spiked-science | Article

Did you give or receive a mobile phone for Christmas? Maybe you noticed that, just in time for the festivities, the UK government decided to include a free gift with every phone bought: a leaflet on 'mobile phones and health' (1).

The new leaflet is based on the recommendations of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones led by Sir William Stewart (2). So what is the latest scientific advice? What kind of payback can we expect from the �7 million the government has announced will be spent on further research? The leaflet advises, rather predictably, that the best way to reduce any risk from mobile phone use is�to use the phone less. Unfortunately, since nobody has established that mobile phones are a health risk in the first place, even this obvious advice is unnecessary. It seems that, in its rush to be open about communicating risk to the public, the government has simply forgotten that there was no risk to communicate.

The leaflet's second piece of advice, to minimise exposure to mobile phones, is that we should 'consider relative SAR [specific absorption rate] values' when buying a new phone. This is even more problematic. The SAR measures the amount of energy absorbed by the head from the phone. But the only biological effect that this directly measures is heating, and everybody (even those who worry about adverse health effects) agrees that heating of the head from mobile phone use is both well understood, and is so small as to be completely insignificant.

The worries that have been raised are about possible 'non-thermal' effects (in other words, any effects other than heating). But these are mostly speculative. Nobody has demonstrated a non-thermal effect of radiowaves that has adverse consequences for health. The only thing that is clear about non-thermal effects is that, if they exist, they will depend very strongly on frequency. But the SAR provides information only about intensity. High intensity (high SAR) exposure at one frequency could have far greater effect than low intensity (low SAR) exposure at a different frequency. It seems that this advice, and the compulsory SAR labelling which is to come into effect, are based on little more than finding something easy to label and labelling it.

The only advice in the leaflet which appears to have any rational basis is that using a mobile phone while driving increases your chances of having an accident. Some might think that this is obvious enough not to need a government advisory notice. Others point to a surprising finding: that it seems to make no difference to the accident rate whether or not a hands-free set is used.

Perhaps what is needed, far more than any leaflet, is some perspective on this discussion. For example, under pressure from the Consumers' Association, the British government remains agnostic on effects of hand-free sets. The leaflet claims that the 'level of effectiveness of hands-free kit to reduce SAR is still uncertain'.

A contrasting view has come from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) technical specialist Michael Bangay. 'The idea of a wire that runs up to an ear getting three times more power was absolute nonsense, it just doesn't work that way', he said, commenting on a story in Which?, the Consumers' Association magazine, which purported to show that hands-free sets direct more radiation to the head. He went on to explain that 'hands-free kits are really quite weak, reducing levels at least to the head', and concluded: 'They did the wrong experiment and they came up with the wrong result.' Bangay further noted that at least six other studies show that hands-free sets cut radiation to the head by 90 percent.

The mobile phone industry has expressed some discomfort with the new government advice. In muted criticism, the UK Federation of the Electronics Industry has suggested that 'consumers could be puzzled' by the new leaflet (3). However, the problem is, at least in part, of the industry's own making. When the Stewart report was first published in May 2000, it was widely welcomed by industry, which refrained, in particular, from criticising the 'precautionary approach' adopted by Sir William. Yet it is precisely this precautionary approach that is taken in the leaflets, justifying scare-mongering in the absence of scientific evidence of risk.

All the major companies involved with mobile phones are together contributing 50 percent of the �7 million the government proposes to spend on 'independent' research into the health risks of mobile phones. This is particularly odd when you consider that, following Sir William Stewart's recommendation, non-peer reviewed and anecdotal evidence will be taken into account by the government. By refusing to follow accepted scientific standards, the government is debasing the value of research. Given that industry already funds a great deal of genuinely scientific research on possible health effects of mobile phones, a refusal to cooperate with the government's shoddy standards might seem the wisest course of action.

After all this, will the dire warnings about the potential risks of mobiles stop us from using them? It seems unlikely. A more plausible outcome is likely to be that parents and teachers will use the government's advice to help them shut up cheeky children who refuse to put away their mobiles. According to the new leaflet, while anybody may 'choose to minimise [their] exposure to radiowaves', the UK chief medical officers 'strongly advise' that young people under the age of 16 should be encouraged to use mobiles 'for essential purposes only' and to 'keep all calls short'. By playing on parental fears in this way, the new leaflet has ensured that at least one group of people - children and adolescents - will be encouraged to put their fun on hold.

Mobiles have already become an important part of social life for young people. Research has even suggested that mobile phone use is replacing smoking as a symbol of independence for teenage girls - and just as smoking became the target of a health campaign, mobile phone use is now the big 'bad for your health'. But while smoking is clearly harmful, there is no evidence whatsoever that mobile phones do any damage. Whatever happened to the notion that 'it's good to talk'?

(1) The government leaflet to be given with all mobile phones can be seen here

(2) The report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones led by Sir William Stewart can be found here. The government's response to the report is here

(3) The Federation of the Electronics Industry statement can be found here