For Municipal Leaders

This page is designed for public servants such as selectmen, town managers, mayors, governors, state representative, senators, zoning boards, planning boards, building inspectors, public health agents, school administrators, librarians, senior center directors and others in whose hands the public has entrusted their welfare.
  • For an overview of the wireless radiation issue, you are welcome to see a presentation to a four-town board in Massachusetts. My talk begins at 3:27. Post-note: two of the towns have since adopted the Burlington, MA Small Cell Policy (discussed further down the page):
  • The following document provides links to the resources presented. Please feel free to share widely:

The Issue: Wireless Technology is Biologically Hazardous

In 2018 the U.S. National Toxicology Program reported findings from a 16-year $30M study on wireless radiation, specifically, 2G and 3G cell phone radiation on rodents. Similar findings have been reported in 4G studies as well. Here are key facts to know:
  • The particular rodents chosen mimic what happens in humans at the cellular level. 

  • Cell phone technology uses the same microwave spectrum radiation as all wireless devices, so what is reported in the NTP study holds true for wireless routers, laptops, tablets, printers, mice, Bluetooth, wireless earbuds, baby monitors, gaming devices, sound boards, virtual reality goggles, wearables, internet-of-things, utility "smart" meters, cell towers, small cells and everything else that is transmitting data wirelessly. 

  • 2G and 3G transmitted fewer data packets than what we have today with 4G, and soon 5G. This means whatever the NTP study finds with 2G and 3G will be intensified with today's faster technology. Some will say today's technology uses less power, which may be true, but it is not just the power level that is harmful. It is the nature of the signal. It is a spiked, pulsed, erratic square wave riding on top of the carrier wave. It is this pulsed signal peak hitting our biological cells constantly that is causing the damage.

  • Our current FCC guidelines for public exposure to wireless radiation are based on the thermal effect, a theory that holds you must have enough heat to raise the temperature of the skin in order for there to be any harm. The NTP scientists did preliminary studies to see at what exposure level the temperature rose in the rodents, then they conducted the rest of the studies at levels below the thermal threshold. 

  • The scientists went in expecting they would find no evidence of harm at the non-thermal level. In their peer-reviewed findings, they instead found statistically significant DNA damage, brain and heart tumors. In the control rodents, they didn't. 

  • Hear directly from NTP study designer Senior Toxicologist Dr. Ronald Melnick on why we can no longer assume any wireless technology is safe without proper testing in advance.

  • Cancer and DNA damage are just the tip of the iceberg. See the Science page for an understanding of other chronic diseases and short-term exposure effects found in thousands of other peer-reviewed studies all over the world. These include infertility, autism, Alzheimer's, insomnia, chronic fatigue, headaches, nausea, tinnitus, tachycardia, skin rashes, bloody noses/ears, digestive issues, cognitive impairment, learning and memory problems, behavior issues, and more.

  • The science shows the developing brains, nervous system, bones and immune system of children and fetuses are particularly vulnerable to wireless radiation. The elderly and anyone with an existing health condition are at greater risk too. 
Why We Don't Know
The telecommunications industry brought wireless technology to market with no safety testing:
  • The guidelines that govern exposure were set in 1996 based only on heat exposure from one device. They are not standards, just guidelines.

  • The guidelines were formed by engineers based only on the thermal effect for 30 minutes of exposure from one wireless antenna.

  • Scientists and doctors who understand the biological impact of electromagnetic radiation on living cells were not consulted.

  • The guidelines have never been updated to account for the multiple antennas, devices and transmission towers constantly emitting radiation around us today.

  • The guidelines do not account for long-term radiation accumulation effects in our bodies.

  • The guidelines were set based on a model of a military man in the 90th percentile of fitness; they were never set for children, fetuses and women who absorb more radiation due to their smaller sizes, nor were they tested for the elderly or those with existing health conditions.

  • In 2012 the Government Accountability Office instructed the FCC to "formally reassess the current RF energy exposure limit, including its effects on human health" and they failed to do so even after hundreds of public comments demonstrating harm were sent in from leading scientists, doctors, the American Academy of Pediatrics and others. 

