Friday, December 13, 2024
spot_img

Private university woes

Date:

Share post:

spot_img
spot_img

Editor,

A few weeks ago it was revealed in this newspaper (ST, April 26, 2013) that Mr. R.G. Lyngdoh had been chosen as the new vice-chancellor of MLCU. I want to ask Bah Lyngdoh if accepting such a position in this University, which has been surrounded by controversy, is befitting of a person who might one day be our MP? This should be taken into account considering that in the past few days we have witnessed the exposure of an unscrupulous university in the state. Students are suffering and the legislators who so willingly proposed and passed the Universities Act in the assembly are now seemingly indifferent to the troubles that have befallen the youth of the state. In light of these developments and the appointment of R.G Lyngdoh as the new VC of MLCU, it is imperative to know what steps he will take as the new VC to clear the University of detrimental “elements” and not simply, as the previous VC had done, turn a deaf ear to the complaints. I believe that the public deserve to know what decisions will be taken by Mr R G Lyngdoh. It is after all a matter of the future of the youth of the state.

Yours etc.,

Iahunlin Khyriem,

Shillong-14

 Irresponsible statements

Editor,

Even while stating that she was not supporting vigilantism and kangaroo courts in her letter “Rape and Justice” (ST 28.05.13), Jenniefer Dkhar has done precisely that! As a responsible adult, she should know better than to make irresponsible statements of this nature which has the potential to mislead young women. She should also have been wise enough to figure out that the article about ANVC(B) women cadres was nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Elizabeth Shangpliang

Nongrim Hills

 Radiation hazards cannot be dismissed

Editor,

It is disconcerting to read Wandell Passah’s letter “Mobile tower phobia” (ST 27th May 2013) giving a clean chit to cell tower radiation on human health and advocating installation of more towers to improve connectivity. This is a highly irresponsible statement, that too coming from a distinguished academician. Mr Passah should know that while certain studies like the Interphone Study of 2010, funded by telecom companies themselves, have said they found ‘nothing conclusive’ to link electro-magnetic radiation to cancer, newer studies have found some evidence of potential health hazard. This has forced the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2011 to classify mobile phone radiation on the IARC scale into Group 2B – “possibly carcinogenic”. That means that there “could be some risk” of carcinogenicity, so additional research into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones needs to be conducted. The radiation emitted by the fixed infrastructure used in mobile telephony, such as base stations and their antennas, which provide the link to and from mobile phones is a matter of serious concern. This is because, in contrast to mobile handsets, it is emitted continuously and is more powerful at close quarters. Again experts differ on the potential health hazard from cell phone towers, just as in the case of cell phone radiation. Some experts consulted by France considered it was mandatory that main antenna axis not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 metres. Others rubbish this theory and say the findings are inconclusive. But that is not to say that the danger is non-existent, especially to children. Just because nothing is proved conclusively does not disprove the theory. It simply means more research is needed.

A number of personal injury lawsuits have been filed in the USA, Italy, France and more recently India, against telecom companies. In February 2009 the French telecom company Bouygues Telecom was ordered to take down a mobile phone mast due to uncertainty about its effect on health. Residents had sued the company claiming adverse health effects from the radiation emitted by the 19 meter tall antenna. The court ruled that “Considering that, while the reality of the risk remains hypothetical, it becomes clear from reading the contributions and scientific publications produced in debate and the divergent legislative positions taken in various countries, that uncertainty over the harmlessness of exposure to the waves emitted by relay antennas persists and can be considered serious and reasonable”. In October 2012, the Italian high court granted an Italian businessman, a pension for occupational disease, as they found a causal link to mobile phones and cordless phones, that the businessman had used for six hours a day during twelve years. As it takes time to develop cancer, the court disregarded short-term studies. The court also disegarded studies that were even partially funded by the mobile phone industry such as the Interphone Study. In India, a case was also filed against the mobile towers in residential areas, schools and hospitals in 2012. In March 2013, based on the above WHO notification dated May 31, 2011 wherein the mobile tower radiations have been classified as possibly carcinogenic and the research conducted by the scientists of IIT Kharagpur, a writ has been filed by Advocate Vikas Nagwan for the suspected death of one Hemant Sharma for removal of the mobile towers from residential areas. How Mr Passah can disregard these facts while pronouncing cell phone radiation to be safe is beyond comprehension!

Concerned scientists and citizen groups in the USA have said that most studies where findings were inconclusive were relying on literature produced by scientists working for the cell phone companies. It is similar in nature to how studies funded by big tobacco companies were used to refute the link between cancer and smoking in the past. The money paid for such ‘positive studies’ by telecom giants is astronomical. Telecom companies are fighting tooth and nail using very dirty tricks in their arsenal to rubbish claims of health risk. I therefore urge our noted academicians and intellectuals like Mr Passah from taking a serious stand on a controversial issue which they may regret later. Whereas the old saying “where there is smoke, there is fire” may not hold true in every situation, it is too big a risk to take when the lives of people, especially children, are at stake.

Yours etc.,

Daisy Kharkongor

Shillong

spot_img
spot_img

Related articles

Mamata Banerjee slams Union Cabinet over One Nation, One Election Bill

Kolkata, Dec 12: West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Thursday slammed the Union Cabinet for clearing the...

PM Modi to launch Rs 7,000 crore projects in Prayagraj; inspect development work for Mahakumbh Mela

New Delhi, Dec 12" Prime Minister Narendra Modi is all set to visit Prayagraj on Friday to inspect...

Historic and exemplary, says PM Modi on Gukesh becoming youngest world chess champion

New Delhi, Dec 12: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has termed Gukesh D. becoming the youngest world chess...

India’s maritime history was neglected for decades: Sarbananda Sonowal

New Delhi, Dec 12: Union Minister Sarbananda Sonowal on Thursday said that India's maritime history was neglected for...