As our video points out: Measurements will vary with signal strength and other factors and that includes ambient energy. I talk about ambient energy in a lot of my videos-it's the energy that's in whatever environment I happen to be measuring in that's coming from a source of wireless energy that isn't the subject of what I'm measuring.  My home is not a lab of course, but fortunately it's always measured very low for RF radiation. 
“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

In the Lancet article outlining their considerations, that IARC states that epidemiological studies that follow humans who use WiFi and cell phones for a few years are not conclusive. However, rodent studies that follow the animals throughout their lifetime find that wireless radiation does cause cancer or worsen cancer prognosis. The same animal studies also observed other changes in the brain and blood brain barrier in animals that are exposed to the radiation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats in the weight range of 230 to 260 g were divided into control, sham, Wi-Fi exposed groups. After long term exposure (4 h/day for 45 days) to Wi-Fi electromagnetic radiation, plasma levels of glucose and insulin during intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test were measured. Islet insulin secretion and content, lipid peroxidation and antioxidant status in pancreas of rats were determined.
*The ability to browse the internet (for tweens and teens that have access to the internet on their cell phone) opens up an entirely new area of safety concerns. Not only can kids search the web more discreetly, most parents do not view this activity as of much of a risk as they do allowing their kids to search on a regular computer. The fact is, the dangers are just as real and even worse when you consider that with a smart phone, kids can search the internet outside of the watchful eye of parents while using their cell phone in school.
Because of inconsistent findings from epidemiologic studies in humans and the lack of clear data from previous experimental studies in animals, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration nominated radiofrequency radiation exposure associated with cell phone exposures for study in animal models by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency program that coordinates toxicology research and testing across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of NIH.
There was no significant difference between sperm counts and sperm morphology excluding sperm motility, due to mobile phone usage period, (p = 0.074, p = 0.909, and p = 0.05, respectively). The total motile sperm count and the progressive motile sperm count decreased due to the increase of internet usage (p = 0.032 and p = 0.033, respectively). In line with the total motile sperm count, progressive motile sperm count also decreased with wireless internet usage compared with the wired internet connection usage (p = 0.009 and p = 0.018, respectively). There was a negative correlation between wireless internet usage duration and the total sperm count (r = −0.089, p = 0.039). 
A method of simulating thermal mapping of positioning laptop on laps of an adult man was developed. To tackle this problem, we exploited computer simulation and, to make the simulation close to the actual problem, we created 3D models of an actual laptop (Sony FW 590 Gab), antennas, and human phantom with inhomogeneous body, large number of tissues, and dispersion properties. We employed a commercial laptop Wi-Fi antenna at 2.4 GHz and a dipole antenna at 5 GHz, thermal sources with radiation powers, and human body voxel consisting of 97 tissues which were described previously. In the simulation, maximum SAR in human body was calculated 0.37 × 10−3 and 0.13 × 10−1 (W/kg) at 2.4 and 5 GHz, respectively, which was negligible according to IEEE standards; thus, the major calculated temperature elevation was due to laptop thermal sources. The temperature in glans penis, lap skin, lap muscles, and testes increased up to 37.8, 42.9, 38.8, and 37.2 °C, respectively, which was in line with clinical studies of thermal effect. Hence, the proposed method can be replicated for other scenarios. It is worth noting that the presented result cannot be easily generalized to other devices or human models. However, the whole method is replicable for similar phenomena. The recommended subject for future works can be used with the presented method for determining the effect of laptop and other devices on adult pregnant women and similar cases.
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.
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.
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.
EcomEcom a Pepperl+Fuchs is a manufacturer of Automation equipmeny. In 1945, Walter Pepperl and Ludwig Fuchs founded a small radio workshop in Mannheim, Germany, based on the principles of inventiveness, entrepreneurial foresight, and self-reliance. The experience they acquired was transformed into new ideas, and they continued to enjoy developing products for customers. The eventual result was the invention of the proximity switch. This innovation represented the starting point of the company’s success story. Today, Pepperl+Fuchs is knowns around the world as a pioneer and an innovator in electrical explosion protection, Intrinsically Safe / Hazardous area and sensor technology. Their main focus is always on individual requirements: With a passion for automation and groundbreaking technology, they are committed to working in partnership with their customers now and in the future. They understand the demands of their customer’s markets, developing specific solutions, and integrating them into their processes. In October 2016 Pepperl+Fuchs Group announced the take over of ecom instruments GmbH. Ecom is a world market leader for mobile industrial devices for hazardous areas. As an industry pioneer, ecom has developed explosion protection for mobile devices since 1986 and has demonstrated its technological expertise with numerous innovations. Thus, ecom is also the…
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.

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

I really want to caution you to be careful of any "expert" or EMF blogger recommending anti-radiation filtering cases, stickers that attach to the phone or necklaces to "ward off" EMF.  I get it, when I first realized 25 years ago that I was sensitive to electromagnetic energy and then later, when I understood that without a doubt, man made electromagnetic radiation has a biological effect on my body, I wanted an easy fix.  I tried the shielding materials and cases and I just did not feel any better.  Then I bought meters to see if the energy changed and I actually noticed what the California Department of Health now says and it's what the FTC and FCC post warnings about:  "Some shielding materials can make exposures worse". So please, be careful and read on for what you can do to avoid electromagnetic radiation exposure.
Several studies that will provide more information are under way. Researchers from the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Spain are conducting another international case–control study—Mobi-Kids—that will include 2000 young people (aged 10–24 years) with newly diagnosed brain tumors and 4000 healthy young people. The goal of the study is to learn more about risk factors for childhood brain tumors.

The present study was carried out to investigate the potential combined influence of maternal restraint stress and 2.45 GHz WiFi signal exposure on postnatal development and behavior in the offspring of exposed rats. 24 pregnant albino Wistar rats were randomly assigned to four groups: Control, WiFi-exposed, restrained and both WiFi-exposed and restrained groups. Each of WiFi exposure and restraint occurred 2 h/day along gestation till parturition. The pups were evaluated for physical development and neuromotor maturation. Moreover, elevated plus maze test, open field activity and stationary beam test were also determined on postnatal days 28, 30 and 31, respectively. After behavioral tests, the rats were anesthetized and their brains were removed for biochemical analysis. Our main findings showed no detrimental effects on gestation progress and outcomes at delivery in all groups. Subsequently, WiFi and restraint, per se and mainly in concert altered physical development of pups with slight differences between genders. Behaviorally, the gestational WiFi irradiation, restraint and especially the associated treatment affected the neuromotor maturation mainly in male progeny. At adult age, we noticed anxiety, motor deficit and exploratory behavior impairment in male offspring co-exposed to WiFi radiation and restraint, and in female progeny subjected to three treatments. The biochemical investigation showed that, all three treatments produced global oxidative stress in brain of both sexes. As for serum biochemistry, phosphorus, magnesium, glucose, triglycerides and calcium levels were disrupted. Taken together, prenatal WiFi radiation and restraint, alone and combined, provoked several behavioral and biochemical impairments at both juvenile and adult age of the offspring.
It is concluded that radiofrequency radiations are genotoxic as they induced chromosomal aberrations in chickpea mitotic cells and the presence of ghost cells is clear indication of their carcinogenic potential. To avoid reported DNA damages in this work cell phones should always be used either for short duration or with hands-free for long duration and they should not be kept in pockets or near body. Laptops should not be used unnecessarily for enjoyment purpose. It must be placed on desk top rather lap to minimize their exposure to human body. Further assay of carcinogenity are recommended on mouse and human cell lines.
The FCC sets the maximum amount of thermal radiation (heat) that cell phones are permitted to emit. [3] This limit is measured as the amount of radiation absorbed by a user and is known as the specific absorption rate (SAR). In 1996 the SAR for cell phone radiation was set at a maximum of 1.6 watts of energy absorbed per kilogram of body weight. Manufactures of cell phones must test their products to ensure that they meet this standard. Random tests of phones on the market by FCC scientists further ensure that radiation levels meet FCC guidelines. [48]
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.
The NTP study was to be peer-reviewed at a meeting on March 26–28, amid signs that the program’s leadership is pivoting to downplay its findings. The NTP had issued a public-health warning when the study’s early results were released in 2016. But when the NTP released essentially the same data in February 2018, John Bucher, the senior scientist who directed the study, announced in a telephone press conference that “I don’t think this is a high-risk situation at all,” partly because the study had exposed the rats and mice to higher levels of radiation than a typical cell-phone user experienced.50
31. Read the fine print. “Buried in cell phone manuals, cell phone companies specifically instruct us that phones should not be held close to the body. For example, the iPhone 5 manual states “Carry iPhone at least 10mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as—tested levels. Cases with metal parts may change the RF performance of the device, including its compliance with RF exposure guidelines, in a manner that has not been tested or certified.” The Blackberry Bold states, “keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.59 in. (15 mm) from your body (including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers) when the BlackBerry device is turned on and connected to the wireless network.
“There is a carcinogenic effect,” announced Ron Melnick, the designer of the study. Male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation developed cancer at a substantially higher rate, though the same effect was not seen in female rats. Rats exposed to radiation also had lower birth rates, higher infant mortality, and more heart problems than those in the control group. The cancer effect occurred in only a small percentage of the rats, but that small percentage could translate into a massive amount of human cancers. “Given the extremely large number of people who use wireless communications devices, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease…could have broad implications for public health,” the NTP’s draft report explained.48
Hello! I noticed that in your cell phone case section, you recommend RF Safe and then the patches and products from Less 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….

