From the section "funding" of "The Interphone Study" web page:
"The UICC received funds for this purpose from the Mobile Manufacturers Forum
(MMF) and Groupe Speciale Mobile Association (GSMA)."
--- http://interphone.iarc.fr/interphone_funding.php
(You can read the rest of the web page, for the conclusions of such
"study"...)
The bottom line is...
If you research about this, on the Internet, you'll find both studies (and
news reports about them) that say there's nothing to worry about, and studies
that say there is. And, at least this one is known to have been funded by the
wireless industry. So, as I said, (and, that's what I meant by) "I'll let
everyone look for, and choose to believe in, the studies they want to"...
Concerning the rest, that you said...
The media organizations that I say that are credible, have proven themselves
to be so, before me, when I repeatedly *checked* what they were saying, and
(contrary to the mainstream ones, were that would happen, *a lot*) I didn't
caught them lying.
I don't necessarily have to agree with /everything/ that a person /believes/
in, in order to consider him/her credible. And, I'm intelligent enough to be
able to separate what is clearly a personal opinion being expressed, from the
facts that are being denounced.
(90% of the people on this planet, even, believe in invisible entities, they
call "gods" - without any evidence, whatsoever, to suggest that - for
example. And, I don't reject /everything/ that they say, because of that...)
And, mentioning only two (important) subjects, that you think Mike Adams is
not credible about, I have this one example -
http://www.naturalnews.com/036255_mmr_autism_court_case.html - out of many,
and also this documentary - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqsT5EoIk8U - for
example, made by medical doctors.
The "peer review" system of all the major scientific publications is a joke.
Because, as with almost everything that is big, it has already been
corrupted, or was already made corrupt (from the start, by the people with
money, who created them), by the big economic interests. And, the best
example of that, is the "Climategate" scandal, on which it was shown that the
"scientific data" being published by all the major scientific organizations
was being manipulated, on purpose.
(http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/ +
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html)
(Again, it's very important to always *check* the information that others
choose to deliver us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuj_tlRRQdQ)
As for "The Guardian", and other well-known mainstream publications, that I
also used to read, they're also controlled by the big economic interests
(https://id.theguardian.com/profile/ptanarchist/public), who have, among
other things, an interest in the commercialization of this type of products.
And, many of the supposedly "alternative" media organizations, like
"Democracy Now!" and such, are also funded by these same interests
(https://web.archive.org/web/20110721004258/http://www.questionsquestions.net/gatekeepers.html).
So, as I said... You decide who you want to believe in... Or, better yet...
Do like I do, and *check* everything (of important) that you're told about.
And, this way, you'll be able to differentiate the honest publications, from
the ones who (repeatedly) lie.
Compare what the mainstream publications say to what the alternative media
says, and make your own judgement. And, notice also the very important fact
that, the alternative ones usually present their sources, for everyone to
check what is being said, while the mainstream ones usually don't, and just
expect everyone to believe them, out of a very naïve faith in them.
