Yes because cigarettes, radium, leaded petrol, asbestos, etc. Most things turn out to be pretty safe but in the slim chance they're not, the downside risk is very high.
Not well understood physics, then it was understood and quickly recognized as dangerous. Nothing was done because of nonexistent regulations and corporate money.
>leaded petrol
Recognized as dangerous to begin with ("December 1922, the US Surgeon General wrote to GM regarding growing concerns that environmental lead would become a serious menace to public health."), huge negative effects in workers noticed almost immediately. Nothing was done because of nonexistent regulations and corporate money. (https://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth/)
>asbestos
Recognized as dangerous by medical journals as far back as the 30s (About 40 years after it came into widespread use). Nothing was done because of nonexistent regulations and corporate money.
>cigarettes
Recognized as dangerous by medical journals as far back as the 40s. Nothing was done because of nonexistent regulations and corporate money.
>Non-ionizing radiation
Not recognized as dangerous despite every conceivable study being tried multiple times. No link to cancer. Technology has been widely used for a little under a century with no signs of population-level effects. No known mechanism of action (unlike all the others). Regardless, regulations limit human exposure and require standardized testing of all consumer products.
- It will cure your hayfever! https://i.imgur.com/yXpONhN.png
- Wear a radium pad for great health! https://i.imgur.com/NlnzYOx.jpg
- Drink Radium water for better health! https://i.imgur.com/d1uIUGO.jpg
Story is explained here https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/03/how-we-re...
...and probably there were people back then saying "Oh more scare stories about Radium again?!?"
Where mobile phones are concerned, I remember my old Ericsson GA628 that used to heat up my ear leaving it red after 5 minutes of conversation.
What's worth bearing in mind is we deployed mobile phones to the public at large before we had any significant data of their long term effects on us. Likewise 5G - we'll only really know what is does to us long term once we've gathered a few years of data, but that's not going to stop us deploying it. So yes it won't immediately kill us but we're deluding ourselves to say we know for sure there's no harm long term.
My point was simply about the process by which society blindly adopts a new technology without fully understanding the consequences and how that might have parallels today.
But that's exactly point - there are no _known_ mechanisms. Just like radium in 1910 we didn't know what the mechanism was at that point, if any.
Have we studied the effects of 5G on a large sample of people over a 5 year or 10 year period ? No because 5G hasn't been available that long.
So ultimately we don't know but we're going to do it anyway. Which is OK if we are aware that that's the choice we're making