Forty People Will Wear A Meter For A Year. They Picked Them.
In May we printed that the cumulative study needed doing, cost more than we had, and would be run on the campaigners' terms if it ever happened. It is happening. Here is the protocol, a year before the result.
TOMPKINS COUNTY, N.Y. — This story has no findings.
It is a protocol, printed a year and three months before the result, because in May this newspaper told its readers that if the study ever happened it would be run on the campaigners' terms and the protocol would be published first.
This is that.
What we said in May
We measured forty-one sites, all chosen by the people who believe the masts are dangerous. The highest reading anywhere was 0.40 per cent of the public exposure limit.
Then we printed their reply, which made a point this desk thought was correct and still does: an instantaneous measurement is not a cumulative one. A meter held at a school gate for ninety seconds does not tell you what a child accumulates in a year.
Nobody had funded that study. We wrote that we would like to, that it cost more than we had, and that if it happened, they would choose the participants and we would publish the protocol first.
What is now agreed
Forty people will wear a personal dosimeter for twelve months.
The campaign group chooses all forty. This newspaper has no say in who they are and will not be told the names until the meters are issued.
The meters weigh 84 grams and have no display. A wearer cannot read their own exposure, and neither can we, until the year is over.
The argument we had, and lost half of
They asked that participants be told their own readings as the year went on. A person wearing a meter, they said, has a right to know what it says about their own body.
We refused, and the reason is in our hygienist's design note: a person who sees a high reading changes where they spend their time, and then the study measures the change instead of the exposure.
They accepted the reason. Their full statement is at the foot of this page and they have not pretended to be happy about it.
What they asked for instead, and got in the room: any participant may withdraw at any moment and have their meter's data destroyed rather than used — no reason given, no argument from anybody, including us.
What we have given up
The right to change our minds.
The protocol is signed by both parties and cannot be amended once recruitment begins. That clause is theirs. It means that if the design turns out to have a flaw we did not spot, we will publish the flawed study and say so, rather than quietly improving it halfway through.
We have also given up interim numbers. Nothing will be published between October and the following September. Interim results are how a study gets steered, usually by people who do not think they are steering it.
What forty will and will not tell you
Dr. Solveig Ntanda-Ferrero designed the measurement and has no view about masts, which is why we hired her.
Forty is enough to characterise a distribution — to say what a year of ordinary life in this county actually accumulates, and how widely it varies between people.
It is not enough to find a small effect on health, and she asked us to print that plainly rather than let the number imply more than it can carry. This study measures exposure. It does not measure harm, and no honest reading of it will.
The date
We will publish in November 2027, whichever way it falls.
Our standards editor has noted below that a newspaper announcing its own future virtue is still a newspaper writing about itself, and that this is the second such piece this year. She is right, and the answer to it is a date rather than a paragraph.
If November 2027 arrives and this newspaper has not published, a reader should assume the numbers were inconvenient and say so in the letters column, and we will have earned it.
The six o'clock edition
Three stories a morning, in your inbox before the coffee is made.
Sources & Method
This story has no findings. It is a protocol, published before the work, because in May we told our readers that if this study ever happened the campaigners would choose the participants and we would publish the protocol first. This is that. The document is signed by both parties and cannot be amended once recruitment starts.
Who we spoke to
- The signed protocol, Agreed by this newspaper and the campaign group; both signatures on it. Published in full with this story before any participant is approached August 2026 It cannot be amended after recruitment begins. That clause is theirs, not ours.
- Parents Against Masts (Tompkins County), The campaign group; chose the sites in the May survey and will choose the participants in this one. Two meetings, minuted by them, minutes published June–July 2026 Asked for one change we resisted and then accepted; it is described in the story.
- Dr. Solveig Ntanda-Ferrero, Occupational hygienist; runs dosimetry studies and has no view about masts. Retained to design the measurement protocol June 2026 Was asked to design it as if the answer did not matter, which she said was an odd instruction and an easy one.
- The statistician who will analyse it, Retained now, paid now, named in the protocol. Has written the analysis plan already and has met nobody else in this story July 2026 She will not be told which readings come from which participants.
Documents
- PX-2161 — Cumulative radiofrequency exposure study — signed protocol, published before recruitment accepted
What we could not confirm
- Everything the study is about. That is the point of publishing this now. We do not know what forty dosimeters will say and we have said in writing what we will do with the answer before we have it.
- Whether forty is enough. Our hygienist says it is enough to characterise a distribution and not enough to find a small effect, and asked us to print that plainly rather than let the number imply more.
- Whether the participants will be typical. They will be selected by a group with a strong prior. That is a real limitation, it was our own condition, and we would rather have it than have a sample nobody trusts.
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.
-
Signal & LedgerNewspaper Books $180,000 Against Research Line
Found the money before we announced it, from our own published accounts, which is fair and slightly annoying.
Had that we did not
The figure, correctly, eleven days before this story.
Left out
What it is for.
-
The Meridian TelegraphTHEY ARE FINALLY TESTING WHAT WE TOLD THEM TO TEST
Reported the study as a vindication of the campaign and as evidence the first survey was a whitewash.
Had that we did not
That the campaigners asked for this and were right to.
Left out
That the campaigners' own reply in May said the first survey was properly conducted, which they wrote and we printed.
-
They Buriedthis newspaperForty People Will Wear A Meter For A Year. They Picked Them.
Published the protocol before the work, with the date we will report on.
Had that we did not
The protocol, the cost, and the schedule.
Left out
A newspaper announcing its own future virtue is still a newspaper writing about itself, and this is the second such piece this year. — V. Ashcombe-Doyle, standards editor
Right of Reply
They Buried contacted Parents Against Masts (Tompkins County) co-drafted the protocol; read this story before publication. Asked to reply and to have the disagreement printed rather than smoothed. It is.
We want to record that we asked for something and did not get all of it.
We asked that participants be told their own readings as the year went on. We think a person wearing a meter has a right to know what it says about their own body, and we still think that.
The newspaper refused. Their hygienist explained why and we understood the explanation: a person who sees a high reading changes where they spend their time, and then the study measures the change rather than the exposure. We accept that the objection is scientific and not evasive.
What we got instead is this. Every participant may withdraw at any moment and have their meter's data destroyed rather than used, with no reason given and no argument from anybody. That was our second ask and they agreed to it in the room.
So we are content. We chose the sites last time and we will choose the people this time, and if the numbers come back low we will have to sit with that in public, having asked for the study ourselves.
We would rather sit with a number we asked for than argue for another ten years about one nobody collected.
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.