The socio-economic benefits of mobile telecommunications are obvious to everyone and also well-known is the fact that mobile phones cannot work without towers everywhere. Concurrently, however, there is concern regarding the EMF radiation from towers and its impact on human health. This is partly due to lack of factual information on the subject with the masses, and due to deliberate misinformation spread by vested interests who profit from the unfounded fear. Many of these parties tout so-called radiation shields, non-standard radiation testing meters and other ‘protection’ paraphernalia. ‘Radiation shields’, for instance, cause more harm than good, with even the WHO expressly cautioning against their use; however, unscrupulous entities promote their sale and use with impunity. Against this background, it is interesting to know that, far from causing damage to human health, mobile tower radiation may actually be good for you! This is a startling but evidence-based hypothesis put forward by an increasing number of researchers.

Large doses of high-energy ‘ionising radiation’ like X-rays, gamma rays, etc, can be harmful because they can knock electrons out of the atoms present in tissues, causing exposed particles to get ‘ionised’. DNA gets altered with high dose exposure, and adverse health effects, such as increased risk of cancer, appear. At such doses of ionising radiation, damage increases linearly with exposure.

While effects of high doses are clear, research on low dose radiation is difficult, expensive and often yields inconsistent results. Hence, authorities have understandably tended to follow the relatively easier and cautionary approach based on a ‘Linear No Threshold’ (LNT) model with the basic assumption that all radiation, however low, is bad. This assertion is essentially extrapolated backwards from high dose results to predict health damage results at low doses. This is fundamentally strange and illogical. It is as bizarre as starting with the fact that excess exercise or excess food intake is harmful and then stating that any exercise or any food consumption is bad whereas we know that moderate exercise or food consumption is beneficial to us, nay, actually essential to health! An increasing number of researchers have begun to challenge the illogical LNT approach and point out that it costs society billions of dollars and imposes huge penalties to persist with unwarrantedly low radiation exposure standards. Innumerable research findings point to existence of thresholds below which Low Dose Radiation (LDR) actually benefits human health, also called ‘radiation hormesis’ or ‘adaptive response’ (AR). “Irradiated cells protect themselves by immediate repair & damage removal mechanisms and by delayed DNA damage, irrespective of its causes—that is, through adaptive responses.”(JM Kaminski et al)

In support of the hypothesis rejecting the LNT approach, researchers cite data from Japanese atom bomb survivors, from persons from regions close to Chernobyl, radiation therapy effects, and several other sources. Brazil, Egypt, Iran and India have up to 20 times more radiation than the US, without any adverse effects. In fact, millions flock to Brazilian beaches which have high radiation levels. Many health spas throughout the world generate similar high background radiation. Experts point out that while the average level of individual dose rate of natural radiation now is about 2.2 mSv units/annum, around 3.5 billion years ago, when life on began, the level was about 3 to 5 times higher than now. It is postulated that increased level of radiation was in fact essential for life to begin. It may well be essential for extant life, as suggested by scientific experiments.

Expert radiologist Z Jawarowski observes, “The ‘precautionary principle’ (of LNT), reducing the exposures ever lower and at any cost, proved not ‘cautionary’ at all. It has led to unacceptable societal penalties… The time has come to change the lithified LNT paradigm and to base radiological safety and protection on modern knowledge and the realities of the natural radiation environment.”

Innumerable indeed are the studies that show the non-harmful, and possibly beneficial, effect of low doses of hi-energy ionising radiation. Given this, how can one have any rational concerns about EMF radiation which is non-ionising and millions of times weaker than the hi-energy ionising radiation?

Examined from whichever aspect—credible epidemiological data or the AR or radiation hormesis approach or the non-ionising nature or the absolutely minuscule energy level thousands of times lower than what received from the sun, over 5000 times below the most restrictive limit of ICNIRP/WHO and at least a thousand times less than what we receive from our handsets—the radiation from our mobile towers leaves no room for concern. Rather, we should warmly welcome them and facilitate their growth for the various possible beneficial effects.

As researchers TJ Prihoda and Vijayalaxmi of the University of Texas Health Science Center conclude in one of their studies, “We hypothesize that RF-induced AR may play a role in reducing carcinogenesis, at least in some individuals.” An interesting and stimulating suggestion? Enough, at least, to dispel the completely unfounded fears about mobile towers. India has already incurred huge development “penalties” and thousands of crores of rupees irretrievably lost to the nation/public due to the irrational opposition to mobile towers by some vested interests. To create a Digital India, we need to strongly raise the clarion call of “Let a million towers bloom and radiate hormesis, health and connectivity!!”

The author is honorary fellow, Institution of Engineering & Technology (London), and a consultant. Views are personal