SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
This writ petition is being filed in public interest for protection of public from deleterious effects of radiation from cell phones and towers [or Base Transceiver Stations or mobile towers]. The petitioner is a citizen of this country residing in Sector 15 A, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. M/s Indus Towers Ltd [respondent no 2] has installed two cell towers in the residential locality of the petitioner with the permission of NOIDA (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) [respondent no 1]. The petitioner has since been trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to persuade respondent no 1 and 2 to shift the towers away from the vicinity of residents into a green belt area running across Sector 15 A or to some other place. Research into health effects of radiation from cell towers and cell phones provides overwhelming evidence warranting immediate and drastic change in policy of Department of Telecommunication, Government of India [respondent no 3]. As a number of petitions were/are filed in different High Courts of the country with different outcomes, the present writ petition is necessitated in public interest to seek intervention of the Supreme Court for protection of public health-a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The scientific evidence, also taken note of by various governmental committees, showing association between radiation from cell phones and towers and a myriad of health problems to humans and animals, is presented in the petition for consideration of this Court.
Another matter raising similar grievance is pending adjudication before this Court vide Civil Appeal No 2612/2016, titled Bhupesh Sehgal and Ors. V. DDA and Ors., which is listed for hearing on 1/7/2016.
The petition seeks to bring the following facts for consideration of this Court:
a. There is a huge chunk of scientific data linking radiation from cell phones and towers to adverse health effects in people and animals. The adverse health effects range from headaches, sleep disturbances, dizziness and other neurophysiological disturbances to life-threatening brain tumours. Radiation from cell phones and towers has also been linked to sweeping decline in population of Honey bees, Sparrows and other birds and animals.
b. The data as aforesaid is recognised by various Indian and international, governmental and non-governmental agencies. c. The norms regarding exposure limits of radiation from cell
phones and towers in India fall hundreds to thousands of times below the norms followed in countries such as Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Greece, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland and those recommended by scientific studies. d. Even the existing norms in India are beyond implementation
due to lack of continuous monitoring/testing and government’s reliance upon self-certification by the telecom providers and manufacturing companies.
ELECTROMAGNETIC/RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION [EMR/RFR] Wireless telephony and data transmission are effected through invisible waves [Radio waves or RF (Radio Frequency) waves] forming part of the Electromagnetic Frequency [EMF] spectrum. EMF spectrum consists of two types of waves-ionising and non-ionising. RF forms part of the non-ionising portion of the EMF spectrum which traditionally was thought to be harmless for human beings and other animals. Scientific opinion only considered the ionising portion of the spectrum [such as x-rays and gamma rays] as capable of causing health damage. However, studies conducted over past few decades showed possibility of adverse health impacts of RF waves on people, animals and environment.
STANDARDS IN INDIA AND ABROAD
Initially, there was not much awareness about the possible health impacts of non-ionising radiation as the wireless telephony itself is of recent origin for the purposes of a long term and conclusive scientific study. However, in order to allay public fear regarding health effects of low frequency radiation such as RF waves, an international NGO called ICNIRP [International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection], in 1998, consulted a number of research papers in the area and came up with its own recommendations to limit the radiation from cell towers [also called Base Transceiver Stations or BTS or mobile towers]. The recommendations were accepted by a number of countries including many developed nations. In India, however, there were no guidelines whatsoever to limit the radiation density until 2008 when India accepted the ICNIRP norm. However, it failed to allay public fear which led to its revision in 2013 reducing the radiation limit to 1/10th of the then existing norm thus making it 0.9 W/m2 for frequency up to 1800 MHz and 1 W/m2 for frequency beyond 2100 MHz. The same limit holds the field today. On the other hand, countries such as Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Greece, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland have norms in place which are hundreds to thousands of times lower than in India.
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF ADVERSE EFFECTS
A vast number of scientific studies have provided link between EMR/RFR and adverse health effects in people and animals. Few of them are listed below:
a. A paper published by the Canadian journal “Environmental Reviews” in 2010 reviewed a number of studies and concluded effects such as genetic, growth, and reproductive; increases in permeability of the blood–brain barrier;
behavioural; molecular, cellular, and metabolic; and increases in cancer risk.
b. A study published by the journal “Neuro Toxicology” in 2007 gave evidence of headaches, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms, and sleep disturbance among inhabitants near cell antennas. The exposure levels at which the effects occurred were hundreds to thousands of times below the current Indian standards.
c. A study on 530 people in 2002, which was published in French Journal “Pathologie Biologie”, showed biological effects [such as those cited in preceding para] in population near cell towers and recommended that they should not be sited within 300 metres of population.
d. A study published by the multi-disciplinary journal “PLOS ONE” in 2009 showed that RF-EMF exposure damaged sperms leading to male infertility. Moreover, the study reported damage to sperm DNA which posed risks to children born to fathers who experienced high level of exposure to radiation.
e. A study published by Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health in 2010 was carried out on 1 lakh pregnant women followed by monitoring of their children up to the age of 7 years. The study reported a positive correlation between behavioural problems in children and pre and post-natal exposure to EMF radiation.
f. A study published by “Pathophysiology”, the journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology, in 2013 indicated striking similarities in biological effects evidenced in autism and those in case of EMR/RFR exposure. The study concluded
that EMF/RF exposure could lead to enhanced risk of Autism and could make existing condition worse.
g. A study published in International Journal of Cancer Prevention in 2004 showed increased incidence of different types of cancer in a populace living within 350 meter from a cell transmitter. What is striking is that the cell transmitter in question was emitting power much below the norm in that country, which is hundreds of times lower than in India.
h. A study published in a German Journal “Umwelt-medizin-Gesellschaft” in 2004 examined 1000 patients between the years of 1994 and 2004 who lived close to cell antennas. The results showed that the incidence of cancer was significantly higher among those patients who had lived for 5 to 10 years at a distance of up to 400 m from a cell installation that had been in operation since 1993. Moreover, in the years between 1999 and 2004, after 5 years of operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had tripled for residents in proximity of the installation.
i. A study published by the International Journal of Oncology in 2009 found consistent association between brain cancer and use of cell phones. It also found that risk was highest for those who used cell phones for more than 10 years and especially high for those who started using cell phones before the age of 20 years.
j. A study published by the International Journal of Environmental Sciences in 2011 showed that EMF/RF radiation interfered with navigational skills of Honey bees resulting in massive decline in their population. The paper indicated that un-regulated spurt of cell towers could result in extinction of Honey bees.
k. A study published by the Journal of Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine in 2007 gave positive evidence of decline of population of Sparrow in Spain with significantly low population in areas with high radiation. The paper also indicated toward similar trends of decline in bird populations in urban towns, all over Europe.
