even if  holding a Wi-Fi router directly against your forehead was very dangerous (and, we assure you, it is not) working in your home office 45 feet away from the Wi-Fi router would not be dangerous simply because the microwave radiation of the already minuscule 1 watt Wi-Fi router would have radically decreased in intensity. When you factor in that the Wi-Fi radiation is already harmless, you see that there is no situation in which the Wi-Fi signal from your router, your laptop, your media center, or any other Wi-Fi device in your home could possibly hurt you.
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
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 WHO began to study the health effects of electric- and magnetic-field radiation (EMF) in 1996 under the direction of Michael Repacholi, an Australian biophysicist. Although Repacholi claimed on disclosure forms that he was “independent” of corporate influence, in fact Motorola had funded his research: While Repacholi was director of the WHO’s EMF program, Motorola paid $50,000 a year to his former employer, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which then transferred the money to the WHO program. When journalists exposed the payments, Repacholi denied that there was anything untoward about them because Motorola had not paid him personally. Eventually, Motorola’s payments were bundled with other industry contributions and funneled through the Mobile and Wireless Forum, a trade association that gave the WHO’s program $150,000 annually. In 1999, Repacholi helped engineer a WHO statement that “EMF exposures below the limits recommended in international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health.”34
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

A study by the Corporate EME Research Laboratory and Motorola Florida Research Laboratories tested 9 different cell phone radiation shields, 5 of which claimed to block 99% of cell phone radiation. The other 4 shields tested claimed to emit a reverse radiation that would cancel out the harmful radiation from cell phones. The study found that all of the radiation shields had no effect on the amount of radiofrequency radiation a cell phone user is exposed to from their phone.[2]
The key factor when selecting a cell phone case is making sure that you choose the exact one your phone needs. Cases are specific to not only brands of cell phone, but specific models as well. For example, if you have version three of a cell phone model, it may not fit a version six, and vice versa. Make sure that you know exactly what case you need. The cases protect the corners and back of the phone, and a clear tempered glass or Plexiglas shield protects the face. This glass or film is usually scratch- and smudge-resistant, and the cases are rubber or polycarbonate. Some cases have clips on the back that allow you to connect the phone to a belt or bag. Many cases are black, but multiple colors and patterns are available too.
In addition, earthing allows our bodies to synch with the Schumann resonance (7.83 Hz), which is earth’s own electromagnetic frequency that we are naturally built to be exposed to. A Japanese study in 2005 showed that the Schumann resonance can reduce blood pressure and produce some positive health outcomes. By synching with earth’s natural frequency, we reduce the risks of WiFi waves interfering with our bodily functions.
For those thinking that wireless keyboards and mice are OK, these things can put out quite a significant signal and some at frequencies of 2.4 GHz. I have personally experienced terrible symptoms from one of these. The 27MHz analog transmitters are more benign but probably still significant for the electrosensitive, and can probably still harm anyone.
Hi August and Tech Wellness Team. We at SafeSleeve salute you for your effort to educate and provide solutions for the hidden dangers of EMF radiation exposure from wireless electronics. Like you, we’ve worked extremely hard to provide a practical solution for EMF exposure and, as verified by our independent lab testing, we believe we’ve found an extremely effective and practical solution. While I cannot speak for the other devices you tested here, there are some key points about our SafeSleeve technology that we wanted to make sure you took into consideration:
“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
×