I am aware of many of the studies being referenced in those reviews. You should be aware that sticking a handful of rats in a box and microwaving them has almost become a running joke because most of those studies tell you absolutely nothing concrete about the effects of normal levels of RF radiation on rats, let alone on humans. Peer review means less than you might think. For less demanding journals it usually just means you didn't do anything egregiously wrong and for very low impact journals you can usually get published if you have a pulse and have correctly formatted your manuscript.
People usually don't publish null results. When people do publish positive results in contentious subjects you generally expect them to be rigorous and with high statistical support. A p value of 0.05 is not good enough because I know there are a lot more than 20 groups out there microwaving rats looking for something to publish.
This is why when I click on that first review, look up the first study I see it reference, and see that the researchers are making claims using experimental groups of only 6 rats it makes me want to die. I'm not going to continue this discussion further.
