DEPUTY N. O’FLYNN IN THE CHAIR.

The joint committee met in private session until 3.06 p.m.

Non-Ionising Radiation: Presentation.

Chairman: Have all members received the report from Mr. Bob Hanna Mr. Roger O’Connor, Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources? I advise the committee that I have a report from a fourth year student from Scoil Mhuire gan Smál, Blarney, County Cork, which she submitted to the Young Scientist of the Year competition held in Ballsbridge last week. It is an investigation of mobile phone radiation stickers. She has concluded that they have no effective means of reducing non-ionising radiation. That report is being circulated to members. I ask the secretary to write to Sarah Louise Healy, fourth year transition class, to thank her for her work in this area and for forwarding a copy to the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe: I suggest we send her a letter of congratulations in the name of the Chairman. I am impressed that there are people of that calibre who are interested in the scientific area in the Chairman’s constituency.

Chairman: That particular secondary school, Scoil Mhuire gan Smál, had a student who won the Young Scientist of the Year national award some years ago, Sarah Flannery, who is now working in the field of technology. Does the committee agree that we write to that young lady?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe: Yes.

Chairman: We will have a presentation on non-ionising radiation from mobile phone handsets and masts by officials from the Departments of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Following the presentation the committee will welcome Dr. Elizabeth Cullen of the Irish Doctors Environmental Association to make a presentation and members will have an opportunity to put questions to the officials and visitors from the Irish Doctors Environmental Association. I welcome Mr. Bob Hanna and Mr. Roger O’Conner from the Department.

I wish to draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I advise members the format will be that we will hear a presentation which will be followed by a question and answer session. Would Mr. Hanna like to begin?

Mr. Bob Hanna: I would like to point out that I am in the process of handing over this area of responsibility to my colleague, Roger O’Connor. I have been doing that since the beginning of the year. That is why we have both come here to give members our full attention to try to assist the work of the committee.

A predecessor of this committee heard evidence in March 1998 on the same subject. My predecessor, Dr. Tom McManus, pointed out that this area first came to public attention in 1976 when the Americans discovered that Russia had been bombarding their embassy with microwave radiation for more than 20 years. This led to a major health investigation of the 3,500 staff and their families which took place over two years. No ill effects from this exposure to massive levels of microwave radiation was found.

However, this started a widespread investigation into the wider aspects of non-ionising radiation generally which I will shortly explain. It concentrated first on the electromagnetic fields surrounding overhead power lines because at the time a widespread programme of electrification was taking place in many countries. These were visible installations rolling out across countries.

This work still goes on today but the emphasis has now moved to mobile phones. However, many of the areas of concern in terms of technology interests are similar. In the 40 years since the massive programme of electrification in these countries, particularly in Ireland, the incidence of cancer among the general population has remained constant even though our use of electricity and the proliferation of appliances and facilities has multiplied by approximately 30 times.

Part of our problem with this issue is the terminology and the pejorative nature of the language we use. We talk about non-ionising radiation. The world “radiation” has particular connotations for us, most of which are negative. We primarily think of nuclear and safety issues in that regard. However, it is not to be forgotten that light and heat are also forms of radiation and, in moderate quantities, these are not hazardous to health.

Non-ionising radiation occurs at the end of the electromagnetic spectrum where wavelengths are long and frequencies are low. That means they are at the end of the spectrum where low powers are involved in the energy transmitted. At one end of the spectrum we have gamma rays which come from the sun. Members interested in this area should note that next week and the week after there will be considerable sunspot activity in the atmosphere and we can expect a good deal of electromagnetic disturbance.

Gamma rays are high frequency and dangerous, causing some concern to airline pilots and NASA. Then there are X-rays. Members will be aware that the use of X-rays, particularly in hospitals, is well controlled because X-rays are ionising radiation. That means they can cause damage to the molecular structure of tissue. Then there is light, ranging from the ultraviolet to the infra-red spectrum, and visible light is in the middle and this brings us into the area of non-ionising radiation. The form of radiation or electromagnetic emissions we are considering today comes in the area of microwaves, television and radio, which are firmly in the middle of the non-ionising end of the spectrum.

We are permanently exposed to a certain level of radiation, both ionising and non-ionising, due to natural and man-made effects. The natural effects are to do with the magnetic field, the sunspot activity I mentioned. The man-made levels or contributions come from broadcasting transmitters, radio, television, overhead power lines, mobile phones and appliances in our homes and workplaces. Members should be aware that while sitting in this room we are all exposed to levels of electromagnetic radiation many times in excess of that from a mobile phone mast or even a mobile phone in one’s pocket. Even these larger levels are some 50 times lower than the internationally agreed safety levels to which we subscribe here.

I have given some numbers in the presentation on which I do not propose to dwell. The purpose of listing them is to show that the guideline levels we set, below which items like mobile phones and their base stations must operate, are many times in excess of that which we would encounter from common appliances in common situations. I should explain that the numbers which have the symbol kV/m represent electric field strength and the numbers which have microT, or microTesla, represent magnetic field strengths. In most situations there is both an electric and a magnetic component to electromagnetic fields.

Non-ionising radiation is a class apart from the kind of radiation in X-rays. Non-ionising radiation, by their name and nature, cannot cause disruption to the atomic structure of tissue. That is because of the energy levels involved. Atomic structure is not affected by non-ionising radiation. It is physically not possible.

Light and heat are forms of non-ionising radiation. Mobile phones are a particular type of technology that, in essence, are radio receiver-transmitters using a particularly confined part of the spectrum, ultra-high frequency radio waves. The way they work is that low power point to point devices and the radio signals are transmitted in straight lines from the antennae of the handset or to the aerial of the nearest base station and thereafter on into the network and so on.

These networks need base stations to function because the electromagnetic energy travels in straight lines, it is low power and it diminishes rapidly with distance. To put this in context, large broadcasting transmitters, television and radio, emit power levels of the order of 100,000 watts or units of power. Mobile base stations transmit much lower power levels ranging from a few watts up to maybe 150 watts. They have to be close to the target phones to work. Each base station covers a small area - in urban areas this can be as small as 100 metres or thereabouts. Therefore, there needs to be many of them. As one walks around the city of Dublin one passes from cell to cell, from one base station to the next. Due to their close proximity to users, they are visible. They cause attention and frequently are much more of concern to people than the large installations on hilltops or at RTE in Donnybrook.

I will move on to what governments and other institutions are doing about these items. Having regard to public concerns and recognising that the track record of risk assessment and public perception has not been a terribly honourable one in certain areas, I would identify smoking and its link to cancer and BSE as two examples. Since the technology came into the commercial domain, governments, equipment manufacturers, the research community and relevant international organisations such as the World Health Organisation promptly commenced programmes of research into the possibility that the emissions from mobile phones and their base stations could be harmful. This was not undertaken lightly but in a co-ordinated way because of our history with technology and risk assessment. Some 20 years later 25,000 peer-reviewed reports have been published, that is, 25,000 reports of scientific standing published in scientific journals at conferences after having been reviewed and accepted by experts. The research continues in the form of everything from psychological profiles to public opinion surveys to in vivo laboratory tests and includes detailed, scientific investigation using human and animal tissue, volunteers, scientific models, computer studies and everything from cognitive effects to cellular studies.

Last year alone there were six major conferences on this subject and each had about 100 tabled presented papers and poster presentations. It is part of the job of the Department to make sure that we do not miss anything and to be aware of everything that is going on. I have brought some of these reports with me. The level of effort in this area has been estimated at something like €40 million in the past ten years. Therefore, governments, research organisations and international bodies have been taking this seriously with a view to finding out if something amiss could happen, notwithstanding the science.

As a result of some of the early work, which I will discuss later, we have been able to focus this collaborative international work in areas of particular concern. One of these has been the possible effects of radio frequency signals on children. This is a new situation. Those of us who started using mobile phones in the past five or ten years will only be exposed to them for some decades. However, children starting young in their lives will be exposed for much longer. In addition, children are developing creatures with thin skulls and changing physiology. It is natural, therefore, that we should investigate the situation of children and be particularly concerned about what might happen to them.

We first looked at this following the report of the independent expert group on mobile telephony in the UK in 2000. It has become known as the Stewart report and will now have to be known as the first Stewart report. This was a review of all the scientific evidence to date. The review did not find any definite adverse health effects due to mobile phones but it did not conclude that there were none. The group felt that because of children’s developing skulls and the likelihood that they would have long lifetime exposure, they would be more vulnerable to any as yet unknown health effects than adults. The group therefore recommended a precautionary approach on the use of mobile telephones by children.

Two years later, the Health Council of the Netherlands, after carrying out a separate follow up evaluation in the Netherlands on a wide population, concluded there was no reason to recommend in the Netherlands that mobile telephone use by children should be limited in any way. In 2003, the UK National Radiological Protection Board published a report which was its response to the Stewart report. It noted that little had been published on childhood exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. As a result, the World Health Organisation’s international EMF project, in which we participate, undertook a focused programme of work on children and reported on this at an expert workshop in Istanbul in June. This workshop concluded that a number of tests on children with output fields from mobile phones at the very high levels of power did not show any adverse health effects.

I will now look at the two Stewart reports taken together. They are similar reports. Two weeks ago, the NRPB in the UK published the report of the independent advisory group, which has become known as the second Stewart report. The first Stewart report was not an official UK Government report, as has been reported, but the report of an independent expert group formed to advise the UK Government.

Chairman: Would Professor Sir William Stewart, the chief scientific adviser to the Thatcher government in the 1990s, be an eminent scientist?

Mr. Hanna: Yes, he would. The members of the group were experts. However, the UK Government found it appropriate to publish an official response to the Stewart report and did so in 2003.

The first Stewart report was a review report. It was valuable because there had not been a review report at that time. It looked closely at what was happening and what gaps existed in the current knowledge. It led directly to some focused programmes of research. Some were carried out in the UK, some were carried out in other countries and there were some multilateral programmes co-ordinated by the World Health Organisation. They specifically worked on those issues which were left unresolved or vague in the first Stewart report. It is important to note that substantial new information is to hand from this work.

Some of the key areas of interest to this committee highlighted in the first Stewart report were revisited in the second report and deal with the following issues. A statement in the first Stewart report said: “It is not possible at present to say that exposure to radio frequency radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects. The reason is that research is not being done on the issue.” It is still not possible to give an absolute guarantee that radio frequency radiation is totally without potential adverse health effects. It is not possible to give such a guarantee about almost anything in life, from breathing air, drinking tap water, driving a car or eating food.

However, much research was done on the issue following that report. The NRPB, the official government report response in 2003 in the UK, following a review of all the work carried out since the first Stewart report said: “In aggregate, the research published since the IEGMP report [the Stewart report] does not give cause for concern. The weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse health effects from exposure to radio frequency fields below guideline levels.” At the 2004 meeting of the management board of the World Health Organisation international EMF project, at which Ireland was represented, the conclusion of the board was that no causal relationship had been established between radio frequency emissions and any adverse health effects, notwithstanding determined scientific efforts to establish such relationships.

The second statement from the first Stewart report that bears attention is: “...the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.” We actually invoke a precautionary approach although it is not the precautionary approach that is in people’s minds. We adopt and work to international guideline limits for exposure to electromagnetic radiation. These have been set in such a way that they work within a very confined area which is many times less than those levels of occupational exposure in scientific research at which no adverse health effects have been found. We do research at certain levels and we find nothing but we restrict the operational facilities to a level which is about 50 times lower than those levels at which no adverse health effects have been found.

In setting and adopting those levels, neither the governments concerned nor the organisations which set these levels are saying that radio frequency emissions represent a hazard to health. However, it is the precautionary approach that governments have decided to adopt. It is a “to be sure” approach, as it were. It is known to be safe at one level but operation will be restricted to a level 50 times less.

The next statement in the first Stewart report, essentially repeated in the second report, was a recommendation that “an independent, random, ongoing audit of all base stations should be carried out to ensure that exposure guidelines are not exceeded”. That is a sensible recommendation. If we work within safe limits, we should ensure that these limits are policed in some way. It must be said that the technology of mobile phone base stations means that it is difficult to exceed the guideline limits. However, the communications regulator ComReg, as part of its compliance with licence approach, audits Irish mobile phone sites and other broadcasting sites on a random basis. It does this regularly.

In addition, ComReg has just concluded a major programme of measurements of 400 mobile phone base station sites throughout the country. This was designed in accordance with my Department. While the final report is awaited, I understand that none of the 400 sites selected for measurement was found to exceed the guidelines. This represents a large contribution to our knowledge in Ireland. Not many other countries have done something of this scale. Partly, it was necessary because of Ireland’s topography. It is not a huge flat country with similar conditions throughout so it was important to choose representative sites of different conditions around the country and in towns and cities. The information available on the ComReg website will enable members of the committee to identify the sites and the levels of radiation measured and to compare those with the guideline limits on radiation.

The next recommendation in the Stewart report was that “planning should be extra-cautious around schools as children are more susceptible to the effects of radiation and will be exposed to it over their lifetime..”. Of course, children are more susceptible and they will be exposed. That is the reason we have been looking, since the middle of 2001, at the problem of radiation and children.

Deputy Broughan: Why, therefore, have Mr. Hanna’s colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government undemocratically exempted from the planning process a tranche of mobile telephone masts, particularly the 3G generation? If what Mr. Hanna is saying has any validity, why has he not contacted that Department and urged it to go through the planning process? Deputies are dealing with a number of sites but we cannot even make a democratic submission of the information Mr. Hanna is giving the committee because we are not allowed to do so. It is exempted development.

Mr. Hanna: I think you will understand, Chairman, that I cannot comment on a matter that is not the function of my Department. I am prohibited by the guidelines from doing that.

Deputy Broughan: I have a letter from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche. Has Mr. Hanna made a submission to the Department? As he said, he cannot give this a clean bill of health, so could we at least have a democratic planning process in this regard?

Mr. Hanna: We have met with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Chairman: I do not mind the Deputy’s interjections because we are quite used to them at this stage. While he is welcome to interject, I wonder if that question is one for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government at Question Time.

Deputy Broughan: This is the point. The reason we are here today, and at very short notice, is because there have been concerns. The media and everybody else has noted those concerns. The Chairman bears a heavy responsibility because he is the Chair of this committee. This is something for which we may all be held to account many years from now. In light of the events of recent days we must be clear about that. It seems to me that our colleague from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources should liaise with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if one considers that at least there should be a planning process for mobile phone masts.

Chairman: Does Mr. Hanna have an interdepartmental group working on telecommunications masts?

Mr. Hanna: There is not a formal interdepartmental group but we have had meetings with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to advise it on health issues, which might result in planning guidelines. It is important to note that the planning guidelines, which are reflected in county development plans, do not arise as a result of recommendations from my Department.

Chairman: Would the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government be aware of your presentation here on the Stewart report and the siting of masts? Would you have made them aware of that situation?

Mr. Hanna: The particular report that I am presenting today arises from the Stewart report of two weeks ago. The requirement to meet this Department reached me on Friday, so it has been short notice for me too. I have not in that time been able to meet or consult with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Chairman: Should ask the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the questions you are asking here today?

Deputy Eamon Ryan: May I refer to this interdepartmental brief? Why is the Department of Health and Children not carrying out this research rather than the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources? I thought the latter Department had a development role rather than a health prevention one. Why is this matter not coming before the Joint Committee on Health and Children given that it concerns primarily a health issue?

Deputy Durkan: I wish to make a submission as well. I am prepared to make it now or later.

Chairman: Will we let Mr. Hanna finish?

Deputy Durkan: Right.

Mr. Hanna: I will continue. There was a recommendation made in the first Stewart report that what they call “beams of greatest intensity” for mobile phone installations should not fall on any part of school grounds to ensure that the accessible location where the greatest exposure to the signal was not within school grounds. That was the 2000 statement and it was consistent with the other recommendations in the report. However, the most recent work, as mentioned previously, has removed any validity for this recommendation. Furthermore, there was a landmark decision of the UK Court of Appeal on 12 November 2004, which ruled that mobile phone masts do not pose a risk to public health that would justify a ban on positioning them near schools. Unless one stands within three metres of the front face of a mobile phone antenna, one does not come anywhere near to the safety guidelines of exposure.

The Stewart report also said that since there are no scientific grounds for setting guidelines below the levels set by the international commission for non-ionising radiation protection for the public, the expert group would avoid setting exposure limits for school buildings and grounds below those limits. For the same reason, it did not wish to recommend that there should be a particular minimum distance between base stations and schools.

The most recent report, published just two weeks ago, looked at studies conducted since the previous Stewart report, and revisited the same subject areas. The kind of work that was examined were the studies published by the World Health Organisation on cognitive effects of exposure to radio frequency fields from mobile phones, and possible effects of the more modern technology, pulse-modulated, radio frequency fields on calcium efflux from the nervous system. The overall evidence on cognitive effects remains inconclusive, while the suggestion of effects on calcium efflux have not been supported by more recent and significantly better conducted studies. The biological evidence suggests that radio frequency fields do not cause mutation or initiate or promote tumour formation. The epidemiological data does not suggest causal association between exposures to radio frequency fields, in particular, mobile phones, and the risk of cancer.

Exposure levels from living near to mobile phone base stations are extremely low. In fact, they get lost in the general background natural and man-made radiation. The overall evidence indicates that they are unlikely to pose a risk to health. On aggregate, the research published since the last Stewart report does not give cause for concern. The weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse health effects from exposure to radio frequency fields below guideline levels. However, the second Stewart report also notes that the published research has limitations and mobile phones have only been in widespread use for a relatively short time.

The possibility remains open that there could be health effects from exposure to radio frequency fields below guideline levels and, therefore, continued research is needed. This is accepted by most countries, including Ireland. It is why we continue to participate in the latest co-ordinated programme of research.

Specifically, what have we been doing in Ireland in recent times? We participate in the work of several international bodies which undertake, review and monitor the latest research. We contribute towards this work.

Chairman: Who is “we”?

Mr. Hanna: Ireland.

Chairman: Who?

Mr. Hanna: Specifically, the Department.

Chairman: Just your Department?

Mr. Hanna: Yes.

Chairman: Not the Department of Health and Children or the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Mr. Hanna: No. We have agreed with the Department of Health and Children that we will participate in these bodies, and we provide them with the findings and any recommendations that we would make. We have meetings with Department of Health and Children officials to keep them abreast of this.

Specifically, we participate in the following three formal, international bodies: the World Health Organisation’s international EMF project, and all of its reports, proceedings and recommendations are on its website; the co-operation in science and technology cost project No. 281, which is specifically to do with mobile phones and involves about 18 countries, mainly in Europe; and the new European Union joint research centre, EMF project, which began in 2004.

We have access to every published report in this field. Of the 25,000 peer-reviewed studies into possible health effects in recent years, approximately eight have made suggestions that there could be associations between high levels of non-ionising radiation and adverse health effects, for example, childhood leukaemia.

The bodies with whom we are associated take these reports seriously, so all of these eight studies from the 25,000 in total were repeated under similar conditions. It was not possible to replicate the results of any of these. Scientific research is quite strict about these things. If something is suggested by a study, the study is repeated under controlled scientific conditions. If the results are not replicated, no causal link has been established, but even if it had and even if the very worst case from these eight studies had been proven, and there was a risk, in the Irish context it would have meant one additional death due to cancer in Ireland in ten years. That is one death too many but that is the scale of the problem if those studies had been turned from suggestions into proof.

