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 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 promotes an “Act Now” hub intended to convert EMF safety concerns into policy and regulatory actions, emphasizing accountability and exposure reduction, especially for children. The page outlines five advocacy “levers,” including changing Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act, pressing the FCC to complete actions following a court remand, and restarting a federal electronic-product radiation program. It frames current RF oversight as outdated and insufficient for modern exposure patterns, and provides scripts to help supporters submit comments and demands into official records.

This article summarizes expert presentations and a panel discussion on radiological protection systems for ionizing and non-ionizing radiation at an international congress. It highlights that ionizing radiation protection is mature and continually revised, while non-ionizing radiation protection lacks a comparable international framework. The authors emphasize that emerging non-ionizing technologies create complex exposure scenarios and unresolved concerns about chronic and acute exposures, calling for a more cohesive and protective framework.

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.

RF Safe recaps a Truth Expedition podcast episode featuring RF Safe founder John Coates discussing alleged biological risks from EMF exposure and arguing that current regulations lag behind modern science. The piece links EMFs to developmental and health concerns (including neural-tube defects and autism) via Coates’ proposed “S4–Mito–Spin” framework involving voltage-gated ion channels, mitochondrial signaling, and radical-pair/spin chemistry. It also promotes RF Safe’s research library, SAR comparison tools, and mitigation products as part of a risk-reduction approach.

RF Safe publishes a commentary describing a public feud between Dr. Jack Kruse and RF Safe founder John Coates over how to address health concerns attributed to non-native electromagnetic fields (nnEMFs), especially regarding children. The piece portrays Kruse as emphasizing personal “light/circadian” biohacks and Coates as pushing technology and policy changes such as LiFi adoption and repealing/altering telecom-related legal constraints. It includes numerous claims about EMF-related harms and references to research (e.g., NTP/Ramazzini, a Henry Lai meta-analysis) but presents them within an advocacy narrative rather than as a balanced review.

RF Safe presents “S4 MITO spin” as a proposed mechanistic framework arguing that peer-reviewed evidence can be unified to explain reported biological effects from radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and other non-native EMFs. The post highlights animal studies (notably NTP and Ramazzini) as showing carcinogenic “signals” and emphasizes non-linear dose–response patterns, asserting relevance to regulatory exposure limits. It frames the model as empirically grounded and testable, while acknowledging it is not a complete theory of all EMF effects.

This RF Safe article argues that the “strongest” RF-EMF literature supports concern about cancer-related findings, emphasizing non-monotonic dose–response patterns in the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) rat study and citing additional analyses and animal studies. It reports that FDA evaluations have downplayed the human relevance of NTP results due to high exposures and inconsistencies, and counters that some effects may occur at lower exposure levels than commonly claimed. The piece also references the Ramazzini Institute rat study as supportive evidence at lower whole-body SARs and mentions a 2024 PLOS ONE paper analyzing Ramazzini tumors, but provides limited detail in the excerpt.

RF Safe presents an assessment of the “S4–Mitochondria–Cryptochrome (S4-Mito-Spin) Framework,” arguing it synthesizes existing peer-reviewed mechanisms to explain reported non-thermal RF/ELF biological effects. The post proposes three linked pillars involving voltage-gated ion channel timing effects, mitochondrial/NOX-driven oxidative stress, and spin-state (radical pair/cryptochrome) chemistry. It frames the framework as a unifying explanation for patterns seen in animal studies while stating it does not make sweeping claims about causing human cancer.

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 a mechanistic white-paper-style post arguing that pulsed/low-frequency components of RF exposure could introduce “phase noise” into voltage-gated ion channel (VGIC) voltage sensors (S4), degrading the timing of membrane potentials and calcium (Ca²⁺) oscillations that immune cells use for activation and tolerance decisions. The post claims such timing disruption could mis-set immune thresholds, promote inflammation, and trigger mitochondrial ROS and mtDNA release that sustains a feed-forward inflammatory loop. It frames reported tumor patterns in animal bioassays (e.g., cardiac schwannomas, gliomas) as consistent with this proposed “timing-fidelity” mechanism, while acknowledging competing views on whether RF at current limits can couple to VGICs.

This magazine article reviews the Japan-Korea "NTP Lite" RF animal toxicity collaboration and its relationship to prior NTP (2018) and Ramazzini Institute reports of RF-associated tumors in male rats. It notes NTP Lite used a single whole-body SAR of 4 W/kg and completed a two-year exposure phase in 2022, but final reporting is delayed with histopathology and genotoxicity work ongoing. The author highlights protocol harmonization across labs while raising concerns about unexplained animal deaths and physiological differences in exposed groups, and frames the broader evidence as supportive of RF-related cancer risk in laboratory animals.

This review compares two epidemiologic studies of radio-frequency radiation (RFR) exposure among military personnel with overlapping patient groups. One study reported a statistically significant increase in cancer among exposed individuals, while the other did not, which the review attributes to a smaller sample size. The review highlights similar cancer patterns across both studies, including a high proportion of hematolymphoid cancers and earlier onset among exposed individuals, and interprets these similarities as evidence of carcinogenic effects.

This paper uses advanced electromagnetic simulations of human skin microstructure to model exposure to realistic pulsed 5G/6G signals at 3.5, 27, 77, and 300 GHz. It reports localized, inhomogeneous absorption patterns linked to sweat glands and blood vessels, suggesting that treating skin as homogeneous may miss hotspots. The authors conclude that SAR-based standards may be inadequate for mmWave/sub-THz exposures and could underestimate potential risks, including possible nerve excitation.

This retrospective observational study analyzed Murmuras app data from 1074 participants in 2022 to examine demographic differences in smartphone use and nocturnal smartphone inactivity duration (a proxy for sleep-related behavior). Nighttime smartphone use increased, especially for social media and entertainment, and usage patterns varied by gender, age, education, and employment status. Most demographic groups showed no significant correlation between usage duration and nocturnal inactivity, although some subgroups showed correlations in either direction. The authors frame excessive nighttime smartphone use as potentially adverse for sleep and link this behavioral exposure to electromagnetic fields with sleep health risks.