How infrared LiFi can bring a new kind of connection into our homes—and make a practical, measurable school pilot possible.
By John Coates, Founder of RF Safe
A child opens a laptop. A lesson loads. A teacher joins a video call. A communication device helps a student participate.
We want all of that to keep working.
Now imagine the local wireless connection traveling through invisible infrared light, with the microwave transmitters it replaced switched off. The applications remain familiar. The information arrives. What changes is the physical carrier moving the data across the room.
That is the opportunity LiFi puts in front of us.
We can preserve the connection while choosing a different way to deliver it.
For families concerned about unnecessary indoor RF exposure, that is a reason for optimism. For schools, it is a practical engineering option they can evaluate. And for children who depend on technology to communicate and learn, it offers a design goal worth taking seriously: reliable access, thoughtful environmental design, and fewer avoidable RF transmissions from the network around them.
The next step can be as concrete as one room.
An architectural concept from the RF Safe LiFi guide. The image illustrates the idea; it is not a photograph of a completed school installation.
I have spent decades asking how our communications technology could better serve the people living around it. I founded RF Safe in 1998. I survived cancer as a child. I lost my firstborn daughter, Angel. Those experiences are why I keep looking for things we can actually improve.
I am a patent holder in optical communications, and I have used LiFi in my own home for nearly ten years. My interest is personal, technical, and practical: I want more people to know that this choice exists. This article is educational and contains no affiliate links. My optical-communications patent is part of that work.
The architecture is easy to understand. Fiber or another wired service brings the internet to the building. Ethernet carries it to an optical access point. Infrared light connects that access point to a compatible receiver on a laptop, tablet, or other device. In an all-optical local link, the return traffic also travels through light.
Fiber to the building. Wire to the room. Light for the final meters.
A fixed desktop can stay on Ethernet. A device that needs movement within optical coverage can use LiFi. Infrared networking can operate independently of visible room lighting, so the connection does not require bright lamps or a visibly flashing classroom.
This is commercially offered technology. The aeroLiFi starter kit includes an access point, USB dongle, Ethernet cable, and PoE+ injector. Its published specification lists a 100 Mb/s data rate and a typical coverage diameter of three meters at a 2.2-meter access-point-to-receiver distance. There is an online order page as well as a manufacturer acquisition route. Device compatibility and delivery details belong in the purchase check, just as they would for other networking equipment. aeroLiFi technical brochure
Room-scale systems also exist beyond starter kits. Signify describes Trulifi networks with optical client receivers and supported handover between joined coverage areas. A larger classroom or office can be designed around multiple optical cells. Signify product documentation
The immediate value is not dependent on a record-breaking speed claim. It is the ability to carry useful traffic over another physical medium. A good connection is the one that supports the actual work: lessons, calls, communication tools, and ordinary daily use.
Optical networking also brings useful engineering properties. Direct light does not pass through opaque walls, giving a room a physical boundary that can help limit access to its signal. An optical link avoids competition for Wi-Fi airtime and does not rely on a radio channel. Encryption, authentication, and attention to doors and windows complete the security design. These are tangible features to evaluate alongside exposure reduction.
The most common objection collapses these distinctions into one word: “pulsed.”
Yes, LiFi carries changing information. So does a microwave network. But biology does not respond to an abstract description of data. It interacts with a physical signal through a physical mechanism.
A modulated microwave field and a changing infrared intensity pattern are different inputs. Their carriers, absorption, and coupling into matter differ. At 940 nanometers, the optical carrier is about 319 terahertz—roughly 133,000 times the frequency of a 2.4 GHz radio carrier. That calculation establishes a difference in physical scale; it is not, by itself, a safety ranking.
Slow timing structure deserves attention, too. Packets, frames, and bursts can organize transmissions at timescales much slower than the carrier. A proposed biological response to a microwave envelope still needs a coupling or demodulation mechanism. Giving optical power a similar timing pattern does not automatically reproduce that mechanism.
A shared envelope does not establish a shared biological effect.
The ion forced-oscillation models try to specify how oscillating fields could disturb mobile ions and voltage-gated channels. That is a mechanism to investigate under defined exposure conditions. It cannot simply be assigned to low-power infrared communication because both technologies encode information. Panagopoulos and colleagues’ mechanistic review
Think about the changing appearance of a morning glory as it opens, or the patterns of a cuttlefish. Reflected light carries changing information to an observer. Change itself is not a toxic ingredient. These examples help us understand why the word “modulation” cannot tell us whether an exposure is harmful. For a product, the relevant evidence comes from its wavelength, accessible emission, geometry, and assessment.
