| I think its a very good argument to compare because its based on our understanding of physics. Even with all our adaptations we still get cancer from sunlight on a regular basis. It is easy to understand why, UVB light is near ionizing has enough energy to damage human DNA causing cancer. Below UVB there is not enough energy to cause DNA damage through a known mechanism except heating. Heating directly related to power absorption, a 1500 watt microwave will cook you a 300 milliwatt pulsing microwave transmitter will not heat your flesh enough to cause any damage. We have a pretty good grip on how various frequencies of radiation affect human biology and cell phone emissions are orders of magnitude lower power that whats needed to heat flesh enough to cause damage you literally get more heat directly from the phone being warm than RF absorption. I don't propose we stop looking for any possible biological activity due to microwave (or any other spectrum) but repeated test have not shown this to be the case and to do so would mean there is some new mechanism for this to do so. If you are scared of 300 milliwatt RF emissions I would be more scared of multi-watt LED light emissions due to higher energy levels (terahertz vs gigahertz). |
If I say A is dangerous because of X, it is a logical fallacy to say B is safe because lack of X.
Lack of X is not an argument for safety, therefore you cannot use lack of ionization as any form of proof for safety. The only thing you can say, is that it does not ionize. It does not say anything else related to any other biological effects.
With regards to the mechanism and the observed effects in laboratory and animal experiments, here is the proposed pathophysiology:
https://i.imgur.com/xNzDsPo.png
If you want the TL;DR, the summary is: there are other ways to cause cellular and genetic disruption, than just ionizing radiation or by heating effects.
And yes, we have a good grip on the science: here is a graph of peer-reviewed scientific publications, showing biological effects much below current exposure limits:
https://i.imgur.com/14uxRru.png
The problem is, this science has not been incorporated into the current safety standards. This science shows, there exists non-thermal non-ionizing mechanisms of harm, that have not been taken into consideration.
But if you trust the over 20 year old FCC guidelines, then of course you will think everything is fine.
It is not a question of being scared, it is a question of looking at the science, and updating our understanding, and then look at the technology with this new understanding, so that we can make it safer.