{"id":13,"date":"2020-01-13T11:22:38","date_gmt":"2020-01-13T11:22:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/demosites.io\/web-agency-gb\/?p=13"},"modified":"2023-09-15T01:01:24","modified_gmt":"2023-09-15T01:01:24","slug":"mobile-radiation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/think4future.in\/index.php\/2020\/01\/13\/mobile-radiation\/","title":{"rendered":"cell TOWER"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Cell Towers<\/strong> \/ Mobile Towers<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n

An SMS . “\u0b95\u0bbe\u0bb2\u0bbf \u0ba8\u0bbf\u0bb2\u0ba4\u0bcd\u0ba4\u0bbf\u0bb2\u0bcd, 4\u0b9c\u0bbf, WIFI Tower \u0ba8\u0bbf\u0bb1\u0bc1\u0bb5 Advance 30Lakhs + \u0bb5\u0bbe\u0b9f\u0b95\u0bc8 31000\/- Vacant land needed for 4G WIFI Tower installation. Advance of INR 30,00,000\/- + Monthly Rental INR 31,000\/-
call 73038xxxxx\u2026. \u2026\u2026” <\/em>received in my mobile”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I received that sms, because a Mobile Company is spending 3 million rupees = 50,000 USD, approximately on rental space alone, for a single tower in any city. Add to this the Cost of materials, transmitter and uninterrupted Power.  This is an enormous amount spent by the company for cell tower<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is a Cell Tower?<\/strong> A cell tower or mobile tower or cellular base station, is where antennae and electronic communication equipment are placed to send signals for a cellular network.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In suburban areas, the mobile towers are commonly spaced (2\u20133 km) apart and in dense urban areas, they may be as close as 400\u2013800 m. So, Approximately A City of size Bangalore will be having approxiamtely 700 towers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SOME QUESTIONS<\/mark><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Do we think mobile companies are spending so much for just improving our communications?<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Are these companies really bothered about our health?<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Do these mobile towers cause hazards sitting on our roof tops?<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. What are the hazards?<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Why these Hazards are unpreventable?<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Originally developed for the Department of US Defense, cell phones devices were never tested for safety. They were for wars; Not for society. They entered the marketplace due to a regulatory loophole<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Way back in 1990s, in USA,  the cell phone industry set up a non-profit organization, Wireless Technology Research (WTR). They hand picked Dr. George Carlo who was appointed to head WTR\u2019s research efforts.  Dr. Carlo was to submit research papers  to back up  industry\u2019s claim that cell phones are safe. But Dr. Carlo quickly recruited a group of prominent scientists, and also created a peer review board  headed by Harvard\u2019s Dr. John Graham and in total more than 200 doctors and scientists were involved in the project. The program began, but Dr. Carlo soon discovered that phone industry, Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA),  Food and Drug Administration (FDA),  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), all had underlying motives. \u201cThe industry wanted an insurance policy to make the government come out and say everything was fine.\u201d The research continued\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    … And what the project uncovered was a dire warning to cell phone users and this was to the industry\u2019s worst nightmare. When the findings were ready for release in 1998, the scientists were suddenly confronted that the industry wanted to take over public dissemination of the information, and it tried everything  that it did, not to reach public. Toward the end of 1998, Dr. Carlo\u2019s house was mysteriously burned down. Public records show that authorities determined the cause of the blaze was arson, but the case was never solved. Dr. Carlo refuses to discuss the incident. Dr. Carlo soon went \u201cunderground,\u201d shunning the public eye and purposely making himself difficult to find.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Then, later, in 2005 Bioinitiative report<\/strong> sprung up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    If you have time Go through this. Bioinitiative Report<\/a> . or Dr Devra Davi<\/a>s in youtube.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    This Bioinitiative report was prepared by 29 authors from ten countries, of whom there are 10 medical doctors, 21 PhDs, and 3 Msc\/ MA. ( 2 from India Prof. Jitendra Behari & Dr. Paulraj Rajamani, ) The report is of 656 pages and they are serious.<\/strong> There are 606 studies, and in 2012, 112 studies were added proving the ill effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Interphone study<\/strong> in May 2010 reported 5,117 brain tumour cases and stated that people who use cell phones for 30 minutes per day over a duration of eight-ten years, have doubled to quadrupled chances of getting brain tumour, and that\u2019s why it was classified as Class 2B.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    An expert group formed by Environment Ministry, India, submitted its report in 2011 on \u201cImpacts of communication towers on Wildlife including Birds and Bees<\/strong>\u201d. They cited 919 scientific \/ technical references and mentioned that 593 papers reported adverse effect, 196 papers reported inconclusive or neutral effect, 130 papers reported no effect, and not 1 paper sited positive effects  of these towers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In  2011, WHO <\/strong>reported, \u201cThe electromagnetic fields produced by non-ionizing radio frequencies  from mobile phones and  cell towers are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Class 2B)\u201d.  WHO, classifies Tower radiation under the \u201cprecautionary principle\u201d. ( It is a risk management policy applied in circumstances with a high degree of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the need to take action for a potentially serious risk without awaiting the results of scientific research.<\/em>) This uncertainty has evolved because of intermediation of companies and researches funded by them.<\/strong>( like that of Carlo\u2019s study )<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In 2019, at Saveetha Dental College and Hospital in Chennai, dentists X-rayed Ravindran, 7 year old boy and  found a \u201cbag-like\u201d tumor containing 526 small teeth. CT scan showed multiple, rudimentary teeth in a bag-like tissue. The teeth were in different sizes that varied between 0.1 mm to 15mm. Dr Prathibha Ramani, says \u201cWe have never seen these many teeth in one site. Biopsy results showed it was just abnormal growth. There could be a strong genetic component, but we cannot rule out environmental factors such as radiation from mobile towers\u201d.  The medical name for this super-rare condition is \u201ccompound composite odontoma\u201d. And in a similar case in 2014, 232 teeth were removed from the mouth of a Mumbai teen. And both these incidents happen in thickly populated urban life where cell towers frequent. Dr Ramani points out that a Dental College study of people living by cell phone towers revealed that more than 10 percent had \u201cmicro nuclei changes\u201d to their cells, which can cause, uncontrolled multiplication of cells and diseases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    And These Reports and studies have forced a conclusion, \u201cFor safety of humans  a cumulative radiofrequency (RF) Electro Magnetic Radiation ( EMR ) exposure of 1 milliwatt\/m2 <\/sup> (outdoor), and 0.1 milliwatt\/m2 <\/sup> (indoor)<\/strong> is permissible<\/strong>.\u201c<\/strong> Adverse health effects occur within a few years of continuous exposure at 1 milliwatt\/m2 <\/sup>. So the tolerable limits of EMR should be decreased to less than 1 milliWatt\/ m 2<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    IIT- Kharagpur professor Sudarshan Neogi, says that the prescribed limit of 1 milliWatt \/ m 2<\/sup> \u2013 is itself faulty. \u201cFor every 6-minute exposure, there is a 23 hour 54 minute cooling period. This does not happen in areas with a high concentration of towers. So, health hazards are a possibility. and the standard is indeed faulty<\/strong><\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1 * The Standard is not kept; Good for Buisness<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    But even if this protocol is strictly followed, it  will compel the operators to reduce power transmitted from towers to 1-2 W. This will reduce the coverage range. The solution will be more cell towers with lesser transmitted power. But Each tower, as we have seen costs around 50,000 USD or more.  To save this cost, cell operators use lesser towers and higher  transmission power and  keep saying that there is no evidence of health hazards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A Cell phone<\/strong> connects to Network by radio waves through transmitters. Cell phones are limited to an output of 3 watts, and the network continuously adjusts the phone transmitter \u2013 When signal quality is good it is as low as to a few milliwatts. When the signal is bad the transmitter gets boosted to give more wattage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Mobile tower transmitters usually have a power output of around 50 watts. Radiation of Radio waves increase rapidly in intensity by the inverse square<\/a> Law  of the nearness as you approach a transmitting antenna.   
    Example:
    Assuming at 100 meteres if the radiation is 3 milliwatts<\/strong>
    Then at 50 metres the radiation is  12 milliwatts,<\/strong>
    At 30 metres  the radiation is 27 milliwatts !!<\/strong>

