If You’re Launching Beast Mobile, Make It the First Child‑Protective, Li‑Fi‑Compatible Mobile Platform
From: John Coates, Founder, RF Safe
To: Jimmy Donaldson (MrBeast) and Beast Industries Leadership
Re: Beast Mobile, child safety, and a once‑in‑a‑generation chance to end the Microwave Age indoors
MrBeast,
You’ve built one of the largest influence platforms in modern history by doing what almost nobody else can do: taking action at scale. You’ve put your brand on big public gestures—large‑scale philanthropy, projects framed as helping people and animals, and consumer products marketed as more responsibly made.
That public identity is exactly why I’m writing this as an open letter rather than a private note.
Because entering telecom is not like entering snacks.
A chocolate bar is eaten and gone. A phone is carried against the body—often against the head, the abdomen, and next to reproductive organs—every day, for years. And when your name is on it, children will want it for one reason: it’s you.
That is not a neutral business move. It is a decision that can scale a biological exposure pattern across an entire generation of kids.
If Beast Mobile becomes a youth‑magnetic brand without a safety leap, it risks becoming the most efficient child‑exposure accelerator we have ever seen—built not by engineers, but by marketing gravity.
So here is the core ask, stated plainly:
If you launch Beast Mobile, you must also launch the Light Age.
Not as a slogan. As a hardware and policy demand: Li‑Fi compatibility.
Why children are the line we do not cross
Children are not small adults. That is not a slogan—it is anatomy and development.
A child’s nervous system is under construction: synapse formation, pruning, myelination, endocrine calibration, immune training, and circadian stabilization. Their lifetime exposure begins earlier, lasts longer, and is shaped by habits formed when they are too young to weigh long‑term consequences.
This is why “we meet current limits” is not an ethical answer for a youth‑pull brand.
Because even if a regulatory framework says something is “allowed,” that does not mean the exposure is biologically trivial—especially for developing brains and developing bodies.
A youth‑magnetic telecom brand has a higher duty of care than “minimum compliance.”
The science has converged on a fidelity problem—upstream, not downstream
RF Safe’s position is not “phones cause everything.” It is more disciplined and more urgent:
Non‑native EMFs can degrade biological fidelity upstream—timing fidelity and redox fidelity—and that upstream degradation can express as many downstream outcomes.
That is what the S4–Mito–Spin framework is about:
-
S4: timing noise in voltage‑gated ion channel systems (cells that run on precise electrical timing)
-
Mito: amplification of timing errors into oxidative stress through mitochondria and NOX/NOS redox engines
-
Spin: biasing of radical‑pair / flavin / heme chemistry—including cryptochrome-linked pathways that sit at the intersection of light sensing, redox signaling, and timekeeping
This matters for a specific reason that most public discussion misses:
Light is the ignition; fields can bias the yield
Light is the primary trigger for many of the radical and redox processes that help entrain the clock and regulate cellular state. Light initiates the chemistry.
But once radical intermediates exist—once electron transfer has occurred—weak fields can bias the probabilities of what chemistry comes out the other side. In plain English:
The same “good light” can produce “bad outcomes” if the molecular translation of light into biological time and redox signaling is corrupted by non‑native EMF noise.
That is the good light → bad light problem.
It means you don’t solve modern chronodisruption by telling families to “get morning light” while ignoring the fact that we’ve surrounded those same families with pulsed microwave fields in bedrooms, schools, and pockets.
It means a low‑fidelity environment upstream—timing noise plus redox bias—can make everything downstream harder: sleep stability, immune calibration, metabolic control, mood regulation, and developmental wiring.
And it means the highest‑risk window is often night, when the body is supposed to be in repair mode and circadian programs are doing their most consequential work.
A developmental warning shot: prenatal exposure and lasting behavioral effects
You can debate adult epidemiology endlessly. But prenatal development is where responsible society draws bright lines.
A Yale-led experimental mouse study exposed pregnant mice to cellphone‑frequency radiation and reported that offspring later exhibited hyperactivity and memory impairment, alongside measurable changes in prefrontal synaptic function.
I am not presenting that as a simplistic “human proof.” I am presenting it as what it is:
A controlled developmental warning signal that prenatal exposure during neurodevelopment can leave lasting fingerprints.
If you are about to put your brand on something that children will pressure their parents to buy, you do not get to pretend that prenatal and early-life vulnerability is “someone else’s issue.”
The legal reality: the status quo rules are not the moral standard
You already know how this goes: industries market “safe because compliant.” Families are told to relax. And decades pass.
But the legal record has already signaled a serious problem: U.S. courts have criticized the federal regulator’s reasoning around RF safety, including the failure to adequately grapple with long‑term exposure and child-related issues.
That is not a technicality. It is a warning: the rules have not kept pace with the evidence.
And the Telecommunications Act has a structural gag embedded in it—Section 704—that has functioned to block local communities from making health-based decisions about wireless infrastructure in many contexts.
In practice, it has helped create a world where parents can see the problem, but towns are told their hands are tied.
Separately, Congress already wrote a law—Public Law 90‑602—that uses mandatory language about electronic product radiation control and research obligations. It exists because policymakers understood something basic: exposure environments change, and public health oversight cannot be frozen in time.
So when a brand says “we comply,” RF Safe hears:
“We’re hiding behind a system that was never designed for today’s exposure reality.”
A youth‑magnetic brand does not get to do that.
Your ethical test is simple
If you can “ethically source chocolate,” you can ethically source connectivity
You’ve shown the world you understand the concept of ethical sourcing and reputational duty.
The telecom equivalent is not “a cheaper plan.”
The telecom equivalent is not “cool branding.”
The telecom equivalent is:
Stop making microwave-by-default connectivity the indoor standard—especially for children.
And here is the most important point:
The safer path exists now
We do not need to wait for some futuristic breakthrough. The Light Age is not fantasy; it is engineering.
Li‑Fi compatibility—light-based wireless connectivity—creates a practical pathway to move the highest-throughput indoor data off microwave transmitters. Indoors is where children live: bedrooms, desks, classrooms, libraries, living rooms.
If you are going to attach your brand gravity to telecom, you have the leverage to do what almost nobody else can do:
You can force manufacturers to adopt Li‑Fi compatibility.
Not by asking politely. By making it a requirement.
The Beast Challenge
What we want you to do—publicly, clearly, and before launch momentum hardens
MrBeast, here is the challenge we are asking you to issue to the entire consumer electronics market:
“We will not market Beast Mobile to children unless the device ecosystem is Li‑Fi compatible. We are challenging manufacturers to build the first mainstream Li‑Fi‑compatible phone. The Light Age starts now.”
That single statement would be more protective than a thousand safety tips. Because it changes incentives.
To make this real, RF Safe is asking for the following concrete commitments:
1) No child-directed marketing until a Li‑Fi compatibility roadmap is public
No youth-facing hype, no kid-targeted positioning, no “must-have” scarcity tactics—until there is a credible, public plan for Li‑Fi compatibility and indoor offload.
2) A Li‑Fi compatibility standard that parents can understand
A simple label families can recognize: “Li‑Fi Compatible.” Not marketing fog. A measurable capability requirement.
3) A Beast Mobile “LightLink” pathway for homes and schools
If you want to do good at scale, build the bundle:
-
Li‑Fi access points where kids live and learn
-
practical deployment guidance
-
defaults that favor light/wired indoors rather than RF-by-default
4) Safety-by-default settings that respect circadian biology
Devices and plans should default to behaviors that reduce unnecessary exposure—especially at night—rather than relying on parents to learn everything the hard way.
5) Radical transparency: stop hiding behind fine print
If you want “family-friendly,” publish simple, unavoidable guidance during setup:
-
distance habits
-
night habits
-
on-body carry habits
-
bedroom policy
Because behavior is exposure.
6) Independent research funding with real firewalls
If you want credibility: preregistration, open data, independent governance, and zero marketing interference.
7) Policy leadership: support the right reforms
If you are entering this industry, you inherit responsibility for the policies that govern it. That means:
-
support reform of Section 704
-
support enforcement of Public Law 90‑602
-
support modernized health-based standards that do not treat “no heat” as “no risk”
Why I’m writing this as RF Safe’s founder
I’m John Coates, founder of RF Safe.
I’ve spent decades on this because it is not abstract to me. I lost my firstborn to a neural tube disorder, and I have lived with the question of how modern exposures intersect with early development. I’m not asking anyone to accept my personal conclusions as proof. I’m telling you why I refuse to treat this as a theoretical debate.
I’ve spent the last three decades working toward the endgame: connectivity without unnecessary biological cost. I’ve worked on Light Age solutions because I do not believe “microwave saturation” is humanity’s final form.
So this letter is not written from a place of curiosity.
It is written from a place of duty.
The decision in front of you
You can launch Beast Mobile as a conventional MVNO—brand it, sell it, scale it, and tell families “it’s safe because it’s legal.”
Or you can do what your brand claims to do:
Step up. Make the industry safer. Force the Light Age into the mainstream.
If you take the second path, you will be remembered as someone who used influence to reduce harm rather than scale it.
If you take the first path, you will have used a youth platform to accelerate lifetime exposure patterns that families did not consent to—and that children cannot fully understand.
An invitation—and a public deadline
RF Safe is ready to engage directly with your team, your engineers, and your advisors.
But this cannot be a private PR meeting that ends in vague statements.
We are asking for a public commitment:
Li‑Fi compatibility as a requirement for any Beast‑branded mobile product line that will predictably reach children.
Message to the public
If you’re reading this as a parent, educator, or supporter, here is the simplest way to help:
-
Share this letter
-
Ask one question everywhere Beast Mobile is discussed:
“Will it be Li‑Fi compatible?” -
Make it socially unacceptable to market RF‑first “kid phones” as a lifestyle product without a safer indoor architecture
Because this is not about convenience.
This is about children.
MrBeast: You’ve shown the world you can do big things.
Now do the one that matters most long-term:
Make Beast Mobile the moment the Microwave Age ends indoors.
Respectfully,
John Coates
Founder, RF Safe
