I loathe to weigh in on this, but I do think it is worth pointing out that society has often taken a trust but verify approach to other aspects of health. For example, you don't need a credible concern for the testing of new medicines and devices.

Given the financial and health stakes (>$100B & >100M lives) a through animal study and RCT trial doesn't seem unreasonable. You could relatively cheaply raise a few generations of animals on top of a 5G antenna and look at cellular and reproductive toxicity. Following that, you could do a RCT with real/ sham antennae in bedrooms as part of roll-out.

Its unreasonable to insist on studies because there is no plausible mechanism for there to be a significant effect. Emission of radio waves is not a new phenomenon, we understand pretty well the physics behind radio waves and how they interact with matter. Slapping a new marketing term (5G) on them doesnt change anything.

I think we agree on the current understanding of physics, but disagree on our understanding of biological interactions, and on our risk tolerances.

What would you study precisely? Install 5G in one city and look for anything that could possibly go wrong in that city and try to figure out the 100,000 possible confounding factors and assign blame to 5G for anything we couldn't figure out how to explicate?

I clearly spelled out two studies that I thought were reasonable in the parent post. What do you think of them?

I would think raising animals on top of the antennas sound analogous to what people would experience given difference in body size and how the inverse square law applies.

Even so I can't imagine this kind of study actually showing anything while wasting multiple years during which we could be moving forward. How about you raise money to fund the study virtually nobody wants to do and if you find something you can watch smugly while everyone tears down towers.

The NIH could cunduct the studies or the FCC could make it a condition of using the frequency. Funding should be a drop in the bucket compared to actual deployment (low millionions for a study vs hundred of billions invested in 5G)

>How about you raise money to fund the study virtually nobody wants to do and if you find something you can watch smugly while everyone tears down towers.

I find this to be a very rude comment. I have no interest in being smug, And honestly don't think it is a high risk. Given the health of hundreds of millions of people, I would like to see some basic confirmatory testing conducted to confirm safety. It is fine if you disagree, but why bother responding if you are just going to make snide comments and be an asshole about it.