Archive
9 postsRF Safe’s Market Position and Industry Skepticism
RF Safe argues that while it has operated since 1998 and emphasizes “physics-based” design and education, the broader anti-radiation phone case market is widely criticized for hype and potentially misleading “blocking” claims. The post says some experts consider the category ineffective or even counterproductive, including concerns that poorly designed cases may interfere with antennas and prompt phones to increase transmit power. It positions RF Safe’s QuantaCase/TruthCase as an outlier for transparency and design choices, while noting that independent 2026 testing is limited and some claims rely on demonstrations, older tests, and design critiques.
Best Anti‑Radiation Phone Case 2026: Why QuantaCase (RF Safe) Is the Stand‑Out Choice
RF Safe argues that many “anti-radiation” phone cases use misleading marketing (e.g., fabric-swatch tests, vague “FCC tested” claims) and that some designs may cause phones to increase transmit power if they interfere with antennas. The article provides a checklist of red flags (magnets/metal plates, detachable shields, unclear orientation instructions) and emphasizes behavioral steps to reduce RF exposure. It promotes RF Safe’s QuantaCase as a “directional shielding” design intended to reduce exposure on the body-facing side while avoiding signal blockage that could prompt higher power output.
The Quiet Policy That Decides Whether Children Get Protected—or Preempted
RF Safe argues that children’s everyday wireless exposure is primarily shaped by policy choices (laws, agency guidance, research mandates, and procurement practices) rather than by technology alone. The post promotes an “Act Now” hub that offers coordinated advocacy actions aimed at changing federal and local rules, increasing research and oversight, and shifting indoor connectivity toward alternatives such as Li‑Fi. It frames current governance as outdated and restrictive, particularly around local authority and federal agency accountability.
On exposure-response interpretation and evidence synthesis in low-intensity RF-EMF research
This paper presents a methodological discussion about how to interpret exposure-response patterns and synthesize evidence in low-intensity RF-EMF research, focusing on animal cancer bioassays. It references an exchange around a systematic review on RF-EMF and cancer in experimental animals and critiques/considers approaches to statistical inference and evidence synthesis. The authors emphasize that methodological choices can materially influence carcinogenic hazard identification and argue for rigorous, evidence-based analysis in risk assessment.
Best Anti-Radiation Phone Case 2026: Why QuantaCase is the Only Truthful Choice in a Sea of Scams
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.
TruthCase™: Revolutionizing EMF Protection – Beyond Shields to Science, Habits, and Systemic Change
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.
Model Variability in Assessment of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields
This review examines how variability in computational dosimetry models affects assessment of human RF exposure from MHz to terahertz frequencies, focusing on SAR, absorbed power density, and temperature rise. It reports that anatomical scaling and model choices can drive meaningful differences in predicted SAR (including higher values in children/smaller models), while temperature-rise predictions are especially sensitive to thermophysiological parameters and vascular modeling. The authors indicate that computed variability remains within ICNIRP/IEEE safety margins but argue that uncertainties warrant ongoing research and refinement as new technologies (e.g., 6G) emerge.
Instruments and Measurement Techniques to Assess Extremely Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields
This paper presents a quantitative framework for selecting extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field (ELF-EMF) measurement instruments. It uses a weighted scoring matrix across six criteria and a logic-based flowchart to guide instrument choice based on operational needs. The framework is demonstrated in an occupational case study and is positioned as supporting transparent, adaptable device selection for occupational safety and public health.
Auto-Induced Downlink Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure at 3.5 GHz With Focusing Near the Head
This exposure-assessment study uses FDTD simulations to evaluate auto-induced downlink RF-EMF exposure at 3.5 GHz when downlink energy is focused toward user equipment near the head. Exposure varied substantially by device position (ear, eyes, nose) and by the precoding technique used. The authors report that the choice of normalization strategy can produce cases where ICNIRP basic restrictions are exceeded even when reference levels appear compliant, motivating a precautionary framing for compliance assessment.