Summary of Oral Evidence presented to IEGMP by Dr H Irvine, Greater Glasgow Health Board, on Friday 12 November 1999

Home > Summaries of Oral Evidence >

Dr Irvine described her background in public health medicine. At present she has concerns about the safety of both handsets and base stations, favours a precautionary approach, and would like to see it enshrined in legislation. Dr Irvine initially became interested in mobile phone issues after Glasgow City Council sought her advice on the matter. Although the Council did not support her recommendation of precautionary measures, she believes that their initial approach is evidence of concern, especially as they receive substantial revenues from the 75 base stations erected on their property. She has now recommended adoption of precautionary approaches to all six councils that she advises. She believes that children could be at greater risk than adults, so no more base stations should be sited on school premises. In addition, she would like to introduce exclusion zones based on BS EN 50082-1:1992, an electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) Standard that requires equipment to able to function normally in fields of up to 3 volts per metre (V/m). Dr Irvine is concerned that the technology is spreading too rapidly, and that antennas, often disguised in church spires and lampposts, may be erected without prior consultation or the knowledge of local residents. She considers that the consequences of long-term low-level exposure are unknown. Under these circumstances there needs to be a debate with full involvement of the public, so that they can consider what risks they are prepared to tolerate, and understand likely costs, both financial and in terms of signal degradation. Public anger results from inadequate consultation.

Dr Irvine accepts that exposures from base stations are generally much lower than those from handsets, but questioned whether they were always low enough. She is also critical of the National Radiological Protection Board guidelines, which she considers to be amongst the most lax in the world. She noted that phones operated without problems in Italy, although they have much lower guidelines.

Dr Irvine believes that the mobile phone issue exhibits all the hallmarks of a major public health concern, and noted the following in support of her argument. Some biological studies suggest that non-ionising radiation may not be entirely inert at low (non-thermal) intensities. The technology is available to the general public, but there is insufficient experimental evidence to allow scientists to confirm that it is safe in the long term. The technology is rapidly expanding, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Prices are falling, making mobile phones more accessible to everyone, including children. There are no official health warnings on the phones. There is no personal choice with respect to exposures from base stations. Large numbers of people are exposed, so even if adverse effects are rare, they may still affect a large number of people.

Dr Irvine accepts that there is no conclusive epidemiological evidence of health effects from mobile phones or base stations, but believes it is too soon to expect this. She is concerned about reports of biological effects and points to a report from the Royal Society of Canada (A review of the potential health risks of radiofrequency fields from wireless telecommunication devices, an Expert Panel Report prepared at the request of the Royal Society of Canada for Health Canada) as a source of information. Dr Irvine is particularly concerned about possible effects related specifically to pulsed radiation, and notes the views of Dr Hyland regarding the importance of the pulsed pattern of emissions. Dr Irvine believes that even if there is an increase in disease, it would be difficult to attribute it to base station exposures, so precautionary approaches should be adopted. She further stated that the inadequacy of current evidence was not a good reason for failing to adopt a precautionary approach. Dr Irvine is concerned about the independence of research given that the telecommunications industry claims to fund around 80% of it. She wanted to give greater weight to anecdotal reports from those who have been exposed to emissions from handsets and base stations, and noted that Microshield Industries plc maintain a database of such reports. In addition, moves by mobile phone manufacturers to patent protective devices and distribute hands-free kits, suggest that they are trying to reduce the hazard without acknowledging it. Precautionary approaches are popular with the electorate. Furthermore, they have been accepted in principle by half of Scottish local authorities and are recommended by the Local Government Association, the British Medical Association, and the Editor of the Lancet. The Maastricht Treaty also advocates the precautionary principle, although cost-benefit analysis may be difficult in this area. Dr Irvine stated that local authorities have a duty to protect the health of children, and that, in fact, Stirling Council has emphasised this promise in a colourful booklet entitled The things children want. Furthermore the promotion of tobacco, the continued use of asbestos and the recent BSE epidemic were all lessons to be learned, teaching us to be careful for once.

Subsequent discussion dealt with possible conflicts of interest where local councils were both planning authorities and landlords receiving income from base station sites. It was felt that in general there is a reluctance to accept data that have not been peer-reviewed when making public health judgements. However, Dr Irvine feels that there could be negative publication bias as a result of funding from the telecommunications industry. Whilst the Group accepted Dr Irvine’s argument that publication of a peer-reviewed paper did not make the author an expert, it was noted that the paper could nevertheless be a valid contribution to the knowledge base.

The possibility of surveying base station emissions on a regular basis was discussed. Dr Irvine feels that surveys should always be performed with appropriate equipment; some survey reports suggested to her that fields had been below the limit of detection of the equipment used. Repeat surveys were essential to overcome possible problems associated with temporal variation in emissions. Dr Irvine is critical of councils that carry out surveys around a few base stations and then assume that these values apply to all sites. However, she suggested that it would not be necessary to survey sites that were not in sensitive locations.

In discussion of precautionary approaches, Dr Irvine indicated that as she is not in a position to be able to critically evaluate all studies, she would be guided by the views of scientists working in the field. If all scientists could agree that there was no evidence for an adverse effect, then she would accept that. In the meantime, she would like to see a precautionary approach as outlined above. In addition, phones should carry health warnings, advising users to limit call lengths; Dr Irvine is particularly concerned about use by children, and noted that they use their phones to call each other in school playgrounds.

First issued 5 April 2000