By Keri Luiz
Assistant Editor
The joint-use facilities pact dictating the division of funding for a cell phone tower at Benicia Middle School was approved unanimously Thursday by the Benicia Unified School District Governing Board.
An amendment to the agreement allocates 75 percent of the revenue from the tower’s owner, Crown Castle, to the city and 25 percent to the school district. In exchange, the city continues to take care of the athletic fields of Benicia Middle School.
The City Council approved the pact on Sept. 6, 2011.
Acting Economic Development Manager Mario Giuliani told the board that the tower in question had been there since 1997.
“Benicia Middle School has three cellular antennas on-site,” Giuliani said.
“One is Verizon, which was installed in 2005. One is Sprint, which later became Crown Castle. That was installed in 1997 and that is the one that has been recently amended.
“The school district has a controlled cellular antenna on the gym,” he added, but he was unsure of the carrier for that antenna.
“No matter what action occurs tonight, whether the decision of the board is to decline the amendment … or to accept it, those towers remain,” Giuliani said.
“The result would be, should the board decide not to approve this amendment, then district staff would be maintaining Benicia Middle School fields instead of city staff.”
Safety issues of the cell towers were also discussed.
“I don’t think it would be harmful to take a greater look at radiation in schools, and where the real sources for trouble are,” Trustee Dana Dean said. “Maybe we’ll discover that, in particular, the one on the gym is something we need to look at.”
The amendment passed 4-0. Board President André Stewart was absent.
Also Thursday, the board unanimously approved a revision to the district student use of technology policy, that “student use of district computers to access social networking sites and/or email must be supervised and monitored by staff.”
“We wanted to get ‘supervised’ and we wanted to get ‘monitored’ in there,” Trustee Steve Messina said.
Per district policy, elementary school student access to social networking sites and/or email is prohibited unless under direct supervision by staff.
Secondary school students’ use is similarly restricted.
Sharing is caring!
This is not the time or place for this comment, but technology as a whole should be embraced by the schools. Cell phones in class are a big no no, but tablets, smart phones with calculators, access to internet for research, and now digital text books should be allowed and encouraged. There are already high schools that do this – saving paper, text book printing, and our kids backs from those HUGE heavy backpacks. They even issue one laptop per child. We as a community should ask our parents, teachers and school board to start allowing these technological advances. Face it, in today’s work place, this is the norm, and our kids should have an advantage.
You are 100% correct. This is not the place for your comment.
From the above article: ” I don’t think it would be harmful to take a look a greater look at radiation in schools, and where the real sources for trouble are,” Trustee Dana Dean.
Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation
by Karen J. Rogers
Source: Mt. Shasta Bio-regional Ecology Center.
Information for the school district and the wider community to consider.
The safety of cell phone towers is the subject of extensive scientific debate. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that the electromagnetic radiation they emit, even at low levels, is dangerous to human health.
The cell phone industry is expanding quickly, with over 100,000 cell phone towers now up across the U.S., which is expected to increase ten-fold over the next five years. The industry has set what they say are ” safe levels” of radiation exposure, but there are a growing number of doctors, physicists, and health officials who strongly disagree, and foresee a public health crisis.
Many towers have been built recently in Siskiyou Co., with dozens more planned, as telecommunications companies rush to corner markets in this fast-growing industry. These towers emit radio frequencies (RF), a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), for a distance of up to 2 1/2 miles. They are essentially the same frequency radiation as microwaves in a microwave oven.
Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation, there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA, and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer’s disease, and numerous other serious illnesses. 1
Children are at the greatest risk, due to their thinner skulls, and rapid rate of growth. Also at greater risk are the elderly, the frail, and pregnant women. Doctors from the United Kingdom have issued warnings urging children under 16 not to use cell phones, to reduce their exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation. 2
Over 100 physicians and scientists at Harvard and Boston University Schools of Public Health have called cellular towers a radiation hazard. Over 100 physicians and scientists at Harvard and Boston University Schools of Public Health have called cellular towers a radiation hazard. And, 33 delegate physicians from 7 countries have declared cell phone towers a “public health emergency”.
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is in charge of setting the standards of exposure for the public, and claims that, based on scientific studies, the current levels are safe. But it is not a public health agency, and has been criticized as being “an arm of the industry”. Many who work for the FCC are either past, present or future employees of the very industries they are supposed to regulate. With an explosively emergent $40 billion dollar a year industry at stake, critics have stated “you can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they want them to show.”
Our federal government also once told us that asbestos, cigarettes, thalidomide, and the blood supply were “safe”, but which were later found to be harmful.
With a $40 billion dollar a year industry at stake, ” you can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they want them to show.”
Cathy Bergman-Veniza, at Vermont Law School Environmental Law Center Conference, 1996
The current U.S. standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers is 580-1,000 microwatts per sq. cm. (mW/cm2), among the least protective in the world. More progressive European countries have set standards 100 to 1,000 times lower than the U.S. Compare Australia at 200 microwatts, Russia, Italy, and Toronto, Canada at 10, China at 6, and Switzerland, at 4. In Salzburg, Austria the level is .1 mircowatts (pulsed), 10,000 times less than the U.S. New Zealand has proposed yet more stringent levels, at .02 microwatts, 50,000 times more protective than the U.S. standard. 3, 4
Contrary to what the communications industry tells us, there is vast scientific, epidemiological and medical evidence that confirms that exposure to the RF and microwave radiation emitted from cell towers, even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems. 5, 6, 7, 8
There is vast scientific and medical evidence that exposure to cell tower radiation, even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems.
Scientists and advocacy groups say that the current FCC “safe” standards are based on 1985 research, and fail to consider more recent research that found brain cancer, memory impairment, DNA breakdown, and neurological problems with RF at much lower levels. The earlier studies considered only the “thermal”, or heating effects of the radiationin other words, the level at which the radiation would heat tissue, or ” cook” a person, in the same exact manner that a microwave oven works. The FCC levels may ensure our tissues are not “cooked”, but they fail to address long-term chronic exposure at low levels, or what is called “non-thermal” effects.
Doctors say that RF radiation is wreaking havoc with normal biological cell functions. “RF alters tissue physiology”, says Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist who found genetic damage in a $28 million research program, paid for by the industry. He now fights to have safety levels lowered. 9
In 1998 the Vienna Resolution, signed by 16 of the world’s leading bioelectromagnetic researchers, provided a consensus statement that there is scientific agreement that biological effects from low intensity RF exposure are established. It says existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. No safe exposure level can be established at this time.
The world’s leading electromagnetic researchers say existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. The Vienna Resolution, 1998
The Salzburg Resolution, adopted in 2000 at the International Conference on Cell Tower Siting, would prohibit any cell site from emanating more than .1 mW/cm2 10,000 times more strict than the current U.S. standard. This limit takes into account the growing evidence for non-thermal RF bioeffects. 10
Cell phone towers expose the public to involuntary, chronic, cumulative Radio Frequency Radiation. Low levels of RFR have been shown to be associated with changes in cell proliferation and DNA damage. Some scientific studies show adverse health effects reported in the .01 to 100 mW/cm2 range at levels hundreds, indeed, thousands, of times lower than the U.S. standards. These harmful low levels of radiation can reach as far as a mile away from the cell tower location. Reported health problems include headache, sleep disorders, memory impairment, nosebleeds, an increase in seizures, blood brain barrier leakage problems, increased heart rates, lower sperm counts, and impaired nervous systems. 11
Long term and cumulative exposure to cell tower radiation has no precedent in history. There are no conclusive studies on the safety of such exposures, and the growing body of scientific evidence reports such bioeffects and adverse health effects are possible, if not probable.
Dr. Neil Cherry, Ph.D. biophysicist from New Zealand, reports that “there is no safe level of ER radiation.” Dr. Cherry wrote a 120-page review of 188 scientific studies. He said the standards are based on thermal effects, but important non-thermal effects also take place, such as cell death and DNA breakdown. “The electromagnetic radiation causes cells to change in a way that makes them cancer forming.” It can increase the risk of cancer two to five times, he said. “To claim there is no adverse effect from phone towers flies in the face of a large body of evidence.”
“To claim there is no adverse effect from phone towers flies in the face of a large body of evidence.” Dr. Neil Cherry, biophysicist
Public health officials caution that we err on the side of conservatism, given the massive public health risk that is possible.
