Footnotes

Footnotes

Acronyms and glossary

1 hertz (1 Hz) is one cycle per second of a wavelength;

Chapter 1 - Introduction

[1]           Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA), Submission 19, p 1.

[2]           Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), Mobile Phones and Health, 2000, Chiltern, p 1.

[3]           R. Panter, ‘Electromagnetic Radiation from Mobile Phones, Mobile Phone Towers and TV Towers: Health Aspects’ Australian Parliamentary Library - Current Issues Brief 26 1996-1997, Canberra, p 2.

[4]           ARPANSA, ‘The Mobile Phone System and Health Effects’ http://www.health.gov.au/arpansa/mph_sys.htm (8 June 2000) p 5.

[5]           WHO Fact Sheet, ‘What is electromagnetic radiation?’
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/what_is_EMF/section1.htm

[6]           Dr Moulder, Submission 60, p 14.

[7]           Dr Moulder, Submission 60, p 14.

[8]           UNEP/WHO/IRPA (1993).  ‘Electromagnetic fields (300 Hz-300 GHz)’.  Geneva: World Health Organization, Environmental Health Criteria, p 137.

[9]           EC (1996), Possible health effects related to the use of radiotelephones: Proposals for a research programme by a European Commission Expert Group, p 16.

[10]         Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), Mobile Phones and Health, 2000, Chiltern, pp 1-2.

[11]         AF McKinlay, ed (1996), Non-ionizing radiation: sources, exposure and health effects. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. In EC (1996), Possible health effects related to the use of radiotelephones: Proposals for a research programme by a European Commission Expert Group, p 16.

[12]         Royal Society of Canada (1999), A Review of the Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices, Ottawa, p 15.

[13]         Royal Society of Canada (1999), A Review of the Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices, Ottawa, p 15.

[14]         See for example Ms Helen Joyce, Submission 35, p 1; Mr JW Purchase, Submission 46, p 1; Mr Nick McKillop, Submission 63, Attachment 5; Gwenda and Tom Spencer, Submission 82, p 1; Mr John Hyde, Submission 137, p 1

[15]         Mr John Allen, Submission 65, pp 1-2.

[16]         Mr John Allen, Submission 65, pp 1-2.

[17]         Gwenda and Tom Spencer, Submission 82, p 1; Mrs B Humphries, Submission 145, p 2.

[18]         Ms Helen Joyce, Submission 35, p 1; City of Melville, Submission 42, p 1; Ms Sonia Venditti, Submission 76, p 3.

[19]         Ms Gillian Summerbell, Submission 62, p 1

[20]         Mr Stephen O’Rourke, Submission 6, p 1.

[21]         Mr William Lowe and Ms Iris Detenhoff, Submission 47, p 1; Mr Alan K Tunnah, Submission 139, p 2.

[22]         Sunshine Coast Environment Council Inc, Submission 55, p 1. Apiculture is beekeeping.

[23]         Ms Heather Anne Meyer, Submission 123, p 1.

[24]         Karawatha Forest Protection Society Inc, Submission 124, p 1.

[25]         Electromagnetic Awareness Network, Submission 142, p 2.

[26]         Mr Roger M Lilley, Submission 85, p 2; Mr Richard Giles, Submission 112, p 2.

[27]         Betty Shelley (for the Greenslopes Holland Park Concerned Residents Group), Submission 87(a), p 2.

[28]         Mr Richard Giles, Submission 112, p 2.

[29]         Ms Michelle Cossey, Submission 10, p 1; Ms Annie Carn, Submission 15, p 1. See also Mr William Lowe and Ms Iris Detenhoff, Submission 47, p 1; Ms Helen McKillop, Submission 67, p 2; Ms Ruth Parnell, Submission 94, p 2; Telecommunications Officers Association Branch of CEPU, Submission 66(a), p 1.

[30]         Ms Michelle Cossey, Submission 10, p 1; Ms Annie Carn, Submission 15, p 1. See also Mr William Lowe and Ms Iris Detenhoff, Submission 47, p 1; Ms Helen McKillop, Submission 67, p 2; Ms Ruth Parnell, Submission 94, p 2; Telecommunications Officers Association Branch of CEPU, Submission 66(a), p 1.

Chapter 2 - Research on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation

[1]           Referred to by various submissions, for example, CSIRO, Submission 95, p 3; Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA), Submission 19, p 7; Australian Communications Authority (ACA), Submission 100, p 10; Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF), Submission 75, p 4.

[2]           CSIRO, Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies, June 1994, p 10 (CSIRO Report).

[3]           International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, ‘Health Issues related to the use of hand-held radiotelephones and base transmitters’, Health Physics, 70, pp 587-593, 1996 at pp 588, 592.

[4]           European Commission, Possible health effects related to the use of radiotelephones: proposals for a research programme by a European Commission Expert Group, Brussels, EC, 1996, p 23 (EC Report).

[5]           Mobile phones.

[6]           Michael H Repacholi, ‘Low-Level Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: Health Effects and Research Needs’, Biolectromagnetics, 19, 1998, abstract, included in The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Submission Vol 4, p 806, (Repacholi, 1998).

[7]           International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, ‘Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300GHz), Health Physics, 74(4), pp 494-522, 1998 at pp 507-508.

[8]           Resulting in birth defects.

[9]           Expert Panel Report prepared at the request of the Royal Society of Canada for Health Canada, A Review of the Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices, March 1999, pp 110, 111 (Royal Society of Canada Report).

[10]         In the UK.

[11]         Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, Mobile Phones and Health, p 3 (Stewart Report).

[12]         Royal Society of Canada Report, p 110.

[13]         Australian Communications Authority (ACA), Submission 100, Submission Vol 8, p 1618.

[14]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 3 [Repacholi].

[15]         Michael H Repacholi, ‘Low-Level Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: Health Effects and Research Needs’, Biolectromagnetics, 19, 1998, pp 1-19, included in The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Submission Vol 4, p 811 (Repacholi, 1998).

[16]         Repacholi, 1998, included in The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Submission Vol 4, p 811.

[17]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 145 [Litovitz].

[18]         Repacholi, 1998, included in The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Submission Vol 4, p 811.

[19]         Repacholi, 1998, included in The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Submission Vol 4, p 812.

[20]         See for example Dr Michael Repacholi’s explanation re the Adelaide mouse study: ‘The problem is that we only looked at one exposure, and to give a result credibility you like to see that increasing exposure will increase the effect. The dose response is something where, when you look at toxicology, you want to see that increasing the dose of chemical, for example, increases the effect: you get higher incidences of the cancer or whatever. My study was not able to test that because it only had one point’ (Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 4).

[21]         Repacholi, 1998, included in The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Submission Vol 4, pp 812-813.

[22]         However, the Committee notes the Stewart Report’s comments that cellular studies may be more carefully controlled and assessed than animal studies, although difficult to extrapolate results to humans (Stewart Report, p 46).

[23]         Repacholi, 1998, included in The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Submission Vol 4, p 822.

[24]         Dr David Black, Submission 93, p 16.

[25]         Dr David Black, Submission 93, pp 18-19.

[26]         Dr David Black, Submission 93, pp 16-20.

[27]         Dr John Moulder, Submission 60, p 10. A description of the process of identifying carcinogens is included in this submission at pp 9-12.

[28]         MMF, Submission 75, p 6.

[29]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 130 [Elwood].

[30]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 317 [Moulder]; See also Official Committee Hansard, Canberra. 31 August 2000, p 4 [Repacholi]; Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 198 [Fist].

[31]         Dr Neil Cherry, Submission 146, p 6.

[32]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 332 [Cherry].

[33]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, pp 145-146 [Litovitz].

[34]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 146 [Litovitz].

[35]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 11 [Repacholi].

[36]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 152 [Magnussen].

[37]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 213 [Consumers’ Telecommunications Network].

[38]         Dr David Black, Submission 93, pp 21-22. See also Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, pp 322-333 [Moulder]; Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 4 [Repacholi].

[39]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 193 [Fist].

[40]         See who.int/peh-emf/database.htm

[41]         CSIRO, Submission 95, p 7.

[42]         See above, para 2.6.

[43]         Hutchison Telecommunications, Submission 91, p 1.

[44]         Nokia Mobile Phones, Australia, Submission 68, p 1.

[45]         Motorola Australia, Submission 78, p 1.

[46]         Mr Neil Boucher, Submission 118, p 2.

[47]         ACA, Submission 100, p 2.

[48]         Stewart Report, p 47.

[49]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, pp 329-330 [Cherry].

[50]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 240 [EMRAA].

[51]         Ms Marie Kougellis, Submission 1, p 1; Mrs PR Richards, Submission 49, p 1.

[52]         Mr Walter Kosterke, Submission 2, pp 1-2; Mr Donald Adams, Submission 28, p 1; Ms Gillian Summerbell, Submission 62, p 1.

[53]         Mr Walter Kosterke, Submission 2, pp 1-2.

[54]         Mr Joe Friend, Submission 17, p 2.

[55]         Ms Gillian Summerbell, Submission 62, p 1; Ms Ruth Parnell, Submission 94, p 2; Mr Don Maisch, Submission 20, p 24.

[56]         Ms Maria Selva, Submission 131, p 1.

[57]         Ms Dalana MCaren, Submission 22, p 3; Mrs PR Richards, Submission 49, p 1; EMRAA, Submission 80, p 15; Ms Diane Beaumont, Submission 138, p 8; Electromagnetic Awareness Network, Submission 142, p 2; Mr Don Maisch, Submission 20, pp 26-30.

[58]         Holroyd City Council, Submission 44, p 2.

[59]         Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), Submission 110, p 2. See also Mr Don Maisch, Submission 20, p 67; ACTU, Submission 89, p 8.

[60]         Mr Roger M Lilley, Submission 85, pp 3-4. See also Ms Diane Beaumont, Submission 138, pp 24-25 re links between wireless telecommunication and increases in legionnaires disease and other conditions.

[61]         Royal Society of Canada Report, p 101.

[62]         Royal Society of Canada Report, pp 104-105.

[63]         The EMR Safety Network International, Submission 111, p 4.

[64]         Repacholi, 1998, included in The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Submission Vol. 4, p 822.

[65]         Stewart Report, p 40.

[66]         Repacholi, 1998, included in The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Submission Vol 4, p 809.  See also AMTA, Submission 19, p 4.

[67]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 316 [Moulder].

[68]         Dr David Black, Submission 93, p 20.

[69]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, pp 229-230 [CSIRO].

[70]         The EMR Safety Network International, Submission 111, Attachment 3. See also, for example, Mr Robert C Green, Submission 134; Committee on Electromagnetic Energy Public Health Issues (CEMEPHI), Submission 127, p 9.

[71]         WHO Fact Sheet No 193, Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Mobile Telephones and their Base Stations, May 1998, p 1, included in The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Volume 4, p 790.

[72]         Professor Philip Jennings, Submission 122, Submission Vol 9, p 1872.

[73]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 147 [Litovitz].

[74]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 150 [Litovitz].

[75]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 154 [Litovitz].

[76]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, pp 263-264 [French].

[77]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 7 November 2000, pp 187-188 [Johansson].

[78]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 332 [Cherry].

[79]         Dr John Moulder, Submission 60, p 16.

[80]         Repacholi, 1998, included in The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Submission Vol 4, p 814.

[81]         Stewart Report, p 76. A similar comment was made in relation to ELF. See Royal Society of Canada Report, p 42, which states: ‘The potential additive or synergistic responses between various environmental hazards need to be considered in assessing the risks of ELF exposure’.

[82]         An enzyme, ornithine decarboxylase. See para 2.82.

[83]         Royal Society of Canada Report, pp 47, 98.

[84]         CSIRO, Submission 95, p 11.

[85]         That is, radiofrequency radiation, as used in this report – see Chapter 1.

[86]         Electromagnetic field.

[87]         EMF South World Pty Ltd, Submission 129, p 2.

[88]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 318 [Moulder].

[89]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, pp 323-324 [Moulder].

[90]         Professor Philip Jennings, Submission 122, p 1.

[91]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p.148 [Litovitz].

[92]         Electrocardiogram.

[93]         WHO Fact Sheet No 201, Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Electromagnetic Fields, August 1998, pp 3-4, included in The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Volume 4, p 777-778.

[94]         Dr Neil Cherry, Submission 146, p 13.

[95]         Dr Neil Cherry, Submission 146, p 14.

[96]         Stewart Report, pp 50-51.

[97]         Stewart Report, pp 50-51. The Royal Society of Canada Report states: ‘ELF-modulated RF radiation may effect [calcium] efflux from brain tissue’ (p 36).

[98]         Stewart Report, p 52.

[99]         Stewart Report, p 64.

[100]       Royal Society of Canada Report, pp 41-42.  The Royal Society of Canada Report provides a detailed summary of ODC-related research at pp 36-42.

