Executive Summary rfsafe.com and rfsafe.org are operated by the same organization, RF Safe, a long-standing U.S.-based public-health advocacy and research project focused on radiofrequency (RF) radiation and electromagnetic fields (EMF). The .com domain serves as the primary public-facing site for consumer education, product sales (centered on the TruthCase™ / QuantaCase®), interactive tools, and aggressive policy advocacy. The .org domain functions primarily as a dedicated research database and feed of peer-reviewed studies. Both sites present a consistent message: current FCC thermal-only safety guidelines are outdated and inadequate; non-thermal biological effects are well-documented; and the long-term solution lies in policy reform plus a shift to light-based (Li-Fi) indoor wireless systems.
The organization was founded in 1998 by engineer and inventor John Coates. It positions itself not as a typical “radiation protection” retailer but as a 28-year public-health initiative that uses product design, transparent data tools, and direct policy pressure to reduce exposure while pushing for systemic change. Tone on rfsafe.com is urgent and sharply critical of regulators and industry; rfsafe.org is more neutral, functioning as a raw research aggregator.
1. History and Founding
RF Safe traces its origins to 1998 in Aspen, Colorado. Founder John Coates established the project after the 1995 loss of his newborn daughter, Angel Leigh Coates, to anencephaly (a neural tube defect). Early laboratory research linking pulsed electromagnetic fields to similar defects in animal models reportedly motivated the effort. The organization has described itself since the late 1990s as “not a marketing campaign; it is a public-health project that has been online at the forefront of RF safety since the 1990s.” It claims more than three decades of continuous operation (counting precursor work).
Early innovations included shielded maternity apparel (a pregnancy belly band combining microwave fabric and Mu-metal), AirTube headsets (featured in a September 4, 2002 Wall Street Journal gadget review), and directional antenna designs. One documented policy win: advocacy around the Vortis™ directional antenna contributed to the FCC relaxing its isotropic radiation rule in 2003, allowing phones to direct energy away from the user’s head.
2. Core Mission and Philosophy
Both sites emphasize that RF/EMF safety cannot be solved by consumer products alone. Core tenets repeated across the domains:
- “You cannot buy your way out of wireless risk with marketing. Risk can only be reduced with correct orientation, correct design, and correct policy.”
- Current FCC guidelines (based on 1996 thermal/heating limits) ignore non-thermal mechanisms.
- Children are especially vulnerable due to higher absorption, thinner skulls, and longer lifetime exposure.
- The ultimate goal is a “Clean Ether” / “Light Age” transition: fiber backbones + Li-Fi (light-based wireless) indoors, with RF reserved for necessary outdoor use.
- Founder John Coates holds U.S. Patent US11700058B2 (granted 2021) for an advanced Far-UVC Li-Fi system with built-in bio-defense/air-disinfection mode.
The organization explicitly states that accessories are “only a bridge until law and infrastructure catch up.”
3. Research Resources
rfsafe.org is almost entirely a research platform. Its homepage functions as an infinite-scroll feed of recent peer-reviewed papers (primarily 2025–2026) on EMF/RF effects, with categories such as “Harm manual” or “Harm pubmed.” Linked database pages include:
-
Papers Stats: AI-analyzed database of 6,570 peer-reviewed papers. Breakdown (papers with extractions):
- Harm: 21.2% (1,392)
- Mixed: 28.5% (1,873)
- Benefit: 11.1% (728)
- No effect: 9.5% (622)
- Unclear: 25.2% (1,656)
- Unknown/no extraction: 4.6% (303)
Evidence strength is rated predominantly low/very low/insufficient. The site notes: “Across the papers with an extraction, harm/mixed classifications outnumber no-effect. Consider a precautionary exposure approach… while verifying individual studies.”
rfsafe.com references a “research library of 4,000+ EMF studies” and highlights key papers (NTP 2018, Ramazzini 2018, Interphone, Hardell, CERENAT, REFLEX, BioInitiative). It frames the literature as showing DNA damage, oxidative stress, and cancer risk at non-thermal levels.
4. Products and Mitigation Tools
The flagship product, heavily promoted on rfsafe.com, is the TruthCase™ (QuantaCase®) — a flip-style phone case explicitly marketed as not a typical anti-radiation product.
Key design claims (verified on product page):
- Directional shielding: conductive flap sits between user and phone.
- Antenna-aware ultra-thin construction — no metal loops, no detachable magnet/steel-plate sandwiches, no thick wallet stacks, no large unshielded ear-side openings.
- Built-in teacup-handle grip and stand to enforce distance.
- “TruthScore™ 0/5 Red Flags” — deliberately avoids five common flaws that can force phones to increase transmit power.
- KPIX-5 (CBS San Francisco) testing cited: closing the flap on flip cases reduces outgoing RF from the phone’s face by 85–90%.
- Explicit warnings: “A case can reduce exposure only when it is designed and used correctly. It cannot fix 1990s limits… That is policy work.” No “99% blocked” claims; users are told to verify shielding continuity with an ohmmeter.
Usage instructions stress: close flap during calls, shield facing body in pockets, speakerphone/airplane mode preferred, remove from pocket when stationary.
5. Policy Advocacy and Demands
rfsafe.com contains a prominent “RF Safe Action Hub” with six specific demands:
- Update FCC guidelines to include non-thermal effects.
- Restart National Toxicology Program (NTP) RF cancer research.
- End “FCC regulatory capture.”
- Amend/repeal Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (which preempts local governments from considering health in tower siting).
- Force FDA to enforce Public Law 90-602 (1968 Electronic Product Radiation Control law).
- FTC action against deceptive “anti-radiation” products.
The site criticizes SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) as “the biggest safety scam” because it is thermal-only and can be gamed. It calls for a shift to Li-Fi indoors and wired options in schools.
6. Additional Tools and Features (rfsafe.com)
- Interactive SAR comparison database (120+ phones, all six FCC test positions).
- S4–Mito–Spin biological framework explainer (Signal → Stress → Spin → Shift cascade explaining non-thermal effects on voltage-gated channels, mitochondria, and spin chemistry in sensitive tissues).
- Phone safety guides, red-flag sliders for evaluating other cases, child vs. adult absorption visualizations.
Overall Assessment
Strengths:
- Exceptional transparency on research (raw AI-categorized database) and product limitations.
- Consistent 28-year message that has not shifted with market trends.
- Practical tools (SAR comparisons, red-flag checklist) not found on most commercial sites.
- Clear separation of temporary mitigation vs. permanent policy solutions.
Critiques / Context:
- Strong advocacy tone on .com borders on activist (terms like “regulatory capture,” “biggest safety scam,” “fraudulent metric”).
- Research database relies on AI classification (with explicit disclaimers that it “can be wrong”). Majority of studies rated low/insufficient evidence strength.
- Product is positioned as educational first, protective second — a rare stance in the EMF-shielding market.
Conclusion RF Safe operates as a hybrid research/advocacy/consumer-education project with two complementary websites. rfsafe.com is the polished, action-oriented hub pushing policy change and selling one carefully designed product that openly critiques its own industry. rfsafe.org is the data backbone. Together they present a coherent, long-term critique of current RF exposure standards and a roadmap toward biologically aligned wireless infrastructure. The organization’s refusal to overstate product efficacy or downplay regulatory complexity sets it apart from many commercial EMF-protection vendors.
This report is based entirely on direct site content reviewed February 18, 2026. No external claims or third-party verification of scientific conclusions were included. Recommended follow-up: interview founder John Coates and cross-reference cited studies with primary sources.
