Thanks danielst for the kind words. Huge respect for your civil responses.

That said. I did a bit of a deep-dive into the literature and may need to somewhat revise my stance.

First, let me try to summarize our common ground and our differences. Below are the points I think we agree on (let me know if not!):

1. 5G does not have ionizing radiation

2. The well-known mechanism of heating due to millimeter-wave radiation is so minimal as to be negligible. I.e. the heating itself is not the mechanism by which damage can be done. To substantiate that claim further, there is a very accessible article from 2000 [1].

3. Sources of funding and conflicts of interest are a problem.

Regarding this last point, I think you more strongly agree with the statement and are more likely to reject outcomes from industry-funded or industry-affiliated researchers. I am a little more hesitant. I think we can debate this, but I have done my best to include sources in this post which do not seem to come from industry but from government research labs (i.e. public funding) or mixed funding (public + private money).

Now, what I think we don't agree on:

4. There may be other biological mechanisms that are activated / enhanced / suppressed by millimeter-wave radiation. These must be investigated before widespread 5G rollout.

This is where it gets complicated. First, I did a PubMed search for 5g+safety (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(5g%5BTitle%5D)+AN...) and it turns up 3 relevant articles [2], [3] and [4] (one search result is unrelated to 5G).

Paper [2] is not an article but a letter to the editor. No novel research.

Paper [3] warns of exposure to very short, high-power pulses (heating effect).

Paper [4] is a comment on paper [3], saying basically that a) these pulses are not used in 5G and b) new standards forbid these short high-power pulses.

We need to look further.

I somehow stumbled on [5] and [6] (don't know the search terms anymore). According to your standards, [6] should not be included since C.L. Russell works for the "Physicians for Safe Technology" that has an anti-5G stance, and cannot be considered neutral. (See: https://mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/ and https://mdsafetech.org/advisory-board/cindy-russellmd/)

That leaves [5], which I think is a good summary of many potential biological effects that millimeter waves could have (note: some of the referenced studies in [5] deal with high radiation levels, but some are with low radiation levels).

The review seems thorough, and that is where I should alter my previous statements a bit: I think there is reason to believe that 5G may have some other effects that are not well-investigated and for which the mechanism is unknown. However, I agree with the author of the study [see 7] that 5G rollout should not be stopped because of this. The situation should be monitored closely by professionals and more research should be done at the same time.

I will leave you with the part of the conclusions from [5]:

> In the respect of the WHO principle “health in all policies”, the development of new RF-EMF
communication networks should be paralleled by adequate and active involvement of public
institutions operating in the field of environmental health, by a revision of the existing exposure
limits and by policies aimed to reduce the level of risk in the exposed population.

> On the other hand, an adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms linking RF-EMF
exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current clinical practice, in particular in
consideration of evidences pointing to the role of extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer
risk(Wu et al., 2016) and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable
diseases(Pruss-Ustun et al., 2017).

[1] Ryan et. al, 2000, RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION OF MILLIMETER WAVE LENGTH: POTENTIAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ISSUES RELATING TO SURFACE HEATING, https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/pages/articleviewer....

[2] McClelland, 2018, The Radiation Safety of 5G Wi-Fi: Reassuring or Russian Roulette?, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30012534

[3] Neufeld and Kuster, 2018, Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247338

[4] Foster, 2019, Comments on Neufeld and Kuster: Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose, https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=31135642

[5] Di Ciaula, Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?, 2018, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S143846391...

[6] Russel, CL, 2018, 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646

[7] In an interview in Italian he said the following:

The scientific evidence available on the consequences of exposure to this type of frequency, although preliminary, is worrying, because also in this case effects like genetic alterations, protein synthesis and other well-documented biological consequences have been documented. No one wants to put a limit on progress but we should associate the introduction of these technologies with careful monitoring from an environmental and health point of view, revising down the exposure limits imposed by law and taking all possible precautions. (https://www.ohga.it/esposizione-ai-campi-elettromagnetici-e-... and Google translate)