TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Is 5g not safe?

Fact Check: Is 5g not safe?

March 11, 2025•by TruthOrFake
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Is 5G Not Safe? A Comprehensive Analysis ## Introduction The rollout of fifth-generation (5G) wireless technology has sparked significant debate r...

Is 5G Not Safe? A Comprehensive Analysis

Introduction

The rollout of fifth-generation (5G) wireless technology has sparked significant debate regarding its safety. As this technology promises to revolutionize telecommunications with faster data speeds and lower latency, concerns have emerged about potential health risks associated with exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation. This article aims to analyze the claim that "5G is not safe," exploring the scientific evidence, regulatory perspectives, and public health implications.

Background

5G technology represents a significant advancement over its predecessors—2G, 3G, and 4G—by utilizing higher frequency bands and advanced communication protocols. This enables faster data transfer, improved connectivity, and supports a vast array of applications, particularly in healthcare, autonomous vehicles, and smart cities. However, the deployment of 5G has raised alarms among certain groups regarding potential health risks linked to RF radiation emitted by 5G networks.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines RF radiation as a type of non-ionizing radiation, which means it does not carry enough energy to ionize atoms or molecules or remove tightly bound electrons. This is in contrast to ionizing radiation, such as X-rays, which can cause cellular damage and increase cancer risk. Nonetheless, the debate continues as some studies suggest potential biological effects from long-term exposure to RF radiation, leading to concerns about the safety of 5G technology.

Analysis

Health Concerns and Scientific Evidence

The primary concern surrounding 5G technology is its potential health impact due to RF radiation. Critics argue that the higher frequencies used in 5G could pose greater risks than previous generations of wireless technology. A systematic review of scientific literature on 5G safety indicates that while most studies have not found conclusive evidence of harmful health effects, ongoing research is necessary to fully understand the long-term implications of exposure to 5G frequencies [8].

A comprehensive review published by the European Parliament highlights that while existing studies have not established a direct link between RF exposure and adverse health outcomes, the potential for biological effects remains a topic of active investigation [9]. The review emphasizes the need for continued research to monitor health impacts as 5G technology becomes more widespread.

Regulatory Perspectives

Regulatory bodies, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), have established guidelines for RF exposure. These guidelines are based on extensive reviews of scientific literature and are designed to protect public health. The FCC states that current safety limits for RF exposure are set well below levels that could cause harm, and they continue to review and update these guidelines as new research emerges.

However, some critics argue that regulatory standards may not adequately account for the unique characteristics of 5G technology, particularly concerning its higher frequency bands. They call for more stringent regulations and independent research to ensure public safety [2].

Public Perception and Misinformation

Public perception of 5G safety is influenced by a mix of scientific findings, media coverage, and misinformation. Social media platforms have been instrumental in spreading fears about 5G, often linking it to various health issues without scientific backing. This has led to a growing movement against 5G technology, with some communities actively protesting its deployment.

In contrast, proponents of 5G argue that the technology offers numerous benefits, particularly in healthcare. For instance, 5G can enhance telemedicine services, improve remote surgery capabilities, and facilitate real-time monitoring of patients, ultimately leading to better health outcomes [1][4]. The integration of 5G technology in healthcare is seen as a transformative step that can improve access to medical services, especially in underserved areas [5].

Evidence

Several studies provide insights into the safety of 5G technology. For example, a recent study on a 5G-based telerobotic ultrasound system demonstrated its effectiveness and safety in medical applications, highlighting the technology's potential to improve access to healthcare services [1]. Similarly, research on the safety of 5G in telesurgery indicates that the low latency and high-speed data transmission capabilities of 5G can enhance the precision and effectiveness of remote surgical procedures [4].

Moreover, a comprehensive review of the risks and benefits of 5G technology in medicine emphasizes the importance of establishing a robust regulatory framework and ongoing research into health impacts [2]. This balance between harnessing the benefits of 5G while addressing safety concerns is crucial for public acceptance and successful implementation.

Conclusion

The claim that "5G is not safe" is partially true, as it reflects ongoing concerns and debates surrounding the health implications of RF radiation exposure. While current scientific evidence does not conclusively link 5G exposure to adverse health effects, the need for continued research and monitoring is essential as the technology becomes more prevalent. Regulatory bodies have established safety guidelines based on existing research, but public perception remains influenced by misinformation and fear.

As 5G technology continues to evolve, it is imperative to strike a balance between leveraging its benefits—particularly in sectors like healthcare—and addressing safety concerns through rigorous scientific inquiry and transparent communication. Only through ongoing research and public education can we ensure that the deployment of 5G technology is both safe and beneficial for society.

References

  1. 5G-Based Telerobotic Ultrasound System Improves Access to Breast ... NCBI
  2. Exploring the Risks, Benefits, Advances, and Challenges in Internet ... PMC
  3. National Security Implications of Fifth Generation (5G) Mobile Technologies CRS Reports
  4. Telemedicine network latency management system in 5G telesurgery: a ... ResearchGate
  5. Understanding how healthcare innovation is shaped by 5G ... ResearchGate
  6. Deployable Networks for Public Safety in 5G and Beyond ... ResearchGate
  7. Modeling consumers' information acquisition and 5G technology ... ResearchGate
  8. 5G Safety -State of the art from scientific reviews and ... ResearchGate
  9. Health impact of 5G - European Parliament European Parliament
  10. Why public safety is turning toward AI and 5G American City and County

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: A diplomatic source stated that the Israeli airstrike on Mashhad was a warning to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that he is not safe anywhere in the country.
Needs Research
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: A diplomatic source stated that the Israeli airstrike on Mashhad was a warning to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that he is not safe anywhere in the country.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: A diplomatic source stated that the Israeli airstrike on Mashhad was a warning to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that he is not safe anywhere in the country.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Polls indicate that the majority of Greenland's 57,000 residents desire independence from Denmark but do not wish to become part of the United States.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Polls indicate that the majority of Greenland's 57,000 residents desire independence from Denmark but do not wish to become part of the United States.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Polls indicate that the majority of Greenland's 57,000 residents desire independence from Denmark but do not wish to become part of the United States.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: President Donald Trump had not called Minnesota Governor Tim Walz by Sunday afternoon, October 1, 2023, following the assassination of House DFL Leader Melissa Hortman.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: President Donald Trump had not called Minnesota Governor Tim Walz by Sunday afternoon, October 1, 2023, following the assassination of House DFL Leader Melissa Hortman.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: President Donald Trump had not called Minnesota Governor Tim Walz by Sunday afternoon, October 1, 2023, following the assassination of House DFL Leader Melissa Hortman.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Partially True

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and other prominent Trump supporters argued that voters backed Trump because he would not involve the nation in foreign conflicts.
Partially True

Fact Check: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and other prominent Trump supporters argued that voters backed Trump because he would not involve the nation in foreign conflicts.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and other prominent Trump supporters argued that voters backed Trump because he would not involve the nation in foreign conflicts.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The Trump administration has not critiqued the weeks-long timeframe for the Israeli operation against Iran in private discussions.
Partially True

Fact Check: The Trump administration has not critiqued the weeks-long timeframe for the Israeli operation against Iran in private discussions.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The Trump administration has not critiqued the weeks-long timeframe for the Israeli operation against Iran in private discussions.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks