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 article argues that it is no longer accurate to claim there is no mechanism or no evidence of harm from RF exposure below current limits. It presents a proposed biological framework involving voltage-gated ion channels, oxidative stress pathways, and radical-pair (spin-dependent) chemistry, and cites animal studies (NTP and Ramazzini) and other literature as supporting evidence. The piece frames the remaining uncertainty as the magnitude of human risk rather than whether a hazard exists.

This narrative review discusses low-intensity RF-EMF exposure, primarily from mobile phones, with a focus on thermoregulation and energy homeostasis. It reports that many rodent studies at 900 MHz describe cold-like thermoregulatory and behavioral responses and molecular findings suggestive of WAT browning, while BAT transcriptional changes typical of cold exposure were not observed. The authors indicate short-term adaptations may not disrupt homeostasis, but emphasize uncertainty about long-term consequences and call for further research, including at 5G-relevant frequencies.

This review argues that current mobile-telephony safety guidelines address excessive microwave heating but may not account for potential non-thermal influences of low-intensity, pulsed radiation. It highlights an asserted oscillatory similarity between pulsed microwave signals and certain electrochemical activities in humans as a reason for concern. While acknowledging uncertainty about health consequences, it notes reported consistencies between some non-thermal effects and neurological problems described by some users and people with long-term base-station exposure.