This aspect has become the most controversial issue in our community, with a certain hardcore group of eco-freaks carrying disinformation campains inducing fear in potential users as well as actual users. They exploit a climate of confusion, claiming the principle of precaution as their minimal leit-motiv, but will not hesitate to fabricate proofs of risks ans dangers just to make their point. It's becoming very annoying. We have to spend a lot of time explaining WiMAX signals to undo the damage these eco-freaks cause in their uninformed and unscientific diatribe.

Anyone has had similar experience in their community ? And solutions ?

The WHO has collected and sponsored a lot of fully reviewed research in this area. The WHO's conclusion from all this research is:

"...exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP (1998) EMF guidelines, ... do not produce any known adverse health effect. However, there are gaps in knowledge still needing to be filled". (http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/en/ as at 1st September 2009)

See for information about the research.
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/health_risk_assess/en/index.html

Finally, the WHO published guidelines for exposure levels can be found in http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf. The guidelines set exposure levels for the public to 10s of times lower than current research shows potentially dangerous effects (for constant eposure for long periods) in case new research discovers any health issues below these levels. Bear in mind that health may be affected by cumulative exposure, but we rarely stay in way place 24x7.

The truth is that you and I don't really know the truth. You can believe whoever you want. The question is, how do you know who is correct unless you do the research yourself. If they have to take precautions working on the towers, what makes you think that the signals are damaging at a longer distance. Do you have any proof for or against this argument. Don't call anyone an eco-freak. What are you?