Cellphone health risks

Transcription

1 Cellphone health risks 2000/17 12 September 2000 Executive summary The most clearly demonstrated health risk from using a cellphone is the risk of being involved in an accident if a cellphone is used while driving. This risk is present whether the phone is hand-held or hands-free. The most clearly demonstrated and well understood health effects from exposure to RF (radio frequency) radiation are related to the heating of tissues ( thermal effects ). International guidelines and New Zealand standards for both cellphones and base stations have been set at 1/50 th the RF level known to cause thermal effects, to ensure that such effects do not occur. RF radiation exposure from cell sites (transmitting base stations) is of much lower magnitude than from cellphones near the body. Exposure from transmitters for other RF systems (e.g. TV and radio broadcasting) is intermediate between cell sites and cellphones. The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the World Health Organization, major scientific reviews in Canada and the UK, and the New Zealand Ministry of Health have concluded that current scientific data does not prove a link between cellphone use and incidence of human illness. However, earlier studies of the health effects of exposure to RF radiation generally did not look closely at localised longer-term effects in the head from cellphone use. Recent studies have suggested effects from RF exposure below the thermal effects level on the function of cells and the human brain, risk of headaches and certain types of brain tumor in humans, and risk of cancer in cancer-prone strains of mice. New larger scale studies are underway to clarify these possible risks, but results will not be available for several years. Methods that have been recommended to reduce RF exposure to cellphone users include: minimise the length of time spent on calls; ensure the cellphone antenna is fully extended and held away from the head; use a hands-free kit; keep the cellphone away from the head while the call is being connected; and minimise use in enclosed spaces and poor reception areas. Car-mounted kits could also be used, but not when driving. Comparative RF exposure data for different models of cellphone and attachments is not yet easily available to consumers.

2 Extent of cellphone use 1 What are RF emissions? 4 In 1998, cellphone users were 19% of the population in New Zealand, compared to 32% in Australia, 36% in Japan, and 47% in Finland. 2 It is estimated that currently about 1.5 million people in New Zealand have cellphones, some 40% of the population, compared to current estimates of 45-50% in Scandinavia, Japan and the UK and 25-30% in Canada and the USA. The extent of actual usage in New Zealand is not reported. An estimated 500 million people use cellphones worldwide, and the industry predicts that there will be as many as 1.6 billion subscribers by the year Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) covers a wide range of energy forms, from extremely low frequency radiation (electrical appliances and power lines), through radio frequencies (RF), infrared light, visible light, and ultraviolet light, to x-rays. At the upper end of the scale (far ultraviolet light and x-rays) the energy is sufficient to the break molecular bonds and is called ionising radiation. EMR below this level, including RF, is called non-ionising radiation. RF emissions are characterised by frequency (measured in Hz, MHz or GHz), power level (in watts) and by the nature of the modulation which conveys the information being transmitted. Analog and digital describe the form of information which is carried. Sources of RF in the environment, in order of increasing frequency, include AM radio, FM radio, television, cordless phones, cellphones, PCS-phones, and microwaves. Low frequency RF emissions also come from wireless burglar alarms, baby monitors, and car door openers. Cellphones in New Zealand operate at around MHz, and future systems may operate at around 2000 MHz (2 GHz). The maximum power output of hand-held cellphones is 0.6 to 0.8 watts, but in areas with good reception output can be a tenth of this or less. Vehicle-based cellphones usually have a maximum power output of 3 watts. 5 RF radiation from analogue cellphones is continuous, and from digital cellphones is pulsed on and off. While analogue cellphones thus create greater RF exposure over time, the reaction of the human body to pulsed RF radiation is not fully understood. Household-based cordless phones generally operate at lower frequencies (often around 40 MHz) and at lower watts as transmission distances are much less. 6 Cell sites transmit from a few watts to 100 watts or more, as do transmitters for paging, and mobile radios such as those used by police, emergency services, and taxis. Microcell transmitters generally operate at power levels of one watt or lower. Thermal effects and standards The most clearly demonstrated and well understood effects from RF exposure are related to heating ( thermal effects ), and the New Zealand standards for RF exposure limits (for both cellphones and other RF sources) have been set at 1/50 th the level known to cause thermal effects to ensure that they do not occur. 7 1 A cellphone or cellular phone is a mobile phone which utilises radio transmission divided into areas or cells, each served by a transmitter or cell site (other terms in use include base station transmitter and cell tower ). These phones may operate on analog or digital signals. The broader terms mobile phone and wireless communication devices include cellphones, mobile radio systems (e.g. police, taxis), data broadcasting (e.g. fax and internet), paging, and home-based cordless phones. 2 Euromonitor, European and International Marketing Data and Statistics 2000, Tables 0202 and The Dominion 10/8/00 p.17; p. 1; IEGMP 2000, paras. 1.1, 1.8; Woodward et al. 1996, p. 96; ; The National Post (Toronto) 26/5/00, p. F11; BBC News 5/1/00; Asiaweek 9/6/00 p. 48; Asahi News Service 29/5/00. 4 Sources for this section include Moulder 2000, IEGMP 2000, Telecom New Zealand, and I. Hutchings pers. comm. 8/00. 5 Maximum RF output for analogue (AMPS) cellphones is 0.6 watts, and for digital cellphones is 0.6 watts (DAMPS) or 0.8 watts (GSM). Some GSM vehicle-based cellphones may emit 8 to 20 watts. 6 DECT (Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications) technology operates at about 1850 MHz, a maximum of 250 mw (= 0.2 watts) and an average of 10 mw (= 0.01 watts), and earlier cordless phones were analog systems. Some cordless phones operate at levels that equal or exceed some cellphones (IEGMP 2000, pp ; Moulder 2000, note 2). 7 The New Zealand standard that governs public exposure to RF emissions from cellphones and cell sites (and other RF sources) is NZS :1999 Radiofrequency Fields Part 1: Maximum exposure levels - 3 khz to 300 GHz, which replaces NZS 6609:1990 2

3 This safety margin is consistent with recommendations of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) of the World Health Organisation, and the Independent Monitoring Group on Mobile Phones in the UK. 8 Road accidents Studies in Canada and the USA have found that talking on a cellphone while driving was associated with a 4.3 to 5.6 times greater risk of being in a road accident. The Canadian study found that the risk of accident was present regardless of whether the cellphone was hands-free or hand-held, and a Japanese study found that the activities drivers using cellphones were most likely to have been engaged in when an accident occurred were dialing (32%) and responding to a call (42%). In Europe it was found that the effect of cellphone use on braking time was about three times worse than the effect of having a blood alcohol level at the European Union legal limit. 9 Laws banning cellphone use while driving are in effect or proposed in a number of countries and USA states. In New Zealand unsafe driving can be prosecuted under ss 56 and 60 of the Transport Act In 1999 there were 21 crashes specifically involving the use of a telecommunications device (cellphone, radio telephone, or pager), which was 0.25% of the total crashes that year and caused four deaths, five serious injury and 25 minor injury casualties. That year there were 173 crashes involving some type of in-vehicle distraction; these involved reaching for, picking up, or adjusting an object (24.9%), use of a radio, cassette, or stereo (23.7%), looking for an object (19.1%), a telecommunications device (12.1%), and actions involving cigarettes (9.8%). 10 Cellphones can also serve as important safety tools, to call for help after an accident or breakdown has occurred or to report dangerous road conditions or drivers. Interference with medical and aircraft equipment Headaches Cellphones can cause interference for some medical devices (e.g. infusion pumps, ventilators, pacemakers and hearing aids) and aircraft electronics. In New Zealand, Civil Aviation rulings govern cellphone use on aircraft, and hospitals typically apply a no cellphone rule in critical areas. Shielding methods are being developed for where RF exposure cannot be avoided, and Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations in manufacturing countries reduces the risk of cellphone interference with more recent biomedical equipment. Collaboration with the telecommunications industry and audiologists has led to the development of some hearing aid models which are immune to cellphone interference. 11 A recent survey of 800 cellphone users in Singapore found that of those who reported headaches, the more they used their cellphone the more frequent the pain became. 12 A study of 11,000 cellphone users in Sweden and Norway found that increased use of cellphones correlated with increased sensations of warmth around the ear, headache and fatigue. The complaints were dose- Radiofrequency Radiation. Both analog and digital cellphones used in New Zealand satisfy these voluntary safety limits. National Radiation Laboratory Information Sheet See later section on the Stewart Report, and accompanying Box 1 ( recommendation 1). 9 Woodward et al 1996, p. 27; Redelmeier and Tibshirani 1997 (on section 3.6; IEGMP 2000 pp (correlation with alcohol limit from Lamble et al 1999, cited on p. 88). 10 Data for the past seven years for vehicle crashes involving inattention due to use of a telecommunications device (and the percentage of total crashes) were: 1993 = 4 (0.04%); 1994 = 12 (0.1%); 1995 = 14 (0.1%); 1996 = 7(0.07%); 1997 = 7(0.07%); 1998 = 18 (0.2%); 1999 = 21 (0.25%). Some changes in data collection were introduced in 1998, so data before and after 1998 are not directly comparable. Source: Land Transport Safety Authority, pers. comm., 28/8/ Woodward et al. 1996, p. 25; IEGMP 2000, para. 1.47; ; New Scientist 19/8/00 pp ; N. King, Telecom, pers. comm. 25/8/ Asiaweek 9/6/00, p. 48, citing Prof. Chia Sin Eng of the National University of Singapore. 3

4 related; for example, people who used a cellphone for 15 to 60 minutes a day were 2.7 times more likely to report a headache than those who used a cellphone for less than 2 minutes a day, and those who used a cellphone more than 60 minutes a day were 6.3 times more likely to report a headache. However, the study was not able to separate out other potential causes of fatigue and headache such as a stressful lifestyle. Other symptoms that were also dose-related but of lower incidence included dizziness and loss of concentration and memory. 13 The survey of Swedish and Norwegian cellphone users also found that users of analogue (NMT) cellphones were more likely to complain of sensations of warmth around the ear, headaches, fatigue, and other symptoms than did the users of digital (GSM) cellphones. RF exposure from analog cellphones is higher than for digital cellphones. 14 Brain tumors The majority of research considered credible by the Ministry of Health has to date indicated no proven link between cellphone use and cancer in humans. Two recent studies in Sweden and the USA suggest (but do not prove) that cellphone users may have an increased risk of incurring particular types of brain tumours. These studies did not find a significant risk when all types of brain tumours were considered together, but new risk patterns emerged when looking only at particular tumour types. The Swedish study found a 2.6 times greater risk for cellphone users of having a brain tumour in the lobes of the brain adjacent to the ear used to listen to the phone. The USA study found a 2.2 times greater risk among cellphone users of getting neurocytomas and other types of neuroepithelial tumours. However the groups were small (e.g. 13 with tumours near the phone ear out of 634 subjects in the Swedish study, and 30 people with neurocytomas out of 875 subjects in the USA study) and scientists do not consider the results unequivocal. 15 All but one (92%) of the people with brain tumours near the phone ear had used analogue phones which in Sweden have at least three times more RF output than a digital phone. A large study to identify any links between the use of cellphones and head and neck cancers is being coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a World Health Organization agency. Data will be collected in over 10 countries, including New Zealand, and the study is expected to be completed in Data already collected on 1600 people in the USA will be analysed for links between cellphone use and brain tumour risk, and published by the end of this year. 17 Other effects: new data Some research, largely unreplicated 18, suggests that RF exposure fields at intensities far less than required to produce thermal effects can still cause significant biological effects. At the cellular level, these include changes in enzyme activity, cell membrane and heat shock proteins, calcium balance, and chromosomes. 19 Recent studies in Finland and the UK have found that typical cellphone RF exposure can make human response time slightly faster, 13 Schmelz 1998 ( citing KH Mild ( ); graphs reproduced in Cherry, N 2000, Evidence that electromagnetic radiation is genotoxic, p Mild et al ( ). Analogue cellphones, with continuous rather than pulsed RF emissions, create greater RF exposure than do digital cellphones. 15 New Scientist 29/5/99 ( Hardell et al ( /mgm0504.hard.htm); Muscat et al cited in FDA 1999 ( National Cancer Institute press release 3/7/00 ( 18 Replication of research, if the same results are found, is standard scientific methodology to substantiate evidence and prove effect. 19 Royal Society of Canada 1999, pp. 7-10; Moulder 2000; Carlo and Jenrow 2000; IEGMP chapter 5; de Pomerai et al 2000 (Nature 405: ); IEGMP 2000, pp Heat shock proteins are produced by cells in response to many kinds of stress, not just heat (New Scientist 10/4/99). 4

5 indicating effects on brain function. 20 In 1997 an Australian study found that RF exposure typical of GSM digital cellphones doubled the incidence of lymphoma in a strain of lymphoma-sensitive mice, and follow-up studies are underway in Australia and Europe to learn more about this effect. 21 With the present data available, significant implications for the health of cellphone users cannot be proven. However, some scientists have argued that until the observed effects are better understood, a precautionary approach should be taken and RF exposure minimised. 22 Given the uncertainties of long-term health effects, a major underwriter of Lloyds of London insurance has reportedly refused to insure cellphone manufacturers against the risk of being sued if the devices turn out to cause long-term damage to human health. There have been recent reports of preliminary investigations of such lawsuits. 