Health committee  I just want to ask a question: what are the risks of being more cautious? It has been said that already the levels are much lower than what is permissible, so it means that we can really function at a very low level. If we can function, I cannot see any benefit in going above a risk.

Health committee  Yes. I agree with what has also been said from London. It would be unethical to do studies where kids would be exposed and others would not. On the other hand, I think we could have a systematic recording by groups of pediatricians on the conditions of exposure of a child--for example, with the baby monitors--and try to follow up on which kids have even minor health problems, whether it is the ones who were sleeping close to such a monitor or not.

Health committee  Okay. France has decided in several of the schools not to have Wi-Fi, and also the national public library.

Health committee  That is a very important question, which is not easy to answer. However yes, of course, studies commissioned by industry—possibly even conducted by industry—can be perfectly valid. So we must be cautious and make decisions on a case-by-case analysis of the protocol for each study.

Health committee  I think I would make a short-term recommendation for research and experimentation on animals, because that's where it's the easiest to compare exposure to electromagnetic fields versus non-exposure--but publicly funded research. With regard to human health, we need to have more information on the health effects, especially on children, because that population is usually more sensitive to exposure to potential carcinogens.

Health committee  Good morning. My name is Annie Sasco. I am an MD with doctoral training at Harvard in epidemiology, two master's degrees, and a doctoral degree. I have been working in cancer epidemiology for the last 25 years at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization.