RF Safe reports that the U.S. FDA substantially revised its cellphone radiation webpages around January 15, 2026, removing or reducing prior language that broadly reassured the public about safety. The article argues the new framing more closely reflects the FDA’s statutory responsibilities under the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-602), emphasizing research, monitoring, and public information rather than definitive safety conclusions. It also links the change to a reported HHS announcement of a new study and portrays the update as a shift toward greater transparency, while noting some safety language may remain on the page.

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 announced an “Ethical Connectivity Pledge” aimed at celebrity- and creator-branded mobile plans, urging them to adopt child-first design standards, improve transparency, and invest in lower-exposure connectivity options such as Li‑Fi where feasible. The organization argues that current microwave-based wireless networks may pose plausible health risks—especially for children—and that business models can externalize long-term health costs onto families and public systems. The pledge is presented as a public signatory framework with tiers of commitment and an intent to enable public scrutiny of follow-through.

An RF Safe post argues that a proposed “S4–mitochondria axis” mechanism (linking voltage-gated ion channel S4 segments and mitochondrial/oxidative stress pathways) has been validated or mainstreamed by “2025 WHO reviews.” The author frames this mechanism as a unifying explanation for reported RF bioeffects across disparate findings, including animal tumor studies, male fertility impacts, immune dysregulation, and pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction. The piece is presented as a synthesis and advocacy-style interpretation rather than a primary research report, and specific WHO review details are not provided in the excerpt.

This policy-focused paper contends that U.S. oversight of radiofrequency radiation from wireless technologies is outdated and insufficient, with exposure limits and testing approaches not aligned with modern long-term, chronic exposure scenarios. It emphasizes gaps in protections for children, pregnancy, vulnerable populations, workers, and wildlife, and describes limited monitoring, research, and enforcement capacity. The author proposes reforms to improve independent research, science-based limits, surveillance, and regulatory transparency.