What one has to look at is an accumulation of evidence The resulting report, published in May 2000, found that exposure to the emission of radiation from mobile phones and masts, provided they were weaker than the recommended guidelines, did not cause adverse health effects to the general population. It added, however, that scientific evidence suggested that biological effects could occur at lower exposures. The Stewart report urged a "precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies" until more evidence became available, recommending that children should be discouraged from making non-essential calls and that a national research programme be established.As a result, in February 2001, the £7.4m Mobile Telecommunications Health Research Programme (MTHRP) was launched, funded by the Government and industry A further £1m has come from the DTI and the Home Office. The research includes an epidemiological study into early childhood leukaemias and other cancers near to mobile phone base stations; possible effects on blood pressure and hearing in volunteers; the effects of mobile phone signals on brain function and the behaviour of exposed people; and whether the use of mobile phones can affect the risk of developing brain cancer or leukaemia The first findings will be announced in November 2005. If results are found that show a health risk before then, the Department of Health will respond earlier.A book published last week by a University of Bath academic claims that the public panic over mobile phones is essentially fuelled by the media. Dr Adam Burgess, a lecturer in sociology, argues in Cellular Phones, Public Fears, and a Culture of Precaution (Cambridge University Press) that the risk is purely hypothetical."There is certainly no compelling evidence to suggest that humans can be harmed by radiation from mobile phones or from masts," he says. "There is a series of one-off studies which suggest a degree of uncertainty, but there are thousands of studies like this and one can quote one against the other until the cows come home. What one has to look at is an accumulation of evidence."Dr Burgess says that the laws of physics would have to be broken for anyone to be physically harmed by a mobile phone mast, because the amount of radiation they give out is too weak. He believes that the independent inquiry and the publication of a report making precautionary recommendations has been counterproductive. "It was only the Government holding an inquiry that has turned people's objections, which were initially relatively straightforward, into something much more difficult to deal with." No scientist would ever say that mobile phones and their masts were not harmful, as one cannot prove the obverse, he adds.The inquiry was set up, Dr Burgess claims, because of the politics of post-BSE Britain. "Here was a chance for the Government, on what was in a sense a relatively inconsequential issue, to demonstrate their precautionary credentials In the immediate sense it was stimulated by the media. Tessa Jowell said that the Government should respond to the media concern, as if that was the same as public concern."More than £60m-worth of research is currently going on in Europe into this type of radiation Dr Burgess believes it to be "arguably a waste of money". However, Professor Lawrie Challis, the chairman of the MTHRP, believes that more research is vital. "When one billion people are using these things around the world, and we haven't put transmitters next to our heads before, it seems to me not unreasonable that one should explore the possible risks."Professor Challis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Nottingham, believes that if there were a risk, it would be much more likely to come from the phones than the masts.
Exposure from a mast is anything between 1,000 and a million times less than the exposure from a phone. On a mobile phone, you are exposed to up to 50 per cent of the international guidelines for radiation levels. Typical exposure from a mobile phone mast is 10,000 times or more below the guidelines. A few seconds making a call is comparable to 24 hours of exposure from a mast.So what of the prevalence of cancers in Wishaw? "Cancer occurs for all sorts of reasons," Professor Challis says. "If you take a map of the incidents of cancer around the country, it won't come out evenly There are 35,000 masts in the country. You will find some where there are almost no cancers, you will find a lot that have more or less the average number of cancers that you would expect, and some with a lot of cancers. |
 |
 |
