5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects-A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz

2019 · Mixed · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

MixedInsufficient evidencePaper 1692

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019

Study typereview

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects-A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz Simkó M, Mattsson MO. 5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects-A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 13;16(18). pii: E3406. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16183406. Abstract The introduction of the fifth generation (5G) of wireless communication will increase the number of high- frequency-powered base stations and other devices. The question is if such higher frequencies (in this review, 6- 100 GHz, millimeter waves, MMW) can have a health impact. This review analyzed 94 relevant publications performing in vivo or in vitro investigations. Each study was characterized for: study type (in vivo, in vitro), biological material (species, cell type, etc.), biological endpoint, exposure (frequency, exposure duration, power density), results, and certain quality criteria. Eighty percent of the in vivo studies showed responses to exposure, while 58% of the in vitro studies demonstrated effects. The responses affected all biological endpoints studied. There was no consistent relationship between power density, exposure duration, or frequency, and exposure effects. The available studies do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment, or for the question about non-thermal effects. There is a need for research regarding local heat developments on small surfaces, e.g., skin or the eye, and on any environmental impact. Our quality analysis shows that for future studies to be useful for safety assessment, design and implementation need to be significantly improved. Funding: This research was funded by Deutsche Telekom Technik GmbH, Bonn, Germany, PO number 4806344812. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. Open access paper: mdpi.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typereview

Effect directionmixed

PopulationNot supplied

Sample size94

ExposuremmWave

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

This review analyzed 94 in vivo or in vitro publications on 6–100 GHz (millimeter waves). It reports that 80% of in vivo studies and 58% of in vitro studies showed responses/effects, affecting all biological endpoints studied, but found no consistent relationship between power density, exposure duration, or frequency and exposure effects. The authors conclude the available studies are insufficient for a meaningful safety assessment or for addressing non-thermal effects, and that study design/implementation quality needs improvement.

Outcomes measured

Biological endpoints across in vivo and in vitro studies (various; not specified individually in abstract)
Exposure-response relationships vs power density, exposure duration, frequency
Adequacy of evidence for safety assessment and non-thermal effects

Limitations

No consistent relationship between exposure parameters (power density, duration, frequency) and effects reported
Authors state available studies do not provide adequate/sufficient information for meaningful safety assessment or non-thermal effects
Quality analysis indicates study design and implementation need significant improvement

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "mmWave",
    "source": "5G wireless communication (base stations and other devices)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": 94,
  "outcomes": [
    "Biological endpoints across in vivo and in vitro studies (various; not specified individually in abstract)",
    "Exposure-response relationships vs power density, exposure duration, frequency",
    "Adequacy of evidence for safety assessment and non-thermal effects"
  ],
  "main_findings": "This review analyzed 94 in vivo or in vitro publications on 6–100 GHz (millimeter waves). It reports that 80% of in vivo studies and 58% of in vitro studies showed responses/effects, affecting all biological endpoints studied, but found no consistent relationship between power density, exposure duration, or frequency and exposure effects. The authors conclude the available studies are insufficient for a meaningful safety assessment or for addressing non-thermal effects, and that study design/implementation quality needs improvement.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "No consistent relationship between exposure parameters (power density, duration, frequency) and effects reported",
    "Authors state available studies do not provide adequate/sufficient information for meaningful safety assessment or non-thermal effects",
    "Quality analysis indicates study design and implementation need significant improvement"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "5G",
    "millimeter waves",
    "mmWave",
    "6-100 GHz",
    "in vivo",
    "in vitro",
    "power density",
    "exposure duration",
    "non-thermal effects",
    "safety assessment"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.86,
      "reason": "Review explicitly addresses 5G-related frequencies (6–100 GHz) and health effects evidence base."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16183406
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library