7,000 cancer deaths linked to cell phone tower radiation exposures

radiation-cellphone-tower Natural Health

by Lloyd Burrell – Naturalnews.com

Could exposure to radiation from cell phone towers really responsible for over 7,000 cancer deaths? According to research findings from Brazil, the facts speak for themselves. The study established a direct link between cancer deaths in Belo Horizonte, Brazil’s third largest city, with the cell phone network.

What does this direct link stem from?

Over 80 percent of those who succumbed to certain types of cancer resided approximately a third of a mile away from one of the hundreds of cell phone antennae that populate the city.

These cancers, primarily found in the prostate, breasts, lungs, kidneys, liver, are the ones associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs).

This is a real concern for cell phone users and even non- cell phone users. Those who shun mobile phone technology still suffer the consequences of cell phone tower radiation.

Is the Brazilian study an isolated study?

Cell phone tower studies which examined the relationship between radiation exposure and cancer rates were conducted in the city of San Francisco in addition to cities in Austria, Germany, and Israel, dating as far back as the 1970s. All the studies shared similar findings: living within a certain proximity to a cell phone tower increased the risk of cancer anywhere from two to 121 times depending on what type of cancer was detected.

Adilza Condessa Dode, PhD, one of the engineering researchers as well as the coordinator of the Brazilian study, addresses those who are concerned about cell phone tower radiation and explains the Brazil study does not stand alone. Dode elaborates, “these levels (EMFs), are already high and dangerous to human health. The closer you live to an antenna, the greater the contact with the electromagnetic field.”

The Brazilian study covers just one city in Brazil. Residents of the United States are vulnerable too as America is home to hundreds of thousands of these radiation emitting towers. In the U.S., with the proliferation of cell phones and the growing needs of cell phone users in recent years, there has been an explosion in cell towers.

Overwhelming evidence

A growing number of organizations and many more studies support the conclusions of the Brazilian study. The International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC), based upon findings from research conducted by an international think tank, came to the conclusion that radio frequency radiation, including the radiation spewing from cell towers, is a possible carcinogen.

The BioInitiative 2012 Report written by a group of leading independent international scientists has put out an unequivocal health warning against exposure to EMFs. This includes exposures from cell phone towers.

Why are cell phone towers particularly dangerous?

The threat comes from the constant nature of the activity of the towers; they emit pulsed radio frequency radiation. This radiation has been shown in thousands of studies to cause biological damage to the body and to be a precursor to disease.

What are some of the dangers (besides cancer), which result from this damage and are associated with EMFs and cell phone antennae?

• Genetic mutations

• Memory disruptions

• Hindered learning


• Insomnia

• Brain disorders

• Hormonal imbalances

• Infertility

• Dementia

• Heart complications

These dangers clearly make it imperative to take action.

Cell towers are here to stay but their implantation needs effective regulation in terms of location and radiation levels. The 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA), does not qualify the public’s right to protest cell tower locations based on health hazards. Cell towers should be located away from residential areas and far away from schools and day care centers.

48 Comments on 7,000 cancer deaths linked to cell phone tower radiation exposures

  1. Joseph Erisman

    I told a lot of you so…..If EMR was colored we would be living in a fog of mishmashed rainbows. Try to shield your cell phone, in car – in a building – in the bowels of a ship. It is amazing where we reach out and touch someone, perhaps we should be aware it may be frightening.

  2. Eric Lind

    WHAT STUDY? This is another in a long line of UH articles referencing phantom studies the links to which never appear in the article…bunch of rabble rousing bullshit much like the GMO scare. Just once I would like to see this site actually reference good, sound, AUTHENTIC science from reputable sources.

  3. Eric Lind

    Patricia Allen Knowles please cite your authentic science because 95% of the crap that shows up on Underground Health comes from one guy…Jeffery Smith / Institute for Responsible Technology, a fruit cake, half-ass naturalist and political wannabe from Fairfield, Iowa with a degree in Yoga and a proven knowledge of how to keep his propaganda at the top of a Google search. Go ahead scare me by showing me even ONE human death that a coroner has attributed to GMO. Show me any health warnings from the CDC specifically related to GMO. Look I absolutely believe that organic whole foods are always the healthier choice over any processed food / grain. I am also no fan of Monsanto but humans have been manipulating the genome of wheat and corn plants since the Indians (actually since the Egyptians), way before Monsanto's arrival…Monsanto just figured out how to make money doing it and patented their methods. Why does the real agenda appear to be more anti-Monsanto than pro nutrition. Why are the hundreds of other plants genetically altered by man during the past 200 years not demonized or even discussed…for instance any of the hundred varieties of garden grown tomatoes sold at Saturday markets all over the country as "organic". Why is the EU and Canada reconsidering their premature stance against GMO? It's become cool to scream GMO the way the right screams Muslim and morals. Apparently, this "sleeping dumbass" has a lot of company, including you probably. All we need now is an Oliver Stone / Matt Damon movie and few more Patricia's selling tickets to make GMO the new Kennedy conspiracy in the minds of an under educated, gullible public.

  4. Eric Lind People don't like GMOs because of the bt toxin built in. You can't wash it off. Crossbreeding plants is totally different than putting in toxins. They say it doesn't hurt us but then there's other research that says it does. I think people are just wary of everything because they don't know what studies are good, which are not, which are funded by the companies themselves, etc.

  5. Eric Lind

    Still waiting for that data Keith. Do you have any original thoughts or is dodge and deflect the entire basis for your thought process….stay on point.

  6. Eric Lind

    Keith Anderson I have read absolutely nothing on the subject and therefore have not formed an opinion one way or the other. Apparently you have so I have a serious question on the subject…if in fact fluoridated water is harmful or "unhealthy" are fluoride treatments provided by dentists equally harmful? I ask because I know my children have been treated.

  7. Eric Lind well the Germans used it to keep the jews docile while in the camp, and it has been linked to the calcifying of our pineal gland which is very very bad for your health, on top of that is has also been linked to cancer so I would advise against it… look I'm not here to fight lol but man you have to have an open mind about these things, yes there are bullshit posts out there, probably a lot because people need views right? well that is where YOUR research comes into play brother, you need to realize history is written by the winner and someone is in charge in this world… there are things going on we can't entirely know about but I feel it's my job to look these things up and try to sift through whats factual and fake, GMO is cheap and effective but not healthy for us… Monsanto's own workers demand organic food at their cafeteria… as does the white house… now why might that be…

  8. Kelli Viner Revoir

    You just keep drinking the koolaid Mr. Lind. I happen to be one who has suffered devastating health affects from GMO's. Go ahead and poison yourself, but don't tell me there isn't "proof". Idiot…

  9. I'm with Eric here. People: You can NOT just take the word of a website for TRUTH. The fact is, there are lots of websites that scream everything from "Bush is Gay" to "Obama is a terrorist". You don't believe those just because someone has an anti-"whatever" agenda.

    If you want to quote something as fact, provide a link to the study, the facts (such as charted data), or the agency that ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED the information! EVERYTHING else is BS, and even if you CLAIM you were affected, it's still BS unless you decide to share your medical info with the world! I could claim I'm a flying purple people eater, but unless I present documented proof, you SHOULD NOT take that as truth – even if I have a PICTURE of me eating purple people! Even pictures and data can be manipulated to support or disprove something – so unless YOU can cite the original source, and post a link to it, pull your head out of the sand and quit hating on someone who is merely asking for PROOF that what you believe is true!

    If you are so sure you're right, why can't you provide the proof????

  10. Marc Wayman yes, and no, you're aware that just as there are anti-whatever agendas… there are pro-whatever agendas which they equally have the chance to be… you do realize that in the very same way you claim things can be manipulated the information we're given could be just hear say… listen brother… there is something very wrong with the world no? why is it that the US has been just about everywhere that there has been oil? how about the our troops "guarding" the ever growing poppy fields that were supposed to be burnt down?

