A 2019 Scientific American blog article, We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe, by Joel M. Moskowitz, warns about the safety of 5G wireless technology.
Yet, since [the 1980s], the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.
Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:
“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”
Meanwhile the FDA disagrees. The article cites a 2019 letter:
the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits
The apparent imprimatur of Scientific American suggests that this blog article is scientific rather than outright pseudoscience.
Are the quoted claims of harmful effects a fair representation of scientific consensus regarding Radio Frequency Radiation?