[dlystyr]

Talking from experience in the UK.

I do not see any problem with 5G as a technology, I think faster connectivity in the long run is much better.

However the way its currently being implemented by multiple governments outsource most of this work (multiple layers of outsourcing also) to companies such as Huawei is always going to cause problems.

Realistically there is no reasons why we are unable to have high quality secured and encrypted connections across these speeds if Governments were to put the money into building the correct infrastructure, In fact, We have a similar problem with residential connections, if our government did not allow BT to monopolise the whole network and limit residential users to ~100Mbps max (Usually much lower).

We should be appealing against our corrupt governments as much as we can imho.

[MackTheHack]

Your experience is one thing. I thing we should listen to the critics, among them the largest part of EMF scientist. There is no need to introduce a technology now before thorough assesments are done. Let us not forget that the WHO EMF office only has two employees(!). A shame for humanity.

[ktothe]

Aren’t there voices citing health risks that are more substantial than your average conspiracy theory though?

[dlystyr]

I believe so yes, you are correct, But when our governments allow the amount of cars (pollution), legal smoking, legal alcohol, Highest GP prescription rates ever, additives in food, chocolate and carbonated drink.

Does 5G really seem that bad for your help when 90+% (Not backed by science - statistic) do at least one of the above.

I think there are bigger issues to fix first.

[MackTheHack]

I like your angle. It is interesting (although I am not sure if your list is fully hazardous). But is that what we have come to? That there is so many hazards and health risks out there that one more should not matter. It sounds to me that you are laying brickstones on the road to dystopia. It is not a sound argument that we should fix other things first. 5G is nothing to fix yet - we just have to stop introducing it.

[tylerFowler]

Governments allow those but this would constitute another step in that governments would be forcing something potentially hazardous onto their entire populations without likely being able to escape its (potential) effects. Whereas your examples are all things that you can avoid if you like, though some admittedly easier than others.

I agree there are bigger issues but I'd think that that would constitute just delaying the rollout rather than seeking to roll it back if we find that it's affecting the health of large populations, which might just distract people even more from those bigger issues.