RF Safe argues that Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) downgraded RF Safe partly by citing an FDA webpage stating typical RF exposure is not supported by current evidence as a health risk, but that the cited FDA page now redirects to a general “Cell Phones” landing page. The post claims other historically cited FDA consumer pages also redirect and that the strongest reassurance language is now mainly accessible via archives. It further cites Reuters reporting that FDA removed outdated webpages about cellphone safety alongside HHS launching a new study, and contends MBFC should update its rationale and links.

RF Safe criticizes Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) for rating it “medium credibility,” arguing MBFC relied on an FDA webpage that was later changed/redirected and on a Harvard T.H. Chan School commentary. The post claims the FDA removed categorical reassurance language about cell phone safety and frames this as undermining MBFC’s critique. It also asserts that non-thermal mechanisms and animal findings support RF Safe’s precautionary stance, while characterizing MBFC’s sources as “opinion” rather than data.

This RF Safe commentary argues that HHS, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was correct to remove FDA webpages that gave broad assurances that cell phone radiation is “not dangerous.” It claims blanket safety messaging is scientifically indefensible given animal toxicology findings (notably the U.S. National Toxicology Program studies), a WHO-commissioned systematic review of animal cancer studies (Mevissen et al., 2025), and references to federal court findings. The piece frames the change as a precautionary, science-based correction rather than an anti-science move.

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.

This RF Safe commentary argues that dismissing the National Toxicology Program (NTP) cellphone-radiation animal findings as “too high dose” is misleading because the NTP used multiple exposure tiers, including a lowest tier described as near regulatory relevance. It also claims FDA has removed webpages containing prior “safety conclusion” language while HHS has announced a new study on electromagnetic radiation and health effects, framing these as a meaningful shift in federal public-facing posture. The piece further points to the Ramazzini Institute animal study as suggesting similar tumor signals at lower exposure levels, while acknowledging animal studies alone do not establish human causation.

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 reports that the U.S. FDA substantially revised its cellphone radiation webpages around January 15, 2026, removing or reducing prior language that broadly reassured the public about safety. The article argues the new framing more closely reflects the FDA’s statutory responsibilities under the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-602), emphasizing research, monitoring, and public information rather than definitive safety conclusions. It also links the change to a reported HHS announcement of a new study and portrays the update as a shift toward greater transparency, while noting some safety language may remain on the page.

RF Safe publishes a correction request addressed to Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) regarding MBFC’s credibility entry about RF Safe. The post argues that MBFC should revise or substantiate claims about RF Safe being “funded primarily” by product sales, adjust conflict-of-interest wording, and reconsider an assertion that RF Safe gives limited weight to null (no-effect) evidence. RF Safe proposes alternative language and links to its own transparency policy, product education pages, and a framework it says explicitly anticipates null results.

RF Safe publishes a commentary disputing Media Bias Fact Check’s (MBFC) labeling of RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility.” The post argues MBFC mischaracterized RF Safe’s content as overstating evidence about cell phones and health, claiming RF Safe generally uses cautious, study-referencing language (e.g., “associations,” “potential risks”) and avoids asserting direct human causation. It also points to RF Safe disclaimers that the site is educational and not medical advice, and highlights its research library linking to primary studies such as NTP and Ramazzini animal findings.

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 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.

This rat study examined 2.45 GHz WLAN-like EMF exposure (3 V/m; SAR 0.00208 W/kg) for 1 hour/day over 60 days and assessed testicular morphology and VEGF-related markers. The abstract reports increased VEGFA gene expression and protein levels in exposed animals, with no change in HIF1A expression. It also reports multiple histological changes interpreted as testicular damage in the exposed group.

RF Safe announced an “Ethical Connectivity Pledge” aimed at celebrity- and creator-branded mobile plans, urging them to adopt child-first design standards, improve transparency, and invest in lower-exposure connectivity options such as Li‑Fi where feasible. The organization argues that current microwave-based wireless networks may pose plausible health risks—especially for children—and that business models can externalize long-term health costs onto families and public systems. The pledge is presented as a public signatory framework with tiers of commitment and an intent to enable public scrutiny of follow-through.

RF Safe founder John Coates outlines a 2026 advocacy plan focused on increasing enforcement of U.S. federal radiation-control law, pushing consumer technology toward Li‑Fi as a safer baseline for children, and demanding accountability from companies marketing wireless products to children. The post argues that current RF safety rules rely too heavily on “thermal-only” assumptions and that cumulative exposure from smartphones is a preventable risk. It also states RF Safe intends to pursue legal action to compel HHS to fulfill duties under the Radiation Control for Health & Safety Act (Public Law 90-602).

RF Safe argues that a potential MrBeast-branded mobile service (“Beast Mobile”) could drive high adoption among children and therefore raises ethical concerns about children’s exposure to radiofrequency (RF) emissions from always-on, body-worn devices. The post claims the scientific and legal context has shifted and contends that relying on existing regulatory compliance is insufficient, urging a “LiFi compatibility plan” as an exposure-reduction alternative. It cites modeling literature about potentially higher localized absorption in children and references a 2025 systematic review it says found increased cancer incidence in RF-exposed experimental animals, while framing the overall situation as negligence if child-focused marketing proceeds without additional safeguards.

RF Safe argues that modern radiofrequency (RF) exposures are complex (adaptive, nonlinear, geometry- and near-field–dependent) and that biological effects, if any, may be better understood as “timing/coherence” disruptions rather than direct single-cause disease claims. The piece cautions against simplistic “percent blocking” marketing for anti-radiation accessories, claiming real-world emissions can change when antenna boundary conditions are altered. It proposes an explanatory framework (“S4–Mito–Spin”) and suggests a policy/technology “exit” via indoor photonics (Li‑Fi/optical wireless) rather than continued expansion of microwave-based systems, while explicitly stating it does not claim RF causes specific human diseases or that products protect health.

RF Safe publishes a commentary describing a public feud between Dr. Jack Kruse and RF Safe founder John Coates over how to address health concerns attributed to non-native electromagnetic fields (nnEMFs), especially regarding children. The piece portrays Kruse as emphasizing personal “light/circadian” biohacks and Coates as pushing technology and policy changes such as LiFi adoption and repealing/altering telecom-related legal constraints. It includes numerous claims about EMF-related harms and references to research (e.g., NTP/Ramazzini, a Henry Lai meta-analysis) but presents them within an advocacy narrative rather than as a balanced review.

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 article argues that “non-thermal” RF/ELF electromagnetic fields from phones, Wi‑Fi, and 5G cause widespread biological harm and that regulators and industry have misled the public by focusing on heating-based safety limits. It claims 2025 is a “tipping point,” citing WHO-commissioned reviews, animal studies (e.g., NTP/Ramazzini), a “Frontiers review,” and ICBE-EMF statements as evidence of cancer and other health risks. The piece frames the issue as urgent and settled, calling for public action and policy change, but presents these conclusions in advocacy language without providing verifiable study details in the excerpt.

An RF Safe commentary advocates for a proposed “Clean Ether Act” that would mandate replacing Wi‑Fi/5G with LiFi, arguing that current RF exposure limits ignore non-thermal biological effects. The post alleges widespread health harms from RF/EMF (e.g., cancers, fertility impacts) and claims regulatory capture by industry, citing animal studies and a U.S. court decision as support. It frames the issue as urgent and preventable through policy changes and technology substitution, but presents these assertions in highly charged language without providing verifiable bill details in the text shown.