Wi-Fi, 3G, 4G, 5G: Dangerous Radiation Yes or No?

Which radiation is more harmful to health, those emitted by 3 /4 / 5G mobile networks, Bluetooth devices or a Wi-Fi router? Here is the truth.

Today we are surrounded by devices that emit electromagnetic waves: smartphones, TVs, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth headsets and so on. Anything that uses a network, be it WLAN, 3G or LTE / 4G, is “potentially dangerous” for health … But is it really like that? And above all, which of these radio frequencies we use daily can expose us to greater risks? We make clarity.

Radiation of Smartphones: Which Waves do more Harm?

Today there are 3 transmission standards for mobile: GSM ( 2G ), UMTS ( 3G ) and LTE ( 4G ), which differ substantially in speed, which increases as the generation increases.

The frequencies used are the following:

  • 2G – between 900 and 1,800 MHz
  • 3G – between 1900 and 2.170 MHz
  • LTE / 4G – between 800 and 2600 MHz

No technology of those mentioned causes harmful radiation as it is non-ionizing electromagnetic waves, that is, they do not ionize the medium through which they pass and do not alter the molecules.

The only effect on the human body is heating, but the levels of exposure are so low that they can not be considered risky.

Furthermore, it should be noted that radiofrequency devices, in order to be placed on the market, must respect the maximum exposure levels so as not to incur health risks. These requirements are 8 Watts/kg for the body and 2 Watts/kg for body parts such as the head.


The Wi-Fi devices we find on the market take advantage of the 2.4 and 5 GHz frequency bands to exchange data and information packets. The factor at stake, if we talk about health dangers, could at most be the power, but we consider that the signal emitted by a Wi-Fi router is about 100 milliwatt and that even at normal operating distances the signal strength is so low not to be a cause for concern.


Now the technology goes to the wireless direction and more and more accessories and wireless devices (think of Apple’s AirPods ), but the brands have every interest to lower the power of emissions as much as possible to preserve battery consumption.

As for Bluetooth devices, the power used is too low and the minimum energy impact “to be able to damage any biological tissue with the mechanisms known to us at present. If it were risky for health it should be in ways that no one has ever imagined, “said John Moulder, a radiation expert biologist at the University of Wisconsin. Bluetooth uses a frequency of waves very similar to that of Wi-Fi, but we can consider it more a “Wi-Fi light” and therefore even more harmless.

The Bluetooth devices sold by Apple have an output of 10-18 milliwatts, and less than 1% of this energy comes in the form of electromagnetic radiation, a more than insignificant amount compared to that which is exposed by placing the smartphone to the ear. Even recent research by the International Agency for Cancer Research has concluded that the more a device is away from its head the less harmful it is, but there is no definitive study in this regard and the results often come to antithetical conclusions.

And the 5G?

The 5G network is being tested and 2019 will be a crucial year. The first to test the new standard for mobile communication that will allow hyperlocal uploads and downloads and the interconnection of IoT devices in Italy is San Marino.

The 5G will use the maximum frequency spectrum possible and never used so far, ie radio waves between 30 and 300 GHz. The alarms about the risks to human health are not lacking, but despite several pseudoscientific studies, there is currently no real evidence on the harmfulness of 5G. Even in the case of 5G, in fact, the frequencies have a very low intensity to have ionizing effects on biological tissues. The waves used by the 5G have more difficulty penetrating through the air and the walls, and this therefore also applies to organic tissues. All the arguments about the dangers of 5G have no scientific evidence and can, therefore, be consigned to the field of buffaloes.

Leave a Comment