JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Wednesday, 4 Apr 2007

Electromagnetic Fields: Discussion with Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Peter O'Neill, assistant secretary, Mr. Alan O'Sullivan and Mr. Roger O'Connor from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

Members will recall that the joint committee published a report entitled Non-Ionising Radiation from Mobile Phone Handsets and Masts in June 2005. It reviewed the progress made in implementing the recommendations in that report at its meeting of 31 May 2006, at which members were advised the Government had considered it and established an interdepartmental advisory committee to examine policy on the possible health effects of non-ionising radiation and advise on appropriate action regarding the recommendations contained in the report.

The Government also asked the advisory committee to establish an expert group on electromagnetic fields. Its remit was to provide a detailed overview of the latest international research in the field, to provide answers to questions commonly raised by the public regarding the health effects of electromagnetic fields, to suggest ways in which the Government might deal with current research findings, and to determine whether it should engage in its own research and whether new policies should be developed. That expert group has now produced a report, which the Government published on 21 March. I am delighted to welcome Mr. O'Neill, the assistant secretary in the Department with responsibility for communications, who chaired the interdepartmental group. I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I thank Mr. O'Neill for this wonderful report, which sets out a number of clear policy initiatives the Department is taking. I invite him to make his presentation.

Mr. Peter O’Neill

As the Chairman stated at the outset, it was the report produced by this committee in 2005 that led to the Government setting up or putting in train the series of events and committees that has culminated in this report. Members of the committee have received copies of the report, and the Minister is making copies available to all Members of the Oireachtas.

With regard to the main conclusions, the expert group report concluded that so far no adverse short or long-term health effects have been found from exposure to radio frequency, RF, signals produced by mobile phones and base station transmitters, and that RF signals have not been found to cause cancer. It also stated that while there have been suggestions, referred to in the committee's report, to locate phone masts away from places where children gather, or away from hospitals, it should be understood that for mobile phone networks to operate efficiently, a minimum level of signal strength is needed. This applies irrespective of the location of the phone mast. If phone masts are located in sub-optimal positions, this results in higher RF signals from both the mast and mobile phones to compensate for this. The net result can be that people are subjected to higher RF exposures in these areas, although the levels are still safe. The group also concluded that research has not established a link between exposure to electromagnetic fields and the occurrence of electrical hyper-sensitivity symptoms.

The expert group report noted there was a conflict of interest in having the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources as the body responsible for, on the one hand, Government policy in regard to the promotion of wireless technologies and, on the other, providing Government with advice in regard to the potential health effects of these technologies. The group recommended that a single State agency should be established to cover both ionising and non-ionising radiation, that a national research programme be established, that the planning guidelines be reviewed, that the precautionary principle be adopted and that Ireland continue to endorse and enforce the international guidelines.

The interdepartmental committee reviewed the recommendations from the expert group and the recommendations of this joint committee and, having done so, made recommendations to Government. On foot of that, the Government has made the following decisions. From 1 May 2007 the current responsibilities of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in regard to the health effects of electromagnetic fields will become the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will shortly bring proposals before Government to provide for the extension of the powers and functions of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, RPII, to include matters relating to potential health effects of non-ionising radiation — these will address the question of the resources which the RPII will need to fulfil its extended role and also when the RPII will be in a position to take on those additional duties. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will review the 1996 guidelines to planning authorities on telecommunications antennae and support structure. This review will involve public consultation. A national research programme will be established to undertake scientific research in Ireland on the health effects of exposure to EMF. Precautionary measures will be adopted where appropriate and on the advice of international bodies such as the World Health Organisation. Finally, GPs in Ireland will be provided with information about the appropriate treatment for electrical hyper-sensitivity symptoms and will be informed that there is currently no established evidence for a causal relationship with electromagnetic fields.

For the sake of completeness, I will turn to the recommendations of this joint committee and report the conclusions reached on those conclusions by the interdepartmental committee. The first recommendation made by the committee was that the Radiological Protection Act 1991 be amended to include non-ionising radiation within the remit of the RPII and that full resources be allocated. As I noted, the RPII has been mandated to include non-ionising radiation in its remit. The Radiological Protection Act already provides for this to be done by means of a statutory instrument, so it does not require an amendment to the primary legislation. That recommendation has been taken fully on board.

The committee also recommended the following: that an independent board be established to review the published scientific data — the expert group was that board and it has done so; that monitoring of mobile phone handsets and masts be vested in the RPII and that the expanded role of the RPII include monitoring of emissions in regard to the health effects of electromagnetic fields; that a standing advisory committee be established, including relevant Departments — the Government has approved a policy co-ordination committee to co-ordinate policy in regard to the health effects of electromagnetic fields which will include all relevant Departments and agencies; and the establishment of a non-statutory mobile phone safety users group to include interest groups — the Government has agreed that appropriate consultation with stakeholders is an important part of the process towards equitable solutions.

The committee further recommended that no mobile phone be allowed for sale in Ireland unless it complies with the International Committee on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, ICNIRP, standard. The position is that all mobile phones for sale in Ireland must comply with this standard under the radio and telecommunications terminal equipment, RTTE, directive and as evidenced by the CE mark which appears on the phone. The National Standards Authority of Ireland is the responsible authority in Ireland.

The committee also recommended that all mobile phones have an NIR label similar to energy efficiency ratings. The situation is that mobile phones on sale in Ireland are supplied with their maximum tested specific absorption rate, SAR. The interdepartmental committee is of the view that any additional labelling would be contrary to the free movement of goods provisions under the RTTE directive. However, we are happy the labelling in place currently does the job the committee intended it should.

The committee recommended that the results of emissions testing be published on the websites of ComReg, RPII and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The results of emissions testing are published on the ComReg website and the expert group has recommended that an active, informative and user-friendly website be maintained. I have no doubt this is a matter the RPII will take account of when it takes on these additional duties.

The committee also recommended that planning guidelines be amended to ensure no radio frequency emitting equipment be sited near health centres, schools or playgrounds. As I stated, the expert group has concluded that an efficient network will minimise population exposure to the RF fields. In response to the question of whether one can calculate the safe distance from a phone mast antenna, which was raised during the public consultation process, the expert group concluded this distance was two metres. In this regard, the Government has agreed to review the 1996 guidelines to planning authorities on telecommunications antennae and support structure. This review will include a public consultation process.

I thank the committee for the production of its 2005 report, which was instrumental in leading to the significant and meaningful changes the Government is introducing with regard to the handling of these issues. I am happy to take questions committee members may have.

Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Neill for his report and members are delighted the expert group has taken on board many of the joint committee's recommendations. While it has not done so in respect of one recommendation, we will not fall out over it. I reiterate the expert group has done a superb job.

The response of the different bodies that will be responsible for implementing the recommendations will be important and we look forward to hearing from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in respect of the planning guidelines. Mr. O'Neill should also convey a message to the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, to thank him for his intervention and hard work in resolving the issues regarding the Black Valley in County Kerry. It is great that after so many decades of working with a rural telecommunications system, the people of the Black Valley will acquire a state-of-the-art telecommunications system and broadband.

The Minister was instrumental in providing funding through ComReg for the feasibility study that was carried out by the South West Regional Authority. I wish to record the joint committee's appreciation of the work of Mr. John McAleer and his staff in so doing and for following through. Moreover, the joint committee appreciates the pressure exerted on the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources by the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, and other public representatives. This has been noted publically earlier by members when Mr. O'Neill was not present. The committee has also thanked ComReg and Eircom for stepping up and stating they are prepared to do this. Mr. O'Neill should convey the joint committee's gratitude to the Minister, the Secretary General and all others who were involved in this project.

Deputy Durkan

Mr. O'Neill should also convey greetings to the Minister from the Opposition members to keep him aware of our existence.

Chairman

Members are in a jovial mood today because this is the last meeting of the joint committee.

Deputy Durkan

I congratulate all those involved in the compilation of this good report, which examines the position and encompasses many of the joint committee's recommendations. I have reviewed the curricula vitae of the expert group's members and they are obviously eminent people in their own fields.