Other federal health agencies disagree that safe levels of exposure have been identified, much less built into the FCC standard. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not agree with the FCC standards, and analysts have recommended that EMR be classified as a “probable human carcinogen”. 12
Deputy Director of the Dept. of Health and Human Services, Elizabeth Jacobsen, has stated that the safety of RF “has not been established nor has the necessary research been conducted to test it”, and cites risk of brain cancer, tumors and DNA breakdown. The California Public Utility Commission has urged the cell phone industry to not locate towers near schools or hospitals. And the World Health Organization reports “many epidemiological studies have addressed possible links between exposure to RF fields and excess risk of cancer. These studies do not provide enough information to allow a proper evaluation of human cancer risk from RF exposure because the results of these studies are inconsistent.”
“The safety of RF has not been established, nor has the necessary research been conducted to test it.” Elizabeth Jacobsen, Director, US Dept. of Health
“Our bodies are exquisitely sensitive to subtle electromagnetic harmonics, and we depend upon tiny electrical impulses to conduct complex life processes,” says Dr. Robert Becker, author of The Body Electric, and Cross Currents, The Perils of Electropollution. 13, 14
He says “at the present the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of (these) electromagnetic fields.” Radiation once considered safe, he says, is now correlated with increases in birth defects, depression, Alzheimer’s disease, learning disabilities, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and cancer.
The incidence of brain cancer is up 25% since 1973, and this year 185,000 Americans will be diagnosed with brain cancer. Brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer death for children and young adults.
Yet, the United States has a de facto policy of “post sales surveillance” with respect to RF radiation. Only after years of exposure, will there be studies to characterize the health consequences.
It can take 3 to 10 years for health effects to show up. Citizens shouldn’t be forced to act as guinea pigs in a radiation bioeffects experiment.
Some adverse health effects show up immediately, but it can often take 3 to 10 years for the longer term effects of RF illness to appear, such as cancer. Many researchers, public health officials and citizens believe that consumers shouldn’t be forced to act as guinea pigs in a bioeffects experiment for the next 20 years. In short, “we are the experiment”, for health effects.
Dr. Gerard Hyland, physicist, says existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate, since they focus only on the thermal effects of exposure.15 Hyland, twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine, says existing safety guidelines “afford no protection” against the non-thermal influences. “Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments and industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests.”
“Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate.” Dr. Gerard Hyland, Physicist two-time nominee, Nobel Prize in Medicine
The industry lobbied Congress with $39 million in 1996 to ensure passage of a law which essentially gives them the right to place these towers in our neighborhoods, and makes it next to impossible to oppose them based on health reasons. It is no coincidence that EPA funding was also cut in 1996 for electromagnetic radiation health studies. Citizens and communities across the country are angered, and are protesting this imposition of involuntary, 24-hour-a-day microwave exposure, without proven safety levels. As one citizen stated, “There’s no place left to escape.”
The industry lobbied Congress with $39 million in 1996 to pass a law that took away citizen’s rights to oppose cell towers based on health reasons.
Also, once a cell tower is erected, it has proved very difficult to verify the radiation is within legal limits. There are no safety measures in place to ensure that the towers are not emitting higher radiation levels than legally allowed. One frustrated resident finally spent $7,000 purchasing his own equipment to test a cell phone tower near his home, and found it emitting radiation at levels 250% over the legal limit. 16
Property values have also been known to drop once a cell tower is erected, due to the perceived risk of negative health effects. Cellular phone frequencies have also seriously disrupted local emergency and law enforcement radio communications.
Massachusetts lawyer Mark Berthiaume, opposing placement of a cell phone tower, said “Municipalities …. are being bullied every day by providers of wireless telephone service who use their financial clout and the federal (law) to intimidate the communities into allowing them to place large towers in inappropriate locations.” 17
Some Questions and Answers
But don’t we need and depend on cell phones?
Of course. No one is saying not to have cell phones and towers, but to make them safer. If Austria can have levels 10,000 times more protective, then so can we. It is just more expensive to the companies. Also, we don’t have to let these cell towers go anywhere and everywhere the industry wants them. We can require that they erect the minimum number required to provide adequate coverage, and be put in the safest places possible.
Why don’t we just oppose the construction of cell towers in our county?
In a strategic move, the cell phone industry has tried to make it illegal for citizens to oppose the towers based on health concerns. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, state and local rights were seriously limited with regard to opposing towers based on health concerns. The constitutionality of this Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court, and a long legal battle is sure to follow. But it will take years, while the public continues to be exposed to chronic, cumulative radiation with each new cell tower.
So what CAN we do?