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
28. At night turn it off to lower EMF exposure. “This is one of the best ways to protect your immune system and, therefore, your dental health. Give your body a break by keeping your cell phone far from your head while sleeping. Invest in a landline if needed and turn off all routers before bed. There are lots of ways to protect your body’s critical restorative process.” – Andrea Fabry, Cell Phones and Tooth Decay, It Takes Time; Twitter: @AndreaFabry
This is extremely controversial but we can’t ignore that plenty of animal models indicate that exposure to electromagnetic radiation increases the risk of tumor development. While human studies are rare, reports and case studies abound. One such case involves a young 21-year-old woman who developed breast cancer. What makes this case unique was that her family did not have a predisposition to breast cancer… and she developed the tumor right on the spot she carried her cell phone in her bra. [15]
Custom Baby & Kids ItemsPersonalized Kids Books,Personalized Ted...13 Custom JewelryCustom Bracelets,Personalized Earrings,P...67 Custom Kitchen AccessoriesCustom Kitchen Utensils,Custom Mugs,Pers...62 Custom Novelty ItemsCustom Bobbleheads,Custom Electronic Acc...38 Custom Photo PrintsAcrylic Prints,Canvas Prints,Custom Post...440 Personalized Bags6
Have you ever felt more awake after using Wi-Fi or even struggled to sleep through the night? Reports of these phenomena have been frequent and even prompted a study in 2007 that evaluated low-frequency modulation from cell phones and its impact on sleep. Participants were exposed to the electromagnetic signals from real phones or no signal from fake phones. Those exposed to the electromagnetic radiation had a significantly more difficult time falling asleep and changes in brainwave patterns were observed. [2]
The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency radiation. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature. There are no other clearly established effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.
There has been no rise in the rate of brain cancers despite a massive increase in the use of cell phones. If cell phones were causing cancer we could expect a significant rise in the rate of brain and other related cancers. According to the National Cancer Institute, there was no increase in the incidence of brain or other nervous system cancers between the years 1987 and 2005 despite the fact that cell phone use dramatically increased during those same years. [6] Between 2004 and 2010 there was still no significant change in the incidence rate of brain tumors. Between 2004 and 2010 there was a slight increase from 209 cases to 221.8 cases per 100,000 people, but this slight increase was attributed to better tracking and recording of cases. [43] During the same time period, cell phone use increased 62.7% from 182,140,362 subscribers in 2004 to 296,285,629 in 2010. [44]

when i bring my hand very close to a tuned-in radio transistor, the volume drops to almost zero and i can no longer hear the music or news unless i take my hand away from the transistor radio set. if that is the effect of em radiations from a human body on the audible signal of an electronic device reducing its audio signal to almost zero then the long-term effect of powerful em radiation of 1- 2GH frequency from a wi-fi router or a celphone must be dramatically traumatic for the human health. this has to be so because human body almost entirely functions on signals generated by ions and molecules in the body cells which are likely to be severely disrupted in the presence of such strong em radiation fields emitted by man-made external sources such as wi-fi routers and mobile phones.
When using your phone or tablet, consider keeping it away from your head and body. That is particularly true in areas where the cellular signal from towers is weak—when your phone has only one bar, for example—because phones may increase their power then to compensate. To do that, you could try texting or video-calling when possible, using the speaker phone on your device or a wired or Bluetooth headset, carrying your phone in a bag instead of stowing it in your pocket, and not resting your tablet on your body for a long period of time. When you go to bed, consider storing your phone away from where you sleep, switch it to airplane mode, or turn it off entirely.
In my home and work environment I long ago made the decision to completely steer clear of WiFi. You might not feel you want to go “the whole nine yards” on this. Here are some ways you can reduce the burden of radio frequency radiation from WiFi on your body. You can pick and choose from this list according to how much you want to reduce WiFi radiation exposure in your life.
✅ STOP CRIPPLING YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM: Radiation waves have been shown to attack the human immune system, lowering our defences and making us prone to diseases and ailments. The special combination of crystals and minerals used in our EMF protection cell phone radiation shield will restore balance and increase the body’s defense against harmful radiation.
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.
If cell phones were causing cancer we could expect a significant rise in the rate of brain and other related cancers. According to the National Cancer Institute, there was no increase in the incidence of brain or other nervous system cancers between the years 1987 and 2005 despite the fact that cell phone use dramatically increased during those same years. [6] Between 2004 and 2010 there was still no significant change in the incidence rate of brain tumors. Between 2004 and 2010 there was a slight increase from 209 cases to 221.8 cases per 100,000 people, but this slight increase was attributed to better tracking and recording of cases. [43] During the same time period, cell phone use increased 62.7% from 182,140,362 subscribers in 2004 to 296,285,629 in 2010. [44]
This study measured the levels of blood lipid peroxidation, glutathione peroxidase, reduced glutathione, and vitamin C to follow the level of oxidative damage caused by 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation exposure (60 min/day for 28 days) in rats. The possible protective effects of selenium and L-carnitine were also tested and compared to untreated controls.  Researchers found that 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation caused oxidative stress in blood of rat. L-carnitine seems to have protective effects on the 2.45-GHz-induced blood toxicity by inhibiting free radical supporting antioxidant redox system although selenium has no effect on the investigated values.
Kids are a perceptive lot, and they won’t like it if they’re given a device that doesn’t look the part. Thankfully for them (and for your wallet), the Honor 7X looks the business, for a bargain price. It’s one of the first devices in the budget price range to come with a bezel-less design akin to the Galaxy S8 and iPhone X — at a fraction of the price.
For adults and children alike, the process by which wireless radiation may cause cancer remains uncertain, but it is thought to be indirect. Wireless radiation has been shown to damage the blood-brain barrier, a vital defense mechanism that shields the brain from carcinogenic chemicals elsewhere in the body (resulting, for example, from secondhand cigarette smoke). Wireless radiation has also been shown to interfere with DNA replication, a proven progenitor of cancer. In each of these cases, the risks are higher for children: Their skulls, being smaller, absorb more radiation than adults’ skulls do, while children’s longer life span increases their cumulative exposure.29
TEXT MORE THAN TALK! Moving a cell phone even a 1/4 inch from the body can greatly reduce radiation exposure, at one inch the intensity is 16 fold less than 1/4 inch. Signal strength falls off as the square of the distance from the source. This means that if you double the distance to the source, RF intensity is four times less since two squared is four.

We really do not recommend any kind of chip, guard, anti-radiation "filters" or incomplete shielding case because honestly, how could they NOT provide a false sense of security? Folks could believe these products make them “invincible” against radiation so they are comfortable holding the case right up to their heads-and the radiation seeping from the back and the side of the phone case is in very close proximity to their precious brains. Oh no!

On the basis of current scientific information, ARPANSA sees no reason why wi-fi should not continue to be used in schools and in other places. However, ARPANSA recognises that exposure to RF EME from wi-fi and other wireless devices can be of concern to some parents. ARPANSA will continue to review the research into potential health effects of RF EME emissions from wi-fi and other devices in order to provide accurate and up‑to‑date advice.
The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency radiation. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature. There are no other clearly established effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.
Safety standards do exist for radio frequency radiation emissions, but these standards are only based on thermal heating effects. That is to say they only consider these exposures to be harmful if they heat tissue. But these safety standards do not protect us from adverse biological effects which are thought to be the precursor to serious diseases. Scientists have already raised the alarm regarding this issue.
Wireless internet using durations: When we compare the wireless internet users regarding the duration of internet usage, there were a significant decrease of total motile sperm count and progressive motile sperm count (p = 0.032 and p = 0.033; respectively; Table 3) ... there were no significance among the semen parameters regarding the wired internet group (p = 0.128).
The answer is yes, it can.  Will it always make people sick? No. Dr. George Carlo explains that there is most definitely a biological response to what he refers to as Information Carrying Radio Waves (ICRW-energy fields from many wireless devices).  When you're exposed to ICRW  a process of adaptation and compensation occurs in your body.  He has a great program that can help people adapt. 

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.