Yeah, well, who the heck is going to believe a government study, knowing that it was probably paid for by the company that was being investigated.

This study will be a big disappointment to the nation's trial shysters. But I bet it won't stop some of them from trying to figure out some way to sue somebody about the radiation.

Oh jeeze... are people still ranting about potential cancer from cell based radio telecommunications? I'm sure the only reason its being bandied about in the press is so governments can have more active control over the networks under the guise of protecting the public's health.

You might have had a potential issue back in the 80's & 90's (very small chance) when people were utilizing 3w transmission AMPS technology, but not now since TDMA & CDMA operate at a <.6 draw.

Does the study consider how long each child live at the residence at time of study?

Anyone who believed low power radio waves could cause health problems was either ignorant, stupid, or willfully looking for an excuse to sue. The bogeyman word "radiation" frightens the ignorant. They don't know the difference between nuclear ionizing radiation and the benign radio waves emitted by hand held radios and radio base stations. The latter carries less energetic photons than the visible light radiation emitted by an incandescent light bulb.

Yes, but ponder this; the plight of honey bees (they're disappearing at an alarming rate and when they go, so doesn't 2/3rd of all plant life)...it is being considered that all those microwave towers are screwing with the bees' homing instincts. Hmmm...we don't die from cancer, we'll just starve to death.

They say the study was paid for by an ind . group but then went on to say this research group gets funding from The health dept and a mobile comm. company??? Did I read that right? So the cell phone industry indirectly funded this study. The fact that this debate has been raging on and on with no real conclusion leads me to believe there is some danger there, no matter how small.

The study has a major problem. Most cancers take 10 to 20 years to develop. Since most people haven't been exposed that long, the "safe" conclusion is premature. Also, the study didn't look at how long a person has been exposed to the radiation. Most cell towers are less than 5 years old.

What an incredibly horrible piece of journalism! What is the message here? Is the reader to assume from this article simply that children are under no radiation threat if they live “near” a cell tower? What is the definition of “near”? Do all cell towers emit exactly 3 KW of radiation? Of course not! Why doesn’t the author point out that there is four times the radiation received at 500 yards and over nine times the radiation received at 300 yards as that received at 1100 yards, due to the square law of electromagnetic radiation? Hasn't this author ever heard of journalistic research and integrity?

Cellphone towers broadcast at a maximum of 500 watts (that's 0.5 kilowatts) ERP ( based on tower height. In the U.S., 99.9% of cell towers transmit at 100 watts ERP or less (Effective Radiated Power).

For a "Scientist" to determine that these towers transmit in the 2-3 kilowatt level tells me they have another agenda or they really stink at measuring transmit power. Maybe they just hit the wrong button on their K-Mart calculator.