Welcome to RF Safe—a movement that has been 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 issues that have been overlooked. 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. Vote for the well-being of our children.
Candidate Stances: Know Where They Stand
Every election is an opportunity to shape policy on RF-EMF safety, FCC reform, and research. We are compiling information on candidate positions—know where they stand on these critical issues.
Ask your representatives directly about their plans to safeguard public health from the dangers of RF-EMF exposure.
1. Update FCC Safety Guidelines: Embrace Modern Science
The FCC’s current safety guidelines are outdated—they consider only the thermal effects of RF radiation. Recent research reveals non-thermal biological effects, such as DNA damage and oxidative stress, which pose serious risks, particularly for children.
Why This Matters:
- NTP Findings: Extensive studies have linked RF radiation to cancer in animal models.
- Vulnerable Populations: Children absorb more radiation due to thinner skulls and developing tissues.
- Non-Thermal Effects: Low levels of RF radiation can disrupt cellular repair mechanisms.
Our Demand:
The FCC must update its guidelines to include both thermal and non-thermal effects to truly protect public health.
2. Restart National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cancer Research Ended Under Biden-Harris
The NTP’s comprehensive research on RF radiation is crucial for understanding long-term health effects. Funding cuts have left a dangerous gap in our knowledge.
Why This Matters:
- NTP and Ramazzini Findings: Both studies found evidence linking RF radiation to increased cancer risk.
- Health Policy Impact: Without ongoing research, effective public health policies cannot be developed.
- Therapeutic Potential: Understanding RF risks could also guide safe therapeutic applications.
Our Demand:
We call for the immediate restoration of funding for NTP research to protect public health and guide safer technology development.
3. End FCC Regulatory Capture: Prioritize Public Health Over Profits
Industry influence has long skewed FCC policies in favor of profits rather than public safety. Regulatory capture has weakened safety standards.
Why This Matters:
- Industry Influence: Conflicts of interest have prevented updates to outdated RF safety guidelines.
- Public Trust: The FCC’s inaction erodes trust and leaves citizens exposed to higher levels of radiation.
- Unchecked Proliferation: New technologies roll out without sufficient safety testing.
Our Demand:
The FCC must eliminate industry influence and enforce transparent, science-based policymaking to protect future generations.
Take Action Now: Your Voice Can Make a Difference
The science is clear: we need immediate action to protect our health. Here’s how you can help:
- Contact Your Representatives: Demand updated safety guidelines and accountability.
- Spread Awareness: Share credible information about RF-EMF risks.
- Support Legislation: Advocate for laws that enforce safer technology standards.
- Practice Safe Technology Use: Keep devices away from your body and reduce wireless exposure.
RF Safe was established not as a commercial enterprise but as a platform to raise awareness about EMF exposure. Stay informed and take action to protect yourself and future generations.
FAQs
- Who founded RF Safe, and what inspired its creation?
John Coates founded RF Safe in 1998 after the loss of his daughter to a neural tube disorder. His personal tragedy fueled a lifelong mission to research RF radiation risks. - What sets RF Safe’s QuantaCase apart from other anti-radiation phone cases?
Unlike cases with metal components that can increase radiation output, the QuantaCase is metal-free and designed using rigorous, science-backed methods. - How did John Coates influence regulatory actions on EMF protection scams?
An investigative interview with Good Housekeeping in 2000 led to FTC actions against companies making false claims about EMF protection. - Why are some anti-radiation products potentially dangerous?
Many products use metal plates and magnets that interfere with a phone’s antenna, causing the device to emit more radiation. - What is the ceLLM Theory proposed by John Coates?
The ceLLM theory posits that cells use bioelectric fields to interpret environmental signals, which can be disrupted by EMF exposure. - Why did RF Safe stop selling laptop radiation shields?
Laptop shields were discontinued because they often brought radiation sources closer to the body, increasing risk. - How does RF Safe ensure the effectiveness of its products?
RF Safe employs open-source, science-backed design principles to create products like the QuantaCase that truly reduce RF exposure. - What actions has the FTC taken against EMF protection scams?
The FTC has issued warnings and taken legal measures against companies making deceptive claims about anti-radiation products. - What are some recommended practices for reducing EMF exposure?
Maintain distance, disable wireless features when not in use, and use scientifically designed protective cases. - How does RF Safe’s SAR Comparison Database help consumers?
It provides the world’s largest collection of SAR data, enabling users to compare radiation levels and make informed decisions.
And the Flaws in SAR Testing!
Standard Absorption Rate (SAR) testing only measures thermal effects of RF radiation and ignores non-thermal biological effects that can be just as harmful. This oversight allows manufacturers to claim safety based solely on SAR values, leaving consumers at risk.
RF Safe advocates for comprehensive testing that includes both thermal and non-thermal effects, ensuring that safety standards truly protect public health.