No
Evidence Of Risk Doesn't Mean Phones Are Safe
The Independent
November 27, 2000
The
official inquiry into the health risks of mobile phones published last May
found no evidence of any detrimental effects on users' health apart from a
demonstrably greater risk of car accidents for anybody driving while having a
telephone conversation.
However,
the working party chaired by Sir William Stewart, a former government chief
scientist, argued in favour of the "precautionary principle" and
said mobile phone users should be made aware of the limitations of scientific
research and make up their own minds about what action, if any, to take.
The
panel's advice has now prompted ministers - with the lessons of the BSE crisis
still fresh in their minds - to issue warnings to consumers planning to buy
mobile phones in the run-up to Christmas.
The
12 independent experts on the committee, including Sir William, did not give
cellphones the all-clear because even though no study to date has shown an
unequivocal health risk, the absence of clear evidence means there could still
be a risk to users. "We all know what happened about BSE," Sir
William said on the publication of his report, mindful of the view in the
early 1990s that there was no evidence that "mad cow" disease
threatened human health.
But
Sir William's report did recommend that the mobile phone industry should
refrain from promoting the use of cellphones to children on the basis that if
there was a risk, then children are likely to be in the greatest danger.
"If
there are currently unrecognised adverse health effects from the use of mobile
phones, children may be more vulnerable. In line with the precautionary
approach, widespread use by children for non-essential calls should be
discouraged," Sir William said.
Sir
William added that he was against giving children "unfettered
access" to cellphones: "The younger the child, the more care should
be taken in allowing them to use mobile phones," he said.
Children
are more likely to be at risk because their brains are still developing, their
skulls are thinner and their heads are smaller, which means they receive a
proportionately large dose of microwave radiation.
Most
of the research carried out on mobile phones has involved exposing cells or
tissues to high levels of radiation. So far, the results have been unclear
about whether the phones pose a health risk.
Alan
Preece, a researcher at Bristol University, has conducted the only research so
far to be carried out on human volunteers, who underwent a range of
psychological tests while using a mock device that simulated the radiation
emissions of a mobile phone.
Mr
Preece failed to find any effects on memory, despite reports to the contrary
published by some newspapers. He did, however, discover that people's reaction
times tended to improve while on the phone.
This
concerned him because radiation from mobiles may be having some effect on the
brain, possibly by a local heating effect, which may be improving blood supply
to one side of the user's head. Another investigation by Which?, the consumer
magazine, found that use of hands-6.00 devices - which are often sold on the
promise that they can lessen radiation exposure to the head - can actually
increase radiation doses by up to three times as the earpiece acts as an
aerial that channels microwaves to the brain.
But
the research on which these findings were based has been disputed by other
scientists, especially those working for the Federation of the Electronics
Industry, which criticised the methodology of the Which? researchers.
After
the Stewart inquiry, the Government is committed to spending millions of
pounds on more research, which may eventually find more satisfactory answers
on the health risks.
Until
then, perhaps the best advice is not to use them while driving: there is
evidence that to do so increases the risk of accidents fourfold, even if a
hands-6.00 device is used.
