LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.
- Overall, we rate RF Safe as Least Biased politically, as it operates as a single-issue advocacy organization rather than a partisan political outlet. We rate RF Safe as Mostly Factual because it links to real scientific studies and engages with legitimate research questions. However, credibility is tempered by selective citation, one-sided interpretation of evidence, alarmist framing, and a potential conflict of interest stemming from the sale of RF-related safety products. As a result, RF Safe is assigned a Medium Credibility rating.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED (-0.5)
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL (4.0)
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
History
RF Safe was founded in 1998 by John Coates following the death of his firstborn daughter from a neural tube defect, which he attributed to electromagnetic radiation exposure. According to its mission statement, RF Safe has operated since the 1990s as an advocacy movement promoting awareness of radiofrequency (RF) radiation hazards. The company sells “radiation safety” products and promotes policy reforms to tighten U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exposure limits. They are based in Florida.
Read our profile on the United States media and government.
Funded by / Ownership
RF Safe is funded primarily through product sales, including anti-radiation cases and accessories. While John Coates is closely associated with RF Safe as its founder, a complaint to MBFC asserts that operations and trademark ownership are held by Quanta X Technology LLC, which develops and sells electronics accessories. MBFC’s prior entry relied on Crunchbase for business confirmation; this update reflects the dispute about ownership structure while maintaining that RF Safe functions as a commercial enterprise supported by consumer sales.
Analysis / Bias
RF Safe positions itself as a public health watchdog, prominently warning that phone radiation poses a public health threat. The site maintains an extensive research section and publishes long-form compilations such as “What the Totality of Evidence Now Shows About Wireless RF (2025)”. Unlike earlier characterizations, RF Safe does provide direct outbound links to many cited studies, often via PubMed, ResearchGate, or open-access journals.
RF Safe argues that it does not claim direct human causation and instead relies on associations, mechanistic findings, and animal studies to justify precautionary policy recommendations. Indeed, much of the site’s language emphasizes “risk,” “signals,” and “associations” rather than definitive cause-and-effect claims. This approach aligns with legitimate scientific discourse and distinguishes RF Safe from outright pseudoscience.
However, RF Safe consistently presents a one-sided interpretation of the scientific literature. The site frequently treats disputed or minority findings as sufficient to characterize RF exposure as an established public-health threat, while minimizing or dismissing conclusions from major health authorities. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that current scientific evidence does not support concerns about health risks from typical RF exposure.
RF Safe highlights studies and institutions such as the National Toxicology Program, the Ramazzini Institute, and materials linked as part of the World Health Organization’s EMF Project. While these are legitimate sources, RF Safe emphasizes findings that support its advocacy goals and gives limited weight to contradictory evidence or the broader consensus view that human health effects from low-level RF exposure remain inconclusive.
Additionally, RF Safe’s advocacy content is closely intertwined with the sale of protective products. Although the mission page acknowledges that accessories are “only a stopgap,” the site’s alarm-driven framing may still incentivize consumer purchases. This blending of advocacy, selective evidence presentation, and commerce is a significant credibility concern.
Failed Fact Checks
- No specific failed fact checks by IFCN-approved organizations were identified. However, RF Safe’s recurring framing that RF exposure represents a settled and urgent public-health threat conflicts with positions from mainstream institutions, including the FDA, CDC, and WHO. This reflects selective interpretation rather than demonstrably false claims.
Overall, we rate RF Safe as Least Biased politically, as it operates as a single-issue advocacy organization rather than a partisan political outlet. We rate RF Safe as Mostly Factual because it links to real scientific studies and engages with legitimate research questions. However, credibility is tempered by selective citation, one-sided interpretation of evidence, alarmist framing, and a potential conflict of interest stemming from the sale of RF-related safety products. As a result, RF Safe is assigned a Medium Credibility rating. (D. Van Zandt 10/04/2025) Updated (01/08/2026)
Source: https://www.rfsafe.com/
Editor’s Note (January 2026)
Following RF Safe’s criticism and a review of its January 5, 2026, response article, Media Bias Fact Check conducted a reassessment of this entry to address specific concerns regarding ownership descriptions, research linking, and characterization of claims.
We acknowledge that RF Safe’s research section does provide direct outbound links to many cited studies, often via PubMed, ResearchGate, or open-access journals, and this has been reflected in the updated analysis. We also revised prior wording regarding ownership to avoid overstatement, noting RF Safe’s assertion that site operations and trademark control are handled through a separate business entity rather than personal ownership by founder John Coates.
These clarifications resulted in updated ratings. RF Safe is now rated Least Biased politically, reflecting its status as a single-issue advocacy organization rather than a partisan political outlet. Its factual reporting has been adjusted to Mostly Factual, recognizing that the site links to real scientific studies and engages with legitimate research questions.
However, the overall credibility assessment is Medium. While RF Safe generally avoids explicit claims of direct human causation, it consistently presents contested or minority scientific findings as indicative of a settled public-health threat, a position that conflicts with statements from major health authorities such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Additionally, the close integration of advocacy messaging with the sale of RF-related safety products remains a credibility concern due to potential conflict of interest.
Media Bias Fact Check welcomes evidence-based corrections and will continue to update entries when warranted. Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources directly and consider both the quality of cited studies and the balance of evidence presented.
Last Updated on January 8, 2026 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources