Is 5G Safe? Lots of Rumours about It Being Unsafe


Just putting an open discussion out there about 5G and it's level of safety in the community. There are certainly lots of interesting videos floating around claiming how the Telco's aren't being responsible and that the health effects will be truly seen in 10-15 years. I'm not scaremongering and don't have an official position on it, more just curious as to what people have heard or seen - perhaps some qualified techs could make some comment here (those doing installs etc.) Thanks.


  • +91 votes

    Rumors circulated by crackpots…. NON IONIZING RADIATION.

    You see how they just say "it is bad and they are irresponsible" and don't give any evidence other than "it's scary because I don't understand it"… that's because there is none.

    • +24 votes


      The same people who make these claims are likely happy to go for a walk on a sunny day without wearing a hat and sunscreen, or worse, sunbathe!
      They're probably also happy to walk into a room illuminated by a 100W lightbulb emitting hundreds/thousands of times more radiation (non-ionising) than any Mobile signal!

    • +6 votes


      general rule:
      visible light wave lengths and longer… oky doky
      wave lengths shorter than visible light…bady bady

    • +5 votes

      yeah exactly… I don't want to stick up for A-hole corporations but misinformation is even worse

    • +3 votes

      They provide evidence in the form of SPICY MEMESSSSS

    • +2 votes

      Not the entireeeee truth…
      Non ionising doesn't mean it can't heat up tissue and cause problems. Like a visible wavelength high powered laser.

      (I think 5G is completely safe)

      • +2 votes

        Yeah but close to none of their concerns are about the heating part, it's always about this "undefined" part that magically makes cancer

      • +1 vote

        And we're talking milliwatts worth of power. The heating effect is, if not immeasurable, then close enough to it.


        If it's producing that much directed energy, then your battery is going to last ten minutes, and your phone will probably combust.


      2G networks use frequencies at 900MHz
      3G networks use frequencies at 850/900/2100MHz
      4G networks use frequencies below 6GHz
      5G will use much higher frequencies in the 30GHz to 300GHz range

      Microwaves use a frequencies between 300MHz and 300GHz but bounce that around a small box to multiply it.

      X-Rays frequencies are in the range of 30 petahertz to 30 exahertz
      30PHz Petahertz = 30,000,000 GHz Gigahertz (30 Million)
      30EHz Exahertz = 30,000,000,000 GHz Gigahertz (30 Billion)

      So you can see how LOW level mobile phone radiation is.

      Hardly enough to penetrate and warm the skin let alone get inside the body to vital organs.

      Flying on a plane for 6 hours is the equivalent to 1 chest xray
      That's between 5 Million and 5 Billion GHz of radiation an hour

      It looks like phones are the least of our worries but i wouldn't want to use a phone held up to my brain for 20+ years 10 hours a day just to be safe. :) Granite bench tops are pumping out more radiation and that STUFF you cook food on and EAT!! OMG people need to wake up and look at Granite stone and not phones.


        %G in AU to date is also utilising below 6GHz (actually MUCH less, in the 3.6GHz range) frequencies.
        mmWave is still a ways off here.


          Yeah its funny that TV and radio Broadcasting towers that have been around for the last 90+ years have had more negative health effects then any new "regulated to be safe" mobile data technology.

          Artarmon in the North of Sydney has one of the highest child leukemia rates in australia.. with 6 giant Broadcasting towers surrounding it.. Think about that for a minute.

          • +3 votes

            @vid_ghost: Bit strange that they'd plonk the headquarters for the Leukaemia Foundation of Australia in Artamon if this were remotely close to being factual, don't you think?

            • -3 votes

              @scubacoles: Factual?? .. its a number on paper.. that's all it is. Doesn't get more fact then that does it? Are the towers the reason.. "maybe not"

              Much like Korea and Japan have the highest stomach cancer rates in the world.

              Does it correlate to their super high vinegar consumption with pickled veggies and salted fish. NO ONE can be 100% sure but the numerical fact is still undeniable.

              vinegar does damage the stomach lining though.

              • +2 votes

                @vid_ghost: that study was also performed in 1996

                Has there been any confirmation studies done in the following 20 years? Theres only been more and more 'dangerous cancer causing radiation' sources invented since then…

                yep, here's one from 1993

                Certainly, there is anecdotal evidence that proximity to the
                Sydney television towers interferes with electronic devices ….

                Unfortunately, Hocking et al., perhaps at one remove, have fallen victim to a similar type of fallacious risk perception corresponding to a number of Sandman’s key criteria for the generation of unfounded public health fears: the presence of large man-made structures as sources of perceived risk, coupled with unknown, uncertain or non-existent health risk.

                From the considerations outlined above, we are compelled more strongly than originally to conclude the claimsof the Hocking et al. study to be so poorly supported by the ecological evidence, that “spuriously alarming results” indeed have
                been produced

                Not exactly glowingly supporting that study

                Also, digital tv broadcasts are a lower output than analogue, so does that mean its no longer an issue?


          I think it's worth noting that the higher frequencies have different physical properties. i.e. More bandwidth, but less penetrating and will be blocked by buildings.

          For the most part 5G phones are going to use the same frequencies as we use today. Since the 25 - 50GHz range needs line of site to be effective, we will probably seem those antennas deployed in areas where large numbers of people congregate - sporting stadiums, railway stations, city streets and so on.


        Frequency is not an indication of high or low power. Completely unrelated concepts.
        FYI Sunlight(UV) probably kills more people that any other form of radiation.

        • -1 vote

          YES it is.. Because once you get high enough frequency it becomes IONIZING.. :) that's a fact

          But we are talking about Million and Billion

          mobile 5G is maxing out at 300 haha LOL
          and 4G is at 3.6 in Australia

        • +1 vote

          @corremn Actually it is.

          You just showed that by talking about UV which is a higher frequency than visible light.

          Did you know that even the colours in visible light have different effects. Blue light which is higher frequency is more detrimental to the eyes and sleep cycles. Its why blue light filters (software or otherwise) to avoid strain exist.

          edit: we should be talking about energy here, not "power". Power might be a potential issue because unlike light you are exposed to mobile signals 24/7 when living a developed area.

      • +13 votes

        Microwaves use a frequencies between 300MHz and 300GHz but bounce that around a small box to multiply it.

        No they don't, that is wrong on many levels.

        Microwaves operate on 2.4ghz.

        They don't bounce it around a box to multiply it, that's not possible.
        They operate at a wattage that is determined by how much power they draw and the magnetron that they have.

        If it was then all radio frequencies that bounced off an object would get stronger which means ALL frequencies would always be getting stronger as they bounced of things.

        Flying on a plane for 6 hours is the equivalent to 1 chest xray

        No it isn't.

        A chest X-ray gives you about 0.1 mSv. That is the same as 33.3 hrs of flight

        That's between 5 Million and 5 Billion GHz of radiation an hour

        That's not how it works.

        GHz is a frequency, there's no such thing as GHz per hour. It is not cumulative.
        It is the same as sound.

        Ionising radiation is measured in sievert, not GHz.

      • +1 vote

        damn granit stone lobby, sure they built the pyramids


        Personally I draw the line at yottahertz mobile phone towers.

    • +1 vote

      You're all laughing now but one day, you're going to realise you should have lead shielded your microwave room and wrapped your ear in tin foil when using your mobile phone.

      It is also a good idea to hang salt lamps all around the house to soak up all those loose ions.

  • +19 votes

    I'm hoping we all get x-men like super powers

  • +21 votes

    Everybody is completely surrounded by radio-waves 24 hours a day, but it must be this new one, which is just a different frequency, that kills us. Sarcasm there in case it's not clear.

    • +1 vote

      There are no new frequencies to clarify for the layman. Its just repurposing of underutilized frequencies and usage of different error checking algorithms that makes it faster.

      • +2 votes

        There are new frequencies, as far as use for mobile phones / personal use electronics are concerned.

        Large quantities of new spectrum (5G NR frequency bands) have been allocated to 5G

        No consumer device that I'm aware of has ever used K- or Ka-band frequencies (18-40GHz) before 5G.
        I agree that it's safe, BTW.


          What I am saying is that these frequencies aren't new. The full spectrum of useable frequency has been assigned for decades… Be it to FM radio, Television, Emergency Services, Broadcasting, Or more recently Mobile Phones.

          There are no new frequencies that have not in the past been used for other purposes. (Hence above - repurposing).

  • +11 votes

    It's just silly the same people have Wi-Fi modems in their houses

  • +52 votes

    Is 5G Safe? Lots of Rumours about It Being Unsafe for Human Consumption

    Yes, horribly unsafe for human consumption. Please do not eat any equipment connected to a 5G network.

  • +13 votes

    Please don't just say something that you randomly feel. Do the research. Look into what both sides say. Then come to your own conclusion. Think for yourself please.

    • +14 votes

      I understand what you are saying, but if I said to you bread is dangerous because flour is explosive (google it!) you would be right to say to me that I am getting confused over cause and effect. The people making claims about 5G safety are not explaining how it is dangerous, just confusing the matter with scientific gobbledy-gook.
      There are many people in society who have only rudimentary science education, so one set of long words spoken by a man in a white coat seem much the same as another set spoken by somebody else. While I can accept there have been genuine failings from science in rare cases (thalidomide, some dietary advice etc.), on the whole, science has a pretty good method for uncovering errors and weaknesses. If there really was a risk from 5G, respected researchers could become very famous and win Nobel prizes showing it was so. They would be celebrated for their amazing contribution.

      That the people making these claims are poorly qualified, with little to show in the way of evidence, and theories that include parts where they wave their hands and skip details should make you think long and hard about why they are making these claims (doubly so it they have a book to sell, or advertising on their websites). Similarly, when telco companies insist there is no risk, you are correct to be skeptical, as they clearly have financial interests at stake.

      But research scientists are rarely motivated to uphold the status quo if there is reason to believe it is wrong, and they have a greater reputation if they show the error. This provides a check & balance to people making claims, and we should respect that.


        pretty neat overview and fair but a lot of case studies are funded by those that own and sell the technology and results of those funded studies are owned by those that funded the research not the scientists that complete the research, many of these funded studies that may not have got the results the paying corporate would enjoy being made public are shelved by the owner. in saying that i have no problem with 5g, i dont wear a tin foil hat but i also hope they dont put a mobile tower next to my home. in most cases the scientists that do the research don't have the legal right to release the results without the owner of the research allowing it.


          in most cases the scientists that do the research don't have the legal right to release the results without the owner of the research allowing it.

          This is not true. I won't go into detail here, but contracts with this kind of stipulation do not get signed in the first place. Most research institutions (and all of the reputable ones) will not agree to such terms. So if we find health risks from 5G, you better believe that's getting out.


          i dont wear a tin foil hat but i also hope they dont put a mobile tower next to my home

          and I think there lies one of the problems. IoT and miniature low powered devices that need network access are one of the big pushes for this. the implications of saturation of 5G are unknown. It won't be like 3G/4G where towers are dispersed kilometers apart.

  • +1 vote

    Define unsafe.

    Even the air we breath everyday is unsafe, there are millions of bad bacteria and viruses floating around.

    Even the water we drink everyday is unsafe.

    Even our own life is unsafe, we can die anytime anywhere.

    So…what is unsafe really?


      Unsafe, in this case, is defined as increasing the risk of cancer by a measureable amount, within 10-15 years.

  • +5 votes

    I had a bowl of 5g this morning and havent noticed any effects yet. Maybe I put in too much milk.


    It's the same with all oscillation/waves. If you go to nature there's immediate tranquility/objects that block the signals. I think there might be "something" in any wireless but proving this is difficult.


    Wasnt planing on eating it :)


    Put your pie in a box with a 5G phone… Free microwave!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • +8 votes

    If you want accessible science, listen to Dr. Karl discuss the 5G network here. Spoiler alert: no recorded risks, mostly hysteria.

  • +26 votes

    3.6 Roentgen. Not great, not terrible.

    • +6 votes

      The problem with studies showing there is an effect from non ionizing, non heating radiation, there are many studies that equally show no statistically significant disease rate. It would be great if we had studies that could be reproduced and show the same results.

      We have been using digital mobile phones in Australia for almost 25 years. Have a look at the brain tumour rate from 1982 to 2017. It's dead flat.

      Regarding EMF, even the landmark 1979 study showing increased leukemia rates from living near power lines cannot be reproduced:

      The field is littered with inconclusive results.

      • -4 votes

        6.3 to 6.9 isn't dead flat :-P

        It is often messy when possible health risks collide with corporate profits. The science becomes muddied. Just look at the history of cigarette smoking, pesticides, asbestos, climate change, etc. It looks like 5G needs more testing but I don't think anyone in power gives a crap about the risks as long as they can point to something showing doubts or inconclusiveness.

        • +12 votes

          6.3 to 6.9 is dead flat as far as your risk of being diagnosed is concerned. The other thing to think about is cancer is primarily a disease of aging: the older you are the more likely you are to get it. With an aging population it's natural that cancer rates will go up, so accounting for Australia's aging population one can say the adjusted rate has actually gone down.

          The median age of Australians in 1980 was 29.3. Now it's 37.9.

    • +10 votes

      And the "numerous publications" are linked… oh they seem to have forgotten that bit.

      Funny about that, what an unusual omission for a scientist to make!

      Elizabeth Kelley, M.A., Director,

      Ah, that explains it, the "EMFscientist" has an Arts degree…

  • +7 votes

    I remember reading in the early 90s that mobile phones were going to spike the rate of brain tumours. Well, by 1995 there were millions of users and no excess brain tumours above the usual rate. So the message then became 'aha! Analog is fine, but just wait until digital mobile phones produce the tumours'. By 2005 with hundreds of millions of digital mobile users around the planet… still no spike in cancer rate. 'Aha! But it takes maybe 20 years to produce tumours through mobile use!'

    Well, here we are almost a full 25 years after people started using digital mobile phones and still, no brain tumour epidemic. Now the message is: 'Aha! But this is a new frequency/modulation, therefore it will NOW start to cause the brain tumour epidemic!' The goalposts have been shifting for three decades.

    While some studies have shown it is possible to induce DNA changes with non ionizing, non heating radiation in lab animals, these are animals kept 24/7 under radiation no one would receive from a mobile phone tower, let alone a handheld device.

  • +8 votes

    5g is dangerous, like walking in a microwave. I was in one of the early 5g rollout areas and I went out to buy a California Pizza Kitchen Signature Pepperoni Frozen Flatbread, and by the time I got home, it was perfectly cooked and entirely eaten. 100% true


    5G is not safe

    4G is not safe

    3G is not safe

    2G is not safe

    Using a land line is not safe

    Sending a letter is not safe

    Sending an email is not safe

    Only ever use the CONE OF SILENCE !

  • +6 votes

    Someone's gone long on aluminium foil shares!


    You are at the right place to ask these kind of questions. Welcome to OZKnowledge.


    When I saw this topic I thought it was asking about 5G being safe from Huawei haha


    Don't listen to rumours, they are just that!

    BTW, I heard a rumour that the sky is falling


    I heard sex is better with 5g

  • +1 vote

    I would be more worried about Sunlight (UV) than 5G

    • +1 vote

      WiFi is limited to 100mW of power which travels in every direction, a rough approximation means that about 0.25mW of power is absorbed into your skin/clothes at 5m from the router.

      If you were to lay down in the sun you would be getting about 800w of much higher energy radiation (light and IR) - 3.2 million times more than from WiFi.

      The human body emits around 100 watts of heat (infrared radiation) so having someone 5 m away form you in a room will cause you to be subject to 1,000 times more radiation than WiFi.

  • +2 votes

    I think 5g operates on Chemtrail residue


    5G is not safe…when operating heavy machinery or motorised vehicles. You’ll see lots of: “hurr durr, it’s the same as a microwave” which it kind of is, but uses far less power so is completely harmless. It takes thousands of watts to create enough power to heat human skin at a distance and even then, it’s still non-ironising and can only penetrate about 10mm.

    The only risk you have comes down to an individual mobile device’s specific absorption ratio(SAR). Here in Australia it is set by ARPANSA and regulated by the ACMA and our standard is consistent with other countries.

    So consider yourself protected by nature of living in Australia.

  • +5 votes

    Yeah no I wouldn’t try 5g, sniffed 1g and I already got a bloody nose.

  • +2 votes

    We should ban dihydrogen monoxide altogether

  • +2 votes

    Oh God, why is this on the front page?
    Citation needed.