Somewhat, it mixes 2 main talking points very well to the point it wants to present them as the same thing in a way that presents a lot of uncertainty and doubt (and a tiny bit of fear about that uncertainty) from information that doesn't necessarily back up that mixture. The main talking points:
- What EM and SAR is and that anything in large enough amounts can be harmful with a bunch of info around the histories and studies that led to this understanding
- The implied need to worry about EM SAR significantly more than the above regulations and studies talked about suggest with the implication the numbers aren't already padded for safety to start with.
The former part is general product regulation which the page even admits was around before cell phones took off that nobody really has to know or think about, the latter is wrapping it in FUD.
It's also important to note that while they link an enormous number of references it doesn't mean all of the claims on the page are backed up by any of them (again, look at the two main categories above for the majority of that split). E.g. the section on "Radiation-free areas should be established. Electrohypersensitive people can’t live near any electronic devices which emit radiation." has widely failed to have any robust result showing it as a "real" (as in actually caused by EMF) effect but this section doesn't mention that it just flows right into the section saying peer reviewed studies have verified "effects" without defining what effects, to what level, from what level of source, and if the effects were deemed a risk/harmful or just something that's possible to notice (e.g. if you turn on a lamp right next to you your arm gets warmer, this is an observable effect in extreme cases with no ill effect).
The last thing I'll mention is there are some "dubious at best" transitions like the section explaining the difference between non-ionizing and ionizing radiation following up the claim "That is not to say that extended exposure to non-ionizing radiation isn’t harmful, we know that it is." with "Most of us know that a little bit of UV radiation can be useful" which not only gets into the main conflation mentioned at the beginning of the comment but also throws in extra conflation about something that both spans ionizing and non ionizing radiation being compared to a completely different part of the non-ionizing EM spectrum without note.
.
I think it's important to note that I come from a healthcare networking background and have been biased/predisposed to a certain viewpoint on the matter prior to reading the article as I've had to work with the health system on basically anything that communicates via RF (Wi-Fi, 4G, DAS, RFID, special frequency voice communication systems, one off device radios) which included review of any and all patient health risks related to deployment of the equipment.