Mobile phone health concerns and the telecom industry
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
SEE risk briefing May 2005
Mobile phone health
concerns and the telecom
industry
The mobile phone industry has grown
dramatically since it took off around 15
Inside
years ago. The number of users
worldwide has increased from 11
Introduction to the issue ……….1
million in 1990 to 1.5 billion today - in
many countries more than half of the
Background – the science and
population use mobile phones. New
public concerns ...........................2
developments such as photo messaging
and the launch of third generation (3G)
Potential social, ethical and
phones are expected to result in further
environmental concerns ………4
growth. In the UK alone, there are
already 55 million mobile phones
Exposure factors …………………..5
subscribers and about 45,000 radio
base stations, which could rise to
Managing the risk …………………6
50,000 by 2007, according to the
Mobile Operators Association (MOA).
Good practice examples …………8
The growth in mobile phone use has
Company assessments …………..9
been accompanied by an increasing
community concern about the numbers
of masts and exposure to radio waves.
The introduction of mobile phones was
1. Introduction followed by allegations that the
microwave radiation used to transmit
This series of SEE risk briefings seeks communications between base stations
to identify areas of potential social, and handsets could cause brain damage
environmental and ethical (SEE) risk, - leading to memory loss and malignant
analyse the ways in which these risks tumours. After hundreds of studies
may materialise and highlight how around the world, the evidence remains
companies can manage these issues. inconclusive. Concerns about potential
adverse health effects of radio
frequency (RF) emissions from mobile
© EIRIS 1/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
handsets and base stations have been output of the antennae - macrocells,
the subject of a very public debate microcells and picocells.
involving the press, governments,
international organisations and local Radio waves are electromagnetic
communities. energy. It has been established that
such energy can lead to the heating of
Both operators and manufacturers have the body but radio waves do not have
come under increased pressure to enough energy to damage cell
demonstrate that they are taking these structures and are known as 'non-
concerns into account and addressing ionizing'. Scientific research has led to
related risks. As time passes, the conclusion that a temperature rise
manufacturers are progressively of no more than one degree Celsius is a
reducing the power output of their safe level for the body to cope with.
phones, so radiation risks to individual International health and safety
users are diminishing. However, as the guidelines are in place to limit public
number of subscribers surges past 1.5 exposure to radio waves from base
billion, even a tiny individual health risk stations and mobile phones, and are set
could have a large impact. The safety by the International Commission on
of mobile phones is likely to remain a Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
contentious issue for many years to (ICNIRP).
come.
Some countries have introduced
2. Background national limits for RF exposure largely
based on ICNIRP standards, which are
2.1. The science endorsed by the World Health
Organisation (WHO). Specific
Mobile phones and their base stations Absorption Rates (SAR) measure the
transmit and receive signals using energy absorbed from mobile handsets.
electromagnetic waves - also referred Guidelines for the general public have
to as electromagnetic fields, or radio been set at 2.0W/kg (watts per
waves. Frequencies between about 30 kilogram of tissue). Handsets sold in
kHz (kilohertz) and 300 GHz the EU have SAR values between
(gigahertz) are widely used for 0.2W/kg and 1.7W/kg, with most
telecommunication, including radio and around the 1.0W/kg level. All are below
television, and comprise the radio the guidelines for the EU of 2.0W/kg.
frequency (RF) band. Both mobile
phones and base stations emit RF The WHO concluded, based on an in-
radiation. Exposure levels depend on depth review of the scientific literature,
the source and generally reduce with that current evidence does not confirm
increasing distance from the source. the existence of any health
For mobile phones exposures are consequences from exposure to low
principally to the side of the head for level RF emissions. However, the WHO
hand-held use, or those parts of the considered that some gaps in
body closest to the handset for hands- knowledge regarding biological effects
free use. RF exposure from base exist and that these areas require
stations will be to the whole body, further research. The WHO has
generally at a lower level of intensity established an International
than handsets, but continual. Base Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Project to
stations vary in size and the power assess the scientific evidence of
possible health effects of RF emissions.
© EIRIS 2/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
In May 2000, the UK Independent confusion and mistrust. Understanding
Expert Group on Mobile Phones, chaired public perceptions of risk and health
by Sir William Stewart, concluded that concerns is a key issue for telecom
the balance of evidence to date did not companies.
suggest mobile phone technologies
cause adverse health effects. However, Handsets Members of the public have
it called for more research to fill gaps in attributed a range of symptoms to the
scientific knowledge and for a use of mobile handsets including
precautionary approach to be adopted, impairment to short-term memory,
including limiting the use of mobile headaches, brain tumours, other
phones by young children. This was cancers, sleep disturbance, depression
reaffirmed by the National Radiological and tiredness. However, the majority of
Protection Board (NRPB), also chaired mobile phone users perceive the health
by Sir William Stewart, in January risk as low, as the handsets are
2005. Similar conclusions were drawn voluntarily chosen and convey an
in reports commissioned in other advantage to the user.
European countries such as the Zmirou
Report in France. Mobile base stations Symptoms
attributed to RF exposure from base
Findings from a team of scientists from stations include headaches, sleep
the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm disturbance, depression, stress and
told a different story. They published a tiredness. In some cases a correlation
report in October 2004 showing that with an increased incidence of cancer
people who used mobile phones for has been suggested. There is particular
more than 10 years had a doubled risk concern regarding the siting of base
of developing acoustic neuroma, a stations on or near schools, hospitals
slow-growing tumour of the nerve and residential areas. Other concerns
between the ear and brain. include the negative visual impact and
Confirmation - or otherwise - may occur potential reductions to property values.
soon. The Swedish study is part of a
large collaboration, involving The involuntary nature of RF exposure
researchers from 13 countries, called from base stations increases the
Interphone, which is co-ordinated by magnitude of perceived risk. People,
the International Agency for Research especially those who do not use mobile
on Cancer (IARC). The focus is on phones, often perceive the health risks
investigating three types of tumour as high.
including brain tumours, acoustic
neuromas and tumours of the salivary A proposal to site a new base station
gland, whose location makes them the frequently meets with strong
most likely candidates for a link with community disapproval and opposition.
mobile phone radiation. Interphone In many countries local community
expects more national studies to be protest groups are formed. In some
published during 2005 and early results cases these may be co-ordinated at a
from the international programme national level, for example in the UK
should also be available this year. Powerwatch and Mast Sanity campaign
for acknowledgement of the adverse
2.2. Public concerns health effects of RF emissions and
protest against insensitive siting of
Incomplete scientific evidence and base stations.
ineffective communication of available
evidence has lead to widespread public
© EIRIS 3/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
3. Scope of EIRIS research 4. Potential social, ethical
& environmental risks
EIRIS analysis focuses on European
mobile operators. While both mobile
and opportunities
phone manufacturers and operators
This briefing seeks to identify areas of
may be adversely affected by risks
potential risks and ways in which these
related to RF emissions, this analysis
may materialise in the short to medium
focuses on operators as their risks
term (three to five years).
relate to both masts and handsets and
their level of exposure to the risks
The balance of evidence to date from
identified is, therefore, relatively
both national and international sources
higher.
supports the view that low level RF
emissions do not cause adverse health
Although excluded from the analysis,
effects. However, there remains a
mobile handset manufacturers may
possibility that current guidelines are
need to address concerns related to the
insufficient to guard against any
use of handsets and some of them are
adverse health effects which may be
already involved in initiatives to
found to exist in the future. Health
develop guidelines and best practice
risks, whether actual or merely
approach. Mobile handset
perceived, could result in fewer new
manufacturers have adopted a broadly
network subscribers, lower network
common approach to the potential
usage per subscriber, higher churn
health effects from handsets. For
rates, difficulty obtaining planning
example, the Mobile Manufacturers
permission for masts, product liability
Forum (MMF), an international
lawsuits or a reduction in the outside
association representing Alcatel,
financing available to the mobile
Ericsson, Mitsubishi Electric, Motorola,
industry.
Nokia, Panasonic, Philips, Sagem and
Sony Ericsson, jointly funds key
Key ways in which mobile phone
research projects and co-operates on
companies may be affected in practice
standards, regulatory issues and public
if these concerns are not addressed are
communication.
outlined below:
This analysis also excludes mobile
License to operate Erosion of
virtual network operators (MVNOs)
community confidence and consequent
because they do not have direct control
opposition to proposed mast sitings
over mast siting. MVNOs do not operate
increases direct costs to operators
a physical mobile network but can
through site acquisition delays.
access the mobile network of one or
Operators may face a loss of earnings
more mobile operators to provide
because of delays in erecting new
mobile communications services to
masts and therefore difficulties in
their customers. Although they may
attracting new customers due to
have a responsibility to inform the
potential reduction in service quality.
public on health issues related to
The degree of public disapproval is
mobile phones and masts, they have no
largely dependent on the country in
power to decide where the masts are
question. The number of community
located or their level of RF.
action groups, public complaints and
level of press coverage varies from
country to country.
