You're clearly in denial.
To talk about some effects, you have to properly describe effects of what exactly you are talking about.
"oxidative stress, disruption of membranes, disruption of blood brain barrier, and reproductive harm at low intensity levels of wifi and cell phone RF. " as I already stated. If you don't know that, you've never seriously studied the literature.
You've fallen into the trap that Dr Cindy Russell pointed out in that presentation. The engineer or physicist writes off all biological effects with some factoid they learned in school. "It is non-ionizing", or "all it can do is heat" then you set the safety limit to the thermal threshold and call it a day.
Sorry but that is pure and simple denial.
I'm seeing your secondary tactic is to overanalyze a health study you are shown to paint all other studies (99% which you will never read) with a broad brush.
Sorry but you don't get to dismiss every study based on one or two you've nitpicked. You don't get to dismiss the 100 studies reviewed by Igor Yakymenko on oxidative effects https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26151230/. You don't get to dismiss the series of studies by Salford on the blood brain barrier and cell phone radiation https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19345073/, nor do you get to dismiss the many studies cited in their literature of others who make similar findings.
You don't get to invoke some grand conspiracy among researchers (paid for by no one) to deny all the findings. The only conspiracy is on the corporate side with a trillion dollar industry who funds studies to muddy the waters.
Regardless of all that, the findings are what they are and will continue to be real and the effects continue to be reproduced using the same or similar frequency bands (even if not the exact phone model every time). Some use an actual phone or router. Others use a phone radiation simulator. But the same effects are shown over and over again.
You're clearly in denial.
To talk about some effects, you have to properly describe effects of what exactly you are talking about.
"oxidative stress, disruption of membranes, disruption of blood brain barrier, and reproductive harm at low intensity levels of wifi and cell phone RF. " as I already stated. If you don't know that, you've never seriously studied the literature.
You've fallen into the trap that Dr Cindy Russell pointed out in that presentation. The engineer or physicist writes off all biological effects with some factoid they learned in school. "It is non-ionizing", or "all it can do is heat" then you set the safety limit to the thermal threshold and call it a day.
Sorry but that is pure and simple denial.
I'm seeing your secondary tactic is to overanalyze a health study you are shown to paint all other studies (99% which you will never read) with a broad brush.
Sorry but you don't get to dismiss every study based on one or two you've nitpicked. You don't get to dismiss the 100 studies reviewed by Igor Yakymenko on oxidative effects https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26151230/. You don't get to dismiss the series of studies by Salford on the blood brain barrier and cell phone radiation, nor do you get to dismiss the many studies cited in their literature of others who make similar findings.
You don't get to invoke some grand conspiracy among researchers (paid for by no one) to deny all the findings. The only conspiracy is on the corporate side with a trillion dollar industry who funds studies to muddy the waters.
Regardless of all that, the findings are what they are and will continue to be real and the effects continue to be reproduced using the same or similar frequency bands (even if not the exact phone model every time).