The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
the argument now is we have a whole group of scientists and doctors saying look we need to be really cautious with this stuff we need to take the precaution principle that we don't know for sure at these lower levels for extended period of times exactly what this is going to do to the body so let's be cautious about it and let's put our our numbers low
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So, I think for now, the safest thing is for us to minimize our exposure to RF EMF as much as possible until we know more about this.