  • After the NTP study results were released, the FDA, which commissioned the study, should have invoked the precautionary principle and warned the public but instead tried to downplay them. Dr. Jeffrey Shuren of the FDA told the FCC the public radiation exposure guidelines do not need to be changed. It turns out Dr. Shuren is married to a partner in a law firm that represents the wireless industry, and FCC chairman Ajit Pai is a former senior lawyer for Verizon. 

  • The FCC failed to do its own due diligence on the safety guidelines and formally closed the reassessment docket. See the Legal Issues page for lawsuits subsequently filed against the FCC by the Environmental Health Trust and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Children's Defense Fund.

  • In 2000,T-Mobil, the German parent company of T-Mobile, commissioned the Mobile Communications and Health study which identified 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:

  • In 2015, Harvard University's Law School Center for Ethics published a report that chronicles how our government is protecting corporate profit over public health: Captured Agency, How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates.

  • The same industries that lobbied to get laws passed to protect their financial interests also purchase much of our media advertising. The media channels do not do true investigative journalism on wireless radiation as it could hurt their revenues, so the public is only told of the benefits of wireless radiation but not the biological hazards. It took a lawsuit to force the California Department of Public Health to release a long-suppressed fact sheet on cell phone radiation. CBS Evening News finally covered that story so there is hope the public may be informed yet.

  • Please see the Manufacturers page for additional information.
What This Means at the Municipal Level

Unfortunately, without balanced information in the media, our municipal leaders didn't know any better when industry offered financial incentives to implement their products:
  • We allowed cell tower, pole and building antennas to be installed, which expose our citizens to wireless radiation 24/7/365. See the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health article on cell towers which states, "We found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations." See the Cell Towers page for more.

  • We allowed wireless systems to be installed inside our public buildings, including schools, libraries, senior centers, town halls, public safety buildings and recreational areas. This means citizens cannot access public services without being exposed to hazardous radiation. See papers finding adverse biological effects or damage to health from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz).

  • Some allowed utility "smart" meters to be installed on homes and businesses. This sets the infrastructure for the "smart" grid and Internet of Things (IOT). These devices emit toxic radiation 24/7/365 and also pose privacy and security issues. These meters leave us with no place to go for our bodies to cell repair and regenerate while we sleep. Some feel the impact with disrupted sleep, anxiety, depression, anger and other symptoms sooner rather than later. The biological damage accumulates causing long-term damage as well. See the Utility "Smart" Meters page.

  • The industry is now pushing hard to install infrastructure for 5G and the Internet of Things (IoT) without regard for health impacts, and aims to take away local municipal control. Applications are being submitted for "small cells" and "distributed antenna systems (DAS)". In some instances applications are bypassed and antennas are placed on wires, underground, under manhole covers and elsewhere. Each small cell comes with a refrigerator-sized power supply on the ground with hazardous chemical-laden batteries that can explode in fires, crashes, etc.

  • Please note, in 2004 the International Association of Fire Fighters adopted a formal Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions. They oppose them, "until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members." They reaffirmed that stance in California's 2017 Senate Bill 649 which would take away municipal home rule to place more wireless infrastructure in our communities, on poles in the public rights of way, at street level every 4 to 12 homes. They included an exemption in the bill: Section 2 "65964.2. (a)...(3) The small cell is not located on a fire department facility." Every citizen should have the same protections.

  • The insurance industry recognizes wireless radiation as a leading risk. Lloyd's of London and others have put exclusions in their policies which may leave our municipalities legally responsible for damages from fires, loss of health and property devaluation due to the close proximity of cell antennas to homes, workplaces and schools. Here is one example: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion ... is applied across the market as standard.” The exclusion includes: “Bodily injury, property damage, or personal and advertising injury.....provided that such injury or damage results from or is contributed to by the pathological properties of electromagnetic radiation.” CFC Underwriting, UK agent for Lloyd’s of London. See Legal Issues for more information.
What the Industry Will Say

The industry will provide information that on the surface seems to make sense, but there is more to the story. Here is what our public leaders will hear, and what else they should know:
  • Wireless radiation has never been proven harmful, and more studies are needed. Profit-centered industries often use the tobacco industry playbook to create doubt and suppress evidence of harm. Many studies have been funded and designed by the industry to create conditions that will show no harm thereby creating doubt for the public so they will keep buying wireless technology. The Science and Cancers pages show the non-industry funded studies that prove wireless technology can cause cancer and other diseases. We have enough evidence of harm from independent scientists to take action to protect our citizens. With lead, we had over 10,000 studies done before our government took action to protect the public. With electromagnetic radiation, we have over 25,000 already.

  • Electromagnetic radiation is a natural occurrence. Yes, but man-made radiation goes far beyond our bodies' and our planets' natural load, to the 18th power higher. Not only are these signals interfering with our biological functions, they are also interfering with the navigation signals of our birds, bees and other living organisms. See the Planetary Impact page.

  • We have had man-made signals for a long time with no problem, including radio and TV. Yes, but digital technology works differently. Regular radio and TV signals are carried on a continuous sine wave that our bodies can generally acclimate to unless we happen to be near the broadcast tower or have developed electrosensitivity (see Electrosensitivity page). With digital technology, there is a square wave that rides along on the rolling sine wave. This square wave carries digital data in short, sharp, erratic bursts of pulsed electromagnetic radiation. It is this pulsed radiation that is damaging to our cells. See Dr. Martin Pall's lecture on the Science page. See also the page For Engineers and Physicists.

  • The radiation drops off with distance so it's not a problem in our schools and buildings. While the inverse proportion law of physics is true, it does not tell the whole story with wireless radiation. These digital signals are designed to go through walls, ceilings, floors and our bodies to make a connection between a device and a router/wireless access point or a cell tower. The radiation is most concentrated at the emitting source, so distance is your friend, but the disbursed radiation is still doing damage to our cells via the erratic, pulsed data packets traveling through the air, plus from the pulsing antennas in the devices with which the tower is connecting. It's a two-way microwave radiation system.

  • The public exposure is far below the FCC guidelines. Those guidelines only represent the thermal level and were never safety tested. They do not account for the non-thermal, non-ionizing, low-level effects of wireless radiation. They also do not account for the combined toxic load from many simultaneous exposures, nor do they account for effects on vulnerable populations including fetuses, children, the elderly and those with known health compromises. The FCC allows manufacturers to produce products that emit radiation thousands of times greater than where the Science proves biological effects. See the Manufacturers page.

  • The World Health Organization (WHO) puts wi-fi radiation in the same category as coffee and pickles. The WHO does not lightly place toxins in the Group 2B Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans category. There are set protocols to follow. There are certain Asian populations that developed cancer from eating a particular type of pickled vegetable so it belongs in this category due to the formaldehyde used in the pickling process. Coffee has been removed from this category and was there because of the chemicals used to grow coffee in the past. Also in the 2B Group are lead, chloroform, gasoline, diesel exhaust, BPA, thalidomide and many other toxic chemicals to which we would not expose our children or ourselves. We have safety guidelines around those, but at this point in history we do not yet have safety protocols for wireless radiation.

    Also worth noting, some of the experts who sat on the WHO's committee to assess wireless radiation in 2011 are now calling for it to be escalated to a known carcinogen based on subsequent scientific findings. The composition of the WHO committee has changed since 2011. The committee is now heavily weighted by those with industry affiliations, and is underrepresented by independent EMF scientists. More than 220 of our world's top scientists signed an appeal to the WHO and the United Nations to protect the public from wireless radiation in 2015 and nothing has been done. The scientists and authors of the BioInitiative Report in late 2016 submitted a letter of no confidence to the WHO, indicating the WHO EMF committee is industry biased and the members do not have the scientific, medical or public health credentials necessary to establish public safety. The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection issued a similar letter in March 2017.

    In 2017, the International Journal of Oncology published a report explaining the WHO has conflicts of interest with industry and does not plan to take action to protect the public from non-thermal electromagnetic radiation, even though the scientific and epidemiological evidence of harm is well documented:

  • Experienced telecom lawyer Andrew Campanelli indicates the industry provides our towns with fraudulent information to lead them to believe they have no recourse. He has taken more than 7,000 individual and municipal cases and won 75-80%. See this one-hour interview to learn what is legal and what questions to ask to protect our towns:

  • Our health and that of our children and planet cannot wait for public policy to catch up to the science though as the harm is happening in real-time so it behooves us all to come up to speed on this issue and do what we can from where we are.

  • The policy paper, Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks," details why the U.S. and our communities should instead invest in hard-wired telecommunications infrastructure to support economic growth, bridge the digital divide and diminish risks to security, privacy, public health and the environment.

  • See the paper, "Building science and radiofrequency radiation: What makes smart and healthy buildings" written by retired Microsoft Canada President Frank Clegg with leading EMF scientists and medical doctors:

  • Our municipalities can help educate the utility companies and ask for non-radiation emitting utility devices/meters. Many of the line workers, engineers and management teams are not aware of the hazards to which they are exposed daily.

  • The International Institute for Bau-biologie® & Ecology provides Standard of Building Biology Testing Methods (SBM 2008-C). In it you will see specific biologically based recommendations for Radiofrequency Radiation as well as the ELFs from power lines, etc., and other hazardous exposures.

  • Opt for hard-wired technology access, via fiber-optics or high speed cable and copper to the premises, using Ethernet cables inside with wi-fi turned off in all public buildings.

  • Industry-led solutions don't have to be the only solutions. Westminster, Maryland and others built their own hard-wired fiber-optic internet access system through a public-private partnership

  • The industry is trying to decommission our copper landlines and force migration to wireless infrastructure. Advocate to keep copper land-line telephone service available for at a minimum, emergency services. When power goes out, wireless goes down and cell phones cannot be charged. If there is no copper land-line access, residents cannot call for help. In addition, landline emergency calls pinpoint location of emergency, but cell calls do not; they go through a redirection and delay emergency response time. Copper landlines often hold up in natural disasters too whereas wireless antennas go down in fires and storms and emergency communication is wiped out.

  • Understand where each wireless communication facility is located in and around your town, and when each lease expires so you can negotiate better terms. See for a list of antennas and cell towers in your area. Insist that antennas be moved to at least a quarter-mile from neighborhoods, schools, parks and medical facilities. Scientists recommend a half-mile for the most vulnerable: children, fetuses, the elderly and those with existing health compromises. Work with the vendors to reduce power levels, and adopt eco-mode so a signal is only emitted when a device is looking for a handshake, rather than emitting 24/7/365. Encourage industry to develop biologically compatible wireless technology.

  • Ensure local by-laws protect residents, schools, businesses and recreational areas with maximum setbacks from wireless communication facilities. Studies show increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters (1,640') from base stations. Towns like Randolph, MA have already begun putting by-laws in place to retain local decision-making control for wireless communication systems as industry pushes to take that right away from our municipalities through federal bills like S. 3157 STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act,  S.19 MOBILE Now Act and S.88 DIGIT Act. Burlington, MA set policy that requires telecom applicants to recertify the equipment each year, and the town assesses a fee to cover the staff time to oversee the recertification process. Verizon withdrew their small cell applications to avoid setting precedent for a fee.

  • Educate and protect the public which you serve. Host documentary films and community discussions. There is an award-winning film, Generation Zapped, which any community can bring in to start this important conversation. It features leading scientists, doctors and patients. Training is available for schools, families, and municipalities by the non-profit Wireless Education which offers quick on-line courses on the science, risks and medical best practices for using today's technology more safely.

  • Provide radiation detection meters for the community to borrow from the public library so they can measure and remediate microwave radiation emissions in their homes, offices, schools and leisure spaces.

  • Engage state-level health, utility, school and legislative leaders to develop public policy to protect public health and educate citizens. New Hampshire has already passed a law and is aggressively investigating the health and environmental impact of EMFs and 5G. Oregon passed an emergency law to investigate and protect school children.

  • Ask your legislators to introduce and escalate passage of EMF bills. Send in testimony for the Massachusetts EMF bills, templates for submission are provided here as the bills come up for hearing. See what Other States are doing. Propose similar legislation in your state.

  • Ask your federal legislators to overturn the Telecom Act's Section 704 and address the health and environmental impact of wireless radiation. Montana introduced a bill with suggested language for small cell protections.

  • has a tool kit with a model small cell ordinance to consider and a state bill culled from successful safe technology efforts across the country. Use these to protect your town and state.

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.