The rush to sell solutions for any given problem generally tracks a rising public concern. The current gamut of EMR “protection” devices is thus extensive, both in mode of operation and authenticity. A brief summary is provided below. Most manufacturers proffer some form of favourable “laboratory test” results. Be aware that these can be easily manipulated.

Phone stickers: Laminated layers of foil and a “special” substance, usually carbon-based, purported to neutralise or absorb electromagnetic radiation. Sometimes potentised with “intent”. Also sold as charms and blocks of raw material such as “Shungite”. No scientific basis or measurable reduction in overall EMF intensity. May have placebo effect.

Worn pendants: A coil, copper pattern or passive electronic circuit claimed to entrap or reconfigure harmful EMR. Sometimes based upon the “harmonising” attributes of sacred geometry. Same outcome as above. Based upon a misconception of the principles of resonance or phase cancellation.

Phone “chips”: An etched copper wafer intended to reroute the phone antenna’s output away from the user’s head. Can work to a degree, but relies upon an idealised situation of the user relative to the nearest tower. In many instances, the phone is caused to transmit at higher power to compensate for resulting signal loss.

Phone cases: Contain flat metal inserts that are either continuous or incorporate conductive pathways to deflect phone radiation away from the user. Outcome similar to chips.

Orgonite: Molded plastic “art objects” containing metal shards, quartz crystals and similar. No demonstrable basis in Wilhelm Reich’s orgone theories, and disclaimed by accredited researchers who promote his work. Possible placebo effect.

Field generators: Emit “beneficial” EM frequencies (e.g. Schumann resonances) to fortify the body against the adverse impacts of electropollution. Sound in principle but variable in real life results. Small size and battery capacity of pocket size versions necessitates very weak output. Mixed reports. Expensive.

The TGA and ACCC repeatedly decline requests to regulate products of this type. By making false or misleading claims, their sellers make people feel protected when in most instances this is not the case. The individual is thereby placed at greater risk than normal because science-based precautionary measures are less likely to be adopted. These include limiting talk time and maintaining a prudent distance from the transmitting device.

Sadly, it appears that no regulatory agency in Australia will interfere with any product that makes people feel comfortable with the current level of Govt. sanctioned EMR exposure.