However, notwithstanding the overwhelmingly clean bill of health given to these technologies compared with other environmental risks which society willingly accepts, Governments have adopted a precautionary approach because we recognise that absence of proof of harm is not proof of absence of harm. By consensus among many countries, guidelines are established for safe levels of exposure to various kinds of electromagnetic emissions. These guidelines are set at levels which are many times - typically, 50 times - less than these experimental levels at which no adverse effects have been established. Ireland has adopted the guidelines established by the international commission on non-ionising radiation protection, or ICNIRP for short. I have a set of these guidelines with me which I can leave for the attention of the joint committee.

Ireland also participates in the work of the international committee on electromagnetic safety which sets standards in this area. In answer to the question raised, Government representatives on these bodies tend to be technical people rather than medical people because they are the ones setting standards for the industry. All licensed telecommunications operators in Ireland, including mobile phone operators, are required to observe the ICNIRP guidelines for limited exposure of the public to electromagnetic fields from their facilities. As I said earlier, ComReg, the regulator, conducts audit measurements to verify compliance with these limits. As I indicated, by arrangement with this Department, ComReg has just completed a major programme at 400 sites. The results of this will be in the public domain - some already are. I understand that no site exceeded the safety levels of ICNIRP’s guidelines.

We, in the Department, have for some time provided an expert advisory service to Government, local authorities, other public bodies, community groups and members of the public and we deal with a large number of transactions every week from these various constituencies. I draw attention to that because it was one of the recommendations from the joint committee investigation of 1998. Since we are going to look at what happens next, it is appropriate for me to hand over to my colleague, Mr. O’Connor, who is assuming responsibility in the area and who will take a brief look at future priorities.

Chairman: Is Mr. Hanna saying the regulations are set by technical experts throughout Europe and that they receive no medical advice on what is and what is not acceptable?

Mr. Hanna: That is not quite I was am saying. At the end of the process - whenever we set technical standards - there must be engineering and technical people involved. The point of belonging to these organisations is that they conduct medical and scientific research because it is a spectrum - everything from measurements of what is in signals to examination of what happens to cells when they are bombarded with radiation. There is a wide range of disciplines from radio engineers to health physicists to medical people to researchers.

Deputy Broughan: Professor Stewart was appointed by the British Government specifically to monitor mobile safety which is his role as chairman of the Health Protection Agency and the National Radiological Protection Board. Mr. Hanna referred to various international studies. What about conducting an Irish study? Has Mr. Hanna asked Irish medical people to conduct studies for the Department and the Minister? There are 3 million mobile phone users in this country, including most children. Has Mr. Hanna taken steps to conduct Irish studies to give us an Irish perspective?

Mr. Hanna: One of the problems is that this is a small country and we do not have a lot of the medical research facilities necessary in the non-ionising field. We have facilities to do some work in ionising radiation and that is conducted at several universities. However, even if we had the facilities, the results would not be statistically significant because of our small population. Therefore, we join in, subscribe to and provide data for international collaborative research which is statistically significant.

Chairman: Is the answer to the Deputy’s question “No”?

Mr. Hanna: The answer is “No” to the Deputy’s question.

Chairman: Has the Department considered conducting its own studies?

Mr. Hanna: No, for the reasons I have given. To complete the answer to the Chairman’s question, we have medical reports and advice. There are medical people on the committees of the international bodies in which we participate, so that it is translated for us in the same way as we must translate that information for public dissemination.

Chairman: Has the Department ever considered asking the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to extent its brief into non-ionising radiation research as opposed to ionising radiation research?

Mr. Hanna: I am afraid that would be a question for the Minister.

Chairman: We will ask him that question.

Mr. Roger O’Connor: I wish to look at some priorities for the Department. The Department will continue to represent Ireland at the relevant international bodies and track developments in international research. We will pay particular attention to the closing stages of the World Health Organisation international EMF project and to the new EU joint research centre EMF project. It is expected that at least one international event in this field will take place in Ireland during the course of this year. Major work will be undertaken to update and to re-format the literature we use to disseminate information. We will continue to review and enhance the advisory service we offer to public bodies and others, as mentioned, in the light of levels of demand from those bodies and the feedback we obtain.

We will have a period of analysis of the results of the ComReg survey of the 400 sites we mentioned followed by decisions based on that work about the manner in which we should continue this survey and how it should be managed. In the context of emerging all-island work in the communications area, co-ordinated customer facing work will be undertaken with our colleagues in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland.

Deputy Durkan: I thank our guests for appearing before the committee and for the illustrations they have given. A number of issues must be borne in mind in regard to this subject. It is incumbent on us to have up to date research and to avail of all up to date research. If there are concerns, whether legitimate or not, it is incumbent on the Minister and on all responsible to ensure the most up to date research is available and on which we can rely.

There is some dispute in respect of from whom we should take our information, whether from technicians or from medical experts. We should use international technical information, which is readily available and is available to the World Health Organisation, but we should conduct our own independent analysis and, if necessary, involve people with a health perspective in order to verify the degree to which levels of non-ionising radiation affect the public, in particular children.

The second Stewart report is highly technical and states something not stated before. It advises against the use of mobile telephones by small children on the grounds which have just been mentioned. However, I would not like a situation to develop whereby children were forbidden to use mobile telephones given the security issue about which parents are deeply concerned. They want to know whether it is safe for their children to use mobile telephones. A balance must be struck which is fairly urgent.

I suggest that the Minister take the initiative and appoint the necessary group to assess the international technical information available from several sources and, by all means, draw on the Stewart report. In addition, he should introduce a monitoring system in this jurisdiction whereby our medical experts, of which there are many, could assess the information available and determine whether we operating within safe guidelines, of which they are quite capable of doing.

I should mention that in my previous incarnation, I was involved in a couple of well-known debates and objections to various masts. I have heard international experts confound each other into obligation to such an extent that any bystander would have great difficulty determining who was the bearer of the true word. I come from that background and with that limited knowledge.

Mobile telephones have been available in this country for quite some time - almost 20 years. I had a mobile telephone in 1985. The analog system was in place and now the GSM system is in place, and I know the difference. Booster masts are now liberally placed throughout the communities. In the past, one such mast every 150 miles, or certainly every 50 or 60 miles, was enough. Some changes have taken place. I am also aware that satellite transmission is possible, is used in some countries and is being considered by others. There is a series of variations.

There are one or two issues arising from the presentation which must be borne in mind. Yesterday I met a group of people who claim all kinds of extraordinary and very worrying side effects from the use of mobile telephones. I have no way to prove or disprove their claims because I am not in a position to do what I am suggesting, namely, to use medical science to measure the alleged emissions. ComReg has examined the installation at Dangan, County Tipperary, and discovered that a number of people in the area have lesions, blackening of the skin, etc, which, it is alleged, occurred as a result of emissions. As already stated, I am not in a position to either prove or disprove whether emissions have an effect. However, this matter needs to be investigated even if for no other reason than to reassure people.

I am familiar with a school playground which lies almost directly beneath a heavily laden KV power line that was erected in the past five or six years. The information with which the committee is presented appears to contain quite an amount of contradiction. I am not opposed to mobile telephones and I use them all the time. Such telephones are a hugely integral part of our society and we rely on them in the same way that we rely on electricity. However, people need reassurance. There is a cop-out clause in the Stewart report which, in its final lines, states that absolute guarantees cannot be given. I recognise that this is the case and I accept the reasons for it. However, there comes a time when clearer evidence must be presented which indicates that there are no circumstances in which danger will arise.

Masts may be erected in a particular configuration which may lead to difficulties. For example, I am informed that power to the mast at Dangan, County Tipperary, has been switched off on a number of occasions. I do not know why that is the case and only ComReg and the Minister can provide answers in this regard. The relevant information about this matter should be available to the Minister. I intend no disrespect but I am not sure whether ComReg is the correct agency to monitor what is happening in this instance. Monitoring should be carried out by an independent agency appointed by the Minister, the membership of which should comprise medical and technical experts. Such an agency would report on a regular basis. The 1998 report is fine but there have been great technological advances since them. The report needs to be reviewed and revised. The Minister should consider establishing a group such as that to which I refer in order to assess the situation and allay people’s fears.

Not nearly as much information is being made available to Members of the House and the public as was the case some years ago. For example, if I table a parliamentary question about emissions, pollution, etc, I will readily be informed that it is not a matter for the relevant Minister because he or she has no direct responsibility to the House. In such circumstances, I need to employ a plethora of researchers to discover where the information can be found. That is not the way it is supposed to be. The relevant information should be readily available so that members of the public can have access to it and not be obliged to delve through reams of research in order to discover it. That is of critical importance.

If we consider the 220KV power line and its emissions and the position as regards electric blankets and hairdryers, it would appear that use of a hairdryer is an extremely dangerous practice when compared to living in the vicinity of a such a power line. I notice the newest item of kitchen equipment, the microwave oven, is not included on the graph. Why was information about microwaves excluded?

Deputy Broughan: I welcome Mr. Hanna and Mr. O’Connor. Has Mr. Hanna ever heard of the Karolinska Institute?

Mr. Hanna: Yes.

Deputy Broughan: Does he know where it is located?

Mr. Hanna: Yes.

Deputy Broughan: Is he aware that the second Stewart report quoted a study from the Karolinska Institute of Sweden which was carried out last October and which shows that people who had used mobile telephones for ten years or more had an increased risk of developing acoustic neuroma? The latter is a benign tumour but its removal poses a serious threat because it lies directly adjacent to the human brain. Was Mr. Hanna aware of the study when he reported to the committee?

Mr. Hanna: Yes.

Deputy Broughan: Why did he not refer to it?

Mr. Hanna: There have been 1,000 studies, of which the Stewart report is only one, published this year. However, the report is useful because it reviews many of the-----

Deputy Broughan: I am not asking about the Stewart report, I am inquiring about the study carried out by the Karolinska Institute. Sweden has a population of only 9 million, of which approximately 6 million or 7 million use mobile phones, but it has taken it upon itself to carry out original research.

