Is it good to talk?

The mobile phone industry is another sector that, in conventional CSR areas of environmental impact and social responsibility, scores as highly as the computing and software sectors. Indeed, it is hailed as a sector that can catalyse social and economic development across the global South. But how safe is the technology? Is electromagnetic radiation a hidden pollutant? Debates in the UK during 2005 highlighted continuing concern about the relationship of science, politics, business and human health.

At the start of 2005 the UK Health Protection agency (HPA), issued updated guidance to the 2000 report of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) - the "Stewart Report". "Within the UK, there is a lack of hard information showing that the mobile phone systems in use are damaging to health… a precautionary approach to the use of mobile technologies should continue to be adopted... limiting the use of mobile phones by children remains appropriate as a precautionary measure".35  So that’s all clear then: 'Mobiles are safe. But use them with caution'.

The new report carries no specific limit for the age group of 'children' considered particularly at risk, but this did not stop one UK newspaper headlining its report on the updated study: "No mobiles for under-nines, study says[,]"36 on the basis of ad-hoc comments made by the head of the HPA, Sir William Stewart, at the press conference. Indeed the original Stewart Report was notably noncommittal not just on the age of 'children' whose access to mobiles should be restricted, but also on what 'caution' really means in relation to use a mobile phone. Recommending 'shorter calls', as it did, is hardly a scientific breakthrough; and its other concrete recommendation, to use an 'approved hands-free set'37 was contradicted by its own finding that no approved hands-free sets exist: "The regulatory position on the use of hands-free kits and shields is unclear and the only information available to the public appears to be that supplied by their manufacturers."38

The NRPB seems, in fact, to have overturned the conventional understanding of the 'precautionary principle', in that, rather than finding evidence for the safety of mobile technology, it states that mobiles are not known to be unsafe – but suggests 'caution' in any case. This may have gone unnoticed by the mobile-safety campaigners39, who point to more traditional interpretations - in which the burden of proof is on those wanting to implement a new technology, not on those against it. Perhaps the most important fact driving the NRPB's position is what the original Stewart report unashamedly stated: "The use of mobile phones and related technologies will continue to increase for the foreseeable future." 40 Which really is clear: there is nothing we can do.

So who is driving the debate on mobile phone safety?  The mobile phone networks, who on this issue now speak with one carefully honed voice – the media-savvy Mobile Operators Association (MOA) - immediately 'welcomed' the Stewart-update.41 Ditto the equally organised Mobile Manufacturers Association, emphasing specifically how NRPB has "reaffirmed the absence of any scientific evidence of adverse health effects from wireless communications technologies particularly mobile phones." Regarding the 'other end' of the mobile safety debate, the masts (or base stations), the MOA reminded us in February, that the NRPB had stated "there is no scientific basis for establishing minimal distances between base stations and areas of public occupancy". And in their Corporate Social Responsibility reports for 2003/4 both mmO2 and Vodafone discussed these issues. Jim Stevenson, O2's Community Relations Manager, said "we are building a lot less now than three years ago, but the level of community consultation is far greater today".42 The focus in their report is on the provision of reassurance and early information to the communities concerned. Vodafone, on the other hand, is more assertive in its dismissal of the scientific basis for community concerns over health. "Based on current scientific review, there is no evidence of an impact on human health when electromagnetic fields (EMF) exposure levels are below internationally recognised guidelines" they stated.43 So, as far as the mobile companies are concerned, caution notwithstanding, it's all systems go.

But these assertions by the mobile phone companies serve to amplify the inconsistency embedded in the Stewart report - that, if phones are safe, why is there any need to exercise 'caution', indeed take any notice of the Stewart recommendations at all? Or, put in terms of the precautionary principle, if companies are aware that risks may emerge at a later stage, why are they not hesitating to put up masts and marketing their products with that risk in mind, rather than moving forward as though there will never be any health issues emerging from mobile telephony? The 'caution' that manufacturers are enacting amounts to either various forms of 'consultation', before doing what they plan, or leaving it to the consumer to decide their own fate. On the question of children's particular risk of exposure to electromagnetic radiation, the MOA confirmed in February simply that: "the operators reviewed their marketing policies to ensure they do not actively market mobile phones to the under-16s", and the MMA explicitly passed the buck to parents, saying "we believe that it is an issue of parental choice whether children should be provided with a mobile phone".44 And in submitting a planning application near a school, the limit of their responsibility, according to the MOA is merely to follow governmental guidance and, in their own words, to "provide evidence to the local planning authority that they have consulted the relevant body of the school or college as required by the guidance."45

However calm the MOA and MMA are - and thus all the operators and handset manufacturers - about the issue of health, it refuses to go away. One claim, from the burgeoning mobile health action community but with strong scientific backing, is that the NRPB is, perhaps wilfully, measuring the wrong impact (studying only heating effects of microwave radiation, but not other effects, on the body).46 Crucially, a Swedish/European study released in October 2004, with the strongest scientific credentials47, suggested that, for users with more than 10 years of regular mobile use, there was a clear link to cancers in the ear – acoustic neuroma – on the side of the head at which users normally held their phones. While the NRPB and mobile operators responded a previous Swedish study, pointing out flaws48, they have notably failed to comment in depth on this latest Swedish study. And new health scares keep emerging - another one, on the basis of a Hungarian study from 2004, is that mobile use cuts sperm counts.49

There has in the past been some indication of too close a link between the scientific research community and the mobile operators - for example that NRPB funded 'independent' research from an adviser to Orange.50 It remains the case that the main body funding 'independent' research on mobile phones and health, the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR), is very considerably funded by the mobile industry itself.51 Whether this implements the recommendation in the first Stewart Report that a "substantial research programme should operate under the aegis of a demonstrably independent panel"52 is open to question; the mobile-safety campaigners are not convinced.53

Nevertheless, many scientists with knowledge of the issues are becoming decreasingly convinced of just how safe mobile phones and masts are. Only in March was new research released suggesting that, finally, hands-free sets could be proved to reduce radiation reaching the head – if used with a ferrite bead that absorbed emissions from the cable itself. Lawrie Challis, head of the MTHR, was unequivocal: “there is no evidence yet that mobile phones are harmful to health but people have not been using them long enough for us to be sure. ...Using a ferrite bead effectively reduces emissions to the head to zero but as yet manufacturers do not put them on hands-free kits....I am not sure why, but I wish they would...you would think they would like to promote it.”54 And the response from Michael Milligan of the MMF? “I agree they can have an impact. But the bigger issue is that mobile phones are tested to be comply with standards and have been passed safe.”55 So finally, we have a split between the UK scientific establishment on ‘caution’ – and the manufacturers. Stewart himself has been critical at the extent to which the manufacturers are using a reverse precautionary principle (i.e. doing nothing until danger is proven). "We said in the report that it's not possible to say categorically that there are not health effects. But what has come out from the industry is that mobile phones are safe,” he said.56

The validity of the mobile phone industry’s response to these issues through stakeholder dialogues is under question. At a MOA stakeholder meeting in 2004, at which government, industry and civil society stakeholders were present, many concerns were raised about processes of consultation. Some claimed that “industry representatives often refuse to attend public meetings, and that this leaves communities feeling angry and disempowered” and that “it was felt by some that the public get very frustrated that operators appear to be ‘judge and jury’ on the health issue[...].”57

Other methods have been employed to understand stakeholder concerns. Vodafone commissioned a ‘perception survey’ from MORI in 2003 to assess public views of mobiles and mobile safety. That found “the public believes that network operators are not taking the [radiation and health] issue seriously enough.”58 Vodafone’s response to this, as per their 2003/4 Group CSR report59 is that their “role is to support independent research and explain the findings in plain language so that our customers have the information they need to make their own decisions on mobile phone use.” The message from the phone companies is that stakeholder engagement is not about listening to customers – it’s about telling them everything’s okay, according to the science. This is far from real dialogue – the irony being that phone companies might have something to learn about how to talk properly.

“It’s important to abide by what the science tells us,” British Prime minister Tony Blair responded to a question on the subject of phones and sperm, in parliament.60  Apparently the science isn’t telling us anything definitive either way. But if the trend of evidence, as the Swedish study on acoustic neuroma seems to imply, points to pragmatic conclusion that mobile-phone radiation does increase cancer risk, the deeper question is what anyone can or will do, and who will take the rap if things go wrong. The scientific communty – led by Stewart and Challis – is starting to distance itself from the industry’s calm. However, governments are making so much money from mobiles (the 3G licence auction brought in a staggering 22.5 Bn GBP to the UK government), they are not likely to want to slow the mobile juggernaut. If the evidence ever becomes overwhelming, it would appear that it will then be too late to either undo society’s reliance on mobiles, or prevent a welter of health symptoms from arising due to long-term mobile use. If the precautionary approach ends up meaning – everyone for themselves – then the mobile users themselves will end up being the scapegoat.

contents © Greenleaf Publishing, apart from the Introduction © jem bendell, 2006. site by waywardmedia.com