Base Stations Again

Let me say at the outset that I am not a fan of cell phones. In my view these anti-social devices have done more to damage quality of life (and, when in the hands of moronic drivers, to actually end life) than any other modern invention. It is no longer possible for me to enjoy a day at the beach, or a romantic dinner without being irritated by the constant ring tones and inane, high-decibel chatter of those around me, or, much worse, by my pointy-haired boss who is so dim he thinks an after hours computer error is an emergency, despite the fact that no one will die or even feel vaguely queezy because of it. No one would be happier than I if the damn things were swept off the face of the planet once and for all, but I am reluctantly forced to take up a position in their defence against the plethora of hogwash currently being spouted about their effect on health.

The electromagnetic spectrum


A rather breathless newsreader on Eyewitness News this morning revealed that the International Agency for Research on Cancer had listed electromagnetic radiation from cell phone base stations as a category 2B carcinogen. From his shock horror delivery one could be forgiven for thinking that we are all doomed (well, we are, actually, but not from cell phone towers) to imminent death from horrible cancers. But to put this in perspective, some of the other substances and circumstances listed in category 2B are coffee, carpentry and talcum powder. Category 2B lists substances and circumstances that are possibly carcinogenic, but so far there is no evidence that they are. In fact, since the radiation from these towers is in the non-ionising part of the electromagnetic spectrum, I fail to see how it is even possible that it can be carcinogenic.

Another cited health effect is that some people claim to suffer from a condition of enhanced sensitivity to radio frequency fields, or electromagnetic hypersensitivity. These unfortunate folk suffer from a bouquet of symptoms which they attribute to to the existence of electromagnetic fields. Studies have hitherto failed to substantiate these claims. The World Health Organisation (WHO) conducted a meta-analysis of research into the phenomenon and concluded:

Discussion
In response to public concerns, most studies dealing with exposure to electromagnetic fields from MPBSs [mobile phone base stations] have investigated non-specific symptoms of ill-health, including self-reported sleep disturbances. The majority of these studies have not shown any occurrence of acute symptoms after exposure to GSM 900, GSM 1800 or UMTS fields from MPBSs. The sporadically observed associations in randomized laboratory trials did not show a consistent pattern in terms of symptoms or types of exposure. In our review of epidemiological studies we found that the more sophisticated the exposure assessment, the less likely it was that an effect would be reported. We also found no evidence that individuals who are hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields are more susceptible to MPBS radiation than the rest of the population.

I would never accuse the sufferers of these symptoms to be hypochondriacs (perish the thought), but there is no evidence whatsoever that the source of their symptoms are electromagnetic fields from base stations or any other source.

But this is not to say that these sources of radiation are definitely proven to be harmless. The WHO study quoted above went on:

Where data are scarce, the absence of evidence of harm should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence that no harm exists. Further research should focus on long-term effects and should include children and adolescents. Additional cross-sectional studies would be of limited value, so future studies should apply a longitudinal design. Because there is no evidence that potential health effects would be restricted to MPBS frequency bands,9 such studies should include an assessment of exposure to other sources of radio frequency electromagnetic fields in daily life, such as mobile and cordless phones and wireless local area networks.6

I would venture to suggest that whilst this research should be done, it does not warrant a very high priority—there are a number of diseases such as malaria that kill millions every year and yet are chronically short of research funding, perhaps because the victims are all in the third world.

Creative Commons License
Grumpy Old Man by Mark Widdicombe is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 License

Advertisements

3 Responses to Base Stations Again

  1. Beechmount says:

    Let me say at the outset that I am not a fan of cell phones. In my view these anti-social devices have done more to damage quality of life………

    When the damned things first came out, I bought one. Six month later, I put it on the tile floor in the kitchen and smashed it with a meat hammer. I have lived happily without it ever since and plan on doing so for the remainder. I’m sure there will be people in the not too distant future who will insist on being burried with a cell phone in their hand so they can continue texting from the beyond and not miss any calls.

    Bechmount

  2. Mark says:

    The only time I will want a cell phone is when I’m buried, just in case the bastards made a mistake and I’m not actually dead yet. At least I’ll be able to order a pizza.

  3. Con-Tester says:

    My cell phone fell into our pool from my shirt pocket the other day while cleaning the weir filter. Unfortunately, the bloody thing still works. Clever lads, these Finns, I tell you!

    Next time it happens, I’ll just forget about it having fallen in for a day or two. If it still works after that, I’ll know for sure that I’m properly doomed to a life of perpetual enslavement by an inanimate device… 😉

    
    

    None of which diminishes the annoyance I feel at the strident clamour emanating from assorted doomsayers, alarmists and kneejerkers over the alleged-but-unproven health hazards associated with exposure to the relevant types of EM radiation. Still, you wouldn’t want a service provider to come and erect a tower next door to you because it reduces the value of your property and is an eyesore even when decked out with one of those pathetic tree disguises. Having personally experienced this, the city council does not consider “reduced property value” or “fucking ugly” as valid causes for denying the service provider his erection (pun very much intended). All you’re left with is citing some at best tenuous health issues.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: