Health Risks Associated With 5G Exposure, Small Cell Densification, and New Wireless Networks

European Parliament requested a research report  “Health Impact of 5G” which was released in July 2021 and concluded that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. 

A review entitled “Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer reviewed the existing scientific literature and found radiofrequency sickness, cancer and changes in biochemical parameters (Balmori 2022).

The paper Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G published in Environmental Health by international experts including 28 year NIH senior scientist Dr. Melnick states that:

 In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm. Adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk. Yet, in 2020, and in light of the body of evidence reviewed in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s. Consequently, these exposure limits, which are based on false suppositions, do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures. Thus, urgently needed are health protective exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies.

Impacts to Wildlife and the Natural Environment

A landmark research review by U.S experts of over 1,200 studies on the effects of non ionizing radiation to wildlife entitled “Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna”  published in Reviews on Environmental Health found adverse effects at even very low intensities including impacts to orientation and migration, reproduction, mating, nest, den building and survivorship. (Levitt et al., 2021a, Levitt et al., 2021b,  Levitt et al., 2021c).

“A review of the ecological effects of RF-EMF” published in Environment International reviewed found RF had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, other organisms, and plants in 70% of the studies reviewed with development and reproduction in birds and insects the most strongly affected.  (Cucurachi 2013).

The research review  “Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects” published in Science of the Total Environment found “sufficient evidence” of effects including impacts to flight, foraging and feeding, short-term memory and mortality. (Balmori 2021)

Electromagnetic (EMF) frequencies have been found to alter the growth and development of plants.  Studies on wireless EMF frequencies have found physiological and morphological changes, increased micronuclei formation, altered growth as well as adverse cell characteristics such as thinner cell walls and smaller mitochondria.  Plants perceive and respond to electromagnetic fields .

A field study that monitored over 100 trees for 9 years entitled ​​Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations published in Science of the Total Environment found a high level of damage to trees in the vicinity of phone masts  (Waldmann-Selsam 2016). The authors conclude that “deployment has been continued without consideration of environmental impact.”

5G and Higher Frequencies are Highly Absorbed into Insects- Especially Bees 
“Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz” published in Scientific Reports is the first study to investigate how insects (including the Western honeybee) absorb the higher frequencies (2 GHz to 120 GHz) to be used in the 4G/5G rollout. The scientific simulations showed increases in absorbed power between 3% to 370% when the insects were exposed to the frequencies. Researchers concluded, “This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time….” (Thielens 2018).

Cell towers, 5G Networks, and 4G Small Cells Emit Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation

Studies find RF  exposure elevated in buildings located close to cell antennas. 

Baltrėnas et al 2012 investigated RF power density levels from cell phone antennas located 35 meters away from a 10-story apartment building. The transmitting antennas were approximately at the same height as the 6th floor of the building. The researchers found the highest RF on floors 5–7. The RF at the 6th-floor balcony was three times higher than the 3rd-floor balcony. The RF power density on the 6th floor was about 15 times the RF measures on the first floor. 

The study “Radiofrequency radiation from nearby mobile phone base stations-a case comparison of one low and one high exposure apartment “ published in Oncology Letters (Koppel et al 2019) found that the apartment with high RF exposure had outdoor areas as close as 6 meters (about 19.6 feet) from the cell antenna array. In contrast, the low-exposure apartment’s balcony had cell antennas at 40 meters (about 131 feet) away. The researchers also found that both apartments had good mobile phone reception and “Therefore, installation of base stations to risky places cannot be justified using the good reception requirement argument.”

A 2017 case report of RF levels in an apartment close to two groups of rooftop cellular antennas used an exposimeter to measure levels of different types of RF in the apartment and balconies including TV,  FM, TETRA emergency services, 2G GSM, 3G UMTS, 4G LTE, DECT cordless, Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz and WiMAX. The closest transmitting antennas were at a base station 6 meters from the balcony. The researchers documented several important findings. First, 97.9% of the mean RF radiation was caused by downlink from the 2G, 3G, and 4G base stations. (Downlink means  frequencies emitted “down” from the base station cellular antennas.)  The researchers found that if the base station RF emissions were excluded, the RF radiation in the children’s bedrooms was reduced ~99%. The researchers conclude that “due to the current high RF radiation, the apartment is not suitable for long‑term living, particularly for children who may be more sensitive than adults.”

Outdoor levels of RF are increasing from the densification of wireless networks

A study measuring RF-EMF exposure in the European cities of Basel, Ghent, and Brussels found total RF exposure levels in all investigated outdoor locations had increased up to 57.1% in one year (April 2011 to March 2012). The RF increase was most notably observed in outdoor locations due to mobile phone base stations. Urbinello et al., 2014 

A 2018 study published in Oncology Letters documented measurements of “unnecessarily high” radiofrequency (RF) radiation levels in several locations in Stockholm, Sweden.  The authors conclude “Using high-power levels causes an excess health risk to many people. Even higher RF radiation is expected when 5G is implemented.” 

A 2018 study by Hardell et al published in the World Academy of Sciences Journal found the RF levels at Järntorget square in Stockholm Old Town Sweden (measured in April 2016) were only one order of magnitude lower than the RF levels associated with an increased incidence of tumors in the Ramazzini radiofrequency animal study (Falcioni et al 2018) which exposed rats to a lifetime of RF mimicking cell tower base station exposures.  The authors concluded, “These results indicate that increased cancer risk may be the situation for individuals staying at the square, primarily for those working in shops and cafés around the square. We have not measured RF radiation emissions in apartments around the square. It cannot be excluded that at certain places, the radiation may even be higher…” 

A 2017 study of the Royal Castle, Supreme Court, three major squares, and the Swedish Parliament found despite the hidden architecturally camouflaged antennas, the passive exposure to RF radiation from cell antennas can be higher than RF levels associated with non-thermal biological effects. Some of the highest levels were from antennas closer to the ground and targeted toward the square. The researchers note that the heaviest RF load falls on people working or living near hotspots, compared to people that are walking by and briefly exposed. RF measurements from earlier published studies were compared to the 2017 measurements indicating that “it is clear from our present and previous studies that the level of ambient RF radiation exposure is increasing.”  

A 2016 study at Stockholm Central Railway Station in Sweden documented higher RF levels in areas where base station antennas were located closest to people. Importantly, the RF from the downlink of UMTS, LTE, and GSM base station antennas contributed to most of the radiation levels.  

A 2022 study “Very high radiofrequency radiation at Skeppsbron in Stockholm, Sweden from mobile phone base station antennas positioned close to pedestrians’ heads” created an RF heat map of RF measurements finding that the highest RF measurements were in areas of proximity to the base station antennas. The researchers concluded with recommendations to reduce proximity placements such as positioning antennas “as far as possible from the general public”  like in high-elevation locations or remote areas.  

A 2022 study in the World Academy of Sciences Journal measured levels of radiofrequency radiation (RFR), from wireless networks including 5G, in the city of Columbia, South Carolina, and found the highest RFR levels in areas where the cell phone base station antennas were placed on top of utility poles, street lamps, traffic lights or other posts near to the street. When the scientists compared their 2022 findings to a 2019 published review on the mean outdoor exposure level of European cities, they found the Columbia, South Carolina measurements to be the highest. The Columbia, S.C. study concluded that the highest exposure areas were due to two reasons:  cell phone base antennas on top of high-rise buildings provide “good cell coverage reaching far away, but creating elevated # exposure to the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields at the immediate vicinity, and cell phone base station antennas installed on top of utility poles have placed the radiation source closer to humans walking on street level.”

Image from  Koppel T and Koppel T: Measurements of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including 5G, in the city of Columbia, SC, USA. World Acad Sci J 4: 22, 2022

Published Reviews That Recommend Cell Towers Be Distanced Away From Homes and Schools  

• A review paper entitled “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers” reviewed the “large and growing body of evidence that human exposure to RFR from cellular phone base stations causes negative health effects.” The authors recommend restricting antennas near homes and within 500 meters of schools and hospitals to protect companies from future liability (Pearce 2020). 
• An analysis of 100 studies published in Environmental Reviews found ~80% showed biological effects near towers. “As a general guideline, cell base stations should not be located less than 1500 ft from the population, and at a height of about 150 ft.” (Levitt 2010) 
• A review published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health found people living less than 500 m from base station antennas had increased adverse neuro-behavioral symptoms and cancer in eight of the ten epidemiological studies (Khurana 2011).
• A paper by human rights experts documented the accumulating science indicating safety is not assured and considered the issue within a human rights framework to protect vulnerable populations from environmental pollution. “We conclude that, because scientific knowledge is incomplete, a precautionary approach is better suited to State obligations under international human rights law.” (Roda and Perry 2014)
• A review entitled “Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer reviewed the existing scientific literature and found radiofrequency sickness,  cancer, and changes in biochemical parameters. (Balmori 2022)

Cell Towers  Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer: World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer 

In 2011, radiofrequency radiation was classified as a Class 2B possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC). The WHO/IARC scientists clarified that this determination was for RFR from any source be it cell phones,  wireless devices, or cell towers. Since 2011, the published peer-reviewed scientific evidence associating RFR with cancer and other adverse effects has significantly increased. 

In 2019, the WHO/IARC advisory committee recommended that radiofrequency radiation be re-evaluated as a “high” priority in light of the new research. The date of the re-evaluation has not been set. 

Currently, several scientists conclude that the weight of current peer-reviewed evidence supports the conclusion that radiofrequency radiation is a proven human carcinogen (Hardell and Carlberg 2017, Peleg et al, 2018, Miller et al 2018).

Research Studies to Know

Two published case reports have documented illness after installation of 5G antennas “Case Report: The Microwave Syndrome after Installation of 5G Emphasizes the Need for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation and Development of the Microwave Syndrome in Two Men Shortly after Installation of 5G on the Roof above their Office. 

• European Parliament requested a research report  “Health Impact of 5G” which was released in July 2021 and concluded that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. 

• A large-scale animal study published in Environmental Research found rats exposed to cell tower emission RF levels had elevated cancers, the very same cancers also found in the US National Toxicology Program animal study of cell phone RF. Falcioni 2018 
• A study published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine found changes in blood considered biomarkers predictive of cancer in people living closer to cell antenna arrays (Zothansiama 2017). 
• A study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found higher exposure to cell arrays linked to higher mortality from all cancer and specifically lung and breast cancer (Rodrigues 2021).
• A 10-year study published in Science of the Total Environment on cell phone antennas by the local Municipal Health Department and several universities in Brazil found a elevated relative risk of cancer mortality at residential distances of 500 meters or less from cell phone towers (Dode 2011).  
• A study commissioned by the Government of Styria, Austria found a significant cancer incidence in the area around the transmitter as well as significant exposure-effect relationships between radiofrequency radiation exposure and the incidence of breast cancers and brain tumors (Oberfeld 2008).
• A review published in Experimental Oncology found “alarming epidemiological and experimental data on possible carcinogenic effects of long-term exposure to low-intensity microwave (MW) radiation.”  Even a year of operation of a powerful base transmitting station for mobile communication reportedly resulted in a dramatic increase in cancer incidence among the population living nearby (Yakymenko 2011).  

American Academy of Pediatrics 

“In recent years, concern has increased about exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phones and phone station antennas. An Egyptian study confirmed concerns that living nearby mobile phone base stations increased the risk for developing: 

• Headaches
• Memory problems
• Dizziness
• Depression
• Sleep problems

Short-term exposure to these fields in experimental studies have not always shown negative effects, but this does not rule out cumulative damage from these fields, so larger studies over longer periods are needed to help understand who is at risk. In large studies, an association has been observed between symptoms and exposure to these fields in the everyday environment.” 

–American Academy of Pediatrics

Surveys of people living near cell tower antennas in France, Spain, Iraq, India, Germany, Egypt, Poland have found significantly higher reports of health issues including sleep issues, fatigue and headaches (See Santini et al. 2003, López 2021, Alazawi 2011, Pachuau and Pachuaua 2016, Eger et al. 2004,  Abdel-Rassoul et al. 2007, Bortkiewicz et al., 2004). 

A study published in American Journal of Men’s Health linked higher cell tower RFR exposures to delayed fine and gross motor skills and to deficits in spatial working memory and attention in school adolescents (Meo 2018).

A study published in Environmental Research and Public Health found higher exposures linked to higher risk of type 2 diabetes (Meo 2015). 

A study following people for 6 years linked increased cell phone and cell phone tower antenna exposure to altered levels of hormones including cortisol, thyroid, prolactin and testosterone (Eskander et al. 2021). 

A study that followed people in a German town after a cell tower was erected found stress hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline significantly increased over the first 6 months after the antenna activation and decreased dopamine and PEA levels after 18 months (Buchner 2011). 

4G is not so safe either.

Studies on 4G exposure to rodents found behavioral changes (Broom et al. 2019), damage to the testes (Yu et al. 2019), reduced sperm (Oh et al. 2018), damage to the optic nerve (Ozdemir et al. 2021) and impacts to neuronal activity (Souffi et al. 2022). 

Studies on human volunteers have found 4G impacts on brain waves (Vecsei et al. 2018, Yang et al. 2017,  Lv et al. 2014, Wei et al. 2018). A study on human cells found continuous exposure decreased human cell proliferation and increased intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) in human cells (Choi et al. 2020).

Over 30 state legislatures have enacted industry friendly small cell legislation that facilitates deployment of 5G small cells into neighborhoods and in front of schools. These laws generally streamline the application process, cap costs and fees for the companies and tighten timelines for the consideration and processing of cell siting applications.

Research on 5G and Novel Frequencies Indicating Safety Is Not Assured 

Higher Frequency 5G

 

5G systems are using low band frequencies well associated with harmful effects (ICBE-EMF 2022, European Parliament 2021, Panagopoulos et al. 2021). However 5G networks are also using higher frequencies such as 3.5 GHz and into the mmWave range starting at 24 GHz.   

Scientists state that long term exposure cannot be assumed as safe. 

Contrary to claims that the 5G’s higher frequencies simply “bounce” off the skin, researchers have documented that the coiled portion of the skin’s sweat duct can be regarded as a helical antenna in the sub-THz band and the skin, our largest organ, can intensely absorb the higher 5G frequencies (Feldman and Ben Ishai 2017). Ultra-high frequency above 20 GHz could overheat tissue (Matthew and Kazaure 2022).

Reviews of 5G health effects caution that the expected real-world impact would be far more serious due to the complex waveforms and other combinations with other toxic stimuli in the environment (Kostoff et al 2020, Russell, 2018, Belyaev 2019, McCredden et al 2023).

Researchers will often experiment with zebrafish, rodents and fruit flies to gain data on potential health effects to humans. An Oregon State University study on zebrafish exposed to 3.5 GHz (Dasgupta et al. 2022) found “significant abnormal responses in RFR-exposed fish” which “suggest potential long-term behavioral effects. Yang et al 2022 found 3.5 GHZ induced oxidative stress in guinea pigs. 

A study on 3.5 GHz exposure to both diabetic and healthy rats (Bektas et al 2022) found an increase in degenerated neurons in the hippocampus of the brains, changes in oxidative stress parameters and changes in the energy metabolism and appetite of both healthy and diabetic rats. The researchers conclude that, “5G may not be innocent in terms of its biological effects, especially in the presence of diabetes.” 

Studies on rats have found exposure to both 1.5 and 4.3 GHz microwaves induced: cognitive impairment and hippocampal tissue damage (Zhu et al 2921); impairments in spatial learning and memory, with the combined simultaneous exposures resulting in the most most severe effects (Wang et al 2022); and immune suppressive responses (Zhao 2022). Long-term exposure to 2.856 and 9.375 GHz microwaves impaired learning and memory abilities  as well as EEG disturbance, structural damage to the hippocampus, and differential expression of hippocampal tissue and serum exosomes (Wang et al. 2023).

Studies on fruit flies exposed to 3.5 GHz have found the exposure led to increases in oxidative stress, changes in the microbial community (Wang et al 2022) and alterations of the expression of several types of genes (Wang et al 2021).

A review by Russell 2018 found evidence for millimeter wave effects to the skin, eyes, immune system, gene expression, and bacterial antibiotic resistance. While recent experimental research on high-band 5G impacts to animal fertility found that 27 GHz damages sperm quality in mussels (Pecoraro et al 2023), the US is not funding any research on biological effects of frequencies at 3.5 GHz or above 6GHz to humans. 

2022, Pecoraro et al. Biological Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields at 27 GHz on Sperm Quality of Mytilus galloprovincialis. J Mar Sci Eng 10 (4): 521J Mar Sci Eng 10 (4): 521

2022, Wang et al. 3.5-GHz radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation promotes the development of Drosophila melanogaster Environ Pollut 294: 118646

2021, Wang et al. Simulated mobile communication frequencies (3.5 GHz) emitted by a signal generator affects the sleep of Drosophila melanogaster Environ Pollut 283: 117087

2020, Kim et al. Effects of Electromagnetic Waves with LTE and 5G Bandwidth on the Skin Pigmentation In Vitro Int J Mol Sci 22 (1): E170

Dasgupta, S., Leong, C., Simonich, M. T., Truong, L., Liu, H., & Tanguay, R. L. (2022). Transcriptomic and Long-Term Behavioral Deficits Associated with Developmental 3.5 GHz Radiofrequency Radiation Exposures in Zebrafish. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 9(4), 327–332.

Yang, H., Zhang, Y., Wu, X., Gan, P., Luo, X., Zhong, S., & Zuo, W. (2022). Effects of Acute Exposure to 3500 MHz (5G) Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Anxiety-Like Behavior and the Auditory Cortex in Guinea Pigs. Bioelectromagnetics, 43(2), 106–118. 

Betzalel, N., Feldman, Y., & Ishai, P. B. (2017). The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sub-THz Radiation by Human Skin. IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology, 7(5), 521–528. 

Nasim, I., & Kim, S. (2019). Adverse Impacts of 5G Downlinks on Human Body. 2019 SoutheastCon, 1–6. 

Di Ciaula, A. (2018). Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? 

International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 221(3), 367–375. 

Frank, J. W. (2021). Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: What about the precautionary principle? J Epidemiol Community Health, 75(6), 562–566. 

Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2020). [Comment] Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest. Oncology Letters, 20(4), 1–1. 

Hinrikus, H., Koppel, T., Lass, J., Orru, H., Roosipuu, P., & Bachmann, M. (2022). Possible health effects on the human brain by various generations of mobile telecommunication: A review based estimation of 5G impact. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 98(7), 1210–1221. 

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. 

Weller S, May M, McCredden J, Leach V, Phung D, Belyaev I. Comment on “5G mobile networks and health-a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz” by Karipidis et al. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2022 Nov 24.  

Raveendran, R.; Tabet Aoul, K.A. A Meta-Integrative Qualitative Study on the Hidden Threats of Smart Buildings/Cities and Their Associated Impacts on Humans and the Environment. Buildings 2021, 11, 251. Russell, C. L. (2018). 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research, 165, 484–495.