Probably. There are no definite answers in science; all we can ever know are effects to various degrees of certainty. I was originally planning to write a long follow-up article to criticisms of my original post on cell tower radiation (and I still am), but I thought a bit more of an immediate follow-up would be warranted in light of some of the misunderstandings out there.

Before I go any further, I’ll direct you towards this post by Dr. Steven Novella (a man much smarter than I am) on his NeuroLogica Blog. He has summarized the issue quite nicely, though in a way that may not make you happy if you’re looking for a definitive answer.

So what do we know about cell towers? We know that the science is largely inconclusive. Some of the tests performed have been positive, and some are negative. The science has largely not supported the hypothesis that cell phone radiation is harmful, but there is not enough of a consensus in the data to draw this conclusion. However, it is interesting to note that a bulk of the studies that show harms from cell phone radiation were focused on cell phones as opposed to cell towers. The largest concern right now appears to be an increased risk of developing brain tumors from using cell phones, and even then only over an extended period of time (10+ years).

Many of the studies used by the anti-cell tower crowd are smaller studies, and more prone to statistical outliers affecting the result of the study. Furthermore, many of the studies that suggest major health problems from cell phone radiation exposure are poorly designed. The biggest study used by the anti-cell tower crowd, The Bioinitiative Report, isn’t even a study, but is rather a poorly constructed meta-analysis of previous studies in the field.

One common accusation leveled against studies showing no effects of cell tower/phone radiation is that they were performed by researchers who were in the pocket of telecommunications companies. Aside from this being a non sequitur (whether the test was a good or bad test does not rely on who pays for the test, but rather how the test is carried out and whether the results are accurately reported), this argument wrongly assumes that all previous research into this topic has been influenced by the telecommunication industry, and doesn’t recognize the new research that has been performed completely free of any influence from the telecommunication industry (research which is arriving at the same mixed, but mostly negative, results).

The bottom line seems to be that there’s no reason to be afraid of cell phones, and even less to be afraid of cell towers; and at this point, it isn’t looking likely that there are any serious harms. However, even if it were discovered that cell phone radiation damaged the human body somehow, it would be important to understand the extent of the damage before we could react in any meaningful way. We accept a certain level of danger for convenience on a regular basis (if you know statistics, getting behind the wheel of a car can be a scary experience). The outright banning of cell phones and towers seems to be an unlikely outcome even if it was discovered that they posed a danger. Regardless of the outcome, it’s clear that what is needed in this situation is more research into the topic — not protests and propaganda.