HOWZAT

Not surprisingly, the All-Party Parliamentary Mobile Group, in its report into the siting of masts earlier this year, highlighted a “lack of trust” between communities, government, the communications industry and local authorities. The MOA says tighter controls would simply slow the roll-out of essential communications technology and blames local authorities for not liaising enough with the industry.

Resistance to mobile communications does not stop with masts. The argument surrounding the health implications of radiation from handsets rages unabated, as spasmodic scientific studies continue to raise alarm. One recent Hungarian study suggested that mobile phones kept in trouser pockets could reduce male sperm count; another, from Sweden, suggested that RF radiation could damage red blood cells.

So where does the truth lie? In 1999, the government-backed Independent Experts Group on Mobile Phones (www.iegmp.org.uk), chaired by Sir William Stewart, a former chief scientist under the Tories, reviewed scientific evidence on RF radiation. It found no compelling evidence that mobile phones were harmful, but, given the paucity of research, Stewart advised a precautionary approach.

Children, in particular, could be more vulnerable to radiation from handsets because their nervous systems are still developing; their tissues, too, may absorb more radiation than adults. Stewart recommended that children under 16 should restrict mobile-phone use to essential calls and keep call lengths to a minimum, a view endorsed by the British Medical Association (www.bma.org) and the Department of Health (www.dh.gov.uk).

The debate over handset emissions has moved on to a phone’s SAR value, a measurement of the emissions given out every time you make or take a call. Under EU guidelines, mobiles cannot be sold unless they have an SAR value of less than two watts per kilogram of body weight. The table of bestselling phones (above right) shows that they all comply, though all emit more radiation than the UK’s safest. The message is that you could be wise to select a phone with a low emission rate.

Professor Lawrie Challis, chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications Health Research Programme (www.mthr.org.uk), an independent organisation funding research into RF radiation, nevertheless warns: “With an event like the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, you’re likely to see the effects after five or six years. With mobile phones, you might not see the effects for 20 years. Yet most of us in the UK have been using them for only six or seven years. So we have to be cautious and continue doing research.”

This is not the path followed by the mobile-phone industry. Motorola’s international website (www.motorola.com) blithely states: “There is no scientific basis to restrict the use of mobile phones by children, and this remains a matter open for parental choice.” On the site of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF, www.mmfai.org), the global association that counts Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson and Samsung among its members, the “Research” link reveals a disappointingly brief, selective round-up of research findings. In mobile land, it seems all is rosy.

Such an apparently cavalier stance angers leading scientists. Stewart and Challis have criticised mobile-phone manufacturers for not giving clearer information about the radiation-emission levels of their phones. Challis says: “When I wanted to buy a low-exposure phone, the chap in the shop knew nothing about SAR, and there was nothing on the box. Eventually, I found the SAR value on page 68 of the instruction booklet. Industry and government must be more honest with the public.” At least the MMF website now lists SAR values for its members’ mobile phones, which is a step in the right direction.

The number of mobiles, networks and cordless home phones is growing so fast that the World Health Organisation (www.who.int) actually wonders whether meaningful health-impact studies are still possible. So many competing radiation sources are sited close to each other that pinpointing any risk is problematic.

Given all that we do know about emissions — and all that we don’t — one question cries out: Are we all guinea pigs in some global multibillion-pound commercial experiment? When I put this question to Dr Michael Clark, science spokesman for the NRPB, he replied: “In a way, yes we are.” Scary.

PHONE RATINGS

SAR VALUES FOR THE FIVE MOST POPULAR MOBILES AT CARPHONE WAREHOUSE

Explore Tech & Web

• Personal Tech

• The Web

• Gadgets & Gaming