Okay, here is a video to support your cause:
http://www.consumertronics.net/mindcontrol-books.htm
Quote:
|
Special: If you are under EM attack or harassment, you'll need all four just as soon as possible!: "UNDER ATTACK," "MIND CONTROL," "SUBLIMINAL MIND CONTROL," and "EM BRAINBLASTER." Combined price is only $96!
|
P.S. I actually OWN a copy of the "Electromagnetic Brain Blaster" book. 
For some very strange reason, amazon is selling USED copies of this book for many times more than new from the publisher: http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti.../dp/0934274053
Strange...
But then, I still prefer scientific evidence gathered from large statistical sample double-blind experiments with third-party verified repeatable results. I just cannot envision myself sitting alone on a roof for a week to prove something to myself about physical and mental health effects of EMF exposure in any manner that I would find convincing. I would think that the experience alone would affect the outcome, with or without the EMF. But that is just me...
P.P.S. According to my research (back in the day), it is the EM waveform/repetition/decay rate that determines biological effects. According to some studies (as documented in the EM Brain Blaster book and elsewhere), it is aperiodic repetitions that are the most harmful, because your body is unsuccessful at adapting to an "almost periodic" (syncopated) signal. Although syncopation in music adds interest, it also causes stress. This is why TENS machines (which reduce pain with electrical stimulation of nerves) have regulations controlling what waveforms/repetition/decay rates are allowed.
Besides ELF exposure having been repeatedly proven to be more unhealthy than microwave exposure, typical ELF signals are measured in MEGAwatts, while wifi signals are measured in MILLIwatts (with a signal strength that decays as the square of the distance). High frequencies have a penetration depth relative to their wavelength. High frequencies like microwave exhibit a "skin effect" and do not penetrate very deeply. And 2.4GHz in particular is absorbed by water, so most of the energy would be dissipated at or near the surface of the skin.
Even your referenced bioinitiative book (http://www.bioinitiative.org/freeacc...ocs/report.pdf) keeps saying "we don't know" and tries to use ELF studies to prove its cause while lumping ELF and RF together as "EM", which is not really particularly honest, in my opinion. And creating fear of the "we don't know" is just FUD. An author listed in the book is also the contact person (owner) of the domain name, so the entire website is a bit self-serving. And like I said, that person is also an employee of a WIRED communications company, which adds to the self-serving implications.
Despite all of the tax money devoted to studying this issue, there will always be doubters, but there is no need to scare legislators into taking away my technotoys without REAL evidence.