r

<--------------

<~!I!<--------------------------

il
",

1-11DE BRAN DA(olSearo. L

wllo, Inl pm "PerkinS van devenler, Dr riilH.:ra erTillie .

11q"

S~:nt Monday, August 24, 20095:00

To cmr.mcd@bol.neLIn Cc SenguPtaak@searo.wllo.lnt, <neiram@who.lnt> <vande-ventere@who.int>

13cc

, YOOSUFA(~!,lsearo,wtlo.lnt/ 'jNelra,

Dr Memo

hq"

Subject

You,lelte' sent to us 18.08.2009 on heall ha,",~~k~f0:~

~//

&l<k~we

Mr K.S. Mehra, Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, New De.lhi,110006 CUMMISSIQNI;81Qf8CS
Sir l:-MAII, ;-;0 .-ri-.\~.!L."./PSC

/~~~~r

~~)

, DArE; 0 .. We ~~~l-Ct"(M/6'6'r~~p~&AeW"bs 18.08.2009, requesting information on the potential adverse health. Impacts form human exposure to Electromagnetic fields, In particular In relation to base staLions and Wireless technologies. The opinion of the WHO is the followlIlg:

:.l~.\~;J/~7 ..... "

Mobile telephony IS now commonplace around the world. ThiS Wireless technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennas, or base stations, relaymg information with radlofrequency (RF) Signals. Over 1.4 million base stations exist worldWide and the number IS Increasing sl9111f1cantly with the Introduction of third generation technology, Other wlrelcss networks that allow high-speed IOtcrnet access and serVices, such as Wireless IOCdi area networks (WLANs), are also increasmgly common in homes, offices, and mdny public areas (airports, schQols, residential and urban areas). As the number of base stallons and local Wireless networks Increases, so does the RF exposure of the populallon. Rl:!ccnt surveys have shown thdl t1)e RF exposures from base stations range from O.002'Yo to 2% of the levels of International exposure guidelines, depending on a vanely of factors such as the proximity to the antenna onej Lhe surrounding environment. ThiS IS lower or comparable to RFexposures from radiO or teleVISion broadc"asLtransmitters. There has been concern about pOSSible health consequences from cxposure to the Rr fields produced by wireless technologies. ThiS fact sheet reviews the SCientifiC eVidence un the hcallh effects from contmuous low-level human exposure to base stations and other local Wireless networks. A common concern about base statIOn and local Wireless network antennas relates to the pOSSible long-term health effects that whole-body exposure to the RF signals may hove. To date, the only health effect from RF fields Identified in scientifiC reviews has been related to an Increase in bod) temp~rature (> 1 0c) from exposure at very high field intensity lound only 111 certam Industrial facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from base statIOns and Wireless network~; drC;! o 'low that the temperature Increases are inSignificant and do not affect human health. s The strength of RF fields IS greatest at ItS source, and dIminishes qUickly With distance. Access near base station antennas IS restricted where RF SIgnals may exceed international exposure limits. Recent surveys have indicated that RF exposures from base stations and Wireless tecll'!ologles 10 publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals) are normally thoUSJmis of tln:1CS below internatIOnal standards.

IHlp://plIp.hol.llel.inJfrumc.

hlllll'.lnl1l\lssibk

1rl1..:&IHllg ell

Ir; fact, due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, thu body ubsorbs up to five
times more of the Signal from FM radiO and television than from base stallons. This IS because the frequenCies used in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in TV broadcasting (around 300 to 400 MHz) are lower than those employed in mobile telephony (900 MHz and 1800 MHz) and because w person's height makes the body an efficient receiving antenna. Further, radiO and teleVISion broadcast sta'tk)ns have been In operation for the past 50 .or more years without any adverse hc.:althconsequence being es.tabllshed. While most radio technologies have used analog Signals, modern wlrtlless telecommunications usmg digital transmissions. Detailed reviews conducted 50 far have not revealed any hazard specific to different RF modulations. i:Jre

CJ(Jcer: Media or anecdoti:ll reports of cancer clusters around mobile phone base stallons have hClghtcned publiC concern. It should be noted that geographically, cancers are unevenly distributed illnong any population. Given the widespread presence of base stalions III the enVironment, It is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near base stations merely by chance. Moreover, the reported cancers in tl1ese clusters are often a colleclion of dIfferent types of Cilncer With no common chilracteristlcs ilnd hence unlikely to have a common cause. SCIl;nttflc eVidence on the distribution of cancer In the population cun be obtained through carefully pliJnned and executed epidemiological studies. Over the past 15 years, SLud1l;~Sxamining e iJ potential relationship between RF transmitters an(j CiJncer have been published. These studies have not,providcd evidence that Rf exposure from the transmillers increases the risk of cancer. likewise/long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure LORF fields, even al levels that are much higher than prOduced by base stations and Wireless networks. Otller effects: few studies have investigated general health effects In mdl\flduals exposed to Kf flclds from base stations. This is because of the difficulty in dlstmgUlshing pOSSible health effects from the very low signals emitted by base stations from other higher strength RF Signals in the environment. Most studies have focused on the RF exposures of mobile phone users. Human and anlfTwl studlcs examining brain wave patterns, cognition and bchaviour after exposure to RF flclds, such as those generated by mobile phones, have not identified adverse effects. RF ~xpo~ures used in these studies were about 1000 times higher than those aSSOCiatedWltt1 general public e~posure from base stations or wireless networks. No consistent eVidence of altered sleep or cardlqvascular function has been reported. Some Illcllvlduals have reported that they experience non-speCIfic symptoms upon exposure to RF fields C!rit'ltted from base stations and other EMf deVices. As recognlled In a recent WHO fact sheet "Electromagnetic HypersensitivIty", EMF has not been shown to cause such symptoms. Nonetheless, It IS important to recoglll.lc the plight of people suffering from these symptoms. rrom all eVidence accumulated 50 far, no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occurJrom the Rf signals produced by base stations. Since Wireless networks produce generally lower Rf signals than base stations, no adverse health effects are expected from exposure to them. Internatlondl exposure gUidelines have been developed to prOVide protection against established effects from RF fields by the International Commission on Non-!on.Llng Radiation ProtectIOn (l\:NIRP, 1998) and the Institute of Electrical and ElectrOnic Engineers (IEEE, 2005). National authOrities should adopt International standards to protl.!ct tr1elr Citizens agalflst adverse levels at, Rf fields. They should restrict access to areas where exposure IlmlLs may be exceeded

IIII p:/lp()p.bol.ncl.in/liun

le.hUlll ?rllllossi bl\: U'llL'&lung

ell

K/24/2()()l)

Some people perceive risks from Rf exposure i:lS likely und even possibly severe. Severall-e2lS0ris CorpubliC fear include media announcements of new and unconfirmed sctenUflc studies, leading :0 i.l feeling of uncertainty and a perception that there may be unknown or undiscovered Ilazarcic,. Other factors are aesthetic concerns and a feeling of a lack of control or Input to the process of determining the location of new base stations. Experience shows that education programmes dO; well as ,effective communications and involvement of the public and other stakei\olders at appropnate stages of the deCISion process before Installing RF sources can enhance public confidence und acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: Considenng the very low exposure levels and researCll results collected LO date, Ltlere is convincing SCientifiC evidence"tnat theweakRF signals fromD1ise5fafion5andWirel(,~s: networks cause adverse ea e ec s. ' On tillS topic, WHO hos published several documents over the pa!:it few yedls.

I. WHO convened a workshop

relevant.

10

2005 on thiS tOiJic With several outputs.

Ttlese arc all slitl

A WliQ fact sheet http://www.who.mt/mediacentre/f

actsheets/fs304/en/mdex.

rltml

A Proceedlflgs of the meellng http://whqllbdoc.who.lnt/plJbllcatlons/2001/97U9241

S95612

c119-

pdf

Health Perspectives A peer-reviewed paper in the journal Environmental http://www.ehponline.org/docs/ 2006/9633/abstract. htllli

')

I'n view of the time elapsed since the last WHO review on lhe lOplC, WliO has commlSSIOfWU a systematic review of the relaled research over the last 4 years. ThiS paper IS currenLly being finalized and should be submilted In a peer-reviewed Journil! stlOrLly.
IS also prepunng a comprehenSive analYSIS of risks linked to the use of mobile phones. Il Will be launching thiS winter the preparallon of an Envlronmenti.ll Health Criteria (EHC) on r.adio frequency fields (including mobile phones and base stallons): Note thilt such a formal process tbat reviews the available worldWide scientifiC literi:lture Will take a couple of yCiJrS to complete (anticipated completion by 2012).

1. WliO

-1.

fnternational gUidelines for radiation protectIOn of non-lonlLlng fields have bet!n developed by the International CommiSSion on Non-IoniZing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and can be found at http://www .ICfllrp.org/docunwnts/emfgdl. pdf

As you may know I the InternatIOnal EMF ProJect, established If) 1996 to evaluate the health Impact of electromagnetic fields (EMF), is Within the WHO Department of Public Health and EnVironment. Most of the outputs are posted on www.who.int/emr. We strongly welcome the participation of Member States and would like to extend an InVitation tu the Government of India to jOin the ProJect. Therefore I kmdly ask you If you can prOVide a contact name Within the Municipal Corporation of Deihl, the Mmlstry of Health, or other national InstitUtiOlls concerned with radiation protectIOn. As you can see from our webslle (http://www.who.lnt/peh-emf/proJect/mapnatreps/en/index.htmlL we alreudy have a number u( offlcli.llcontacts around the world, but none yet from India. We hope this information IS helpful Please do not hesitate to contact us should you need more details.

hllp:/ IpOp. hll I. nl.:l. in/t"rallll.: .hl1lll?rLIV()~:;i hie lrll\:& 'Hng.

1.:11

~rv..A

~~

y~\\,\~
BHARAT SHUSHAN
Dy. Town Plannlal

H~Town Plannina OGI-m 6hawlfl, Kashmtf(l Oau.

Delhi
110 006

;,,if

ur

fOCdl

pOint in WliO IS:

Dr. T Evan Oeventer

Scientist,
Radiation & Environmental Health Public Healihand Environment World Health Organization 21 Avenue Appia CH-121lGeneva 27 Switzerland
lei:
fox: + 41 22 791 3950 + 41 227914123

Emall: vandeventere@who.mt Best regards Alexander von Hildebrand Regional Advisor Environmental Health & Climate Change World Health Organization ReglonalOrtice for South-East ASia Ring Road, New Delhi 110002, India E-mail: Hildebranda@who.int
Tel:

++:91.11.233.09.505

Website; www.searo.who.int/fcspubhcatlons I ',i,d, ',)'01,"\(' '-h.l1lg . IH'fl)fl' '{:,u pf<t1l'

Illlp:/ Ipop.bol.nct.in/fhllI1C,

I1l1l11'?rll1lossiblc lfuc&lang

en

BHARA1 Sri" ': ,\\\1

Dy. Town Plannel

Town Planning Daptt.

Nigaffi Bl'1aW&rl. Kashmefll ~

{)ijlhi 110006