For example,he is dismissive of the standard, normally applied, of statistical significance when a researcher found no statistically significant linkage between phone usage and tumors. On the other hand, a peripheral finding that would normally only be reason for further study is highlighted. He cites the maximum allowable energy input but does not list the actual energy being experienced. Further, total energy in Watts/kg would seem a measure better suited to whole body radiation exposure than to measuring the degree of ionization and/or DNA damage.

The site also uses bold face for emphasis and includes parenthetical comments, usually negative, about contrary findings. Without actually looking at the research, you don’t know if the issue was addressed and why or why not in the study. Although there are a large number of citations, most are from what could be considered second tier journals. In other words, there are plenty of citations from” Bioenergetics” but few from Nature, Science, JAMA, Lancet, etc. All in all, it reads much more like a political blog than anything else.

It might prove informative for you to actually look at the works cited. If your background is not in physics/biology etc, it may be heavy sledding. Not to say the research is wrong, but I am ever mindful of Linus Pauling. brilliant - his work on the chemical bond earned him a Nobel Prize but he was way off on his work in biological molecules, Vitamin C and the common cold in particular.