Thursday, August 25, 2016

iPhone 6 radiation levels: Most popular post on Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

The most popular post on the Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website addresses the radiation levels or Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and minimum separation distance for Apple's iPhone 6 models. This post from last September has had more than 100,000 page views.

Apple is selling about 40 million iPhones per quarter and will soon pass the billion sales mark for all models. Apparently, many iPhone users and potential consumers are interested in learning about the cellphone radiation emitted by this phone and the potential effects on their health.

Saferemr.com has reached the 600,000 page view mark today.

More than 200 countries are represented among those who visited the website. Residents of 29 nations had a thousand sessions or more. U.S. residents accounted for almost half of the sessions. Residents of Canada, India, United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, Greece, Russia, Spain, and Italy accounted for the next fourth.

See the links below for the ten most popular posts to date.

Sep 29, 2015
Mar 4, 2013
Jun 24, 2016
Oct 5, 2015
Aug 3, 2016
Aug 11, 2016
Nov 3, 2013
May 12, 2016
Apr 18, 2016
May 4, 2016

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

National Toxicology Program Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer

Presentation on NTP Study to NIEHS Board of Scientific Counselors

On June 15, Dr. Michael Wyde, the director of the cell phone radiation studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), provided an overview of the studies to the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). He summarized the research designs and the partial results for the toxicology and carcinogenicity studies. 

A video of the presentation including the presentation slides and the question and answer session is available at https://youtu.be/TCRF71eMZ1Q.

According to Dr. Wyde, the FDA recommended that the NTP conduct toxicology and carcinogenicity studies of cell phone radiation in 1999. Completion of these studies is expected by some time in 2018.


June 24, 2016

According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the newly-released study on cellphone radiation and cancer in rats conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) resulted in more than 1,000 news stories. Nearly 150 reporters participated in the telephone press conference held by the NTP on May 27.

Unfortunately, much of the media coverage contained considerable bias, or "spin" intended to create doubt about the study's important findings regarding cancer risk from exposure to cellphone radiation. Notable exceptions included news stories that appeared in the Wall Street Journal and Mother Jones.


June 10, 2016

NTP Toxicology & Carcinogenicity Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Studies

Summary of Presentation at BioEM 2016 Meeting (Ghent, Belgium) by Michael Wyde, PhD, Director of NTP Studies of Cell Phone Radiation, NIEHS, June 8, 2016

Dr. Wyde explained the four reasons why the National Toxicology Program (NTP) decided to release partial study results at this time: 1) given widespread cellphone use, even a small increase in disease incidence could have major public health implications; 2) there is a high level of public and media interest in the study; 3) the tumor types observed in these studies are similar to those found in human studies of cellphone use; and 4) the results support the IARC classification of radiofrequency radiation as potentially cancer-causing in humans.

Dr. Wyde discussed the 5-day pilot studies conducted on young and aged mice and rats and on pregnant rats to determine the maximum intensity of cellphone radiation that could be employed in the subsequent studies without inducing any heating effect. He also described the 28-day pre-chronic toxicology studies and the 2-year toxicology and carcinogenicity studies.

For the pre-chronic studies, NTP selected SAR exposures of 0, 3, 6, and 9 watts/kilogram (W/kg) in rats and 0, 5, 10, and 15 W/kg in mice based on pilot study results. Pregnant rats were exposed prenatally and 28 days postnatal to 900 MHz cellphone radiation (GSM or CDMA). Five-week old mice were exposed to 1900 MHz cellphone radiation for 28 days.

Dr. Wyde reported statistically significant evidence of DNA damage from nonthermal exposure to cellphone radiation in mice as well as in rats:
  • male rats: frontal cortex, hippocampus, liver, blood
  • male mice: frontal cortex
  • female rats: frontal cortex
  • female mice: liver, blood
The partial results of the carcinogenicity studies were also discussed. See my summary below.

The slides for this presentation are available at:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/research/areas/cellphone/slides_bioem_wyde.pdf



June 13, 2016

Do Cellphones Cause Cancer? Probably, but it's Complicated
Dr. Chris Portier, Scientific American Blog, Jun 13, 2016

Setting the Record Straight on NTP Cell Phone Cancer Study
Dr. Ron Melnick Corrects ‘Misinformation,’ Rebuffed by the New York Times

Microwave News, Jun 10, 2016


May 30, 2016

SPIN vs FACT: National Toxicology Program report on 
cancer risk from cellphone radiation

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health reported partial findings from their $25 million study of the cancer risk from cellphone radiofrequency radiation (RFR). Controlled studies of rats showed that RFR caused two types of tumors, glioma and schwannoma. The results “…could have broad implications for public health.”

A fact sheet on the NTP study that summarizes some biased statements, or “Spin,” about the study that tend to create doubt about data quality and implications, as well as “Facts” from decades of previous research is available at http://bit.ly/NTPspinfacts

A German translation of this fact sheet is available at diagnose:funk






May 27, 2016 (updated June 1)

On May 26, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health issued the first in a series of reports that contains partial findings from their long-awaited, $25 million study of the cancer risk from cell phone radiation. This report summarizes the study of long-term exposure to cell phone radiation on rats. The report on mice will be issued at a later date.

According to the report:
“Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to RFR [radiofrequency radiation] could have broad implications for public health.”
Overall, thirty of 540 (5.5%), or one in 18 male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed cancer In addition,16 pre-cancerous hyperplasias were diagnosed. Thus, 46 of 540, or one in 12 male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed cancer or pre-cancerous cells as compared to none of the 90 unexposed male rats. 

The two types of cancer examined in the exposed rats were glioma and schwannoma. Both types have been found in human studies of cell phone use.

In the group exposed to the lowest intensity of cell phone radiation (1.5 watts/kilogram or W/kg), 12 of 180, or one in 15 male rats developed cancer or pre-cancerous cellsIn the highest exposure group (6 W/kg), 24 of 180, or one in 8 male rats developed cancer or pre-cancerous cells.

This latter finding has policy implications for the FCC's current cell phone regulations which allow cell phones to emit up to 1.6 W/kg at the head or near the body (partial body Specific Absorption Rate or SAR).

The NTP study is likely a "game-changer" as it proves that non-ionizing, radiofrequency radiation can cause cancer without heating tissue. 

The results of the study reinforce the need for more stringent regulation of radiofrequency radiation and better disclosure of the health risks associated with wireless technologies -- two demands made by the International EMF Scientist Appeal -- a petition signed by 220 scientists who have published research on the effects of electromagnetic radiation.

Along with other recently published studies on the biologic and health effects of cell phone radiation, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization should now have sufficient data to reclassify radiofrequency radiation from "possibly carcingogenic" to "probably carcinogenic in humans."

The risk of cancer increased with the intensity of the cell phone radiation whereas no cancer was found in the sham controls—rats kept in the same apparatus but without any exposure to cell phone radiation.

In contrast to the male rats, the incidence of cancer in female rats among those exposed to cell phone radiation was not statistically significant. Overall, sixteen of 540 (3.0%), or one in 33 female rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed cancer or a pre-cancerous lesion as compared to none of the 90 unexposed females. The NTP provided no explanation for the sex difference. The researchers pointed out that none of the human epidemiology studies has analysed the data by sex.

Why did cellphone radiation significantly increase cancer risk in male but not female rats? Perhaps, because glioma and heart schwannoma are less common in females. According to Microwave News (6/1/2016), the NTP report shows that among controls from past toxicology studies, males were ten times more likely to develop glioma than female rats (11 of 550 vs. 1 of 540). Also, males were twice as likely to develop heart schwannoma than female rats (9 of 669 vs. 4 of 699). 

The researchers believe that the cancers found in this experimental study were caused by the exposure to cell phone radiation as none of the control animals developed cancer. The researchers controlled the temperature of the animals to prevent heating effects so the cancers were caused by a non-thermal mechanism.

