RF Safe argues that the established term “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” (EHS) should not be replaced by the newer label “EMR Syndrome,” claiming the rebranding fragments research and weakens advocacy. The piece frames EHS as a continuity-based concept tied to reported symptoms in EMF-rich environments and emphasizes practical mitigation via engineering, architecture, and policy—especially to reduce children’s exposure. It uses “EMR Syndrome” narrowly to describe what it portrays as an ideological, anti-technology pattern that blocks solutions rather than a physiological condition.

RF Safe argues for a “toxicity-based” interpretation of EMF/EMR exposure, claiming there are plausible biological mechanisms by which EMFs could cause symptoms rather than merely correlate with them. It highlights proposed pathways involving voltage-gated ion channels, oxidative stress/ROS (including mitochondrial effects), and radical-pair/cryptochrome mechanisms. The piece advocates a precautionary approach that treats non-native EMR as an environmental toxicant and calls for exposure minimization and alternative technologies, while noting that quantitative risk at everyday exposure levels remains debated.

RF Safe publishes a commentary describing a public feud between Dr. Jack Kruse and RF Safe founder John Coates over how to address health concerns attributed to non-native electromagnetic fields (nnEMFs), especially regarding children. The piece portrays Kruse as emphasizing personal “light/circadian” biohacks and Coates as pushing technology and policy changes such as LiFi adoption and repealing/altering telecom-related legal constraints. It includes numerous claims about EMF-related harms and references to research (e.g., NTP/Ramazzini, a Henry Lai meta-analysis) but presents them within an advocacy narrative rather than as 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.

RF Safe presents a mechanistic hypothesis that pulsed/modulated RF-EMF can cause non-thermal biological effects by inducing “timing errors” in the S4 voltage-sensor helix of voltage-gated ion channels (VGICs). The article argues that low-frequency envelopes in wireless signals could drive ion oscillations near membranes, perturbing channel gating and downstream calcium/redox/inflammatory signaling, and frames electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) as heightened sensitivity to such signaling disruptions. It cites the Ion-Forced-Oscillation (IFO) model and references the NTP and Ramazzini rat studies as consistent with predicted tissue selectivity (heart and nervous system), while presenting the overall framework as a working hypothesis with testable predictions.

RF Safe argues that non-native RF-EMF affects biology primarily through voltage-gated ion channels (VGICs), proposing an “Ion Forced Oscillation” model in which pulsed RF signal components influence the S4 voltage sensor and downstream cellular signaling. The post frames electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) as a continuum of individual sensitivity thresholds to a proposed VGIC → mitochondrial ROS → immune activation cascade, rather than a distinct condition. It cites multiple external studies and reviews (including a WHO-commissioned animal review) to support a mechanistic narrative linking RF exposure to oxidative stress, inflammation, and certain tumor findings in rodents, but the article itself is a mechanistic/interpretive argument rather than original research.

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.