What Kikepedia cohencidentally forget to mention is that these aren’t fixed ranges and 5G is planned to go up to 60GHZ.
60 GHz is not ionizing radiation...If you want to take the point that 5G will screw with data for weather forecasting, that is a legitimate point.
You seem to be focused on ionizing radiation, which aren't a concern and the reason why I didn't mention it.
I'm more concerned about the heat it might cause to some organs.
the main safety concern is heating of the eyes and skin caused by the absorption of mmWave energy in the human body
Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.05944.pdf
Archived link: https://pic8.co/a/7504da76-b26b-452d-93ce-515868577ab7
If you are more concerned with the thermal issue, then hold the phone 20cm away from your body. It seems the FCC is still using the Power Density (PD) rather than what your source suggests using, the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). 5G phones will still be in compliance in regards to PD but not to SAR.
This concern is more related to the change to 5G rather than a completely new concern. The effects of electromagnetic radiation have been generally well studied, however low frequency electromagnetic radiation is less well studied, hence the justification for introducing this an emerging issue.
5G networks will soon be rolled out for mobile phone and smart device users. How exposure to electromagnetic fields could affect humans remains a controversial area, and studies have not yielded clear evidence of the impact on mammals, birds or insects. The lack of clear evidence to inform the development of exposure guidelines to 5G technology leaves open the possibility of unintended biological consequences.
Source: Section 4.4 https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/scheer/docs/scheer_s_002.pdf
(post is archived)