Mar 06, 2018
Updated by Eshant11 Hazards associated with mobile towers
Experts say that continuous exposure to a cell tower located within 50 m of your home or office is like being in a microwave oven for the entire day. It carries the same cancer risk as in the cases of living in localities surrounded by DDT, chloroform, lead, and petrol exhaust. Many international studies have shown that people living within 1, 300 feet of mobile towers had three times the normal cancer risk.
Another study revealed that while cancer is the extreme case, people living near the mobile towers face other disorders like extreme fatigue, headaches, sleep disorders, memory loss, depression, hearing loss, joint pains, skin problems, cardiovascular problems, among others. The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also reported that cellphone handsets’ and towers’ radiations are possibly carcinogenic to humans and may cause a type of brain cancer or glioma. Cell towers are more dangerous than the mobile handsets because they generate greater-intensity radiation 24 hours.
Mar 06, 2018
Updated by Eshant11 JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
While the aforesaid order of the NGT highlights the uncertainty in the existing law, in so far as addressing the issue of electromagnetic radiations is concerned, there have been orders passed by various high courts in India which have either found electromagnetic radiations to be a health hazard or have highlighted the uncertainty due to lack of evidence in this regard.
The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Justice I.S. Israni (Retd.) v Union of India3 has held that towers on hospitals and school buildings etc. should be avoided as children and patients may be more susceptible to possible harmful effects of electro-magnetic radiation. The case related to the erection of mobile towers in certain high-risk areas like schools, hospitals and high-density residential areas and the validity of bye-laws which prohibited the erection of mobile towers in such areas. The court held to be valid the bye-laws of the State Government, made on the recommendation of the Central Government. In the case of the densely populated residential areas, the court directed the State Government and the local authorities to take decision on case wise basis with regard to installation of towers in the densely populated areas in accordance with law.
The high courts have also had contrary views in various other cases in this regard. In the case of Vijay Verma v State of Himachal Pradesh4, petition was filed for prohibition from installing mobile towers on the roofs of the petitioners. In this case, the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the main issue was whether the radiations from the towers cause any health hazard or not. The Hon'ble High Court found out that radiation is something that is not new and it was in existence since life began on earth. There was no alarm with regard to possible ill-effect of the electromagnetic field (EMF) from mobile phone towers or the mobile phones as the limit adopted by India will not have any biological effect on the life of the people. The Hon'ble High Court observed that there was no conclusive evidence or scientific backing that the mobile towers would cause health hazards.
There have been quite a few other cases as well where it has been held that that installation of mobile tower is not by itself harmful to the lives of human beings.5 It has been held that establishment of mobile towers would not cause any health hazards or affect fundamental rights of a citizen. There was no reliable material or evidence to warrant conclusion that tower if permitted to be established, would be health hazard to local residents.6
More recently in 2016, in the case of Asha Mishra v State o[censored]P7, it has been observed that "all studies indicate that presently there appears to be no definitive scientific material or data which may warrant EMF radiation being classified as endangering health. However the state of the research can at present, as we have noted above, be best described as being still nebulous and tenuous. This is perhaps the reason for research in the field being continued and ongoing. The standards adopted in our country are stated to be more stringent than those suggested by the WHO."
Interestingly, it has been held in the case of Reliance Infocomm Ltd. v Chemanchery Grama Panchayat8 that Right to Life enshrined under Article 21 includes all those aspects of life which make life meaningful, complex and worth living. Development of technology has its own ill-effects on human beings, but, at times people will have to put up with that at the cost of their advantages.
