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 It further cites Reuters reporting that FDA removed outdated webpages about cellphone safety alongside HHS launching a new study, and contends MBFC should update its rationale and links.

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.

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 argues that celebrity-branded mobile services (citing reported plans for “Beast Mobile” and the announced “Trump Mobile”) could normalize near-body, all-day phone use—especially among children—and therefore carry ethical responsibility for scaled RF exposure. The piece cites legal and scientific developments (including the 2021 Environmental Health Trust v. FCC decision, the U.S. NTP animal studies, and a WHO-commissioned systematic review) to claim the evidence base has “moved decisively” toward concern about long-term RF-EMF effects. It also promotes a proposed mechanistic framework ("S4–Mito–Spin") and suggests shifting indoor connectivity toward Li‑Fi (IEEE 802.11bb) as a harm-reduction approach.

This magazine article discusses the rising incidence of thyroid cancer and raises the possibility of an association with increased smartphone use and related RF EMF exposure near the head and neck. It characterizes EMF exposure from personal electronics as a growing public health concern. The piece calls for more research, monitoring, and public awareness, and mentions precautionary measures.

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.

RF Safe argues that a potential MrBeast-branded mobile service (“Beast Mobile”) could drive high adoption among children and therefore raises ethical concerns about children’s exposure to radiofrequency (RF) emissions from always-on, body-worn devices. The post claims the scientific and legal context has shifted and contends that relying on existing regulatory compliance is insufficient, urging a “LiFi compatibility plan” as an exposure-reduction alternative. It cites modeling literature about potentially higher localized absorption in children and references a 2025 systematic review it says found increased cancer incidence in RF-exposed experimental animals, while framing the overall situation as negligence if child-focused marketing proceeds without additional safeguards.

An RF Safe commentary argues that persistent, pulsed “non-native” RF electromagnetic noise can disrupt biological “timing coherence,” leading to downstream “fidelity losses,” particularly in electrically active tissues. It also emphasizes that smartphones are adaptive RF systems that change transmit power and modulation, so accessories that detune antennas or distort near-field conditions may cause phones to transmit harder. The piece cites FTC warnings that partial-shield products can be ineffective and may increase emissions by interfering with signal quality, and it argues that material shielding claims do not directly translate to real-world exposure outcomes.

RF Safe argues that modern radiofrequency (RF) exposures are complex (adaptive, nonlinear, geometry- and near-field–dependent) and that biological effects, if any, may be better understood as “timing/coherence” disruptions rather than direct single-cause disease claims. The piece cautions against simplistic “percent blocking” marketing for anti-radiation accessories, claiming real-world emissions can change when antenna boundary conditions are altered. It proposes an explanatory framework (“S4–Mito–Spin”) and suggests a policy/technology “exit” via indoor photonics (Li‑Fi/optical wireless) rather than continued expansion of microwave-based systems, while explicitly stating it does not claim RF causes specific human diseases or that products protect health.

This RF Safe position piece argues that long-term exposure to “non-native,” low-fidelity electromagnetic environments (including man-made RF) can degrade biological timing and coherence, contributing to downstream issues such as immune dysregulation and oxidative stress. It frames this as a systems-level claim rather than asserting RF “causes” specific diseases, and it cites proposed biophysical mechanisms (e.g., coupling into dense tissues, membrane voltage-sensing domains, mitochondrial/redox pathways). The article also references Heinrich Hertz’s historical exposure to early radio experiments and a retrospective medical analysis of his illness, while stating it is not claiming RF caused his condition.

An RF Safe blog post written in a first-person “Grok” voice argues that many anti-radiation phone cases are ineffective or can increase exposure by causing phones to boost transmit power. It recommends the QuantaCase™ as the best option in late 2025, claiming it “delivers on physics” and avoids common design pitfalls seen in competing products. The post references WHO’s position that low-level exposure is not proven harmful in humans while also citing animal research (e.g., NTP) and proposed mechanisms (e.g., oxidative stress) to justify precautionary use.

RF Safe presents “TruthCase™ · Clean Ether Action Hub” as a combined product-and-policy hub arguing that evidence from multiple RF health research lines supports harm occurring below current exposure limits. It promotes a proposed “S4–Mito–Spin / IFO‑VGIC” framework and a “density-gated” vulnerability map, and calls for policy actions such as changes to Section 704 and enforcement via FDA/FTC. The page frames regulatory “capture/inertia” as a key reason current limits persist, while positioning its view as a “respectable minority” in 2025.

This RF Safe blog post recounts a conversation with xAI’s Grok about RF electromagnetic fields and argues that AI “neutrality” can become biased when it defaults to regulatory consensus (e.g., ICNIRP/FCC) as a proxy for scientific truth. The author claims Grok later acknowledged “regulatory deference” and that evidence from animal studies (NTP, Ramazzini), WHO-commissioned reviews, and proposed non-thermal mechanisms should prompt stronger scrutiny of thermal-only safety standards. The piece frames current RF exposure guidelines as outdated and insufficiently responsive to non-thermal biological-effect evidence.

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.

RF Safe argues that non-thermal RF and ELF exposures are a credible long-term biological stressor and that current RF safety regulation is outdated and overly focused on thermal effects. The post presents a mechanistic narrative (ion channels, mitochondria/ROS, and spin-dependent chemistry) and links this to calls for behavior change, product use (TruthCase/QuantaCase), and a transition toward Li‑Fi or “light-first” indoor connectivity. It frames regulators as having dismissed evidence and suggests a legal/regulatory failure since the 1990s, while promoting a precautionary “clean ether” approach.

This RF Safe article argues that it is no longer accurate to claim there is no mechanism or no evidence of harm from RF exposure below current limits. It presents a proposed biological framework involving voltage-gated ion channels, oxidative stress pathways, and radical-pair (spin-dependent) chemistry, and cites animal studies (NTP and Ramazzini) and other literature as supporting evidence. The piece frames the remaining uncertainty as the magnitude of human risk rather than whether a hazard exists.

An RF Safe commentary argues that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is violating Public Law 90-602 by failing to continuously update radiation-safety standards, asserting that no formal revisions have occurred since the mid-1980s. The post links this alleged inaction to continued public exposure from wireless technologies and calls for renewed long-term research and stricter exposure limits. It also claims the National Toxicology Program (NTP) was shut down in 2024 and references a 2021 court decision criticizing FCC RF rules, urging congressional action and new legislation.

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.

RF Safe argues that animal evidence for RF-related carcinogenicity is now strong and should not be dismissed, citing the NTP (2018) and Ramazzini (2018) lifetime rodent studies as showing statistically significant increases in the same rare tumor types (heart schwannomas and brain gliomas). The post further claims that effects occurred at relatively low whole-body SAR levels and references additional mechanistic hypotheses (e.g., VGCC-related models and radical-pair/spin effects) and a reported human ultrasound observation of acute non-thermal changes. These points are presented as supporting a shift away from a “thermal-only” interpretation, but the item is advocacy/commentary and does not provide full methodological details in the excerpt.

RF Safe responds to criticism that its “S4–Mito–Spin” model and “Clean Ether Act” are merely the site’s own inventions, arguing they are labels for a synthesis of existing peer‑reviewed literature rather than new physics or biology. The post frames the model as a mechanistic explanation for how RF and other “non‑native EMFs” could produce tissue-specific and non-linear effects, while acknowledging that the branding is RF Safe’s own.

This RF Safe article argues that debate over non-thermal EMF effects is stalled between experimental findings reporting biological changes at non-heating levels and regulators/industry citing lack of a plausible mechanism. It proposes a “S4–mitochondria–spin” framework in which RF/ELF fields couple into biology through specific entry points (voltage-gated ion channel S4 segments, mitochondrial/NADPH oxidase ROS pathways, and spin-sensitive radical-pair chemistry). The piece claims this model could reconcile reported harms, null findings, and therapeutic uses of low-power RF by emphasizing tissue-specific “density-gating” and waveform/frequency dependence, but it is presented as a theoretical synthesis rather than new empirical evidence.