Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697633523091.pdf (Australia)
I am a self-employed male who has been following issues surrounding 5G for the past few years, and believe that I have a greater understanding of this technology than the average member of the public.

I have well-founded concerns about the deployment of 5G because it is not a simple extension of 3G and 4G.

It differs in a few key respects:  We know that 5G, unlike the other G's, extends into the the millimetre wave band, and that human health effects from millimetre wave radiation are untested.
Telecommunications executives have admitted this under questioning in the US Senate.

 Millimetre wave radiation is likely to concentrate on the body's surface, resulting in a risk of skin and eye damage.

Scientifically speaking, it is considered more potentially harmful than sub-millimetre RF radiation.

  5G will require the installation of 'small cells' along residential streets, at intervals of around 100-200 metres.
This proximity will massively contribute to an increase in radiation exposure inside homes.

5G operates differently from the previous G's, in that it is designed to communicate via concentrated beams of radiation (beamforming.)

 About 20 years ago, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) formulated global safety standards that have since been adopted by ARPANSA in Australia.

At the time, these were considered by many to have been set to accommodate everyday exposures.
Later this year, ICNIRP is expected to raise these already lax standards to incorporate 5G radiation, which challenges the view put forward by some that 5G will result in lower radiation exposures.

 5G will operate in addition to 3G and 4G, rather than as a substitute, multiplying exposure levels.

In terms of the scientific response to 5G, there is a common misconception spread via the Australian media that 5G is entirely safe and that concerns about this technology are anti-scientific.
This is unfortunately incorrect.

Scientific opinion is mixed, and – at the last count - a total of 253 scientists and medical doctors have signed a statement calling for 5G to be halted.

Further details are at www.5gappeal.eu Health effects from low-level sub-thermal EMFs were accepted by the CSIRO during the 1990s, although the CSIRO's desire for a precautionary approach were swept aside during the talks that led to the establishment of ARPANSA and its adoption of ICNIRP's generous safety standards.
More details on the CSIRO's views are available in the 1994 report Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation Telecommunications Frequencies.

The academic website www.emf-portal.org lists 29,516 studies, most or all of which demonstrate health effects from electromagnetic fields.
Many of these are looking at fields operating at sub- thermal levels Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus at Washington State University, has compiled an extensive document containing hundreds of studies.
This divides health effects into a list of eight different areas, listed below: Inquiry into the deployment, adoption and application of 5G in AustraliaSubmission 428  Effects On Fetal And Newborn Development  Effects On Young Children  Brain Tumours  Parotid Gland Tumours  Other Malignancies  Effects On DNA  Neurological/Cognitive Effects  Effects On Male Fertility As a result of these factors, and others, I believe that the 5G rollout in Australia should be discontinued, as has occurred in a growing number of towns, cities and jurisdictions across the world, including Brussels in Belgium.
Instead, a precautionary principle should be folloed, in order to ensure that human health is protected.

Instead I believe that Australia should focus on fibre, which is not only faster but also more reliable.

Inquiry into the deployment, adoption and application of 5G in AustraliaSubmission 428