Doubts

2018 Investigation by The Nation

An independent peer review of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s cell phone study announced their findings of clear evidence that cell phone radiation causes cancer—validating The Nation’s special investigation:

How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation

The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.

Conflicts of Interest Among Those Who Set Radiation Limits

In the U.S., public radiation exposure limits are set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and do not protect health. Harvard's Captured Agency report details how the FCC and industry are protecting corporate profit over public health:

http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf

In Europe, the public radiation limits are set by the International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Investigate Europe, a team of investigative journalists expose that ICNIRP members have extensive conflicts of interest with industry. Dr. Joel Moskowitz chronicles their findings, and additional studies that show ICNIRP scientists are working for industry:

https://www.saferemr.com/2018/07/icnirps-exposure-guidelines-for-radio.html

The 98 page report, " The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G" was commissioned, coordinated and published in 2020 by two Members of the European Parliament – Michèle Rivasi and Klaus Buchner: https://www.saferemr.com/2018/07/icnirps-exposure-guidelines-for-radio.html
Priyanka Bandara, Ph.D., and others in 2020 published 5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks: Time for a Medical Discussion in Australia and New Zealand which cites conflicts of interest with industry and current evidence of harm: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343416307_5G_Wireless_Deployment_and_Health_Risks_Time_for_a_Medical_Discussion_in_Australia_and_New_Zealand

How to Evaluate EMF Information

As you research this topic, you will encounter conflicting information and those who say there is no issue with EMFs. This three-page document may help to clarify points of confusion with facts, EMF Points of Confusion vs. Fact.
Please bear the in mind the following two points to help you sort through conflicting information you may discover through independent investigation of EMFS:

1. Dates Matter

Research into this topic has been going on for decades. Some diseases take longer to surface than others. So, be mindful of the point in time at which the information you're reading was written. Skeptical views or inconclusive studies written ten years ago, or even two, may have already been proven otherwise by more recent studies. Always look at the dates the information was written, and just as importantly, at the dates of the sources being cited.
In 2007, a group of world experts published the first BioIniative report to reflect a collective body of evidence that EMFs were posing a growing public health issue. The authors recognized more research was needed to better understand the impact. For some, this was enough to default to the Precautionary Principle (an international standard for keeping the public safe). Others took a wait and see approach even though people were already getting sick and the studies showed many more could be expected to. Five years later an even larger group of world experts collaborated to put out a new 2012 BioInitiative Report to account for 1,800 new studies that had been done. These studies proved beyond scientific doubt that EMFs are posing a serious public health threat on multiple levels. The report was released in January 2013, and in March 2013 the FCC announced its guidelines were being formally reviewed but the public comments have been ignored and more wireless spectrum has been approved so the industry can be first to market with toxic 5G infrastructure to enable the Internet of Things (IoT). See the 5G & IoT page.
The BioInitiative Report findings are what made clear to the FCC that our outdated standards from 1996 must be revisited. The old standards address only the thermal effect of EMFs (how much radiation it takes to burn the skin of a six-foot man). Studies have shown the current thermal standards are 100s and in some cases 1,000s of times too high, depending on the disease, where wi-fi use is concerned. In other words, if manufacturers are allowed to continue to say they comply with FCC guidelines they will continue to put out products that are at this moment causing multiple illnesses and fertility issues that will impact generations to come through the mutated gene pool. Scientists, doctors and concerned citizens gave formal input to the FCC thru September 2013. As others become aware of this issue, they are encouraged to continue to voice concerns to our legislators until FCC guidelines protect the public. See the Solutions page.
Dr. Henry Lai updated the BioInitiative Report with the studies done through 2017, and you can search them by topic in the Updated Research Summaries.

2. Question Motive

The other advice is to be mindful of who is writing each piece. Try not to get caught up in any hype or scare mongering from those with cavalier, egotistical, deliberately misleading or poorly researched opinions. Look for scientific studies and mainstream non-industry funded credentialed experts who analyze them. Current facts will speak for themselves, so folks shouldn't have to use scare tactics. If you read a source and aren't sure, then dig. If your digging doesn't produce satisfactory credentials, then perhaps move on.

We know it's not beyond industry tactics to plant seeds of doubt to keep the public wanting to hold onto beliefs that serve their profits rather than the public's health. That includes paying unethical "experts" to promote their agenda, who will present information deliberately meant to confuse and contradict evidence. Think Erin Brokovich, who continues to dedicate her life to protecting the public and holding profit-driven corporations accountable. Think Monsanto, Dupont and others who are spending millions on advertising to prevent having to put labels on foods that will tell consumers they are eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the latter case, Europe is already ahead of the U.S. in protecting public health, as they and other countries have already banned GMOs completely from their food source.

See the following article, Manufacturing Doubt in Product Defense, which explains how consumers get caught in the middle and don't change their buying patterns when the vendors are successful at manufacturing doubt:

http://www.fastcompany.com/1139299/manufacturing-doubt-product-defense

Dr. Joel Moskowitz shares examples of how the industry influences science:

https://www.saferemr.com/2015/02/industry-funded-scientists-undermine.html