It's useful to have some background on where the existing regulations came from when thinking about these things. There is quite a pile of inconclusive research

It's useful to have some background on where the existing regulations came from when thinking about these things. There is quite a pile of inconclusive research on the medical effects of microwave exposure, and as such none of it could be used for a scientific approach to regulation. At the end of the day, a limit needs to be selected. Instead, IIUC, what happened was the regulators took existing finding on the "work stoppage limit" for mice/rats (in watts/kg, this is where bad things start happening like significant temperature rise and no longer moving), made it 10x lower for occupational exposure, and then made it 5x lower again for the general public. In the face of uncertainty regarding non-thermal effects, the current regulations adopted an "innocent until proven guilty" style approach because any nonthermal effects had not (and to my knowledge, have not) been demonstrated consistently. It seems reasonable to me that certain people would prefer a precautionary approach. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.... (I'm aware this organization is criticized in the posted article. Nevertheless, it's guidance is widely used by regulatory bodies.)