The problem is we still live in a world when most scientists even considering this matter think that for radiation to cause a biologic effect it has to ionize DNA or RNA because they think change occurs from inside out in a cell, period, end of story.

The reality of epigenetic science shows exactly the opposite; it has been observed how incident non ionizing EMF affects hyperglycemia, permeation of the BBB, calcium efflux via alterting VGCCs, ubiquitination, and so on. So for example, part of the Warburg hypothesis is linked to hyperglycemia. Hyperglycemia is exactly what Nora Volkow found in 2011 and what Allen Frey found in the 1960’s and 70’s when the brain was exposed to nnEMF. AMPk pathways are raised. They described this process in their papers.

These observations are made because Outside -> In is the key mitochondrial effect which can result in turning on genes more than we would like. This is why ubiquitin marking and a relative pseudohypoxia are both elevated in most chronic disease states. Cancer is a chronically “turned on” version of growth that is uncontrolled; which follows from circadian light cycles (a form of non ionizing incident EMF mismanagement) being decoupled from ubiquitin cycling.

David Sinclair’s results published n his landmark 2013 paper shows that in diseases of aging low NAD+ and pseudohypoxia in the mitochondria of cells linked to a redox shift was the key change to aging and mitochondrial heteroplasmy. If you don't know what heteroplasmy means you can go find Doug Wallace's papers and lectures on mitochondrial DNA and bioenergetics. He's the one who discovered mito DNA are inherited from the maternal line only.

If researchers continue to look in the nuclear genome for answers to diseases of aging including cancer, while the mitochondria are essentially ignored even though they control all the energetics of cells and ultimately orchestrate DNA expression, how many well funded, smoking gun mechanism studies would one expect to find regarding NIR and (insert chronic malady)? We are only able to go to the papers and studies already conducted that have definitively observed effects like cited above with proposed mechanisms, and connect the dots as you educate yourself on biophysics and the mitochondria. Your criteria, incidentally the same criteria used by the telcom industry who's lawyers and leaders often end up part of the 'industry regulatory' FCC, obviously excludes that sort of work to be done, and hence you reject the precautionary principle as silly, and you use your n=1 self diagnosed experience as proof (?). Of course scientists who demonstrate something akin to potentially inconvenient truths relative to the industry paradigm are marginalized, quackified, defunded, on and on. You can pick up "Going Somewhere" by Andrew Marino for an interesting case study of that.

The problem is we still live in a world when most scientists even considering this matter think that for radiation to cause a biologic effect it has to ionize DNA or RNA because they think change occurs from inside out in a cell, period, end of story.

The reality of epigenetic science shows exactly the opposite; it has been observed how incident non ionizing EMF affects hyperglycemia, permeation of the BBB, calcium efflux via alterting VGCCs, ubiquitination, and so on. So for example, part of the Warburg hypothesis is linked to hyperglycemia. Hyperglycemia is exactly what Nora Volkow found in 2011 and what Allen Frey found in the 1960’s and 70’s when the brain was exposed to nnEMF. AMPk pathways are raised. They described this process in their papers.

These observations are made because Outside -> In is the key mitochondrial effect which can result in turning on genes more than we would like. This is why ubiquitin marking and a relative pseudohypoxia are both elevated in most chronic disease states. Cancer is a chronically “turned on” version of growth that is uncontrolled; which follows from circadian light cycles (a form of non ionizing incident EMF mismanagement) being decoupled from ubiquitin cycling.

David Sinclair’s results published n his landmark 2013 paper shows that in diseases of aging low NAD+ and pseudohypoxia in the mitochondria of cells linked to a redox shift was the key change to aging and mitochondrial heteroplasmy. If you don't know what heteroplasmy means you can go find Doug Wallace's papers and lectures on mitochondrial DNA and bioenergetics. He's the one who discovered mito DNA are inherited from the maternal line only.

If researchers continue to look in the nuclear genome for answers to diseases of aging including cancer, while the mitochondria are essentially ignored even though they control all the energetics of cells and ultimately orchestrate DNA expression, how many well funded, smoking gun mechanism studies would one expect to find regarding NIR and (insert chronic malady)? We are only able to go to the papers and studies already conducted that have definitively observed effects like cited above, and connect the dots as you educate yourself on biophysics and the mitochondria.