Cell Towers
Solutions
The New Hampshire legislature is the first in the U.S. to investigate harm from cell towers, 5G and other EMF emissions. They issued a groundbreaking report documenting the harm and recommend 15 measures to transition away from toxic wireless exposures to superior connections via fiber-optics to and through the premises. Dr. Kent Chamberlin explains why they recommend a science-based minimum 500 meter/1,640 foot setback in this 20-minute video. His sides are included in the video description:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWK74ie7krc&t=220sSee Americans for Responsible Technology (ART) for sample zoning code and other resources to bring to your town's planning, zoning, city council, health and other boards to ensure your local bylaws are as protective as they can be:
www.americansforresponsibletech.org/tool-kit
To see if there are others in your area working toward responsible technology installations, see ART's Join a Group page:
www.americansforresponsibletech.org/join-a-groupIf there are not yet others listed in your area, see ART's Start a Group page:
www.americansforresponsibletech.org/start-a-groupDr. Cindy Russell, Executive Director of Physicians for Safe Technology, has produced short videos for citizens to share with their local towns, schools, legislators and loved ones to explain wireless risks. She has a 3-minute clip on cell towers:
Legal Liability
The following paper likens the wireless industry to others that have caused unintended human harm (e.g. tobacco). American companies are therefore ill advised to simply follow “regulatory compliance” on this front, as there appears to be a clear cause for concern in the scientific/medical communities. If causation were to be proven through detailed studies, cellular phone companies would potentially be in position of future legal exposure for causing widespread human health problems and premature death. It is, therefore, in American companies' best interest to act before government and regulation catches up with the science. Deployment of base stations should be kept as efficient as possible to minimize exposure of the public to RFR and should not be located less than 500m (1,640 feet) from the population, and at a height of 50m.
J.M. Pearce. Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. Environmental Research. Volume 181, 2020, 108845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108845.
Scientific Studies
The following studies indicate cell towers are biologically hazardous:
Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission from the Ramazzini Institute in Italy concludes, "The RI findings on far field exposure to RFR are consistent with and reinforce the results of the NTP study on near field exposure, as both reported an increase in the incidence of tumors of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague-Dawley rats." This study, partially funded by the U. S. government, is the first large-scale study to show clear evidence of cancer risk from cell towers.
Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations finds "adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations." (1,640 feet)
Association of Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Radiation (RF-EMFR) Generated by Mobile Phone Base Stations with Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus indicates, "It is concluded that exposure to high RF-EMFR generated by MPBS is associated with elevated levels of HbA1c".
The effect of Base Transceiver Station waves on some immunological and hematological factors in exposed persons identifies detrimental impacts on the blood and the immune system.
Effect of electromagnetic radiations from mobile phone base stations on general health and salivary function indicates, "A majority of the subjects who were residing near the mobile base station complained of sleep disturbances, headache, dizziness, irritability, concentration difficulties, and hypertension."
Exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation from mobile telephony and the association with psychiatric symptoms finds, "Exposure to electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations and other electronic devices was associated with psychiatric symptoms, independently of gender, schooling, and smoking status. The adoption of precautionary measures to reduce such exposure is recommended."
Health effects of living near mobile phone base transceiver station (BTS) antennae: a report from Isfahan, Iran concludes, "It is suggested that cellular phone BTS antenna should not be sited closer than 300 m to populations to minimize exposure of neighbors." (984 feet)
Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews.18: 369–395 reports, "Many biological effects have been documented at very low intensities comparable to what the population experiences within 200 to 500 ft (∼60–150 m) of a cell tower, including ... genetic, growth, and reproductive; increases in permeability of the blood–brain barrier; behavioral; molecular, cellular, and metabolic; and increases in cancer risk…." They define low-intensity exposure to radio frequency radiation as having a power density of less than or equal to 0.001 mW/cm2.
Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation concludes, "RF radiation should be regarded as a human carcinogen causing glioma."
See additional Cell Tower Health Effects studies posted by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley:
http://www.saferemr.com/2015/04/cell-tower-health-effects.htmlSee also, "Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC":
http://www.saferemr.com/2014/03/dept-of-interior-attacks-fcc-regarding.htmlReported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure summarizes the scientific studies in the Biolnitiative Report.
See also the page in this repository on 5G and the Internet of Things (IOT).
See also studies on the Environmental Health Trust website:
https://ehtrust.org/science/cell-towers-and-cell-antennae/compilation-of-research-studies-on-cell-tower-radiation-and-health/?fbclid=IwAR3zJ7pQF0CB5WmTbrS0lKYjsk_NsNDOBpES36LsHVozucudllc6bIyKz60
Radiation Experts
Ronald Powell, Ph.D., is a Harvard-trained physicist who retired from a career as a leading U.S. government scientist. He has written the following paper to help educate the public on The Health Argument Against Cell Phones and Cell Towers.
In 2000, T-Mobil, the German parent company of U.S. T-Mobile, commissioned a study with EMF experts to assess potential health effects. The Mobile Communications and Health report concluded there are many non-thermal biological effects well below public radiation exposure limit levels. They recommended specific precautionary measures should have been taken, but they were not and the industry continued to market hazardous products:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nZW1mc3xneDo3MTE4NThkYmY3NmUzMzc0Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D, at the University of California, Berkeley, offers these additional resources at his EMR Safety website:
Effects of Wireless Radiation on Birds and Other Wildlife
International EMF Scientist Appeal - also see https://emfscientist.org/
Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5G
5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?
5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects
Property Values
Studies show when cell towers go in, property values decline: https://ehtrust.org/?s=property+values
Fire and Disaster Risk
Three devastating fires in California have been started either in part or in whole by telecommunications equipment failures: Silverado, Woolsey and Malibu Canyon. Towns need to recognize the risk and codify zoning protections to forbid cell towers and small cells near residences:
https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/guest-commentary-is-5g-a-potential-fire-hazard/In 2019 the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) International in conjunction with the American National Standards Institute released the ANSI/APCO Public Safety Grade Site Hardening Requirements standard to ensure our public safety communications systems withstand man-made and natural disasters. These should be incorporated into communication zoning code in every community:
www.apcointl.org/~documents/standard/21061-2019-psg-site-hardening/?layout=default
Gap in Coverage
The FCC no longer accepts propagation maps as sufficient evidence for showing wireless coverage. Rather, they are asking for dropped call data or "hard data" to prove or disprove a gap in coverage. See the FCC Mobility Fund Phase II Coverage Maps Investigation Staff Report:
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-361165A1.pdf
Industry Influence
AntennaSearch.com enables one to enter an address in the U.S., and see a report showing the big macro cell antenna and cell tower installations within a three-mile radius; in some cases, like Boston, it will return only a one-mile radius because there are so many:
http://www.antennasearch.com/See also Ookla 5G Map for small cell installations in your area worldwide:
https://www.speedtest.net/ookla-5g-mapDespite the independent science showing biological effects, the industry continues to place 3G and 4G antennas in close proximity to the public. We see towers in neighborhoods, on school and community center grounds, playing fields, antennas on water towers and in church steeples.
The 3G and 4G bands of electromagnetic radiation spectrum are almost maxed out so the industry and FCC are planning their next steps.
The FCC and telecommunications industry is fast-tracking 5G/Internet of Things at the Federal and State levels. They are aiming to put cell tower antennas in at street level in our neighborhoods to provide the infrastructure for 5G (fifth-generation wireless technology) and the Internet of things (IoT).
What's the rush? The U.S. National Toxicology Program's $30M study has already reported wireless radiation causes DNA damage, brain and heart tumors. The industry is trying to get this toxic 5G infrastructure in place before the public catches on.
Longtime World Health Organization advisor Anthony B. Miller, M.D., confirmed in 2017 radiofrequency (RF) radiation from any source now fully meets the criteria to be classified as a “Group 1 carcinogenic to humans” agent: http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/cancer-expert-declares-cell-phone-and-wireless-radiation-as-carcinogenic-to-humans-849135.htm
On June 20, 2016 FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler indicated the priority with 5G is to be first to market, regardless of public health or safety. He states, "Unlike some countries, we do not believe we should spend the next couple of years studying what 5G should be, how it should operate, and how to allocate spectrum, based on those assumptions. Like the examples I gave earlier, the future has a way of inventing itself. Turning innovators loose is far preferable to expecting committees and regulators to define the future. We won’t wait for the standards to be first developed in the sometimes arduous standards-setting process or in a government-led activity." See his six-page speech below: https://www.fcc.gov/document/remarks-chairman-wheeler-future-wireless
This 2017 FCC press release indicates the goal is to remove 5G infrastructure barriers, despite public health hazards:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0420/DOC-344486A1.pdfThey are filing legislation to remove objections from cities and towns. Click here for details.
Fine Print legal notices warn against keeping devices on the body.
Harvard’s Captured Agency Report explains how the FCC has a long history of ignoring the science, placing corporate profit over public health. The Nation magazine in 2018 published a similar investigative report, How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation.
Cell Towers in Church Spires & On Buildings
The O'Dwyer Report covered the issue of cell towers in churches:
http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/9407/2017-09-18/church-spires-point-heaven-but-deliver-hell.htmlOne concerned resident was effective at educating her church on the risks of putting a cell tower in the local church tower, and together they came up with a plan to protect the community and help the church:
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/04/08/how-love-stopped-the-cell-tower/The following article indicates how industry targets building owners to offer revenue for leasing their rooftops for cell antennas:
https://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/Bricks-Bucks/Cell-Towers?fbclid=IwAR1rT6kedI6uZbEN_DK8vYUDEZUgPB9adgsky8jRWeHRTE4PXpfcW-zt42UJournalist Jesse Jones (844-775-3773) reports Seattle housing authority receives $1M for allowing industry to mount cell antennas on many of their buildings. A resident experiencing microwave sickness symptoms hired a building biologist who measured bedroom readings 16x higher than building biology hazard levels:
https://www.kiro7.com/video?videoId=847413590&videoVersion=1.0&fbclid=IwAR2dJlKgb-UDAnvBQvBJ3hA9dsJ0P8RMuS_4XAxs26s7VsUo4F4wCIRp42E
Schools Banning Cell Towers
In 2019, Sprint agreed to remove a cell tower from a school in Ripon, California after a cancer cluster developed with children, teachers and alumni:
https://mdsafetech.org/2019/03/25/cell-tower-to-be-removed-after-4th-ripon-student-diagnosed-with-cancer/?fbclid=IwAR2t1HSRv06Q1aXQqDcNTcSkuVxhYq0IveFNJDv8TcR0jufC111OxjitAqIThe Los Angeles Unified School District has adopted several Board resolutions that ban cell towers on or near school grounds:
http://emrpolicy.org/news/headlines/29may09_lausd_press_release.pdf
See the Environmental Health Trust for information to provide schools:
Communities Taking Action
Attorney Andrew Campanelli indicates the wireless industry provides disinformation to our towns and there are 20 legal strategies our municipalities can deploy legally to strengthen by-laws and put zoning protections in place. See 11-minute segment with the Pittsfield, MA Community Development Board:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF2XlZvxmPMThe Town of Burlington, Massachusetts proactively adopted a small cell policy in October 2018 and when they included a fee assessed on the telecom vendors for an annual recertification, the Verizon lawyer withdrew their applications for seven small cell systems:
Burlington Cable Access Television reported, "Verizon Drops Small Cell Wireless Booster Application in Face of Fees": http://www.bcattv.org/bnews/top-stories/verizon-drops-small-cell-wireless-booster-application-in-face-of-fees/
To see how the conversation went at the Board of Selectmen meeting, skip ahead to any of the following segments (other non-related items are covered at the beginning of the meeting):
94:19 Discussion of their small cell policy, which is approved unanimously; the woman on the right is the town's lawyer who provides good insights
113:50 Open public hearing on Verizon's seven small cell applications
147:39 Verizon lawyer withdraws their applications
http://www.bcattv.org/programming/government-channel/board-of-selectmen/board-of-selectmen-october-22-2018/
The town established a website to share with the public each of the small cell applications, letters of concern, staff comments and reports. These provide a view into what this process looks like when telecoms submit applications, how municipalities can retain control, and how citizens can engage in the process:
https://www.burlington.org/Search?searchPhrase=small%20cell
The local Burlington cable station, WBCAT TV, produced a 70-minute program called BNEWS In Depth: Potential Dangers of Wireless Tech; Burlington Small Cells Policy which can serve as an example for other communities to emulate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=JlJ0u8e7MMw
Citizens in Shelburne, MA worked with their town and adopted by-laws to include a 1,500' setback from residences and 3,000' setback from schools:
https://alpaca-chinchilla-x6xf.squarespace.com/s/A__Shelburne_Zoning_Bylaw_May_2018.pdfPhysicians for Safe Technology lists many communities that are putting protections in place:
https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-and-city-ordinances/Citizens in Monterey, California share their strategy for successfully rejecting cell towers: https://www.emfconsultant.com/-e2-80-a2--How-to-Reject-a-Tower.html
See also the 5G and IoT page for additional information.
Note: The information provided here is publicly available on the Internet.
It is intended to provide a starting point to inform you of EMF dangers.
Please do your own research, draw your own conclusions, and act accordingly to protect those you love.