This RF Safe commentary argues that non-thermal RF/5G effects may vary by tissue based on the density of specific biological “targets,” such as voltage-gated channel S4 helices, mitochondrial/NOX ROS capacity, and heme/flavin “spin chemistry” substrates. It claims that reported null findings in 5G mmWave skin-cell studies can be reconciled with reported red blood cell (RBC) rouleaux observations by proposing a “density-gated” mechanism where spin-related effects are more detectable in heme-dense cells like RBCs. The post cites an ultrasound study (named “Brown & Biebrich”) as showing in-vivo rouleaux changes within minutes near a smartphone, but provides limited methodological detail in the excerpt.

This paper uses advanced electromagnetic simulations of human skin microstructure to model exposure to realistic pulsed 5G/6G signals at 3.5, 27, 77, and 300 GHz. It reports localized, inhomogeneous absorption patterns linked to sweat glands and blood vessels, suggesting that treating skin as homogeneous may miss hotspots. The authors conclude that SAR-based standards may be inadequate for mmWave/sub-THz exposures and could underestimate potential risks, including possible nerve excitation.

This dosimetry study used FDTD simulations at 28 GHz to evaluate how skin stratification and anthropomorphic modeling affect absorbed power density (APD) estimates. APD was higher with stratified skin than with homogeneous skin for a wearable patch antenna (16%–30% higher), while plane-wave differences were smaller (<11%). The authors argue that simplified skin models may underestimate exposure in mmWave wearable scenarios.

This scoping review evaluates evidence on mobile phone electromagnetic exposure and its effects on brain oscillations and cortical excitability in healthy individuals. Across 78 EEG studies (and 2 TMS studies), the authors report that exposure may be linked to changes in neural activity, including increased amplitudes in several EEG bands and possible changes in cortical silent period. However, substantial methodological inconsistency across studies limits firm conclusions, and the review highlights limited evidence for 5G/mmWave exposures and argues for precaution and potential guideline revision.