What gets me about these studies on claimed causation is that it's really really hard to do them well and there's usually no evidence that they tried to do them well.

E.g.

1) Every real distribution has weird outliers out at 4, 5, 6 sigma. Just from the random nature of life and from the fact that a study cannot control every single variable.

2) Things that are known carcinogens or disease causing agents - radon, lead in the air and the ground and the water, stuff picked up in food, viruses, genetic factors, etc. - are extremely difficult to control for. But they are much much more likely to cause these "clusters of cancers" than the tiny amount of scary "EMF" coming from radios and towers.

3) What is the physical, chemical, and biological basis for these claimed increased cancers? The radiated power and energy density is too low to cause these scary effects based on what we know about how the world actually works. What do experts who dedicate their lives to these fields say, as opposed to people outside the fields who are selling stuff on a blog?

4) Why are these scary claims never "marked to market"? I'm old enough to remember that everyone was going to get brain cancer from their cell phones. What happened there?? (Part of it is that digital cell phones are much more sensitive now so they don't need to broadcast as much power as in the analog days. But if there were an actual danger, we would still expect to see huge numbers of case of cell-phone-caused brain cancer because over half of the planet is using them now...)

Etc.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.