RF Safe: Protecting Public Health from RF Radiation Risks

Our Mission

RF Safe—a movement that has been online at the forefront of protecting public health since the 1990s. For over two decades, we have been dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of future generations by addressing critical, nonpartisan issues that have been overlooked for too long.

Founded in 1998 by John Coates, RF Safe is a global leader in electromagnetic radiation safety solutions and advocacy. Coates established RF Safe after a 1997 study linked EMR exposure to neural tube defects, a condition that claimed the life of his firstborn daughter in 1995. Determined to spare others such tragedy, he has spent 30 years researching and mitigating RF exposure risks.

Our mission is backed by decades of advocacy and research into the health risks of electromagnetic radiation. Today, the latest scientific studies confirm that the debate over cell phone radiation hazards is settled—it’s time for decisive action.

It’s not about gadgets—it’s about policy and public health. We’ve worked tirelessly to design products that help reduce personal exposure to EMFs, but accessories are only a stopgap. By joining RF Safe, you become part of a movement that demands policy change, prioritizes research, and pushes for safer designs. Technology can be safer, but it won’t happen without updated guidelines and systemic reform.

Key Goals

1. Update FCC Safety Guidelines: Embrace Modern Science

The Problem

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) relies on outdated safety guidelines from the 1990s, focusing solely on thermal effects of RF radiation—ignoring mounting evidence of non-thermal biological impacts.

In Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s organization (Children’s Health Defense) joined other petitioners to challenge the Federal Communications Commission’s 1996 RF exposure guidelines. After reviewing the evidence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered a scathing verdict: the FCC’s decision to stick with its old wireless radiation limits was “arbitrary and capricious” and lacked a reasoned explanation, given the extensive evidence of harm in its records. The court found that the FCC had failed to address hundreds of scientific studies and reports submitted to it – studies documenting non-thermal effects ranging from cancer to neurological problems.

Key Evidence

2021 Court Ruling: Revealed FCC’s 1996 guidelines fail to protect against harmful non-thermal effects.
NTP Findings: Studies link RF radiation to malignant brain tumors and heart tumors.
Vulnerable Populations: Children’s developing tissues are more susceptible, with deeper radiation penetration in young brains.
Non-Thermal Effects: Peer-reviewed studies confirm DNA damage, oxidative stress, and disrupted cellular repair mechanisms at low exposure levels.

Our Demand

The FCC must acknowledge non-thermal risks, modernize guidelines, and enforce stricter regulations to ensure safer technology development.

2. Restart National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cancer Research

The Problem

Groundbreaking NTP research into RF radiation’s health impacts has stalled, leaving critical questions unanswered.

Key Evidence

Clear Evidence of Harm: NTP and Ramazzini Institute found RF radiation carcinogenic in animal studies.
Policy Implications: Discontinuing research after finding evidence of harm is irresponsible.
Therapeutic Potential: FDA-approved TheraBionic treatment shows non-thermal therapeutic uses of RF-EMF, stressing need for more research.

Our Demand

Immediate continuation of NTP research to inform health policies, ensure safer tech advancements, and explore therapeutic uses responsibly.

3. End FCC Regulatory Capture: Prioritize Public Health Over Profits

The Problem

Decades of regulatory capture allow industry interests to overshadow public health priorities within the FCC.

Key Evidence

Conflicts of Interest: Leadership with industry ties undermines impartial regulation.
Erosion of Trust: Failure to update standards weakens confidence in FCC’s ability to protect health.
Unchecked Rollout: Rapid 5G expansion occurs without sufficient safety testing.

Our Demand

The FCC must eliminate industry influence, prioritize science-based policymaking, and appoint leaders free from industry ties.

4. Amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Restore Local Rights

The Problem

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 strips local governments of authority to reject cell tower placements based on health concerns, leaving communities powerless.

Section 704: Silencing Communities The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was celebrated as a breakthrough in deregulation, intended to foster competition and innovation in the telecom sector. But buried within the act was Section 704, a clause that would fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens, local governments, and federal regulators:

Key Evidence

FCC Standards from 1996: Ignore decades of non-thermal effects research.
Local Governments Stripped of Power Section 704 prohibits municipalities from regulating cell tower placements based on health or environmental concerns. Even if residents present credible evidence of harm, their objections are legally irrelevant.
First Amendment Violations By barring health-related objections, Section 704 effectively gags communities, denying them their constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Tenth Amendment Violations The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not explicitly granted to the federal government for the states. Yet Section 704 overrides local zoning laws, stripping states and municipalities of their right to protect public health.
Implied Conflict Preemption: Local efforts for stricter safety measures are overridden.
Tort Immunity & Regulatory Capture: Industry profits prioritize over public health and accountability.

Our Demand

Amend the Act to empower local communities, restore accountability, and update FCC guidelines to reflect modern science.

5. Force FDA to Follow Public Law 90-602 (1968

Force FDA to Follow Public Law 90-602 (1968)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is legally mandated by Public Law 90-602 (passed in 1968) to “plan, conduct, coordinate and/or support research, development, and operational activities to minimize the exposure of people to unnecessary electronic product radiation.” This statute unmistakably includes modern wireless technologies—like cellphones, tablets, and other devices emitting radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Despite the clear language of the law, the FDA has not only failed to enforce safety standards updated with the latest scientific research, but has also effectively halted additional cancer-related research following the National Toxicology Program (NTP) findings of “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity in rats. This dereliction of duty leaves Americans exposed to rapidly expanding wireless technologies without the benefit of current, science-based oversight.

Why This Matters:

Legal Duty: Unlike the FCC, whose authority stems from telecommunication policy, the FDA has an explicit public health mandate to protect against “unnecessary electronic product radiation.” Halting vital follow-up studies—after initial findings indicate possible cancer links—undermines that core mission.
1980s Tobacco Parallel: Historically, once early data linked smoking to cancer, research and protective measures increased. The FDA’s sudden cutoff of NTP’s RF studies is akin to discovering cigarettes cause lung cancer and then shutting down all further investigation—an irresponsible move that could leave long-term dangers unaddressed.
Non-Thermal Research Gap: Mounting evidence from NTP, Ramazzini Institute, and other studies points to DNA damage, oxidative stress, and other non-thermal effects at everyday exposure levels. If the FDA won’t study these findings, no regulatory body will push for more stringent safety measures.
Children & Vulnerable Populations: The FDA’s silence especially threatens groups like pregnant women, infants, and individuals with chronic illnesses—populations more susceptible to even low-level RF radiation. Failing to enforce or update federal guidelines means these groups remain at risk.

We The People Demand:

Reinvigorate Public Law 90-602 - The simplest solution might also be the most obvious: enforce the law as written. Public Law 90-602 explicitly requires continuous research into electromagnetic radiation from electronic devices. There is no need for Congress to pass a new statute to mandate what already exists in law. Rather, we need agencies to request and allocate funding, hire appropriate teams, and investigate emerging wireless technologies in line with the law’s text. The FDA must fulfill its legal obligations under Public Law 90-602 without delay. We call for:

Immediate Resumption of NTP Research: Resume and expand the halted studies to confirm or refute the preliminary cancer links, ensuring policy decisions are based on the fullest possible scientific record.
Transparent Public Updates: Provide regular, easily accessible reports on ongoing findings regarding RF exposure, and communicate potential hazards and precautionary measures to the public—especially for children.
Enforced Accountability: Collaborate with the FCC to align standards that encompass both thermal and non-thermal effects, reaffirming the FDA’s leadership in health protection over corporate or industry pressures.

By compelling the FDA to obey its own founding law and enforce updated, science-based RF radiation guidelines, we safeguard present and future generations. Americans deserve regulatory action grounded in the best available data—not arbitrary defunding of crucial research after early warning signs.

6. FTC Must Take Action Against Deceptive Anti-Radiation Products

▼

The Biggest Safety Scam of All: SAR Guidelines & The Truth About EMF Protection

The market is flooded with so-called “anti-radiation” products, but many of them are designed in ways that actually increase exposure rather than reducing it. Worse yet, the very guidelines meant to regulate radiation exposure—**SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) standards**—are a fraudulent framework that has misled consumers for decades.

The SAR Guidelines Scam: Why They Were Never Meant to Protect You

When the **FCC adopted SAR guidelines in 1996**, they were based solely on **thermal effects**, ignoring the far more dangerous **non-thermal biological effects** that studies have linked to cancer, neurological disorders, reproductive harm, and DNA damage. The telecommunications industry lobbied heavily for these **thermal-only standards** because they allowed high radiation exposures to be legally classified as "safe." Meanwhile, mounting scientific evidence has proven that SAR is an **outdated, fraudulent metric** that should never have been used to regulate wireless radiation exposure.

Non-Thermal Biological Effects Ignored: Thousands of studies have shown DNA damage, oxidative stress, and neurological effects at exposure levels far below SAR thresholds.
1996 Telecommunications Act & Section 704: This law was passed the same year SAR guidelines were adopted, making it **illegal for local governments to challenge cell tower placement based on health concerns.**
2021 Court Ruling Against the FCC: A federal court ruled that the FCC’s SAR-based guidelines are inadequate and failed to address overwhelming scientific evidence of harm.
Non-Linear Dose Response: Research shows that **lower radiation levels can sometimes cause greater biological damage than higher levels**, proving that reducing SAR does not automatically mean reducing risk.
Exposure Duration Matters: SAR guidelines only consider **short-term exposure**, ignoring the chronic, low-level exposure that has been linked to serious health effects.

Bottom Line: SAR guidelines were designed to protect industry profits, not public health. Consumers should **reject SAR as a safety metric** and push for new regulations based on **biological effects, not just heating effects.**

Laptop & Tablet Radiation Shields: Why They Fail

⚠️ Keep laptops and electronic devices away from the torso during pregnancy.⚠️

Many consumers buy laptop radiation shields assuming they are reducing their exposure. In reality, they may be making things worse by:

Ineffective Shielding: Shields placed under laptops and tablets do not block the majority of emissions directed at body.
Increased Exposure: Using these shields encourages closer contact, bringing high-frequency emissions directly to the torso and reproductive organs.
Reflective Danger: Blocking radiation from the legs while increasing exposure to the torso and reproductive organs.

A Simple, Effective Solution: Shielding Fabric for Direct Protection

Instead of relying on ineffective laptop or tablet shields, RF Safe recommends using a **shielding fabric baby blanket** (approximately 18x18 inches) as a direct barrier for exposed areas. Unlike device-mounted shields that fail to protect at the necessary angles, these simple shielding blankets provide effective coverage between the user and the radiation source. They are lightweight, non-intrusive, and widely available for under $10 on platforms like Amazon.

Safe Practice: Instead of using shielded laptop or tablet cases, place a shielding blanket over your lap or abdomen if necessary, use a desk whenever possible, and disable wireless features when not in use.

Detachable Anti-Radiation Phone Cases: A Hidden Danger

Some of the most misleading anti-radiation products on the market are detachable anti-radiation phone cases that claim to “block 99% of radiation.” However, these designs actually **increase exposure** in real-world use.

Antenna Interference: Cases with detachable covers, metal plates, or magnets block the phone’s antenna, forcing it to boost transmission power and increase RF output by up to 70%.
Unpredictable Radiation Patterns: When one side is shielded but the other side is obstructed by metal, radiation is redirected in unpredictable ways, increasing localized exposure.
False Advertising: The **FTC has warned** that anti-radiation shields that block a phone’s antenna can force the device to increase its power output, leading to higher radiation exposure. Companies like SafeSleeve and DefenderShield market their products as “blocking 99% of radiation” while failing to disclose that their designs **can actually increase radiation exposure** due to antenna interference.

The FTC Must Take Immediate Action Against Deceptive Anti-Radiation Products

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has previously taken action against fraudulent anti-radiation products, and with the rise of deceptive marketing surrounding so-called protective accessories, the need for regulatory enforcement has never been greater.

Investigate False Advertising: Companies like SafeSleeve and DefenderShield market their products as “blocking 99% of radiation” while failing to disclose that their detachable designs **can actually increase radiation exposure** due to antenna interference.
Ban Detachable Anti-Radiation Cases: Any case with detachable covers, metal plates, or magnets that block antennas and force a phone to increase transmission power should be recalled immediately.
Mandatory Labeling Requirements: Accessories that may increase radiation output should carry **clear warnings** about potential risks.
Crack Down on Testing Deception: Companies should be required to provide **real-world test results** showing how their cases function with active phones, rather than using misleading lab tests of raw materials.

The FTC must act now to protect consumers from deceptive EMF protection products that **increase exposure instead of reducing it.**

The Only Long-Term Solution: LiFi Technology

The only way to truly make smart devices safer is to **push for LiFi adoption**—a light-based communication technology that eliminates the need for harmful RF radiation. Unlike traditional wireless systems that rely on microwave transmission, LiFi uses visible and infrared light to transfer data at high speeds with zero RF exposure.

Faster & Safer: LiFi offers faster data speeds without the biological risks of prolonged RF exposure.
Localized Data Transmission: Unlike WiFi and cellular networks, LiFi does not penetrate walls, reducing exposure to unintended areas.
Secure Communication: Light-based signals are harder to intercept, improving cybersecurity.

To protect public health, regulators and consumers alike must demand the **transition to LiFi technology** in homes, schools, and workplaces.

By understanding these red flags and advocating for safer wireless alternatives, consumers can avoid deceptive anti-radiation products and help drive the transition toward **a LiFi-powered future** that eliminates RF exposure risks altogether.

RF Safe’s innovations go beyond information and technology to reduce EMR exposure—we are transitioning wireless from the “Microwave Age” to the “Light Age.”

RF Safe's founder is the inventor of a revolutionary Li-Fi system with bio-defense mode, patented under US11700058B2 in 2021. This far-UV light communication system demonstrates how wireless data can be transmitted without harmful microwave radiation, offering:

✅ Higher data speeds than traditional Wi-Fi - ✅ Radiation-free indoor connectivity - ✅ Bioelectric integrity protection

“This shift to light-based communication is, I believe, one of the most important leaps humanity can make,” says Coates. “By embracing Li-Fi, photonic networks, and even carefully managed far-UV for disinfection, we stand to gain not just faster connectivity but true harmony with our biology and environment. Still, to fully realize this vision, we must first repeal Section 704—only then can local communities reclaim their rights, scientific debate can thrive, and the path to the Light Age will be upon us.”

When you support RF Safe—you’re joining a movement for a safer, healthier future.

Significant Research

The preponderance of scientific evidence unequivocally demonstrates that cell phone radiation can induce biological effects beyond thermal heating. Studies conducted over the past 30 years, including those by the Interphone Study, Hardell Group, CERENAT Study, NTP, Ramazzini Institute, REFLEX Project, BioInitiative Report, and Dr. Henry Lai, consistently show that RF-EMFs can cause DNA damage, oxidative stress, and increase the risk of cancer at exposure levels below current safety guidelines. Despite this overwhelming evidence, regulatory bodies like the FCC have failed to update safety standards, largely due to regulatory capture and influence from the wireless industry.

Understanding Non-Thermal Biological Effects

Contrary to the thermal-only hypothesis, extensive research has demonstrated that RF-EMFs can induce biological effects without a measurable increase in tissue temperature. These non-thermal effects include:

Oxidative Stress: An imbalance between free radicals and antioxidants, leading to cellular damage.
DNA Damage: Single and double-strand breaks, mutations, and chromosomal aberrations.
Altered Gene Expression: Changes in how genes are activated or suppressed, affecting cell function and growth.
Disruption of Cellular Signaling: Interference with communication pathways essential for cell growth, repair, and apoptosis.
Increased Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability: Allowing harmful substances to enter the brain, potentially leading to neurological disorders.

Regulatory inaction poses significant risks to public health, especially for vulnerable populations such as children. Furthermore, the misclassification of RF-EMF risks has impeded the advancement of life-saving medical interventions that could harness non-thermal effects for therapeutic purposes.

