This PubMed-listed in vitro study tested whether 1800 MHz RF-EMF exposure can modify chemically induced DNA damage in mouse embryonic fibroblasts under standardized, non-thermal conditions. The authors report RF-EMF alone did not produce detectable DNA damage and did not significantly increase damage from hydrogen peroxide, 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide, or cadmium. However, co-exposure with hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) was reported to synergistically increase DNA damage in the comet assay, which the authors interpret as possible selective exacerbation of Cr(VI)-induced genotoxicity requiring further investigation.

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 if HHS and FDA pursue a “reset” on cellphone radiation policy, they should fund mechanistic, predictive biology rather than relying on literature summaries or general safety reassurances. It cites the NTP rat bioassays and a WHO-commissioned animal cancer systematic review (Mevissen et al., 2025) as motivation, emphasizing reported tissue-selective findings and non-monotonic dose patterns. The post proposes a mechanistic framework (“S4–Mito–Spin”) and calls for research to map boundary conditions across tissues and exposure parameters to inform standards beyond SAR/thermal assumptions.

RF Safe argues that “no effect” findings in some RF exposure studies should be interpreted as meaningful negative controls rather than as evidence that RF has no biological effects. The post presents RF Safe’s “S4–Mito–Spin” framework, claiming certain skin cell types (fibroblasts and keratinocytes) are predicted to be relatively resistant to non-thermal RF effects, so null results in these cells can be consistent with the model. It cites in-vitro studies at 3.5 GHz (5G-modulated) reporting no changes in ROS measures, stress responses, or UV-B DNA repair kinetics under specified SAR conditions, and frames these nulls as boundary conditions rather than a general safety conclusion.

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 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 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.

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 criticizes Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) for labeling RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility,” arguing MBFC’s entry contains factual errors and misrepresentations. The post says RF Safe does not claim RF radiation definitively causes human disease, but instead presents precautionary interpretations of peer-reviewed studies and proposed non-thermal mechanisms. It also alleges MBFC made specific, checkable mistakes about study-linking practices and site ownership/funding, and failed to correct them after rebuttals.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) after MBFC labeled RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility.” The article argues MBFC made factual errors about RF Safe’s research links and ownership/funding, and says MBFC has not corrected the entry despite requests. RF Safe also defends its framing of non-thermal RF/EMF effects as precautionary and grounded in peer-reviewed literature, while criticizing what it characterizes as superficial fact-checking.

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 in vitro study examined strictly non-thermal, GSM-like 3.5 GHz RF-EMF exposure in cultured mouse dorsal root ganglion neurons for 1–24 hours. The authors report time-dependent reductions in cell viability alongside increased ROS and changes consistent with mitochondria-mediated apoptosis (e.g., Bax/caspase-3 up, cytochrome c release, Bcl-2 down) and increased p75NTR. They conclude these findings provide mechanistic evidence of peripheral neuronal vulnerability to mid-band RF exposure and call for further in vivo research.

This in vitro study tested whether 1800 MHz RF-EMF modifies chemically induced DNA damage in mouse embryonic fibroblasts under non-thermal exposure conditions. RF-EMF alone did not produce detectable DNA damage and did not significantly enhance damage from hydrogen peroxide, 4NQO, or cadmium. In contrast, co-exposure with hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) was reported to synergistically increase DNA damage, suggesting a selective co-genotoxic interaction under specific chemical conditions.

RF Safe argues that non-native electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can affect biology through timing and redox mechanisms even without tissue heating, framing this as a challenge to common safety narratives focused on thermal effects. The post links circadian disruption (citing a 2025 Frontiers in Psychiatry paper on ADHD and circadian phase delay) to broader vulnerability of biological timing systems, and proposes an “S4–Mito–Spin” framework involving ion-channel timing noise, mitochondrial oxidative stress amplification, and radical-pair/spin chemistry. It also cites a 2018 PLOS Biology study as mechanistic support for cryptochrome-dependent ROS changes under weak pulsed EMF exposure, while presenting these points as converging evidence rather than definitive proof of harm in real-world exposures.

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 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 its TruthCase™ (also called QuantaCase®) as an EMF-focused phone case positioned less as a “miracle shield” and more as a habit-forming tool paired with consumer education and advocacy for regulatory reform. The article argues many “anti-radiation” cases are misleading or may increase exposure due to design choices, and it frames non-thermal biological effects as plausible, citing the NTP and Ramazzini animal studies. It also calls for broader policy changes (e.g., “Clean Ether Act,” Li‑Fi pilots) and encourages users to adopt exposure-reducing habits rather than rely on percentage-reduction marketing claims.

RF Safe argues that radiofrequency (RF) emissions from phones and Wi‑Fi pose non-thermal biological risks and that current safety limits are outdated. The post cites animal studies (including NTP and Ramazzini) and references WHO and IARC positions while promoting a proposed mechanism framework (“S4‑Mito‑Spin”) and calling for regulatory and policy changes. It also includes advocacy claims about regulatory capture and promotes RF Safe products and exposure-reduction practices.

This RF Safe article by John Coates argues that “non-native” RF/ELF electromagnetic fields may degrade biological “signal fidelity” by perturbing voltage-gated ion channel timing, with downstream effects on mitochondria, reactive oxygen species (ROS), and redox biology. It presents a conceptual “S4–Mito–Spin” framework and cites selected studies and mechanisms (e.g., ion-channel forced oscillation, radical-pair/spin chemistry) to support the plausibility of non-thermal effects. The piece frames modern wireless infrastructure as an uncontrolled long-term experiment and suggests current regulation focuses too narrowly on heating.

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.