  11. Eric Lind

    Keith Anderson, I am not looking for a fight either; I am not trying to sway opinion here. 8 months ago I sounded just like all of you, very anti-GMO, until a friend of mine with a Masters in biology suggested I start really reading instead of just blindly jumping on the bandwagon. My initial post was intended to encourage UH to provide more verifiable data with their articles as opposed to endless supposition. In deference to Kelli, I have read everything I can get my hands on starting with articles posted on this UH site and working from there. That is how I found Jeffery Smith, and the Institute for Responsible Technology from citations on UH. IRT is operated out of Jeffery Smith's house, he is the sole employee. It is amazing how many of the articles, "studies", etc. trace back to him. Danica's post above relates the bulk of the real potential concern with GMO, bacillus thuringiensis or BT. It is a bacteria that occurs naturally in soil, plants and insects and acts as a natural pesticide that Monsanto exploited and has as Danica said "built in" to wheat and corn. Strangely, Jeff Smith never discusses BT or any other specific root problem with GMO. There are conflicting studies indicating that this bacteria is being absorbed by humans but again, nothing definitive. All I am asking for is less emotion and more definitive data. Kelli, if you can without relating any private/personal information, I would be interested to learn exactly what devastating effects you suffered from and exactly how they are related to GMO because you are the first person I have encountered who is asserting that. When you really read and drill down on the bulk of the information published on the internet there seems to be very little real science being applied or referenced.

  12. Kelli Viner Revoir

    I'm sorry! Don't mean to be rude…but I get offended! I have suffered for many years and am living proof of GMO's devastation. And let's be honest… Insects are not supposed to breed with mammals and fish don't breed with fruit…for a reason!

  13. Keith Anderson : You are of course correct – there is something wrong with the world, and it's primarily us humans. And, yes, there are pro-whatever agendas – but it depends on your viewpoint. You might be very anti-Monsanto, but if I worked for them, then I would be pro-Monsanto. We might look at the very same data, and come to two completely different conclusions. All I'm saying is: Do not accept a statement as God's truth just because it's posted in a news article or report. Dig and look for the data. Don't just blindly post stuff because it either supports or detracts from a point of view. Once you can refer to the actual data, then form an opinion or theory, and post it as such, with links to the data, so others can review and come to their own (hopefully the same) conclusion. Be open minded, not closed minded. If the data doesn't support your point of view, figure out why… are you wrong or is the data wrong? If you post something, post links to the data that gave you your opinion, or be ready to be questioned on it.

    Kelli: since you stated that you are living proof of GMO's devastation, what proof do you have? I mean, here's the deal: There are a million things in our lives that affect our bodies daily. I used to take Lipitor for high cholesterol. It started to give me memory problems. I also suffer from memory problems due to explosions I was exposed to in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, really, the Lipitor actually aggravated the memory problems. I know that the Lipitor did this because when I started doing real research into it, I found that it can cause Alzheimer's in addition to the problems I was experiencing. I had my doctor take me off of it (You can't just quit it cold turkey, because that can cause what's called "Statin rebound" which can cause fatal heart attacks). Once I was completely off of it, my memory improved some – though not completely. My long and rambling point is: If GMOs have affected you negatively, what else is? There's usually way more than just one cause. If you find that you are feeling better by not consuming GMOs, that's awesome. Continue on that path, but also look for other things that are possibly compounding the problems you are already aware of. Share that info (to the degree that you can), and state what tests you did that support your claim. That's all I'm saying. Support what you believe with fact and actual proof – don't just say you have seen facts or have proof.

  14. Marc Wayman I want to know your stance on drug prohibition. Your ability to pose and sustain a commendable argument has intrigued me as to what other things you may have formed a solid opinion on? I know this has nothing to do with the original post, but I'm curious.

  15. Michael C Moore

    I'd like to re-pose Mr Lind's question, does anyone have a link to this Brazilian study? I haven't been able to find one. Thanks.

  16. Eric Lind do you and your family get the common cold or the flu still? are you one of the smart ones that have figured it out?… I informed myself on the immune response system. took about 3 days and i have not been sick with a cold of the flu in almost a decade. i could break it down into about an hour for grade school kids, but really would they listen?.. they have been programmed to believe the cold and the flu are normal and there is no cure. its such a freaking joke just how simple they are to beat its pathetic.

  17. Michael C Moore

    So looking at the study, see my previous comment, two things stand out to me. The relative risk associated at less than 100 m from a base station (tower) is ~1.35 and the mortality per 10,000 residents rises from ~32 to ~44. According to http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/RiskFactorsSummaryTable.html, this is on par with a women that is overweight and their increased chance of breast cancer. I do like the article and the information presented and it does show an icreased relative risk that might be due to the increased concentration of base stations. They certainly do not go on a witch hunt because they know that a 10 year longitudinal study has many factors that they cannot control: other environmental pollutions, transiency, and who knows what. BUT, they do show that over the 10 year period there was an increased mortality rate which may be due to the increased EMFs in the region.
    Many more studies like this must be done and properly published. Make no mistake, we are the guinea pigs of "some" long term study of EMF's on humans. I cannot imagine any regulatory agency anywhere would be willing to conduct a 50 year study on an isolated group of human subjects, just to find out what the long term effects could be. WE didn't really know all the long term effects of high energy, ionizing radiation would be until long after Hiroshima (and we are still learning).

  18. Dustin Covington This is at best, a very complex issue. Personally, I don't care if someone wants to kill or dumb themselves down to the intelligence level of a gnat by doing drugs. Legally, and for societal reasons, I'm against most drug use, especially synthetic drug use.

    Side note: When I was in the national guard, I did some counter-narcotics support missions with the DEA. We received advanced training on the true effects of drugs.

    All synthetic drugs, such as meth-amphetamines, LSD, or "bath salts", are extremely bad for you. They destroy your mind, your body, and your soul. Want to see what meth does to you? Google "Faces of Meth"… it's not pretty.

    More natural drugs, such as opium, alcohol, or marijuana, cause temporary effects that for the most part, you can recover from. That being said, however, repeated abusive consumption of such drugs (just like alcohol) can and will cause permanent damage to either your brain's synapses, or your brain cells themselves. If you've ever seen a stoner (someone who smokes pot daily, or even weekly), you know what I'm talking about: slow response to questions, only able to form simple thoughts and sentences, lethargic in movements, unable to understand even simple math problems, and so on. However, most stoners are pretty calm and non-violent by the time they reach that stage.

    With synthetic drug use, there are much direr consequences: extremely violent behavior, delusions, schizophrenic behavior, paranoia, etc. These preclude the legalization of some drugs, especially synthetic ones.

    Some drugs like marijuana, have also apparently been shown to ease pain, or help with treating cancer. In this case, I'm fine with that, as long as it's been more than 24 hours since the drug was last used before the person gets behind the wheel of a car. Why 24 hours? Because it takes at least 24 hours before THC from marijuana is reduced enough through the body's natural modes of elimination to levels that it is no longer affecting your judgement (actually, the real figure is 72 hours, but most people, after about a day, are at safe enough levels to operate a vehicle). There are far worse drugs we use to treat cancer than marijuana, and they are legal because they are prescribed, and some people still get behind the wheel of their car to drive – usually within a day of the treatment, even though they may be in no condition to drive.

    Long and short of it is this: My personal feelings are, that like alcohol, you should be able to consume some of the more natural drugs provided you are of appropriate age and/or prescribed them, and like alcohol, if you are DUI, you go to jail and lose your license for a long time.

    Synthetic drugs, due to the violent episodic behavior they cause, the mental health issues, the destruction of one's body, and the fact that most of the people who consume them become criminals, should never be legalized..

  19. Marc Wayman well you don't want to research what they are finding out now how sun glasses effect the mind and body. causing everything from sun burns to cancer, so far they have found the 3 base hormones the body makes from the sun.. serotonin and melanin are triggered from the eyes being in sun light. and D3 is triggered when the skin is in sun light. D3 was shown to shrink 4 out of 5 cancers that's 80% .. and the freaking body makes it from sun exposure. sometimes you have to shake people to wake them up.. take care

  20. Eric Lind i can tell you first hand GMO affects me and my kids – all we have to do is eat it and our minds in a fog or we become irritated and a variety of other reactions.

  21. Eric Lind

    Carol L Hargett I have no reason to doubt you but I am assuming based on your certainty that you were diagnosed by a physician or testing was performed that specifically identified GMO as the cause for your symptoms. All want to do is locate, read and learn….22 reponses to this thread and no one seems has provided one link, reference or otherwise in support of GMO as the specific cause of anything. So I ask you, how do you know GMO are responsible for the symptoms you describe?