© EIRIS 4/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
Litigation Claims relating to potential brand valuation will influence the
adverse health effects may be brought damage to the company. The quality
by customers, communities or and availability of information on
employees. A limited number of claims mobile phones and health provided by
have been brought against mobile operators and their engagement with
operators and manufacturers alleging concerned communities on the issue
personal injury, including brain cancer. can, to some extent, limit such
The losses that may arise from these negative impact. Subsequent evidence
claims have not been quantified and establishing negative health effects
claims are being vigorously defended. associated with mobile phone use,
Irrespective of outcome, the cost of while considered unlikely at this stage,
defending such actions is considerable presents a significant longer term risk
and may not be fully recoverable even for the sector.
if the claim does not succeed.
On the basis of this analysis the most
Regulation ICNIRP guidelines for significant short to medium term risks
maximum exposure levels have been would appear to result from difficulties
adopted in an EC Recommendation siting new masts.
agreed in principle by all EU countries.
Many national authorities have set 5. Exposure factors
lower limits. Planning regulations
relating to mast siting vary by country 5.1. Size of mobile operations
and in many cases power is devolved to
local authorities. Some have taken In identifying the companies most at
strong positions refusing permission for risk EIRIS considers the largest
masts to be sited on their land, companies to be most significantly
especially near schools. Ignoring local affected by these issues and has set the
concerns can lead to rejection of threshold for turnover at GBP100m
planning applications and the potential derived from mobile operations. EIRIS
for more restrictive planning has identified 18 companies for which
regulations at a national level. Indeed, the turnover is above this threshold.
a report from the All-party These comprise Bouygues (France),
Parliamentary Group on Mobile Cosmote (Greece) , Deutsche Telekom
Communications recommended new (T-Mobile, Germany), France Telecom
legislation on the siting of masts in the (Orange), KPN (Netherlands), Mobistar
UK. Self-regulation may remove the (Belgium), O2 (UK), Portugal Telecom,
need for this. Swisscom, Tele2 (Sweden) Telekom
Austria, Telenor (Norway), Telecom
Reputation Local community Italia (TIM), TeliaSonera (Sweden),
campaigns against mast siting or a Telefonica (Spain), TDC (Denmark)
wider public health scare leading to Vivendi Universal (SFR, France) and
adverse national press coverage may Vodafone (UK).
negatively impact corporate reputation
in the long term. The extent of this Exposure to the risks outlined above
activity is largely dependent on the may also vary according to factors
country as public perceptions of the identified below. These have not been
health risks related to mobile phones independently assessed by EIRIS in
vary greatly across the world. The level reaching its assessment of each
of brand awareness globally, whether company, but analysts may wish to
the mobile operations and parent take them into account.
company have the same name and the
© EIRIS 5/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
5.2. Country of operation Without community approval, mast
siting may incur additional costs and
The country of operation plays a key threaten a company’s ability to expand.
role both as a result of national The degree to which this affects a
regulations and the degree of localised company will depend on a company’s
concern. network expansion strategy with regard
to 2G and 3G networks. The cell sizes
In September 2003, Vodafone for 3G networks are smaller than for 2G
commissioned market research and therefore, require more base
company MORI to carry out a global stations to cover the same area. Some
survey of perceptions about health operators are already seeking to
issues connected with mobile phones upgrade their existing base stations or
and masts. The survey, which share sites used by other operators but
comprised more than 17,000 interviews more masts will be needed to meet
in 14 different countries, provides licence requirements.
useful insights into how public concern
about electronic magnetic fields (EMF)
is stronger in some countries than
others. In Greece, Portugal and Questions for analysts
Sweden, for example, the majority of
the population do not believe that What are public perceptions and
mobile phones are safe to use, while in relevant regulations in the
the UK the majority think mobiles are countries of the company’s main
safe. In Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malta geographical focus?
and Spain, opinion is divided.
To what extent does the
Relative perceived benefits of mobile company’s growth strategy
phones also vary, but users in most depend on extending its mobile
European countries, except Greece, mast networks?
believe the benefits of using mobile
phone outweigh the claimed health
effects. This is the case for 73% of the
population in Ireland and 71% in 6. Managing the risk
Germany but only 28% in Greece. EMF
exposure from masts is generally In analysing the ways in which
perceived to be a more serious issue companies can manage the risks
than exposure from handsets. identified by this study we have
Background information outlining key assessed the policies and systems
regulatory requirements and industry adopted, the extent of public provision
initiatives in European operators’ main of information and ways in which the
countries of operation is provided in company engages with affected
Annex 9.2. communities.
5.3. Network expansion plan Although there is no incontrovertible
including 3G technology evidence that mobile phones represent
a health threat, each new study has the
A company’s license to operate with potential to generate damaging media
respect to mast siting is identified as a coverage. Mobile operators need to
key short-term risk. Few would take appropriate steps to address
welcome a mast in their local area and issues related to mobile phone health
objection to such plans is common.
© EIRIS 6/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
concerns to ensure they will not suffer the public that their interests are being
the same fate as other industries that addressed. Mike Dolan, executive
have ignored or mismanaged similar director of the Mobile Operators
health scares such as GMO technology. Association admits that "people like
their phones but don't like the network"
According to Chris Genasi, the and says that any expansion of the
president of the UK's Institute of Public network infrastructure must be
Relations and a specialist in managing sensitively handled. "In terms of
corporate reputations, adherence to network development, we have taken a
what he calls "the three golden rules" proactive approach, with a commitment
could significantly benefit all companies to best practice on siting. The operators
facing a health scare crisis. "The first is also publish roll-out plans before they
acknowledgment of it. Do not make the go to the more difficult sites" he says.
mistake of poo-poohing a concern.
Whether it's real or perceived, you Despite national differences, telecom
acknowledge that it's there. Second, companies often have a global presence
you put it into perspective… And then, and there is an increasing trend
finally, you make it clear that you are towards group-wide policies and
doing something about it," he told the management practices regardless of
Financial Times in January 2005. the country of operation. EIRIS has
identified 16 key indicators for
Network operators have not denied that assessing companies’ management of
there is a problem. Many of them insist mobile phone health concerns. These
that they take the issue seriously and fall into three categories and are as
refer to independent scientific studies follows:
or to the work they have done either in
distributing information to stakeholders Strategy & responsibility
or in supporting the research.
According to the World Health • Senior manager or committee
Organisation, some EUR154m responsible for RF related issues
(USD200m) has been spent on • RF emissions identified as SEE risk at
researching the potential health board level
hazards. • Funding of independent scientific
research into health effects
Industry sponsored research is often • Commitment to best practice siting
mistrusted and if this is to be avoided guidelines
mobile companies need to be at arm's • Commitment to site sharing with
length from the research and remain other operators
committed to a transparent approach • KPIs or targets to assess management
by keeping employees, customers and of risk related to RF emissions
the public informed of any significant • R&D strategy to minimise RF
developments. emissions
To avoid losing public confidence Public information - availability and
network operators will need to engage quality of information provided by the
with the public over perhaps the most company regarding RF emissions
controversial aspect of mobile
telephony - masts and base stations. • Clear section in public reports and/or
Engagement and consultation with website or FAQs on RF issues
concerned communities may not put an • Details of independent information
end to the controversy but can reassure source
© EIRIS 7/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
• Public database of mast sites channel of communication. Orange, for
• Monitoring of compliance with ICNIRP example, provides a free phone number
levels to address queries. Active community
• Stand-alone document for customers engagement has been demonstrated by
providing information on RF health Telefonica Moviles who proactively sent
risks etc out a separate report ‘Electromagnetic
• Disclosure of SAR levels for handsets Fields, Mobile Telephony and Health’ to
professional organisations and
Community engagement & municipal governments addressing
measures specific stakeholder concerns.
Swisscom goes further offering to
• Stakeholder engagement provide specialists to give a lecture at
• Clear communication channels community meetings and answer
• Free RF measurement or independent questions in person.
audit for local residents living near a
mast Sources
Mobile Phones and Health – the Stewart
EIRIS will also record a commitment to Report; the World Health Organisation;
minimising visual impact of masts, the International Commission on Non-
although this will not count in the Ionizing Radiation Protection; The
assessment of the company’s European Telecommunications Network
management of mobile health Operators Association (ETNO)’s
concerns. Detailed definitions of Sustainability Charter; GSM Association
indicators are provided in Annex 9.1.1. website; MMF website; the UK Mobile
Operators Association, the French
7. Good practice examples Association of Mobile Operators
(AFOM), Forum Mobil
In countries with significant public (Switzerland),various national and
opposition to mast siting mobile international press reports; mobile
operators have formed associations and handset manufactures’ and mobile
drawn up best practice guidelines for operators’ websites, annual and CSR
mast siting. One such example is the reports; communication with
UK Mobile Operators Association (MOA) Powerwatch, the deputy chairman of
which has established the ‘Ten the UK Advisory Group on Non-Ionising
Commitments to best siting practice’. Radiation and mobile operators. EIRIS
These are externally audited and research partners Imug and
include improved consultation with Ethifinance.
communities, detailed consultation with
planners and prompt response to
enquiries. Mobile operators in
Switzerland have committed to
financing an independent ombudsman
to resolve disputes over mast siting.
Best practice with regards to providing
public information includes Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQs) in company
reports or website, publishing stand-
alone documents distributed in sales
outlets and the provision of a dedicated
© EIRIS 8/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
8. Company assessments
(Deutsche Telekom)
Telekom Austria *
Portugal Telcom *
Cosmote (OTE) ∆
TIM ∆ (Telecom
(France Telecom)
(France Telecom)
SFR □ (Vivendi
TeliaSonera *
Swisscom *
Mobistar ∆
Vodafone *
(Telefonica)
(Bouygues)
T-Mobile □
Telefonica
Moviles ∆
Telecom □
Bouygues
Telenor *
Universal)
Orange □
Tele2 *
KPN *
TDC *
Italia)
O2 *
Strategy and responsibility
Responsibility
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
for RF issues
Identification as
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
SEE risk
Independent
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
research
Best practice
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
siting guidelines
Commitment to
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
site-sharing
Management
● ● ● ● ● ● ●
KPIs or targets
R&D strategy to
● ● ● ●
minimise RF
Public information
Clear info for RF
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
issues
Independent
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
info source
Public database
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
of mast sites
Monitoring
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
ICNIRP levels
Disclosure of
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
SAR levels
Stand-alone
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
document
Community engagement
Stakeholder
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
engagement
Communication
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
channel
Free RF audit/
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
measurement
Minimising
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
visual impact
Assessment G G G G I I I I I I I I I I L L NE NE
NE – no evidence; L – limited; I – intermediate; G – good; A – advanced
Detailed grading methodology is provided in Annex 9.1.
* Publicly quoted operator ∆ Publicly quoted operator with publicly quoted parent company
(name in parenthesis) □ Unquoted operator with publicly quoted parent company (name in
parenthesis) NB Parent company must own at least 20% of subsidiary
© EIRIS 9/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
9. Annex
9.1. Grading methodology
The assessment is based on evidence of the elements listed below in one or more of
the companies’ main countries of operation.
No
Limited Intermediate Good Advanced
evidence
Any indicator
Any one All marked All marked
Requirements No indicators from marked
indicator indicators indicators
sections
Strategy and responsibility
Responsibility
● ● ●
for RF issues
Identification as
● ●
SEE risk
Independent
● ●
research
Best practice
● ●
siting guidelines
●
Commitment to
● ●
site-sharing
Management
●
KPIs or targets
R&D strategy to
●
minimise RF
Public information
Clear info for RF
● ● ●
issues
Independent
● ● ●
info source
Public database
● ●
of mast sites
Monitoring
● ●
ICNIRP levels
●
Disclosure of
●
SAR levels
Stand-alone
● ●
document
Community engagement
Stakeholder
● ●
engagement
Communication
● ● ●
channel
Free RF audit/
● ●
measurement
Minimising EIRIS will indicate a commitment to visual impacts but this is not taken into
visual impact account for the overall assessment
© EIRIS 10/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
9.1.1. Indicator definitions consultation with stakeholders
includes sending information to
• Identification as SEE risk - health stakeholders, a commitment to
concerns related to mobiles and masts consult communities
identified as risk at board level • Communication channel includes
• Independent research refers to clear and dedicated contact for
research project carried by health queries, complaints or dispute
organisations and universities. This resolution
includes for example research by the
World Health Organisation or the See also section 6 – Managing the risk
Interphone project co-ordinated by
the International Agency for Research 9.2. Country profiles
on Cancer (IARC). It does not cover
research conducted or commissioned Public perceptions regarding EMF and
by the Company or the industry related risks vary according to country.
• Best practice siting guidelines The country of operation therefore
include national best practice such as plays a key role in mobile operators’
the Mobile Operators Association exposure to risk as a result of both
guidelines in the UK or the GSM national regulations and the degree of
Europe siting guidelines localised concern. The information
• Management KPIs or targets – below provides background on
clear key performance indicators or regulatory requirements and industry
targets to assess the management of initiatives in place in European
risk related to RF emissions operators’ main countries of operation.
• R&D strategy to minimise RF
emission levels and incorporate Austria
findings in development or design of In Austria the Telekommunikations-
products and services gesetz defines the maximum level for
• Independent information sources RF radiation, which follows the ICNIRP
include reports or other research recommendations. Austrian safety
published by the World Health requirements for high-frequency
Organisation, the International electromagnetic fields are laid down by
Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation ONORM S1120 (Österreichisches
Protection, and governmental bodies Normungsinstitute – Austrian Standards
such as the National Radiological Institute) and installations are regularly
Protection Board in the UK and tested. There are over 450 small
universities. This does not cover protest groups of residents
research conducted or commissioned campaigning to prevent the building of
by the company or the industry masts. A key complaint is that there is
• Stand-alone document for no right of veto against mast siting in
customers providing information on their neighbourhood. There are calls
RF health risks, ongoing research and from protest groups, politicians and
preventive measures to limit scientists for the government to
exposures to emissions and protect implement uniform regulations across
populations at risk such as children Austria.
• Monitoring ICNIRP levels - some
countries have introduced national The Forum Mobilkommunikation (FMK,
requirements to limit RF emissions www.fmk.at ) is an industry-wide
based on the ICNIRP initiative including all Austrian mobile
• Stakeholder engagement - operators, the mobile communications
proactive public communication and industry and the Association of Austrian
© EIRIS 11/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
Electrical and Electronics Industry report concluded that the strength of
(FEEI) established in 1996. Its mission radio waves from mobile networks in
is to promote a socially, Denmark is well below ICNIRP limits.
environmentally and financially However, there are many local groups
responsible and successful mobile protesting against the erection of masts
industry. Mobile communication and or for the removal of those already
health is a key focus. In response to built. In response, some local
growing public demand for information authorities are refusing permission for
a voluntary industry initiative was new masts.
launched in October 2003 to publish
site data for existing mobile France
communications facilities on the In 2001 the Zmirou Report,
Internet. The information published commissioned by the French
includes all mast and rooftop locations government to investigate the potential
for transmission facilities including both health risks associated with RF
GSM and UMTS antennae. radiation, was published. As a result of
its recommendations, the government
In 2001 Austrian mobile service outlined guidelines for mast siting and
providers concluded an agreement with maximum RF radiation levels within
the Österreichische Gemeindebund (the existing ICNIRP guidelines. In 2003, the
association representing smaller local French Agency for Environment Health
authorities) defining the procedures for and Security (AFSEE) recommended
disseminating information about new mobile operators and local
network expansions and the scope of administrations negotiate and sign
such information. charters in each city outlining rules for
mast siting. Some consumer
Belgium associations believe potential risks have
In December 2001, the Belgian federal not been adequately communicated.
government published a Royal Decree
(amending the April 2001 Royal In 1999, the three mobile operators in
Decree) introducing a new procedure to France (Bouygues Telecom, Orange
check whether or not an antenna site France and SFR) signed with the
complies with the ICNIRP levels. Mobile Environment and Culture ministers a
operators are required to send a National Environmental
technical file to the Belgian regulator, Recommendations Charter (Charte
Institut Belge des Postes et Environnementale du 12 juillet 1999).
Telecommunication (BIPT) containing According to this charter, followed by
information on the theoretical radiation an Environmental Recommendations
emitted by the antenna. A law Guide, mobile operators are bound to
introduced in January 2001 imposes take into account all environmental
obligatory site sharing between mobile considerations pertaining to the quality
operators, prohibits restrictive clauses and fragility of natural environments
on existing sites and imposes the when planning the installation of a new
establishment of a database of all base station. The three operators
antenna sites in Belgium. created the French Association of
Mobile Operators (AFOM, www.afom.fr )
Denmark in 2002 and, in April 2004, signed with
The Danish Ministry of Science, the French mayors (AMF) best practice
Technology and Innovation released a guidelines for mast siting, consultation
report in 2003 looking into the safety of with concerned communities and
mobile phones base stations. The disclosure of information.
© EIRIS 12/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
Government guidelines published in campaigning specifically against
October 2003 require SAR levels to be ‘electro-smog’.
disclosed for handsets and a hands-free
set to be included with each mobile German mobile operators have
phone sold. committed themselves to publishing a
database locating all their masts. This
In January 2005, a governmental is published on the Regulatory
decree established a public utility body Authority for Telecommunications and
called the 'Health and radio frequencies Post (RegTP, www.regtp.de ) website
foundation' (Fondation santé et and provides the public with
radiofrequences). The Foundation was information on fixed radio transmitters
set up to carry out independent requiring a safety certificate. Locations
research into whether exposures to EMF are listed where tests measuring RF
from mobile phones and their base radiation have been carried out to
stations have adverse health effects. determine the extent of compliance
The independence of its research is with safety limits. In 2001, all German
guaranteed by a scientific council under mobile operators signed a voluntary
the supervision of the Académie des industry commitment with the
Sciences. government which included the
following key elements - consultation
Germany with local authorities, information to
In Germany, the Bundesimmisions- customers on SAR, research funding
schutzverordnung has defined and transparency of information. This
maximum radiation levels for masts. commitment also includes independent
This legislation is based on ICNIRP audits as a basis for annual reports to
levels. Local planning regulations allow the German government. Such reports
the siting of masts under 10m without have been reviewed annually by
local planning permission. However, the independent research groups since
erection of masts on the roof of 2001.
