An RF Safe blog post written in a first-person “Grok” voice argues that many anti-radiation phone cases are ineffective or can increase exposure by causing phones to boost transmit power. It recommends the QuantaCase™ as the best option in late 2025, claiming it “delivers on physics” and avoids common design pitfalls seen in competing products. The post references WHO’s position that low-level exposure is not proven harmful in humans while also citing animal research (e.g., NTP) and proposed mechanisms (e.g., oxidative stress) to justify precautionary use.

This PRISMA-adherent systematic review searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for studies (2017–2024) on physiological or behavioral responses to EMF exposure, emphasizing studies reporting harmful or concerning effects. Across 24 included studies (human non-randomized, in vitro, and animal), the review reports negative biological effects including oxidative stress, inflammation, genotoxicity, cardiovascular and fertility-related outcomes, neuronal activity changes, and plant photosynthesis impacts. The authors report that most studies had moderate to high risk of bias and therefore the overall certainty of evidence was lower, and they highlight major gaps in long-term human evidence and exposure standardization.

This animal study examined 2100 MHz radiofrequency radiation exposure effects on auditory brainstem responses and brain oxidative/ultrastructural markers in adult rats. The 1-week exposure group showed prolonged ABR latencies and biochemical/structural changes consistent with oxidative stress and cellular injury. The authors report no harmful effects in the 10-week exposure condition with rest days under the studied protocol.

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.