With all due respect, if we're going to use the scientific method to draw a conclusion about a scientific machine, we need to approach the truth in an equally scientific manner.
Part of the scientific process is peer review; the process of getting your work checked by individual scientists and organisations not affiliated with you (in fact, often your opponents in the field), making sure the results are reproducible and not just something somebody can do hidden away in a government building, and so on.
With that in mind, if you're referring to 'Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity':
based on 25,000 articles published over the past 30 years, the World Health Organization concluded:
current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields.
It's not like they haven't bothered or tried to suppress it. That's 25,00 scientific articles all confirming the same thing.
Now, if you're purely talking about radiofrequency energy and radiation causing cancer, again this is over-studied and untrue, and don't just take my word for it, a simple read and understanding of what's going on should be sufficient.
For a start, there are two types of radiation, Ionizing and non-ionizing. Non-ionizing radiation lacks the energy to do what ionized radiation does - strip electrons from atoms. And there is no evidence to suggest this is carcinogenic in phones. The only results they've found is that phones can 'heat the tissue'.
And again, it's not like they haven't tried:
Researchers have carried out several types of epidemiologic studies to investigate the possibility of a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of malignant (cancerous) brain tumors, such as gliomas, as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuromas (tumors in the cells of the nerve responsible for hearing), most meningiomas (tumors in the meninges, membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord), and parotid gland tumors (tumors in the salivary glands)
What most fear comes from are sentences like this:
researchers have reported some statistically significant associations for certain subgroups of people.
But what reporters don't do is read on and see this:
However, the researchers considered this finding inconclusive because they felt that the amount of use reported by some respondents was unlikely
As in, a statistical anomaly. The anomaly is further confirmed by:
Another recent analysis from this study found no relationship between brain tumor locations and regions of the brain that were exposed to the highest level of radiofrequency energy from cell phones
It goes on. In Denmark a study of nearly 400,000 individuals who frequently used phones for more than 13 years found zero association.
The only reason some companies are made to slap a little sticker on is because science doesn't work in a 0% or 100% system, it works in the 5 sygma system, which means a finding can only ever be about 99.9999% certain in science because, you know, God might come down and change things or the Universe might flip upside down.
Businesses want to avert the risk of being sued by slapping that on, in the same way they write 'this soap removes 99.99% of bacteria - because any bacteria that is one day found, they can just attribute to the 0.01%.
I'd worry more about getting cancer from leaning on a brick wall too long, personally
If you wanna read more on these studies, feel free to go here
With due respect, the scientific studies published here and the ones referenced by Dr. Barrie Trower totally disagree with you and, in fact, do point to a clear coverup. I suggest listening to Barrie to get more details:
https://steemit.com/health/@ura-soul/warning-major-health-risks-from-5g-mobile-technology-are-being-denied-buried-by-greedy-gov-agencies-and-corporations-watch-the
The WHO is a Jewish organization tasked with reducing the birth rates of white people. Can't trust them.