RF Safe promotes its TruthCase™ (QuantaCase®) phone case as a "training tool" and "physics-first" product intended to reduce RF exposure through correct phone orientation and design, while criticizing many "anti-radiation" cases as potentially increasing exposure by detuning antennas. The post also argues that current RF safety policy relies on "1990s, heat-only limits" and calls for stronger protections, especially for children. It presents a proposed biological mechanism framework ("S4–Mito–Spin") describing how weak RF/ELF fields might interact with voltage-gated channels, mitochondria/ROS pathways, and spin-sensitive redox chemistry, but does not provide study details in the excerpt.

An RF Safe commentary advocates for a proposed “Clean Ether Act” that would mandate replacing Wi‑Fi/5G with LiFi, arguing that current RF exposure limits ignore non-thermal biological effects. The post alleges widespread health harms from RF/EMF (e.g., cancers, fertility impacts) and claims regulatory capture by industry, citing animal studies and a U.S. court decision as support. It frames the issue as urgent and preventable through policy changes and technology substitution, but presents these assertions in highly charged language without providing verifiable bill details in the text shown.

This RF Safe article argues that the main barrier to addressing radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and other non-native EMFs is structural policy and governance failure rather than a lack of scientific evidence. It cites the 2021 D.C. Circuit decision in Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC as criticism of the FCC’s rationale for keeping 1996 RF exposure limits, and it points to the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 as a mandate for HHS to run a research-backed radiation control program. The piece also references the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s animal findings and frames the lack of further NTP RF studies as a policy shortcoming, while promoting an “S4 MITO spin” mechanistic framework and a proposed “Clean Ether Act.”

RF Safe published a white paper by John Coates arguing that current wireless (RF) exposure limits focus on thermal heating while ignoring “non-thermal” biological effects reported in many studies. The piece cites animal studies (U.S. National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini Institute) and links RF exposure to outcomes such as rare tumors and declining sperm counts, and it alleges regulatory capture. It promotes Li‑Fi and other “biologically compatible” connectivity as a proposed path forward.

RF Safe argues that a single biological mechanism explains a wide range of alleged harms from real-world radiofrequency radiation, emphasizing pulsed/modulated signals. The post claims these pulses affect voltage-gated ion channels (via the S4 voltage sensor), disrupting calcium signaling and leading to health effects. It also alleges industry “cover-up” and criticizes RF exposure limits as unchanged since 1996, while referencing animal findings and a personal anecdote.

This RF Safe article argues that Section 704(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv)) functions as a federal “gag clause” that prevents state and local governments from considering health or environmental effects of RF emissions when making wireless facility siting decisions, so long as FCC exposure limits are met. It contends this preemption suppresses public-health arguments in local hearings and court challenges and frames the provision as constitutionally problematic under the First, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments. The piece proposes a legal strategy centered on Fifth Amendment takings claims, analogizing RF exposure to other intangible intrusions (e.g., noise, smoke) discussed in past U.S. Supreme Court cases.

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 an advocacy guide arguing that current wireless RF/MW exposure limits are “thermal-only,” outdated since 1996, and insufficient to address claimed non-thermal biological effects from pulsed/modulated signals. The guide summarizes mechanistic arguments (e.g., voltage-gated ion channel timing disruption), cites animal studies and reviews it says link RF exposure to cancer and other harms, and calls for regulatory and technological reforms (including Li‑Fi) plus exposure-reduction strategies. The piece frames the issue as urgent and precautionary, presenting its synthesis as evidence-grounded but primarily as advocacy rather than a single new study.

This RF Safe article argues that real-world, pulsed/modulated RF exposures may introduce “timing noise” that disrupts voltage-gated ion channel (VGIC) gating via the S4 helix, framing this as a non-thermal mechanism (“S4 Timing Fidelity”). It claims such timing drift could alter calcium and proton flux, affect cellular signaling and mitochondrial workload, and contribute to chronic oxidative stress and inflammatory pathway activation. The post further links this proposed mechanism to interpretations of large-animal RF studies (e.g., NTP and Ramazzini) as consistent with sub-thermal carcinogenic outcomes, presenting this as a unifying explanatory model rather than reporting new experimental results.

RF Safe argues that non-native RF-EMF affects biology primarily through voltage-gated ion channels (VGICs), proposing an “Ion Forced Oscillation” model in which pulsed RF signal components influence the S4 voltage sensor and downstream cellular signaling. The post frames electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) as a continuum of individual sensitivity thresholds to a proposed VGIC → mitochondrial ROS → immune activation cascade, rather than a distinct condition. It cites multiple external studies and reviews (including a WHO-commissioned animal review) to support a mechanistic narrative linking RF exposure to oxidative stress, inflammation, and certain tumor findings in rodents, but the article itself is a mechanistic/interpretive argument rather than original research.

This RF Safe article argues that “non-native” radiofrequency (RF) exposures can deterministically disrupt voltage-gated ion channel timing (via the S4 voltage sensor), leading downstream to altered calcium signaling, mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS), and immune dysregulation without tissue heating. It presents a proposed mechanistic chain linking RF exposure to oxidative stress, inflammation, and autoimmune-like states, and cites assorted animal studies and reviews as supportive. The piece is framed as a coherent explanatory model rather than a single new study, and specific cited findings are not fully verifiable from the excerpt alone.

This RF Safe article argues that persistent low-intensity, pulsed RF exposure could disrupt the timing of voltage-gated ion channel activity by affecting the S4 voltage-sensing region, leading to downstream changes in calcium/proton signaling, mitochondrial stress, and immune dysregulation. It proposes a mechanistic chain from altered ion gating to increased mitochondrial ROS, mitochondrial DNA release, and activation of innate immune pathways (e.g., cGAS-STING, TLR9, NLRP3). The post cites “multiple reviews and experiments” and references animal findings and a 2025 mouse study, but the provided text does not include enough study details to independently assess the strength of the evidence.

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.

RF Safe presents a mechanistic hypothesis that low-frequency electromagnetic fields (LF-EMFs) can disrupt the timing (“fidelity”) of voltage-gated ion channel activity, creating bioelectric “phase noise” that could alter calcium signaling and gene transcription involved in immune function. The article further argues that this mistiming may impair mitochondrial function, increasing reactive oxygen species and inflammatory feedback loops, potentially contributing to immune dysregulation. It also proposes a policy/engineering response focused on reducing indoor RF exposure and promoting alternatives such as LiFi, while citing animal and epidemiology findings as suggestive but not definitive support for the broader framework.

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 discusses recent studies on microwave and RF exposure and their reported impacts on molecular and cytogenetic materials. It states there is growing evidence that RF exposure can induce DNA damage at levels considered safe by current standards, and cites newly reported genetic alterations in rat cancers after lifetime low-level RF exposure. The article concludes that these findings challenge existing exposure guidelines and support reconsideration of regulatory limits.

This in vitro study reports that radiofrequency (RF) exposure in the 800–2,400 MHz range modulates differentiation pathways in human cortical organoids derived from embryonic stem cells. RF exposure is described as maintaining radial glia stem cell identity and delaying differentiation, alongside induction of endogenous retrovirus expression and increased expression of ASD-associated genes and retroelements. The abstract attributes these effects to dysregulation of BET proteins and reports that BET inhibition rescues the RF-associated developmental defects.

This case-control study in Mexico City (2017–2022) evaluated residential ELF-MF and device-use proxies for RF exposure in relation to childhood CNS tumor risk. Elevated residential ELF-MF (≥0.4 μT) was associated with approximately doubled odds of CNST, while cell phone use showed no association. Prolonged tablet use, with or without internet connectivity, was reported to be associated with higher CNST risk.

This numerical study modeled RF exposure from WiFi/5G-type antennas near a 3D brain model with implanted brain pacemakers relevant to Parkinson’s disease. SAR and temperature increases were reported to remain below ICNIRP 2020 limits across modeled conditions, with maxima at a 90° antenna-to-brain angle. Despite compliance with SAR/temperature limits, the authors report modeled thermal strain and tissue displacement that could affect postoperative efficacy, leading them to recommend caution and increased distance from phones.