    And All companies measure mobile tower radiation on an average distance (only at about 500mts or 1000mts) where exposures are a few milliwatts only. And they show this and claim the exposure to be within the radiation norms set by the authorities and law.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So the cell tower transmitter, when it is near to the user is a great source of human exposure to radio waves.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A user can reduce a mobile phone exposure by using a headset and keeping the phone further away from body. The cell phones can be switched off. It is a personal choice. But what about people who live in the vicinity of cell towers?<\/strong> They are exposed to the radiation 24\u00d77<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Cell operators claim that tower radiation is less intense than the sun\u2019s rays, Tower Radiation is continuous and even indoors. How can one avoid the tower radiation, while sitting at home?<\/strong> And towers can\u2019t be switched off, and towers are powered 24\u00d77. As of 2013, there were  total 7,46,600 Base Transmitting Stations (BTS) in the subcontinent. By now it would have doubled and the amount of radiation cannot be fathomed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Smoking causes cancer \u2013 It is not banned, And If you smoke you pay for the consequences. 
    Alcohol and driving kills \u2013  It is not banned. If you drink and drive you pay for the consequences, 
    BUT even if you don\u2019t use a cell phone YOU STILL PAY!
    That is the problem with this technology.
    <\/strong>We need this bit of tech from our Engineers. But  we need not succumb  to the  whims of the marketers.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    2 * Problem is not Personal ; but Societal problem<\/mark>.<\/strong><\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Other countries?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    • France considered it was mandatory that the main antenna axis should not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 metres.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • In Australia The Australian Communications and Media Authority requires telecommunications carriers to inform and consult with the local community when planning, installing or upgrading base stations.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Indian guidlines for tower setting up is\n
        \n
      • Antenna height \u2265 5 metre above ground or flyovers<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • No Residential place \/office  at the same height, Directly in front of the antenna  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • If the Tower has one antenna, the near by building should be 20 metres away. If 2 antennas, 35 metres away\u2026 <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • The limiting reference levels of Electromagnetic radiation from Mobile towers for 900 MHz is 4500 milliWatt \/ m2<\/sup>. ( this is transmission )<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • No restriction for installation of tower near schools \/ hospitals \/ playground etc.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n
        \n
        \"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

        These guidelines might not be observed and the authorities go easy. Strict norms mean less connections due to no tower signal. So, They need to give Coverage & Signal. Public accept that with the Exposure and Health Hazard<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        3 * Good Rental Income: Why tell the Hazard?<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
        \n\n\n\n
        \n