Federal regulations protect the public only from the thermal (i.e., heating) risk due to short-term exposure to high intensity, cell tower radiation. The Federal regulations ignore the hundreds of studies that find harmful bio-effects from long-term exposure to non-thermal levels of cell phone radiation.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow communities to stop the siting of cell towers for health reasons. Nevertheless, landlords may be liable for any harm caused by cell phone radiation emitted by towers situated on their property.
Localities need to organize and change the Federal law to protect public health and wildlife from exposure to microwave radiation emitted by mobile phone base stations.


Following are some resources regarding the health effects of exposure to cell tower radiation. I will occasionally update this page.
Related posts




Impact of
radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood
lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations
Zothansiama,
Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on
DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing
in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagn Biol Med. 2017 Aug
4:1-11. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2017.1350584.
Radiofrequency
radiations (RFRs) emitted by mobile phone base stations have raised concerns on
its adverse impact on humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base
stations. Therefore, the present study was envisaged to evaluate the effect of
RFR on the DNA damage and antioxidant status in cultured human peripheral blood
lymphocytes (HPBLs) of individuals residing in the vicinity of mobile phone
base stations and comparing it with healthy controls.
The study
groups matched for various demographic data including age, gender, dietary
pattern, smoking habit, alcohol consumption, duration of mobile phone use and
average daily mobile phone use.
The RF power
density of the exposed individuals was significantly higher (p < 0.0001)
when compared to the control group. The HPBLs were cultured and the DNA damage
was assessed by cytokinesis blocked micronucleus (MN) assay in the binucleate
lymphocytes. The analyses of data from the exposed group (n = 40), residing
within a perimeter of 80 meters of mobile base stations, showed significantly
(p < 0.0001) higher frequency of micronuclei (MN) when compared to the
control group, residing 300 meters away from the mobile base station/s.
The analysis
of various antioxidants in the plasma of exposed individuals revealed a
significant attrition in glutathione (GSH) concentration (p < 0.01),
activities of catalase (CAT) (p < 0.001) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) (p
< 0.001) and rise in lipid peroxidation (LOO) when compared to controls.
Multiple linear regression analyses revealed a significant association among
reduced GSH concentration (p < 0.05), CAT (p < 0.001) and SOD (p <
0.001) activities and elevated MN frequency (p < 0.001) and LOO (p <
0.001) with increasing RF power density.
All of the recorded RFR power density values in
this study were well below the Federal Communication Commission’s maximum
permissible exposure limits in the U.S. for the general population. These
limits are are 6,000 mW/m2 [milliwatts per square meter] for 900 MHz
and 10,000 mW/m2 for 1800 MHz radiofrequency radiation. In contrast,
the highest recorded value in this study was 7.52 mW/m2 of RFR. The
“exposed individuals” who resided within 80 meters of a cell antenna received
an average of 5.00 mW/m2 of RFR in their bedrooms.
RFR may change the fidelity of DNA as the
increased incidence of cancer has been reported among those residing near
mobile phone base stations (Abdel-Rassonl et al.,
2007; Bortkiewicz et al., 2004; Cherry, 2000; Eger et al., 2004; Hardell et al., 1999; Hutter et al., 2006; Wolf and Wolf, 2004). RFR emitted frommobile
base stations is also reported to increase the DNA strand breaks in lymphocytes
of mobile phone users and individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile base
station/s (Gandhi and Anita,
2005; Gandhi et al., 2014). Exposure of human fibroblasts and rat granulosa cells to RFR
(1800 MHz, SAR 1.2 or 2 W/kg) has been reported to induce DNA single- and
double-strands breaks (Diem et al.,
2005). Irreversible DNA damage was also reported in cultured human
lens epithelial cells exposed to microwave generated by mobile phones (Sun et
al.,
2006). The adverse health
effects of RFR are still debatable as many studies indicated above have found a
positive correlation between the DNA damage and RFR exposure; however, several
studies reported no significant effect of RFR on DNA strand breaks and
micronuclei formation in different study systems (Li et al.,
2001; Tice et al., 2002; McNamee et al., 2003;Maes et al., 2006). The potential
genotoxicity of RFR emitted by mobile phone base stations can be determined by
micronucleus (MN) assay, which is an effective tool to evaluate the genotoxic
or clastogenic effects of physical and chemical agents. This technique has also
been used to quantify the frequencies of radiation-induced MN in human
peripheral blood lymphocytes (HPBLs) (Fenech and Morley,
1985; Jagetia and Venkatesha, 2005; Prosser et al., 1988; Yildirim et al., 2010).
Six mobile phone base stations, operating in the
frequency range of 900 MHz (N = 2) and1800MHz (N = 4), erected in the thickly
populated areas of Aizawl city were selected for the present study… The power
output of all the base stations is 20 W, with their primary beam emitting
radiation at an angle of 20°. Power density measurements (using HF-60105V4,
Germany) were carried out in the bedroom of each participant where they spent
most of the time and hence have the longest constant level of electromagnetic
field exposure. Power density measurement was carried out three times (morning,
midday and evening), and the average was calculated for each residence around
each base station. The main purpose of the measurement of power density was to
ensure that RFR emission from each site did not exceed the safe public limits
and to determine any difference in power density between selected households
that were close to (within 80 m) and far (>300 m) from the mobile phone base
stations. The safety limits for public exposure from mobile phone base stations
are 0.45 W/m2 for 900 MHz and 0.92 W/m2 for 1800 MHz
frequency as per Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Government
of India, New Delhi guidelines (DoT, 2012).
… some residences are located
horizontally with the top of the towers from which RFR are emitted, making it
possible to get an exposure at a short distance of 1–20 m, despite being
erected on the rooftop or in the ground. A minimum of two individuals were
sampled from each household and at least five individuals were sampled around
each mobile base station. Individuals sampled around each base station were
matched for their age and gender (Table 1). The exposed group consisted of 40 healthy individuals
who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of being above 18 years of age and
residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations (within 80 m radius).
The control group comprised of 40 healthy individuals matched for age and
gender who had been living at least 300 m away from any mobile phone base
stations…. Sampling was also done only from those
residences who did not use microwave oven for cooking, Wifi devices and any
other major source of electromagnetic field as they are known to cause adverse
effects (Atasoy et al., 2013; Avendaño et al., 2012).
The groups matched for most of the
demographic data such as age, gender, dietary pattern, smoking habit, alcohol
consumption, mobile phone usage, duration of mobile phone use and average daily
mobile phone use (
Table 2). A highly significant variation (p < 0.0001) was observed for
the distance of household from the base station (40.10 ± 3.02 vs. 403.17 ± 7.98
in m) between exposed and control groups.
The RF power density of the exposed group (2.80–7.52 mW/m2;
average 5.002 ± 0.182 mW/ m2) was significantly higher (p <
0.0001) when compared to the control group (0.014–0.065 mW/m2;
average 0.035 ± 0.002 mW/m2). The highest power density was recorded
at a distance of 1–20 m (6.44 ± 0.31 mW/m2), which is significantly
higher (p < 0.0001) than those at a distance of 21–40 m (4.79 ± 0.33), 41–60
m (4.48 ± 0.22) and 61–80 m (4.61 ± 0.10).
The highest measured power density was
7.52mW/
m2. Most of the measured values close to base stations (Table 1) are higher than
that of the safe limits recommended by Bioinitiative Report 2012 (0.5mW/m2), Salzburg resolution 2000 (1 mW/m2) and EU (STOA) 2001 (0.1 
mW/m2). However, all the recorded values were well below the
current ICNIRP safe level (4700 mW/m2)
and the current Indian Standard (450 mW/m2).
The exact mechanism of action of RFR in
micronuclei induction and reduced antioxidant status is not apparent. The
possible putative mechanism of generation of DNA damage may be the production
of endogenous free radicals due to continuous exposure. RFR has been reported
to produce different free radicals earlier
(Avci et al.,
2009; Burlaka et al., 2013; Barcal et al., 2014; Kazemi et al., 2015). Cells possess a number
of compensatory mechanisms to deal with ROS and its effects. Among these are the
induction of antioxidant proteins such as GSH, SOD and CAT. Enzymatic
antioxidant systems function by direct or sequential removal of ROS, thereby
terminating their activities. An imbalance between the oxidative forces and antioxidant
defense systems causes oxidative injury, which has been implicated in various
diseases, such as cancer, neurological disorders, atherosclerosis, diabetes, liver
cirrhosis, asthma, hypertension and ischemia (Andreadis et al.,
2003; Comhair et al., 2005; Dhalla et al., 2000; Finkel and Holbrook, 2000; Kasparova et al., 2005; Sayre et al., 2001; Sohal et al., 2002). Because of the significant
decrease in endogenous antioxidants and increased LOO among the exposed group,
the extra burden of free radicals is unlikely to get neutralized, and these surplus
ROS may react with important cellular macromolecules including DNA forming
either DNA adducts or stand breaks, which may be later expressed as micronuclei
once the cell decides to divide. The decline in the antioxidant status may be
also due to the suppressed activity of Nrf2 transcription factor which is
involved in maintaining the antioxidant status in the cells.



The present study has reported that [radiofrequency
radiation] increased the frequency of [micronuclei] and [lipid peroxidation] and
reduced [glutathione] contents, [catalase] and [superoxide dismutase] activities
in the plasma of the exposed individuals. The induction of [micronuclei] may be
due to the increase in free-radical production. The present study demonstrated
that staying near the mobile base stations and continuous use of mobile phones
damage the DNA, and it may have an adverse effect in the long run. The
persistence of DNA unrepaired damage leads to genomic instability which may
lead to several health disorders including the induction of cancer.






Biological
effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by
cell
tower base stations and other antenna arrays
Levitt BB, Lai
H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by
cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews.18:
369–395 (2010) doi:10.1139 /A10-018. 
The siting of
cellular phone base stations and other cellular infrastructure such as
roof-mounted antenna arrays, especially in residential neighborhoods, is a
contentious subject in land-use regulation. Local resistance from nearby
residents and landowners is often based on fears of adverse health effects
despite reassurances from telecommunications service providers that
international exposure standards will be followed. 



Both anecdotal reports and
some epidemiology studies have found headaches, skin rashes, sleep
disturbances, depression, decreased libido, increased rates of suicide,
concentration problems, dizziness, memory changes, increased risk of cancer,
tremors, and other neurophysiological effects in populations near base
stations. 



The objective of this paper is to review the existing studies of
people living or working near cellular infrastructure and other pertinent
studies that could apply to long-term, low-level radiofrequency radiation (RFR)
exposures. While specific epidemiological research in this area is sparse and
contradictory, and such exposures are difficult to quantify given the
increasing background levels of RFR from myriad personal consumer products,
some research does exist to warrant caution in infrastructure siting. Further
epidemiology research that takes total ambient RFR exposures into consideration
is warranted. 



Symptoms reported today may be classic microwave sickness, first
described in 1978. Nonionizing electromagnetic fields are among the fastest
growing forms of environmental pollution. Some extrapolations can be made from
research other than epidemiology regarding biological effects from exposures at
levels far below current exposure guidelines.
[Note: As of
July 9, 2017, www.antennasearch.com, an industry website, reports 646,000 towers and 1.89 million cell
antennas in the U.S.]
In lieu of
building new cell towers, some municipalities are licensing public utility
poles throughout urban areas for Wi-Fi antennas that allow wireless Internet
access. These systems can require hundreds of antennas in close proximity to
the population with some exposures at a lateral height where second- and
third-story windows face antennas. Most of these systems are categorically
excluded from regulation by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or
oversight by government agencies because they operate below a certain power
density threshold. However, power density is not the only factor determining
biological effects from radiofrequency radiation (RFR).
An aesthetic emphasis is often the only perceived control of a
municipality, particularly in countries like America where there is an overriding
federal preemption that precludes taking the “environmental effects” of RFR
into consideration in cell tower siting as stipulated in Section 704 of The
Telecommunications Act of 1996
 (USFCC 1996). Citizen resistance,
however, is most often based on health concerns regarding the safety of RFR
exposures to those who live near the infrastructure. Many citizens, especially
those who claim to be hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields, state they
would rather know where the antennas are and that hiding them greatly
complicates society’s ability to monitor for safety.
Industry
representatives try to reassure communities that facilities are many orders of
magnitude below what is allowed for exposure by standards-setting boards and
studies bear that out (Cooper et al. 2006Henderson and Bangay 2006Bornkessel et al. 2007).
These include standards by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) used throughout Europe, Canada, and elsewhere (ICNIRP 1998). The
standards currently adopted by the U.S. FCC, which uses a two-tiered system of
recommendations put out by the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP)
for civilian exposures (referred to as uncontrolled environments), and the
International Electricians and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) for professional
exposures (referred to as controlled environments) (U.S. FCC 1997).
The U.S. may eventually adopt standards closer to ICNIRP. The current U.S.
standards are more protective than ICNIRP’s in some frequency ranges so any
harmonization toward the ICNIRP standards will make the U.S. limits more
lenient.
All of the standards currently
in place are based on RFRs ability to heat tissue, called thermal effects. A
longstanding criticism, going back to the 1950s (Levitt 1995), is that such acute heating effects do not
take potentially more subtle non-thermal effects into consideration. And based
on the number of citizens who have tried to stop cell towers from being
installed in their neighborhoods, laypeople in many countries do not find
adherence to existing standards valid in addressing health concerns. Therefore,
infrastructure siting does not have the confidence of the public (Levitt 1998).
The intensity of RFR decreases
rapidly with the distance from the emitting source; therefore, exposure to RFR
from transmission towers is often of low intensity depending on one’s
proximity. But intensity is not the only factor. Living near a facility will
involve long-duration exposures, sometimes for years, at many hours per day.
People working at home or the infirm can experience low-level 24 h exposures.
Nighttimes alone will create 8 hour continuous exposures. The current standards
for both ICNIRP, IEEE and the NCRP (adopted by the U.S. FCC) are for whole-body
exposures averaged over a short duration (minutes) and are based on results
from short-term exposure studies, not for long-term, low-level exposures such
as those experienced by people living or working near transmitting facilities.
For such populations, these can be involuntary exposures, unlike cell phones where
user choice is involved.
The U.S. FCC
has issued guidelines for both power density and SARs. For power density, the
U.S. guidelines are between 0.2–1.0 mW/cm
2….
At 100–200 ft
(about 
30–60 meters) from a cell phone base station, a person can be
exposed to a power density of 0.001 mW/cm
2 (i.e., 1.0 μW/cm2)….
For the
purposes of this paper, we will define low-intensity exposure to RFR of power
density of 0.001 mW/cm
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 effects that occurred in studies of cell cultures
and animals after exposures to low-intensity RFR. Effects reported include:
genetic, growth, and reproductive; increases in permeability of the blood–brain
barrier; behavioral; molecular, cellular, and metabolic; and increases in
cancer risk….
Ten years ago,
there were only about a dozen studies reporting such low-intensity effects;
currently, there are more than 60. This body of work cannot be ignored. These
are important findings with implications for anyone living or working near a
transmitting facility. However, again, most of the studies in the list are on
short-term (minutes to hours) exposure to low-intensity RFR. Long-term exposure
studies are sparse. In addition, we do not know if all of these reported
effects occur in humans exposed to low-intensity RFR, or whether the reported
effects are health hazards. Biological effects do not automatically mean
adverse health effects, plus many biological effects are reversible. However,
it is clear that low-intensity RFR is not biologically inert. Clearly, more
needs to be learned before a presumption of safety can continue to be made
regarding placement of antenna arrays near the population, as is the case today.
… The
previously mentioned studies show that RFR can produce effects at much lower
intensities after test animals are repeatedly exposed. This may have
implications for people exposed to RFR from transmission towers for long periods
of time.
The conclusion from this body of work is that effects of
long-term exposure can be quite different from those of short-term exposure.
Since
most studies with RFR are short-term exposure studies, it is not valid to use
their results to set guidelines for long-term exposures, such as in populations
living or working near cell phone base stations.
Numerous
biological effects do occur after short-term exposures to low-intensity RFR but
potential hazardous health effects from such exposures on humans are still not
well established, despite increasing evidence as demonstrated throughout this
paper. Unfortunately, not enough is known about biological effects from
long-term exposures, especially as the effects of long-term exposure can be
quite different from those of short-term exposure. It is the long-term,
low-intensity exposures that are most common today and increasing significantly
from myriad wireless products and services.
People
are reporting symptoms near cell towers and in proximity to other RFR-generating
sources including consumer products such as wireless computer routers and Wi-Fi
systems that appear to be classic “microwave sickness syndrome,” also known as
“radiofrequency radiation sickness.” First identified in the 1950s by Soviet
medical researchers, symptoms included headache, fatigue, ocular dysfunction,
dizziness, and sleep disorders. In Soviet medicine, clinical manifestations
include dermographism, tumors, blood changes, reproductive and cardiovascular
abnormalities, depression, irritability, and memory impairment, among others.
The Soviet researchers noted that the syndrome is reversible in early stages
but is considered lethal over time (Tolgskaya et al. 1973).
The
present U.S. guidelines for RFR exposure are not up to date. The most recent
IEEE and NCRP guidelines used by the U.S. FCC have not taken many pertinent
recent studies into consideration because, they argue, the results of many of
those studies have not been replicated and thus are not valid for standards
setting. That is a specious argument. It implies that someone tried to
replicate certain works but failed to do so, indicating the studies in question
are unreliable. However, in most cases, no one has tried to exactly replicate
the works at all…. In addition,
effects of long-term exposure, modulation, and other propagation characteristics
are not considered. Therefore, the current guidelines are questionable in
protecting the public from possible harmful effects of RFR exposure and the
U.S. FCC should take steps to update their regulations by taking all recent
research into consideration without waiting for replication that may never come
because of the scarcity of research funding. The ICNIRP standards are more
lenient in key exposures to the population than current U.S. FCC regulations.
The U.S. standards should not be “harmonized” toward more lenient allowances.
The ICNIRP should become more protective instead. All standards should be
biologically based, not dosimetry based as is the case today.
Exposure
of the general population to RFR from wireless communication devices and transmission
towers should be kept to a minimum and should follow the “As Low As Reasonably
Achievable” (ALARA) principle. Some scientists, organizations, and local
governments recommend very low exposure levels — so low, in fact, that
many wireless industries claim they cannot function without many more antennas
in a given area. However, a denser infrastructure may be impossible to attain
because of citizen unwillingness to live in proximity to so many antennas. In
general, the lowest regulatory standards currently in place aim to accomplish a
maximum exposure of 0.02 V/m, equal to a power density of 0.0001 μW/cm2,
which is in line with Salzburg, Austria’s indoor exposure value for GSM cell
base stations. Other precautionary target levels aim for an outdoor cumulative
exposure of 0.1 μW/cm2 for pulsed RF exposures where they
affect the general population and an indoor exposure as low as 0.01 μW/cm2 (Sage and Carpenter 2009).
In 2007, The BioInitiative Report, A rationale for a biologically based
public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF)
, also made
this recommendation, based on the precautionary principle (Bioinitiative Report 2007).
Citizens and municipalities
often ask for firm setbacks from towers to guarantee safety. There are many
variables involved with safer tower siting — such as how many providers
are co-located, at what frequencies they operate, the tower’s height,
surrounding topographical characteristics, the presence of metal objects, and
others. Hard and fast setbacks are difficult to recommend in all circumstances.
Deployment of base stations should be kept as efficient as possible to avoid
exposure of the public to unnecessary high levels of RFR. As a general
guideline, cell base stations should not be located less than 1500 ft (
500 m) from the population, and at a
height of about 150 ft (
50 m).
Several of the papers previously cited indicate that symptoms lessen at that
distance, despite the many variables involved. However, with new technologies
now being added to cell towers such as Wi-Max networks, which add significantly
more power density to the environment, setback recommendations can be a very
unpredictable reassurance at best. New technology should be developed to reduce
the energy required for effective wireless communication.

In addition, regular RFR
monitoring of base stations should be considered….



Review Papers
Manville, A. A Briefing Memorandum: What We Know, Can Infer, and Don’t Yet Know about Impacts from Thermal and Non-thermal Non-ionizing Radiation to Birds and Other Wildlife — for Public Release. July 14, 2016. http://bit.ly/savewildlifeRFR


Sivani S, Sudarsanam D. Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem–a review. Biology and Medicine. 2012. 4(4):202-216. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017477145



Yakymenko I, Sidorik E, Kyrylenko S, Chekhun V. Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems. Exp Oncol. 2011 Jun;33(2):62-70. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716201


Yakymenko I., Tsybulin O., Sidorik E. Henshel D., Krylenko O., Krylenko S. Oxidative mechanisms of biologic activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2015 Jul 7:1-16. 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230 

MORE INFO HERE  [Press release] Acts of vandalism? Attempts at intimidation ? A complaint against X filed


Recent Studies (Updated 12/5/2017)


Al-Quzwini O, Al-Taee H, Al-Shaikh S. Male fertility and its association with occupational and mobile phone towers hazards: An analytic study. Middle East Fertility Society Journal. Avail. online Apr 8, 2016. http://bit.ly/1SRUWWs


Baliatsas C, van Kamp I, Bolte J, Kelfkens G, van Dijk C, Spreeuwenberg P, Hooiveld M, Lebret E, Yzermans J. Clinically defined non-specific symptoms in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: A retrospective before-after study. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Sep 15;565:714-20http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27219506


Bienkowski P, Zubrzak B. Electromagnetic fields from mobile phone base station – variability analysis. Electromagn Biol Med. 2015 Sep;34(3):257-61. http://1.usa.gov/1TEXygr


