On September 20, 2018, I have published a brief text “Dilemma?” on my FB. It turned out to be popular post, commented and shared.
The reason to publish such text was the news, coming now and then, where activist announce that “we won”, when yet another cell tower erection is being cancelled because of public opposition and pressure.
Is it really a victory, or is it rather a Pyrrhic victory?
If we wish to continue development of wireless communication then, in my opinion, the victories announced after every cancellation of cell tower erection are Pyrrhic victories because, instead of lowering radiation exposures, what they achieve is increased exposure of cell phone users in the vicinity of the cancelled cell tower.
Why I think of the victories to be Pyrrhic victories I explained in my FB text. I re-publish it below with some additional comments.
****************************************************************************************************
Dilemma?
- People love smart phones and dislike cell towers (base stations).
- Without cell towers smart phones will not work.
- The closer smart phone is to cell tower the better and faster it works, emits less radiation and battery does not drain rapidly.
- People oppose cell towers but do not want to live without smart phones.
- People do not seem to understand and accept that the VAST MAJORITY of radiation exposure users get from own smart phone and exposure from cell tower is MINUSCULE* in comparison (even in close proximity).
- We need research to find out who are the individuals more sensitive to EMF than the rest of the population and to what levels of radiation exposure.
- How meaningful (physiologically) are exposures from cell towers in comparison with the much higher exposures from smart phones.
****************************************************************************************************
Added 2.11.2018: because the numbers of my exposure at home were confusing to some and were misrepresented and intentionally misinterpreted, I removed them.
The fact remains – the closer cell phone is to cell tower the less radiation cell phone emits.
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
It will take some time for me to respond. Possibly a new blog but it will take a few weeks… Thanks for your interest.
Dear Dariusz Leszczynski
I hope you are well, and that you can see this message among all others.
It has been a year since this dissuasion (now it is 10/10/2019) about the dilemma of what is better close or far cell towers.
Since time have passed and we now see more and more close “smaller” cell towers as part of the 5G evolution deployment (most are 4.5 LTE) installed next to homes and on most corners of the streets, in the USA, Canada, UK and Australia, I would like to get you update opinion on this issue:
1. Do you think what we see now on 5G deployment is better of worse than what was before.
2. Do you think that this close smaller 5G cells will reduce most people exposure or will it make is bigger?
Thank you for this interesting discussion. I just would like to add a comment regarding whether fixed antennas (e.g. cell towers) or portable ones (e.g. mobile phones) contribute more to the total personal RF-EMF exposure/dose. According to Zeleke et al 2018 (https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/10/2234), downlink (i.e. cell towers) and broadcast antennas contributed the most in their study (~63%) compared to a mere 17% from cell phones. This scenary is very differnt to the one pictured by Roser et al 2015 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26006132), which showed that 69% of the total dose was due to mobile phone exposure. I believe both are reliable, good-quality studies performed by serious, responsible scientists. So, what´s going on? Well, let´s find the differences between both studies. Zeleke et al was based on personal measurements using an RF meter worn by the participants (most likely on their waists but also possibly in other places, see article). Therefore, since the meters only recorded the fields emitted from the phone at possibly around 1 m of distance (hence much lower), the high exposure levels emitted by mobile phones near the head were not captured. In Roser et al, on the contrary, the contribution of each source was based on measurements, modelling and questionnaire data. Moreover, the results are given as dose (J/kg), not as exposure (e.g. V/m). This means that the duration of exposure was also taken into account. This is a very important point, since we might be exposed to near-field RF-EMF from mobile phones around 15 min/day on average (according to Wilen et al 2003 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12669297), while exposure to far-field RF-EMF from fixed antennas is 24/7 at varying but small magnitudes.
Another study demonstrating that RF-EMR exposure from mobile phone base stations (masts) is the main source of exposure i.e. bigger than exposure from personal devices: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/10/2234
So, unfortunately, your claim “Cell tower exposures are MINUSCULE.” isn’t correct (I honestly wish you were correct, because then I could have reduced my family’s exposure by controlling our own device use, but this is evidence for higher passive exposure than active exposure).
I also reject your claim that “Some persons, likely rarity, may be sensitive to very low exposures. However, this is only suspicion because we have NO SCIENTIFIC DATA to prove it.” because there is already substantial scientific data indicating that some people (and animals) are more sensitive to low-intensity RF-EMR. I have no time now to list many studies but even in the NTP study, there were animals more prone to DNA damage and others that were less prone, the Augner paper showed some people had stronger stress responses to MPBS exposure and Kimata papers showed some people’s immune systems were highly responsive (the last two studies were double-blind provocation studies).
You wanted to not be this-and-that… So, I took the liberty of pointing out that this is a minority view, a very small minority, if we trust statistics about the saturation of population with cell phones. E.g. in Finland there is more cell phones than people…
As to the BioInitiative report – I do not consider it a very good review. It is too single-sided. It does the same what ICNIRP does but in the opposite direction. I consider studies that you pointed out as indicators of a possibility but not a proof of effect or harm.
Dear Prof., there is no need to get personal. I didn’t suggest to get rid of all the antennas in the world – that would surely benefit me, but not most people. I think we both agree the goal should be to expose everybody to less radiation, cellphone users or not.
Many people around me, which are not EHS, would not want to have an antenna next to their childern’s school or next to their house. Maybe they are wrong, but this app is not enough to prove that. And it really doesn’t matter who invented it.
Too many variables are missing in order to say how much radiation people are actually going to be exposed to with or without the antenna next to their house or school, based on the way they use their cellphones and routers, wifi, etc. This should be done in a serious study, which uses high quality RF meters, monitoring the total exposure of the users 24/7.
I’m definitely not an expert on what study is reliable or not, but I counted 47 studies that show health effects on the levels mentioned (up to 10uw/cm2) in the Bio-Initiative report.
Click to access BioInitiativeReport-RF-Color-Charts.pdf
Hello Prof’ Darius
I agree with some of the point you argue (1,2,4).
Regarding #5 I think you would be correct only if the user does not have a cellphone close to his home (but still get reception). If the tower is close, say under 300 meters, and with in eye sight (not blocked by other buildings or trees, say the tower can be seen from his windows), In this case my guess (based on my measurements) is that in most case the exposure from the tower would be both bigger (both on time scale and frequency scale) than from the cellphone, and devastating.
Regarding #6, we can see from studies done before smartphones were in every pocket, that even the so called low RF emission from cell phone tower causes symptoms, health effect, and health problems with people that live near a cell tower. The most informative study is of santini from 2001 ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12168254 ). Magda Havis created a very informative chart based on the data from this study – please see – https://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/santini-2002-symptoms-near-cellular-base-stations.jpg?w=960&h=713
Please see more studies at the end of this comment.
Regarding point #3, the level of transmission from the smartphone is not solely dependable on the strength of the reception signal. There are other factors such as the technology, way of use and other factors.
In addition, I think the way you calculated/estimated/measured the exposure is not correct. You chose to use a smartphone app? am I right?
From my experience these kind of apps are not really measuring the radiation levels but only calculating it according to partial data (like the signal strength the phone gets from the providing cell tower in the selected band and protocol) and wrong assumption. For example, I am guessing this upp calculate the exposure from the tower, only according to the data signal coming from the tower about the level of transmission, the distance from the antenna and maybe also the level of reception signal of this antena as it is picked up by this phone. Even if the app does the calculation right (and I have seen apps that don’t), what about other antennas and towers, antennas, bands and transmissions that affect the exposure of the user but don’t service his phone and the app does not know anything about and does not calculate the exposure from them?
As I comment on FB, the exposure of the user should be estimated over all the 24X7( and usually the exposure from the towers is 24X7 while from the phone it is about 40 out of 60 seconds when the smartphone is in use, and less than 10 seconds out of every minute when the phone is in energy safe mode or standby), over all the frequency (tower emit much more transmission over much more frequencies than a single smartphone). and over the all body (in case of a tower it is a “all body exposure” when from the phone , the parts of the body that get most of the radiation are the parts closests to the phone, when the level drop very quickly as you move the meter far away from the phone).
Therefore, unfortunately, I think this time you are wrong (although I agree with you on most issues, and regards you professional and person opinions very much).
I also think that if you call for more cell phone towers, it will be exploited to install more antennas without bringing a real reduction in exposure both of the public that live next to it and both to the cellphone user. For example in Israel the cell phone companies use this claim (and showing reports of measurements done with the slow sampling rate meters according to ICNIRP standard) to pull up more big 24X7 radiating antennas and to disclaim the opposition.
I think that the exposure form the phone is very problematic, but also the exposure from the towers.
There is no logic in my mind to deploy more sources of 24X7, full body, multi frequency/band RF radiation exposure. If you want to reduce the exposure you need to reduce the number of sources. In addition, as I explain in my site, reduction of the exposure from the phones can and should be done in other ways.
There is no logic in my opinion to deploy more antennas as long as there is no recognition for the health effect of RF, no reduction in exposure guide line (to the factor or 1000 or more), no acknowledgement of EHS and no real understanding of the possible effect of the public about RF health effect.
It would be as if the metal/heavy machinery industry would ask for more coal power plants around their factories, in order to provide them with more electric power, without proper “clean air” regulation and measurements, while telling the public a big power plant next to every factory will cause less pollution.
I hope that you will read my comment and consider my opinion.
Cellphone tower studies:
Click to access naila.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25006864/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009912011027330
Click to access brazilresearch.pdf
Click to access tno-fel_report_03148_definitief.pdf
http://www.emf-portal.de/viewer.php?aid=13498&l=e
Click to access The%20Microwave%20Syndrome%20-%20Further%20Aspects%20of%20a%20Spanish%20Study.pdf
http://www.robindestoits.org/attachment/91733/
Click to access Malaghoy_43_cancer_cases_among_350_residents_living_near_a_mobile_telephone_relay_antenna_24_11_2009.pdf
https://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBwQFjAAahUKEwjAtpmjtc7IAhWm_HIKHWK7A68&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.robindestoits.org%2Fattachment%2F400573%2F&usg=AFQjCNHxKw1NVgV2JERbhfMWz7tmxq26AQ&sig2=D4GLa28iRBW2FZqEimtdzg
Click to access shinjyo-2014-significant-decrease-of-clinical-symptoms-after-mobile-phone-base-station-removal-1.pdf
This and your previous comment are strongly focused on YOU. Your do not want to be exposed without permission. You do not want that your kids in school will be exposed. You seem to be the center of the universe. Unfortunately, society does not work this way. You, non user of cell phone, are outlier. The vast majority uses cell phones and… you need to adjust. If nothing else, this is “democracy.
Your mentioned many studies showing risk at certain very low exposures – show me. Because I do not know really reliable and large studies showing it.
App measures radiation level which depends on the distance from the cell tower. App was made and tested for accuracy by engineers from Nokia in Finland. So, think seriously, who knows better about RF measurements – Nokia or amateur.
1. I didn’t mention it was an Anthroposophical school – no cellphones are allowed until 7th grade. So, no, most kids don’t use cellphones between classes. In addition, the antenna belonged to only one of the cellphone providers, so only the users of this specific company were affected. The levels measured in the school yard before the mast was removed were 1-10 uw/cm2.- according to many studies, these levels are NOT insignificant to the general populations.
2. The distance between the user and the device is not measured by the app. So how much radiation the user actually get is really up to the user – wether or not he is using a speaker, a local wifi, if he puts it on a table or on his lap etc.
3. The numbers you got from the app don’t make any sense to me. I own a reliable RF meter – cellphones don’t emit 1000-1000000 times more radiation than antennas.
Pingback: More base stations in Australia | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Unfortunately I disagree. We are exposed to a plethora of man-made environmental “pollutants” and we, as a society, cannot stop everything when few disagree. So, there will not be return to per-wireless society. This train has left the station ages ago. What we can do is to mitigate effects on some of us. It is clear to me that some part of the population is sensitive to RF. What is the level of exposure that triggers sensitivity we DO NOT KNOW because we did not do research on it. Why – because assurances from the organizations like ICNIRP or ICES led to near complete cessation of funding for research in RF arena. Funding bodies, including governments, consider the no-harm-whatsoever opinions coming from ICNIRP and ICES and disseminated by the WHO as binding and they shift the funding to other areas of research. Finally, those who do not use cell phones are a MINUSCULE part of the society and they need to live with what the VAST MAJORITY decides…
You are badly mistaken. The non-users of cell phones are a “MINUSCULE” part of the society. No matter why, they are very few. Fact that you, personally do not agree to be exposed can be taken further – did you agree to be exposed to car exhaust, did you agree to be exposed to the million-and-one chemicals in our environment? Certainly not, but you, like we all, have to live with it.
Masts next to school – your justification is baseless. Please, go to school during the break and look how many kids are using their smart phones… So, by locating cell tower far from the school grounds these kids are automatically exposed to higher dose of radiation, not lower, higher.
The software TAKES into account location of the phone in respect of cell towers and wifi stations. So, exposures that I have given as an example are exposures that TAKE into account how far was the base station from the phone.
1. I totally agree with Peter Williamson – why should I or my family be exposed 24/7 to radiation if we choose not to use our cellphones? If an antenna is located next to a school, does it make any sense to radiate all the children all day long, in order to lower the exposure of some cellphone users on the street next to it? Yes, I consider it to be a *real* victory that we succeeded to remove an antenna that was next to my son’s school.
2. The app that you mentioned doesn’t take into account the distance of the user from the smartphone or from the antenna. As you already know, these distances can affect the exposure levels significantly. The only way you can measure what you are actually exposed to, is to use an RF meter.
Dear Prof Leszczynski, several commenters have beaten me to it….. I cannot fault the logic of your argument. The issues I have relate mainly to voluntary vs involuntary exposure.
1. Use of a cell phone is voluntary. I choose not to use one (and I know I am not alone) and I am unhappy about being exposed to cell tower, public wifi etc. It does affect me (severely at times), even if you or anyone else are unable to ‘prove’ it. Most town centres, cafes, shops, theatres, concert halls, medical facilities etc are out of bounds to me because of this. If you or anyone else choose to use a cell phone then that is a personal choice – being microwaved all day and every day by the supporting infrastructure is not. This is a human rights issue, not a medical or scientific issue.
