Committee of Inquiry - mobile telecommunications (P.144-2006) – comments

STATES OF JERSEY

r

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY: MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS (P.144/2006) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 21st November 2006 by the Council of Ministers

STATES GREFFE

COMMENTS

Deputy Ryan has asked the States to establish a Committee of Inquiry in order to investigate –

( i)  t h e health risks associated with the emissions from mobile network antennae and dishes; and (i i) th e environmental impact of the proliferation of multiple network infrastructures'.

The Council of Ministers has given detailed consideration to this matter, and it believes that a Committee of Inquiry would be wholly inappropriate. Deputy Ryan has highlighted 2 main areas of potential concern, namely the health implications and the environmental impact of mobile phone masts, and the Council's comments on these 2  areas are given below –

1. T h e health implications

The Council of Ministers is mindful that members of the public and some States members have been concerned at alarmist but spurious reports about the alleged "health risks" of mobile phone masts. The effect of these has been to generate sincerely held, but nonetheless misguided, fears and concerns.

It  has  been suggested, for  example,  that  mobile  phone masts  are responsible for  a  wide range  of medical conditions, including the increased incidence of Alzheimer's Disease, Motor Neurone Disease, epilepsy, sleep disorders, throat infections, hyperactivity, and cancer. In support of such claims, reference is made to articles which have been published in magazines and on the internet.

The States needs to be cautioned that there are countless mischievous, reckless and irresponsible opinions and pseudo-scientific articles which abound on this subject. They include articles published on the internet that are so presented as to give the misleading impression that the authors are sponsored by august scientific bodies, or indeed by international or governmental agencies.

The Council believes that the States should continue to abide by and accept the impartial, peer-reviewed scientific evidence and advice which is provided by accredited governmental and scientific bodies. These are the bodies which the States of Jersey has been guided by over the years in the field of health-related science and technology. These bodies have self-evidently served Jersey well. It would be ill-advised and dangerous for the States of Jersey to depart from them on the matter of mobile telephony.

They include the World Health Organisation (WHO), the U.K. Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), the U.K.'s Health Protection Agency (HPA) and the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The work of these bodies is on-going and the Health Protection Team maintain a very active "watching brief" on their work. The Medical Officer of Health has stated that "the evidence and judgment of these bodies is that public exposure to lower levels of radio waves – below the accepted international standard – from mobile telephones and base stations are not likely to damage human health".

There is no likelihood of adverse health impacts in the field of cancer, Alzheimer's, sleep disorders, hyperactivity, "non-specific distress", hearing loss, or epilepsy. This is both the consistent, considered and contemporaneous judgement made by the scientific authorities referred to above.

The levels of mobile telephony emissions are far lower than radio and television emissions with these latter emissions contributing a significant proportion of the "background" radio frequencies which the public are exposed to. As to "highly localised" emissions, the proliferation of such commonplace household devices as microwave ovens, TV remote controls, light dimmer switches, wireless toys, baby monitors and other such products is now increasing the proportion of personal exposure to radio frequencies.

The "health risks" associated with mobile telephony are very clear. The first order health risk is for a person to use a mobile phone while driving a vehicle (an illegal act in Jersey but nonetheless prevalent). The second order health risk is for a person to use a mobile phone by placing it next to one's ear. Far, far below these risks comes radio frequency emissions from mobile telephony. Thus, if we acted on the basis of risk', we would abandon our

use of mobile phones.

Further, we need to understand just how low actual radio emissions from mobile telephony are in Jersey. The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has set the universally accepted international standard on such emissions. This is the standard which has been derived from observing the effects of such emissions on human tissue. This cautionary standard has a "precautionary margin of safety" built in. The mobile telephony installations in Jersey, even when operating at the maximum of their output, are typically 200 times lower than this ICNIRP standard.  Thus prudence, caution and a huge margin of safety are characteristic of mobile telephony on the Island.

2. E n vironmentalimpact

In the report accompanying his proposition, Deputy Ryan states that attention should be given to the visual environmental effects' of mobile phone masts.

In considering this issue, it is important that there should be a clear understanding of the current position. Three companies have been granted consent by the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority to operate a mobile telephone service in Jersey, namely Jersey Telecom, Cable and Wireless, and Jersey Airtel Limited (Airtel). The networks of the first 2 of these companies are now almost complete (i.e. mobile phone masts, antennae, and associated equipment), whilst Jersey Airtel have approximately 30% of their network already approved.

The anticipated total for the 3 mobile phone companies is approximately 150  installations. Over 100 are already erected and the Planning Department considers that the visual impact of the current installations is minimal. Of the total of 150  installations, 70-80 will be wooden-clad replica telegraph pole designs, approximately 40 of which are already in place. The remainder are installations on existing infrastructure and roof-top sites.

All existing infrastructure that can support additional equipment is currently being shared by 2 or more companies. The only way more mast-sharing is possible would be by building large lattice masts like those at Five Oaks and Les Platons. These structures are considered to be more detrimental to the landscape than the smaller telegraph pole designs.

Every planning application is individually assessed in order to minimise its impact on visual amenity. In some instances, the Planning Department has requested that installations are relocated or they are not permitted. The Minister for Planning and Environment has insisted that the design for individual sites be a wooden-clad replica telegraph pole with as much equipment as possible hidden inside the structure. It is considered that these poles reflect the character of Jersey more appropriately than any other style available on the telecommunication market.

3. E c onomic implications of a CommitteeofInquiry

In bringing forward his proposals for a Committee of Inquiry, Deputy Ryan has proposed that the Minister for Planning and Environment should suspend consideration of all new and existing planning applications involving the mobile telecommunications network pending the results of this investigation.' It is indicated in the report that the Committee of Inquiry would need about 6 months to carry out its work.

The Council of Ministers believes that a 6-month moratorium on all new and existing planning applications will have adverse economic implications. In particular, the moratorium would prevent the third telecoms operator (Airtel Limited) from entering the market for 6  months or more, pending  the outcome  of the work of  the Committee of Inquiry. In this connection, the Council considers it is important that there should be a level playing field for all 3 mobile phone operators, thereby enabling all of them to operate in accordance with their licence conditions and offer greater consumer choice to Islanders.

The economic consequences of a decision to appoint a Committee of Inquiry are summarised in the letter dated from the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority, which is attached as an appendix. The comments of the JCRA are endorsed by the Minister for Economic Development.

4. C o nclusion

In conclusion, the Council believes that a decision to appoint a Committee of Inquiry would be highly undesirable. Mobile phone masts are not considered by accredited governmental and scientific bodies to pose a health hazard, whilst their impact on the landscape is considered to be minimal. Should the States agree to a 6- month moratorium on all new and existing planning implications, this could have significant economic implications.

The Council of Ministers recommends therefore that the proposition be rejected.

APPENDIX