Ah, ethics. Here's my opinion. No literature this time [happy]

To keep in your cited "flying blind" analogy: I don't think we're flying blind. I think we have a good understanding of the dominant mechanisms that
could cause biological harm (i.e. ionization and heating).
I would rather say that we are flying with 98% vision. Are there some blind spots? Yes! We don't have full knowledge of all effects of millimeter-wave
radiation, but the picture gradually becomes more complete.
That's why it is important to keep researching.

However, we cannot be moving the goalposts. Let's imagine that it is shown that millimeter-wave radiation does not cause brain cancer.
Then other "sceptics" may say "well, what about skin cancer?" and later "what about alzheimer's?" or "what about lung infections?". While I don't want
to trivialize the seriousness of these diseases, I think it is fair to ask: when is 5G safety demonstrated sufficiently? Even after answering
these questions, people may come up with yet another disease to investigate. This is what I meant earlier when I said you "can't prove a negative":
you can't prove safety, you can only prove unsafety. [1]

That is why I think it is of paramount importance to identify mechanisms by which harm could occur and then investigate:

- what phenomenon (phenomena) are influenced by this mechanism?

- does this phenomenon actually occur [in the human body or animals], or is it only deep inside [the human body] where radiation doesn't penetrate?

- how harmful / beneficial is this, i.e. what is the extent of the effect?

I think we are starting to identify some biological effects that (in my opinion) are not major concerns. This is where the science is not clear-cut.

As for the "precautionary principle", yes we must be cautious about any new technology.
But how many times can the goalposts be shifted before we acknowledge its safety?
How can the industry prove or at least demonstrate an acceptable safety level?

---

> The people within their range will have no say as to whether or not they will be immersed in this radiofrequency radiation.

I think that's accurate and a reason that scientists need to clearly communicate the findings of their studies to the general public. A well-informed decision must be made. The level of discussion (other than
this one) is pathetic, to be honest. Industry claiming its safe, some interest groups saying its unsafe and the public left stuck in the middle with no
real clue of what to do. The one with the highest circulation of clickbait articles filled with fake statistics circulating on social media "wins" the discussion. Science be damned.

---

As for the purpose of 5G: I think it is completely overblown, media-hyped tech and the biggest buzzword of the last year(s). In my (academic) circles, I see 5G being
the new "quantum" in the sense that it brings in a ton of research money (public and private!) if you can somehow manage to squeeze in the word "5G" in your
powerpoint proposal for research funding. For me personally, I haven't seen any "killer application" of 5G. That's not
to say that that can't come, of course. If 5G adoption must be halted for several years because significant health implications are suspected, I am
(personally) fine with that. My opinion however, is that there is no scientific foundation for such drastic measures.

---

[1] Note the irony here, in that I am actually saying that the negative (unsafety) can be proven while the positive (safety) cannot.