You pose two questions:
1. The question about the safety of the technology? That is a question about the functionality of 5G, ie. to transmit data using a defined bandwidth at a certain power using equipment designed to allow this.
The answer to this is unknown to a great many people, has been controversial for decades and is never put forth by the proponents of the technology (or if it has, then where is it?).
Why do the proponents of new technologies never point out the risks, no matter how small, so that all the information is clear and understood and transparent thereby avoiding the speculation and disruption and ongoing controversy that we see?
Why not setup an independent research group where industry, science and users can come together to discuss to granular detail to the nth degree and reach a sensible conclusion that the vast majority can understand. This group could be the final arbiter of acceptance with ongoing monitoring of the technology to provide assurance to the public that what has been said is what is implemented?
2. The abuse of the technology, to me, this is as a result of it's functionality, eg. increasing power beyond the limits agreed, but in the main it's about its non functional use, ie. the technology is used by 3rd parties to reach into one's private life to an extent that has not been agreed.
Here again, we could have an independent research group to determine the limits and boundaries before acceptance into the community, followed by monitoring and reporting to provide assurance.
The problem is not one of whether the electromagentic spectrum is dangerous to humans (the problem here is that it's not it has not been communicated to the level of trust needed), the problem is of trust.
Most people have lost trust in govts, industry, the media, the establishment etc. Where once we took the word of police, doctors, the BBC, scientists, MPs mostly in good faith, nowadays all that trust has been destroyed, and for very good reason, we have been lied to for so long, by so many, that everything must be scrutinised and accounted for, otherwise we are in a situation of blind acceptance.
Those that have preached to us for decades have also gamed the system for their own use on the back of joe public's blind acceptance. This can no longer be the case, many, many people have woken to the point where acceptance is not the norm and scruntiny is (should be).
@Atilla calls it paranoia, I call it accountability.
