← Back to Main Page

Health Impact Analysis

Critical Regulatory Context: Under Canada's Safety Code 6 and federal telecommunications law, health concerns cannot be used as grounds to oppose tower placement. Health Canada has determined that exposure levels below Safety Code 6 limits are protective of all adverse health effects, and therefore health considerations are not valid objections in the tower approval process.

However, residents have a right to understand the scientific research that exists on this topic, even if it cannot factor into the regulatory decision.

What Safety Code 6 Says

Health Canada's Safety Code 6 establishes that:

Only two health effects are scientifically established: peripheral nerve stimulation (below 10 MHz) and tissue heating (above 100 kHz)
The exposure limits are set below the thresholds where these effects occur
No adverse health effects have been scientifically established at levels below Safety Code 6 limits
The limits protect all Canadians on a continuous 24/7 basis
Current limits are consistent with standards in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the US, and EU

Source: Health Canada, Safety Code 6 Radiofrequency Exposure Guidelines (2015)

Key Research Finding: Problems Found Below Safety Limits

The Critical Issue

While Safety Code 6 claims that exposures below the limits cause no adverse health effects, multiple peer-reviewed studies have found significant health problems at exposure levels that comply with - and are well below - current safety standards:

Ramazzini Institute Study (2018): Found cancer development in rats at exposure levels specifically designed to be below U.S. FCC limits (which align with Canada's Safety Code 6). All tested exposure levels were legally compliant - yet cancers still developed.
National Toxicology Program (2018): The U.S. government's $30 million, 10-year study found "clear evidence" of cancer from RF radiation, leading to calls for reclassifying RF as a probable human carcinogen.
Human Studies Near Cell Towers: 80% of epidemiological studies found adverse health effects in people living within 500 meters of towers - and none of these studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines.

Bottom Line: The research shows health problems occurring at exposure levels that regulatory agencies consider "safe." This creates a fundamental disconnect between what the science shows and what regulations allow.

Reported Health Symptoms

Surveys of people living near cell towers in France, Spain, Iraq, India, Germany, Egypt, and Poland have consistently documented higher rates of the following symptoms in those living closer to towers:

Symptom Category	Specific Effects
Neurological	Headaches, dizziness, memory problems, concentration difficulties
Sleep	Sleep disturbances, insomnia, fatigue
Psychological	Depression, irritability, anxiety
Physical	Nausea, skin disorders, tinnitus (ringing in ears)
Cardiovascular	Blood pressure variability, cardiovascular problems
Sensory	Visual disorders, loss of appetite

Sources: Santini et al., 2002; López et al., 2021; Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007; Bortkiewicz et al., 2004

Scientific Consensus vs. Regulatory Position

Position	Key Points
Health Canada / Safety Code 6	No established adverse effects below current limits Limits are protective for continuous exposure Based on prevention of thermal effects Health concerns not valid for tower opposition
259 Scientists from 44 Nations (EMF Scientist Appeal)	EMF affects living organisms well below international guidelines Effects include increased cancer risk, DNA damage, neurological disorders Calling for more protective exposure limits Urging precautionary approach
WHO/IARC Classification (2011)	RF radiation classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B) Based on limited evidence of increased glioma risk Many scientists now argue upgrade to Group 1 (carcinogenic) is warranted

Studies Examining Specific Distance Ranges

Study Location	Distance	Findings	Source
India	80m vs 300m+	People within 80m showed significantly higher micronuclei (cancer biomarker) and lipid peroxidation in blood	Zothansiama et al., 2017
Brazil	≤500m	10-year study found clearly elevated relative risk of cancer mortality	Dode et al., Science of the Total Environment, 2011
Israel	≤350m vs >350m	Cancer rate: 129 cases/10,000 (near) vs 16-31/10,000 (far)	Wolf & Wolf, 2004
Germany	≤400m	Within 5 years of tower operation, relative risk of cancer tripled in nearby residents	Eger et al., 2004

Effects on Children

School-Based Study (Saudi Arabia, 2018)

Study duration: 2 years
Subjects: Students aged 13-16 in schools near cell towers
Exposure levels: All below thermal thresholds

Findings in students exposed to higher (but still non-thermal) levels:

Delayed fine and gross motor skills
Impaired spatial working memory
Reduced attention and cognitive function

Source: Meo et al., American Journal of Men's Health, 2018

European Parliament Report (2021)

The European Parliament commissioned a report on 5G health impacts, which noted:

Commonly used RF frequencies (450-6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic to humans
Potential adverse effects on male fertility and development of embryos, fetuses, and newborns
Concern that constant exposure from dense 5G networks hasn't been adequately studied
Current EU exposure limits are 20 years old and don't account for 5G characteristics

Source: European Parliament Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA), Health Impact of 5G, July 2021

International Precedents

Several organizations and jurisdictions have adopted protective measures:

International Association of Fire Fighters: Opposes cell towers on fire stations until proven safe, citing health concerns for firefighters
Los Angeles Unified School District: Adopted radiofrequency limits 10,000 times lower than FCC limits to protect children
Chile: "Antenna Law" prohibits cell towers near schools, nurseries, hospitals, and nursing homes
Environmental Reviews recommendation: Cell base stations should not be located less than 457 meters (1,500 feet) from populations

The Regulatory Dilemma

This situation highlights a fundamental disconnect:

Federal Regulation: Health concerns are explicitly excluded from tower approval considerations because Safety Code 6 deems current limits protective
Academic Research: Majority of independent, peer-reviewed studies show health effects at levels below current safety limits
Practical Reality: Residents cannot use health research as grounds for opposition, even though substantial scientific evidence raises legitimate concerns

Safety Code 6's position that limits are protective is based on preventing acute thermal effects, not the chronic, non-thermal biological effects documented in the research presented here.

Summary

While Safety Code 6 dictates that health concerns cannot be used to oppose tower placement, residents should be aware that:

Residences within 500 meters (with one as close as 65 meters) fall within the distance range where multiple peer-reviewed studies have documented elevated health concerns
Both major animal studies (NTP and Ramazzini) found cancer development at or below current regulatory limits
73-80% of epidemiological studies on humans living near towers found adverse health effects
The continuous, whole-body nature of cell tower exposure differs fundamentally from cell phone use
Hundreds of independent scientists argue current limits are inadequate
European Parliament research indicates probable carcinogenic risk

Major Research Studies

1. U.S. National Toxicology Program Study

Study Details:

Cost: $30 million
Duration: 10+ years
Design: Most comprehensive assessment of health effects from RF radiation to date

Key Findings:

Clear evidence of cancerous heart tumors (malignant schwannomas) in male rats exposed to high levels of RF radiation
Some evidence of brain tumors (malignant gliomas) in male rats
Some evidence of adrenal gland tumors in male rats
DNA damage in brains of exposed rats and mice

Source: National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2018

2. Ramazzini Institute Study (Italy)

Study Details:

Subjects: 2,448 Sprague-Dawley rats
Exposure: Prenatal through natural death (19 hours/day)
Radiation levels: Designed to mimic cell tower base station emissions
Critical finding: All exposures were BELOW U.S. FCC limits (the same limits that Canada's Safety Code 6 aligns with)

Key Findings:

Increased heart schwannomas in male rats at the highest dose (50 V/m)
Increased malignant brain (glial) tumors in female rats
Pre-cancerous conditions (Schwann cell hyperplasia) in both male and female rats
Same types of tumors found in the NTP study, but at much lower exposure levels

Significance: This study tested exposure levels that are legally permitted and below safety limits, demonstrating that cancers occurred at "safe" exposure levels.

Source: Falcioni et al., Environmental Research, 2018

3. Human Epidemiological Research

2022 Comprehensive Review

Analyzed 38 studies on people living near mobile phone base stations
73.6% of studies showed health effects
73.9% found radiofrequency sickness symptoms
76.9% found increased cancer
75% found changes in biochemical parameters

Source: Balmori, A., Environmental Research, 2022

2011 International Review

Reviewed 10 epidemiological studies assessing health effects near cell towers
80% of studies found increased adverse health effects in people living less than 500 meters from base stations
None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines
Conclusion: "Current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations"

Source: Khurana et al., International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2010

Important: This analysis is provided for informational purposes. Under current federal regulations, health concerns based on this research cannot legally prevent tower approval if the installation complies with Safety Code 6 limits. However, understanding the science allows residents to make informed personal decisions and advocate for policy changes.