People harp on about tobacco, but the evidence for illness caused by smoking was immediately evident the first time it was examined.
These days even school kids learning about statistics can download the data and see the correlation.
However any correlation between EM and health has never been detected in spite of hundreds of careful studies.
Also the 5G appeal in europe, over 230 scientists from more than 40 countries have expressed their “serious concerns” regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices already before the additional 5G roll-out. [1]
In fact they completely discredit themselves in their first paragraph:
They clearly don't understand that 5G is a modulation mode, which can operate on any of the existing phone bands.
And of course they offer no evidence that modulation is relevant.
Secondly, the whole point of 5G is to replace the existing high-powered phone bases with multiple sources using much lower power.
So if anything 5G will dramatically reduce the average power levels.
It's pretty obvious that their push for a further study is a rather pointless scare campaign.
If they are so concerned, why don't they start a "fund-me" campaign and do their own study?
Designing a worthwhile study is surprisingly simple, and the equipment can be rented quite cheaply.
Whatever, there have already been a large number of independent and well funded studies, none of which have demonstrated a convincing correlation.
I believe that the issue of health and EMF is so important, that the issue must be decided by science and hard evidence.
The reality is that it would be easy to demonstrate a correlation if one did exist.
Humanity has lived with all kinds of EM radiation for a hundred years. Virtually all frequencies, power levels, and types of modulation.
If there was a risk, then a simple statistical study of health statistics v/s EM levels would quickly demonstrate it.
The scientific record shows many well funded and independent studies, however none have ever demonstrated a convincing correlation.
For example greenhouse gas emissions were not realised to be harmful for something like 146 years (from the beginning of the industrial revolution)
The effectiveness of green-houses and cold-frames has been known since medieval times.
And Wickipedia tells us that in the 1920's Joseph Fourier proposed that the "greenhouse effect" is responsible for the warming of the earth.
At any time after that, the amount of heating which would come from increased levels of CO2 (and other gasses) could have been directly calculated.
So none of this is at all controversial to atmospheric scientists.
About the only "unknown" was just how quickly our use of fossil fuels would alter the earths atmosphere.
However the actual level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been tracked since 1958 at the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory.