While I agree that one shouldn't do bad things by doing a lot of things in general and some of them turning out to be bad, I also feel you shouldn't call all th

While I agree that one shouldn't do bad things by doing a lot of things in general and some of them turning out to be bad, I also feel you shouldn't call all things bad just because there is a certain unknown probability thereof. The answer to me seems to be "go slow and don't break things". For those that may think otherwise, this is exactly the approach being taken with GMOs. We have the ability to produce maize that will feed a lot of hungry people, but the negatives can be drastic and irreversible. One doesn't need to have a political veil when talking about GMOs. It remains fact that we don't know the limits or the consequences and hence GMOs are (sensibly) mostly restricted to grain crops. Tomatos for example are—in my area of the world—100% non-GMO despite Flavr Savr now being older than 20 years (and having failed as a product). That didn't happen because of intentional trepidation, rather: public response, but the point is that we are trying to be really careful with GMOs since we should be. We don't know enough about OP's topic scientifically to say that we know that it influences bees in an important way. Even the word "electromagnetic" is loaded, no pun intended, is the same way holism is loaded and a lot of people pay a lot of money for some kind of psuedohealth service around these. If we know that we are influencing bees negatively, not just that bees can observe these fields, then we need to be more careful than we are being now. On this topic, the only thing further that I will say is that it appears that 5G can influence weather satellites and as someone studying weather patterns, I would say that is something to be careful about.