--- topic: "5G and Cell Towers" title: "Are 5G and Cell Towers a Health Risk?" order: 1 description: "Cell tower and 5G exposure sits well below safety limits and large reviews find no cancer link, but long-term data on 5G itself are thin." question: "Are 5G and cell towers a health risk?" answer: "Likely not: tower exposure is well below safety limits and large reviews find no cancer link, but long-term 5G data are thin." actions: - "Keep tower worries in proportion: measured everyday exposure in homes and streets is well below regulatory limits [1][2]." - "To cut your own exposure, start with your phone rather than the tower: on trains, over 95% of measured exposure came from passengers' phones [2]." - "Skip 'anti-5G' gadgets and shielding paint, which have no evidence behind them (see our article on EMF-blocking products)." cautions: - "Parents: the evidence on children is thinner, with moderate certainty of no tower link to childhood leukemia but few studies of children's brain tumors [4]." - "If headaches or poor sleep seem linked to wireless signals, see a clinician: blinded trials found no acute symptoms at tower-like levels, so another cause is likely [8]." confidence: 3 confidenceNote: "Large reviews of older mobile technology find no cancer link, but evidence on 5G's higher frequencies is thin and long-term human data are lacking." evidenceSummary: rctCount: 0 observationalCount: 2 metaAnalysisCount: 5 totalParticipants: "18,000+ glioma cases; about 7,000 children" replicated: true newestStudyYear: 2025 references: - id: "1" pmid: "31202043" title: "Public exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in everyday microenvironments: An updated systematic review for Europe." authors: "Jalilian H, Eeftens M, Ziaei M, et al." year: 2019 journal: "Environ Res" - id: "2" pmid: "28766560" title: "Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure in everyday microenvironments in Europe: A systematic literature review." authors: "Sagar S, Dongus S, Schoeni A, et al." year: 2018 journal: "J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol" - id: "3" pmid: "33727687" title: "5G mobile networks and health-a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz." authors: "Karipidis K, Mate R, Urban D, et al." year: 2021 journal: "J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol" - id: "4" pmid: "39241333" title: "The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies - Part I: Most researched outcomes." authors: "Karipidis K, Baaken D, Loney T, et al." year: 2024 journal: "Environ Int" - id: "5" pmid: "31540320" title: "5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects-A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz." authors: "Simkó M, Mattsson MO" year: 2019 journal: "Int J Environ Res Public Health" - id: "6" pmid: "32167495" title: "Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz)." authors: "International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)" year: 2020 journal: "Health Phys" - id: "7" pmid: "29418010" title: "Tissue models for RF exposure evaluation at frequencies above 6 GHz." authors: "Ziskin MC, Alekseev SI, Foster KR, et al." year: 2018 journal: "Bioelectromagnetics" - id: "8" pmid: "21124713" title: "Systematic review on the health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phone base stations." authors: "Röösli M, Frei P, Mohler E, et al." year: 2010 journal: "Bull World Health Organ" - id: "9" pmid: "20570865" title: "Mobile phone base stations and early childhood cancers: case-control study." authors: "Elliott P, Toledano MB, Bennett J, et al." year: 2010 journal: "BMJ" - id: "10" pmid: "33468601" title: "Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?" authors: "Frank JW" year: 2021 journal: "J Epidemiol Community Health" - id: "11" pmid: "39904670" title: "The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies - Part II: Less researched outcomes." authors: "Karipidis K, Baaken D, Loney T, et al." year: 2025 journal: "Environ Int" - id: "12" pmid: "36041243" title: "Time trends in mobile phone use and glioma incidence among males in the Nordic Countries, 1979-2016." authors: "Deltour I, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, et al." year: 2022 journal: "Environ Int" --- Likely not. Measured exposure from cell towers and 5G in homes and streets is well below international safety limits [1][2][3]. A WHO-commissioned review of 63 research articles found no raised risk of brain tumors from phone use, and none of childhood leukemia from towers [4]. The caveat is 5G's newer high-frequency bands. They are far less studied, so long-term certainty is limited [3][5]. ## How it works 5G is the fifth generation of mobile networks. Like 4G, Wi-Fi and FM radio, it carries information on radio waves. The only harms of radio-frequency energy that the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) considers substantiated are nerve stimulation, changes in cell-membrane permeability and effects of heating, and its limits are set to prevent them [6]. 5G adds higher frequencies, including millimetre waves above 6 GHz, to those already in use [3]. **How much do you actually get?** Reviews of measurements across Europe put average exposure in homes, schools and offices at 0.04 to 0.76 volts per metre, and 0.07 to 1.27 outdoors, with no noticeable rise since 2012 despite more wireless devices [1]. These levels are substantially below regulatory limits [2]. The highest everyday readings were on trains, where over 95% of exposure came from passengers' own phones rather than towers [2]. **Do the new bands go deeper?** The opposite. Above 6 GHz, energy penetrates only shallowly, typically limited to the skin [7]. The open question is local heating of skin and eyes, which researchers say needs more study [5]. **Symptoms.** In randomised, blinded laboratory trials, tower-like signals up to 10 volts per metre did not cause acute symptoms [8]. Some people do feel unwell and blame signals. Their symptoms are real even if the signals are probably not the cause; see [Is Electrosensitivity Real?](/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity/is-electrosensitivity-real). **Cancer near towers.** A British study compared 1,397 children aged 0 to 4 who had cancer with 5,588 controls. It found no link between estimated exposure to mobile phone masts during pregnancy and early childhood cancer [9]. The WHO-commissioned review reached a similar conclusion for tower exposure and childhood leukemia [4]. **What is still uncertain.** Nearly all of this evidence concerns older networks. The 5G-specific research is mostly laboratory work, much of it low quality and not independently replicated [3]. Some scientists argue that justifies extra caution while better data arrive [10]. For the wider science, including the IARC classification and the rat studies, see [What the Science Says](/emf/what-the-science-says). Anything sold to block 5G is covered in [Do EMF-Blocking Products Work?](/emf/emf-blocking-products), which also lists the free steps that do lower exposure. ## The evidence in detail **WHO-commissioned cancer reviews.** The strongest evidence is a pair of systematic reviews commissioned by the World Health Organization. Part I pooled 63 cohort and case-control articles, published from 1994 to 2022 in 22 countries [4]. Regular mobile phone use was not associated with glioma (meta-estimate of relative risk 1.01, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.13), meningioma (0.92, 0.82 to 1.02), acoustic neuroma (1.03, 0.85 to 1.24) or brain tumors in children and young adults (1.06, 0.74 to 1.51). Risk did not rise with years of use or cumulative call time. For whole-body exposure from fixed transmitters such as base stations, there was no association with childhood leukemia or paediatric brain tumors. The authors rated certainty as moderate for leukemia and low for brain tumors, and found no eligible studies of towers and tumors in adults [4]. Part II, covering 26 articles, found no link between phone use and leukemia (0.99, 0.91 to 1.07), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (0.99, 0.92 to 1.06) or thyroid cancer (1.05, 0.88 to 1.26), with low certainty [11]. **Cancer trends.** If phones caused glioma, rates should have climbed as use soared. Deltour and colleagues analysed 18,232 glioma cases in Nordic men from 1979 to 2016 and found only slight increases. In men aged 40 to 59, those trends ruled out relative risks of 1.08 or more after a 10-year lag, and 1.5 or more after a 20-year lag [12]. Population trends cannot exclude a small effect in a subgroup, and they concern phones rather than towers. **Towers and children.** In the British case-control study, the adjusted odds ratio for all cancers in the highest versus lowest modelled exposure category was 1.02 (0.88 to 1.20). For leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma it was 1.03 (0.79 to 1.34) [9]. Exposure was modelled from the address at birth, so some misclassification is likely. **Symptoms.** Röösli's systematic review of 17 articles, five of them randomised human laboratory trials, found that most blinded trials detected no association between base-station radiation and acute symptoms. The more sophisticated the exposure assessment, the less likely a study was to report an effect. The review found too little data to judge long-term, low-level exposure [8]. **5G itself.** Karipidis and colleagues reviewed 107 experimental studies of radio waves above 6 GHz at levels below ICNIRP's occupational limits, plus 31 epidemiological studies of radar, which uses similar frequencies. Reported biological effects were generally not independently replicated, most studies used low-quality exposure assessment, and heating could not be excluded. The radar studies showed little evidence of harm, including cancer. The authors concluded there was no confirmed evidence that low-level fields above 6 GHz are hazardous [3]. **Conflicting views.** Not every reviewer is as reassuring. Simkó and Mattsson analysed 94 animal and cell studies between 6 and 100 GHz. Responses were reported in 80% of the animal studies and 58% of the cell studies, with no consistent relationship to power, duration or frequency. They judged the body of work inadequate for a safety assessment [5]. Frank, an epidemiologist, argued in a 2021 essay that the near-total lack of high-quality 5G epidemiology, gaps in the laboratory data and alleged regulator conflicts of interest justify precaution, and called for a pause in roll-out [10]. The two camps read the same gap differently: one sees no confirmed hazard, the other sees too little evidence to rule one out. **Limits.** Cancer can take decades to appear, 5G is young, and most human data concern phones rather than towers. **Bottom line (confidence 3).** At the exposure levels people actually receive, 5G and cell towers are likely not a health risk. Certainty is moderate for older networks and low for the new high-frequency bands, and no study can yet speak to decades of 5G exposure.