Therapeutic Applications Highlighting Biological Effects

The TheraBionic P1 device, an FDA-approved treatment for advanced liver cancer, utilizes low-level RF-EMF to target cancer cells through non-thermal mechanisms. Unlike traditional treatments that rely on heating tissues to kill cancer cells, TheraBionic disrupts cancer cell signaling and induces apoptosis without affecting healthy tissues. This groundbreaking application underscores that RF-EMFs have significant biological effects beyond thermal interactions. A comprehensive analysis of over 2,500 studies spanning three decades demonstrates that EMFs can cause significant biological effects at exposure levels below those required to produce thermal heating.

Key Evidence

Non-thermal Mechanisms: Disrupts cancer cell signaling without heating tissues.
Clinical Validation: FDA-approved for advanced liver cancer treatment.
Extensive Research: Supported by analysis of over 2,500 studies.

Interphone Study

The Interphone Study was a large multinational case-control study coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) investigating the link between cell phone use and brain tumors, including glioma and meningioma. Conducted between 2000 and 2010 across 13 countries, it included over 5,000 cases. Heavy use was defined as more than 1,640 hours (approximately 30 minutes per week), revealing a potential increase in glioma risk among heavy users. However, this threshold is now considered trivially low compared to today's usage patterns, where individuals often use their devices for hours daily. Additionally, the study excluded children, a group now recognized as highly vulnerable to EMF exposure.

Key Evidence

Multinational Scope: Conducted in 13 countries with over 5,000 cases.
Usage Threshold: Heavy use defined as >1,640 hours, now seen as low.
Risk Identification: Identified increased glioma risk among heavy users.
Study Limitations: Exclusion of children, a highly vulnerable group.

Hardell Group Studies

Led by Dr. Lennart Hardell, the Hardell Group conducted several epidemiological studies examining the association between long-term mobile and cordless phone use and the risk of brain tumors. Their research consistently found a significant increase in the risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma, especially among individuals who started using cell phones before the age of 20. These findings underscore the increased vulnerability of children and young adults to RF-EMF exposure.

Key Evidence

Consistent Findings: Increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma.
Age Factor: Higher risk among users who started before age 20.
Vulnerability Highlight: Emphasizes risk for children and young adults.

CERENAT Study

The CERENAT Study, a French national case-control study published in 2014, investigated the association between mobile phone use and primary brain tumors. Including 447 cases and 892 controls, it found a statistically significant increased risk of glioma and meningioma among heavy mobile phone users (defined as more than 896 hours of lifetime use). The study also noted that occupational users and those in urban areas exhibited even higher risks, highlighting the pervasive nature of RF-EMF exposure.

Key Evidence

Robust Sample: 447 cases and 892 controls.
Exposure Definition: Heavy use defined as >896 hours lifetime.
Risk Variation: Elevated risk in occupational and urban users.

National Toxicology Program (NTP) Study

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Study was a $30 million, ten-year investigation exposing thousands of rats and mice to RF-EMF levels equivalent to heavy human cell phone use. Published in 2018, it provided clear evidence of carcinogenic activity, with increased incidences of malignant schwannomas of the heart and gliomas of the brain in male rats. These effects occurred at exposure levels that did not cause significant tissue heating, directly challenging the thermal-only hypothesis.

Key Evidence

Extensive Study: Involved thousands of rodents over ten years.
Carcinogenic Activity: Increased heart schwannomas and brain gliomas in male rats.
Non-Thermal Effects: Effects observed without significant tissue heating.

Ramazzini Institute Study

The Ramazzini Institute Study in Italy replicated the NTP study but at lower RF-EMF exposure levels, similar to those from cell towers rather than cell phones. Published in 2018, it observed a significant increase in malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats, mirroring the NTP findings despite the lower exposure intensity. This study highlights the potential environmental risks posed by chronic, low-level RF-EMF exposure.

