Is 5G Dangerous?

This article explains the physics of 5G microwaves, discusses what we know about the side effects of this type of electromagnetic radiation, and explains how we can protect ourselves.

// Science & Technology

By Jobst Landgrebe- 25th July 2025

▶ Listen to this article here

Since the mid-1990s, the market for mobile telephony has grown steadily. After some time, there were no more telephone booths, and for 10 years now, more and more private individuals have renounced a landline because most of them have a mobile phone. Without a mobile phone, participation in social life is much more difficult. Online videos and video calls have created a very high demand for data transmission, which eventually led to the introduction of the 5G mobile communications standard in 2019. Its penetration in the UK is very slow; it has one of the lowest adoption rates in Europe. Furthermore, more than a third of the connections labelled 5G on users’ phones are really LTE (4G).

Years before the introduction, during the planning, critics warned of the health consequences, and these warnings have not stopped since. Is there any truth to the alleged dangers of 5G? The question is not easy to answer due to the extremely poor controlled or observational clinical study situation.

First, we need to understand what the 5G standard actually is, and what it is based on.

What Is 5G?

In mobile communications, analogue content such as voice or images are encoded by the transmitter device as digital data, and then sent as electromagnetic waves (radio waves), which are received and then decoded to be displayed by the receiver. Electromagnetic waves are light (only a small part of the spectrum is visible); they consist of photons, but when they propagate in the environment, we model them as waves in physics. Only when we measure them do we see them as photons, usually measured via their energy. This situation is called the wave-particle dualism of quantum physics, which is unresolvable and not understandable from our natural common sense attitude.

Electromagnetic waves differ in their wavelength, which can also be represented as frequency. The higher the frequency, the more energy the waves have. Low-frequency waves have a long wavelength, while high-frequency waves (such as X-rays or gamma rays) are short. Radio waves have a wavelength between one kilometre and one metre, with frequencies ranging from 10 kilohertz to one gigahertz (GHz). Ten kilohertz means 10,000 vibrations per second. The older mobile communications standards, EDGE (2G), 3G, and LTE (4G) are also in this frequency range.

The latest 5G standard currently uses wavelengths in two ranges: FR1 and FR2. FR1 uses frequencies between 600 megahertz (MHz) and 6 GHz, which is in the centimetre wave range (10 cm-1 mm wavelength). Just below, FR2 currently goes from 24.25 to 52.6 GHz (waves of higher energy levels are currently planned) and is thus in the range of millimetre wavelengths. Both belong to the microwave range (300 MHz-300 GHz; wavelengths from decimetres to millimetres).

5G waves, unlike natural electromagnetic waves, have a uniform vector direction with specific phase and polarity, and they are also pulsatile to enable a more effective transmission of data. As a result, they have a stronger effect on tissues than the chaotic natural waves, which are not pulsatile, have many phases, and do not have a uniform polarization pattern.

UV radiation, which is weakly ionising and can cause sunburn or sunstroke, for example, has a frequency of around five petahertz and is thus a million times more energetic than millimetre waves at an FR1 frequency of 5 GHz. X-rays with 1-10 exahertz are 1,000-10,000 times more energetic than UV rays. Why is it important to make this comparison?

High-frequency electromagnetic waves, such as gamma rays, have a very small wavelength (0.1-1 picometre). As a result, they interfere with the molecules and atoms of which our bodies consist; they have an ionising effect. Our understanding of ionisation is that an energetic photon can knock an electron out of its molecular orbital and thus break chemical bonds. If this happens so often that the cells of the body can no longer keep up with the damage repair, a net damage effect occurs: acute or chronic radiation sickness. The energy of the photon is proportional to its frequency.

On the other hand, when radio waves hit the body, they do not interfere with the biomolecules due to their large wavelength; they are seen in physics as waves and not as photons. The lowest frequency that can have an ionising effect is UV light, which, as stated above, is 100,000-1,000,000 times more energetic than an FR1 or FR2 5G wave. Even if we imagine a 5G radio wave at 50 GHz (currently the energetically upper end of the spectrum) as a photon, its wavelength is so high that it would interfere with millions of molecules in the tissue, and therefore not be able to have an ionising effect. This is because its wavelength is in the millimetre range, while biomolecules have diameters in the nanometre range. A nanometre is 1,000,000 times smaller than a millimetre.

So, is everything okay? No. Because we know from experiments and studies that radio waves can very well cause damage.

