The case that tells the truth — about physics, biology, and policy — not just “radiation protection”.
Watch the explainer video: TruthCase™ · Clean Ether

TruthCase™ by RF SAFE · QuantaCase® A flip case that obeys physics, respects biology, and exposes policy failure — while training the habits that really lower exposure.

TruthCase™ (QuantaCase® by RF SAFE) is not a magic shield. It is a training tool, a physics-first product, and a bridge into policy — showing why talk of “safe SAR” is misleading, why metal loops and magnet plates are the enemy, and why families must push for Li-Fi, enforcement of Public Law 90-602, and repeal of Section 704.

The core message is simple and non-negotiable:
  • You cannot buy your way out of wireless risk with marketing or “99%” fabric numbers.
  • You can only reduce it with correct orientation, correct design, and correct policy.

TruthCase exists to teach all three — in your hand, on your phone, and on Capitol Hill.

Open full Usage Guide
Single product image. Theme-aware CSS. Orientation, biology, SAR context and policy built into one page.
0/5 TruthScore™ red flags · no metal loops, no magnet sandwiches, no big unshielded ear-side gaps.
Built to embody the S4–Mito–Spin & IFO-VGIC framework — the reality that heart, brain, testis, immune cells and blood are EMF hot zones.
TruthCase™ · QuantaCase®
Physics-first hardware · Orientation trainer
TruthCase™ QuantaCase® by RF SAFE — ultra-thin flip case with directional shielding
Directional shielding where it matters — the flap sits between you and the phone’s most intense near-field.
Ultra-thin, antenna-aware construction — no metal loops, no magnet plates, no thick wallet stack forcing the phone to shout.

The TruthCase story · founder video

John Coates · TruthCase & RF Safe explainer thumbnail

In this video, RF SAFE founder John Coates walks through real SAR numbers, explains why the thyroid and other front-of-neck tissues sit in a hotspot during typical use, and demonstrates RF SAFE shielding with a Samsung S10. It is a practical look at how directional shielding changes near-body exposure — and what families should really be looking for when they evaluate any “radiation protection” case.

Why loops, magnets & wallets matter · QuantaCase explainer

QuantaCase explainer video thumbnail — loops, magnets and wallet stacks

This QuantaCase explainer shows how small metal loops, detachable magnet plates and thick wallet stacks can actually raise exposure by detuning antennas — and why TruthCase refuses those design choices while keeping shielding continuous and antenna-aware.

Mechanism, animal evidence & regulatory lag

How the S4–Mito–Spin / IFO‑VGIC biology, long‑term animal studies, and WHO reviews fit together — and why “regulators say it’s safe” is not the same thing as “the science isn’t there.”

Mechanistic bridge: S4 timing noise, mitochondrial ROS & spin chemistry

At the physics level, Panagopoulos’ ion forced‑oscillation model makes it plausible for polarized RF/ELF fields to drive irregular S4 gating in voltage‑gated ion channels (VGICs) at realistic field strengths. In simple terms, weak, polarized fields can inject timing noise into the “voltage sensors” that sit at the heart of cellular signaling.

At the metabolic level, work such as Durdík 2019 shows RF‑induced reactive oxygen species (ROS) rising in step with mitochondrial load in cord‑blood cells at non‑thermal SAR (~0.2 W/kg). RF does not have to heat tissue to matter — it perturbs timing in S4‑rich channels and lets mitochondria and redox chemistry amplify the signal.

The S4–Mito–Spin framework is a three‑pillar way of describing those interactions:

  • S4 (ion‑forced oscillation) – Polarized, pulsed EM fields shake the nanometre‑thin layer of ions next to the membrane. The resulting charge oscillations tug on the positively charged S4 helices in VGICs, causing timing errors in channel opening and closing and distorting Ca²⁺ and voltage waveforms.
  • Mitochondria & NOX (ROS amplification) – In cells with many S4 channels and high mitochondrial or NADPH oxidase capacity, those distorted waveforms drive ROS “storms”, DNA damage and inflammatory signalling. This naturally makes excitable, mitochondria‑dense tissues — heart, brain, testis, endocrine and immune tissues — EMF hot zones.
  • Spin chemistry – In compartments that lack S4 and mitochondria (e.g. red blood cells) or in specially magnetosensitive proteins (e.g. cryptochromes), EM fields primarily act through spin‑dependent chemistry in heme and flavin radical pairs, changing reaction yields and signalling without relying on ion channels at all.

These three are not competing models; they are different entry points into the same organism. S4–Mito explains excitable and mito‑rich tissues (heart, brain, testis, immune, endocrine). Spin explains blood, cryptochrome‑based clock effects, and other heme/flavin‑rich systems. Put together, they unify many “isolated” findings under one mechanistic roof.

Rouleaux and blood: when spin dominates over S4

Red blood cells (RBCs) are a stress‑test for any S4‑only theory. Mature RBCs:

  • have no mitochondria,
  • have no classic S4‑bearing voltage‑gated ion channels,
  • are ~90 % hemoglobin by dry mass — effectively bags of iron‑containing heme groups with strongly magnetic spin states.

Yet a 2025 human ultrasound study showed that placing a smartphone at the hip and imaging the popliteal vein at the knee can induce rapid, reversible rouleaux formation — stacking of RBCs — and changes in blood‑flow characteristics after just minutes of exposure.

Ion‑forced oscillation via S4 cannot explain this in mature RBCs, because the “gate plus mitochondria” machinery is absent. What RBCs do offer instead is:

  • a dense population of heme iron centres whose magnetic and redox behaviour can be influenced by external fields, and
  • membrane properties (charge, zeta potential, deformability) that are sensitive to hemoglobin conformation, redox state and plasma‑protein binding.

That is where the spin pillar of S4–Mito–Spin comes in. In blood and other heme‑heavy, channel‑poor tissues:

  • EM fields act primarily by tweaking electron‑spin states and radical‑pair dynamics in heme (and some enzymes), not by pulling on S4 helices.
  • Those subtle spin changes can alter membrane‑level interactions enough to promote zeta‑potential collapse, rouleaux formation and microcirculatory sluggishness, as the ultrasound findings suggest.

This is why the theory is framed as S4–Mito–Spin and not S4 alone. Different compartments couple to the field through different physical levers, but they all feed into the same higher‑level biology: oxidative stress, microvascular changes, inflammation and altered signalling.

Once you accept that weak fields can disturb S4 timing, mitochondrial ROS and spin‑dependent chemistry, the patterns across cancer, fertility, immune and metabolic studies stop looking random and start looking like one coherent mechanism.

Vectors: cancer, fertility, immune & metabolic damage

The same S4 timing noise + mitochondrial ROS framework makes sense of the major animal and cellular findings:

  • Cancer vector – heart & cranial nerves/glia. NTP TR‑595 and the Ramazzini base‑station study both report malignant heart Schwannomas and brain gliomas in RF‑exposed rats, despite different labs, protocols and exposure geometries. A WHO‑commissioned animal‑cancer review (SR4A + corrigendum) rates the evidence as high‑certainty for heart Schwannoma and moderate‑certainty for brain glioma — meaning new data are unlikely to reverse those conclusions.
  • Fertility vector – Leydig mitochondria & germ cells. Experimental work (e.g. Jangid 2025) shows RF‑driven oxidative stress, mitochondrial collapse and hormonal disruption in testis, especially in Leydig and germ cells. The WHO SR4A fertility review reports high‑certainty evidence that RF‑EMF reduces pregnancy rate in male‑exposed rodents.
  • Autoimmune vector – immune timing and inflammation. Immune‑focused studies (Piszczek 2021, Yao 2022, Zhao 2022 and others) show RF/ELF exposures shifting immune profiles, suppressing or mis‑activating lymphocytes, and rewriting immune‑gene expression via oxidative stress and Ca²⁺/membrane signalling. Radiation biology connects mitochondrial DNA damage and ROS to canonical cGAS‑STING and NLRP3 pathways, bridging RF‑induced oxidative stress to chronic inflammation and autoimmunity.
  • Metabolic vector – pancreatic islets & β‑cells. Across GSM, Wi‑Fi and ELF exposures, β‑cells and pancreatic islets repeatedly show impaired glucose‑stimulated insulin release, oxidative stress, structural injury and long‑term changes in islet number and endocrine secretion — exactly what you would expect in β‑cell–centered models of diabetes.

In other words: the same RF‑induced S4 timing noise and mitochondrial ROS explain why heart and cranial nerves grow Schwannomas and gliomas, why Leydig and germ cells fail and male exposure lowers pregnancy rates, and why immune and metabolic tissues drift toward chronic, mis‑targeted inflammation and insulin dysregulation.

There is nothing incoherent here. The “we don’t know how it could work” argument is no longer credible.

Regulatory lag is not scientific consensus

Critics often say “If it were real, the regulators would have acted.” That confuses regulatory lag with scientific consensus.

  • When a WHO‑style systematic review calls the animal evidence for heart Schwannoma high‑certainty and the evidence for brain glioma moderate‑certainty, it is saying that, given the totality of data, there is little chance that new studies will overturn those conclusions. In practice, that is what scientists mean by a consensus.
  • The fact that legacy SAR limits and heat‑only guidelines have not caught up to that biology does not make the biology go away. Agencies like the FCC and FDA sit in regulatory frameworks built for 1990s assumptions, even after the FCC lost a federal court case over its “arbitrary and capricious” treatment of non‑thermal effects.
  • RF SAFE’s position is straightforward: the gap is driven by corporate capture, institutional inertia, and a lack of will to enforce Public Law 90‑602 — the law that mandates a real electronic‑product radiation control program. Programs like the National Toxicology Program’s RF work should never have been allowed to wind down while exposure levels and duty cycles rose.

Regulatory silence does not equal safety. Taken together, the mechanistic physics, the mitochondrial biology, the animal cancer and fertility data, and the WHO reviews all point in the same direction: non‑thermal RF effects are real, tissue‑specific, and serious enough that parents, clinicians and policymakers have to act long before every last guideline is updated.

What TruthCase™ really is

TruthCase™ is QuantaCase® used as a teaching tool: a case that trains safer habits, exposes hardware red flags, and points to the policy work that still has to be done.

TruthCase™ (QuantaCase® by RF SAFE) is not just another “anti-radiation case.” It is three things at once:

Training tool

A training tool that teaches correct phone orientation and everyday habits that actually reduce dose: shield between you and the phone, distance at night, radios off when not needed.

Physics-first product

A physics-first product that refuses hardware that makes many “anti-radiation” cases worse: no metal loops, no magnet plates, no detachable sandwich, no big ear-side holes, no thick wallet stack.

Policy proof-of-concept

A conversation starter and proof-of-concept for the roadmap families now need: enforcing Public Law 90-602, repealing or rewriting Section 704, shifting indoor bandwidth to Li-Fi, and moving RF health oversight to real health agencies.

The core message is simple and non-negotiable:

  • You cannot buy your way out of wireless risk with marketing or “99%” fabric numbers.
  • You can only reduce it with correct orientation, correct design, and correct policy.

TruthCase exists to teach all three.

First principles: biology, physics & design

Use the tabs to slide through the problem, the S4–Mito–Spin / IFO-VGIC biology, how phones manage power, the habits TruthCase trains, and the red flags that define the whole category.

The problem in one paragraph

There are three layers to the EMF problem:

At the biological layer, non-thermal RF/ELF fields are interacting with very specific parts of cells – voltage sensors, energy/ROS engines, and spin-sensitive redox systems – in ways that explain why heart, brain, testis, immune system, and blood keep showing up as hotspots. That’s the S4–Mito–Spin / IFO-VGIC story.

At the product layer, many “anti-radiation” cases bolt on metal loops, detachable magnet plates, and big unshielded ear-side holes that detune antennas, provoke phones to transmit harder, and leak exactly where protection is needed most.

At the policy layer, we are still living under 1990s, heat-only limits. Section 704 gagged local health concerns. Public Law 90-602 (EPRC) – which requires HHS to run a real electronic-product radiation program – sits largely unenforced while the FCC, a spectrum agency, is treated as the de facto health regulator.

TruthCase is designed to sit at the intersection of all three: it respects the biology, obeys the physics, and makes the policy failure visible.

How weak fields talk to strong tissues: S4–Mito–Spin & IFO-VGIC

TruthCase is built around a simple scientific insight: Weak RF/ELF fields don’t act “everywhere, equally.” They act where cells have parts that can hear those fields and amplify the signal.

  • Voltage sensors (S4) and IFO-VGIC timing – Charged segments in voltage-gated ion channels, especially Ca²⁺ and Na⁺, are exquisitely sensitive to timing. Polarized, pulsed fields can introduce timing noise into them (ion-channel forced oscillation). Tissues full of these channels and dependent on precise timing – cardiac conduction, brain circuits, Leydig cells, immune cells – are obvious targets.
  • Mitochondria & ROS engines (Mito) – Mitochondria and NADPH oxidases translate distorted timing into bursts of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Where these engines are dense and antioxidant buffers are limited, small disturbances in timing become large oxidative stress events over time.
  • Spin-sensitive redox cofactors (Spin) – Many pathways (heme, flavin, cryptochrome) run through radical pairs whose electron spins are sensitive to weak fields, providing routes for non-thermal effects even in cells without classic S4 channels.

Once you look at the body through this lens, the patchwork of EMF findings becomes structured: heart and brain tumors, male infertility, immune drift, RBC zeta-potential collapse and rouleaux all fit into one mechanistic picture.

Deeper dive: S4–Mito–Spin / CEA explainer and How weak fields hit strong tissues.

How phones manage power (and how loops & magnets can backfire)

Modern phones constantly adjust their uplink power to stay connected. Two facts follow:

  • If you help the antennas – by keeping them efficient and giving them clean paths to the network – the phone can do its job with less transmit power.
  • If you hurt the antennas – by detuning them with metal loops, magnet/plate sandwiches, or thick wallet stacks – the phone will ramp up power and shout louder right next to your body.

This is the part most marketing quietly ignores. The FTC has explicitly warned that products which interfere with a phone’s signal can cause it to draw more power and emit more radiation. That’s not theory; it’s how power control works.

When you put a phone in a case, you are not just adding “shielding.” You are changing the RF environment its antennas see. If you get that wrong, the phone simply transmits harder from inside your case — and any fabric “99%” number stops mattering.

TruthCase is built to avoid that trap: no loops, no plates, no magnets, no multi-layer wallet sandwich.

Orientation training: what TruthCase teaches you to do

The most important “feature” of TruthCase is not the material — it’s the habits it trains. Every time you use it, the hardware reinforces four simple rules:

  • During calls – the shield goes between your head and the phone. Answer or place the call, then close the flap toward your head.
  • In pockets – the shield faces your body (often back pocket is best). You are training your body to expect that posture.
  • When texting or scrolling – you fold the flap behind the phone so the shield sits between your hand and the handset; you keep distance from the rest of your body.
  • At night – distance and airplane mode matter more than any case. The hardware is a reminder, not a substitute.

KPIX-5 (CBS San Francisco) quietly proved why this matters: in real-use tests, flip cases dropped outgoing RF from the face of the phone by about 85–90% — when the flap was closed. They also found RF SAFE was the only brand whose packaging explicitly told users to close the cover during calls.

Full step-by-step instructions: TruthCase Usage Guide.

The red flags: what the TruthCase design refuses to do

Over and over, the same design mistakes appear in the “radiation protection” market. They all violate basic RF engineering:

  • Metal loops near antenna regions – strap loops or decorative metal near the edges of the phone, where antennas often live, detune and distort the pattern. The result can be more power and less predictable fields around your head or body.
  • Detachable magnet/plate sandwiches – many wallet-style cases sandwich the phone between the handset, magnet/steel plate, and shielded flap. That stack of conductive and magnetic material near the frame is a perfect recipe for antenna detuning and link degradation. The phone responds by ramping up uplink power right next to the user.
  • Large unshielded ear-side openings – a big cut-out at the earpiece is convenient for audio but terrible for shielding. At today’s bands, the largest aperture dominates leakage; a large ear-aligned hole is basically an RF bullseye for the part of the head you wanted to protect.
  • Thick multi-slot wallet stacks in antenna zones – heavy card stacks and extra layers near antenna zones change the RF environment and may provoke power increases.
  • “99% protection” claims without whole-device tests – a fabric swatch that blocks “99%” in a lab does not mean your phone-in-use exposure is reduced by 99%. If the case is not tested with a live phone in normal positions, and if it does not train orientation, the number is marketing, not safety.

Those are the red flags TruthCase is explicitly designed to avoid — and to teach you to recognize.

Visual walk-through: TruthCase Red Flag Slider.

TruthScore™ · the five-red-flag test

A simple checklist you can use to evaluate any “anti-radiation” case — including ours.

The five red flags

TruthCase teaches you how to evaluate any “anti-radiation” case — including ours — with a simple checklist. Give a case one point for each of these red flags:

  1. Metal strap loops or decorative metal near phone edges.
  2. Detachable design that sandwiches the phone between magnets, steel plates, and shielding.
  3. Large unshielded ear-side speaker opening.
  4. Thick, multi-layer wallet stack near antenna regions.
  5. “Up to 99% protection” claims without whole-device, orientation-specific tests.

If the score is:

  • 0/5 → acceptable from a first-principles standpoint.
  • 1–5 → walk away.

Those are the red flags TruthCase is explicitly designed to avoid — and to teach you to recognize. See the interactive Red Flag Slider for visual examples.

TruthCase is built to score:

0/5 red flags

No loops, no detachable magnet sandwiches, no large unshielded ear-side opening, no thick wallet stack in antenna zones, and no “99%” fabric-only marketing without whole-device, orientation-specific thinking.

The same checklist that makes us accountable makes it easier for families, schools, and clinicians to demand better from the entire category.

What TruthCase™ does differently

TruthCase is QuantaCase designed to obey first principles and to score 0/5 on the TruthScore™ red-flag test.

TruthCase is QuantaCase designed around a single question: “What happens to the antennas?”

No metal loops

No metal strap loops or decorative metal near antenna edges. We refuse hardware that looks “premium” but risks detuning and provoking power increases.

No magnet/plate sandwich

TruthCase is a single, non-detachable assembly. There are no magnets or steel plates between phone and shielded flap. We do not “sandwich” the phone between conductive components that undermine antenna performance.

Directional shielding where it matters

The front flap contains a continuous conductive layer. When you close it toward your head or body, it sits between you and the phone’s most intense near-field. Shield the person, not the phone.

Shielded ear-side aperture

Where many cases simply cut a big hole, TruthCase uses a conductive mesh at the ear-side opening, maintaining shielding continuity across the flap while letting audio through. No big unshielded gap by your ear.

Ultra-thin, antenna-aware construction

The case is deliberately thin near antenna zones. We are not building armor; we are avoiding detuning so the phone does not have to shout.

One RFID-blocking slot

A single slot keeps the shield flat and minimizes card-stack bulk. Thick, multi-slot wallets make correct orientation harder and add the very bulk that can compromise antenna behavior.

Side latch & secure grip

The side latch keeps the flap aligned and helps keep fingers away from antenna zones during use, instead of squeezing metallic hardware against the frame.

Built-in stand for distance

Simple landscape stand function encourages you to put the phone on a table and step back during streaming or video calls — the easiest way to reduce dose.

User-verifiable shielding

TruthCase exposes a point on the shield layer at the ear-side opening so you can check continuity with a basic ohmmeter. If you cannot measure the shield, you are taking the manufacturer’s word for it; we prefer proof.

Why “85–90% reduction” still isn’t “safe”

The truth about KPIX-5 flip-case tests, NTP at 1.5 W/kg, Ramazzini at 0.1 W/kg — and what that means for any case, including ours.

Step 1 · KPIX-5 & real-world flip cases

KPIX-5 (CBS San Francisco) found that in normal use, shielded flip cases could drop RF measured from the face of the phone by roughly 85–90% — when the flap was closed. RF SAFE was the only brand whose packaging explicitly told users to close the cover during calls.

That’s encouraging — but a percentage only means something if you ask “85–90% off of what?”

Example: If a phone is near a 1.6 W/kg limit, a 90% reduction still leaves ~0.16 W/kg at the point of measurement.

That’s lower — but a long way from zero. And it doesn’t automatically match any biologically meaningful threshold.

Step 2 · NTP (1.5 W/kg) & Ramazzini (0.1 W/kg)

The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” of heart schwannomas and some evidence of brain gliomas at exposures around 1.5 W/kg. The Ramazzini Institute, in Italy, found similar tumor types at far-field exposures around 0.1 W/kg — more than an order of magnitude lower.

Compare: 1.5 W/kg (NTP) → 0.1 W/kg (Ramazzini) → mixed results even at “low” levels.

The core truth: tumors showed up well below the old “heating” thresholds. So even a large percentage reduction relative to a 1990s limit does not guarantee biological safety.

Step 3 · Why TruthCase refuses “safe within SAR” language

Put NTP, Ramazzini, and KPIX together and the math is unavoidable:

  • There is evidence of harm at intensities well below the “allowed” limit.
  • A case that cuts exposure by 80–90% may still leave you in a biological gray zone, especially with chronic use and multiple radios active.
  • No honest engineer can call a 1996 SAR-compliant exposure “safe” for children just because a case shaved the number.

That is why TruthCase is explicit:

  • We do not promise safety. We promise well-designed reduction and honest context.
  • We tell you that orientation and duty cycle matter more than brand names or SAR numbers by themselves.
  • We point you to the policy work needed to fix the environment itself.

Usage Guide & everyday training

TruthCase is hardware that quietly retrains how you carry and use your phone — and points you toward first-principles safety.

Everyday orientation rules

Every time you use TruthCase, it reinforces four simple rules:

  • During calls, the shield goes between your head and the phone. Answer or place the call, then close the flap toward your head.
  • In pockets, the shield faces your body (often back pocket is best). You are training your body to expect that posture.
  • When texting or scrolling, you fold the flap behind the phone so the shield sits between your hand and the handset; you keep distance from the rest of your body.
  • At night, distance and airplane mode matter more than any case. The hardware is a reminder, not a substitute.

KPIX-5 (CBS San Francisco) found that in real-use tests, flip cases dropped outgoing RF from the face of the phone by about 85–90% — when the flap was closed — and that RF SAFE was the only brand whose packaging explicitly told users to close the cover during calls.

What a case can and cannot do

TruthCase is honest about its scope:

  • A case can reduce exposure only when it is designed and used correctly.
  • It cannot fix 1990s limits, it cannot repeal Section 704, and it cannot enforce Public Law 90-602. That is policy work.

What it can do is:

  • Protect families today when phone-in-hand is unavoidable.
  • Teach the physics and biology behind that protection.
  • Give parents, schools, and lawmakers a concrete example of what “first-principles safety” looks like in hardware.

For a complete walkthrough of setup, positioning and demonstrations, open the full Usage Guide: https://www.rfsafe.com/class/user-guide/

From TruthCase to Clean Ether: product, biology, and policy

TruthCase is a bridge, not an endpoint — anchoring hardware design in biology, then pointing to the Clean Ether roadmap our children actually need.

TruthCase is a bridge between how you use your phone today and the world we need to build tomorrow.

Product & biology levels

At the product level, it answers:

  • How do we design a case that lowers near-body exposure without making the phone transmit harder?
  • How do we teach orientation in a way people actually remember?

At the biological level, it takes the S4–Mito–Spin / IFO-VGIC reality seriously:

S4–Mito–Spin / CEA explainer

  • Different tissues are not equally sensitive; heart, brain, testis, immune cells, and blood are built in ways that make them EMF hot zones.
  • Red blood cell zeta-potential collapse and rouleaux fit naturally into the spin-chemistry part of the model.
  • Clean nulls in low-density tissues are expected and do not rescue a heat-only narrative.

Policy level & Action Hub

At the policy level, TruthCase makes the gap visible:

Action Hub: https://www.rfsafe.com/class/action/

  • Section 704 of the Telecom Act still blocks local communities from considering health in antenna siting even after a federal court called the FCC’s treatment of non-thermal effects “arbitrary and capricious.”
  • Public Law 90-602 still mandates that HHS run an electronic-product radiation control program, but the real RF program has been effectively mothballed. HHS, not the FCC, has the health mandate.
  • The FCC remains a spectrum and equipment-authorization agency, not a health agency, yet it continues to be treated as the de facto RF health regulator.

RF SAFE’s position is direct:

  • Section 704 must be repealed or fundamentally re-written so communities can protect children and schools.
  • HHS must be forced back into compliance with Public Law 90-602 and execute a real RF research and standards program with EPA, FDA and NIH at the table.
  • The FCC should handle spectrum and equipment authorization; RF health oversight belongs with public-health agencies.
  • Indoors, especially for children, we should be moving high-bandwidth payloads off microwaves and onto light — Li-Fi (IEEE 802.11bb) and wired networks — with RF reserved for mobility.

The Clean Ether roadmap in practice

Homes & schools · now

  • Keep phones off the body; prefer speaker or air-tube headsets.
  • Use wired connections where possible; place routers away from beds and play areas.
  • Turn off Wi-Fi/Bluetooth/hotspots when not needed, especially at night.
  • Start Li-Fi pilots in classrooms and children’s bedrooms wherever feasible.

Institutions & infrastructure

  • Design schools, hospitals, and libraries around wired + Li-Fi first, Wi-Fi/RF as secondary.
  • Require sleep modes and power management in access points and small cells.
  • Buffer towers and small cells from homes, daycares and schools where possible.

Law & oversight

  • Enforce Public Law 90-602: restart federal RF research and standards work in HHS/EPA.
  • Repeal or repair Section 704 so communities are no longer gagged on health.
  • Shift RF health authority from the FCC to health agencies; keep FCC on spectrum engineering.
  • Pass a “Clean Ether Act” mandating Li-Fi indoor defaults and biologically relevant RF standards.

The TruthCase promise

A hardware promise anchored in first principles — and in the Clean Ether roadmap our children actually need.

Four promises we make

TruthCase makes four promises:

  • We will not add loops, magnets, plates, thickness, or gimmicks that help marketing while hurting antenna integrity.
  • We will always tell you that orientation and duty cycle matter more than brand names or SAR numbers by themselves.
  • We will root our design in the real biology — the S4–Mito–Spin / IFO-VGIC reality of tissue-specific vulnerability and blood-cell behaviour.
  • We will keep pushing for the policy roadmap — fixing Section 704, enforcing Public Law 90-602, and moving indoors toward Li-Fi — that finally aligns the wireless environment with what our cells can safely tolerate.

The case you hold in your hand is not the end of the story. It is the starting point:

  • For families to retrain how they carry and use devices.
  • For schools and clinicians to talk plainly about risk and mitigation.
  • For legislators to see that practical, physics-consistent safety is possible — and overdue.

TruthCase™ exists to teach that truth — from your palm to public law.