That evidence already exists for specific commercial hardware. Oledcomm identifies its LiFiMAX dongle as class 0 under IEC/EN 62471 and describes an automatic optical signal cut-off when the link is lost. Signify’s Trulifi 6014.02 specification identifies its 940 nm optical link as Risk Group 0, or Exempt, under EN 62471:2009. These are product-specific classifications addressing recognized optical hazards under their assessed conditions of use. Oledcomm documentation, Signify specification
A concrete exposure comparison is more useful than a blanket claim about all light. A published 2026 optical-wireless experiment reports irradiance of 17 W/m², equivalent to 1.7 mW/cm², within the Class 1 limit assessed for its configuration. That is approximately 35 times lower irradiance than the 60 mW/cm² used in one published photobiomodulation protocol. The systems and wavelengths differ; this illustrates exposure scale, not a universal threshold for biological effects. It is also an experimental-system measurement, not an invented irradiance value for every home or classroom kit. Optical-wireless experiment, photobiomodulation protocol
The targeted review behind our guide found no study demonstrating the claimed RF-like timing disruption from normal use of the documented, optically compliant LiFi products. That is a scoped finding, not a claim that every possible optical exposure has been clinically tested. It gives us no reason to treat “equally disruptive because both are pulsed” as an established scientific conclusion.
My biological concern is about resilience and reliable regulation. I use the term biological fidelity to describe how well a living system maintains the timing and coordination its functions require.
Calcium signals, membrane currents, mitochondrial activity, and redox regulation work together. Their timing can matter as much as a single measured quantity. The question is whether particular environmental inputs can perturb that coordination and reduce a susceptible system’s margin for dealing with other demands.
That is the purpose of RF Safe’s S4–Mito–Spin framework: connect research on voltage sensing, mitochondrial feedback, and spin-sensitive chemistry into testable questions about upstream regulation. It remains a research framework. Its use here is to motivate investigation and better engineering, without treating RF as the sole explanation for a named disease.
Two recent experiments make parts of this inquiry especially concrete.
In a double-blind, sham-controlled study of 34 healthy adults, researchers examined sleep EEG after 5G exposure. A 3.6 GHz exposure increased sleep-spindle center frequency in carriers of one CACNA1C genotype, while the other genotype did not show the same response. The 700 MHz condition did not reproduce it. This is evidence of a physiological response that depended on the exposure and the individual. It is not a finding of developmental injury. Sousouri et al., 2025
In a separate molecular study, researchers identified CYB5B as an essential mediator in an electromagnetic-field-responsive gene-switch system involving characteristic calcium oscillations. That experiment used low-frequency magnetic stimulation. It demonstrates a specific biological receiver and response, rather than proving that Wi-Fi or LiFi activates the same pathway. Kim et al., 2026
Animal findings also deserve serious mechanistic attention. NTP reported malignant heart schwannomas and brain gliomas associated with RF exposure in male rats under its experimental conditions. Explaining that pattern requires attention to cell identity, exposure, and susceptibility. A heart schwannoma involves nerve-supporting Schwann cells; its location alone does not prove a mechanism involving heart-muscle electrical activity. NTP Technical Report 595
Together, these findings support asking specific questions about the biological receiver. They do not establish that every everyday RF exposure lowers resilience. Reviews of oxidative-stress findings also differ in their conclusions: a 2021 review describes many reported responses, while a 2024 systematic review rated certainty in the RF evidence very low. That is a reason to improve exposure-specific experiments and replication. Schuermann and Mevissen, Meyer et al.
For network design, there is a decision we can make alongside that research.
When an optical link can perform the required task, we can evaluate it on its own merits and measure the RF transmission it replaces.
We do not need to settle every downstream health question before learning whether a room can operate successfully through light. Nor does installing an optical connection prove a medical benefit. The engineering result is independently useful: a functioning network, a different carrier, and a documented reduction in the RF emissions we set out to remove.
That is where a school pilot becomes valuable.
A district can begin with a defined, modest project: one or two suitable classrooms, a wired baseline, compatible optical equipment, an agreed budget, and a published evaluation period. An eight-week operational pilot is one possible format. Staff can establish baseline conditions before installation and assess ordinary classroom use after the new connection is running.
The pilot should answer questions the board can actually use:
| Question | Evidence the pilot should collect |
|---|---|
| Can students and teachers do the same work? | Application performance, connection reliability, latency, simultaneous use, and staff feedback. |
| Did the intended RF reduction occur? | Which access-point and client radios were disabled; before-and-after measurements at consistent positions and under comparable traffic conditions. |
| Is the installed optical system appropriate? | Complete-product optical-safety documentation and installation conditions. |
| Does the system support every learner? | Compatibility with communication devices, accessible input systems, normal movement, and individualized support needs. |
| Can the school maintain and expand it? | Equipment and installation costs, training, support, replacement receivers, and coverage requirements. |
RF measurement needs to be meaningful. A single handheld reading before a change and a different reading afterward cannot describe an entire school day. Document instrument capabilities, locations, relevant frequency bands, typical activity, and background sources. Include client-device transmissions as well as the ceiling access point. Optical offloading alone does not ensure that unused radios stop transmitting.
The objective is a transparent record that another school can understand and reproduce.
Special-needs classrooms deserve attention from the beginning of this design process. Their experience can reveal requirements that a general-purpose installation might otherwise miss: a communication tablet mounted at an unusual angle, an input device that depends on a particular connection, or a child whose normal movement repeatedly covers a receiver.
Children’s support needs are individual. A diagnosis does not establish RF sensitivity, and LiFi has not been shown to treat autism, ADHD, or another developmental condition. The case for including special-education expertise is therefore grounded in access, inclusion, and careful environmental design.
Bring families, special educators, assistive-technology staff, therapists, and IT personnel into the planning. Confirm that the chosen network supports each student’s actual tools and routines. Preserve needed communication and medical-device connections; reducing general-purpose network RF must not interrupt essential support. The U.S. Department of Education’s assistive-technology guidance emphasizes meaningful access and engagement for children with disabilities. Department of Education guidance
A successful design accommodates the child. It should not require the child to remain unnaturally still to accommodate the connection.
Choose the initial rooms according to technical readiness, staff participation, and student needs. Prioritize accessibility testing in special-needs settings, and include those classrooms where continuity of support can be assured. That gives the pilot a stronger foundation than assuming a medical vulnerability that has not been demonstrated.
Teachers and families may report changes they notice during a pilot. Listen carefully and record them responsibly. An unblinded classroom observation cannot establish that a change in behavior, comfort, or learning was caused by RF reduction. A health-outcome study would need a separate, appropriately reviewed protocol and consent process. The operational pilot can succeed on the outcomes it was designed to measure.
Parents can ask their school boards for a concrete next step:
Please ask district staff to prepare a costed pilot of wired and infrared LiFi connectivity in suitable classrooms. The pilot should preserve educational and assistive-technology access, document optical-safety compliance, measure RF reduction under representative use, and publish its performance and cost results. Include special-education staff and families in the design so children with additional support needs can participate appropriately. Return to the board with the findings and an evidence-based recommendation about expansion.
That request gives the board a project it can evaluate. It gives technical staff a defined task. It gives families visibility into what changed. It also allows the district to learn before making a larger commitment.
At home, the first step can be smaller still.
Choose a room where you regularly use a laptop or compatible tablet. Keep fixed devices on Ethernet where practical. Add a matched infrared kit for the wireless task, check its coverage, and use it for the activities that matter to you. Once it works, disable the radio connection it replaces and confirm that automatic fallback behaves as intended.
You keep your internet provider. You keep your familiar applications. You gain experience with another way of connecting.
Early adoption contributes something valuable beyond the first household. Real users discover which receiver placements work, which devices connect easily, and which support questions need better answers. Sharing that experience helps the next family, installer, or school make a more informed choice.
The history of the idea is remarkable. Bell and Tainter demonstrated wireless speech carried by light in 1880. Today, semiconductor emitters, photodetectors, and digital networking let us revisit that principle with tools they could not have imagined. Library of Congress
The direction I want for RF Safe is a connected world designed with greater attention to the people inside it. When a useful function can be delivered through a different physical channel, that choice deserves a fair, practical demonstration.
A family can make the first room work. A school can document a pilot. An early adopter can show others the equipment, the setup, and the result.
The Light Age can begin with a connection you use today.
Explore the illustrations, physics, research, equipment links, and adoption guide at RF Safe’s LiFi guide.
John Coates founded RF Safe in 1998. This article presents his perspective on optical connectivity, supported by the linked research and product documentation. Product availability and specifications were checked for this September 2026 edition.
