Obviously if you have read their criticism its gets much further than "non-ionizing can't harm", its a criticism of the methods use to analyze data from other s

Obviously if you have read their criticism its gets much further than "non-ionizing can't harm", its a criticism of the methods use to analyze data from other studies in cherry picking fashion, they did no actual testing themselves and could easily have statistical issues with the positive outcomes. Again there is no conclusive proof that RF exposure causes adverse non-thermal effects at cell phone power levels or even much higher power levels let alone being able to explain a mechanism that would cause those non-reproducible effects. If you have better information please post it, one paper from a questionable journal using questionable methods is not enough.