Why this matters now The popular talking point that “most epidemiology shows no effect” from wireless radiation ignores how exposure was measured, who was counted, and what the best animal evidence now shows. In 2010–2011, the INTERPHONE consortium called the heaviest users those with ≥1,640 lifetime hours—about 30 minutes/day for 10 years. Even under that
Short version The biggest industry‑supported case‑control study (INTERPHONE) labeled about 30 minutes/day as “heavy use.” Even at that bar, the heaviest‑use decile (≥1,640 h total) showed 40% higher glioma risk and similar signals for acoustic neuroma. Kids today routinely exceed that exposure. IARC Two large animal bioassays (NTP and Ramazzini) independently report excess malignant gliomas
Since 2012, controlled mouse experiments have shown that prenatal radiofrequency (RF) exposure produces ADHD‑like behaviors and cognitive deficits. In the landmark Yale study, offspring exposed in utero to 800–1900 MHz cell‑phone RF were hyperactive and showed impaired memory on standardized tests (object‑recognition, light/dark box), with dose‑responsive synaptic changes in prefrontal cortex neurons—consistent with attention/memory problems. Multiple
RF SAFE’s position is clear: repeating 1990s talking points about “non-ionizing = safe” and leaning on outdated FCC limits is dangerous for families—especially children. In 2024–2025, multiple authoritative reviews and new human data strengthened the hazard signal for radio-frequency (RF) exposures. That science directly contradicts YouTube-friendly reassurances that Bluetooth buds and constant near-body phone use
Thesis in one sentence: From the first long‑wave military transmitters and public towers in the 1910s–1920s to the household wave of cordless phones (1980s), Wi‑Fi (2000s) and smartphones (2010s–2020s), the density and duty‑cycle of man‑made, pulsed RF fields has climbed step‑by‑step—and autism diagnoses and other neuro‑immune conditions have risen in lockstep over the same eras.
CITIZEN PETITIONSubmitted under 21 C.F.R. § 10.30 Petitioner: | Date: To:Dockets Management Staff (HFA‑305)Food and Drug Administration5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061Rockville, MD 20852 (Or submit electronically via Regulations.gov as a Citizen Petition to FDA/CDRH.) A. Action Requested Petitioner respectfully requests that the Food and Drug Administration
To: The Secretary of Health and Human Services; Counsel to the PresidentFrom: Policy & Legal (Rapid Response)Date: September 21, 2025Re: The Secretary’s obligations under Public Law 90‑602 and a legally durable plan to modernize U.S. RF exposure protections after EHT v. FCC (D.C. Cir. 2021) Congress already gave HHS a standing mandate to run a
A plain‑English deep dive on SAR, rounding, and why this model hits the U.S. limit TL;DR: Apple’s iPhone 17 Air reaches ~1.595–1.597 W/kg in the simultaneous transmission tests (cellular + Wi‑Fi). Rounded to two decimals—the way everyday readers understand a “1.6 W/kg” legal cap—those results read 1.60 W/kg. That’s not “comfortably under.” That is the
Deck: Two real-world flashpoints — California firefighters (2004) and a California elementary school (2019) — show why placement decisions still matter in the 5G/6G era. The science is evolving, the law is outdated, and the precautionary path is clear: protect first responders and children while we modernize standards and move indoor connectivity to safer defaults.
One-sentence takeaway: Small “body-gap” compliance tests (often ~5–10 mm) and being outside a transmitter’s near/Fresnel zone don’t close the safety discussion—long-duration near-field and far-field exposures have shown biological signals in animals, and real-world worker/community experiences have driven precautionary policies. Federal Communications Commission+2National Toxicology Program+2 What happened The firefighters (2004) In 2004, medical writer Susan Foster
Most advice stops at “keep some distance—power drops with the inverse-square law.” That’s true once you’re in the far field. But phones (and your body) live a lot of the time in the Fresnel (radiating near-field) region, where fields are structured and distance-dependent, not purely 1/r². Understanding that middle zone explains why centimeters matter and
Chronic, duty‑cycled RF radiation (RFR) was normalized under a heat‑only safety model that ignored known non‑thermal biology, while federal law gagged local health review—so the industry and Washington could sell spectrum and deploy at speed, externalizing the true cost onto pregnancies, children, and communities. Congress gagged health‑based objections.Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act forbids
Tom Wheeler’s “Not Waiting for Tests” Mantra: How It Unleashed a Silent Crisis for American Children “Not waiting for tests, not waiting for standards, not waiting for governments … rule #1 is that the technology drives the policy and not the policy drives the technology.” — Tom Wheeler, 2016 National Press Club I’m speaking to
Here’s what happened, why it matters to public health, and where the receipts are. Who Tom Wheeler is He wasn’t “industry adjacent.” He ran the wireless lobby. From 1992–2004 he was President/CEO of CTIA, the cell industry’s trade group. Before that, he led NCTA, the cable lobby. That’s the top of the food chain. Federal
Canonizing Carlo Acutis in the Age of the Techno‑Biofilm ELF vs RF. Electrification introduced pervasive ELF magnetic fields (50/60 Hz); IARC classifies ELF‑MF as Group 2B primarily on childhood leukemia epidemiology. RF‑EMF (kHz–GHz) is also Group 2B (2011), with a re‑evaluation planned for 2025–2029. Summary.Carlo Acutis is being held up—rightly—as a modern model of faith and service. He
Every day HHS delays is another day out of compliance with Public Law 90‑602. See the live counter → RFK Violation Clock TL;DR (Share this) The National Toxicology Program reported clear evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. Independent labs and WHO‑commissioned reviews corroborate material risks—especially malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas. Halting RF research conflicts with Public
If you’ve ever wondered why a law from 1968 can call the shots on today’s wireless era, here’s the answer: by the time Congress passed the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act (Public Law 90-602), the United States already had a crowded history of radiation problems from “everyday” electronic products—and lawmakers were done playing
RF Safe® QuantaCase™ Phone Radiation Shield Anti-Radiation Case — The essential requirement of any cell phone radiation shielding is that it is electrically conductive. RF Safe® microwave radiation shielding material is integrated into the front flap of the outer case to deflect radiation (5G, Wi-Fi, EMF, etc.) away from your body while still allowing the
RF Safe® QuantaCase™ Phone Radiation Shield Anti-Radiation Case — The essential requirement of any cell phone radiation shielding is that it is electrically conductive. RF Safe® microwave radiation shielding material is integrated into the front flap of the outer case to deflect radiation (5G, Wi-Fi, EMF, etc.) away from your body while still allowing the
RF Safe® QuantaCase™ Phone Radiation Shield Anti-Radiation Case — The essential requirement of any cell phone radiation shielding is that it is electrically conductive. RF Safe® microwave radiation shielding material is integrated into the front flap of the outer case to deflect radiation (5G, Wi-Fi, EMF, etc.) away from your body while still allowing the
RF Safe® QuantaCase™ Phone Radiation Shield Anti-Radiation Case — The essential requirement of any cell phone radiation shielding is that it is electrically conductive. RF Safe® microwave radiation shielding material is integrated into the front flap of the outer case to deflect radiation (5G, Wi-Fi, EMF, etc.) away from your body while still allowing the
RF Safe® QuantaCase™ Phone Radiation Shield Anti-Radiation Case — The essential requirement of any cell phone radiation shielding is that it is electrically conductive. RF Safe® microwave radiation shielding material is integrated into the front flap of the outer case to deflect radiation (5G, Wi-Fi, EMF, etc.) away from your body while still allowing the
RF Safe® QuantaCase™ Phone Radiation Shield Anti-Radiation Case — The essential requirement of any cell phone radiation shielding is that it is electrically conductive. RF Safe® microwave radiation shielding material is integrated into the front flap of the outer case to deflect radiation (5G, Wi-Fi, EMF, etc.) away from your body while still allowing the
RF Safe® QuantaCase™ Phone Radiation Shield Anti-Radiation Case — The essential requirement of any cell phone radiation shielding is that it is electrically conductive. RF Safe® microwave radiation shielding material is integrated into the front flap of the outer case to deflect radiation (5G, Wi-Fi, EMF, etc.) away from your body while still allowing the
RF Safe® QuantaCase™ Phone Radiation Shield Anti-Radiation Case — The essential requirement of any cell phone radiation shielding is that it is electrically conductive. RF Safe® microwave radiation shielding material is integrated into the front flap of the outer case to deflect radiation (5G, Wi-Fi, EMF, etc.) away from your body while still allowing the
—and why consumers should be skeptical when “education” sites funnel you to a product Let’s start with the plain facts. A new website, CarsRadiation.org, is promoting itself as a neutral, “verified data” hub on EMF in vehicles. But buried in its own pages, the site repeatedly points readers to SafeFields Technologies, a company that sells
RF‑SAFE position: Non‑ionizing radiofrequency radiation (RFR) is a major environmental contributor to neurodegeneration—including Alzheimer‑type disease—not the only cause, but a powerful upstream driver that acts through well‑characterized biological pathways. The evidence that matters most lines up on three levels that are rarely presented together: (1) the historical record of electromagnetic rollout and disease recognition; (2)
Two days from death, a 15‑year‑old asked for one last wish: to be wheeled outside.Doctors at a Minnesota hospital had pulled every lever modern medicine offers. The boy had acute lymphoblastic leukemia and, after chemotherapy, a devastating fungal infection that had consumed his left lung and begun invading the right. Surgeons removed the left lung.
A surge of posts claims that COVID‑19 vaccination unleashed a new wave of “turbo cancers.” Population data do not support that narrative: cancer registries in multiple countries show no vaccine‑linked inflection in cancer incidence or mortality after 2021, and the rise of cancers in younger adults began long before the pandemic. What the science does
You’re being told that shiny “new” NIEHS/NTP radio-frequency (RF) studies will ensure safer wireless. They won’t. They’re tuned to yesterday’s frequencies (900/1900 MHz)—the same 2G/3G bands we’ve already studied for decades and already linked to harm. Meanwhile, the real exposure layer of modern 5G—low-band around 600 MHz—goes essentially untested, even as it blankets homes, schools,