The aforesaid scientific literature has been acknowledged in India and abroad. A group of scientists and experts from around the world prepared “BioInitiative Report” in 2007 [revised in 2012] after a review of thousands of research studies [about 4,000] on the subject. The report concluded danger to human health, particularly in vulnerable groups such as children, patients and pregnant ladies. The report associated EMR/RFR radiation with biological effects, production of stress proteins, effects on immune system, DNA degeneration, changes in nervous system and brain function, damage to sperm and reproduction, effects on Autism, effects on Alzheimer’s disease, childhood Leukaemia and other kinds of cancer. Further, the report recommended exposure limit which is more than 1,00,000 times less than the norm in India. The World Health Organisation [WHO], in 2011, recognised association between increased risk of brain cancer and cell phone use.
In India, the Ministry of Environment and Forests [MoEF] constituted an expert committee in 2010 to study the impact of EMR/RFR on wildlife and environment. The expert committee recommended that EMF should be recognised as a pollutant and regular auditing of EMF should be conducted in urban localities/educational/hospital/industrial/residential/recreational premises and around the protected areas and ecologically sensitive areas. The committee further recommended mandatory public consultation before installing cell tower in any area.
An inter-ministerial committee of the central government constituted in 2010 recommended imposition of restrictions on installation of mobile towers near high density residential areas, schools, playgrounds and hospitals. The committee also recommended continuous monitoring of radiation from cell towers and employing low power transmitters to reduce exposure to radiation.
A departmental committee constituted by the Department of Telecommunication [DoT] of central government in 2012 recommended imposition of restrictions on installation of BTS towers within the compound of schools and hospitals as the children and the patients might be more susceptible to the possible effects of electro-magnetic radiations.
In 2014, a parliamentary standing committee of Lok Sabha on Information Technology deplored callousness on the part of DoT in not keeping itself abreast with the practices followed in other countries that have adopted lower emission norms than in India. The committee also deprecated practise of DOT to rely on self-certification by telecom providers which can change the parameters at any time. The committee also noticed that there is only one laboratory in India to ensure compliance of radiation norms by cell phone manufacturers.
In 2015, parliamentary standing committee of Rajya Sabha on science and technology, environment and forests took note of the fact that Indians were more vulnerable to radiation due to their low body-mass index and low fat content. The committee was of the view that due to unrestricted location of mobile towers/antennas in cities and smaller towns, cell towers were having a concentrated effect.
In light of the overwhelming evidence as aforesaid, precautionary approach necessitates restriction on installation of cell towers near schools, hospitals, residential areas and other places with dense human population as well as other ecologically sensitive areas while bringing down the current exposure norms. Further, there is an immediate need to deploy workable sustainable solutions such as low power transmitters instead of present day cell towers. These measures need to be accompanied by developing mechanisms for strict compliance with existing norms. Thus, this Court may kindly intervene and grant reliefs as prayed in the petition.
LIST OF DATES
1998 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection prescribed guidelines for limiting exposure from EMR/RFR.
2002 A study conducted by Santini et al. on 530 people, published in French Journal “Pathologie Biologie”, showed biological effects in population near cell towers and recommended that they should not be sited within 300 metres of population.
2004 A study published in International Journal of Cancer Prevention showed increased incidence of different types of cancer in a populace living within 350 meter from a cell transmitter.
2004 A study published in a German Journal “Umwelt-medizin-Gesellschaft” by Eger et al. showed that the incidence of cancer was significantly higher among those patients who had lived for 5 to 10 years at a distance of up to 400 m from a cell tower.
2007 A study carried out in Egypt by Abdel-Rassoul et al. and published by the journal “Neuro Toxicology” gave evidence of headaches, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms, and sleep disturbance among inhabitants near cell antennas.
2007 A study published by the Journal of Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine gave positive evidence of decline of population of Sparrow in Spain.
2007 BioInitiative Report prepared by scientists, doctors and experts from around the world giving evidence of harmful effects of EMR/RFR on humans.
2007 A study published by the Journal of Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine gave positive evidence of decline of population of Sparrow in Spain due to high EMR/RFR.
2008 India adopted the radiation exposure limits prescribed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection [ICNIRP].
2009 A study published by the multi-disciplinary journal “PLOS ONE” showed that EMR/RFR damaged sperms leading to male infertility.
2009 A study published by the International Journal of Oncology in found consistent association between brain cancer and use of cell phones.
2010 A paper published by the Canadian journal “Environmental Reviews” concluded effects of RFR such as genetic, growth, and reproductive; increases in permeability of the blood–brain barrier; behavioural; molecular, cellular, and metabolic; and increases in cancer risk.
2010 A study published by Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health reported a positive correlation between behavioural problems in children and pre and post-natal exposure to EMF radiation. 2010 Inter-Ministerial Committee constituted by the central government to review the literature on effects of radiation from cell towers and phones and to make recommendations.
2010 Expert Committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to study effects of radiation from cell tower and phones on birds and bees.
2011 World Health Organisation recognises RFR as possible carcinogenic to humans.
2011 A study published by the International Journal of Environmental Sciences showed that RFR interfered with navigational skills of Honey bees resulting in massive decline in their population. 2012 BioInitiative Report 2007 was revised by 29 scientists, doctors and experts from around the world.
2012 Departmental Committee constituted by the Department of Telecommunications to examine issues such as framing uniform guidelines for installation of cell towers, their structural safety, identification of cell tower sites in master plans and in-building solutions.
2012 Department of Telecommunications revised SAR limit for cell phones.
2013 A study published by “Pathophysiology”, the journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology, indicated that EMR/RFR could lead to enhanced risk of Autism and could make existing condition worse.
