“Exposure to RF signals from properly regulated telco towers poses no proven risk to human health”
There was a news report of residents in Purok Pomelo, Minglanilla, Cebu opposing a proposed cell tower project, citing fears radiation from the structure would harm their health and the well-being of children in nearby schools.
The report highlighted the anxiety of the community, echoing a sentiment that still surfaces regularly in barangay meetings, public consultations, and online discourse: that the mere presence of a telco tower is inherently dangerous.
– Advertisement –
This fear, while understandable, is not supported by science.
As we continue to build the country’s digital infrastructure, especially in areas underserved by stable internet access, it’s time we separated fact from fiction—because allowing misinformation to dictate public policy will only delay the digital inclusion that Filipino students and teachers urgently need.
At the center of this issue is a misunderstanding of what kind of radiation telco towers actually emit.
These towers use radio frequency (RF) signals, which are a type of non-ionizing radiation.
Unlike ionizing radiation, such as X-rays or ultraviolet rays, non-ionizing radiation does not carry enough energy to break chemical bonds or damage DNA.
This crucial distinction forms the basis of all global safety standards governing RF emissions.
Organizations such as the World Health Organization and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection have spent decades reviewing thousands of studies on the subject.
Their conclusion is clear and consistent: exposure to RF signals from properly regulated telco towers poses no proven risk to human health.
These global safety limits are not only based on conservative estimates, but are also designed to protect even the most vulnerable in the population, including children.
A study titled Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Levels in Primary and Secondary Schools in the Region of Thessaly, Greece conducted by Kalampokas et al. measured RF exposure in over 200 schools and found that in 97.5 percent of cases, the levels were at least 3,500 times below the established safety thresholds.
Similar studies across Europe and Asia, including on newer 5G infrastructure, confirm that real-world exposure levels are nowhere near dangerous.
In fact, a student using a mobile phone is likely exposed to more RF energy than they would be by simply attending a school near a telco tower.
Yet despite this scientific consensus, myths persist.
One common belief is that all radiation is harmful, or that children are uniquely vulnerable to any exposure, no matter how small.
These assumptions, while emotionally compelling, do not align with the facts.
The safety margins built into current regulations already account for children’s physiology, ensuring their protection even in the most conservative risk models.
By resisting the installation of critical infrastructure near schools, students are denied the very resources they need to thrive in this digital world.
The Department of Education has made digital transformation a cornerstone of its long-term strategy—embracing blended learning, virtual classrooms, and teacher upskilling programs that depend heavily on strong, stable internet connections.
That connectivity cannot happen without infrastructure.
Towers are the backbone of the signal coverage that powers everything from online classes to learning management systems.
Each delay caused by fear-motivated resistance stalls the rollout of digital tools that could dramatically improve educational outcomes, especially in rural and remote communities where connectivity gaps are widest.
This is not just a technology issue; it is an issue of equity. If we allow myths to dictate our infrastructure decisions, we worsen inequality by leaving behind the students who already have the fewest resources.
None of this is to say that communities should not ask questions or seek transparency.
Public consultations are essential.
But those conversations must be guided by science and evidence, not by unverified Facebook posts or alarming hearsay.
Local governments and school officials, supported by telco experts, can do their part by educating residents on the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, by citing authoritative health sources, and by sharing real measurement data that demonstrates just how safe exposure levels are.
In an age where digital access defines who gets ahead and who gets left behind, connectivity must be harnessed as a vital tool for leveling the playing field and preparing our youth to thrive in the digital economy.
Let us move forward, not in fear, but with facts.
We need to support connectivity that opens doors, not close them out of fear.
Let us build a future where every school is a connected school, and every Filipino student has a fair shot at success.
– Advertisement –