Behind 5G‘s Promise
5G was initially promoted with the promise of being “20 times faster than LTE.” But the reality fell short of public expectations. Three telecom companies were sanctioned for exaggerated advertisements, as the actual speed reached less than half of the theory. Additionally, the controversy over the potential health effects of 5G electromagnetic waves on the human body has caused anxiety and distrust, despite the absence of scientific evidence. Europe, the United States, and Japan are setting safety standards based on different regulatory philosophies, but Korea has yet to find a balance. In the race for faster speeds, what might we be overlooking.…….Ed
Promoters of 5G have advertised breakthroughs such as “up to 20 Gbps” and “20 times faster than LTE.” But these claims have been criticized as misleading, resulting in penalties for three major domestic telecom carriers. What exactly is 5G, and why did it provoke inflated expectations? 5G’s G stands for Generation, meaning a shift in the telecom era. In the 2010s, 4G (LTE) was the main technology driving mobile internet adoption. As data usage exploded, traditional technologies reached capacity, paving the way for the next generation: 5G. Advertised speeds of up to 20 times faster are theoretical; in Korea, real-world gains are more like about 2~5 times. While 4G propelled the mobile internet revolution with smartphone proliferation—enabling high-definition streaming, mobile payments, and more—5G promised to extend industrial connectivity for autonomous driving, smart cities, remote healthcare, and beyond. Today, 6G is in development with aims of ultra-high speed, ultra-low latency, and ultra-connectivity, even as 4G remains in widespread use due to its stability and ubiquity.
5G differs from earlier generations through three official International Telecommunication Union (ITU) goals:
1) enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) : provides ultra-fast data transfer to enable high-definition video streaming, Virtual Reality (VR) / Augmented Reality (AR) and other large-content services.
2) Ultra-Reliable and Low-Latency Communications (URLLC): reduces latency to 1 ms or less to support real-time control in applications like autonomous vehicles and remote surgery.
3) massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC): supports vast numbers of Internet of Things (IOT) devices connected to the network simultaneously.
To achieve these, a wider spectrum is allocated for 5G beyond 4G, including frequency bands[1] below 6GHz such as 3.5GHz and ultra-high-frequency millimeter-wa ve bands[2] like 28 GHz and 39 GHz, enabling faster transmission. Considerations also include unlicensed bands that can be used without government licensing, and how these frequency ranges interconnect.
As 5G deployment progresses, the potential applications are diverse: autonomous vehicles and smart transport infrastructure, large scale IoT, short radio reach, and indoor reception challenges due to millimeter-wave characteristics.
Debates over health and the environment of ElectroMagnetic Field (EMF) surrounding 5G have emerged. The discourse starts from the fact that 5G operates in non-ionizing radiation ranges from 410 MHz to 52.6 GHz.
[1] A frequency band is a specific range of radio frequencies allocated for a particular purpose (e.g., mobile communication). Different bands have different properties, such as range, building penetration, and potential data rates.
[2] Millimeter waves refer to radio waves with frequencies roughly from 30 GHz to 300 GHz, corresponding to wavelengths from about 1 to 10 millimeters. They offer very high data rates but have limited range and poorer penetration through obstacles compared with lower frequency bands.
EMF is harmful VS The fears are overstated
● Neurological concerns
Some studies have reported that exposure to microwave-range EMFs has been associated with fatigue, headaches, concentration difficulties, tinnitus, stress, irritability, and other neuropsychiatric symptoms, sometimes referred to as electromagnetic hypersensitivity. It is suggested that EMFs suppress melatonin and potentially raise the risk of depression.
● Millimeter-wave effects
Frontiers in Public Health study exposed mice to 28 GHz on their backs and tails, noting linear increases in skin temperature and heat dissipation responses. The tail is known to play a role in thermoregulation for animals lacking sweat glands. Other studies exposed rabbit eyes to 60 GHz for six minutes, reporting corneal swelling and dryness. However, translating these findings to humans is not straightforward.
● Non-ionizing radiation and the VGCC hypothesis
Biochemist Martin Pall has proposed that non-ionizing radiation[3] can excessively open voltage-gated calcium channels in cell membranes, increasing intracellular calcium, causing oxidative stress and cellular damage, suggesting non ionizing radiation can harm DNA through non-traditional pathways.
● Potential industry bias in the FCC
Critics argue that many safety regulation studies are funded by the very industries the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates, and FCC members have ties to the industry, raising concerns about impartial oversight.
● Lack of consistent evidence
World Health Organization (WHO) notes that there is currently no consistent evidence that 5G radio waves are harmful to human health.
● Measured results
WHO cites data from European Union (EU) measurements based on International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines and domestic measurements by the National Radio Research Agency in Korea, indicating that 5G EMF exposure levels generally fall within ICNIRP standards, often by factors of hundreds to one.
● Non-ionizing radiation is weak
Some argue that non-ionizing radiation lacks the energy to cause direct DNA breaks.
[3] Radiation whose photons have insufficient energy to remove tightly bound electrons from atoms, and thus cannot ionize atoms. This category includes radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, and some near-ultraviolet light.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency EMF as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’ in 2011, noting that some evidence suggested potential risks but causality had not been proven. IARC is currently reevaluating wireless radiation risks in 2025.
Ultimately, the 5G EMF debate centers on whether risks have been scientifically proven, alongside issues of information asymmetry and public trust in industry and regulators. Citizens are anxious about invisible electromagnetic waves, and distrust in the research and regulation conducted by the telecommunications industry and government agencies exacerbates the conflicts. We live day to day in close proximity to electronic devices such as transformers, fiber optic cables, and tablets. In daily life, we cannot be free from electromagnetic fields, regardless of our personal preferences. In particular, considering the increase in wireless frequencies like Wi-Fi and the rise of smartphone use, the number of mobile base stations has grown even more. Over the past century, our exposure to electromagnetic f ields has changed rapidly. These unprecedented changes in the human environment are sure to stir public concern.
