As of February 6, 2021, www.antennasearch.com, an industry website, reported 803,000 cell towers and 2.1 million cell antennas in the United States. Texas has the most cell towers (80,300), and California has the most cell antennas (151,000). We cannot verify the accuracy of these data because the FCC only collects data on certain types of cell towers.
Following are some resources regarding the health effects of exposure to cell tower radiation.
Members of the scientific community and the general public are raising concerns about the potential health and environmental effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) for those living nearby mobile phone base stations (MPBS). This study examined the impact of RF-EMF (900-1900 MHz) on symptoms spanning four health categories: mood-energy, cognitive-sensory, inflammatory, and anatomical issues. A questionnaire identifying health symptoms within these categories, was given to 183 highly exposed and 126 reference residents, matched on demographics. While years of residing near the MPBS influenced the prevalence of some symptoms, proximity to the base station and higher levels of exposure (measured using power density) influenced the prevalence of many of the symptoms. A higher proportion of symptoms was found in residents who were either living within 50 meters of a MPBS or who were exposed to power densities of 5-8 mW/m2, for all four health categories. This relationship between exposure level and symptom prevalence was further influenced by age, daily mobile phone use (over 5 h per day), and lifestyle factors, for certain symptoms. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that level of exposure (power density) was the only factor contributing to the number of symptoms experienced by residents, for all four health categories. An unexpected finding was that among the more highly exposed residents, the younger individuals (under 40 years) reported more inflammation related issues than older individuals. These results underscore the need to inform policymakers regarding the benefits of adopting a precautionary approach to potential risks associated with RF-EMF exposures from MPBS.
Investigating the health effects of man-made electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) created by telecommunications signals from mobile phone base stations is relevant to people living in cities across the world today. The study was conducted in a hilly, highly populated city in Mizoram, India, where many people live close to and in line of sight of the masts on telecommunications towers. A survey was given to residents in their homes, asking about what health symptoms they were experiencing across a range of health categories (mood-energy, cognitive-sensory, inflammatory, and anatomical). At the same time, the level of RF-EMF in their lounge room was measured. The symptoms reported by people living closer to mobile phone base stations (less than 300 m) were compared with those from people living further away (more than 400 m). More people who lived closer to base stations reported health symptoms in all of the health categories investigated. Relatively fewer people who lived further away reported symptoms. Other factors such as age, high mobile phone use (more than 5 h/day) and smoking and drinking also influenced this outcome, for some of the symptoms. The most significant contributor to the number of symptoms reported by residents was the strength of RF-EMF to which they were exposed in their home. A surprising result was that younger people up to 40 years old showed more inflammatory conditions that were related to higher exposures than older people (such as headache, allergy and chest pain). These health effects of RF-EMF should be heeded by those responsible for the installation of mobile phone base stations in cities.
The guidelines of the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Government of India, New Delhi set the safety limits for public exposure from mobile phone base stations at 0.45 W/m2 (450 mW/m2) for 900 MHz and 0.90 W/m2 (900 mW/m2) for 1800 MHz (Department of Telecommunications 2013). Thus, all recorded power density levels were situated well below the official limits."
"only binary data was available for symptom scoring and analysis rather than the ordinal data that was originally planned."
"The health symptoms indicated by responses to each of the questionnaire items were grouped into four health symptom categories: Mood-Energy, Cognitive-Sensory, Inflammatory and Anatomical .... For each participant, their total numbers of symptoms within each of these four categories were used for graphical summaries and for further analysis. Hierarchical linear regression was then used to investigate the extent to which exposures from MPBS were able to predict the level of each of the four health categories, over and above the variance contributed by the demographic and behavioural characteristics and from mobile phone exposures (treated as covariates in the hierarchical linear regression). A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant."
"The average distance of households from the mobile base station was significantly lower for the highly exposed group (103 ± 12 m) than for the reference group (539 ± 20 m), as expected. Similarly, the average RF power density of the highly exposed group living within a perimeter of 300 m (2.1–7.2 mW/m2; average 4.8 ± 0.1 mW/m2) was significantly higher than the reference group living at least 400 m away from mobile phone base stations (0.01–1.2 mW/m2; average 0.7 ± 0.1 mW/m2).
The power density and the distance from the base station were found to be significantly negatively correlated (rp= −0.90, p < 0.001), indicating that the intensity of exposures experienced by inhabitants decreased as their distance from the base station increased. A scatterplot of this relationship ( ) showed that the distance data was subsequently divided into three groups (1–50 m, 51–300 m, over 400 m) which corresponded approximately to three main power density groupings (5.1–8.0 mW/m2, 3.1–5.0 mW/m2, 0.0–3.0 mW/m2). This grouping decision still left 33 participants in the reference group with power densities readings as high as some of those in the highly exposed group (residing 51–300 m from the MPBS)."
"The hierarchical regression results are summarized in .... The results showed strong effects of power density of exposure on all health categories, as follows: (1) Mood-energy issues: All of the factors together explain 58% of the variance in mood-energy issues, with power density contributing a significant proportion towards this (48%). While gender, (being female) initially predicted mood-energy issues, this variable lost significance when power density was included into the prediction equation. (2) Cognitive-Sensory issues: All of the factors together explain 46% of the variance in cognitive-sensory, with power density contributing a significant proportion towards this (37%). While gender initially predicted cognitive-sensory issues, this variable lost significance when power density was included into the prediction equation. (3) Inflammatory issues: All of the factors together explain 54% of the variance for inflammatory issues with power density contributing a significant proportion towards this (51%). None of the demographic variables contributed towards inflammatory issues initially; however, in the final model when power density was included, age (being younger) also contributed significantly towards inflammatory issues. (4) Anatomical issues: All of the factors together explain 53% of the variance in anatomical issues with power density contributing a significant proportion towards this (42%). While gender and age predicted anatomical issues initially, gender lost significance when power density was included. In the final model both age (being older) and power density together contributed significantly towards anatomical issues."
"The results showed that while there was significant variation in the type of health issues faced by individuals, the overall prevalence of most symptoms was shown to increase significantly with increasing levels of exposure (measured using power density)."
"The prevalence of symptoms also increased approximately with closer proximity to the MPBS. Past studies have related symptoms to distance from towers; e.g., Santini et al. (2002, 2003). However, the data collected for this study has shown that distance information is not a perfect proxy for exposure level, as noted by Neubauer et al. (2007). In hilly terrains or built-up areas, power density is a more accurate independent variable for ascertaining health effects."
"The symptoms found to be more prevalent in the highly exposed group spanned a wide range of health categories; i.e. mood-energy (anxiety, agitation, increased irritability, dizziness), cognitive-sensory (concentration problems, memory problems, ear problems, skin problems, abnormal sensations), inflammatory (headache, allergy, increased infections, chest pain, irregular heartbeat) and anatomical (joint pain, muscular problems, nerve pain, digestive problem, and nausea). Most demographic and behavioural variables (except for age) did not have a significant influence on any of these health categories, when considered in isolation. However, residents with greater exposures to MPBS experienced more mood-energy, cognitive-sensory, inflammatory and anatomical issues. In particular, individuals living within a distance of less than 50 m from the base stations had a higher occurrence of all symptoms...."
"The collections of health symptoms found in previous studies as well as those observed in the present study have been listed by WHO as symptoms associated with Electro-hypersensitivity Syndrome (EHS)...."
"... age also interacted with level of exposure from MPBS, in different ways for different health categories. The residents over 40 years in the reference group reported more anatomical issues, showing the typical effects of aging in the general population. Surprisingly, for those in the highly exposed group, it was the younger residents (under 40 years old) who reported more inflammatory issues; in particular, increased infections and allergies. This result partly corroborates the findings of Röösli et al. (2004) who found a higher frequency of headache, concentration difficulties and fatigue in those under 40 years old in the EHS group. The finding that living closer to towers may be a promoter of inflammatory issues for people under 40 years; is of concern and needs further investigation."
Study limitations
".... The research assistants taking the data were aware of the distances of residences from the local tower. This could be seen as a source of bias in the data collection. However, there are several factors that made this less likely. First, the results were not cleanly related to distance, and were more correlated with power density; however, the research assistants taking the data were not aware of the power density measures taken by the assistant engineer, nor were they trained to understand the meaning of power dentistry values. Furthermore, the number of items involved in the questionnaire created a great deal of complexity so that it would have been hard to inject bias into the responses in any systematic manner. Also, the higher prevalence of inflammatory symptoms for the under 40 years age group was not anticipated and so could not have been due to bias."
Study implications
"The maximum recorded power density measured at any dwelling was 7.2 mW/m2. Most of the measurements taken in dwellings close to the base stations () exceeded the safety limits suggested by the Bioinitiative Report 2012. However, all measured values were significantly lower than both the current ICNIRP whole body exposure public limits of 4500 mW/m2 (900 MHz) to 10,000 mW/m2 (2000 MHz and higher frequencies) as well as the present Indian Standard of 450 mW/m2 (Saravanamuttu et al. 2015). These standards for public RF-EMF exposures are predominantly focused on the mitigation of “known” harmful thermal effects, but do not comprehensively cover a range of biological consequences that are intrinsically linked to non-thermal biological responses and health, especially for those who are continuously being exposed to this man-made radiation without choice or informed consent. In this context, the ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable), which has widely been used with ionising radiation, has been recommended (Leach and Bromwich 2018).
Table 3 reveals that symptom prevalence was associated with duration of exposure. In toxicology research, the dose of a toxicant is understood to incorporate both intensity and duration of exposure (Tsatsakis et al. 2018).
The ICNIRP guidelines set safety limits based on exposure intensity, averaged over 6 or 30 minutes. Therefore, they do not factor in cumulative doses occurring over time in the real world. Laboratory studies are mostly restricted to timescales of minutes to weeks. Within studies using the longer of these timescales, biphasic effects have been observed (where effects are positive in the short term but then return to baseline as exposure duration increases and become negative with even longer exposure times) suggesting very short -term protective effects such as immune system priming, but detrimental effects after longer exposures (e.g., Fesenko et al. 1999). While adaptive responses have been suggested for long term exposures (Vijayalaxmi et al. 2014), the longer timescales of laboratory experiments show more negative effects. However, there are very few long-term laboratory studies.
Epidemiological data, such as that presented in this study, measures exposures over years and thus has been more able to reveal detrimental, cumulative effects that occur over time. Epidemiological research and intensity x time calculations need to be factored in when setting safety limits for populations who are continuously exposed over a lifetime.
While this study sampled only a moderate sized population from the city of Aizawl, the results can be used to inform public policy on this matter. Our results add to the understanding of health effects related to chronic exposure to RF-Fields emitted from MPBS. Risk management does not require definitive conclusions. Early warnings such as the results of this study provide adequate evidence for policy makers to act, including requiring industry to seek solutions (Gee 2009; Leach et al. 2024). The study results indicate that exposure to RF-EMF at levels lower than the Government recommended general public “safety” threshold can still lead to significant health challenges. The study revealed that the level of MPBS RF-EMF exposure was a primary contributor to the elevated prevalence of a range of health symptoms observed among residents in close proximity to MPBS. Concerning results that have revealed more inflammatory symptoms in resident younger than 40 years living close to MPBS require follow up.
Following these important findings, it is crucial to critically reassess current public RF exposure safety limits in order to include the growing evidence of non-thermal biological impacts of RF-EMF emitted by MPBS over years. The study results emphasize the importance of establishing exposure limits that are based on biological factors, other than heating, to minimize exposure and address the long-term potential for serious health consequences; i.e., “An independent re-evaluation of RFR exposure limits based on the scientific knowledge gained over the past 25 years is needed and is long overdue” (Belyaev et al. 2022)."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/15368378.2025.2513900
Introduction: During the last few decades, hundreds of thousands of mobile phone base stations and other types of wireless communications antennas have been installed around the world, in cities and in nature, including protected natural areas, in addition to pre-existing antennas (television, radio broadcasting, radar, etc.). Only the aesthetic aspects or urban regulations have been generally considered in this deployment, while the biological, environmental and health impacts of the associated non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emissions have not been assessed so far. Therefore, the effects on humans living around these anthropogenic electromagnetic field sources (antennas) have not been considered.
