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 market misleading “% blocked” claims based on lab material tests rather than whole-device, real-world performance. The article promotes RF Safe’s TruthCase/QuantaCase as a “physics-first” design that avoids advertising a single blocking percentage and emphasizes directional shielding and user education. It cites a 2017 CBS San Francisco/KPIX test as an example of how some flip-style shielding cases can reduce measured RF in certain orientations but may increase readings in other common-use configurations.

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.

RF Safe argues that common marketing claims for anti-radiation phone cases (e.g., “99% shielding”) are misleading because they often rely on controlled lab fabric tests that do not reflect real-world phone use. The post claims factors like shield orientation, phone transmit-power increases under obstruction, frequency differences (including 5G bands), and user/body interactions can reduce or even reverse purported exposure reductions. It also criticizes current regulatory testing frameworks for not requiring phones to be tested with cases and promotes RF Safe’s own “TruthCase/QuantaCase” approach as a more honest alternative.

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 animal behavioral study observed 36 domestic dogs to assess whether magnetic fields from high-voltage power lines influence dogs' geomagnetic alignment behavior. Dogs showed bimodal alignment under control conditions and under north-south oriented power lines, but alignment became trimodal under east-west oriented lines with statistically significant differences versus control. The authors interpret these findings as indicating that power-line-related fields can alter orientation behavior and frame this as supporting concern about biological effects of EMF exposure.

This study used computational dosimetry to analyze induced electric fields in a realistic human body model for a 60 Hz magnetic-field exposure system targeting the leg. Simulations indicated high EF intensities in several leg nerves and modeled conditions consistent with possible peripheral nerve stimulation. The MRG model produced lower stimulation thresholds than the SENN model, and nerve orientation was reported as a key determinant of stimulation risk.

This study uses anatomically detailed computational models of a five-year-old girl, a pregnant woman in the third trimester, and a fetus to simulate mobile phone RF exposure inside an elevator cabin. Simulations at 1000 MHz and 1800 MHz across 48 configurations evaluated SAR10g, whole-body SAR, and maximum temperature. The abstract reports that configuration (positioning and phone orientation) can substantially change absorption and temperature metrics and calls for broader scenario testing to inform safety guidance for vulnerable populations.

This animal study reports that Drosophila melanogaster larvae can sense electric fields and exhibit robust electrotaxis toward the cathode in controlled environments. The authors identify head-tip sensory neurons required for this behavior and report calcium-imaging evidence that Gr66a-positive neurons encode field strength and orientation. The work supports electrosensation as a functional sensory modality in Drosophila larvae and demonstrates measurable neural and behavioral responses to electric fields under the studied conditions.