The Telecommunications Act prevents citizens from opposing the towers based on concerns about RF emissions, but we can oppose them on numerous other valid grounds. There are still rights we and our local elected officials maintain, that allow us local control of the number, size and placement of cell towers, while still providing for adequate cell phone coverage. Numerous communities have called for moratoriums on tower construction, allowing them needed time to study the issue, and enact strict ordinances that require the industry to respect community desires, such as building the minimum towers necessary, in appropriate locations. During these moratoriums, communities are preparing non-industry biased studies of cell phone tower need, and creating cell tower Master Plans, to help protect the rights and health of citizens, while complying with the law. 18, 19, 20
Siting of cellular towers is an important function of our elected officials. Protection of citizens’ health and property rights should be foremost in the responsibilities of local government. We urge our elected officials to protect the health and welfare of the citizens who live here, rather than big-money interests with profit as their bottom line.
For further information, these websites offer a good starting point: http://www.emrnetwork.org, http://www.microwavesnews.com, http://www.ccwti.org, http://www.wave-guide.org, http://www.planwireless.com, www. rfsafe.com , Sageasoociates.net
2002, Karen J. Rogers, B.S.
Endnotes
1 Microwave and Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure, San Francisco Medicine , Vol. 74, No 3, March 2001
2 Mobiles Risk to children, Daily Mail (U.K.), May 11, 2000
3 Radiofrequency Radiation Health Studies, Wireless Antenna Site Consumer Information Package, Sage Associates, Montecito, CA, 2000, www. sageassocciates.net
4 Tower concerns should be health, not aesthetics, Burlington Free Press, January 12, 2001
5 Selected and Extensive Bibliographies on Electromagnetic Fields and Health, Bridlewood Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Information Service, compiled by: Richard W. Woodley, revised 1999,
http://www.wave-guide.org/archives/bridlewood/biblio.html
6 Reported Biological Effects From Radiofrequency Non-Ionizing Radiation, http://www.wave-guide.org/library/studies.html
7 Some Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation, Sage Associates, 2000 at http://www.sageassociates.net/rfchartreportbio-sample.pdf , and Reference List for Some Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR), Sage Associates, August 2000, at http://www.sageassociates.net/Bibliography-sample.pdf
8 A Cellular Phone Tower on Ossining High School?, includes extensive reference to scientific papers and government documents citing adverse health effects from cell tower radiation, http://www.cyburban.com/~lplachta/safeweb2.htm
9 Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age: An Insider’s Alarming Discoveries About Cancer and Genetic Damage, Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, Carroll & Graf, ©2001
10 International Conference on Cell Tower Siting, by Monica Kauppi, No Place to Hide, September 2000, Resolution presented June 2000 and signed by 19 of 23 speakers, including Dr. Carl Blackman of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
11 Ibid, endnote 5.
12 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields, External Review Draft, No. EPA/600/6-90/005B, October 1990.
13 Becker, Robert O., & Gary Seldon, The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, NY, 1985
14 Becker, Robert O., Cross Currents: The Perils of Electropollution, The Promise of Electromedicine, Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc., Los Angeles, CA, 336 pp., 1990.
15 The Physiological and Environmental Effects of Non-ionising Electromagnetic Radiation, Dr. Gerard Hyland, presented to European Parliament’s Industry, Trade, Research and Energy Committee, July 11, 2001.
16 FCC takes look at ‘antenna farm’, Denver Post, October 30, 1998
17 Town May Order Company to Remove Cellular Tower, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, March 20, 2000
18 Cellular Tower Zoning, Siting, Leasing and Franchising: Federal Developments and Municipal Interests, by Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt, Howlett Attorneys at Law, presented to International Municipal Lawyers Association, September 2001,
19 Plan Wireless Newsletter, Kreines & Kreines, Inc., at http://www.planwireless.com/index.htm
20 U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, SPRINT SPECTRUM v WILLOTH , (Corrected Opinion, August Term 1998) , Docket No. 98-7442, at http://laws.findlaw.com/2nd/987442v2.html
Go protest at the meeting Will or call all of them. I am sure they would love to hear from you.
And from the American Cancer Society as a balance to Gregory’s dribble…
Cellular Phone Towers
Cellular (cell) phones first became widely available in the United States in the 1990s, but their use has increased dramatically since then. The widespread use of cell phones has led to the placement of cell phone towers in many communities. These towers, also called base stations, consist of electronic equipment and antennas that receive and transmit radiofrequency (RF) signals.
How do cellular phone towers work?
Cell phone base stations may be free standing towers or mounted on existing structures, such as trees, water tanks, or tall buildings. The antennas need to be located high enough so they can adequately cover the area. Base stations usually range in height from 50-200 feet.
Cell phones communicate with nearby cell towers mainly through radiofrequency (RF) waves, a form of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum between FM radio waves and microwaves. Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, they are forms of non-ionizing radiation. This means they cannot cause cancer by directly damaging DNA. RF waves are different from stronger types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light, which can break the chemical bonds in DNA.
At very high levels, RF waves can heat up body tissues. (This is the basis for how microwave ovens work.) But the levels of energy used by cell phones and towers are much lower.
When a person makes a cell phone call, a signal is sent from the phone’s antenna to the nearest base station antenna. The base station responds to this signal by assigning it an available radiofrequency channel. RF waves transfer the voice information to the base station. The voice signals are then sent to a switching center, which transfers the call to its destination. Voice signals are then relayed back and forth during the call.
How are people exposed to the energy from cellular phone towers?
As people use cell phones to make calls, signals are transmitted back and forth to the base station. The RF waves produced at the base station are given off into the environment, where people can be exposed to them.
The energy from a cellular phone tower antenna, like that of other telecommunication antennas, is directed toward the horizon (parallel to the ground), with some downward scatter. Base station antennas use higher power levels than other types of land-mobile antennas, but much lower levels than those from radio and television broadcast stations. The amount of energy decreases rapidly with increasing distance from the antenna. As a result, the level of exposure to radio waves at ground level is very low compared to the level close to the antenna.
Public exposure to radio waves from cell phone tower antennas is slight for several reasons. The power levels are relatively low, the antennas are mounted at high above ground level, and the signals are transmitted intermittently, rather than constantly.
At ground level near typical cellular base stations, the amount of RF energy is thousands of times less than the limits for safe exposure set by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and other regulatory authorities. It is very unlikely that a person could be exposed to RF levels in excess of these limits just by being near a cell phone tower.
When cellular antennas are mounted on rooftops, it is possible that a person on the roof could be exposed to RF levels greater than those typically encountered on the ground. But even then, exposure levels approaching or exceeding the FCC safety guidelines are only likely to be found very close to and directly in front of the antennas. If this is the case, access to these areas should be limited.
The level of RF energy inside buildings where a base station is mounted is typically much lower than the level outside depending on the construction materials of the building. Wood or cement block reduces the exposure level of RF radiation by a factor of about 10. The energy level behind an antenna is hundreds to thousands of times lower than in front. Therefore, if an antenna is mounted on the side of a building, the exposure level in the room directly behind the wall is typically well below the recommended exposure limits.
Do cellular phone towers cause cancer?
Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there is very little evidence to support this idea. In theory, there are some important points that would argue against cellular phone towers being able to cause cancer.
First, the energy level of radiofrequency (RF) waves is relatively low, especially when compared with the types of radiation that are known to increase cancer risk, such as gamma rays, x-rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light. The energy of RF waves given off by cell phone towers is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules, which is how these stronger forms of radiation may lead to cancer.
A second issue has to do with wavelength. RF waves have long wavelengths, which can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to affect individual cells in the body.
Third, even if RF waves were somehow able to affect cells in the body at higher doses, the level of RF waves present at ground level is very low — well below the recommended limits. Levels of energy from RF waves near cell phone towers are not significantly different than the background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations.
For these reasons, most scientists agree that cell phone antennas or towers are unlikely to cause cancer.
Studies in people
Very few human studies have focused specifically on cellular phone towers and cancer risk. In the largest study published to date, British researchers compared a group of more than 1,000 families of young children with cancer against a similar group of families of children without cancer. They found no link between a mother’s exposure to the towers during pregnancy (based on the distance from the home to the nearest tower and on the amount of energy given off by nearby towers) and the risk of early childhood cancer.
The amount of exposure from living near a cell phone tower is typically many times lower than the exposure from using a cell phone. About 30 studies have looked at possible links between cell phone use and tumors in people. Most studies to date have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors, although these studies have had some important limitations. This is an area of active research. For more information, see the document, Cellular Phones.
Studies done in the lab
Laboratory studies have looked at whether the types of RF waves used in cell phone communication can cause DNA damage. Most of these studies have supported the idea that the RF waves given off by cell phones and towers don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly.
Some scientists have reported that the RF waves may produce other effects in human cells (in lab dishes) that might possibly help tumors grow. However, these studies have not been verified. Several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion. Research in this area continues.
What expert agencies say
The 3 expert agencies that usually classify cancer-causing exposures (carcinogens) — the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — have not classified cell phone towers as to their cancer-causing potential.
According to the World Health Organization:
Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.
In commenting on cell phone towers near homes or schools, the Federal Communications Commission states:
Radiofrequency emissions from antennas used for cellular and PCS [personal communications service] transmissions result in exposure levels on the ground that are typically thousands of times below safety limits. These safety limits were adopted by the FCC based on the recommendations of expert organizations and endorsed by agencies of the Federal Government responsible for health and safety. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that such towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students.
Do cellular phone towers cause any other health problems?
While high levels of RF waves can cause a warming of body tissues, the energy levels on the ground near a cell phone tower are far below the levels needed to cause this effect. Thus far, there is no evidence in published scientific reports that cell phone towers cause any other health problems.
Can I limit my exposure?
Cell phone towers are not known to cause any health effects. But if you are concerned about possible exposure from a cell phone tower near your home or office, you can ask a government agency or private firm to measure the RF field strength near the tower to ensure that it is within the acceptable range.
What should I do if I’ve been exposed to cellular phone towers?
There is no test to measure whether you have been exposed to RF radiation from cellular phone towers. But as noted above, most researchers and regulatory authorities do not believe that cell phone towers pose health risks under ordinary conditions. If you have additional health concerns, please consult your doctor.
Additional resources
More information from your American Cancer Society
The following related information may also be helpful to you. These materials may be viewed on our Web site or ordered from our toll-free number, at 1-800-227-2345.
Cellular Phones
Known and Probable Human Carcinogens
Radiation Exposure and Cancer
National organizations and Web sites*
In addition to the American Cancer Society, other sources of information and support include:
Environmental Protection Agency
Home page: http://www.epa.gov
Understanding radiation: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understanding-radiation-overview.html
Federal Communications Commission
RF Safety Program, Office of Engineering and Technology
Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety
Food and Drug Administration
Home page: http://www.fda.gov
Radiation-emitting products: Cell phones: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/default.htm
National Cancer Institute
Toll-free number: 1-800-422-6237 (1-800-4-CANCER)
Home page: http://www.cancer.gov
Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Home page: http://www.niehs.nih.gov
Electric and magnetic fields: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/index.cfm
World Health Organization
Electromagnetic fields and public health: base stations and wireless technologies
Web site: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html
* Inclusion on this list does not imply endorsement by the American Cancer Society
No matter who you are, we can help. Contact us anytime, day or night, for information and support. Call us at 1-800-227-2345 or visit http://www.cancer.org.
References
ANSI-C95.1, 1982, American National Standards Institute. American national standard safety levels with respect to human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, 300 kHz to 100 Ghz. New York: IEEE.
Elliott P, Toledano MB, Bennett J, et al. Mobile phone base stations and early childhood cancers: case-control study. BMJ. 2010;340:c3077. [Epub ahead of print]
Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology. Radio Frequency Safety. 2009. Accessed at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html on February 22, 2010.
IEEE-C95.1, 1991, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 Ghz. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Human exposure to RF emissions from cellular radio base station antennas; Washington, DC: 1992.
ICNIRP: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Health Issues related to the use of hand-held radiotelephones and base transmitters. Health Physics. 1996;70:587-593.
IRPA, 1988, International Radiation Protection Association. Guidelines on limits of exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. IEEE United States Activities, COMAR, Washington, DC.
NCRP, 1986, National Council on Radiation Protection. Biological effects and exposure criteria for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Report 86, (Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) pp. 1-382.
Rothman KJ, Chung-Kwang C, Morgan R, et al. Assessment of cellular telephone and other radio frequency exposure for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1996;7:291-298.
Valberg PA. Radio frequency radiation (RFR): the nature of exposure and carcinogenic potential. Cancer Causes Control. 1997;8:323-332.
Wolf R, Wolf D. Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station. Int J Cancer Prevention 2004;1:123-128.
World Health Organization (WHO). Electromagnetic fields and public health: base stations and wireless technologies. 2006. Accessed at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html on February 23, 2010.