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)

8-oxoG DNA Glycosylase-1 Inhibition Sensitizes Neuro-2a Cells to Oxidative DNA Base Damage Induced by 900 MHz Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation.

Wang X et al. · 2015

Researchers exposed Neuro-2a cells to 900 MHz GSM signals at specific absorption rates of 0, 0.5, 1, or 2 W/kg for 24 hours, with or without silencing of the DNA repair enzyme OGG1. Without OGG1 silencing, 2 W/kg RF-EMFs induced oxidative DNA base damage, and with OGG1 silencing, damage was observed at exposures as low as 1 W/kg. Increases in oxidative DNA base damage were accompanied by similar increases in reactive oxygen species, but neither DNA strand breakage nor altered cell viability was observed.

Cell oxidation–reduction imbalance after modulated radiofrequency radiation.

Marjanovic AM, Pavicic I, Trosic I, · 2015

Researchers evaluated the influence of a modulated radiofrequency field of 1800 MHz, strength of 30 V/m on oxidation-reduction processes within the cell. V79 cell line samples were irradiated for 10, 30, and 60 minutes, with a specific absorption rate calculated to be 1.6 W/kg. ROS levels significantly increased after 10 minutes of exposure, then decreased after 30 minutes, which researchers associated with antioxidant defence mechanism activation. Metabolic activity and total protein content in exposed cells did not differ significantly from control samples.

Comparison of the Genotoxic Effects Induced by 50 Hz Extremely Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and 1800 MHz Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in GC-2 Cells.

Duan W et al. · 2015

Researchers exposed a mouse spermatocyte-derived GC-2 cell line intermittently to 50 Hz ELF-EMF at intensities of 1, 2, or 3 mT, or to 1800 MHz RF-EMF in GSM-Talk mode at SAR values of 1, 2, or 4 W/kg. After 24 hours of exposure, neither ELF-EMF nor RF-EMF affected cell viability. ELF-EMF exposure significantly increased DNA strand breaks at 3 mT, while RF-EMF exposure significantly induced oxidative DNA base damage at a SAR of 4 W/kg. The researchers suggest that both field types may produce genotoxicity at relatively high intensities but through different patterns of DNA damage.

Circadian Rhythmicity of Antioxidant Markers in Rats Exposed to 1.8 GHz Radiofrequency Fields

Cao H, Qin F, Liu X, Wang J, Cao Y, Tong J, Zhao H · 2015

Researchers exposed male Sprague Dawley rats to 1.8 GHz radiofrequency fields at different times of day to study whether circadian rhythms of plasma antioxidants were affected. Six groups of animals were exposed at a power density of 201.7 μW/cm2 and a specific absorption rate of 0.05653 W/kg for 2 hours per day for 32 consecutive days, each at a different time of day, while a seventh group served as sham-exposed controls. The circadian rhythms of melatonin, GSH-Px, and SOD were shifted in exposed rats, with levels significantly decreased when exposure was given at 23 and 3 h GMT. The researchers concluded that there may be adverse effects of radiofrequency exposure on antioxidant function, affecting both daily antioxidant levels and circadian rhythmicity.

Cell Phone Generated Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field Effects on the Locomotor Behaviors of the Fishes Poecilia reticulata and Danio rerio.

Lee D, Lee J, Lee I. · 2015

Researchers tracked the movement of 10 pairs of guppies and 15 pairs of zebrafish in a fish tank under a cell phone-generated RF EMF. Fish locomotion was observed under normal conditions, in the visual presence of a cell phone, after feeding, and under starvation. Fish locomotor behavior was random both in normal conditions and in the presence of an off-signaled cell phone, but there were significant changes in locomotion after feeding under the RF EMF. The researchers also demonstrated that temperature elevation caused by the cell phone was not relevant to the observed effects.

Cellular EffectsNo Effects Found

Nanometer-scale elongation rate fluctuations in the Myriophyllum aquaticum (Parrot feather) stem were altered by radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation.

Senavirathna MD, Asaeda T, Thilakarathne BL, Kadono H · 2014

Researchers investigated the effect of EMR on the growth dynamics of Myriophyllum aquaticum by measuring nanometric elongation rate fluctuation using a statistical interferometry technique. Plants were exposed to 2 GHz EMR at a maximum of 1.42 Wm(-2) for 1 hour. After continuous exposure, M. aquaticum plants exhibited a statistically significant 51 ± 16% reduction in NERF standard deviation. Temperature observations revealed that EMR exposure did not cause dielectric heating, so the reduced NERF was due to a non-thermal effect. The alteration in NERF continued for at least 2.5 hours after exposure with no significant recovery during the experimental period.

Oxidative StressNo Effects Found

Assessment of oxidant/antioxidant status in saliva of cell phone users

Khalil AM, Abu Khadra KM, Aljaberi AM, Gagaa MH, Issa HS. · 2014

The study aimed to examine oxidant and antioxidant status in saliva of cell phone users by collecting samples before and after 15- and 30-minute calls. Saliva was analyzed for malondialdehyde, 8-oxo-dG, and antioxidant capacities using ORAC and HORAC assays. Mean 8-oxo-dG and protein concentrations peaked at 15 minutes, while HORAC, ORAC, and MDA levels increased progressively and reached maximum at 30 minutes. Talking time had no significant effect on 8-oxo-dG, MDA, ORAC, or HORAC levels. The authors concluded that there is no relationship between radiofrequency radiation exposure and changes in the salivary oxidant/antioxidant profile.

DNA & Genetic DamageNo Effects Found

Effect of 950 MHz UHF electromagnetic radiation on biomarkers of oxidative damage, metabolism of UFA and antioxidants in the livers of young rats of different ages

Furtado-Filho OV et al. · 2014

Researchers assessed the effect of 950 MHz ultra-high-frequency electromagnetic radiation on biomarkers of oxidative damage, unsaturated fatty acid concentrations, and catalase expression in the livers of rats of different ages. Twelve rats per age group were divided into control and exposed groups and exposed for half an hour per day for up to 51 days at a specific absorption rate of 1.3–1.0 W/kg. The radiation did not cause oxidative stress and was not genotoxic in neonates or 6- and 15-day-old rats, but it changed polyunsaturated fatty acid concentrations in neonates. In 30-day-old rats there was no oxidative stress but the radiation was genotoxic to the livers of exposed rats.

Oxidative StressNo Effects Found

Effects of combined radiofrequency radiation exposure on levels of reactive oxygen species in neuronal cells.

Kang KA et al. · 2014

Researchers exposed U87, PC12, and SH-SY5Y neuronal cells to combined radiofrequency radiation at 837 MHz CDMA and 1950 MHz WCDMA with a specific absorption rate of 2 W/kg each for 2 hours. They also tested co-exposure with hydrogen peroxide or menadione and measured intracellular reactive oxygen species using flow cytometry with a fluorescent probe. Combined RF radiation alone did not consistently affect ROS levels in a time-dependent manner, and co-exposure with hydrogen peroxide or menadione showed no statistically significant change compared to the chemicals alone.

Impact of 900 MHz electromagnetic field exposure on main male reproductive hormone levels: a Rattus norvegicus model.

Sepehrimanesh M et al. · 2014

Twenty adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed to 900 MHz RF-EMF for 1, 2, or 4 hours per day over 30 days, with a sham-exposed control group. At the end of the experiment, the long-time exposure group showed significantly higher FSH and LH levels than the sham group. The long-time exposure group also had significantly increased activin B and prolactin, decreased inhibin B compared to sham and short-time exposure groups, and decreased testosterone compared to short- and moderate-time exposure groups.

Non-linear adaptive phenomena which decrease the risk of infection after pre-exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

Mortazavi SM et al. · 2014

Researchers previously found that radiofrequency radiation exposure can induce a survival adaptive response in laboratory animals. They also reported that pre-exposing mice to GSM mobile phone radiation increased resistance to subsequent Escherichia coli infection. In this study, animals receiving both radiofrequency pre-exposure and bacterial challenge had a 56% survival rate versus 20% for those receiving only the bacterial challenge.

Diverse Radiofrequency Sensitivity and Radiofrequency Effects of Mobile or Cordless Phone near Fields Exposure in Drosophila melanogaster.

Geronikolou S et al. · 2014

Egg laying in the second generation was compared between exposed and non-exposed cultures using advanced statistics. The 900 MHz exposure showed statistical significance, while the cordless phone exposure showed limited statistical significance. The researchers also calculated and simulated the near-field radiation patterns inside the vials. They found that the power difference between the two fields becomes null when the cylinder radius and antenna height increase.

The effect of 2100 MHz radiofrequency radiation of a 3G mobile phone on the parotid gland of rats.

Aydogan F et al. · 2014

Thirty Wistar albino rats were divided into four groups. Groups A and B served as control groups for 10 days and 40 days with six rats each, while groups C and D were exposure groups with nine rats each. The rats were exposed to 2100 MHz radiofrequency radiation simulating a third generation mobile phone for 6 hours per day, 5 days per week, for 10 or 40 days. Exposure groups showed numerous histopathological changes in the parotid gland, with more prominent changes after 40 days compared to 10 days.

The effect of radiofrequency radiation generated by a Global System for Mobile Communications source on cochlear development in a rat model

Seckin E et al. · 2014

Pregnant rats and their offspring were exposed to 900 MHz and 1800 MHz Global System for Mobile Communications radiofrequency radiation for one hour per day during pregnancy and for 21 days after birth. Distortion product otoacoustic emission tests showed no significant difference among the groups. Electron microscopy revealed significant differences in the numbers of normal, apoptotic, and necrotic cells among the groups. The findings indicated cellular structural damage in the cochlea caused by radiofrequency radiation exposure during cochlear development.

Effects of the exposure to intermittent 1.8 GHz radio frequency electromagnetic fields on HSP70 expression and MAPK signaling pathways in PC12 cells.

Valbonesi P, Franzellitti S, Bersani F, Contin A, Fabbri E. · 2014

Researchers exposed rat PC12 cells to 1.8 GHz continuous wave or GSM-modulated signals at a SAR of 2 W/kg for 4, 16, or 24 hours. HSP70 gene expression was measured by RT-PCR, while HSP70 protein and MAPK phosphorylation were measured by Western blotting. Only the GSM-217Hz signal increased HSP70 transcription after 16 or 24 hours of exposure. HSP70 protein levels and three MAPK signaling pathways were unchanged by any of the signals.

Long-term effects of 900 MHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from mobile phone on testicular tissue and epididymal semen quality.

Tas M et al. · 2014

The study used 14 adult Wistar Albino rats divided into sham and exposure groups of seven each. Exposed rats received 900 MHz RF radiation from a GSM signal generator for 3 hours per day, 7 days a week, for one year. No differences were found in sperm motility or concentration between groups. Exposed rats had higher rates of morphologically normal sperm but lower tunica albuginea thickness and Johnsen testicular biopsy scores.

Noninvasive Assessment of Metabolic Effects of Exposure to 900 MHz Electromagnetic Fields on Djungarian Hamsters ( Phodopus sungorus).

Taberski K et al. · 2014

Researchers exposed 16 male Djungarian hamsters to 900 MHz GSM-modulated RF-EMF at SAR levels of 0, 0.08, 0.4, and 4 W/kg for one week per condition. Only at the highest SAR level did fur temperature increase by about 0.5°C, food consumption decrease, and daytime carbon dioxide production and respiratory quotient decrease.

Adaptive response in human blood lymphocytes exposed to non-ionizing radiofrequency fields: resistance to ionizing radiation-induced damage

Sannino A et al. · 2014

Researchers exposed human peripheral blood lymphocytes from four healthy donors to 1950 MHz radiofrequency fields at 0.3 W/kg for 20 hours, then challenged them with 1.0 or 1.5 Gy X-irradiation. After 72 hours of culture, they measured micronuclei incidence and found a significant decrease in micronuclei in cells exposed to both radiofrequency fields and X-rays compared to X-rays alone. The results suggested a radiofrequency-induced adaptive response and resistance to subsequent X-ray damage, though variability between donors was observed.

Mobile Phone Radiation Alters Proliferation of Hepatocarcinoma Cells.

Ozgur E, Guler G, Kismali G, Seyhan N · 2014

Researchers exposed Hep G2 hepatocarcinoma cells to intermittent 900- and 1800-MHz radiofrequency radiation at a specific absorption rate of 2 W/kg for 1, 2, 3, or 4 hours. Cell viability changed according to the frequency and duration of the exposure. Four-hour exposure produced more pronounced effects than shorter durations. 1800-MHz radiation had a larger impact on cell viability and injury than 900-MHz radiation. Morphological analysis showed irregular nuclei and DNA damage after 4 hours of 1800-MHz exposure.

Exposure of mice to 900-1900 MHz radiations from cell phone resulting in microscopic changes in the kidney

Mugunthan N, Anbalagan J, Meenachi S, Samy AS. · 2014

Mice were exposed to 2G ultra-high frequency radiation for 48 minutes per day over 30 to 180 days, with sham controls. In the exposed group, kidney weight and volume were significantly reduced in the first month, while kidney weight alone was significantly increased in the fifth month. Microscopic examination revealed dilated glomerular capillaries, increased urinary space, wider tubular lumens with reduced cell size, brush border interruption, vacuolated cytoplasm, pyknotic nuclei, and marked basal striations in distal tubules. The researchers concluded that chronic exposure to 2G cell phone radiation could cause microscopic changes in the glomerulus, proximal and distal convoluted tubules.

Impact of 60-GHz millimeter waves and corresponding heat effect on endoplasmic reticulum stress sensor gene expression.

Le Quément C et al. · 2014

Researchers exposed human skin cell lines to 60.4 GHz millimeter waves at incident power densities ranging from 1 to 20 mW/cm(2). The expression of ER stress sensors BIP and ORP150 was examined by real-time RT-PCR. MMW radiation did not change basal levels of BIP or ORP150 mRNA across any cell line, exposure duration, or power density. At 20 mW/cm(2), MMW exposure inhibited thapsigargin-induced overexpression of BIP and ORP150. This inhibition was attributed to thermal effects from the MMW exposure.

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.