The expert group has concluded that "so far, no adverse short or long-term health effects have been found". This implies that something will be found in another week or two. Such phraseology, which has been used in numerous other reports, is disingenuous. Members are aware the phrase means that those who compile the report are covering themselves in the event of something coming down the tracks at a later stage. However, it has the adverse effect of creating worries and concerns when they do not necessarily exist because otherwise the report states there is no reason for fear as no evidence has been produced and it provides a clean bill of health.

When this issue was discussed by the joint committee previously, I had access to recently available information wherein it was shown that the greatest danger lies in those areas in which a poor signal emanates to mobile telephones. While this may be ironic, the emphasis must be placed on improving the signal for the users of hand-held mobile telephones. While no problem exists when the signal is good, one arises when it is weak or intermittent. This must be addressed and brought to the attention of service providers nationwide. This includes Leinster House, several locations in which receive a poor signal.

I also compliment the expert group's findings regarding the planning guidelines. I note Mr. O'Neill's presentation stated that mobile phones on sale in Ireland are supplied with their maximum tested specific absorption rates and that the interdepartmental committee is of the view that any additional labelling would be contrary to the free movement of goods and provisions under the RTTE directive. I am unsure of this conclusion. The emission labelling system proposed by the committee adopted a belt and braces approach that would indicate clearly to consumers that the stamp was carried. While the latter may be equal to international standards, at least it would have the imprimatur of Irish institutions.

I recognise that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has a meaningful role to play. The Department of Health and Children should also have an ongoing role in this regard. The joint committee met medical practitioners who had concerns in this regard. I thought at the time and still believe that any concerns should have the imprimatur of the Irish Medical Organisation, IMO, the Medical Council or whatever because people are entitled to have their concerns addressed on an ongoing basis. While the information to be made available to GPs will be helpful, the IMO also should have a co-ordinating role in collating evidence and information from its most likely source, namely, GPs.

Some cases have been made in respect of ionising and non-ionising radiation and in such situations, one requires the availability of some authoritative evidence. Parents of children and all telephone users need to have such information available as a soundly-based point of reference stating the evidence exists and a particular matter is unsafe, quite safe or whatever the case may be. The report goes a long way towards achieving this goal with the exception of the use of the aforementioned phrase, "so far". Most reports would be improved by its omission.

Mr. O’Neill

I understand the Deputy's point regarding the phrase, "so far". However, this is what the adduced evidence states and the Deputy is correct to note that something could turn up tomorrow, next week, month or year. The expert group is being honest by stating this is the current position. The Deputy is also correct regarding weak signals. The committee has acknowledged that where signals are weak, mobile telephones must work harder. However, the problem with weak signals is being addressed gradually and signals are improving. While there are pockets in which signals remain weak, it is not as widespread as heretofore.

The Deputy's other point was on the joint committee's recommendation pertaining to a non-ionising radiation, NIR, label on telephones. We came to the view that the existing labelling under the RTTE directive and the CE mark, together with the testing of telephones for the specific absorption rate, should be sufficient to reassure consumers that telephones are safe. The Department of Health and Children has a role and will be part of the policy advisory group. In the context of having a co-ordinating role for GPs, it should be possible for that Department to embrace any organisations it sees fit, including the IMO.

Deputy Durkan

I should mention I see no such indication on the telephone I have to hand, which is fairly new.

Chairman

The report mentioned the precautionary approach that is being taken. I did not note any conclusions in respect of the use of mobile telephones by children. I refer in particular to the report by Sir William Stewart in the United Kingdom, in which he strongly recommended that children under the age of eight or 12 should not use mobile telephones because of potential damage to their still-developing bodies, brains and heads. While he did not come to any definitive conclusions, he noted that one should adopt a precautionary approach in respect of children. There are reasons for young children to have mobile phones, which are important for their safety. Obviously, the expert group, which included medical representatives, read the Stewart report. Does it have views in this regard?

I also note the report's observations on those who are electromagnetic-sensitive. This is the word we used in our report and relates to people who are electromagnetic sensitive. I think we likened it to somebody getting hayfever. We mentioned that approximately 1% of the population were probably electromagnetic sensitive. Of course, groups who made presentations to us made this point very clearly. Does Mr. O'Neill have comments about this?

Mr. O’Neill

We made a recommendation in respect of hypersensitivity, as did the expert group. There is no doubt that people suffer from this condition, which is not imaginary. The issue is that there is no causal effect between the condition and what people say is causing it. In other words, no link has been found between electromagnetic fields and the cause of this condition. However, it is a condition and it is recognised that people who have it need to be treated. This is why the recommendation is about educating doctors about this issue.

Chairman

In respect of that point, is Mr. O'Neill's answer based on worldwide research?

Mr. O’Neill

The expert group has come to this conclusion.

Chairman

In respect of people who fear living near a telecommunications mast emitting non-ionising radiation or a mobile phone, would Mr. O'Neill say there is no scientific link between these facilities and that condition?

Mr. O’Neill

Yes.

Chairman

What is Mr. O'Neill's view in respect of the important issue of children, in light of Sir William Stewart's recommendations?

Mr. O’Neill

The expert group concluded there was no scientific basis for children not using mobile phones, but it said the precautionary principle should be pursued and the Government is fully behind that. Parents have a role in this as well because they are the ones who buy mobile phones for children.

Chairman

What is the view of the expert group in respect of the precautionary approach? What is the advice of the expert group in respect of children using mobile phones?

Mr. O’Neill

The advice is about encouraging children to use hands-free kits, for example, rather than the phones themselves. Parents should be aware that while there is no scientific evidence to suggest at this stage that children should not use mobile phones, they are in a position of control where they can restrict the use of mobile phones available to children if they have any concerns about them.

The problem with this is that most parents give children phones for security reasons because they like to be able to keep in contact with them. There is a balance to be struck between the concerns parents might have, even though there is no scientific basis for them, and their concerns about the safety of their children in terms of them having access to mobile phones.

Chairman

Is the lesson that children should not use mobile phones as often as adults because they are not fully grown?

Mr. O’Neill

No, the expert group did not come to that conclusion.

Deputy Durkan

There is no data available to suggest the use of mobile phones by children is a health hazard. However, in Sweden and the UK, the authorities recommended a precautionary approach which would either minimise use to essential calls only or minimise exposure by using a hands-free kit.

Deputy Perry

I congratulate the assistant secretary. This very detailed report on the health effects of electromagnetic fields is a very good document. In the interests of public health and in light of the uncertainty surrounding the debate, I congratulate everybody involved in this report and very much welcome the fact they took on board the report published by this committee. A range of eminent people produced this very detailed report. I believe Ireland rates highest in Europe when it comes to the number of mobile phones per head of population and issues like power cables are major concerns.

When one looks at epidemiology, public health medicine and the level of access to this report, we could encourage the Minister to ensure it is sent to as many people as possible through the public library system. While the report can be accessed via the Internet, the Department should produce a summarised version of the report and possibly produce a newspaper article on it. A press statement should be issued that this report can be obtained from public health faculties in universities and colleges. Far too often, all these very good documents are lost to some extent. Given the level of concerns people have, it is important this document is made available in local and county libraries. This document is very welcome and reassuring because many people are uncertain about this issue.

Mr. O'Neill made the very wise point that the precautionary approach is very much in the hands of the user. Clearly, it is up to people who have concerns about children using mobile phones, for example, for texting to find out about ways for children to use mobile phones safely.

I am very pleased by the work carried out by the Chairman in respect of this issue over the years, including the many publications in which he has been involved in respect of his own initiative on this matter. The Minister has taken this on board, followed through on the recommendations and delegated functions to other Departments. It is certainly very reassuring. I congratulate everybody involved. Perhaps the assistant secretary might comment on what he plans to do with this report to make it more widely available rather than just via the Internet. He indicated it could be made available through the faculties of medicine and public health in universities and institutes of technology. Perhaps it could be given to environmentalists and people with concerns about this. An article written by the eminent members of the expert group could be published in some of the Sunday newspapers to highlight the report. I congratulate everybody involved in it.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I thank Mr. O'Neill for the report and his contribution. This issue is of enormous concern to many people. Local politicians know it is very contentious when a mast is put into an area beside a playground, school or housing, and many people will express real concern, regardless of whether it has a scientific basis. This is the reality. This is not a small subject. Rather, it is one of the most contentious local issues we as politicians come across around the country.

The report will be read with alarm by many people with concerns. If I am reading it correctly, it pretty much says in respect of the issue of mast location that we need more masts to have a better mesh and, therefore, less gaps in the signal and less need to have a powerful boost from the actual device. In particular, the recommendation in respect of the location of masts close to playgrounds, schools and places where children gather pretty much says this is not an issue at all. This will be read with considerable concern by people who have read the Stewart report and other reports and wish to take the precautionary approach in terms of any possible risks that may not have been picked up because of the nature of long-term exposure, which could not be picked up yet. This is the reality. This will be the nature of the response to this from many quarters.

Mr. O'Neill says the 1996 guidelines should be redrawn or redrafted and that masts should be located on the basis of where the best overall signal can be provided and, therefore, where the need for a handset to boost its power is reduced. Should we follow this guideline if he is recommending an amendment to the 1996 guidelines? The Stewart and other Danish reports refer to acoustic neuroma, a benign tumour of the acoustic nerve, possibly arising from long-term use. This is one of the reasons telecommunications masts concern people, particularly in respect of younger people. I did not understand the point that some people have a genuine condition but no causal link exists. What is the condition?

The delegation suggests children use hands free devices for precautionary reasons. The report makes the point that it is hard to get children to do such things. What are the specific recommendations in respect of that issue? How can we help parents? It is up to parents to supervise but it is an impossible task because children may be texting or phoning in bed. What specific recommendations can the delegation offer in terms of hand held devices the State might introduce for children?

Chairman

Mr. O'Neill may share the questions.

Mr. O’Neill

There is no doubt that masts are a contentious issue. A theme linking the points made is a lack of understanding and a need for education and better information. We have not been around long enough to consider long-term effects. The report states:

However it is equally the case that there is nowhere in Ireland where a child is not exposed to the RF fields produced by local, national and international radio and television broadcasting stations. Indeed there are now few adults who have not been exposed to radio broadcasts all of their lives. Furthermore the fields from TV and radio stations are usually stronger than those from mobile phone masts.

We have all been around for a long time and radio and television masts have been around since then.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Sometimes I feel a shiver that Pat Kenny could pass through me at any moment.

Deputy Durkan

We all do.

Mr. O’Neill

It is interesting that we are not concerned by signals from radio and television broadcasting stations. Somehow, we are concerned at weaker signals from mobile telephone masts. It is probably linked to the proliferation of masts and that there many more mobile telephone masts than radio and television masts, which are usually further away or on higher ground and tend not to be in urban areas. People must be educated to understand that. Parents need to be given information. We are not saying what they should or should not do. They must understand the implications and make decisions accordingly.

The report refers to young children and teenagers spending much time texting and a relatively short time speaking. Texting is done away from the body and does not send out the same strong signal as speaking on the telephone. This is an interesting observation.

The guidelines should be reviewed but I will not pre-empt what a public consultation may reveal. On the basis of scientific evidence, if one wishes to minimise the strength of signal required, one places the mast in the best place, irrespective of location. One must measure this against the concerns people have and their fear of masts close to areas where they live, work or where their children attend school or hospitals.

As I am not an expert on electromagnetic hypersensitivity condition I invite Mr. Alan O'Sullivan to comment.

