House of Commons - Science and Technology

Select Committee on Science and Technology Third Report

SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY SYSTEM: MOBILE PHONES AND HEALTH

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

The National Radiological Protection Board

23. The NRPB is a statutory body, established under the Radiological Protection Act 1970, charged with advising Government on the health hazards of exposure to radiation for the public, workers who are occupationally exposed, and patients undergoing medical treatment.[38] Its advice covers both ionising and non-ionising radiation. In formulating its advice, the NRPB told us that it not only draws on internal research but also takes account of the work of other national and international organisations and assesses all related research findings.[39]

24. The NRPB distinguishes between ionising and non-ionising radiation in its provision of advice as well as in its organisational structure. With regard to ionising radiation, the NRPB is clear that any level of exposure, however small, may cause harm and so exposure should be avoided and minimised.[40] Mobile phones emit only non-ionising radiation. The NRPB guidance on limiting exposure to non-ionising radiation sets a threshold below which the thermal effects of the radiation are considered to be harmless.[41] The NRPB does not consider that there is sufficient evidence for adverse athermal health effects of mobile phone radiation to justify considering such effects in its guidelines for maximum exposures.[42] We return to this later (see para 29).

25. The work of the NRPB on non-ionising radiation is informed by the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR). Since its establishment in 1990, the AGNIR has been chaired by Sir Richard Doll, an eminent epidemiologist. The AGNIR advises the NRPB on the biological effects of non-ionising radiation relevant to human health and on research priorities. Its members are drawn from relevant medical and academic communities.[43]

26. Some witnesses question the NRPB's credibility and the quality of its advice on non-ionising radiation. One pressure group, which alleges that there are health risks posed by electromagnetic fields, told us that NRPB staff had unhealthily close links with the Department of Health and questioned whether they possessed the right balance of expertise.[44] Others claim that the NRPB too often dismisses data on individuals' health complaints as anecdotal and that it appeared "to side with the cellular industry, rallying to their defence on every occasion they are under pressure".[45] Coghill Laboratories suggest that the NRPB spends too small a proportion of its income on non-ionising radiation research and accuses it of deriving income from "arguably suspicious industrial sources". They also criticise the NRPB for doing reviews which omit "important studies not convenient to their views"and of not being respected in the scientific community.[46] Mr Phil Willis MP told us that the NRPB "does not enjoy widespread public confidence" and is "not seen as independent because it advises both industry and the Government".[47]

27. In contrast, a number of witnesses held the NRPB in high regard. The Chief Medical Officer told us that he reviewed NRPB advice, along with colleagues and other individuals "eminent in the field" and found it to be of high quality.[48] The Minister told us that "the NRPB is an expert body with some of the most eminent people in the field".[49] The Federation of the Electronics Industry (FEI) told us that the NRPB's staff included "internationally renowned experts who have a great deal of experience".[50] The NRPB's advice in this area is broadly consistent with that of major international organisations.[51]

28. We reject the main criticisms of NRPB. Whilst the NRPB'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 ICNIRP, a European Expert Group and the World Health Organisation (WHO), agree with the NRPB's assessment that there is no scientific basis for exposure limits to avoid potential harm from athermal effects of microwaves.

29. We do note that there is a range of evidence suggesting possible athermal effects of microwaves. Some of this evidence, while as yet not replicated, has been properly peer reviewed and published in respected scientific journals.[52] The NRPB has acknowledged that many uncertainties remain in this area and has supported calls for further research.[53] We recommend that the NRBP regularly reviews the scientific evidence for athermal effects.

TRANSMITTER BASE STATIONS

30. In the main, public anxiety has centred on transmitter base stations, particularly those sited in residential areas and on school buildings but there is little evidence to support claims that these have any adverse health impacts. Either because of the height of the masts on the roofs of buildings or because at ground level they are fenced off, the attenuated radiation to anyone passing would be well within safety limits.

The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones

31. In April 1999, the Minister announced that, in response to recent research publications, the now widespread use of mobile phones and "the heightened public concern about health effects from mobile phones", the NRPB had been instructed to establish an Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones to assess rigorously the current state of research into the health impacts of mobile phones.[54] It will also identify priority areas for new research, provide an independent risk assessment and advise on the implications of new developments.[55] The membership and terms of reference of the Expert Group were recently announced.[56] Scientific advice in this area is normally provided by the AGNIR via the NRBP. The Department of Health explained that the AGNIR was not expected to finish its current work on exposures to powerline frequencies quickly enough to be able to address the mobile phones issue with sufficient urgency.[57] Nevertheless, the fact that the Government needed to establish an additional body does suggest that the existing mechanisms were unsatisfactory. 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 NRBP must ensure that the AGNIR 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.

32. When the establishment of the Expert Group was first announced, the Minister stated that its membership would be "drawn from the relevant scientific fields, consumers and the industry".[58] In evidence to us, however, she stated clearly "that we should not have representatives of the industry on the advisory group, but that the advisory group should certainly consult with industry".[59] We are disappointed by this change of heart. If the integrity of scientific advisory bodies is brought into question by the inclusion of industrial participants, the appropriate response from Government should be to defend that integrity and to be prepared to justify its selection of candidates. As we have said before, if the Government is to have access to the best scientific advice—which it must—it is vital that appointments to scientific advisory bodies are made on the basis of suitability and relevant expertise rather than on the basis of representation of interest groups.[60] 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.

33. The Minister does, however, intend to include consumer representation on the Expert Group. The Chief Scientific Adviser has explicitly set out the "need to involve at least some experts from other, not necessarily scientific, disciplines, to ensure that the evidence is subjected to a sufficiently questioning review from a wide ranging set of viewpoints".[61] Experience demonstrates that the inclusion of lay members on scientific advisory bodies can be beneficial, challenging the ways in which scientists approach issues and serving as witnesses to their independence and robustness.[62] We recognise that lay members add value to scientific committee deliberations by bringing alternative perspectives. We note that of the ten members of the Expert Group, only one is designated as a lay member. We recommend that there should be at last two lay members of the Expert Group, as recommended in our previous report. [63]

34. We have previously recorded our unease over the way in which the rôle of lay members is defined and acknowledged.[64] The Department of Health's use of the term 'consumer representative', in evidence to us, prompts us to do so again. We were pleased to note that in announcing the membership of the Expert Group, the term 'lay member' was used. The term 'consumer representative' is unhelpful; it may serve to give the false impression that it is part of a scientific advisory body's remit to take consumer interests into account. It may also suggest that all consumer concerns have been taken adequately into account—which is not so. The Minister told us that in seeking a consumer representative for this Group she would draw "from a pool of people who are used to representing the public interest and have a track record as champions of the consumer interest".[65] We do not accept the suggestion that consumer representatives are better placed to serve the public interest than others. All members of scientific advisory committees should be expected to serve the public interest on an equal basis. 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.

The Need for Research

35. Several epidemiological and experimental studies have investigated the possibility of links between RF radiation and cancer.[66] While there is no proven mechanism for such radiation to cause cancer, even though some may be postulated, these observations continue. Most published and peer-reviewed work in this area has failed to show any link and the work which has demonstrated statistically significant links has not been replicated.[67] The Royal Society of Canada has concluded that the data did "not support a hypothesis of an association between exposure to radiofrequency fields and risk of cancer, reproductive problems, or congenital abnormalities".[68] However, the report did point to one recent study—that of Lai and Singh which found DNA fragmentation in rats exposed to RF radiation[69]—and suggested that this should be "taken seriously as an indication of the potential genotoxicity of RF fields"; however several other laboratories' repeated attempts to reproduce these results have failed.[70] The NRPB has reached a broadly similar conclusion but has also pointed out that lack of evidence does not prove absence of risk and argues that further research is required.[71] We agree that there is a "need to confirm or deny the work on microwave-induced DNA fragmentation".[72] We note with approval that industry is co-operating with the WHO and the EU'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.

36. Indications of athermal harmful effects from mobile phones are, however, speculative or anecdotal. For instance, Dr Gerard Hyland, a theoretical physicist from the University of Warwick, is concerned that current safety guidelines do not account for the impact which pulsed microwaves might have on living tissues, especially those of the nervous system. He suggests that there may be potential for the 217 Hz pulsed signal from digital GSM phones, which is in the range of brain alpha waves, to have an adverse impact on neurological function.[73] One company which manufactures and markets a product designed to reduce absorption levels, has "recorded details of thousands of users complaining of a range of symptoms which they blame on their mobile".[74] Anecdotal evidence can, however, usefully serve to target further scientific research. 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.[75]

37. If the Government is to receive effective scientific advice, then that advice needs to be based on a sound body of research-based, peer-reviewed evidence. The Medical Research Council (MRC) funds no research at present into the health aspects of mobile phones, radio waves or non-ionising radiation, although it told us that it would welcome good quality research proposals in this area.[76] The Minister told us that the extent of Department of Health funding for research in this area is £60,000. The NRPB budget for microwave frequency research in 1999/2000 is just £300,000.[77] The Minister accepts that the "research programme in this area is very small and inadequate to service the need for further scientific and public knowledge".[78] We note that mobile operators pay substantial licence fees to the Radiocommunications Agency for the use of their radio spectrum and also that the Government expects to raise around £1 billion from the UMTS spectrum auction next year.[79] 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.

Industrial Research

38. The mobile phone industry itself makes a major contribution to research relating to microwave absorption. (An example of this can be seen in a recent industry/university LINK project which developed a technique for measuring the SAR in the human head from mobile phones.)[80] The GSM Association, which represents all GSM network operators worldwide, contributes funds to the WHO Electromagnetic Field (EMF) project and expects to provide £3 million over the next 5 years.[81] It also plans to fund 25% of the European Fifth Framework Programme into mobile phone safety.[82] Worldwide, the industry estimates that it has to date spent some $50-60 million on research into the health effects of mobile phone systems.[83] This represents a significant research effort and, while much of that spending is directed towards external research, a proportion is also undertaken in-house which means that some valuable expertise and knowledge rests in industry itself.[84] In many cases, co-operation from network operators or manufactures will be essential to the success of a research project—such as epidemiological studies which require data on mobile phone usage.[85] Global co-ordination of research efforts, such as that supported jointly by the Mobile Manufacturers' Forum Research Planning Committee and the WHO, can remove unnecessary duplication and ensure that every aspect is addressed.

39. As Vodafone and Motorola point out, however, the industry's credibility in exploring the safety of its products itself is limited.[86] Industrial research needs to be complemented by the work of the WHO and corroborated by research undertaken by others through the Research Councils. 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.

Reducing Microwave Absorption

40. Some mobile phone users, in response to reported uncertainties about the radiation effects, have chosen to use additional devices, which purport to reduce absorption, as a precautionary measure. Both the NRPB and Vodafone questioned the effectiveness of protective shields— devices which fit around phones—which are designed to reduce the levels of radiation reaching the head. The NRPB told us that these devices will reduce the ability of the phone to communicate with the base station and so the phone will increase the transmission power, resulting in the same level of exposure.[87] Vodafone said that shields are "setting out to defeat the purpose for which the product is designed".[88] One manufacturer of such shields, however, strongly refuted the suggestion that their product was ineffective.[89] Hands-free kits allow mobile phones to be used away from the head and so can reduce the amount of radiation reaching the head. This is likely to increase the amount of radiation reaching other parts of the body, depending on where the handset is held. Motorola told us that these devices are bought "as least as much for comfort in prolonged use" as they are for health reasons.[90] Handset SARs vary from model to model.[91] Vodafone told us that "with advances in antenna design, it is possible to direct more of the signal towards the radio base station", thus reducing the SAR.[92] We recommend that the industry and the NRPB explore ways in which the design of mobile phones might limit personal exposure to radiation as a means of assisting consumer choice.