residential buildings represents a
change in utilisation and may only be Greece
built with prior permission. Each mast The Greek Atomic Energy Commission
requires a site certification by the (EEAE) is the national competent
German Regulatory Authority for authority for the protection of the
Telecommunication and Post (RegTP). general public and the environment
Under its site certification procedure against non-ionising radiation in
the RegTP requires conservative Greece. The basic restrictions and
measurements, taking into account all reference values set in the Council
sources of EMF in the surrounding area Recommendation (1999/519/EC) have
of the prospective mast. Numerous been implemented but, especially in the
small residents protest groups exist case of base stations, Greek legislation
campaigning to prevent new masts has applied additional safety
being built in their community. Some parameters. EEAE conducts and co-
are organised into an incorporated ordinates measurements of existing and
society, Bürgerwelle e.V. National planned installations and provides
critics include the consumer information to the public.
organisation Verbraucherzentrale
Bundesverband e.V., the nature Italy
conservation association Deutscher The Italian Ministerial Decree
Naturschutzring and the Bundes- DM381/98 fixes exposure limits,
verband gegen Elektrosmog, cautionary thresholds and quality
© EIRIS 13/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
objectives for electro-magnetic fields. levels for RF radiation within ICNIRP
The restrictions comply with WHO recommendations.
recommendations for ‘maximum
caution’. The Financial Law of 2001 Portugal
established that a share of no less than The Instituto das Comunicacoes de
10% of the fund set up with the Portugal (ICP) adopted the maximum
revenues from the UMTS license tender radiation levels set out in the
should be allocated to activities for the Recommendation of the European
prevention and reduction of electro- Council 1999/519/CE and has
magnetic hazards. The Environmental incorporated this specification in the
Ministry, the Ministry of station license required for the
Communications, Ministry of Health and installation of new base stations. Non-
the Ministry of Productive Activities will compliance with these levels renders
be assigned part of the fund to finance the licensee liable to a fine under the
research on the effects of exposure to terms of the Decree-Law no. 151-
electro-magnetic radiation. The state A/2000.
has sole power to fix emission
standards for installed base stations; Spain
however the Regions have the power to In 2001 the Ministry of Science and
identify zones where base stations may Technology and the Ministry of Health
or may not be installed. and Consumption jointly drafted a
Royal Decree 1066/2001 which
Netherlands approved regulations establishing the
In early 2001, the Dutch government conditions of protection from RF
published a National Antenna Policy emissions, maximum levels and health
aimed at encouraging and facilitating protection measures. This included a
the siting on an adequate number of plan for measuring emissions from all
antennas within clear public health and base stations near or within populated
environment parameters. The Antenna areas. A further Ministerial Order
Covenant (forming part of the National CTE/23/2002 in 2002 established the
Antenna Policy) was drawn up in 2002, conditions, contents and formats of
making it possible, subject to certain studies and certifications that operators
conditions, to erect antenna masts on must submit to the Ministry of Science
buildings up to a height of 5m without a and Technology.
building permit. However, the Antenna
Covenant makes the mobile operators Sweden
fully responsible for the safety of the In 2002 the Swedish Radiation
base station. Protection Authority (SSI) issued
general advice on limitation of exposure
Norway of the general public to electromagnetic
An expert group on mobile telephony fields. The advice is in agreement with
and health, under the auspices of the the European Council Recommendation
Norwegian Institute of Public Health, from 1999. There is much public
published a report in April 2003. The concern regarding potential adverse
report cautioned that health effects health effects, especially in connection
may still occur and for users to limit with building 3G masts. Action groups
exposure, especially with regard to against 3G exist in different parts of
children and young people. The Sweden and there are some local
Norwegian Radiation Protection authorities that want to abstain from
Authority has set maximum emission allowing the building of 3G masts.
© EIRIS 14/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
In October 2004, a team of scientists through a public database of base
from the Karolinska Institute in stations in Switzerland
Stockholm published a report showing a (www.bakom.ch/en/funk/freq_nutzung/
statistically significant correlation standorte/index.htm )
between the long-term use of mobile
phones and acoustic neuroma, a slow- UK
growing tumour of the nerve between In 2000 the Independent Expert Group
the ear and brain. According to the on Mobile Phones, commissioned by the
study, people who used mobile phones UK government to investigate the
for more than 10 years had a doubled potential health risks associated with RF
risk of developing acoustic neuroma. radiation, published the Stewart Report.
