THE RECOMMENDATION: The mobile towers’ EMFexposure limit was recently
lowered to 1/10th of the existing prescribed limit as a matter of
abundant
precaution. Photo: Nagara Gopal
For the past several years, there has been growing
concern about the health impact of radiation from mobile towers. In
2008, Government of India adopted the Guidelines developed by the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
for Electromagnetic radiation from mobile towers.The values chosen for the permissible Power Density are 4.5 W/Sqm for 900 MHz and 9 W/Sqm. for 1800 MHz.
Based
on media reports and public concerns, the Government set up an
Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) of specialists on August 24, 2010. The
Committee examined the environmental and health related concerns and
indicated that most of the laboratory studies were unable to find a
direct link between exposure to radio frequency radiation and health;and
the scientific studies as yet have not been able to confirm a cause and
effect relationship between radio frequency radiation and health. The
effect of emission from cell phone towers is not known yet with
certainty.
However, the IMC
recommended lowering the mobile towers’ EMF exposure limits to 1/10th of
the existing prescribed limit as a matter of abundant precaution. The
Government accepted the recommendation and issued directions making the
new norms applicable from September 1, 2012.
Among
the inputs submitted to the Department of Telecom was a document
"Report on Cell Tower Radiation" authored by Prof. Girish Kumar of the
Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Bombay.
The
report listed symptoms and diseases allegedly caused by electromagnetic
radiation. The only items not included in it were jealousy and
baldness! The author mined part of the scary data from "papers" of
Arthur Firstenberg, the founder director of the "Cellular phone task
force" which is “dedicated to halting the expansion of wireless
technology because it cannot be made safe". Firstenberg filed and lost
many suits against the spread of wireless technology.
Wikipedia,
noted his claim that electromagnetic fields from his neighbour's cell
phone are destroying his health and that he sued his neighbour seeking
damages $ 530,000 for refusing to turn off her cell phone and other
electronic devices!Firstenberg is a symbol of the collective schizophrenia against RF radiation.
Prof. Kumar uncritically accepted the Bio-initiative Report 2007 (BIR), a booklet well known for its lack of balance.
Advocacy document
The
Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR), a technical committee of the
Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBS) of the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) noted that BIR is an
advocacy document. BIR itself conceded that it was written “to document
the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing
electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public
health.”
Fourteen individuals
under the direction of a 4-person organizing committee wrote BIR. “Most
of its 21 sections are authored by single individuals or (in a few
cases) pairs or trios of authors; the section ‘Key Scientific Evidence
and Public Health Policy Recommendations’ was written by a pair of
individuals and appears to reflect their views only,” COMAR clarified in
a paper in Health Physics Journal. “There is no indication of
how the members of the committee were chosen or how balance was provided
in the group of contributors, a majority of whom have public records of
criticism of existing exposure standards and guidelines.”
COMAR
added that since appearing on the Internet in 2007, the BIR has
received much media attention but, more recently, has been severely
criticized by health organizations and scientific groups such as
EMF-NET, a coordinating committee of the European Commission 6th Frame
Work Programme, The Netherlands’ Health Council and Australian Centre
for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research
BIR
report was slammed by these agencies thus: “written in an alarmist and
emotive language and the arguments have no scientific support from
well-conducted EMF research;” “There is a lack of balance in the report;
no mention is made in fact of reports that do not concur with authors’
statements and conclusions. It is “not an objective and balanced
reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge;” and “As it
stands it merely provides a set of views that are not consistent with
the consensus of science.”
In
May 2010, The INTERPHONE Study concluded that overall, no increase in
risk of brain tumours was observed with the use of mobile phones. “There
were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure
levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The
possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further
investigation", the authors added
The
INTERPHONE study supported by WHO is the largest case–control study of
mobile phones and brain tumours conducted to date, including the largest
numbers of users with at least 10 years of exposure and the greatest
cumulative hours of use of any study. Thirteen countries including UK,
Sweden, France and Germany collaborated.
"Interphone
study in 2010 mentions that excessive use of mobile phones has doubled
to quadrupled brain tumor risk. However, they claim that for an average
user, increase in cancer cases is not significant," the Prof. Kumar’s
report says. By this assertion, the report is misinterpreting the lucid
conclusion provided by the study
Prof.
Kumar argued that the allowable power level must be brought down in
India. "A number of adverse health effects have been documented at
levels below the FCC guidelines, which include altered white blood cells
in children; childhood leukemia; impaired motor function, reaction
time, and memory; headaches, dizziness, fatigue, weakness, and insomnia
etc", the report said, possibly based on the much criticized Bio-initiative Report 2007.
Prof.
Kumar had cherry-picked many references to substantiate such claims.
International agencies such as the WHO and national agencies have not
accepted such preposterous claims.
A
newspaper reported that in a building in Mumbai four cases of cancer
were linked to radiation from a mobile phone tower. Based on this, Prof.
Kumar estimated the power level at the building to be about 0.1 W/ m
and claimed that the tower was the cause of cancer in “several” people
in 2-3 years’ time!
He also
measured a power level of 7,068 microwatt/m in the home of a cancer
patient who allegedly developed cancer within an year of installation of
a mobile phone tower, and links the cancer to radiation from the tower!
Arriving at a conclusion based on studying one or two individuals is not how epidemiological studies are conducted.
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
ksparth@yahoo.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment