Not sure about "random" but yeah, certainly the evidence is inconclusive. For me, the failing is that the evidence that has been collected so far is not widely disseminated. The HPA and the WHO both give the implied impression that "a fair amount of research has been done, and it's not really found anything". This is frustrating to me because it feels like a rather misleading impression of the evidence. On WiFi, the honest answer is "the research hasn't been done, at all" regarding WiFi exposure on health. On similar chronic exposures, such as mobile phone base stations, considerably over 50% of the epidemiology is showing statistically significant signs of adverse health effects. The research on base stations is still very limited and there is no denying that any possible mechanism of action is almost entirely not understood (though there are some speculative papers on this regard), but it does exist and it is consistent even when limited to just the published peer-reviewed literature. I see no reason why this can not be adequately spelled out, with the caveat that this does not necessarily mean that there will also be similar findings with WiFi.
Ah, but a lack of conclusivity doesn't mean that action is unwarranted. There is no conclusive evidence that driving without a seatbelt is going to save me from harm in a car crash. I have been driving happily for the last 10 years with no accidents, so I cannot see how wearing seatbelts for those 10 years would have helped me. Despite this, and ignoring the fact it is against the law, I still choose to wear one "just in case" of a bad accident in the future. In the case of WiFi, there are the beginnings of evidence that, while not being conclusive, is definitely suggestive of a sensible reason for concern. If there are alternatives or ways of minimising and potential risk that there may be, it is hard to argue against that being sensible to do. Arguing purely that "within current international guidelines is the best we can do and hope" feels ever so slightly like a head in the sand approach, it's not like it's hard to choose to read up on the science directly and make a decision from a basis of being more informed
I also feel that WHO statements such as "While RF energy can interact with body tissues at levels too low to cause any significant heating, no study has shown adverse health effects at exposure levels below international guideline limits." give me very little faith in their statements. "No study has shown adverse health effects" is simply a fallacy - it's obviously just not true. It may be perfectly reasonable to look at the literature and find it unconvincing, but it's another thing entirely to claim it doesn't exist. Their own EMF Project database shows about 70% of all their base station epidemiology showing adverse health effects. I believe strongly in the freedom to choose the most appropriate action as an individual or (in the cases of schools) as an institutional policy, but I think these decisions should be made from a position of being as informed as possible. If people rely purely on the HPA, FDA/FCC, WHO etc they are not been adequately informed of up-to-date scientific data on RF EMF and health issues. I find this very depressing, as their roles are supposed to cover these issues in detail.
