CONTROVERSY OVER CELLULAR MOBILE-TELECOMMUNICATION BASE-STATION- ARE WE PLAYING THE FOOL ?

The bible in Hosea 4:6(KJV) says “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge because thou hast rejected knowledge”. Today, I was invited for a community talk on Safety, Health and Environment after my talk on sanitation, a ten years old boy asked about the health implication of base station around residential building.  I was invited to talk on environment, but the question put to test my personal commitment of saying the truth or keeping quite.

Ironically, two prominent members of the community are senior executive in the yellow and red mobile operator in our country. As expected, the normal story continues base station has no known effects.  After some minutes of arguments, I decided to join the argument with another side to the story. Thanks to I Pad, I was able to read the following:

 The EC and UK Precautionary Principle:

“The precautionary principle covers cases where the scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain, but where there is some indication of  reasonable grounds for concern of adverse effects  on the environment or health. The precautionary principle provides a basis for action when science  is unable to give a clear answer.”

In Nigeria now, the two most compelling issues that cause cellular-telephone towers to be so controversial are the public health and aesthetic concerns. The siting of the cellular mobile telephone towers remains a divisive issue, worldwide. Some concerns stem from a lack of personal freedom of choice, in being subjected to the radio-frequency radiation emitted by the tower antennas and its potential health effects. In the past years, different studies had documented effects of base station to include:

·        Effects on central nervous system

·        Cancer initiating and promoting effects

·        Impairments of certain brain functions.

·        Loss of memory and cognitive function.

In 2011, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified mobile phone radiation on the IARC scale into Group 2B - possibly carcinogenic. That means that there "could be some risk" of carcinogenicity, so additional research into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones needs to be conducted. There is enough scientific uncertainty with regards to base station technology; there is also public outcry in terms of health concern.

In Nigeria and Lagos specifically, the conclusion of a study carried out by Otitoloju et al. 2012 ‘’Haematological effects of radiofrequency radiation from GSM base stations on four successive generations (F1 – F4) of albino mice, Mus Musculus’’ J Environ Occup Sci 2012; 1(1):17-2212:  :The effects of chronic exposure to radiofrequency radiations on peripheral blood parameters is found to be sufficient to apply the precautionary principle in order to discourage the indiscriminate location of GSM base stations in areas where prolonged exposure to high level of radiofrequency radiations are likely to occur.

If we don’t have enough scientific proof, can we use other country legal system as a case study? In case of lawsuit, here are some examples:

French High Court ruling against Telecom Company

In February 2009 the telecom company Bouygues Telecom was ordered to take down a mobile phone mast due to uncertainty about its effect on health. Residents in the commune Charbonnières in the Rhône department had sued the company claiming adverse health effects from the radiation emitted by the 19 meter tall antenna. The milestone ruling by the Versailles Court of Appeal reversed the burden of proof which is usual in such cases by emphasizing the extreme divergence between different countries in assessing safe limits for such radiation. The court stated that, "Considering that, while the reality of the risk remains hypothetical, it becomes clear from reading the contributions and scientific publications produced in debate and the divergent legislative positions taken in various countries, that uncertainty over the harmlessness of exposure to the waves emitted by relay antennas persists and can be considered serious and reasonable". 

Indian citizens against Telecom Company

A case was also filed against the mobile towers in residential areas, schools and hospitals in 2012. In March 2013, based on the WHO notification dated May 31, 2011 wherein the mobile tower radiations have been classified as possibly carcinogenic and the research conducted by the scientists of IIT Kharagpur, India  a writ has been filed by Advocate Vikas Nagwan for the suspected death of one Late. Hemant Sharma for removal of the mobile towers from residential areas.

If countries are using legal system to protect their citizens from RF radiation due to the unknown effect it could cause in future. It took the world years to find out the carcinogenic effect Asbestos, benzene and other substances on the carcinogenic list. Is it not wise for us to start the implementation of the “The precautionary principle” has advised by World Health Organization. Let see what expert in the field of Telecommunication will say to this.

To be continue…………………………………..