[nuvious]

You didn't actually propose a mechanism that describes how this proposed effect causes damage to DNA and causes cancer and I'm not your Google-scholar to search for that for you. Provide evidence, here's mine:

"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck region." - European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, 2015

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/do...

[ncmncm]

There has never before been any substantial exposure to the wavelengths used for 5G, so there is exactly zero epidemiological data to consult.

We don't know what will happen, but we will find out, in time. Previous generations seem to have turned out OK. All we can be certain of is that, if anyone is harmed, no one will go to jail for it. Like the people putting lead in gasoline and paint, no one involved will have their retirement even slightly inconvenienced. (Unless, of course, they are personally harmed by it.)

Do I think harm is likely? I have no information to form an opinion from, so I would be guessing, just like everybody who insists it is all just fine. What I do know is that everyone who insists they know is lying.

[nuvious]

We actually do in radar systems which range between 400 Mhz and 36 Ghz. We've also had 2.4 and 5 ghz wifi and other rf protocols ubiquitously deployed for years. Did you even look at my reference? It's a systematic review of 100s of studys several of which cover frequencies between 2.4gz to as high as 300 ghz. There's tons of them in there and the conclusion still came to no known mechanism for harm or observed harm. You are literally making assertions that research hasn't been done when it absolutely has and you're just being stubbornly assertive about something that's factually incorrect.

And this is the opposite of leaded gasoline because the first study that suggested a harmful mechanism was verifiable and produced reproducible results with a mechanism that was reasonable and testable.

The many hypothetical harms from RFR have been tested extensively and found no observable harm or mechanism for harm below the ionizing range of EM radiation.

You're just expressing doubt with arguments that are vague and untestable which is reasonable because all the testable hypothesis have been investigated.

Propose a mechanism for harm and provide evidence that it's actually happening. If we held off on advancing technology over fear, uncertainty, and doubt arguments like this we'd get no where.