2013 Department of Telecommunications framed guidelines for radiation exposure based on the Inter-Ministerial Report.
2013 New policy for installation of cell towers in NOIDA came into effect.
2014 Report on “Norms for the setting up of telecom towers, its harmful effects and setting up of security standards in expansion of telecom facilities” prepared by the Standing Committee of Lok Sabha on Information Technology.
2015 Report on “E-waste and E-radiation” prepared by the Standing Committee of Rajya Sabha on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests.
18/8/2015 Letter written by the residents of Sector 15 A, NOIDA to the authorities to reconsider the then proposed installation of a cell tower in the main market of the sector.
14/10/2015 Letter written by the residents of Sector 15 A, NOIDA to the authorities to reconsider the then proposed installation of a cell tower upon the building of community club of the sector.
16/10/2015 Letter written by the residents of Sector 15 A, NOIDA to the authorities to reconsider the then proposed installation of a cell tower upon the building of community club of the sector.
25/2/2016 Letter by NOIDA to Indus Towers Ltd granting permission for installing cell tower upon the building of community club of Sector 15 A, NOIDA.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______ OF 2016 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
IN THE MATTER OF:
DR. NARESH CHAND GUPTA,
S/O SH. RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA AGED YEARS.
200, SECTOR 15 A, NOIDA-201301
Gautam Budh Nagar, UP. MOBILE:09810098654
E-MAIL:ngupta@accuracap.com PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [NOIDA] THROUGH
CHAIRMAN AND CEO,
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX SECTOR 6, NOIDA - 201301 DISTRICT. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR UTTAR PRADESH.
2. INDUS TOWERS LTD. 1, ARAVALI CRESCENT,
NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, PHASE 2, NEW DELHI-110070
3. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH,
SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
NEW DELHI-110011 …
RESPONDENTS
AND, IN THE MATTER OF:
PROTECTION OF RESIDENTS OF SECTOR 15 A, NOIDA, FROM HARMFUL EFFECTS OF RADIATION FROM CELL TOWER INSTALLED WITHIN 5-10 METRES FROM THEIR HOUSES.
AND, IN THE MATTER OF:
PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH, ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION, FROM HARMFUL EFFECTS OF RADIATION FROM CELL PHONES AND TOWERS.
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES.
The Humble Petition of the Petitioner above-named Respectfully shown:
1. This writ petition is being filed in public interest to address the deleterious effects of radiation from cell phones and towers [or Base Transceiver Stations or mobile towers]. The petitioner is a citizen of this country and resides in Sector 15 A, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA)
[Respondent no 1], Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. M/s INDUS Towers Ltd [Respondent no 2] has erected two cell towers in residential locality of the petitioner with the permission of respondent no 1. The petitioner had long been trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to persuade respondent no 1 and 2 to shift the towers away from the vicinity of residents into green belt area running across Sector 15 A or to some other place. Research into health effects of radiation from cell towers and cell phones provides overwhelming evidence warranting immediate and drastic change in policy of Department of Telecommunication (DoT), Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India [respondent no 3], which is responsible for regulating exposure of radiation from cell towers and phones and for ensuring compliance with norms in India.
The petitioner does not have any oblique motive in the petition. Petitioner’s PAN is AFAPG6539D and his Aadhaar Card number is 3953 2078 4959. Petitioner’s annual income is above 5 crores INR.
2. The residents of Sector 15 A, NOIDA, including the petitioner, learnt that a cell tower was to be installed in main market of Sector 15 A which was at a distance of 5-10 metres from houses of residents. Therefore, the residents wrote to respondent no 1 asking it to not allow installation in the market. Due to protest by the residents, permission to install the tower in the market was not granted. The letter of protest dated 18/8/2015 sent by residents to respondent no 1 is annexed as ANNEXURE P1 (PAGE ________________). Thereafter, the residents learnt that an alternate location in the form of building of community club of Sector 15 A was being considered for installation of the tower. As the community club is also at a distance of 5-10 metres from
houses of residents, they again protested by way of letters dated 14/10/2015 and 16/10/2015 which are annexed as ANNEXURE P2 (PAGE ________________). In the said letters, the residents asked respondent no 1 to consider a safe location such as green belt running across Sector 15 A or some other place for installation of the tower. However, respondent no 1, by letter dated 25/2/2016, permitted installation of tower upon the community club of the Sector. The letter dated 25/2/2016 written by respondent no 1 to respondent no 2 is annexed as ANNEXURE P3 (PAGE ________________). Consequently, respondent no 2 has installed two cell towers atop building of the community club. Owing to the close proximity, individuals, particularly vulnerable groups such as children, patients and pregnant ladies will suffer continuous exposure to radiation.
3. Installation of cell towers in NOIDA was earlier governed by its policy of 2013 which prioritised green belt area over community centres for installation of towers. Further, the said policy placed buildings constructed in commercial, institutional and industrial sectors except schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other public services at third level in the priority. The said policy, however, prohibited installation of towers on residential buildings and plots. The policy framed by respondent no 1 for installation of cell towers in NOIDA in 2013 is annexed as ANNEXURE P4 (PAGE ________________). However, the policy was amended in 2016 by which system of priority of one area over others was withdrawn; thereby, allowing installation in any of the areas as aforesaid. Also, hospitals were taken out of the exclusion zone. The policy framed by respondent no 1 for installation of cell towers in NOIDA in 2016 is annexed as ANNEXURE P5 (PAGE ________________). Although, as per the 2016 policy, tower is
allowed on community centres and not on residential buildings and plots, yet, it has the same effect as installing tower upon residential building or plot. This is due to the close proximity between the community centre and nearby houses-the distance between the two being less than 5-10 metres. The said decision to allow installation of tower on community centre is against public good as there is green belt area available for installation of tower right across the sector.
4. Research into health effects of radiation from cell tower and cell phones provides overwhelming evidence warranting immediate and drastic change in governmental policy. As a number of petitions were/are filed in different High Courts of the country with different outcomes, the present writ petition is necessitated in public interest to seek intervention of the Supreme Court for protection of public health-a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The scientific evidence, also taken note of by various governmental committees, showing association between radiation from cell phones and towers and a myriad of health problems to humans and animals, is presented in the petition for consideration of this Court.
ELECTROMAGNETIC/RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION [EMR/RFR]
5. Wireless telephony and data transmission are effected through invisible waves [Radio waves or RF (Radio Frequency) waves] forming part of the Electromagnetic Frequency [EMF] spectrum. EMF spectrum consists of two types of waves-ionising and non-ionising. RF forms part of the non-ionising portion of the EMF spectrum which traditionally was thought to be harmless for human beings and other animals. Scientific opinion only considered the ionising portion of the spectrum [such as x-rays and gamma
rays] as capable of causing health damage. However, studies conducted over past few decades showed myriad adverse health impacts of EMR/RFR on people, animals and environment.
STANDARDS IN INDIA
6. Initially, there was not much awareness about the possible health impacts of non-ionising radiation as the wireless telephony itself is of recent origin for the purposes of a long term and conclusive scientific study. However, in order to allay public fear regarding health effects of low frequency radiation such as RF waves, an international NGO called ICNIRP [International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection], in 1998, consulted a number of research papers in the area and came up with its own recommendations to limit the radiation from mobile towers [also called Base Transceiver Stations or BTS]. The recommendations were accepted by a number of countries including many developed nations. In India, however, there were no guidelines whatsoever to limit the radiation exposure until 2008 when India accepted the ICNIRP norm. However, it failed to allay public fear which led to its revision in 2013 reducing the radiation limit to 1/10th of the then existing norm thus making it 0.9 W/m2 (Watt per metre squared) for frequency up to 1800 MHz (megahertz) and 1 W/m2 for frequency beyond 2100 MHz. The same limit holds the field today. The rate at which human body absorbs energy from EMF/RF waves is called Specific Absorption Rate [SAR]. Safe limit for SAR as prescribed by ICNIRP was 2 W/kg and it was adopted by India in 2008. However, the SAR limit was reduced to 1.6 W/kg in 2012, which continues till date.
7. There is a plethora of scientific studies which show that EMR/RFR causes a host of health effects in humans and animals. Taking note of research in the area, the World Health Organisation [WHO] placed EMR/RFR in category 2B-which corresponds to possible carcinogens in humans. The press release of WHO dated 31/5/2011 says “ The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer , associated with wireless phone use.” The release further said “The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period)”. The release also advocated caution while saying “Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings, it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐ term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting.” The press release of WHO dated 31/5/2011 is annexed as ANNEXURE P6 (PAGE ________________).
8. A study titled “Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays” published by the Canadian journal “Environmental Reviews” in 2010 reviewed large amount of research conducted to examine effects of RFR in people living or working near cellular infrastructure such as transmitter or antenna. The said study is annexed as ANNEXURE P7 (PAGE ________________). The study observed
that people living in proximity with cell towers suffer a long-term continuous exposure which is not taken into account while setting exposure limits by agencies. The paper said “Living near a facility will involve long-duration exposures, sometimes for years, at many hours per day. People working at home or the infirm can experience low-level 24 h exposures. Night times alone will create 8 h continuous exposures. The current standards for both ICNIRP, IEEE and the NCRP (adopted by the U.S. FCC) are for whole-body exposures averaged over a short duration (minutes) and are based on results from short-term exposure studies, not for long-term, low-level exposures such as those experienced by people living or working near transmitting facilities. For such populations, these can be involuntary exposures, unlike cell phones where user choice is involved.” The paper notes a number of studies which were conducted at exposure levels much below than what people experience within 200-500 feet from a cell tower. Despite the low level of exposure as per industry guidelines, the effects reported include: “genetic, growth, and reproductive; increases in permeability of the blood–brain barrier; behavioral; molecular, cellular, and metabolic; and increases in cancer risk.” The average SAR at which the effects as aforesaid occurred was 0.022 W/kg as compared to 1.6 W/kg, which is the norm in India. 9. The aforesaid study also observed that RFR had more
deleterious effects in children. The paper said “For this reason, and because their bodies are still developing, children may be more susceptible to damage from cell phone radiation. For instance, radiation from a cell phone penetrates deeper into the head of children (Gandhi et al. 1996; Wiart et al. 2008) and certain tissues of a child’s head, e.g., the bone marrow and the eye, absorb significantly more
energy than those in an adult head (Christ et al. 2010). The same can be presumed for proximity to towers, even though exposure will be lower from towers under most circumstances than from cell phones.” The paper raising an alarm for precaution in public safety said “. However, it is clear that low-intensity RFR is not biologically inert. Clearly, more needs to be learned before a presumption of safety can continue to be made regarding placement of antenna arrays near the population, as is the case today.” The paper cites the lowest exposure limit in Salzburg, Austria [0.000001 W/m2] and the one recommended by the BioInitiative Report of 2007 [0.001 W/m2 for outdoor and 0.0001 W/m2 for indoor exposure]. The paper also recommended continuous monitoring of RFR exposure.
10. One of the studies which were noted in the paper discussed in preceding para was conducted in Egypt by Abdel-Rassoul et al. which was published by the journal “Neuro Toxicology” in 2007. The said study is annexed as ANNEXURE P8 (PAGE ________________). The study considered occupiers of a residential building on whose rooftop 3 cell antennas were mounted and another building roughly 10 metre in opposite direction. The RFR was in range of 0.001-0.06 W/m2 as per the last record of the year 2000. It was observed that complaints of headaches, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms, and sleep disturbance were significantly higher among exposed inhabitants. It recommended “Annual monitoring of RFR emitted from the mobile phone base station antennas should be carried out as their values may become higher due to the expected extensive future use of mobile phones and hence more activity and more arising emissions leading to increase
in incidence and severity of neurobehavioral disorders among inhabitants around these stations.”
11. A study by Santini et al. on 530 people conducted in 2002 observed biological effects in population at varying distances from cell towers. The study was published originally in French Journal “Pathologie Biologie”. English version was later published in “Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine” in 2003. The said study is annexed as ANNEXURE P9 (PAGE ________________). The authors observed similar results as aforesaid and recommended that cell towers should not be sited within 300 m of population. The authors further suggested that the situation appeared to be worst when distance of tower from population was less than 100 m. 12. A study published by the multi-disciplinary journal “PLOS ONE” in 2009 gave evidence of link between high infertility rates in men and their exposure to RFR. The said study is annexed as ANNEXURE P10 (PAGE ________________). The paper concluded “High quality spermatozoa selected in discontinuous Percoll gradients displayed a decline in both vitality and motility after exposure to RF-EMR in a dose- dependent manner. The control populations maintained an average vitality of 89%; however, significant reductions in vitality were observed at exposure levels as low as 1.0 W/kg (p<0.01). Similarly, the control populations maintained motilities at an average of 86% over the incubation period, however after exposure to RF-EMR at levels of 1.0 W/kg, motility was observed to significantly decrease to 68%. A significant amount of oxidative DNA damage was observed in cells exposed to 2.8 W/kg and above.” The study not only validates previous studies on animals indicating effect of RFR radiation on their reproductive capacity, but it also indicates DNA damage to
human sperm, and therefore, adverse health effects in children born to fathers who suffered high RFR exposure. 13. A study published by Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health in 2010 was carried out on 1 lakh pregnant women followed by monitoring of their children until the age of 7 years. The said study is annexed as ANNEXURE P11 (PAGE ________________). The study reported a positive correlation between behavioural problems in children and pre and post-natal exposure to EMF radiation. Previously the authors had reported an association from the Danish National Birth Cohort (DNBC) for prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioural problems at age 7 years among nearly 13,000 Danish children born between 1997 and 1999. For the study published in 2010, new and separate set of children born between 1998-2002 were considered. The new study replicated the findings of the old study thus, making it likely that RFR was responsible for behavioural problems in children.
14. A study published by “Pathophysiology”, the journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology, in 2013 indicated that EMR/RFR could lead to enhanced risk of Autism or Autism Spectrum Conditions [ASCs] and could obstruct its amelioration. The said study is annexed as ANNEXURE P12 (PAGE ________________). The paper said “DNA damage, immune and blood–brain barrier disruption, cellular and oxidative stress, calcium channel, disturbed circadian rhythms, hormone dysregulation, and degraded cognition, sleep, autonomic regulation and brainwave activity all have commonalities between ASCs and EMF/RFR, and the disruption of disruption fertility and reproduction associated with EMF/RFR may also be related to the
increasing incidence of ASCs. All of this argues for reduction of exposures now, and better coordinated research in these areas.”. The study called for reduction of exposure norm and said “At present our EMF/RFR standards are based on outdated purely thermal considerations, whereas the evidence is now overwhelming that limiting regulations in this way does not address the much broader array of risks and harm now known to be created by EMF/RFR....We would argue that the evidence is sufficient to warrant new public exposure standards benchmarked to low-intensity (non-thermal) exposure levels causing biological disruption and strong, interim precautionary practices are advocated.”
EMR/RFR AND CANCER
15. The paper published in “Environmental Reviews” in 2010 [ANNEXURE P7 (PAGE_________________)] takes note of a number of studies providing for association of EMR/RFR with cancer. The paper says “Adverse effects have been noted for significant increases for all cancers in both men and women living near broadcast towers (Henderson and Anderson 1986); childhood leukemia clusters (Maskarinec et al. 1994; Ha et al. 2003; Park et al. 2004); adult leukemia and lymphoma clusters, and elevated rates of mental illness (Hocking et al. 1996; Michelozzi et al. 2002; Ha et al. 2007); elevated brain tumor incidence (Dolk et al. 1997a, 1997b); nonlinear increases in brain tumor incidence (Colorado Department of Public Health 2004); increases in malignant melanoma (Hallberg and Johansson 2002); and nonlinear immune system changes in women (Boscol et al. 2001). (The term ‘‘nonlinear’’ is used in scientific literature to mean that an effect was not directly proportional to the intensity of exposure. In the case of the two studies mentioned previously, adverse effects were found at significant
distances from the towers, not in closer proximity where the power density exposures were higher and therefore presumed to have a greater chance of causing effects. This is something that often comes up in low-level energy studies and adds credence to the argument that low-level exposures could cause qualitatively different effects than higher level exposures.)”.
16. A study published in a German Journal “Umwelt-medizin-Gesellschaft” in 2004 by Eger et al. examined if there was an increased cancer incidence in populations living near cell towers. The said study is annexed as ANNEXURE P13 (PAGE ________________). Their study evaluated data for approximately 1000 patients between the years of 1994 and 2004 who lived close to cell antennas. The results showed that the incidence of cancer was significantly higher among those patients who had lived for 5 to 10 years at a distance of up to 400 m from a cell installation that had been in operation since 1993, compared with those patients living further away, and that the patients fell ill on an average of 8 years earlier than would be expected. In the years between 1999 and 2004, after 5 years of operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had tripled for residents in proximity of the installation compared with inhabitants outside of the area. The paper concluded “From both an ethical and legal standpoint it is necessary to immediately start to monitor the health of the residents living in areas of high radio frequency emissions from mobile telephone base stations with epidemiological studies. This is necessary because this study has shown that it is no longer safely possible to assume that there is no causal link between radio frequency transmissions and increased cancer rates.”
17. A study published by the International Journal of Oncology in 2009 found consistent association between brain cancer and use of cell phones. The said study is annexed as ANNEXURE P14 (PAGE ________________). The study took into account over 4,000 participants during period of 1997-2003. The study considered tumour in ipsilateral brain [side of the head where cell phone is mostly used] and contralateral [opposite side to the cell phone use]. The study divided participants into 3 groups age-wise, depending upon when they started using cell phone- <20 years, 20-49 years and 50-80 years. Tumours were divided broadly into two groups-malignant and benign with each head further sub-divided. The study found that risk for malignant tumour [Astrocytoma] and benign tumour [Acoustic Neuroma] was highest for ipsilateral use of cell phones for more than 10 years. Besides, even contralateral use showed increase in risk in case for cell phone use for more than 10 years. For different age groups, risk was found highest for those who started using cell phones before the age of 20 years. The study said “This result is of biological significance since a developing organ is more sensitive for carcinogenic agents and the brain is continuing to develop until ~20 years of age.” It further said “The results are supported by increasing incidence of astrocytoma during 2000-2007 in Sweden, significantly so for subjects >19 years old.”
18. A study published by the International Journal of Cancer Prevention in 2004 also found association of radiation from cell towers with increased incidence of cancer. The said study is annexed as ANNEXURE P15 (PAGE ________________). The study was conducted in Netanya town of Israel. For the study, 622 individuals living within 350 meter from a cell phone transmitter station [area A] were considered. The
exposure had begun 1 year before the start of the study when the station first came into service. This group of exposed people were compared to another group of 1,222 individuals living in nearby locale [area B] with similar environmental, workplace and occupational characteristics. The power density in the area was far below 0.005 W/m2 which is the exposure limit in Israel. The study concluded “In the area of exposure (area A) eight cases of different kinds of cancer were diagnosed in a period of only one year. This rate of cancers was compared both with the rate of 31 cases per 10,000 per year in the general population and the 2/1222 rate recorded in the nearby clinic (area B). Relative cancer rates for females were 10.5 for area A, 0.6 for area B and 1 for the whole town of Netanya. Cancer incidence of women in area A was thus significantly higher (p<0.0001) compared with that of area B and the whole city. A comparison of the relative risk revealed that there were 4.15 times more cases in area A than in the entire population. The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station.” Commenting upon need to revisit the exposure guidelines, the paper further said ““The measured level of RF radiation (power density) in the area was low; far below the current guidelines based on the thermal effects of RF exposure. We suggest, therefore, that the current guidelines be re-evaluated. The enormous short latency period; less than 2 years, indicates that if there is a real causal association between RF radiation emitted from the cell-phone base station and the cancer cases (which we strongly believe there is), then the RF radiation should have a very strong promoting effect on cancer at very low radiation!”
19. A study conducted in Kerala, India, published in International Journal of Environmental Sciences in 2011 concluded that radiation from cell phones and towers led to steep decline in population of Honey bees. The said study is annexed as ANNEXURE P16 (PAGE ________________). For the purpose of study, 6 colonies of Honey bees were selected, out of which, 3 [test colonies] were provided with cell phones in working conditions with frequency of 900 MHz for 10 minutes for a short period of ten days. The paper said “The present study showed that after ten days the worker bees never returned hives in the test colonies. The massive amount of radiation produced by mobile phones and towers is actually frying the navigational skills of the honey bees and preventing them from returning back to their hives. It was shown that the total bee strength was significantly higher in the control colonies being nine comb frames as compared to one in the test colony at the end of the experiment. The thriving hives suddenly left with only queens, eggs and hive bound immature worker bees.”. Raising alarm, the paper further said “If towers and mobile phones increase the honey bees might be wiped out in ten years....Moreover, the destruction of bee hives could be a major environmental disaster. Honeybees are responsible for pollinating over 100 commonly eaten fruit and vegetable crops and without bees the food system would be in serious trouble. Rural village dependent on locally grown foods would be most vulnerable. The need of the hour is to check unscientific proliferations of mobile phone towers.”.
20. A study was conducted in Spain on relation between EMR/RFR and decline in population of House sparrow found in urban cities. The paper was published in the journal
“Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine” in 2007. The said study is annexed as ANNEXURE P17 (PAGE ________________). The paper concluded “Our report shows that the number of sparrows correlates with electromagnetic pollution levels. Another recent study with sparrows in Flanders (Belgium) state: ‘Our data show that fewer House Sparrow males were seen at locations with relatively high electric field strength values of GSM base stations and therefore support the notion that long-term exposure to higher levels of radiation negatively affects the abundance or behaviour of House Sparrows in the wild (Everaert and Bauwens, 2007).’” The paper cautioned regarding the existing situation and said “If this trend continues (a 5% annual decrease in the population), the house sparrow may become extinct by 2020.”.
BIOINITIATIVE REPORTS OF 2007 AND 2012
21. In 2007, experts, including scientists, doctors, scholars etc from all over the world, came up with a comprehensive review of the then existing literature [about 2000 studies] on EMR/RFR and health effects. The review culminated into the BioInitiative Report, 2007, whose summary is annexed as ANNEXURE P18 (PAGE ________________). The report was then revised in 2012 with inclusion of 1800 more studies. The summary of the BioInitiative Report of 2012 is annexed as ANNEXURE P19 (PAGE ________________). The BioInitiative Report 2012 was prepared by 29 authors from ten countries, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs. Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and five full members of the Bioelectromagnetics Society. One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National
Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. The report gives evidence for association of EMR/RFR with a host of health problems such as biological effects, production of stress proteins, effects on immune system, DNA degeneration, changes in nervous system and brain function, damage to sperm and reproduction, effects on Autism, effects on Alzheimer’s disease, childhood Leukaemia and other kinds of cancer. The report then recommended drastic reduction of exposure limit based on chronic exposure to pulsed RFR by vulnerable population like children. The recommended RFR exposure limit is 0.3 nanowatts to 0.6 nanowatts per square centimetre [which is more than 1,00,000 times less than the norm in India]. The entire BioInitiative Reports of 2007 and 2012 are available on http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
22. In India, the Ministry of Environment and Forests [MoEF] constituted a committee in 2010 to study the impact of EMR/RFR on wildlife and environment. The committee considered 919 studies on the subject, out of which 593 showed adverse health effects by EMR/RFR. 459 of the 593 studies that were considered dealt with effects on humans. The entire report of the committee is available on
http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/final_mobile_towers_report.pdf. However,
relevant portion of the expert committee’s report is annexed as ANNEXURE P20 (PAGE ________________). The report concluded that RFR was interfering with biological systems. The expert committee also noted other countries which follow stricter norms than in India. For example, in the cell
phone frequency range of 800 MHz to 900 MHz, the levels range from 10 microwatts per centimetre squared in Italy and Russia [0.1W/m2] to 4.2 microwatts per centimetre squared [0.04W/m2] in Switzerland. The exposure limit is further strict in Austria with 0.001W/m2 and a lot more strict in New South Wales [Australia] with 0.00001W/m2. The committee said “It is a long way to go before we can have the required longterm ‘Species specific data’ to decide on the threshold exposure levels for various wildlife species. Till such time a precautionary principle approach to be used to minimize the exposure levels and we may have to move ahead and adopt stricter norms followed in some other countries like Russia, China, New Zealand etc”.
23. The expert committee finally recommended recognition of EMR as a pollutant and independent monitoring of radiation levels and overall health of the community and nature surrounding towers. The committee further recommended strict control of installation of towers near wildlife, bee colonies, zoos etc. It also called for placing information regarding location of towers and frequencies in public domain. The committee recommended mandatory public consultation before installation of cell tower in any area. Lastly, the committee suggested that new towers should not be permitted within radius of 1 kilometre of existing tower. Accepting the recommendations of the expert body, the MoEF issued advisory in 2012, to DoT, State Environment and Forest Departments and other local bodies. The advisory issued by the MoEF is annexed as ANNEXURE P21 (PAGE ________________).
24. An inter-ministerial committee of the central government, constituted in 2010, examined the effects of EMR/RFR from cell phones and towers as reported in studies.
The entire report of the committee is available on
http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/1.IMC
%20Report_0.pdf. However, relevant portion of the
committee’s report is annexed as ANNEXURE P22 (PAGE ________________). The report noted that Indians could be at higher risk from radiation owning to their low body mass index [BMI] and low fat content. The committee then recommended reducing radiation density from cell tower to 1/10th of the then existing standard i.e. to 0.9 W/m2. Further, maximum permissible SAR for cell phones was also recommended to be brought down to 1.6 W/kg. DoT then issued an office memorandum to revise the SAR for cell phones in 2012 as per the recommendation of the committee. The office memorandum issued by the DoT in 2012 is annexed as ANNEXURE P23 (PAGE ________________). The recommendations also culminated into guidelines framed by the DoT regarding exposure limit from cell towers in 2013 which are annexed as ANNEXURE P24 (PAGE ________________). The norms of SAR and exposure from cell tower as revised in 2012 and 2013 hold the field today. However, inadequacies in the current exposure limits are clear in terms of stricter norms followed in other countries and the scientific data cited above. The committee had made other vital recommendations, which however, were not accepted by the DoT. Such other recommendations were continuous monitoring of radiation from towers, use of low power transmitters and imposing restrictions on installation of mobile towers near high density residential areas, schools, playgrounds and hospitals.
25. A departmental committee was constituted by the Department of Telecommunication [DoT] of central government in 2012 to examine a number of issues such as
framing uniform guidelines for installation of cell towers, their structural safety, identification of cell tower sites in master plans and in-building solutions. The entire report is
available on
http://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Committe_Report_on_BTS_
towers.pdf.Relevant portion of the committee’s report is
annexed as ANNEXURE P25 (PAGE ________________). The committee said “The committee recommends to-consider imposing restrictions on installation of BTS towers within the compound of schools and hospitals as the children and the patients may be more susceptible to the possible effects of electro-magnetic radiations. In-door building solution for low wattages may be deployed.”
26. In 2014, a Parliamentary Standing Committee of Lok Sabha on Information Technology had a detailed examination of the entire subject. The entire report of the standing
committee can be found at
http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Information
%20Technology/15_Information_Technology_53.pdf.
Recommendations of the standing committee are annexed as ANNEXURE P26 (PAGE ________________). The committee made some scathing remarks about the approach of DoT in handling the subject. The committee said “The Committee feel perturbed to find that no efforts have been made by the Department, TSPs and local bodies to involve the general public in the setting up of mobile towers. The Committee are of the view that the attitude of the Department in turning a blind eye to the concerns of the public highly deplorable and tantamount to shirking of responsibility towards the public safety…..” The committee then examined the issue of installation of towers in sensitive areas and said “...the Committee strongly recommend that the Government must
frame a comprehensive policy on setting up of telecom towers in residential areas in densely populated cities taking into consideration the public health concerns, mandatory involvement of public/ Resident Welfare Association/ NGOs/ Public Forums/ residents of the nearby buildings or areas before installing telecom towers in their area as well as emulating the safest international practices followed in this regard.” The committee further emphasised “Also taking note of the reports about a number of ongoing litigations in various parts of the country on this account, the Committee strongly feel that as a precautionary approach there is an imperative need to fix stringent norms with regard to radiation for areas like schools, hospitals, residential premises, children playgrounds etc.”
27. The committee also noted callousness of part of DoT in not keeping itself abreast with practices followed in other countries. The committee said “The Committee note that there are few countries like Switzerland which have adopted ICNIRP norms but implemented lower ICNIRP limits as a precautionary approach for areas like apartments, schools, hospitals, workplace and children playgrounds. However, the DoT has not made any efforts or collected information about the countries which have imposed such restrictions….” The committee further noted “From the information provided by DoT, the Committee note that countries like China, Russia, Italy, Poland etc. are having more stricter [sic] norms on radiation exposure than India. On the contention raised in one of the memorandum received by the Committee that towers in China are emitting 100 times less radiation even though there are more mobile users in China than in India, the DoT in its written reply submitted that the complete information about lower radiation norms in China is not
available including pros and cons of such norms. The Committee deplore such callousness on the part of DoT in not keeping itself abreast with the practices followed in other countries including China that have adopted lower emission norms than in India. The Committee feel that merely keeping a watch on various reports of WHO and ITU without knowing their bases, as is being done by DoT is uncalled for as such an approach would result in formulating lopsided opinion and norms.”
28. The committee found that the DoT was relying upon selective studies and said “The Committee also cannot ignore the information placed before them by various experts/ organizations about the growing scientific evidence regarding biological effect of radiations from telecom tower radiations especially on the more vulnerable sections of the society like elderly people, pregnant women and children.” The committee further said “The Committee, in view of the above findings made by the reputed experts and research institutes, feel that there is no room for complacency on the issue by selectively relying only on the findings of WHO whose research reports are mainly based on developed countries and strongly recommend that the findings of India specific studies should also be taken into consideration by DoT in coming out with its policy initiative on mobile towers.” 29. Recommending use of innovative ideas, the committee
said “The Committee, therefore, recommend that the DoT must play a proactive role in exploring new technological ideas and innovations and ,if necessary, also involve premium scientific institutes across the country for development of such products like the suggested LED based EMR meters and setting up of centralized monitoring system which would strengthen the existing monitoring mechanism
and will go a long way in allaying the public fear on the issue”. The committee further said “During the examination of the subject, the Committee were informed by one of the experts of the field that high power radiating antennae could be avoided in high density populated areas by deploying low power radiating BTSs such as Micro, Pico and Femto which would be more advantageous in terms of elimination of fear of health hazards due to high radiation from mobile towers and safety of the buildings…In this regard, the Committee would like the Department to seriously explore the option of utilising such technologies in our country especially in highly populated urban cities by implementing some pilot projects in selected areas to ascertain its feasibility.”
