> WHO considers EMF to be a possible carcinogen and says that more studies are required. That category simply means that it hasn't been ruled out - again, prov

> WHO considers EMF to be a possible carcinogen and says that more studies are required. That category simply means that it hasn't been ruled out - again, proving a negative. Nothing has established that link. The category that it's in (Group 2B) also contains coffee and pickled vegetables. But nobody's out there screaming about their potential to cause cancer - because they're safe too. [1] Group 2A ("probably carcinogenic", a higher classification than "possibly") includes any and all hot beverages consumed over 65C. ELF inclusion in group 2b was based on those leukemia studies you pointed to which, as my metastudy illustrated, do not actually conclude a carcinogenicity risk. However, due to the way risk management works, it will never be removed from category 2b because it cannot unequivocally be proven safe. > If there wasn't still debate then there wouldn't still be studies questioning it. There are tons of studies that say something to the effect of non-thermal effects being debated/possible/etc. Sure, and studies continue to be done on aspartame even though it's the single most studied compound in the history of the world. That doesn't mean there's not consensus. Consensus isn't unanimity. All the studies you dug up are "10th dentist" studies - you know, the ones who hate Oral B. And as for EM radiation and calcium channels - is that in vivo? At what level? How does that compare to exposure in the environments you are talking about? Is there any demonstrated harm there either? Does this kind of change have a conclusive link to cancer or anything else? Again, you're asking to disprove a negative for which there is no evidence. > Not really. If you properly control all the variables, you can measure the differences. This may not be feasible when studying humans, but typically a control group is used or comparison to the population. This theory about controlling for all the variables is why we have studies that show one day that eggs will kill you and your babies, and the next day that eggs are fantastic superfoods. You cannot do so with that many variables. Otherwise, you know, it would have been done by now. [1] https://www.coffeeandhealth.org/factsheet/coffee-and-iarc-what-are-the-facts https://www.coffeeandhealth.org/factsheet/coffee-and-iarc-wh...