>I also believed that non-ionizing radiation doesn't cause chemical reactions. I also believed that generally chemical reactions would be required to have a neg

>I also believed that non-ionizing radiation doesn't cause chemical reactions. I also believed that generally chemical reactions would be required to have a negative effect on human biology. These aren't true as a rule, but generally good as guidelines. Ionizing radiation gives way to widespread, molecule agnostic damage in molecular systems; it's powerful enough to pop pieces of molecules off. Ionizing energy is the equivalent of firing a light cannon to blow chunks off molecules; the damage is immediate, consistent, widespread and dangerous. Non-ionizing radiation, by contrast, is absorbed selectively. A given wavelength will only be absorbed if it corresponds with the specific quantum of an excitation level of the target system. This means uptake of energy will be molecule specific; chromophores are examples of molecules specifically designed to take advantage of this; it's how we see. Microwaves, for instance, are non-ionizing radiation. We know a surplus of microwave radiation can cook people through. It does this because microwaves are the right wavelength to vibrate the bonds in water. UV radiation is also considered non-ionizing, but DNA will absorb it, and the photochemical result of that absorption is the formation of Pyrimidine dimers (TT dimers). This direct damage to our genetic codes is the primary cause of skin cancer and is so dangerous that we have evolved an extensive set of molecular machines to excise and repair this specific problem. So no, non-ionizing radiation is not uniformly safe and biologically inert. This isn't to say 5G is unsafe - remember things are wavelength and dose specific; it's just to say the reasoning "non ionizing never causes biological harm" is very wrong.