Archive
3 postsFilters: category: phone-cases Clear
Why the “99% Blocked” Claim is a Myth: The Best Anti-Radiation Phone Case
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.
RF Safe’s Market Position and Industry Skepticism
RF Safe argues that while it has operated since 1998 and emphasizes “physics-based” design and education, the broader anti-radiation phone case market is widely criticized for hype and potentially misleading “blocking” claims. The post says some experts consider the category ineffective or even counterproductive, including concerns that poorly designed cases may interfere with antennas and prompt phones to increase transmit power. It positions RF Safe’s QuantaCase/TruthCase as an outlier for transparency and design choices, while noting that independent 2026 testing is limited and some claims rely on demonstrations, older tests, and design critiques.
Best Anti-Radiation Phone Case 2026: Why QuantaCase is the Only Truthful Choice in a Sea of Scams
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with broader claims about RF-EMF health effects, criticizing current exposure guidelines (e.g., FCC/ICNIRP) as outdated and insufficient for non-thermal effects.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.