[hnhg]

I haven't dived deep into this topic, and this isn't a challenge to what you're saying, but what are your thoughts on the points here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03784...

TBH, unless you work directly in an area like this and stay up to date, it's a question of faith in experts either way. It basically becomes an appeal to authority, and as you can see, if you have multiple putative authorities, it becomes difficult to select.

[cogman10]

That the guy is, frankly, fringe.

This isn't the first anti-RF study he's published and I doubt it will be the last.

Looking further into his claims, he's said everything from "Alzheimer's is caused by WiFi" to "previous non ionizing studies were all flawed because that used the wrong test animal".

I expect when 6G rolls out he'll publish exactly the same study with an equally scary title.

I know, I'm committing an ad hominem fallacy. But at the end of the day I'm not buying his article see the rest of the claims. It is good enough for me that consensuses of much larger studies over longer periods are pretty much all against his study.

[hnhg]

Pubmed is littered with similar authors in peer-reviewed journals. He's not the only one.

This shows the problem right now. If you're not an expert, you don't know what you don't know, and have to yield to some kind of authority. Noise is greater than it has ever been, and trust is low. This will get worse before it gets better....