was since I had Wi-Fi that it had started so turned it off and after a few days I had improved just to check I turned it back on and immediately I felt the effect and stared feeling ill. I no longer go to my sons as he lives in a block of flats with lots of signals also have avoid shops and areas with Wi-Fi cannot visit friends and family even church, I’ve had to put foil on my walls to reduce the neighbours signals, feel like a prisoner and can hardly go anywhere, really hard when needing doctors, dentist, hospital, council etc. I’m sick of it now there’s no need for so much and one day more people will suffer these affects.
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:
I've spent years tackling subjects from urban health to medical marijuana to behavioral science—both as a city reporter for my hometown public radio station in Tulsa, Okla., and as a freelance writer. Now I cover health and food at Consumer Reports. My hobbies include tinkering with computer code and watching trashy TV. Follow me on Twitter: @catharob. 

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.
In 2011, the World Health Organization  classified radio frequency radiation of the type used by WiFi devices as a Group 2B possible carcinogen. A study conducted by the University of Vienna have found WiFi exposures to cause genotoxicity as they break single and double strand DNAs in our body. This indicates that there are effects that may potentially surface with our future generations.
If you want cutting-edge technology, but also want to catch everyone’s eyes, then a designer phone case might be your speed. You’ll have your choice of colorful prints, glittering sparkles, and unique see-through designs. You can even combine your sense of fashion with your sense of security, thanks to leather phone cases that double as wallets with built-in RFID, preventing theft of your credit information. Holding multiple cards and cash all in one is not only convenient, but also saves valuable purse space. And never miss an opportunity for a great picture or phone call with a built-in battery case that keeps your phone charged and ready.
To date, there are a few long-term studies, very few in humans and even fewer epidemiological studies, apart from the studies on laptops with small numbers of study subjects. It is also far too early to generate reliable figures at this time. However, there are indications that especially newborns, children, or adolescents are particularly vulnerable as has been presented in detail by the research teams of Nazırogˇ lu, Atasoy, Margaritis/ Panagopoulos, Orendacˇ ova, Othmann, Ozorak, Sangun, Shahin and Yuksel. The experiments were carried out with rats or mice, in some cases as long-term studies (up to 1 year). In this context, it is important to note that rats and mice used in laboratories have a life expectancy of perhaps two years. This at least allows us to infer that human children and adolescents have to be protected from possible increased risks. In the study of Margaritis et al. (2014), the authors point out that the exposure levels from Bluetooth (0.3 V/m) and Wi-Fi routers (here 2.1 V/m) showed greater effects than cell phone radiation sources with much higher field strengths. This may coincide with the findings of the papers by von Klitzing, which stated that the power-dependent pulse of 10 Hz (1 ms) from Wi-Fi routers triggered reactions. Kumari et al. observed in a study from 2012 that higher levels of ROS in the liver suppress antioxidant enzymes and that lower levels cause an increase. This could be a key to further mechanisms as to how or whether tissue damage occurs or perhaps not. Likewise, the polarization of RF radiation (Meena et al. 2014, Panagopoulos et al. 2015) should also receive additional attention.
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.

“If you're looking for ways to limit your exposure to the electromagnetic emissions from your cell phone, know that, according to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduced exposure from these electromagnetic emissions. In fact, products that block only the earpiece—or another small portion of the phone—are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits electromagnetic waves. What's more, these shields may interfere with the phone's signal, cause it to draw even more power to communicate with the base station, and possibly emit more radiation.”
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]
As a result, it is observed that the long-term exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency radiation caused an increase in the DNA damage of the brain, liver, kidney, and skin tissue of rats, but this increase was not significant. Therefore it is determined that the long-term exposure to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency radiation does not cause the DNA damage of the brain, liver, kidney, and skin tissue of the rats. However it is concluded that the long-term usage of 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency wireless internet providers could cause a potential risk of DNA damage in the testes.
The possible effects of RF-EMR due to cellular phone and Wi-Fi usage should be investigated by researchers in more detail because the harmful effects should be proven instead of just implying the possible detrimental effects. Our findings display contrast results when we compared them with existing information and beliefs. We have not seen any difference between sperm parameters and cell phone and wireless internet usage. Larger population based studies combined with the laboratory results are needed to reach a definitive conclusion.
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.
3. A lab setting is the only legitimate way to show the effectiveness of our technology for a few main reasons: one, a controlled source is the only way to conduct a scientific study. Note that the controlled source that we used was specifically designed to simulate emissions from wireless electronics (RF and ELF emissions of various frequencies). Two, ambient levels in a non-controlled environment will affect readings, rendering the results inaccurate. Three, at-home equipment such as the meter used in the video is not suitable for the types of emissions by a wireless device, nor are they reliable.
The present study was designed to determine the effects of both Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz)- and mobile phone (900 and 1800 MHz)-induced electromagnetic radiation (60 min/day during pregnancy and growth) on oxidative stress and trace element levels in the kidney and testis of growing rats from pregnancy to 6 weeks of age. In conclusion, Wi-Fi- and mobile phone-induced EMR caused oxidative damage by increasing the extent of lipid peroxidation and the iron level, while decreasing total antioxidant status, copper, and GSH values. Wi-Fi- and mobile phone-induced EMR may cause precocious puberty and oxidative kidney and testis injury in growing rats.
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
1. Be careful what you share. “Use the same good sense about what you post from your phone as from a computer. Once they’re posted, text, photos, and video are tough to take back, can be copied and pasted elsewhere, and are up there pretty much forever. Think about the people in them (including you!). Reputations are at stake.” – Tips for Smart Cellphone Use, Connect Safely; Twitter: @ConnectSafely