Cell phone radiation: Tower of Discontent

A plea by a cancer-stricken man led the apex court to direct BSNL to deactivate one of its mobile towers. But it raises complex legal and scientific questions

~By Venkatasubramanian

Harish Chand Tiwari is a full-time domestic help employed by the family of one late Prakash Sharma in Dal Bazaar, Gwalior. He suffers from cancer and on March 30, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha came to his rescue by directing Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) to deactivate one of its cell phone towers, located near the home where Tiwari was employed, within seven days.

Reason: Tiwari had alleged in his writ petition before the Court that his exposure to electromagnetic radiation from the tower since 2002 caused him cancer, and it continued to make his complete recovery uncertain.

There has been no conclusive study establishing the correlation between cell phone radiation and cancer. At the same time, there has been no objective study showing that cell phone radiation is safe and is not harmful to human beings. It is this latter contention that tilted the scales in favour of an interim direction from the Supreme Court for deactivation of BSNL’s cell phone tower at Gwalior.

The Supreme Court is yet to hear Tiwari and the mobile phone companies’ defence fully (the association of mobile phone companies is a respondent in this case), but it appears to have found merit in his plea to rely on Precautionary Principle in order to provide interim relief.

Precautionary Principle is a strategy to cope with possible risks where scientific understanding is incomplete. Simply put, the principle states that when human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions can be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.

Although BSNL’s cell phone tower at Gwalior was emitting radiation since 2002, Tiwari appears to have assumed the correlation between it and his disease only after its diagnosis. On September 17, 2013, two big glandular swellings were noticed on Tiwari’s neck. He was referred to Gwalior Civil Hospital for biopsy, where he was operated on and the tissue slide sent for histopathology.

In India, no guidelines existed until 2008 when the norms fixed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection were accepted

As the histopathology report was indicative of “Granulomatous Lymphadenitis” tubercular glands, Tiwari was administered TB medication for a year. But he redeveloped the gland at the same place. As he was under medication for TB, an FNAC (needle) test was conducted instead of an operation.

On February 12, 2015, the FNAC report for Tiwari pointed towards cancer and further confirmative test, including removal of the gland, was advised. On March 3, 2015, he was diagnosed with “Hodgkins Lymphoma”. Tiwari was administered chemotherapy for four months, followed by radiotherapy for two months. On September 6, 2015, after completion of radiotherapy, he was put on oral medication to prevent recurrence.

On December 1, 2015, Tiwari was declared cured, but his doctors opined that reoccurrence of the disease could not be ruled out. Among the factors which Tiwari believed would come in the way of his complete recovery was his continued exposure to the BSNL’s cell phone radiation.

The tower, installed by BSNL on the roof of the premises owned by Padam Gupta and adjoining the home where Tiwari was employed, was the source of friction between Gupta and Tiwari’s employer, Prakash Sharma, before the latter’s demise in April 2006. Sharma’s efforts to bring his concerns to the attention of local authorities and BSNL proved in vain.

Tiwari filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court in 2016 and it raised significant issues. He contended that the state has a constitutional obligation to oversee and ensure that telecom networks follow prescribed limits of radiation from cell phone towers.

He submitted that there was a dispute over whether EMF/EMR (Electro Magnetic Force/Electro Magnetic Radiation) above certain levels can trigger biological effects. Further, he said that WHO had opined that there were gaps in knowledge about biological effects, which needed further research.

More importantly, Tiwari revealed that current guidelines being followed by the stakeholders permit self-certification regarding radiation emission levels. Self-certification, he suggested, is against India’s public policy, and needs to be changed to a reliable third party certification.

Another writ petition filed by Naresh Chand Gupta, a medical practitioner, has revealed that the norms regarding exposure limits of radiation from cell phones and towers followed in India are many times below the standards of those adopted in other countries and recommended by scientific studies.

In India, there were no guidelines whatsoever to limit the radiation density until 2008 when India accepted the norms fixed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. However, it failed to allay public fear, leading to its revision in 2013, whereby the radiation limit was reduced to one-tenth of the then existing norm.

Gupta cited several scientific studies establishing the correlation between cell phone radiation and the ill-effects on people’s health.

In 2010, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) constituted an expert committee to study the impact of EMR/RFR on wildlife and environment. It recommended that EMF should be recognised as a pollutant and its regular auditing should be conducted in urban localities/ educational/ hospital/ industrial/ residential/ recreational premises and around protected and ecologically sensitive areas. The committee further recommended mandatory public consultation before installing a cell tower in any area.

In 2010, an inter-ministerial committee of the central government recommended imposition of restrictions on installation of mobile towers near high density residential areas, schools, playgrounds and hospitals.

In his writ petition, Tiwari alleged that his exposure to electromagnetic radiation from the cell phone tower since 2002 caused him cancer

It also recommended continuous monitoring of radiation from cell towers and employing low power transmitters to reduce exposure to radiation.

The committee’s report and the one on impact of communication towers on birds and bees have categorically concluded that radiation has harmful effects on humans and the environment and that entire colonies of bees have collapsed and sparrows disappeared from most cities like Delhi.

The WHO has, in fact, classified the electromagnetic radiation as “possibly cacogenic”. And in 2011, WHO recognised the association between increased risk of brain cancer and cell phone use.

In 2012, a committee constituted by the Department of Telecommunications, re-commended restrictions on installation of BTS (Base Transceiver Station) towers within the compounds of schools and hospitals as children and the patients might be more susceptible to the possible effects of electro-magnetic radiation.

In 2014, the parliamentary standing committee in the Lok Sabha on Information Technology deplored callousness on the part of DoT in not being abreast with the practices followed in other countries which adopted emission norms lower than those allowed in India.

The panel also deprecated the practice of DoT to rely on self-certification by telecom providers which can change the parameters at any time. It also noticed that there was only one laboratory in India to ensure compliance with radiation norms by cell phone manufacturers.

In 2015, the parliamentary standing committee in the Rajya Sabha on science and technology, environment and forests noted that Indians were more vulnerable to radiation due to their low body-mass index and low fat content. It suggested low power transmitters in lieu of the present-day cell towers.

With its known impact on environment, radiation from cell phone towers must have been the concern of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). Ironically, the NGT evaded consideration of the issue on the ground that EMR is not classified as a pollutant under the Environment Protection Act. This led the petitioner before the NGT, Bhupesh Sehgal, to approach the Supreme Court on an appeal. This has now been tagged with the other two petitions.

Will some light radiate from this issue?