The Karolinska Institute scientists and The report concluded that “the balance
the SSI have recommended the use of of evidence indicates that there is no
hands-free kits. general risk to the health of people
living near to base stations where the
Switzerland exposures are only small fractions of
Limits for RF emissions from mobile the guidelines” but recommended a
base stations came into effect in ‘precautionary approach’ until further
Switzerland in 2000 under the research is carried out. A review of the
Ordinance relating to Protection from evidence conducted in 2004 concluded
Non-Ionising Radiation (ONIR) set that there was no reason to amend this
within ICNIRP levels. Urban and advice but cautioned that “mobile
regional planning covers landscape and phones have only been in widespread
environmental protection and takes into use for a relatively short time. The
account RF radiation in sensitive areas possibility remains that there could be
such as playgrounds and residential health effects” and that “continued
areas. Some protest groups exist, research is needed”. The National
mostly campaigning for clearer Radiological Protection Board (NRPB,
legislation and a lower maximum level renamed the Health Protection Agency
of RF emissions. in April 2005: www.hpa.org.uk ) has
published guidelines covering maximum
The three main mobile operators in exposure levels at ICNIRP levels. A
Switzerland including Orange, Sunrise government database publishes radio
and Swisscom have undertaken to frequency emissions from base stations
finance an Ombudsman for Mobile (www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk ).
Communications and the Environment Planning permission in the UK is under
(OMK). This agency operates the remit of the local authority, except
independently under the auspices of the in Northern Ireland where it is centrally
Federal Department of the Interior and managed. Some refuse permission for
mediates in disputes over antenna sites masts, especially if sited on or near
or questions about RF radiation from schools and hospitals. There are
mobile phones and base stations. The numerous protest groups including
mobile operators have also established Powerwatch and their campaigning arm
Forum Mobil (www.forummobil.ch ) Mast Sanity.
with the purpose of promoting dialogue
about all aspects of mobile The five main operators in the UK (3,
communications with all interested O2, Orange, T-Mobile and Vodafone)
parties on an objective basis. have formed the Mobile Operators
Association (MOA,
The Federal Office of Communications www.mobilemastinfo.com ). The aim of
publishes RF emissions for all operators this association is to represent these
© EIRIS 15/16SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005
operators on RF health and planning Disclaimer
issues. They have set out best-practice
guidelines in the ‘Ten Commitments to Clients using this information should do
mast siting’ which includes a so with caution and not rely on this
commitment to develop, with other information in making any investment
stakeholders, clear standards and decisions. EIRIS does not and cannot
procedures to deliver significantly give financial advice and recommends
improved consultation with local that individuals seek independent
communities. Compliance with the Ten professional advice. While every effort
Commitments is annually checked by is made to ensure the accuracy of the
an independent auditor. It was last information presented, clients should
reviewed by Deloitte and Touch in be aware that it is derived from a
January 2005. variety of sources and that EIRIS does
not itself seek to verify the information
Powerwatch has informally ranked the those sources provide. EIRIS cannot
five UK operators on their approach to accept responsibility for any errors or
issues related to mobile phones, masts omissions. It is important to note the
and health. date of this document as circumstances
may have changed since then.
European Telecommunications
Network Operators’ Association This briefing is supplied for the use of
(ETNO) Members the recipient alone and its contents
Deutsche Telecom, France Telecom, may only be supplied to third parties
KPN, OTE, Portugal Telecom, Swisscom, with prior written consent of EIRIS
TDC, Tele2, Telecom Italia, Telefonica, Services Ltd. The copyright and all
Telekom Austria, Telenor and other intellectual property rights in
Teliasonera are all members of ETNO material supplied as part of this service
(www.etno.be ) and signatories to shall remain the property of EIRIS
ETNO’s Environmental Charter. The Services Ltd.
charter makes general commitments
including ‘We shall aim to ensure Statements contained in this paper
recognition and acknowledgement of all apply only to companies named in the
relevant environmental impacts, document and not to those that are not
including the positive and negative subject to EIRIS assessment.
impacts of our products and services.’
In addition, ETNO and its members
participate in studies commissioned by
the Directorate General Information For further information contact
Society and Directorate General Health
and Consumers to measure the Ethical Investment Research Services
potential impact of mobile technologies. (EIRIS) Ltd
Together with the Mobile Manufacturers 80-84 Bondway
Forum and GSMe, ETNO holds regular London SW8 1SF
dialogue with all interested parties,
organising information sessions with Tel: +44 20 7840 5700
Members of the European Parliament to Fax: +44 20 7735 5323
keep up a flow of objective research Email: ethics@eiris.org
results on radio frequency radiation, for
example. Website: www.eiris.org
© EIRIS 16/16You can also read
