QuantaDose Press Releases

The Anti-Radiation Case That Refuses to Sell You a Number

Why RF Safe’s QuantaCase / TruthCase stands out—and why its “no percentage claims” stance is the whole point

If you spend any time researching cell phone radiation, you run into two realities at once.

First: there’s ongoing debate about whether non-ionizing RF/EMF exposure from phones causes meaningful health risks at typical levels. People point to studies like the NTP work and other research as reasons to be cautious, while others argue the evidence isn’t conclusive and everyday exposures are within established limits.

Second: the marketplace built around that debate is messy. It’s crowded with products that promise certainty—often in the form of a clean, confident number: “up to 99% blocking.”

And that’s exactly why this is worth saying plainly: if you’re taking a precautionary approach—better safe than sorry—the biggest risk may not be “not doing enough.” It may be choosing a product that creates false confidence while quietly making the phone behave in a way that increases exposure.

That is the lens through which RF Safe’s QuantaCase / TruthCase story makes sense. Because the most distinctive thing about RF Safe is not a flashy percentage. It’s the exact opposite:

For roughly 28 years, they’ve been willing to lose marketing battles in order to avoid making a claim they believe is inherently misleading. And they’ve built the product around that conviction.

This is an opinionated piece, but it’s opinion rooted in first principles—how phones work, how RF behaves, and how consumer marketing tends to oversimplify both.

The seduction of “99% blocking”

Why big percentage claims are often the wrong question

When a case says “up to 99% blocking,” the average person hears:
“This case reduces my exposure by 99%.”

But in the world of RF, that number is often based on something much narrower—like testing the shielding material alone (a swatch of fabric) in a controlled setup that does not represent real-world conditions: a real phone, inside a real case, negotiating signal with a real network.

That mismatch matters because your phone is not a static transmitter. It’s a dynamic device constantly adjusting to maintain a connection. And when something interferes with that connection—especially around the antenna region—the phone compensates.

Which brings us to the most important point most marketing doesn’t lead with:

A poorly designed “anti-radiation” case can cause the phone to increase transmit power to maintain signal strength.
Meaning: the very product sold to “reduce radiation” can become the reason the phone emits more.

That’s not a fringe concept. It’s the practical, real-world risk at the center of this whole category. And it’s why RF Safe’s approach is so singular: they are designing around the failure modes—the ways these products can backfire.

The anti-radiation case industry has a credibility problem

Because it often markets material tests as real-world protection

Here’s the pattern RF Safe has criticized for years:

  • A company tests shielding material in isolation.

  • The test produces a dramatic percentage.

  • The marketing turns that percentage into a promise about real-world use.

  • Consumers buy the number, not the system.

But real-world protection isn’t just “does this material attenuate a signal in a lab.” Real-world protection depends on:

  • the phone’s adaptive power behavior,

  • antenna interactions,

  • orientation and distance,

  • whether the shielding is actually between you and the phone,

  • and whether the case design introduces red flags that change how the phone transmits.

When you’re choosing a precautionary product, you shouldn’t be asking only, “What percentage does it block?”
You should be asking, “Does this design risk making my phone transmit more?”

RF Safe’s defining move: refusing to sell you a percentage

Not because they can’t—because they won’t

RF Safe’s TruthCase (QuantaCase) deliberately does not make specific percentage claims about how much RF radiation or EMF it blocks. This is not a missing statistic. It’s a core part of their philosophy and marketing.

Their stance, as you’ve laid out in this thread, comes down to a few fundamental realities:

1) RF shielding does not create a “void”

Shielding creates a shadow or deflection of radiation away from your body when the shield is correctly positioned between you and the phone, but RF signals are omnidirectional and surround the device—there is no complete “void.”

So a single universal percentage is not just hard to prove; it’s scientifically misleading as a consumer promise.

2) “Percentage blocked” is not the same as “exposure reduced”

Even if a material blocks X% in a lab test, exposure in real life depends on:

  • proper usage,

  • orientation,

  • distance,

  • and whether the phone compensates by increasing transmit power due to interference.

3) “Big numbers” create false security

RF Safe’s argument is that overly simplified numbers can encourage people to hold phones closer, use them longer, or abandon safer habits—because the marketing implies the problem is solved.

So for nearly three decades, their choice has been:
don’t sell certainty you can’t guarantee in real-world conditions.

That refusal is the brand story—because it’s the exact opposite of what the industry rewards.

The KPIX 5 result—and why RF Safe still doesn’t use it

The paradox that proves their point

This is where the story gets unusually compelling.

In the 2017 CBS San Francisco / KPIX 5 investigation discussed in this thread, independent testing reportedly found that flip-style cases reduced RF emissions from the front of the phone by an average of 85–90% when used correctly (for example, with the shielded flap closed and positioned between the phone and the user).

If you’re a typical case company chasing market share, that’s the headline you print on everything.

But RF Safe doesn’t. They don’t build their marketing around that number. And the reason matters:

  • That result is context-dependent.

  • It’s dependent on how the case is used.

  • It reflects reduction from one side (front), not a magical disappearance of emissions.

  • It can easily be misinterpreted as a universal guarantee.

RF Safe’s restraint here is arguably the clearest expression of their entire worldview:

Even when a favorable number exists, they treat it as potentially misleading—because it can’t be responsibly generalized.

Instead of promoting “85–90%,” they emphasize something more difficult to market but more aligned with reality:

  • don’t increase exposure through bad design,

  • educate users on correct orientation and habits,

  • and focus on physics-based principles rather than slogans.

That’s what gives the “no percentages” stance its credibility. It’s not just what they say when numbers aren’t flattering—it’s what they say even when a third-party number could be flattering.

The first-principles approach: design rules that don’t change

Why the “founder story” matters if you care about engineering integrity

You framed this in the most important way: RF Safe’s founder (John Coates, per your thread) established first principles for anti-radiation case design decades ago—and the QuantaCase / TruthCase follows those same principles today.

Whether you agree with every conclusion or not, there’s a seriousness to that continuity. It implies the product isn’t chasing trends (like “99%!” or “5G-proof!”) but is anchored to a consistent logic about how phones and RF work.

Here’s how those first principles come through in everything you’ve shared:

First Principle 1: Do not provoke power boosts

A case should not interfere with the phone’s ability to communicate with the network. If the design causes antenna disruption, the phone may increase transmit power—undermining the entire purpose.

This is why RF Safe emphasizes an ultra-thin, non-detachable design and avoids “red flag” components.

First Principle 2: Shielding must be directional and correctly positioned

The protection mechanism is a deflection/shadow—not a full enclosure, not a void. The flap needs to be between the phone and your body/head when it matters.

This is why “proper usage” isn’t an afterthought in their narrative; it’s part of the product’s logic.

First Principle 3: Avoid red-flag hardware

Your thread repeatedly calls out the common offenders:

  • metal loops

  • magnets

  • plates

  • detachable features

  • bulky structures that encourage misuse or interfere with antenna zones

RF Safe’s design is meant to avoid these, specifically to reduce the odds of unintended power increases.

First Principle 4: Close the weak points that matter

Unshielded speaker holes and large openings can become leakage points—especially as higher-frequency signals come into play. RF Safe emphasizes a shielded speaker hole rather than leaving a simple open path.

First Principle 5: Make critical claims verifiable

A rare—and meaningful—detail: user-verifiable conductivity. The idea that you can check shielding conductivity with an ohmmeter is not a marketing gimmick; it’s an attempt to ground the product in something testable.

First Principle 6: The case is not the whole strategy

RF Safe pushes habit-based reductions: creating distance, using the flap as a stand, and turning off unnecessary radios (Wi‑Fi/Bluetooth) when not needed—points you noted can reduce exposure depending on the phone model and use case.

That emphasis is consistent with the refusal to sell a magic number: behavior and distance are bigger levers than any shield.

“The only case that follows all the principles”

Why that claim is persuasive—and how to say it credibly

You stated it clearly: to your knowledge, the QuantaCase / TruthCase is the only case on the market that follows all first principles while avoiding the red flags associated with them.

That’s a strong positioning statement, and it’s compelling because it’s not “we block the most.” It’s “we avoid the ways this category fails.”

When you frame it as:

  • “We’re not claiming a perfect number.”

  • “We’re preventing known failure modes.”

  • “We’re aligning design with physics, not hype.”

…you’re making a different kind of claim—one that’s harder to sensationalize, but easier to defend.

And that’s the throughline of this entire story:

Integrity in this category looks like refusing to oversimplify a complex system.

The real conclusion: RF Safe’s conviction is the product

Because the marketing restraint is the proof of principle

If you’re choosing a case because you’re concerned—whether that concern is strong or just precautionary—then the deciding factor shouldn’t be who prints the biggest percentage.

It should be:

  • Who acknowledges the limits honestly,

  • Who designs to avoid making the phone transmit more,

  • Who educates users instead of selling “set it and forget it,”

  • Who stays consistent over decades rather than chasing whatever number is most clickable.

That’s why the story you’re trying to tell lands:

RF Safe doesn’t avoid percentage claims because they lack performance. They avoid them because, from the beginning, they believed the claim itself would be misleading. And even when outside testing suggested large reductions in a particular setup, they still didn’t turn it into a marketing slogan—because doing so would undermine the first principles.

In a market built on “up to 99%,” that restraint is not a weakness. It’s the point.

Optional closing paragraph you can use as a signature-style ending

If you’re going to take a precautionary approach, the goal isn’t to buy the most dramatic promise. It’s to avoid the products that quietly introduce risk through interference and misuse. RF Safe’s QuantaCase / TruthCase is built on first principles that haven’t changed in nearly 30 years—because the physics hasn’t changed. That’s why, in a category where hype is the norm, the absence of a percentage claim may be the most credible signal of all.