Will 5G Be Bad for Our Health: Fact-Check of 5G Testing


Should you be worried about 5G?


I’m sure you have been privy to the stories about 5G unless of course, you have been living under the rock, which I’m sure you aren’t. This is especially when you have big stars like Juhi Chawla create the buzz with self-professing beliefs. Recently Juhi Chawla was in the news for moving the Delhi High court to push the Central Government to ban 5G, because as her writ claimed that 5G causes health hazards. But is she wrong or just an attempt to take forward her so-called legacy of having disrupted the Mobile tower rollout and hence the steep fall in coverage issue by propagating, rightly or wrongly the radiation.


from towers issue?


Juhi Chawla some years back started a movement to claim that the radiation from towers caused Cancer, this caused lead to a lot of set back to the mobile industry because they were not able to roll out towers to improve coverage and quality because of judicial roadblocks created by such claims. But lets us come back to the current discussion on the so-called claim that 5G causes health hazards, what is the status on this issue from a scientific standpoint, and is Juhi Chawla the first celebrity to rake up this issue. Conspiracy theories can originate in the unlikeliest of places, they can grow organically and have some degree of acceptance in small groups, however, when famous personalities lend their voice to the cause, it has the potential of amplifying the message. On 5g Juhi Chawla is not the first one to talk about this issue, Singer Keri Hilson on 15 March wrote on her Twitter feed about “People have been trying to warn us about 5G for YEARS. Petitions, organizations, studies...what we’re going [through] is the [effects] of radiation,” she warned. “5G launched in CHINA. Nov 1, 2019. People dropped dead. See attached & go to my IG stories for more. TURN OFF 5G by disabling LTE!!!”

Along with her message, Hilson posted multiple screenshots of articles to back up her claims. In a separate tweet, she posted a screenshot from a website that purportedly explains how 5G wireless networks can cause radiation.  “And to be clear, I’m saying there have been lots of studies & experiments that point to the possibility that the dangerous levels of electromagnetic radiation (5G) could be CAUSING the contagious virus,” she iterated. “Why do you think the virus is not happening in Africa like that? Not a 5G region. There may be a few bases there, but not as prevalent as in other countries. It has nothing to do w/ melanin (for those theories)...” she continued. 


These Tweets have since been deleted. 


This is the problem when ideas are floated without due scientific considerations as these can lead to a large no. of people believing that there is a massive conspiracy at play and significantly impede tackling the route cause of an issue. This is exactly what we are seeing in the case of 5G being a health issue. People have propagated issues like that 5G can cause headaches and tumors in the brain and that in general, it can be harmful to both humans and animals in large amounts. They claim that there is a piece of overwhelming evidence towards this and that there is an effort to quell dissent on this account,  In fact, it is to contrary whatever scientific evidence which exists on the impact of 5G on human health.

What Juhi Chawla claimed was pretty much what the misconception exists in the certain quarter about 5G. AS per Juhi Chawla’s assertion that “if the telecommunications industry plan for 5G comes into fruition than no person, no animal, no bird, no insect and no tree on the earth will be able to avoid exposure, 24hrs a day, 365 days a year, to levels of RF radiation which are 10X to 100X times greater than what exists. These 5G plans provoke serious irreversible effects in humans and permanent damage to all of the earth's eco-systems.”

But you will have to bear that there is no scientific study that could hold all the charges leveled against it. While people have concerns about how the new technology pans out on their health and life expectancy, and it is understandable. For which they should fall back on scientific studies and not depend on hearsay.  On contrary, there is a significant consensus among the scientific community and most experts will confirm that they have not found any conclusive evidence to suggest any of the claims made by proponents of the 5G health hazard theory by the likes Juhi and Keri.  In fact, the studies that claim 5G technology may be damaging to the health of people are peppered with inconsistencies. 


As per WHO, and I quote, To date, and after much research performed, no adverse health effect has been causally linked with exposure to wireless technologies. Health-related conclusions are drawn from studies performed across the entire radio spectrum but, so far, only a few studies have been carried out at the frequencies to be used by 5G. It goes on to say that, As the frequency increases, there is less penetration into the body tissues and absorption of the energy becomes more confined to the surface of the body (skin and eye). Provided that the overall exposure remains below international guidelines, no consequences for public health are anticipated Unquote.


Let us also for a moment consider this Study on the impact of 5G on the health of mice conducted over 2.5 years of exposure to mice. The study claimed that the incidence of tumors called malignant schwannomas, that were observed in the heart increased in male rats as they were exposed to increasing levels of RFR beyond the allowable cell phone emissions. Researchers also noted increases in an unusual pattern of cardiomyopathy or damage to heart tissue, in exposed male and female rats. Overall, there was little indication of health problems in mice related to RFR. The studies become glaring when it shows that the exposed rats lived longer than the ones who were not exposed to RF radiation, So should we then conclude that 5G radiation makes rats live longer.  So, it is difficult to make a conclusion based on these studies which are not conclusive. More importantly, we haven’t seen an increase in the prevalence of brain tumors despite the presence of Radiation technologies which have been present for over 30 years. One can argue that 5G is very different than all the other technologies present till now, that the towers of 5G are much smaller and are placed closer to people unlike the 2G, 3G, or even 4G which were placed on top of buildings. 5g stations will pop all around the places people frequent, for which the effect has to be seen. But if you make a claim that 5G is a health hazard you are not making the claim based on scientific evidence but rather aimed at scaring the people and creating publicity for your self as the high court rightly pointed out in this case. In fact, till now most scientific studies show that 5G is no different from other technologies in terms of health hazards. So if there is no specific study linking it to cancer, till then it is not prudent to link it to the same.