Select Page

Letter from Dr. Magda Havas to City of Pittsfield MA on Cell Tower Radiation 

Mar 19, 2022

The Environmental Health Trust, a scientific non profit, is posting letters and science regarding cell tower radiation as well as letters regarding the Pittsfield cell tower.

European Parliament requested a research report  “Health Impact of 5G” released in July 2021 concluding that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. 

U.S. cell tower and wireless FCC limits are not protective based on current science. The Environmental Working Group published a study in Environmental Health analyzing the findings of tumor and heart damage from the National Toxicology Program study and concluded that FCC limits should be strengthened by 200 to 400 times to protect children according to current risk assessment guidelines (Uche 2021). 

Watch University of California at Berkeley, Dr. Joel Moskowitz present on the health effects of cell towers below.

Scientific Research on Cell Towers  

Reviews That Recommend Cell Towers Be Distanced Away From Homes and Schools  

  • A review paper entitled “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers” reviewed the “large and growing body of evidence that human exposure to RFR from cellular phone base stations causes negative health effects.” The authors recommends restricting antennas near home and within 500 meters of schools and hospitals to protect companies from future liability (Pearce 2020). 
  • An analysis of 100 studies published in Environmental Reviews found ~80% showed biological effects near towers. “As a general guideline, cell base stations should not be located less than 1500 ft from the population, and at a height of about 150 ft.” (Levitt 2010) 
  • A review published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health found people living less than 500 m from base station antennas had an increased adverse neuro-behavioral symptoms and cancer in eight of the ten epidemiological studies (Khurana 2011).
  • A paper by human rights experts documented the accumulating science indicating safety is not assured and considered the issue within a human rights framework to protect vulnerable populations from environmental pollution. “We conclude that, because scientific knowledge is incomplete, a precautionary approach is better suited to State obligations under international human rights law,” (Roda and Perry 2014)
  • A 2020 review entitled “Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer  reviewed  the existing scientific literature and found radiofrequency sickness,  cancer and  changes in biochemical parameters. 

Cell Towers and Cancer

  • A study published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine found changes in blood considered biomarkers predictive of cancer in people living closer to cell antenna arrays (Zothansiama 2017). 
  • A study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found higher exposure to cell arrays linked to higher mortality from all cancer and specifically lung and breast cancer (Rodrigues 2021).
  • A study published in Science of the Total Environment 10 year study on cell phone antennas by the local Municipal Health Department and several universities in Brazil found a clearly elevated relative risk of cancer mortality at residential distances of 500 meters or less from cell phone towers (Dode 2011).  
  • A large scale animal study published in Environmental Research found rats exposed to radiofrequency levels comparable to cell tower emissions had elevated cancers, the very same cancers also found in the US National Toxicology Program Study  (Falcioni 2018). 
  • A study commissioned by the Provincial Government of Styria, Austria found a significant cancer incidence in the area around the transmitter as well as significant exposure-effect relationships between radiofrequency radiation exposure and the incidence of breast cancers and brain tumors (Oberfeld 2008).
  • A review published in Experimental Oncology found “alarming epidemiological and experimental data on possible carcinogenic effects of long term exposure to low intensity microwave (MW) radiation.”  Even a year of operation of a powerful base transmitting station for mobile communication reportedly resulted in a dramatic increase of cancer incidence among population living nearby (Yakymenko 2011).  

 

Cell Tower Radiation Classification by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer 

In 2011, radiofrequency radiation was classified as a Class 2B possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC). The scientists clarified that the determination was for RFR from any source be it cell phones,  wireless devices or cell towers. Since 2011, the published peer-reviewed scientific evidence showing associations with adverse effects has significantly increased. 

 

In 2019, the advisory committee to the WHO/IARC recommended that radiofrequency radiation be re-evaluated as a “high” priority in light of the new research. 

 

Several scientists conclude that the weight of current peer-reviewed evidence supports the conclusion that radiofrequency radiation should be upgraded and now regarded as a proven human carcinogen (Hardell and Carlberg 2017, Peleg et al, 2018, Miller et al 2018).

Surveys of people living near cell tower antennas in France, Spain, Iraq, India, Germany, Egypt, Poland have found significantly higher reports of health issues including sleep issues, fatigue and headaches (Santini et al 2003,  López 2021, Alazawi 2011,  Pachuau and Pachuaua 2016,, Eger et al 2004,  Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007, Bortkiewicz et al., 2004). 

