Summary of Oral Evidence presented to IEGMP by Mr J Royds, on Friday 4 February 2000

Home > Summaries of Oral Evidence >

Mr Royds introduced himself as a freelance non-ionising radiation consultant from the Republic of Ireland. Radiofrequency (RF) fields have been an issue in Ireland for much longer than in the United Kingdom, and had started with television broadcasts. There had been demand for British television, which could be received across the border with Northern Ireland, but not further south. In order to supply the demand, and replace illegal 'deflector' stations, the Irish Government had introduced a Multipoint Microwave Distribution System (MMDS). This allows transmission of twelve channels and operates at around 2.5 gigahertz (GHz). In the late 1980s the MMDS system became an important issue in Ireland, with objections to transmitters located near homes. Mr Royds supports the adoption of a precautionary approach based on Russian exposure standards. In practice, because the receiving antennas have high gain, the MMDS system operates at low power, and most exposures are below 100 microwatts per square metre (µW/m²) which was 1000 times below the Russian standard at that time and 100,000times below the public exposure guidance of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Whilst no guarantee can be given about any biological effects from chronic exposure to microwaves at this power density, he feels that a maximum exposure level of 100 µW/m² is as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Emissions from the MMDS system are now audited. Mr Royds reported that in Ireland, the rapid expansion of mobile telecommunications started around seven years ago. Experience gained dealing with the MMDS issue is now being applied to mobile telecommunications.

Base Stations

Mr Royds favours a precautionary approach to the siting of base stations, based on an exposure limit of 100 µW/m². This is 45,000 times below the ICNIRP public exposure guidance at 900 MHz, and 90,000 times below it at 1.8 GHz. Mr Royds has been approached by landowners keen to accept the financial benefits of base stations, but concerned about possible health implications. He advises the imposition of a 100 µW/m² limit as a condition of the contract and network operators have been happy to accede to this. He stressed that most base stations already complied with this limit, but is concerned that a few could exceed it. He believes that it is essential that measurements are credible. It was noted that it is in the interests of network operators to keep radiated powers low in order to avoid interference. The Group was concerned that it would be inconsistent to insist on exposure limits of 100 µW/m² for base stations when exposures from handsets can be very much higher. Mr Royds also proposes that steps should be taken to avoid exposure of sensitive sites such as schools, and that operators should issue health indemnities. He indicated that similar indemnities have been issued in relation to power lines in Ireland, although he does not know who is underwriting them. Indemnities only exist in relation to medical problems and do not cover property values; redress for devaluation of property value by a pylon is available through other channels, although it would be difficult to apply a similar system to telecommunications transmitters. Mr Royds believes that a health indemnification policy for transmitters would encourage operators to locate mobile phone base stations away from schools and homes as the underwriting insurance premium for such sensitive sites could be prohibitively expensive.

Mr Royds proposes that every planning authority should maintain a register of all transmitters within its area of jurisdiction. This would include details of location, frequencies and modulation, effective radiated power (not actual radiated power), and measured maximum public exposures within a radius of 500 metres. In addition, exposures from other sources of RF should also be measured and recorded; where there are several sources with similar frequencies it would be appropriate to record them both as a group and separately. For pulsed signals, peak powers should also be recorded. It would be the responsibility of transmitter operators to measure exposure levels and radiated powers, but their data should be subject to an independent annual audit. Any changes to the transmitters would have to be notified to the planning authority, and the register should be available for public inspection. A good way of ensuring public access would be for the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) to maintain a web site with a national database of transmitters that was searchable by postcode. Mr Royds feels that it is not necessary to apply a threshold on radiated power in order to exclude mobile phones from registration, as the register would only apply to fixed transmitters.

Handsets

Mr Royds is keen that specific energy absorption rate (SAR) values for handsets should be published, but feels that it would be sensible to follow the example of the United States and average over 1 gram (g) not 10 g; SAR values are more relevant than power densities for near-field exposures such as those from handsets. The SAR values should include 1 g peak value hotspots for the head, ear and the hand holding the mobile phone. Where multiband mobile phones operate at around 900 MHz (Global System for Mobiles (GSM) and analogue) or around 1800 MHz (GSM, Code Division Multiple Access, etc) peak SARs for 1 g in the head, ear and hand must be given for each frequency and modulation. It was felt that manufacturers would start to publish SAR values in the near future when a standard protocol for measurements has been agreed. Mr Royds believes that the availability of these data would lead to the development of low emission phones, in the same way as Swedish pressure had resulted in a reduction in the emissions from VDUs. The key issue is to ensure that the information is widely available to consumers and this can best be achieved by placing it on the NRPB web site. Information about the effectiveness of shielding devices should be independently assessed and also placed on the NRPB web site. Similarly, authoritative statements are required for hands-free kits, which should discuss electric field exposures of the ear and RF exposure of organs in the trunk.

Mr Royds also took part in the general discussion with members of Northern Ireland Families Against Telecommunications Transmitters (NIFATT).

First issued 19 April 2000 | Last updated 9 May 2000