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.

RF Safe criticizes Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) for labeling RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility,” arguing MBFC’s entry contains factual errors and misrepresentations. The post says RF Safe does not claim RF radiation definitively causes human disease, but instead presents precautionary interpretations of peer-reviewed studies and proposed non-thermal mechanisms. It also alleges MBFC made specific, checkable mistakes about study-linking practices and site ownership/funding, and failed to correct them after rebuttals.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) after MBFC labeled RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility.” The article argues MBFC made factual errors about RF Safe’s research links and ownership/funding, and says MBFC has not corrected the entry despite requests. RF Safe also defends its framing of non-thermal RF/EMF effects as precautionary and grounded in peer-reviewed literature, while criticizing what it characterizes as superficial fact-checking.

This magazine article discusses the rising incidence of thyroid cancer and raises the possibility of an association with increased smartphone use and related RF EMF exposure near the head and neck. It characterizes EMF exposure from personal electronics as a growing public health concern. The piece calls for more research, monitoring, and public awareness, and mentions precautionary measures.

RF Safe argues that companies marketing wireless connectivity to children should adopt a precautionary, “ethical connectivity” approach rather than relying on existing U.S. RF exposure rules. The piece claims current FCC guidelines are outdated and cites a 2021 D.C. Circuit decision criticizing the FCC’s retention of its RF limits, along with assertions about WHO-commissioned reviews and animal evidence. Overall, it frames wireless exposure for children as a credible risk and emphasizes regulatory lag and legal constraints as reasons for voluntary industry action.

RF Safe promotes QuantaCase (also marketed as TruthCase) as an “anti-radiation” phone case designed to deflect RF energy away from the user while maintaining phone performance. The article argues that non-thermal biological effects can occur below current exposure guidelines and cites multiple reviews and reports to support a precautionary approach, while stating it does not directly extrapolate these findings to proven human harms. It also criticizes current RF standards and regulators, references the 2021 D.C. Circuit remand of the FCC’s RF decision, and advocates exposure-reduction strategies such as Li‑Fi and consumer action.

An RF Safe blog post written in a first-person “Grok” voice argues that many anti-radiation phone cases are ineffective or can increase exposure by causing phones to boost transmit power. It recommends the QuantaCase™ as the best option in late 2025, claiming it “delivers on physics” and avoids common design pitfalls seen in competing products. The post references WHO’s position that low-level exposure is not proven harmful in humans while also citing animal research (e.g., NTP) and proposed mechanisms (e.g., oxidative stress) to justify precautionary use.

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.

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 describes “S4-Mito-Spin” as a proposed framework for explaining non-thermal biological effects from RF/EMF exposures (phones, Wi‑Fi, cell towers). The article argues the model links three mechanisms—voltage-gated ion channel disruption, mitochondrial oxidative stress, and spin-dependent chemistry—to reported findings such as oxidative damage, circulation changes, and tumors in certain tissues. It cites animal studies (e.g., NTP and Ramazzini) and various 2025 claims (e.g., WHO review, sperm studies, embryo methylation, and ultrasound observations) to support a precautionary interpretation, while acknowledging ongoing debate and non-linear dose-response arguments.

An RF Safe article presents a personal narrative and hypothesis that “non-native EMFs” act as “entropic waste” that could disrupt early embryonic neurodevelopment (neurulation), potentially contributing to neural-tube defects and later neurodevelopmental outcomes such as autism/ADHD. The author links a family tragedy to this hypothesis and argues for reducing wireless exposure as a precaution. The post cites several studies/reports (e.g., Farrell 1997, Aldad 2012, NTP 2018, WHO SR4A 2025) but does not provide detailed methods or evidence appraisal within the excerpt.

RF Safe argues that findings it describes as “high-certainty” from WHO-commissioned systematic reviews show RF-EMF causes malignant heart Schwannomas and brain gliomas in rodents and reduces male fertility. The post proposes a unifying non-thermal mechanism—the “S4-mitochondria axis”—suggesting RF-EMF interacts with the voltage-sensing S4 helix of voltage-gated ion channels (VGICs) and is amplified by mitochondrial density. It concludes that the combination of animal evidence and a proposed mechanism supports precautionary revisions to exposure guidelines and more mechanistic research.

