RF Safe promotes QuantaCase (also marketed as TruthCase) as an “anti-radiation” phone case designed to deflect RF energy away from the user while maintaining phone performance. The article argues that non-thermal biological effects can occur below current exposure guidelines and cites multiple reviews and reports to support a precautionary approach, while stating it does not directly extrapolate these findings to proven human harms. It also criticizes current RF standards and regulators, references the 2021 D.C. Circuit remand of the FCC’s RF decision, and advocates exposure-reduction strategies such as Li‑Fi and consumer action.

This narrative article examines how opposing views formed regarding health and biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, focusing on ELF and RF exposures. It highlights historical controversies (e.g., childhood leukemia and ELF fields) and disputes over thermal versus non-thermal effects and reliance on SAR. The author argues that social and institutional factors, including industry influence, shaped interpretation and public discourse around EMF safety.

This cross-sectional study compared 183 higher-exposed residents with 126 matched reference residents and assessed symptoms via questionnaire alongside in-home RF-EMF power density measurements from mobile phone base stations. Higher exposure (including proximity within 50 m and power densities of 5–8 mW/m2) was reported to be associated with increased symptom prevalence across mood-energy, cognitive-sensory, inflammatory, and anatomical categories. The authors conclude that current public exposure limits may be inadequate for long-term, non-thermal biological impacts and call for precautionary policy updates.

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.