Yes, I can. Thank you very much for the invitation.
I thank the Standing Committee on Health for the opportunity to provide information on this important issue.
The GSM Association recognizes that there is public concern about the siting of antennas and the use of mobile devices. These are low-powered radio services. It is the GSMA position, based on expert scientific reviews, that there are no established health risks from radio frequency exposures up to the levels recommended by the World Health Organization.
By way of introduction to the GSMA, the association represents the interests of the worldwide mobile communications industry. Spanning 219 countries, the GSMA represents nearly 800 of the world's mobile operators as well as 200 supplier companies. The GSMA has had an active program supporting research and communications on these topics since 1996.
I work in the public policy department within the GSMA. I am responsible for activities related to the safety of mobile communications and responsible environmental practices. This includes overseeing the GSMA's global health research program and developing communication materials. I'm an electronics engineer by primary degree, and I hold a Ph.D. in the area of antenna design for mobile phones. I've been working in this field since 1994, and I have produced more than 80 publications and presentations on related topics.
The subject of radio frequency safety has been extensively studied for more than 50 years. There is a large body of research on radio signals in general and some 10 years of research specifically related to mobile communications. Currently, the WHO research-based database lists some 1,200 studies related to mobile communications topics in particular.
Human exposure recommendations have been developed that include large safety margins and that provide protection for all persons against all established health hazards. The recommendations of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, or ICNIRP, are supported by the World Health Organization, the International Telecommunication Union, the European Commission, and more than 30 independent expert scientific reviews done since the year 2000. They have been widely adopted in Europe, Asia, and Africa. The limits in the Canadian Safety Code 6 are consistent with those recommendations.
It's important to appreciate that public exposures from mobile and wireless networks are very low relative to the safety recommendations. The WHO stated in fact sheet 304 the following:
Recent surveys have shown that the RF [radio frequency] exposures from base stations range from 0.002% to 2% of the levels of international exposure guidelines....This is lower or comparable to RF exposures from radio or television broadcast transmitters.
Organizations such as the WHO, the Health Council of the Netherlands, and the U.K. Health Protection Agency have concluded that considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak radio signals from base stations and wireless networks cause any adverse health effects.
Some individuals have called for the adoption of policies based on arbitrarily low exposure limits or exclusion zones around locations such as schools, hospitals, or child care facilities. In some cases, these have been justified on the basis of incorrect reports of their adoption in other countries.
Contrary to claims on the Internet, there are no such enforceable national policies in Australia, France, Germany, New Zealand, the U.K., or the U.S.A. Indeed, authorities in the U.K. have concluded the following:
...there is no scientific basis for establishing minimal distances between base stations and areas of public occupancy....There are many sources of exposure to RF fields, and it would in practice have little impact on people's overall exposure.
Policy-makers need to consider potential impacts on the concern of adopting non-science-based measures. Professor David Coggon, who is a former member of the U.K. Stewart expert group on mobile phones and health, has commented, and I quote, that:
Evidence is emerging that prior beliefs about the risks from modern technology are an important predictor of symptoms from perceived exposures. Thus, by distorting perceptions of risk, disproportionate precaution might paradoxically lead to illness that would not otherwise occur.
The subject of so-called electrohypersensitivity was recently reviewed by Dr. James Rubin of Kings College, London. He identified 46 blind or double-blind provocation studies involving 1,175 self-reported electrosensitive volunteers, and concluded there was no robust evidence to support a causal relationship between electromagnetic field exposures and the reported symptoms. That's consistent with the conclusion of the World Health Organization.
There is a widespread reliance on mobile communications for business purposes and personal safety. In Australia, Professor Simon Chapman at the University of Sydney studied the use of mobile phones in emergency situations and reported that one in four users had reported a dangerous situation using their mobile phone. He concluded that, “Any governmental decisions that reduce the reach of the mobile phone net which claim to be driven by public health concerns must factor in the reduction of such health benefits.”
I'll conclude this brief opening statement by noting that the GSMA supports the adoption of policies and standards based on established scientific evidence. We believe this provides protection for public health, is the best way to reassure the public, and supports access to the benefits of mobile communications.
I thank the committee for your attention and look forward to the discussions.