Risk Mobile Phones 05

8/3/2019 Risk Mobile Phones 05

1/16

EIRIS 1/16

SEE risk briefing May2005

Mobile phone healthconcerns and the telecom

industry

1. IntroductionThis series of SEE risk briefings seeksto identify areas of potential social,environmental and ethical (SEE) risk,analyse the ways in which these risks

may materialise and highlight howcompanies can manage these issues.

The mobile phone industry has growndramatically since it took off around 15years ago. The number of usersworldwide has increased from 11million in 1990 to 1.5 billion today - in

many countries more than half of thepopulation use mobile phones. Newdevelopments such as photo messagingand the launch of third generation (3G)phones are expected to result in furthergrowth. In the UK alone, there arealready 55 million mobile phonessubscribers and about 45,000 radiobase stations, which could rise to50,000 by 2007, according to theMobile Operators Association (MOA).

The growth in mobile phone use hasbeen accompanied by an increasingcommunity concern about the numbersof masts and exposure to radio waves.The introduction of mobile phones wasfollowed by allegations that themicrowave radiation used to transmitcommunications between base stationsand handsets could cause brain damage- leading to memory loss and malignanttumours. After hundreds of studiesaround the world, the evidence remainsinconclusive. Concerns about potentialadverse health effects of radiofrequency (RF) emissions from mobile

Inside

Introduction to the issue .1

Background the science andpublic concerns ...........................2

Potential social, ethical andenvironmental concerns 4

Exposure factors ..5

Managing the risk 6

Good practice examples 8

Company assessments ..9


2/16

SEE risk briefing: Mobile phone health concerns May 2005

EIRIS 2/16

handsets and base stations have beenthe subject of a very public debate

involving the press, governments,international organisations and localcommunities.

Both operators and manufacturers havecome under increased pressure todemonstrate that they are taking theseconcerns into account and addressingrelated risks. As time passes,manufacturers are progressivelyreducing the power output of their

phones, so radiation risks to individualusers are diminishing. However, as thenumber of subscribers surges past 1.5billion, even a tiny individual health riskcould have a large impact. The safetyof mobile phones is likely to remain acontentious issue for many years tocome.

2. Background2.1.The scienceMobile phones and their base stationstransmit and receive signals usingelectromagnetic waves - also referredto as electromagnetic fields, or radiowaves. Frequencies between about 30kHz (kilohertz) and 300 GHz(gigahertz) are widely used fortelecommunication, including radio andtelevision, and comprise the radio

frequency (RF) band. Both mobilephones and base stations emit RFradiation. Exposure levels depend onthe source and generally reduce withincreasing distance from the source.For mobile phones exposures areprincipally to the side of the head forhand-held use, or those parts of thebody closest to the handset for hands-free use. RF exposure from basestations will be to the whole body,

generally at a lower level of intensitythan handsets, but continual. Basestations vary in size and the power

output of the antennae - macrocells,microcells and picocells.

Radio waves are electromagneticenergy. It has been established thatsuch energy can lead to the heating ofthe body but radio waves do not haveenough energy to damage cellstructures and are known as 'non-ionizing'. Scientific research has led tothe conclusion that a temperature riseof no more than one degree Celsius is asafe level for the body to cope with.

International health and safetyguidelines are in place to limit publicexposure to radio waves from basestations and mobile phones, and are setby the International Commission onNon-Ionizing Radiation Protection(ICNIRP).

Some countries have introducednational limits for RF exposure largelybased on ICNIRP standards, which are

endorsed by the World HealthOrganisation (WHO). SpecificAbsorption Rates (SAR) measure theenergy absorbed from mobile handsets.Guidelines for the general public havebeen set at 2.0W/kg (watts perkilogram of tissue). Handsets sold inthe EU have SAR values between0.2W/kg and 1.7W/kg, with mostaround the 1.0W/kg level. All are belowthe guidelines for the EU of 2.0W/kg.

The WHO concluded, based on an in-depth review of the scientific literature,that current evidence does not confirmthe existence of any healthconsequences from exposure to lowlevel RF emissions. However, the WHOconsidered that some gaps inknowledge regarding biological effectsexist and that these areas requirefurther research. The WHO hasestablished an InternationalElectromagnetic Fields (EMF) Project toassess the scientific evidence ofpossible health effects of RF emissions.


3/16


EIRIS 3/16

In May 2000, the UK IndependentExpert Group on Mobile Phones, chaired

by Sir William Stewart, concluded thatthe balance of evidence to date did notsuggest mobile phone technologiescause adverse health effects. However,it called for more research to fill gaps inscientific knowledge and for aprecautionary approach to be adopted,including limiting the use of mobilephones by young children. This wasreaffirmed by the National RadiologicalProtection Board (NRPB), also chaired

by Sir William Stewart, in January2005. Similar conclusions were drawnin reports commissioned in otherEuropean countries such as the ZmirouReport in France.

