Isn't it about time to stop pretending thay there might be something hazardous about athermal levels of RF radiation? After 100 years I think we'd have seen consistent biological effects in the population if there were any to be observed.
People used lead for pipes, drinking glasses, and other things for thousands of years before realizing the negative effects.
Also, the wave lengths of man-made EMFs are nonexistent in the natural world, and for the majority of human evolution.
In science you start with observed effects, then look for causes that explain, predict, or model the effects. You don't start with tin-foil hat theories with no physical basis (Polarization at wavelengths a million times longer than the structures supposedly being affected? Really?) and cast about looking for effects that your pet theories might explain.
These authors are looking for a smoking gun and they don't even have a corpse.
I'm not sure if the cited article falls into that category or not, because I can't quite recall how it works, but I just know I have been burned by that one in the past when I submitted something to be reviewed and it turned out one really surprising result was garbage tier.
They are evidently running a cross-sectional, longitudinal, inter-dimensional study on how to hose a prestigious 150-year-old brand.
The whole mobile phone radiation thing is just absurd. There's an imagined health concern that the most sensitive studies have failed to uncover. Hence, clearly, the radio waves are somehow insidious and even more evil! Sneaky radio cancer is the worst kind, don't you know!? It's evading detection! It's so subtle you don't even know you have cancer, but you must, because there's the word "radiation" in "electromagnetic radiation".
Does ionizing radiation have only consistent biological effects? If not, why RF must have only consistent effects?
Effects may be varied, just like stochastic effects of ionizing radiation.
But as a thought experiment, what would realistically happen if irrefutable evidence came on the table that RF to the levels of what phonetowers, other peoples cellphones within say... 5 meters distance etc, had negative health effects.
Would people be able to demand all RF to that level be stopped? could they sue those who do it? (tv stations, phone towers, regular cellphone owners)
if those working as regulators saw the reports, and had a chance to suppress or recommend we cease all modern communication, what do we realistically expect them to do?
I think its beyond naive to think that anything would be changed before a solution/fix were to exist, and it also seems very naive to think that anyone who presents evidence of substantial negative effects would be allowed to publish anywhere of consequence.