This RF Safe commentary argues that Reuters-reported actions by HHS and FDA—launching an HHS study and removing older FDA webpages stating cellphones are “not dangerous”—should be understood as a risk-communication/scientific-integrity adjustment rather than a declaration of confirmed harm. It contends that categorical safety messaging is not justified given mixed evidence, citing the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 decision criticizing FCC reliance on conclusory FDA statements, along with selected human, animal, and mechanistic literature. The post calls for more uncertainty-aware, evidence-graded public messaging about RF exposure from phones.

This RF Safe article reports that in mid-January 2026 HHS, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., removed or redirected certain FDA webpages that previously conveyed strong “no-risk” conclusions about cellphone radiation. It argues the updated FDA framing emphasizes statutory duties (monitoring, testing, hazard control) and signals a shift from definitive safety messaging toward renewed inquiry, while noting that details of any planned research have not been publicly disclosed. The piece also highlights Kennedy’s past public statements alleging harms from Wi‑Fi/5G and links the policy context to the 2021 D.C. Circuit remand of FCC RF policy.

RF Safe reports that HHS confirmed plans to launch a new study on cellphone radiation and that an HHS spokesperson said the FDA removed webpages with “old conclusions” while new research is undertaken to identify knowledge gaps, including for emerging technologies. The article frames the FDA webpage changes as a meaningful shift away from categorical reassurance, while noting Reuters’ reporting that some FDA and CDC pages still state there is no credible evidence of health problems from cellphone radiation. It also links the development to the 2021 D.C. Circuit decision in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, arguing the ruling exposed weaknesses in the FCC’s reliance on other agencies’ statements.

RF Safe promotes its QuantaCase (also called TruthCase) as a leading “anti-radiation” phone case for 2026, emphasizing a directional shielding design intended to deflect RF energy away from the body. The article argues the product aligns with consumer-safety guidance such as keeping phones away from the body and using hands-free modes, and it claims RF Safe’s earlier advocacy influenced FTC/FCC warnings about ineffective or counterproductive shielding products. It cites comparisons, user reviews, and an “independent” 2017 TV review as support, but presents limited verifiable technical detail in the excerpt.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias/Fact Check’s January 8, 2026 update that labeled RF Safe “Least Biased” and “Mostly Factual” but assigned “Medium Credibility,” citing perceived one-sided interpretation, product-sales conflicts, and alarmist framing. The post argues RF Safe’s “S4-Mito-Spin” framework incorporates null findings as boundary conditions to explain variability in RF/EMF study outcomes rather than ignoring negative results. It also claims major authorities’ positions are outdated in light of a cited WHO review and a U.S. court remand regarding FCC guidelines, and contends product sales are secondary to advocacy and education.

This RF Safe commentary frames readers as part of a “resistance” movement seeking changes to U.S. wireless policy and RF exposure governance. It argues that current FCC RF exposure rules and related laws constrain local decision-making and rely on a “thermal-only” safety framework that the author says is outdated. The post cites a WHO-commissioned 2025 systematic review on RF-EMF and cancer in experimental animals as part of a broader WHO review effort, and advocates shifting indoor connectivity toward light-based technologies.

RF Safe argues that its “S4-Mito-Spin” framework should avoid human disease causation debates and instead focus on interpreting non-thermal RF/EMF findings from cellular and animal studies. The article claims the framework synthesizes mechanisms involving voltage-gated ion channels, mitochondrial/oxidative stress pathways, and radical-pair (spin) effects to explain why some experiments show effects and others do not. It further contends that rodent evidence and a cited WHO-commissioned review support updating RF exposure guidelines beyond thermal-only assumptions, and references a U.S. court decision criticizing the FCC’s rationale for maintaining existing limits.

RF Safe presents itself as an RF exposure advocacy and education project promoting “RF exposure literacy,” safer-use habits, and updated safety frameworks beyond thermal-only assumptions. The post highlights RF Safe’s tools, including a SAR comparison database based on FCC SAR data, a public research viewer described as containing 4,000+ peer-reviewed studies, and its “TruthCase”/editorial standards. It argues that non-thermal biological interactions are reported in experimental literature and that compliance with current SAR limits does not necessarily reflect optimal real-world exposure outcomes.

This PubMed-listed paper argues that the U.S. regulatory framework for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from wireless technologies is outdated, lacks adequate oversight and enforcement, and has not been meaningfully updated since 1996. It contends that FCC exposure limits focus on short-term, high-intensity effects and do not address long-term, low-intensity exposures, with insufficient safeguards for children, pregnancy, and other vulnerable groups. The authors also discuss alleged regulatory capture, gaps in monitoring and compliance, and propose reforms including independent research, updated safety limits, and stronger pre- and post-market surveillance.

RF Safe argues that many “anti-radiation” phone cases use misleading marketing (e.g., fabric-swatch tests, vague “FCC tested” claims) and that some designs may cause phones to increase transmit power if they interfere with antennas. The article provides a checklist of red flags (magnets/metal plates, detachable shields, unclear orientation instructions) and emphasizes behavioral steps to reduce RF exposure. It promotes RF Safe’s QuantaCase as a “directional shielding” design intended to reduce exposure on the body-facing side while avoiding signal blockage that could prompt higher power output.

RF Safe argues that celebrity-branded mobile services (citing reported plans for “Beast Mobile” and the announced “Trump Mobile”) could normalize near-body, all-day phone use—especially among children—and therefore carry ethical responsibility for scaled RF exposure. The piece cites legal and scientific developments (including the 2021 Environmental Health Trust v. FCC decision, the U.S. NTP animal studies, and a WHO-commissioned systematic review) to claim the evidence base has “moved decisively” toward concern about long-term RF-EMF effects. It also promotes a proposed mechanistic framework ("S4–Mito–Spin") and suggests shifting indoor connectivity toward Li‑Fi (IEEE 802.11bb) as a harm-reduction approach.

This RF Safe commentary argues that U.S. RF exposure protections remain anchored to “thermal-only” assumptions from the 1990s despite what it describes as newer WHO-commissioned systematic reviews elevating certain animal cancer endpoints and a male fertility endpoint to “high certainty.” It contrasts these claims with a WHO-commissioned review of human observational studies that reportedly found mobile-phone RF exposure is likely not associated with increased risk of several head/brain tumors, arguing that this is often overgeneralized in public messaging. The piece calls for “prudent avoidance,” updates to FCC rules, and highlights legal and policy constraints such as federal preemption under the Telecommunications Act and a 2021 D.C. Circuit decision criticizing the FCC’s rationale for retaining its RF limits without adequate explanation.

RF Safe argues that recent WHO-linked evidence reviews have moved beyond a “thermal-only” safety narrative and that policy should respond with stronger protections. The post cites a 2025 WHO-commissioned systematic review in Environment International as concluding with “high certainty” that RF-EMF increases malignant heart schwannomas and brain gliomas in male rats, and references a 2025 corrigendum upgrading certainty for reduced pregnancy rates after male RF exposure in animal experiments. It also points to U.S. FCC rules being rooted in 1996-era assumptions and references a U.S. appellate court remand requiring the FCC to better address non-cancer harms and impacts on children and long-term exposure. The article advocates for the “Clean Ether Act” and promotes RF Safe’s proposed “S4–Mito–Spin” mechanism framework as a non-thermal explanatory model.

RF Safe promotes an “Act Now” hub intended to convert EMF safety concerns into policy and regulatory actions, emphasizing accountability and exposure reduction, especially for children. The page outlines five advocacy “levers,” including changing Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act, pressing the FCC to complete actions following a court remand, and restarting a federal electronic-product radiation program. It frames current RF oversight as outdated and insufficient for modern exposure patterns, and provides scripts to help supporters submit comments and demands into official records.

RF Safe argues that companies marketing wireless connectivity to children should adopt a precautionary, “ethical connectivity” approach rather than relying on existing U.S. RF exposure rules. The piece claims current FCC guidelines are outdated and cites a 2021 D.C. Circuit decision criticizing the FCC’s retention of its RF limits, along with assertions about WHO-commissioned reviews and animal evidence. Overall, it frames wireless exposure for children as a credible risk and emphasizes regulatory lag and legal constraints as reasons for voluntary industry action.

RF Safe promotes its QuantaCase as the only “truthful” anti-radiation phone case and argues that many competing shielding cases use misleading “percent blocking” claims and can sometimes increase user exposure depending on design and phone behavior. The post mixes product marketing with broader claims about RF-EMF health effects, criticizing current exposure guidelines (e.g., FCC/ICNIRP) as outdated and insufficient for non-thermal effects. It cites various reports and analyses (e.g., a 2017 TV test segment and multiple study-count summaries) but does not provide verifiable study details within the excerpt.

RF Safe promotes QuantaCase (also marketed as TruthCase) as an “anti-radiation” phone case designed to deflect RF energy away from the user while maintaining phone performance. The article argues that non-thermal biological effects can occur below current exposure guidelines and cites multiple reviews and reports to support a precautionary approach, while stating it does not directly extrapolate these findings to proven human harms. It also criticizes current RF standards and regulators, references the 2021 D.C. Circuit remand of the FCC’s RF decision, and advocates exposure-reduction strategies such as Li‑Fi and consumer action.

RF Safe promotes an education-first, zero-paid-ad marketing approach for its EMF safety products, positioning itself against what it describes as a market full of overhyped or misleading “anti-radiation” gadgets. The article highlights RF Safe’s resources (e.g., a large study library and SAR tools) and argues its products (notably the QuantaCase) align with “physics” and avoid deceptive claims. It also repeats the founder’s personal story linking a family tragedy to prenatal EMF exposure and references various external claims (e.g., WHO animal findings, court criticism of FCC limits) without providing primary documentation in the text.

This RF Safe blog post recounts a conversation with xAI’s Grok about RF electromagnetic fields and argues that AI “neutrality” can become biased when it defaults to regulatory consensus (e.g., ICNIRP/FCC) as a proxy for scientific truth. The author claims Grok later acknowledged “regulatory deference” and that evidence from animal studies (NTP, Ramazzini), WHO-commissioned reviews, and proposed non-thermal mechanisms should prompt stronger scrutiny of thermal-only safety standards. The piece frames current RF exposure guidelines as outdated and insufficiently responsive to non-thermal biological-effect evidence.

This RF Safe article argues that the organization’s EMF safety advocacy should not be dismissed as “biased” or “commercially motivated,” framing its work as rooted in its founder’s personal experience and long-term activism. It recounts founder John Coates’ claim that prenatal RF exposure contributed to his infant daughter’s neural tube defect, and presents RF Safe as combining advocacy, scientific synthesis, and product development. The piece also claims RF Safe’s antenna work helped prompt a 2003 FCC rule change recognizing directional antenna approaches to reduce energy toward users while maintaining performance.

This RF Safe article defends the organization against accusations of bias, framing its EMF safety advocacy as rooted in founder John Coates’ personal tragedy and long-term efforts in product development, research synthesis, and policy reform. It claims RF Safe helped drive an FCC rule change related to antenna design and promotes various exposure-reduction accessories and training tools. The piece argues that non-thermal biological effects of RF/ELF fields are being overlooked by regulators and calls for policy changes such as revisiting Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act and shifting health oversight away from the FCC.

RF Safe argues that a proposed “S4-Mito-Spin” framework explains non-thermal EMF biological effects and that current exposure standards (e.g., FCC/ICNIRP) are outdated because they focus on thermal limits. The article links EMF exposure to mechanisms involving voltage-gated ion channels (S4 segments), mitochondrial/NOX-driven oxidative stress, and radical-pair (spin) chemistry, and claims these mechanisms align with reported animal and human observations. It calls for regulatory overhaul and policy changes, citing various studies and legal/policy references, but presents these as advocacy claims rather than a balanced review.

An RF Safe commentary argues that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is violating Public Law 90-602 by failing to continuously update radiation-safety standards, asserting that no formal revisions have occurred since the mid-1980s. The post links this alleged inaction to continued public exposure from wireless technologies and calls for renewed long-term research and stricter exposure limits. It also claims the National Toxicology Program (NTP) was shut down in 2024 and references a 2021 court decision criticizing FCC RF rules, urging congressional action and new legislation.

An RF Safe article argues that U.S. radiofrequency (RF) radiation governance is structurally flawed due to outdated FCC exposure limits, misaligned agency responsibilities, reduced federal research activity, and federal preemption that limits local action. It promotes the site’s “S4-Mito-Spin” framework as a proposed non-thermal mechanism for RF/ELF bioeffects and cites animal studies (e.g., NTP and Ramazzini) as challenging a thermal-only basis for limits. The piece also discusses policy reforms, including a proposed “Clean Ether Act” and increased use of alternatives such as Li‑Fi, while noting that mainstream bodies (e.g., FDA, ICNIRP) do not consider non-thermal harms established.

This RF Safe article argues that the main barrier to addressing radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and other non-native EMFs is structural policy and governance failure rather than a lack of scientific evidence. It cites the 2021 D.C. Circuit decision in Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC as criticism of the FCC’s rationale for keeping 1996 RF exposure limits, and it points to the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 as a mandate for HHS to run a research-backed radiation control program. The piece also references the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s animal findings and frames the lack of further NTP RF studies as a policy shortcoming, while promoting an “S4 MITO spin” mechanistic framework and a proposed “Clean Ether Act.”