23 The Royal Society Report (Canada) The Stewart Report (UK) In March 1999, the Royal Society of Canada reported to Health Canada with A Review of the Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices. They concluded that: the existing scientific evidence is incomplete, and inadequate to rule out the possibility that nonthermal biological effects [of RF radiation] could lead to adverse health effects. 24 They concluded that the risk to the general public from cell sites was probably low, recommended more research on the health effects of cellphones (including neurological problems reported by some users such as headache), and a lower RF exposure limit where radiation may affect the human eye. In May 2000, the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP, or the Stewart Group) issued a detailed report Mobile Phones and Health. 25 Their key recommendations are summarised in Box 1 (following page). Their general conclusions were as follows. The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines We conclude therefore 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 until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available. 26 The UK government has accepted the risk assessment conclusions of the Stewart Report and has undertaken to give effect to a number of its recommendations. For example, publicity campaigns about the danger of using cellphones while driving will be continued; the Chief Medical Officer will explore ways to help parents make an informed choice about the use of cellphones by their children; and the Department of Trade and Industry will publish the results from independent testing of RF shielding and hands-free devices Preece et al 1999 and Koivisto et al 2000, summarised in IEGMP 2000 pp Repacholi et al (Radiation Research 147(5):631); ;IEGMP 2000 pp E.g. N. Cherry, Lincoln University; Lai 1998 ( The Stewart Report (IEGMP 2000) also took a precautionary approach after assessing the available scientific data. 23 London Observer 11/4/99: citing John Fenn of underwriting group Stirling; Business Week 14/8/00, p Quote from p. 3. Full text available on IEGMP 2000, paras to 1.20 (p.3). The New Zealand standards meet both the NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines

6 Box 1 Some key recommendations of the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones Mobile Phones and Health (the Stewart Report), May As a precautionary measure, the ICNIRP guidelines for public RF exposure should be adopted for use in the UK rather than the NRPB guidelines, but not in statute (paras and 1.28) Drivers of vehicles should be dissuaded from using either hand-held or hands-free phones whilst on the move (para. 1.22); 3. The widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls should be discouraged, and the mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children (para. 1.53); 4. Information on mobile phone emission levels (SAR) should be provided to consumers via labels and other readily available sources (para. 1.52); 5. Personal shielding devices and hands-free kits should be independently tested, and the results provided to consumers (paras to 1.65); 6. Siting of new mobile phone base stations should be subject to the normal planning process, and national protocols should be developed to assist local authorities and affected parties (paras. 1.36, 1.37); 7. A national database should be set up of all mobile phone base stations and their emissions, and ongoing independent auditing of emissions should take place to ensure that emission guidelines are being met, especially near schools and other sensitive sites (paras ); 8. The beam of greatest intensity from mobile phone base stations near schools should not be allowed to fall on any part of the school grounds without the agreement of the school and parents (para. 1.42); 9. Areas around base stations where RF exposure guidelines may be exceeded should be fenced off and marked with a nationally agreed sign and logo (paras. 1.44, 1.45); 10. A registry of occupationally exposed workers should be established so that cancer risks and mortality can be examined and appropriate action taken (para. 1.29); and, 11. Priority should be given to health effects research, particularly relating to signals from mobile phone handsets, the research should be done under independent scrutiny with both industry and public funding, and be subject to another detailed review in three years (paras to 1.60). WHO: revised advice In June 2000, following the Royal Society and Stewart reports and an international conference, the World Health Organization updated its recommendations on this topic. Some of the key points were as follows. While RF fields around cell sites are not considered a health risk, siting decisions should take into account aesthetics and public sensibilities. Motorists should be strongly discouraged from using cellphones while driving. New studies are required to confirm recent findings suggesting that cellphones may cause changes in brain activity, reaction times, and sleep patterns. If, because of public concern, authorities want to introduce additional precautionary measures to reduce RF exposure, they should not incorporate additional safety factors into the official exposure limits, but should instead encourage voluntary reductions of RF exposure by equipment manufacturers and the public

