Home‎ > ‎


This site is best viewed with Mozilla Firefox web browser.  AOL browser has problems viewing the Attachments at the bottom of this page, so use Mozilla Firefox or Internet Explorer browser to view the Attachments. 

Above: France is way head of the U.S. in protecting their children.  Here' a poster that's part of the public health campaign of the City of Lyon, France.  Thanks to next-up.org for this English-translated version of the poster. Read more about their campaign here: http://www.env-health.org/a/3205

At public hearings, wireless reps and others may stand up and give public comment that there is no conclusive evidence showing cell towers and cell phones cause cancer.  They may even hand city officials a thick packet of documents that they say supports their arguments.  However, you should have your own packet of studies, documents and links for your city officials to review. 

There are a growing number of stories, videos and websites about the mounting research and science regarding the harmful effects of wireless technologies on our bodies (this is why many organizations want to repeal or modify the U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 because the current exposure standards do not take into account recent scientific findings). 

1.  Do cell towers emit radiation?  Yes.
  • Even the FCC says so.  Let's go back to 1996, when the FCC originally set the initial RF radiation guidelines as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996: "Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, ET Docket No. 93-62," August 1, 1996.  Go here to read it: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1996/fcc96326.pdf  (This document also reveals federal agencies and other organizations that had problems with the proposed guidelines.) 
  • The FDA also helped the FCC establish its current RF exposure guidelines. On its website discussion of cell phone health issues, the FDA explains that:
RF energy is a type of non-ionizing radiation. Other types of non-ionizing radiation include visible light, infrared radiation (heat) and other forms of electromagnetic radiation with relatively low frequencies.

While RF energy doesn’t ionize particles, large amounts can increase body temperatures and cause tissue damage. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because there is relatively little blood flow in them to carry away excess heat. 

(Source, see: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm116282.htm)

  • The CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), meanwhile, contributed to the FCC's RF radiation exposure standards, and on its website, and it posts the CDC's  "Cell Phone Fact Sheet" (dated 2005), which calls RF radiation what it is:
What is RF?
Electromagnetic radiation consists of waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together (radiating) through space. Radio waves and microwaves released by transmitting antennas are one form of electromagnetic energy. They are called “radiofrequency” or “RF” energy or radiation. Often the term “electromagnetic field” or “radiofrequency field” is used to indicate the presence of electromagnetic or RF energy.

RF radiation should not be confused with ionizing radiation, such as x-rays or gamma rays. RF fields have lower energy and therefore cannot cause ionization (potentially resulting in chemical changes) in the body. RF fields are non ionizing radiation.

What is non ionizing radiation?
Non ionizing radiation has lower energy and longer wavelength than ionizing radiation. It is not strong enough to change the structure of atoms it contacts but may be strong enough to heat tissue. Examples include radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and infrared. 

(Source, see: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/factsheets/cellphone_facts.pdf)

Some officials will avoid saying "radiation" in favor of "emissions" -- and if so, here's the reasoning behind that, even though we know that RF radiation is RF radiation and have First Amendment rights so we can feel free to call it what it really is: RF radiation (Read Page 6+: http://jonathankramer.com/articles/pdf/calbar.public-law-journal_vol-32-No-3_summer-2009.output.pdf.)

2.  Are the current FCC RF radiation exposure standards sufficient?  No.  Read all of the health studies below. Also read and watch these:

  • The EPA, which participated in FCC's exposure standard setting, explains the  limitations and uncertainty of the FCC's adopted standard in protecting human health.  In a July 16, 2002 letter, EPA's Norbert Hankin, Center for Science and Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection Division explains to Ms. Janet Newton, President of the EMR Network:

    I believe it is correct to say that there is uncertainty about whether or not current guidelines adequately treat nonthermal, prolonged exposures (exposures that may continue on an intermittent basis for many years).  The explanation that follows is basically a summary of statements that have been made in other EPA documents and correspondence….

    The FCC’s current exposure guidelines, as well as those of the Institute of Electrical and  Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, nonthermal exposure situations….The FCC’s exposure guideline is considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all possible mechanisms.  Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified.

    …The exposure guidelines did not consider information that addresses nonthermal, prolonged exposures, i.e., from research showing effects with implications for possible adversity in situations involving chronic/prolonged, low-level (nonthermal) exposures.  Relatively few chronic, low-level exposure studies of human populations have been reported and the majority of these studies do not show obvious adverse health effects.  However, there are reports that suggest that potentially adverse health effects, such as cancer, may occur.  Since EPA’s comments were submitted to the FCC in 1993, the number of studies reporting effects associated with both acute and chronic low-level exposure to RF radiation has increased.

    The FCC does not claim that their exposure guidelines provide protection for exposures to which the 4 W/kg SAR basis does not apply, i.e., exposures below the 4W/kg threshold level that are chronic/prolonged and nonthermal…there is uncertainty about possible risk from nonthermal, intermittent exposures that may continue for years.

    ….Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, nonthermal exposures.

