Search

 

Need Support

Text Message Us  +1 727-610-1188

RF Safe Is Built on Tools, Not Hype: The SAR Database, the 4,000+ Study Research Viewer, and the TruthCase Standard

1) What RF Safe is (and what it is not)

RF Safe is an advocacy and education project focused on RF (radiofrequency) exposure literacy, safer‑use habits, and modernizing outdated safety logic.

RF Safe does not claim that RF exposure is proven to “cause” any single human disease.

What RF Safe does argue is narrower and more precise:

  • Thermal‑only safety logic is not sufficient as a complete public‑safety basis.

  • Non‑thermal biological interaction and outcomes are reported in experimental literature (including “high certainty” graded endpoints in WHO‑commissioned evidence synthesis), which means a modern safety framework cannot ethically treat “heating” as the only relevant mechanism.

RF Safe’s transparency and editorial standards (including how RF Safe uses the word “settled”):
https://www.rfsafe.com/class/blog/transparency-editorial-policy-rf-safe.php

2) Tool #1: RF Safe’s SAR comparison database (why it exists)

Most “SAR lists” on the internet provide only two numbers (Head SAR and Body SAR), and even those are rarely easy to compare side‑by‑side across phones.

RF Safe built something fundamentally different: a comparison tool, not a static list.

What makes RF Safe’s SAR database unusually comprehensive

RF Safe’s SAR tools are designed so readers can compare real FCC SAR data in ways that most public sources do not offer:

  • Side‑by‑side comparisons (including up to four phones in a single view)

  • All six SAR results typically reported in the database view:

    • Head SAR

    • Body SAR

    • Hotspot SAR

    • Simultaneous Head SAR

    • Simultaneous Body SAR

    • Simultaneous Hotspot SAR

  • Visual tools and summaries designed to make differences obvious without requiring readers to hunt PDFs

Start here (overview of SAR comparison tools):
https://www.rfsafe.com/explore-rf-safes-sar-comparison-database-tools/

SAR database explainer page:
https://www.rfsafe.com/sar-values-specific-absorption-rate-comparison-database/

A separate, critical feature: child vs adult context

RF Safe also publishes tools and charts highlighting how children are not simply “small adults” in exposure geometry and tissue context, and why that matters when comparing phones and usage scenarios.

Child exposure context (“Thinner Skulls” tools and charts):
https://www.rfsafe.com/cell-phone-radiation/thinner-skulls/

The point of the SAR database

The SAR database exists to drive education and safer decision‑making:

  • Compare phones before purchase

  • Reduce avoidable exposure by choosing lower‑SAR models when feasible

  • Understand why “compliance” does not automatically mean “optimal” in real‑world use

This is not a sales funnel. It is a public literacy tool.

3) Tool #2: The Research Viewer (4,000+ studies with primary links)

RF Safe’s research library is built around a simple idea: let readers verify the primary sources directly, not through slogans or summaries.

RF Safe’s public research viewer:
https://www.rfsafe.com/research/

RF Safe describes the research archive as 4,000+ peer‑reviewed studies, organized for search and review:
https://www.rfsafe.com/class/about/

Primary‑source verification is built into the structure

Individual study pages include outbound “Source” links so readers can click through to the original publication record and/or publisher page.

Examples readers can click right now:

Null results are not “contradictory evidence” that gets ignored

RF Safe’s stated framework treats null outcomes as expected boundary conditions across parts of parameter space (signal properties, tissue context, exposure geometry, etc.).

S4–Mito–Spin framework talking points (including explicit treatment of nulls):
https://www.rfsafe.com/articles/cell-phone-radiation/s4-mito-spin-framework-talking-points.html

The point is not “every study shows an effect.”
The point is: real biology is parameter‑dependent, and serious analysis must account for both positive and null outcomes.

4) Tool #3: The TruthCase / QuantaCase (why a “product” exists at all)

RF Safe’s TruthCase concept exists because the anti‑radiation case market is filled with red flags that can mislead consumers and, in some designs, may even increase real‑world exposure by provoking a phone to transmit harder to maintain a link.

RF Safe’s TruthCase red‑flag explainer and interactive tools:
https://www.rfsafe.com/class/redflags/

TruthCase overview / philosophy:
https://www.rfsafe.com/class/the-truth-case/

What TruthCase is designed to do (and not do)

TruthCase is not marketed as “buy this and you’re safe.”

