Why We Must Stop 5G

We ignore the science at our peril. Read this first of a two-part series exploring the case against the 'Next-Gen Network'.

It’s being sold as the future of connectivity—faster speeds, smarter cities, and seamless streaming. But did you know that 5G comes at a hefty, potentially catastrophic, price? From health risks to environmental damage, privacy invasions to cybersecurity nightmares, there’s a growing body of evidence suggesting we should hit the stop button on 5G. Let’s dive into the reasons why.

5G comes with serious health risks

5G’s higher frequency waves (millimeter waves) and increased electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure pose serious health risks. Here’s what the science says:

• Cancer and DNA damage: Studies have shown that prolonged exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) can lead to oxidative stress, DNA damage, and even cancer (Pall, 2018; Yakymenko et al., 2016).

• Neurological effects: Research suggests that EMF exposure can disrupt the nervous system, leading to headaches, fatigue, and cognitive impairment (Pall, 2016).

• Reproductive harm: There’s evidence that EMF exposure can reduce sperm quality and fertility (Pall, 2018).

While regulatory bodies like the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 2020) claim 5G is safe within current limits, independent researchers like Lennart Hardell (2020) argue that these guidelines are outdated and don’t account for long-term exposure.

The bottom line? We need more independent research before we blanket our cities in 5G radiation.

5G harms nature and our environment

The rollout of 5G requires a massive infrastructure of small cell towers, and the environmental consequences are concerning:

• Wildlife harm: Studies show that EMF exposure can disrupt the orientation and behavior of birds and insects, potentially threatening ecosystems (Balmori, 2015; Cucurachi et al., 2013).

• Energy consumption: 5G’s energy demands are staggering. The increased number of towers and devices could soon create an energy crisis.

• Ecosystem disruption: Research highlights the potential for RF-EMF to harm both biological systems and ecosystems (Sivani & Sudarsanam, 2012).

Do we really want to sacrifice our planet for faster download speeds?

5G threatens privacy and freedoms

5G’s ability to connect billions of devices creates a surveillance nightmare:

• Data collection: With 5G, every smart device becomes a data collection point, feeding information to corporations and governments (Zuboff, 2019).

• Mass surveillance: The increased connectivity could enable unprecedented levels of monitoring, eroding our privacy (Taylor & Meissner, 2020).

• Ethical concerns: As Solove (2006) points out, the erosion of privacy has profound implications for individual freedom and democracy.

In a world where data is power, 5G could hand over that power to the wrong people.

5G is a huge cybersecurity risk

The expanded connectivity of 5G also opens the door to cyberattacks:

• Increased vulnerabilities: With more devices connected, the attack surface for hackers grows exponentially (Roman et al., 2018).

• IoT risks: The Internet of Things (IoT) is already a security minefield, and 5G will only make it worse (Zhang & Chen, 2020).

• Critical infrastructure: A cyberattack on 5G-enabled systems could disrupt everything from power grids to healthcare (Lehto, 2019).

Are we really ready to gamble with our cybersecurity?

5G damages mental and societal health

5G isn’t just a technological issue—it’s a social one:

• Digital divide: The rollout of 5G could widen the gap between those with access to advanced technology and those without (van Deursen & van Dijk, 2019).

• Mental health: Increased reliance on technology has been linked to rising rates of anxiety, depression, and social isolation (Twenge, 2019).

• Human interaction: As Sherry Turkle (2015) warns, our obsession with technology is eroding meaningful human connections.

Do we really want a future where we’re more connected to devices than to each other?

What makes 5G different from other RF-EMFs?

The mechanisms of harm by electromagnetic fields (EMF) are multifaceted and apply broadly to EMF exposure, including that from 5G technology. However, 5G introduces some unique characteristics that may influence how these mechanisms manifest or are amplified. Does 5G have any particular mechanisms of harm in contrast to previous technologies (2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc.)? Let’s take a look:

Key differences in 5G technology

1. Higher frequencies (millimeter waves):

   • 5G operates in higher frequency bands, including millimeter waves (mmWave, 24–100 GHz), in addition to lower frequency bands (sub-6 GHz) used by previous technologies.

