6,486 Studies Reviewed. 85.2% of Original Studies Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.
Research Guide

Is 5G Safe? What the Research Actually Shows

Based on 415 peer-reviewed studies

Share:
At a Glance

Of the 412 peer-reviewed studies in this collection on radiofrequency exposure, 298 — 72.3% — reported biological effects. Millimeter waves are represented, but as cell-culture work at 60 GHz rather than at the 24–47 GHz bands high-band 5G deploys on, and not in people — so the distinctive part of 5G is studied at one remove rather than directly. Lower-band 5G uses frequencies already covered by decades of research, where effects are documented but dose matters: one careful study found no DNA damage in human cells until average absorption reached at least 5.0 W/kg.

Based on analysis of 415 peer-reviewed studies

5G technology has generated significant public concern about health effects. The topic has also attracted misinformation, making it difficult for people to understand what scientific research actually shows about 5G safety.

5G operates across different frequency bands—some similar to existing 4G networks, others using higher frequencies (millimeter waves) that are relatively new for widespread consumer exposure. This page focuses on what peer-reviewed research says about radiofrequency radiation at 5G frequencies.

We present the scientific evidence objectively, including both studies that raise concerns and those that find no effects, so you can make informed judgments based on actual research.

Key Findings

  • -298 of 412 studies (72.3%) in this collection found biological effects from radiofrequency exposure
  • -Millimeter-wave research here is laboratory work at 60 GHz — exposure changed keratinocyte gene expression only when it raised temperature, leaving a small residual effect the heat control did not reproduce (Habauzit 2014); nothing covers the 24–47 GHz bands 5G deploys on, and nothing is in people
  • -Dose determines the result — exposure of human lymphocytes for 3 or 24 hours produced no significant DNA damage, while 24-hour exposure at an average absorption of at least 5.0 W/kg did induce chromosomal damage (Tice 2002)
  • -DNA strand breaks in rat brain cells rose with dose rate across 0.6 and 1.2 W/kg after two hours of 2450 MHz exposure (Lai and Singh 1995)
  • -The mechanism appears to be free radicals — melatonin and a spin-trap compound, both free radical scavengers, blocked radiofrequency-induced DNA strand breaks (Lai and Singh 1997)

What the Research Shows

What 5G Actually Is, for Research Purposes

5G is not one thing. Low-band and mid-band 5G operate at frequencies overlapping what 4G, WiFi and cordless phones have used for years, and those frequencies carry decades of study. High-band 5G uses millimeter waves, which is genuinely new for consumer deployment. Of the 412 peer-reviewed studies indexed here on radiofrequency exposure, of which 298 (72.3%) reported biological effects, millimeter waves are represented — but the work sits at 60 GHz, above the 24–47 GHz range high-band 5G actually deploys on, and it is done in cell cultures rather than people.

Habauzit and colleagues (2014) exposed human keratinocytes to 60 GHz and found 665 genes differentially expressed. When the temperature rise was held constant, that change disappeared. A heat-shock control did not reproduce the exposure exactly, leaving 34 genes that suggest a small specific electromagnetic effect on top of the heating. Le Quément and colleagues (2014) exposed the same cell type at 20 mW/cm² and found no change in endoplasmic-reticulum stress markers at baseline; where exposure did alter the stress response, the controls tied it to heat.

That is the shape of the millimeter-wave evidence here: mostly thermal, with a small residual effect, in cells. For the part of 5G that resembles existing technology, there is direct evidence. For the part that is new, there is adjacent evidence at the wrong frequency and the wrong scale.

What the Existing Research Found, and at What Dose

Tice and colleagues (2002) exposed cultured human blood cells to four different cellular signal technologies at 837 and 1909 MHz, including analog, TDMA, CDMA and GSM formats. Exposure for 3 or 24 hours did not produce a significant increase in DNA damage in leukocytes, and 3 hours did not increase micronucleated lymphocytes. Extended exposure at an average specific absorption rate of at least 5.0 W/kg did induce chromosomal damage. The conclusion is specific: these signals can damage chromosomes under extended exposure at that dose.

Lai and Singh (1995) exposed rats for two hours to 2450 MHz and found a dose-rate-dependent increase in DNA single-strand breaks in brain cells at whole-body absorption rates of 0.6 and 1.2 W/kg. Notably, immediately after pulsed exposure no significant effect appeared — the effect emerged with continuous-wave exposure and at four hours after pulsed exposure. Their 1996 follow-up found both single- and double-strand breaks at 1.2 W/kg.

The Mechanism

Lai and Singh (1997) tested whether free radicals explain the damage by treating rats with melatonin or the spin-trap compound PBN before and after exposure. Both blocked the DNA strand breaks. Since both are efficient free radical scavengers, the result points at oxidative stress as the pathway rather than heating.

Leszczynski and colleagues (2002) showed a separate non-thermal response: one hour of mobile phone exposure changed the phosphorylation status of numerous proteins in human endothelial cells, including heat shock protein-27, at intensities that did not heat the cells.

Putting Dose in Context

The exposures producing these effects — 0.6 to 5.0 W/kg — are far above what a person absorbs from a distant 5G antenna, and in the range of a phone held against the head. Ambient exposure from network infrastructure is typically thousands of times lower than the levels in these experiments. A guide that reports the effects without the doses leaves out the part that determines whether they apply to you.

What the Evidence Does Not Show

No study here demonstrates harm from 5G. The millimeter-wave work in this collection is cell-culture research at 60 GHz, not at 5G's own bands and not in people, which means claims that high-band 5G is dangerous and claims that it is proven safe are both running ahead of the evidence. The lower-band research shows real non-thermal biological effects, at doses generally above ambient network exposure and comparable to handset use.

Reducing Exposure If You Choose To

The dominant source for almost everyone is their own handset, not the network. Speaker mode or wired headphones remove most head exposure. Texting over calling reduces transmit time. Keeping the phone out of the bedroom overnight removes hours of close proximity. Using WiFi rather than cellular in weak-signal areas matters because a phone reaching for a distant tower transmits at higher power — which is also why more, closer antennas can lower handset output rather than raise total exposure.

Related Studies (415)

Cellular EffectsNo Effects Found

Gene expression analysis of a human lymphoblastoma cell line exposed in vitro to an intermittent 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency field.

Chauhan V et al. · 2006

Researchers exposed human lymphoblastoma TK6 cells to 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated RF fields at SARs of 1 and 10 W/kg. They assessed expression of proto-oncogenes FOS, JUN, and MYC using real-time RT-PCR. They also monitored transcript levels of the heat-shock proteins HSP27 and inducible HSP70. Transcript levels in RF-exposed cells showed no significant difference compared to sham-exposed cells. Positive heat-shock controls showed significant elevation of HSP27, HSP70, FOS, and JUN, and a decline in MYC mRNA.

DNA & Genetic DamageNo Effects Found

DNA strand breaks are not induced in human cells exposed to 2.1425 GHz band CW and W-CDMA modulated radiofrequency fields allocated to mobile radio base stations.

Sakuma N et al. · 2006

Researchers conducted a large-scale in vitro study to test whether modulated RF fields from mobile radio base stations act as a DNA damaging agent. Human glioblastoma A172 cells and normal human IMR-90 fibroblasts were exposed to 2.1425 GHz CW and W-CDMA radiation. A172 cells were exposed to W-CDMA at SARs of 80, 250, and 800 mW/kg and CW at 80 mW/kg for 2 and 24 hours, while IMR-90 cells were exposed to both modulations at 80 mW/kg for the same periods. No significant differences in DNA strand breaks were observed between exposed groups and sham controls using alkaline comet assays. The authors concluded that low-level exposures do not act as a genotoxicant up to a SAR of 800 mW/kg.

DNA & Genetic DamageNo Effects Found

Cytogenetic investigation of subjects professionally exposed to radiofrequency radiation.

Maes A, Van Gorp U, Verschaeve L. · 2006

Researchers investigated cytogenetic effects in peripheral blood lymphocytes from subjects professionally exposed to mobile phone electromagnetic fields. The alkaline comet assay, sister chromatid exchange and chromosome aberration tests revealed no evidence of RFR-induced genetic effects. Blood cells were also exposed to mitomycin C to investigate possible combined effects of RFR and the chemical mutagen. No cooperative action was found between the electromagnetic field exposure and the mutagen using either the comet assay or SCE test.

Oxidative StressNo Effects Found

Hsp70 expression and free radical release after exposure to non-thermal radio-frequency electromagnetic fields and ultrafine particles in human Mono Mac 6 cells.

Simkó M et al. · 2006

The study investigated Hsp70 expression and free radical release in human Mono Mac 6 cells exposed to ultrafine particles and radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Ultrafine particle exposure increased free radical release by 40-45% above negative control, an effect stronger than heat treatment. Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure alone did not change free radical levels. Combined exposure to RF and ultrafine particles did not enhance the particle effect on free radicals. Heat treatment increased Hsp70 expression in a time-dependent manner, while ultrafine particles, RF fields, or their combination had no effect on Hsp70.

Oxidative StressNo Effects Found107 citations

ROS release and Hsp70 expression after exposure to 1,800 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in primary human monocytes and lymphocytes.

Lantow M, Lupke M, Frahm J, Mattsson MO, Kuster N, Simko M. · 2006

The study investigated whether 1,800 MHz RF-EMF can induce ROS release or Hsp70 expression changes in human blood cells using various exposure conditions. PMA treatment significantly increased ROS production in both monocytes and lymphocytes compared to sham or incubator controls. GSM-DTX exposure at 2 W/kg produced a significant difference in monocyte ROS compared to sham, but this was attributed to lower ROS values in the sham condition, while lymphocytes showed no ROS changes. Hsp70 expression in monocytes did not differ after GSM-DTX exposure at 2 W/kg for 1 hour compared to incubator or sham controls at any post-exposure time point.

Oxidative StressNo Effects Found

Free Radical Release and HSP70 Expression in Two Human Immune-Relevant Cell Lines after Exposure to 1800 MHz Radiofrequency Radiation.

Lantow M, Schuderer J, Hartwig C, Simko M. · 2006

Heat and PMA treatment significantly increased superoxide radical anions and ROS production in Mono Mac 6 cells. No significant differences in free radical production were detected after RF EMF exposure compared to controls. The GSM-DTX signal at 2 W/kg showed a significant difference versus sham due to a decreasing sham value, but this difference disappeared when compared to incubator controls. No significant effects on HSP70 expression were detected after RF EMF exposures.

Pulsed radiofrequency applied to dorsal root ganglia causes a selective increase in ATF3 in small neurons.

Hamann W, Abou-Sherif S, Thompson S, Hall S. · 2006

Researchers applied pulsed radiofrequency (20 ms of 500-kHz RF pulses at 2 Hz, max 42°C) to the sciatic nerve or L4 anterior primary ramus in adult rats. Controls included sham-operated and L4 axotomised rats, and tissues were examined 14 days later. Axotomy upregulated ATF3 in L4 DRG neurons regardless of size. PRF applied near the DRG significantly and selectively increased ATF3 in small and medium neurons, while PRF applied to the sciatic nerve in mid-thigh caused no obvious changes.

Ultra high frequency-electromagnetic field irradiation during pregnancy leads to an increase in erythrocytes micronuclei incidence in rat offspring.

Ferreira AR et al. · 2006

Researchers used the micronucleus assay to assess chromosomal damage in erythrocytes from rat offspring exposed to non-thermal UHF-EMF from a cellular phone during embryogenesis. The irradiated group showed a significant increase in micronuclei occurrence. No significant differences were found in any oxidative parameter of offspring blood and liver. The average number of pups in each litter was not significantly altered.

