RF Safe argues that a proposed “S4-Mito-Spin” framework explains non-thermal EMF biological effects and that current exposure standards (e.g., FCC/ICNIRP) are outdated because they focus on thermal limits. The article links EMF exposure to mechanisms involving voltage-gated ion channels (S4 segments), mitochondrial/NOX-driven oxidative stress, and radical-pair (spin) chemistry, and claims these mechanisms align with reported animal and human observations. It calls for regulatory overhaul and policy changes, citing various studies and legal/policy references, but presents these as advocacy claims rather than a balanced review.

RF Safe argues that current RF-EMF exposure standards are overly focused on thermal effects and should be replaced with a “post-thermal” regulatory paradigm that accounts for claimed non-thermal biological impacts. The piece cites a mix of mechanistic hypotheses, animal studies, epidemiology, and legal/policy developments (e.g., the 2021 D.C. Circuit EHT v. FCC decision) to support a precautionary reform agenda. It also asserts that recent WHO work in 2025 strengthens the case for tumor-related risks, though these characterizations are presented as the author’s interpretation rather than independently verified within the feed item.

This review discusses how increasing ambient nonionizing EMF (0–300 GHz), particularly RF from modern wireless technologies and satellites, may affect flora and fauna at ecosystem levels. It states that many nonhuman species rely on electro/magneto-reception and that even low-intensity EMF exposures are capable of disrupting critical biological functions and behaviors. The authors conclude that current exposure standards focus on human health and recommend policy reforms and mitigation measures to protect wildlife and ecosystems.

This review describes public concerns and scientific reports of non-thermal biological effects from low-intensity ELF and RF exposures. It lists multiple health endpoints reported to be associated with ELF and/or RF and highlights the BioInitiative Report’s conclusion that a reasonable suspicion of risk exists at environmentally relevant levels. The authors argue that existing public exposure standards should be lowered and that mobile phone SAR guidelines should be revised based on biology and long-term risk claims.