5G has been running in Australia for several years now, but the questions surrounding it have not gone away. When the network first switched on, worries about radiation followed almost immediately: that the higher frequencies could damage cells, cause cancer, or create health problems we would not discover for years.
I work in IT, so wireless networks are part of my everyday life, and 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 are exposed to. So is 5G safe? To answer that, we first need to understand 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 electromagnetic energy, the same kind of radio waves used by your Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and car radio. The main difference is that 5G can use a wider range of frequencies and 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. Higher frequencies can carry large amounts of data, but they have a shorter range and are easily blocked by buildings, trees and even rain. That is why 5G networks rely on extra small cells and antennas in busy areas, and it is also where one of the biggest misconceptions begins. A higher frequency sounds more powerful, but it does not automatically mean a higher or more dangerous exposure.
What does “radiation” actually mean?
Radiation simply describes energy travelling from one place to another. Radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays are all part of the same electromagnetic spectrum, running from low-frequency radio waves at one end to X-rays and gamma rays at the other. The key difference between them is frequency, and the higher the frequency, the more energy each individual photon carries. That matters because it splits the spectrum into two very different groups: ionising and non-ionising radiation.
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 part of the ultraviolet range is where ionising effects start to become relevant. 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 very different. The radiofrequency energy used by mobile phones, Wi-Fi and 5G is non-ionising: its photons do not carry nearly enough energy to ionise atoms or break the chemical bonds in DNA, no matter how strong the signal is. A typical 5G signal at 3.5 GHz has a frequency roughly 150,000 times lower than visible light, and even the 26 GHz millimetre wave band is around 20,000 times lower. If the light from a desk lamp cannot damage your DNA, a 5G signal certainly cannot.
Does non-ionising mean completely harmless?
Not quite, and this is where the conversation often goes wrong in both directions. Radio waves cannot ionise atoms, but powerful enough radiofrequency energy can heat tissue. That is a well-established physical effect, and a microwave oven is the extreme example. The World Health Organization describes heating as the main biological effect of radiofrequency fields, and notes that the levels people are normally exposed to are far lower than those needed to cause significant heating. So the real question for mobile networks is not whether radio waves can heat tissue at all, because they can, but whether phones, towers and other wireless devices expose us to enough of it to cause harm. That is 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 RF safety standard covers every frequency up to 300 GHz, which includes all current and proposed 5G bands. ARPANSA says the limits are based on research showing the levels at which harmful effects occur, and are 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. In other words, a telco cannot simply transmit at whatever power it likes, and ARPANSA does not just publish the limits and walk away: it also measures real-world exposure around wireless infrastructure.frequencies, will cause harm in the long term.
How much 5G are we actually exposed to?
This is where things get interesting, because having a 5G antenna nearby does not mean you are soaking up a large 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. ARPANSA has measured exposure at real mobile sites and found levels well below the Australian limits, with every small cell site it surveyed coming in below 1% of the public exposure limit.
Overseas measurements tell the same story. A long-running study of 5G in Greece, reviewed by ARPANSA, found typical exposure at around 0.3% of international limits, and even the highest reading was only 7.3%. ARPANSA’s assessment is that mobile network exposure in Australia, 5G included, remains very low and poses no health risk. What matters for health is not that 5G uses a higher frequency than older networks, but the actual exposure, and that 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 radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, its Group 2B. That label is often shared online as proof that phones cause cancer, but it means something much weaker: a link was considered possible, but the evidence was limited and not enough to show cause and effect. ARPANSA notes that the classification was largely based on limited evidence from human observational studies.
A great deal of research has been done since. In 2024, a systematic review commissioned by the World Health Organization 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. It found no association between mobile phone use and cancers of the brain or head, including among people who had used a mobile for ten years or more. As the authors wrote in The Conversation, we can now be more confident that radio waves from phones and wireless technology do not increase the risk of brain cancer.
A second WHO-commissioned review in 2025 looked at other cancers and found no association between radio wave exposure and leukaemia, lymphoma, thyroid or oral cavity cancers, the ones with enough studies to analyse properly. The researchers were careful to say they cannot be as certain of these results as the brain cancer findings, simply because these cancers have been studied less. Even so, it is a far more reassuring evidence base than existed when 5G first launched.
What about the higher frequencies used by 5G?
This is a fair question, because the millimetre wave bands are newer territory for mobile networks. ARPANSA researchers published a state-of-the-science review in 2021 looking specifically at research into radio waves above 6 GHz. It covered 107 experimental studies and 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, such as those used by 5G, are hazardous to human health. It also found that many of the experimental studies were of low quality and recommended better-designed research, with long-term monitoring of the population continuing.
There is a physical point worth knowing here too. As frequency increases, radio waves penetrate the body less deeply, and 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 is easy to look at an antenna on a nearby building and assume it must be 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 radio frequency energy than a distant tower, simply because it is so close to your body. The WHO makes the same point: someone using a mobile phone is exposed to much higher fields than those found in the general environment, while towers add little to total exposure in public areas. Towers are still subject to the exposure standard, but having one nearby tells you very little about how much energy you are actually receiving.
What about other health claims?
Cancer is not the only concern people have raised, 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 do not affect learning, memory, attention or coordination. It considered 3,945 papers, although only five studies had strong enough methods to be included, and the authors called for more high-quality research.
On male fertility, a WHO-commissioned review of human studies, summarised by ARPANSA, found little evidence of an effect but rated the certainty of that evidence as very low because of weaknesses in the studies, particularly in how exposure was measured. A companion review of animal and laboratory studies did report some effects on sperm in animals, but with low to moderate certainty and many studies with serious limitations. That is why this area is still being researched.
This is an important point about how science works. It rarely proves that something is “100% safe”. Instead, scientists weigh the quantity and quality of the evidence and ask whether a consistent harmful effect can actually be shown. So far, the evidence has not established that everyday radio wave exposure within the safety limits causes harm.
What about the 5G and COVID-19 claims?
The 5G rollout happened to overlap with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and 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 April 2020, phone masts across the UK were set on fire, and CNBC reported that one of the towers burned in Birmingham did not even carry 5G. It was a sharp reminder of how quickly an unsupported claim can spread online, and that two things happening at the same time does not mean one caused the other.
So, is 5G safe?
Based on the current evidence and Australia’s regulatory framework, 5G operating within the exposure limits is not considered a health hazard. It uses non-ionising radio waves that cannot ionise atoms or directly damage DNA. At high enough power, radio waves can heat tissue, which is exactly why the limits exist, and ARPANSA’s measurements of real 5G sites 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 does not mean the research should stop. 5G is still relatively young, the higher-frequency bands have less long-term population data than older networks, and scientists are right to keep looking. But there is a big difference between “we should keep studying this” and “there is evidence that 5G is causing harm”. At the moment, the evidence supports the first statement, not the second.
If you are curious about how we got from dial-up to 5G, my post on the history of the internet is a good place to start.
This article is for general information and is not medical advice. For information about radio wave exposure and radiation safety in Australia, visit ARPANSA or speak with a qualified health professional.
Sources
- ARPANSA: Radiofrequency electromagnetic energy and the ARPANSA safety standard
- ARPANSA: Greek study indicates 5G exposure well within safety limits
- ARPANSA: WHO review finds no link between mobile phone use and brain cancer
- ARPANSA: New study adds to evidence that mobile phones are not associated with cancer
- ARPANSA: 5G mobile networks and health, a state-of-the-science review
- ARPANSA: Review finds radio waves from mobile phones do not affect cognition
- ARPANSA: WHO systematic review finds no conclusive evidence of an effect of RF-EMF on male fertility
- ARPANSA: WHO systematic review of RF-EME exposure and male fertility (animal and lab studies)
- The Conversation: Mobile phones are not linked to brain cancer, according to a major review of 28 years of research
- World Health Organization: Radiation, electromagnetic fields
- IARC Monographs Volume 102: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields
- CNBC: UK cell towers set on fire amid 5G conspiracy theories