Dr. K. S. Parthasarathy, Former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Government of India, about what steps can be taken to change the public perception.

1. Public communication of RF & Health
Risks in India
Dr. K. S Parthasarathy,
Former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory
Board
Government of India

2. Lecture outline
• Perception of risk –images
• Certain types of fear are hard to remove
• Nuclear radiation, Industrial chemicals
• Report on cell tower radiation
• Blogs, workshops
• Risk perception factors
• Risk communication
• Transparency is the best antidote against scare
mongering
• Seven rules of communication of EPA

3. Perception (Images)

4. Perception (Images)

5. Perception (Images)

6. Perception (images)

7. Perception (Images)
Perception (images)

8. Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project Unit 1

9. “Radiation”!!
•“Radiation” is a scary word. Many believe that Cell tower
radiation is dangerous
• A leading Mumbai daily claimed that cancer is behind
70% of deaths in the Units of the Department of Atomic
Energy (DAE). It was due to wrong interpretation; a genuine
goof up! The RTI enthusiast counted number of admissions
and treatments given as deaths!!!! 2600 deaths against
3887; 255 suicides less than 100;
• Journalists, like scientists are expected to have healthy
skepticism.
• TOI reporters trusted an RTI activist and publicized scary
news doing incalculable damage to India’s nuclear energy
programme. Their bias came in the way.

10. Perception against Kudankulam N-
plant
• Russian reactor, Chernobyl accident
• Some features are first of a kind
• Why taking the risk?
• Fishing industry will vanish!
• Anti nuclear activist contested general election;
15,314 persons out of 9,91,025 voted for him; lost
deposit
• Can we Ignore them and score a brownie point?

11. Cell phone towers
Is there not a bit of overcrowding?

12. Genesis of the fear
An excellent example to show how
deliberate efforts by a few individuals can
influence decision making process.
Mostly, fear of cell tower/phone radiation
started with popular TV shows such as
Larry King live. The unknown and uncertain
nature of effect was a factor

13. Report on cell tower radiation (2010)
• A senior journalist send me the report
• It was most scary
• It used cherry-picked references
• The report invented countless risks and
exaggerated a few. (16 disease conditions and
symptoms)
• No evidence for such effects in the reports of
agencies such as the WHO or UK HPA or
specialist institutions such as the US National
Institutes of Cancer.

14. Daily from Chennai with 11 editions
THE HINDU
S & T » TECHNOLOGY
August 23, 2012
A classic example of biased and unscientific study
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
THE RECOMMENDATION: The mobile towers’
EMFexposure limit was recently lowered to
1/10th of the existing prescribed limit as a matter
of abundant precaution. Photo: Nagara Gopal

15. Public has reasons to worry
Some vendors with impressive academic
credentials organized seminars. wrote blogs,
and issued one sided, biased newsletters.
Typical blog
. “Do your family members feel nauseated or
irritated at the simplest events? Is your child
unable to concentrate on his/her studies? Is
your home near a mobile phone tower? May be,
it’s time to get your house inspected for radiation
levels and replace your cotton curtains with
options that could block radiation.”

16. Scare monger vendors
Activist-vendors claimed that
• Cell tower radiation will cause “multiple
resonances, localized heating resulting in boils,
drying up the fluids around the eyes, brain, joints.
heart, abdomen etc leg/foot pain, muscle and joint
pain”.
• “With cell towers erected all over the city, Mumbai
is like a microwave oven” they claimed.
•They follow Bioinitiative report 2007 and 2012

17. On Bioinitiative report
• The Hindu
• January 16, 2013
• Biased, unscientific report on electromagnetic radiation
• K.S. PARTHASARATHY
•
• The HinduBIASED: There is a lack of balance in the report; no mention is made in fact of reports that do not
concur with authors’ statements and conclusions. Photo: K. Ramesh Babu
• WHO, UK Health Protection Agency and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection do
not support the BioInitiative Report conclusions

18. Excitement
The sound bites excited raw
emotions of reporters and later the
public.
Vendors with vested interest went to
every metro city scaring public

19. Reporters react
• Reporters unknowingly gave wide publicity
without cross- checking with experts or
authentic references.
• One leading national daily started a series of
articles on a campaign mode titled "Towering
Trouble".
• After having started the “trouble”, they did
not want to tell the truth. Did not care reading
primary sources of information
• I decided to write a few articles

20. Daily from Mumbai
The Economic Times
31 Jan, 2013
• Myths about radiation risks from cell tower
• By K S Parthasarathy
“Living in Mumbai is like living in an open microwave
oven! The public exposed to EM radiation from cell
phone towers is getting cooked!”

21. Dailies from Bangalore
'Risks from cell tower/phone radiation are negligible'
K S Parthasarathy, March 18, 2013
Cell phone use has registered a phenomenal increase over the past few
years. People have begun attributing all types of major and minor
diseases and symptoms to the highly visibly cell towers. A document
titled ‘Report on cell tower radiation’ submitted to the Department of
Telecommunication (DoT) by the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
was particularly scary. It is freely accessible.

22. Kolkata daily
The Telegraph
Monday , July 25 , 2013
DO NOT FEAR THE TOWER
K.S. Parthasarathy
• Possible risks from cell tower/phone radiation have been a topic of
discussion in the media. With breathtaking progress in mobile phone
technology, there has been unbridled increase in the use of mobile
phones nationwide. Cell towers have sprung up everywhere. The agents
selling ‘protective’ accessories have attributed all types of diseases and
symptoms to these towers and encouraged the public to believe in them.

23. PTI Feature
JansamacharRural india Real India
25 December 2012
On Electromagnetic fields and cancer, the WHO stated thus: “Despite many
studies, the evidence for any effect remains highly controversial. However, it is
clear that if electromagnetic fields do have an effect on cancer, then any increase
in risk will be extremely small. The results to date contain many inconsistencies,
but no large increases in risk have been found for any cancer in children or
adults.”
Health Effects of Cell Tower Radiation
Writer : Dr K S Parthasarathy, Former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

24. Daily from Chennai
The Hindu
S & T » Science
February 13, 2013
Raising the bogey of radiation
K. S. PARTHASARATHY
The Hindu A cell phone kept near the ear will
cause a small increase in temperature in regions
close to the phone. Photo: M. Karunakaran

25. Factors of risk perception
(listed by David Ropeik)
1.Trust vs. lack of trust:
The more we trust the risk informers , the less afraid
we are
2. Imposed vs. voluntary:
We are more afraid of a risk that is imposed on us
(Driver in the car next to us using cell phone)than
when we voluntarily expose ourselves to the same risk
(we use a phone while we drive)
3. Natural vs. human-made:
If the risk is natural, (radiation from the sun,) we are less
afraid; If it is human made, nuclear power or some
industrial process), we are more afraid.

26. Factors of risk perception
4. Catastrophic vs. chronic:
We tend to be more afraid of things that can kill a lot
of us, suddenly. Plane crash vs heart disease
5. The dread factor:
The worse the outcome from a risk, such as being
eaten alive by a shark, the more afraid of it we are.
Cancer is high on dread scale. Many are scared of cell
tower/phone radiation because of the fear of cancer
induction
6. Hard to understand:
The harder a potential risk is to understand the more
afraid we are likely to be.

27. Factors of risk perception
7. Uncertainty:
This is less a matter of the science being hard to
understand and more a matter of not having enough
answers.
8. Familiar vs. new:
When we first encounter a risk, we are more afraid
than after we have lived with the risk for a while.
9. Awareness: When the news is full of stories
about a given risk, our fear of that risk is greater.

28. Factors of risk perception
10. A known victim:
A risk that is made real by a specific victim, such as
the recent child abductions making news, becomes
more frightening,
11. Future generations:
When kids are at risk, our fear is greater.
12. Does it affect me?:
We don’t perceive risk to “them,” to society, as
fearfully as we do risks to ourself

29. Factors of risk perception
13. Risk vs. benefit:
The more we perceive a benefit from a potentially
hazardous agent or process the less fearful we are of
the risk.
14. Control vs. no control:
If a person feels as though he or she can control the
outcome of a hazard, that individual is less likely to be
afraid.

30. CPWD Draft Guidelines for meffects of
electromagnetic radiation in built places
* A ridiculous set of guidelines.
The language in it is highly prejudicial and
inaccurate
* Basis for the recommendations other than guesses
that should be stated
* The recommendations appear to be arbitrary and
not based on any regulatory or scientific considerations
* Compliance distance for a laptop (against RF or
ELF fields??) would extend to 2.5 ft. So what is the
basis for their recommendation?

31. On CPWD Draft guidelines
The Hindu
An unscientific report on ‘mitigating’ EM radiation effects
S & T » Science
April 17, 2014
Updated: April 17, 2014 02:18 IST
An unscientific report on ‘mitigating’ EM radiation effects
K.S. PARTHASARATHY

32. Transparency is the best antidote against
scare mongering
• Convince public about authentic sources of
information, WHO, ICNIRP, UK HPA etc
• Proactive efforts will pay
• Accept every point of view for debate
• DOT must publish results of measurement and
punitive action, if any, taken.
•Share summaries of major findings from research
with all stake-holders.

33. Risk communication: seven cardinal rules
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
1. Accept and involve the public as a legitimate
partner
2. Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts
3. Listen to public’s specific concerns
4. Be honest, frank and open
5. Coordinate and collaborate with other credible
sources
6. Meet the needs of the media
7. Speak clearly and with compassion

34. Thank you