/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12161318
>I have a hard time finding a real hard-hitting paper that makes it clear this is an issue
See the NTP etc papers mentione din th eOP, and check out the papers noted in the pastebin.

>based on the stuff he says you would think that epidemiological studies would show
There have been dozens of such studies since the late 80's with various results, the most consistent of which is markers of oxidative stress, lower sperm count, and DNA damage. Cancer is another matter, more difficult to indicate causation and a number of highly promoted studies had critical methodological flaws, like the Danish study which ultimately ended up putting the most long term heavy users in the control group. The main issue here is modern day there is no control group, the biological effects and habituation process for these exposures doesn't instantly reverse on cessation, and so it could take weeks even if you did have a suitable environment which was free from manmade RF (without attenuating the Schumann resonances). It is njearly impossible to adequately, through self reporting, characterize exposure. The funding required for portable exposimeters for some sort of dosimetry has largely dried up, to my knowledge this has not been done since like 2010.

>And I haven't seen any human trials where they check hormone levels etc. with cell signals vs without
As stated above, there is no longer any access to a control group. You're exposed whether you use it or not.

>it's all rats with ideal microwave stimulus magnitudes higher than typical cell/wi-fi strength.
I'm not sure what you've read, but this isn't the case. A number of studies use off the shelf consumer grade equipment, generally with some program to simulate a typical user's network activities.