SAFE CELLULARRESEARCH. CHOICE. ACCOUNTABILITY.
Understand wireless exposure. Explore the evidence. Help shape the public decisions that affect us all.
A home for RF Safe’s research, practical tools and advocacy for stronger public-health protections.
01 / THE PUBLIC RECORD
Read the source submissions, discuss the issues, and find the official instructions for making your own agency filing.
Explore public evidence and experiences submitted to HHS on electromagnetic fields and health.
Explore the record on testing, children, long-term exposure and environmental issues in the court remand.
Discussion and filing are separate. Forum replies and likes stay in this independent community; they are not submitted to HHS or the FCC. Deadlines above come from notices checked October 10, 2026. Check the agency docket for changes. Existing FCC rules remain in force.
02 / THE COMPARISON TOOL
Use the original RF Safe SAR Compare app with its bundled phone data. Compare head, body and hotspot test values, including simultaneous transmission.
Open the full comparison app ↗A COMPARISON READY TO EXPLORE
SAR is a test measurement, not a safety score. A lower listed value does not establish lower personal health risk or lower exposure in every real-world setting. Check the model, market, test category and conditions. Understand the context →
03 / FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE
Human studies, animal experiments, laboratory findings and proposed mechanisms answer different questions. Explore them with their methods and limitations in view.
Search the bundled research records by keyword and use the original filters for study type, reported effect, evidence rating and year.
Search the research library →This is a dated static collection. It includes mixed topics and RF Safe’s editorial classifications; a record count is not a count of established health effects.
Visit RFsafe.org’s current research stream ↗NTP reported clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas in exposed male rats. Whole-body animal experiments do not directly quantify risk from a person’s phone use.
Read NTP’s findings and limitations ↗The authors apply risk-assessment methods to animal data and propose lower exposure benchmarks. These model-derived estimates depend on assumptions and duration; they are not an EPA-issued standard.
Read the published analysis ↗INTERPHONE, Hardell and CERENAT examine phone use and tumors. Some high-use findings raise questions, while study biases, overall results and causal uncertainty also matter.
Start with INTERPHONE ↗Explore laboratory studies of oxidative balance, DNA and signaling. An observed cellular effect does not by itself demonstrate human disease.
European Commission project record ↗Browse the research collections and their interpretations. Effect counts do not substitute for study quality, replication or a systematic estimate of human risk.
Research summaries ↗TheraBionic P1 has a narrowly defined FDA Humanitarian Device Exemption based on probable benefit. That does not establish that everyday environmental RF causes disease.
FDA’s device overview ↗Look for null, mixed and beneficial results as well as harmful effects. Distinguish RF from extremely low-frequency fields and from the behavioral effects of screen use.
Explore all research filters →04 / EXPOSURE LITERACY
Understand the measurement before drawing a conclusion. Start with the question that matters to you.
Device profiles and reported test data.
Find a model ↗02 / VISUAL SUMMARIESBuild a visual reference from the existing dataset.
Explore the panels ↗03 / MODELS & ASSUMPTIONSExplore the visualization and inspect what its models assume.
Open the explorer ↗04 / BROADER COMPARISONSBrowse the original searchable measurement explorer.
Compare reported values ↗Speaker mode, suitable wired connections and turning off unused radios can reduce exposure. Keep emergency access and accessibility needs in mind. No single SAR ranking describes all use conditions.
Explore wired and optical alternatives →A shielding fabric test is not the same as testing a working phone with an accessory. Antenna performance, power control and orientation matter. Explore the physics without a sales pitch.
Open the microwave heating lab →05 / THE PUBLIC-INTEREST AGENDA
RF Safe advocates a precautionary approach: better research, transparent review and practical alternatives. These are policy positions, distinct from settled findings about human health.
Address the FCC remand and examine long-term use.
Follow up NTP findings and investigate newer signals.
Disclose conflicts, methods and dissenting evidence.
Explore RF Safe’s case for reform of local preemption.
Understand the duties rooted in Public Law 90-602.
Evaluate whole systems and communicate limitations.
Explore wired networks, Li-Fi and lower-RF choices.
RF Safe’s mechanistic framework connects ion-channel voltage sensing, mitochondrial signaling and spin-dependent chemistry. Explore its predictions as a hypothesis to test—not an established explanation of illness.
Explore low-fidelity biology ↗Open the nonthermal explainer ↗06 / KEEP EXPLORING
The homepage is the starting point. Go deeper into the tools, explainers, source records and public conversations.
Drafting tools help prepare text; they do not file it. Older source pages reflect their publication dates and may contain advocacy interpretations. Use the current official notices for filing requirements.
ABOUT THIS INITIATIVE
RF Safe’s work began with John Coates in 1998 and connects research education, engineering and public advocacy. Safe Cellular Phones brings those resources together for readers, families, researchers and communities.
Read RF Safe’s history and current work ↗
