Wireless Communications and Health Concerns

Wireless Communications and Health
Concerns

Jack Rowley, PhD,
Senior Director Research & Sustainability
GSM Association

Dominican Republic
5 December 2011

© GSM Association 2011
J. Rowley, December 2011

Demand for Mobile Network Infrastructure

 More base stations to provide:

– More coverage.

– More capacity.

– Higher data rates.

Cisco
 Potential public concern.


1

WHO International EMF Project

www.who.int/emf

2

Electromagnetic Fields

Radio signals are not x-rays.
High intensity radio signals cause heating.
3

Health Hazards of Radiofrequency (RF)
Exposure

 Established:  Not established:
– Behavioural changes in – Cancer.

response to heating. – Fertility.

– Electro

hypersensitivity.
– Symptomatic

complaints.
– …


4

Safety Thresholds for RF Exposure
Exposure

Adverse effects threshold

www.icnirp.org

10%

2%

Worker Public
Limit Limit 5

WHO Support for ICNIRP

‘…following reviews of all the peer-reviewed scientific literature, including
thermal and non-thermal effects. The standards are based on evaluations of
biological effects that have been established to have health consequences. The
main conclusion from the WHO reviews is that EMF exposures below the limits
recommended in the ICNIRP international guidelines do not appear to have any
known consequence on health.’

WHO Standards and Guidelines
6

WHO - Wireless Networks (May 2006)

 ‘…RF exposures from base stations…lower or comparable to RF exposures
from radio or television broadcast transmitters.’

 ‘…no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occur
from the RF signals produced by base stations...’

 ‘Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to
date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from
base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.’

WHO fact sheet 304, May 2006
7

Mobile Communications Base Station

Base station – 100 W.

Broadcast radio – 100,000 W.

8

Typical Maximum Public Exposures - Networks
Exposure

Adverse effects threshold

10%

2%

Worker Public Mobile
Limit Limit Network 9

Typical Maximum Public Exposures - Networks
2%

Typical maximum
exposures in public areas
more than 100 times below
safety limits.

Less than 0.02%

Public Mobile
Limit Network 10

Comparison to Other RF Sources
100
90
80
70
60
50
40     ICNIRP (100%)
30     Level (% ICNIRP)
20
9.22
10     3.93
0.06 0.01 0.41
0

Average Baby monitors Average WLAN access DECT cordless
urban, TV and (20 cm) urban, base point (20 cm) phone (20 cm)
radio stations
Based on Valberg et al., 2007.
11

Networks – Exposure Trends
1.E+03 ICNIRP Public @ 900 MHz 80 80
77
74
1.E+02
71 70
Subscriber growth.
microwatts per square centimetre

68
1.E+01
62
60
1.E+00

Subscribers (millions)
54
51 50
1.E-01 47

1.E-02 40

1.E-03
30

1.E-04 Average annual exposure.
20
1.E-05

10
1.E-06

1.E-07 0
UK (2001) UK (2002) UK (2003) UK (2004) UK (2005) UK (2006) UK (2007) UK (2008) UK (2009)
Country (years)

Measured average exposure in the UK unchanged.

Source: GSMA analysis, OFCOM
12
and Wireless Intelligence data.

Compliance Boundaries

Compliance
Boundary
Public
Compliance
Boundary
Worker

13

General Health and Base Stations
Heart Disease

 ‘For none of the considered

Death rate
symptoms or diseases a
“dramatic increase” was
found to have occurred
since 1993.’

Hospital Discharge
 ‘…To create public
anxieties without solid
justification clearly
contradicts medical ethical
standards.’
zur Nieden et al., 2009.
14

Epidemiology – Base Stations

 National study:
 6,985 subjects, 76,890 base station antennas.
 Assessed mother’s exposure during pregnancy.
 Distance, base station power, modelled power density.
 ‘There is no association between risk of early childhood cancers and
estimates of the mother’s exposure to mobile phone base stations
during pregnancy.’
Elliott et al., 2010.
15

Base Stations - Systematic Review

 ‘…our review does not indicate an association between any health
outcome and radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure...’

 Evidence strong for acute effects.

 Evidence weaker for long-term exposures and children.

Röösli et al., 2010.

16

Electrohypersensitivity

 46 provocation studies, 1175 IEI-
EMF volunteers.
 ‘…The symptoms are certainly
real…there is no scientific basis
 Symptoms not caused by EMF.
to link EHS symptoms to EMF
exposure. Further, EHS is not a
 ‘…support the role of the nocebo medical diagnosis, nor is it clear
effect in triggering acute that it represents a single
symptoms in IEI-EMF sufferers.’ medical problem.’
Rubin et al., 2010.
17

WHO - Mobile Phones (June 2011)

 ‘…To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused
by mobile phone use...’

 ‘…IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly
carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal
association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding
cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.’

 ‘In addition to using "hands-free" devices, which keep mobile phones away
from the head and body during phone calls, exposure is also reduced by
limiting the number and length of calls…’

WHO fact sheet 193, July 2011
18

IARC Classification for RF

‘…limited among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic
neuroma, and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The
evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above
was similarly judged inadequate.’

http://monographs.iarc.fr
19

Responses to the IARC Classification

 American Cancer Society:
– ‘…The bottom line is the evidence is enough to warrant concern, but it is
not conclusive.’

 Cancer Council of Australia:
– ‘…While we need to continue researching the possible link between
mobile phones and cancer, it is important to remind people there are
many more established cancer risk factors that we can take action every
day. Strong action on clear cancer risks like tobacco, alcohol, excessive
UV exposure and obesity remain a priority.’

 Health Protection Agency (UK):
– ‘…there is no clear scientific evidence of a cancer risk from exposure to
radiofrequencies at levels below international guidelines but the
possibility remains...’
http://www.gsmworld.com/health/newsletters/
© GSM Association 2011 gsma_health_env_2011_06.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LjmnMTLPNw
20

US Brain Cancer Trends

(A) Number of
wireless subscribers
in the United States,
1984–2006.

(B) Age-adjusted
incidence of brain
cancer (2000
population standard),
SEER 9, 1984–2006.


Inskip et al, 2010
21

Science Timeline (Tentative)

WHO - RF

23-31 May 2011
2012?

ICNIRP 2009 IARC 2012 WHO 2013? ICNIRP 2013?
(Hazard Evaluation) (Risk Evaluation)


22

Public Concern

 Risk perception factors:
– Perceived uncertainty and lack of understanding.
– Personal control versus imposed exposure.
– Direct versus indirect benefits.

 Health claims as a cover for other concerns.


23

RF Policy Recommendations
 Adopt WHO and ITU recommended ICNIRP EMF exposure levels.
– Compliance through declaration.
– Demonstrate that compliance is assessed.

 Adopt national planning policies:
– Determine licensing authority and notification requirements.
– Decision period for site licence.
– Clear and non-political process for decision making.

 Consider:
– Exemptions for small antennas or site adjustments.
– Allow site sharing where technically and commercially feasible.
– Encourage good practice.

 Communicate.

24

Responding to Public Concern

 Perception is reality.

 Trust first, then information.

 Listen.

© GSM Association 2011 http://www.gsmworld.com/our-work/public-
policy/health/risk_communications.htm
25

Good Practice Risk Communication

 Use 3 key messages, for example:
– Complies with limits.
– Levels are very low relative to limits.
– No established health risks.

 Use simple language.
– Minimise technical terms.

 Use relevant images.

26

Effective Communication

Anticipate to avoid crisis.

6. Consider the issues
and respond
5. Apply good practice risk
communication methods

4. Develop a communications
approach and methods

3. Identify their concerns

2. Identify your audiences

1. Consider the issues
27

Summary

 No established health risks from phones or masts.

 Adopt evidence based policy.

 Practise good communication.


28

Established Risk

http://www.michellehenry.fr/tel.htm
29

Thank You

 Contact: Dr Jack Rowley

 Job title: Senior Director

Research & Sustainability

 email address:

jrowley@gsm.org

 Tel: +353 86 806 0849

 Website:

www.gsmworld.com/health


30

Wireless Communications and Health Concerns

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (19)

Similar a Wireless Communications and Health Concerns

Similar a Wireless Communications and Health Concerns (20)

Último

Último (20)

Wireless Communications and Health Concerns