Findings from a team of scientists fromthe Karolinska Institute in Stockholmtold a different story. They published areport in October 2004 showing thatpeople who used mobile phones for

more than 10 years had a doubled riskof developing acoustic neuroma, aslow-growing tumour of the nervebetween the ear and brain.Confirmation - or otherwise - may occursoon. The Swedish study is part of alarge collaboration, involvingresearchers from 13 countries, calledInterphone, which is co-ordinated bythe International Agency for Researchon Cancer (IARC). The focus is on

investigating three types of tumourincluding brain tumours, acousticneuromas and tumours of the salivarygland, whose location makes them themost likely candidates for a link withmobile phone radiation. Interphoneexpects more national studies to bepublished during 2005 and early resultsfrom the international programmeshould also be available this year.

2.2.Public concernsIncomplete scientific evidence andineffective communication of availableevidence has lead to widespread public

confusion and mistrust. Understandingpublic perceptions of risk and health

concerns is a key issue for telecomcompanies.

Handsets Members of the public haveattributed a range of symptoms to theuse of mobile handsets includingimpairment to short-term memory,headaches, brain tumours, othercancers, sleep disturbance, depressionand tiredness. However, the majority ofmobile phone users perceive the health

risk as low, as the handsets arevoluntarily chosen and convey anadvantage to the user.

Mobile base stations Symptomsattributed to RF exposure from basestations include headaches, sleepdisturbance, depression, stress andtiredness. In some cases a correlationwith an increased incidence of cancerhas been suggested. There is particular

concern regarding the siting of basestations on or near schools, hospitalsand residential areas. Other concernsinclude the negative visual impact andpotential reductions to property values.

The involuntary nature of RF exposurefrom base stations increases themagnitude of perceived risk. People,especially those who do not use mobilephones, often perceive the health risks

as high.A proposal to site a new base stationfrequently meets with strongcommunity disapproval and opposition.In many countries local communityprotest groups are formed. In somecases these may be co-ordinated at anational level, for example in the UKPowerwatch and Mast Sanity campaignfor acknowledgement of the adversehealth effects of RF emissions andprotest against insensitive siting ofbase stations.


4/16


EIRIS 4/16

3. Scope of EIRIS researchEIRIS analysis focuses on Europeanmobile operators. While both mobilephone manufacturers and operatorsmay be adversely affected by risksrelated to RF emissions, this analysisfocuses on operators as their risksrelate to both masts and handsets andtheir level of exposure to the risksidentified is, therefore, relativelyhigher.

Although excluded from the analysis,mobile handset manufacturers mayneed to address concerns related to theuse of handsets and some of them arealready involved in initiatives todevelop guidelines and best practiceapproach. Mobile handsetmanufacturers have adopted a broadlycommon approach to the potentialhealth effects from handsets. Forexample, the Mobile Manufacturers

Forum (MMF), an internationalassociation representing Alcatel,Ericsson, Mitsubishi Electric, Motorola,Nokia, Panasonic, Philips, Sagem andSony Ericsson, jointly funds keyresearch projects and co-operates onstandards, regulatory issues and publiccommunication.

This analysis also excludes mobilevirtual network operators (MVNOs)

because they do not have direct controlover mast siting. MVNOs do not operatea physical mobile network but canaccess the mobile network of one ormore mobile operators to providemobile communications services totheir customers. Although they mayhave a responsibility to inform thepublic on health issues related tomobile phones and masts, they have nopower to decide where the masts are

located or their level of RF.

4. Potential social, ethical& environmental risks

and opportunities

This briefing seeks to identify areas ofpotential risks and ways in which thesemay materialise in the short to mediumterm (three to five years).

The balance of evidence to date fromboth national and international sourcessupports the view that low level RF

emissions do not cause adverse healtheffects. However, there remains apossibility that current guidelines areinsufficient to guard against anyadverse health effects which may befound to exist in the future. Healthrisks, whether actual or merelyperceived, could result in fewer newnetwork subscribers, lower networkusage per subscriber, higher churnrates, difficulty obtaining planningpermission for masts, product liabilitylawsuits or a reduction in the outsidefinancing available to the mobileindustry.

Key ways in which mobile phonecompanies may be affected in practiceif these concerns are not addressed areoutlined below:

License to operate Erosion ofcommunity confidence and consequentopposition to proposed mast sitingsincreases direct costs to operatorsthrough site acquisition delays.Operators may face a loss of earningsbecause of delays in erecting newmasts and therefore difficulties inattracting new customers due topotential reduction in service quality.The degree of public disapproval islargely dependent on the country inquestion. The number of community

action groups, public complaints andlevel of press coverage varies fromcountry to country.


