Archive

3 posts

RF Safe Is Built on Tools, Not Hype: The SAR Database, the 4,000+ Study Research Viewer, and the TruthCase Standard

Resources RF Safe Jan 10, 2026

RF Safe presents itself as an RF exposure advocacy and education project promoting “RF exposure literacy,” safer-use habits, and updated safety frameworks beyond thermal-only assumptions. The post highlights RF Safe’s tools, including a SAR comparison database based on FCC SAR data, a public research viewer described as containing 4,000+ peer-reviewed studies, and its “TruthCase”/editorial standards. It argues that non-thermal biological interactions are reported in experimental literature and that compliance with current SAR limits does not necessarily reflect optimal real-world exposure outcomes.

Rebutting MBFC’s “Medium Credibility” Rationale for RF Safe (MBFC Updated Jan 8, 2026)

Independent Voices RF Safe Jan 10, 2026

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias Fact Check’s (MBFC) decision to rate the site “Medium Credibility,” addressing MBFC’s concerns about selective citation, one-sided interpretation, alarmist framing, and potential conflicts of interest tied to selling RF-safety products. The post argues RF Safe includes null/negative findings, avoids claiming RF “causes” specific diseases, and maintains editorial/transparency policies meant to separate evidence types and disclose commercial relationships. It also contends MBFC’s critique is partly a dispute over tone and wording (e.g., “primarily” funded by product sales) rather than demonstrated sourcing errors.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses for the WHO assessment of health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, an introduction

Research RF Safe Research Library Jan 1, 2025

This editorial introduces a special issue supporting the WHO assessment of health effects from RF-EMF exposure, based on nine protocols and twelve systematic reviews developed over four years by more than 80 experts. It summarizes that human evidence for major cancers was moderate-certainty for no or only small effects, with lower certainty for some cancer sites, while animal evidence reported higher-certainty effects for several cancer types and adverse effects on male fertility. For cognition, symptoms, and oxidative stress, certainty was generally lower and findings more variable, and the editors note ongoing methodological challenges and the possibility of unidentified mechanisms.

Page 1 / 1