Why Are Increasing Cell Phone Towers So Concerning?

Cell Phone Towers, Cell Towers


Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

What most people, including experts, fail to understand is that the danger from land-based portable phones, cell phones and WiFi routers is not from the magnetic radiation or the microwave carrier wave from which typical SAR ratings are given on phones. Unless you have massive exposures like you might expect in a microwave oven, these thermal effects are insignificant.

Nearly all the biological damage comes from the modulated signals that are carried ON the carrier microwave. These modulated information-carrying radio waves resonate in biological frequencies of a few to a few hundred cycles per second, and can stimulate your vibrational cellular receptors causing a whole cascade of pathological consequences that can culminate in fatigue, anxiety and ultimately cancers.

Again, this is a very serious concern because, unless you live in an isolated rural setting, you are probably being exposed to these radio-waves day-in and day-out – whether or not you even own or use a cell phone.

Numerous studies have linked exposure to information-carrying radio waves to health problems, but you may not realize that your symptoms are related to these radio frequencies because they could easily be attributed to other causes as well.

Aside from cancer and brain tumors, cells phones and other radio frequencies can cause:
• Alzheimer’s, senility and dementia
• Parkinson’s
• Autism
• Headaches
• Sleep disruptions and fatigue
• Altered memory function, poor concentration and spatial awareness

Kuwait, Kuwait (City)
Botswana, Gaborone
Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek
Slovakia, Bratislava
Bloemfontein (judiciary)
Chad, N’Djamena
Moe, Victoria, Australia
Liechtenstein, Vaduz
Port Lincoln, South Australia
Fayetteville, North Carolina, USA

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

The Cell Phone Tower Dangers Revisited

Cell Phone Tower Dangers, Cell Tower Protection


Life Bluetube Headsets

Cell Phone Towers Health Effects

Cell Phone Sensitivity

EM Field Meter

Orange mobile phone company agreed to remove its cell phone mast – dubbed the “Tower of Doom” – from the top of a five-story London apartment building after seven of its residents got cancer.

The cancer rate among those living on the top floor, where residents from five of the eight flats were affected, is 20 percent – 10 times the national average.

The mast, along with a second mast owned by Vodafone, was put up in 1994. Since then, residents have battled cancer, headaches and other health problems they say are caused by radiation from the masts. Three residents have died from cancer, while another four are still fighting the disease.

The World Health Organization and other agencies say there is no risk of radiation from cell phone masts, so the companies had no legal obligation to remove the masts.

In August 2007, after a long legal battle, Orange agreed to move the mast from the building – to another area near homes, a public library and a primary school.

Vodafone has no plans to remove their mast from the building, and is working on securing a new long-term lease.

Unless you live in some unbelievably remote location, the odds are high that you’re being bombarded with information-carrying radio waves that can wreak havoc on your body.

These radio waves have increased dramatically and exponentially over the last few years – especially from cell phones, but also from WiFi, WiMax, BlueTooth, and other wireless devices. For most people, the damage from this 24-7 exposure will take years or even decades to surface since there is a lag time of five to 20 years for the health effects to become clinically apparent.

For those unfortunate people in London who were living directly below a major cell phone mast, the damage became apparent sometime between the mast’s construction in 1994 and the beginning of the resident’s campaign to have the mast removed in 2002.

You may not realize that you are likely living closer to a cell phone tower than you think. Cell “sites” can look like antennas or huge towers, but they can also be quite camouflaged. They exist on many schools, churches, firehouses, cemeteries and even in national parks. If you’re wondering why a school or park would want a cell site on their grounds, it’s because the cell phone companies pay to have them there, with fees that can range upwards of $2,000 a month.

While there are already more than 175,000 cell towers in the United States, this number is expected to increase by 48 percent to 260,000 by 2010, according to CTIA (the International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry).

If you want to know just how close you are to a cell phone tower or antenna, simply type your location into AntennaSearch.com. It will tell you all of the towers (existing and future) and antennas that are within eight miles of your address!

Albania Tirana
Cleveland, Ohio
Norfolk, Virginia
Norfolk, Virginia
Romania, Bucharest
Egypt, Cairo: city limits
Armidale, Australia
Austin, Texas
Cleveland Ohio USA
Al Mataf, United Arab Emirates, Al Mataf, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

The Cell Tower EMF Problem Part 3

Cell Tower, Cell Tower Radiation Protection


Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter



10. Currently parallel with the separate establishment of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh which now has responsibility for the majority of issues affecting people living in Scotland over one third of all Scottish Local Planning Authorities have now adopted or publicly committed themselves to adopting Precautionary Policies as a direct result of what they perceive to be inadequate official advice from Government Departments.

11. Local Authorities in Scotland have decided that there are too many unanswered questions to risk exposing the Public needlessly to levels of microwave radiation which could or may in time prove to be harmful to their health.

By choosing to keep transmitter masts away from schools and residential areas local authorities are not doing anything radical, but merely following the Precautionary Approach advocated in the European Treaties, accepted by the UK Government in 1993 at Maastricht.

England and Wales

12. Similarly the influential Local Government Association (LGA) has now advised its member local authorities to adopt the Precautionary Approach on the basis that the decision making process of the Governments Advisory Body the NRPB, based upon waiting for ‘conclusive scientific evidence’ before acting, is potentially flawed. On 12th August 1999 the Local Government Association accused the Government of `dithering’ over the potential danger of cancer and radiation from mobile phone masts.

The LGA Planning Executive Chairman Stated,
“The Government must stop dithering and give councils some clear guidance to the threat posed by Radiation and the planning powers to keep the Public Safe — especially vulnerable children and the elderly rather than wait two or three years until the research is finished”.
These statements were made in August 1999 after the Government issued on 23rd July 1999 letters to the LGA and Members of Parliament which failed to help authorities make the right planning decisions or offer them guidance on where masts can be safely erected.

13. All this has come about after the senior representatives of the NRPB gave their evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee in June 1999 explaining firstly that the NRPB under its statutory legislation could only base its guidance and advice on ‘conclusive scientific evidence’ as required by its Act of Parliament, and that accordingly until essential research had been carried out in their opinion the only “conclusive scientific proof” related to the properties of thermal heating on which their 1993 Safety Guidelines remained solely based.

Secondly however the representatives of the NRPB made it clear that until the freshly commissioned research produced some ‘conclusive scientific proof’ that there were other effects apart from thermal heating, it was up to Politicians and Planners to exercise their ‘own’ judgment.

14. On 1st September 1999 Belfast City Council ratified the 18th August 1999 Decision of its Development Committee that ‘no Transmitter Masts should be permitted on any Council Property’, due firstly to the unknown risks from such masts and secondly because of ‘substantial public concern.’

Similarly Wyre Borough Council in Lancashire recently decided that the proposed site for a mast and base station was unsuitable given its proximity to a nearby primary school and houses which were 190 meters and 40 meters away respectively.

This refusal was based on public fears about possible health risks posed by microwave radiation. This follows the 1998 Court of Appeal decision finding that ‘genuine public fear and concern is a material planning consideration, even if that fear is irrational and not based upon evidence — see Newport BC v Secretary of State for Wales (1998) JPL 377.


The answer for the time being is Prudent Avoidance and Common Sense, at least until properly structured research has been concluded, and then independently assessed. The answer is not to listen only to the Industry, who have tended to ensure that the Industry Commissioned research proves their point on safety. Currently prudence advocates that reliance on the NRPB Guidelines is no longer sufficient.

Many independent University researchers who have produced adverse results have had their research funds curtailed, or taken away which stifles further investigation of adverse effects shown by earlier research. Governments are elected to be aware of what is going on, and to protect the public at large when uncertainties exist, and prudent avoidance should currently prevail over commercial interests until the further essential research has been completed and “independently” assessed.

Denmark, Copenhagen
Nepal, Kathmandu
Cuba, Havana (Habana)
Venezuela, Caracas
Germany, Berlin
Cyprus, Nicosia
Botswana, Gaborone
Anchorage, Alaska, USA
Congo (Kinshasa), Kinshasa
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products