   • Millimeter waves have shorter wavelengths, which means they are more easily absorbed by the skin and superficial tissues, potentially increasing localized effects.

2. Increased density of infrastructure:

   • 5G requires a denser network of small cell antennas due to the limited range of millimeter waves. This increases the proximity of EMF sources to humans, potentially leading to higher and more continuous exposure.

3. Pulsation and modulation:

   • 5G uses more complex modulation techniques and higher data rates, which may result in different biological interactions compared to the more continuous waves of older technologies.

Potential unique mechanisms of harm from 5G

While the general mechanisms of harm (e.g., oxidative stress, calcium channel disruption, etc.) apply to all EMF sources, 5G's unique characteristics may introduce or exacerbate certain effects:

1. Skin and superficial tissue absorption

• Mechanism: Millimeter waves are largely absorbed by the skin and mucous membranes, rather than penetrating deeply into the body. This could lead to localized effects such as:

  • Increased oxidative stress in skin cells.

  • Activation of cutaneous immune responses, potentially leading to inflammation or dermatological conditions.

  • Disruption of sweat gland function, as sweat ducts can act as antennas for millimeter waves (Betzalel et al., 2018).

• Contrast to previous technologies: Lower-frequency EMFs (e.g. 2G, 3G, 4G) penetrate deeper into tissues, potentially affecting internal organs more directly.

2. Increased oxidative stress and free radical production

• Mechanism: The higher energy of millimeter waves may enhance the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in exposed tissues, particularly in the skin and eyes. Specifically, studies have shown increased ROS production in skin cells and corneal tissues, potentially leading to DNA damage and cellular dysfunction (Zalyubovskaya, 1977; Koyama et al., 2016).

• Contrast to previous technologies: While oxidative stress is a common mechanism across all EMF sources, the localized and intense absorption of 5G's millimeter waves may exacerbate this effect in superficial tissues.

3. Impact on the nervous system

• Mechanism: Although millimeter waves do not penetrate deeply, they may still affect the peripheral nervous system (PNS) through skin absorption. This could lead to:

  • Activation of sensory nerves, potentially causing pain or discomfort.

  • Disruption of autonomic nervous system function, affecting heart rate variability (HRV) and stress responses.

• Contrast to previous technologies: Lower-frequency EMF can penetrate deeper and directly affect the central nervous system (CNS), whereas 5G's effects may be more peripheral.

4. Thermal effects on the skin and eyes

• Mechanism: Millimeter waves can cause localized heating due to their high absorption by water molecules in the skin and eyes. This thermal effect may:

  • damage corneal and lens tissues, increasing the risk of cataracts;

  • cause skin heating, potentially leading to discomfort or burns at high exposure levels.

• Contrast to previous technologies: Lower-frequency EMF causes less localized heating and distributes energy more evenly throughout the body.

5. Potential for cumulative effects

• Mechanism: The denser network of 5G antennas and the continuous exposure from multiple sources (e.g., smartphones, IoT devices, and small cells) may lead to cumulative effects over time, even if individual exposure levels are low.

• Contrast to previous technologies: While cumulative effects are a concern for all EMF sources, the ubiquity and proximity of 5G infrastructure may amplify this issue.

6. Impact on microbiota

• Mechanism: Emerging research suggests that EMF can affect microbial communities, including the skin and gut microbiota. Millimeter waves may alter the composition and function of these communities, potentially leading to dysbiosis and related health issues.

• Contrast to Previous Technologies: The localized absorption of 5G's millimeter waves may have a more pronounced effect on skin microbiota compared to lower-frequency EMF.

  

Uncertainties and research gaps

While the above mechanisms are plausible, it is important to note that research on 5G-specific effects is still in its early stages. Many studies on millimeter waves were conducted in the context of military or industrial applications, and their relevance to public health remains unclear. Additionally, the interaction of 5G with other EMF sources (e.g., 4G, Wi-Fi) and environmental factors is not well understood.

Conclusion

5G technology does not introduce entirely new mechanisms of harm but may amplify or localize certain effects due to its higher frequencies, denser infrastructure, and unique absorption characteristics. The skin, eyes, and peripheral nervous system may be particularly vulnerable to 5G's millimeter waves, while cumulative and systemic effects remain a concern. Further research is needed to fully understand the health implications of 5G and to develop appropriate safety guidelines.

What’s at stake?

5G isn’t just about faster internet—it’s about the kind of world we want to live in. Do we want a world where our health, privacy, and environment are sacrificed for convenience? Or do we want to take a step back and ask if this is really the future we want?

The evidence is clear: 5G poses significant risks that we can’t afford to ignore. It’s time to demand more research, better regulations, and a public conversation about the true cost of 5G.

---

EMF Exposure Is Everywhere

Discover How to Protect Your Family at the EMF Hazards Summit 2025

---

References

1. Balmori, A. (2015). Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Science of the Total Environment, 518-519, 58-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.077

2. Betzalel, N., Feldman, Y., & Ishai, P. B. (2018). The human skin as a sub-THz receiver – Does 5G pose a danger to it or not? Environmental Research, 163, 208-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.032

3. Cucurachi, S., Tamis, W. L. M., Vijver, M. G., Peijnenburg, W. J. G. M., Bolte, J. F. B., & de Snoo, G. R. (2013). A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environment International, 51, 116-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.009

4. Di Ciaula, A. (2018). Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 221(3), 367-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.01.011

5. Foster, K. R., & Moulder, J. E. (2013). Wi-Fi and health: Review of current status of research. Health Physics, 105(6), 561-575. https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e31829b49bb

6. Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2020). Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest. Oncology Letters, 20(4), 15. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.11876

7. Hirata, A., Fujiwara, O., & Shiozawa, T. (2006). Correlation between peak spatial-average SAR and temperature increase due to antennas attached to human trunk. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 53(8), 1658-1664. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2006.876622

8. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). (2020). Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Physics, 118(5), 483-524. https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000001210

9. Kostoff, R. N., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2020). Wireless radiation and the potential for cancer: A review of the evidence. Environmental Research, 192, 110298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110298

10. Kostoff, R. N., Heroux, P., Aschner, M., & Tsatsakis, A. (2020). Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters, 323, 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.01.020

11. Koyama, S., Narita, E., Shimizu, Y., Suzuki, Y., Shiina, T., Taki, M., & Shinohara, N. (2016).Effects of long-term exposure to 60 GHz millimeter-wavelength radiation on the genotoxicity and heat shock protein (Hsp) expression of cells derived from human eye. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(8), 802. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13080802

12. Leung, S. W. (2020). Health concerns regarding 5G millimeter waves: A review of the literature. Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering, 10(6), 743-750. https://doi.org/10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2006-1115

13. Neufeld, E., & Kuster, N. (2018). Systematic derivation of safety limits for time-varying 5G radiofrequency exposure based on analytical models and thermal dose. Health Physics, 115(6), 705-711. https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000000930

14. Pall, M. L. (2018). Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environmental Research, 164, 405-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.035

15. Roman, R., Lopez, J., & Mambo, M. (2018). Mobile edge computing, fog et al.: A survey and analysis of security threats and challenges. Future Generation Computer Systems, 78, 680-698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2016.11.009

16. Russell, C. L. (2018). 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research, 165, 484-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016

17. Simkó, M., & Mattsson, M. O. (2019). 5G wireless communication and health effects—A pragmatic review based on available studies regarding 6 to 100 GHz. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(18), 3406. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183406

18. Taylor, L., & Meissner, F. (2020). A crisis of opportunity: The politics of 5G and the future of surveillance. Big Data & Society, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720952087

19. Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Press.

20. Wu, T., Rappaport, T. S., & Collins, C. M. (2015). Safe for generations to come: Considerations of safety for millimeter waves in wireless communications. IEEE Microwave Magazine, 16(2), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1109/MMM.2014.2377587

21. Yakymenko, I., Tsybulin, O., Sidorik, E., Henshel, D., & Kyrylenko, O. (2016). Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 35(2), 186-202. https://doi.org/10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557

22. Zalyubovskaya, N. P. (1977). Biological effects of millimeter waves. Radiobiologiia, 17(5), 757-761. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/929906