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 It also claims major authorities’ positions are outdated in light of a cited WHO review and a U.S. court remand regarding FCC guidelines, and contends product sales are secondary to advocacy and education.

RF Safe argues that its “S4-Mito-Spin” framework should avoid debates about whether cell phones cause human disease and instead focus on mechanistic and animal evidence for non-thermal RF/EMF biological effects. The post claims the framework synthesizes established concepts (ion-channel interactions, mitochondrial/NOX-driven ROS, and radical-pair/quantum spin effects) to explain why some lab studies find effects and others do not. It also cites a WHO-commissioned systematic review and a U.S. court ruling to support calls for updating RF exposure guidelines beyond thermal-only assumptions.

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 publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias Fact Check’s (MBFC) January 8, 2026 credibility assessment, arguing MBFC’s “Medium Credibility” rating is unjustified despite MBFC upgrades to “Least Biased” and “Mostly Factual.” The post disputes MBFC’s criticisms (selective citation, alarmist framing, and potential conflict of interest from product sales) and claims RF Safe’s coverage aligns with WHO-commissioned reviews and legal/regulatory developments. RF Safe reiterates its view that thermal-only RF exposure guidelines are inadequate and calls for policy reform while stating it does not claim definitive human causation.

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.

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.

RF Safe argues that findings it describes as “high-certainty” from WHO-commissioned systematic reviews show RF-EMF causes malignant heart Schwannomas and brain gliomas in rodents and reduces male fertility. The post proposes a unifying non-thermal mechanism—the “S4-mitochondria axis”—suggesting RF-EMF interacts with the voltage-sensing S4 helix of voltage-gated ion channels (VGICs) and is amplified by mitochondrial density. It concludes that the combination of animal evidence and a proposed mechanism supports precautionary revisions to exposure guidelines and more mechanistic research.

RF Safe argues that U.S. RF exposure limits remain based on avoiding short-term heating (“thermal-only”) effects and have not been meaningfully updated since the FCC’s 1996 guidelines. The piece links this regulatory approach to community concerns about cell towers near schools, citing reported cancer clusters and claiming that compliance with FCC limits may not equate to safety. It also highlights Telecommunications Act Section 704 as limiting local opposition to tower siting on health or environmental grounds.

This narrative review discusses proposed non-thermal mechanisms by which chronic, low-intensity RF-EMR from ubiquitous wireless sources may affect male reproductive health. It highlights oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired testosterone synthesis/steroidogenesis, and declines in sperm quality as reported outcomes. The authors argue that current SAR/thermal-based guidelines may not capture these endpoints and call for updated standards and precautionary measures.

This paper discusses electromagnetic (EM) fields as an environmental health and sustainability issue in the built and lived environment, particularly with expanding ICT and energy systems. It reports conducting a literature review and EM field audits in three locations across two cities in Canada and the UK to examine exposure trends and review major safety guidelines. The authors propose transition pathways toward “electromagnetic sustainability,” emphasizing planning, exposure reduction, and risk governance.

This conference paper uses COMSOL Multiphysics simulations to evaluate thermal and SAR-based exposure limits for modeled human skin exposed to terahertz radiation (0.1–5 THz). The authors report negligible temperature increases at power densities consistent with keeping SAR below 1.6 W/kg, but note that higher power densities can yield minimal heating while producing SAR values above recognized safety thresholds. They conclude that existing sub-THz standards are not directly transferable to the full THz band and call for updated guidelines, especially for prolonged exposure.

This review discusses recent studies on microwave and RF exposure and their reported impacts on molecular and cytogenetic materials. It states there is growing evidence that RF exposure can induce DNA damage at levels considered safe by current standards, and cites newly reported genetic alterations in rat cancers after lifetime low-level RF exposure. The article concludes that these findings challenge existing exposure guidelines and support reconsideration of regulatory limits.

This dosimetric study evaluated whether existing EM safety guidelines protect individuals with conductive implants by assessing implant-related local field enhancements. Across 10 kHz to 1 GHz, the authors report large increases in psSAR10mg and local electric fields near implants, particularly below 100 MHz. In human anatomical models with implants exposed to an 85 kHz wireless power transfer coil and a 450 MHz dipole, the study reports guideline exceedances and elevated psSAR10mg, while the modeled temperature rise at 450 MHz remained under 0.4 K after six minutes. The authors conclude current guidelines are insufficient for people with implants and propose regulatory changes.

This article summarizes a webinar series and frames pesticides and wireless radiation as concurrent environmental health crises affecting ecosystems and public health. It asserts that evidence is building for adverse effects of EMF/wireless radiation in humans, animals, and bees, including “high-certainty links” between RF radiation and tumors in brain and heart nerves. It also suggests potential synergy between chemical and EMF exposures impacting bee hive productivity and argues for precautionary policy and stronger exposure guidelines.

This scoping review and evidence map (PRISMA-ScR) summarizes over 500 studies on RF-EMF exposure and genotoxicity across in vitro, in vivo, and epidemiological research. The authors report a higher proportion of significant DNA damage findings in in vivo and epidemiological studies than in vitro studies, with DNA base damage commonly reported under real-world/pulsed/GSM talk-mode conditions and longer exposures. They conclude that DNA damage has been observed at exposure levels below ICNIRP limits and recommend precautionary measures and updates to guidelines to address potential non-thermal effects.

This study estimated thresholds and locus for human phosphene perception during non-invasive transcranial alternating current stimulation at 20, 50, 60, and 100 Hz. Perception depended significantly on stimulation intensity, with the lowest threshold at 20 Hz and no reported phosphenes at 100 Hz. The authors report dosimetry consistent with a retinal origin and frame the findings as relevant for informing cautious ELF exposure limits in safety guidelines.

This review discusses the rapid deployment of 5G and the associated debate about potential human health impacts from EMF exposure, particularly at 3.5–26 GHz including millimeter waves. It emphasizes limited published studies in these exposure ranges and highlights EU-funded initiatives and research consortia aimed at closing knowledge gaps. The authors state that guidelines are generally considered adequate at present, but argue that uncertainties—especially regarding long-term exposure—support continued research and precautionary approaches.

This paper is a commentary reviewing how Bradford Hill’s epidemiological criteria can be applied to multidisciplinary evidence on RF-EMF exposure and adverse health effects. It reports that systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this area often reach substantially different conclusions, and argues that key weaknesses in primary studies—especially exposure measurement error and insufficient time for long-latency tumors—help explain the divergence. The author suggests these limitations may cause underestimation of potential causation if the associations are truly causal, and calls for independent guidelines to improve future epidemiological research quality.

This review discusses potential impacts of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from technologies such as Wi‑Fi and mobile phones on the central nervous system, neurotransmitter dynamics, and reproductive health. It describes proposed mechanisms including oxidative stress, thermal effects, altered neurotransmitter activity, ion channel changes, and neuronal apoptosis, while acknowledging conflicting evidence. The authors note that Wi‑Fi RF exposure has not been confirmed to exceed safety guidelines but argue that updated standards and long-term studies are needed, particularly for children/adolescents and in the context of expanding technologies such as 5G.

This narrative review summarizes human and animal research on radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure (e.g., mobile phones, Wi‑Fi, occupational sources) and male reproductive outcomes. It reports that the literature links RF exposure with reduced sperm quality and increased DNA damage, often alongside oxidative stress and other proposed biological changes. Although inconsistencies are acknowledged, the authors conclude the overall evidence suggests harmful associations and call for standardized, long-term studies and reconsideration of guidelines.

This letter critiques the WHO-sponsored systematic review by Karipidis et al. (2024) on RF-EMF exposure and cancer risk. The authors argue the review has serious methodological and interpretative flaws, including issues with study selection and data analysis. They contend that the review’s conclusion of "no clear evidence" may be misleading and should not be used as a basis for health policy or safety guidelines.

This review describes public concerns and scientific reports of non-thermal biological effects from low-intensity ELF and RF exposures. It lists multiple health endpoints reported to be associated with ELF and/or RF and highlights the BioInitiative Report’s conclusion that a reasonable suspicion of risk exists at environmentally relevant levels. The authors argue that existing public exposure standards should be lowered and that mobile phone SAR guidelines should be revised based on biology and long-term risk claims.