There are two main positions in 2023. The first one is the predominant one on HN, but the other one exists, too.

One position says: no, it is not a concern, because it is non-ionizing radiation. You only need to be concerned about the localized heating effect, which is measured by the enforced SAR standards. Case in point, when I worked in bigtech, the fertility class at work suggested not keeping a cell phone in your pocket as a male if you were trying to have a baby. I assume they were thinking about the potential for localized heating effects, and the careful balance of temperature for the reproduction capability. This position--held by the non-ionizing and local-heating-only proponents--has all kinds of bold and legit statements that make it sound ludicrous to even question the matter ("how much the sun radiates", "how much higher frequencies other things put out", the "total lack of science to the contrary, show me one study", etc.) These people say that we have had cell phones for decades and we would clearly know if there were a problem by now. This side says that any RF-alarmists don't know what they are talking about (and in a lot of cases this may be true, but that doesn't mean all, though).

The other position says: yes, there is abundant evidence, but it is not promoted (in industry, in university, in government), because that would have all kind of implications for stakeholders. Heck, one could be a verifiable expert in radio engineering and not have had any exposure to the serious study of its biological effects other than "it's non-ionizing, it's safe". And yet the people who maintain cell towers need to wear exposure meters for safety. This position says, parts of Eastern Europe have strict laws for EM radiation in government buildings, which have nothing to do with SAR and are founded on research going back many decades. This position says, the recent decade-long multi-million dollar US government "national technology program" (NTP) study found indeed serious implications for cell phones and health outcomes. These people say, we have all kinds of health issues in greater quantities than before such big man-made rollouts, from insomnia and anxiety to cancers to whatever, and it is hard to always pin down, because of blanketed and long-term effects without good control groups.

But one might say, those older phones were different. But the newer ones are different, too. The point is, all one has to do is look at the scientific studies. Are there great studies on biological effects when new cell phone EM frequency usages roll out? IDK, but they couldn't be very long-term or on very large populations of humans. But there are allegedly declassified animal studies on the effects of all kinds of frequencies, well-known to Eastern and Western countries since the cold war.

Power level may be a concern, too, but frequency (and the use of step-functions instead of smooth curves) might be a concern, too. When there are cancer clusters near areas with large antennas or in the "line of sight" of directed beams and such, it kind of gets swept under the rug right? It doesn't take much wondering to figure out why that is.

I know this may sound like a silly answer, but I think that's the rough outline of the positions in 2023 as asked.

If there is a meta-analysis that gives a serious treatment of both major positions, that would be interesting to read.

You don't need a link for the mainstream view probably, since you can turn to Wikipedia or Youtube. But some fairly recent links to read about the concerned view are below:

  - https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/high-exposure-radio-frequency-radiation-associated-cancer-male-rats
  - https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ICBE-EMF-paper-12940_2022_900_OnlinePDF_Patched-1.pdf
  - https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/...