Characterization of the electromagnetic near-field absorption in layered biological tissue in the frequency range from 30 MHz to 6000 MHz Phys.

Christ A, Samaras T, Klingenböck A, Kuster N. · 2006

The study investigated electromagnetic near-field absorption in layered biological tissue from 30 MHz to 6000 MHz. Two effects can increase SAR in layered tissue versus homogeneous liquid: standing wave effects at larger distances depending on frequency and fat thickness, and high local skin absorption from reactive E-fields in the very close near-field. A conservative exposure estimate can be obtained by applying a multiplication factor of 1 to 3 to current dosimetric values.

Evaluation of health risks caused by radio frequency accelerated carcinogenesis: the importance of processes driven by the calcium ion signal.

Anghileri LJ, Mayayo E, Domingo JL, Thouvenot P. · 2006

The study aimed to evaluate health risks caused by radio frequency accelerated carcinogenesis and the importance of processes driven by the calcium ion signal. Exposed animals showed organ hypertrophy, lymphoid blood and ascites, solid tumours, and mortality that were very different from control animals. The results emphasized the role of calcium ion signal influx in the activation of oncogenes and the failure of thymus-determined immune defences.

Iron-radiofrequency synergism in lymphomagenesis.

Anghileri LJ, Mayayo E, Domingo JL. · 2006

The study investigated the effects of parenteral iron administration on the acceleration of lymphomagenesis by radiofrequency exposure using an animal model that develops spontaneous lymphomas with ageing. Complementary studies showed differences in absorption and excretion between ferric gluconate and ferric-ATP complex, and molecular structure-dependence in calcium cellular uptake. The results demonstrated a synergism between radiofrequency and ferric gluconate, and increased risk of radiofrequency exposure when simultaneous to parenteral iron administration.

Effects of Global System for Mobile Communications 1800 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on gene and protein expression in MCF-7 cells.

Zeng Q, Chen G, Weng Y, Wang L, Chiang H, Lu D, Xu Z. · 2006

Researchers investigated gene and protein responses to GSM 1800 MHz RF EMF in human breast cancer MCF-7 cells using genomic and proteomic approaches. GeneChip analysis identified a handful of changed genes after exposure at SAR up to 3.5 W/kg for 24 hours, but these changes were not confirmed by RT-PCR. Proteome analysis found a few different proteins differentially expressed under continuous or intermittent exposure at SAR 3.5 W/kg for 24 hours or less, but the authors suggest these effects might have occurred by chance.

[Effects of GSM 1800 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on protein expression profile of human breast cancer cell MCF-7.]

Zeng QL, Weng Y, Chen GD, Lu DQ, Chiang H, Xu ZP · 2006

Researchers exposed MCF-7 human breast cancer cells to GSM 1800 MHz RF EMF at 3.5 W/kg SAR for various durations and modes. They used 2-dimensional electrophoresis and PDQuest software to analyze protein expression. No differential proteins were found after 6 hours of continuous exposure. Eighteen differential proteins were detected after 3-hour intermittent exposure and seven after 12-hour continuous exposure. The analysis suggested that the differentially expressed proteins should be related to biosynthesization, signal transduction, and DNA damage and repair.

Effects of a 2450 MHz high-frequency electromagnetic field with a wide range of SARs on the induction of heat-shock proteins in A172 cells.

Wang J et al. · 2006

Researchers exposed A172 cells to 2450 MHz high-frequency electromagnetic fields at SARs of 5-200 W/kg and included heat controls at 38-44°C. HSP70 expression increased in a time- and dose-dependent manner at SARs above 50 W/kg for 1-3 hours, similar to heat controls. HSP27 expression did not change significantly with HFEMF exposure or heating, but HSP27 phosphorylation increased transiently at 100 and 200 W/kg, exceeding the effect of heating at 40-44°C, peaking after 1 hour at 100 W/kg.

HSP27 phosphorylation increases after 45 degrees C or 41 degrees C heat shocks but not after non-thermal TDMA or GSM exposures.

