About 36 studies total were examined and used to suggest tobacco was harmful in 1964, leading the surgeon general to issue a warning. Today, we have many more high quality studies on legal wireless and electrical radiation exposures, with the majority showing effects – usually only industry-funded studies find nothing.

Many so-called expert groups are to be questioned, as these are often led by industry-affiliated scientists and accompanying pressure. The WHO recently commissioned a series of studies, and the lead author has stated that she had to defend herself from pressure to downplay health risks of cancer.

Research findings most commonly associated with radiofrequencies (RFR) or wireless/electrical radiation are tumors, cancer, infertility, learning troubles, memory loss, mood and neurological disorders.

Clinical evidence shows that people near towers commonly feel poorly. Epidemiological or statistical studies, commonly show worsening health with greater proximity.

Cellphones and other personal devices create stronger exposures than cell towers. This fact is practically unknown, but occurs since antenna power density if very high when close to the body, and quickly drops off logarithmically with distance.

Near field is a term used for the field directly by an antenna, as opposed to far field, at a distance. Because electromagnetic energy follows the Inverse Square Law, this means that power density is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. That means that halving the distance to an antenna increases the power density by a factor of 4. If you are twice as far away, the power density is one-fourth.

In sum, near field means being right next to an antenna can lead to illegal exposure levels.

This is the reason an August 2019 investigation by the Chicago Tribune found that commonly used cellphones, when tested at close body contact, produced exposures exceeding federal safety limits, sometimes by over five times the threshold. Close contact with any electromagnetic antenna–whether a game controller, baby monitor, or watch–can lead to more powerful exposures with more obvious effects.

The US National Toxicological Program (NTP) investigated whether cellphone radiaton could cause harm and found the answer to be yes, with clear evidence of carcinogenity. Cellphone exposures increases gliomas of the brain (brain cancer) and schwannomas of the heart. The mainstream press has been fairly mute while recent government retirees and former leaders involved in the study and field, Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Dr. Ron Melnick, and Dr. Chris Portier, have all expressed that our current exposures cause harm, but appear constrained to publishing in academic journals. This 30-million-dollar study was designed to look at cellphone radiation impacts, but the media dismissed the study as irrelevant. Dismissal was pushed by industry product defense scientists to suggest the study’s findings were anomalies, related only to mice or rats and too high to be pertinent, despite being at legal exposure levels, to mimic cellular exposures.

Recently, in a 20-year brain tumor lawsuit, Dr. Portier was among a seven experts barred from providing testimony, for which he had prepared a report of 176 pages with 291 citations. The brain tumor plaintiffs were then was left without adequate defense, as Dr. Portier and essentially all other plaintiff experts were barred from providing testimony based on current science, and thus the plaintiffs lost.

The NTP study indicated that higher power density increased carcinogenity (cancer). Even so, a very similar study by the respected Italian Ramazzini Institute that simply had lower power density levels, or ambient levels, found indications of similar, but lesser in number, effects. Presenting in 2018, Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi shared concerns not only of cancer but heart disease from tumors that would not noticed even upon death [see online starting c. 8:26].

Let’s focus next on cancer from cell towers, although cell towers can have other impacts. With cancer, a high quality study using solid data found increased deaths from cancerous masses when living within 500 meters of a cell towers, and follow up studies by the same authors found increased mortality from all cancers:

Dode, A. C., Leão, M. M., Tejo, F.deA., Gomes, A. C., Dode, D. C., Dode, M. C., Moreira, C. W., Condessa, V. A., Albinatti, C., & Caiaffa, W. T. (2011). Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. The Science of the total environment, 409(19), 3649–3665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.051
Rodrigues, N. C. P., Dode, A. C., de Noronha Andrade, M. K., O’Dwyer, G., Monteiro, D. L. M., Reis, I. N. C., Rodrigues, R. P., Frossard, V. C., & Lino, V. T. S. (2021). The Effect of Continuous Low-Intensity Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields from Radio Base Stations to Cancer Mortality in Brazil. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(3), 1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031229

Cell tower antennas have traditionally been placed on tall monopoles at a much greater distance than personal devices. Traditionally, exposures from proximity to a cell tower would be less than the power density generated by a personal device like a cellphone. Still, living near cell towers is rightly avoided. The frequency doesn’t have to be as powerful as a cellphone to cause harm. The frequency itself is harmful, regardless.

Discussing why low power density can cause harm is a topic for another article. Touching on proof, many studies have found harm below the power density levels set by the federal government. For this very reason the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was sued to update the federal guidelines, the FCC lost, and the courts told the FCC to review the guidelines based upon current science [Environmental Health Trust et. al. v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 20-1025 (D.C. Cir. 2021)]. The FCC has refused to do so.

Nevertheless, new cell tower placements can eclipse the power density of cellphones when placed in residential areas on utility poles or walls (so-called small cells). Fairly recently (before 2020), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began to require these in residential zones and has continue to reduce local control of siting and assert federal control. Many cities have fought this deregulation, and yet have essentially and often lost in court. A Native American tribe also fought against the loss of environmental and historic protections, and won in part, but the FCC and federal government continues to chip away at this and other protections.

In Pittsfield, residents were able to convince the Pittsfield health board to use the board’s powers to require removal of a cell tower, but the town’s executive branch refused to provide legal assistance when Verizon threatened legal action, prompting the board to withdraw the order. Residents went to court, and an appeal to Superior Court resulted in a partial win. The Pittsfield Board of Health is now able to negotiate with Verizon.

The Legal Handbook for Massachusetts’ Board of Health, 3rd Edition, includes a chapter noting cell tower radiation is a concern. The EPA also defines cell towers as potential hazards in their school siting guidelines and historically has filed in opposition to the FCC’s lax regulation.

The FCC is focused on business interests, and lacks both medical and scientific expertise. Telecommunications law [47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)] even states that ‘environmental effects’ cannot be used to halt antenna siting, and courts have interpreted this to include public health.

Most recently in 2026, the FCC initiated a docket to ask if any rules should be deleted, and cities and nonprofits requested that rules favoring industry be deleted. Instead, the FCC chose to favor industry even more, such as by eliminating notice. The speed with which the FCC changes and adopts regulations in favor of industry has made it very difficult to challenge antenna siting or craft protective local ordinances, although the right of the FCC to bypass states in doing so has, at times, been successfully challenged in court.

If you are fighting against antenna sitings in Massachusetts, please contact us. While we cannot fight for you in court or before your town, we may be able to highlight your fight, craft helpful legislation, and connect you with others.