|
|
The picture on page 39 of this issue has more sinister overtones than its
hideous subjects would have us believe. There are 6 cell phone towers
on the same plaza and its adjacent buildings. The location is a market in I-
8/4 Islamabad. To say that it is a mindless destruction of our skyline and
environment, would be restating an oft repeated and ineffectual obvious.
The alarming aspect is that if such be the situation in Islamabad, which is
not so thickly populated like many of our big cities, what would it really
look like in congested localities offering greater business opportunities to
cell phone operators? Some towers are so close that if one gives in to
elemental forces like storm and earthquake, or tumbles because of some
structural fault, it can bring down another one along with fatal
consequences for visitors to the market and residents over there.
These buildings were designed and constructed for normal use and
before the onslaught of cell phone towers. The way buildings, especially
commercial buildings, are constructed here, with scant disregard to rules
and regulations, it is doubtful if these structures conform to safety
standards for their normal use even. Adopting these buildings to
withstand tons of additional and undistributed loads certainly
compromises their safety.
Let us not doubt for the moment that each tower conforms to the safe
limit ratings of radiation it emits. But what about the impact of radiation on
the public exposed to the combined radiation of 6 towers? These sub-
critical radiation sources together surpass the critical mass by several
orders of magnitude. The dormant avalanche of steel shown in the
picture sits on top of a market busting with activities till late at night with
unsuspecting people – comprising men, women and children –going
about an otherwise harmless looking place. Not to mention the
permanent residents in the apartments and workers in the shops and
offices who are exposed to radiation for much longer durations. The
threat of structural breakdown may be dismissed (unwisely) as being very
remote. But the hazard of public being exposed to dangerously high
doses of radiation day in day out is very much ‘now and here.’ The
situation would be further worsened if any or all the towers do not
conform to the safety ratings for transmitted radiation. The radiation
intensity of a cell phone tower is several thousand times greater than that
of a cell phone. The emissions of half a dozen towers at close range
could not be considered safe.
The picture also raises another question. There are two smaller and less
hideous towers. Clearly the short profile and small footprint means so
much less steel and less weight. If such towers can serve the purpose,
why allow the mammoth structures dwarfing the rooftops?
Enforcing infrastructure sharing is the responsibility of the state (read
PTA). It did not happen in the West through the sweet will of the
operators. Fortunately, in the developed societies there is public
awareness, and strong public organizations and NGOs to agitate the
environmental concerns and make the stakeholders conform to the
exacting standards no matter what the cost. In the case of infrastructure
sharing, the operators actually cut huge expenses by adopting the
sharing regime. The notion of letting the late entrants go through the
same drill of acquisition, construction and maintenance of their own sites
as did the incumbents, is unhealthy in addition to being expensive for all
in the long run. The picture on page 39 is proof enough that the situation
is already out of hand. We have to stop this outrage against our
environment which is replete, in addition to traditional pollution, with
radiation pollution as well.
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
