This RF Safe article reports that in mid-January 2026 HHS, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., removed or redirected certain FDA webpages that previously conveyed strong “no-risk” conclusions about cellphone radiation. It argues the updated FDA framing emphasizes statutory duties (monitoring, testing, hazard control) and signals a shift from definitive safety messaging toward renewed inquiry, while noting that details of any planned research have not been publicly disclosed. The piece also highlights Kennedy’s past public statements alleging harms from Wi‑Fi/5G and links the policy context to the 2021 D.C. Circuit remand of FCC RF policy.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias/Fact Check’s January 8, 2026 update that labeled RF Safe “Least Biased” and “Mostly Factual” but assigned “Medium Credibility,” citing perceived one-sided interpretation, product-sales conflicts, and alarmist framing. The post argues RF Safe’s “S4-Mito-Spin” framework incorporates null findings as boundary conditions to explain variability in RF/EMF study outcomes rather than ignoring negative results. It also claims major authorities’ positions are outdated in light of a cited WHO review and a U.S. court remand regarding FCC guidelines, and contends product sales are secondary to advocacy and education.

This RF Safe commentary frames readers as part of a “resistance” movement seeking changes to U.S. wireless policy and RF exposure governance. It argues that current FCC RF exposure rules and related laws constrain local decision-making and rely on a “thermal-only” safety framework that the author says is outdated. The post cites a WHO-commissioned 2025 systematic review on RF-EMF and cancer in experimental animals as part of a broader WHO review effort, and advocates shifting indoor connectivity toward light-based technologies.

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.

RF Safe publishes a commentary disputing Media Bias Fact Check’s (MBFC) labeling of RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility.” The post argues MBFC mischaracterized RF Safe’s content as overstating evidence about cell phones and health, claiming RF Safe generally uses cautious, study-referencing language (e.g., “associations,” “potential risks”) and avoids asserting direct human causation. It also points to RF Safe disclaimers that the site is educational and not medical advice, and highlights its research library linking to primary studies such as NTP and Ramazzini animal findings.

This RF Safe commentary argues that U.S. RF exposure protections remain anchored to “thermal-only” assumptions from the 1990s despite what it describes as newer WHO-commissioned systematic reviews elevating certain animal cancer endpoints and a male fertility endpoint to “high certainty.” It contrasts these claims with a WHO-commissioned review of human observational studies that reportedly found mobile-phone RF exposure is likely not associated with increased risk of several head/brain tumors, arguing that this is often overgeneralized in public messaging. The piece calls for “prudent avoidance,” updates to FCC rules, and highlights legal and policy constraints such as federal preemption under the Telecommunications Act and a 2021 D.C. Circuit decision criticizing the FCC’s rationale for retaining its RF limits without adequate explanation.

This article summarizes expert presentations and a panel discussion on radiological protection systems for ionizing and non-ionizing radiation at an international congress. It highlights that ionizing radiation protection is mature and continually revised, while non-ionizing radiation protection lacks a comparable international framework. The authors emphasize that emerging non-ionizing technologies create complex exposure scenarios and unresolved concerns about chronic and acute exposures, calling for a more cohesive and protective framework.

RF Safe argues that red blood cell (RBC) “rouleaux” (stacking/aggregation) could be a visible, testable endpoint for investigating potential short-term physiological effects from wireless device exposure. The post highlights a 2025 report by Brown & Biebrich describing ultrasound observations interpreted as rouleaux-like aggregation after 5 minutes of smartphone placement near the popliteal vein, and contrasts this with earlier, more-criticized “live blood analysis” videos. It frames rouleaux as an electrostatic/zeta-potential phenomenon and calls for mechanistic testing and exposure mitigation, while presenting the ultrasound observation as a key shift toward more clinically standard imaging.

RF Safe announced an “Ethical Connectivity Pledge” aimed at celebrity- and creator-branded mobile plans, urging them to adopt child-first design standards, improve transparency, and invest in lower-exposure connectivity options such as Li‑Fi where feasible. The organization argues that current microwave-based wireless networks may pose plausible health risks—especially for children—and that business models can externalize long-term health costs onto families and public systems. The pledge is presented as a public signatory framework with tiers of commitment and an intent to enable public scrutiny of follow-through.

RF Safe argues that non-native electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can affect biology through timing and redox mechanisms even without tissue heating, framing this as a challenge to common safety narratives focused on thermal effects. The post links circadian disruption (citing a 2025 Frontiers in Psychiatry paper on ADHD and circadian phase delay) to broader vulnerability of biological timing systems, and proposes an “S4–Mito–Spin” framework involving ion-channel timing noise, mitochondrial oxidative stress amplification, and radical-pair/spin chemistry. It also cites a 2018 PLOS Biology study as mechanistic support for cryptochrome-dependent ROS changes under weak pulsed EMF exposure, while presenting these points as converging evidence rather than definitive proof of harm in real-world exposures.

RF Safe argues that modern radiofrequency (RF) exposures are complex (adaptive, nonlinear, geometry- and near-field–dependent) and that biological effects, if any, may be better understood as “timing/coherence” disruptions rather than direct single-cause disease claims. The piece cautions against simplistic “percent blocking” marketing for anti-radiation accessories, claiming real-world emissions can change when antenna boundary conditions are altered. It proposes an explanatory framework (“S4–Mito–Spin”) and suggests a policy/technology “exit” via indoor photonics (Li‑Fi/optical wireless) rather than continued expansion of microwave-based systems, while explicitly stating it does not claim RF causes specific human diseases or that products protect health.

RF Safe promotes an education-first, zero-paid-ad marketing approach for its EMF safety products, positioning itself against what it describes as a market full of overhyped or misleading “anti-radiation” gadgets. The article highlights RF Safe’s resources (e.g., a large study library and SAR tools) and argues its products (notably the QuantaCase) align with “physics” and avoid deceptive claims. It also repeats the founder’s personal story linking a family tragedy to prenatal EMF exposure and references various external claims (e.g., WHO animal findings, court criticism of FCC limits) without providing primary documentation in the text.

RF Safe argues for a “toxicity-based” interpretation of EMF/EMR exposure, claiming there are plausible biological mechanisms by which EMFs could cause symptoms rather than merely correlate with them. It highlights proposed pathways involving voltage-gated ion channels, oxidative stress/ROS (including mitochondrial effects), and radical-pair/cryptochrome mechanisms. The piece advocates a precautionary approach that treats non-native EMR as an environmental toxicant and calls for exposure minimization and alternative technologies, while noting that quantitative risk at everyday exposure levels remains debated.

This RF Safe commentary argues that wireless communications “took a wrong turn” by prioritizing radiofrequency/microwave transmission over light-based approaches, citing Alexander Graham Bell’s 1880 photophone as an alternative model. It suggests that widespread, continuous RF exposure in modern environments is undesirable and proposes light-based, room-scale wireless as more biologically compatible. The piece also speculates about a historical association between Heinrich Hertz’s close-range RF experiments and his later fatal illness, while acknowledging there is no controlled evidence proving causation.

RF Safe argues for a transition from microwave-based wireless (cellular/Wi‑Fi/Bluetooth) to light-based communications (e.g., Li‑Fi) to reduce indoor RF exposure. The piece claims chronic, low-level RF exposure may pose health risks beyond heating and calls for a precautionary approach, while also criticizing U.S. legal and regulatory frameworks it says limit local control and rely on older, heat-focused assumptions.

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.

RF Safe publishes a commentary describing a public feud between Dr. Jack Kruse and RF Safe founder John Coates over how to address health concerns attributed to non-native electromagnetic fields (nnEMFs), especially regarding children. The piece portrays Kruse as emphasizing personal “light/circadian” biohacks and Coates as pushing technology and policy changes such as LiFi adoption and repealing/altering telecom-related legal constraints. It includes numerous claims about EMF-related harms and references to research (e.g., NTP/Ramazzini, a Henry Lai meta-analysis) but presents them within an advocacy narrative rather than as a balanced review.

RF Safe presents “S4 MITO spin” as a proposed mechanistic framework arguing that peer-reviewed evidence can be unified to explain reported biological effects from radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and other non-native EMFs. The post highlights animal studies (notably NTP and Ramazzini) as showing carcinogenic “signals” and emphasizes non-linear dose–response patterns, asserting relevance to regulatory exposure limits. It frames the model as empirically grounded and testable, while acknowledging it is not a complete theory of all EMF effects.

This RF Safe article argues that everyday electromagnetic fields (EMFs) could act as a weak “magnetic co‑zeitgeber,” subtly influencing circadian timing alongside light. It proposes a mechanism in which EMFs modulate cryptochrome radical‑pair spin dynamics, potentially nudging circadian phase and downstream processes such as melatonin rhythms, immune function, epigenetic programming, and DNA repair. The piece presents the idea as a framework with testable implications while acknowledging uncertainties, but it is primarily explanatory/commentary rather than reporting new study results.

RF Safe’s “Executive Summary” argues that non-thermal radiofrequency/microwave exposures from modern wireless technologies can disrupt biological processes, proposing ion-channel voltage-sensor interference as a key mechanism leading to oxidative stress and inflammation. It cites animal studies (NTP and Ramazzini) and claims a WHO-commissioned 2025 systematic review found “high certainty” evidence of increased cancer in animals, and it points to epidemiological trends as suggestive. The piece also criticizes U.S. regulation as focused on thermal effects, highlighting FCC limits dating to 1996 and referencing a 2021 U.S. court ruling that faulted the FCC for not addressing non-thermal evidence.

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.

RF Safe argues that non-thermal RF-EMF effects on biology may be driven by extremely low-frequency (ELF) components embedded in real-world, modulated wireless signals rather than by the RF carrier alone. The post highlights Panagopoulos’ ion-forced-oscillation (IFO) model as a proposed mechanism in which ELF-related ion motion could perturb voltage-gated ion channel (VGIC) gating and cascade into oxidative stress and immune effects. It cites a mix of supportive and null findings and frames electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) as a threshold/phenotype within the same proposed VGIC–mitochondria–ROS pathway.