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 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.

RF Safe promotes its QuantaCase as the only “truthful” anti-radiation phone case and argues that many competing shielding cases use misleading “percent blocking” claims and can sometimes increase user exposure depending on design and phone behavior. The post mixes product marketing with broader claims about RF-EMF health effects, criticizing current exposure guidelines (e.g., FCC/ICNIRP) as outdated and insufficient for non-thermal effects. It cites various reports and analyses (e.g., a 2017 TV test segment and multiple study-count summaries) but does not provide verifiable study details within the excerpt.

RF Safe argues that common marketing claims for anti-radiation phone cases (e.g., “99% shielding”) are misleading because they often rely on controlled lab fabric tests that do not reflect real-world phone use. The post claims factors like shield orientation, phone transmit-power increases under obstruction, frequency differences (including 5G bands), and user/body interactions can reduce or even reverse purported exposure reductions. It also criticizes current regulatory testing frameworks for not requiring phones to be tested with cases and promotes RF Safe’s own “TruthCase/QuantaCase” approach as a more honest alternative.

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.