What is the best EMF reducing sticker or system/product?

More and more information is coming out about the harms of EMF coming from our phones. I found out that the iPhone 12 is actually banned in other countries because of how much radiation it puts out, and Apple has a warning not to sleep with your phone near you while it’s charging. It doesn’t say why it says it’s risk or dangerous but it doesn’t tell you what the risk or dangerous but it’s the fact that it’s microwaving you slowly at night


I do not understand why they don’t sell EMF reducing/protection stickers in the accessory areas of phone stores! Next to the phone cases. The one I’ve heard of is the one that the UFC just entered in a contract with to promote, but they’re like two or 300 per sticker


Does anyone have any information about what is the best way to reduce these frequencies? I don’t wanna get ripped off by company that doesn’t do it it promises.

iPhone 13, iOS 17

Posted on Nov 1, 2024 9:22 AM

Reply
Question marked as Top-ranking reply

Posted on Nov 1, 2024 2:01 PM

Excellent link from Zurarczurx,


>>Time to take off the tin foil hat: A review of 28 years of research into the health effects of radio wave exposure from cellphones has found no evidence to link the handhelds to brain cancer, or negative effects on health more generally.


The findings, published recently in Environment International and commissioned and partially funded by the World Health Organization (WHO), looked at 63 studies published between 1994 and 2022 from 22 countries.

Various types of brain and head cancers in adults and children, as well as whole-body exposure from proximity to broadcast antenna and base stations and occupational radio frequency/electromagnetic field (RF-EMF), were looked at as part of the meta-study. In no case did the researchers find a link between radio wave exposure from mobile and wireless devices and brain cancer. Note that RF-EMF is part of the non-ionizing radiation region of the electromagnetic spectrum, making it inherently and substantially less dangerous than ionizing radiation.<<


https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/04/who_study_cellphone_cancer/?td=rt-3a


WOW, just 2 months ago. This more realistically establishes facts and the innuendo and misleading posts can slowly fade away.

44 replies

Jan 2, 2025 9:13 AM in response to Matt13

Matt13 wrote:

If a person is worried about the potential dangers of overexposure to RF radiation, which they have every right to be, and whether the fear is based in fact or not, follow these tips for reducing your exposure:


-Try to eliminate as many electronics from your bedroom at night. This includes alarm clocks, smart speakers, TV's, etc. If you can eliminate RF from where you sleep, that's 1/3rd of your day without RF exposure.

That is incorrect; there is no time whatsoever that you are not exposed to RF, unless you live in a cabin far from civilization and have no connection to electrical power and no cell phone. And even then if you go outdoors you are exposed to intense ultraviolet radiation that is a much greater health risk than any transient RF you may encounter.


In any developed area you are continuously exposed to non-ionizing radiation just by the fact that you live there, from the cellular networks, police and emergency radio towers, broadcast radio transmitters, air navigation radar both near airports and from randomly located air navigation tracking sites, classified military networks...


And you should never fly anywhere, both because airports are loaded with RF and Microwave sources, but also because in one transcontinental flight you are exposed to more cosmic radiation at high altitude that you will get from a year’s use of a cell phone, plus microwave radiation from the ground radar that is continuously tracking the aircraft. And there have been observable health effects in people who fly frequently just from cosmic rays.

Jan 26, 2025 6:38 AM in response to 2muchnon

Here’s the link to the entire article.


https://www.healthline.com/health/emf


Heres the lead to the story.


”Electric and magnetic fields occur naturally and also come from human-made sources. Scientists and oversight agencies generally agree that low-frequency EMFs pose little danger to human health.”


So, EMF occurs naturally, and low EMF pose little danger to human health. That seems pretty important, wouldn’t you say?


The conclusion of the article was “The best approach is to be aware that EMFs exist and be smart about your exposure.’ More research can be done, but the exposure to low level EMF cannot be connected to major health risks.


This seems like a real non-issue. There are far more common risks in life than low level EMF.