2. Your article implies that it is the total exposure which is important. Is it a ‘fact’ that short bursts of high radiation are more damaging than 24 hr exposure to low levels, as per cell towers. Any citations?
3. As far as I am concerned, the fewer cell towers there are, the more places I can actually go to. So I will continue to welcome any decisions which reduce the number of cell towers. Then the risk which you describe so clearly is being borne by those who choose to use cellphones – which is where the risk belongs.
Darius.
I do not consider myself as some one who is suffering from Nimby syndrome, I have a 30 mtr Tower 5mts from my home, the radiation levels are painful to me and i cant use a mobile if i wanted to, because i am so sensitive, all we sensitives want is to live pain free and have a Government that thinks more about protecting the health and wellbeing of its citizens, over the profits and taxes of the wireless industry, if some common sense had been used when rolling out the wireless networks, we would all be enjoying our lives instead of being in conflict, as a sensitive its no suprise that having a wireless device pressed to one head exposing the brain to 6-10 V/Mtr causes so many health and behavioural broblems.
@robertquickertq — Santini was 2003, not 2012 — sorry about that. Here is the link:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1081/JBC-120020353. Thanks for your interest.
@Professor — you indicated “I use my phone as my sole connection to internet and my tethering is active some 8-10 hours per day when my laptop is connected to internet so data transfer is high”. This is at odds with your follow-up comment of you “using your cell phone very little”, but suspect that you are trying to clarify that the high usage was for this test only.
I still find your argument troubling. Especially given the number of people who choose not to be cell phone users. It would seem like you are putting forward a straw man argument — since there is no evidence that the activists celebrating blocking a cell tower are cell phone users.
I have no such info. I presented only what exposure takes place because this is only what matters. Elaborated more in response to another comment.
No, it is not rare (and the unit is uWh/m2). Here are exposures from the last 6 days that I have available:
Cell tower / Data
0.0183 / 2673351.2
0.0860 / 2625938.3
0.2870 / 2311647.4
0.5320 / 4291425.5
9.5000 / 3255477.2 (unusually high tower exposure)
0.0002 / 2048713.0
My point was JUST about comparing the sizes of exposures. Anyone using cell phone should not be hypocritical and stop complaining that gets exposures from cell tower, because he/she gets HUGE exposures, by own choice, from own cell phone. Cell tower exposures are MINUSCULE. This, of course, is not any statement about potential health effects. Some persons, likely rarity, may be sensitive to very low exposures. However, this is only suspicion because we have NO SCIENTIFIC DATA to prove it.
The cell tower exposure of 0.532 μW/m2 is unusual rare. The usual fact is the cell tower increases the radiation levels of an area many times. The smart phone and etc is a personal choice.
It would be helpful to have at least an estimate of the distance between your neighborhood cell tower and your phone. Of course, having some idea of power level of the antennas would also be of interest, among other things. How would you rate the reception quality where you were?
Can User Mike clarify which article he means by “Santini 2012”? I can find no such article at PubMed. And I believe Dr. Santini passed away in 2006. Thank you.
Firstly, we do NOT know this is the case. We suspect it but we do NOT have scientific evidence sufficient to prove or to disprove link between health and cell towers.
Secondly, minuscule exposure is not to say how dangerous it is but how extremely small it is in comparison of radiation exposure user gets from own cell phone.
Unless you stand really close to antenna on cell tower (few meters distance) your exposure to cell tower radiation remains minuscule in comparison with radiation emitted by cell phone. I use very little of my phone. Phone call given in my example lasted 15 seconds. Anyone using cell phone and worried about radiation exposures should limit usage of cell phone and not complain about distant cell tower.
To add — your claim of “MINUSCULE” exposure values when compared to cell tower exposure may not be regarded as “MINUSCULE” when compared to what our bodies have evolved with nor what is a biologically safe level of exposure.
Your argument would seem a little dangerous, since people could infer that you are implying that cell tower exposures are safe or should not be a concern (since they are, in your words, “minuscule”). And we of course know that this is not the case.
Dear Professor,
Surely your graph should also include exposure values for the public — showing public exposure levels increasing as proximity to the cell tower increases.
Santini 2012 showed ill health effects from people living within 400m of cell towers, with symptoms increasing towards the source of the exposure.
There are a large number of people who choose not to use cell phones. Your example looks at cell phone users, not conscientious objectors who choose to either limit or not use them.
Cell phone users may regulate their personal exposure from their phones. They may not do this from cell towers, not may anyone near to them.
I would suggest those celebrating are not people who share your (seemingly high) usage of cell phones.