SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
(a) We recommend
that the Government adopt the International Commission on Non-Ionising
Radiation Protection recommended guideline limits for microwave
exposure as a precautionary measure. We further recommend that
these guidelines be introduced quickly but with a grace period
to allow network operators to achieve full compliance (paragraph
22).
(b) We reject the
main criticisms of the National Radiological Protection Board.
Whilst the National Radiological Protection Board's guidelines
for maximum microwave exposures are significantly higher than
those found in some other countries, their scientific justification
is largely unchallenged. Other bodies including the International
Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, a European Expert
Group and the World Health Organisation, agree with the National
Radiological Protection Board's assessment that there is no scientific
basis for exposure limits to avoid potential harm from athermal
effects of microwaves (paragraph 28).
(c) We recommend that
the National Radiological Protection Board regularly reviews the
scientific evidence for athermal effects (paragraph 29).
(d) The establishment
of the Expert Group on Mobile Phones is a highly appropriate response
from Government but we view it as a temporary measure. In the
long term, Government and the National Radiological Protection
Board must ensure that the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation
has sufficient resources to discharge its duties effectively and
in a timely manner. We regard this as a responsible recognition
by Government that constant vigilance is required in a rapidly
changing field (paragraph 31).
(e) We recommend that,
while they should not be in the majority on the proposed Expert
Group, if industrial representatives have useful, relevant expertise,
they should be included (paragraph 32).
(f) We recommend that
there should be at least two lay members of the Expert Group,
as recommended in our previous report (paragraph 33).
(g) Greater clarity
in the rôle of lay members on advisory bodies and working
groups is required. We recommend that their rôle be clearly
set out, in advance of appointment, in terms of bringing alternative
perspectives to bear and holding up scientific assumptions to
proper scrutiny. To perform effectively lay members may need some
specialist knowledge. The rationale for their appointment must
be made clear (paragraph 34).
(h) We agree that
there is a "need to confirm or deny the work on microwave-induced
DNA fragmentation". We note with approval that industry
is co-operating with the World Health Organisation and the European
Union's fifth framework programme to determine priorities for
a collaborative research programme to examine athermal effects
of non-ionising radiation and endorse the need for this (paragraph
35).
(i) We agree with
the Royal Society of Canada that the evidence for neurological
problems reportedly caused by mobile phones, including symptoms
such as headache, nausea, tiredness, sleep problems and memory
loss, is unclear but there is sufficient anecdotal evidence and
uncertainty to justify further research (paragraph 36).
(j) We believe that
the level of publicly-funded research into the effects of microwave
emissions falls short of an adequate programme into an area where
public health implications should be regularly reviewed. We recommend
that the Government ensures that a higher priority is given to
a research programme into the health impacts of mobile phones.
The public health aspects of new technologies should be incorporated
into the Foresight Programme (paragraph 37).
(k) It is essential
that there is an independent and appropriately-funded research
programme which is seen to be objective and which is seen not
to be directed by commercial interests, even if industry makes
a contribution, to the funding (paragraph 39).
(l) We recommend that
the industry and the National Radiological Protection Board explore
ways in which the design of mobile phones might limit personal
exposure to radiation as a means of assisting consumer choice
(paragraph 40).
|
|
