In the case of research on the radiation damage, EHS has only tested a single methodology, provocation studies, to determine if there is or is no correlation between artificial microwave radiation and this type of radiation damage. Within research, you always try an idea or phenomenon from several angles, through different scientific methods, until you try everything. Only then will you know if the question has been answered falsification.
With regard to the methodology of provocation studies on radiation damage, EHS, the methodology is not even scientific, since there are several crucial sources of error in the method previously reported here,
which means that you can not get a significant result. One of the coarsest is that you do not even use EHS people in the tests.
Despite serious flaws, which are crucial to the outcome, the authorities and politicians accept these studies, which are of such a low quality that they should not even have the status of scientific studies. These provocation studies should have been rejected already in the 1990s, as junk studies. But instead, the authorities and politicians support these results and claiming that they are scientific. Why requires do not the authorities and politicians require different methods to determine a connection?
I have the answer myself, you do not want a scientific result that has been determined by being tested according to science, through falsification.