The Microwave Syndrome

Since the 1960s and 1970s, Eastern European publications have pointed out, based on observations obtained from workers exposed to microwaves at higher doses, that radio frequencies in this range can cause a pathological syndrome that includes the following symptoms: (a) neurological symptoms such as headaches, fatigue and exhaustion, difficulty in concentrating, dyssomnia and insomnia, dysphoria, irritability, dysesthesia, (b) cardiac symptoms such as cardiac arrhythmias, (c) as well as pulmonary symptoms and, at high doses, (d) skin damage. The latter are thermal (heat) damage. Overall, women are more affected than men, and the syndrome is dose-and duration-dependent.

Basically, a distinction is made between two types of damage caused by microwaves: thermal and non-thermal. When the waves hit the skin or cornea, they are quickly absorbed. Their penetration depth is 1-20 millimetres, depending on the wavelength (see Table 1 in this article; waves with lower frequencies penetrate more deeply). But absorption means that the energy of the incident light is dissipated into heat within the skin. When a large amount of energy reaches the skin, damage occurs. This is thermal damage.

The amount of energy per second of the waves is given as power in watts (W), which are joules per second. Since these must be related to the surface of the body, threshold values for thermal damage caused by radio waves are given in W per square metre. The limit recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) to prevent thermal damage is 100 W per square metre for waves with a frequency of 6-30 GHz, and 400 mW (0.4 W) per kilogram of body weight for the whole body. With these limit values, thermal damage is excluded. The microwave cannon (Active Denial System) developed in the USA for use against demonstrators has a frequency of 95 GHz, but the power per body surface area and distance to the device is not specified for reasons of secrecy. Since burning pain occurs when used at typical distances, the power must be more than 500 W per square metre.

The ICNIRP has published thresholds for the energy and power of 5G network systems or mobile phones, which ensure that they do not cause thermal damage. But what about non-thermal symptoms? Are the doses to which we are exposed by the 5G network sufficient to cause such symptoms? If the waves penetrate only a few millimetres, how can they affect the brain or heart?

Clinical Studies

Let's start with the evidence for non-thermal damage. To date, the study situation is not sufficient to make statements about the FR2 range (approximately 24-53 GHz). But there is at least some evidence for the FR1 range (600 MHz-6 GHz). From what we know, there is no clear evidence of a carcinogenic effect in humans, but there are such findings in animal studies, which may have used doses that do not occur in reality. There are indications of fertility restrictions in men due to waves from the FR1 range. But there is too little data to determine at which level the neurological microwave syndrome described above, also known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), can occur.

Animal experiments show that microwaves can lead to cardiac arrhythmias, even with relatively low power of 0.2-5 W per square metre. There is also evidence of the generation of EHS in numerous animal experiments with doses below the ICNIRP thresholds. There are slightly more results for older mobile communications standards. Only 8 percent of the studies on cognitive performance indicate a reduction in a choice-related reaction test (choice reaction time), and only 11 percent reported EHS-like (non-objectified) complaints, whereas effects on heart rhythm, blood pressure, and body temperature were not found. However, clear physiological (non-pathological) EEG changes can be measured in both sleeping and awake subjects, which show that radio waves have an effect on the activity of the neural networks of the brain. That said, the radio wave exposure was often not sufficiently determined in the studies. Most studies on 2G/3G/4G have shown no effects and no consistency in the effect of the signals on these exposed volunteers with regard to cognitive or physiological parameters and overall well-being or EEG results. Neither prospective randomized and double-blind interventional studies (although called for), nor state-of-the-art retrospective epidemiological studies (e.g. with matched pairs), are available.

Unfortunately, the best and most recent scientific medical report that is available is merely a summary of seven retrospective individual cases in which only anamnestic questions were asked, and no physical examination or further diagnostics were carried out to corroborate the findings. The results are therefore of little evidence. In all the cases described in this research, residents of 5G transmission towers who lived directly under the roof on which the towers were installed, or at some distance from them, developed neurological and cardiac symptoms similar to the microwave syndrome. These symptoms subsided when those affected moved away from the proximity of the transmission tower. In all case reports, the output per square metre was measured exactly. In the most severe cases, it was 1-3 watts per square metre, which is below the threshold for acute thermal skin damage. However, local residents received this dose for many hours a day, while ICNIRP only looks at thresholds for short periods of time, so it seems plausible that they also reported skin lesions that could correspond to thermal damage.

