RF Safe argues that “no effect” findings in some RF exposure studies should be interpreted as meaningful negative controls rather than as evidence that RF has no biological effects. The post presents RF Safe’s “S4–Mito–Spin” framework, claiming certain skin cell types (fibroblasts and keratinocytes) are predicted to be relatively resistant to non-thermal RF effects, so null results in these cells can be consistent with the model. It cites in-vitro studies at 3.5 GHz (5G-modulated) reporting no changes in ROS measures, stress responses, or UV-B DNA repair kinetics under specified SAR conditions, and frames these nulls as boundary conditions rather than a general safety conclusion.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) after MBFC labeled RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility.” The article argues MBFC made factual errors about RF Safe’s research links and ownership/funding, and says MBFC has not corrected the entry despite requests. RF Safe also defends its framing of non-thermal RF/EMF effects as precautionary and grounded in peer-reviewed literature, while criticizing what it characterizes as superficial fact-checking.

RF Safe argues that radiofrequency (RF) emissions from phones and Wi‑Fi pose non-thermal biological risks and that current safety limits are outdated. The post cites animal studies (including NTP and Ramazzini) and references WHO and IARC positions while promoting a proposed mechanism framework (“S4‑Mito‑Spin”) and calling for regulatory and policy changes. It also includes advocacy claims about regulatory capture and promotes RF Safe products and exposure-reduction practices.

This RF Safe commentary argues that non-thermal RF/5G effects may vary by tissue based on the density of specific biological “targets,” such as voltage-gated channel S4 helices, mitochondrial/NOX ROS capacity, and heme/flavin “spin chemistry” substrates. It claims that reported null findings in 5G mmWave skin-cell studies can be reconciled with reported red blood cell (RBC) rouleaux observations by proposing a “density-gated” mechanism where spin-related effects are more detectable in heme-dense cells like RBCs. The post cites an ultrasound study (named “Brown & Biebrich”) as showing in-vivo rouleaux changes within minutes near a smartphone, but provides limited methodological detail in the excerpt.

RF Safe comments on a 2025 PNAS Nexus study (Jyoti et al., 2025) reporting no detectable changes in gene expression or methylation in 5G millimeter-wave–exposed human skin cells. The post argues that this “null” result does not indicate biological inertness, but instead supports the site’s proposed “dual-pillar” framework in which effects depend on cell-specific cofactor density and frequency-window/coupling conditions. It contrasts skin-cell findings with claims about rapid blood (RBC) effects from smartphone exposure, presenting this as consistent with differential susceptibility across tissues.

This conference paper uses COMSOL Multiphysics simulations to evaluate thermal and SAR-based exposure limits for modeled human skin exposed to terahertz radiation (0.1–5 THz). The authors report negligible temperature increases at power densities consistent with keeping SAR below 1.6 W/kg, but note that higher power densities can yield minimal heating while producing SAR values above recognized safety thresholds. They conclude that existing sub-THz standards are not directly transferable to the full THz band and call for updated guidelines, especially for prolonged exposure.

This paper uses advanced electromagnetic simulations of human skin microstructure to model exposure to realistic pulsed 5G/6G signals at 3.5, 27, 77, and 300 GHz. It reports localized, inhomogeneous absorption patterns linked to sweat glands and blood vessels, suggesting that treating skin as homogeneous may miss hotspots. The authors conclude that SAR-based standards may be inadequate for mmWave/sub-THz exposures and could underestimate potential risks, including possible nerve excitation.

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 standards-focused paper evaluates ICNIRP and IEEE (C95.1-2019) exposure limits for brief, high-intensity pulsed RF-EMF between 6 and 300 GHz, particularly when exposures vary within the 6-minute averaging window. Using numerical and analytical modeling with a one-dimensional thermal tissue model, it reports differences in protection against transient skin heating, with IEEE described as more conservative than ICNIRP. The authors propose an adjustment to pulse fluence limits to improve consistency of protection and note that nonthermal and thermoacoustic effects were not analyzed.

This study reports on 26 adults self-diagnosed with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) who provided skin biopsies to generate primary fibroblast lines. The authors describe two EHS subsets based on questionnaire and DNA damage-related measures, and report delayed ATM nucleoshuttling after X-ray exposure in all samples, interpreted as impaired DNA repair signaling. They propose a molecular model linking EHS to ATM pathway dysfunction and suggest this could relate to increased cancer risk or accelerated aging.