(Source: 2002 EPA letter re: limitations of FCC RF radiation exposure guidelines: http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/noi_epa_response.pdf)

  • 2010 Study finds current ICNIRP RF safety standards in Europe (similar to FCC's) may be non compliant with existing safety standards, in respect to cell tower exposure, by G Verneeren (2010), The influence of the reflective environment on the absorption of a human male exposed to representative base station antennas from 300 MHz to 5 GHz: http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/55/18/018
  • Flaws with FCC Guidelines: Excerpt from "Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Harcourt Brace" (1995) by B. Blake Levitt: http://www.emrpolicy.org/faq/fcc_flaws.pdf
  • VIDEO - Watch this enlightening and disturbing clip from the "Radiant Day" documentary by Norwegian (NRK) television (with English subtitles) about the harmful effects of cell towers; this particular clip reveals the conflict of interest in the membership of the engineering association that sets our RF safety standards -- many of its members are from the telecom industry: http://www.youtube.com/user/BurbankACTION#p/f/1/AHhfjQ1_JVw and to watch the complete original documentary (with English subtitles), go here: http://www.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/428197/ (video will take some time to load, so please be patient, this documentary is definitely a must watch).
  • VIDEO: Watch the "Full Signal" documentary: www.fullsignalmovie.com and/or contact its director Talal Jabari to arrange for a screening in your community.
  • VIDEO: Interview (40 minutes) with Environmental Consultant Cindy Sage regarding Bioinitiative Report and non-ionizing radiation, including warnings about cell towers and how our standards of safe levels need to be changed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tZDor-_co0 or  http://videos.next-up.org/BioInitiative/InterviewCindySage/012008.html

Are there studies finding adverse health effects, including cancer, in those living near cell towers (mobile phone base stations) compared/in contrast to those living further away?   Yes!  In contrast, most of the studies examining base station exposure on humans in laboratory settings were SHORT-TERM (not realistic) exposure and did not yield the same results.  Here are some of these studies, as well as articles about health concerns from cell tower radiation exposure:

  • New study: An NIH study of cell phones and the brain showed definite effects on the brain and nervous system from cell phone use. The lead researcher, Nora D. Volkow, said "I confess that after the findings I changed my behavior". She now uses it on speakerphone or earphone. She says "We have a responsibility to investigate whether there are or there are not long lasting consequences from repeated stimulation after five or ten years of cell phone exposure. Watch the ABC World News report on Feb 22, 2011: http://abcnews.go.com/watch/world-news-with-diane-sawyer/SH5585921/VD55113679/world-news-222-new-zealand-earthquake-the-search-for-survivors. The cell phone story is at 14 minutes 25 seconds. You can click to it on the progress bar by going to 14:25.  Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), "Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism," 2011; 305(8): pages 808-813: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/8/808.abstract
  • New study: Important review of the biological effects for those living near antennas: "Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays," by Blake B. Levitt and Henry Lai, published in Environmental Reviews, a journal of the Canadian National Research Council. Received 30 April 2010. Accepted 6 August 2010. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at er.nrc.ca on 5 November 2010:: http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Blake_Levit-Henry_Lai.pdf

There are a host of other studies, reports, and conferences documenting the harmful effects of cell tower radiation. 
What does the telecom industry know about low-level RF radiation and its health effects?  What are they not telling us?

Problems with Wi-Fi (Wireless Internet in schools and in or near homes and schools):
Problems with Cell Phones: Why We Need Labels
  • Mobile phone use may cause long term brain damage

    Right: the brain of an exposed rat, where the black spots indicate albumin that leaked through the blood-brain-barrier. Left: the brain of a non-exposed rat, which shows no albumin leakage.
    Also go to our Home page, and scroll down to read the "Related Breaking News" articles in the text box for other health related stories.

Watch These Videos
If you're pressed for time, grab a cub of tea and sit down and watch 1 clip every morning.  It's great for your health!

part 1 of 7

Part 2 of 7

Part 3 of 7

Part 5 of 7

Part 6 of 7

Part 7 of 7



1.  At home: Unplug your cordless wireless phones and stick with using landline phones; according to public safety experts, landline phones are also better when calling 911 from your home, and when an emergency or disaster strikes at your home.

2.  Don't sleep with your cell phone next to your head at night. 

3.  Remove your Compact Flourescent Light (CFL) bulbs and replace them with conventional ones.

4.  Turn off the "wireless" function of your computer and router, and hook your computers into wired broadband connections.

5.  Don't carry your cell phone in your shirt or pant pocket; keep it away and off the body when not in use.

6.  Use the speakerphone on your cell phone when making or receiving a call, or text, or use an air-tube headset/ear plug.  Don't use a wired headset because that turns your whole body into a giant receiver.  Don't use bluetooth headsets because those attract a lot of radiation to your head area.  Visit www.ewg.org's website to look up the SAR rating of your cell phone or one that you're considering purchasing.

7.  Get other parents and you together to ask your school director not to install wireless routers at your child's school, and explain why.  If school finances are a factor, explore with other parents and your school director how you can organize an effort and raise outside funds to install a wired broadband network instead.  Download and share the Wi-Fi Non-Consent form that environmental consultant Cindy Sage, co-author of the BioInitiative Report, distributes to concerned parents; see "Attachment" below, download and share with others.  Here are also some Letters from scientific experts on the harmful dangers of wireless devices like Wi-Fi: http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/letters/

8.  Recommended DVDs and books to read and watch are here: https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/books-dvds-etc

EMF Consultants

Northern California, Santa Rosa
Canada, British Columbia

Increased RF exposure all around us:
so how much RF exposure are we getting in contrast to 10 years go?

0.6 V/m is the RF radiation exposure standard recommended in the BioInitiative Report.
Credits: Thanks to Next-Up for this graph. 

K Iwata,
Sep 15, 2010, 10:39 PM