Nov 1, 2024 10:29 AM in response to Kurtosis12

OK, I’m confused. Can you read this article really quick. If I’m not mistaken, it says that it did exceeded the threshold and that Apple ran a software update on their phone that decrease the radiation levels and put it within France’s acceptable range


I’m not seeing what you’re talking about. I’m interested in learning about that non-ionizing radiation you’re talking about if you have a link handy


[Edited by Moderator]

Nov 1, 2024 10:05 AM in response to stedman1

OK, I just looked it up. For the record the reason for my concern is because I’m finding conflicting information. Obviously corporations that need to make money especially tech companies have significant pole in doing damage control when it comes to information that would negatively affect their bottom line. So I’m always going to be skeptical of any assertions being harmless if I can find other sources and studies that contradict that. This is the study that had me the most concerned.


https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2569116/


quote from above study


“We found that cell phone use is linked to gliomas [malignant brain tumors] and acoustic neuromas [benign tumors of the brain’s auditory nerve] and are showing up after only ten years,” says lead author Lennart Hardell, an oncologist and cancer epidemiologist at University Hospital in Örebro, Sweden. Specifically, for studies that included at least 10 years of exposure, there was a doubling in the risk of gliomas for ipsilateral (same-side) but not contralateral (opposite-side) exposures to the head (as reflected by which hand the subject typically used to hold his/her cell phone). A 2.4-fold increase in risk was seen for acoustic neuromas due to ipsilateral exposures, whereas no increased risk occurred for meningiomas (tumors that occur in the membranes covering the brain and spinal cord)”


Nov 1, 2024 10:35 AM in response to stedman1

Well here’s the thing, the studies I read that concerned me use a control group. The control group was not made up purely of sun deprived caveman, nor did researchers use a time machine to find pioneers to study in contrast to modern people.


Multiple modalities were employed in these kinds of research studies, and one example is comparing the instances a certain kinds of tumors to the side of the head that a person will hold their phone to during phone calls. By studying the side of the head that received more direct exposure, they were able to glean info despite the pervasive global factors like WiFi and “the sun”.


Maybe you will read this and then want to redirect your sarcastic remarks to the researchers. I’m just a regular person that’s trying to protect myself! If you were reasonable, I think you understand why a normal person (I.e., myself - hopefully) would be concerned after reading studies like this.


Why is it that that my merely feeling concerned - after reading concerning research - triggered you to reply in a haughty and unhelpful manner? Would you expect any reasonable person to feel any other way? Maybe your distain should be directed at the researchers or pub-med for publishing these studies, if you believe this is misinformation? No reason to be rude to me.


But since you have time to be rude to me, maybe you have time to scan and glance through the study below. Its not a single study but refers to meta analysis- here’s a quote followed by the link


“The most recent attempt to systematically review the epidemiologic evidence for increased risk of brain tumors related to cell phone use indicates that repercussions from this global experiment are coming to light. In a meta-analysis published in the May 2008 issue of the International Journal of Oncology, Swedish researchers found significant associations between long-term cell phone use and brain tumor risk.”


[Edited by Moderator]

Nov 18, 2024 9:13 AM in response to Kurtosis12

I figured the stickers were scam, which is why I was asking. I was hoping someone had had information about one that might actually work. The reason I’m still concerned can be described from this quote below from the study I linked,


Well, I thought they might be a scam and that’s kind of why I was asking. I thought maybe people might have research on whether or not those things actually worked.


I do wish you would actually read the study though. I’m not sure that that non-ionizing radiation information is still accurate.


“The most recent attempt to systematically review the epidemiologic evidence for increased risk of brain tumors related to cell phone use indicates that repercussions from this global experiment are coming to light. In a meta-analysis published in the May 2008 issue of the International Journal of Oncology, Swedish researchers found significant associations between long-term cell phone use and brain tumor risk.”


just google “Cancer: Strong Signal for Cell Phone Effects by ” to read the whole article since it seems I can’t link it. There’s nothing noble about not wanting to look at all sides of an issue. It’s not that hard for big companies, especially tech companies, to slow the release of information that hurts their bottom line. There might be something to it.

Nov 1, 2024 10:40 AM in response to GreatAbz

And exactly what advice available on a user to user forum would you expect to help with your concerns regarding EMF radiation? I say again, if you are concerned, do something about it. Reduce your exposure to ALL sources of such radiation, and believe me, there are far more sources than the phone in your hand. I also will state that there are no facts presented by anyone here that will change your mind. Irrational fears can not be overcome by rational facts.

Nov 1, 2024 10:45 AM in response to Kurtosis12

And I’m not dwelling on this for me, believe it or not I’m actually trying to be helpful to you. Sounds like you had some incorrect information seen as the phone WAS banned, and the problem wasn’t how France read levels. I double and triple quadruple checked. If you had that info, it’s possible that you aren’t up-to-date on the newest information about potential harms. Believe it or not I’m actually trying to be helpful


Its so strange to me how people seem visibly irritated by other people being concerned about things that they don’t think they should be concerned about. It’s like you can disagree sure, but to be rude like the other poster was just right off the bat? I don’t understand that.


