Transparency • Editorial Standards • Disclosures

Transparency and Editorial Policy

RF Safe exists to publish educational content and practical safety guidance about radiofrequency (RF) exposures from wireless technologies, along with design principles for safer products and environments. This page explains who operates RF Safe, how content is produced and corrected, and how we handle conflicts of interest and product-related disclosures.

Purpose What RF Safe is Operations Editorial standards Conflicts & disclosures Corrections MBFC response Sources

Effective dates

Use your preferred dates; these placeholders are intentionally editable.
Effective date [Month Day, Year]
Last updated [Month Day, Year]
Purpose RF Safe publishes education, safety guidance, and design principles—plus policy advocacy—about RF exposures and safer infrastructure.
  • Who operates RF Safe and what “RF Safe” is (and is not)
  • How content is produced, reviewed, and corrected
  • How we handle conflicts of interest and product-related disclosures

What “RF Safe” is

Clear definitions prevent misunderstandings—especially when advocacy and education overlap.

RF Safe is a website and brand, not a standalone legal entity. “RF Safe” refers to:

  • An informational website and publishing platform
  • A body of educational content and research references
  • A set of design principles and safety recommendations

Important: RF Safe content is educational. It is not medical or legal advice. We encourage readers to consult qualified clinicians and licensed attorneys for individual guidance.

Who operates the RF Safe website and trademark

Ownership and governance are disclosed to preserve trust and interpret incentives correctly.

The RF Safe website and the RF Safe® trademark are operated and maintained by Quanta X Technology LLC (Florida).

Background and continuity

  • The original RF Safe operating structure could no longer be sustained as a separate business and ceased operations in 2020.
  • When ongoing operating costs could no longer be carried under the prior structure, the RF Safe website and continuing publication effort were maintained through the support and management of Katie Webb and Martin Collins.
  • Martin Collins has since passed away. We honor his memory and remain grateful for his support and investment that helped keep the RF Safe mission alive.

The founder’s role and relationship to RF Safe

  • John Coates is the founder of RF Safe and a contributing author with publishing access.
  • John Coates is not the owner of RF Safe as a business operation under Quanta X Technology LLC.
  • John Coates contributes content as part of a continuing mission to educate the public and advocate for safer technology and updated safety standards.

Compensation and financial disclosures

  • Founder compensation: John Coates does not receive a revenue share, profit distributions, or compensation tied to RF Safe/QuantaCase sales from Quanta X Technology LLC. His publishing activity is mission-driven.
  • Site operations and expenses: RF Safe’s hosting, publishing tools, maintenance, and administrative costs are paid for by the site operator.
  • Product development timeline (high level): The RF Safe website continued to operate and publish content before certain later products were introduced. For example, the QuantaCase concept was developed and introduced after the operator had already been supporting RF Safe’s ongoing operating costs.
About the mission (optional): RF Safe’s founding mission is deeply personal. The founder’s work in this space dates back to the 1990s and has focused on education, safer design principles, and advocacy for modernized safety standards. The site exists to preserve that mission as a public resource.

Editorial independence and standards

Evidence-informed, technically grounded, and clearly attributed.

RF Safe publishes content intended to be evidence-informed, technically grounded, and clearly attributed. We do not publish anonymous scientific claims presented as fact without attribution.

Who can publish

  • Articles by the founder (John Coates)
  • Articles by invited subject-matter contributors
  • Guest posts and excerpts from qualified authors, with clear attribution

Standards for publication

  • Distinguish between experimental evidence, mechanistic hypotheses, and regulatory policy
  • Avoid overstating certainty or claiming outcomes beyond what cited evidence supports
  • Use primary sources when possible (peer-reviewed papers, official technical standards, regulatory documents, court filings)
  • Clearly label opinion, advocacy, and policy arguments as such

Science communication principles

RF Safe frequently discusses the difference between scientific evidence (experimental and observational findings, mechanisms, replications, limitations) and regulatory positions (exposure limits, compliance frameworks, enforcement realities). We treat these as related—but not interchangeable—domains.

How we use terms like “settled”
When we use terms like “settled,” we aim to specify exactly what is meant—for example, evidence that non-thermal biological effects exist in experimental literature versus claims of direct human causation. When in doubt, we link primary sources and invite readers to inspect them directly.

Research library, citations, and conflicts of interest

How we cite, how we disclose, and what we will not claim.

Research library and citations

  • RF Safe maintains a research library intended to help readers inspect primary sources directly.
  • Where we list studies, we aim to include a direct link to the original paper (publisher page, DOI, PubMed, or equivalent primary-source record).
  • Summaries are summaries—not replacements—for reading the original work.
  • If you find a missing link, a broken link, or an incorrect citation, please contact us (see “Corrections” below).

Conflicts of interest and product references

  • RF Safe may discuss products, design principles, shielding materials, and risk-reduction strategies.
  • When content references a product sold by the site operator (or an affiliated party), we disclose that relationship in the post or on the product page.
  • We do not claim that any consumer product guarantees health outcomes, prevents disease, or replaces medical guidance.

Plain-language disclosure: We advocate for safer infrastructure and better policy. We also discuss (and may offer) products that align with our design principles. Products are not a substitute for risk-reduction behaviors or safer networks—they are a stopgap for unavoidable exposures.

Corrections policy

We correct factual errors quickly and transparently.

RF Safe is committed to correcting factual errors quickly and transparently. If you believe an article contains a factual error, please include:

  • The page URL
  • The specific sentence(s) in question
  • What you believe is incorrect and why
  • A primary-source citation supporting your correction

When we update a material factual point, we will note the change on the page when practical.

Corrections contact: [Insert email/contact form link]
Mailing address (operator): [Insert Quanta X Technology LLC mailing address]

Medical and legal disclaimer

RF Safe publishes educational information. Nothing on this site is medical or legal advice. If you need medical guidance, consult a qualified clinician. If you need legal guidance, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

Intellectual property and trademarks

RF Safe® is a trademark associated with the RF Safe brand and is maintained by the site operator. Content on this site is protected by applicable copyright and intellectual property laws unless otherwise stated. Guest contributors retain rights as agreed in writing.

Response: Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) entry on RF Safe

A factual correction on verifiable “basics” (links and ownership), separate from scientific debate.

Some third-party rating sites assign “credibility” labels that are later reused by search engines, AI tools, and social platforms. Debate over scientific interpretation is legitimate—but factual claims about basic, checkable details (links, ownership, disclosures) should be accurate.

Scope of this response: This section addresses verifiable factual inaccuracies we have observed in MBFC’s RF Safe entry—specifically claims about direct study links and ownership/funding. It does not attempt to litigate every interpretive disagreement.

Claim #1: “No direct links” to studies

MBFC states that RF Safe claims a large study base but “provides no direct links to those studies.” RF Safe’s research library is designed to help readers inspect primary sources directly, and—wherever possible—includes outbound links to publisher pages, DOIs, PubMed records, or equivalent primary records.

If you are evaluating RF Safe, the recommended method is straightforward: open the research library, select an entry, and follow the provided link to the primary source. Where a page includes an internal summary, it is presented as a summary—not a replacement for reading the paper.

Reader checklist for verifying study links
  1. Open the RF Safe research library.
  2. Select any listed study entry.
  3. Use the provided outbound link (publisher / DOI / PubMed) to confirm the primary source.
  4. If you find a missing or broken link, send the page URL and entry title via the Corrections process above.

Claim #2: Ownership and incentive attribution

MBFC’s entry also attributes ownership and funding in a way that can mislead readers about incentives. RF Safe’s transparency policy (this page) discloses: (a) the operator (Quanta X Technology LLC), (b) the founder’s contributor role, and (c) the compensation/revenue-share position as stated by the operator.

Incentives matter in public debates. That is exactly why RF Safe publishes a plain-language disclosure page and invites correction requests supported by primary sources.

Why these “basic errors” matter

  • Ratings cascade. Once a label is published, it is repeated by third parties and can influence search and AI outputs.
  • Readers deserve checkable facts. Disagreements about conclusions should not be built on incorrect basics (like “no links”).
  • Corrections are part of credibility. Credible evaluators should welcome and incorporate documented corrections.
Our ask: If a third-party page contains checkable factual errors, correct them. Readers can then judge the remaining interpretive disagreements on their merits.

Disclosure: This response reflects publicly visible pages and disclosures as of January 5, 2026. If any linked pages change, we will update this section when practical.

Primary references (for verification)

These links are provided so readers can verify claims directly.

Note: If you want to include USPTO / state corporate records links here, add them as additional bullets with the exact URLs you prefer. (Those sources can be highly specific, and organizations often have a preferred canonical reference link.)