Science and Technology Committee. Third Report: Mobile Phones and Health

1 September 1999

1. We recommend that the Government adopt the International Commission on Non-Ionizing 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 of Report).
2. 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-Ionizing Radiation Protection, a European Expert Group and the World Health Organization, 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).
3. We recommend that the National Radiological Protection Board regularly reviews the scientific evidence for athermal effects (paragraph 29).
4. 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).
5. 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).
6. We recommend that there should be at least two lay members of the Expert Group, as recommended in our previous report (paragraph 33).
7. 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).
8. 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 Organization 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).
9. 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).
10. 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 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).
11. 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).
12. 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).

R9/99

Last reviewed: 14 December 2009