TruthCase content repeatedly emphasizes:

  • No “99% protection everywhere” claims

  • Orientation and habits matter

  • Distance matters

  • A case is not a substitute for safer use

TruthCase exists as a reference design and educational standard that teaches consumers how to identify common category failures, including:

  • Metal loops / decorative metal near antennas

  • Magnetic plates / “mount‑ready” hardware

  • Thick 360° wraps that obstruct antenna performance

  • Marketing that relies on fabric “percent attenuation” rather than real‑use behavior

  • Large, unshielded speaker holes near the ear

TruthCase is “marketing,” but not in the usual way. It is education‑first marketing:

  • It pulls people into the content without buying ads

  • It teaches the reader what’s wrong with the market

  • It refuses the same gimmicks the market uses to sell

5) The core nuance: RF Safe does not create content to sell products

RF Safe uses tools and a reference‑design product to get people to read the content.

A simple way to understand RF Safe’s structure:

  • The content is the mission.

  • The tools are the distribution strategy.

  • The product is a teaching mechanism.

RF Safe has explicitly framed its approach as a “tools‑not‑ads” strategy:

“Zero Ads, All Education” (RF Safe’s explanation of the approach):
https://www.rfsafe.com/blog/zero-ads-all-education-a-0-marketing-strategy-built-on-product-excellence-and-tools-not-ads/

Ownership and disclosure are not hidden

RF Safe states that RF Safe® and QuantaCase™ are brands belonging to Quanta X Technology LLC (QXT), and the site also discloses that author views do not necessarily reflect the company.

Contact / ownership and patent references (including patented UVGI‑Fi / Li‑Fi link):
https://www.rfsafe.com/contact-us/

RF Safe transparency and editorial policy (including disclosures):
https://www.rfsafe.com/class/blog/transparency-editorial-policy-rf-safe.php

6) The policy roadmap (why the tools ultimately point to reform)

RF Safe’s argument is not “panic.” It is “modernize.”

Two real‑world developments matter here:

A) 2021: Federal appellate court remand (FCC put on notice)

In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC (D.C. Circuit, August 13, 2021), the court remanded the FCC’s decision to retain its RF limits without adequately addressing record evidence and key issues.

Court opinion PDF:
https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2021/08/20-1025-1910111.pdf

B) 2025: WHO‑commissioned animal evidence synthesis elevated key endpoints

A WHO‑commissioned systematic review published in Environment International concluded “high certainty” for certain tumor endpoints in experimental animals under RF‑EMF exposure (while also grading many other outcomes as no/minimal evidence).

PubMed record:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40280768/

C) The U.S. research gap is real (regardless of anyone’s position)

The U.S. National Toxicology Program’s cell phone RF research remains a landmark set of animal findings, and NTP has stated it has no further plans to conduct additional RFR exposure studies at this time using that exposure system.

NTP cell phones topic page:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/topics/cellphones

D) The “1996‑era policy trap” RF Safe focuses on

RF Safe advocates for reforms that address:

  • Telecom siting and preemption constraints (often discussed under “Section 704” in public discourse)

  • Federal oversight responsibilities for electronic product radiation control as exposure environments evolve

  • A modernized RF safety framework that does not rely on “thermal‑only” logic as the full safety definition

Public Law 90‑602 (Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968) PDF:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg693.pdf

U.S. Code (Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions, 21 U.S.C. Chapter 9, Subchapter C):
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title21/chapter9/subchapterC&edition=prelim

Again: this is advocacy and public policy argumentation—not legal advice.

7) Bottom line

RF Safe is best understood as a tool‑driven education and policy project:

  • The SAR comparison database exists so readers can compare phones realistically

  • The research viewer exists so readers can verify primary sources directly

  • The TruthCase exists to expose red‑flags and teach how real‑world phone behavior works

  • The policy work exists to move RF safety logic beyond “thermal‑only” assumptions

If critics want to evaluate credibility, the correct question is not “does RF Safe offer products?”
The correct question is: Does RF Safe provide tools that allow primary‑source verification, teach safer use, disclose incentives, and distinguish human causation claims from experimental evidence and policy critique?

Readers can inspect the tools directly:

FacebookXRedditPinterestEmailGoogle+LinkedIn
We Ship Worldwide

Tracking Provided On Dispatch

Easy 30 days returns

30 days money back guarantee

Replacement Warranty

Best replacement warranty in the business

100% Secure Checkout

AMX / MasterCard / Visa