This RF Safe article argues that biological effects from radiofrequency and pulsed electromagnetic fields can be interpreted through two complementary layers: Maxwell–Wagner interfacial polarization (as a direct electrodynamic mechanism at cell membranes) and an “S4–Mito-Spin” framework (as an upstream susceptibility model tied to voltage-sensor density, mitochondrial coupling, and antioxidant buffering). It suggests these mechanisms could converge on outcomes such as altered red-blood-cell stability, blood rheology, membrane deformation, and—at higher intensities—electroporation or hemolysis. The piece is presented as a mechanistic synthesis rather than reporting new experimental results, and it frames potential vulnerability to pulsed/non-native exposures as context-dependent.

A multicenter case-control study in Iran reported that self-reported prolonged mobile phone use was associated with higher odds of confirmed and suspected breast cancer status. The authors emphasize that the findings do not imply causation and note limitations including self-reported exposure and potential residual confounding. They call for larger prospective studies with objective exposure assessment.

RF Safe argues that marketing claims such as “blocks 99% of EMF” for anti-radiation phone cases are misleading because many “lab tests” are reportedly performed on shielding fabric alone rather than on a working phone. The piece frames a phone as a “dynamic radio” and suggests real-world performance may differ from simplified test setups. The extracted text also promotes RF Safe’s products and warranty, indicating a commercial/advocacy context.

RF Safe argues that Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) downgraded RF Safe partly by citing an FDA webpage stating typical RF exposure is not supported by current evidence as a health risk, but that the cited FDA page now redirects to a general “Cell Phones” landing page. The post claims other historically cited FDA consumer pages also redirect and that the strongest reassurance language is now mainly accessible via archives. It further cites Reuters reporting that FDA removed outdated webpages about cellphone safety alongside HHS launching a new study, and contends MBFC should update its rationale and links.

RF Safe criticizes Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) for rating it “medium credibility,” arguing MBFC relied on an FDA webpage that was later changed/redirected and on a Harvard T.H. Chan School commentary. The post claims the FDA removed categorical reassurance language about cell phone safety and frames this as undermining MBFC’s critique. It also asserts that non-thermal mechanisms and animal findings support RF Safe’s precautionary stance, while characterizing MBFC’s sources as “opinion” rather than data.

This RF Safe commentary argues that HHS, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was correct to remove FDA webpages that gave broad assurances that cell phone radiation is “not dangerous.” It claims blanket safety messaging is scientifically indefensible given animal toxicology findings (notably the U.S. National Toxicology Program studies), a WHO-commissioned systematic review of animal cancer studies (Mevissen et al., 2025), and references to federal court findings. The piece frames the change as a precautionary, science-based correction rather than an anti-science move.

This RF Safe commentary argues that Reuters-reported actions by HHS and FDA—launching an HHS study and removing older FDA webpages stating cellphones are “not dangerous”—should be understood as a risk-communication/scientific-integrity adjustment rather than a declaration of confirmed harm. It contends that categorical safety messaging is not justified given mixed evidence, citing the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 decision criticizing FCC reliance on conclusory FDA statements, along with selected human, animal, and mechanistic literature. The post calls for more uncertainty-aware, evidence-graded public messaging about RF exposure from phones.

This RF Safe commentary argues that if HHS and FDA pursue a “reset” on cellphone radiation policy, they should fund mechanistic, predictive biology rather than relying on literature summaries or general safety reassurances. It cites the NTP rat bioassays and a WHO-commissioned animal cancer systematic review (Mevissen et al., 2025) as motivation, emphasizing reported tissue-selective findings and non-monotonic dose patterns. The post proposes a mechanistic framework (“S4–Mito–Spin”) and calls for research to map boundary conditions across tissues and exposure parameters to inform standards beyond SAR/thermal assumptions.

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.

This RF Safe commentary argues that dismissing the National Toxicology Program (NTP) cellphone-radiation animal findings as “too high dose” is misleading because the NTP used multiple exposure tiers, including a lowest tier described as near regulatory relevance. It also claims FDA has removed webpages containing prior “safety conclusion” language while HHS has announced a new study on electromagnetic radiation and health effects, framing these as a meaningful shift in federal public-facing posture. The piece further points to the Ramazzini Institute animal study as suggesting similar tumor signals at lower exposure levels, while acknowledging animal studies alone do not establish human causation.

RF Safe reports that HHS confirmed plans to launch a new study on cellphone radiation and that an HHS spokesperson said the FDA removed webpages with “old conclusions” while new research is undertaken to identify knowledge gaps, including for emerging technologies. The article frames the FDA webpage changes as a meaningful shift away from categorical reassurance, while noting Reuters’ reporting that some FDA and CDC pages still state there is no credible evidence of health problems from cellphone radiation. It also links the development to the 2021 D.C. Circuit decision in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, arguing the ruling exposed weaknesses in the FCC’s reliance on other agencies’ statements.

RF Safe reports that the U.S. FDA substantially revised its cellphone radiation webpages around January 15, 2026, removing or reducing prior language that broadly reassured the public about safety. The article argues the new framing more closely reflects the FDA’s statutory responsibilities under the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-602), emphasizing research, monitoring, and public information rather than definitive safety conclusions. It also links the change to a reported HHS announcement of a new study and portrays the update as a shift toward greater transparency, while noting some safety language may remain on the page.

RF Safe recounts a timeline of FTC actions and consumer guidance targeting phone “radiation shield” stickers/patches that claimed large reductions in exposure, arguing these products can create a false sense of security. The post cites the FTC’s February 2002 enforcement actions and consumer alert, including references to Good Housekeeping Institute testing that reportedly found the products did not reduce exposure. RF Safe also claims it warned about such scams earlier (late 1990s), framing this as its own account rather than an FTC-attributed origin story.

RF Safe promotes its QuantaCase (also called TruthCase) as a leading “anti-radiation” phone case for 2026, emphasizing a directional shielding design intended to deflect RF energy away from the body. The article argues the product aligns with consumer-safety guidance such as keeping phones away from the body and using hands-free modes, and it claims RF Safe’s earlier advocacy influenced FTC/FCC warnings about ineffective or counterproductive shielding products. It cites comparisons, user reviews, and an “independent” 2017 TV review as support, but presents limited verifiable technical detail in the excerpt.

RF Safe critiques the anti-radiation phone case market for relying on headline percentage-blocking claims that may reflect tests of shielding material rather than real-world phone behavior in a case on a live network. The article argues that poorly designed or misused shielding cases can interfere with a phone’s signal and prompt higher transmit power, potentially increasing exposure in some scenarios. It positions RF Safe’s QuantaCase/TruthCase as avoiding percentage marketing claims and emphasizes a systems-engineering approach to testing and use, while noting that health causation from typical consumer RF exposure remains debated by authorities.

RF Safe argues that “anti-radiation” phone case marketing based on universal “99% blocking” claims is misleading because real-world phone emissions vary with signal conditions, orientation, and how a case affects the antenna. The post positions RF Safe’s TruthCase/QuantaCase as more credible specifically because it refuses to advertise a single percentage reduction and instead emphasizes design constraints intended to avoid prompting a phone to increase transmit power. It cites a KPIX 5 (CBS San Francisco) test as an example of how flip cases can reduce exposure in some configurations but potentially increase it in others when used differently than intended.

RF Safe argues that many “anti-radiation” phone cases market misleading “% blocked” claims based on lab material tests rather than whole-device, real-world performance. The article promotes RF Safe’s TruthCase/QuantaCase as a “physics-first” design that avoids advertising a single blocking percentage and emphasizes directional shielding and user education. It cites a 2017 CBS San Francisco/KPIX test as an example of how some flip-style shielding cases can reduce measured RF in certain orientations but may increase readings in other common-use configurations.

RF Safe argues that its “S4-Mito-Spin” framework should avoid debates about whether cell phones cause human disease and instead focus on mechanistic and animal evidence for non-thermal RF/EMF biological effects. The post claims the framework synthesizes established concepts (ion-channel interactions, mitochondrial/NOX-driven ROS, and radical-pair/quantum spin effects) to explain why some lab studies find effects and others do not. It also cites a WHO-commissioned systematic review and a U.S. court ruling to support calls for updating RF exposure guidelines beyond thermal-only assumptions.

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.

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.