A study on the amount of radiation emitted by Mobile and Mobile Towers in the Environment and how it affects our regular day-to-day life.

1. Environment and Mobile
Radiation
APRIL 11, 2016
Ankush Chattopadhyay (13LLB011)
3rd Year, School of Law, the North Cap University

2. 1
Contents
1. Acknowledgement………………………………………………………3
2. Introduction……………………………………………………………..4
3. Problem and Need…………………..…………………………………..5
4. Legislation of some
Countries………………………………….…….………………………6
5. Effects of Ecosystem………………………………………………….....
6. Judicial Approachin India……………………………………………….
7. Conclusion………………………………………………………………9

3. 2
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.

4. 3
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 30-200meters
however most of the towers are of 40 meters and roof-top towers vary from 9-30meters. 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.
For a good quality wireless communication, Mobile Tower Base Stations (MTBS) are an
inevitable part of the telecom infrastructure system.

5. 4
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.

6. 5
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.
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.”

7. 6
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 precautionar y
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).

8. 7
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

9. 8
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 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.

10. 9
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)

11. 10
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
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

12. 11
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 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’.
1
Note: ‘radiations’ is excluded from theabove definition that includes Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) emitted from
mobile tower, a non-air pollutant.”

13. 12
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 )

14. 13
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
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.

15. 14
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
ResearchPapers 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.
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