[oersted]

> it could offer the simplest and most encompassing explanation for biological harm from EMF

Frankly this is a bit of a red flag for me in terms of scientific rigour. It sounds like you want the conclusion to be true, or you already believe it to be true, that EMFs are harmful, and you are searching for ways to justify it. Careful with confirmation bias.

> would also make the benefits of sauna, red light therapy, grounding/earthing, and other practices more legible

This is also a bit suspect. These treatments don't seem to have much in common and it's unclear how they may affect the phenomenon you are discussing. Coincidentally they also tend to be some of the go-to treatments for a myriad unscientific wellness practices.

And I'm not sure how you plan to observe the molecular structure of water with a basic microscope. I suppose that trying to induce Rouleaux formations by exposing red blood cells to WiFi is worth a try of course, but it would be very strange if such a basic thing hadn't been observed already by the scientific community.

[dennis_jeeves2]

>It sounds like you want the conclusion to be true, or you already believe it to be true, that EMFs are harmful, and

Wouldn't it be more accurate to hypothesize for a start, that man-made EMFs are likely to be harmful than safe. We co-existed with nature for eons and our bodies will be tuned to deal with the 'natural' EMFs, magnetic fields etc. Anything that is not 'natural' has to be viewed with more suspicion than something natural. Note that I'm not claiming that everything natural is good and everything 'artificial' is bad. Also the distinction between natural/artificial can be blurred.