Environment and Mobile Radiation

APRIL 11, 2016Ankush Chattopadhyay (13llb011)

3rd Year, School of Law, the North Cap University

C ontents

1. Acknowledgement………………………………………………………3

2. Introduction……………………………………………………………..4

3. Problem and Need…………………..…………………………………..5

4. Legislation of some Countries………………………………….…….

………………………6

5. Effects of Ecosystem………………………………………………….....

6. Judicial Approach in India……………………………………………….

7. Conclusion………………………………………………………………9

1

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the esteemed teachers of our institution as well as all the

students who are a part of the team. We are thankful to our colleagues who provided

expertise that greatly assisted the research, although they may not agree with all of the

interpretations provided in this paper.

We are also grateful to Prof. (Dr.) Praveen Kumar Lohchab for his immeasurable assistance

in teaching the subjects and in clarifying all the doubts and questions we posed.

We have to express our appreciation to the Law Faculty of The North Cap University for

sharing their pearls of wisdom with us and for making and forging us not only into better

human beings but also into knowledgeable professionals.

We are also immensely grateful to all our peers and friends for their comments and their

continuous support without which it would have been a lot harder and nigh impossible to

finish this manuscript.

Although there were numerous people and entities helping and assisting us through our

journey, any errors that have been committed are our own and should not tarnish the

reputations of these esteemed professionals.

2

Introduction

What is Radiation?

The Radio Frequency (RF) energy is a non-ionizing radiation like radiation from visible light,

infrared radiation, and other forms of electromagnetic radiation with relatively low

frequencies. Cell phone is a very, very low level of radio frequency energy. The type of

energy emitted is non-ionizing – means it does not cause damage to chemical bonds or DNA.

What are the sources of radiation?

All forms of life on earth have been living amidst radiation through the ages. Radiation is

present everywhere. All living beings are exposed to the Sun, which is the largest radiation

source. Many common known sources of radiation with advancement of technology include

radio, transistor, television, microwave oven, mobile handset, Mobile Towers and many

more.

What is a Mobile Tower?

Mobile Tower is a triangular / cone shaped metal structure which is more than nine meter in

height on which 3 or more antennas are fixed, the structural height may depend on whether it

is fixed on land or on a building. Height of the Ground based towers varies from 30-200

meters however most of the towers are of 40 meters and roof-top towers vary from 9-30

meters. Mobile Tower Antennas are the source of radiation in a mobile tower. However, a

telecom infrastructure consists of electronic (active) and non-electronic infrastructure.

Electronic infrastructure includes base tower station, microwave radio

equipment, switches, antennas, transceivers for signal processing and

transmission.

Non-electronic infrastructure includes tower, shelter, air-conditioning

equipment, diesel electric generator, battery, electrical supply, technical

premises.

3

For a good quality wireless communication, Mobile Tower Base Stations (MTBS) are an

inevitable part of the telecom infrastructure system.

What is SAR?

SAR stands for Specific Absorption Rate. It is defined as the power absorbed per mass of

body tissue when exposed to a radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic field and has units of

watts per kilogram (W/kg). All mobile devices emit RF radiation when transmitting wireless

signals. A mobile device’s SAR rating is used to estimate the amount of RF radiation

absorbed by a user’s head and body when using the device.

Maximum SAR levels for modern mobile devices are set by governmental regulating

agencies in many countries. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation

Protection (ICNIRP) published exposure guidelines in 1998 and recommended a localized

SAR limit of 2.0 W/kg averaged over 10-gram of tissue for general public exposure, which is

adopted by most European countries. In the United States, the Federal Communication

Commission (FCC) sets the localized SAR limit for public exposure to cell phone radiation to

be 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1-gram of tissue. This means that for a wireless handset to receive

FCC certification and be sold in the United States, its maximum SAR level must not exceed

1.6 watts per kilogram.

4

Extent of the problem

With the growing population of India, the wireless communication density and its network

has escalated at a rapid pace over the past few years. The statistics reveal that there are 867.8

million wireless subscribers in India at the end of March 2013 which account for nearly 96 %

of the total telecom subscriptions.

According to TRAI currently there are 5 lakh telecom towers and it is estimated that around

one lakh additional towers would be required to cater the need of ONE billion mobile

telephones by 2014. There are 12-14 telecom service providers catering to total projected

wireless subscriber base all the over the country covering both GSM (Global System for

Mobile Communications) and CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) technologies.

Need

Since the inception of cell phones in the 1990s, thousands of studies have been published

reporting biological and health effects of wireless radiation, even at exposure levels hundreds

or thousands of times lower than current safety standards. The reported effects include cancer

(especially brain tumours), impaired brain and nervous functions, sperm damages,

behavioural problems in children, to list a few.

Existing Legislations by various different governments across the

world.

While it is still in open debate whether there is a definitive risk of brain tumour or other

adverse health effects from long-term exposure to wireless radiation, many governments

adopted a precautionary approach on this issue and have recommended measures to minimize

wireless radiation exposure of their citizens.

5

In the UK, the Minister for Public Health established the Independent Expert Group to assess

the health risks of mobile phone radiation in Great Britain. Among the conclusions, the report

stated, “It is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below

national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in

knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.”

The French Government following a similar intense review of research recommended in

January 2001 that users should adopt: “An approach based on the Precautionary Principle

with the general overall objective of reducing average exposure of the public to the lowest

possible level.”

In Switzerland, the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) states: “The effects of

radiation from mobile telephony on brain function and the occurrence of brain tumours are

currently under investigation. Until such time as reliable research findings are available, it is

advisable to minimize exposure of the head to radiation” (Swiss Federal Office of Public

Health 2009c). The FOPH specifically advices that “When buying a mobile phone, make sure

it has a low SAR.”

The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz (BfS)

2008d) has been advocating a cell phone SAR safety level of 0.6 W/kg (BfS 2008b) and

recommended citizens to “Use cell phones with a low SAR value.”

In April 2012, the Israeli parliament passed a law that requires all cell phones sold in Israel

to bear a health hazard warning label that reads: “Warning—the Health Ministry cautions

that heavy use and carrying the device next to the body may increase the risk of cancer,

especially among children.”

In the U.S., in March 2013, the FCC started a comprehensive review of its existing

guidelines related to health and safety of radiofrequency (RF) emissions from radio

transmitters and issued a Notice of Inquiry to request comment to determine whether its 15-

year-old guidelines needed to be reassessed and revised.

The Indian government’s new SAR regulation came in a context of heightened international

concerns on the health consequences of wireless radiation, therefore, as a precautionary

6

measure various standards for radiation from mobile towers have been formulated by

Department of Telecom (DoT), Government of India in India, based on International

Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines (issued by Germany

& adopted by UK, Australia, Malaysia, India and Korea).

Consequent to the revision of EMF radiation norms by Department of Telecommunications

(DoT), Indian Standards are now 10 times more stringent than many countries (like USA,

Canada, Japan and Australia) in the world which follow ICNIRP guidelines. A number of

countries have specified their own radiation levels keeping in mind the environmental and

physiological factors.

The International Standards are provided at Table 1 as below;

International Exposure limits for EMF in W/m2 (1800 MHz)

12 USA, Canada and Japan

9.2 ICNIRP and EU Recommendation (1998)

9 Australia

2.4 Belgium

1.0 Italy and Israel

0.5 Auckland, New Zealand

0.45 Luxembourg

0.4 China

0.2 Russia and Bulgaria

0.1 Poland, Paris, Hungary and sensitive areas of

Italy

0.095 Switzerland

0.09 ECOLOG (1998) Germany (Precaution

Recommendation Only)

0.001 Australia

7

Effects of Ecosystem

In 1960, neuroscientist Allan Frey, then with Cornell University’s General Electric Advanced

Electronics Centre, became curious about the impact on the nervous system of

electromagnetic fields moving at the speed of light. Long before cell phones were

commercialized, his findings would eventually prove that radio frequency radiation has a

measurable effect on the brain—and attempts were made by the powers-that-be to suppress

his work in ways that uncannily echo the ways such results are being marginalized today.

Among other key results, Frey determined that the carrier wave of 1,900 megahertz—

precisely the same wavelength used by many cell phones today—had significant biological

effects.

Inject a mouse with a fluorescent dye into its blood and the entire body and all of the organs

fluoresce—except for the brain, which remains pink-gray. Research in the 1920s had shown

why: The brain is protected from taking in poisons or contaminants that get into the

bloodstream due to a barrier appropriately known as the “blood-brain barrier.”

But Frey found something interesting. He showed that weak radio frequency signals—just

like those from today’s cell phones—opened up this normally closed barrier. Frey first

injected the dye into the bloodstream of rats and then exposed them to very weak pulsed

microwave signals. Within a few minutes, the injected rats’ brains began to fluoresce,

signalling that the blood-brain barrier had been breached. Frey’s studies were reported in the

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences in 1975.

Soon after two other labs, using other blood-brain-barrier study techniques, showed similar

effects of radio frequency radiation.

But there were some in the military and industry who didn’t want to accept that such

radiation could have any biological impact. For example, several “critiques” of the effect that

8

Frey had discovered completely ignored relevant information. Frey himself recalls the falsity

of some critiques. One group claimed to have repeated his team’s rat studies and said they

found nothing. However, instead of injecting the dye into the femoral vein so it would go

directly to the heart and into the brain in seconds, as Frey had, they injected it into the

abdomen. They sprayed it onto the intestines. Within five minutes they killed the animals and

looked at the brain. They reported that they found no evidence that the dye had gone into the

brain. Of course not! There have been many studies confirming and extending Frey’s work

since then.

In later years, Frey has noted the intensity of pressure during the Cold War to stay away from

studies that suggested that low-intensity radio frequency radiation had biological impacts of

any kind. More than three decades later, recalling attempts to discredit his work, Frey has

said, “What happened then was a naked use of power to try to discredit what had been basic

scientific work because it did not comport with what some people in the military and industry

wanted to hear.” Security concerns during the Cold War may have led to the generation of

misunderstanding on the physiological effects of microwave radiation from mobile phones.

Today’s researchers are still fighting the battle Frey waged in the 1970s.

As of late, the medical School of the University of Massachusetts tried to replicate the above

mentioned experiment. They simply altered one small detail. They studied and analysed DNA

from hair roots exposed to cell phone radiation.  Study found significant DNA damage to hair

roots exposed to 900 MHz mobile phone radiation.

DNA breaks were observed in hair root cells of human subjects exposed to 15 minutes and 30

minutes of radio-frequency radiation.

Length of unravelled DNA reveals biological impact.  The longer the tail, the greater the

impact.

For an easier and comprehensive analysis, I present the various bands which are used by

Mobile phones of today’s age.

2G Capabilities GSM 900, GSM 1800

3G Capabilities UMTS 2100

4G Capabilities LTE 850 (5), LTE 1800 (3), LTE 2300 (40)

9

Case Laws and Judicial Approach

In view of above and as the number of public complaints on aesthetics, health issues

concerning radiation hazards and safety of Mobile Tower Base Stations (MTBS) (frequently

referred to as telecom towers), this section summarises legal aspects on the subject of

radiation.

The Indian Wireless Act, 1933: “wireless communication means any transmission,

omission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds, or intelligence of

any nature by means of electricity, magnetism, or Radio waves or Hertzian waves,

without the use of wires or other continuous electrical conductors between the

transmitting and the receiving apparatus. Explanation:- Radio waves or Hertzian

waves means electromagnetic waves of frequencies lower than 3,000 gigacycles per

second propagated in space without artificial guide”

However, under The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 it is mentioned that “ ‘telegraph’

means any appliance, instrument, material or apparatus used or capable of use for

transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or intelligence

of any nature by wire, visual or other electro-magnetic emissions, radio waves or

Hertzian waves, galvanic, electric or magnetic means.”

Under The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, it is mentioned that

‘telecommunication service’ means service of any description (including electronic

mail, voice mail, data services, audio text services, video text services, radio paging

and cellular mobile telephone services) which is made available to users by means of

10

any transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or

intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, visual or other electro-magnetic means

but shall not include broadcasting services.”

Jurisdiction of Regulatory authorities (CPCB/SPCBs) with reference to

installations of Mobile Tower Base Stations (MTBS)

As per the studies conducted by MoEF on radiation from Mobile Tower Base Station, no

conclusion can be arrived at to ascertain that radiation from mobile tower is exclusively

responsible for health hazards. The impact of Mobile Tower (MT) antenna radiations on the

environment has been drawing constant attention due to increasing public concern on

radiation from mobile towers installations particularly in urban areas which are subjected to

various environmental impacts due to varying lifestyles influenced by ex. Noise from TV /

music systems etc., vehicular traffic, dwelling units are in close proximity, activities in the

nearby vicinity etc. Several media reports, public complaints besides RTI and court cases are

also being forwarded to Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), State Pollution Control

Board (SPCB) / Pollution Control Committees (PCCs) on installations of MTBS.

The following are salient points that highlight the role of regulatory agencies in the area of

installations of Mobile Tower Base Stations (MTBS);

Under The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986 ‘air pollutant’ is defined as:

‘ any solid, liquid or gaseous substance [(including noise)] present in the atmosphere

in such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to human beings or other

living creatures or plants or property or environment’1.

‘No person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, establish or take

any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal

system or an extension or addition thereto’ as per section 25/26 of the Water

(Prevention & Control of 6 Pollution) Act, 1974 and /or under section 21/22 of the

Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act.

For the user end of MTBS, the user has to seek consent from the concerned SPCBs /

PCCs for installation of the DG sets which is a source of power supply. The

1 Note: ‘radiations’ is excluded from the above definition that includes Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) emitted from mobile tower, a non-air pollutant.”

11

regulatory agency ensures that the DG sets functions as per approved guidelines with

respect to emission & noise.

The Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules , 2000 states that ‘Whereas

increasing ambient noise levels in public places from various sources inter-alia,

industrial activity, construction activity , (fire crackers , sound producing

instruments ), generator sets, loud speakers, public address systems, music systems,

vehicular horns and other mechanical devices have deleterious effect on human health

& psychological wellbeing of the people, it is considered necessary to regulate &

control of noise producing & generating sources with the objective of maintaining the

ambient air quality standards in respect of NOISE’.

o Noise is an ‘air pollutant’ and is covered under the E (P) Act , 1986 and under

Noise Rules 2000

o As per guidelines under Schedule I, Environment (Protection) Act 1986 for

every DG set(up to 800 KW), the following abatement measures applicable to

the manufacturer’s within Indian territory until & unless it is exempted

otherwise :

Abatement for DG noise: mandatory as per GSR 371 (E ) dated 17th

May 2002 (Schedule I , Sl )

Abatement of Emissions: mandatory as per GSR 371 (E ) dated 17th

May 2002 (Schedule I , Sl )

12

Conclusion

The question receiving most attention is whether RF field exposure is involved in

carcinogenesis. The previous opinion stated that, based on epidemiological findings, mobile

phone use for less than ten years is not associated with cancer incidence. Regarding longer

use, it was deemed difficult to make an estimate since few persons had used mobile phones

for more than ten years.

Since then, a few additional epidemiological studies have been published. Unfortunately they

do not significantly extend the exposure period. These studies do not change this assessment.

New improved studies on the association between RF fields from broadcast transmitters and

childhood cancer provide evidence against such an association.

Animal studies show that RF fields similar to those from mobile phones, alone or in

combination with known carcinogenic factors, are not carcinogenic in laboratory rodents.

Certain studies have also employed higher exposure levels (up to 4 W/kg), still with no

apparent effects on tumour development.

Furthermore, the in vitro studies regarding genotoxicity fail to provide evidence for an

involvement of RF field exposure in DNA-damage.

It is concluded from three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, animal and in vitro

studies) that exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans.

However, as the widespread duration of exposure of humans to RF fields from mobile phones

is shorter than the induction time of some cancers, further studies are required to identify

13

whether considerably longer-term (well beyond ten years) human exposure to such phones

might pose some cancer risk.

Some national radiation advisory authorities, including those of Austria, France, Germany,

and Sweden, have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens. Examples

of the recommendations are:

Use hands-free to decrease the radiation to the head.

Keep the mobile phone away from the body.

Do not use telephone in a car without an external antenna.

Bibliography

Websites Referred: -

1. http://telecomtalk.info/frequency-bands-used-india-telecommunication/132738/

2. http://www.gsmarena.com/network-bands.php3?sCountry=INDIA

3. http://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/biological-impact-of-cell-phone-

radiation/

4. http://www.livemint.com/Politics/D6xWjiKriDCZcIvzWlm4zL/Pollution-

watchdog-flags-mobile-tower-radiation-hazards.html

5. http://www.pongcase.com/blog/indian-governments-regulation-wireless-radiation-

worldwide-call-precaution/#sthash.UiOitc85.PqlxRVsK.dpbs

6. http://www.cpcb.nic.in/Note_Mobile_Tower_Radiation_UPCD_Div.pdf

Research Papers Referred: -

1. http://www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p1043.pdf

2. http://www.ipsonet.org/proceedings/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Paper-11-Cell-

Phones-Electromagnetic-Radiation-and-Cancer.pdf

3. http://indramusic.ro/cell-phone-radiation-research-paper

4. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=7125030

Books Referred: -

1. Zapped: Why Your Cell Phone Shouldn't Be Your Alarm Clock and 1,268 Ways to

Outsmart the Hazards of Electronic Pollution. By Ann Louise Gittleman.

2. Disconnect: The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to

Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family. By Devra Davis.

14

3. Wireless Radiation Rescue: safeguarding your family from the risks of electro-

pollution by Kerry Crofton.

4. Cell Phones and The Dark Deception: Find out What You're Not Being Told...And

Why by Carleigh Cooper

5. Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age: An Insider's Alarming

Discoveries about Cancer and Genetic Damage by Dr. George Carlo and Dr. Martin

Schram

15