> What's wrong with this again?

That they make bogus claims like: "RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment."

while providing no evidence for that claim or even a hypothesis about a mechanism that could potentially cause harm. Wireless technology wasn't invented yesterday, we have been studying it for decades. If they had actually found something new, they'd publish it in a respected journal (no, Bioinitiative is not one, it's pretty much the opposite).

But they didn't do that, because they already knew what the result would be. Their statement that they want "truly impartial EMF & health scientists" simply means they want scientists who agree with their stated opinion, nothing more.

They do back up their claims, and they give careful citations.

> The world’s largest study (25 million US dollar) National Toxicology Program (NTP), shows statistically significant increase in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMF below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines followed by most countries. These results support results in human epidemiological studies on RF radiation and brain tumour risk. A large number of peer -reviewed scientific reports demonstrate harm to human health from EMFs.

And their first citation in that paragraph [0] is a study from the U.S. National Toxicology Program.

Don't say stuff like "they make bogus claims", please - you don't know that, and it's unprofessional.

[0] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/01/055699

They give citations alright, but citations don't equal evidence. The results of the particular study you linked has been heavily criticized for example, see [0]. The fact that this paper wasn't published in a respected peer reviewed journal is also troubling, as it hides the opinion of the reviewers.

> Don't say stuff like "they make bogus claims", please - you don't know that, and it's unprofessional.

It's unprofessional to tell people they're wrong, when the scientific consensus says they're wrong? So you can't tell flat earthers the earth is round because that would be 'unprofessional'?

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26420225

> So you can't tell flat earthers the earth is round because that would be 'unprofessional'?

I mean, that's exactly what Columbus did a few hundred years ago. Should he have followed the 'scientific consensus'?

edit, since I can't reply: yes, I know that Eratosthenes measured the circumference in something like the 2nd century BCE. Swap in galileo & heliocentrism if you like, the point still stands.

> yes, I know that Eratosthenes measured the circumference in something like the 2nd century BCE.

That's not the point, the following quote from the article roywiggins linked you is:

“no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat.”

> I mean, that's exactly what Columbus did a few hundred years ago. Should he have followed the 'scientific consensus'?

Besides being wrong, see above, that's not at all what I claim. If you think the scientific consensus is wrong, then prove it is wrong with evidence, write it up in a paper and submit it to a respected peer reviewed journal where it can be scrutinized. And don't try to circumvent review by presenting your work to the general public, who has neither the knowledge or the expertise to review your claims.

But until you've done that, your claims are just your opinion, and claiming they are 'proven' is bogus.

It is not.

https://www.history.com/news/christopher-columbus-never-set-...

The better analogy would be a bunch of flat earthers preventing Columbus from sailing until he proved to their satisfaction that sailing too close to the edge wouldn't cause the earth to flip over.

Results in SD rats aren't useful. They're misused widely in research.

The results so far (surveyed across the literature; I'm a biophysicist who is familiar with all sorts of radiation and biology) are not convincing. most studies lack controls, or have poor study design.

Sure they're misused; but they're still relevant as a first-level analysis. If the results are promising, more studies can be justified. No one is claiming that humans and rats have more than the most minor physiological similarity.

But just because 'most studies' into EMF radiation at this frequency are not convincing, does not mean that they all are not. Those poorly conducted studies should be ignored, not used as mud thrown onto good studies.

I thought this one was interesting. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5376454/

I don't think rats that are highly prone to getting cancer for reasons that are specific to that rat subspecies' biology means they're relevant as a first-level analysis.

As for ignoring poor studies: that's the first and best thing you should do, because otherwise, you'll spend a bunch of time trying to hypothesize your way out of a morass of contradictory, confusing, and ambiguous data.

Let's not confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence.

My proposal, whatever maximum dosage regulators approve, they will get a tower installed next to their house that exposes them to that dosage. Align the incentives.

that sounds petulant.

that sounds ad-hominem

> That they make bogus claims like: "RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment."

Ever had an RF burn from an antenna? I have. It can definitely be harmful.