How design choices can increase or decrease real‑world exposure—and why policy must catch up

Executive summary

• Some “anti‑radiation” designs include metal loops, detachable magnets/plates, large unshielded ear‑side openings, or thick wraps near handset antennas. These features can degrade the link, causing the phone’s power‑control system to increase transmit power (uplink) and raise RF emissions. The FTC has warned that products which interfere with a phone’s signal may cause it to “draw even more power … and possibly emit more radiation.” Federal Trade Commission+2GovInfo+2

• In real‑use tests, KPIX‑5 (CBS San Francisco) reported that flip cases reduced outward RF from the face of the phone by ~85–90% when used properly with the front flap closed, and noted RF Safe’s packaging was the only one to state that instruction explicitly. CBS News

• “FCC‑accredited lab” on a marketing page typically refers to materials tests or generic lab credentials. The FCC does not certify passive phone cases for exposure reduction; its equipment authorization framework applies to RF devices, not accessories. Federal Trade Commission

• In 2021, the U.S. D.C. Circuit remanded the FCC’s decision to keep 1996 limits, citing failure to address non‑thermal effects, children, and the modern RF environment. Policy work remains unfinished. Justia Law+1

• A WHO‑commissioned animal cancer systematic review (2025) concluded there is high certainty of increased malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas in male rats exposed to RF‑EMF, reinforcing the need for honest products and updated policy. ScienceDirect+2PMC+2

• A realistic pathway for safer indoor connectivity is emerging through Li‑Fi (IEEE 802.11bb), a light‑based wireless standard ratified in 2023. IEEE Standards Association+1

---

1) Background and timeline

RF Safe began offering public anti‑radiation phone cases in 1998, contemporaneous with Aegis‑branded shielding products of that era. Company records show RF Safe’s founding in 1998, and independent sources document Aegis shielding products marketed in 1998. RF Safe+1

Across the 2000s, consumer watchdogs challenged exaggerated “99%” claims. In 2002, the FTC charged sellers of “radiation protection” patches with false and unsubstantiated claims. In 2011, the FTC again warned that partial “shields” can cause phones to draw more power and “possibly emit more radiation.” Federal Trade Commission+1

Key point: Any accessory that degrades the RF link can raise exposure from the phone itself due to cellular power control. Design must prevent that.

---

2) First principles that govern whether a case lowers—or raises—exposure

Smartphones continually adjust uplink transmit power to meet base‑station targets. Degrading the link (detuning antennas, blocking critical paths, or adding losses in the wrong place) prompts higher transmit power.

2.1 Antenna integrity near the phone’s edges

• Antennas in modern phones are commonly placed near frame edges. Nearby conductive metal (loops, plates, latches, or magnets) detunes the antenna, alters efficiency, and can degrade link quality. RF component makers’ integration notes stress how nearby metal and placement affect performance. Taoglas+1

2.2 Shield continuity and apertures

• A shield’s performance is limited by its largest opening. EMI design guidance: keep apertures far smaller than the operating wavelength (typical rules of thumb: <1/20 λ for good effectiveness; smaller is better). Large ear‑side cut‑outs reduce effectiveness exactly where reduction is needed most. cdn.lairdtech.com+2Leader Tech Inc+2

2.3 Thickness and detuning

• Unnecessary thickness between the phone and the network can change the RF environment and degrade the link, again inviting power increases. Thin, non‑detuning designs are preferred for maintaining efficient communication.

2.4 Orientation

• Reduction is directional. A conductive flap between phone and body reduces incident fields on the protected side. KPIX‑5’s real‑use testing confirmed substantial reductions out of the face of the phone when the flap was closed as instructed. CBS News

---

3) Where many newer “anti‑radiation” designs go wrong

These recurring hardware choices conflict with first principles:

• Metal carrying‑strap loops or decorative metal near antenna regions → antenna detuning and potential uplink power increases. Taoglas

• Detachable shells using magnets and steel plates → conductive mass and magnets near edges; link degradation risk; higher transmit power possible. Taoglas

• Large, unshielded ear‑side speaker holes → the largest aperture dominates shielding effectiveness; big cut‑outs leak at higher bands. cdn.lairdtech.com+1

• Very thick 360° wraps / “full foil” approaches → block signals in directions needed for network communication; risk power ramp‑ups. The FTC warns that partial/bad shields can make emissions worse by forcing the phone to draw more power. Federal Trade Commission

• “Up to 99%” claims based on materials tests (not phones on live networks) → not a measure of real‑use exposure. The FCC prosecutes false claims; FCC‑accredited lab ≠ case certified to reduce exposure. Federal Trade Commission

---

4) Evidence from independent testing and consumer guidance

• KPIX‑5 (CBS San Francisco) tested several popular cases and found 85–90% reduction out of the front when used properly (flap closed). KPIX also reported that RF Safe’s packaging uniquely stated that instruction. CBS News

• EWG warned that some cases are so poorly engineered they can increase exposure by weakening the signal and prompting higher power. EWG

Implication: A case can reduce exposure if designed and used correctly; a case that violates first principles can increase exposure.

---

5) What “evidence” should look like (and what it isn’t)

Valid evidence

• Whole‑device testing: phone in the case, on live LTE/5G uplink, across multiple bands and realistic positions.

• Orientation specified: flap between phone and body vs. common misuse.

• Near‑field or SAR mapping in head/torso positions.

• No metal/magnets near antenna zones, and continuity‑checkable shielding paths.

Not valid on its own

• A materials attenuation report of a fabric swatch.

• A generic lab letter using the phrase “FCC‑accredited” without a whole‑device protocol. The FCC does not certify phone cases for exposure reduction; “accredited” only describes lab status. Federal Trade Commission

---

6) The TruthCase™ / QuantaCase® approach (first‑principles design)

• Non‑detachable: no magnet/steel plate systems near the frame.

• No metal loops or decorative metal near antenna regions.

• Shielded ear‑side opening: conductive mesh maintains continuity across the flap.

• Ultra‑thin to avoid unnecessary detuning and power ramp‑ups.

• Orientation training: clear instructions on packaging and online to keep the shield between the phone and the body during calls and carry. KPIX‑5 highlighted the importance of this instruction and documented reductions when used correctly. CBS News

• User‑verifiable shielding: ohmmeter continuity points to confirm an electrically continuous shield path.

• No blanket percentage promises; the company emphasizes use‑dependent reduction and transparent guidance.

---

7) Policy is the real fix (products help, rules protect)

Regulatory context

• 1996‑era limits remain the baseline despite a changed RF environment. In 2021, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation on non‑thermal effects, children, and evolving technology, and remanded the decision. Justia Law

State of the evidence

• The WHO‑commissioned animal review (2025) concluded high certainty for malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas in male rats; other tumor sites showed moderate signals. This is the evidence class used to identify carcinogenic hazards prior to human experiments. ScienceDirect+1

Path forward indoors

• Migrate high‑bandwidth indoor payloads to light‑based networking. The IEEE 802.11bb Li‑Fi standard was ratified in 2023, establishing an interoperable pathway for optical wireless in classrooms, bedrooms, and clinics. IEEE Standards Association+1

Bottom line: Accessories can reduce exposure now when designed and used correctly; policy and network choices (including Li‑Fi) drive structural protection.

---

8) Practical guidance (no metaphors, no hype)

Use

• During calls: close the front flap so the shield is between the phone and your head.

• Pocket carry: keep the shielded flap toward the body (back pocket preferred).

• Texting/speakerphone: fold the flap behind the phone so the shield sits between your hand and the device; keep distance from the rest of the body.

• Night: prefer distance; use airplane mode where practical.

Avoid

• Metal loops, magnets/plates, thick wraps, large unshielded ear‑side holes, and “99%” claims without whole‑device evidence. These are red flags for link degradation and power increases. The FTC warning applies directly. Federal Trade Commission

Verify

• Ohmmeter continuity on the ear‑side mesh or designated pads to confirm the shield is electrically continuous.

---

9) Consumer checklist (TruthScore™)

Count 1 point for each red flag:

• Metal strap loops or decorative metal near edges

• Detachable design using magnets/plates

• Large unshielded ear‑side speaker opening

• Very thick 360° wrap

• “Up to 99%” claims without whole‑device, orientation‑specific tests
  0/5 = acceptable; ≥1/5 = avoid.

---

10) Source notes (for readers who want the documents)

• FTC consumer warnings that partial “shields” can increase emissions by forcing higher power: 2011 press release and current consumer alert PDFs. Federal Trade Commission+2GovInfo+2

• KPIX‑5 real‑use testing and packaging instruction observation. CBS News

• D.C. Circuit (2021) remand of the FCC’s decision. Justia Law+1

• WHO‑commissioned animal cancer SR (2025) and commentary summarizing high certainty findings for heart schwannomas and gliomas. ScienceDirect+1

• Antenna/EMI engineering: proximity to metal affects performance (antenna app notes); shield leakage dominated by largest aperture (engineering rules of thumb). Analog Devices+3Taoglas+3Taoglas+3

• Li‑Fi (IEEE 802.11bb) standardization. IEEE Standards Association+1

---

11) About RF Safe

RF Safe began operations in 1998 and pioneered public availability of phone shielding cases in the late 1990s (in the same period when Aegis‑branded shielding products first appeared in the market). RF Safe continues to emphasize first‑principles design, clear user guidance, and policy reform alongside product mitigation. RF Safe+1

Expert help: Questions on mitigation or correct use? John Coates (Founder) — Call/Text 727‑610‑1188.

Disclaimer: QuantaCase/TruthCase is a mitigation accessory intended to reduce exposure when used as directed. It is not a medical device.

---

Appendix A — Why certain features are disqualifying

• Metal loops/plates/magnets near antennas: introduce conductive bodies close to the radiator; change impedance/matching and pattern; handset responds with higher uplink power. Taoglas

• Large ear‑side cut‑outs: the largest aperture sets the effective shielding limit; at GHz bands, even small slots leak—meshed openings preserve continuity. cdn.lairdtech.com

• Thick 360° wraps: indiscriminate blocking reduces link margin; the handset increases power to compensate. FTC warning addresses this mechanism directly. Fed