They Chose The Schools. We Brought The Meters.
Forty-one sites, all chosen by the campaigners. Two calibrated meters, two engineers who could not see each other's readings. The highest reading anywhere was 0.4 per cent of the public exposure limit.
A months-long reporting project. Documents cited below are held in The Vault and available to readers.
ITHACA, N.Y. — We did not choose a single one of the forty-one sites. The people who believe the masts are dangerous chose all of them, and watched every reading.
That was the point.
The protocol
Agreed with the campaign group in March, signed by both sides, and not amended.
They pick the sites. We hire two radiofrequency engineers who do not know each other and do not see each other's numbers until both have finished. Two of their members observe every measurement. Both meters carry current calibration certificates from a national laboratory, and the certificates get published whatever the readings say.
Every raw reading gets published, including any that are inconvenient for anybody.
The numbers
Eighty-two readings across forty-one sites. The relevant public exposure limit for the frequencies in question is expressed as a power density, and every reading is given below as a percentage of it.
| Site type | Sites | Median reading | Highest reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directly beneath a mast | 6 | 0.21% | 0.40% |
| Within 50m of a mast | 11 | 0.09% | 0.18% |
| School gate, any distance | 41 | 0.02% | 0.11% |
| Inside a school building | 9 | 0.004% | 0.02% |
The highest single reading anywhere in the study was 0.40 per cent of the limit, taken directly beneath a mast on a bracket at head height.
The two operators' readings agreed to within 12 per cent of each other at every site, which is normal for this kind of measurement and is itself published.
What we got wrong, within an hour
The chart we first published had a y-axis that ran from zero to one per cent of the limit.
That is a defensible choice for showing variation between sites and an indefensible one for showing magnitude, because it made a 0.4 per cent reading fill the frame. Three readers said so within forty minutes. They were right; it was rescaled to run to the limit; and the original chart is preserved in our corrections archive rather than deleted, so you can see what we did.
What this does not settle
The campaign group's reply is printed in full below and it makes a point this newspaper thinks is correct: an instantaneous measurement is not a cumulative one, and nobody has funded a cumulative study.
We would like to do that study. It requires dosimeters worn by volunteers over months and it costs more than this newspaper has. If it happens, they will choose the participants, and we will publish the protocol first, and we will print the numbers whichever way they fall.
The whole data set — 82 readings, both calibration certificates, the signed protocol, and the site list in the campaigners' own words — is downloadable from this page and has been since publication.
The six o'clock edition
Three stories a morning, in your inbox before the coffee is made.
Sources & Method
The campaigners chose every site; we chose none. Two calibrated meters, two engineers who did not see each other's readings until both had finished, two campaign observers present at all 41 measurements, and a protocol signed by both sides before the first reading. Both meters' calibration certificates and all 82 raw readings are published.
Who we spoke to
- Parents Against Masts (Tompkins County), Campaign group; chose all 41 measurement sites. Met twice in person; agreed the protocol jointly and signed it March and April 2026 Named with consent. Two of its members observed every measurement.
- Ruth Chidiebere-Salas, Radiofrequency engineer, meter operator A. Conducted 41 measurements; blinded to operator B's readings May 2026
- Osvaldo Marchetti-Pyle, Radiofrequency engineer, meter operator B. Conducted 41 measurements independently May 2026
- National calibration laboratory, Calibration certificates for both meters. Certificates obtained and published April 2026
What we could not confirm
- Whether 41 sites in one county generalise anywhere. They do not, and the campaigners agreed in advance that they would not.
- Anything about health. This story measured field strength. It did not measure a person and makes no claim about one.
How Others Covered This
The same events, as reported elsewhere on the same day. We list what each outlet had that we did not, as well as what we had that they did not — including where we come off worse. Why we print this.
-
The Meridian TelegraphNEWSPAPER ADMITS RADIATION NEAR SCHOOLS
Reported the existence of a non-zero reading and not its magnitude.
Had that we did not
Nothing.
Left out
The denominator. Every number in our story is a fraction of a published limit and their piece contains no limit.
-
They Buriedthis newspaperThey Chose The Schools. We Brought The Meters.
Let the campaigners choose the sites, used two meters and two blinded operators, published the raw data.
Had that we did not
The raw data and the campaigners' site list.
Left out
Our first chart had a y-axis that stopped at 1% of the limit, which made a 0.4% reading look enormous. It was rescaled within an hour and the original is preserved in the corrections archive. — V. Ashcombe-Doyle, standards editor
Right of Reply
They Buried contacted Parents Against Masts (Tompkins County) throughout; the group agreed the protocol in advance and saw the results at the same time we did. The group asked to reply in full and its statement is printed unedited.
We chose the sites. We watched every reading. We have no complaint about how this was done and we want to say that first, because we expected to have one.
We do not accept that this closes the question. Our concern was never a single instantaneous reading; it is cumulative exposure over years, which nobody has measured because measuring it is expensive and nobody will fund it. A meter on a Tuesday does not answer that.
We would also say this. Two of our members have changed their minds about the immediate risk and have said so at our meetings. Two others have not. We are not a single opinion and we are tired of being written about as if we were.
We would do this again with this newspaper. We would like the cumulative study next, and we will help choose those sites too.
Published unedited under our right-of-reply guarantee.
How was this story?
We publish the result, whatever it is. Reader verdicts appear on the front page and in our newsroom metrics.
Readers' Letters 0
Printed at once under the name you give and read by the desk afterwards; anything unfit is removed, with a note saying so, and nothing else is ever deleted — only corrected. Letters that changed something in the story carry a mark saying so, and there are 5 of those across the archive.