We actually do in radar systems which range between 400 Mhz and 36 Ghz. We've also had 2.4 and 5 ghz wifi and other rf protocols ubiquitously deployed for years. Did you even look at my reference? It's a systematic review of 100s of studys several of which cover frequencies between 2.4gz to as high as 300 ghz. There's tons of them in there and the conclusion still came to no known mechanism for harm or observed harm. You are literally making assertions that research hasn't been done when it absolutely has and you're just being stubbornly assertive about something that's factually incorrect.
And this is the opposite of leaded gasoline because the first study that suggested a harmful mechanism was verifiable and produced reproducible results with a mechanism that was reasonable and testable.
The many hypothetical harms from RFR have been tested extensively and found no observable harm or mechanism for harm below the ionizing range of EM radiation.
You're just expressing doubt with arguments that are vague and untestable which is reasonable because all the testable hypothesis have been investigated.
Propose a mechanism for harm and provide evidence that it's actually happening. If we held off on advancing technology over fear, uncertainty, and doubt arguments like this we'd get no where.
And this is the opposite of leaded gasoline because the first study that suggested a harmful mechanism was verifiable and produced reproducible results with a mechanism that was reasonable and testable.
The many hypothetical harms from RFR have been tested extensively and found no observable harm or mechanism for harm below the ionizing range of EM radiation.
You're just expressing doubt with arguments that are vague and untestable which is reasonable because all the testable hypothesis have been investigated.
Propose a mechanism for harm and provide evidence that it's actually happening. If we held off on advancing technology over fear, uncertainty, and doubt arguments like this we'd get no where.