This RF Safe commentary argues that dismissing the National Toxicology Program (NTP) cellphone-radiation animal findings as “too high dose” is misleading because the NTP used multiple exposure tiers, including a lowest tier described as near regulatory relevance. It also claims FDA has removed webpages containing prior “safety conclusion” language while HHS has announced a new study on electromagnetic radiation and health effects, framing these as a meaningful shift in federal public-facing posture. The piece further points to the Ramazzini Institute animal study as suggesting similar tumor signals at lower exposure levels, while acknowledging animal studies alone do not establish human causation.

RF Safe promotes its QuantaCase as the only “truthful” anti-radiation phone case and argues that many competing shielding cases use misleading “percent blocking” claims and can sometimes increase user exposure depending on design and phone behavior. The post mixes product marketing with broader claims about RF-EMF health effects, criticizing current exposure guidelines (e.g., FCC/ICNIRP) as outdated and insufficient for non-thermal effects. It cites various reports and analyses (e.g., a 2017 TV test segment and multiple study-count summaries) but does not provide verifiable study details within the excerpt.

RF Safe argues that a single biological mechanism explains a wide range of alleged harms from real-world radiofrequency radiation, emphasizing pulsed/modulated signals. The post claims these pulses affect voltage-gated ion channels (via the S4 voltage sensor), disrupting calcium signaling and leading to health effects. It also alleges industry “cover-up” and criticizes RF exposure limits as unchanged since 1996, while referencing animal findings and a personal anecdote.

This paper evaluates and critiques 12 WHO-commissioned systematic reviews and meta-analyses on RF-EMF health effects across outcomes including cancer and reproductive endpoints. It argues that serious methodological flaws and limitations in the WHO reviews prevent them from providing assurance of safety for cell phones and other wireless devices. The authors highlight reported evidence in the animal cancer review (high certainty for heart schwannomas; moderate certainty for brain gliomas) and describe dose-related adverse effects on male fertility and reproductive outcomes, including at exposure levels below current ICNIRP thresholds.

This cross-sectional questionnaire study surveyed 355 Polish physicians about EMF health effects and electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Physicians reported limited knowledge and low familiarity with WHO guidance for managing people who believe they are hypersensitive to EMF, though most were willing to learn more. Many physicians reported encountering patients attributing symptoms to EMF, which the authors frame as highlighting a need for improved physician education and reliable public information.

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 narrative review discusses biological mechanisms and reported health effects of anthropogenic extremely low frequency (ELF) and wireless communication (WC) electromagnetic fields. It highlights oxidative stress and DNA damage as key mechanistic endpoints and proposes an IFO-VGIC pathway linking EMF exposure to ROS overproduction and cellular dysfunction. The authors interpret the broader literature as indicating risks (e.g., cancer, infertility, EHS) even below current exposure limits and advocate precautionary policy measures, including stricter limits and a 5G moratorium.

This paper is a commentary reviewing how Bradford Hill’s epidemiological criteria can be applied to multidisciplinary evidence on RF-EMF exposure and adverse health effects. It reports that systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this area often reach substantially different conclusions, and argues that key weaknesses in primary studies—especially exposure measurement error and insufficient time for long-latency tumors—help explain the divergence. The author suggests these limitations may cause underestimation of potential causation if the associations are truly causal, and calls for independent guidelines to improve future epidemiological research quality.