The health risks of mobile phones remain a mystery, and neither industry nor government wants to know the truth. — By Jerome Simpson   Photo: M. CERNY DISTRESS CALL: Mobile communications link an Albanian refugee in former Yugoslavia to her family in May 2001. Thanks to the increasing number of telecommunication satellites and the roll out of mobile phone networks and transmitter masts, many countries are now experiencing rapid mobile phone growth. Germany and the UK will shortly be launching third generation cellular networks that will offer an assortment of new services such as the m-Internet, m-commerce, video telephony and e-mail. By 2004 the number of mobile users globally will rise to around 1 billion, from just 200 million in 2002, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit. People welcome the personal freedom and flexibility offered by mobile phones. Indeed when asked whether she could imagine life without one, a CEO of a leading environmental think tank in the region -- burdened with phones in both hands -- gave an emphatic "No!" It would appear there's little hope of immobilising the mobile juggernaut. But consider this. According to a recent article in the Medical Journal of Australia, the risks of collision and fatality when using a mobile phone while driving are similar to those of driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05 percent, the legal limit in many countries. Mobile phone use creates a distraction that can lead to unsafe speed, driving on the wrong side of the road, impaired brake reaction time and calculated time-to-collision, and failures to detect traffic signals. About 65 percent of Australians own mobile phones and some 2 percent of the drivers surveyed for the article were found to be using their phones during an observational study. This number raises serious concerns, particularly considering mobile phone penetration averages 75 percent in Western Europe. There, as in Australia, many drivers use their phones despite laws against it. Drivers in Central and Eastern Europe appear no better. Why? Are they ignorant of the risk, or has the emerging culture of unlimited communication access, as the Journal put it, swept these concerns aside? At the heart of the debate is "risk communication," in this case, the art of explaining technologies perceived by the public to be risky so that people can make informed choices. This sort of discourse raises the hackles of industry, which invariably demands justification for any such infringement on free trade. Take tobacco, for instance. Firm evidence established a direct link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer as far back as 1950, yet it took until the early 1970s to limit cigarette advertising and to institutionalise health campaigns that included warnings on cigarette packages and anti-smoking commercials. It took another 30 years for the first lawsuits to award damages to victims of lung cancer caused by smoking. Plenty of time then for the big producers to rake in the profits. With mobile phones, the issue is more complex, as besides traffic-related dangers, mobile phones have also raised questions concerning the health risks posed by low-frequency electromagnetic (EM) radiation. Concern in the region Certainly citizens are concerned, and not only by the health threats but by the environmental threats. An e-mail from Bosnia posted March 2002 to an environmental journalists e-mail discussion list noted, for instance, that the national telecom company there was installing mobile phone antennas all over the country, including by schools, homes and hospitals. The company, the writer said, claimed the antennas caused "absolutely no harm " and could be installed "in your backyard without having any consequences. "The writer went on to appeal to anyone with information about harmful effects of cell phone antennas. Such concerns echo those heard across Europe. A UK NGO called Mast Sanity advises concerned citizens and local authorities on how to get involved politically and make legal challenges regarding mast sitings. Concerns rise from aesthetic disturbance, the lack of information provided on the health and environmental impacts and the limited opportunity for citizens to get involved in the decision-making process, and to voice their fears or seek advice from qualified experts. Ioannis Maghiros of the EC's Joint Research Centre agrees that better communication from public authorities and industry, along with greater responsiveness to citizens' concerns, would promote the acceptability of the mobile phone technology already on the market. Maghiros wrote in an article in a February 2002 Joint Research Centre report that this is "necessary to ensure smooth introduction of the forthcoming mobile/wireless devices." Acknowledging these concerns and the need for action is a major issue for all decision makers, especially when faced with public controversy, scientific uncertainty and a need to satisfy myriad stakeholder demands. But the European Environment and Health Committee, an international body of experts representing government, NGOs, international organisations and industry, last fall approved a proposal to investigate public opinion in a handful of European countries. The study, which still awaits funding, would focus on public involvement in related decision-making processes, stakeholder interests and the extent of their concerns. Findings and recommendations would be presented at the Budapest 2004, "Future for Our Children," Environment and Health ministerial conference. The initiative has won limited support from the mobile phone industry, not surprising given the billions at stake with the impending rollout of 3G cellular networks and a still relatively enthusiastic public. Public bodies haven't shown much more enthusiasm, at best emphasising the importance of good governance. Fortunately efforts are underway to address public concern. The World Health Organisation, a champion of the precautionary principle, has published a guide for local authorities on "Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from EM Fields". In February, the European Commission evaluated the need for precaution-based tightening of low frequency EM radiation, and the Joint Research Centre's Institute for Environment and Sustainability is now developing a set of emission limits for mobile base stations (cell phone masts)and standards for risk communication. Even the UK Mobile Operators Association recently launched a Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development. But will these efforts go far enough, soon enough? Perhaps by the time the true consequences of mobile phones are known, the impacts on health, environment and society will have profoundly changed the way we live our lives anyway. Considering the 50 years it took for scientific findings to translate into legal action against tobacco companies, we can expect to be in for a long wait. Perhaps we are all better off drawing our own conclusions and educating our children on the risks and safe use of mobile phones, rather than waiting for decision makers to take action. Especially considering their time horizons rarely span beyond the next election.

Back to front page Top