  22. Eric Lind how many people even know that russia banned micro wave ovens because of the ill health effects they found, the ban has been lifted since then. or that kids are banned from cell phones until 18. instead of getting people to post the links why dont you just do your own research.. one hint trace the person or the Co that has wrote the article..

  23. Vincent James You seem to have completely missed the point. Sure, we can all do our own research. Point is this though: If you're going to post something as fact, pony up the facts that you have! Why make us dig for something that you have already found? I'll tell you why: Because you, or whoever else posts here, can't really provide any proof, so you say "Do your own research". Well, buddy, hate to tell you this, the way it works is this: If you're a scientist, and say you discover 'dark matter', in order for the scientific community to take you at your word, there are some things that have to happen: 1st, you need to publish YOUR research. 2nd, your research needs to be based on FACTS, not GUESSES, and 3rd, YOUR RESEARCH needs to be able to be reproduced! If you can't back up your claims, then you shouldn't post, because you're just stirring the pot with conjecture, innuendo, misquotes, or outright lies!

  24. Brian Wright

    All I can say is Santa is real. No study needed. Seriously though, all good points here. I am on the fence of many things including GMO and radio waves. I have been so worked up over so many things I can't control it's becoming unhealthy. Too much of this becomes a mental illness! Yes, I can choose different foods. Yes, I can petition the government, but really, an individual's efforts are so minuscule. My voice is a voice, and it does count though. That's what keeps me moving along. I live by simple rules: Food, keep it unprocessed, buy local or organic if I can, make my own stuff from scratch (most of the time.) and don't be a glutton. Pollution, well I drive a 4 cylinder and I used to bus when I could. I live away from a highway (so I don't breath it in) and I live in a small home. Radio waves, well, I have a wireless network and a cell phone, but I refuse (for other reasons than frying my brain with radio waves) to talk on a cell for extended periods. I don't live under wires and there are no towers in site. Fluoride, oh my, well, I'm on well water now so that's ruled out. Phew! Then there are the fear mongers out there going on about "don't eat Tuna, it's all radio active." Well, here is a link that calmed me down. I have not gone in and researched all of the references, but it looks good enough for me to chill out.


    My input without links (lol) Yes, of course, radio waves will harm you. If you were to live with transmitters in your home, and were constantly highly exposed, you will be hurt. Yes. Well guess what? Everything in excess will harm you! Too much yoga, too much soccer, too much beer, too much food… just keep things in moderation. So a little meter on the side of the house? I don't buy it. It's a 900MHz unit (just like the older wireless home phones.) How come nobody freaked out about them? It's not that we are wiser now. I believe (and there are no links, as it is my opinion) that the whole PRIVACY issue here, and paranoid people, have brought in the harmful radio wave crap to make a fight. So, if you're really worried about the radio waves from the smart meter, my advise is to shield your home from it. Build a Faraday cage on five sides… maybe 5 and half sildes. Just leave enough of the meter open so the meter can be read, by someone on foot. Ha! Then you have a fight! Block the waves! Get it? Then you can have legal battles with the hydro companies, and not waste your time blasting the web with all of this fear mongering stuff.

    Sorry Eric… kinda hogged your post…

  25. I do not know how to thank GREAT Dr Itua for bringing happiness back to my family. My name is Melissa and i do really wanna tell the whole world that there is a spell caster called GREAT Dr Itua that is so real and genuine. I never believed in any of these things but when i lose my Husband for 5 years, i required help until i found Dr Itua A great spell caster, and he cast a love spell for me, and he assured me that I will get my Husband back in just 24hours but i was in doubt, and after the spell has been cast, 24hours later, just as the spell caster said, my phone rang, and surprisingly it was my Husband who has not called me for the past 5years, and he made an apology for the pain he has caused me and he told me that he is ready to come back home for me. GREAT Itua really made him to know how much i loved and needed husband. And he also opened he eyes to picture how much love we have share together. With this testimony right now i am the happiest woman on earth and our love is now stronger than how it was ever before our divorce and that is why I will keep sharing this testimony all over the world. All thanks goes to GREAT Dr Itau for the good work that he has done for me. Here is his email address if you are having the same or similar problem contact him now because he is very powerful and he will always help you. Believe him and do all he ask you to do and never doubt him in any way. Contact him now on ituasolutionspellhome989@outlook.com

Leave a Comment