Exposure to RF-EMF has several health effects according to a study published in American Journal by SAGE publication
Yuval Noah Harrari in his book ‘21 Lessons for the 21st Century’ says, “Technology isn’t bad. If you know what you want in life, technology can help you get it. But if you don’t know what you want in life, it will be all too easy for technology to shape your aims for you and take control of your life.” We are in an age when technology dictates our life. But we need to learn to curtail its dominance through our reasoning before it’s too late. Therefore, we need to strongly support social activist like Sanjay Barde on the removal of the mobile tower on the campus of a government primary school at Duler-Mapusa.
Despite the ill effects on health, it is sad to note that the government has overlooked the construction of a mobile tower, that too, in a school campus. Whether the children studying in the school belong to a low or high economic status the impact on cognitive health is going to be the same. Thus, the government needs to study the matter and do the needful.
Undoubtedly, there is tremendous growth in the number of subscriptions to mobile phones. Research suggests that the subscription is more than the worldwide population. Hence, the growing need to install mobile towers is a heightened concern.
Our mobile phones communicate with these towers through EMF radiofrequency waves operating at different frequencies for different systems whether digital or analogue. And exposure to RF-EMF has several health effects according to a study done on Mobile Phone Towers and their effect on Students’ Cognitive Health (2018) published in American Journal by SAGE publication. The health effects are fatigue, tension, headache, sleep disturbance and disorders, physiological and psychological problems, hearing and vision complaints, and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and cancer. These effects were also noted by a study done at Mahatma Gandhi University Regional Centre, India (2018) published in the International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
The RM-EMF radiations carry non-ionizing radiations causing biological effects on human health. The above study also revealed that exposure to these radiations decreases children’s fine and gross motor skills which are vital for global understanding ability of attention and information on the sensorimotor function or comprehension. These skills are necessary for managing routine everyday activities of life. There is also a decrease in spatial working memory which helps in recording and recovering information needed to plan a course of action. And the presence of the towers right on the campus where they are studying would have a disastrous impact on them.
Another study made on the adverse impact of mobile phone tower radiations (2020) published in the International Journal of Radiology and Radiation Therapy suggests that the radiations cause biological effects because our bodies are 70% fluid. And when although the vulnerable body uses its specific security mechanisms the burden is laid on the stress proteins of the body. Most specifically, the heat shock proteins.
The radiations also cause a neurological effect; the adverse consequence is not seen immediately but gradually. It causes insomnia, weakness, dizziness, digestive disorders, and attention problems. A further cause of concern is the labelling of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that RF areas are “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Meaning to say, that radiation also has a carcinogenic effect.
Despite these and many more ecological impacts the mobile towers have on us and if we are going to endorse them, it only means we are least worried. But for the sake of our future generation, we are called to respond to the menace and visual pollution of the mobile towers.
Our response could be threefold. Starting with ‘Tolerance,’ we can be tolerant with regard to the placement of a mobile tower but not on the premise of a school. Another suitable place should be identified to place the mobile tower. We know the need and there is certainly a possibility of placing it elsewhere, probably, in an open land far from human habitation and considered to have less impact on ecological habitation.
A second response to this could be ‘Prevention,’ the increase of cell phone providers means the need for their own antenna to provide easy and quick signals by the installation of a tower. But this can be prevented when the providers collaborate and place their antennas on a single existing tower. So, prevention by ‘co-location’ could be a solution to our impending issue of installing mobile towers. ‘Co-location’ isn’t easy because of leasing conflicts and electrical interference issues etc. But it is a possibility if the issues are handled.
The final response to this issue is ‘Avoidance,’ which usually the government employs most often. Despite the protest, the government doesn’t care and goes ahead and does what it wants. And slowly and steadily, voices are silenced and the issue is made to subside. Thus, instead of avoidance in this perspective, the government should employ avoidance in another perspective, wherein they avoid placing mobile towers in objectionable areas. The regulation of the location of the mobile towers in the least objectionable area will prove more beneficial and acceptable.
