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 It further cites Reuters reporting that FDA removed outdated webpages about cellphone safety alongside HHS launching a new study, and contends MBFC should update its rationale and links.

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.

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 presents “TruthCase™ · Clean Ether Action Hub” as a combined product-and-policy hub arguing that evidence from multiple RF health research lines supports harm occurring below current exposure limits. It promotes a proposed “S4–Mito–Spin / IFO‑VGIC” framework and a “density-gated” vulnerability map, and calls for policy actions such as changes to Section 704 and enforcement via FDA/FTC. The page frames regulatory “capture/inertia” as a key reason current limits persist, while positioning its view as a “respectable minority” in 2025.

An RF Safe commentary advocates for a proposed “Clean Ether Act” that would mandate replacing Wi‑Fi/5G with LiFi, arguing that current RF exposure limits ignore non-thermal biological effects. The post alleges widespread health harms from RF/EMF (e.g., cancers, fertility impacts) and claims regulatory capture by industry, citing animal studies and a U.S. court decision as support. It frames the issue as urgent and preventable through policy changes and technology substitution, but presents these assertions in highly charged language without providing verifiable bill details in the text shown.

An RF Safe article argues that U.S. radiofrequency (RF) radiation governance is structurally flawed due to outdated FCC exposure limits, misaligned agency responsibilities, reduced federal research activity, and federal preemption that limits local action. It promotes the site’s “S4-Mito-Spin” framework as a proposed non-thermal mechanism for RF/ELF bioeffects and cites animal studies (e.g., NTP and Ramazzini) as challenging a thermal-only basis for limits. The piece also discusses policy reforms, including a proposed “Clean Ether Act” and increased use of alternatives such as Li‑Fi, while noting that mainstream bodies (e.g., FDA, ICNIRP) do not consider non-thermal harms established.

This RF Safe article argues that the main barrier to addressing radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and other non-native EMFs is structural policy and governance failure rather than a lack of scientific evidence. It cites the 2021 D.C. Circuit decision in Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC as criticism of the FCC’s rationale for keeping 1996 RF exposure limits, and it points to the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 as a mandate for HHS to run a research-backed radiation control program. The piece also references the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s animal findings and frames the lack of further NTP RF studies as a policy shortcoming, while promoting an “S4 MITO spin” mechanistic framework and a proposed “Clean Ether Act.”