Agreed. The "correlation != causation" mantra does not match the context here.
It's true that correlation studies are not as conclusive as laboratory experiments in general, but when we're talking about negative long-term health effects on humans, you can't establish causation without doing something unethical. But does that mean science becomes useless? I don't think so.
There are times when it's appropriate to infer causation from a correlation and act on that conclusion. For example, the famous lead toxicity studies are correlation studies. One such study, cited over 1000 times, [0] meets only 6 out of 9 criteria for inferring causation [1], and people are comfortable making that inference.
A good next step would be to go through the PowerWatch list of studies [2] and evaluate these studies based on these criteria (or a similar list).
Never implied that. The study of radar operators in the military specifically states that the cancer could be caused by anything, calling out industrial solvents often used when servicing radar equipment. But the “5G is cancer” people use the study to support their claim that millimetre saves cause cancer.
The radar operators surely don’t wash them every day with “industrial solvents”. It’s nowhere said that there’s any basis that the operators are consistently exposed to them. The study also doesn’t claim what you claim, it is written much more carefully.
Where did I claim that servicing equipment means washing the equipment with industrial solvents?
Why do you feel the need to “scare quote” industrial solvents which is a common term used to refer to toxic and carcinogenic chemicals used in industrial processes?
