Precaution - protecting lives versus risking lives

On 29 January 2015, the French Parliament voted a law that introduces new obligations in the deployment of base stations and sales and promotion of radio-electric devices, namely mobile phones and connected objects. The author of the new law claims that the intention is to better inform the public about exposure to electromagnetic fields and to incite operators and network deployers to reduce exposure levels. 

While the text itself avoids radical statements that cannot be proven, the author of the law publicly stated that she is convinced of the harmful effect of EMF, taking up several of the arguments put forward by the anti-EMF activist community. In the same parliamentary debate, the responsible Minister on the other hand underlined that the latest scientifique review by the French Health Agency in 2013 had concluded that there are no established health effects from exposure to EMF within the established limits. More explicitly, the Minister said “that the government does not share the idea so far that electromagnetic fields represent a danger to public health”. Nonetheless, the government supported the adoption of the text. Conflicting signals to the public to say the least. 

Stoking fears instead of calming them

The Minister sees the law as the implementation of a methodology that should help deal with existing worries and questions among the population in regards to exposure to EMF. However, this objective is very unlikely to be obtained. International experience has shown that the introduction of precautionary legislation rather increases the level of anxiety in the population, as people assume that when the government feels the need to act, there likely is reason to worry. Several studies (Barnett et al, 2006; Wiedemann & Schütz, 2005; Wiedemann et al, 2006) confirm that precautionary measures tend to increase risk perception and fail to calm the minds. 

Real life consequences 

Only one day before the adoption of this new law, a group of French students was surprised by an avalanche in the Swiss alps. Three of the students were buried, two could be saved thanks to their avalanche beacons, the signal of which helped the rescue team to locate them in time. The other 17 year old died, having refused to wear an avalanche beacon, claiming he did not think it served any purpose and saying he did not like the idea of wearing a device that was emitting EMF. This is a real tragedy and our sympathies are with the boy’s family and friends. The new law risks to reinforce such unfounded fear, adding proof to the established adverse health effects of blind precaution.

Yann Kindo, author of a very critical blog post analysing the possible impact of this new law, concluded: “[…] it is not possible for the legislator to hide behind the idea that if [these measures] don’t help, they do not hurt either. That is not how it works: in real life, an unnecessary precautionary law does not reassure the public, but legitimises the anxiety of those that worry without a real reason for worry, and has negative consequences in reality.” 


References: 

Barnett J., Timotijevic L, Shepherd R and Senior V (2006) Public Responses To Precautionary Information From The Department Of Health (UK) About Possible Health Risks From Mobile Phones, Health Policy, 82, 240-250

Wiedemann PM, Schütz H (2005) The precautionary principle and risk perception: experimental studies in the EMF area. Environ Health Perspect 113: 402–405 [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Wiedemann PM, Thalmann AT, Grutsch MA, Schütz H (2006) The impacts of precautionary measures and the disclosure of scientific uncertainty on EMF risk perception and trust. J Risk Res 9: 361–372

Précautionnisme tragique en Isère: un mort, Yann Kindo 
http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/yann-kindo/310115/precautionnisme-tragique-en-isere-un-mort 

Mort dans une avalanche : le lycéen ne portait «jamais» de balise de détection 
http://www.leparisien.fr/grenoble-38000/mort-dans-une-avalanche-le-lyceen-ne-portait-jamais-de-balise-de-detection-29-01-2015-4489617.php

New website, new style: comprehensive information on non-ionizing radiation (NIR) made accessible

ICNIRP, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, has launched a new website, which presents a comprehensive and well structured source of information on electromagnetic fields, exposure limits and health implications. Readers are able to obtain an introduction to the various topics through short website articles arranged by frequency or types of application and can choose to deepen their understanding by consulting ICNIRP’s publications like the guidelines and fact sheets.

In regards to mobile phones and exposure limits for example, the reader can access an overview article called “Mobile phones. High Frequencies” via the menu item "applications”. The article summaries ICNIRP’s scientific view on the topic, includes a video tutorial summarising updates from the latest workshop, and provides links to related publications and further reading from external sources of information for a broader view on the topic.

The aforementioned article on “Mobile Phones. High Frequency” states:

• Acute and long-term effects of HF exposure from the use of mobile phones have been studied extensively without showing any conclusive evidence of adverse health effects.
• Among all of this research, the risk of tumors in close proximity to the ear where the phone is held, e.g. brain tumors, has been the focus of numerous epidemiological studies. A few of these epidemiological studies have shown a slight increase in risk for the small group of long-term and heavy mobile phone users (read more). These findings may be explained by reporting biases and weaknesses identified in the studies. Also, experimental studies on animals and cells failed to confirm the epidemiological studies, and there is no biophysical mechanism that could explain carcinogenicity at such exposure levels. In addition, the increased risk observed in some of the epidemiological studies is not compatible with the stable frequency of occurrence of these tumors in the population. This is an important consideration, given the widespread and significant increase in the use of mobile phones in the general population during the last few decades.

