This is 13 years old. Has there been any development since? It sounds a lot like nonsense. It seems the proposed mechanism is completely testable. How much str

This is 13 years old. Has there been any development since? It sounds a lot like nonsense. It seems the proposed mechanism is completely testable. How much stronger are RF signals just above a bed than in free air? I would have thought that if these cancers were more likely due to higher strength RF fields, there would be a very strong correlation between distance to transmission tower and cancer incidence. RF power drops off with the inverse square of distance - there's only so much an antenna (intentional or otherwise) can do to increase power density. You'd expect a similar effect from living a bit closer to the transmitter. Did they ever study that? Edit: I found a paper by the original author. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3730314/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3730314/ It looks like nonsense. They're making a very broad correlation between cancer incidences and the number of FM transmitters, and then deciding that it must be the cause. There's no actual evidence that mattresses amplify radio signals and no measurement of power density. They also seemingly attribute lung cancer incidence to the same cause - despite the very well documented rise of smoking in the mid to late 20th century. There's some real gems in the conclusion: > "the main conclusion is that the melanoma epidemic is a result of the modern man-made environment that forces us to live and sleep in invisible but still unhealthy electromagnetic smog." > "stand up to the strong economic interests that rather want us to continue buying expensive spring beds, " > "One is to make an enquiry among still smoking and still healthy elderly (80+) about their use of metal spring mattresses to compare that with standard beds among lung cancer patients." I wonder if the author smokes and doesn't want to quit?