Vanderwaal RP, Cha B, Moros EG, Roti Roti JL. · 2006

The radiofrequency exposures were 847 MHz TDMA at a SAR of 5 W kg-1 for 1, 2, or 24 h and 900 MHz GSM at a SAR of 3.7 W kg-1 for 1, 2, or 5 h. Acute hyperthermia at 45 degrees C increased the proportion of higher phosphorylated forms of HSP27. Exposure of HeLa S3 cells to 5 W kg-1 TDMA for 1, 2, or 24 h did not induce significant differences in HSP27 phosphorylation compared to incubator control or sham.

Effects of continuous and intermittent exposure to RF fields with a wide range of SARs on cell growth, survival, and cell cycle distribution.

Takashima Y et al. · 2006

Researchers exposed cells to radio frequency electromagnetic fields at 2.45 GHz to examine cell growth, survival, and cell cycle distribution across a wide range of specific absorption rates. When cells were exposed to a continuous RF field at SARs from 0.05 to 100 W/kg for 2 h, cellular growth rate, survival, and cell cycle distribution were not affected. At 200 W/kg, the cell growth rate was suppressed and cell survival decreased, and the temperature of the medium rose to 44.1 degrees C. The researchers suggested that the proliferation disorder is caused by the thermal effect.

Modest increase in temperature affects ODC activity in L929 cells: low-level radiofrequency radiation does not.

Hoyto A, Sihvonen AP, Alhonen L, Juutilainen J, Naarala J · 2006

Researchers investigated the effects of low-level radiofrequency radiation and elevated temperature on ornithine decarboxylase (ODC) activity in murine L929 fibroblasts. RF radiation did not affect cellular ODC activity. A slight temperature increase of 0.8-0.9 degrees C in the exposure system led to decreased ODC activity, which was verified by exposing cells to different temperatures in incubators.

Franceschi CAge-Dependent Effects of in Vitro Radiofrequency Exposure (Mobile Phone) on CD95+ T Helper Human Lymphocytes.

Capri M et al. · 2006

Researchers exposed human peripheral blood mononuclear cells from young and elderly donors to radiofrequency radiation at 1,800 MHz and a Specific Absorption Rate of 2 W/kg, with or without mitogenic stimulation. However, RF exposure produced a slight but significant downregulation of CD95 expression in stimulated CD4+ T lymphocytes from elderly donors only.

Effects of GSM 1800 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on DNA damage in Chinese hamster lung cells

Zhang DY, Xu ZP, Chiang H, Lu DQ, Zeng QL. · 2006

Researchers studied the effects of GSM 1800 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on DNA damage in Chinese hamster lung cells. Cells were intermittently exposed to GSM 1800 MHz RF EMF at a SAR of 3.0 W/kg for either 1 hour or 24 hours, using a pattern of 5 minutes on and 10 minutes off. After 24 hours of exposure, the percentage of gammaH2AX foci positive cells was 37.9 +/- 8.6%, significantly higher than the sham-exposed group at 28.0 +/- 8.4%. The 1-hour exposure showed no significant difference from sham exposure.

Effects of 1.8GHz radiofrequency field on DNA damage and expression of heat shock protein 70 in human lens epithelial cells

Lixia S et al. · 2006

Researchers exposed human lens epithelial cells (hLEC) to a 1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency field at SARs of 1, 2, and 3 W/kg for 2 hours and then measured DNA damage, Hsp70 expression, and cell proliferation. DNA breaks at 1 and 2 W/kg were not significantly different from controls at any time point, while the 3 W/kg dose showed significantly increased DNA damage only at 0 and 30 minutes after exposure. Hsp70 protein expression was significantly increased at 2 and 3 W/kg, but Hsp70 mRNA expression did not change in any group, and cell proliferation was unaffected at all doses.

Cellular EffectsNo Effects Found

Effects of exposure to a 1950 MHz radio frequency field on expression of Hsp70 and Hsp27 in human glioma cells.

Miyakoshi J et al. · 2005

Researchers exposed human glioma MO54 cells to a continuous wave 1950 MHz RF field at SARs of 1, 2, and 10 W/kg for up to 2 hours. Cell growth was assessed by counting cell numbers up to 4 days after exposure. RF exposure at 2 and 10 W/kg did not affect the growth of MO54 cells. However, exposure at 10 W/kg for 1 and 2 hours significantly decreased the protein level of phosphorylated Hsp27 at serine 78.

Immune SystemNo Effects Found

Effect of 900 MHz electromagnetic fields on nonthermal induction of heat-shock proteins in human leukocytes.

Lim HB, Cook GG, Barker AT, Coulton LA. · 2005

Researchers exposed human peripheral blood to 900 MHz fields at specific absorption rates of 0.4, 2.0, and 3.6 W/kg for durations of 20 minutes, 1 hour, and 4 hours. Heat stress at 42 degrees Celsius increased the number of cells expressing HSP70 and HSP27 in a time-dependent manner. No statistically significant difference in stress protein expression was detected after RF-field exposure.

Cellular EffectsNo Effects Found

Subchronic exposure of hsp70.1-deficient mice to radiofrequency radiation.

Lee JS, Huang TQ, Lee JJ, Pack JK, Jang JJ, Seo JS. · 2005

Researchers exposed eight-week-old hsp70.1-deficient mice twice daily for 45 minutes with a 15-minute interval, five days a week for ten weeks at a whole-body average specific absorption rate of 0.4 W/Kg for both 849 MHz and 1763 MHz fields. They examined major tissues histopathologically, assessed cell proliferative activity immunocytochemically, measured apoptosis with a TUNEL assay, and evaluated heat shock protein expression and stress-activated kinase phosphorylation by western blot. No histopathological differences were found between sham- and RF-exposed mice, and there was no evidence of increased proliferative or apoptotic activity. Levels of HSP90, HSP70, and HSP25 showed no obvious changes, and RF exposure did not affect phosphorylation of ERK1/2, JNK1/2, or p38 MAPK.

What This Means for You

  1. Minimize the time your phone is directly against your body.
  2. Use speakerphone or air tube headphones for calls to keep the phone away from your head.
  3. When not in use, keep your phone at a distance rather than in your pocket.
  4. Consider a phone shield to deflect radiation away from your body. SYB Phone Shield

Further Reading:

Frequently Asked Questions

No study in this collection demonstrates harm from 5G. The frequencies 5G shares with 4G are well studied and show real non-thermal effects — DNA strand breaks in rat brain cells at 0.6 to 1.2 W/kg (Lai and Singh 1995), chromosomal damage in human cells under extended exposure at 5.0 W/kg or above (Tice 2002) — at doses generally well above ambient exposure from network infrastructure. The millimeter-wave research here is cell-culture work at 60 GHz, above the 24–47 GHz bands high-band 5G deploys on, and none of it is in people.
Partly. Low-band and mid-band 5G use frequency ranges already shared with 4G and WiFi, which carry decades of research. High-band 5G uses millimeter waves, which penetrate tissue less deeply. Millimeter-wave health research does exist here, but at 60 GHz in cell cultures rather than at the bands 5G deploys on or in people (Habauzit 2014, Le Quément 2014). Treating 5G as one uniform thing is what makes both the alarm and the reassurance imprecise.
For nearly everyone, the handset dominates. A phone held to the head delivers absorption in the range where experimental effects have been observed; a distant antenna delivers a small fraction of that. This is also why denser networks can reduce personal exposure — a phone with a strong signal transmits at lower power than one straining to reach a far-off tower.
Target the handset, since that is the dominant source. Use speaker mode or wired headphones for calls, text rather than call where it makes no difference, keep the phone out of the bedroom overnight, and prefer WiFi over cellular where the cellular signal is weak. These steps address absorbed dose directly and cost nothing.

Further Reading

For a comprehensive exploration of EMF health effects and practical protection strategies, explore these books by R Blank and Dr. Martin Blank.