Yes. Toward the end there is an example of the kind of effect their model gives: "As an example, for the Australian Stingless Bee (mass = 2.5 mg) a P abs of 3

Yes. Toward the end there is an example of the kind of effect their model gives: "As an example, for the Australian Stingless Bee (mass = 2.5 mg) a P abs of 3 × 10–8 W is estimated for an incident field strength of 1 V/m at 60 GHz. Under the assumption that the insect has a specific heat capacity equal to that of water (4179 J/K kg43), this RF-EMF exposure would result in a temperature increase of 3 × 10–6 K/s, in an isolated approximation." Early in the article, this insect size is given: "The scanned insect was approximately 4.5 mm long, 3.0 mm wide." So a surface on the order of ~10 mm2. The sun provides ~100 W/m2 in winter, ~1000 W/m2 in summer. So in winter, that's about 10-4 W/mm2 or 10-3 W over the surface of this insect. The absorbed energy due to 5G per their model is several orders of magnitude below the absorbed energy coming from flying under a winter sun. It's very good that people look at such effects. There may also be other effects besides just thermal ones as considered above. But clearly the title ("5g Detrimental to insects" at the time I write this) is undeserved and borderline trollish IMHO.