There is also information on exposure from Base stations, concluding:

• A large number of studies have been undertaken on both acute and long-term effects from HF exposure typical of base stations. Research at these levels of exposure has provided no conclusive evidence of any related adverse health effects.

And a section about Wi-Fi, which summarises:

• A large number of studies have been undertaken on both acute and long-term effects from HF exposure, such as Wi-Fi, without showing any conclusive evidence of adverse health effects. Much of this research is inferred from the mobile phone and base station literature, as it refers to a similar exposure.

The website presents ICNIRP’s scientific output in a more accessible way and improves public access to ICNIRP’s publications. The reader can peruse the list of publications in chronological order or select filters such as the type of publication (i.e. guidelines, statement, review, proceedings, etc.), the subject (frequency or applications), or the media type (pdf, cd, book, etc.).

A valuable resource for everyone interested in learning more about non-ionizing radiation: www.icnirp.org

The art of quoting science - the recent French study on mobile phone use and brain cancer

The publication of the "Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study” by scientists of the French ISPED in Bordeaux initiated a number of international media to report on the issue. Shortly after the publication on 9 May 2014 in the journal Occupational & Environmental Medicine, many news reports appeared claiming a link between brain cancer and mobile phones.

However, the UK Cancer Institute issued comments on why this study is not going to change the weight of evidence(1):

• people were asked to remember detailed information about their mobile phone use in the past which is prone to recall bias 
• nearly one fifth of the sampled cancer patients was too sick to fill out the information, so their families were asked to do it for them
• only in a small sub-group of cases (around 20 glioma cases and 10 meningioma cases) was an association seen, and this is a very small number of cases to base conclusions on as it prone to statistical uncertainty 
• the study was carried out between 2004-2006, but mobile phone technology has advanced a lot since then

The last point was also underlined by the UK National Health Service who published an article(2) saying: "Arguably the study only provides information about mobile phone use from a decade ago and contributes little in the way of conclusive answers about the current picture".

The resulting media coverage of the publication actually caused the authors to publish a clarification statement on their institute’s website, where they stated: "...it is important to underline that we are talking about an association and not about a cause-effect relationship. It therefore does not mean that intensive users of mobile phones will develop brain cancer".

However, few people are likely to ever read this clarification by the authors of the study. The general public is left with the message that a link between the use of mobile phones and brain cancer has been found despite the many reviews and contrary conclusions reached by expert panels and health authorities.

The UK Cancer Institute’s blog post concludes: "As it currently stands, it seems unlikely that using a mobile phone can cause brain tumours, particularly as lab research hasn’t shown a biological way this could happen. And rates of the brain tumours in question haven’t seen an increase over time, despite mobile phone use booming. But there isn’t enough good evidence to say with absolute confidence that no risk exists." 

Similarly, the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, who issued their ninth report on electromagnetic fields just last week(3), said: "…in previous reports the Scientific Council of SSM has concluded that studies of brain tumours and other tumours of the head (vestibular schwannomas, salivary gland), together with national cancer incidence statistics from different countries, are not convincing in linking mobile phone use to the occurrence of glioma or other tumours of the head region among adults. Recent studies do not change this conclusion. Although these have covered longer exposure periods, scientific uncertainty remains for regular mobile phone use for time periods longer than 15 years. It is also too early to draw firm conclusions regarding children and adolescents and risk for brain tumours, but the available literature to date does not indicate an increased risk."

These last two statements, and the many others like them, offer a more considered reflection of the state of knowledge as they are based on a wider review of the science rather than focusing on the results of a single study. Unfortunately, such an approach and the conclusions they reach don’t sell many newspapers.


(1) Back in the news - mobile phones and cancer
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/05/14/back-in-the-news-mobile-phones-and-cancer/

(2) Study linking brain cancer and mobiles inconclusive
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/05May/Pages/Study-linking-brain-cancer-and-mobiles-inconclusive.aspx

(3) Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, who issued their ninth report on electromagnetic fields http://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/Publikationer/Rapport/Stralskydd/2014/201416/


For more references on findings of international research reviews, have a look at MMF’s viewpoint:

• Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumours: Latest Reviews and Incidence Rates
• http://www.mmfai.org/public/docs/eng/MMF_VIEWPOINT_PhoneUseandBrainTumours_May2014.pdf