"Abstract: The siting of cellular phone base stations and other cellular infrastructure such as roof-mounted antenna arrays, especially in residential neighborhoods, is a contentious subject in land-use regulation. Local resistance from nearby residents and landowners is often based on fears of adverse health effects despite reassurances from telecommunications service providers that international exposure standards will be followed. Both anecdotal reports and some epidemiology studies have found headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased libido, increased rates of suicide, concentration problems, dizziness, memory changes, increased risk of cancer, tremors, and other neurophysiological effects in populations near base stations. The objective of this paper is to review the existing studies of people living or working near cellular infrastructure and other pertinent studies that could apply to long-term, low-level radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures. While specific epidemiological research in this area is sparse and contradictory, and such exposures are difficult to quantify given the increasing background levels of RFR from myriad personal consumer products, some research does exist to warrant caution in infrastructure siting. Further epidemiology research that takes total ambient RFR exposures into consideration is warranted. Symptoms reported today may be classic microwave sickness, first described in 1978. Non-ionizing electromagnetic fields are among the fastest growing forms of environmental pollution. Some extrapolations can be made from research other than epidemiology regarding biological effects from exposures at levels far below current exposure guidelines . . .

" . . . The increasing popularity of wireless technologies makes understanding actual environmental exposures more critical with each passing day. This also includes any potential effects on wildlife. There is a new environmental concept taking form -- that of ''air as habitat'' (Manville 2007) for species such as birds, bats, and insects, in the same way that water is considered habitat for marine life. Until now, air has been considered something ''used'' but not necessarily ''lived in'' or critical to the survival of species. However, when air is considered habitat, RFR is among the potential pollutants with an ability to adversely affect other species. It is a new area of inquiry deserving of immediate funding and research . . .