Mr. Hanna: The experimental dermatology unit of the Karolinska Institute’s department of neuroscience carried out research and discovered that which the Deputy has indicated. The researcher, Professor Johansen, reported the findings to one of our international meetings last year. It is one of those situations where an unusual finding has been uncovered but where no proof has been established. A repetition study is, therefore, being carried out under strictly controlled conditions to discover if the findings can be replicated. In the meantime, Professor Johansen stated that the institute would not be recommending any changes in Sweden and that she would not be advising children to change the way they use their mobile phones. The results of the replication study will be available in or around summer 2006.

Deputy Broughan: Is Mr. Hanna aware of the EU research, the REFLEX study, carried out in December?

Mr. Hanna: Yes.

Deputy Broughan: Did this study not show that mobile phone radiation damages DNA in human cells?

Mr. Hanna: It indicated that it might do so. Some damage to DNA was found but the experiment has been criticised by the management of the project as being not well controlled because the damage could have been caused by other factors in the research environment. Again, this project is being repeated. Until replication occurs with the same findings, no causal link can be established.

Deputy Broughan: Is it not a fact that, based on the Karolinska study, the REFLEX study and studies carried out in the United Kingdom in Sheffield and elsewhere, Sir William Stewart, chairperson of the National Radiological Protection Board of the UK, strongly advised that four to eight year olds should not have mobile phones and that there was a headline, “Get off that mobile, expert tells children”, in The Sunday Times to that effect? Is it not the case that within days of the appearance of this headline a British company, Communic8, launched a new mobile - MYMO - directed at children which was immediately scrapped as a direct result of the report? We are aware that mobiles can be beneficial in terms of children’s general safety but it is not the case that Stewart indicated that young children should not use mobiles. Is that not a fact?

Mr. Hanna: I can comment to a limited degree on what the Deputy stated. Some of the areas to which he referred are either outside my knowledge or responsibility. It is correct that a manufacturer, Communic8, which recently proposed to launch a phone aimed at children aged four to eight years, immediately withdrew it from production. I understand the company did so because it felt it would be committing business suicide in light of the publicity being given to the Stewart report. However, it has not been established that there has been a positive health risk to small children. It is important to note that the recommendation of the Stewart report is not based on any scientific evidence; he made a precautionary recommendation.

I was asked indirectly if a recommendation should be made in Ireland. This Department, which looks at the science aspect, believes there is no valid reason for the recommendation.

Deputy Broughan: I propose that this committee ask for a health supremo, either from the Radiological Protection Board or a neurology department in Beaumont Hospital, who would be answerable to the Government in regard to mobile phone safety. Does Mr. Hanna think this would be a reasonable direction for the committee and the country to go?

Mr. Hanna: According to the guidelines for civil servants appearing before this committee, I am not permitted to answer that question.

Deputy Broughan: That is fair enough. I propose this course of action.

Chairman: We are in the realm of policy-making here. Following this session, we will probably consider the official report, produce our own report and make recommendations to the different Departments. What are Mr. Hanna’s qualifications?

Mr. Hanna: I am a chartered engineer and Fellow of the Institution of Engineers of Ireland.

Chairman: Is that an electrical engineer?

Mr. Hanna: It is part of it.

Mr. O’Connor: I am an electronic engineer.

Deputy Broughan: I asked a question during the presentation about the location of base stations. As public representatives, we have had a problem throughout our career in this regard. There was the roll-out by Eircell, which is fair enough. There was a roll-out by Esat, which became O₂ and Eircell became Vodafone. There has been some roll-out by Meteor and now we are getting used to a roll-out by Hutch and 3G. The logical question to ask is why do we need all these roll-outs given the development of 3G? I will come back to 3G and the safety aspect. One of the exasperating problems is that the Government has exempted many of these mobile structures from the planning process. The UK was referred to. As far as I am aware, at least it is possible in the UK to go through five or eight weeks-----

Chairman: To which Government is the Deputy referring?

Deputy Broughan: This Government.

Chairman: Did Deputy Howlin, as Minister, not introduce the first planning guidelines?

Deputy Broughan: Yes, he introduced the first guidelines. This Government has a plan to bring forward this swift infrastructural development. However, we now find that there is a plethora of these developments. I do not wish to be parochial, but a football club in Baldoyle in my constituency, which is next door to a local boys national school, has a number of structures installed on its roof. People are very upset because planning permission was not granted. Does the Chairman agree that there should at least be consultation in this regard? When I contacted the Minister, Deputy Roche, he replied that the guidelines for planning authorities, telecommunications antennae and support structures includes a section, class 31K, which exempts public or commercial buildings, other than educational facilities, child care facilities or hospitals, that have attachments to roofs, facades, chimneys, chimney pots or vent pipes. Clearly young children will be taking part in events in some of these public buildings which could be directly next door to a school. Notwithstanding what was said about the microwave emissions from base stations-----

(Interruptions).

Deputy Broughan: A figure of three metres was mentioned.

Chairman: These are questions for the policy-makers.

Deputy Broughan: I should be allowed to finish my point.

Chairman: We cannot expect civil servants to answer these questions.

Deputy Broughan: Have the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Health and Children been consulted to get an overall approach from the technical side in respect of these guidelines, which are now almost ten years old and which people feel do not work for the benefit of their children?

Mr. Hanna: The responsibility of the Department for which I work is concerned only with the health impact of the technology concerned. We have advised the Departments of Health and Children and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that there are no scientific-based reasons for any particular guidelines. Any guidelines that may exist do not result from communications from this Department. Outside of that, I cannot comment.

Deputy Broughan: Is it an issue that Mr. O’Connor could pursue? We should certainly pursue it. We exclude educational facilities but we do not exclude sports clubs where children might be present.

Chairman: Mr. Hanna does not have to answer that question. With all due respect, this committee will make a number of recommendations.

Deputy Broughan: It is extraordinary that the Department did not consult the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the Department of Health and Children.

Chairman: Perhaps the policy-makers should be asked about that.

Deputy Broughan: Does Mr. Hanna believe that the emergence of the 3G handsets will be beneficial? I use a mobile phone and mobile phone activity accounts for 2.5% of GDP, which is important from an economic point of view. One company is now offering a 3G service, which is very expensive. Will the emergence of 3G handsets be beneficial?

Mr. Hanna: Can I ask the Deputy to clarify the question? What does the Deputy mean by beneficial?

Deputy Broughan: We were talking about the Karolinska study into benign tumours and so on resulting from the mobile phone being held very close to the body.

Mr. Hanna: On radiation being emitted by mobile phones, a lot of work is being carried out on real measurement and modelling of the radiation absorbed by the skull. No mobile telephone currently on the market, whether 3G or otherwise, comes anywhere close to the guidelines for emissions to which I have referred. No adverse health effect has been established at these levels. While 3G will involve more phones, each phone is likely to be of a relatively small power compared with the very early mobile phone installations.

Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hanna. Has Deputy Durkan a question?

Deputy Durkan: I will ask it at the end.

Chairman: Deputy Ryan knows what we are discussing. We cannot go outside the terms of reference of the committee. There are a number of issues which border on the health committee and the environment committee. As a consequence of this meeting, I have no doubt that the committee will make a number of recommendations in a report to the different Departments.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I welcome Mr. Hanna and Mr. O’Connor and thank them for the documentation, which is useful, and for the manner of their presentation. In terms of the Government’s analysis and participation in international studies, is your office the main link between the Government and international health organisations? Does the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources report to other Departments on the latest thinking from the WHO? Would you go to the Department of Health and Children regarding what you are picking up overseas on health issues or to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government regarding the location of masts? Do you make recommendations to other Departments regarding mobile phones? Do all microwaves emit non-ionising radiation or do you consider mobiles specifically?

Mr. Hanna: We cover all non-ionising radiation technologies. The main interest currently is in mobile phones and base stations. We provide advice to Departments and the former health boards. On the sites that were mentioned earlier, we have been in frequent communication with the medical people in the health boards concerned. We brought them to one relevant conference. We are the contact point for Ireland with these organisations and, therefore, the repository of information for people who want information.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Do we have people in the Department of Health and Children with a medical background? Do we use your Department to report to them the latest medical thinking?

Mr. Hanna: Yes, that is correct.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I note that a number of international reports state that the use of hand held mobile phones while driving pose health risks in terms of causing more accidents. Am I correct that some of these reports contain the view that we should discourage the use of mobile phones while people are driving?

Mr. Hanna: Yes, it has been well established that even with hands-free kits, it is a distraction while driving to have a conversation with somebody the driver cannot see.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Was that the recommendation to the Department? Did the Department of Transport or the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government consider introducing such legislation?

Mr. Hanna: I cannot comment on that.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Was the recommendation made to another Department?

Mr. Hanna: No, I did not say that. The Deputy asked me a question about the published reports and I responded. My Department made no such recommendation.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: If I am correct, the Government had committed to introducing such a ban. Is that not the case?

Mr. Hanna: I am sorry. That is outside the remit of my ability to answer.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Given that Mr. Hanna reports to the Government on what international reports say - and they say we should not use hand-held mobile phones while driving - is it not his duty to report this to the relevant Department?

Mr. Hanna: The advice of my office to the Government has been that there is a risk attached to using mobile phones when driving. This is understood. My Department did not feel that a recommendation on legislation was required. I cannot comment on how that would have been received by another Department.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Towards the end of the latest Europe report Mr. Hanna suggested there may be a concern about the new modulated pulse form of radio frequency transmission. He referred to the possible cognate effects of exposure to radio frequency fields from mobile phones and possible effects of pulse modulated fields on calcium efflux from a nervous system. Is it correct that these modulated pulse systems have only come into use in the past three or four years?

Mr. Hanna: That is correct. It is why we are focusing research attention on that now. The technology did not exist before so we do not have 20 years of research findings.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Is calcium efflux similar to what Deputy Broughan mentioned? The medical term he used, acoustic neuroma, came from the Swedish study. Is calcium efflux a similar build up of calcium, a benign tumour? Are we looking at something benign or malignant? The one we referred to previously was benign.

Mr. Hanna: The previous one was benign. This one affects the general physiology against which those things are possible.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: All right. Therefore it could be either.

Chairman: We may be lucky, we have two doctors sitting here.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I have a layman’s question. Is calcium efflux a different possible effect to the one outlined in the Swedish study? That study referred to a benign tumour but this is a growth of calcium on the skull. Is that correct?

Mr. Hanna: Yes.

Chairman: Mr. Hanna is not expected to answer medical questions if he does not know the answers.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I am looking for the layman’s translation.

Mr. Hanna: That falls within my remit because I get the reports in language I can understand.

Chairman: I will be delighted if Mr. Hanna can advise the committee and the Deputy. However, if not, he can return to the committee with any further information.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I have just three other short questions. In layman’s terms is there evidence that mobile phones have a heating effect if used for long periods of time close to the brain?

Mr. Hanna: Yes, a heating effect is the only known effect caused by exposure of tissue to a mobile phone or other non-ionising radiation. That is how microwaves work. They work by agitating molecules. They do not disrupt the molecular structure, but they agitate molecules and move them around. That is how food is cooked in a microwave. Obviously, at that level of exposure one would expect some harm. It is cooking or heating to an extreme extent.

The conventional wisdom is that if tissue is heated by more than one degree centigrade, that counts as an adverse health effect because that could affect mood, cognition etc. The science supporting this suggests one would need to be using one of the very first generation of mobile phones 24 hours a day to achieve half a degree of heating. That puts it in context.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I know some politicians whose phones never leave the side of their heads.

Deputy Durkan: Sometimes the heat may be generated without the use of any technology.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Another question from an area covered by the same science relates to power lines and electromagnetic fields. Are there concerns and do some studies show these might have an effect in terms of sterility in people who live in close proximity to them? This area is similar to that dealing with the effects of non-ionising radiation, the matter on which we began our discussion. Is there research in that regard?

Mr. Hanna: There was quite a lot of research some 15 years ago into the possible effects of, not so much electromagnetic fields from overhead power lines but from distribution switch cabinets that, not so much in this country but in many European countries, are located in apartment blocks. People felt there was a possibility that this might cause adverse health effects, one of which was reduced fertility in men. That has been discounted by all the research that followed. However, the whole issue of male fertility came to the fore again in June 2004 when a highly publicised, in the sense it reached The Sunday Times and everybody became aware of it, Hungarian study indicated that the use of mobile phones would damage sperm.

The issue arose as a result of what was claimed to be a highly respected Hungarian study to be published at a conference of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. My Hungarian equivalent circulated an e-mail to all his colleagues in other countries to point out several facts. First, a summary of the study had been sent by a PhD student to Reuters in order to draw attention to the work. It was not one of the papers to be presented at the conference or on the conference programme and as a result of the publicity it was dropped from the poster presentation. The past president of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology said that the results were far from conclusive, did not take into account a number of other factors which could also affect sperm count and quality. Significantly, he drew attention to the fact that it is well known that elevated temperatures affect sperm counts and that this has long been a problem for men who wear certain kinds of clothing.

Deputy Durkan: Superman must be in a terrible state.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: It is far from being a laughing matter, unfortunately. Mr. Hanna mentioned that in terms of epidemiology we have not seen a significant increase in cancer. I suggest the increase in male sterility is one of the most serious issues facing mankind and not a laughing matter.

Mr. Hanna: This illustrates part of the problem. If we examine a cancer cluster around the country and try to find a cause, it is enormously difficult to undertake proper, scientifically controlled studies because we must exclude all the other potential causes. In the case of general male sterility, there are claims that there a number of environmental pollution related effects which may contribute toward this. This area is a good example of a notoriously difficult piece of research. That is why the research into the possible effects of mobile phone radiation on humans must be conducted in laboratory controlled conditions. This means the research is very difficult to undertake in small countries.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: That makes sense of the precautions. When ComReg carried out the 400 tests on the base stations in operation in Ireland did it notify the companies in advance that it would be carrying out such studies or of which stations might be examined?

Mr. Hanna: I understand it did not because that would defeat the purpose of audit.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Would Mr. Hanna take the argument - I am not drawing any inference about his work as I have been impressed by the scientific nature of his presentation and his openness - that there is a concern in terms of whether it would be better for the monitoring role in which he is involved to be in a separate Department to one which is involved in a development role? I feel this is true with regard to many issues arising in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources where we have both a development role and a monitoring role. As a general principle, is there any consideration for such a development?

Mr. Hanna: I refer to the instructions for civil servants and am afraid I cannot answer this question. May I follow up on questions I was asked earlier but have not been able to answer yet? Reference was made to people who claim to have been affected by mobile phone radiation. It is important to put on the record that we acknowledge and sympathise with a considerable number of people who are in constant contact with us indicating that their health is compromised and they are blaming mobile phone installations for this. There are cases at international level of people who claim to be electrosensitive. One of the focused pieces of work undertaken by the World Health Organisation project was into electrosensitive people. The latest report was tabled at a meeting last year and I have a copy of that report here.

We know that there are a number of allergy-sensitive people who may be affected by all sorts of things. If these people are genuinely electrosensitive, they will be much more affected by other sources of electromagnetic fields, such as appliances in their houses and maybe broadcasting transmitters, than they could be by mobile phones due to the level of emissions associated with these different technologies. The international study of electrosensitive people showed that they had very complicated health histories and it was very difficult for the health professionals to manage the treatment plans because it was not clear what if anything was causing them to be sick.

It is well established and was reported at the meeting last month that if a person is concerned about something which they believe is causing them harm, then they are very likely to fall ill. We recognise this and it is part of our function to put into the public domain as much factual information as possible and this is what I have presented to the committee today. We have disclosed both what we know and what we do not know to ensure that people have a reasoned basis for saying: “This is unlikely to cause me harm and perhaps I should not be worrying about it.”

Deputy Fitzpatrick: I thank Mr. Hanna and Mr. O’Connor for their attendance and for their illuminating and interesting presentation. Are reports from the scientific world monitored by a departmental committee? Are resumés of these reports published by the Department?

Deputy Devins: Like the other speakers, I thank Mr. Hanna and Mr. O’Connor for what I consider to be a very good and soundly-based technological report. Some years ago people reading any resumé of the available literature would have concluded that no danger existed from the use of mobile phones or masts. Over recent years there has been a growing body of evidence to show there may be some danger. I refer to the difference between the first and second Stewart reports and the presentation from the World Health Organisation.

Should we not approach this matter from a slightly different angle? Health-related risks will take a while to present themselves. It may take perhaps five, ten or 15 years before the cause and effect come into play. The growing body of evidence points to a possible potential risk and this should cause us to consider whether the location of mobile phone masts and the excessive use of mobile phones, particularly by children, should be more widely publicised as being a potential risk. In my view, if one child or adult develops an acoustic neuroma, it is one too many. I have the impression that while the points made by the delegation are soundly scientifically-based as matters stand, the increasing evidence appearing in both medical and technical journals causes me to wonder whether we are being a little slow in closing the door because the horse may have bolted in ten years’ time.

Mr. Hanna: In answer to the first question there is no formal monitoring committee. There is a function in my office which is transferring to Mr. O’Connor’s office. There are a number of individuals who review this information and provide reports within the Department. The Department has published information but it is quite out of date and Mr. O’Connor referred to the fact that it is being updated. We respond to requests for information by providing tailored information, but the Department does not have a full library of documents to cover every situation. As a result of this project, the World Health Organisation has published an extensive suite of documents on its website which is written in readily comprehensible language and which I recommend to anyone with an interest in the subject.

I said earlier that absence of proof of harm does not mean proof of absence of harm. That is the reason we and other governments devote a resource to this matter. We could remain passive, not do anything at all and wait for the courts to deal with a case. In light of other situations in other fields, we felt it prudent to do something now just in case we fall over something that might happen in five, ten or 20 years’ time. The Department has spent money and done the research and nothing has been established. In our view it is unlikely we will be able to establish anything because of the physical way non-ionising radiation works, but that does not mean to say we will stop looking. From time to time we will refocus this work on particular areas of concern.

The Deputy referred to evidence being available that shows it may be harmful but there is not strictly scientific evidence but rather suggestions that something may be the case. In that case we then refocus the entire research machine on that problem. We recreate the conditions of the experiment and we wait for replication. To date, out of the eight cases I mentioned that has never happened but we are not going to stop doing it.

We will continue to learn. We believe it is in the national interest and, in common with colleagues in other countries, we regard it as a responsible precautionary approach. We believe there is nothing there but we will focus the best national and international minds on the particular science and on the particular case. Every time a study in a university uncovers a possibility, we collectively examine it in an organised and scientific way. Therefore, we do not make recommendations not to drive cars even with the risk they may cause damage. It is a matter of context. If anything was proven it would change our position overnight, as it would other governments. The UK Government has not changed its position as a result of the Stewart reports one or two.

Deputy Devins: Would Mr. Hanna not agree there has been a shift in emphasis and a possibility that in five or six years, a third Stewart report might produce a greater body of evidence? My suggestion is that waiting until then does not preclude us from taking preventative measures now, such as putting mobile phone masts in isolated areas or advising parents to guard against excessive use of mobile phones by their children because there is a potential risk.

The approach to date has been too confined and we should be more reactive to a potential danger rather than waiting for that danger to occur. There is no doubt in my mind that in the past five to ten years, there has been an increasing number of articles appearing both in medical and technical journals suggesting a possible risk.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: On the point about the use of statistics, the delegation stated that parts of those eight studies, even if they were accurate, may only point to a case of one death in Ireland in ten years, if I understand correctly. Is this based on the assumption that it is a figure of eight out of 25,000 studies? Is there not the possibility that if one study, even if it is one out of 25,000, which shows a hypothetical causal connection between male sterility and use of phones is right, the statistic is not? The final statistical conclusion is incalculable. Is the Department’s information based on analysis of those eight studies on the basis of there being eight out of 25,000?

Senator Leyden: I wished to declare a very minor interest in Vodafone. Would the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources recommend that Vodafone and O₂ now put aside a compensation fund in case of claims arising from the effects of radiation in the event that this is established in further medical research? Is it recommended or felt safe for pregnant women or girls to use mobile phones frequently? Has research taken place in this regard? I spent some time as Minister of State at the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in the 1980s before this matter became a big issue. The jury is out with many differing reports. A constituent of the Chairman’s, Sarah-Louise Healy, at the recent Esat BT Young Scientist Exhibition, reported on equipment that purports to reduce radiation, which she proved is quite ineffective and a waste of time.

After all the research and recommendations, if claims are made will the companies be able to deal with them? Do post mortems take note of the brain area in connection with the use of mobile phones? This could form an area of special research and Ireland could initiate such research if it is not being carried out at the moment. Many urban myths exist about the use of mobile phones, especially concerning people who died tragically and connections were made to them having used mobile phones frequently.

Chairman: The first question asked is one for the Minister who sets the policy and cannot be asked of civil servants.

Senator Leyden: In my experience as a Minister of State, civil servants recommended changes in policy.

Chairman: I will not allow the civil servant answer the question as it would not be fair on him to answer matters of policy. The Senator has other ways and means to get answers to that question. The Senator certainly may make a recommendation that the committee address the matter in its report. We can do that.

Mr. Hanna: In banking these questions, I discovered another question asked earlier that I have not yet answered. I was asked why a microwave oven does not appear on the list of appliances. The reason is that people believe microwave ovens are dangerous and the list is illustrated with things about which people do not think.

Deputy Durkan: I asked that because-----

Chairman: I am afraid that Dr. Cullen might leave if we do not get to her group shortly.

Deputy Durkan: While it is mentioned in the spectrum that is listed above, it is not mentioned in the measurements outlined lower down. Is there a difference between the radiation emanating from microwave ovens and that from the other domestic appliances listed?

Mr. Hanna: The answer to the question is “yes”. It is a different type of radiation in the spectrum of non-ionising radiation. However, it is the one about which people already know. This was demonstrated on the afternoon show on RTE last week. A measurement probe placed against the door of a microwave oven would show a reading that is half the recommended safety level. It drops off to about one tenth in a couple of metres.

I will move on to the more recent questions. The Department cannot take action for events that might happen. Our role is limited to establishing whether a reason exists for concern and action that is appropriate to any possible health risks from non-ionising radiation and mobile phones in particular. No risk has been established.

The Chairman has indicated that I would not answer questions to do with the compensation fund and policy.

Senator Leyden spoke about present research on equipment to reduce radiation. The project presented at the Esat BT Young Scientist Exhibition was interesting. One of the early reactions of the mobile phone industry to the concerns expressed was to say that if a risk existed it could be minimised by use of such devices. I have two comments. Very few of them actually achieve an effective reduction. The levels of radiation involved are very small and we have not established any health effects as a result. In the opinion of many in the industry such action is irrelevant.

One of the first studies related to pregnant women. At the levels of radiation concerned, pregnant women are not at risk.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I had a question about one death in ten years. Was that the basis for eight out of 25,000?

Mr. Hanna: My apologies. It results from the worst possible case in those eight studies. If all the possibilities in that worst case were true, it would result in one death in every ten years.

Chairman: I thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee. We may have some more questions for the Assistant Secretary General or other officials who are closer to policy making. The committee will probably consider everything that has been said today and then issue a short report. I advise officials that they referred to the report on the non-ionising radiation emissions from communications masts, published on 12 November 1998 by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Enterprise. As they are aware, I was the rapporteur for that committee at the time.

Four matters relate to the Department of Health and Children, to which members referred today. It was recommended that the Department of Health and Children should supply the Director of Telecommunications Regulations with the latest public information on health risks for inclusion in its annual report and that the Department of Health and Children should include a statement in its forthcoming national environmental action plan, setting out clearly the up-to-date position regarding microwave radiation and human health. Two other recommendations were made and I believe the committee will raise those matters by way of letter to the Department of Health and Children.

Deputy Durkan: We should meet, perhaps in private session, to decide on the format it should take. The marriage between the technical and the health sides needs to be borne in mind, particularly when coming to conclusions.

Chairman: I agree with the Deputy. Some of these issues should be considered by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children. I presume this committee will decide how we should approach that matter. One of the Deputies voiced concern over the siting of masts close to schools. We will raise the matter with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I presume all handsets emitting non-ionising radiation in this country come within the ICNIRP recommendations and limits.

Mr. Hanna: Yes.

Chairman: While this is a matter we could discuss in private session, we are concerned that no interdepartmental working group is looking at the issues that cross the three Departments. We will raise this matter officially in our report. I mention this so that the witnesses can go back to their Department and take the initiative rather than wait for us to make the recommendations. It is important that officials of the Department of Health and Children attend the conferences mentioned rather than just the technical experts.

I failed to reach the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland by telephone today. While I understand it has a staff of 45, when I rang I was put through to an answering machine, as were officials from the committee secretariat. As some members mentioned today, the British institute has been given a brief to consider the possible dangers of mobile telephones. We may need to amend the 1991 Act to include that brief for this body, which would seem to be the most technically competent to address these issues.

Some members have recommended the establishment of a non-statutory advisory board, comprising representatives of communities, medical and technical professionals and, of course, officials of the relevant Departments to advise the Department on the issues regarding mobile phones and telecommunications masts.

I again thank Mr. Hanna and Mr. O’Connor for appearing before the committee. They did not have a difficult day - we have often had more difficult days here. We would be grateful if they supplied us with the reports they believe the committee should have.

I welcome Dr. Elizabeth Cullen of the Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association and her colleagues to the committee. I draw everyone’s attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Furthermore, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I advise members that the format will be the hearing of a presentation followed by a question-and-answer session.

Dr. Elizabeth Cullen: I am joined by Mr. Con Colbert and Mr. Enda D’Alton. On behalf of the Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association, I thank the committee for requesting this presentation. I have divided the presentation into four sections. The first examines the documented effects of electromagnetic radiation on general populations, the second the effects on people who are sensitive to this type of radiation, the third whether the permitted levels are safe and the fourth what needs to be done. The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association was formed in 1997. We are a group of doctors and health professionals who are concerned about the impact of the environment on health. We are concerned about fluoridation and incineration, genetically modified crops and non-ionising radiation. We operate by various mechanisms. We have been represented on the fluoridation forum, the GMO advisory committee of the EPA and we are a member of Comhar, the national sustainable development advisory group to the Government. We also write articles and letters to the press. We do not have all the answers and are learning all the time, but we have concerns about non-ionising radiation which I would like to share with the committee. We are also affiliated to international associations including the International Society of Doctors for the Environment.

I turn now to the effects of non-ionising radiation on the general public. Sir William Stewart said in reference to radiation that it often takes a long time for things to become obvious. We have known that smoking is harmful for many years, but the smoking ban only came in last year. In terms of the effect on the general population, a quick review of medical databases demonstrates how recent research shows exposure to the ambient levels of microwave radiation - what we are exposed to now under the levels - affects non-REM sleep and results in brainwave changes in the alpha and beta range. Interestingly, a 2005 study found that people who lived near mobile phone base stations were suffering from ill-effects although they did not connect the two. It was found the effects related to the distance a person was living from the mobile base station.

Chairman: Are you referring to the reports you have listed? Will you refer to any Irish report or are they all international?

Dr. Cullen: This one is international but we will come to an Irish one. Our association has undertaken the first research in Ireland on people who are sensitive to radiation.

Chairman: Are you a medical doctor?

Dr. Cullen: Yes.

Chairman: Are you a general practitioner?

Dr. Cullen: I am not. Currently, I am undertaking a PhD in climate change and health. I am not practising at present, I am carrying out research.

Chairman: You qualified as a medical doctor.

Dr. Cullen: I did and I have a masters degree in community health and a diploma in pollution control.

A very interesting study I came across was carried out by Narala in 2004 where electromagnetic radiation was found to interact with biochemical processes in cells. The changes in the cells, however, were related to the impact of other environmental stressors such as ultraviolet light. It appears the effect of electromagnetic radiation on living tissue depends to an extent on other environmental stressors which may be present. We have already mentioned the acoustic nueromas study in the Karolinska Institute. Acoustic neuromas was only seen after ten years exposure - not five years - which highlights again the long-term effects of exposure to non-ionising radiation.

We do not know if non-REM sleep changes and brainwave changes are significant. A major study was undertaken by Dr. Roosli of all the studies which had been undertaken on non-ionising radiation.

Dr. Roosli stated that existing scientific knowledge is too limited to draw final conclusions on the health risk from exposure in the low dose range. He recommended that a precautionary approach be adopted. He noted that only a few studies have investigated long-term exposure and identified many methodological difficulties in these studies. The number carried out is not sufficient to definitively indicate that radiation of this type is safe.

A major EU study, the REFLEX report, was published recently. It involved 12 European institutes over a four-year period and found significant increases in DNA damage. Sir William Stewart, chairman of the independent expert group in the United Kingdom, has stated he is more concerned about the effects of non-ionising radiation now than he was at the time the first report was published.

What emission level is safe? Given the large number of users of mobile telephones which expose people to radiation, even a small adverse effect could have major public health implications. Professor Salford, who has done considerable work on this issue, states that mobile telephones are the largest human biological experiment ever undertaken.

