---

PSEUDOSCIENCE

Sources in the Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

History

RF Safe was founded in 1998 by John Coates after his firstborn daughter died 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 owned by John Coates and funded primarily through product sales, including anti-radiation cases and accessories. Crunchbase confirms it is a commercial entity that generates revenue from consumer sales.

Analysis / Bias

RF Safe positions itself as a public-health watchdog, warning that “⚠ PHONE RADIATION IS A PUBLIC HEALTH THREAT! ⚠”. The site asserts that “the debate over cell phone radiation hazards is settled”, citing long lists of studies such as the Interphone, Hardell Group, CERENAT, and the Ramazzini Institute. However, many of these studies have mixed or limited results, and major health authorities disagree with RF Safe’s conclusions. For instance, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health reports “no evidence that cell phone radiation causes cancer,” while 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’s advocacy pages, particularly its research section, claim that “a comprehensive analysis of over 2,500 studies” confirms non-thermal biological effects from RF exposure but provide no direct links to those studies. The site’s extensive post “What the Totality of Evidence Now Shows About Wireless RF (2025)” compiles scientific literature supporting its position, referencing organizations such as the National Toxicology Program, Ramazzini Institute, and the World Health Organization’s EMF Project. While these are real studies, mainstream scientific consensus holds that evidence for human health risks from low-level RF exposure remains inconclusive.

RF Safe frequently employs alarmist and anti-regulatory rhetoric, accusing the FCC and FDA of “regulatory capture” and “fraudulent” guidelines. The mission page calls for repealing Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act and restarting defunded research programs. While some legitimate scientific uncertainty exists around long-term RF exposure, RF Safe presents these debates as proof of conspiracy or suppression rather than uncertainty.

Critically, RF Safe also markets protective accessories and cases, despite the same mission page acknowledging that “accessories are only a stopgap.” This blending of advocacy and commerce introduces a conflict of interest: public fear over RF radiation directly benefits its business.

Failed Fact Checks

• While no specific fact checks were found from third-party fact-checkers, claims such as “cell phone radiation hazards are settled science” directly contradict the positions of mainstream agencies, including the FDA, CDC, WHO, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, making their assertions misleading.

Overall, RF Safe is rated as a pseudoscience source. Factual reporting is rated Mixed, as the site selectively cites real studies while misrepresenting scientific consensus. RF Safe blends pseudoscience with advocacy and commercial marketing, often overstating the evidence linking cell phones to health concerns. (D. Van Zandt 10/04/2025)

Source: https://www.rfsafe.com/

Last Updated on October 4, 2025 by Media Bias Fact Check

---

Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

MBFC Ad-Free 

or

MBFC Donation

---

---

---

Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources