Proving the nonexistence of something is a scientific impossibility, that's why scientific literature never says things like "we proved that X/Y/Z does not cause A/B/C" but instead it is always "based on our results and statistical analysis, we found no evidence that X/Y/Z is a cause for A/B/C". It may sound like it leaves the question open to future proof, but this is as close to a denial as you will get. It's even mentioned in the article:
The WHO goes on to note that the lack of proven health effects so far could mean that there really aren't any.
There is no conclusive proof that it is dangerous, but there is also no proven safe level of exposure.
Unfortunately because of how research literature has to be worded in a certain way, it opens the market up to scam products that claim to solve problems that are "not yet scientifically proven but just in case". This is one of them.
The case is advertised as being made of:
silicone and recycled plastic with a soft microfiber interior
These materials are signal-transparent which means they don't block or divert cellular signals.
The Alara doesn’t block or shield radiation; it changes the radiation pattern from the phone. That’s why it only needs to cover the back, not the front of the phone.
The antenna on iPhones is on the edge bands and not the back.
[...]since 2011, based on research that shows an increased risk of brain tumors in heavy cell phone users. He tells me that the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” of cancerous heart tumors in rats due to RF exposure.
It should be noted that this study used 2G and 3G radio signals, results do not reflect the effects of 4G or 5G. Additionally, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) commented that "The findings in animals cannot be directly applied to humans" because "The exposure levels and durations were greater than what people may receive from cellphones" and "The rats and mice received RFR across their whole bodies, which is different from the more localized exposures humans may receive, like from a cell phone in their pocket or next to their head".
The NIEHS also followed-up with newer 5G technologies and commented that:
It is known that millimeter waves, like those used in 5G, do not travel as far and do not penetrate the body as deeply as does the RFR at the lower frequencies used in the current 2G, 3G, and 4G networks. Much of the absorption at higher frequencies occurs in the skin.
At lower frequencies, RFR has been shown to penetrate at least three to four inches into the human body. In our studies in rats, exposure to RFR at 900 MHz induced tumors in the heart, brain, and adrenal gland. However, RFR at the 5G millimeter wave frequencies would not penetrate deep enough to reach those tissues.
It should also be mentioned that while the article refers to EMF, it's important to note that Electromagnetic Fields is a very broad term that covers many things, some harmful, some not. Radioactivity falls under the umbrella term of EMF, but then again so does natural visible light and radio signals. Generally, higher frequency EMF is ionizing, which is known to have adverse health effects, phone signals fall within the 0.7-2.7GHz range which is non-ionizing (actually it's even lower frequency than visible light).
Scam products avoid making this distinction and their marketing materials are intentionally worded to make everyday EMF like phone signals or even the light coming off your screen as being the same type of EMF as radioactive materials when when they really aren't. That's how they get away with selling a $5 plastic and silicone case for $100.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram