It is vitally important, when compiling an objection to a cell mast, to support your argument with scientific evidence and research. Government officials (the ones who give permission for these masts) have been told that there is no authoritative reason to show that cell masts are bad for you or that they impact on property values.

You need to produce this proof. Here are some reports and studies that you can attach to your objection. Make sure that you summarise the findings of the reports in your objection, as it is very easy for an official simply not to read the report (and some of them are indeed hard to read) and then dismiss it as irrelevant.

To make it easy for you, here are some examples:

EXAMPLE 1
In 2017, a group of scientists from a number of European countries approached the World Health Organisation to highlight the fact that the panel who determined the health effects of cellular radiation on human beings had conflicts of interest. They were worried that the panel would not be independent when it came to ruling on cellular emission levels. They came away from the meeting disappointed because (they report) the officials did not seem interested in revising their opinions despite overwhelming scientific proof of harm.
https://www.scribd.com/document/352714568/ijo-2017-4046-AOP-PDF

In 2017, a group of 220 scientists circulated a petition, aimed at the WHO, protesting the conflict of interest of people on the panel.
https://es-ireland.com/2016/12/20/has-the-who-emf-project-been-hijacked-by-icnirp/

EXAMPLE 2
A number of groups of scientists and doctors have written letters and appeals to various global bodies, warning of the dangers of unregulated electromagnetic radiation. Here is a letter published in the International Journal of Oncology for governments around the world to heed the dangers of electromagnetic radiation.
http://www.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/Europeanjournalofoncology/article/view/4971

And another group of scientists directed a petition to the United Nations and its member states, urging a serious review of the impact of wireless radiation.
https://www.emfscientist.org/

EXAMPLE 3
In 2017, a group of 180 scientists and doctors wrote a letter to the European Union, warning against the dangers of 5G, saying that there was growing evidence that it was severely harmful to health. The report here is in Spanish but can be translated on Google. It makes for alarming reading.
https://www.scribd.com/document/359655980/scientist-warn-eu-for-5g-es-170913-pdf

However, a citizen in the US has summarised the issues here.
https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g-cell-towers-dangerous/

And here is an article about the petition that was sent to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/emf-scientist-appeal-advisors-call-moratorium-5g/

And – conspiracy theorists take note! There is growing evidence that the public ignorance of the harm caused by electromagnetic radiation is part of a global ‘conspiracy’ to prevent the public from finding out just how harmful this radiation is. If you think that is outrageous, just think about how the tobacco industry suppressed information about the harm caused by cigarettes for decades. There is no reason to believe that the cellular companies – who make the most enormous profits from wireless technology – are any different.
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/

EXAMPLE 4
A study in Japan in 2014 showed that when a cell mast (mobile base station) was removed, a number of people living around the mast felt a significant improvement in their health. The researchers were unable to identify any other reason why people reported this improvement. The base stations had been erected on the roofs of blocks of flats. This research recommends that the links between poor health and cell antennae need further research.
Significant Decrease of Clinical Symptoms after Mobile Phone Base Station Removal – An Intervention Study

Here is another study that showed a significant impact on the human hormone level of wireless radiation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22138021

And another one that dealt with neurological effects on the body.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24280284

EXAMPLE 5
A study in Tanzania showed recommended levels of long-term emissions, which were thousands of times less than current guidelines allowed. They especially showed the effects of cell emissions on areas where people slept. The study recommended a safety zone around cell towers.
SAFETY ZONE DETERMINATION FOR WIRELESS CELLULAR TOWER

EXAMPLE 6
A study in Brazil showed in 2011 that people who lived within 500 metres of a base station were more likely to die of neoplasia (malignant tumours) than people who lived outside this zone. The report recommended an urgent revision of the placement of cell masts.
Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations

EXAMPLE 7
In 2015, the Canadian Parliament convened a conference in which scientists presented evidence that electromagnetic sensitivity was not simply ‘in people’s heads’ and that there was medical and scientific proof that they caused harm. This is an excellent article summarising the findings of that conference.
https://maisonsaine.ca/english/electrohypersensitivity-conference-debunks-nocebo-effect-theory.html

EXAMPLE 8
This is a 2014 article by a group of lawyers that argues that the placement of cell masts is a human rights issue for children.
Mobile phone infrastructure regulation in Europe: Scientific challenges and human rights protection

The lawyers claim that, because a cell mast has an impact on the environment which has not yet been fully researched, cell masts that are near schools or play areas constitute a human rights concern.

EXAMPLE 9
Electromagnetic sensitivity is a real thing. People really are allergic to cell radiation! In any allergy, there are biological signs, called ‘biomarkers’, where the body manufactures antibodies to fight off the inflammation. In the case of electromagnetic sensitivity, these biomarkers have been found. If you ever want to do medical tests to prove that you are electromagnetically sensitive, you can take these studies to your doctor.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26613326
http://www.ehs-mcs.org/fichiers/1454070991_Reliable_biomarkers.pdf

This study shows the effect of electromagnetic waves on your body’s defence system.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X17300731

Every doctor should read this report.
http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2015/11/reliable-disease-biomarkers-to-measure-sensitivity-to-electromagnetic-fields/.

And the final question – can this inflammation of cells lead to cancer?
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b624/029b9e718c2aaf680b50e99598c186d848c3.pdf

EXAMPLE 10
There is still huge controversy over the fact that cell masts might cause cancer. However, this raging debate completely overlooks the fact that there are proven negative health effects that are NOT cancer but still severely affect the quality of life and might have long-term health effects. This report has found headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased libido, increased rates of suicide, concentration problems, dizziness, memory changes, tremors and other neurophysiological effects in populations near base stations.

This 2014 Indian study took it a bit further and found evidence of DNA damage.

EXAMPLE 11
The South African Cancer Association (CANSA) has taken note of the call by the Council of Europe (a body that represents the 47 European member countries) for all member countries to reduce electromagnetic radiation dramatically in our environment and for the World Health Organisation and the United Nations to revise their basis for setting standards.
http://www.cansa.org.za/council-of-europe-calls-for-dramatic-reduction-in-electromagnetic-fields-exposure/

EXAMPLE 12
And finally – the big bogeyman. The possibility of cell masts causing cancer is hotly contested terrain, and for every report that ‘proves’ it, there is a report that ‘disproves’ it. This study was published in 2010 and claimed that diseases were occurring at levels of exposure well below the current legal limits for exposure and, therefore, recommended that these limits must be reviewed.
Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations

Here is a 2011 study from Japan that recommends the ‘precautionary principle’.
Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems

On most of these sites, there are links to other similar papers and findings.

EXAMPLE 13
This scientific paper claims that there is now so much biological evidence of the harm caused by EMF radiation that there can no longer be any doubt.
http://www.emfsa.co.za/research-and-studies/thermal-and-non-thermal-health-effects-of-low-intensity-non-ionizing-radiation-an-international-perspective/

It is vitally important, when compiling an objection to a cell mast, to support your argument with scientific evidence and research. Government officials (the ones that give permission for these masts) have been told that there is no authoritative reason to show that cell masts are bad for you, or that they impact on property values.

You need to produce this proof. Here are some of these reports and studies that you can attach to your objection. Make sure that you summarise the findings of the reports in your objection, as it is very easy for an official simply not to read the report (and some of them are indeed hard to read), and then dismiss it as irrelevant.

To make it easy for you, here are some examples.

  1. In 2017, a group of scientists from a number of European countries approached the World Health Organisation to highlight the fact that the panel who determined the health effects of cellular radiation on human beings had conflicts of interest. They were worried that the panel would not be independent when it came to ruling on cellular emission levels. They came away from the meeting disappointed, as (they report) the officials did not seem interested in revising their opinions despite overwhelming scientific proof of harm.
    https://www.scribd.com/document/352714568/ijo-2017-4046-AOP-PDFIn 2017, a group of 220 scientists circulated a petition, aimed at the WHO, protesting the conflict of interest of people on the panel:
    https://es-ireland.com/2016/12/20/has-the-who-emf-project-been-hijacked-by-icnirp/
  2. A number of groups of scientists and doctors have written letters and appeals to various global bodies, warning of the dangers of unregulated electromagnetic radiation. Here is a letter published in the International Journal of Oncology for governments around the world to heed the dangers of electromagnetic radiation
    http://www.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/Europeanjournalofoncology/article/view/4971.And another group of scientists directed a petition to the United Nations and its member states, urging a serious review of the impact of wireless radiation
    https://www.emfscientist.org/
  3. In 2017, a group of 180 scientists and doctors wrote a letter to the European Union, warning against the dangers of 5G, saying that there was growing evidence that it was severely harmful to health. The report here is in Spanish, but can be translated on Google. It makes alarming reading.
    https://www.scribd.com/document/359655980/scientist-warn-eu-for-5g-es-170913-pdfHowever, a citizen in the US has summarised the issues here
    https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g-cell-towers-dangerous/.And here is an article about the petition that was sent to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
    https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/emf-scientist-appeal-advisors-call-moratorium-5g/
    And – conspiracy theorists take note! - there is growing evidence that the public ignorance of the harm caused by electromagnetic radiation is part of a global ‘conspiracy’ to prevent the public from finding out just how harmful this radiation is. If you think that is outrageous, just think about how the tobacco industry suppressed information about the harm caused by cigarettes for decades. There is no reason to believe that the cellular companies – who make the most enormous profits from wireless technology – are any different: How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation - The Nation
    https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/
  4. A study in Japan in 2014 showed that when a cell mast (mobile base station) was removed, a number of people living around the mast felt a significant improvement in their health. The researchers were unable to identify any other reason why people reported this improvement. The base stations had been erected on the roofs of blocks of flats. This research recommends that the links between poor health and cell antennae needed further research.
    Significant Decrease of Clinical Symptoms after Mobile Phone Base Station Removal – An Intervention StudyHere is another study, that showed a significant impact on the human hormone level of wireless radiation:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22138021And another one that dealt with neurological effects on the body:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24280284
  5. A study in Tanzania showed recommended levels of long-term emissions, which were thousands of times less than current guidelines allowed. They especially showed the effects of cell emissions on areas where people slept. The study recommended a safety zone around cell towers.
    SAFETY ZONE DETERMINATION FOR WIRELESS CELLULAR TOWER
  6. A study in Brazil showed in 2011 that people who lived within 500 metres of a base station were more likely to die of neoplasia (malignant tumours) than people who lived outside this zone. The report recommended an urgent revision of the placement of cell masts.
    Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations.
  7. In 2015, the Canadian Parliament convened a conference in which scientists presented evidence that electromagnetic sensitivity was not simply ‘in people’s heads’ and that there was medical and scientific proof that they caused harm. This is an excellent article summarising the findings of that conference
    https://maisonsaine.ca/english/electrohypersensitivity-conference-debunks-nocebo-effect-theory.html
  8. This is a 2014 article by a group of lawyers that argues that the placement of cell masts is a human rights issue for children:
    Mobile phone infrastructure regulation in Europe: Scientific challenges and human rights protection.The lawyers claim that, because a cell mast has an impact on the environment which has not yet been fully researched, cell masts which are near schools or play areas constitute a human rights concern.
  9. Electromagnetic sensitivity is a real thing. People really are allergic to cell radiation! In any allergy, there are biological signs, called ‘biomarkers’, where the body manufactures antibodies to fight off the inflammation. In the case of electromagnetic sensitivity, these biomarkers have been found. If you ever want to do medical tests to prove that you are electromagnetically sensitive, you can take these studies to your doctor:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26613326;
    http://www.ehs-mcs.org/fichiers/1454070991_Reliable_biomarkers.pdf.This study shows the effect of electromagnetic waves on your body’s defence system:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X17300731.Every doctor should read this report:
    http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2015/11/reliable-disease-biomarkers-to-measure-sensitivity-to-electromagnetic-fields/.And the final question – can this inflammation of cells lead to cancer?
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b624/029b9e718c2aaf680b50e99598c186d848c3.pdf.
  10. There is still huge controversy over the fact that cell masts might cause cancer. However, this raging debate completely overlooks that fact that there are proven negative health effects that are NOT cancer, but still severely effect the quality of life, and might have long-term health effects. This report has found headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased libido, increased rates of suicide, concentration problems, dizziness, memory changes, tremors, and other neurophysiological effects in populations near base stations.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233593841_Biological_effects_from_exposure_to_electromagnetic_radiation_emitted_by_cell_tower_base_stations_and_other_antenna_arraysThis 2014 Indian study took it a bit further and found evidence of DNA damage
    A cross-sectional case control study on genetic damage in individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile phone base station.
  11. The South African Cancer Association (CANSA) has taken note of the call by the Council of Europe (a body that represents the 47 European member countries) for all member countries to reduce electromagnetic radiation dramatically in our environment, and for the World Health Organisation and the United Nations to revise their basis for setting standards:
    http://www.cansa.org.za/council-of-europe-calls-for-dramatic-reduction-in-electromagnetic-fields-exposure/
  12. And finally – the big bogeyman. The possibility of cell masts causing cancer is hotly contested terrain, and for every report that ‘proves’ it there is a report that ‘disproves’ it. Here are some research reports. This study was published in 2010, and claimed that diseases were occurring at levels of exposure well below the current legal limits for exposure, and therefore recommended that these limits must be reviewed:
    Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base StationsHere is a 2011 study from Japan that recommends the ‘precautionary principle’:
    Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems.

On most of these sites there are links to other similar papers and findings.

Scroll to top