Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/cell-tower-radiation-sc-to-hear-plea-against-hc-order-banning-towers-from-public-use-buildings-kalyan-parbat-gulveen-aulakh-19252.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Cell tower radiation: SC to hear plea against HC order banning towers from public-use buildings- Kalyan Parbat & Gulveen Aulakh | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Cell tower radiation: SC to hear plea against HC order banning towers from public-use buildings- Kalyan Parbat & Gulveen Aulakh
-The Economic Times

Beginning today, the country's highest court will hear petitions filed by telecom-industry lobbies challenging a recent Rajasthan High Court order that directed telecom companies to remove cellphone towers from schools, hospitals, jails and heritage buildings in the state amid claims that tower radiation was harmful. Officials of two leading industry associations, representing mobile operators and telecom tower companies, feel the Supreme Court's verdict in the case could set a precedent on where all towers can be located and how they operate.

Asserting that radiation levels of the 400,000 telecom towers in India are well within acceptable limits, Umang Das, director-general of the Tower & Infrastructure Providers Association, said the "arbitrary removal" of towers will create huge gaps in network coverage.

Added another executive from the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), not wanting to be identified: "Arbitrary banning of mobile towers from schools, hospitals and jails on health grounds also threatens to throw telecom services off gear in places dealing with emergencies, and even create law & order problems." Telecom companies have got a stay from the Supreme Court on the implementation of the Rajasthan HC order.

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) puts out norms on permissible radiation limits for tower firms: 4.5 watts per sq metre in the 900 MHz frequency band. Some countries (notably the United States and Canada) are above it; several, including India, are below it ( see table).

Effective from September 1, 2012, the department of telecommunications (DoT) has lowered the permissible radiation limits for tower companies to 0.45 watts per sq metre - one-tenth of the ICNIRP guidelines - for Indian tower operators.

So far, no study has conclusively established that mobile phones or radiation from towers poses a potential health risk. In response to ET's queries on the issue, a spokesman of the World Health Organisation's director-general's office mailed its latest advisory. It says: "Electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones have been classified by the International Agency for Research & Cancer as possibly carcinogenic to humans, but to date no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use, although lack of data on the impact of prolonged mobile phone use in excess of 15 years warrants further research."

In India, the fear of radiation risk was triggered after a government-appointed inter-ministerial panel examining India's electro-magnetic field (EMF) exposure norms cited several studies linking health disorders to cell tower radiation. In the wake of the inter-ministerial report, Justice IS Israni, a retired high court judge, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Rajasthan High Court. In its verdict, the court drew from this inter-ministerial report.

Professor Girish Kumar of IIT-Bombay, one of the most vociferous campaigners against cell tower radiation in India, claims mobile radiation "is injurious depending on signal strength and exposure time". But KS Parthasarathy, former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, says the inter-ministerial panel "did a great disservice by selectively listing only a bunch of reports with adverse health effects, without acknowledging the existence of a larger body of studies on EMF radiation that did not demonstrate any negative traits".

Jack Rowley, senior director (research & sustainability) at London-based GSM Association, the industry body representing GSM operators worldwide, points out that health data from countries where mobile telephony has been around longer - such as Nordic countries, the UK and US - "show no increase in brain cancer rates". He added that health authorities in the UK, Austria, Norway and Sweden have issued reports that there is no convincing evidence of health hazards for adults and children.

According to Kumar of IIT-Bombay, companies can reduce radiation risk by lowering the gain of the power amplifier in their towers. If that were to happen, adds the COAI executive, operators would need to install more antennae. Kumar maintains that tower firms are resisting tougher radiation norms to avoid investing in more towers.

Further, Kumar contends companies can "remotely increase or decrease the power transmitted from their base stations by as much as 10 times". The COAI executive says that if a mobile operator was to increase radiation levels beyond specified levels, it would cause interference in neighbouring, most of them rival, networks. "While we do have intelligence management systems, they are used essentially to save energy when the subscriber load in a site is less during off-peak hours," he said.

Mahesh Uppal, director at Com First (India), a consultancy dealing in telecom regulatory affairs, believes it is unfair to ask companies to put up more towers on the basis of the evidence that is there. "The real issue is whether the rules in place for radiation are adequate and being followed," said Uppal. "We cannot ask a company that complies with rules to add more towers simply because others want it to. But there is every reason to pursue companies who break rules by not investing enough in the right type or number of towers." The SC case has also opened the debate on the jurisdiction of the Centre and states in the matter. Placement of mobile towers is a state subject as it is contingent on local authorities granting the requisite permissions. That is why several state high courts have stepped into this minefield. Besides Rajasthan, the Delhi High Court too has a petition pending on this.

Senior lawyer Meet Malhotra, however, blamed the lack of governance for such cases - that would traditionally fall in the executive's domain - landing up in courts. "When the government of the day is bothered only about elections and not about governance, you cannot fault the courts for stepping in. Nothing can be banned on mere suspicion and definitely not something as essential as cell phones."

(With inputs from Samanwaya)