With the arrival of 5G, many people wonder whether 5G antennas are harmful and what health risks may be associated with 5G technology. This article clearly and simply explores how 5G antennas work and what studies say about potential health effects, aiming to separate myths from facts.
Is a 5G antenna near your home harmful?
In the past, Italy required a minimum distance of 70 meters between antennas and residential buildings. Today, the new Electronic Communications Code no longer sets minimum distances: what matters is compliance with the technical limits on electromagnetic field exposure.
In Italy, the legal limit for electric field intensity is set at 6 V/m, much lower than in other European countries and aligned with the precautionary principle.
Each municipality determines the most suitable areas for installing 5G antennas, taking into account population density, infrastructure, and landscape protection.
The authorization process requires:
- A contract or condominium resolution for rooftop installation
- Submission of a project including environmental impact and radiation assessment
- Approval by the Municipality, the local health authority (ASL), and, when necessary, the environmental protection agency (ARPA)
Only if the installation complies with legal limits may the antenna be activated. Any violations can be reported and legally challenged.
Regional environmental protection agencies (ARPA) check and verify these limits both before installation (preliminary assessment) and after activation (on-site inspection). This ensures that the systems operate within safe levels.
The main metrics used to characterize 5G exposure are:
- Electromagnetic field intensity (EMF)
- Power density (PD)
- Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)
Comparing the limits set by international organizations (IEEE, ICNIRP) and federal authorities (FCC) reveals differences and ongoing efforts toward harmonization. National regulations across over 220 countries show even less consistency: some adopt strict limits (like Italy), while others lack clear rules or 5G implementation plans. This makes technology deployment and management of perceived risks a complex balance.
Can 5G antennas be dangerous?
From a health standpoint, exposure to very intense and prolonged electromagnetic fields can affect the human body, but it is important not to be alarmed: actual risks emerge only at levels above legal limits and with continuous exposure, regardless of 5G.
According to scientific evidence and current regulations, there is no definitive proof that living near a mobile phone antenna is dangerous. Antennas emit radiofrequency electromagnetic waves classified as non-ionizing, meaning they cannot damage DNA.
The World Health Organization (WHO) continues to monitor the issue, and antennas that comply with legal limits do not pose a significant risk. Italy’s exposure limits are among the strictest in the world.
If you suspect a 5G antenna exceeds legal limits
If a citizen believes a nearby antenna exceeds legal limits, they can request an ARPA inspection by filing a report with the municipality. If a violation is confirmed, they can turn to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Carabinieri, or a judge to contest the installation authorization. The law protects the right to health: no economic activity can be conducted at the expense of public safety.
What is a 5G antenna?
To operate, 5G requires both new next-generation Node-B (gNB) antennas distributed across the territory and compatible user devices.
5G antennas are key components of the 5G network, designed to transmit and receive high-speed, low-latency wireless signals. Unlike 4G antennas, they use advanced technologies such as beamforming to steer signals toward users, improving quality, efficiency, and capacity. They operate on higher frequencies, including millimeter waves, support vast numbers of simultaneous devices, and enable critical applications like autonomous vehicles, telemedicine, and IoT. Some 5G antennas, within the framework of Fixed Wireless Access (FWA), may be installed in homes to provide broadband connections without fiber optics.
As with previous technologies, the introduction of 5G has sparked mixed reactions: excitement for new possibilities but also concern about health effects.
The main technical characteristics of 5G, such as widespread MIMO and beamforming, denser antenna deployment, millimeter-wave frequencies, connection of millions of IoT devices, and coexistence with previous technologies, do not pose health risks when robust communication engineering principles are applied. Strategies have also been developed to reduce electromagnetic exposure through device design, network architecture, communication protocols, and regulations.
Where does the fear that 5G increases health risks come from?
Many people automatically associate 5G with health risks. Fear is often fueled by social media and fake news, leading some municipalities to ban antenna installation or, in some cases, even acts of sabotage.
Many concerns arise from theories without scientific basis, especially for frequencies below 6 GHz. However, for higher millimeter-wave frequencies (mmWave), comprehensive scientific studies are still limited, leading some to believe that 5G safety has not yet been fully demonstrated.
More than the antenna, the real exposure comes from your phone
It is important to remember that the highest exposure comes from the phone itself, especially when used close to the head, while standing near a properly installed antenna results in much lower radiation.
Even when antennas comply with limits, EMF from mobile phones can warm body tissues. It is therefore prudent to limit phone use near the head and prefer earphones or speaker mode. Again, these precautions are unrelated to 5G specifically.
Is 5G harmful? What science says
The scientific community agrees that within legally established exposure limits, there are no proven health effects from 5G electromagnetic fields (EMF). However, public perception of risk is much higher than the scientific reality, due to fragmented research across disciplines (medicine, physics, biology, economics, law), distrust of regulatory institutions, and widespread misinformation that exaggerates alleged harmful effects.
Studies from Swinburne University on tissue temperature
In 2018, when Australia announced the rollout of 5G, Professor Andrew Wood’s team at Swinburne University investigated how 5G electromagnetic energy is absorbed by human tissues, contributing to international safety discussions and exposure limit definitions.
According to Wood, the main effect of 5G exposure is a slight increase in tissue temperature. Some animal studies and epidemiological data have suggested possible links between prolonged exposure and certain types of tumors, but results are not considered conclusive. Higher 5G frequencies penetrate the body less deeply than lower ones, concentrating exposure mainly on the skin and eyes rather than the brain.
Moreover, operating power levels are very low and produce temperature increases of only a few tenths of a degree, making it difficult to identify clear biological effects.
Wood highlights the need to balance risks and benefits: wireless technologies offer significant advantages, and excessive caution could limit access for those who would benefit the most.
5G and health risks: a communications engineering perspective
Over the past two decades, numerous studies have investigated the effects of RF electromagnetic fields on the human body, across frequencies from 100 kHz to 300 GHz, driven by the expansion of wireless networks including 5G.
Unlike X-rays or UV radiation, RF photons lack the energy to directly damage DNA or trigger chemical reactions. The main detectable effect is thermal: RF waves can cause slight tissue warming through oscillation of polar molecules.
To protect the public, the ICNIRP established exposure limits expressed as SAR (Specific Absorption Rate), measuring how much energy tissues absorb. Some concerns revolve around possible “non-thermal” effects, which led the IARC to classify RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic” (Group 2B). A 2021 review analyzed animal and human studies, noting that alleged carcinogenic effects of RF radiation cannot be directly applied to 5G technology, neither antennas nor user devices. Many large-scale studies were conducted under conditions that do not reflect real-world 5G use.
5G uses new frequency bands compared to previous technologies:
- C-band at 3.5 GHz, balancing coverage and speed
- Millimeter-wave bands at 26 GHz, with limited penetration and suitable for high-density data areas
Recent studies on human fibroblasts and keratinocytes exposed to 3.5 GHz 5G fields showed very limited biological effects: free radical production changed only in some conditions, without significant impact on cell viability or mitochondrial function.
5G exposure and its effects on oxidative stress and DNA repair in skin cells
Some research suggests that low-dose exposure may induce an adaptive response: cells become more resistant to stress and show reduced DNA damage when exposed to more harmful agents. This phenomenon has been observed in bacteria, yeast, plants, mammals, and human cells. However, no clear molecular mechanism explains how environmental exposure could induce oxidative stress or genotoxic effects; most studies remain empirical, based on observing biological markers without direct explanation.
A 2025 study evaluated whether exposure to 5G-modulated signals at 3.5 GHz could influence oxidative stress and DNA repair in human skin cells. Advanced sensors capable of real-time ROS (Reactive Oxygen Species) monitoring in both cytoplasm and mitochondria were used, with SAR exposure levels of 0.08 and 4 W/kg.
Results showed that neither baseline ROS levels nor cellular responses to known oxidative stimuli were modified by 5G exposure. Even when observing both cellular compartments simultaneously, no alterations in oxidative signaling were detected, even under external stress.
These findings confirm previous studies and international scientific reviews indicating that RF electromagnetic fields do not significantly affect oxidative stress. For higher 5G frequencies such as millimeter waves (26–28 GHz), some animal studies have reported variable effects, like reduced pigmentation or hormonal changes, but often without properly controlling signal intensity or tissue heating.
Well-controlled studies on human cells, by contrast, found no significant changes in ROS, cell viability, or DNA integrity.
Controls using arsenic confirmed the test’s sensitivity. This indicates that, under the tested conditions, 5G does not trigger defense mechanisms comparable to those activated by other stressors.
Regarding genotoxicity, a review of 159 in vitro studies shows that 80% found no significant effects of RF fields on DNA. Studies on human skin cell DNA after UV-B exposure showed normal repair capacity, with no differences between cells exposed or not exposed to 5G signals.
In summary, this study shows that exposure to 5G-modulated 3.5 GHz fields does not increase oxidative stress, does not activate adaptive responses, and does not interfere with DNA repair in skin cells, under constant temperature conditions.
These results align with expert evaluations and help clarify the biological risk profile of 5G. It should be noted, however, that experiments were based on acute (24–48 hours) in vitro exposure; further research using more complex models will be needed to better understand chronic or repeated exposure.
Although many studies exist on biological effects of RF fields below 6 GHz, research on millimeter-wave bands (FR2) remains limited, and only a few focus specifically on 5G.
5G exposure and effects on neuroblastoma cells
Another recent study by Italian researchers analyzed human neuroblastoma cells (a type of nerve cell) to understand whether high-frequency 5G signals, particularly 26.5 GHz, could cause damage.
Cells were exposed for 3 hours to two types of signals: a continuous wave and a 5G-modulated signal. Signal intensity was controlled at a SAR value of 1.25 W/kg. Researchers aimed to determine whether these waves could alter the cell cycle or damage DNA.
Cell division was analyzed to check for stress or life-cycle disruptions. To detect possible DNA damage, a Comet assay was used. Researchers also tested whether 5G signals could amplify the effects of menadione, a chemical known to damage DNA through ROS.
This method enables precise and controlled investigation of how high-band 5G frequencies interact with cells, helping clarify their biological safety.
An experimental setup using reverberation chambers ensured precise, uniform, and stable exposure. This system preserves cell viability and growth without unintended interference. Both sham controls and positive controls were used to validate sensitivity and avoid experimental bias.
Results show that 3-hour exposure at 26.5 GHz with 1.25 W/kg SAR did not modify the cell cycle or cause DNA damage in human neuroblastoma cells. Even when combined with menadione, no additional effects appeared: the electromagnetic signal did not enhance the chemical’s harmful action. No differences were observed between continuous and 5G-modulated signals.
These findings are consistent with studies at lower frequencies (below 6 GHz), which found no effects on neuronal activity, cellular stress, or programmed cell death in various cell types. The same applies to millimeter-wave studies (26–28 GHz), which generally observed no changes in cell viability; only in some cases was slight pigmentation reduction noted when melanin stimulators were involved, possibly linked to reduced ROS levels.
In animals, RF exposure results have been variable, while one of the few studies using true 5G-modulated signals found no effects on physiological or cognitive functions. In humans, brief exposures to 5G-modulated 3.5 GHz signals showed no changes in brain activity.
This work was the first to directly compare continuous and 5G-modulated 26.5 GHz signals on human neuroblastoma cells, including both direct exposure and combined treatments with a genotoxic agent.
The choice of these experimental models allows easy comparison with results obtained in lower 5G frequency bands.
In conclusion, under the tested conditions, 26.5 GHz 5G does not alter the cell cycle, does not cause DNA damage, and does not interact with genotoxic substances. These findings contribute to an evidence-based assessment of 5G’s biological safety at its highest frequency bands.
Sources:
- Chiaraviglio, L., Elzanaty, A., & Alouini, M.-S. (2021). Health risks associated with 5G exposure: A view from the communications engineering perspective. IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1109/OJCOMS.2021.3106052
- Haidar, J., Nabos, P., Orlacchio, R., et al. (2025). Impact of in vitro exposure to 5G-modulated 3.5 GHz fields on oxidative stress and DNA repair in skin cells. Scientific Reports, 15, 31214. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-15090-w
- Sannino, A., Allocca, M., Scarfì, M. R., et al. (2025). Exposure to 26.5 GHz, 5G-modulated and unmodulated signal, does not affect key cellular endpoints of human neuroblastoma cells. Scientific Reports, 15, 20614. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-04834-3
- Andrew Wood. What 5G means for our health. Swinburne University (2019)