International Journal of Cancer Prevention
Increased Incidence of Cancer near a Cell-Phone Transmitter Station
by Ronni Wolf and Danny Wolf

Significant concern has been raised about possible health effects from exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, especially after the rapid introduction of mobile telecommunications systems.

Parents are especially concerned with the possibility that children might develop cancer after exposure to the RF emissions from mobile telephone base stations erected in or near schools. The few epidemiologic studies that did report on cancer incidence in relation to RF radiation
have generally presented negative or inconsistent results, and thus emphasize the
need for more studies that should investigate cohorts with high RF exposure for
changes in cancer incidence. The aim of this study is to investigate whether there is
an increased cancer incidence in populations, living in a small area, and exposed to RF radiation from a cell-phone transmitter station.

The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station.


Twelve institutes in seven countries have found genotoxic effects and modified expressions on numerous genes and proteins after Radio frequency and extremely low frequency EMF exposure at low levels, below current international safety guidance, to living cells in-vitro. These results confirm the likelihood of long-term genetic damage in the blood and brains of users of mobile phones and other sources of electromagnetic fields. The idea behind the REFLEX study was to attempt replicate damage already reported to see if the effects were real and whether, or not, more money should be spent of research into the possible adverse health effects of EMF exposure. They concluded that in-vitro damage is real and that it is important to carry out much more research, especially monitoring the long-term health of people.

The REFLEX project (QLK4-CT-1999-01574 / REFLEX / Final Report) has made a substantial contribution to the database on biological effects of both ELF-EMF and RF-EMF on in vitro cellular systems. The study was designed to investigate whether or not EMF exposure below the energy density reflected by the present safety levels generates in vitro critical cellular events. Gene mutations, deregulated cell proliferation and suppressed or exaggerated programmed cell death (apoptosis) that are caused by or result in an altered gene and protein expression profile are such critical events, the convergence of which is required for the development of chronic diseases. Genotoxic effects and a modified expression of numerous genes and proteins after EMF exposure could be demonstrated with great certainty, while effects on cell proliferation, cell differentiation and apoptosis were much less conclusive. Since all these observations were made in in vitro studies, the results obtained neither preclude nor confirm a health risk due to EMF exposure, but they speak in favour of such a possibility. Because of their fundamental character the findings will be presented to WHO, IARC and ICNIRP. It will be up to these organisations to make use of them for risk evaluation, in combination with findings from animal and epidemiological studies.

Horst Eger, Klaus Uwe Hagen, Birgitt Lucas, Peter Vogel, Helmut Voit
Published in Umwelt·Medizin·Gesellschaft 17,4 2004, as:
‘Einfluss der räumlichen Nähe von Mobilfunksendeanlagen auf die Krebsinzidenz’

Following the call by Wolfram König, President of the Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (Federal Agency
for radiation protection), to all doctors of medicine to collaborate actively in the assessment of the
risk posed by cellular radiation, the aim of our study was to examine whether people living close to
cellular transmitter antennas were exposed to a heightened risk of taking ill with malignant tumors.
The basis of the data used for the survey were PC files of the case histories of patients between the

years 1994 and 2004. While adhering to data protection, the personal data of almost 1,000 patients were evaluated for this study, which was completed without any external financial support. It is intended to continue the project in the form of a register.
The result of the study shows that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher among those patients who had lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400 metres
from the cellular transmitter site, which has been in operation since 1993, compared to those patients
living further away, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier.
In the years 1999-2004, ie after five years’ operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area.
Key words: cellular radiation, cellular transmitter antennas, malignant tumours. Full PDF;

Institut national des sciences appliquées, laboratoire de biochimie-pharmacologie, bâtiment Louis Pasteur, 20, avenue Albert Einstein, 69621 Villeurbanne, France.

Erratum in

  • Pathol Biol (Paris). 2002 Dec;50(10):621..


A survey study using questionnaire was conducted in 530 people (270 men, 260 women) living or not in vicinity of cellular phone base stations, on 18 Non Specific Health Symptoms. Comparisons of complaints frequencies (CHI-SQUARE test with Yates correction) in relation with distance from base station and sex, show significant (p < 0.05) increase as compared to people living > 300 m or not exposed to base station, till 300 m for tiredness, 200 m for headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, etc. 100 m for irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, libido decrease, etc. Women significantly more often than men (p < 0.05) complained of headache, nausea, loss of appetite, sleep disturbance, depression, discomfort and visual perturbations. This first study on symptoms experienced by people living in vicinity of base stations shows that, in view of radioprotection, minimal distance of people from cellular phone base stations should not be < 300 m.



There is a general concern on the possible hazardous health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiations (RFR) emitted from mobile phone base station antennas on the human nervous system.


To identify the possible neurobehavioral deficits among inhabitants living nearby mobile phone base stations.


A cross-sectional study was conducted on (85) inhabitants living nearby the first mobile phone station antenna in Menoufiya governorate, Egypt, 37 are living in a building under the station antenna while 48 opposite the station. A control group (80) participants were matched with the exposed for age, sex, occupation and educational level. All participants completed a structured questionnaire containing: personal, educational and medical histories; general and neurological examinations; neurobehavioral test battery (NBTB) [involving tests for visuomotor speed, problem solving, attention and memory]; in addition to Eysenck personality questionnaire (EPQ).


The prevalence of neuropsychiatric complaints as headache (23.5%), memory changes (28.2%), dizziness (18.8%), tremors (9.4%), depressive symptoms (21.7%), and sleep disturbance (23.5%) were significantly higher among exposed inhabitants than controls: (10%), (5%), (5%), (0%), (8.8%) and (10%), respectively (P<0.05). The NBTB indicated that the exposed inhabitants exhibited a significantly lower performance than controls in one of the tests of attention and short-term auditory memory [Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT)]. Also, the inhabitants opposite the station exhibited a lower performance in the problem solving test (block design) than those under the station. All inhabitants exhibited a better performance in the two tests of visuomotor speed (Digit symbol and Trailmaking B) and one test of attention (Trailmaking A) than controls. The last available measures of RFR emitted from the first mobile phone base station antennas in Menoufiya governorate were less than the allowable standard level.


Inhabitants living nearby mobile phone base stations are at risk for developing neuropsychiatric problems and some changes in the performance of neurobehavioral functions either by facilitation or inhibition. So, revision of standard guidelines for public exposure to RER from mobile phone base station antennas and using of NBTB for regular assessment and early detection of biological effects among inhabitants around the stations are recommended.



The use of cellular and cordless telephones has increased dramatically during the last decade. There is concern of health problems such as malignant diseases due to microwave exposure during the use of these devices. The brain is the main target organ.


Since the second part of the 1990’s we have performed six case-control studies on this topic encompassing use of both cellular and cordless phones as well as other exposures. Three of the studies concerned brain tumours, one salivary gland tumours, one non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and one testicular cancer. Exposure was assessed by self-administered questionnaires.


Regarding acoustic neuroma analogue cellular phones yielded odds ratio (OR) = 2.9, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 2.0–4.3, digital cellular phones OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.1–2.1 and cordless phones OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.04–2.0. The corresponding results were for astrocytoma grade III-IV OR = 1.7, 95 % CI = 1.3–2.3; OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.2–1.9 and OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.1–1.9, respectively. The ORs increased with latency period with highest estimates using > 10 years time period from first use of these phone types. Lower ORs were calculated for astrocytoma grade I-II. No association was found with salivary gland tumours, NHL or testicular cancer although an association with NHL of T-cell type could not be ruled out.


We found for all studied phone types an increased risk for brain tumours, mainly acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumours. OR increased with latency period, especially for astrocytoma grade III-IV. No consistent pattern of an increased risk was found for salivary gland tumours, NHL, or testicular cancer.

Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Dankook University, Cheonan, and Department of Occupational Medicine, Hallym University Hospital, Anyang, South Korea.


Leukemia and brain cancer patients under age 15 years, along with controls with respiratory illnesses who were matched to cases on age, sex, and year of diagnosis (1993-1999), were selected from 14 South Korean hospitals using the South Korean Medical Insurance Data System. Diagnoses were confirmed through the South Korean National Cancer Registry. Residential addresses were obtained from medical records. A newly developed prediction program incorporating a geographic information system that was modified by the results of actual measurements was used to estimate radio-frequency radiation (RFR) exposure from 31 amplitude modulation (AM) radio transmitters with a power of 20 kW or more. A total of 1,928 leukemia patients, 956 brain cancer patients, and 3,082 controls were analyzed. Cancer risks were estimated using conditional logistic regression adjusted for residential area, socioeconomic status, and community population density. The odds ratio for all types of leukemia was 2.15 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00, 4.67) among children who resided within 2 km of the nearest AM radio transmitter as compared with those resided more than 20 km from it. For total RFR exposure from all transmitters, odds ratios for lymphocytic leukemia were 1.39 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.86) and 1.59 (95% CI: 1.19, 2.11) for children in the second and third quartiles, respectively, versus the lowest quartile. Brain cancer and infantile cancer were not associated with AM RFR.

Papers finding adverse biological effects or damage to health from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz).

Papers listed are those where exposures are below the current ICNIRP guideline values.  If the ICNIRP values were protective, we would not be seeing the damaging effects reported in the studies below.  Children are exposed to Wi-Fi/2.45GHz in schools every day, around the world.  Children are sitting with Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computers on their laps and up against their bodies for prolonged periods of time.  The studies below support the claim that schools giving children wireless devices to use, or exposing them to Wi-Fi signals, are failing to safeguard the health, development or wellbeing of the young people for whom they are responsible.  

Papers are in alphabetical order.  A file of some first pages, for printing, can be found here.

31,487 people with Science degrees, of which 9,029 hold PhD,s have signed a petition saying that the so called science  that claims global warming is caused by humans is flawed and that govt action on this basis will be damaging to our environment as well as humans.

In 2015, the White House claimed that  “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agreed that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”


So, where did this 97% figure come from?

It came from a study conducted in 2013.

97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

41 Papers endorsed his claims, 0.3% and yet this claim of 97% is banded about constantly by main stream media. 

 Scientists have been pulling the climate scams for decades, back in the 70,s it was global cooling that was going to cause havoc.

Everything which now gets blamed on global warming, was blamed on global cooling.

Many who now claim global warming or climate change is down to humans also now claim that the global cooling claims were a myth, yet the evidence exists to show that this was not the case at the time.

Al Gore was given authority over the climate agenda and the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. In this document in 1997, the charter included the instructions to,”NOT debate the science behind global warming but to concentrate on implementing the policies” ( Section 4- Paragraph B).

Al Gore has made his fortune from the climate change agenda, it is no wonder that the charter instructed them to NOT debate the science.

It is obviously clear that the science is not settled, Rather, the politically favoured “science” is funded. 

America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.

Nobody tracks budgets in a way that allows you to know how much, exactly, is spent on climate change — let alone in a way that breaks that total down into prevention vs. consequences.

Climate change has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $350 billion over the past decade, according to a report released last year from nonpartisan federal watchdog the Government Accountability Office

And the UK, according to the letter, seen by the FT, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy believes it will cost roughly £70bn a year.

Whilst Mr Hammond said: “On the basis of these estimates, the total cost of transitioning to a zero-carbon economy is likely to be well in excess of £1tn.”This  requires cuts to funding for schools, hospitals and the police force. 

650 peer reviewed papers have already been published in scientific  journals that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob.

90 Italian scientists have signed a petition saying that Climate change is a hoax. 

These scientists go on to state flatly that “the anthropic origin of global warming is an UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate simulation models.” In other words, the entire catastrophic global warming scare rests on very imprecise and almost invariably wrong simulation models, which cannot account for natural variability. 

It is time we stop this pseudo science, money grabbing agenda before any more damage is done!

The following are observations via Claire Wolfie.

In May 2019, Cambridge University announced the launch of a new research lab, named Centre for Climate Repair. The centre aims to explore ways to reduce emissions, e.g. by further advancing technologies to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Further geoengineering approaches, such as solar radiation management, BECCS and ocean fertilization will be also researched. The centre is part of the University’s Carbon Neutral Future programme (led by Dr Emily Shuckburgh). Details, as the centre’s financial budget and exact work programme, are not yet available.

Major research project
United Kingdom
Period of time
Launch announced in May 2019.
Not yet available.


Major research projects

Major research and policy institutes focusing on geoengineering (with and without testing).

SRMGI, the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative, aims to expand the discussion of geoengineering around the globe and works to promote SRM by building capacity and understanding around SRM, especially in the developing world. In 2017, the SRMGI created a new research fund: The Decimals Fund (Developing Country Impacts Modelling Analysis for SRM) aims to model the impacts of SRM across the developing world. The fund will support developing country scientists who want to analyse the possible impacts that SRM could have on their regions and will be administered by TWAS.

MCB (Marine Cloud Brightening or Cloud Reflectivity Enhancement)
Capacity building.
United Kingdom
Period of time
Since 2010.
Open Philanthropy Project, Royal Society, Environmental Defence Fund, Third World Academy of Science (TWAS), full list:
Please help us keep the data on this map up-to-date and write to to inform us about any changes.


Solar Radiation Management

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) describes a suite of proposed technologies that aim to reflect sunlight back into space before it warms the Earth’s climate.

Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB)

MCB proposals aim to increase the whiteness of clouds in order to reflect more sunlight back into space. As with other SRM proposals, changing solar radiation can impact weather patterns and there may be impacts on marine and coastal ecosystems as well as agriculture.

Source: ETC Group and HBF “Climate change, smoke and mirrors. A civil society briefing on Geoengineering” (2017).

Source: Based on “The World of Geoengineering” (slightly adapted).
Partner Organizations – SRMGI







In 2013, the Rockefeller Foundation launched the 100 Resilient Cities project, in the UK the cities were Bristol, Belfast, Manchester, Glasgow and London. All areas have adopted the 5G roll out.

According to the Rockefeller Foundation website, the Rockefeller Foundation partnered with the global design firm Arup to create a City Resilience Framework (CRF).

Arup had been appointed  the £1 billion Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme from the Home Office,in 2015.

Working with manufacturers Jaguar Land Rover, Ford, and Tata, Arup led connected and autonomous vehicle trials on the streets of Milton Keynes and Coventry. The largest trials conducted in the UK to date, they explored the benefits of cars ‘talking’ to each other and their surroundings – with connected traffic lights, emergency vehicle warnings, and emergency braking alerts among the technologies tested. Further trials have now been given the green light.

In 2016,Ericsson joined forces with Arup to transform a pilot district in Hong Kong into its first smart and sustainable neighborhood.–sustainable-city-project

The 100 resilient cities is clearly a tool to create Smart cities.

According to reports, Bristol became part of the 100 resilient cities in 2014, one of the aims was to manage flood responses.

In Rio de Janeiro what started off as a  a tool to predict rain and manage flood response morphed into a high-precision control panel for the entire city. With the mayor bragging that “The operations centre allows us to have people looking into every corner of the city, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

This blogger describes how his area is funded by the 100 cities initiative and how his local council have used climate change to put pressure on 18,000 private properties which are believed (by the Local Government) to be “in danger of inundation in 100 years time” .

That action was based upon a report commissioned by his City Council which assures  that there will probably/most likely be a 1000mm sea level rise within that 100 years.

The blogger than goes to great lengths to find the evidence of this, which is not forthcoming and recognises that this will not only restrict the living of the affected property owners but is the first step to start “legally” clearing residents out of these areas.

In July 2019, the Rockefeller Foundation decided to disband the 100 cities initiative in favour of a new project called the  Climate and Resilience initiative.The climate and resilience initiative is one arm of the three separate pathways to which the Rockefeller Foundation announced it would transition its urban resilience efforts.

They claim they have made those 100 cities resilient to climate change issues, but, Sher Edling, the law firm representing a number of the litigants in the climate suits, including Baltimore and the state of Rhode Island, used the list of 100 Resilient Cities participants as a target list when pitching their climate suit.

“Emails have shown that plaintiffs’ attorneys used the 100 Resilient Cities as a roadmap of which cities to target as they shopped around their climate liability lawsuits,” Walrath continued. “In some cases, the lawyers were working directly with the Rockefeller-funded Chief Resilience Officers to gain access to city officials.”

That’s going to put some cities, including Boulder, New York City, Oakland, and San Francisco, in a tough spot, as they now have to explain to a judge why they’re suing oil and gas companies to pay for infrastructure upgrades even after they’ve been declared ‘resilient’ to climate change,” says Spencer Walrath, research director for for Energy In Depth, a project of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.

How ironic that the Rockefeller charities were spending large sums to take down a corporation descended from Standard Oil, the very firm that made them rich. The pulling out of the 100 cities initiative will now impact those lawsuits. Job,s a good un! 



Funding is now shifted to the Atlantic Council, a Washington based think tank. When asked why they had shut down the initiative they replied that it had achieved its objectives. What were the objectives?  To create a network of cities to push the climate change agenda apparently.


Atlantic Council Executive Vice Chair Adrienne Arsht  endowed the Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience. The Center, which recently received a $30-million grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, will be renamed the Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center effective May 1.


This report shows the Atlantic Council plotting false flags against Russia.

On the website of the Atlantic Council, with the tag Renewing the Alliance for the 21st Century, among the links to other sites provided are those under the heading of think tanks, which are:

 American Enterprise Institute
 American Foreign Policy Council
 Aspen Institute
 Brookings Institution
 Carnegie Endowment
 Cato Institute
 Center for a New American Security
 Center for Strategic and International Studies
 Center for Transatlantic Relations/Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
 Council on Foreign Relations
 Foreign Policy Research Institute
 German Marshall Fund of the United States
 Heritage Foundation
 Hudson Institute
 New America Foundation
 Nixon Center
 Rand Corporation
 United States Institute of Peace
 Wilson Center International Center for Scholars

The above organisations contain what was formerly described in the corporate and financial worlds as interlocking directorates; officials and members of one are often also those of several others.

The roster of the Atlantic Council is packed with former Pentagon, State Department and Central Intelligence Agency veterans. Its chairman is former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Its president and chief executive officer is Frederick Kempe, a journalist with the Wall Street Journal for thirty years who is now a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and who serves on the Senior Advisory Group of Admiral James Stavridis, commander of U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

Its senior adviser on international security is Kurt Volker, U.S. ambassador to NATO from 2008-2009 until he was replaced by the Brookings Institution’s Ivo Daalder, and also former analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency, deputy director of NATO Secretary-General George Robertson’s private office, acting director for European and Eurasian Affairs for the National Security Council, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

The board of directors includes: (with former titles) 

 Defense Secretaries Harold Brown and William Perry
 R. Nicholas Burns
 Former NATO top military commanders Joseph Ralston, Wesley Clark and Bantz John Craddock
 Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs from 2001-2009 Paula Dobriansky (an Eastern Europe and former post-Soviet states hand)
 Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman
 Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. ambassador to the European Union Stuart Eizenstat
 Clinton administration envoy to the Balkans Robert Gelbard
 Special Envoy for European Affairs
 Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy and ambassador to the European Union C. Boyden Gray
 Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman
 National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley
 Richard Holbrooke
 National Security Council Director of West European Affairs & Director of Middle East Affairs, ambassador to NATO & RAND Corporation Senior Advisor Robert E. Hunter
 Henry Kissinger
 Assistant Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Deputy U.S. Representative to NATO General Barry McCaffrey
 Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command Charles Wald
 Central Intelligence Agency Director R. James Woolsey
 U.S. Central Command chief Anthony C. Zinni

The Atlantic Council receives funding from numerous foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Cuba Policy Foundation. It also receives support from the U.S. Departments of the Air Force, Army, Navy and Energy and from the U.S. Mission to NATO and the U.S. Mission to the European Union.

Its corporate members consist of almost 100 companies which include arms manufacturers Boeing, EADS North America, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, and other concerns as varied as AT&T, Chevron U.S.A., Daimler, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, MSNBC, Sony, Textron, Time Warner, Toyota and Viacom.

And having given leadership awards to war mongers like Bush and Blair, it is obviously part of the globalists agenda.

The Rockefellers plan to use climate change as a weapon


The Rockefellers finance any group that will help them achieve their goal.  have a search facility which enables one to quickly see where at least some of their funding’s are directed.