Home | Town Centre | Nature | Footpaths | Sports | Education | Churches |
Wine & Dine | Shops | Fast Food | Area | History | Letters |
Coming soon - near you ! Many people are concerned about possible long term health implications of exposure to electromagnetic (EM) radiation from mobile phone handsets and transmitter masts. While the health evidence might be regarded as inconclusive there is some other evidence which needs to be taken into consideration. 1) The government has received billions of pounds from the sale of transmission licences to the phone companies. So the government has a strong financial interest in the mobile phone business. 2) The planning requirement for masts below 15m was removed by the government. 3) The planning appeal process seems to have been biased in favour of the phone companies. This bias shows up in the large number of appeals which are won by the phone companies. This is not very surprising given that the appeals are adjudicated by a government appointed inspector who is implementing 'government guidelines'. A good example of this was recently provided by Congleton Borough Council who were advised that it would be a waste of money taking the application to appeal since the inspector would be likely to find in favour of the phone company. |
|
The above evidence would suggest that the government is acting in the commercial interest of the telephone companies. If this is true then it raises some question marks over government funded reports and research into the health implications of mobile phones. Use of the word 'independent' is not justified if the funding body has a commercial interest. (If a report into the health aspects of smoking has been funded by a tobacco company most people would read it with some scepticism.) So it might be reasonable to adopt a sceptical approach when reading information provided by the government on this subject. This is not to say that the information is false. However there are various ways to present the truth which can create a misleading impression and its important to keep these in mind. |
1: Evidence selection If we want to publish a map proving that the distribution of radioactivity around the area containing a nuclear facility was within government guidelines we could select grid points 1 km apart and arrange it so that the facility does not sit on one of the sampling points. (N.B. This is a purely fictitious example for illustration and there is no suggestion that this has actually been done.) 2: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence If there is no conclusive evidence on mobile phone safety this can be stated in two ways: a) "There is
no evidence that mobile phones are a health risk" In the drug industry
the company must carry out clinical trials to prove that the drug is safe
- a presumption of risk (b) |
3: Weighing the evidence If we want to dismiss
evidence which is not compatible with our message then we can say that
the evidence is 'not conclusive' without specifying the level of proof.
So an interesting question is :- 4: False implicit assertion A report might contain
a conclusion like:- "There is no evidence of health risk." 5: Positive Spin / Negative Spin If we carry out a
field strength survey of a school and discover that the Total Band Exposure
Quotient is 4.66E-04 Both statements can
be valid however the second one might cause some public concern. Recommended guidelines for viewing government websites It is important to
realise that government websites never carry any information which might
cause public alarm or concern or form a basis for legal action against
the government. Furthermore, only a tiny fraction of the raw data is published. References a) Sitefinder
mobile phone base station database - find your nearest phone mast. e) How Mobile Phone Networks Work g) United
Kingdom Table of Radio Frequency Allocations 9kHz - 105GHz Feedback Comments for publication
should be posted on Letters |
Home | Town Centre | Nature | Footpaths | Sports | Education | Churches |
Wine & Dine | Shops | Fast Food | Area | History | Letters |