Do you have a citation for "harmful" non-ionizing effects? As far as I can tell, the body of literature has no conclusive evidence to suggest that radio waves do anything but heat the tissue that absorbs it.
Rant: Like many things that receive attention on popular and social media, agonizing over 5G distracts from issues that cause real provable widespread harm, such as UV radiation and air pollution. We rarely see articles rise to the top when they cover non-controversial points that would do well to be read by everybody, because how much buzz and discussion can you generate from "wear sunscreen", "don't drive while tired", and "get a prostate exam before you turn 50"?
I don't know for sure, but I'm setting up an experiment this year where I irradiate cells with UV and try to use 5G radiation to jam the BER mechanism, which is one of the DNA error correcting systems. BER uses the charge state of DNA (https://www.pnas.org/content/100/22/12543) to help find thymine dimers, and 5G radiation is in just about the right frequency range to excite nuclear DNA and induce a current in DNA. I would be looking for a higher rate of mutation in the UV + 5G case over UV control, and no effect in 5G / control without UV.
What is interesting about this experiment is that 1) it's easy. 2) you would never detect this using normal procedures to assess mutagenicity, because normal techniques assume that the harm comes from direct mutation effect of the radiation; in this case the harm (if it is there) would come as a secondary effect, by inhibitng proper repair in the presence of a previous insult. Moreover, typical lab experiments (rightly) attempt to reduce outside effects (especially mutagens), so it's less likely it would have been discovered by accident.
Incidentally I'm sick and tired of people saying "it's non-ionizing and therefore not dangerous". This is a very reductive statement that belies a complete lack of understanding of biophysical chemistry.
Even then; the human body is pretty good at dealing with excess heat, and conservation of energy says you can’t get more energy deposited than the transmitter puts out - even if you absorb 100% of the signal that’s still only 100mw or so for a phone (vs ~2000w for a microwave oven).
Rant: Like many things that receive attention on popular and social media, agonizing over 5G distracts from issues that cause real provable widespread harm, such as UV radiation and air pollution. We rarely see articles rise to the top when they cover non-controversial points that would do well to be read by everybody, because how much buzz and discussion can you generate from "wear sunscreen", "don't drive while tired", and "get a prostate exam before you turn 50"?