Archive
3 postsUnmasking the Hidden Dangers of Your Phone’s Invisible Waves
RF Safe argues that radiofrequency (RF) emissions from phones and Wi‑Fi pose non-thermal biological risks and that current safety limits are outdated. The post cites animal studies (including NTP and Ramazzini) and references WHO and IARC positions while promoting a proposed mechanism framework (“S4‑Mito‑Spin”) and calling for regulatory and policy changes. It also includes advocacy claims about regulatory capture and promotes RF Safe products and exposure-reduction practices.
RF device that is FDA approved because it produces non thermal bioelectric effects
RF Safe argues that an FDA-authorized therapeutic radiofrequency device (TheraBionic P1) demonstrates biologically meaningful “non-thermal” RF effects, and contrasts this with consumer wireless regulation that it says is based primarily on heating (SAR) limits set in 1996. The post frames this as a regulatory and legal gap, citing the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act and Telecommunications Act Section 704 as factors limiting local and public-health oversight. It also references several epidemiology and animal studies (e.g., Interphone, Hardell, CERENAT, IARC 2011 classification, and the U.S. NTP rodent studies) to support the claim that non-thermal effects and health risks warrant stronger scrutiny, though the article’s presentation is advocacy-oriented.
Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and IARC carcinogen assessment: Risk of Bias preliminary literature assessment for 10 key characteristics of human carcinogens
This review examined experimental literature on whether RF-EMF exposures within ICNIRP (2020) limits affect IARC key characteristics of human carcinogens. It identified 159 articles and found that 38% of in vitro/in vivo measurements reported statistically significant effects, but higher study quality was associated with fewer reported effects and there was no consistent exposure-response pattern. The authors state that study diversity and generally poor quality prevent high-confidence conclusions for most key characteristics, while recommending replication of the few higher-quality positive findings under stringent standards.