Risks from cell tower/phone radiation are negligible

You are here: Home » Panorama » ‘Risks from cell tower/phone radiation are negligible’

‘Risks from cell tower/phone radiation are negligible’

K S Parthasarathy, March 18, 2013

 

Cell phone use has registered a phenomenal increase over the past few years. People have begun attributing all types of major and minor diseases and symptoms to the highly visibly cell towers. A document  titled ‘Report on cell tower radiation’ submitted to the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) by the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay was particularly scary. It is freely accessible.

Using cherry-picked references, the report invented countless risks and exaggerated a few. The World Health Organisation (WHO) or other specialist institutions such as the National Institute of Cancer do not support them.

This writer sent  excerpts from the IIT report to Dr Kari Jokela, a Member of the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and research professor at the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Finland. ICNIRP is the standard setting body for non ionizing radiation. Dr Jokela  promptly showed that  the IIT report’s interpretations of ICNIRP guidelines are incorrect.

Most  countries enforce ICNIRP Guidelines. On a recommendation from an Inter Ministerial Committee (IMC), India is enforcing a radiation limit of one tenth of the ICNIRP guidelines, nation-wide.

The member scientist, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) persuaded the committee to reduce the values. He argued that Indians have lower body mass index, lower fat content etc. Factors such as low body mass index, potentially higher thermal sensitivity in certain population groups, such as the frail and/elderly, infants and young children extreme weather conditions besides several other variables are already included by the ICNIRP. (ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure to time varying electric and electromagnetic fields (up ot 300GHz ) Health Physics 74(4) : 494-522; 1998).

Lowering the  guidelines for cell tower/phone radiation is a symbolic gesture because ‘people’ wanted it. It appears to be a bad precedent as matters in which specialists participate must be decided on scientific merit  and not on popular sentiment.

The IMC noted that measured radiation levels even in metro cities are hundreds of times lower than the ICNIRP reference levels. It asserted that safety standards should be rational and should avoid excessive safety margins. In spite of these sound arguments and the fact that the ICNRIP guidelines themselves have a safety factor of 50, the IMC lowered the radiation levels on highly speculative reasons. With the new stipulation, the safety factor in DoT guidelines is 500.

Great disservice

The IMC did a great disservice by listing selectively many reports which showed adverse effects while ignoring many reports which did not show any adverse impact. IMC did say that there is no conclusive proof of harm from cell tower radiation. Scare mongers are now demanding lower levels. The committee unwittingly gave a handle to them.

Some agents organised ‘workshops,’ made presentations in metro cities, and fanned the fire. They cited anecdotal evidence of vague symptoms such as joint pains, sleeplessness and cancer among those who resided near cell towers.

Unlike x-rays or gamma rays, cell tower radiation has a million times less energy. It cannot damage the cells in the body to change some of them into rogue cells with no rules or its own rules to multiply uncontrollably to form cancer. It may just warm up the tissue. Physically, cell tower radiation is not capable of inducing cancer in human body.  Never mind there is no scientific evidence. In the guise of saving persons suffering from a laundry list of diseases, agents  masquerading as experts started  selling expensive shields and screens against radiation!

 The IIT report wrongly  claimed that  the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limit for cell phones — a safety standard of 1.6 W per kg — is actually for six minutes per-day usage!  so do not use phones  for more than 18-20 minutes daily, the report cautioned. With large clusters of cell towers erected everywhere, the report's author claimed that Mumbai is like an open microwave oven!

Many reporters uncritically publicised the dramatic but wrong sound bites from scare mongers. A cell phone kept near the ear will cause a small increase in temperature in regions close to the phone. Thermoregulatory mechanisms such as blood flow remove the heat establishing equilibrium in about six minutes. Thereafter, there will not be any increase in temperature. The six-minute interval is the time the body’s defence takes to reach equilibrium temperature. So, it is patently absurd to say that using a phone longer multiplies the risk.

What is the increase in temperature of  a person exposed to cellular radiation at the level of ICNIRP limit? In response to this writer’s query, Dr Mike Repacholi, Chairman, Emeritus, ICNIRP  stated that temperature increase in the human body exposed at the level of ICNIRP standards could not exceed 0.1° C. At DOT levels, it will be 0.01°C! Obviously, Mumbai is not an open microwave oven!.

The review of levels measured nationwide shows that though highly conservative, the DoT levels can be enforced effectively. Internet contains all types of information. But trust only those from authentic sources such as the WHO. You should not listen to scare mongers and lose sleep over the alleged risks from cell tower radiation.
(The writer is a former secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board)

Report on cell tower radiation contains factual errors, mis-information and hoaxes

Report on cell tower radiation contains factual errors, mis-information and hoaxes
A professor of electrical engineering from the Indian Institute of technology, Bombay wrote a document titled "Report on cell tower radiation" and submitted it to the Department of Telecommunication (DOT). Apart from several unsubstantiated comments and wrong interpretation of concepts, the report contains news stories in a subsection titled "Epidemiological studies from different countries".
One story was from Australia. Thus:
"The top floors of a Melbourne office building were closed down and 100 people were evacuated after a seventh worker in seven years was diagnosed with a brain tumour. The Australian Health Research Institute indicates that due to billions of times more in volume electromagnetic radiation emitted by billions of mobile phones, internet, intranet and wireless communication
data transmission, almost one-third of world population (about 2 billion) may suffer from Cell Phone Cancer beside other major body disorders like heart ailments, impotency, migraine,epilepsy by 2020."
I sent excerpts of the report to many specialists. "I was responsible for carrying out the EMR measurements at the building.  The final result was that the incidence of cancer in that building was the same as the general population." Mr, Chris Zombolas, the Managing Director of EMC Technologies Pty Limited, an internationally recognized company,  accredited by National Association of testing Authorities (NATA), Australia,  responded to this writer
"I believe that this is an alarmist report with many factual and technical errors.  The assertions are made without proper evidence from peer reviewed publications.", Mr Zombolas added.
"What is the reputation of the Australian Health  Research Institute?" this writer asked him.  I also asked him whether he can give  any reference or publication  conceding that the cancer incidence in the building which was evacuated  was the same as the national rate.
Mr Zombolas asserted that he has never heard  of The Australian Health Research Institute. But he sent this writer a link which claims that it is a hoax. Me Zombolas found many errors in the tables listing guidelines for cell tower radiation in different countries.
 So, the IIT report is based on significant factual errors regarding limits in other countries, mis-information regarding cancer clusters and hoaxes!!
Regarding the evacuated building in Melbourne, Mr Zombolas sent the announcement from a reputable source that it was not a cancer cluster. You may access the report at:
 http://www.virtualmedicalcentre.com/news/the-melbourne-university-at-the-centre-of-a-brain-tumour-scare-has-again-been-cleared-of-harbouring-a-cancer-cluster/8935
THE Melbourne university at the centre of a brain tumour scare has again been cleared of harbouring a cancer cluster.
An independent study found there was no evidence of a cancer cluster at RMIT University's Building 108 in central Melbourne.The top two floors of the building, at 239 Bourke Street, were closed for more than two months earlier this year after tumours were found in two staff members.
Fears were raised that the tumours - among 16 to be detected in staff working in the building - were linked to two mobile phone towers on the roof. But RMIT today said independent occupational health and medical experts had confirmed there was no evidence of a cancer cluster among staff or students on levels 16 and 17 of the building. The results support the findings of an earlier medical report.
Dr John Gall, of Southern Medical Services, conducted medical consultations with many of the staff working in the building and dismissed fears of a cancer cluster on the upper levels. Dr Gall also said there was no evidence to support investigating the presence of a cancer cluster on levels 3-15 of the building. He said that the number of malignancies among staff was significantly lower than the number expected in a similar population and the tumours were of widely differing types. RMIT University Vice-President (Resources) and chief operating officer Steve Somogyi welcomed the results of the investigation.
"This confirms that in terms of brain cancer risks, the building is a safe place for work and study, no different from any other building in central Melbourne," Mr Somogyi said."The past few months have been stressful for staff and students using Building 108. I am confident that this update will clear the way for a return to normal operations in 2007."
The findings were supported by Associate Professor Tony LaMontagne, of the University of Melbourne, who chairs the independent peer review panel examining Dr Gall's findings. A medical report in August found that of the 16 tumours diagnosed in staff working in the building, six were benign, six were malignant and the other four were deemed to have been caused by external factors. Environmental tests carried out on the building following the closure found radiation levels were within safe and normal limits, ruling out the possibility that mobile phone towers on the roof had caused the tumours. (Source: University of Melbourne and Southern Medical Services : The Australian : December 20,2006.)
Stories on cancer clusters and other diseases  near cell phone towers are spread by vested interests selling screens, shields etc against cell tower radiation. News papers unwittingly help them by publishing such unsubstantiated stories.
A typical example from the blog of such a company: "Do your family members feel nauseated or irritated at the simplest events? Is your child unable to concentrate on his/her studies? Is your home near a mobile phone tower? May be, it’s time to get your house inspected for radiation levels and replace your cotton curtains with options that could block radiation."
The WHO is aware of  scary stories on increased cancer incidence near cell towers and noted thus in its Fact Sheet No 304:
“Media or anecdotal reports of cancer clusters around mobile phone base stations have heightened public concern. It should be noted that geographically, cancers are unevenly distributed among any population. Given the widespread presence of base stations in the environment, it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near base stations merely by chance. Moreover, the reported cancers in these clusters are often a collection of different types of cancer with no common characteristics and hence unlikely to have a common cause.”
If any person masquerading as an expert talks about cancer, sleeplessness, hormonal disturbance etc and attribute them to cell tower radiation, please ask him whether he has any shield, curtain or paint against such radiation; chances are that he has. He will show you a price list! He will say that he developed them as he himself suffered from the health effects of cell tower radiation.

About Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

About  Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
A journalist friend asked me about the achievements of  the  Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). I shall attempt  a brief update on the topic.
I recall that, as if, it was yesterday.  In 1987, the  Atomic Energy Act 1962 was amended to set up the NPCIL as a government company. The Mission of the Company is ‘To develop nuclear power technology and to produce nuclear power as a safe, environmentally benign and economically viable source of electrical energy to meet the increasing electricity needs of the country’.
An achievement which makes it unique in the world is the development of  a team of  engineers and scientists dedicated to the nuclear power programme. Over the years, NPCIL built up a sound and rich programme of human source development. The group consists of young and middle aged engineers confident to face challenges. All countries with advanced nuclear technology could not retain trained manpower. Their nuclear programme was stagnant. With possibilities of new build, they had to recruit man power during a short period. There was dearth of manpower. For instance, only a few universities only offer nuclear engineering programme.
The second achievement is in developing expertise in mega project management in its entirety. By systematic analysis NPCIL, could cut down admirably the time from ground breaking to final operation of nuclear power projects. This is vital for the economic viability of nuclear power projects. Longer gestation periods will lead to cost overruns.
NPCIL encouraged  many private sector companies to perform as per international benchmarks. When it sought collaboration many rose to the occasion. Several of them set up the right infrastructure to produce systems and components as per stringent specification. They remain in business by constant innovation.
NPCIL  presently operates  20 nuclear power reactors with an installed capacity of 4780 MW. The reactor fleet  consists of two Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) and eighteen Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs)  including one 100 MW PHWR at Rajasthan which is owned by DAE, Government of India. Currently it has six reactors under various stages of construction totaling 4800 MW capacity out of which one reactor of 1000 MW capacity at Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu, is in the final stage of commissioning.
NPCIL’s latest report card highlights  several records in the safe operation of nuclear power plants. For instance, ten reactors of the company have run non-stop for more than one year. Among them, the Unit-2 of Tarapur Atomic Power Station has run continuously for 590 days, a notable achievement. So far NPCIL has consistently maintained overall availability factor of reactors above 80% for several years and in the year 2011-12 it was 91%.
NPCIL registered  the highest level of credit rating (AAA rating by CRISIL and CARE)
NPCIL is trying to face the new challenges thrown in by the globalization of nuclear power. NPCIL has to  review nuclear power reactors of newer designs; they have to prepare the grounds for several megaprojects; participate actively for deciding the costs of reactors imported from different countries. Evaluation how much of indigenization  is possible to reduce costs, coordination  with  the State Governments for land acquisitions, infrastructure developments among others.
NPCIL’s Public awareness programmes registered new heights. This is one area where the needs are limitless!
NPCI  has a dedicated R & D group, developing techniques and technologies  to address various  issues.

The WHO violated the recommendation of the UN scientific committee on the effects of  atomic radiation (UNSCEAR)

Posted on March 2, 2013 by ksparthasarathy

By publishing the estimate of  risks from  Fukushima accident, in its report titled “Health risk Assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami” released on February 28,2013 the WHO has violated  an important principle recommended by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation(UNSCEAR).

Some explanation is due in this context. The estimates of health risks from Fukushima accident published by the WHO are based on the Linear-No-Threshold(LNT)hypothesis. This hypothesis was introduced as a simple basis in radiation protection. Specialists knew it’s limitations.

During May 2012, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has submitted a report to the UN General Assembly. In this report,  the UNSCEAR clearly stated that it  “does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels”.

The UNSCEAR has the remit to make appropriate radiation protection related recommendations to the United Nations.

To be fair to the authors of the WHO report, the draft WHO report must have been prepared before the UNSCEAR gave its report to the United Nations. However it is difficult to imagine that the authors were not aware of the recommendation.

Chances are that this estimate will be the last one of its kind.

The UNSCEAR recommendation is not anything new. The US Health Physics Society has published a position paper on the topic as early as 1996. It published the same in revised form in 2004.

Thus:
” In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem above that received from natural sources. Doses from  natural background radiation in the United States average about 0.3 rem per year. A dose of 5  rem will be accumulated in the first 17 years of life and about 25 rem in a lifetime of 80 years. Estimation of health risk associated with radiation doses that are of similar magnitude as those received from natural sources should be strictly qualitative and encompass a range of  hypothetical health outcomes, including the possibility of no adverse health effects at such low levels.
There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks following high-dose  exposures. However, below 5–10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental  exposures) risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent.”

The UNSCEAR report has logically presented its recommendation and the context in which it was made. It is ironic that while Green Peace argued that the WHO underestimated the risks, the Japanese Government protested saying that the WHO report overestimated the risk stroking fears among the exposed people. It is impossible to have a deterministic answer to a probabilistic question.

The WHO report also should have stated that at the low doses the probability of the risk being zero cannot be overruled. Either way it will be very difficult for the public to understand the nuances of the issue.

The contribution from natural radiation at different places vary significantly. For instance, in Maharashtra it is as low as 0.4 mSv, Andhra Pradesh 1 mSv; in the high background radiation areas of Kerala and Tamil Nadu it may very well be 10 to 15 times higher. In parts of Iran it is 100 times higher.

The increase in  radiation levels due to the accident at Fukushima is of the same order or even less than these values. Those who are knowledgeable will not lose sleep on possible additional risk due to these dose levels. Calculating risk based on the assumption that risk is linearly proportional to dose ignores the repair of radiation damage at low doses. Some mavericks (they are no more a minority!) may argue that exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation may lead to reduction in cancer rates. It will be practically impossible to prove or disprove any of these statements so long as we do not have some unique bio-marker which indicates those cancer caused by radiation.