Mechanisms of Action

How could non-ionising radiation cause this kind of damage? The possible mechanisms have been described in substantial detail. As has rightly been pointed out, the light waves from 5G signals do not enter the body deep enough to affect the cells of the heart or brain. In addition, the wavelength is much too long to be able to plausibly check photon interference, which we only observe from the UV spectrum and higher energies onwards. Therefore, the question arises as to how the microwave syndrome could be physically caused. The magnetic part of the electro-magnetic wave, which moves orthogonally to the electric field, can penetrate much deeper into the tissue than the photon waves. When a periodically varying magnetic field (such as a 5G signal) hits ions (charged particles), it causes a Faraday induction, creating a new electromagnetic field (another term for waves), but weaker than that of the original 5G signal. This secondary field can now transfer its energy to molecules within the cells.

A monocausal hypothesis has been proposed. Voltage-gated calcium channels, which respond to voltage fluctuations, can become dysfunctional as a result of these fields. Since they are very important for neuronal activity, this could explain pathogenic effects of 5G signals. Certainly, however, this is not the only effect of the secondary field, and whether this is really its most important effect remains to be seen. As a second mechanism, the induction of electromagnetic fields by the action of static magnetic fields on moving ions, which occur in large quantities in neurons, has also been proposed. Such fields could then also exert effects on the neurons. These theses, however, require much better experimental evidence; the work cited is only the beginning of research into the effects of such fields on neurons.

Conclusions

Due to the poor study situation and the only sketchy research on the subcutaneous effect of radio waves in the body, members of the IEEE Engineering Association conclude that the threshold values are sufficient for the prevention of thermal damage, and consider the existence of non-thermal damage to be doubtful. But they also call for further research efforts. As several authors point out, ICNIRP is an association of telecommunications equipment manufacturers whose thresholds cannot be considered neutral, but rather interest-driven. That is certainly true. But which assessment should you adopt now?

We know from the high-dose exposure studies with microwaves below the thermal damage threshold from the USSR and its satellite states that the microwave syndrome really exists. We do not know exactly at which chronic doses per day and at which frequencies it occurs. Certainly, there are big differences between exposure from living on a transmission tower and using your own phone. Furthermore, the data show that there is large interindividual variance in susceptibility to radio wave damage.

Overall, we have to assume that exposure to mobile phone waves can harm us. At the population level, damage of unknown magnitude is certainly already accumulating.

It is urgent to demand systematic research into the effect of radio waves on the human organism in prospective, randomized double-blind studies with adequate, realistic dose determination and measurement. The fact that such studies are not demanded by the institutions that promote epidemiological research and encouraged via research programs is thought-provoking and points to an influence of the telecommunications industry on the legislative and executive branches, as formulated by Kenneth Arrow in his social choice theory. According to him, small groups with high resources can determine the political decision-making process (in all forms of society) much better than the vast majority.

What can you do as an individual? Certainly, you should definitely avoid living within a 20 yard radius of a 5G transmission mast or directly under it. Furthermore, you should not sleep next to your mobile phone or Wi-Fi router at night. During the day, if you use Wi-Fi on the computer, you should sit at least 35 cm (preferably 50 cm) away from the computer according to the ‘Wi-Fi Fact Sheet’ of the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. Modern Wi-Fi routers use frequencies from 2.4 to 5.4 GHz and are comparable to the 5G standard (FR1, upper range); their transmission power is, however, less than 1 watt.

For mobile phones, you should only use 5G if you don't have Wi-Fi access and need high data density; otherwise, you should deactivate it. You should never hold the phone to your head permanently, but always use Bluetooth or wired headsets. Bluetooth uses about 2.4 GHz, but the power is usually only up to 2.5 mW (class 2, which includes headphones); the resulting field is very weak. With these measures, individuals who are not sensitive to radio waves should be adequately protected. Sensitive individuals should refrain from Wi-Fi at home (instead, use a Local Area Network (LAN via a network cable) and limit mobile telephony.

Overall, there is an urgent need for better research into the effect of 5G at all levels, from cell culture to animal experiments and prospective studies, before the standard is further expanded and frequencies are increased again. Depending on the results of future research, 5G may have to be dismantled.

---

Originally published on UKColumn.org by Jobst Landgrebe- 25th July 2025

The UK Column is an independent media organisation and receives no corporate or foundation funding. We rely on the generosity of individual readers, viewers and listeners. Please consider supporting us.