“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

He is a wifi / cell phone radiation "truther" who thinks the EMF in everyday devices causes cancer

https://www.acsh.org/news/2007/02/16/cell-phone-dangers-stil...

The fact that this is in Scientific American, even in the Opinion section, is simultaneously a testament to the openmindedness of science, and quite sad.

After reading his ideas, I think we should all feel a little lucky that Trump hasn't made hime the head of the FCC.

* Frequency of radiation

* Power of exposure

* Duration of exposure

* Where in the human body absorption is occurring

While the effects of the latter three are pretty well understood for certain kinds of radiation (ionizing and non-ionizing) ranging from "acute radiation sickness due to gamma burst" to "listening to the radio your whole life doesn't have a link to cancer", there is truth that a specific band of millimeter 5G has been less studied than others.

However, science follows patterns, and interpolating the existing data to this sub-infrared region opens a kind of wiggle room similar to, but in fact the opposite to, low dosimetry of ionizing radiation that has given the Linear No Threshold model a run for it's money. Except in this case, skeptics are typically concerned about chemical effects due to subdermal heating (not really as compelling as ionizing radiation effects), or debating the "non-ionizing-ness" (which is less common because its even less supported by evidence).

It comes down to a persons personal risk. In my opinion, the sun beats out all non ionizing radiation concerns, particularly when it comes to heating of the skin and subdermal tissues. Wear a hat and sunscreen (against the sun).

Still worth researching and acknowledging the data gap, as the EU does in its metastudy of 40+ years and X00 scientific papers [0], but there's no reason to be alarmed based on the existing corpus of evidence.

[0] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

Edit to add citation

I took the numbers from the country I'm familiar with (The Netherlands, which has excellent cell phone penetration), and no matter how I look, if I correct for age, they've only been decreasing. The Dutch registry is also one of the most complete of all European countries.

See https://imgur.com/a/FiNrVCQ, x-axis is year of diagnosis, y-axis is Incidence per 100.000. I used European Standardized Rate correction to correct for changes in age distribution, which is standard here. Top blue line is total, the other lines all denote different origins.