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 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.

An RF Safe commentary argues that persistent, pulsed “non-native” RF electromagnetic noise can disrupt biological “timing coherence,” leading to downstream “fidelity losses,” particularly in electrically active tissues. It also emphasizes that smartphones are adaptive RF systems that change transmit power and modulation, so accessories that detune antennas or distort near-field conditions may cause phones to transmit harder. The piece cites FTC warnings that partial-shield products can be ineffective and may increase emissions by interfering with signal quality, and it argues that material shielding claims do not directly translate to real-world exposure outcomes.

RF Safe argues that modern radiofrequency (RF) exposures are complex (adaptive, nonlinear, geometry- and near-field–dependent) and that biological effects, if any, may be better understood as “timing/coherence” disruptions rather than direct single-cause disease claims. The piece cautions against simplistic “percent blocking” marketing for anti-radiation accessories, claiming real-world emissions can change when antenna boundary conditions are altered. It proposes an explanatory framework (“S4–Mito–Spin”) and suggests a policy/technology “exit” via indoor photonics (Li‑Fi/optical wireless) rather than continued expansion of microwave-based systems, while explicitly stating it does not claim RF causes specific human diseases or that products protect health.

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 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.

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.

This paper presents a bibliometric analysis of Web of Science literature (2012–2025) on potential health effects related to 5G antennas. It reports a marked increase in publications in the past five years, with substantial attention to dosimetric metrics (SAR and power density) and their regulatory limits. The authors forecast continued growth in the field and emphasize the need for ongoing research and interdisciplinary collaboration focused on potential health risks and compliance.

This dosimetry study used FDTD simulations at 28 GHz to evaluate how skin stratification and anthropomorphic modeling affect absorbed power density (APD) estimates. APD was higher with stratified skin than with homogeneous skin for a wearable patch antenna (16%–30% higher), while plane-wave differences were smaller (<11%). The authors argue that simplified skin models may underestimate exposure in mmWave wearable scenarios.

This paper presents an application and numerical process modelling of a 13.56 MHz RFID module, including how nearby tags/cards and their positioning affect antenna characteristics. It also considers RFID operation near human tissues and discusses potential health impacts from prolonged EMF exposure at 13.56 MHz. The authors emphasize the importance of evaluating long-term exposure risks and call for additional scientific attention.

This paper proposes a new methodology to better assess indoor RF-EMF exposure in buildings near telecommunication base station antennas by refining measurement-point selection. Implemented in four multi-storey buildings in Natal, Brazil, indoor electric field peaks and averages were reported to be substantially higher than ground-level measurements. Although the highest indoor levels remained below ICNIRP recommended limits, the authors argue current regulatory evaluation methods may underestimate indoor exposure in certain building locations.

This exposure assessment measured RF power density across different floors of a high-rise university building using a spectrum analyser and log-periodic antenna. Power density decreased from the ground to the third floor but peaked on the fourth (top) floor. The 900 MHz band showed the highest reported power density (1.16E-03 W/m2), and the authors suggest higher-floor occupants may experience higher RF exposure from nearby communication towers.