RF Safe argues that current RF-EMF exposure standards are overly focused on thermal effects and should be replaced with a “post-thermal” regulatory paradigm that accounts for claimed non-thermal biological impacts. The piece cites a mix of mechanistic hypotheses, animal studies, epidemiology, and legal/policy developments (e.g., the 2021 D.C. Circuit EHT v. FCC decision) to support a precautionary reform agenda. It also asserts that recent WHO work in 2025 strengthens the case for tumor-related risks, though these characterizations are presented as the author’s interpretation rather than independently verified within the feed item.

RF Safe publishes an advocacy guide arguing that current wireless RF/MW exposure limits are “thermal-only,” outdated since 1996, and insufficient to address claimed non-thermal biological effects from pulsed/modulated signals. The guide summarizes mechanistic arguments (e.g., voltage-gated ion channel timing disruption), cites animal studies and reviews it says link RF exposure to cancer and other harms, and calls for regulatory and technological reforms (including Li‑Fi) plus exposure-reduction strategies. The piece frames the issue as urgent and precautionary, presenting its synthesis as evidence-grounded but primarily as advocacy rather than a single new study.

This narrative review discusses proposed non-thermal mechanisms by which chronic, low-intensity RF-EMR from ubiquitous wireless sources may affect male reproductive health. It highlights oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired testosterone synthesis/steroidogenesis, and declines in sperm quality as reported outcomes. The authors argue that current SAR/thermal-based guidelines may not capture these endpoints and call for updated standards and precautionary measures.

This animal study examined whether prenatal exposure to 3.5 GHz radiofrequency radiation (2 hours/day) affects male reproductive outcomes later in life. Male rat offspring assessed at 12 months showed multiple adverse testicular and cellular findings in exposed groups versus sham controls, including impaired spermatogenesis markers, increased abnormal sperm morphology, increased DNA damage, and increased apoptosis, with full-gestation exposure generally most pronounced. The authors interpret the results as evidence of persistent reproductive toxicity from prenatal exposure and call for further mechanistic work and precautionary actions.

This 2025 review summarizes historical and modern literature on how bacteria may adapt to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from common sources such as mobile phones and Wi-Fi. It argues that RF-EMF exposure can influence bacterial survival mechanisms and could potentially compromise therapeutic interventions by promoting increased resistance. The authors frame these possibilities as a public health concern and call for continued research and precaution.

This article summarizes a webinar series and frames pesticides and wireless radiation as concurrent environmental health crises affecting ecosystems and public health. It asserts that evidence is building for adverse effects of EMF/wireless radiation in humans, animals, and bees, including “high-certainty links” between RF radiation and tumors in brain and heart nerves. It also suggests potential synergy between chemical and EMF exposures impacting bee hive productivity and argues for precautionary policy and stronger exposure guidelines.

This scoping review and evidence map (PRISMA-ScR) summarizes over 500 studies on RF-EMF exposure and genotoxicity across in vitro, in vivo, and epidemiological research. The authors report a higher proportion of significant DNA damage findings in in vivo and epidemiological studies than in vitro studies, with DNA base damage commonly reported under real-world/pulsed/GSM talk-mode conditions and longer exposures. They conclude that DNA damage has been observed at exposure levels below ICNIRP limits and recommend precautionary measures and updates to guidelines to address potential non-thermal effects.

This cross-sectional study compared 183 higher-exposed residents with 126 matched reference residents and assessed symptoms via questionnaire alongside in-home RF-EMF power density measurements from mobile phone base stations. Higher exposure (including proximity within 50 m and power densities of 5–8 mW/m2) was reported to be associated with increased symptom prevalence across mood-energy, cognitive-sensory, inflammatory, and anatomical categories. The authors conclude that current public exposure limits may be inadequate for long-term, non-thermal biological impacts and call for precautionary policy updates.