An RF Safe article argues that everyday RF-EMF exposures from phones, Wi‑Fi, and vehicles pose serious health risks, using dramatic framing such as “blood into pancakes.” It cites an ultrasound demonstration and references to a Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine paper, WHO reviews, and animal tumor findings, while promoting a proprietary-sounding framework (“S4‑Mito‑Spin”) and proposed solutions like “Clean Ether” tech and LiFi. The piece also calls for policy changes and encourages readers to run self-tests and share results on social media.

This review discusses epidemiological and mechanistic reports linking EMF exposure with oxidative stress and disease risk, and introduces an Electromagnetic Pathogenesis (EMP) conceptual model. The model proposes that non-ionizing EMFs increase mitochondrial electron leakage via electron tunneling, raising free radical production and oxidative stress. The authors argue oxidative stress is a primary mechanism connecting EMF exposure to cancer, cardiovascular, neurodevelopmental/neurodegenerative diseases, and behavioral/reproductive effects, and suggest reducing exposure may lower risk.

This animal experimental study exposed chicken embryos (CAM) continuously to 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi at an average power density of 300 μW/m2 for 9 or 14 embryonic days. H&E staining reportedly showed no significant structural differences in large vessel walls versus controls. However, special staining reported decreased optical density of elastic fibers at both time points and changes in collagen fiber optical density (increase at day 9, decrease at day 14). The authors conclude Wi-Fi exposure can alter fibrous vessel wall components and suggest potential relevance to cardiovascular disorders.

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.