Open Meeting

Home > Open Meetings >

Thursday 11 November 1999, Playfair Library, Edinburgh

The first open meeting of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) was attended by the Chairman of the Group, Professor Sir William Stewart, and seven other members, in addition to observers from Government Departments and around fifty members of the public. The Chairman opened the meeting and explained the remit of the Group. He stressed that members of the Expert Group were concerned to hear from all those with views on mobile phones in order to ensure that their report addressed the main issues of concern. He then invited questions from the floor.

Planning issues

Many of the participants in the meeting raised issues relating to the siting of base stations and the planning process. Members of the public were clearly concerned about possible health effects of exposure to base station emissions, but felt that they had no input to the planning process; in many cases masts do not require full planning permission. The Group intends to address the planning issue carefully, but recognised that it is complex. For example, mast sharing could result in a smaller number of larger masts, and it was necessary to consider whether this was better or worse than a larger number of small masts. With respect to proximity of masts to residential areas, it was noted that current guidelines on restricting exposures may only be exceeded very close to the antennas. At distances of 20–30 metres from the tower, exposure levels would be similar to those from television and radio broadcasts.

Guidance on restricting exposure

Some participants questioned the basis for current guidelines. The Group intends to look carefully at the issue of guidance. They recognise that guidance is not uniform across Europe with respect to either limits or legal status. Although the guidance issued by bodies such as the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) is based on the avoidance of thermal (heating) effects from radiofrequency (RF)exposure, they consider all the available data, including evidence for non-thermal effects. The Group recognised that they would have to examine the issue of possible non-thermal effects very carefully. They also accepted that the pulsed signals associated with modern digital mobile phones were different to exposures from the older analogue phones, which were continuous, and that it would be necessary to consider whether this was important.

There was some discussion about the nature of the evidence that is required in order to set guidelines on restricting exposure. The interpretation of epidemiological evidence was complex, and there could be uncertainties even with large and apparently well-designed studies. It was important to ensure that good epidemiological studies are carried out to provide data for the future. Epidemiological evidence needs to be viewed in the context of results from laboratory studies. However, individual experimental studies can be flawed, so it is generally required that results should be replicated in at least two independent laboratories. In addition, for animal studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) would require evidence of an effect in at least two species. Although the Expert Group felt that their conclusions should be based on data published in the peer-reviewed literature, they were interested in considering other findings and could use them as a basis for recommending further research.

Precautionary approaches

Given the current uncertainties with respect to the scientific evidence, some participants expressed the view that it would be sensible to adopt a precautionary approach. The Expert Group had already identified this as an issue that they would need to consider. However, it was important to recognise that a number of different options are available, including: the precautionary principle; precautionary approaches; the concept of as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA); prudent avoidance. It would be necessary for the Group to examine the options.

Public information

Some participants felt that at present there is insufficient information to allow people to make informed judgements about the risks of exposure to mobile phone emissions. Indeed many of those present at the meeting did not feel confident that they knew what information they required. The Group recognised that new technologies bring a need for people to have adequate information, in order to help to allay fears and concerns that could themselves lead to illness. The provision of information is an important issue for the Group to address.

Groups at special risk

The Expert Group recognised that some groups could be more sensitive. They would need to look carefully at groups such as children.

Other sources of RF

The Expert Group was aware that other sources of RF have been in existence for much longer than mobile phones, and could give rise to much higher exposures. Although, such sources were outside the remit of the Group, they could provide some perspective on exposures of members of the public.

Offers of data

Offers of experimental data were received from the Neuropathology Department, Southern General Hospital, Glasgow, and the Department of Chemistry, University of Edinburgh. The Expert Group welcomed all such offers and requested that written evidence should be submitted to the Group.

Expert Group report

Concern was expressed that most other groups that have examined the issue of mobile phones have only recommended additional research to fill gaps in the knowledge base. The Chairman recognised the importance of identifying future research priorities, but hoped to produce a report with more wide ranging recommendations. It was anticipated that the Group’s report would be made widely available.

Concluding remarks

Members of the Expert Group stressed that they wanted to be in a position to make a balanced judgement about the nature of any risks and the best way forward. It was noted that the Group could only make recommendations, and that final decisions on any actions rests with the Government.

The Expert Group felt that the meeting had been a success and would be a valuable contribution to their work. The majority of the points raised had been under active consideration by the Group, but it was valuable to confirm that they were targeting the right issues. The Chairman closed the meeting by thanking members of the public for their participation and contribution.

The original announcement of the open meeting is available.

First issued 7 December 1999