Sir, - Liam Nolan asks (November 10th): "Would someone, for pity's sake, let us know what the masts are doing to the health of those who live in their vicinity?" May I be so bold as to offer some assurance. The most authoritative source of advice in the world is the International Commission of Non-Ionising Radiation Protection [ICNIRP]. This is a group of international experts who consider all the available scientific evidence and, in conjunction with the World Health Organisation. issue guidelines which are adopted by most countries. They reaffirmed their guidelines as recently as April of this year. As Ireland has agreed to be bound by these guidelines every transmitter here must adhere to these standards.
A recent [July, 1998] audit of mainly Irish transmitters, commissioned by the office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulations, showed that mobile phone masts were within these limits with enormous safety margins. For example measurements on emissions from nine Esat Digifone masts revealed the highest to be 8,700 times below the limits - surely an adequate safety margin by any standards.
Unfortunately, objectors choose to ignore ICNIRP and instead refer to the reports of Roger Coghill (UK) and Neill Cherry (New Zealand). These reports, which I have read in detail as they have been submitted by objectors, are entirely out of line with international scientific consensus. They are self-promulgated and have not been published in the normal scientific journals. I find them to be defective and to make quite alarming reading for the layman. A recent document "Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health"; J. E. Moulder, Professor of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, April 1998, states that: "Until Coghill and Cherry present their theories in a scientific forum, and back their theories with actual data, it is impossible for any any scientist to take them or their theories seriously."
On the occasion of public objections being made to the MMDS mast at Tonabrucky, Co Galway, Mr Coghill wrote a report which led to much alarm among local residents. A colleague and myself reviewed his report and found it to be in error and alarmist, and concluded that "there is no single item of evidence in this report which could be taken to indicate any likely hazard from the MMDS transmission". Subsequent measurements found exposures from that mast to be a factor of 43,000 below ICNIRP standards.
This is surely a storm in a teacup. ICNIRP's only raison d'etre is to ensure the safe use of non-ionising radiation. - Yours, etc., Philip W. Walton, Professor of Applied Physics,
NUI, Galway.