One of two types of second-generation (2G) cell phone technology, GSM and CDMA, were employed in this study. The frequency of the signals was 900 MHz. The rats were exposed to cell phone radiation every 10 minutes followed by a 10-minute break for 18 hours, resulting in nine hours a day of exposure over a two-year period. Both forms of cell phone radiation were found to increase cancer risk in the male rats.

For each type of cell phone radiation, the study employed four groups of 90 rats -- a sham control group that was not exposed to radiation, and three exposed groups.  The lowest exposure group had a SAR of 1.5 W/kg which is within the FCC's legal limit for partial body SAR exposure (e.g., at the head) from cell phones. The other exposure groups had SARs of 3 and 6 W/kg. 

Glioma is a common type of brain cancer in humans. It affects about 25,000 people per year in the U.S. and is the most common cause of cancer death in adults 15-39 years of age. Several major studies have found increased risk of glioma in humans associated with long-term, heavy cell phone use. 

In humans, schwannoma is a nonmalignant tumor that grows in Schwann cells that cover a nerve which connects to the brain. Numerous studies have found an increased risk of this rare tumor in heavy cell phone users. In the rat study, malignant schwannoma was found in Schwann cells in the heart.

For more information about the NTP study see http://bit.ly/govtfailure.

For references to the research that found increased risk of malignant and nonmalignant tumors among long-term cell phone users see http://bit.ly/WSJsaferemr.

The NTP report is available at http://bit.ly/NTPcell1.

Monday, August 22, 2016

Pregnancy & Wireless Radiation Risks

Grassroots Environmental Edu Wireless Radiation / Doctors Caution Pregnant Women About Wireless Radiation Health Risks (PRNewsFoto/Grassroots Environmental Educati)


Feb 9, 2016


French cell phone manufacturer warns pregnant women and teens
about cell phone radiation

The French phone manufacturer WIKO states in their manual for the Pulp 4G smartphone (pp. 21-22):


"The maximum SAR value tested on this device when used in its normal position at the ear is 0.114 W/kg and 0.387 W/kg when used close to the body, at a minimum distance of 1.5 cm. It complies with the rules on exposure to radio frequencies when used in its normal position at the ear or at a minimum distance of 1.5 cm from the body. The device uses a high-quality network connection for transmitting files, data and messages. On occasion, the transmission of files or messages may be delayed until the connection is available. When this is the case, be sure to follow the instructions regarding the separation distance for establishing the transmission. If you use a case, belt-clip or holder for carrying the phone, it must not contain any metal and should be kept at a minimum distance of 1.5 cm from your body.

*The SAR limit for mobile devices is 2.0 watts / kilogram (W/kg) averaged over ten grams of body tissue. SAR values may vary according to the standards for reporting information that are in force in different countries.  [My note: This standard is used in France and many other countries. In the U.S. the limit is 1.6 watts / kilogram averaged over one gram of body tissue.]

Tips for Reducing Exposure Levels

We recommend that you use your phone in good reception conditions in order to reduce the amount of radiation received. It is advisable to limit the amount of time you use the phone in underground car parks and when travelling by car or train, etc.

Reception conditions are indicated by the bars that are displayed on your phone: the more bars there are, the better the reception quality.

We recommend that you use the hands-free kit to reduce exposure to radiation.

To reduce the adverse effects of prolonged radiation exposure, we advise teenagers to hold the phone away from their lower abdomen, and that pregnant women hold the phone at a distance from their stomach."

Copyright © 2015 WIKO


http://data.wikomobile.com/documents/fichiers/f404d5a6f9dbd799184f05010cac9cd2.pdf#page=21



Recent studies that found adverse effects on offspring 
from prenatal exposure to wireless radiation
(Updated: Aug 22, 2016)


spontaneous abortion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25937931
spontaneous abortion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25877464
miscarriage: http://bit.ly/1Iwye5z
preterm birth: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23905441

liver: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26084117
liver: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27427155
testes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24095929


July 1, 2015

Doctors Caution Pregnant Women About Wireless Radiation Health Risks

Over one hundred medical doctors and scientific experts from around the world agree: the risks of exposure to RF radiation from wireless devices for pregnant women and their unborn children are real, and women have a Right To Know.

NEW YORK, July 1, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- More than one hundred medical doctors, scientists and public health experts from around the world have signed a Joint Statement advising pregnant women to take simple precautions to protect themselves and their babies from wireless radiation. The Statement is part of a national right-to-know campaign called the BabySafe Project created by two non-profit organizations to inform pregnant women about the issue.

"The wireless world may be convenient, but it's not without risks," says Patricia Wood, Executive Director of Grassroots Environmental Education and co-creator of the BabySafe Project. "When more than one hundred of the world's leading medical doctors and researchers on wireless radiation say we have enough evidence for women to take protective action, we think women should know about it."

The project is based on recent scientific studies suggesting that radiation from wireless devices is capable of interfering with the tiny electrical impulses that help synapses connect in a developing brain. Researchers at Yale University have been able to demonstrate that the brains of laboratory mice exposed to pulsed radio frequency radiation in utero were wired differently from those of the mice who were not exposed, resulting in behavioral differences that include poorer memory and symptoms that resemble ADHD in children.

The Yale study builds on more than twenty years of research and hundreds of independent, peer-reviewed studies showing that exposure to radiation from wireless devices can have non-thermal, biological effects on humans, including DNA strand breaks and other impacts not previously known. 

The authors of many of those studies are among those calling for precautions.

"The fetus is perhaps the most vulnerable to these types of insults, when the brain is just forming, when all of the organ systems are just beginning to develop," says Dr. Hugh Taylor, Chief of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale-New Haven Hospital, Professor of Women's Health at Yale University, and lead author of the study. "There's essentially no downside to being cautious and protecting your baby. Why not do it?"

SOURCE Grassroots Environmental Education

http://bit.ly/1GMY4Nk

June 3, 2014

The following joint statement on pregnancy and wireless radiation is part of the Baby Safe Project, a new public awareness initiative designed to inform women about the links between pregnancy and wireless radiation.  The statement was signed by 44 physicians and scientists from 13 nations, and by 13 educators who have studied wireless radiation health effects.

The project is a joint initiative of two environmental health non-profit organizations: Grassroots Environmental Education and Environmental Health Trust.  

A video of the press conference that launched the Baby Safe Project and supplementary resources are available at http://bit.ly/1kqJUur/.  


Dr. Hugh Taylor from the Yale University School of Medicine, Dr. Devra Davis from the Environmental Health Trust, and Dr. Maya Shetreat-Klein, a pediatric neurologist who treats autistic children, made presentations at the press conference and answered questions from journalists.

Dr. Taylor discussed his peer-reviewed, experimental research on pregnant mice that were exposed to cell phone radiation. In his study prenatal exposure to cell phone radiation resulted in decreased memory and increased hyperactivity in the offspring. A dose-response relationship was observed between the amount of fetal exposure to cell phone radiation and altered brain activity in the offspring. Dr. Taylor recommends that pregnant women limit their exposure to cell phone radiation.

Dr. Davis discussed the history of tobacco and asbestos in the U.S. to argue for a precautionary approach to reducing risks from "possibly carcinogenic" environmental exposures like wireless radiation (as determined by the World Health Organization). She summarized peer-reviewed, experimental research on prenatal exposure to microwave radiation conducted by Dr. Nesrin Seyhan which found DNA damage in mice and by Dr. Suleyman Kaplan which found damage to brain cells in the hippocampus as well as adverse behavioral effects in the offspring.  Dr. Davis provided recommendations on how to reduce exposure to cell phone and Wi-Fi radiation.

Dr. Shetreat-Klein discussed peer-reviewed observational research that found prenatal exposure to wireless radiation associated with adverse behavioral changes in children. She advises pregnant women to keep cell phones away from their bodies.

In response to audience questions, Dr. Davis discussed the need for research funding. She mentioned that the Environmental Health Trust and Dr. Joel Moskowitz at Berkeley are calling for an annual, one dollar fee per cell phone to be devoted to training and research on wireless radiation and health.  Dr. Taylor reported that his patients appreciate receiving precautionary information regarding the need to reduce exposure to wireless radiation during pregnancy. Dr. Davis discussed recommendations from the U.S. General Accountability Office and the American Academy of Pediatrics that call on the FCC to test cell phones in a realistic manner. Finally, Dr. Davis discussed the potential product liability faced by the cell phone industry due to adverse health impacts, an issue which she addressed in her book on cell phone radiation, Disconnect.

Joint Statement on Pregnancy and Wireless Radiation

We join together as physicians, scientists and educators to express our concern about the risk that wireless radiation poses to pregnancy and to urge pregnant women to limit their exposures.

We recognize that the exquisitely delicate systems that direct the development of human life are vulnerable to environmental insults, and that even minute exposures during critical windows of development may have serious and life-long consequences.

We know that the scientific process demands a thorough and exhaustive examination of the possible impact of wireless radiation on health; however, we believe substantial evidence of risk, rather than absolute proof of harm, must be the trigger for action to protect public health.

We call on the research community to conduct more studies to identify the mechanisms by which a fetus could be affected by wireless radiation exposures. We call on our elected leaders to support such research and to advance policies and regulations that limit exposures for pregnant women. We call on industry to implement and explore technologies and designs that will reduce radiation exposures until such research is carried out.

We affirm our role as health and science professionals to inform the public about the potential dangers associated with early-life exposures to wireless radiation, and invite all professionals engaged in obstetric, pediatric, and environmental health advocacy to join us in our quest to ensure the safety and health of future generations.

Signatories  
(Affiliations listed for identification purposes only)

Mikko Ahonen, PhD,
 University of Tampere, Finland

Jennifer Armstrong, MD, Ottawa Environmental Health
Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University
David Brown, PhD, Public Health Toxicologist, Environment and Human Health, Inc.
Lois Brustman, MD, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Specialist, St. Luke's - Roosevelt Hospital Center
Sheila Bushkin-Bedient, MD, Concerned Health Professionals of New York
David Carpenter, MD, School of Public Health, University at Albany
Richard Clapp, DSc, MPH, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Health, Boston University
Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, Visiting Scholar, University of California at Berkeley
Alvaro Augusto de Salles, PhD, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Larysa Dyrszka, MD, Pediatrician, New York
Dr. Elizabeth Evans, MA, (Cantab) MBBS (London), DRCOG,  UK
Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine, UC San Diego School of Medicine
Oleg Gregoriev, DrSc, PhD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Magda Havas, PhD,  Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Ontario, Canada
Gunnar Heuser, MD, University of California at Los Angeles (retired)
Olle Johansson, PhD, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Cynthia Johnson-McKay, MD, Columbia University
Süleyman Kaplan, PhD, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey
Henry Lai, PhD,  Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory, University of Washington
Michael Lerner, PhD, President, Commonweal
Luana Licata, PhD, University of Rome Tor Vergata
Don Maisch, PhD, www.emfacts.com, Australia
Asish Mehta, MD, MCh, DNB, Neurological Surgeon Mumbai, India
Anthony Miller, MD, School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada
Joel Moskowitz, PhD, School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley
Hildor Palsdottir, PhD, School of Medicine, New York University
Janet Perlman, MD, MPH, University of California at Berkeley
Rachel Naomi Remen, MD, School of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco
Lisa Ridgway, MD, Pediatrician
Aviva Romm, MD, Family Physician, Boston
Annie SascoMD, DrPH, University of Bordeaux, France
Stephen Sinatra, MD, FACC, CNS, CBT
Maya Shetreat-Klein, MD, Pediatric Neurologist, Bronx, New York
Colin L. Soskolne, PhD, University of Canberra, Australia
Ken Spaeth, MD, MPH, Hofstra University, North Shore--LIJ Health System
Yael Stein, MD, Hebrew University – Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
Anne Steinemann, PhD, University of California at San Diego
Hugh Taylor, MD, Chief of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale-New Haven Hospital
Leonardo Trasande, MD,  Institute of Environmental Medicine, Langone Medical Center, New York University
Lucy Waletzky, MD, Psychiatrist, Sleepy Hollow, New York
John Wargo, PhD, Professor of Risk Analysis, Environmental Policy, and Political Science, Yale University
John West, MD, Surgeon, RadNet
Jingduan Yang, MD, Myrna Brind Center of Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia

Wafaa Aborashed,
 Bay Area Healthy 880 Communities
Nancy Alderman, Environment and Human Health, Inc.
Mary Beth Brangan & James Heddle, Ecological Options Network (EON)
Giorgio Cinciripini, Italian Network of No-Electrosmog NGOs
Frank Clegg, Canadians For Safe Technology
Desiree Jaworski, Center for Safer Wireless
B. Blake Levitt, former New York Times contributor, medical/science journalist, author
Ellen Marks, California Brain Tumor Association
L. Lloyd Morgan,  Environmental Health Trust
Janet Newton, EMRadiation Institute
Camilla Rees, MBA, ElectromagneticHealth.org
Cindy Sage, MA, Sage Associates; Co-Editor, BioInitiative 2012 Report

--

For more information about wireless radiation reproductive health effects and effects on children

The Baby Safe Project
http://bit.ly/1rDKjiq

Environmental Health Trust
http://bit.ly/1kjkaRP


Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
http://www.saferemr.com/


Related news releases from Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Cell Phone Use and Prenatal Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation May Cause Headaches in Children
http://www.prlog.org/12269207

Children's Cell Phone Use May Increase Their Risk of ADHD
http://www.prlog.org/12110138


MOBI-KIDS: Childhood Brain Tumor Risk & Mobile Phone Use Study

Cell Phone Radiation, Pregnancy, and Sperm
http://www.prlog.org/12026867Cell Phone Radiation Damages Sperm
http://www.prlog.org/11911996

Magnetic Field Exposure Before Birth May Contribute to Childhood Obesity
http://www.prlog.org/1193609

Belgium Adopts New Regulations to Promote Cell Phone Radiation Safety

French Health Agency Recommends Children and Vulnerable Groups Reduce Cell Phone Radiation Exposure
http://www.prlog.org/12226630 

Cell Tower Health Effects

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.


Reviews
Bhattacharya, R, Roy, R. Impacts of communication towers on avians: A review. IJECT. 4(1): 137- 139. 2013. http://www.iject.org/vol4/spl1/c0046.pdf

Chronic Exposure Web Site. Research on mobile base stations and their impact on health.
http://www.chronicexposure.org/basestations.html

Levitt B, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ. Rev. 18: 369–395 (2010). doi:10.1139/A10-018.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/A10-018?src=recsys
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. Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiation of mobile telephony devices. Exp Oncol. 2010 Jul;32(2):54-60.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20693976

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 

Recent Studies

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

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

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

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

Resources

Campanelli & Associates, P.C. Cell tower lawyers. http://www.anticelltowerlawyers.com/

Center for Municipal Solutions. Excellent resource re: regulation of cell towers & wireless
facilities.  http://bit.ly/1GX4mPY

San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU)
http://www.antennafreeunion.org/neighborhoodaction.htm


News

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.

Lydia Beyoud. Not All ‘Small Cells' Created Equal, Say Municipalities in Wireless Siting Rules Suit. Bloomberg BNA. Apr 27, 2015. 
http://www.bna.com/not-small-cells-n17179925917/
"... 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. 
Ianthe Jeanne Dugan and Ryan Knutson. Cellphone Boom Spurs Antenna-Safety Worries. Wall Street Journal, Oct 2, 2014. 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cellphone-boom-spurs-antenna-safety-worries-1412293055