@ all First of all, I didn't chase Nohatch off, just called him on things he'd written which he then chose to deny having said. I don't think that labeling everyone who has found effects from EMR a "pseudoscientist" is a productive way to have a discussion, and attacking the authors of papers rather than the work they do is distinctly below the belt and unworthy of a man who is a scientist himself. But the trouble is, what many of you remember is the fact that he attacked a number of studies (whatever the grounds) and not what he actually said about them and whether his criticisms were answerable or even valid. What Nohatch did not do, though he claimed to be the best qualified among us to do it, was discuss any of the studies showing DNA damage from EMR; I rather think this is because these studies are much less easy to attack than observational nature studies, where you can nit-pick the details more easily (e.g., it is not possible to measure the EMR in an actual stork's nest without disturbing the birds, so you just have to get as close as you can). There are a great many good studies done by highly qualified scientists which I have posted on this forum that Nohatch didn't touch, and which most of you probably haven't read: I can't help that but it is a pity because they are genuinely interesting and quite convincing. However, the fact that many, probably most, of you, simply do not want to believe EMR is damaging to us and nature means that you would rather have a Nohatch doing a hatchet job on a selected few studies than read the entire body of work for yourselves and come up with your own questions and criticisms. There is a huge body of work showing damage from EMR, and I seriously doubt that it is all bad.
For example, Borjam, you refuse to accept the results of either the NTP or the Ramazzini studies. Why? Because Nohatch criticised the number of controls? Do you not realize that the NTP, for instance, has protocols which must be followed in conducting such an expensive and long-term study, and that they adhered to those protocols in obtaining the results they had? Did you not read the piece by Ron Melnick, former head of the NTP, praising the study for being done properly? Do you think we are dealing with amateurs here, who would deliberately undermine the validity of their own work, done with public money, in order to make their results worthless? Or that the same would apply to the Ramazzini Institute? No, you simply want to believe what you want to believe, even if that means ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Or take the Balmori study of tadpoles. You refused to accept that the contents of the two tanks of tadpoles were identical; yet I reread it and he explicitly states that the contents were identical. So your criticism of that study is rubbish. Do you not think peer review would have spotted it if the contents of the two tanks weren't the same, or that Balmori is such a poor scientist that he would, for example, put river water in one tank and tap water in the other? What sort of experiment would that be?
The fact is, guys, you can not dismiss the evidence when you haven't bothered to look at it, and it is only the independent scientists who do not have a conflict of interest whose work is not tainted by the inherent desire to please the cash cows funding their research. The only papers on any subject worth reading are the ones that say at the bottom "Conflict of interest: none."
Next. fugl, if you think I don't read what I post, you are mistaken. But you are not mistaken in saying that I think many of the downward public health trends and declines in nature are all in some way or other related to EMR. In the AMA paper, many deaths may be caused by opioids, the use of which is epidemic, but this is itself a product of depression, which is caused by exposure to EMR (and probably to the whole experience of staring at a wireless gadget hour after hour, day after day, instead of going outdoors and doing something physical). I will attach (separately) a comment to the FCC regarding California firefighters: look at the list of symptoms they suffered and ask yourself how many people you know are suffering from those same symptoms (I would say most people, though not necessarily acutely as in the case of the firemen). Neurological/neuropsychiatric effects from EMR are common and increasing; they will be much worse with 5G, as will all the other health effects.
And finally, there is a very interesting talk (35 min) by Martin Pall that is well worth listening to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GqnAZHqBrY