Citizens for Safe Technology
Empowering the public to protect children
and nature from unsafe wireless technologies.
Cell Towers / Antennas
We've come to depend on cell phones and expect them to do more and more for us. Cell phone companies need cell towers to deliver their growing number of services.
Industry Canada regulates cell companies in terms of their use of radio frequency spectrum and the siting of cell towers. It has established a standard called "Safety Code 6," which cell operators are required to meet. However, Safety Code 6 has among the least stringent standards in the world, and it does not address the critical issue of long term exposure to low level intensity microwave radiation emitted by cell towers.
In terms of the siting of cell towers, Industry Canada does not rule out approving cell towers anywhere and everywhere. This means that the cell industry as regulator does not rule out locating cell towers near where families live, and where children play and go to school.
It also means that Industry Canada depends entirely on an inadequate standard of safety to protect children and families.
The telecommunications industry is delighted. Unchecked by outdated safety codes, they continue to roll out new applications and designs. Governments rely on the revenue generated, and consistently ignore a troubling fact: The low-level, non-ionizing, microwave radiation generated by cell and portable phones and the transmitters they rely on, is biologically harmful, and fundamentally incompatible, at a cellular level, with humans, domestic animals, wildlife and the natural environment.
Looking for a specific topic or a past article? Search for it below:
Department of Telecommunication (DoT) in India - dna exclusive
"The department of telecommunication or DoT has finally woken up to the fact that there may be a correlation between cancer and exposure to radiation from cell phone towers.
". . . Chetan Shah says his family lives in fear after having seen so many neighbours succumb to cancer. "We are not going to wait for one of us to get cancer and have decided to take legal action," he said.
"In September 2012, the government lowered radiation emission limits for mobile phone towers to 450 milliwatts/sq m from 4,500. But even this is way above international norms."
More EMF refugees: Wendy Hoy interview with Laureen Maurisio
March 22, 2013, Port Franks becomes irradiated.
The Bell Canada cell transmission monopole has been activated in the centre of Point Franks, Ontario, Canada, with disastrous results for the health of some residents. Laureen Maurisio needed to leave her home due to RF-EMR sickness from excessive readings inside. Lacey, her little dog, can't be with Laureen at the place that she has found safe shelter away from the cell tower radiations. So what will our rare endangered species do to survive? . . .
Produced by Wendy Hoy with music by Bill Savage and Nick Young for Lakeshore Coalition and the people of Port Franks.
"MARSHFIELD, VT-- (Marketwire - Mar 20, 2013) - The EMRadiation Policy Institute (EMRPI) releases Videos revealing the FCC's failure to protect Americans from wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation.
"US workers and families are at risk of overexposure to RF at hazardous levels. Hundreds of wireless industry-operated antenna sites from Maine to California have been tested by EMRPI and found to be in gross violation -- up to and in excess of 600% -- of the FCC's public exposure limits. These sites include rooftops as well as locations where the general public, including children, can gain access, and where workers are on the job. . . .
"Last Friday at the busy Alameda and St. Francis intersection, drivers waved and emphatically honked their horns to support the dozens of Gonzales School community members holding picket signs in front of the Burger King. Their issue was a health concern but--perhaps surprisingly--not about the food. The owners of the fast food outlet's site have made a deal with ATT to place a 4-G antenna tower there. And from there, a kid with a baseball and a good arm could break a classroom window. That's how close the proposed tower site is from the place where thousands of northwest Santa Fe kids will spend a large part of their early lives.
"There is broad scientific consensus that electromagnetic radiation (EMR) of the kind these antennas emit causes serious health problems. There are even U.S. government health regulations regarding exposure. But as we have seen regarding the health effects of tobacco, for example, or the human causes of climate disruption, powerful economic interests actively muddy the waters of science to the benefit of corporate shareholders and to the detriment of public health. In the case of EMR, scientists agree that such radiation causes problems. The only disagreement is about whether low levels are safe. As has been the case with all other forms of environmental contamination, more focused research is finding negative effects from levels several orders of magnitude below those currently regulated as safe. And in a classic example of an agency held captive by the industry it regulates, the FCC claims legal power to overrule any local government's opposition to EMR sources if the decision is based on health concerns. Look for an upcoming article on the scientific, economic, legal and political issues involved in this looming environmental crisis of the information age. The Gonzales School protest is as local as politics gets, but its implications are truly global. Long live the Gonzales School families! . . .
B. Blake Levitt - 2000
Cell Towers. They seem to be popping up everywhere, like intergalactic mushrooms. We see them inappropriately placed in residential neighborhoods, on school grounds, on pristine ridgelines, along beautiful country roads and scenic highways--usually over the vehement objections of neighbors, parents, and environmentalists.
Towers are often reluctantly sited in these hallowed places by the very people we have elected to protect our communities.
Many of our municipal agents have been intimidated by an onerous provision in a federal law--called Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and by an aggressive telecommunications industry which threatens to sue at the hint of a rejected application. Towns, fearing staggering legal bills, have come to think their hands are tied and that somebody's neighborhood must be sacrificed for the sake of the larger community. . ."
Global News: Global Edmonton Municipalities now must be notified every time a cell tower or antenna goes up
"More smartphones and tablet traffic on wireless networks means an increase in antennas and cellphone towers, and now municipalities will be consulted on where this digital infrastructure will go.
"Under a national protocol released today, wireless carriers will be required to notify and consult with municipalities about every antenna system, including towers, that go up as they expand their networks.
"Bernard Lord of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association says the guidelines allow municipalities to give feedback on suggested locations in residential, industrial and agricultural areas . . .
"Municipalities will also get a say on the look of the wireless antenna systems, says Lord, noting that in the past, some have been incorporated into lamp poles, for instance, to blend in with existing infrastructure.
"Lord said the protocol, which was developed by the Ottawa-based association and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, will promote consultation but does not give municipalities the ability to veto the location of a cellphone tower or a rooftop antenna. Telecommunications falls under federal jurisdiction.
"He said electromagnetic radiation from wireless antenna systems meet federal standards applied by Industry Canada and citizens' health concerns are unfounded . . .
Muskoka, Ontario - Cottage Country
" . . . Right now, the way the legislation is drawn up, a tower can be put up any place, without a building permit or site plan agreement. It appears that big business can bully their way into our communities and do whatever they want, unless we object and vehemently oppose.
"We need your help to start making change. This issue won't go away. It may not be in your backyard today, but there's a good possibility that it may be in the works tomorrow.. The request is simple. It is not an objection to cell towers that is needed. It is an objection to the process of their placement that we must change.
"There is no established protocol that determines where towers can and cannot be placed. Presently, the process allows for the public to object, but the response back is that Safety Code 6 will be followed. Research around the world says that Safety Code 6 is inadequate, it is obsolete. I can only hope that the Rogers cell tower proposed on Lynx Lake Road is stopped and that an alternate site is chosen where it will not negatively impact on the residents. A precedent can be set here and now.
"If every person in our municipality alone contacted their municipal, provincial and federal elected representatives expressing concern and objection to the present process of allowing free rein to big business to place towers wherever they deem appropriate, we, the people, can make huge change. We only need to make ourselves heard loud and clear."
South China Morning Post: Cancer risk fears - Campus dwellers assured radiation exposure 'extremely low', but not all are convinced
"The University of Science and Technology has taken steps to ease fears among academics and students about a potential cancer risk from a proliferation of mobile phone antennae on campus building rooftops.
"A memo was sent out to all staff and students after the Sunday Morning Post reported last weekend that mobile phone companies had paid the university to erect an estimated 87 antennae on the rooftops of residential and student blocks.
"Teachers living on campus said workmen had been seen in the days after the story appeared, removing some antennae from blocks where there was a particularly high concentration of masts . . .
Cellular Phone Task Force / Education Advocacy Support
The late Dr. Roger Santini, a scientist at the National Institute of Applied Sciences of Lyon, was the author of many papers on non-ionizing radiation and warned about the dangers of wireless technology until his death on June 14, 2006 from pancreatic cancer.
Santini conducted the first epidemiological study of the health of people living close to cell towers. Many others have since confirmed his results.
HEALTH EFFECTS OF CELL PHONES AND CELL TOWERS - EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES
One time donation: Click the donate button below and follow the instructions on the screen.
Monthly donation: If you wish to contribute every month, please select the amount from the Donation Options list below and click Subscribe. Your contribution will be sent for you every month for the amount you selected.
Citizens for Safe Technology (CST) is funded and supported solely by those who wish to help us. Thank-you for learning, sharing and helping if you can.
Meetings and events on the issue of wireless technologies in homes and communities throughout North America.
Click the button above to sign our online petition to return to hardwired computers in schools.
Click the button above to sign our online petition against Smart Meters in British Columbia.
Citizens For Safe Technology
"Wi-Fi: Is It Safe?"
Citizens for Safe Technology is a not-for-profit educational society made up of parents, grandparents, teachers, business professionals, scientists, politicians and lawyers concerned about the exponential increase in public exposure to harmful wireless technologies.
We believe a profound urgency exists to protect the unsuspecting public, especially children, youth and pregnant mothers from unsafe wireless technologies.
The content of the Citizens for Safe Technology website is provided for information purposes only. Information is subject to change without prior notice. Every effort has been taken to ensure that the information on this website is accurate, but no guarantees can be made.
Neither Citizens for Safe Technology nor its authors are liable for damages resulting from the use of information obtained from this site. The authors are not responsible for any contents linked or referred to from this website or any damages resulting from information on those sites.
The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the information on this site lies with the reader.