Summary of Oral Evidence presented to IEGMP by Mr A Philips, Powerwatch, on Friday 21 January 2000

Home > Summaries of Oral Evidence >

Mr Philips introduced his oral evidence by asking if members would like to hear a version of a talk that he had given at a cellular phone industry conference in November 1999. This would supplement, but not replace, his written evidence. Mr Philips explained that he works for Powerwatch, an organisation set up to fight greenfield development of power lines. He has a background in electronic engineering and mobile police communications. He wanted to try and present the issues from the point of view of the general public. He has some knowledge of public concerns because Powerwatch runs a premium-rate telephone line providing advice to the public; several thousand enquiries are received per year. Mr Philips identified a number of health problems that are reportedly related to phone use, including headaches, eye problems, earache, buzzing in the head, poor concentration and memory, fatigue and skin irritation. Of these, about 50% of reports relate to headaches and about 5% relate to poor concentration and memory. When asked about the general applicability of these statistics, Mr Philips noted that his contact tends to be with people reporting problems and referred to the report by Dr Hanson Mild (Hansson Mild, K, et al., Comparison of symptoms experienced by users of analogue and digital mobile phones. Arbetslivsrapport 1998:23, Arbetslivsinstitutet, Solna, Sweden) which has shown that 10% of users of mobile phones suffer from headaches whilst approximately 75% suffer no ill effects. The control group were also users of mobile phones but who used their phones for under two minutes per day.

Mr Philips noted that members of the public have access to information via the internet and are aware that there are uncertainties relating to possible health effects. As a result, complete denials are not believable. He also feels that media scaremongering can result in unwarranted concern. If organisations such as Powerwatch are excluded from the general consultation process their only recourse is the national media. Mr Philips had not been permitted to participate in a World Health Organisation/International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection meeting held at Chilton in 1998. Although invitations are a matter of discretion, Mr Phillips believes that it is inappropriate for an important public health science exposure metrics meeting to invite non-scientific cellular industry personnel, but exclude critical scientific voices. A number of other hazards have first been denied, but have subsequently been proved to be real, including radium cream, x-rays during pregnancy, thalidomide, asbestos, smoking and BSE. Additional caution is warranted because the timescale for cancer development tends to be very long. Mr Philips feels that the telecommunications industry should share responsibility with users and negotiate with critical voices, compromising where possible; he is currently in negotiation with the boards of two UK operators. In the past the industry has tried to deny the existence of the problem and put pressure on retailers not to stock screening cases as their sale might cause unnecessary concern. He noted that hands-free kits may be sold as 'Linus blankets' and that there are potentially large profits to be made from this business. He also reported that secondary resonances occurring in the hands-free cable could result in high electric field strengths, 60 volts per metre (V/m), in the earpiece; this could be prevented by incorporating graphite beads into the cable. Mr Philips indicated that as antennas are normally located on the back of phones, wearing a phone on the belt could result in high power absorption by body tissues.

Mr Philips cited a number of studies that indicated an increased cancer risk from exposure to radiofrequency fields (RF). He agreed to supply to the Group a copy of a paper by Peter French and John Holt that reported promotion of cancer by athermal exposure to microwaves. The Group asked Mr Philips to explain why he selectively cited only papers that showed adverse effects. He believes that for three of the studies the reported effects are so large that if the study is correct the implications would be extremely serious. He is less convinced by studies carried out by Wireless Technology Research (WTR) and did not give much credence to the claims of Dr Carlo of WTR. Mr Phillips admitted that he would use similar selected material at public meetings and that this is at least partly because he believes that his provocative stance make people think. He hoped that material on the Powerwatch web site is more considered. He is critical of both the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and the Department of Health for not adopting a precautionary approach. Although not formally constrained from issuing precautionary advice, NRPB does not do so because it bases its advice purely on scientific evidence. The Group felt that the material presented to them by Mr Philips could cause a great deal of unnecessary worry to those with no other sources of information. Mr Philips expressed concern about some studies, both negative and positive, because he feels that researchers who do not understand engineering issues may use inappropriate exposures. He believes that in some instances this may be deliberate and agreed to provide documentary evidence to support his claim.

Mr Philips believes that the additional protection factor of public exposures recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is unjustified on thermal considerations. He recommends that phones should be marketed with an explanatory leaflet in the box; the Car Phone Warehouse has produced a responsible leaflet. Any leaflet should contain a statement that a small but significant number of mobile phone users may suffer adverse health consequences and it is necessary to consider that the phone may be responsible.

On the basis of a German study, Mr Philips suggested that whilst exposure from most base stations is low a small number produced much higher exposures. He recommends restricting electric field strengths to 3 V/m in homes and allowing slightly higher levels in open spaces. He does not believe that there are any believable effects at lower field strengths and noted that electromagnetic compatibility standards require equipment to operate at field strengths up to 3 V/m (BS EN 50082-1:1992 refers). He suggested that outside companies should not be allowed to pollute individuals' homes at higher field strengths than their electrical equipment is designed to withstand. He is of the opinion that operators can easily work with these levels and that if they did base stations would not be an issue. He reported that Orange is trying to install up to 600 watt (W) effective radiated power lamp-post devices and agreed to provide written evidence of this.

Mr Philips suggested that low frequency magnetic pulses emitted by mobile phones can also pose a health risk; flux densities could be as high as 2 to 6 microtesla (µT). Mr Philips indicated that the Industry claims its signals are frequency modulated and then proceeded to give a practical demonstration of amplitude modulated signals.

Mr Philips wants the Group to consider why Eastern block countries set limits based on non-thermal effects (µW/cm²). A report by the Institute of Stress Research in Berlin indicated significant biological effects at low levels of exposure to microwaves. Dr Repacholi now has a summary of Russian work translated into English. Mr Philips noted that Powerwatch runs on a shoestring budget and that it generates its income by performing surveys for local authorities and hiring out power frequency field meters to the general public. A small amount of income comes from its website.

First issued 9 May 2000