An RF Safe article argues that U.S. radiofrequency (RF) radiation governance is structurally flawed due to outdated FCC exposure limits, misaligned agency responsibilities, reduced federal research activity, and federal preemption that limits local action.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.”

RF Safe argues that current RF-EMF exposure standards are overly focused on thermal effects and should be replaced with a “post-thermal” regulatory paradigm that accounts for claimed non-thermal biological impacts. The piece cites a mix of mechanistic hypotheses, animal studies, epidemiology, and legal/policy developments (e.g., the 2021 D.C. Circuit EHT v. FCC decision) to support a precautionary reform agenda. It also asserts that recent WHO work in 2025 strengthens the case for tumor-related risks, though these characterizations are presented as the author’s interpretation rather than independently verified within the feed item.

This RF Safe article argues that U.S. radiofrequency (RF) exposure policy is outdated, emphasizing that FCC limits adopted in 1996 are based on preventing tissue heating and do not address alleged non-thermal biological effects. It claims responsibility for protecting public health from electronic product radiation was effectively ceded from health agencies to the FCC, and that Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act limits local governments from opposing wireless infrastructure on health grounds if FCC limits are met. The piece cites epidemiology, cell studies, and animal studies (notably the U.S. National Toxicology Program and the Ramazzini Institute) to argue that evidence has accumulated and regulation should be updated, but it presents these points in an advocacy framing rather than as a balanced review.

RF Safe argues that HHS is not complying with Public Law 90-602’s requirements to run an electronic product radiation control program, support research, and make results publicly available. The post claims the National Toxicology Program (NTP) RF bioeffects work was halted in 2024 and has not restarted, and calls for immediate resumption with open data and a public timetable. It also presents a mechanistic narrative and cites various animal and cell-study findings as support for potential non-thermal RF biological effects, alongside policy recommendations such as LiFi-first guidance for schools and updated standards that account for signal timing characteristics.

RF Safe argues that non-thermal biological effects from low-frequency/pulsed RF-EMF exposures can be explained by a “timing-fidelity” mechanism involving voltage-gated ion channel (VGIC) gating perturbations. The post links altered ion-channel timing to downstream immune signaling changes (e.g., Ca²⁺ dynamics, NFAT/NF-κB transcription), mitochondrial stress, and inflammatory pathway activation, and suggests this could relate to reported animal cancer signals and reproductive endpoints. It proposes a set of “falsifiable tests” and calls for a policy/engineering program (“Clean Ether Act”) emphasizing RF temporal patterning and shifting some connectivity to LiFi.

RF Safe presents a mechanistic hypothesis that low-frequency electromagnetic fields (LF-EMFs) can disrupt the timing (“fidelity”) of voltage-gated ion channel activity, creating bioelectric “phase noise” that could alter calcium signaling and gene transcription involved in immune function. The article further argues that this mistiming may impair mitochondrial function, increasing reactive oxygen species and inflammatory feedback loops, potentially contributing to immune dysregulation. It also proposes a policy/engineering response focused on reducing indoor RF exposure and promoting alternatives such as LiFi, while citing animal and epidemiology findings as suggestive but not definitive support for the broader framework.

This policy-focused paper contends that U.S. oversight of radiofrequency radiation from wireless technologies is outdated and insufficient, with exposure limits and testing approaches not aligned with modern long-term, chronic exposure scenarios. It emphasizes gaps in protections for children, pregnancy, vulnerable populations, workers, and wildlife, and describes limited monitoring, research, and enforcement capacity. The author proposes reforms to improve independent research, science-based limits, surveillance, and regulatory transparency.

This review argues that EMF exposure is associated in the literature with several adverse central nervous system outcomes, including blood-brain barrier disruption, oxidative stress, neurotransmitter changes, cognitive effects, and neurodevelopmental impacts. It reports that evidence on EMFs and brain tumors is conflicting, while noting WHO’s classification of radiofrequency EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans. The authors highlight prenatal and childhood periods as potentially more vulnerable and call for more standardized long-term and mechanistic research to guide public health policy.

This review discusses how increasing ambient nonionizing EMF (0–300 GHz), particularly RF from modern wireless technologies and satellites, may affect flora and fauna at ecosystem levels. It states that many nonhuman species rely on electro/magneto-reception and that even low-intensity EMF exposures are capable of disrupting critical biological functions and behaviors. The authors conclude that current exposure standards focus on human health and recommend policy reforms and mitigation measures to protect wildlife and ecosystems.

This two-sample Mendelian randomization study examined whether duration of mobile phone use is causally related to aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage using large European GWAS datasets. The primary MR analysis reported that excessive duration of mobile phone use was associated with higher aSAH risk, and sensitivity analyses were described as supportive. The authors conclude the findings have potential clinical, public health, and policy implications.

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 cross-sectional study compared 183 higher-exposed residents with 126 matched reference residents and assessed symptoms via questionnaire alongside in-home RF-EMF power density measurements from mobile phone base stations. Higher exposure (including proximity within 50 m and power densities of 5–8 mW/m2) was reported to be associated with increased symptom prevalence across mood-energy, cognitive-sensory, inflammatory, and anatomical categories. The authors conclude that current public exposure limits may be inadequate for long-term, non-thermal biological impacts and call for precautionary policy updates.

This narrative review discusses biological mechanisms and reported health effects of anthropogenic extremely low frequency (ELF) and wireless communication (WC) electromagnetic fields. It highlights oxidative stress and DNA damage as key mechanistic endpoints and proposes an IFO-VGIC pathway linking EMF exposure to ROS overproduction and cellular dysfunction. The authors interpret the broader literature as indicating risks (e.g., cancer, infertility, EHS) even below current exposure limits and advocate precautionary policy measures, including stricter limits and a 5G moratorium.

This six-year time series analysis used over 500,000 blood pressure measurements from two mid-magnetic latitude cities in China to examine associations with geomagnetic activity (Ap index). The study reports that blood pressure fluctuations correlate with geomagnetic activity and share similar periodic patterns, unlike air temperature and PM2.5. The authors conclude that high geomagnetic activity periods may increase risk for individuals with hypertension and note potential clinical and policy relevance.

This policy brief focuses on how RF-EMF exposure should be quantified in health research, emphasizing the role of near-field sources and proposing cumulative dose (J/kg/day) as a health-relevant metric. It reports mean cumulative dose estimates of 0.29 J/kg/day for the whole body and 0.81 J/kg/day for the brain. The brief notes established RF-EMF effects (heating, microwave hearing under highly pulsed radiation, and stimulation) and discusses indications of biological effects below thermal thresholds, while stating that improved metrics do not by themselves confirm harm.

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.