Obviously bad science (Score 1)

If you have 72 subjects, and you do a paper like this, you absolutely have to publish the data. This paper is unscientific and a lie. I would bet 10 bucks that if you saw the results for all 72 subjects in a nice table it would become obvious that nothing happened. It was likely that a few people with the radio transmitter on took 30 mins longer to go to sleep, But when you say " "Under the RF exposure condition, participants exhibited a longer latency to deep sleep (stage 3, meanRF=0.37, (SD=0.33), mean- Sham=0.27 hours (SD=0.12); F=9.34, p=0.0037)." Hey it sounds technical. "During the sessions participants carried out performance and memory tests, scored self-reported symptoms and state of mood." This gives you an idea of what was tested for. They, as usual, did not find anything where they were looking, so they report on something else. This widely used trick in the medical sciences artificially increases the chances of finding 'significant' results. Another way of saying this: If you do an experiment on 72 people and measure 72 variables, all you get is a mess.