7 Cell sites RF exposure for cellphone users holding the broadcasting antenna near to the body is focused and intermittent. Exposure for people near to cellphone transmission bases or cell sites is of much lower magnitude and continuous. Exposure for people near transmitters for other RF systems (e.g. TV and radio broadcasting) is likely to be greater than that from cell sites, but less than for a cellphone near the body. 29 The exposure level to people on the ground from a typical cell phone tower is around 1% to 2% of the level allowed under the New Zealand standards. 30 Whether a cell site requires a consent under the Resource Management Act, and what conditions may be applied, depends on the relevant District Plan for the area. Some District Plans give effect to the New Zealand standard, which is otherwise voluntary. There have been a number of controversies overseas and in New Zealand about the siting of cell sites near schools and residential areas, based on fears of potential health effects. Although a stricter RF exposure limit than the New Zealand standard (then NZS 6609) was supported by the court in 1996, a subsequent ruling on another case in 1998 ruled that NZS 6609 should be upheld. 31 Studies in the UK, USA and Australia have found statistical associations between proximity to radio or television transmitters and the incidence of childhood leukaemia in some communities, but the same association has not been found in other communities near transmitters. Unreplicated studies in Latvia and Switzerland have suggested possible effects on learning and sleep. In Canada, the Royal Society report noted data limitations in epidemiological research on RF transmitting sites, particularly with regard to RF dosages received. The report noted that no consistent significant increases in health risk due to exposure to RF fields were evident to date, and that the low field strengths near cell sites meant research in that area was a lower priority than for sources of greater RF exposure such as cellphones. In the UK, the Stewart Report concluded that although the epidemiological research that has been carried out to date does not give cause for concern, it has too many limitations to give reassurance that there is no hazard. 32 The New Zealand Ministry of Health has stated that the epidemiological evidence may be construed as either incomplete evidence of cause or incomplete evidence of safety. The Ministry has also noted that because of the high prevalence of exposure to radiofrequency radiation, the absolute number of people affected could be significant and that it would appear sensible to apply no cost approaches to minimise, where possible, exposures to RF radiation. 33 In 1996, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment advocated the minimisation of unnecessary RF exposure and the production of national guidelines to assist local authorities in granting consents for the siting of cell sites. 34 In response, a joint Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Health guideline for managing the effects of radiofrequency transmitters has gone through a public consultation round and is expected to be published later this year. 29 IEGMP 2000, p. 33; Environment Court 1998 (reference in footnote 30), pp , 117. Some typical RF transmitting powers are: TV 50,000 watts; FM radio 40,000 watts; AM radio 20,000 watts; rural cell site 1,000 watts; urban cell site 50 watts; taxi R/T 20 watts (The facts about mobile phone sites, Telecom New Zealand, 1998). 30 I. Hutchings, pers. comm., 8/ JM McIntyre v Christchurch City Council (unreported Planning Tribunal A15/96, 5 March 1996); BellSouth NZ Ltd. v Christchurch City Council (1996); Environment Court 1998, In the matter of the Resource Management Act 1991 and in the matter of appeal under section 120 of the Act between Shirley Primary School and Telecom Mobile Communications LTD and Christchurch City Council, C136/ Royal Society 1999, pp. 10, 13; IEGMP 2000, pp ; Environment Court 1998 (footnote 30), pp Public Authority Planning for Cellphone Transmission Facilities, August

8 Reducing RF exposure from cellphones Cellphone users who wish to reduce their RF exposure can use a number of methods recommended by the New Zealand Ministry of Health, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization, New Zealand Consumers Institute and others. In summary they are as follows. minimise the length of time spent on cellphone calls, using landlines where possible; ensure the cellphone aerial is fully extended and held away from the head; keep the cellphone away from the body when in use, using vehicle-mounted phone or hands-free kit (if using a vehicle-mounted phone, do not use while driving); minimise use of cellphones in poor reception areas and enclosed spaces as cellphones will boost their RF signal to compensate; use a phone which automatically reduces its output power when close to a cell site; and, hold the cellphone away from the head when the call is being connected. 35 Effectiveness of hands-free kits and shielding devices The majority of published tests have reported that hands-free kits significantly reduce RF exposure to the head, as measured by SAR 36. In 1999, the New Scientist published the results of studies showing up to 94% reduction in RF to the head (but not to other parts of the body near the cellphone) from two handsfree devices. 37 In direct contrast, test results showing that some hands-free kits tripled the RF emissions and sent them directly into the user s ear, possibly due to the earpiece wire acting as an aerial, were reported by the UK Consumers Association in April However, these same kits were re-tested in Germany, Sweden and the USA, and SAR reduction rates of 97% to 99% were found. 39 A recent joint New Zealand and Australian consumers association test has also found hands-free kits reduce SAR by an average of 97%. 40 Unlike all of the other studies, the UK study measured the electric field strength in a very specific part of the brain, rather than the SAR. Testing of RF shielding devices for cellphones has produced mixed results. The New Scientist tests found SAR reductions of 0.1% to 84% for two models of shielding devices (variation by model and by whether aerial extended). The UK Consumers Association tested three shielding cases and two aerial attachments, and found that they either had no effect on reducing RF emissions, or would merely cause the cellphone to boost RF output to compensate for, and therefore nullify, any reduction. Product information for consumers In the past, manufacturers have declined to disclose RF exposure data for their cellphones, but the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association has recently commenced a process that should see the cellphone models they certify sold with Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) data within a year. 41 SAR data for some cellphone models is available from non-industry sources 42, but as there is no standard SAR testing methodology, data from different sources is not 35 ; ; ; a Hong Kong University report released in May 2000 reported that RF emissions from cellphones are 20 times higher when calls are being connected (Asiaweek 9/6/00, p. 48). 36 The specific energy absorption rate (SAR) determines the energy absorbed by the body of the mobile phone user in watts per kg, and is measured using a simulated head. 37 New Scientist 10/4/99, on 38 Which? magazine, April 2000, pp Microwave News 2000 XX(3):4-5 on ; (this only has data for models licensed by the FCC from 1998); 8

9 necessarily comparable. A standard SAR methodology may be established by industry this year. 43 The UK government response to the Stewart Report may result in the publishing of reputable and comparable SAR data on different brands of hands-free kits and RF shielding devices. The New Zealand Consumers Institute has proposed that Government ensure that mobile phones and hands-free kits are labelled with a consumer-friendly SAR rating determined by accredited testers, and that the currently voluntary SAR exposure limits be made mandatory. 44 Government policy The National Radiation Laboratory within the Ministry of Health provides technical and policy advice related to RF exposure, conducts independent monitoring of RF exposure from cell sites for local authorities and the telecommunications industry, and provides information to the public via publications and their Internet site. The results of overseas investigations and the recommendations of the ICNIRP are closely monitored. When the Stewart Report recommended implementation of the latest ICNIRP guidelines in the UK, they had already been implemented into the New Zealand standards. The current Ministry position is that with the credible research data available to date there are no clearly demonstrated health risks from cellphone use, apart from the risk of being involved in an accident if one uses a cellphone while driving. However, public concerns are recognised, and advice has been offered for those cellphone users who wish to reduce their RF exposure. 45 The Minister of Health has supported the Stewart Report recommendation of a precautionary approach to the use of cellphones, but considers that it is a parental rather than Government responsibility to limit the use of cellphones by children. 46 Selected references Independent Monitoring Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), 2000, Mobile Phones and Health, (also known as the Stewart Report) Moulder, John E., 2000, Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health, Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, available on Royal Society of Canada, 1999, A Review of the Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices, available on Woodward, Alistair, Bates, Michael, and Hutt, Marten, 1996 Literature Review on the Health Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, Ministry of Health, Wellington. Dana Peterson, Research Officer Parliamentary Library For more information, contact Dana at ext Copyright NZ Parliamentary Library Except for educational purposes permitted under the Copyright Act 1994, no part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including information storage and retrieval systems, other than by Members of Parliament in the course of their official duties, without the consent of the Parliamentary Librarian, Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand. 43 IEGMP 2000, para. 1.5, p p M. Gledhill and J. Turnbull, National Radiation Laboratory, pers. comm. 8/00; 46 Question in the House to Ministers no. 8 of 18/5/