Deep Dive: RF Safe critique of “99% blocked” anti‑radiation phone case claims

Overview

• What the seed item is about: The RF Safe article challenges common marketing claims that phone cases can “block 99%” of radiation, arguing these claims are based on unrealistic lab tests of shielding material rather than tests of a functioning phone in real‑world use.
• Plain‑language takeaway: The piece is a consumer‑oriented critique of anti‑radiation case advertising and implies that the way a phone actually operates matters for evaluating any shielding claim.

What’s in the available page text

• The extracted text is very limited and does not include the body of the article or any technical details.
• It contains a brief notice and branding language but no data, methods, or evidence to assess the accuracy of the “99% blocked” critique.

Related context from the feed

• Other RF Safe items in the feed focus on government messaging about cell‑phone radiation safety. Those are related in topic (risk communication) but not directly about shielding products, so they are not used here to avoid over‑connecting themes.

Evidence context (papers)

• No peer‑reviewed papers were provided in this payload to evaluate or contextualize shielding effectiveness or testing methods for phone cases.

What we know / What we don’t know

What we know

• The seed item is a consumer‑facing critique of “99% blocked” anti‑radiation phone case claims.
• It asserts that common lab tests are not representative of a working phone’s real‑world emissions.

What we don’t know

• The article’s specific arguments, evidence, or references (not present in the extracted text).
• Whether the author provides measurements, standards, or third‑party test data.
• How the claim applies across different case designs, phone models, or test protocols.

Sources

• https://www.rfsafe.com/why-the-99-blocked-claim-is-a-myth-the-best-anti-radiation-phone-case-for-2024/