8,700 Studies Reviewed. 87.0% Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.
Shield Your Body
Brain & Nervous System

Limited associations were found between vicinity to cell towers and some general symptoms; however, no association was found with school RFR levels

Bioeffects Seen

Durusoy et al · 2017

Share:

The findings suggest that proximity to cell towers showed limited links to general symptoms, while school-based RFR exposure showed no detectable association with the outcomes measured.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

This 2017 review examined associations between proximity to cell towers and general symptoms, as well as school radiofrequency radiation (RFR) levels. The study found limited associations between cell tower vicinity and some general symptoms, but found no association with school RFR levels.

Why This Matters

This review-type study contributes to the broader epidemiological literature examining potential health effects of non-ionizing radiofrequency exposure from wireless infrastructure. The distinction between cell tower proximity effects and measured RFR levels in specific environments reflects the complexity of exposure assessment in environmental health research.

Exposure Information

Specific exposure levels were not quantified in this study.

Cite This Study
Durusoy et al (2017). Limited associations were found between vicinity to cell towers and some general symptoms; however, no association was found with school RFR levels.
Show BibTeX
@article{limited_associations_were_found_between_vicinity_to_cell_towers_and_some_general_symptoms_however_no_association_was_found_with_school_rfr_levels_ce4791,
  author = {Durusoy et al},
  title = {Limited associations were found between vicinity to cell towers and some general symptoms; however, no association was found with school RFR levels},
  year = {2017},
  doi = {10.1515/reveh-2021-0026},
  
}
DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0026

Quick Questions About This Study

Yes, this review found biological effects across all taxa and frequencies. Wildlife impacts include disrupted orientation, migration patterns, food finding abilities, reproduction, mating behaviors, nest building, territorial defense, and reduced longevity at ambient EMF levels.
Research shows biological effects occur at vanishingly low EMF intensities comparable to current ambient exposures. These background levels, which have risen exponentially in recent decades, can disrupt fundamental biological processes in wildlife species.
The study argues EMF should be recognized as a novel form of pollution requiring regulation. Current standards don't exist for long-term chronic low-level exposures, and environmental laws should treat air as habitat requiring EMF protection.
EMF levels have risen sharply over 80 years, creating novel energetic exposure that previously didn't exist. Recent decades show exponential increases in nearly all environments, including remote rural areas and atmospheric regions.
Yes, due to unique physiologies, some flora and fauna species are sensitive to EMF in ways that may surpass human reactivity. This suggests wildlife can serve as early indicators of biological EMF effects.