The popular broadcaster couple, doctors Willie and Liza Ong, e-mailed me a rejoinder to last week’s column on the possible carcinogenic effects of telco cell sites on people living near them.

Sometime ago, Doc Willie tackled the subject, backed by extensive research and scientific literature by Dr. Meredith Garcia, an oncologist (cancer specialist) from the University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital.

Doc Willie explains that the antennas of cell sites are usually placed at 50 to 200 feet above the ground to widen their network coverage, and according to the American Cancer Society (ACS), cell sites make use of RF waves, a type of nonionizing radiation that is unlikely to cause cancer by damaging DNA or genetic material.

“In fact, the amount of energy that these waves carry is even much lower than that of X-rays or ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun,” writes Doc Willie.

He adds that the amount of RF waves reaching the ground is 1,000 times lower than the safe range of RF waves (3 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz).

However, he qualifies that there is no universally established minimum safe distance for practical purposes, as each individual situation requires several mathematical computations involving physics.

Doc Willie also cites the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) advisory that RF energy exposures higher than the safe levels (500 watts per channel or 580 microwatts per square centimeter) are only likely to be encountered very close to and directly in front of cell site antennas, and that people living or working within the cell site are not at risk.

The health advocate group, Consumer4SafePhones, also posted a rejoinder that the FCC states that the agency “does not have funding or staff to do any monitoring of RF radiation from cellular base stations. No one monitors the emissions from cell towers or small cell antennas that are being installed on street lamps and utility poles in our public rights of way.

DNA damage

“Also, the FCC exposure guidelines are over 20 years old and only take into account the burning of tissue. They are set hundreds of times higher than levels that have been shown in multiple studies to cause DNA damage in laboratory animals.”

I requested our research staff in the office to scan the peer-reviewed scientific literature database for any study suggesting DNA damage caused by RF exposure at the level similar to living near a cell site, and they came back empty-handed. We’ll continue to look into this, and if we come up with something new, we’ll let our readers know.

The bottom line, based on our literature research and those of Doc Willie and Doc Meredith, is that the current scientific evidence is insufficient to conclude that proximity to cell sites can cause cancer. The concern appears to be unfounded at this point.

Doc Meredith also cites the reviews done by prominent researchers (Moulder and Repacholi) which have failed to gather sufficient evidence from published studies in peer-
reviewed journals that people exposed to cell sites have an increased risk of cancer.

Doc Meredith stresses that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and several other cancer organizations do not consider cell site exposure to be carcinogenic or cancer-causing.

“Furthermore, safety standards are being imposed by governments and regulatory agencies on mobile service providers to protect the welfare of citizens living near cell sites,” she says.

We trust that the government agency in charge of telcos is monitoring installations of cell sites to ensure full compliance with the required standards.

Our aim in discussing this is to put in proper perspective our concern about possible cancer risk involving telco cell sites or outdoor distributed antennae system (Odas).

Some readers ask, “Is there really zero risk if you live near cell sites?” It’s probably not absolutely zero risk, but the experts tell us that the risk is negligible, even much lower than what is considered safe.

It’s just like buying a car because we need it for mobility as we do our day-to-day tasks. No one can guarantee that one will not get into an accident that can possibly maim or kill him. But with the usual precaution of safe driving and car maintenance, the risk is minimal and should not be any cause for concern.

Same thing is true for allowing cell sites or Odas to improve our cell phone communication and connectivity. The risk may not be absolutely zero, but is negligible. The benefits of enhanced communication, especially during urgent and emergency situations, clearly outweigh the perceived risk.