A study published in American Journal of Men’s Health linked higher cell tower RFR exposures to delayed fine and gross motor skills, spatial working memory, and attention in school adolescents (Meo 2018).

A study published in Environmental Research and Public Health found higher exposures linked to higher risk of type 2 diabetes (Meo 2015). 

A study following people for 6 years linked increased cell phone and cell phone tower antenna exposure to altered levels of hormones including cortisol, thyroid, prolactin and testosterone (Eskander et al 2021). 

A study that followed people in a German town after a cell tower was erected and found stress hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline significantly increased over the first 6 months after the antenna activation and decreased dopamine and PEA levels after 18 months (Buchner 2011). 

A landmark three part 2021 research review on effects to wildlife published in Reviews on Environmental Health by U.S experts including former U.S. Fish and Wildlife senior biologist Albert Manville states current science should trigger urgent regulatory action citing more than 1,200 scientific references which found adverse biological effects to wildlife from even very low intensities of non ionizing radiation with findings of  impacts to orientation and migration, reproduction, mating, nest, den building and survivorship (Levitt et al., 2021a, Levitt et al., 2021b,  Levitt et al., 2021c). 

Additional Readings:

Letter from Dr. Magda Havas to City of  Pittsfield MA on Cell Tower Radiation Measurements and the Lack of Protections by the FCC

Dear Gina Armstrong.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to the monitoring conducted by V-COMM Telecommunications Engineers, dated June 15, 2021.

As I presented to the Health Department on June 2, 2021, radio frequency guidelines differ by more than 4 orders of magnitude globally. Such a wide range of guidelines is unheard of when it comes to air quality or water quality guidelines, which are relatively similar in countries around the world. The primary reason for this large discrepancy in radio frequency guidelines is that guidelines in some jurisdictions are based on science and those in others are based on politics and a strong telecommunications lobby. The least protective radio frequency guidelines are based on a heating effect of the body and are generally short-term in duration (i.e. averaged over a period of 6 to 30 minutes). The most protective guidelines are based on either biological effects (other than heating) and on the precautionary principle.

The FCC provides a short-term guideline that monitors average levels during a 30-minute period for exposure of the public (uncontrolled environment) and during a 6-minute period for occupational exposure (controlled environment). As a person with expertise in public health, you should be aware that organisms respond to extremes rather than averages. If you place your hand in scalding water and then pore cold water on the hand, the average water temperature will be much lower but the damage from scalding will still be apparent. The two levels of guidelines that the FCC recognizes is occupational and public exposure. What they fail to recognize is exposure of sensitive populations, despite the fact that they have been aware of microwave illness among radar workers since the 1950s (Glaser 1971;
https://www.magdahavas.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Navy_Radiowave_Brief.pdf). Radar, like cell phone antennas, uses microwave radiation as a carrier wave.

Dr. Paul Héroux provided a technical response to the monitoring report you received and I agree with his assessment. I’m providing the biological response of sensitive populations. In 2004, the World Health Organization held an International Seminar and Working group meeting on EMF Hypersensitivity in Prague.

At that meeting this is the definition they used for electrohypersensitivity: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241594127 “. . . a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being in the vicinity of devices emanating electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs).” “ . . . EHS is a real and sometimes a disabling problem for the affected persons . . . Their exposures are generally several orders of magnitude under the limits in internationally accepted standards.” It is this last statement that I wish to comment on. I have been working with people who have been harmed by exposure to electromagnetic radiation at levels well below federal guidelines. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we monitored the reaction of the heart to microwave radiation and found that levels at 0.3% of federal guidelines causes a rapid and/or irregular heart rate among those who are sensitive (Havas et al. 2010; https://bemri.org/publications/dect/341-provocation-study-using-heart-rate-variability-shows-microwave-radiation-from-2-4ghz-cordless-phone/file.html ).

Further assessment indicates that this response is a “fight or flight” stress response with upregulation of the sympathetic nervous system and down regulation of the parasympathetic nervous system. This reaction occurs even when a person is unaware that s/he is exposed. It is a physiological rather than a psychological response. This, in combination with effects on the blood (rouleaux formation), provides a perfect storm for cardiovascular problems to arise including the potential for heart attacks and strokes (Havas 2013; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24192494/ ).

The function of the parasympathetic nervous system is to enable the body to rest, digest and heal. It repairs the work of the sympathetic nervous system after a stressful situation. Since the radiation from cell towers occurs 24/7, people are exposed during the day and night. Night-time exposure is particularly damaging since this is the time for the body to heal and regenerate and if the parasympathetic nervous system is down regulated healing does not take place.

The more prolonged the exposure the greater the potential damage to health. Consequently, more people in your community are likely to become ill should the exposures not be reduced. If we use the values and assess the results provided by V-Comm, they state that the “measured maximum % of FCC standard for public-uncontrolled environment in vicinity of site Pittsfield SE was 1.66%” (page 1). This level is 5 times higher than what our experiments document as being harmful (i.e. 0.3%). Indeed, if we examine the field measurements (provided in Table 2, page 7), five of the 17 values exceed 0.3% of the guidelines. In other words, 29% of the locations monitored would be harmful to those who have EHS and who have a cardiovascular response. In most cases of environmental pollutants, science precedes policy by 3 to 5 decades. This is the case for tobacco, asbestos, DDT, PCBs, lead, mercury etc.

The research on the biological and health effects of radio frequency and microwave radiation is now in its 5th decade and yet we still don’t have adequate standards provided by the FCC that protects the most vulnerable in our population. Since this topic is outside your area of expertise, you must rely on outside experts. Which experts do you believe? Do you rely on the FCC and dismiss the health complaints from your community or do you recognize that this radiation can be harmful and respond to the concerns in your community and the vast amount of scientific data documenting harm at levels well below FCC guidelines.

Do you request a higher standard of safety as the Director of Public Health in your community? It takes courage and integrity to do the later. You are probably aware that the FCC is being challenged legally for failing to update its radio frequency guidelines and ignoring scientific research
(https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/robert-kennedy-jr-assembles-legal-team-to-sue-fcc-over-wireless-health-guidelines/ ).

The FCC is a captured agency with the Directors coming from the telecom industry. Dr. Norm Alster, Ethics Professor at Harvard, wrote about this in his book, Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates (https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf).

The FCC is protecting the health of the telecommunication industry rather than the health of the public. They are acting like bullies by denying community involvement regarding the placement of towers and denying the ability of local governing bodies to raise issues about health. There is no public health risk for erring on the side of caution particularly when children are involved. Your duty is to protect the community you represent.

Since members in your community became ill after the tower was operational, the right thing to do is to support your community and insist on lower levels of exposure even though this may go against the FCC mandate. They have their mandate and you have yours. Please act accordingly.

Respectfully,

Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D. Professor Emerita

Click to Download Letter from Dr. Magda Havas to City of  Pittsfield MA on Cell Tower Radiation Measurements and the Lack of Protections by the FCC

 

Stay updated by signing up for Environmental Health Trust’s newsletter. 

Donate to Environmental Health Trust to support our work. Join us on Patreon

On February 2, 2022, the Pittsfield, MA Board of Health unanimously voted to issue a cease and desist order to Verizon to shut down its tower located at 877 South Street. Families living in the neighborhood near the tower reported wireless radiation-related health issues soon after the tower became operational in 2020 and since then, have been working tirelessly to turn the transmissions off. This action is the first known vote on a cease and desist by a Board of Health in the United States for a cell tower

February 28th, 2022 Expert Forum on Wireless Harm and the Verizon Cell Tower Cease and Desist Vote by The Board of Health 

About Environmental Health Trust 

Founded in 2007, Environmental Health Trust, a 501(c)3 nonprofit, is a think tank that promotes a healthier environment through research, education and policy. EHT conducts cutting edge research on environmental health hazards and works with communities, health, education professionals and policymakers to understand and mitigate these hazards. Currently, EHT works with scientists, policymakers, teachers, parents and students to promote awareness on how to practice safe technology.   

The Environmental Health Trust has worked on the issue of wireless radiation for over a decade submitting thousands of pages of evidence to the FCC in the years leading up to the court’s decision. EHT scientists testified in 2009 Senate hearings and 2008 congressional hearing on cell phone radiation- the last ever held. EHT scientists have continued to publish research on the health effects of non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation and organized numerous national and international scientific conferences on the issue. Visit  www.ehtrust.org for more information and sign up for our newsletter.