Key Evidence

Replication: Confirmed NTP findings at lower exposure levels.
Environmental Exposure: Focused on levels similar to cell tower emissions.
Carcinogenic Indicators: Noted increased heart schwannomas in male rats.

REFLEX Project

The REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) was an EU-funded initiative conducted from 2000 to 2004. It demonstrated that EMF exposure could cause DNA strand breaks and chromosomal aberrations in human and animal cells, indicating genotoxic effects without significant temperature increases.

Key Evidence

EU Initiative: Funded and conducted by the European Union.
Genotoxic Effects: Detected DNA strand breaks and chromosomal aberrations.
Non-Thermal Impact: Effects occurred without significant heating.

BioInitiative Report

The BioInitiative Report is a comprehensive review of over 3,800 studies that concluded current public safety limits for RF-EMF exposure are inadequate. It links RF-EMF exposure to increased risks of cancer, neurological disorders, reproductive issues, and other health problems at non-thermal levels. The report advocates for significantly lower exposure limits and recommends precautionary measures to reduce EMF exposure.

Key Evidence

Extensive Review: Based on over 3,800 studies.
Health Risks: Connects RF-EMF exposure to various health issues.
Policy Implications: Calls for lower exposure limits and precautionary measures.

Dr. Henry Lai's Research

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, reviewed over 2,500 studies on EMF exposure and its biological effects. His research highlights that a vast majority of these studies report non-thermal effects, including DNA damage, oxidative stress, and altered cellular processes. This reinforces the reality that RF-EMFs can cause significant biological harm without increasing tissue temperature.

Key Evidence

Comprehensive Review: Over 2,500 studies analyzed.
Widespread Findings: Consistent reports of non-thermal effects.
Biological Impact: Identified DNA damage, oxidative stress, and altered cellular processes.

These studies collectively challenge outdated FCC guidelines and call for updated safety standards that recognize non-thermal impacts. Unfortunately, research has been halted, limiting public awareness and blocking medical advancements.

Cell Phone Radiation (SAR Testing)

Explore RF Safe's SAR Comparison Database, the most trusted resource for evaluating and minimizing cell phone radiation exposure. RF Safe has provided reliable electromagnetic radiation (EMR) safety education for over two decades. Cell Phone Model Index

Side-by-Side SAR Comparisons

Children vs. Adults Radiation Exposure

Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Radiation Reduction

Comprehensive SAR Ranking Database

Why Use RF Safe's SAR Comparison Database?

Educational Resource: Understand SAR limitations and the real risks of non-thermal RF radiation.
Awareness Tool: Learn why regulatory guidelines are inadequate and how to protect yourself.
Actionable Insights: Get practical strategies for reducing exposure through smart phone usage.
Up-to-Date Information: Continuously updated to reflect the latest FCC data and independent research.
The Future of Safe Wireless: Advocating for LiFi adoption to eliminate excessive RF radiation exposure entirely.

Start Comparing SAR Levels Now →

RF Safe: Protecting Public Health

Our Mission

Key Goals

The Problem

Key Evidence

Our Demand

The Problem

Key Evidence

Our Demand

The Problem

Key Evidence

Our Demand

The Problem

Key Evidence

Our Demand

Force FDA to Follow Public Law 90-602 (1968)

Why This Matters:

We The People Demand:

The SAR Guidelines Scam: Why They Were Never Meant to Protect You

Laptop & Tablet Radiation Shields: Why They Fail

A Simple, Effective Solution: Shielding Fabric for Direct Protection

Detachable Anti-Radiation Phone Cases: A Hidden Danger

The FTC Must Take Immediate Action Against Deceptive Anti-Radiation Products

The Only Long-Term Solution: LiFi Technology

Take Action Now

Significant Research

Understanding Non-Thermal Biological Effects

Key Evidence

Key Evidence

Key Evidence

Key Evidence

Key Evidence

Key Evidence

Key Evidence

Key Evidence

Key Evidence

Cell Phone Radiation (SAR Testing)

Why Use RF Safe's SAR Comparison Database?

SAR Information & Resources

Latest News & Updates

Contact Us

Be RF Safe To Be Sure