This RF Safe commentary argues that HHS, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was correct to remove FDA webpages that gave broad assurances that cell phone radiation is “not dangerous.” It claims blanket safety messaging is scientifically indefensible given animal toxicology findings (notably the U.S. National Toxicology Program studies), a WHO-commissioned systematic review of animal cancer studies (Mevissen et al., 2025), and references to federal court findings. The piece frames the change as a precautionary, science-based correction rather than an anti-science move.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias/Fact Check’s January 8, 2026 update that labeled RF Safe “Least Biased” and “Mostly Factual” but assigned “Medium Credibility,” citing perceived one-sided interpretation, product-sales conflicts, and alarmist framing. The post argues RF Safe’s “S4-Mito-Spin” framework incorporates null findings as boundary conditions to explain variability in RF/EMF study outcomes rather than ignoring negative results. It also claims major authorities’ positions are outdated in light of a cited WHO review and a U.S. court remand regarding FCC guidelines, and contends product sales are secondary to advocacy and education.

RF Safe publishes a rebuttal to Media Bias Fact Check’s (MBFC) January 8, 2026 credibility assessment, arguing MBFC’s “Medium Credibility” rating is unjustified despite MBFC upgrades to “Least Biased” and “Mostly Factual.” The post disputes MBFC’s criticisms (selective citation, alarmist framing, and potential conflict of interest from product sales) and claims RF Safe’s coverage aligns with WHO-commissioned reviews and legal/regulatory developments. RF Safe reiterates its view that thermal-only RF exposure guidelines are inadequate and calls for policy reform while stating it does not claim definitive human causation.

RF Safe publishes a commentary disputing Media Bias Fact Check’s (MBFC) labeling of RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility.” The post argues MBFC mischaracterized RF Safe’s content as overstating evidence about cell phones and health, claiming RF Safe generally uses cautious, study-referencing language (e.g., “associations,” “potential risks”) and avoids asserting direct human causation. It also points to RF Safe disclaimers that the site is educational and not medical advice, and highlights its research library linking to primary studies such as NTP and Ramazzini animal findings.

RF Safe criticizes Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) for labeling RF Safe as “pseudoscience” with “mixed factual reporting” and “low credibility,” arguing MBFC’s entry contains factual errors and misrepresentations. The post says RF Safe does not claim RF radiation definitively causes human disease, but instead presents precautionary interpretations of peer-reviewed studies and proposed non-thermal mechanisms. It also alleges MBFC made specific, checkable mistakes about study-linking practices and site ownership/funding, and failed to correct them after rebuttals.

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 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 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.

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.

An RF Safe article presents a personal narrative and hypothesis that “non-native EMFs” act as “entropic waste” that could disrupt early embryonic neurodevelopment (neurulation), potentially contributing to neural-tube defects and later neurodevelopmental outcomes such as autism/ADHD. The author links a family tragedy to this hypothesis and argues for reducing wireless exposure as a precaution. The post cites several studies/reports (e.g., Farrell 1997, Aldad 2012, NTP 2018, WHO SR4A 2025) but does not provide detailed methods or evidence appraisal within the excerpt.

RF Safe argues that findings it describes as “high-certainty” from WHO-commissioned systematic reviews show RF-EMF causes malignant heart Schwannomas and brain gliomas in rodents and reduces male fertility. The post proposes a unifying non-thermal mechanism—the “S4-mitochondria axis”—suggesting RF-EMF interacts with the voltage-sensing S4 helix of voltage-gated ion channels (VGICs) and is amplified by mitochondrial density. It concludes that the combination of animal evidence and a proposed mechanism supports precautionary revisions to exposure guidelines and more mechanistic research.

RF Safe argues that U.S. RF exposure limits remain based on avoiding short-term heating (“thermal-only”) effects and have not been meaningfully updated since the FCC’s 1996 guidelines. The piece links this regulatory approach to community concerns about cell towers near schools, citing reported cancer clusters and claiming that compliance with FCC limits may not equate to safety. It also highlights Telecommunications Act Section 704 as limiting local opposition to tower siting on health or environmental grounds.

This article summarizes a webinar series and frames pesticides and wireless radiation as concurrent environmental health crises affecting ecosystems and public health. It asserts that evidence is building for adverse effects of EMF/wireless radiation in humans, animals, and bees, including “high-certainty links” between RF radiation and tumors in brain and heart nerves. It also suggests potential synergy between chemical and EMF exposures impacting bee hive productivity and argues for precautionary policy and stronger exposure guidelines.

This scoping review and evidence map (PRISMA-ScR) summarizes over 500 studies on RF-EMF exposure and genotoxicity across in vitro, in vivo, and epidemiological research. The authors report a higher proportion of significant DNA damage findings in in vivo and epidemiological studies than in vitro studies, with DNA base damage commonly reported under real-world/pulsed/GSM talk-mode conditions and longer exposures. They conclude that DNA damage has been observed at exposure levels below ICNIRP limits and recommend precautionary measures and updates to guidelines to address potential non-thermal effects.

This narrative review discusses biological mechanisms and reported health effects of anthropogenic extremely low frequency (ELF) and wireless communication (WC) electromagnetic fields. It highlights oxidative stress and DNA damage as key mechanistic endpoints and proposes an IFO-VGIC pathway linking EMF exposure to ROS overproduction and cellular dysfunction. The authors interpret the broader literature as indicating risks (e.g., cancer, infertility, EHS) even below current exposure limits and advocate precautionary policy measures, including stricter limits and a 5G moratorium.

This letter critiques the WHO-sponsored systematic review by Karipidis et al. (2024) on RF-EMF exposure and cancer risk. The authors argue the review has serious methodological and interpretative flaws, including issues with study selection and data analysis. They contend that the review’s conclusion of "no clear evidence" may be misleading and should not be used as a basis for health policy or safety guidelines.

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.