Many transmitters are hidden or disguised so that workers are unaware of the transmitters’ existence.
And what about residents living in close proximity to transmitters and the health effects from prolonged exposure to RF emissions? The person leasing to the CWSP will be held liable because in many situations the govt. has indemnified the CWSP from liability so long as the emissions are below the FCC or Industry Canada allowable limits — even though many studies show health and biological effects from prolonged exposure. Lawsuits are occurring and will happen more frequently as awareness grows.
This is really a serious issue and should be addressed at the earliest. The workers are at a great danger working in such an environment. In most of the cases, the property owners do not know that leasing the property can call for further damages.
A very important and well-argued article. This is a huge issue. The operators are perfectly aware of the possible hazards of their emissions, but they keep totally silent when they are leasing antenna sites.
Now, I have collected every single peer-reviewed study done on health around cellphone masts done anywhere in the world. There have been 16. Of these, 15 have reported a consistent pattern of ill-health, including significantly raised cancer rates. The overwhelming consensus of research is that base stations are a hazard to health. There is no way the operators can deny this. So they just keep silent.
The mutual indemnities signed by operators and landlords are extremely dubious, and the landlords will have very good reason to say that they were misled or actively lied to by the operators. The total liabilities involved are literally incalculable, and the industry is relying on this as they continue to radiate people at close range without any consent.
We have a choice about using a cellphone handset; we generally have no choice about being radiated by a mast. Somewhere along the line, insurers must seriously wake up to this issue and start warning their clients of the colossal liabilities they may be facing, if they take a cellphone mast on their property.
We are hearing in this article about telecom workers being exposed, but what about the people who live inside, often just a matter of feet below these transmitters? What, exactly IS the government limit on exposure? Why aren’t they talking about readins from inside the buildings?
Darryl, it is now up to 23 peer-reviwed studies around mobile phone masts, of which 21 show a clear pattern of illnesses. Of the two which report no problems: one was a minor study involving headaches only. The other was an epidemiological study by Paul Elliot in the UK of cancer incidence in infants. There are huge problems with this study, and I believe it was clearly designed to produce a negative result. I have pointed out errors and omissions to Elliot, but he refuses to acknowledge my correspondence. I believe I have reverse-engineered this study to show exactly how it produced the results it did.
So even if we accept that this study showed no problems, that is still over 90% of all mast studies displaying a clear pattern of ill health around masts. These were studies from Spain, France, Austria, Germany, Poland, Israel, Egypt, Nigeria, Cyprus and Iran. All showing the same kinds of symptoms.
No wonder the WHO specifically said in 2007 that researchers should NOT repeat NOT research health around masts, especially not cancer around masts. Researchers know where their bread is buttered, and they will take a hint like this from the WHO seriously. No wonder not a single mast study has ever been conducted in the USA. Shameful.
The WHO is terrified of mast studies, these are actually far more conclusive and worrying than handset studies. Long-term exposure to masts is *not* good. The body has mechanisms to deal with intermittent EMR (as from lightning storms etc) but 24/7, low-level microwave irradiation is another story altogether, completely alien to our physiology.
Please be patient, I will put this all together as soon as possible and let you know on this page. And please fight that mast above your roof. Don’t let them tell you it’s “safest just under the antenna”, as I’ve heard from several operators, it’s hogwash, there are side-lobes right under masts, I’ve measured them.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Many transmitters are hidden or disguised so that workers are unaware of the transmitters’ existence.
And what about residents living in close proximity to transmitters and the health effects from prolonged exposure to RF emissions? The person leasing to the CWSP will be held liable because in many situations the govt. has indemnified the CWSP from liability so long as the emissions are below the FCC or Industry Canada allowable limits — even though many studies show health and biological effects from prolonged exposure. Lawsuits are occurring and will happen more frequently as awareness grows.
This is really a serious issue and should be addressed at the earliest. The workers are at a great danger working in such an environment. In most of the cases, the property owners do not know that leasing the property can call for further damages.
A very important and well-argued article. This is a huge issue. The operators are perfectly aware of the possible hazards of their emissions, but they keep totally silent when they are leasing antenna sites.
Now, I have collected every single peer-reviewed study done on health around cellphone masts done anywhere in the world. There have been 16. Of these, 15 have reported a consistent pattern of ill-health, including significantly raised cancer rates. The overwhelming consensus of research is that base stations are a hazard to health. There is no way the operators can deny this. So they just keep silent.
The mutual indemnities signed by operators and landlords are extremely dubious, and the landlords will have very good reason to say that they were misled or actively lied to by the operators. The total liabilities involved are literally incalculable, and the industry is relying on this as they continue to radiate people at close range without any consent.
We have a choice about using a cellphone handset; we generally have no choice about being radiated by a mast. Somewhere along the line, insurers must seriously wake up to this issue and start warning their clients of the colossal liabilities they may be facing, if they take a cellphone mast on their property.
Hi Karl, would you be able to share those 15 studies, I am fighting a cell tower eight feet above my head on our building roof
We are hearing in this article about telecom workers being exposed, but what about the people who live inside, often just a matter of feet below these transmitters? What, exactly IS the government limit on exposure? Why aren’t they talking about readins from inside the buildings?
Darryl, it is now up to 23 peer-reviwed studies around mobile phone masts, of which 21 show a clear pattern of illnesses. Of the two which report no problems: one was a minor study involving headaches only. The other was an epidemiological study by Paul Elliot in the UK of cancer incidence in infants. There are huge problems with this study, and I believe it was clearly designed to produce a negative result. I have pointed out errors and omissions to Elliot, but he refuses to acknowledge my correspondence. I believe I have reverse-engineered this study to show exactly how it produced the results it did.
So even if we accept that this study showed no problems, that is still over 90% of all mast studies displaying a clear pattern of ill health around masts. These were studies from Spain, France, Austria, Germany, Poland, Israel, Egypt, Nigeria, Cyprus and Iran. All showing the same kinds of symptoms.
No wonder the WHO specifically said in 2007 that researchers should NOT repeat NOT research health around masts, especially not cancer around masts. Researchers know where their bread is buttered, and they will take a hint like this from the WHO seriously. No wonder not a single mast study has ever been conducted in the USA. Shameful.
The WHO is terrified of mast studies, these are actually far more conclusive and worrying than handset studies. Long-term exposure to masts is *not* good. The body has mechanisms to deal with intermittent EMR (as from lightning storms etc) but 24/7, low-level microwave irradiation is another story altogether, completely alien to our physiology.
Please be patient, I will put this all together as soon as possible and let you know on this page. And please fight that mast above your roof. Don’t let them tell you it’s “safest just under the antenna”, as I’ve heard from several operators, it’s hogwash, there are side-lobes right under masts, I’ve measured them.