Instead of asking me, why I’m so concerned about this, which I think should be obvious, I would be more curious why the other guy took time out of his(?) day to reply to my OP in a way that is intentionally unhelpful and rude. To me that makes a lot less sense than my being worried after reading concerning research - found on a reputable government website!


Don’t worry, I’m done now!



Nov 1, 2024 11:00 AM in response to GreatAbz

Speaking of up to date, the Swedish study your linked to and quoted from above, was published in 2008, and no indication of when the study was completed. it goes on to quote that they have 10 years of exposure data. Nothing seems to add up. It quotes a 2008 Nielsen report that says 46% of children ages 8 to 12 use cellphones. That study seems flawed and data confusing too. I guarantee you 46% of children those ages were not using cell phones in 1997 through 2007. This looks like a hodgepodge of studies that do nothing but confuse the issue.


Do you have a more recent study with reliable data? Something published in the last 5 years would be great.

Nov 18, 2024 8:28 AM in response to GreatAbz

All right, I think we’re all getting a little bit lost in the weeds here. Is the 2008 meta analysis study valid, or is it not? Is a chiropractor a “real enough” doctor, or is he not? I just want to simplify this conversation for everybody.


Radiation has to cause at least some kind of harm, it has to. If it didn’t, there wouldn’t be any minimum level of allowable radiation in France, therefore the iPhone 12 never would’ve been temporarily banned for exceeding it.

I’m sure that if we dug into the documents that were presented at the time when these countries set their minimal acceptable, radiation levels (there’s no way those levels were arbitrarily. They have to be based on research.) We would all accept that even if there isn’t enough data (yet) it’s common sense to assume that less radiation is better than more radiation. We didn’t evolve as humans being constantly surrounded by EMF frequencies.


Frequencies can be actually measured. Therefore, if there’s products that claim to mitigate the EMF frequencies that one is exposed to you, this should be a measurable outcome.


Crazy me, I just assumed that Tech people that I figure logical people would also assume that less EMF radiation has to be better than more, would assume that we don’t have a definitive answer yet onto how harmful it may or may not be, but it would be obvious to err on the side of caution. Therefore, if we can reduce, the frequencies were exposed to, we should.


I thank very much from the bottom of my heart the one person who responded to my question in straightforward way without being dismissive


I have one thing to throw out there. As regular consumers (as opposed to wealthy executives making money off of consumers) that we would all expect each other to ask questions like this. That we would all expect each other to be a little bit suspicious and we would all want to look out for one another.


I would think at this point that would be pretty clear that corporations don’t always have our best interest or health in mind. I think it’s pretty obvious, from days gone by, that employees who work for regulatory companies frequently take jobs for the same companies they “regulated” - there are lots of examples of outcomes of studies, being significantly sued in the favor of the company that funds the study. Or in the case of the recent study on the effects of transitioning children, if the outcome doesn’t support the narrative you were hoping for they just bury the study entirely and act like it never happened


get mad If you want, but we don’t live in a leave it to Beaver world right now. No further Covid to realize that “trust the science” Is a mantra that was designed to get us to shut up and stop asking questions. Even after the science keeps contradicting itself and changing constantly, if you ever question the status quo, you’re a bad person.


Meanwhile, all the pharmaceutical companies (and any other company that might be trying to harm us) are laughing all the way to the bank


I would get kind of pushback from an executive one of these companies, or even one of their employees. But this is a forum for regular people, for consumers.


It appears to me like over the years we’ve been conditioned to instantly attack, mock and dismiss fellow average folks like myself just for asking well meaning questions. I mean, just look at the general attitude and tone in the replies that I received - I didn’t put that dismissive vibe out in return. It’s almost like through mainstream media, you’ve all been conditioned like Pavlov’s dogs. The second you hear certain types of questions being asked, instantly snap into this haughty, mocking tone.


It’s like these corrupt wealthy companies have brainwashed you all into being their free, unpaid spokespeople! This doesn’t make any sense. Why would you feel distain for someone who is just asking questions? Don’t you understand that asking questions like these are in your best interest as well. But I’m asking for the sake of ALl of us?


And again! Why is there even a minimum level of acceptable radiation if it’s not capable of causing any harm?


Let’s not turn on each other, please. I am not the enemy.

This thread has been closed by the system or the community team. You may vote for any posts you find helpful, or search the Community for additional answers.

What is the best EMF reducing sticker or system/product?

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple Account.