Is 5G safe? Based on the current evidence, yes. 5G operating within Australia’s exposure limits isn’t considered a health hazard, and real-world measurements show exposure sits far below those limits.
The network has been running here for several years now. The questions haven’t gone away, though. When 5G first switched on, worries about radiation followed almost immediately: that the higher frequencies could damage cells, cause cancer, or create health problems we wouldn’t discover for years.
I work in IT. Wireless networks are part of my everyday life, so I wanted to know whether any of those fears actually stood up. The word “radiation” certainly sounds frightening. But it covers far more than most people realise: sunlight, radio waves, X-rays and the signal from your phone are all forms of electromagnetic radiation. What matters is the type, its frequency, its power and how much of it you’re exposed to.
So let’s start with what 5G actually is.
What is 5G?
5G is the fifth generation of mobile technology, following 3G and 4G. It works on the same basic principle as every mobile network before it. Information travels between your phone and a base station as radiofrequency (RF) energy, the same kind of radio waves used by Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and your car radio. The difference is that 5G can use a wider range of frequencies, plus newer techniques, to move far more data.
In Australia, most 5G runs on frequencies below 6 gigahertz (GHz), not far from the bands used by 4G and home Wi-Fi. Some networks also use “millimetre wave” frequencies in the 26 GHz band. These higher frequencies carry lots of data, but they have a short range and are easily blocked by buildings, trees and even rain. That’s why 5G relies on extra small cells and antennas in busy areas.
It’s also where one of the biggest misconceptions starts. Higher frequency sounds more powerful. It isn’t, at least not in the way that matters for your health.
What does “radiation” actually mean?
Radiation simply means energy travelling from one place to another. Radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays all sit on the same electromagnetic spectrum. Low-frequency radio waves are at one end; X-rays and gamma rays are at the other.
The key difference is frequency. The higher the frequency, the more energy each individual photon carries, and that splits the spectrum into two very different groups.
Ionising and non-ionising radiation
Ionising radiation carries enough energy per photon to knock electrons off atoms. That can alter molecules and damage DNA directly, which is why too much exposure raises the risk of cancer. X-rays and gamma rays are the classic examples, and the higher-energy end of the ultraviolet range is where ionising effects begin. Ultraviolet from the sun can also damage skin cells in other ways, which is why too much sun increases the risk of skin cancer.
Radio waves are different. The RF energy used by mobile phones, Wi-Fi and 5G is non-ionising. Its photons don’t carry nearly enough energy to ionise atoms or break the chemical bonds in DNA, however strong the signal is.
The gap is enormous. Visible light sits at roughly 400 to 750 terahertz. A typical 5G signal at 3.5 GHz is more than 100,000 times lower in frequency than that, and even the 26 GHz millimetre wave band is thousands of times lower. If the light from a desk lamp can’t damage your DNA, a 5G signal can’t either.
Can radio waves heat the body?
Yes. And this is where the conversation often goes wrong in both directions.
Radio waves can’t ionise atoms, but powerful enough RF energy can heat tissue. That’s well-established physics, and a microwave oven is the extreme example. The World Health Organization describes heating as the main biological effect of RF fields, and notes that everyday exposure is far below the levels needed to cause significant heating.
So the real question for mobile networks isn’t whether radio waves can heat tissue. They can. It’s whether phones, towers and wireless devices expose us to enough of it to cause harm. That’s exactly what exposure limits are for.
How Australia regulates 5G
In Australia, exposure to radio waves is governed by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). Its radiofrequency safety standard covers frequencies from 100 kilohertz up to 300 GHz, which includes every current and proposed 5G band.
The limits are based on research showing the levels at which harmful effects occur, and they’re set well below those levels. The standard is designed to protect against excessive heating of tissue, and it also takes into account studies reporting effects at lower, non-heating levels.
ARPANSA’s standard, published in 2021, aligned with updated international guidelines from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and added safety restrictions above 6 GHz, which matters for 5G’s higher bands. ARPANSA has since released a consultation draft of a new standard, so the rules are kept under active review. In other words, a telco can’t simply transmit at whatever power it likes.
How much 5G are we actually exposed to?
Very little, as it turns out. Having a 5G antenna nearby doesn’t mean you’re soaking up a big dose of radio waves. Exposure depends on the transmitter’s power, your distance from the antenna, its design and direction, the frequency, and how the equipment is operating.
Real-world measurements back this up. A large Swiss study published in May 2026 found the 5G rollout didn’t increase overall background exposure, even as mobile data traffic grew enormously. In its review of the Swiss study, ARPANSA noted that background exposure was far below safety limits, and that measurements from other countries, including Australia, showed the same thing.
So a higher frequency isn’t the issue. Actual exposure is. And actual exposure is tiny.
What does the research say about cancer?
This is the question most people really want answered. Could years of exposure to radio waves from phones or wireless networks cause cancer? The answer has become much clearer as the research has built up.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, its Group 2B. That label gets shared online as proof that phones cause cancer. It means something much weaker. A link was considered possible, but the evidence was limited and couldn’t show cause and effect. Much of it came from studies in which people with brain cancer tended to overestimate how much they’d used their phones.
A lot has happened since. In 2024, a systematic review commissioned by the WHO and led by ARPANSA’s Associate Professor Ken Karipidis considered more than 5,000 studies published between 1994 and 2022, and included 63 in its final analysis. As ARPANSA’s media release explains, it found no association between mobile phone use and head cancers. There was no link even among people who’d used a mobile for 10 years or more, or who made the most calls, as AAP reported.
A second WHO-commissioned review, published in February 2025, looked at other cancers. According to ARPANSA, it found no association between radio wave exposure and leukaemia, lymphoma, thyroid or oral cavity cancers, the ones with enough studies to analyse properly. Karipidis was careful to say these results are less certain than the brain cancer findings, simply because these cancers have been studied less. Still, it’s a far more reassuring evidence base than existed when 5G launched.
What about the higher frequencies used by 5G?
It’s a fair question, because millimetre wave bands are newer territory for mobile networks. In 2021, ARPANSA and Swinburne University researchers published a state-of-the-science review of research into radio waves above 6 GHz. It covered 107 experimental studies, plus 31 epidemiological studies of people exposed to radar, which uses similar frequencies.
It found no confirmed evidence that low-level radio waves above 6 GHz, like those used by 5G, are hazardous to human health. It also found many experimental studies were low quality, and their effects generally weren’t independently replicated. The authors recommended better-designed experiments, alongside continued long-term monitoring of the population.
There’s a physical point worth knowing, too. As frequency rises, radio waves penetrate the body less deeply. At millimetre wave frequencies, the energy is absorbed close to the surface of the skin. So the idea that 5G’s higher frequencies reach deeper into your body is actually backwards.
What about 5G towers?
It’s easy to look at an antenna on a nearby building and assume it’s flooding the street with radiation. But power, distance, design and direction all matter, and mobile antennas send a narrow beam out almost parallel to the ground.
In fact, the phone in your hand usually exposes you to far more RF energy than a distant tower, simply because it’s right next to your body. The WHO makes the same point: towers add little to total exposure in public areas. They’re still subject to the exposure standard. But having one nearby tells you very little about how much energy you’re actually receiving.
What about memory, attention and fertility?
Cancer isn’t the only concern, and the WHO has commissioned reviews into several others. A 2024 review co-led by ARPANSA and Monash University found that radio waves from mobile phones don’t affect learning, memory, attention or coordination. It considered 3,945 papers, although only five studies had strong enough methods to be included.
On male fertility, a WHO-commissioned review of human studies, summarised by ARPANSA, found little evidence of an effect. It rated the certainty of that evidence as very low, though, mainly because of weaknesses in how exposure was measured. A companion review of animal and laboratory studies did report some effects in animals, but many of those studies had serious limitations. ARPANSA points out that the one effect rated moderate certainty, a reduced pregnancy rate in animals, came from exposures far above the safety limits.
That’s how science works. It can’t prove that anything carries zero risk. Instead, scientists weigh the quantity and quality of the evidence and ask whether a consistent harmful effect can be shown. So far, it hasn’t been shown for everyday exposure within the limits.
What about the 5G and COVID-19 claims?
The 5G rollout happened to overlap with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. That coincidence fuelled some extraordinary claims, most famously that 5G caused or spread the virus. There was never a plausible way for radio waves to carry a virus, and no evidence for it.
It still had real consequences. In 2020, people attacked mobile towers believing that baseless theory, as ARPANSA noted in its release on the brain cancer review. It’s a sharp reminder of how quickly an unsupported claim can spread online, and that two things happening at the same time doesn’t mean one caused the other.
So, is 5G safe?
On the current evidence and under Australia’s regulatory framework, 5G operating within the exposure limits isn’t considered a health hazard. It uses non-ionising radio waves that can’t ionise atoms or directly damage DNA. At high enough power, radio waves can heat tissue, which is exactly why the limits exist, and real-world measurements show exposure far below them. The evidence has also grown enormously since the network launched, with WHO-commissioned reviews in 2024 and 2025 finding no link between mobile phone radio waves and brain, head and several other cancers.
That doesn’t mean research should stop. 5G is still relatively young, and the higher-frequency bands have less long-term population data than older networks. Scientists are right to keep looking. But “we should keep studying this” is a very different statement from “there’s evidence 5G is causing harm”. Right now, the evidence supports the first, not the second.
I’m an IT person, not a health professional, so if you have a specific health concern, talk to your GP. ARPANSA’s website is the best place for official Australian information on radio waves and radiation safety.
Wireless technology has come a long way since the days of dial-up. My post on the history of the internet traces how we got here.
Sources
- ARPANSA: Radiofrequency safety standard (RPS S-1)
- ARPANSA: Radio wave exposure news, including the consultation draft of the new standard
- ARPANSA: Large Swiss study indicates negligible increase in background exposure after 5G rollout (2026)
- ARPANSA media release via Scimex: WHO review confirms mobile phones not linked to brain cancer (2024)
- AAP: No, your mobile phone is not giving you brain cancer (2024)
- ARPANSA: New study adds to evidence that mobile phones are not associated with cancer (2025)
- ARPANSA: 5G mobile networks and health, a state-of-the-science review (2021)
- ARPANSA: Review finds radio waves from mobile phones do not affect cognition (2024)