SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH?
Bath Chronicle
11:00 - 20 May 2005
I Begin to wonder if Mr Michael Dolan and other government
officials or advisers read an entirely different version of
the 2004 Stewart Report for the National Radiological
Protection Board to that which is available from the NRPB
website. They seem to read from a different hymn sheet,
somehow.
On pages 47 and 48 of this report, under the heading 'main
conclusions on the possible effects of mobile phone
technology on human health'
1.16 to 1.21 reads as follows: 1.16. Despite public
concern about the safety of mobile phones and base stations,
rather little research specifically relevant to these emissions
has been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
This presumably reflects the fact that it is only recently that
mobile phones have been widely used by the public
(paragraphs 2.1-2.12) and as yet there has been little
opportunity for any health effects to become manifest. There is,
however, some peer-reviewed literature from human and animal
studies, and an extensive non-peer reviewed information base,
relating to potential health effects caused by exposure to RF
radiation from mobile phone technology.
1.17 The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures
to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause
adverse health effects to the general population
(Chapter 5, paragraphs 6.33-6.42)
1.18 There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests
that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures
below these guidelines. (paragraphs 5.176-5.194. 6.38). This does
not necessarily mean that these effects lead to disease or injury,
but it is potentially important information and we consider the
implications below.
1.19 There are additional factors that need to be taken into
account in assessing any possible health effects. Populations as
a whole are not genetically homogeneous and people can vary in
their susceptibility to environmental hazards. There are some
well-established examples in the literature of the genetic
predisposition of some groups, which could influence sensitivity
to disease. There could also be dependence on age.
We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say
that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national
guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects,
and that the gaps in the knowledge are sufficient to justify a
precautionary approach. (Chapter 5, paragraphs 6.35-6.42)
1.20 In the light of the above conclusions we recommend that a
precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies
be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust
information on any health effects becomes available.
(Chapter 5, paragraphs 6.35-6.42)
1.21 We note the precautionary approach, in itself, is not
without cost (paragraph 6.16) but we consider it to be an
essential approach at this early stage in our understanding
of mobile phone technology and its potential to impact on
biological systems and on human health. "
I find it very hard to reconcile Mr Dolan's, the mobile
phone companies' and Government's stance of "No evidence
of adverse health effects from mobile phones and base
stations operating within international guidelines"
with Sir William Stewart's "Balance of evidence suggests
that exposure etc" (1.17); the reference at 1.18, 'which
suggests that there may be biological effects"; the
reference at 1.19 "it is not possible at present to say
that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below
national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse
health effects."
I wonder if Mr Dolan can answer the question on most people's
lips? "What happened to the precautionary approach?"
I also wonder how Mr Dolan would answer those many people I
speak to on the Mast Sanity advice line, who tell me they
are unwell with what we now recognise as 'classic mast
symptoms', or how many people in their area feel unwell
around masts. Also they wonder why their doctors keep
telling them this technology is safe, rather than exploring
the possibility that their ill-health might be attributed
to this technology, using microwave radiation.
I guess the absolute proof either way lies in the future,
for there is no conclusive evidence at this moment in time
which seems to be acceptable either to officials, or those
who suffer around this technology. There will come a time,
and if any deceit is exposed, names will be remembered
by the people of the UK.
