/ Documentaries / Health

Health threats caused by mobile phone radiation

EUROPARL TV

An EU report on the health risks of electromagnetic waves is yet to be published, but what should we be concerned about and how does the EU plan to avoid the risks posed to health?

Video transcript

We have been waiting, since 1998, for the results of a study on the dangers of electromagnetic waves. The Commission has already spent 4 million Euros while the sector prospers in the absence of strict norms on mobile phones.

What would we do without this increasingly cheap companion? We don't know yet whether they are dangerous for us or not. Because we carry it around, we are subject to more waves than with microwaves.

To speak about electromagnetic waves I have Frédérique Ries with me who is writing a report on the subject.

Firstly, what everyone wants to know is do we already know whether electromagnetic waves are harmful? It's the first and last question, it's the whole question.

I'm not the one who should answer. Experts are fighting over this question. So we are currently in a rumour era with experts carrying out research coming to contradictory conclusions. What I have to say is, are there toxic effects or not? The current policy is not to decide scientifically but to say that it is not up to the legal system to decide because the debate is currently almost in the legal arena. Actions in the Council of State in Belgium in the Court of Appeal in France on forbidding antennae or power lines.

It is now up to politicians to take a decision based on the expertise and to impose a precautionary principle, which is what I tried to do in my report, or at least a principle of reason.

We'll talk a bit more about this later, let's watch the report.

No, this is not your mobile phone. Everyone knows this sound. It is produced by the electromagnetic waves emitted by mobile phones. These waves surround us, and are making people worry.

There is currently no EU legislation forcing Member States to adopt measures about them. Result: norms that vary hugely from one country to another.

However, we are exposed to them daily. Benoit Louppe is a chemist technician specialised in the study of these electromagnetic waves.

With this wireless phone you are exposed to relatively strong microwaves. Here we are going to measure this wireless phone and its base point.

We can really measure the density of its electromagnetic field with the machine you've just seen.

Another emitter of electromagnetic waves: mobile phone antennae they emit less waves than mobile phones but the emissions are constant. We are in Fléron, Belgium, this antenna is in the middle of a residential area. Measurement: 0.6-1 volt/metre we're at about 100m from the antenna behind me.

There are 3 mobile phone operators and one radio antenna, an FM radio, so modulated frequencies. The measures I have are 1 volt/metre in maximum radiation. This is however not a time of day with abundant communications but around 6 or 7 o'clock these levels will rise significantly.

But are electromagnetic fields dangerous?

The EU recommends a maximum of 41.25 volts/metre. Some countries are more cautious, Belgium and Greece have set this limit at 3 volts/metre.

What is the real situation? André Vandervorst, Université Catholique de Louvain, senior professor and author of several books on the issue.

Mobile phones came into our countries in 1994, their use exploded in '94, '95 let's say 2000. So we will have to wait for 2015 to know whether this device in the usage and the waves it creates around citizens, we will have to wait for 2015 to know whether it causes tumours in a statistically significant way.

No answer today. Studies have been carried out.

The most recent and most awaited was the epidemiological study Interphone which was partly financed by the Commission. The final results will be released this year some information is already available.

In this study, 2,600 people are being examined who suffer from Glioma which is a cancer that starts in the brain with a high mortality rate. We noticed, though these are not the final results, that there is a rise in about 60% of cases of this type of cancer among people who regularly use mobile phones. 60% in the north of Europe 100% in France, 120% in Germany. This is quite considerable.

The link between exposure to electromagnetic fields and its symptoms are yet to be proven.

But the facts are there, without a clear answer caution is the way to go.

We can limit our exposure to waves. Mobile phones are not made for you to tell your life story on. The communication is generally not very comfortable. In my opinion they are made for brief communication. By brief I mean one to two minutes.

One should always try to have the fewest obstacles possible between the mobile and the base station close by. The more you are in the open air the lower the mobile's emissions.

Hard to get the opinion of operators and manufactures, they do not want to give their point of view and refer to their websites, where internal studies are published, so no objectivity guaranteed.

After having tried to contact Nokia to have their opinion on the issue, this is the e-mail we received.
As I already informed you, Nokia will not give you an interview.

Following complaints about mobile phone antennae a consultation was organised by the Walloon Region in Belgium. It included operators and residents.

According to Virginie Hess, who partly organised the consultation, the lack of information and control is pointed at. There are no conformity checks on the field. Residents, communes etc call for them. Systematic controls before and after.

This means, to see, if in a certain place... what the exposure level of the place is. There may be other antenna close by. So adding an antenna will increase the level of exposure.

Grey areas remain, we will have to wait at least another 6 years before knowing the long-term effects are known. We will already know more once the Interphone study is published.

In the meanwhile the EP recommends the precautionary principle. In a vote, on the 4 September 2008 the EP asked the Council to be more demanding on exposure levels this is proof that the subject leaves no one indifferent. We can see clearly from the report, there are no results from scientific studies yet.

There was a very important study launched in 1998 for which we have not yet received the results. Why?
Listen, you have to ask Interphone.

The Commission has put 4 million Euros towards it and we seem in not too much of a rush for the results, nor shocked that they were supposed to return them. The results may differ by Member State but it's no reason to postpone the results.

As the Belgian professor recalled that in the preliminary results there is already a large amount of expertise and proof, it must be said.

The University of Tel Aviv has shown the appearance of parotid gland cancer. The professor mentioned 2,600 cases of Glioma, but I'm not an expert. As I said at the beginning, I'm not a scientific expert.

People say we have to wait till 2015, the deadline set by the WHO. The WHO is also waiting till 2015. Because, indeed, we have to allow 15 years for a cancer to develop.

But it shouldn't prevent politicians from taking action. It has been done in several Member States. Today, while we're waiting for experts to agree on this, it's time to implement precautionary measures.
For example?
Bring down the maximum limits. We still follow a recommendation from 1999. In 10 years, a lot changes when it comes to new technologies. Everything changed since 1999. Internet, Wi-Fi, wireless telephony, it's not only GSM, we are submitted to a cocktail of electromagnetic waves.

The limits date from 1999 and haven't been reviewed. It's absurd. We have to follow the example of Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, Greece. Even some towns go further. In Salzburg, the limit is 0,6, not 41, the European recommendation.

It mustn't prevent politicians from taking action. The Barroso Commission hasn't done much in 5 years. The lack of publications from Interphone, and the lack of budgetary consistency still haven't been addressed.

There is a kind of... I work closely with the Commission but if I may say so, there is a sort of inertia. That's to put it mildly. The inertia is indeed reprehensible.

What about the industry? There are major interests at stake. Have you been in touch with the industry?

Yes, of course.

We found it hard to interview them.

Yes, I saw they refused to be interviewed. We met the main European operators. The report isn't to their liking, that's for sure. I was told so on several occasions. I can even tell you I received one letter in particular which was extremely virulent.

I've been here for 10 years, so I've worked on controversial issues before. The REACH regulation, the one on food complements... The lobbying was strong. The regulation on pesticides, too. But I must say I had never received a letter of such viciousness before.

It seems to me that the GSM industry, which is a major industry, behaves a bit like tobacco companies 20 years ago in the United States, when they were denying that cigarettes could pose a threat, and they then had to retract.

In this case, it's no comment.

We already had a heated debate with differing views on this issue. A lot of people say they don't want to wait until it's too late to react, like with the asbestos, or tobacco. But let's not forget that tobacco, although it is a source of pleasure for some - I don't know, I don't smoke - is a purely toxic element. In the case of GSM, connecting people is invaluable nowadays in our society. It would be hard to do without, especially in terms of security. So we can't really compare it to tobacco.

But the lack of political response to a priority which affects every citizens reminds us of the debates and tragedies we've been through already. We don't want to repeat the same mistakes.

Don't you think that while we wait for reliable scientific conclusions, Europe could launch information campaigns and issue guidelines?

- There aren't any. Absolutely.

We work according to recommendations, from the Council or the Commission, because it still falls under national competence. The reactions of the lobbyists are quite telling. It is important, especially to reflect the opinions in the Parliament. We want to increase communication, information, young peoples' education... We want to ban campaigns offering free minutes. How can they offer free minutes when we don't know how dangerous it can be?

In your report, you mention the fact that insurance companies are ahead of everybody since they've excluded from civil responsibility insurance policies illnesses which could be linked to the use of mobile phones.

Of course, one can argue that insurance companies aren't European legislators and they aren't necessarily professors who are analysing the issue from a scientific point of view, but still... sometimes, they are ahead of us. All this contributes to sounding the alarm and that's why we must act now.

This legislature is coming to a close. Will this issue remain a priority, or should I say will it become a top priority?

Absolutely. So far, still no sign of the Interphone results, so I suppose they will come out during the next legislature. I think we will carry on fighting, because I feel it is our duty to do so, But I think we should set the EU limit at 3 volts/metre. It is implemented in 9 Member States and everybody should follow suit.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE