International regulations, inspired by the work of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), are based solely on scientifically demonstrated biological effects corresponding to health hazards. In the RF range, these consist of certain effects due to heating generated by dielectric absorption. Starting with the lowest exposure levels that cause the most significant effect in animals, lapse factors – described as ‘reduction factors’ – have been applied to transpose these values to the human species, considering people exposed to this radiation in the course of their work as well as the general public. This is expressed in units of a suitable physical magnitude, the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), which was used to define the ‘basic restrictions’ in the European Union recommendation dated July 12th 1999. These correspond to exposure levels for the public.
Current scientific data, however, indicates that a variety of biological effects occur at energy levels that do not cause any rise in local temperature. In the current state of knowledge on these non-thermal effects, it is not yet possible to state whether they represent a health hazard.
Is it possible to state that there are no health risks ? No: although few scientific arguments are available to back up this hypothesis, it is not possible to eliminate the possibility of non-thermal health hazards associated with low level RF fields on the basis of our current state of knowledge. Furthermore, some potentially serious effects (e.g. promotion of brain cancer) are currently the subject of large-scale, international, epidemiological research which will not produce conclusions for several years. Research is also continuing into other potential effects (e.g. damage to hearing or the nervous system, and headaches).
If future research were to validate this hypothesis, i.e. demonstrate the existence of health hazards related to the usage of mobile phones, the probability, on an individual level, would certainly be very low. Indeed, it is reassuring to note that no risk has yet been demonstrated, in spite of the considerable amount of work done over the past several years. However, if there were a risk, the very high number of mobile telephone users could mean that, even if the individual risk were very low, the impact on public health could be substantial. In view of this, would it not be prudent to set new exposure ‘standards’ at lower values immediately, without waiting for the results of ongoing research ? The group of experts consider that measures of this type would be justified if they were really effective in reducing potential risks. This implies, firstly, that the medical effects resulting from exposure to RF fields could be identified and secondly, that new values could be defined that would guarantee reduction, or even elimination, of this risk. This is not the case in the current state of knowledge. There is not, at present, any reliable scientific information that could be used to adjust and scale such measures. Therefore, any new threshold limit exposure values proposed would be unscientific, arbitrary, misleading, and would probably differ from one manufacturer or country to another, thus adding to public confusion and concern.
It has been conclusively established that using a mobile telephone while driving, whether with a hands-free kit or not, is a real accident risk factor. This risk is not associated with electromagnetic fields, but is due to the loss of concentration resulting from the telephone conversation. This is a major risk, in terms of both frequency and seriousness.
Mobile telephony has also been identified as a factor in security and medical safety (by speeding up calls for help and, thus, the arrival of emergency services, etc.). This means of communication also has other advantages that were not covered by the group of experts' brief.
