[itcrowd]

Researchers are quite confident that 5G is safe because besides heating and ionization (see my other post in this thread), there is no known mechanism by which it could be harmful. I know, you cited Wikipedia and that has scientific references [14] and [15] in it. But, what Wikipedia doesn't tell you is that those sources are not quite uncontroversial.

I hate to bring up the same reference again, but here it goes [1].

The following paragraphs cite directly from the article [with emphasis mine]:

A number of researchers, many in Eastern Europe, have expressed interest in the therapeutic application of mmWave radiation. MmWave therapy has been widely used in Eastern Europe since the 1970s [86]. Strikingly high success rates have been reported in the treatment of gastric ulcers, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory sickness, tuberculosis, skin diseases, and even cancer [6], [87]. Typical treatments consist of daily skin exposure of 15–30 min for 5–15 days with PD levels under 10 mW/cm 2 at three common frequencies: 42.2, 53.6, and 61.2 GHz [90]. The mechanisms of mmWave therapy are not known. Nevertheless, some hypotheses have been explored in cellular and molecular levels in recent years as discussed in the “Reported Effects on Gene Expression,” “Reported Effects on Cel lular Proliferation,” and “Reported Effects on Biologi cal Membranes” sections. Despite the large number of patients treated with mmWaves in Eastern Europe, this therapeutic technique has not been accepted by Western physicians and scientists.

It is also important to note that many of the reports summarized in this section have not been independently repeated and confirmed. Historically, some attempts to repeat reported effects have been unsuccessful [8], [91]. While this is not to discount any one of the studies sum- marized here, it is important to recognize that studies involving biological samples inherently produce vari- able results and (depending on the circumstances) may have a number of uncontrolled or uncontrollable vari- ables. For this reason, major decisions on public policy or health care should not typically be made based on reports that were not reproduced independently.

[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7032050

[johnmcd3]

My takeaway from your comment is that studies like [14] and [15] are very likely poorly done (like another comment describes early studies of acupuncture).

In any case, I'd expect that in within a few more years, these sorts of conflicting and controversial results should be further disproven.

Thanks.