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 The piece frames current RF exposure guidelines as outdated and insufficiently responsive to non-thermal biological-effect evidence.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 non-thermal RF and ELF exposures are a credible long-term biological stressor and that current RF safety regulation is outdated and overly focused on thermal effects. The post presents a mechanistic narrative (ion channels, mitochondria/ROS, and spin-dependent chemistry) and links this to calls for behavior change, product use (TruthCase/QuantaCase), and a transition toward Li‑Fi or “light-first” indoor connectivity. It frames regulators as having dismissed evidence and suggests a legal/regulatory failure since the 1990s, while promoting a precautionary “clean ether” approach.

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 promotes its TruthCase™ (QuantaCase®) phone case as a "training tool" and "physics-first" product intended to reduce RF exposure through correct phone orientation and design, while criticizing many "anti-radiation" cases as potentially increasing exposure by detuning antennas. The post also argues that current RF safety policy relies on "1990s, heat-only limits" and calls for stronger protections, especially for children. It presents a proposed biological mechanism framework ("S4–Mito–Spin") describing how weak RF/ELF fields might interact with voltage-gated channels, mitochondria/ROS pathways, and spin-sensitive redox chemistry, but does not provide study details in the excerpt.

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 “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.

RF Safe argues that 2025 research provides strong support for a proposed “S4–Mitochondria–Spin” framework explaining non-thermal biological effects from RF and ELF electromagnetic fields. The article claims this mechanism links voltage-gated ion channel timing disruptions (S4), mitochondrial/NOX-driven oxidative stress amplification, and cryptochrome-related magnetosensitivity to outcomes such as cancer, male infertility, immune dysregulation, and circadian disruption. It also calls for regulatory and policy changes, framing current safety standards as inadequate for non-thermal effects.

An RF Safe article argues that, as of 2025, evidence is “decisive” that man-made radiofrequency (RF) fields can cause cancer and other biological harm, and that non-thermal mechanisms are now established. It cites animal studies (including NTP and Ramazzini), a 2025 WHO-commissioned systematic review (as described by the author), and proposed mechanisms involving voltage-gated ion channels, oxidative stress, and radical-pair/spin chemistry. The piece calls for updated safety standards that consider modulation and tissue vulnerability, while stating it is “not a call for panic.”

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/ELF safety assessments rely too heavily on a thermal-only paradigm and proposes a “density-gated, multi-mechanism” framework to explain reported non-thermal bioeffects. The article claims weak EMFs could couple into biology via voltage-gated ion channel (VGIC) mechanisms and radical-pair/spin-chemistry pathways, with tissue vulnerability depending on the density of relevant biological structures. It cites several external studies and reviews (e.g., NTP/Ramazzini rodent bioassays, WHO-commissioned reviews, and selected cellular studies) as “anchors,” while presenting the overall model as a unifying explanation rather than a single new experiment.

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 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 an FDA-authorized therapeutic radiofrequency device (TheraBionic P1) demonstrates biologically meaningful “non-thermal” RF effects, and contrasts this with consumer wireless regulation that it says is based primarily on heating (SAR) limits set in 1996. The post frames this as a regulatory and legal gap, citing the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act and Telecommunications Act Section 704 as factors limiting local and public-health oversight. It also references several epidemiology and animal studies (e.g., Interphone, Hardell, CERENAT, IARC 2011 classification, and the U.S. NTP rodent studies) to support the claim that non-thermal effects and health risks warrant stronger scrutiny, though the article’s presentation is advocacy-oriented.

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 rat study examined 60-day RF-EMF exposure at 3.5 GHz and 24 GHz for 1 or 7 hours per day and assessed testicular cytokines, apoptosis-related gene expression, and sperm quality. The authors report changes consistent with altered immune signaling and pro-apoptotic pathways, alongside reduced sperm parameters (frequency- and duration-dependent). The conclusion frames these findings as an EMF safety concern and suggests longer daily exposure worsened negative effects.

This occupational study compared oxidative stress biomarkers across four groups: control, noise-only, ELF-EMF-only, and combined noise plus ELF-EMF exposure in power plant workers. The combined exposure group showed higher lipid peroxidation (MDA) and lower antioxidant-related measures (GSH and TAC) versus controls, while SOD activity was reduced in the noise-only and combined groups. The authors interpret these findings as evidence linking concurrent noise and ELF-EMF exposure with increased oxidative stress and call for further research and occupational safety guidance.

This paper evaluates and critiques 12 WHO-commissioned systematic reviews and meta-analyses on RF-EMF health effects across outcomes including cancer and reproductive endpoints. It argues that serious methodological flaws and limitations in the WHO reviews prevent them from providing assurance of safety for cell phones and other wireless devices. The authors highlight reported evidence in the animal cancer review (high certainty for heart schwannomas; moderate certainty for brain gliomas) and describe dose-related adverse effects on male fertility and reproductive outcomes, including at exposure levels below current ICNIRP thresholds.

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.