This RF Safe commentary frames readers as part of a “resistance” movement seeking changes to U.S. wireless policy and RF exposure governance. It argues that current FCC RF exposure rules and related laws constrain local decision-making and rely on a “thermal-only” safety framework that the author says is outdated. The post cites a WHO-commissioned 2025 systematic review on RF-EMF and cancer in experimental animals as part of a broader WHO review effort, and advocates shifting indoor connectivity toward light-based technologies.

RF Safe argues that children’s everyday wireless exposure is primarily shaped by policy choices (laws, agency guidance, research mandates, and procurement practices) rather than by technology alone. The post promotes an “Act Now” hub that offers coordinated advocacy actions aimed at changing federal and local rules, increasing research and oversight, and shifting indoor connectivity toward alternatives such as Li‑Fi. It frames current governance as outdated and restrictive, particularly around local authority and federal agency accountability.

RF Safe promotes an “Act Now” hub intended to convert EMF safety concerns into policy and regulatory actions, emphasizing accountability and exposure reduction, especially for children. The page outlines five advocacy “levers,” including changing Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act, pressing the FCC to complete actions following a court remand, and restarting a federal electronic-product radiation program. It frames current RF oversight as outdated and insufficient for modern exposure patterns, and provides scripts to help supporters submit comments and demands into official records.

RF Safe announced an “Ethical Connectivity Pledge” aimed at celebrity- and creator-branded mobile plans, urging them to adopt child-first design standards, improve transparency, and invest in lower-exposure connectivity options such as Li‑Fi where feasible. The organization argues that current microwave-based wireless networks may pose plausible health risks—especially for children—and that business models can externalize long-term health costs onto families and public systems. The pledge is presented as a public signatory framework with tiers of commitment and an intent to enable public scrutiny of follow-through.

RF Safe founder John Coates publishes an open letter urging YouTuber MrBeast (Jimmy Donaldson) to make any potential “Beast Mobile” offering explicitly child-protective and “Li‑Fi compatible,” arguing that phones carried close to the body could scale long-term RF exposure among children. The letter frames current regulatory compliance as insufficient for a youth-focused brand and claims that “non-native EMFs” may disrupt biological timing and redox processes via an “S4–Mito–Spin” framework. The piece is advocacy-oriented and does not present new study data in the provided text.

RF Safe founder John Coates outlines a 2026 advocacy plan focused on increasing enforcement of U.S. federal radiation-control law, pushing consumer technology toward Li‑Fi as a safer baseline for children, and demanding accountability from companies marketing wireless products to children. The post argues that current RF safety rules rely too heavily on “thermal-only” assumptions and that cumulative exposure from smartphones is a preventable risk. It also states RF Safe intends to pursue legal action to compel HHS to fulfill duties under the Radiation Control for Health & Safety Act (Public Law 90-602).

RF Safe argues that a potential MrBeast-branded mobile service (“Beast Mobile”) could drive high adoption among children and therefore raises ethical concerns about children’s exposure to radiofrequency (RF) emissions from always-on, body-worn devices. The post claims the scientific and legal context has shifted and contends that relying on existing regulatory compliance is insufficient, urging a “LiFi compatibility plan” as an exposure-reduction alternative. It cites modeling literature about potentially higher localized absorption in children and references a 2025 systematic review it says found increased cancer incidence in RF-exposed experimental animals, while framing the overall situation as negligence if child-focused marketing proceeds without additional safeguards.

RF Safe argues that modern radiofrequency (RF) exposures are complex (adaptive, nonlinear, geometry- and near-field–dependent) and that biological effects, if any, may be better understood as “timing/coherence” disruptions rather than direct single-cause disease claims. The piece cautions against simplistic “percent blocking” marketing for anti-radiation accessories, claiming real-world emissions can change when antenna boundary conditions are altered. It proposes an explanatory framework (“S4–Mito–Spin”) and suggests a policy/technology “exit” via indoor photonics (Li‑Fi/optical wireless) rather than continued expansion of microwave-based systems, while explicitly stating it does not claim RF causes specific human diseases or that products protect health.

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.

RF Safe promotes its TruthCase™ (also called QuantaCase®) as an EMF-focused phone case positioned less as a “miracle shield” and more as a habit-forming tool paired with consumer education and advocacy for regulatory reform. The article argues many “anti-radiation” cases are misleading or may increase exposure due to design choices, and it frames non-thermal biological effects as plausible, citing the NTP and Ramazzini animal studies. It also calls for broader policy changes (e.g., “Clean Ether Act,” Li‑Fi pilots) and encourages users to adopt exposure-reducing habits rather than rely on percentage-reduction marketing claims.

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.

RF Safe presents “TruthCase™ · Clean Ether Action Hub” as a combined product-and-policy hub arguing that evidence from multiple RF health research lines supports harm occurring below current exposure limits. It promotes a proposed “S4–Mito–Spin / IFO‑VGIC” framework and a “density-gated” vulnerability map, and calls for policy actions such as changes to Section 704 and enforcement via FDA/FTC. The page frames regulatory “capture/inertia” as a key reason current limits persist, while positioning its view as a “respectable minority” in 2025.

This RF Safe commentary argues that wireless communications “took a wrong turn” by prioritizing radiofrequency/microwave transmission over light-based approaches, citing Alexander Graham Bell’s 1880 photophone as an alternative model. It suggests that widespread, continuous RF exposure in modern environments is undesirable and proposes light-based, room-scale wireless as more biologically compatible. The piece also speculates about a historical association between Heinrich Hertz’s close-range RF experiments and his later fatal illness, while acknowledging there is no controlled evidence proving causation.

RF Safe argues for a transition from microwave-based wireless (cellular/Wi‑Fi/Bluetooth) to light-based communications (e.g., Li‑Fi) to reduce indoor RF exposure. The piece claims chronic, low-level RF exposure may pose health risks beyond heating and calls for a precautionary approach, while also criticizing U.S. legal and regulatory frameworks it says limit local control and rely on older, heat-focused assumptions.

RF Safe argues that non-thermal RF and ELF exposures are a credible long-term biological stressor and that current RF safety regulation is outdated and overly focused on thermal effects. The post presents a mechanistic narrative (ion channels, mitochondria/ROS, and spin-dependent chemistry) and links this to calls for behavior change, product use (TruthCase/QuantaCase), and a transition toward Li‑Fi or “light-first” indoor connectivity. It frames regulators as having dismissed evidence and suggests a legal/regulatory failure since the 1990s, while promoting a precautionary “clean ether” approach.

This RF Safe article defends the organization against accusations of bias, framing its EMF safety advocacy as rooted in founder John Coates’ personal tragedy and long-term efforts in product development, research synthesis, and policy reform. It claims RF Safe helped drive an FCC rule change related to antenna design and promotes various exposure-reduction accessories and training tools. The piece argues that non-thermal biological effects of RF/ELF fields are being overlooked by regulators and calls for policy changes such as revisiting Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act and shifting health oversight away from the FCC.

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.

An RF Safe article argues that everyday RF-EMF exposures from phones, Wi‑Fi, and vehicles pose serious health risks, using dramatic framing such as “blood into pancakes.” It cites an ultrasound demonstration and references to a Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine paper, WHO reviews, and animal tumor findings, while promoting a proprietary-sounding framework (“S4‑Mito‑Spin”) and proposed solutions like “Clean Ether” tech and LiFi. The piece also calls for policy changes and encourages readers to run self-tests and share results on social media.

RF Safe describes “S4-Mito-Spin” as a proposed framework for explaining non-thermal biological effects from RF/EMF exposures (phones, Wi‑Fi, cell towers). The article argues the model links three mechanisms—voltage-gated ion channel disruption, mitochondrial oxidative stress, and spin-dependent chemistry—to reported findings such as oxidative damage, circulation changes, and tumors in certain tissues. It cites animal studies (e.g., NTP and Ramazzini) and various 2025 claims (e.g., WHO review, sperm studies, embryo methylation, and ultrasound observations) to support a precautionary interpretation, while acknowledging ongoing debate and non-linear dose-response arguments.

An RF Safe commentary argues that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is violating Public Law 90-602 by failing to continuously update radiation-safety standards, asserting that no formal revisions have occurred since the mid-1980s. The post links this alleged inaction to continued public exposure from wireless technologies and calls for renewed long-term research and stricter exposure limits. It also claims the National Toxicology Program (NTP) was shut down in 2024 and references a 2021 court decision criticizing FCC RF rules, urging congressional action and new legislation.

An RF Safe commentary advocates for a proposed “Clean Ether Act” that would mandate replacing Wi‑Fi/5G with LiFi, arguing that current RF exposure limits ignore non-thermal biological effects. The post alleges widespread health harms from RF/EMF (e.g., cancers, fertility impacts) and claims regulatory capture by industry, citing animal studies and a U.S. court decision as support. It frames the issue as urgent and preventable through policy changes and technology substitution, but presents these assertions in highly charged language without providing verifiable bill details in the text shown.

An RF Safe article argues that U.S. radiofrequency (RF) radiation governance is structurally flawed due to outdated FCC exposure limits, misaligned agency responsibilities, reduced federal research activity, and federal preemption that limits local action. It promotes the site’s “S4-Mito-Spin” framework as a proposed non-thermal mechanism for RF/ELF bioeffects and cites animal studies (e.g., NTP and Ramazzini) as challenging a thermal-only basis for limits. The piece also discusses policy reforms, including a proposed “Clean Ether Act” and increased use of alternatives such as Li‑Fi, while noting that mainstream bodies (e.g., FDA, ICNIRP) do not consider non-thermal harms established.

RF Safe published a white paper by John Coates arguing that current wireless (RF) exposure limits focus on thermal heating while ignoring “non-thermal” biological effects reported in many studies. The piece cites animal studies (U.S. National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini Institute) and links RF exposure to outcomes such as rare tumors and declining sperm counts, and it alleges regulatory capture. It promotes Li‑Fi and other “biologically compatible” connectivity as a proposed path forward.

An RF Safe post frames EMF/wireless exposure as a problem that the wireless industry is "pretending" does not exist, and positions the author as an RF engineer with decades of experience and patents (including Li‑Fi) advocating for technology compatible with human biology. The available excerpt contains mostly site/promotional text and a disclaimer that views are those of the authors, so specific technical arguments or evidence from the article cannot be verified from the provided text.