Guided by Physics, Powered by Science

RF Safe has been at the forefront of protecting public health since the 1990s. For over two decades, we've championed the well-being of future generations by tackling urgent, nonpartisan issues largely overlooked by those in power. Today, cutting-edge scientific research confirms that the debate over cell phone radiation hazards is settled—it's time for decisive action.

This isn't about politics—it's about ensuring safer technology for everyone. Our mission is simple yet ambitious: influence policy, update outmoded guidelines, restart stalled research, expose industry-driven regulatory capture, and restore local authority to protect our communities. By understanding the science and acting now, we can shape a healthier, more accountable future.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Our Mission

RF Safe—a movement that has been online at the forefront of public health advocacy since the 1990s. For decades, we have worked tirelessly to safeguard future generations by addressing critical issues related to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure that have long been neglected.

Today, the latest scientific studies confirm that non-thermal biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) are not just theoretical—they pose real and significant health risks. Children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable groups are at greater risk due to thinner skulls, longer lifetime exposure, and developing tissues. The debate is over: we must acknowledge these dangers and act with urgency.

Our mission is grounded in both advocacy and research. We’re pushing for updated FCC guidelines that reflect modern science, restarting the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) cancer research, ending FCC regulatory capture, and amending outdated laws like the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to restore local rights. We believe that only by taking these steps can we ensure safer technology for everyone.

The Time For Change Is Now

Decades ago, when the FCC set its guidelines, the understanding of RF-EMF was limited. They focused solely on thermal effects—the heating of tissue—while disregarding non-thermal biological mechanisms. Today, a wealth of peer-reviewed research shows that even low-level, non-thermal RF exposure can cause DNA breaks, oxidative stress, cellular repair disruption, and other effects linked to cancer, neurological disorders, infertility, and sleep disturbances.

These discoveries are not fringe science. Landmark rulings, like the 2021 U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decision, have underscored the FCC’s failure to justify its outdated standards. The National Toxicology Program’s landmark studies and the Ramazzini Institute’s findings provide clear evidence of carcinogenic risks. Ignoring these results would be as irresponsible as halting research on smoking after finding it causes cancer.

Our Key Demands

RF Safe stands at a crossroads of science, policy, and public health. Our demands are straightforward but transformative. By addressing these four pillars, we can craft a world where wireless technology enriches our lives without endangering our health.

1. Update FCC Safety Guidelines: Embrace Modern Science
+

The Problem

The FCC still relies on 1990s guidelines focused only on thermal effects, ignoring the extensive evidence of non-thermal biological impacts. Vulnerable groups like children absorb more radiation and suffer greater risks.

Key Evidence

  • 2021 Court Ruling: EHT & Robert F. Kennedy Jr. exposed that FCC’s 1996 guidelines do not protect against non-thermal effects.
  • NTP Findings: Links RF radiation to malignant gliomas and schwannomas, aligning with human cancers.
  • Vulnerable Populations: Children’s thinner skulls and developing tissues face deeper radiation penetration and long-term risks.
  • Non-Thermal Effects: DNA damage, oxidative stress, and cellular repair disruption—none accounted for in current guidelines.

Our Demand

The FCC must modernize its standards to include non-thermal effects. Stricter safety regulations will force the tech industry to prioritize human health when designing future devices.

2. Restart National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cancer Research
+

The Problem

The groundbreaking NTP research linking RF radiation to cancer risks has stalled, leaving critical scientific inquiries unanswered.

Key Evidence

  • NTP & Ramazzini Institute: Found "clear evidence" of carcinogenic effects in animal studies, paralleling human tumor types.
  • Policy Implications: Halting research after identifying risks is akin to stopping tobacco research after confirming its link to cancer—irresponsible and dangerous.
  • Therapeutic Potential: FDA-approved TheraBionic demonstrates non-thermal RF can treat cancer, proving RF radiation’s bioactive potential.

Our Demand

Resume NTP research to fully understand RF-EMF’s long-term health implications. Knowledge guides policy, ensuring future safety standards and fostering innovations that mitigate risks while exploring therapeutic avenues.

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

The Problem

Industry influence within the FCC has led to prioritizing corporate interests over public health. Conflicts of interest erode trust, weaken standards, and compromise safety.

Key Evidence

  • Industry Ties: Former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s background in the wireless lobby exemplifies compromised impartiality.
  • Public Trust Erodes: The FCC’s inaction despite mounting evidence undermines confidence in its protective role.
  • Unchecked Expansion: 5G and other wireless tech roll out without adequate safety testing, exposing millions to potentially harmful radiation.

Our Demand

The FCC must enact strict measures to remove industry influence. Future leaders must be free of corporate ties and guided solely by science, ensuring regulations truly safeguard public health.

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

The Problem

Federal overreach prevents local governments from rejecting cell tower placements due to health concerns. Communities must regain control over their environments.

Key Evidence

  • Outdated Standards: 1996 FCC guidelines ignore decades of research on non-thermal effects.
  • Implied Conflict Preemption: Federal rules override local health-based regulations.
  • Tort Immunity & Regulatory Capture: Industries enjoy legal shields from accountability.
  • Suppression of Science: Halting NTP research cripples informed policy-making.

Our Demand

Amend the Telecommunications Act to allow communities to address health and environmental concerns. Local autonomy ensures accountability, fosters safer infrastructure, and respects democratic principles.

Why This Matters: The Bigger Picture

The evidence is overwhelming. Significant research—from the Interphone Study to the Hardell Group findings, CERENAT, NTP, Ramazzini Institute, REFLEX Project, BioInitiative Report, and the work of Dr. Henry Lai—connects RF radiation exposure to increased health risks. Ignoring this body of work does not make the risks vanish. Instead, it cements a dangerous status quo where profit trumps public welfare.

The misclassification of RF radiation as “safe” aside from heating effects denies us the opportunity to harness its potential safely. The FDA-approved TheraBionic treatment, which uses non-thermal RF frequencies to treat liver cancer, demonstrates that RF-EMF interacts with human biology in profound ways. If RF can heal under certain conditions, why are we not acknowledging that it can also harm? Correct classification is crucial for enabling life-saving medical interventions and preventing unnecessary harm.

Take Action: Your Voice Matters

Addressing these issues requires a collective effort. Policymakers respond to public pressure, and informed citizens can influence corporate behavior, research priorities, and safety standards. Your voice can make a difference in shaping a healthier future.

By taking these steps, you contribute to a cultural shift that prioritizes health, ethics, and sustainability over short-term profit.

QuantaCase™: A Case Study in Responsible Design

RF Safe’s founder, John Coates, has spent over two decades exposing misleading “anti-radiation” products. In 2000, a Good Housekeeping Magazine investigation, prompted by Coates’ advocacy, revealed rampant scams and forced the FTC to act. The FTC warns that poorly designed shields can actually increase radiation exposure by making phones work harder to maintain signal strength.

Not all solutions are equal. For instance, some cases, like the SafeSleeve design, incorporate metal plates and magnets that obstruct antennas. This obstruction causes phones to increase output power, ironically boosting user exposure. Effective protection requires understanding physics and design principles—not marketing hype.

QuantaCase™, designed by RF Safe, follows science-based principles:

QuantaCase™ represents what happens when consumer protection meets evidence-based design, embodying the values RF Safe has championed since its inception.

Select Your Phone Model

QuantaCase™ FAQ Page

Historical Context: RF Safe’s Founding and Ongoing Mission

RF Safe was founded in 1998 by John Coates, following a personal tragedy. After losing his daughter, Angel Leigh Coates, to a neural tube disorder, he dedicated his life to understanding how EMF exposures might influence human health. His research led to pioneering EMF safety solutions well before mainstream attention turned to these issues.

Coates introduced early innovations like air-tube headsets and EMF belly bands for pregnant women in the 1990s—decades before the current wave of concern. He ceased promoting certain products (like laptop shields) when shifting wireless usage patterns changed their risk profiles. For Coates and RF Safe, evolving science dictates evolving products and advice.

This commitment to truth, even when inconvenient, sets RF Safe apart. Coates’ cellular Latent Learning Model (ceLLM) posits that cells process bioelectric signals, which can be disrupted by EMF exposure. This disruption may contribute to disorders such as autism, ADHD, and even neural tube defects. Such theories underscore the urgency of further research and protective policies.

RF Misclassification: A Barrier to Progress

For years, the wireless industry and some regulators have dismissed the biological effects of non-ionizing RF radiation as negligible. This stance has stalled medical research, public health protections, and technological innovations that could reduce harm while unleashing RF’s therapeutic potential.

Why Does Misclassification Matter?

Rectifying this classification issue is not just a scientific housekeeping task—it’s a moral imperative that affects public health, global ecosystems, and future technological frontiers.

From Science to Policy: A Critical Shift

Data alone doesn’t change the world—policy does. In the past, science led to groundbreaking reforms, from banning lead paint to regulating tobacco. Today, RF radiation stands at a similar tipping point: abundant evidence calls for immediate policy interventions.

Global collaboration is essential. As wireless technologies spread worldwide, regulations that protect one nation’s citizens but ignore others is short-sighted. Coordinated global standards can ensure equitable protections and drive industries to invest in safer designs.

Key Policy Steps:

We must move from debates to decisions. Without updated policies, we leave current and future generations exposed to unnecessary risks and stifle the scientific and technological progress that could emerge from a clearer understanding of RF interactions.

Protecting Our Future: A Moment of Opportunity

The arrival of a new administration in Washington—one involving figures like President Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—provides an opening to reform FCC policies. This is a rare moment when political will, public awareness, and scientific consensus may converge to enact meaningful change. Public health must supersede corporate profit margins.

Updating FCC guidelines, restarting the NTP’s critical research, and restoring local rights under the Telecommunications Act are not “optional extras”—they are the backbone of responsible governance in the digital age.

A Call to Amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996

Signed in a pre-digital era by President Bill Clinton, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not anticipate today’s wireless landscape. Section 704, which prevents local communities from basing tower decisions on health concerns, is now glaringly out of step with scientific realities.

Amending this act is not merely a bureaucratic exercise. It’s about restoring local autonomy, protecting ecosystems, and respecting citizens’ rights to safeguard their communities. When localities can’t reject a tower placement that may harm health and property values, federal overreach undermines democracy itself.

Asking @RobertKennedyJr and @realDonaldTrump to address this is more than a political request—it’s a public health plea. The science is clear, and the constitutional principles are sound. We must empower local governments to weigh health data, ensuring infrastructure decisions serve the people, not just the bottom line.

Conclusion: Shaping a Healthier, More Accountable Tomorrow

The fight for updated FCC guidelines, NTP research funding, an end to regulatory capture, and local decision-making power is fundamentally about safeguarding public health and democratic values. The world has changed since the 1990s—our policies must reflect current knowledge and priorities.

RF Safe is committed to continuing its work, educating the public, and advocating for reforms that prioritize science over spin, people over profit. With your voice and actions, we can transform the landscape of wireless technology into one that is safe, responsible, and forward-thinking.

Together, we can ensure that future generations look back on this moment as a turning point—when humanity chose to protect life and health, harnessing the benefits of RF technology without ignoring its risks.

Contact Us

For more information, reach out to John Coates at:

Phone: 727-610-1188

Website: www.rfsafe.com

Remember: The word 'Safe' or 'Shield' in a product name won’t protect you unless it’s backed by sound science. Research before buying any EMF protection solutions and demand that companies adhere to proven design principles.