30. The committee noted the absence of mechanism to ensure compliance of current norms in India. “The Committee note with concern that as the things stand today, the Grievance Redressal Mechanism available to the public in respect of EMF radiation from mobile towers located in their immediate vicinity is either totally insufficient or non-existent. The public has no means to verify as to whether the radiation from towers to which they are being exposed continuously is within the prescribed limits and whom to approach to allay their fears as no such details are required to be mentioned at the tower site.” Moreover, the Telecom Enforcement, Resource and Monitoring [TERM] cells established by the DoT to check cell towers for compliance suffer from lack of equipment and manpower. The TERM cells performed random checks only at 3.5-4% BTS sites in 2011-12 and 202011-12-13 as against mandatory 10%. Further, for checking BTS sites, the TERM employees have to depend upon unreliable equipment borrowed from telecom providers. The aforesaid complacency of the department is accentuated
by widespread vacancies in TERM cells. The committee also came down heavily on the DoT’s system to rely on self-certificates by telecom companies to the effect that they are abiding by exposure norms in India. “Considering the fact that radiation parameters of the BTS are totally in the hands of the TSPs and can be re-set by the TSPs at any point of time in the absence of any kind of constant monitoring mechanism, the Committee have strongly viewed that no purpose is being served by requiring submission of ‘Self Certificate’ by TSPs only once in two years which otherwise also is too long a period”.
31. The situation is grim regarding enforcement of SAR limit as well. First, the DOT is unclear about the penalty levied in case the cell phone exceeds the limit. Secondly, and more gravely, there is only one lab in the entire country for testing cell phones for SAR. Further, as per the standing committee report, the DoT had no information regarding instances of SAR violations so far. In this regard the committee said “The reply gives an impression that that there is no clarity in the DoT on the quantum of penalty to be imposed on the defaulter. The DoT has failed to furnish any information in respect of number of violations detected so far. The Committee, therefore, feel that the provision of penalty in case of any violation is still unclear and hence more specific provisions for penalty are required to be laid down at the earliest for ensuring meaningful compliance with SAR norms.” The committee further said “…the Committee in their 51st Report on action taken by the Government on the said recommendation, had expressed their unhappiness at the reply of the Government that all handset manufacturers of both indigenous as well as imported are only required to provide a self-declaration in respect of SAR value subject to
TEC audit as and when required. While strongly feeling that the DoT should be equipped with sufficient number of SAR Labs so as to keep a strict vigil on the manufacturers with regard to adhering to SAR norms, the Committee had reiterated their recommendation and desired that DoT should undertake thorough review of SAR Labs required in the country and take expeditious steps to set up the Labs.” 32. Failure of telecom companies to satisfy exposure norms
in India was revealed by the news magazine “Tehelka” which did a survey of EMR/RFR radiation at 100 spots in Delhi. The news report is annexed as ANNEXURE P27 (PAGE ________________). Although the survey was done in 2010, when old exposure limits were in place, yet the result of survey remains relevant as it shows scant regard for exposure limits by telecom companies. Out of the 100 spots surveyed, 40 spots were found with radiation exposure close to 7 times the safe limit. 31 spots had radiation levels 2-6 times the safe limits. Nine spots were borderline cases which were just above safe limits. The unsafe areas included schools, hospitals, markets etc which are high in public density. Further, as per a newspaper report, the Minister of Communications and Information Technology in the central government stated in reply to a question in Rajya Sabha that in 2015 (till May 31), telecom companies were fined to the tune of 10.80 crore for exceeding the radiation norms. The report dated 8/8/2015 published in the newspaper “Indian Express” is annexed as ANNEXURE P28 (PAGE ________________).
33. In 2015, Parliamentary Standing Committee of Rajya Sabha on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests took note of the fact that Indians are more vulnerable to radiation due to their low body-mass index and low fat
content. The entire report is available at
http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittee s/Committee%20on%20S%20and%20T,%20Env.%20and
%20Forests/266.pdf. Relevant portion of the report of the
standing committee is annexed as ANNEXURE P29 (PAGE ________________). The committee was of the view that due to unrestricted location of mobile towers/antennas in cities and smaller towns, cell towers were having a concentrated effect. The committee, therefore, recommended implementation of the report of expert body constituted by the MoEF.
GROUNDS
1. There is overwhelming scientific evidence, of which some is quoted above, of association between RFR and a number of health effects like biological effects [headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased libido, concentration problems, dizziness, memory changes and other neurophysiological effects], production of stress proteins, effects on immune system, DNA degeneration, changes in nervous system and brain function, damage to sperm and reproduction, effects on Autism, effects on Alzheimer’s disease, childhood Leukaemia and other kinds of cancer.
2. The health effects as aforesaid occur at exposure levels much below the current Indian norms; thus, establishing their gross inadequacy. While maximum limit for RFR exposure in India is 1 W/m2, health effects have been observed at levels way below 0.005 W/m2. Similarly, health effects from radiation from cell phones have been observed at SAR as low
as 0.022 W/kg whereas maximum permissible limit for the same in India is 1.6 W/kg.
3. A number of countries currently follow exposure norms which are a lot stricter than in Indian. Maximum permissible exposure in Austria is 0.001 W/m2. In Germany and Switzerland, it is 0.09 W/m2. In Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland and Russia the maximum permissible exposure is 0.1 W/m2. Moreover, the BioInitiative Report of 2012 [written after review of about 4,000 studies], as revised in 2014, prescribes safe limit for outdoor cumulative exposure to be 0.3 nanowatts to 0.6 nanowatts per square centimetre, which is more than 1,00,000 times less than the norm in India.
4. After considering the scientific evidence, various committees such as Departmental Committee of Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Inter-ministerial Committee and the expert committee constituted by MoEF have consistently recommended that cell towers should not be installed near schools, hospitals, residential areas and ecologically sensitive areas such as wildlife sanctuaries etc. The rationale behind the recommendation is increased vulnerability of certain groups like children, patients, pregnant ladies etc from RFR. However, the said recommendations have not been implemented so far by the DoT.
5. There is no mechanism put in place to effectively check violation of current exposure guidelines from cell towers and phones. As is clear from the report of the standing committee of the Lok Sabha on Information Technology, firstly, there is no system of continuous monitoring of radiation from cell to
