Vol. 464 No. 3
14 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether it is proposed to establish a non-ionising radiation board to co-ordinate independent monitoring of non-ionising electro-magnetic radiation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8137/96]
25 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if his attention has been drawn to concerns regarding possible adverse effects on the health of the community as a result of the location of telecommunication masts; if it is proposed to extend the remit of the Institute for Radiological Protection in Ireland to cover non-ionising radiation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8138/96]
26 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if he will commission an independent scientific study on the health and safety aspects of communications masts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7598/96]
142 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the athermal standards he intends to apply to non-ionising radiation to safeguard the health of citizens with particular attention to emissions from telecommunications antennae and base stations. [8086/96]
143 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the plans, if any, he has to establish an independent body to measure, monitor and research non-ionising radiation and to give advice to planning authorities in view of the fact that currently there are no constraints applying to non-ionising emissions. [8087/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14, 25, 26, 142 and 143 together.
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an international and well respected group of experts in the area of non-ionising radiation, has this month published a detailed review of the health issues relating to mobile phones and base transmitters. This was done in response to concerns expressed about the risks to health from non-ionising radiation produced by base station towers and to questions concerning the adequacy of current safe exposure limits.
This report endorses the limits set out by International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) in 1988. These limits are those which are adhered to by telecommunications transmission systems in this country. The review also states there is no substantive evidence that adverse health effects can occur in people exposed to levels of non-ionising radiation at or below the IRPA's 1988 limits. The levels in this country are well within these limits. The report has been issued in the last month.
The review is welcomed as an objective and expert contribution on the ongoing debate on electromagnetic fields and their possible health risks.
I am confident the findings of the review will provide reassurance to those who have concerns over the health implications of communications masts. It supports the position taken by the regulatory authorities in Ireland that the amount of electromagnetic energy from masts to which the general public is exposed is over a thousand times less than those energy levels considered to be safely tolerated 24 hours per day.
In the circumstances, I see no reason to commission a further scientific study of the issue. My Department, however, will continue to monitor all future developments in the area to ensure that the most up to date international standards are being employed.
Advice to planning authorities is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for the Environment. I am aware, however, that his Department has issued draft guidelines for planning authorities on telecommunications antennae and support structures. These guidelines which are to be published in their finalised form later this month require, inter alia, that telecommunications operators furnish a statement of compliance with the IRPA guidelines or other relevant international standards.
In addition, I have recently, in collaboration with my colleagues the Ministers for the Environment and Health set up an interdepartmental working group to examine what action if any should be taken on telecommunications masts and to consider whether it is necessary to have ongoing monitoring and measurement and, if so, by whom.
Will the Minister reconsider his decision not to establish a statutory body to advise on and control the emission of non-ionising radiation particularly in view of the planned erection of 1,200 masts for the proposed expansion of the mobile phone system? At least that number will be required and probably more in the future.
There are very few guidelines with regard to the levels of tolerable emissions. The Minister referred to the IRPA. The guidelines from the Department of the Environment do not lay down what these levels are but refer only to the IRPA. What authority adjudicates on the levels of emissions? What requirements are there on applicants for permission to erect masts which will contain instruments from which there will be non-ionising emissions? Is there a requirement that the levels of emissions must be stated before planning permission is granted? Has it not been the case that permission has been granted for the erection of masts for one purpose but that subsequently numerous other electromagnetic instruments have been erected on them without any planning permission?
The Deputy may be mixing up the IRPA with the RPII. These abbreviations sometimes confuse me as well. Planning permission is a matter for local authorities and the guidelines for such permission is a matter for another Minister. The IRPA has set down clear guidelines within which our telecommunications systems must operate. The amount of non-ionising radiation emitting from our systems is a thousand times less than the amount allowable under long established international guidelines. The most recent report by international experts in this area, which was published this month, says that the standards laid down in 1988 are adequate.
Is the Minister familiar with the report by Professor Henshaw of Bristol University on the dangers of electromagnetic emissions? Is he prepared to admit that there are differing scientific opinions expressed by people such as Professor Henshaw on the possibility of such dangers? Does the Minister accept that ordinary members of the public are concerned when they see masts being erected close to their houses? In one case a mast can be touched from a window of a private dwelling. Surely the Minister cannot continue to stand over this kind of situation. It is not good enough for him to glibly state that planning is a matter for the Department of the Environment. Surely that Department and the planning authorities have a responsibility to ensure that the Department of Energy does not authorise erections if they are a danger to the public because of close proximity to dwelling houses.
I assure the House I am not glibly dealing with this matter. I am stating the legal fact that the Minister for the Environment, and not the Minister for Energy, is responsible for planning matters.
We all know that.
The Department and I are aware of 11,000 reports on this issue and I am sure Professor Henshaw's report is among them. The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, an internationally respected body of experts, examined these reports from all angles and issued a report this month which submits that the levels of non-ionising radiation laid down in 1988 are not harmful to human beings. In this context I do not see any need for me to further examine the matter. The 11,000 studies which have been carried out amount to a colossal amount of research.
There is continuing uncertainty in that if something is examined and it is not proved that it does something else, the wrong aspect may have been examined and another aspect should be examined. Therefore, there is ongoing research at international level and we have established an interdepartmental working group to examine how best the matter should be dealt with in Ireland. Forbairt has taken measurements from a number of locations throughout the country and the results are in agreement with data recently published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Proximity to instruments does not give rise to higher dosage.
It is clear the Minister is not an expert in this area.
Neither is the Deputy.
I also would not claim to be an expert. We are dealing with ordinary people's real fears. What statutory authority determines the levels of radiation emitting from MMDS masts and Eircell and GSM installations? Are the IRPA guidelines being complied with?
The measurements carried out by Forbairt indicate that the IRPA guidelines——
By whom?
Forbairt.
Is that the Irish Energy Centre?
No, Forbairt. Deputies on the other side of the House should know what Forbairt is. They set it up when they were in Government. There is legislation which allows for the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to be given specific responsibility for this but this would be premature in the context of the review by the working group consisting of representatives of the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and my Department of all matters relating to this. If the group advises me that the RPII should be given responsibility, I will support that proposal.
Will the Minister establish a non-ionising radiation board as there is confusion here and among the public on this issue? There are hundreds of applications for the erection of these masts and local authorities are ignorant as to what they can and cannot do. Many people are asking about the health risks of these masts. I understand that the functions of the RPII could be extended by ministerial order to cover non-ionising radiation. People could then ask this body for advice and an expert view. The Department is preparing proposals but these have not yet been published. Local authorities are ignorant about what they can do with regard to the health aspects of these masts. There is a great deal of concern and confusion about this issue and this is part and parcel of the problem. There should be one body to which people can put questions and obtain answers.
I am afraid that we may go down to the level of tabloid scaremongering with regard to this issue. All the evidence produced at international level in 11,000 reports by the best experts which can be appointed indicate that telecommunications masts operated in Ireland are not harmful to human beings. It may not suit the Deputy for me to give him this information. There is an element of scaremongering in the questions which are being asked.
That is not fair.
Telecommunications masts operating in Ireland are not harmful to human beings. This is the evidence of international experts who have studied the matter in depth. Detailed guidelines are available to local authorities from the Department of the Environment.
They are useless. They contain no details with regard to levels of radiation.
They are only vague parameters.
The Department of the Environment has established guidelines for local authorities on planning permissions. The expertise of the RPII is now available, without the need for any ministerial orders, to the Department of the Environment and my Department so that they can give advice on the matter.
I am surprised at the Minister's outburst.
It was not an outburst.
It was. I am only telling the Minister of people's concerns.
The Deputy is adding to them.
I am not, I am saying that a ministerial order relating to the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland would cover this matter. It is quite simple. The people and the local authorities want access to such a body.
What good would that do? That body exists.
The Minister will have an opportunity to respond.
We are not scaremongering; we are asking genuine questions because people are asking those questions of us.
The Deputy should answer them honestly.
That is outrageous.
It is socialist arrogance.
I am surprised at the Minister's attitude.
By asking such questions the Deputy is raising fears, thereby adding to the fear that already exists. The Deputy should be much more responsible in this regard. He will be aware that 11,000 studies have been carried out by international experts who reported no later than this month to all the participant bodies, including Ireland. They state that there is no danger from these masts. The Deputy is suggesting that if a ministerial order is made to appoint the RPII with responsibility for this subject the fears of the community will be allayed.
That is a reasonable suggestion.
There would be a body to whom the people would have access.
The fears will continue while people continue to say there is a danger from the masts. There is no danger, that is false, and the reports of the experts demonstrate and underline that.
Can the Minister allay those fears?
Yes, by quoting the experts.
I am amazed at the Minister's attitude. He is obviously in a bad mood.
Will the Minister look at the guidelines issued to local authorities because there is a view that they are too vague? With a cluster of six masts in one area, as there will be adjacent to Cork airport, would the Minister be fearful of the multiplier effect? The view of the public is that local authorities are not in a position, because of the vagueness of the preamble, to give the levels of emissions from those masts. Will the Minister consider this matter, particularly as it applies to Cork airport. There are three masts in that area for which planning permission was not needed, planning permission was received for two and is likely to be given for a further one. There will, therefore, be six masts in one area. If the Minister lived in that area he would certainly be concerned.
I thank the Deputy for an entirely reasonable question. The guidelines are in draft form at present and the final guidelines will issue from the Department of the Environment to local authorities within a month. It is not my business to look at the draft guidelines but that of the Minister for the Environment and I am sure he will do so. Deputies' comments on the draft guidelines will be brought to the attention of the Minister. I am not an expert in this area and I do not know whether a grouping of aerials would have a multiplier effect——
One would imagine it would.
——but, without cutting across the responsibilities of my colleague, groupings of masts have a very bad visual effect. I hope the guidelines, when finalised and issued to local authorities, will take on board the points made by Deputies and will insist on everybody using the one mast so that there is not a series of masts in the one area. People want modern communications, including mobile phones — people from all walks of life use mobile phones — and masts must be erected to communicate the signals, just as pylons are necessary for electricity and windmills for clean energy. In all these areas there is a negative as well as a positive aspect and if there is demand for a service the negative aspect must be considered and minimised in so far as possible.
The Minister should be aware that those who are asking questions are not questioning the acceptance of modern developments and new technologies but questioning the lack of monitoring of the facilities being established. Planning permission is being granted for the erection of masts to contain the instruments which emit radiation and there is no obligation on the operators to continuously monitor those facilities. Is the Minister aware that there is no monitoring body with statutory responsibility to check the emissions from masts? There is no statutory authority with responsibility for non-ionising radiation. Is it not the case that under section 9 of the Radiological Protection Act the Minister has power to extend the provisions of that Act to cover non-ionising radiation? That point has been raised by me and by members of my party on a number of occasions in this House and further questioning today indicates that the Minister is still not prepared to accept the wide public concern that there is no statutory authority with responsibility to monitor emissions from masts.
It is accurate that no statutory authority has been appointed for that purpose, and that has always been the case.
Once the masts are erected nobody cares.
Non-ionising radiation has existed for a long time and there was no authority with responsibility for emissions.
It is proposed to erect 1,200 masts throughout the country.
There is an expert group in existence, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, which deals with ionising radiation. The Deputy is accurate in that under section 9(c) of the Radiological Protection Act, 1991, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland may, by way of ministerial order, be appointed to monitor non-ionising radiation emissions.
Why does the Minister not do that?
An expert group comprising officials from the Departments of Health, the Environment and Transport, Energy and Communications is examining the need for such a body and if it recommends that a statutory authority be appointed, that will be done.
