Is 5G dangerous for humans or not?
Many myths and prejudices surround the new mobile phone standard 5G: It is said to be responsible for bird deaths, it is said to change our genetic make-up, and it is also said to make us infertile. But is 5G really dangerous?
People have often taken to the streets in recent years to protest against the expansion of 5G networks. The concern that new technologies have a detrimental effect on health is not new. When railways were introduced in the 19th century, some people thought they were the work of the devil. It was feared that the high speed of trains would lead to brain confusion.
Today we know that you don’t suffer brain damage when you travel by train and that the scaremongering of yesteryear was due to exaggerated fears. But are the protesters taking to the streets against 5G today also just overanxious, or is there a real reason to worry?
What speaks against 5G?
Admittedly, findings that exist for the old mobile phone standards cannot be transferred to the even shorter-wave standard 5G. For example, earlier studies have found that mobile phone radiation increases the temperature in the uppermost layers of the skin – but only by a maximum of 0.1 °C.
Due to the shorter ranges of the 5G antennas, however, many more antennas are needed to be able to supply all mobile subscribers with 5G. However, the technology is now so advanced that traditional masts are hardly necessary, at least in the city. The small 5G transmitters can be installed in bus stops, lampposts, advertisements or traffic lights. So you can get closer to them than with the previous transmitters and it is harder to escape the antennas.
Is 5G suitable for surveillance?
One of the main arguments of critics against 5G deployment is the fear that 5G could be used for surveillance. And indeed: numerous countries provided funds for military research. But: Surveillance of people was already possible before the introduction of 5G – governments can hack into your smartphone or computer using highly critical zero-day gaps even today and without 5G reception.
Other facts also speak against the surveillance argument:
1. the military is not responsible for surveillance. That is the role of intelligence services.
2. the range of 5G is short. To monitor you, they would have to get very close. Remarkably close.
3. in principle, it is possible that the higher data speed can transmit more data in the same time as the predecessor technologies. In reality, however, the theoretically possible data rates are far undercut and are currently still rarely above LTE speeds in many places. And: this data must also be evaluated by someone. More data also produces more “noise”, i.e. data rubbish. The bigger the data haystack, so to speak, the more difficult it is to find the needle.
4. data protection and the protection of privacy take a very high priority in all democracies – courts regularly declare surveillance techniques such as data retention illegal. Without a law, governments and authorities cannot conduct surveillance without a warrant.
The problems with the 5G studies
Good scientific practice is characterised, among other things, by the fact that one can reproduce the studies and arrive at the same research results. Unfortunately, many of the studies on 2G (EDGE) to 4G (LTE), but also on 5G, have serious methodological flaws and cannot be reproduced. This is due to premises that never occur in everyday life, such as concentrated radiation over a very long period of time, experiments on laboratory mice or a too small number of participants. So when media and websites report on studies critical of 5G, one should always look at the primary source, i.e. the study itself. If the number of participants is very small (less than 100 people), the study should be viewed very critically. Good, meaningful studies often have several thousand to ten thousand participants and have an international research group behind them.
Why 5G is not dangerous
In many countries, 5G is already very widespread and developed. Scientists cannot detect any increase in diseases such as cancer in these countries.
The surveillance argument is not convincing either: if 5G were actually used for surveillance, surely we would have heard about it by now? There is not yet a single case in which 5G alone (and no other methods) was responsible for the arrest of criminals.
Also hokum is the conspiracy theory that 5G is responsible for bird deaths. In our article on 5G and bird deaths, we show you how these birds died and how you can critically question reports like this.
The science magazine Quarks from WDR also looked at 5G – and shows that 5G cannot have any effect on human health, because unlike X-rays, the radiation is not ionising, i.e. not energetic enough to damage our genetic material.
5G: What smartphone radiation does to us | Quarks
Conclusion: There will still be a lot of research on 5G as well
The fact is that many of the studies on earlier mobile radio standards cannot be transferred 1:1 to 5G. Nevertheless, 5G does not reinvent the wheel. It is right and proper that we look critically at innovations and technological innovations and do not blindly trust our governments.
At the same time, however, one should not be fooled and should not blindly trust the critics of these technologies, because they often pursue their own goals, such as the sale of dubious, overpriced products. Moreover, innovations are also made because previous technologies have their limits. There are many myths surrounding 5G – but most of them are false. 5G is not responsible for bird deaths, for example. You can find more mobile phone myths here. In our 5G overview, you can find out about the advantages of 5G and the obstacles to its expansion.
