The problem as I see it is that as long as you think that you can excuse EMF radiation nearby, you will do little to participate in the wider discussion about whether, like in the case of smoking, those who are damaged most can be just present where the smoke wafts around. Likewise, those who might be damaged by radiation might have nothing to do with wireless devices and antennas.
'Methinks he doth protest too much' becomes recognisable on both sides of the debate with little being done to remove / understand the new element in our environment, that of overwhelming EMF radiation, ubiquitous, everywhere almost.
This is not a marginal issue. It may be the issue that defines the next fifty years.
