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 It also claims major authorities’ positions are outdated in light of a cited WHO review and a U.S. court remand regarding FCC guidelines, and contends product sales are secondary to advocacy and education.

RF Safe argues that “no effect” findings in some RF exposure studies should be interpreted as meaningful negative controls rather than as evidence that RF has no biological effects. The post presents RF Safe’s “S4–Mito–Spin” framework, claiming certain skin cell types (fibroblasts and keratinocytes) are predicted to be relatively resistant to non-thermal RF effects, so null results in these cells can be consistent with the model. It cites in-vitro studies at 3.5 GHz (5G-modulated) reporting no changes in ROS measures, stress responses, or UV-B DNA repair kinetics under specified SAR conditions, and frames these nulls as boundary conditions rather than a general safety conclusion.

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 argues that “no effect” (null) findings in RF research should be treated as informative constraints rather than dismissed, within its S4–Mito–Spin mechanistic framework. The post claims biological and exposure heterogeneity can produce nonlinear, tissue- and signal-dependent outcomes, making null results an expected pattern under many study conditions. It references a WHO-commissioned systematic review on RF-EMF and oxidative stress biomarkers as concluding the evidence is of “very low certainty,” citing bias, heterogeneity, and exposure/measurement limitations.

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.

RF Safe argues that many “anti-radiation” phone cases use misleading marketing (e.g., fabric-swatch tests, vague “FCC tested” claims) and that some designs may cause phones to increase transmit power if they interfere with antennas. The article provides a checklist of red flags (magnets/metal plates, detachable shields, unclear orientation instructions) and emphasizes behavioral steps to reduce RF exposure. It promotes RF Safe’s QuantaCase as a “directional shielding” design intended to reduce exposure on the body-facing side while avoiding signal blockage that could prompt higher power output.

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 RF Safe commentary argues that U.S. RF exposure protections remain anchored to “thermal-only” assumptions from the 1990s despite what it describes as newer WHO-commissioned systematic reviews elevating certain animal cancer endpoints and a male fertility endpoint to “high certainty.” It contrasts these claims with a WHO-commissioned review of human observational studies that reportedly found mobile-phone RF exposure is likely not associated with increased risk of several head/brain tumors, arguing that this is often overgeneralized in public messaging. The piece calls for “prudent avoidance,” updates to FCC rules, and highlights legal and policy constraints such as federal preemption under the Telecommunications Act and a 2021 D.C. Circuit decision criticizing the FCC’s rationale for retaining its RF limits without adequate explanation.

RF Safe argues that recent WHO-linked evidence reviews have moved beyond a “thermal-only” safety narrative and that policy should respond with stronger protections. The post cites a 2025 WHO-commissioned systematic review in Environment International as concluding with “high certainty” that RF-EMF increases malignant heart schwannomas and brain gliomas in male rats, and references a 2025 corrigendum upgrading certainty for reduced pregnancy rates after male RF exposure in animal experiments. It also points to U.S. FCC rules being rooted in 1996-era assumptions and references a U.S. appellate court remand requiring the FCC to better address non-cancer harms and impacts on children and long-term exposure. The article advocates for the “Clean Ether Act” and promotes RF Safe’s proposed “S4–Mito–Spin” mechanism framework as a non-thermal explanatory model.

RF Safe argues that children’s everyday wireless exposure is primarily shaped by policy choices (laws, agency guidance, research mandates, and procurement practices) rather than by technology alone. The post promotes an “Act Now” hub that offers coordinated advocacy actions aimed at changing federal and local rules, increasing research and oversight, and shifting indoor connectivity toward alternatives such as Li‑Fi. It frames current governance as outdated and restrictive, particularly around local authority and federal agency accountability.

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.