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)

Effects of radiation from a radiofrequency identification (RFID) microchip on human cancer cells

Lai HC, Chan HW, Singh NP · 2016

Researchers exposed three human cancer cell lines to RFID microchip-emitted radiofrequency field for one hour. The radiofrequency energy effectively killed or retarded the growth of all three cancer cell types. The effect was blocked by pretreatment with a spin-trap compound or an iron chelator. An inactive microchip and external energy source had no significant effect on the cells.

Effects of radiofrequency field exposure on glutamate-induced oxidative stress in mouse hippocampal HT22 cells

Kim JY, Kim HJ, Kim N, Kwon JH, Park MJ · 2016

The study examined how radiofrequency radiation affects glutamate-induced oxidative stress in mouse hippocampal HT22 cells. RF exposure alone marginally affected cell proliferation but significantly increased glutamate-induced cytotoxicity. Glutamate raised ROS levels and RF exposure further increased ROS production. NAC treatment completely abrogated glutamate- and RF-induced ROS production and cell death, restoring cell proliferation. Treatment with a JNK inhibitor restored cell proliferation.

Effects of exposure to 2100 MHz GSM-like radiofrequency electromagnetic field on auditory system of rats

Çeliker M et al. · 2016

Fourteen adult Wistar albino rats were randomly divided into two groups of seven, with the study group exposed continuously for 30 days to a 2100 MHz GSM-like electromagnetic field at 5.4 dBm (3.47 mW) to simulate mobile phone talk mode. Auditory brainstem responses recorded after 30 days did not differ significantly between exposed and control rats. Histopathologic analysis showed increased degeneration signs in the exposed group (p = 0.007), and immunohistochemical analysis revealed an increased apoptotic index (p = 0.002).

Activity and expression of acetylcholinesterase in PC12 cells exposed to intermittent 1.8 GHz 217-GSM mobile phone signal.

Valbonesi P, Franzellitti S, Bersani F, Contin A, Fabbri E. · 2016

Researchers exposed rat PC12 cells to a 1.8 GHz 217-GSM signal at 2 W/kg SAR for 24 hours. AChE enzyme activity was measured by Ellman's method, mRNA by real-time PCR, and protein by Western blotting. AChE enzymatic activity increased 1.4-fold in exposed cells, while mRNA and protein expression were not affected. The authors report this as the first evidence of RF-EMF effects on AChE activity in mammalian cells at this SAR.

Effects of 3G cell phone exposure on the structure and function of the human cytochrome P450 reductase.

Tanvir S et al. · 2016

Researchers exposed human CPR to 1966-MHz RF for 60 minutes using a TEM cell in an incubator at a specific absorption rate (SAR) of 5W·kg(-1). The Michaelis Menten constant (Km) and maximum initial velocity (Vmax) decreased by 22% compared with controls. Conformational changes were detected via fluorescent spectroscopy of flavin and tryptophan residues and investigated with circular dichroism, dynamic light scattering, and microelectrophoresis.

Effects of RF-EMF Exposure from GSM Mobile Phones on Proliferation Rate of Human Adipose-derived Stem Cells: An In-vitro Study.

Shahbazi-Gahrouei D, Hashemi-Beni B, Ahmadi Z. · 2016

Researchers exposed human adipose-derived stem cells to GSM 900 MHz radiation at 354.6 µW/cm2 for 6 to 21 minutes per day over 5 days at 20 cm distance. Cell proliferation was measured using MTT assay and cell viability with trypan blue test. Proliferation rates were significantly lower in all exposure groups compared to controls except for the 6 minutes per day group. The authors concluded that 900 MHz RF radiation can reduce cell viability and proliferation rates depending on exposure duration.

GSM 900 MHz Microwave Radiation-Induced Alterations of Insulin Level and Histopathological Changes of Liver and Pancreas in Rat.

Mortazavi SM et al. · 2016

The study investigated the effects of radiofrequency radiation from GSM mobile phones on insulin release in rats. RF radiation did not alter insulin release in the rats. Mild to severe inflammatory changes in the portal spaces of the liver and damage to the cells of the islet of Langerhans were observed. The changes were linked to the duration of exposure.

Induction of Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase in Mouse Bone Marrow Stromal Cells Exposed to 900 MHz Radiofrequency Fields: Preliminary Observations.

He Q, Sun Y, Zong L, Tong J, Cao Y. · 2016

Researchers exposed mouse bone marrow stromal cells to 900 MHz RF at 120 μW/cm(2) power intensity for 3 hours/day for 5 days. The study measured PARP-1 mRNA and protein levels at multiple time points after exposure using RT-PCR and Western blot analyses. Cells exposed to radiofrequency fields showed significantly increased PARP-1 mRNA and protein levels, while sham-exposed cells did not show such changes.

Effect of Radiofrequency Radiation on Human Hematopoietic Stem Cells.

Gläser K et al. · 2016

Researchers irradiated human hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) and HL-60 cells at GSM (900 MHz), UMTS (1,950 MHz), and LTE (2,535 MHz) frequencies, at intensities ranging from 0 to 4 W/kg SAR, for short and long exposure periods. Studied endpoints included apoptosis, oxidative stress, cell cycle, DNA damage, and DNA repair. In all but one endpoint, no clear effect of mobile phone radiation was detected; the only alteration was a small but statistically significant decrease in DNA damage in HSC exposed to GSM modulation for 4 hours.

Mobile phone signal exposure triggers a hormesis-like effect in Atm+/+ and Atm-/- mouse embryonic fibroblasts.

Sun C, Wei X, Fei Y, Su L, Zhao X, Chen G, Xu Z. · 2016

Researchers compared the effects of 1,800 MHz RF-EMF exposure on genomic DNA in mouse embryonic fibroblasts with proficient (Atm+/+) or deficient (Atm−/−) ATM. In Atm+/+ cells, exposure for 1 hour at an average special absorption rate of 4.0 W/kg induced significant DNA single-strand breaks and activated the SSB repair mechanism. That repair effect reduced DNA damage to less than background levels after 36 hours of exposure. In Atm−/− cells, the same RF-EMF exposure for 12 hours induced both SSBs and double-strand breaks and activated the two repair processes, also reducing damage below the control level after prolonged exposure. The researchers described this as the first reported hormesis-like effect of an RF-EMF.

Adaptive response in mouse bone-marrow stromal cells exposed to 900-MHz radiofrequency fields: Gamma-radiation-induced DNA strand breaks and repair.

Ji Y, He Q, Sun Y, Tong J, Cao Y. · 2016

Researchers preexposed mouse bone-marrow stromal cells to 900-MHz radiofrequency fields at 120 μW/cm2 for 4 hours per day for 5 days, then exposed some cells to 1.5 Gy gamma radiation. Radiofrequency exposure alone produced no significant differences in DNA strand breaks compared to control cells. When radiofrequency preexposure was followed by gamma radiation, the number of DNA strand breaks was significantly decreased and repair was faster compared to gamma radiation alone.

Effects of GSM modulated radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation on permeability of blood–brain barrier in male & female rats

Sırav B, Seyhan N · 2016

Researchers used young adult male and female Wistar albino rats to investigate whether pulse modulated 900 MHz and 1800 MHz radio-frequency radiation affects the permeability of the blood-brain barrier. Permeability was measured by quantifying Evans blue dye that passed into the brain after intravenous injection. In both male radio-frequency radiation exposed groups, blood-brain barrier permeability was found to be increased compared with controls, with 1800 MHz found more effective in males. For female rats, 900 MHz exposure was associated with increased permeability, but no statistical difference was found between the 1800 MHz exposed and control groups.

Glial markers and emotional memory in rats following acute cerebral radiofrequency exposures

(E) Barthélémy A et al. · 2016

Researchers exposed male Sprague Dawley rats for 15 minutes at 0, 1.5, or 6 W/kg, or for 45 minutes at 6 W/kg, to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Memory, emotionality, and locomotion were tested using fear conditioning, the elevated plus maze, and the open field. Long-term memory was reduced and cytosolic GFAP was increased in the hippocampus and in the olfactory bulb at 6 W/kg. No MBP or Aβ1–40 expression modification was shown. The study suggests that RF EMF-induced astrogliosis had functional consequences on memory but did not demonstrate that it was secondary to neuronal damage.

Brain & Nervous SystemNo Effects Found

Magnetoreception in the wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus): influence of weak frequency-modulated radio frequency fields.

Malkemper EP et al. · 2015

The researchers tested the wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus for magnetoreception using a simple behavioural assay in which mice were allowed to build nests overnight in a visually symmetrical, circular arena. When plotted with respect to magnetic north, the nests were bimodally clustered in the northern and southern sectors, indicating the animals used magnetic cues. Wood mice exposed to a 0.9 to 5 MHz frequency sweep changed their preference from north-south to east-west. A constant frequency field tuned to the Larmor frequency (1.33 MHz) had no effect on mouse orientation. The study demonstrated magnetoreception in wood mice and provided first evidence for a radical-pair mechanism in a mammal.

DNA & Genetic DamageNo Effects Found

Does radio frequency radiation induce micronuclei frequency in exfoliated bladder cells of diabetic rats?

Gurbuz N, Sirav B, Kuzay D, Ozer C, Seyhan N. · 2015

The study aimed to evaluate the relationship between micronuclei frequency and RF radiation in exfoliated bladder cells of diabetic and non-diabetic rats using three groups of six animals each. The RF exposure was 2100 MHz with a whole-body average SAR of 0.24 W/kg and an ERMS field of 17.5 V/m at non-thermal levels. No statistically significant differences in micronuclei frequency were found between any of the groups, including between RF-exposed diabetic rats and non-exposed diabetic rats, and between RF-exposed diabetic rats and non-diabetic controls. The authors concluded that the study suggested no possible genotoxic effects of RF radiation in humans, especially those with chronic disorders such as diabetes.

DNA & Genetic DamageNo Effects Found

A genotoxic analysis of the hematopoietic system after mobile phone type radiation exposure in rats.

Kumar G, McIntosh RL, Anderson V, McKenzie RJ, Wood AW. · 2015

The researchers extended a previous study by testing for effects at different SAR levels, both 900 and 1800 MHz, and both continuous wave and pulse modulated RF radiation. Excised long bones from rats were placed in medium and exposed to RF radiation in a transverse electromagnetic cell or a waveguide. Finite-difference time-domain numerical analyses were used to estimate the forward power needed to produce nominal SAR levels of 2/10 and 2.5/12.4 W/kg in the bone marrow. After exposure, lymphoblasts were extracted and assayed for proliferation rate and genotoxicity. No significant changes were observed in the hematopoietic system of rats after exposure to CW/PM wave 900 MHz/1800 MHz RF radiations at different SAR values.

Cancer & TumorsNo Effects Found

Effect of cell phone-like electromagnetic radiation on primary human thyroid cells.

Silva V et al. · 2015

Researchers prepared primary human thyroid cell cultures from normal thyroid tissue of surgical patients and exposed them to simulated cell phone radiofrequency energy under different conditions. They assessed proliferation using Ki-67 and p53 expression, and measured DNA ploidy, HSP70, and ROS by fluorescence-activated cell sorting. No irradiation condition affected Ki-67, p53, DNA ploidy, HSP70, or ROS, and the researchers concluded there was no potential carcinogenic effect.

Effect of cell phone use on salivary total protein, enzymes and oxidative stress markers in young adults: a pilot study.

Shivashankara AR et al. · 2015

The study assessed salivary enzymes, protein, and oxidant-antioxidant markers in young college students who used cell phones. Participants were divided into less mobile users and high mobile users based on duration and frequency of cell phone use. Unstimulated whole saliva samples were analyzed for amylase, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), malondialdehyde (MDA), and glutathione (GSH). High mobile users showed significantly higher levels of amylase, LDH, and MDA than less mobile users. Decreases in total protein, GSH, and flow rate were not statistically significant.

Effect of 900 MHz Electromagnetic Radiation on the Induction of ROS in Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells.

Kazemi E et al. · 2015

The study investigated the effect of 900 MHz GSM on oxidative stress and intracellular ROS levels in human mononuclear cells, monocytes, and lymphocytes. Blood samples from 13 healthy volunteers were exposed to RF radiation from a mobile phone simulator for 2 hours, while control samples were not exposed. Mononuclear cells were isolated by density gradient centrifugation and ROS was measured using a CM-H2DCFDA fluorescence probe and flow cytometry. Results showed a significant increase in ROS production in monocyte-rich cell populations after exposure, but no significant change in lymphocyte-rich populations.

Low-amplitude, high-frequency electromagnetic field exposure causes delayed and reduced growth in Rosa hybrida.

Grémiaux A et al. · 2015

Researchers exposed small rose bush plants to high-frequency electromagnetic fields and followed shoot growth for over a one-month period after exposure. Shoots that arose from post-formed secondary buds showed delayed and significantly reduced growth of 45%, while shoots from pre-formed buds and plants exposed at the 5-leaf stage showed no growth modification. The measured plant energy uptake suggested this biological response was likely not due to a thermal effect.

Effects of chronic exposure to 950 MHz ultra-high-frequency electromagnetic radiation on reactive oxygen species metabolism in the right and left cerebral cortex of young rats of different ages.

Furtado-Filho OV et al. · 2015

Researchers exposed young rats to 950 MHz ultra-high-frequency electromagnetic radiation to measure oxidative damage to DNA, proteins, and lipids in the left and right cerebral cortex. Radiation exposure lasted 30 minutes per day for up to 27 days, with a specific absorption rate ranging from 1.32 to 1.14 W/kg. In neonates, no modification of the biomarkers tested was detected, while 6-day-old exposed rats showed increased carbonylated proteins in the right cerebral cortex and decreased blood glucose. The researchers concluded that the elevated carbonylated proteins in the right cerebral cortex did not appear to be a consequence of oxidative stress.

Sensitivity of spiral ganglion neurons to damage caused by mobile phone electromagnetic radiation will increase in lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammation in vitro model.

Zuo WQ, Hu YJ, Yang Y, Zhao XY, Zhang YY, Kong W, Kong WJ. · 2015

Researchers used spiral ganglion neurons from neonatal Sprague Dawley rats to investigate whether inflammation might increase sensitivity to damage from mobile phone electromagnetic radiation. Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation alone could not directly induce DNA damage in normal spiral ganglion neurons. The study suggests that sensitivity of spiral ganglion neurons to damage caused by mobile phone electromagnetic radiation may increase in a lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammation model.

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.