Radio signals are part of everyday life, emitted both by natural sources like the sun, the Earth and the ionosphere, and by artificial sources such as: mobile phone base stations, broadcast towers, radar facilities, remote controls, medical, electrical and electronic equipment.
Radio frequency waves lie in the non-ionizing part of the spectrum which means that they cannot directly impart enough energy to a molecule to break or change chemical bonds. In contrast, ionizing radiation, such as x-rays can strip electrons from atoms and molecules, producing changes that can lead to tissue damage and possibly cancer.
Cellular towers work in the non-ionizing spectrum which means they do not have the capability to cause and genetic damage. Mobile phones communicate by transmitting radio waves through a network of fixed antennas called base stations. Radiofrequency waves are electromagnetic fields, and unlike ionizing radiation such as X-rays or gamma rays, can neither break chemical bonds nor cause ionization in the human body.
Emissions from various EMF sources are very much a part of our normal daily lives. The RF emissions from these sources are several multifold times lower than the safety limits set by international EMF standards bodies. Emissions from a mobile tower are lower than the emissions from a microwave and even from our normal radio tuner!
It’s doubtful that these radiations can cause health damage to humans. WHO has classified cell tower/phone radiations under ‘possibly carcinogenic’ category which also includes 240 other agents like coffee, pickled vegetables.
Hence, the myth that it’s unsafe to stay near cell towers is completely baseless. The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed and evaluated the available literature on the environmental exposures associated with transmission of signals for radio, television and wireless telecommunication. The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate.