Features

Phone masts near schools: what does Sir William know?

"What does he know that we don't?" asked one non-tech pundit, when Sir William Stewart said that he'd recommend that phone masts aren't placed near schools.  Good question; it's not one with an obvious answer.

That hasn't stopped a lot of people claiming they know the answer. This week, protesters in Waltham Forest decided that if Sir William had "serious concerns" about phone masts near schools, they were entitled to cancel plans to build new ones, on health grounds.

Most students of wireless and physics are likely to be baffled by this. Did Sir William really say he had concerns about masts? And if so, why? The one thing that most experts are likely to agree on, is that if there is any area where there could possibly be a danger from mobile phones, it would be from the phones themselves, not from the masts.

The report itself is downloadable, in PDF format, by anybody, free. The report itself doesn't say "don't use phones," and it doesn't say, as quoted by the Waltham Forest lot, that Sir William had "serious concerns" about masts. So where does this come from?

The full story will have to wait till Sir William himself, as chairman of the national radiological protection board, deigns to respond. The fact seems to be that he did say this: he said it at the press conference which the NRPB organised to launch the report.

Exactly what he said, we can only gather by reading the reports written by those who were at the conference - and they don't agree. But it's clear that the gist of it was: "I wouldn't build a phone mast near a school."

What does he know that we don't? You won't find out from reading the report; it says no such thing. What it actually says is not simple, but you could summarise it by saying: "No clear evidence of danger is available - but it's too early to be sure."

The trouble with new drugs, new foods, and new habits, is that it takes time for evidence to build up. Everybody knows a smoker in their late 80s, who shows no sign of severe health problems, and for years, those who had health problems were told it was obviously caused by something else. Only when there was epidemiological evidence going back for decades, was it possible to show without question that if you took 100 smokers and 100 non-smokers, the proportion of smokers with serious illness was higher.

Mobile phones just haven't been around that long. There are very few people who have used them for a full decade yet. And so far, it's simply not possible to analyse enough of them to see if they truly have health problems; and none of those people are children.

The mast report is a new one; there was one four years ago, which was rather less careful. Does this merely represent the rise in litigation? Or is there scientific evidence?

The effect of litigious parents on Authority cannot be doubted. For someone to say: "It is safe to use a phone on an aircraft" is to take a very high risk of being taken to court if someone suffers an ill effect and can claim they took your advice. So it's not to be wondered at that Sir William emphasised his lack of information. His report says he doesn't know if there's a risk that a risk will be discovered, and that therefore, he's not in a position to define that risk.

Scientifically, there have been reports and investigations. The one that got the attention was one of the Interphone study. Two Interphone studies have shown no detectable risk, but the Swedish one found a possible indication of a small risk: "A study from the Institute of Environmental Medicine (IMM) at Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, found that 10 or more years of mobile phone use increase the risk of acoustic neuroma and that the risk increase was confined to the side of the head where the phone was usually held."

The trouble was that the figures are confined to Sweden, and for people who used phones for more than ten years. "No indications of an increased risk for less than 10 years of mobile phone use were found." And so, it is regarded as quite possible that this may absolve modern GSM phones from blame: "At the time when the study was conducted only analogue (NMT) mobile phones had been in use for more than 10 years, and therefore we cannot determine if the results are confined to use of analogue phones, or if the results would be similar also after long term use of digital (GSM) phones."

It could even be related to something that Swedish users used to clean their phones, or something Swedish resellers coated phones with, or something Swedish users habitually use to clean their ears. Nobody knows; and no such figures have emerged from other studies. In the circumstances, nobody can actually say whether there's a risk, or what the risk is, or what you could do to reduce the risk.

So, are children at risk?

Sir William's brief was to explain that no, the report hadn't shown any risk. But it also said that if there were a low-level risk which only showed up over a long period, then obviously it wouldn't be apparent - and therefore "precautionary" measures were sensible.

The question obviously arose: "Sir William, you recommend precautionary measures. What measures would you advocate?" And here is where the confusion arises.

During the following question and answer session, the chairman of the NRPB elaborated on the report in two ways. First, he said that he personally would not give young relatives phones. And second, he did actually say that he would not put a mast near a school.

Neither recommendation was supported in the report, but the "don't give phones to young children" warning at least makes sense, even if only as a way of avoiding litigation. But the mast recommendation? Where does that come from?

Sir William's colleagues are somewhat at a loss to explain that one. Unfortunately, whether he "knows something" which the report doesn't mention, or whether he was expressing a sympathy with the planning authorities, or with those who have to deal with planning authorities, or whether he's talking about property blight, he simply didn't explain.

And even more unfortunately, it's the masts that cause fear and anxiety.

Staff at the NRPB admit that there are sound reasons why people who aren't afraid of phones, might be anxious about masts.

These reasons aren't scientific. They're social, psychological reasons.

First, a phone is voluntary; if you think there's a possible risk, you can switch it off; a mast is imposed on the community, without choice. And second - well, of course, it is unquestionably true that masts have caused property values to drop.

If your home is on the market and the potential buyer is afraid of masts, they won't buy it. The fact that the masts may be harmless is only relevant if you can persuade the buyer that it is harmless.

To summarise:

Meanwhile, if Sir William has his reasons for recommending that masts are moved away from schools, he really ought to say what they are, because nobody else knows.