Originally Posted by Purple Heron
I am not interested in the moral high ground. But I do want to be certain that this technology is not going to wipe out nature and kill me in the process. Science may be non-moral, but governments and private industry are often outright amoral, which is why society adopts laws such as the Nuremberg Code to constrain them. Your position is that the science isn't there yet. What you haven't said is why we can't wait for science to come up with definitive answers before we proceed with making this technology universal.
Because the benefits are tremendous. The world has already changed and tons of new technologies require something that's better than the halfway house of 4G. The aim with 5G is to create a standard, global infrastructure that is finally fit for purpose, hence the idea to make it satellite based.
If this frightens you then consider:
A) despite numerous attempts there is still no conclusive evidence of there being any effect at all
on biological systems - Mike/Citrinella was spot on with that comment, and it's reflected in serious reviews including the Eklipse report you attended & posted.
B) even if there is
an effect and it just hasn't been demonstrated yet, that implies that the magnitude is almost negligible. A bit like coffee.
So, to (finally) answer your repeated question: I see an interesting phenomenon that might have some biochemical impact but no epidemiological evidence for a widespread negative effect. Since the burden of evidence is with those claiming there is a significant effect
, and they have thus far failed to conclusive demonstrate that there is, the only logical conclusion is to reject the hypothesis.
Unless someone comes up with very strong new evidence, I'm personally looking forward to a better connected world