Ultimately, the 5G EMF debate centers on whether risks have been scientifically proven, alongside issues of information asymmetry and public trust in industry and regulators. Citizens are anxious about invisible electromagnetic waves, and distrust in the research and regulation conducted by the telecommunications industry and government agencies exacerbates the conflicts. We live day to day in close proximity to electronic devices such as transformers, fiber optic cables, and tablets. In daily life, we personal preferences. In particular, considering the increase in wireless frequencies like Wi-Fi and the rise of smartphone use, the number of mobile base stations has grown even more. Over the past century, our exposure to electromagnetic fields has changed rapidly. These unprecedented changes in the human environment are sure to stir public concern.
While the long-term health impact of 5G remains unclear and the EMF controversy continues, reducing unnecessary exposure is reasonable.
Practical tips to minimize exposure:
● Use wired earphones or a speakerphone during calls.
● Avoid keeping a mobile phone at your bedside while sleeping.
● Limit prolonged calls when signal reception is poor (subway, elevator, etc.).
Global Standards Diverge: From the EU’s Precaution to the U.S. and Japan’s Own Paths
National regulations on electromagnetic radiation safety serve as a barometer for the direction of the 5G and 6G era. South Korea follows the standards set by the WHO and the ICNIRP for radiation emitted from base stations and mobile devices. In contrast, the EU, the United States, and Japan have established their own regulatory systems tailored to their respective technological and industrial environments.
For instance, several European countries strictly limit base station density and transmission power to minimize radiation exposure, emphasizing the precautionary principle. This principle, central to EU regulatory philosophy, dictates that even in the absence of complete scientific certainty, governments should take preventive action if there is a potential risk to human health or the environment.
France, for example, temporarily restricted the installation of 5G base stations near schools and childcare facilities and enabled local governments to independently monitor radiation levels. Similarly, Italy applies stricter exposure limits than ICNIRP standards in densely populated areas and mandates prior consultations with residents before approving new base stations.
These measures reflect a social consensus rooted in the belief that “It is better to be cautious until safety is conclusively proven.” Rather than prioritizing short-term communication performance, the EU focuses on long-term public health and environmental preservation.
The United States, on the other hand, prioritizes technological progress and adopts an industry-led, self-regulatory model for building 5G and future 6G networks. The FCC maintains exposure limits close to international standards but has eased detailed restrictions on base station installation to accelerate network expansion. Instead, it strengthens corporate responsibility for safety verification and operates a public database where citizens can access radiation information. This transparency-centered approach aims to balance technological innovation with public trust—a hallmark of the American regulatory philosophy.
Japan maintains a more conservative, government-driven regulatory framework. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) regularly measures and discloses radiation levels at all base stations, issuing immediate corrective orders when standards are exceeded. Japan has also introduced Low Power Transmission technology to minimize exposure in densely populated urban areas. In addition, the government operates local telecommunication safety review committees, involving residents and municipalities to foster public confidence.
While these countries pursue different regulatory paths, they share a common goal: balancing scientific validation and civic participation to ensure that safety keeps pace with technological advancement.
Korea’s Struggle for Balance and the Growing Digital Divide
In comparison, experts point out that South Korea’s safety standards remain relatively lenient given its rapid industrial growth. One expert warned “Without public consensus on electromagnetic safety, the push for faster expansion may cause greater social conflict during 6G commercialization.”
The rapid expansion of 5G has deepened the digital divide across society. Expensive 5G data plan prices, high device costs, and uneven infrastructure development have left many users still reliant on 4G networks. This demonstrates that technological progress does not automatically equate to social progress.
The political sphere is also responding. Recently, the ‘Eco-Friendly Radio Wave Utilization Act’ was proposed, highlighting the need to reduce radiation emissions and revise safety standards. The government has emphasized the environmental impact of replacing communication equipment and expanding radio use during the nationwide 5G rollout.
In 2024, South Korea introduced a new regulation to reduce the transmission power of base stations in specific frequency bands. Although the policy faced opposition from telecom companies concerned about service quality, the Ministry of Science and ICT stated that “In the long run, this will enhance public confidence in electromagnetic safety and strengthen the foundation for 6G deployment.”
Beyond Speed: Building a Safe and Sustainable Future
“We cannot move to 6G without first evaluating 5G.” This statement encapsulates the current state of the telecommunications industry. Technology is advancing rapidly, yet discussions on safety, policy, and public trust are still lagging behind.
The forthcoming 6G era calls for balanced progress, where industrial efficiency and innovation coexist with public safety and social consensus. Governments, corporations, and civil society must continue joint research on radiation effects, ensure transparent data sharing, and expand international cooperation.
Ultimately, the journey to 6G is not just a technological endeavor. Its success must rest on human-centered values and public safety, not merely industrial achievement.
Currently, major global economies have set around 2030 as the target year for 6G commercialization. Building on its experience as the first nation to commercialize 5G, South Korea has already launched a national roadmap for 6G core technology, focusing on ultra-high speed, ultra-low latency, and massive connectivity.
However, several challenges remain—efficient spectrum allocation, energy efficiency, cybersecurity, and integration with satellite-based communication systems among them. Above all, trust-based commercialization will be key. Rather than rushing toward higher speeds, the 6G era must begin with verified safety, environmental responsibility, and social acceptance.
The future of 6G will not depend solely on how fast technology can evolve, but on how well society is prepared to adapt to that speed.
Kim Hee-nu (ST Reporter)
heennx@soongsil.ac.kr
Park Seo-won (ST Reporter)
sparkttha1@soongsil.ac.kr