Smart Meters & Utility RF

This RF Safe article argues that biological effects from radiofrequency and pulsed electromagnetic fields can be interpreted through two complementary layers: Maxwell–Wagner interfacial polarization (as a direct electrodynamic mechanism at cell membranes) and an “S4–Mito-Spin” framework (as an upstream susceptibility model tied to voltage-sensor density, mitochondrial coupling, and antioxidant buffering). It suggests these mechanisms could converge on outcomes such as altered red-blood-cell stability, blood rheology, membrane deformation, and—at higher intensities—electroporation or hemolysis. The piece is presented as a mechanistic synthesis rather than reporting new experimental results, and it frames potential vulnerability to pulsed/non-native exposures as context-dependent.

A multicenter case-control study in Iran reported that self-reported prolonged mobile phone use was associated with higher odds of confirmed and suspected breast cancer status. The authors emphasize that the findings do not imply causation and note limitations including self-reported exposure and potential residual confounding. They call for larger prospective studies with objective exposure assessment.

RF Safe argues that marketing claims such as “blocks 99% of EMF” for anti-radiation phone cases are misleading because many “lab tests” are reportedly performed on shielding fabric alone rather than on a working phone. The piece frames a phone as a “dynamic radio” and suggests real-world performance may differ from simplified test setups. The extracted text also promotes RF Safe’s products and warranty, indicating a commercial/advocacy context.

This PubMed-listed in vitro study tested whether 1800 MHz RF-EMF exposure can modify chemically induced DNA damage in mouse embryonic fibroblasts under standardized, non-thermal conditions. The authors report RF-EMF alone did not produce detectable DNA damage and did not significantly increase damage from hydrogen peroxide, 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide, or cadmium. However, co-exposure with hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) was reported to synergistically increase DNA damage in the comet assay, which the authors interpret as possible selective exacerbation of Cr(VI)-induced genotoxicity requiring further investigation.

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.

RF Safe criticizes Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) for rating it “medium credibility,” arguing MBFC relied on an FDA webpage that was later changed/redirected and on a Harvard T.H. Chan School commentary. The post claims the FDA removed categorical reassurance language about cell phone safety and frames this as undermining MBFC’s critique. It also asserts that non-thermal mechanisms and animal findings support RF Safe’s precautionary stance, while characterizing MBFC’s sources as “opinion” rather than data.

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 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.

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 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 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 recounts a timeline of FTC actions and consumer guidance targeting phone “radiation shield” stickers/patches that claimed large reductions in exposure, arguing these products can create a false sense of security. The post cites the FTC’s February 2002 enforcement actions and consumer alert, including references to Good Housekeeping Institute testing that reportedly found the products did not reduce exposure. RF Safe also claims it warned about such scams earlier (late 1990s), framing this as its own account rather than an FTC-attributed origin story.

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 market misleading “% blocked” claims based on lab material tests rather than whole-device, real-world performance. The article promotes RF Safe’s TruthCase/QuantaCase as a “physics-first” design that avoids advertising a single blocking percentage and emphasizes directional shielding and user education. It cites a 2017 CBS San Francisco/KPIX test as an example of how some flip-style shielding cases can reduce measured RF in certain orientations but may increase readings in other common-use configurations.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias/Fact Check’s January 8, 2026 update that labeled RF Safe “Least Biased” and “Mostly Factual” but assigned “Medium Credibility,” citing perceived one-sided interpretation, product-sales conflicts, and alarmist framing. The post argues RF Safe’s “S4-Mito-Spin” framework incorporates null findings as boundary conditions to explain variability in RF/EMF study outcomes rather than ignoring negative results. It also claims major authorities’ positions are outdated in light of a cited WHO review and a U.S. court remand regarding FCC guidelines, and contends product sales are secondary to advocacy and education.

This RF Safe commentary frames readers as part of a “resistance” movement seeking changes to U.S. wireless policy and RF exposure governance. It argues that current FCC RF exposure rules and related laws constrain local decision-making and rely on a “thermal-only” safety framework that the author says is outdated. The post cites a WHO-commissioned 2025 systematic review on RF-EMF and cancer in experimental animals as part of a broader WHO review effort, and advocates shifting indoor connectivity toward light-based technologies.

RF Safe argues that its “S4-Mito-Spin” framework should avoid debates about whether cell phones cause human disease and instead focus on mechanistic and animal evidence for non-thermal RF/EMF biological effects. The post claims the framework synthesizes established concepts (ion-channel interactions, mitochondrial/NOX-driven ROS, and radical-pair/quantum spin effects) to explain why some lab studies find effects and others do not. It also cites a WHO-commissioned systematic review and a U.S. court ruling to support calls for updating RF exposure guidelines beyond thermal-only assumptions.

RF Safe argues that its “S4-Mito-Spin” framework should avoid human disease causation debates and instead focus on interpreting non-thermal RF/EMF findings from cellular and animal studies. The article claims the framework synthesizes mechanisms involving voltage-gated ion channels, mitochondrial/oxidative stress pathways, and radical-pair (spin) effects to explain why some experiments show effects and others do not. It further contends that rodent evidence and a cited WHO-commissioned review support updating RF exposure guidelines beyond thermal-only assumptions, and references a U.S. court decision criticizing the FCC’s rationale for maintaining existing limits.

RF Safe presents itself as an RF exposure advocacy and education project promoting “RF exposure literacy,” safer-use habits, and updated safety frameworks beyond thermal-only assumptions. The post highlights RF Safe’s tools, including a SAR comparison database based on FCC SAR data, a public research viewer described as containing 4,000+ peer-reviewed studies, and its “TruthCase”/editorial standards. It argues that non-thermal biological interactions are reported in experimental literature and that compliance with current SAR limits does not necessarily reflect optimal real-world exposure outcomes.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias Fact Check’s (MBFC) decision to rate the site “Medium Credibility,” addressing MBFC’s concerns about selective citation, one-sided interpretation, alarmist framing, and potential conflicts of interest tied to selling RF-safety products. The post argues RF Safe includes null/negative findings, avoids claiming RF “causes” specific diseases, and maintains editorial/transparency policies meant to separate evidence types and disclose commercial relationships. It also contends MBFC’s critique is partly a dispute over tone and wording (e.g., “primarily” funded by product sales) rather than demonstrated sourcing errors.

RF Safe publishes a correction request addressed to Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) regarding MBFC’s credibility entry about RF Safe. The post argues that MBFC should revise or substantiate claims about RF Safe being “funded primarily” by product sales, adjust conflict-of-interest wording, and reconsider an assertion that RF Safe gives limited weight to null (no-effect) evidence. RF Safe proposes alternative language and links to its own transparency policy, product education pages, and a framework it says explicitly anticipates null results.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias Fact Check’s (MBFC) January 8, 2026 credibility assessment, arguing MBFC’s “Medium Credibility” rating is unjustified despite MBFC upgrades to “Least Biased” and “Mostly Factual.” The post disputes MBFC’s criticisms (selective citation, alarmist framing, and potential conflict of interest from product sales) and claims RF Safe’s coverage aligns with WHO-commissioned reviews and legal/regulatory developments. RF Safe reiterates its view that thermal-only RF exposure guidelines are inadequate and calls for policy reform while stating it does not claim definitive human causation.

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.

This PubMed-listed paper argues that the U.S. regulatory framework for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from wireless technologies is outdated, lacks adequate oversight and enforcement, and has not been meaningfully updated since 1996. It contends that FCC exposure limits focus on short-term, high-intensity effects and do not address long-term, low-intensity exposures, with insufficient safeguards for children, pregnancy, and other vulnerable groups. The authors also discuss alleged regulatory capture, gaps in monitoring and compliance, and propose reforms including independent research, updated safety limits, and stronger pre- and post-market surveillance.

RF Safe criticizes Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) for labeling RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility,” arguing MBFC’s entry contains factual errors and misrepresentations. The post says RF Safe does not claim RF radiation definitively causes human disease, but instead presents precautionary interpretations of peer-reviewed studies and proposed non-thermal mechanisms. It also alleges MBFC made specific, checkable mistakes about study-linking practices and site ownership/funding, and failed to correct them after rebuttals.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) after MBFC labeled RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility.” The article argues MBFC made factual errors about RF Safe’s research links and ownership/funding, and says MBFC has not corrected the entry despite requests. RF Safe also defends its framing of non-thermal RF/EMF effects as precautionary and grounded in peer-reviewed literature, while criticizing what it characterizes as superficial fact-checking.