In France, there is a significant contribution of mobile phone base stations in the exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) of urban citizens living nearby (De Giudici et al., 2021). Some studies from India indicate that more than 15% of people have levels of EMF strength above 12 V/m due to their proximity to antennas (Premlal and Eldhose, 2017). Exposure estimates have shown that RF-EMF from mobile telephone systems is stronger in urban than in rural areas. For instance, in Sweden the levels of RF radiation have increased considerably in recent years, both outdoor and indoor, due to new telecommunication technologies, and the median power density measured for RF fields between 30 MHz and 3 GHz was 16 μW/m2 in rural areas, 270 μW/m2 in urban areas and 2400 μW/m2 in city areas (Hardell et al., 2018). Total exposure varies not only between urban and rural areas but also, depending on residential characteristics, between different floors of a building, with a tendency for building exposure to increase at higher floors (Breckenkamp et al., 2012).
Over the past five decades, and more intensively since the beginning of this century, many studies and several reviews have been published on the effects of anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation on humans living around the antennas. The first studies were carried out with radio and television antennas, investigating increases in cancer and leukaemia (Milham, 1988; Maskarinec et al., 1994; Hocking et al., 1996; Dolk et al., 1997a, 1997b; Michelozzi et al., 1998; Altpeter et al., 2000), as well as around radars (Kolodynski and Kolodynska, 1996; Goldsmith, 1997).
Regarding base station antennas, there are scientific discrepancies in their effects: some studies concluded that there are no health-related effects (e.g. Augner and Hacker, 2009; Blettner et al., 2009; Röösli et al., 2010; Baliatsas et al., 2016) whereas others found increases in cancer and other health problems in humans living around antennas (e.g. Santini et al., 2002; Navarro et al., 2003; Bortkiewicz et al., 2004; Eger et al., 2004; Wolf and Wolf, 2004; Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007; Khurana et al., 2010; Dode et al., 2011; Shinjyo and Shinjyo, 2014; Gandhi et al., 2015; López et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2021). There is a specific symptomatology linked to radar and RF exposure at low levels, characterized by functional disturbances of the central nervous system (headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, memory loss, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, appetite loss, difficulty in concentration, dizziness, etc.), that has been termed ‘RF sickness’ (Lilienfeld et al., 1978; Johnson Lyakouris, 1998; Navarro et al., 2003).
Results: The studies that met the selected criteria are presented in chronological order in Table 1, catalogued as Y/N depending on whether or not they found effects. The selected studies cover three types of effects: radiofrequency sickness (RS) (according to Lilienfeld et al., 1978; Johnson Lyakouris, 1998), cancer (C) and changes in biochemical parameters (CBP). Table 1 also includes the authors, year and country, antenna type, study design, diseases and symptoms found/not found and the main conclusions of each study.
For the reasons previously explained, the following studies (n=85) were not considered in this review, even though the conclusions of some of these studies will be discussed later due to their importance regarding the similarities of the electromagnetic radiation types involved and the effects found in many cases....
The results of this review show three types of effects by base station antennas on the health of humans: radiofrequency sickness, cancer and changes in biochemical parameters (Fig. 1). From among all these studies, most of them found effects (73.6%). Thus, despite some limitations and differences in study design, statistical measures, risk estimates and exposure categories (Khurana et al., 2010), together they provide a consistent view of the effects on the health of people living in the vicinity of base station antennas.
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is a private organization that issues exposure guidelines that are then adopted by governments, but it has been accused of having conflicts of interest (Hardell and Carlberg, 2020; Hardell et al., 2021). The ICNIRP (2010, 2020) limits are thousands of times above the levels where effects are recorded for both extremely low frequency and RF man-made EMF and account only for thermal effects, whereas the vast majority of recorded effects are non-thermal. These existing guidelines for public health protection only consider the effects of acute intense (thermal) exposures and do not protect from lower level long-term exposures (Israel et al., 2011; Yakimenko et al., 2011; Blank et al., 2015; Starkey, 2016; Belpomme and Irigaray, 2022). The exposure duration is crucial to assess the induced effects.
Conclusion: In the current circumstances, it seems that the scientific experts in the field are very clear about the serious problems we are facing and have expressed this through important appeals (Blank et al., 2015; Hardell and Nyberg, 2020). However, the media, the responsible organizations (World Health Organization, 2015) and the governments are not transmitting this crucial information to the population, who remain uninformed. For these reasons, the current situation will probably end in a crisis not only for health but also for the technology itself, as it is unsustainable and harmful to the environment and the people.
--
Isabel López, Nazario Félix, Marco Rivera, Adrián Alonso, Ceferino Maestú. What is the radiation before 5G? A correlation study between measurements in situ and in real time and epidemiological indicators in Vallecas, Madrid. Environ Res. 2021 Mar;194:110734. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.110734.
Abstract
Background: Exposure of the general population to electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phone base stations is one of the greater concerns of residents affected by the proximity of these structures due to the possible relationship between radiated levels and health indicators.
Objectives: This study aimed to find a possible relationship between some health indicators and electromagnetic radiation measurements.
Methods: A total of 268 surveys, own design, were completed by residents of a Madrid neighborhood surrounded by nine telephone antennas, and 105 measurements of electromagnetic radiation were taken with a spectrum analyzer and an isotropic antenna, in situ and in real-time, both outside and inside the houses.
Results: It was shown statistically significant p-values in headaches presence (p = 0.010), nightmares (p = 0.001), headache intensity (p < 0.001), dizziness frequency (p = 0.011), instability episodes frequency (p = 0.026), number of hours that one person sleeps per day (p < 0.001) and three of nine parameters studied from tiredness. Concerning cancer, there are 5.6% of cancer cases in the study population, a percentage 10 times higher than that of the total Spanish population.
Discussion: People who are exposed to higher radiation values present more severe headaches, dizziness and nightmares. Moreover, they sleep fewer hours.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
• The population continues to receive radiation peaks in distances greater than 200 meters, no one is free from exposure.
In conclusion, the data obtained shows that there is a relationship between the power density of radiation that a person receives at home every day and the presence of headaches, as well as the presence of sleep disorders. People who receive higher doses of radiation sleep less hours and have nightmares at night. In addition, these people suffer from headaches with greater intensity and are more prone to dizziness. In this study, indicators like fainting episodes, presence of tachycardias or instability cannot be related. No conclusive results were found for fatigue, since, out of nine parameters studied, only a statistically significant relationship was found in three of them. The study of how electromagnetic fields affect health, should not only be done in relation to cancer, but also health indicators related to day to day. The methodology for obtaining electromagnetic radiation measurements should be reviewed, the averaged radiation measurements that are described in the CENELEC standard are not the most appropriate, they should be carried out in a narrow band and with maximum peak measurements.
The abstracts for these seven studies: http://bit.ly/childrencelltower
The above summary was prepared for the following news story:
09:26 video
--
Mar 10, 2019
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.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/A10-018?src=recsys
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.
Excerpts
Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from cell towers
Chronic Exposure Web Site. Research on mobile base stations and their impact on health.
http://www.chronicexposure.org/basestations.html
Khurana VG, Hardell L, Everaert J, Bortkiewicz A, Carlberg M, Ahonen M. Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2010 Jul-Sep;16(3):263-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418
Kundi M, Hutter HP. Mobile phone base stations-Effects on wellbeing and health. Pathophysiology. 16(2-3):123-135. 2009. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19261451
Levitt B, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Review. 18:369–395. 2010. .
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/A10-018?src=recsys
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. 4(4):202-216. 2012. 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. Experimental Oncology. 33(2):62-70. 2011. 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. 7:1-16. 2015. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230
Recent Studies
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;565:714-20. http://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
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
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
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/
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
Karish G, Barket E (Best Best & Krieger). Issues of Local Control and Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Presented at League of California Cities City Attorneys’ Spring Conference, May 3, 2018. 22 pp. http://bit.ly/wirelesscontrol
League of Minnesota Cities. Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems. Nov 4, 2016. http://bit.ly/2k5PQz0
San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU)
http://www.antennafreeunion.org/neighborhoodaction.htm
News
"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 from 5,800 milliwatts per square meter to 10,000 milliwatts per square meter depending on the frequency.
"... 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."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cellphone-boom-spurs-antenna-safety-worries-1412293055