5/16


EIRIS 5/16

Litigation Claims relating to potentialadverse health effects may be brought

by customers, communities oremployees. A limited number of claimshave been brought against mobileoperators and manufacturers allegingpersonal injury, including brain cancer.The losses that may arise from theseclaims have not been quantified andclaims are being vigorously defended.Irrespective of outcome, the cost ofdefending such actions is considerableand may not be fully recoverable even

if the claim does not succeed.

Regulation ICNIRP guidelines formaximum exposure levels have beenadopted in an EC Recommendationagreed in principle by all EU countries.Many national authorities have setlower limits. Planning regulationsrelating to mast siting vary by countryand in many cases power is devolved tolocal authorities. Some have taken

strong positions refusing permission formasts to be sited on their land,especially near schools. Ignoring localconcerns can lead to rejection ofplanning applications and the potentialfor more restrictive planningregulations at a national level. Indeed,a report from the All-partyParliamentary Group on MobileCommunications recommended newlegislation on the siting of masts in the

UK. Self-regulation may remove theneed for this.

Reputation Local communitycampaigns against mast siting or awider public health scare leading toadverse national press coverage maynegatively impact corporate reputationin the long term. The extent of thisactivity is largely dependent on thecountry as public perceptions of thehealth risks related to mobile phonesvary greatly across the world. The levelof brand awareness globally, whetherthe mobile operations and parentcompany have the same name and the

brand valuation will influence thedamage to the company. The quality

and availability of information onmobile phones and health provided byoperators and their engagement withconcerned communities on the issuecan, to some extent, limit suchnegative impact. Subsequent evidenceestablishing negative health effectsassociated with mobile phone use,while considered unlikely at this stage,presents a significant longer term riskfor the sector.

On the basis of this analysis the mostsignificant short to medium term riskswould appear to result from difficultiessiting new masts.

5. Exposure factors5.1.Size of mobile operationsIn identifying the companies most at

risk EIRIS considers the largestcompanies to be most significantlyaffected by these issues and has set thethreshold for turnover at GBP100mderived from mobile operations. EIRIShas identified 18 companies for whichthe turnover is above this threshold.These comprise Bouygues (France),Cosmote (Greece) , Deutsche Telekom(T-Mobile, Germany), France Telecom(Orange), KPN (Netherlands), Mobistar

(Belgium), O2 (UK), Portugal Telecom,Swisscom, Tele2 (Sweden) TelekomAustria, Telenor (Norway), TelecomItalia (TIM), TeliaSonera (Sweden),Telefonica (Spain), TDC (Denmark)Vivendi Universal (SFR, France) andVodafone (UK).

Exposure to the risks outlined abovemay also vary according to factorsidentified below. These have not been

independently assessed by EIRIS inreaching its assessment of eachcompany, but analysts may wish totake them into account.


6/16


EIRIS 6/16

5.2.Country of operationThe country of operation plays a keyrole both as a result of nationalregulations and the degree of localisedconcern.

In September 2003, Vodafonecommissioned market researchcompany MORI to carry out a globalsurvey of perceptions about healthissues connected with mobile phonesand masts. The survey, which

comprised more than 17,000 interviewsin 14 different countries, providesuseful insights into how public concernabout electronic magnetic fields (EMF)is stronger in some countries thanothers. In Greece, Portugal andSweden, for example, the majority ofthe population do not believe thatmobile phones are safe to use, while inthe UK the majority think mobiles aresafe. In Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malta

and Spain, opinion is divided.

Relative perceived benefits of mobilephones also vary, but users in mostEuropean countries, except Greece,believe the benefits of using mobilephone outweigh the claimed healtheffects. This is the case for 73% of thepopulation in Ireland and 71% inGermany but only 28% in Greece. EMFexposure from masts is generally

perceived to be a more serious issuethan exposure from handsets.Background information outlining keyregulatory requirements and industryinitiatives in European operators maincountries of operation is provided inAnnex 9.2.

5.3.Network expansion planincluding 3G technology

A companys license to operate withrespect to mast siting is identified as akey short-term risk. Few wouldwelcome a mast in their local area andobjection to such plans is common.

Without community approval, mastsiting may incur additional costs and

threaten a companys ability to expand.The degree to which this affects acompany will depend on a companysnetwork expansion strategy with regardto 2G and 3G networks. The cell sizesfor 3G networks are smaller than for 2Gand therefore, require more basestations to cover the same area. Someoperators are already seeking toupgrade their existing base stations orshare sites used by other operators but

more masts will be needed to meetlicence requirements.

Questions for analysts

What are public perceptions andrelevant regulations in thecountries of the companys main

geographical focus?

To what extent does the

companys growth strategydepend on extending its mobile

mast networks?

6. Managing the riskIn analysing the ways in which

companies can manage the risksidentified by this study we haveassessed the policies and systemsadopted, the extent of public provisionof information and ways in which thecompany engages with affectedcommunities.

Although there is no incontrovertibleevidence that mobile phones representa health threat, each new study has the

potential to generate damaging mediacoverage. Mobile operators need totake appropriate steps to addressissues related to mobile phone health


7/16


EIRIS 7/16

concerns to ensure they will not sufferthe same fate as other industries that

have ignored or mismanaged similarhealth scares such as GMO technology.

According to Chris Genasi, thepresident of the UK's Institute of PublicRelations and a specialist in managingcorporate reputations, adherence towhat he calls "the three golden rules"could significantly benefit all companiesfacing a health scare crisis. "The first isacknowledgment of it. Do not make the

mistake of poo-poohing a concern.Whether it's real or perceived, youacknowledge that it's there. Second,you put it into perspective And then,finally, you make it clear that you aredoing something about it," he told theFinancial Times in January 2005.

Network operators have not denied thatthere is a problem. Many of them insistthat they take the issue seriously and

refer to independent scientific studiesor to the work they have done either indistributing information to stakeholdersor in supporting the research.According to the World HealthOrganisation, some EUR154m(USD200m) has been spent onresearching the potential healthhazards.

Industry sponsored research is often

mistrusted and if this is to be avoidedmobile companies need to be at arm'slength from the research and remaincommitted to a transparent approachby keeping employees, customers andthe public informed of any significantdevelopments.

To avoid losing public confidencenetwork operators will need to engagewith the public over perhaps the mostcontroversial aspect of mobiletelephony - masts and base stations.Engagement and consultation withconcerned communities may not put anend to the controversy but can reassure

the public that their interests are beingaddressed. Mike Dolan, executive

director of the Mobile OperatorsAssociation admits that "people liketheir phones but don't like the network"and says that any expansion of thenetwork infrastructure must besensitively handled. "In terms ofnetwork development, we have taken aproactive approach, with a commitmentto best practice on siting. The operatorsalso publish roll-out plans before theygo to the more difficult sites" he says.

Despite national differences, telecomcompanies often have a global presenceand there is an increasing trendtowards group-wide policies andmanagement practices regardless ofthe country of operation. EIRIS hasidentified 16 key indicators forassessing companies management ofmobile phone health concerns. Thesefall into three categories and are as

follows:

Strategy & responsibility

Senior manager or committeeresponsible for RF related issues

RF emissions identified as SEE risk atboard level

Funding of independent scientificresearch into health effects

Commitment to best practice sitingguidelinesCommitment to site sharing withother operators

KPIs or targets to assess managementof risk related to RF emissions

R&D strategy to minimise RFemissions

Public information - availability andquality of information provided by thecompany regarding RF emissions

Clear section in public reports and/orwebsite or FAQs on RF issues

Details of independent informationsource


8/16


EIRIS 8/16

Public database of mast sitesMonitoring of compliance with ICNIRP

levelsStand-alone document for customers

providing information on RF healthrisks etc

Disclosure of SAR levels for handsetsCommunity engagement &measures

Stakeholder engagementClear communication channelsFree RF measurement or independentaudit for local residents living near a

mast

EIRIS will also record a commitment tominimising visual impact of masts,although this will not count in theassessment of the companysmanagement of mobile healthconcerns. Detailed definitions ofindicators are provided in Annex 9.1.1.

7. Good practice examplesIn countries with significant publicopposition to mast siting mobileoperators have formed associations anddrawn up best practice guidelines formast siting. One such example is theUK Mobile Operators Association (MOA)which has established the TenCommitments to best siting practice.

These are externally audited andinclude improved consultation withcommunities, detailed consultation withplanners and prompt response toenquiries. Mobile operators inSwitzerland have committed tofinancing an independent ombudsmanto resolve disputes over mast siting.

Best practice with regards to providingpublic information includes Frequently

Asked Questions (FAQs) in companyreports or website, publishing stand-alone documents distributed in salesoutlets and the provision of a dedicated

channel of communication. Orange, forexample, provides a free phone number

to address queries. Active communityengagement has been demonstrated byTelefonica Moviles who proactively sentout a separate report ElectromagneticFields, Mobile Telephony and Health toprofessional organisations andmunicipal governments addressingspecific stakeholder concerns.Swisscom goes further offering toprovide specialists to give a lecture atcommunity meetings and answer

questions in person.

Sources

Mobile Phones and Health the StewartReport; the World Health Organisation;the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection; TheEuropean Telecommunications NetworkOperators Association (ETNO)sSustainability Charter; GSM Associationwebsite; MMF website; the UK Mobile

Operators Association, the FrenchAssociation of Mobile Operators(AFOM), Forum Mobil(Switzerland),various national andinternational press reports; mobilehandset manufactures and mobileoperators websites, annual and CSRreports; communication withPowerwatch, the deputy chairman ofthe UK Advisory Group on Non-IonisingRadiation and mobile operators. EIRIS

research partners Imug andEthifinance.


9/16


EIRIS 9/16

8. Company assessments

NE no evidence; L limited; I intermediate; G good; A advanced

Detailed grading methodology is provided in Annex 9.1.

* Publicly quoted operator Publicly quoted operator with publicly quoted parent company(name in parenthesis) Unquoted operator with publicly quoted parent company (name inparenthesis) NB Parent company must own at least 20% of subsidiary

O2

*

Orange

(FranceTelecom)

T-Mobile

(DeutscheTelekom

)

Vodafone*

Bouygues

Telecom

(Bouygues)

KPN*

PortugalTelcom*

SFR

(Vivendi

Universal

Swisscom*

TDC*

Telefonica

Moviles

(Telefonica)

Telenor*

TeliaSonera*

TIM

(Telecom

Italia

Mobistar

FranceTelecom

TelekomAustria

*

Cosmote(OTE)

Tele2*

Strategy and responsibility

Responsibilityfor RF issues

Identification as

SEE risk

Independentresearch

Best practicesiting guidelines

Commitment tosite-sharing

ManagementKPIs or targets

R&D strategy tominimise RF

Public information

Clear info for RFissues

Independentinfo source

Public databaseof mast sites

MonitoringICNIRP levels

Disclosure ofSAR levels

Stand-alonedocument

Community engagementStakeholderengagement

Communicationchannel

Free RF audit/measurement

Minimisingvisual impact

Assessment G G G G I I I I I I I I I I L L NE NE


10/16


EIRIS 10/16

9. Annex9.1.Grading methodologyThe assessment is based on evidence of the elements listed below in one or more ofthe companies main countries of operation.

No

evidenceLimited Intermediate Good Advanced

Requirements No indicatorsAny oneindicator

Any indicatorfrom markedsections

All markedindicators

All markedindicators

Strategy and responsibility

Responsibilityfor RF issues

Identification asSEE risk

Independentresearch

Best practicesiting guidelines

Commitment tosite-sharing

Management

KPIs or targets

R&D strategy tominimise RF

Public information

Clear info for RFissues

Independentinfo source

Public databaseof mast sites

MonitoringICNIRP levels

Disclosure ofSAR levels

Stand-alonedocument

Community engagement

Stakeholderengagement

Communicationchannel

Free RF audit/measurement

Minimising

visual impact

EIRIS will indicate a commitment to visual impacts but this is not taken into

account for the overall assessment


11/16


EIRIS 11/16

9.1.1. Indicator definitionsIdentification as SEE risk - healthconcerns related to mobiles and masts

identified as risk at board levelIndependent research refers to

research project carried by healthorganisations and universities. Thisincludes for example research by theWorld Health Organisation or theInterphone project co-ordinated bythe International Agency for Researchon Cancer (IARC). It does not cover

research conducted or commissionedby the Company or the industryBest practice siting guidelines

include national best practice such asthe Mobile Operators Associationguidelines in the UK or the GSMEurope siting guidelines

Management KPIs or targets clear key performance indicators ortargets to assess the management ofrisk related to RF emissions

R&D strategy to minimise RFemission levels and incorporatefindings in development or design ofproducts and services

Independent information sourcesinclude reports or other researchpublished by the World HealthOrganisation, the InternationalCommission on Non Ionizing RadiationProtection, and governmental bodiessuch as the National Radiological

Protection Board in the UK anduniversities. This does not coverresearch conducted or commissionedby the company or the industry

Stand-alone document forcustomers providing information onRF health risks, ongoing research andpreventive measures to limitexposures to emissions and protectpopulations at risk such as children

Monitoring ICNIRP levels - somecountries have introduced nationalrequirements to limit RF emissionsbased on the ICNIRP

Stakeholder engagement -proactive public communication and

consultation with stakeholdersincludes sending information to

stakeholders, a commitment toconsult communitiesCommunication channel includes

clear and dedicated contact forqueries, complaints or disputeresolution

See also section 6 Managing the risk

9.2.Country profilesPublic perceptions regarding EMF andrelated risks vary according to country.The country of operation thereforeplays a key role in mobile operatorsexposure to risk as a result of bothnational regulations and the degree oflocalised concern. The informationbelow provides background onregulatory requirements and industryinitiatives in place in Europeanoperators main countries of operation.

Austria

In Austria the Telekommunikations-gesetz defines the maximum level forRF radiation, which follows the ICNIRPrecommendations. Austrian safetyrequirements for high-frequencyelectromagnetic fields are laid down byONORM S1120 (sterreichischesNormungsinstitute Austrian StandardsInstitute) and installations are regularly

tested. There are over 450 smallprotest groups of residentscampaigning to prevent the building ofmasts. A key complaint is that there isno right of veto against mast siting intheir neighbourhood. There are callsfrom protest groups, politicians andscientists for the government toimplement uniform regulations acrossAustria.

The Forum Mobilkommunikation (FMK,www.fmk.at ) is an industry-wideinitiative including all Austrian mobileoperators, the mobile communicationsindustry and the Association of Austrian


12/16


EIRIS 12/16

Electrical and Electronics Industry(FEEI) established in 1996. Its mission

is to promote a socially,environmentally and financiallyresponsible and successful mobileindustry. Mobile communication andhealth is a key focus. In response togrowing public demand for informationa voluntary industry initiative waslaunched in October 2003 to publishsite data for existing mobilecommunications facilities on theInternet. The information published

includes all mast and rooftop locationsfor transmission facilities including bothGSM and UMTS antennae.

In 2001 Austrian mobile serviceproviders concluded an agreement withthe sterreichische Gemeindebund (theassociation representing smaller localauthorities) defining the procedures fordisseminating information about newnetwork expansions and the scope of

such information.

Belgium

In December 2001, the Belgian federalgovernment published a Royal Decree(amending the April 2001 RoyalDecree) introducing a new procedure tocheck whether or not an antenna sitecomplies with the ICNIRP levels. Mobileoperators are required to send atechnical file to the Belgian regulator,

Institut Belge des Postes etTelecommunication (BIPT) containinginformation on the theoretical radiationemitted by the antenna. A lawintroduced in January 2001 imposesobligatory site sharing between mobileoperators, prohibits restrictive clauseson existing sites and imposes theestablishment of a database of allantenna sites in Belgium.

Denmark

The Danish Ministry of Science,Technology and Innovation released areport in 2003 looking into the safety ofmobile phones base stations. The

report concluded that the strength ofradio waves from mobile networks in

Denmark is well below ICNIRP limits.However, there are many local groupsprotesting against the erection of mastsor for the removal of those alreadybuilt. In response, some localauthorities are refusing permission fornew masts.

France

In 2001 the Zmirou Report,commissioned by the French

government to investigate the potentialhealth risks associated with RFradiation, was published. As a result ofits recommendations, the governmentoutlined guidelines for mast siting andmaximum RF radiation levels withinexisting ICNIRP guidelines. In 2003, theFrench Agency for Environment Healthand Security (AFSEE) recommendedmobile operators and localadministrations negotiate and sign

charters in each city outlining rules formast siting. Some consumerassociations believe potential risks havenot been adequately communicated.

In 1999, the three mobile operators inFrance (Bouygues Telecom, OrangeFrance and SFR) signed with theEnvironment and Culture ministers aNational EnvironmentalRecommendations Charter (Charte

Environnementale du 12 juillet 1999).According to this charter, followed byan Environmental RecommendationsGuide, mobile operators are bound totake into account all environmentalconsiderations pertaining to the qualityand fragility of natural environmentswhen planning the installation of a newbase station. The three operatorscreated the French Association ofMobile Operators (AFOM, www.afom.fr )in 2002 and, in April 2004, signed withthe French mayors (AMF) best practiceguidelines for mast siting, consultationwith concerned communities anddisclosure of information.


13/16


EIRIS 13/16

Government guidelines published inOctober 2003 require SAR levels to be

disclosed for handsets and a hands-freeset to be included with each mobilephone sold.

In January 2005, a governmentaldecree established a public utility bodycalled the 'Health and radio frequenciesfoundation' (Fondation sant etradiofrequences). The Foundation wasset up to carry out independentresearch into whether exposures to EMF

from mobile phones and their basestations have adverse health effects.The independence of its research isguaranteed by a scientific council underthe supervision of the Acadmie desSciences.

Germany

In Germany, the Bundesimmisions-schutzverordnung has definedmaximum radiation levels for masts.

This legislation is based on ICNIRPlevels. Local planning regulations allowthe siting of masts under 10m withoutlocal planning permission. However, theerection of masts on the roof ofresidential buildings represents achange in utilisation and may only bebuilt with prior permission. Each mastrequires a site certification by theGerman Regulatory Authority forTelecommunication and Post (RegTP).

Under its site certification procedurethe RegTP requires conservativemeasurements, taking into account allsources of EMF in the surrounding areaof the prospective mast. Numeroussmall residents protest groups existcampaigning to prevent new mastsbeing built in their community. Someare organised into an incorporatedsociety, Brgerwelle e.V. Nationalcritics include the consumerorganisation VerbraucherzentraleBundesverband e.V., the natureconservation association DeutscherNaturschutzring and the Bundes-verband gegen Elektrosmog,

campaigning specifically againstelectro-smog.

German mobile operators havecommitted themselves to publishing adatabase locating all their masts. Thisis published on the RegulatoryAuthority for Telecommunications andPost (RegTP, www.regtp.de ) websiteand provides the public withinformation on fixed radio transmittersrequiring a safety certificate. Locationsare listed where tests measuring RF

radiation have been carried out todetermine the extent of compliancewith safety limits. In 2001, all Germanmobile operators signed a voluntaryindustry commitment with thegovernment which included thefollowing key elements - consultationwith local authorities, information tocustomers on SAR, research fundingand transparency of information. Thiscommitment also includes independent

audits as a basis for annual reports tothe German government. Such reportshave been reviewed annually byindependent research groups since2001.

Greece

The Greek Atomic Energy Commission(EEAE) is the national competentauthority for the protection of thegeneral public and the environment

against non-ionising radiation inGreece. The basic restrictions andreference values set in the CouncilRecommendation (1999/519/EC) havebeen implemented but, especially in thecase of base stations, Greek legislationhas applied additional safetyparameters. EEAE conducts and co-ordinates measurements of existing andplanned installations and providesinformation to the public.

Italy

The Italian Ministerial DecreeDM381/98 fixes exposure limits,cautionary thresholds and quality


14/16


EIRIS 14/16

objectives for electro-magnetic fields.The restrictions comply with WHO

recommendations for maximumcaution. The Financial Law of 2001established that a share of no less than10% of the fund set up with therevenues from the UMTS license tendershould be allocated to activities for theprevention and reduction of electro-magnetic hazards. The EnvironmentalMinistry, the Ministry ofCommunications, Ministry of Health andthe Ministry of Productive Activities will

be assigned part of the fund to financeresearch on the effects of exposure toelectro-magnetic radiation. The statehas sole power to fix emissionstandards for installed base stations;however the Regions have the power toidentify zones where base stations mayor may not be installed.

Netherlands

In early 2001, the Dutch government

published a National Antenna Policyaimed at encouraging and facilitatingthe siting on an adequate number ofantennas within clear public health andenvironment parameters. The AntennaCovenant (forming part of the NationalAntenna Policy) was drawn up in 2002,making it possible, subject to certainconditions, to erect antenna masts onbuildings up to a height of 5m without abuilding permit. However, the Antenna

Covenant makes the mobile operatorsfully responsible for the safety of thebase station.

Norway

An expert group on mobile telephonyand health, under the auspices of theNorwegian Institute of Public Health,published a report in April 2003. Thereport cautioned that health effectsmay still occur and for users to limitexposure, especially with regard tochildren and young people. TheNorwegian Radiation ProtectionAuthority has set maximum emission

levels for RF radiation within ICNIRPrecommendations.

Portugal

The Instituto das Comunicacoes dePortugal (ICP) adopted the maximumradiation levels set out in theRecommendation of the EuropeanCouncil 1999/519/CE and hasincorporated this specification in thestation license required for theinstallation of new base stations. Non-compliance with these levels renders

the licensee liable to a fine under theterms of the Decree-Law no. 151-A/2000.

Spain

In 2001 the Ministry of Science andTechnology and the Ministry of Healthand Consumption jointly drafted aRoyal Decree 1066/2001 whichapproved regulations establishing theconditions of protection from RF

emissions, maximum levels and healthprotection measures. This included aplan for measuring emissions from allbase stations near or within populatedareas. A further Ministerial OrderCTE/23/2002 in 2002 established theconditions, contents and formats ofstudies and certifications that operatorsmust submit to the Ministry of Scienceand Technology.

SwedenIn 2002 the Swedish RadiationProtection Authority (SSI) issuedgeneral advice on limitation of exposureof the general public to electromagneticfields. The advice is in agreement withthe European Council Recommendationfrom 1999. There is much publicconcern regarding potential adversehealth effects, especially in connectionwith building 3G masts. Action groupsagainst 3G exist in different parts ofSweden and there are some localauthorities that want to abstain fromallowing the building of 3G masts.


15/16


EIRIS 15/16

In October 2004, a team of scientistsfrom the Karolinska Institute in

Stockholm published a report showing astatistically significant correlationbetween the long-term use of mobilephones and acoustic neuroma, a slow-growing tumour of the nerve betweenthe ear and brain. According to thestudy, people who used mobile phonesfor more than 10 years had a doubledrisk of developing acoustic neuroma.The Karolinska Institute scientists andthe SSI have recommended the use of

hands-free kits.

Switzerland

Limits for RF emissions from mobilebase stations came into effect inSwitzerland in 2000 under theOrdinance relating to Protection fromNon-Ionising Radiation (ONIR) setwithin ICNIRP levels. Urban andregional planning covers landscape andenvironmental protection and takes into

account RF radiation in sensitive areassuch as playgrounds and residentialareas. Some protest groups exist,mostly campaigning for clearerlegislation and a lower maximum levelof RF emissions.

The three main mobile operators inSwitzerland including Orange, Sunriseand Swisscom have undertaken tofinance an Ombudsman for Mobile

Communications and the Environment(OMK). This agency operatesindependently under the auspices of theFederal Department of the Interior andmediates in disputes over antenna sitesor questions about RF radiation frommobile phones and base stations. Themobile operators have also establishedForum Mobil (www.forummobil.ch )with the purpose of promoting dialogueabout all aspects of mobilecommunications with all interestedparties on an objective basis.

The Federal Office of Communicationspublishes RF emissions for all operators

through a public database of basestations in Switzerland

(www.bakom.ch/en/funk/freq_nutzung/standorte/index.htm )

UK

In 2000 the Independent Expert Groupon Mobile Phones, commissioned by theUK government to investigate thepotential health risks associated with RFradiation, published the Stewart Report.The report concluded that the balanceof evidence indicates that there is no

general risk to the health of peopleliving near to base stations where theexposures are only small fractions ofthe guidelines but recommended aprecautionary approach until furtherresearch is carried out. A review of theevidence conducted in 2004 concludedthat there was no reason to amend thisadvice but cautioned that mobilephones have only been in widespreaduse for a relatively short time. The

possibility remains that there could behealth effects and that continuedresearch is needed. The NationalRadiological Protection Board (NRPB,renamed the Health Protection Agencyin April 2005: www.hpa.org.uk ) haspublished guidelines covering maximumexposure levels at ICNIRP levels. Agovernment database publishes radiofrequency emissions from base stations(www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk ).

Planning permission in the UK is underthe remit of the local authority, exceptin Northern Ireland where it is centrallymanaged. Some refuse permission formasts, especially if sited on or nearschools and hospitals. There arenumerous protest groups includingPowerwatch and their campaigning armMast Sanity.

The five main operators in the UK (3,O2, Orange, T-Mobile and Vodafone)have formed the Mobile OperatorsAssociation (MOA,www.mobilemastinfo.com ). The aim ofthis association is to represent these


16/16


operators on RF health and planningissues. They have set out best-practice

guidelines in the Ten Commitments tomast siting which includes acommitment to develop, with otherstakeholders, clear standards andprocedures to deliver significantlyimproved consultation with localcommunities. Compliance with the TenCommitments is annually checked byan independent auditor. It was lastreviewed by Deloitte and Touch inJanuary 2005.

Powerwatch has informally ranked thefive UK operators on their approach toissues related to mobile phones, mastsand health.

European Telecommunications

Network Operators Association(ETNO) Members

Deutsche Telecom, France Telecom,KPN, OTE, Portugal Telecom, Swisscom,

TDC, Tele2, Telecom Italia, Telefonica,Telekom Austria, Telenor andTeliasonera are all members of ETNO(www.etno.be ) and signatories toETNOs Environmental Charter. Thecharter makes general commitmentsincluding We shall aim to ensurerecognition and acknowledgement of allrelevant environmental impacts,including the positive and negativeimpacts of our products and services.

In addition, ETNO and its membersparticipate in studies commissioned bythe Directorate General InformationSociety and Directorate General Healthand Consumers to measure thepotential impact of mobile technologies.Together with the Mobile ManufacturersForum and GSMe, ETNO holds regulardialogue with all interested parties,organising information sessions withMembers of the European Parliament tokeep up a flow of objective researchresults on radio frequency radiation, forexample.

Disclaimer

Clients using this information should doso with caution and not rely on thisinformation in making any investmentdecisions. EIRIS does not and cannotgive financial advice and recommendsthat individuals seek independentprofessional advice. While every effortis made to ensure the accuracy of theinformation presented, clients shouldbe aware that it is derived from avariety of sources and that EIRIS does

not itself seek to verify the informationthose sources provide. EIRIS cannotaccept responsibility for any errors oromissions. It is important to note thedate of this document as circumstancesmay have changed since then.

This briefing is supplied for the use ofthe recipient alone and its contentsmay only be supplied to third partieswith prior written consent of EIRIS

Services Ltd. The copyright and allother intellectual property rights inmaterial supplied as part of this serviceshall remain the property of EIRISServices Ltd.

Statements contained in this paperapply only to companies named in thedocument and not to those that are notsubject to EIRIS assessment.

For further information contact

Ethical Investment Research Services(EIRIS) Ltd80-84 BondwayLondon SW8 1SF

Tel: +44 20 7840 5700Fax: +44 20 7735 5323Email: [email protected]

Website: www.eiris.org

Documents

Risk Mobile Phones 05