Black B, Granja-Vazquez R, Johnston BR, Jones E, Romero-Ortega M (2016) Anthropogenic Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Elicit Neuropathic Pain in an Amputation Model. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0144268. http://bit.ly/1R7g4vN


Cammaerts MC, Johansson O. Effect of man-made electromagnetic fields on common Brassicaceae Lepidium sativum (cress d’Alinois) seed germination: a preliminary replication study. Phyton, International Journal of Experimental Botany 2015; 84: 132-137.  
http://bit.ly/EMRcress


Eskander EF, Estefan SF, Abd-Rabou AA. How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles? Clinical Biochemistry, Volume 45, Issues 1–2. 2012, Pages 157-161.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22138021


Gandhi G, Kaur G, Nisar U. A cross-sectional case control study on genetic damage in individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile phone base station. Electromagn Biol Med. 2014 9:1-11. 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25006864


Gulati S, Yadav A, Kumar N, Kanupriya, Aggarwal NK, Kumar R, Gupta R. Effect of GSTM1 and GSTT1 Polymorphisms on Genetic Damage in Humans Populations Exposed to Radiation From Mobile Towers. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2015 Aug 5.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26238667



Gulati S, Yadav A, Kumar N, Priya K, Aggarwal NK, Gupta R. Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of antioxidant enzyme system in human population exposed to radiation from mobile towers. Mol Cell Biochem. 2017 Aug 17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28819931

Hardell L, Koppel T, Carlberg M, Ahonen M, Hedendahl L. Radiofrequency radiation at Stockholm Central Railway Station in Sweden and some medical aspects on public exposure to RF fields. International Journal of Oncology. Published online Aug 12, 2016. Open access: http://bit.ly/2aI93Ut



Marinescu I, Poparlan C. Assessment of GSM HF-Radiation impact levels within the residential
area of Craiova (Romania) city.  Procedia Environmental Sciences 32:177-183. 2016. http://bit.ly/28Q6EEy


Martens AL, Slottje P, Timmermans DR, Kromhout H, Reedijk M, Vermeulen RC, Smid T. Modeled and Perceived Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields From Mobile-Phone Base Stations and the Development of Symptoms Over Time in a General Population Cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 2017 Apr 7:1-10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28398549


Meo SA, Alsubaie Y, Almubarak Z, Almutawa H, AlQasem Y, Hasanato RM. 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. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Nov 13;12(11):14519-14528. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/11/14519


Sagar S, Dongus S, Schoeni A, Roser K, Eeftens M, Struchen B, Foerster M, Meier N, Adem S, Röösli M. Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure in everyday microenvironments in Europe: A systematic literature review. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2017 Aug 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28766560


Singh K, Nagaraj A, Yousuf A, Ganta S, Pareek S, Vishnani P. Effect of electromagnetic radiations from mobile phone base stations on general health and salivary function. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2016;6:54-9. http://bit.ly/1USYGNs


Waldmann-Selsam C, Balmori-de la Puente A, Breunig H, Balmori A. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Aug 20;572:554-569. http://bit.ly/2cbXNBy

MORE INFO HERE  French operators face court action against 5G from environmental activists

Zothansiama, Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagn Biol Med. 2017 Aug 4:1-11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28777669


RCR Wireless News. Appeals Court rules that California cities have the right to block small cell based on aesthetic concerns. Sep 16, 2016. http://bit.ly/2cE9GhN

Rouhan Sharma. A Towering Problem. Infrastructure Today, Feb 2016. http://bit.ly/1QcHSxO

Special Correspondent. “Radiation levels of mobile towers should be cut.” The Hindu. Feb 7, 2016. http://bit.ly/1Pt5Sck

“Stating that the current level of radiation (electromagnetic field, EMF) emitted by mobile phone towers was still high, Girish Kumar, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Bombay, on Saturday, urged the Centre to reduce the radiation level further.
The mobile tower radiation had been reduced [in India] from 45,000 milliwatt per square metre to 450 milliwatt a few years ago. It should be reduced to 10 milliwatt, he said ….”

Note: The FCC allows the American general public to be exposed to up to 5,800 milliwatts per square meter.

“… the number of small cell and DAS installations is expected to grow exponentially in the next few years. As many as 37 million small cell installations could be in place by 2017, and up to 16 million distributed antenna system (DAS) nodes could be deployed by 2018, according to the FCC.”

Joel Moskowitz.
Press Release: Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks
FCC. Mar 2014.