Every day it's either "duh obviously 5G is harmless it's just non-ionizing radio waves" or "5G might be giving you cancer and killing birds and disrupting weather radar and.." so all I can conclude is that there's no consensus yet.
Why would you give two positions equal weight just because they are in opposition?
why would I weigh one more? maybe it's harmless, maybe it has bad effects (it isn't unprecedented for non-ionizing waves to have bad effects on anything)
I believe snowwrestler is asking you to trust your gut and preconceived biases to lead you to the truth, in lieu of being an expert in the field with empirical data to examine. Ironically, going with their gut is precisely what many of the people opposed to 5G are doing, and I don't expect that's the outcome snowwrestler desires.
You weigh one more because you consider the evidence, and not just count the headlines on your feed.
And that is exactly how fud like '5G might be giving you cancer and killing birds and ...' gets traction. Say it loud enough and often enough and there is too much noise for people without domain expertise to reach a conclusion. Which of course doesn't stop most of them from reaching one anyway.
The consensus is that non-ionizing radiation does not cause health problems at the power levels used in cell towers.