God is our Guide  Number 1 site for helping
 

 

 
Home
Diagnosis
Treatment
Pathology
Variants
CIDP info
Fibromyalgia
IVIG
Anti-inflammatory Diet
Burning  Feet Home
Services Page
Pollution
Autoimmune diseases
TGA
Bible healing
Calcium  stroke
Curry Powder

Sulphur Bath

Magnet therapy

Magnetic environment

Electronic stimulation

Electronic cures

HAARP

B-17 cancer

 Dementia and exercise

 Exercise and weight loss

  Sleep and stay fit

Bird Flu

Oils for health

Tomato as a medicine

Jfkennedy disease

Cancer Regan

MS GENES

 Polymyalgia

Lead poisoning

Tobacco slow poison

Thyroid health

Toxic makeup

poison at home

spinal pain

Mercury in makeup

    Toxic Lipstick

Toxic Baby products

 Selenium

Basil

Vasculitis

 

  Cell phone Towers   CIDPUSA Foundation

  alternatives treatment of autoimmune disease read our e-book 

Special GoogleHealth Search
Created: Monday, November 12, 2007

The “Report on possible impacts of communication towers on wildlife including birds and bees,” is a textbook example of how not to write scientific reports.

An expert committee, also comprising a few scientists from reputed institutions, was constituted in August 2010 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to study the issue. It was on the basis of their recommendation that the Central Department of Telecommunications was recently directed to ensure that new mobile towers do not come up within a one-kilometre radius of existing towers.

The report begins by emphatically stating that “adverse effects… from mobile phones and communication towers on health of human beings are well documented today!” Nothing can be more incorrect than this. Brain cancer is one of the most feared adverse effects of extended duration of usage of mobile phones over a long period of time. However, many large-scale studies, including the Dutch and Denmark study and WHO’s INTERPHONE study have not found any significant risk.

Shortly after the WHO labelled electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B),” it clearly communicated in June 2011 that “no consistent evidence of adverse health effects” has been found in humans from radiofrequency fields.

Large-scale investigation into harmful effects of radiofrequency fields from mobile phone towers is lacking.

But despite several studies not finding any significant or “consistent” effects, it is prudent to adopt a precautionary approach and reduce the duration of usage and number of times mobile phones are used. Most importantly, children, especially younger children, should be discouraged from using mobile phones.

In the same vein, steps to reduce exposure to electromagnetic radiation from mobile towers should be taken.

Contradiction

The report contradicts itself in some instances. After stating that wildlife “appear to be at high risk” from electromagnetic field, it retracts by stating that not much information is available on the “biological impact on wild species!”

There is also wilful misrepresentation of facts when they chose not to include details from the cited work that would in any way weaken their argument. For instance, one paper does indicate that other variables in addition to mobile tower radiation might be causing some adverse effects. By not mentioning the co-founding factors, the committee report conveys a completely different message.

This article is not at all discussing the issue of possible harmful effects of radiation on humans and wildlife. Rather it is a well intentioned critique of the way in which an expert committee entrusted with this task went about copying others' work, often without attribution, and coming up with an end-product that is full of contradictions and cannot be trusted upon to take any significant decisions. 
Some of the central scientific institutions are doing world-class work and making the country proud. Sadly, the same cannot be said of most of them. It's great of The Hindu to bring such incidents to light.