Archive
3 postsFilters: tag: shielding-claims Clear
The Anti Radiation Case That Refuses to Sell a Number
RF Safe argues that many “anti-radiation” phone cases market misleading “% blocked” claims based on lab material tests rather than whole-device, real-world performance. The article promotes RF Safe’s TruthCase/QuantaCase as a “physics-first” design that avoids advertising a single blocking percentage and emphasizes directional shielding and user education. It cites a 2017 CBS San Francisco/KPIX test as an example of how some flip-style shielding cases can reduce measured RF in certain orientations but may increase readings in other common-use configurations.
RF Safe’s Market Position and Industry Skepticism
RF Safe argues that while it has operated since 1998 and emphasizes “physics-based” design and education, the broader anti-radiation phone case market is widely criticized for hype and potentially misleading “blocking” claims. The post says some experts consider the category ineffective or even counterproductive, including concerns that poorly designed cases may interfere with antennas and prompt phones to increase transmit power. It positions RF Safe’s QuantaCase/TruthCase as an outlier for transparency and design choices, while noting that independent 2026 testing is limited and some claims rely on demonstrations, older tests, and design critiques.
How non‑native electromagnetic fields, biological timing, and policy lock in converge — and why the Light Age is the only coherent exit
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.