Vaupotič, NinaGrellier, JamesMartin, LeanneDomènech Panicello, CarolaGoszczyńska, ElizaKojimahara, NorikoPolańska, KingaBauer, OscarMori, HirokoYamaguchi-Sekino, SachikoGuxens Junyent, MònicaWhite, Mathew P.2025-07-162025-07-162025Vaupotič N, Grellier J, Martin L, Domènech Panicello C, Goszczyńska E, Kojimahara N, et al. 5G technology, health and society: misconceptions, blind spots and insights from experts, non-experts, and self-identified electrosensitive individuals. J Risk Res. 2025 Jun 6. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2025.25120741366-9877http://hdl.handle.net/10230/70924Data de publicació electrònica: 06-06-2025The 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.application/pdfeng© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.info:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2025.25120745GMental modelsRisk perceptionRisk communicationRF-EMFElectrosensitive individualsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess