Thanks. I watched most of this and read portions of Pall’s study. It appears the conclusions remain less certain than one might conclude from the video. Specifically, Pall’s own study states:
Most, if not all, EMF effects are blocked by VGCC channel blockers
In addition, the WHO states this on its website (emphasis added):
Cancer-related studies: Many epidemiological studies have addressed possible links between exposure to RF and excess risk of cancer. However, because of differences in the design and execution of these studies, their results are difficult to interpret. A number of national and international peer review groups have concluded that there is no clear evidence of links between RF exposure and excess risk of cancer. WHO has also concluded that there is no convincing scientific evidence that exposure to RF shortens the life span of humans, or that RF is an inducer or promoter of cancer. However, further studies are necessary.
I think the NIH makes similar statements, but I’m reluctant to rely on them, given the current anti-science crowd in DC.
I think the jury is still out on this question. But, like I said in my original post, I’m not arguing that EMFs/RFs do not cause cancer, only that the science is ambiguous at best at this point.