5G technology, health and society: misconceptions, blind spots and insights from experts, non-experts, and self-identified electrosensitive individuals

The fifth-generation telecommunications standard (5G) offers advantages over previous standards (3 G/4G) such as faster data transfer, lower latency, enhanced network capacity, and increased bandwidth. Implementation of 5G requires construction of new infrastructure and the standard allows the use of higher radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). These changes have sparked concerns about potential negative effects on human health and society, but perceptions and knowledge of these vary among different groups, which has implications for communication. Using the mental models approach to risk communication (MMARC), we conducted semi-structured interviews to compare knowledge and perceptions of experts (N = 10), non-experts (N = 22), and self-identified electrosensitive (EHS) individuals (N = 3), with the objective of elucidating (1) what non-experts and EHS individuals do not know or misunderstand about the impacts of 5G, and (2) what misconceptions and ‘blind spots’ experts have regarding the perspectives of non-experts and EHS individuals. Non-experts often lacked technical knowledge about 5G and were unfamiliar with current safety standards. EHS individuals, in contrast to other non-experts, were better informed about technical aspects such as frequencies and infrastructure. Some non-experts believed that 5G could harm their health, but most reported not thinking about these effects very often. Non-experts also questioned their agency (ability to choose) in using smartphones and the need for the continued evolution of mobile phone technology; experts addressed these topics less frequently. Contrary to the experts’ expectations, non-experts focused equally on antennas/base stations and mobile phones when considering sources of RF-EMF. While experts felt that information about the effects of 5G is available, non-experts wanted to be better informed but felt this information is not readily accessible. These findings underscore the importance of building trust, addressing knowledge gaps, and considering the broader context of public concerns when communicating about impacts of 5G.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Risk Research
Published
2025-06-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2025.2512074
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.20
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

5G technology, health and society: misconceptions, blind spots and insights from experts, non-experts, and self-identified electrosensitive individuals

Oscar Bauer, Leanne Martin, Mathew P. White, Nina Vaupotič et al.
1 citations
Journal of Risk Research
Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
1.20
article

5G technology, health and society: misconceptions, blind spots and insights from experts, non-experts, and self-identified electrosensitive individuals

Oscar Bauer, Leanne Martin, Mathew P. White, Nina Vaupotič, Sachiko Yamaguchi‐Sekino, Noriko Kojimahara, James Grellier, Mònica Guxens, Harushi Mori, Eliza Goszczyńska, Kinga Polańska, Carola Domènech Panicello
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The fifth-generation telecommunications standard (5G) offers advantages over previous standards (3 G/4G) such as faster data transfer, lower latency, enhanced network capacity, and increased bandwidth. Implementation of 5G requires construction of new infrastructure and the standard allows the use of higher radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). These changes have sparked concerns about potential negative effects on human health and society, but perceptions and knowledge of these vary among different groups, which has implications for communication. Using the mental models approach to risk communication (MMARC), we conducted semi-structured interviews to compare knowledge and perceptions of experts (N = 10), non-experts (N = 22), and self-identified electrosensitive (EHS) individuals (N = 3), with the objective of elucidating (1) what non-experts and EHS individuals do not know or misunderstand about the impacts of 5G, and (2) what misconceptions and ‘blind spots’ experts have regarding the perspectives of non-experts and EHS individuals. Non-experts often lacked technical knowledge about 5G and were unfamiliar with current safety standards. EHS individuals, in contrast to other non-experts, were better informed about technical aspects such as frequencies and infrastructure. Some non-experts believed that 5G could harm their health, but most reported not thinking about these effects very often. Non-experts also questioned their agency (ability to choose) in using smartphones and the need for the continued evolution of mobile phone technology; experts addressed these topics less frequently. Contrary to the experts’ expectations, non-experts focused equally on antennas/base stations and mobile phones when considering sources of RF-EMF. While experts felt that information about the effects of 5G is available, non-experts wanted to be better informed but felt this information is not readily accessible. These findings underscore the importance of building trust, addressing knowledge gaps, and considering the broader context of public concerns when communicating about impacts of 5G.

Journal of Risk Research
Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ES), University of Vienna (AT), Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (ES), Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES), Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine (PL), University of Exeter (GB), Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ES), Erasmus MC (NL), Complexity Science Hub (AT), Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ES), Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (ES), National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (JP), Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 22%
Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
1.20
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.