On
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Prof. Girish Kumar
Dear Kalyan Parbat,
It was nice talking to you yesterday. Reply to your questions:
1. Is radiation from telecom towers injurious to health ? The DoT claims
India's EMF exposure norms are among the most stringent in the world and
conform to the global safety standards set by WHO and ICNIRP? Do you agree ?
If not, why and which countries have adopted even more stringent mobile tower radiation norms
than India ? Please give examples. Have such regulations undermined
the quality of mobile coverage in those countries ?
Radiation from telecom towers is injurious to health depending upon the
signal strength and exposure time. Please see Slide 37 of attached file.
India has adopted 1/10th of ICNIRP guidelines, which comes out to be
470 milliwatts/sq.m for GSM900 and 920 milliwatts/sq.m for GSM1800.
The most stringent norm in the world is adopted by Austria, which is
1.0 milliwatts/sq.m. Please see Slide 23.
ICNIRP guidelines are only for short term exposure and not for long term.
In fact, it is only for 6 minutes. Please see Slide 19. So, 1/10th is
valid only for 60 minutes = 1 hour per day.
For example, FCC Guidelines are (Please see Slide 20):
Safe Power density = f/300 averaged over 6 min exposure.
Safe power density = f/1500 averaged over 30 min exposure.
Time of exposure increased by 5 times, Safe power density decrease by 5 times.
In other countries, they use larger number of low power trasnmitters.
2. Both the Department of Telecom (DoT) and the Inter-Ministerial Committee
on EMF radiation claim there is no convincing scientific evidence that
radiation from cellphone towers and wireless networks cause adverse health effects ? In fact, the IMC
report notes that although some studies have
reportedly linked EMF radiation and health disorders -- ie effects on cell growth, cell differentiation, on DNA, immune system, hormonal effects,
side-affects on reproduction, neurological, cardiovascular systems --
it says these conclusions were deemed inconclusive as these studies were
few and far between. Please comment.
There are plenty of scientific evidence that radiation from cellphone towers and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.
I had submitted report to Secretary, DOT in Dec. 2010 and had given
references of nearly 200 scientific/technical papers showing adverse effects.
Expert Group of 10 people in India submitted a report on "Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife including Birds and Bees" to environment Ministry in Nov.
2011. They went through 919 scientific/technical papers:
Out of 919 papers, 593 papers report Impact, 130 reported No Impact,
and 196 Inconclusive. Please see Slide 35.
Similarly Bio-Initiative report 2012 preapred by 29 scientists from
10 countries went through 1800 papers, and mentioned with certaintity
adverse effects.
It all depends upon which side of the coin one wants to see.
3. Some health experts claim mobile tower radiation is not harmful as it
is weak and non-ionising due to its inability to break ordinary chemical
bonds ? Do you agree ? If not, why?
Continuous exposure to mobile tower radiation is harmful even at a level
of 1.0 milliwatts/sq.m over 5 to 10 years. Please see Slides 25, 31 and 36.
4. You had earlier reportedly suggested that mobile radiation hazards can
be checked in India by increasing the number and height of the towers to
reduce power signals and consequent harm. But don't you think this may be hard to sustain in the long
run amid complaints that towers are already
marring the skyline?
Mobile tower radiation hazards can be checked in India by increasing the number of the towers
and each roof top or tower should transmit max.
1 to 2W of power. Please see Slide 43. People have to decide whether they want to have cell
phone connectivity or too much radiation or too many
towers or may be, more land lines or fiber optic connectivity, and so on.
5. Do you believe DoT's stress on tower infrastructure sharing threatens
to raise mobile radiation levels ?
Tower infrastructure sharing is acceptable provided combined transmitted
power is max. 1 to 2W.
6. Can radiation levels be reduced by mobile phone companies below the
current permissible level without compromising on mobile coverage ?
Radiation levels can be reduced simply by reducing the gain of the
power amplifier or by removing the power amplifier by mobile phone companies. This will affect
the connectivity for some time. Govt should
announce that this is being done for protecting the health of the people.
In the mean time, operators can install more low power transmitting towers. (Please see Slides 43 to 45).
As of now, there are 5 Lakh towers, we may need another 5 lakhs
towers. Each tower costs around 15 lakhs, which will require total
investment of Rs. 75,000 crores. To save that, operators are resisting
tougher radiation norms. However, this cost can be recovered in 3 years
simply by increasing price per minute usage by 5 paise (Rs. 0.05).
Subject: QUESTIONS FROM THE ECONOMIC TIMES FOR SPECIAL
Professor Girish Kumar,
Dept of Electrical Engineering
IIT, Mumbai
Jan 22, 2013
Dear Professor Kumar,
It was wonderful speaking with you this afternoon. As discussed, I am working on an ET
special feature on health concerns relating to telecom towers -- fact or
fiction ?
Below are my questions. I will need your responses by 7 pm tomorrow as we have a very tight
deadline. Since you are among the most nationally renowned campaigners
against
radiation, I am really looking forward to your perspectives to bring out the real story.
Warm regards,
Kalyan Parbat
Assistant Telecom Editor
The Economic Times
Questions:
1. Is radiation from telecom towers injurious to health ? The DoT claims India's EMF
exposure norms are among the most stringent in the world and conform to the
global safety
standards set by WHO and ICNIRP ? Do you agree ?
If not, why and which countries have adopted even more stringent mobile tower radiation
norms than India ? Please give examples. Have such regulations
undermined the
quality of mobile coverage in those countries ?
2. Both the Department of Telecom (DoT) and the Inter-Ministerial Committee on
EMF radiation claim there is no convincing scientific evidence that radiation from
cellphone
towers and wireless networks cause adverse health effects ? In fact, the IMC report notes
that although some studies have reportedly linked EMF radiation and
health
disorders -- ie effects on cell growth, cell differentiation, on DNA, immune system, hormonal
effects, side-affects on reproduction, neurological, cardiovascular
systems --
it says these conclusions were deemed inconclusive as these studies were few and far between.
Please comment.
3. Some health experts claim mobile tower radiation is not harmful as it is weak and
non-ionising due to its inability to break ordinary chemical bonds ? Do you
agree ? If
not, why?
4. You had earlier reportedly suggested that mobile radiation hazards can be checked in
India by increasing the number and height of the towers to reduce power
signals and
consequent harm. But don't you think this may be hard to sustain in the long run amid
complaints that towers are already marring the skyline?
5. Do you believe DoT's stress on tower infrastructure sharing threatens to raise mobile radiation levels ?
6. Can radiation levels be reduced by mobile phone companies below the current permissible
level without compromising on mobile coverage ?
------------------------------------------------------
Dear Kalyan Parbat,
It was nice talking to you yesterday. Reply to your questions:
1. Is radiation from telecom towers injurious to health ? The DoT claims
India's EMF exposure norms are among the most stringent in the world and
conform to the global safety standards set by WHO and ICNIRP? Do you agree ?
If not, why and which countries have adopted even more stringent mobile tower radiation norms
than India ? Please give examples. Have such regulations undermined
the quality of mobile coverage in those countries ?
Radiation from telecom towers is injurious to health depending upon the
signal strength and exposure time. Please see Slide 37 of attached file.
India has adopted 1/10th of ICNIRP guidelines, which comes out to be
470 milliwatts/sq.m for GSM900 and 920 milliwatts/sq.m for GSM1800.
The most stringent norm in the world is adopted by Austria, which is
1.0 milliwatts/sq.m. Please see Slide 23.
ICNIRP guidelines are only for short term exposure and not for long term.
In fact, it is only for 6 minutes. Please see Slide 19. So, 1/10th is
valid only for 60 minutes = 1 hour per day.
For example, FCC Guidelines are (Please see Slide 20):
Safe Power density = f/300 averaged over 6 min exposure.
Safe power density = f/1500 averaged over 30 min exposure.
Time of exposure increased by 5 times, Safe power density decrease by 5 times.
In other countries, they use larger number of low power trasnmitters.
2. Both the Department of Telecom (DoT) and the Inter-Ministerial Committee
on EMF radiation claim there is no convincing scientific evidence that
radiation from cellphone towers and wireless networks cause adverse health effects ? In fact, the IMC
report notes that although some studies have
reportedly linked EMF radiation and health disorders -- ie effects on cell growth, cell differentiation, on DNA, immune system, hormonal effects,
side-affects on reproduction, neurological, cardiovascular systems --
it says these conclusions were deemed inconclusive as these studies were
few and far between. Please comment.
There are plenty of scientific evidence that radiation from cellphone towers and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.
I had submitted report to Secretary, DOT in Dec. 2010 and had given
references of nearly 200 scientific/technical papers showing adverse effects.
Expert Group of 10 people in India submitted a report on "Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife including Birds and Bees" to environment Ministry in Nov.
2011. They went through 919 scientific/technical papers:
Out of 919 papers, 593 papers report Impact, 130 reported No Impact,
and 196 Inconclusive. Please see Slide 35.
Similarly Bio-Initiative report 2012 preapred by 29 scientists from
10 countries went through 1800 papers, and mentioned with certaintity
adverse effects.
It all depends upon which side of the coin one wants to see.
3. Some health experts claim mobile tower radiation is not harmful as it
is weak and non-ionising due to its inability to break ordinary chemical
bonds ? Do you agree ? If not, why?
Continuous exposure to mobile tower radiation is harmful even at a level
of 1.0 milliwatts/sq.m over 5 to 10 years. Please see Slides 25, 31 and 36.
4. You had earlier reportedly suggested that mobile radiation hazards can
be checked in India by increasing the number and height of the towers to
reduce power signals and consequent harm. But don't you think this may be hard to sustain in the long
run amid complaints that towers are already
marring the skyline?
Mobile tower radiation hazards can be checked in India by increasing the number of the towers
and each roof top or tower should transmit max.
1 to 2W of power. Please see Slide 43. People have to decide whether they want to have cell
phone connectivity or too much radiation or too many
towers or may be, more land lines or fiber optic connectivity, and so on.
5. Do you believe DoT's stress on tower infrastructure sharing threatens
to raise mobile radiation levels ?
Tower infrastructure sharing is acceptable provided combined transmitted
power is max. 1 to 2W.
6. Can radiation levels be reduced by mobile phone companies below the
current permissible level without compromising on mobile coverage ?
Radiation levels can be reduced simply by reducing the gain of the
power amplifier or by removing the power amplifier by mobile phone companies. This will affect
the connectivity for some time. Govt should
announce that this is being done for protecting the health of the people.
In the mean time, operators can install more low power transmitting towers. (Please see Slides 43 to 45).
As of now, there are 5 Lakh towers, we may need another 5 lakhs
towers. Each tower costs around 15 lakhs, which will require total
investment of Rs. 75,000 crores. To save that, operators are resisting
tougher radiation norms. However, this cost can be recovered in 3 years
simply by increasing price per minute usage by 5 paise (Rs. 0.05).
Subject: QUESTIONS FROM THE ECONOMIC TIMES FOR SPECIAL
FEATURE ON MOBILE RADIATION RELATED CONCERNS
Professor Girish Kumar,
Dept of Electrical Engineering
IIT, Mumbai
Jan 22, 2013
Dear Professor Kumar,
It was wonderful speaking with you this afternoon. As discussed, I am working on an ET
special feature on health concerns relating to telecom towers -- fact or
fiction ?
Below are my questions. I will need your responses by 7 pm tomorrow as we have a very tight
deadline. Since you are among the most nationally renowned campaigners
against
radiation, I am really looking forward to your perspectives to bring out the real story.
Warm regards,
Kalyan Parbat
Assistant Telecom Editor
The Economic Times
Questions:
1. Is radiation from telecom towers injurious to health ? The DoT claims India's EMF
exposure norms are among the most stringent in the world and conform to the
global safety
standards set by WHO and ICNIRP ? Do you agree ?
If not, why and which countries have adopted even more stringent mobile tower radiation
norms than India ? Please give examples. Have such regulations
undermined the
quality of mobile coverage in those countries ?
2. Both the Department of Telecom (DoT) and the Inter-Ministerial Committee on
EMF radiation claim there is no convincing scientific evidence that radiation from
cellphone
towers and wireless networks cause adverse health effects ? In fact, the IMC report notes
that although some studies have reportedly linked EMF radiation and
health
disorders -- ie effects on cell growth, cell differentiation, on DNA, immune system, hormonal
effects, side-affects on reproduction, neurological, cardiovascular
systems --
it says these conclusions were deemed inconclusive as these studies were few and far between.
Please comment.
3. Some health experts claim mobile tower radiation is not harmful as it is weak and
non-ionising due to its inability to break ordinary chemical bonds ? Do you
agree ? If
not, why?
4. You had earlier reportedly suggested that mobile radiation hazards can be checked in
India by increasing the number and height of the towers to reduce power
signals and
consequent harm. But don't you think this may be hard to sustain in the long run amid
complaints that towers are already marring the skyline?
5. Do you believe DoT's stress on tower infrastructure sharing threatens to raise mobile radiation levels ?
6. Can radiation levels be reduced by mobile phone companies below the current permissible
level without compromising on mobile coverage ?
------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment