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.

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.