But not in the UK….. In the Punjab! So if they can take a risk aware approach in Chandigarh, why not in Bromley – or Bradford – or even Battersea?….
I was sent this cutting (which dates from February) this morning by the Resource Centre for Development Alternatives in Pakistan – from the Tribune News service:
Mobile towers may soon be phased out of Chandigarh’s residential areas. Dealing with the towering problem, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant development, today made it clear that it wanted the mobile towers to be shifted out of residential areas in phases.
As a bunch of petition seeking the removal of mobile towers from city’s residential areas came up for hearing this afternoon, the Bench headed by Justice MM Kumar directed the Chandigarh Administration to formulate a policy for their shifting in a phased manner.
In what could ring in difficulties for mobile service providers, the Bench also set a two-month deadline for the Chandigarh Administration to come up with the policy. The development was significant as there were not less than 18 towers in Chandigarh and its villages.
Expressing concern over the effects of radiation, the High Court ruled that it was the duty of the government and mobile companies to inform residents about the harmful effects.
The High Court had only recently ruled the government would be duty bound to inform the public living where a mobile tower was to be erected about the “amount of radiation it will emit” and its harmful effects thereof on the health of people.
The information would have to be supplied in the shape of a public notice before the mobile tower was erected. The HC also directed the companies installing mobile towers to do the same.
Making it clear that “there is no absolute right to carry on any business, the Bench ruled that it (business) is subject to reasonable restriction and regulation”, and highlighted the damage being caused due to the radiation.
“It will be the duty of the local authorities to issue a public notice for information of all concerned where the permission for erection of a tower is being considered or granted to apprise the public as to what amount of radiation it will emit and the effect thereof on the health of the people living in the area,” read the judgement.
The High Court held, “The mobile emit signals in the form of radio waves. It is feared that radio waves can cause changes to the cells in our brain. If the DNA in the brain cells gets damaged, they may become cancerous and cause brain tumours. It is also feared that radio waves can alter chemical and electrical reactions in our brain, changing, in effect, the way the brain cells communicate. Studies conducted have revealed that sparrows have declined in the most contaminated electromagnetic fields”.
India seems to be particularly concerned about mobile towers on the roofs of hospitals, on the basis that sick people are more likely to be sensitive to radiation from the towers. This seems eminently sensible. Pity we don’t do the same here. Twenty years ago the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead said they would never allow ‘phone masts on the hospital roof in the interests of patient safety. Go have a look at that roof now..!
A friend of mine just moved to a place that I later noticed is a football throw away from a large cell phone (5 G, it appears) mast. The landlord did not warn Him. He had to rent while working overseas. Does He have a right to break his lease without any penalties? Any guidance much appreciated. Thank You.
I am afraid that that since electrosensitivity is not recognised as an illness as yet he would be very unlikely to get anywhere in a court of law. Sorry.
Thank You, Michelle.