5G EMF Exposure at 3.6 GHz in Greece Using Data From Frequency-Selective Monitoring Sensors

Bioelectromagnetics · 2025 · Unclear · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

UnclearModerate evidencePaper 2640

Study snapshot

PublicationBioelectromagnetics · 2025

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Category: Epidemiology Tags: 5G, electromagnetic fields, environmental monitoring, exposure assessment, 3.6 GHz, power density, Greece DOI: 10.1002/bem.70008 URL: onlinelibrary.wiley.com Overview The rollout of 5G networks has led to heightened public scrutiny about potential shifts in environmental electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure levels. This study presents an in-depth analysis of two years’ worth of continuous EMF monitoring data from 13 frequency-selective sensors situated in the five largest cities in Greece, with a special focus on the 3.6 GHz frequency band. Findings - Trends: EMF exposure at the 3.6 GHz band showed a gradual increase, in parallel with the expansion of 5G infrastructure and user device adoption. - Variability: This band displayed notably higher maximum-to-median power density ratios compared to legacy cellular bands. This is attributed to specific characteristics of active antenna systems and fluctuations in network traffic. - Averaging Effects: Utilizing 30-minute averaged values, as recommended by the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines, reduced the observed variations in EMF exposure significantly. - Safety & Compliance: All recorded EMF measurements—including maximum observed values—remained well below both Greek and international (ICNIRP) reference safety levels. - Week-to-Week Variability: In the 3.6 GHz band, maximum 6-min averages were up to 12 times higher than weekly median values. However, median E-field values at this band were still lower than those of former networks (2G, 3G, 4G). Conclusion This study demonstrates a clear, ongoing increase in EMF levels in the 3.6 GHz range, closely aligned with 5G deployment. The greater week-to-week variability at this band underscores the need for comprehensive, continuous EMF monitoring to ensure prudent assessment of compliance and safety, especially when utilizing spot or short-term measurements. Although detected values remain far below legal safety thresholds, the upward trend and increased variability highlight the importance of maintaining vigilant EMF monitoring networks and considering potential health risks as exposure changes over time. The study recommends broadening the current measurement network to capture evolving EMF trends associated with new technologies.

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 typeexposure_assessment

Effect directionunclear

PopulationNot supplied

Sample size13

ExposureRF · 3600 MHz · Two years of continuous monitoring; analyses include 6-min, 30-min, and weekly metrics

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Using two years of continuous data from 13 frequency-selective sensors in five large Greek cities, EMF exposure at 3.6 GHz increased gradually alongside 5G rollout. The 3.6 GHz band showed higher variability than legacy cellular bands, with maximum 6-min averages up to 12× weekly medians; 30-min averaging (ICNIRP 2020) reduced observed variation. All measurements, including maxima, remained well below Greek and ICNIRP reference safety levels, and median E-field values at 3.6 GHz were lower than those of 2G/3G/4G.

Outcomes measured

Environmental EMF exposure levels at 3.6 GHz
Power density variability (maximum-to-median ratios)
Temporal trends in exposure (increase over time)
Compliance with Greek and ICNIRP reference levels
Effect of averaging time (30-min vs shorter averaging)

Limitations

Health outcomes were not assessed (monitoring/exposure study only).
Results are based on 13 sensors in the five largest cities in Greece; generalizability beyond these locations is not stated.
Exposure metrics depend on averaging choices (e.g., 6-min vs 30-min), which affect variability estimates.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "5G base station (environmental monitoring)",
    "frequency_mhz": 3600,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "Two years of continuous monitoring; analyses include 6-min, 30-min, and weekly metrics"
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": 13,
  "outcomes": [
    "Environmental EMF exposure levels at 3.6 GHz",
    "Power density variability (maximum-to-median ratios)",
    "Temporal trends in exposure (increase over time)",
    "Compliance with Greek and ICNIRP reference levels",
    "Effect of averaging time (30-min vs shorter averaging)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Using two years of continuous data from 13 frequency-selective sensors in five large Greek cities, EMF exposure at 3.6 GHz increased gradually alongside 5G rollout. The 3.6 GHz band showed higher variability than legacy cellular bands, with maximum 6-min averages up to 12× weekly medians; 30-min averaging (ICNIRP 2020) reduced observed variation. All measurements, including maxima, remained well below Greek and ICNIRP reference safety levels, and median E-field values at 3.6 GHz were lower than those of 2G/3G/4G.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Health outcomes were not assessed (monitoring/exposure study only).",
    "Results are based on 13 sensors in the five largest cities in Greece; generalizability beyond these locations is not stated.",
    "Exposure metrics depend on averaging choices (e.g., 6-min vs 30-min), which affect variability estimates."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "5G",
    "3.6 GHz",
    "Greece",
    "environmental monitoring",
    "frequency-selective sensors",
    "exposure assessment",
    "power density",
    "ICNIRP 2020",
    "30-minute averaging",
    "compliance"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.86,
      "reason": "Abstract explicitly discusses ICNIRP 2020 averaging recommendations and compliance with ICNIRP reference levels."
    },
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.72,
      "reason": "Focuses on 5G rollout-related changes in environmental exposure and monitoring for compliance/safety."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1002/bem.70008
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library