The safe permitted levels of non-ionising radiation, as prescribed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation, are determined by heating effects. As we have seen, some effects on cells are not caused by heating. Heating does not cause changes in REM sleep or brainwaves. Current standards should, therefore, be reviewed to take account of changes which are not caused by heating.

Professor Salford undertook an interesting study which found that capillaries became more permeable when exposed to currently permitted microwave levels. He found the leakage of albumen and other compounds into the brains of young rats. He concluded: “We cannot exclude that after some decades of (often) daily use, a whole generation of users may suffer negative effects, perhaps as early as in middle age.” Again, these effects are not caused by heating, the measurement used to determine safe levels.

Are currently permitted levels safe? The World Health Organisation states that all established health effects of radiofrequency exposure are clearly related to heating. However, as we have seen, scientific evidence is now available which suggests that biological effects may be occurring at exposures below current guidelines.

The independent expert group in the UK concluded that “... it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach”.

What do we need to know when setting safe levels? I have cited the criteria used in establishing air quality safety levels. We need to have detailed knowledge of the dose-response relationship; types of toxic effect by specific pollutants or their mixtures - are there thresholds in this regard?; the significance of interactions - we have seen how other environmental stressors can interact with non-ionising radiation; and the variation in sensitivity and exposure within the human population. We do not have this information for electromagnetic radiation. While our knowledge of chemicals and air quality is not especially extensive, we have more information about these areas than on non-ionising radiation.

What needs to be done? Our association undertook the first public health investigation into people who were suffering from electromagnetic sensitivity. We will publish our results, which we have submitted to the Irish Medical Journal, at the Environ conference in Sligo. The report documents the suffering and symptoms experienced by people who are electrosensitive. This condition is suffered by approximately 1% of the population.

Some time ago, I wrote to every health board asking what research they were doing on the health of people living near mobile telephone masts. When I eventually managed to get replies, it transpired that not one health board is doing any research on this issue. Clearly, if nobody is doing any research, it is not possible to state that mobile telephone masts have no health effects.

Chairman: Did all eight health boards indicate they were not doing any research?

Dr. Cullen: Yes.

Chairman: Did Dr. Cullen write to the Department of Health and Children asking if it was doing any work in that regard?

Dr. Cullen: All our correspondence from the Department has been non-committal. It has indicated it adheres to guidelines and in its last communication it stated it was not doing any research.

Chairman: One of the recommendations of the 1998 Oireachtas report was that research be carried out.

Dr. Cullen: I made a submission on that report in my capacity as a Green Party supporter.

Chairman: I was a humble backbench Deputy at that point.

Deputy Kelly: Congratulations.

Chairman: I am still only a humble backbencher.

Dr. Cullen: Children are more vulnerable due to their developing nervous system, greater absorption of energy and the longer lifetime exposure they will have to this type of radiation. In line with the Stewart report, we advocate that mobile telephone masts not be placed near schools or other sensitive sites. We discourage the use of mobile telephones for non-essential calls and recommend that they should not be promoted for children. We would, however, go further than the Stewart report. The Santini report made some recommendations about mobile telephone radiation. It recommended that base stations should not be sited less than 300 metres from populated places. As an aside, the paper I circulated contains an error. It states that high frequency radiation should be directed “towards” schools. It should read “away” from schools. The Santini report also recommended that the maximum average annual power density should be 0.1 microwatt per square centimetre. If exposure is higher than this, the area should be labelled as such. We want medical follow-up for workers in base stations.

According to Dr. Roosli, whose work I cited earlier, a precautionary approach is necessary when dealing with radio and microwave frequency for the general population. Some 1,000 doctors in Germany have signed the “Freiburger appeal” which calls for more research to be done on microwave radiation and greater caution in this regard. The Irish Doctors Environmental Association requests that a full assessment of health impacts of electromagnetic radiation be undertaken and the precautionary principle applied.

Chairman: I thank Dr. Cullen. I note she made an earlier submission, as her name features in the report before me.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I thank Dr. Cullen for her report, which will be useful as it adds to our work. I would like a copy of the report as I did not receive one by e-mail.

Dr. Cullen mentioned two concerns which were not addressed in the previous presentation. These are changes to non-REM sleep and brainwaves, which are some of the micro-effects not measured in terms of the heat thresholds in place. Will she outline in layperson’s terms what are her concerns on each of these issues?

Dr. Cullen: I do not have neurological expertise. REM and non-REM sleep is important in processing events which take place during the day. I am not sure what is the significance of interference with non-REM sleep or brainwaves. The question we must ask is what are the effects of such changes in brainwaves. The evidence is that these are non-heating effects but I do not know what is the significance.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Is Dr. Cullen concerned that such micro changes are having a biological consequence of which we are not yet aware? Are the power emissions coming from the handsets or the base stations? Is she more concerned by the proximity and use of handsets or the location of base stations?

Dr. Cullen: I do not know. I think it is more reflective of the susceptibility of people. Some 1% of the population appears to be very sensitive. These people may be suffering while the rest of the population does not have this sensitivity or they may be the canary in the coal mine for the rest of us. I think it reflects a sensitivity to the radiation. As I am not sure I will ask Mr. Con Colbert or Mr. Enda D’Alton to comment on this. I do not know which it is but I feel vulnerability is also a big issue and we do not know what determines that.

Mr. Enda D’Alton: I am qualified as an electronic and radio engineer. I have also studied physics in depth so I think I know where I am coming from on this issue. If there are any people with technical knowledge here I can speak to them directly if necessary if they point themselves out.

My main reason for being involved with this subject and the Irish Doctors Environmental Association is that with the introduction of the mobile telephone system in 1985, I was suddenly struck by a mystery illness. I was extremely ill and the illness was referred to by a consultant as a mystery malady because nothing showed up despite clinical examination, blood tests and so on. I lost practically all the power in my body and I felt I was burning all over. I was in and out of hospital for three and a half years before I was told I had a disease or ailment called ME, myalgic encephalomyelitis, which was being spoken about at the time but which the medical profession had not yet looked into. Now it has and it deals with it in a very serious manner.

When I was told I had ME I decided to investigate it in my own time. The doctors could not say it was a bacteria, virus or toxin but I had noted certain things when I was ill. In one place I felt relatively okay and in another place I felt very unwell which indicated that ME could be related to something in the environment. I started to investigate and research this problem back in 1989.

With a couple of friends I decided to do some research into the business of locality. We carried out a double-blind study on me. They drove me around to see if I could say where I felt unwell and where I felt well. One chap noted down where we were. The other chap drove the car while I was blindfolded and I called out to the chap who was noting where we were how I felt. We then went back on the route and discovered, not to my complete amazement, that everywhere I felt unwell happened to have an antenna or mast structure nearby.

Putting two and two together I came to the conclusion that I was sensitive to the emissions from mobile telephone antennae. They were the only ones around at that time sending out a frequency in the 900 MHz range. I had subjected myself to frequencies in other microwave ranges and did not feel they affected me. However, when I came into the range from 900 MHz up to about 2 GHz, which is 2000 MHz, I felt a burning sensation and felt unwell. I had a list of symptoms as long as my arm which all added up to what doctors describe as ME. I have a list of them here but I will not go into them now because they are too long.

The years passed by and I got involved in research with a group called the Irish ME Trust because it was investigating the causes of ME. We enlisted the services of Dr. Patricia Sheehan who was a medical doctor and a physicist who was very concerned about what was happening to people who said they were suffering from ME. When she came on board she drew up a subjective questionnaire for people which was delivered by 600 university graduates at random to houses in the Dublin area. The questionnaire asked if people in the locality were feeling any of the symptoms I had. When the questionnaires came back they were collated and it was established that many people in the vicinity of mobile telephone towers were suffering from 15 or more of the 20 symptoms on the list. That more or less proved to me that I was not the only one suffering but these people were being diagnosed as suffering from something else other than electromagnetic radiation.

Chairman: Was the report published?

Mr. D’Alton: Dr. Sheehan was to publish the report but before she could do so she was killed in a tragic accident. The report was never published. She was to present it to the Irish Doctors Environmental Association and to the public at large. I wrote to the newspapers about it. I do not wish to hold up the meeting for too long.

I have pointed out how I became involved in this area. A couple of years ago I was asked by the Irish Doctors Environmental Association to be its technical adviser on electromagnetic radiation. Since then we have carried out a number of research projects. I am totally and absolutely satisfied, both from my professional qualifications and my knowledge of my own situation, that I am still affected by these darned radiations. I have built a Faraday cage or screened area in my home. It is the only place in which I can sleep comfortably. Lately I succeeded in getting netting like a mosquito net that does the same job. By getting some sleep I could handle the situation. I hope I have covered most aspects of my experience.

Chairman: We would be grateful if Mr. Colbert could supply the committee with any published reports carried out by Dr. Cullen’s group. We can pass them on to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children for its evaluation.

Deputy Durkan: I have interviewed a number of people who have expressed the same opinion as Mr. Colbert. I will put the questions I asked them to other people. What about the suggestion that in a particular environment an extra-sensitive person can believe they are suffering as a result of radiation or something else so that it induces it and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?

It is vitally important that the correct advice is given to parents regarding the use of mobile phones by their children. I would not like to see a situation develop where children were forbidden to have access to mobile phones which could present a very serious security issue which in turn could have side effects. We can think of several examples but we will not elaborate on them.

Dr. Cullen referred to research carried out by health boards. I agree there is a lack of readily available evidence which should be available at the touch of a button on all monitoring studies that take place in the country. I tabled a parliamentary question in which I called for evidence to be made available immediately. It was available 20 years ago but the more sophisticated technology becomes the more difficult it appears to be to get access to information. The results of all monitoring that takes place should be readily available and when a question is tabled it should be published immediately. We should not have to do further research because of the time involved. Other people are paid to produce the information and we do not have the time to do it.

