I am becoming a bore. I wrote about the health issue in the last edition of Global Wireless. I wrote about it in the first issue of the year. Now I am writing about it again.
I make no apologies. Recent developments in the United Kingdom should scare the hell out of the mobile communications industry and make key industry players reassess their whole approaches. But there is little evidence of any reassessment. I suspect many key players are not even aware of the implications of recent developments. That certainly scares the hell out of me.
In January, I accused the manufacturing side of the industry of being dismissive of peoples’ legitimate concerns and placing itself in a classic position of denial. I now fear that we are seeing the consequences of that stance. It is not a pretty sight. The failure of the industry to create a climate of trust has opened the door to the application of the “precautionary approach.”
The precautionary approach outlines a philosophy for accepting new developments. It states that an absence of convincing evidence that risks are unacceptably high is not good enough. What is required is positive evidence that risks are acceptably low. When such positive evidence is lacking-as it is and always will be in the mobile health issue-then the precautionary approach can become enshrined in policy as the “precautionary principle.”
The precautionary principle says that in situations of uncertainty, you do not wait until the issue is resolved. Protective measures should be taken immediately if there is any uncertainty as to the extent or even existence of risks to human health. Adoption of a precautionary approach in the United Kingdom has been recommended by the recently published Stewart Report on mobile phones and health.
The Stewart Report concludes, “The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below [published] guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.” So nothing new here. The industry has welcomed this conclusion.
But the industry has not commented on, or perhaps even appreciated the significance of, the report’s recommendation to adopt a precautionary approach.
Here’s a partial list of the recommended consequences: development rights for the erection of base stations should be revoked; siting of all new base stations should be subject to the planning process; physical exclusion zones should be established around base station antennas; Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) should be published for all mobile phones; widespread use of mobile phones by children should be discouraged; the mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children; and non-peer-reviewed data and anecdotal evidence should be taken into account when assessing risk factors.
Changes to the regulation of base stations are needed, notes the report. It is not just the radiation from a mast that could be dangerous. Worrying about possible unknown effects can cause stress, and that in itself is a potential health risk.
No wonder publication of the Stewart Report was mysteriously delayed until after the outcome of the U.K. 3G auction process. The road ahead for mobile suddenly seems to be full of potholes. That is what you get when you go into denial.
