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.

RF Safe argues for a “toxicity-based” interpretation of EMF/EMR exposure, claiming there are plausible biological mechanisms by which EMFs could cause symptoms rather than merely correlate with them. It highlights proposed pathways involving voltage-gated ion channels, oxidative stress/ROS (including mitochondrial effects), and radical-pair/cryptochrome mechanisms. The piece advocates a precautionary approach that treats non-native EMR as an environmental toxicant and calls for exposure minimization and alternative technologies, while noting that quantitative risk at everyday exposure levels remains debated.

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.

This RF Safe article argues that the organization’s EMF safety advocacy should not be dismissed as “biased” or “commercially motivated,” framing its work as rooted in its founder’s personal experience and long-term activism. It recounts founder John Coates’ claim that prenatal RF exposure contributed to his infant daughter’s neural tube defect, and presents RF Safe as combining advocacy, scientific synthesis, and product development. The piece also claims RF Safe’s antenna work helped prompt a 2003 FCC rule change recognizing directional antenna approaches to reduce energy toward users while maintaining performance.

This RF Safe article defends the organization against accusations of bias, framing its EMF safety advocacy as rooted in founder John Coates’ personal tragedy and long-term efforts in product development, research synthesis, and policy reform. It claims RF Safe helped drive an FCC rule change related to antenna design and promotes various exposure-reduction accessories and training tools. The piece argues that non-thermal biological effects of RF/ELF fields are being overlooked by regulators and calls for policy changes such as revisiting Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act and shifting health oversight away from the FCC.

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.

An RF Safe article argues that everyday RF-EMF exposures from phones, Wi‑Fi, and vehicles pose serious health risks, using dramatic framing such as “blood into pancakes.” It cites an ultrasound demonstration and references to a Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine paper, WHO reviews, and animal tumor findings, while promoting a proprietary-sounding framework (“S4‑Mito‑Spin”) and proposed solutions like “Clean Ether” tech and LiFi. The piece also calls for policy changes and encourages readers to run self-tests and share results on social media.

RF Safe describes “S4-Mito-Spin” as a proposed framework for explaining non-thermal biological effects from RF/EMF exposures (phones, Wi‑Fi, cell towers). The article argues the model links three mechanisms—voltage-gated ion channel disruption, mitochondrial oxidative stress, and spin-dependent chemistry—to reported findings such as oxidative damage, circulation changes, and tumors in certain tissues. It cites animal studies (e.g., NTP and Ramazzini) and various 2025 claims (e.g., WHO review, sperm studies, embryo methylation, and ultrasound observations) to support a precautionary interpretation, while acknowledging ongoing debate and non-linear dose-response arguments.

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.

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 commentary argues that non-thermal RF/5G effects may vary by tissue based on the density of specific biological “targets,” such as voltage-gated channel S4 helices, mitochondrial/NOX ROS capacity, and heme/flavin “spin chemistry” substrates. It claims that reported null findings in 5G mmWave skin-cell studies can be reconciled with reported red blood cell (RBC) rouleaux observations by proposing a “density-gated” mechanism where spin-related effects are more detectable in heme-dense cells like RBCs. The post cites an ultrasound study (named “Brown & Biebrich”) as showing in-vivo rouleaux changes within minutes near a smartphone, but provides limited methodological detail in the excerpt.

An RF Safe post frames EMF/wireless exposure as a problem that the wireless industry is "pretending" does not exist, and positions the author as an RF engineer with decades of experience and patents (including Li‑Fi) advocating for technology compatible with human biology. The available excerpt contains mostly site/promotional text and a disclaimer that views are those of the authors, so specific technical arguments or evidence from the article cannot be verified from the provided text.

RF Safe argues that a single biological mechanism explains widespread harm to children from modern wireless signals (cell phones, Wi‑Fi, 5G, DECT), emphasizing that these signals are “pulsed and modulated.” The post claims that “animal proof” is now high-certainty and references “WHO 2025 GRADE-rated systematic reviews,” linking EMF exposure to rare cancers in young people, declining sperm counts, and childhood autoimmune/neurodevelopmental disorders. The excerpt provided does not include citations or details sufficient to verify these claims.