On the question of proximity to mobile phone masts, the medical and technical evidence can conflict with each other but they can both be correct. All the reports I have read so far indicate there are little or no harmful effects from mobile phone masts unless one climbs up a mast and gets within 3 m. of it. I have seen experiments carried out which showed the relevant readings. They showed that the most serious danger of radiation was from a low or bad signal with the phone at the person’s ear. Will the delegates respond to that, if possible?

When considering this issue, one should bear in mind extra-sensitive people who suffer from migraine. I have suffered from it for years and I know it has evoked great sympathy from my colleagues. Medical science has so far failed to cure a simple migraine and there is nothing that can help those with the condition.

There needs to be a marriage of the technical and medical evidence associated with this issue because both can be correct. A classic example concerns a medical expert who once gave shocking evidence at a public hearing. Virtually everybody assembled walked out of the room with a clear understanding that he or she would die within the next 24 hours if he or she inhaled or ingested whatever was in the atmosphere at the time. Another person gave evidence and stated this was quite true and that the effect would be the same as the effect of sitting behind the exhaust pipe of one’s car. If one did so, one would certainly not improve one’s health. If one sat behind the exhaust pipe of a bus, it would not improve one’s health. However, the difference is that we do not do that sort of thing. Dispersal has a beneficial effect. One would presume that this is also the case in respect of non-ionising electromagnetic signals. Great difficulties can arise depending on where one is and on the degree to which one is exposed to the damaging signal.

I am not certain and have seen no proof as to whether there could be a health hazard, bearing in mind that various freak accidents can happen. An electric storm, for instance, demonstrates that electricity can bounce between one place and another. I am not entirely convinced that particular configurations of masts, from which radiation emanates, would not cause problems but I am open to advice on the matter.

Dr. Cullen: On the first point about people believing they have symptoms through suggestion, the first phase of our research, which we will be announcing in Sligo next week, describes the symptoms. It is a restrictive study and puts down a marker. Phase 2 involves our exposing people in a double blind situation. It involves the use of screens that can block the radiation and sham screens. People will not know whether they are exposed because they will not know whether they are behind a real or sham screen. This represents a much more definitive study of the phenomenon.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Mr. Colbert said there is a particular frequency at base stations. The previous speaker made the point that one can be particularly sensitive to radiation. Radiation comes from all sorts of devices other than phones. Why are sensitive people not affected by this? Do mobile phones operate at a different frequency to other devices that emit radiation, thus causing the problem?

Mr. D’Alton: The Deputy is correct. If I were to provide all the details on the electromagnetic spectrum I would be here for an hour. Frequencies of electromagnetic radiation can range from one cycle or pulse per second to zillions of cycles or immeasurable numbers. However, uses can be found for various things at certain points in the spectrum. In the long wave part of the spectrum one can send radio signals long distances. The microwave part can be used for the penetration of walls, thus allowing a mobile phone to work indoors. Other parts can be employed for various diathermic uses.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Is there no other device that operates at the same frequency as mobile phones?

Mr. D’Alton: No. They use a spectrum between 800 million cycles per second, or 800 MHz, and 2,000 million cycles per second, or 2,000 MHz. Different countries use different sections of that spectrum. Our phones operate between approximately 930 MHz and 1,850 MHz. I do not know if one can use any other frequency for the mobile phone system because the frequency in use suits what the operators want to do. The problem is that other frequencies may not achieve the same results. Does that make sense?

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Yes.

Senator Leyden: I welcome the delegates. I am pleased that different aspects of the issue are being discussed. It is very important to the Chairman. As far as ME is concerned, the spectrum is very broad. I appreciate the different aspects of ME. I had some dealings with the Irish ME Trust, in which I would not have great faith. However, that is another day’s work. I refer in particular to the trust’s fund-raising activities, which I found distasteful, to say the least.

Mr. D’Alton: I am no longer with the trust. I parted company with it years ago and joined the Irish Doctors Environmental Association. Initially, the Irish ME Trust was quite good as regards the research it carried out. I cannot deny that but I agree that questions could be asked about its fund-raising methods.

Senator Leyden: Mr. Colbert does not share my parliamentary privilege but I can say quite openly that there was-----

Mr. D’Alton: I am not involved with the trust.

Senator Leyden: I found the trust’s use of the names of individuals who it suspected of having ME to sell its tickets and promote its fund-raising activities to be particularly distasteful.

Chairman: What is this?

Senator Leyden: I am sorry, we are talking about ME.

Chairman: Let us confine our comments to the subject. The Senator knows the job of this committee-----

Senator Leyden: ME is a very broad area.

Chairman: We must confine ourselves to the issue at hand.

Senator Leyden: I appreciate that. I know of the doctor’s work in other fields, which I appreciate. On the very difficult area of post mortems, is there any evidence of damage to the brains to those who died suddenly or unexpectedly? Doctors should consider this. Phones affect very sensitive areas and the carrying of a phone close to the heart may be problematic and that putting it to one’s ear regularly could cause inner ear infections. Could the delegates research this because it will not be possible for this committee to do so?

Dr. Cullen: I am conscious that Deputy Eamon Ryan asked questions to which I should have known the answers. In this regard, our chairman has asked me to state that we only received notification to attend this committee on Thursday. We had a very rushed weekend but I will follow up on the Deputy’s questions on REM sleep and the other issue. I could certainly raise the issue raised by Senator Leyden with the State pathologist and ask for her opinion.

Senator Leyden: I would appreciate that.

Chairman: On the point about short notice, Dr. Cullen will understand that the committee decided last week that because of the findings in the Stewart report and other reports we should deal with this matter. We were fortunate that the Clerk was able to persuade the authorities to give us a room in which to meet today because we already sat last week. Normally the committee meets every two weeks. I know the delegates have been pressing this committee for several months, if not during all of my two years as Chairman, to allow them to sit before us. We apologise for the short notice but I believe the delegates will find today’s meeting has been very useful. We appreciate the work they have done.

Senator Callanan: I thank the Chairman for allowing me to contribute so late in the meeting. I was fascinated by Mr. D’Alton’s experiences. As he spoke, I remembered the very similar experiences of another man from County Cork, which he related to me a number of years ago. Approximately what percentage showed any traces of any symptoms like those experienced by Mr. D’Alton?

Mr. D’Alton: That is going back some years because the survey was carried out in 1990. Unfortunately, I am relying on a memory which is becoming more defective by the day.

Senator Callanan: We will allow for that.

Mr. D’Alton: As far as I can remember, of the 600 people who were interviewed, approximately 20% indicated they experienced 15 or more of the actual symptoms Dr. Sheehan listed. It seemed a very high percentage to us at the time but that was the case. I do not know if that answers the Senator’s question.

Senator Callanan: Thank you.

Senator Leyden: Does Dr. Cullen use a mobile telephone?

Dr. Cullen: Recently yes, although very rarely.

Chairman: Members have commitments to another meeting which is starting upstairs but, before we conclude, perhaps Mr. Colbert would like to make a contribution.

Mr. Con Colbert: Deputy Durkan referred to trying to find some way of discovering the reality of this phenomenon by technical and medical means. To those means I wish to add the experiential route which is based on the experiences of those people like Mr. Ryan in County Tipperary and at least 20 others who telephone me on a regular basis to ask what they can do about this problem and whether there can be any end to their suffering. People in Wexford, Tipperary and other places have been badly affected and their lives have been turned upside down because of this problem. The experiential aspect is an important one and those who claim to be suffering should not be ignored.

I came into this in more or less the same role as Mr. D’Alton and, through a process of elimination, I discovered that electromagnetic energy was also affecting my health. I wrote to the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources seven years ago highlighting ten different hotspots around the country. I have since returned to some of them. Some have improved, while others have not. In that context, I cannot see how anyone can induce the symptoms experienced by Mr. D’Alton, Mr. Ryan and me.

All of a sudden one drives into a beam and one is hit by a range of symptoms. My worst experience was driving into the village of Murrintown in County Wexford some years ago where I experienced nausea, burning on my skin and muscles and disorientation. However, as soon as I had driven a quarter of a mile past, all the symptoms disappeared. This has happened to me many times and I can experience it in different parts of the country. I was in Trafalgar Square in London at the weekend and I told a person yesterday that I had not experienced any of these symptoms there - I felt like a young fellow of 25.

Deputy Durkan: That is a dangerous experience.

Mr. Colbert: It was an elating experience.

Deputy Durkan: It could be a dangerous one too.

Mr. Colbert: Perhaps I could discuss that matter privately with the Deputy afterwards.

Chairman: Thank you Mr. Colbert. Dr. Cullen has written to the committee on several occasions for which information we are thankful. When the results of the research findings are being launched in Sligo, perhaps an invitation to the committee would be appropriate because we would like to know more about the report.

Dr. Cullen: Does the Chairman mean that he wants a member of the committee to attend the launch?

Chairman: That might be appropriate. We would like to keep abreast of Dr. Cullen’s findings. The recommendations in the report are recommendations to the committee. Today we are carrying out a very short overview of the difficulties and the up-to-date position in regard to monitoring. It is clear from the presentation that Ireland is not doing enough and that we need to monitor the health effects of non-ionising radiation. Should we carry out our own research in this country or should we collaborate with other bodies throughout Europe?

Dr. Cullen: We should carry out our own research too.

Chairman: The transcripts of this meeting will be available next week on the Oireachtas website so Dr. Cullen can examine them. If any other thoughts come to mind in regard to the previous presentation, she might e-mail them to the clerk of the committee.

The committee will now meet in private session to formulate a number of issues for the clerk to put together in regard to our own initial draft preliminary report on today’s proceedings and there will be a number of recommendations to various Departments as a result. I thank Dr. Cullen and the Irish Doctors Environmental Association for their very informative presentation to the committee and I also thank Mr. D’Alton and Mr. Colbert.

The joint committee went into private session at 5.27 p.m. and adjourned at 5.35 p.m. sine die.