Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 8 December 2004
97 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, further to Question No. 67 of 30 November 2004, if he will give his response to the recommendations made in a report (details supplied). [32653/04]
View answerI thank the Deputy for identifying the report to which he referred in last week's parliamentary question. In this field, a large number of reports are published each year. In 2004 alone, there have been six major conferences on this subject, each with approximately 100 tabled and poster presentations. The Deputy last week stated that what has become known as "the Stewart report" was "the most recent report published on electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation". The Stewart report was published in May 2000 and is, accordingly, not the most recent report in this area.
My advisers are familiar with this report. The Stewart report represented a review of the information available at that time. It led directly to focused programmes of research, some carried out in the UK and some carried out in other countries and co-ordinated by the World Health Organisation, to deal with some of the issues left unresolved or open in the report. While the Deputy has correctly quoted extracts from the report, substantial new information is to hand since it was published. The Stewart report was not a UK National Radiological Protection Board report but the report of an independent expert group on mobile phones. The National Radiological Protection Board, NRPB, published its response to the Stewart report, "Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields", Doc NRPB 12(2) in 2003.
I will deal with the particular sections of the report which I know to be of concern to the Deputy. The report states:
It is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects. The reason is that research is not being done on the issue.
Following the publication of the Stewart report, much research was done on the issue. The NRPB in its 2003 report, following a review of all the work carried out since the Stewart report, stated:
In aggregate the research published since the IEGMP report [the Stewart report] does not give cause for concern. The weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse health effects from exposures to RF fields below guideline levels.
The World Health Organisation international EMF project stated at its 2004 meeting that no causal relationship had been established between radio frequency emissions and any adverse health effects, notwithstanding very determined scientific efforts to establish such relationships. The Stewart report states, "the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach".
A precautionary approach has indeed been adopted by many countries, including Ireland. This has involved Ireland adopting recognised international guidelines for exposure to electromagnetic radiation. These guidelines limit the exposure to levels which are many times less than the experimental levels at which no adverse effects have been established.
The Stewart report recommends "that an independent random, ongoing, audit of all base stations be carried out to ensure that exposure guidelines are not exceeded". ComReg audits Irish sites on a random basis to ensure compliance with licences. Not all sites are audited. However, ComReg has just concluded a programme of measurements of 400 sites around the country. While the final report is awaited, it is understood that no site was found to exceed the guidelines.
The Stewart report recommends that planning should be extra cautious around schools as children are more susceptible to the effects of radiation and will be exposed to it over their lifetime. Children are indeed more susceptible and will be exposed over a much longer period than today's adults. For this reason, a specific programme of research focusing on children was launched under the WHO project and this work reported back in June 2004 that no adverse health effects in children arising from mobile phone base stations, or the use of mobile phone handsets which cause much greater exposure, had been found.
The Stewart report recommended that "beams of greatest intensity should not fall on any part of school grounds, to ensure that the accessible location where the greatest exposure to the radio frequency radiation signal occurs was not within school grounds". This was consistent with the other recommendations in the report. The most recent work, as mentioned above, has removed any validity for this recommendation. The UK Court of Appeal decision of 12 November 2004 that mobile phone masts "do not pose a risk to public health that would justify a ban on positioning them near schools" was made following consideration of the evidence since the publication of the Stewart report.
The Stewart report also said that, since there are no scientific grounds for setting guidelines below the levels set by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection for the public, the expert group avoided setting exposure limits for school buildings and grounds below these limits. For the same reason it did not wish to recommend that there should be a particular minimum distance between the base station and the school.
My officials maintain a watching brief on all the evidence presented each year on this issue and Ireland participates in the relevant international bodies which monitor this work and set limits on electromagnetic emissions to protect the public.
