sigh OK, full text: https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-2135...

> Critics of 5G agree6–8—but its supporters do not9 10—that the overall population levels of exposure to RF-EMFs will be greatly increased by the 5G roll-out. One compelling argument for that view is the ‘inverse square law’ of EMF exposure: intensity varies as the inverse of the square of the distance from the emitting source.11 With plans afoot internationally to put a 5G booster antenna on ‘every second or third lamp-post’, it is difficult to believe that overall population exposures will not increase substantially

Yes, there will be more antennas. Does not address the question of power levels: part of the point of more antennas is that each individual station can have lower power output. No mention of "watts", antenna ERP, or indeed power anywhere in the article.

> International health protection agencies and their scientific advisory bodies have published several reviews over the last decade, of varying scientific quality, of the research evidence regarding potential adverse biological and health effects of RF-EMFs.5 12–15 These reviews—by Health Protection England,12 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),13 an Expert European Union (EU) Committee14 and the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)15—have, with one exception, not converged around a strong warning about such effects

In other words, current investigations do not support evidence of harm.

> Moreover, a growing number of engineers, scientists, and doctors internationally have been calling on governments to raise their safety standards for RF-EMFs, commission more and better research, and hold off on further increases in public exposure, pending clearer evidence of safety.18–21 Some politicians have listened: France, Israel, Cyprus and Russia have banned WiFi in preschool and restricted its use in primary schools. Belgium has banned the sale of mobile phones to children under seven. In response to such concerns, several jurisdictions have recently blocked the installation of 5G antennae systems in their communities: Brussels, Florence, Rome, as well as Glastonbury, Frome and Totnes in the UK; and widespread anti-5G campaigns are now emerging in Australia, North America and elsewhere.

This is true but is a kind of self-referential policy; places that have banned 5G have often done so for unscientific reasons! Saying that there are anti-5G campaigns is like saying there are anti-mask campaigns; it is not actually evidence of harm.

> more conservative jurisdictions’ guidelines, which are based on a wider variety of biological and health effects documented in recent decades

[citation needed] - no really, there are citations for other bits, where's the health effects citation?

> A striking feature of this public controversy is that various commentators—even those with advanced training in telecommunications physics and engineering—inconsistently refer to quite different specific technologies when they discuss the pros and cons of 5G

Well, yes, it's a marketing term.

Discussion of local councils and lampposts. Hard to see relevance. No details of harm.

> One’s overall assessment of the likelihood that an exposure causes a health condition should take into account a wide variety of evidence, including ‘biological plausibility

And "biological plausibility" is where it falls down, because I've not yet seen (and it's not expressed here either) a mechanism other than the raw heating effect of absorption used by the EU SAR metrics which has any plausible biological effect. See para on "non-thermogenic adverse effects" (what effects? How do they work? At what levels?)

> Finally, Carpenter has recently published a well-researched analysis of how source of funding correlates with study findings, across many peer-reviewed publications over the last few decades, of the relationship between various kinds of EMF exposure and several cancers.39 He shows convincingly that studies funded by private sector entities, with strong vested interests in maintaining their current use of the sources of EMFs under study, tend to find no association

OK, this is a genuine question that does need to be asked, because we know there's been problems with this before.

> innovations in radio frequency ‘pulsing,’ ‘polarisation’ and ‘modulation’

Non-physicist discovers QAM, is confused. Again, no explanation given of why this might make a difference.