This RF Safe article reports that in mid-January 2026 HHS, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., removed or redirected certain FDA webpages that previously conveyed strong “no-risk” conclusions about cellphone radiation. It argues the updated FDA framing emphasizes statutory duties (monitoring, testing, hazard control) and signals a shift from definitive safety messaging toward renewed inquiry, while noting that details of any planned research have not been publicly disclosed. The piece also highlights Kennedy’s past public statements alleging harms from Wi‑Fi/5G and links the policy context to the 2021 D.C. Circuit remand of FCC RF policy.

RF Safe argues that red blood cell (RBC) “rouleaux” (stacking/aggregation) could be a visible, testable endpoint for investigating potential short-term physiological effects from wireless device exposure. The post highlights a 2025 report by Brown & Biebrich describing ultrasound observations interpreted as rouleaux-like aggregation after 5 minutes of smartphone placement near the popliteal vein, and contrasts this with earlier, more-criticized “live blood analysis” videos. It frames rouleaux as an electrostatic/zeta-potential phenomenon and calls for mechanistic testing and exposure mitigation, while presenting the ultrasound observation as a key shift toward more clinically standard imaging.

This RF Safe article by John Coates argues that “non-native” RF/ELF electromagnetic fields may degrade biological “signal fidelity” by perturbing voltage-gated ion channel timing, with downstream effects on mitochondria, reactive oxygen species (ROS), and redox biology. It presents a conceptual “S4–Mito–Spin” framework and cites selected studies and mechanisms (e.g., ion-channel forced oscillation, radical-pair/spin chemistry) to support the plausibility of non-thermal effects. The piece frames modern wireless infrastructure as an uncontrolled long-term experiment and suggests current regulation focuses too narrowly on heating.

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.

An RF Safe article argues that everyday RF-EMF exposures from phones, Wi‑Fi, and vehicles pose serious health risks, using dramatic framing such as “blood into pancakes.” It cites an ultrasound demonstration and references to a Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine paper, WHO reviews, and animal tumor findings, while promoting a proprietary-sounding framework (“S4‑Mito‑Spin”) and proposed solutions like “Clean Ether” tech and LiFi. The piece also calls for policy changes and encourages readers to run self-tests and share results on social media.

An RF Safe article argues that “non-thermal” RF/ELF electromagnetic fields from phones, Wi‑Fi, and 5G cause widespread biological harm and that regulators and industry have misled the public by focusing on heating-based safety limits. It claims 2025 is a “tipping point,” citing WHO-commissioned reviews, animal studies (e.g., NTP/Ramazzini), a “Frontiers review,” and ICBE-EMF statements as evidence of cancer and other health risks. The piece frames the issue as urgent and settled, calling for public action and policy change, but presents these conclusions in advocacy language without providing verifiable study details in the excerpt.

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.”

RF Safe argues that a single biological mechanism explains widespread harm to children from modern wireless signals (cell phones, Wi‑Fi, 5G, DECT), emphasizing that these signals are “pulsed and modulated.” The post claims that “animal proof” is now high-certainty and references “WHO 2025 GRADE-rated systematic reviews,” linking EMF exposure to rare cancers in young people, declining sperm counts, and childhood autoimmune/neurodevelopmental disorders. The excerpt provided does not include citations or details sufficient to verify these claims.

RF Safe argues that U.S. RF exposure limits remain based on avoiding short-term heating (“thermal-only”) effects and have not been meaningfully updated since the FCC’s 1996 guidelines. The piece links this regulatory approach to community concerns about cell towers near schools, citing reported cancer clusters and claiming that compliance with FCC limits may not equate to safety. It also highlights Telecommunications Act Section 704 as limiting local opposition to tower siting on health or environmental grounds.

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 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.

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 cross-sectional observational study assessed sperm motility after one hour of in vitro exposure of semen samples to EMFs from different laboratory sources in an IVF setting. It reports a statistically significant reduction in progressive sperm motility after exposure to mobile phones and Wi-Fi repeaters, while other EMF-emitting equipment showed no significant effect. The authors interpret the findings as indicating a potential negative impact of specific RF sources and call for further research, alongside practical mitigation suggestions in IVF laboratories.

This animal study examined continual 2.4 GHz Wi‑Fi exposure (200–500 μW/m²) during 9 days of chicken embryo incubation and assessed the mesonephros at day 9. The authors report no adverse effects on general mesonephros development, but describe moderate degenerative changes and vascular congestion without inflammatory infiltrate. They also report significantly increased apoptotic and proliferating cells and up-regulation of caspase‑1 gene expression, interpreted as disruption of regulatory processes during development.

This review discusses potential impacts of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from technologies such as Wi‑Fi and mobile phones on the central nervous system, neurotransmitter dynamics, and reproductive health. It describes proposed mechanisms including oxidative stress, thermal effects, altered neurotransmitter activity, ion channel changes, and neuronal apoptosis, while acknowledging conflicting evidence. The authors note that Wi‑Fi RF exposure has not been confirmed to exceed safety guidelines but argue that updated standards and long-term studies are needed, particularly for children/adolescents and in the context of expanding technologies such as 5G.

This mini-review discusses indoor radiation sources that may affect companion animals, including radon, radionuclides in feed, radiofrequency sources (phones, Wi-Fi, pet tracking devices), solar radiation, and extremely low frequency radiation. It reports that indoor radiation may negatively impact companion animal health and well-being. The authors conclude that preventive and precautionary measures are necessary to protect companion animals from indoor radiation exposure.

This narrative review summarizes human and animal research on radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure (e.g., mobile phones, Wi‑Fi, occupational sources) and male reproductive outcomes. It reports that the literature links RF exposure with reduced sperm quality and increased DNA damage, often alongside oxidative stress and other proposed biological changes. Although inconsistencies are acknowledged, the authors conclude the overall evidence suggests harmful associations and call for standardized, long-term studies and reconsideration of guidelines.

This animal study examined whether continuous prenatal exposure to 2450 MHz radiofrequency radiation (simulating Wi‑Fi) affects thyroid tissue in rat offspring at 6 months. The exposed group showed significantly increased mononuclear cell infiltration and vascular congestion in thyroid histology. TUNEL-positive cell percentage and H2A.X antibody levels did not differ significantly between groups.