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 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 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 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 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 its TruthCase™ (also called QuantaCase®) as an EMF-focused phone case positioned less as a “miracle shield” and more as a habit-forming tool paired with consumer education and advocacy for regulatory reform. The article argues many “anti-radiation” cases are misleading or may increase exposure due to design choices, and it frames non-thermal biological effects as plausible, citing the NTP and Ramazzini animal studies. It also calls for broader policy changes (e.g., “Clean Ether Act,” Li‑Fi pilots) and encourages users to adopt exposure-reducing habits rather than rely on percentage-reduction marketing claims.

RF Safe argues that radiofrequency (RF) emissions from phones and Wi‑Fi pose non-thermal biological risks and that current safety limits are outdated. The post cites animal studies (including NTP and Ramazzini) and references WHO and IARC positions while promoting a proposed mechanism framework (“S4‑Mito‑Spin”) and calling for regulatory and policy changes. It also includes advocacy claims about regulatory capture and promotes RF Safe products and exposure-reduction practices.

This RF Safe blog post recounts a conversation with xAI’s Grok about RF electromagnetic fields and argues that AI “neutrality” can become biased when it defaults to regulatory consensus (e.g., ICNIRP/FCC) as a proxy for scientific truth. The author claims Grok later acknowledged “regulatory deference” and that evidence from animal studies (NTP, Ramazzini), WHO-commissioned reviews, and proposed non-thermal mechanisms should prompt stronger scrutiny of thermal-only safety standards. The piece frames current RF exposure guidelines as outdated and insufficiently responsive to non-thermal biological-effect evidence.

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.

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 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 argues that, as of 2025, evidence is “decisive” that man-made radiofrequency (RF) fields can cause cancer and other biological harm, and that non-thermal mechanisms are now established. It cites animal studies (including NTP and Ramazzini), a 2025 WHO-commissioned systematic review (as described by the author), and proposed mechanisms involving voltage-gated ion channels, oxidative stress, and radical-pair/spin chemistry. The piece calls for updated safety standards that consider modulation and tissue vulnerability, while stating it is “not a call for panic.”

RF Safe argues that animal evidence for RF-related carcinogenicity is now strong and should not be dismissed, citing the NTP (2018) and Ramazzini (2018) lifetime rodent studies as showing statistically significant increases in the same rare tumor types (heart schwannomas and brain gliomas). The post further claims that effects occurred at relatively low whole-body SAR levels and references additional mechanistic hypotheses (e.g., VGCC-related models and radical-pair/spin effects) and a reported human ultrasound observation of acute non-thermal changes. These points are presented as supporting a shift away from a “thermal-only” interpretation, but the item is advocacy/commentary and does not provide full methodological details in the excerpt.

RF Safe argues that non-thermal RF and ELF electromagnetic fields have a coherent biological mechanism and that the regulatory focus on heating-only limits is "no longer tenable." The post proposes a unifying "S4–Mito–Spin" framework linking voltage-gated ion channel voltage sensors (S4), mitochondrial/NOX oxidative stress amplification, and spin-dependent radical-pair chemistry as pathways for diverse reported effects. It cites multiple lines of literature (e.g., oxidative-stress reviews, NTP/Ramazzini animal studies, WHO-commissioned systematic reviews, and a clinical RF therapy device) to support the plausibility of non-thermal effects, while acknowledging mixed and inconsistent findings across studies.

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 the “strongest” RF-EMF literature supports concern about cancer-related findings, emphasizing non-monotonic dose–response patterns in the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) rat study and citing additional analyses and animal studies. It reports that FDA evaluations have downplayed the human relevance of NTP results due to high exposures and inconsistencies, and counters that some effects may occur at lower exposure levels than commonly claimed. The piece also references the Ramazzini Institute rat study as supportive evidence at lower whole-body SARs and mentions a 2024 PLOS ONE paper analyzing Ramazzini tumors, but provides limited detail in the excerpt.

RF Safe presents an advocacy-style article proposing a “S4–mitochondria–cryptochrome” framework to explain alleged non-thermal biological effects from RF and ELF exposure. It argues that EMF-related “noise” could disrupt voltage-gated ion channel signaling, amplify oxidative stress via mitochondria, and affect circadian biology through cryptochrome, linking these mechanisms to cancer, fertility impacts, immune dysregulation, and chronodisruption. The piece cites animal studies and reviews (e.g., NTP and Ramazzini) and references WHO systematic reviews, but the overall presentation is a unified-theory argument rather than a new peer-reviewed study.

RF Safe argues that current RF/ELF safety assessments rely too heavily on a thermal-only paradigm and proposes a “density-gated, multi-mechanism” framework to explain reported non-thermal bioeffects. The article claims weak EMFs could couple into biology via voltage-gated ion channel (VGIC) mechanisms and radical-pair/spin-chemistry pathways, with tissue vulnerability depending on the density of relevant biological structures. It cites several external studies and reviews (e.g., NTP/Ramazzini rodent bioassays, WHO-commissioned reviews, and selected cellular studies) as “anchors,” while presenting the overall model as a unifying explanation rather than a single new experiment.

RF Safe argues that a shared biological mechanism links RF/ELF exposure to outcomes such as cancer, infertility, autoimmune dysfunction, and metabolic effects. The article proposes that RF/ELF fields disrupt voltage-gated ion channel (VGIC) S4 “timing,” altering calcium signaling and increasing mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS), which then drives tissue-specific damage. It cites mechanistic researchers, major rodent bioassays (NTP, Ramazzini), and WHO-commissioned systematic reviews as converging support, but the piece is presented as advocacy/commentary rather than a new peer-reviewed study.

An RF Safe commentary argues that a proposed “S4–mitochondria axis” provides a coherent mechanism for non-thermal RF/ELF biological effects, linking voltage-gated ion channel (VGIC) disruption to altered calcium signaling, mitochondrial ROS, and downstream cancer, reproductive, and immune impacts. The post cites several recent reviews and systematic reviews (including a WHO-commissioned animal carcinogenicity review and an SR4A corrigendum) as strengthening evidence for specific tumor and reproductive outcomes in animals. It concludes that regulatory positions emphasizing thermal limits and lack of mechanism are no longer defensible, presenting this as convergent evidence rather than scattered findings.

RF Safe published a white paper by John Coates arguing that current wireless (RF) exposure limits focus on thermal heating while ignoring “non-thermal” biological effects reported in many studies. The piece cites animal studies (U.S. National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini Institute) and links RF exposure to outcomes such as rare tumors and declining sperm counts, and it alleges regulatory capture. It promotes Li‑Fi and other “biologically compatible” connectivity as a proposed path forward.

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 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.

This RF Safe article argues that U.S. radiofrequency (RF) exposure policy is outdated, emphasizing that FCC limits adopted in 1996 are based on preventing tissue heating and do not address alleged non-thermal biological effects. It claims responsibility for protecting public health from electronic product radiation was effectively ceded from health agencies to the FCC, and that Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act limits local governments from opposing wireless infrastructure on health grounds if FCC limits are met. The piece cites epidemiology, cell studies, and animal studies (notably the U.S. National Toxicology Program and the Ramazzini Institute) to argue that evidence has accumulated and regulation should be updated, but it presents these points in an advocacy framing rather than as a balanced review.