Mr. Alan O’Sullivan

The term refers to a condition whereby people suffer a set of symptoms, which they attribute to electromagnetic fields and telephone masts. It has been described by the World Health Organisation, WHO, as a collection of subjective symptoms, including headaches, sleeplessness and skin complaints. Studies have examined if this is connected to electromagnetic fields. There is no doubt that people suffer but no causal connection has been established between the condition and electromagnetic fields. Blind studies show that people cannot tell whether they are being exposed. It is not connected with the electromagnetic field and the causal agent cannot be found. The expert group has recommended that information on how to treat patients be provided to general practitioners. Sweden has established a treatment regime, treating the symptoms while recognising no causal link to masts.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

How is it treated?

Mr. O’Sullivan

It depends on the case. I am not a medical professional but the regime treats the symptoms until it can find the underlying agent. It has established that the symptoms cannot be treated by switching off the mast. One must treat individual symptoms, which vary significantly from person to person.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

What is the prevalence of such a condition?

Mr. O’Sullivan

It has been measured in a few countries and figures vary between 1% and 5%. Little accurate analysis has been carried out. It depends to what people are attributing their symptoms. Some people might attribute their symptoms to masts but there is a similar condition, multiple chemical sensitivity, whereby people attribute symptoms to chemicals from plants or in the atmosphere. These two groups present with the same symptoms. In measuring the prevalence one must ask patients what is causing their symptoms. It is not accurate.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

A rate of 1% to 5% is not insignificant.

Mr. O’Sullivan

I agree. This is one of the reasons we seek information. The WHO provides information and the expert group has recommended that GPs should be informed about dealing with this complaint.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

What procedures has the Department of Health and Children set up?

Mr. O’Sullivan

It does not have any specific procedures because electromagnetic hypersensitivity is not recognised as a medical diagnosis. There is no standard diagnosis. The Department's advice is to treat the symptoms.

Deputy Durkan

Medical opinion should be more readily available. Why is it not possible to have a medical diagnosis? If the condition has been established and identified it must be possible for medical practitioners to study it and ascertain how it can be treated effectively and what are the causes. This is what happens in respect of most conditions.

Mr. O’Sullivan

The effect of electromagnetic sensitivity has not been established as a condition. It is a term used as opposed to a medically accurate condition. Much work has been done on establishing what causes those symptoms but the precise causal agent has not been found. The symptoms can vary from individual to individual.

Chairman

Have other issues been investigated in the study, such as microwaves which emit non-ionising radiation? I believe electric irons and hairdryers do the same. When the study was being conducted, were different types of apparatus used to determine the effects on people who were electromagnetically sensitive?

Mr. O’Sullivan

Many of the reports looked not only at the signals emitted from mobile telephone base stations but also at the full spectrum of electromagnetic fields, which includes the extremely low frequency fields used by power networks and electrical appliances. However, no cause or connection has been found.

Chairman

The RPII is delighted to take on the role of looking after non-ionising radiation, in addition to its brief on ionising radiation, which is emitted from devices such as X-ray machines. The institute also has responsibility for radon gases. We reported in 2005 that only about 10% of the 4,000 masts were monitored by ComReg. Does Mr. O'Neill have any idea of the frequency with which the RPII will monitor masts?

Mr. O’Neill

No, I do not have any idea. It is possible that ComReg and the RPII will both continue to monitor masts. ComReg will monitor masts as part of the licensing conditions to ensure they are compliant.

Chairman

ComReg employs outside experts to check emissions from masts. It would be important for the RPII to reassure the public that masts will be inspected for non-ionising radiation emissions on whatever frequency is decided.

Mr. O’Neill

That is a fair point.

Chairman

Mobile telephone companies have a role to play in ensuring the recommendations and regulations put in place are communicated to the public. I hope contact will be made with the Irish Cellular Industry Association, through Mr. Tommy McCabe and his group, to see what action they intend taking on the report which Deputy Perry wished to have promoted.

Mr. O’Neill

We met them and they were very constructive in their response. They recognise they have a role to play. With regard to Deputy Perry's comments, we will make copies of the report available to all local authorities, libraries and the HSE, and will disseminate it as widely as we can.

Deputy Perry

I am pleased to hear that because it is important this valuable document is made available in order to allay people's concerns.