Since launching to the public over three years ago, Microshield has seen a succession of copy shielding products flow onto the market, claiming to reduce emissions from mobiles. Microshield has been keen to distance itself from this generic group of products, as it is concerned that the public are being misled into believing that they are getting more protection than these products actually afford.
Our message has been to check the validity of any tests undergone and also to read carefully the wording of the shielding claims. Many products cite tests carried out in reputable testing houses that may well comply with various codes of practice, but do not have the specialised equipment necessary for measuring digital mobile phone emmissions. The only test equipment which can be relied upon to produce accurate and consistent results is a digital network simulator and the only shielding product to have undergone such testing is the Microshield, twice.
Some products even claim to have been tested to comply with shielding product standards when none exist. Such claims are completely false and misleading.
BBC’s influential Healthcheck program recently confirmed through tests carried out at the UK’s National Physical Laboratory (NPL), that the Microshield was the only product on test which offered any substantial and meaningful shielding protection. It also exposed the misleading claims of other shielding products citing one, the Anti Rad 75, as offering no protection whatsoever and in certain circumstances actually increased the user’s exposure. In addition, the tests also showed that hands free kits were not providing anything like the comprehensive protection which many users assume they do (see below). The NPL has also just finished testing a range of shielding products for a National Sunday newspaper and only the Microshield gave any significant exposure reduction.
Generally, the copy products can be broken down into four groups as follows:
These products come in various forms such as stick-on discs, leather cases containing radiation shielding material, or even pieces of plastic which stick onto the keypad.
They all have one thing in common however, they do not address the antenna which is responsible for over 90% of the total radiation given off by a mobile. Any device which fails to do this is therefore only attempting to deal with 10% or less, of the phone’s emissions. Claims by these products of 90% protection, relate either to the shielding properties of the material from which the product is made, or simply the reduction they might achieve in reducing emissions from just the face and main body of the phone. Even if the stick on discs are placed onto the antenna itself they have no effect. A simple test using a small hand held microwave detector will reveal how ineffective these products are.
Group One includes the following products: The Ray Away, The WaveSaver, The Cell Net, The Wave Buster, The Salutel, The Ear Eazy, The Capdom, The Wave Gard, The Raygard The Powerguard, The Phone X.
Unlike group 1 products, these make attempts to address antenna emissions and normally involves placing shielding materials in front of, or wrapped around the antenna. Some are very similar in design to early working Microshield prototypes, which we found performed adequately for analogue phones, but not at all well for digital ones. Tests carried out by the BBC (see above) on one of the better known products from this group concluded it had no shielding value whatsoever, despite claims by the makers of up to 93% protection. Many of the misleading claims relate to the use of inappropriate testing equipment, with the normal culprit being the use of analogue measuring equipment to test digital phones. As with group one products, many claims relate to the shielding properties of the actual materials used in isolation, rather than the effect they have in situ within the device.
Most products in this second group do not address the microwave emissions from the main body and face of the phone or just as importantly, the Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) emissions which are modulated with the radio signal and also pulse from the phone’s power pack. Some scientific observers have suggested that the ELF’s and not the microwaves, may be the cause of the headaches etc. experienced by many users.
Some products address the antenna emissions permanently by literally wrapping shielding material around it. This will provide a level of protection from the antenna emissions, but will also cause untold reception problems resulting in high call dropout. Any shielding to the antenna must, like the Microshield’s, be adjustable in order to cater for fluctuations in reception conditions. There is after all, no sense in providing shielding which results in the user not being able to make a call! Microshield has taken out separate patents specifically on the adjustable aerial guard, to protect against it being copied.
Group Two includes the following products: The Nett Anti Rad 75, The Protector, The Ecstatic Faratech, Protect O Cell case, * The Fonesafe, *The Oyster Eliminator, *The T.A.P, *The Radiation Guard, *The Phone Shield
* Provide some shielding for digital phones but with a high tendency to smother reception.
Low Radiation Phones
The cellular industry has been developing supposedly “low” radiation phones and also filing patents for radiation protection devices which claim to “protect users from injury to their health”, although none of these devices are currently available. One low radiation phone was released but has subsequently been withdrawn as it transpired that it actually emitted the same amount of radiation as a regular mobile, but intensified it into the hand and wrist. This was causing problems with users reporting electric shock-like surges travelling up the arm, from the wrist to the shoulder.
Hands-free kits
Tests carried out in 1999 at the UK’s NPL for BBC’s Healthcheck and also the New Scientist, revealed that these devices were leaking radiation out through the ear piece, thereby concentrating exposure straight into the ear canal. This would explain why many users who experience ear problems, report a worsening of their condition when they use these devices. Far more importantly though, unless the phone is placed some distance away from the user, the remaining radiation still coming off the handset, is merely being redirected to another part of the body e.g. organs around the waist area, which ironically are not as able to defend themselves as well as the brain, which is of course given some protection by the skull.
In addition, even with the kit plugged in, the radiation from the handset still interferes with devices such as hearing aids, heart-pacemakers, hospital equipment, in-car computer systems, PC screens, Hi-Fi’s, ordinary desktop phones etc. As a side issue, many users also find them cumbersome to use.
This group involves users needing to believe that objects such as crystals, gem stones, liquid gels etc. could have special microwave attracting properties which will somehow divert emissions away from the head. Shields based on this concept have no validity from the standpoint of the laws of physics. Other devices claim to mask or change the information content of the radiation so that it does not have the same biological effect on human cells. Research on chick embryo mortality suggests that two of these products may have an effect, although embryo mortality rates were still nearly three times higher than in the unexposed control group. Three of these products showed no signs of reducing radiation levels when tested recently by the NPL for a leading UK newspaper.
Products identified by Microshield as included in this group are as follows:
Techno AO Antenna (Boosts body’s resistance to ELF’s)
The Gardion (Generates negative ions to reduce negative ones supposedly put out by mobile)
The Q Link Pendant (As worn by Cherry Blair - Supposed to balance, strengthen and integrate the body’s bioenergy)
Safe Chip (Minimises harmful effects caused by Electromagnetic Radiation by it’s specially blended ceramics)
EMX Loosely based on white noise theory
|
