Am not scientifically trained enough to evaluate all such studies, nor do I have time if I was.
Neither am I.
Yet I rather doubt that researchers who found no effect all had shares in the power company, radio manufacturers or Samsung. It seems more likely to me that there was motivated reasoning in the studies which did find an effect, as the few i’ve looked into did not hold up under further scrutiny.
I am by no means suggesting that all those who found no effect are in the pocket. There are many factors to this. Bad science, not looking long enough, not using the correct frequiencies, looking at modulated instead of non modulated. Bias, if you go in to the study thinking one thing, you might just confirm it. Establishment, there seems to be 2 ways to get funding, private (which is dodgy as you are in the pocket) and through unversity/government grants. People who sit on these panels have presumably got there by agreeing with the scientific establishment view on the subject, thats how they will have got promoted or they will be the ones that came up with the theory so they are now the expert, this creates obvious massive bais and financial and ego dependence on the theory. Are these people more likely to grant funding to people who are trying to prove there lifes work wrong? Or are they more likely to actively try to shut down the work you are doing (this happened to Robert O'Becker, Gerry Polack, A Marino, and many more). Also Big buisness has a WAY bigger financial inscentive to get studies saying this has no effect (the telecoms industries alone are worth billions) than some company who sells anti emf products. These big buisnesses have massive influence due to lobbying etc.
I can’t state great certainty one one way or the other, I’m not qualified to do that. About the best I can say is that exposing people to ~1000 times the weak fields we are speaking of seems to do nothing, while several million times does have an effect: Enough microwave power will cook flesh, as will enough of their close cousin IR.
I agree, I am also not qualified to say one way or the other, but at the very least I will say this is NOT a settled issue. There are dozens of papers coming out every year showing negative effects even at normal dosages (not 1000 times).
If I’m going to worry about EMF it’ll be UV, which is a known health problem.
I hate to be a contrarian but I have to disagree with you again. I think we are getting FAR too little UV light these days as opposed to far to much. I'll throw this out there, office workers get 4 times more skin cancer than outdoor workers. People who sunbathe regularly have far less cancer overall than people who don't. 100+yrs ago there was no suncream sunglasses and 95% of jobs were outdoors yet skin cancer was not an epidemic.
Or perhaps it’s proof that picking through piles of studies to find a tidbit or two that agrees with what you wanted to hear is not science.
There are hundreds that say EMFs are a problem and hundreds that don't, its not one or 2 on either side.