Archive

3 posts

Filters: tag: exposure-reduction Clear

EHS vs. “EMR Syndrome”: Protecting Children Requires Mechanisms and Solutions, Not Ideological Paralysis

Independent Voices RF Safe Dec 31, 2025

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.

EMR Syndrome: How Fear Driven Ideology Is Undermining Real EMF Safety—and Hurting the People It Claims to Protect

Independent Voices RF Safe Dec 31, 2025

RF Safe argues that parts of the EMF safety community have adopted what it calls “EMR Syndrome,” described as a fear-driven, solution-resistant ideology rather than a medical condition. The piece distinguishes this concept from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), which it says warrants compassionate, mechanism-focused research and practical exposure-reduction strategies. It also contends that “Internet of Bodies” concerns are primarily about privacy, consent, and cybersecurity governance rather than EMF carrier waves, and suggests engineering approaches (e.g., optical wireless) as potential mitigations.

QuantaCase: A Physics-First Tool for Precautionary RF Exposure Reduction in Phone Cases

Resources RF Safe Dec 10, 2025

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.

Page 1 / 1