AI summary & topic connections
Argues that ubiquitous exposure makes long-term safety research difficult, opposes untested deployment near sensitive locations, and requests informed consent, public votes and consideration of international research.
- Research & federal duties:
no long-term safety data
- Towers & siting:
not be installing/upgrading these new frequencies near schools, hospitals
- Exposure limits & oversight:
legal right to informed consent
There are no long-term safety data on the use of 5g, 6g and even the technology built into commercial wifi routers and cell phones. It is also now almost impossible to do a compelling study on the safety of these technologies since they are ubiquitous, and the vast majority are exposed to them in some form at all times starting at conception (so a true placebo group in a study would be very difficult to do).
Since it's basically impossible to get clear, compelling data on this now, I think it's common sense that we should not be installing/upgrading these new frequencies near schools, hospitals or in areas that would be disastrous if these new frequencies turned out to be causing harm.
It is likely that there are unknown biological impacts of long-term exposure to these frequencies, and as such we as Americans have the legal right to informed consent, which by definition includes the right to decline. The risk of implementation or "upgrading" of these technologies without long-term compelling safety data should require a ballot measure or some other method that allows citizens' voices to be heard and give them their legally required option to decline.
We should also be consulting with data from other countries who have done more research in this space (like Russia), and seeing what they've learned about the safety of these technologies.