In a sealed lab at Constructor University in Germany, scientists blasted human skin cells with electromagnetic waves far beyond what your typical cellphone tower could ever emit. Then they waited. Hours ticked by. Days passed. When they finally examined the cells under the lens of whole-genome analysis, they found… nothing unusual at all.
“We see with great clarity that even under worst-case conditions, no significant changes in gene expression or methylation patterns are observed after exposure,” the research team wrote in a new study published this week in PNAS Nexus.
Their work is the most rigorous test yet of one of the most persistent myths of modern life: that 5G wireless signals — the lifeblood of our ever-faster phones — might be damaging our cells or even scrambling our DNA. It’s a conspiracy theory that particularly caught steam during the pandemic.
The true answer, it seems, is a clear and resounding no.
A High-Tech Conspiracy Theory Put to Rest
During the COVID-19 pandemic, rumors started circulating claiming a connection between 5G towers and viral infections. These ricocheted across the internet. Some people even set cell towers on fire. Suffice it to say that it was all a myth. At the root of that panic is the deep anxiety that the invisible force of wireless radiation might somehow affect our bodies.
While scientists have long held that the low-energy radio waves used by phones can’t cause ionizing damage — the kind that leads to mutations or cancer — studies on higher-frequency waves, like those used in the new 5G bands, were still sparse.
This new study aimed to change that.
Led by molecular biologist Vivian Meyer and colleagues, the team exposed two types of human skin cells — keratinocytes and fibroblasts — to electromagnetic fields at 27 and 40.5 GHz. These frequencies are significantly higher than those currently used by most 5G networks, and penetrate just 0.039 inches (1 mm) into the skin.
<!– Tag ID: zmescience_300x250_InContent_3
–>
To stress-test the system, the researchers cranked up the power to 10 times above the safety limits recommended for the general public. They also monitored the cells over two exposure windows: a short 2-hour blast, and a prolonged 48-hour soak.
They found nothing of concern.
Peering Deep Into the Genome
The researchers deployed state-of-the-art methods: whole-genome RNA sequencing to measure changes in gene activity, and DNA methylation arrays to check for epigenetic shifts — chemical changes that can influence which genes turn on or off.
Despite their exhaustive tests, neither method revealed consistent patterns that could be traced to 5G exposure.
“There is no indication that gene expression or DNA methylation was altered,” the authors wrote. Even the few genes that showed minor changes in activity “could most likely not be confirmed” through additional validation.
To rule out chance, the researchers used a clever statistical trick: they reshuffled the exposure labels hundreds of times and checked whether the supposed ‘signal’ of gene disruption stood out compared to random assignments. It didn’t.
Only the positive controls — cells exposed to ultraviolet light — showed expected changes, like bursts of inflammation-related genes or signals of heat stress. In contrast, the cells in the actual 5G test groups remained eerily calm.
Why Heat Matters — and What This Study Got Right
The scientists had to compensate for temperature changes during exposure. That matters because intense electromagnetic fields can heat tissues, and some prior studies that reported effects from radio waves failed to properly account for this.
In fact, several of the earlier studies that have stoked public fears suffered from major flaws: no temperature control, poor blinding, or opaque statistics.
“Previous studies have faced criticism for methodological shortcomings, including lack of blinding, temperature control, and transparent statistical methods,” the researchers explained.
In this study, the experimental design was double-blinded. Temperature was monitored with fiber-optic probes. The exposure chambers were engineered to ensure that even subtle changes in warmth didn’t confound the results.
By ruling out thermal effects, the researchers say their data “cast fundamental doubt on the existence of possible nonthermal biological effects” of 5G.
So, Should We Stop Worrying?
The idea that wireless signals might harm us is not new. Public concern dates back to the early days of radio and radar. That’s more than a century-old tech. In recent decades, similar fears have attached to power lines, cell towers, and now 5G.
In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic,” a category that also includes pickled vegetables and talcum powder. That classification, however, was based on limited evidence, and primarily from lower-frequency exposures.
Since then, large studies — including those by the U.S. National Toxicology Program — have looked for signs of harm from mobile phones and found at most weak or inconclusive links. This new study adds a powerful counterpoint, especially given its focus on the higher-frequency bands being deployed for next-generation networks.
The authors don’t claim their work ends the discussion entirely — but it does mark a major advance.
“These results will contribute to counteracting the uncertainties with well-founded facts,” they wrote.
As the researchers note, “The quantum energies of 5G frequencies are far too low to have photochemical or ionizing effects.” In other words, they can’t break bonds in your DNA. They barely get past your skin.
In the end, the researchers hope this study will cool the firestorm of misinformation.