[101]       Mr Stan Stanfield, Submission 36, p 1.  See also The EMR Safety Network International, Submission 111, Attachment 3.

[102]       Royal Society of Canada Report, p 42.

[103]       Royal Society of Canada Report, pp 42-43.

[104]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 330 [Cherry].

[105]       Stewart Report, p 61.

[106]       Dr Neil Cherry, Submission 146, p 1.

[107]       Dr Neil Cherry, Submission 146, p 2.

[108]       Reproduced from Dr Neil Cherry, Submission 146, p 2.

[109]       Dr Neil Cherry, Submission 146, p 2.

[110]       Cantor et al, 1995.

[111]       Reproduced from Dr Neil Cherry, Submission 146, p 3.

[112]       Dr Neil Cherry, Submission 146, p 3.

[113]       Dr Neil Cherry, Submission 146, p 13.

[114]       Barrier made up of small blood vessel and nerve tissue which limits the passage of certain substances between the blood and the brain.

[115]       EC Report, p 54.

[116]       Stewart Report, p 60.

[117]       Royal Society of Canada Report, p 47.

[118]       Dr Neil Cherry, Submission 146, p 18.

[119]       Dr Neil Cherry, Submission 146, pp 18-19.

[120]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 331 [Cherry].

[121]       Substances toxic to DNA.

[122]       Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, pp 225-226 [Barnett].

[123]       Stewart Report, p 73. See also the Royal Society of Canada Report, which concludes: ‘The great majority of [laboratory] studies have failed to demonstrate genotoxic effects due to exposure to radiofrequency fields. ... Overall, a number of different assays [technique for analysing something] for studying genotoxicity have failed to produce consistent positive findings regarding RF fields’ (p 76).

[124]       The EMR Safety Network International, Submission No 111, Attachment 2.

[125]       The EMR Safety Network, Submission 111, Submission Vol 8, p 1718.

[126]       See Stewart Report, p 77, that concluded that RF exposure is unlikely to be a tumour initiator and that evidence of its effect on tumour progression is equivocal.

[127]       DNA.

[128]       CSIRO Report, p 85.

[129]       Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, pp 81-83 [Holt].

[130]       CSIRO Report, pp 85-86.

[131]       Human populations health studies.

[132]       Kenneth J Rothman, ‘Epidemiological evidence on health risks of cellular telephones’, Lancet, 2000, 356, pp 1837-1840 (Rothman, 2000).

[133]       Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 143 [Elwood].

[134]       Stewart Report, p 96.

[135]       Stewart Report, p 96.

[136]       See Dr John Moulder, Submission 60A.

[137]       Although limitations to this study were noted by the authors.

[138]       Blood-related.

[139]       RW Morgan, MA Kelsh, K Zhao, KA Exuzides, S Herunger, W Negrete, ‘Radiofrequency exposure and mortality from cancer of the brain and lymphatic/hematopoietic systems’, Epidemiology, 11, pp 118-127, 2000 cited in Rothman, 2000.

[140]       Professor Mark Elwood, Submission 11, Submission Vol 1, p 47.

[141]       Professor Mark Elwood, Submission 11, Submission Vol 1, pp 47-48.

[142]       Professor Mark Elwood, Submission 11, Submission Vol 1, p 49.

[143]       Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 262 [French].

[144]       Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 143 [Elwood].

[145]       Dr John Moulder, Submission 60, p 23.

[146]       Dr John Moulder, Submission 60, p 28.

[147]       Dr John Moulder, Submission 60, p 32.

[148]       The EMR Safety Network International, Submission 111, Attachment 2. See also, Mr Don Maisch, Submission 20, Executive Summary.

[149]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 339 [Cherry].

[150]       Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 225 [Barnett].

[151]       The EMR Safety Network International, Submission 111, Submission Vol 8, p 1719.

[152]       The EMR Safety Network International, Submission 111, p 3.

[153]       Joshua E. Muscat, ‘Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of brain cancer’, JAMA, 20 December 2000, pp 3001-3007 (Muscat et al, 2000).

[154]       Muscat et al, 2000.

[155]       Hardell et al, 1999, cited in National Cancer Institute Press Release, ‘No association found between cellular phone use and risk of brain tumours’, 21 December 2000.

[156]       Confidential submission.

[157]       Hocking B, Preliminary report: Symptoms associated with mobile phone use, Occupational Medicine, Volume 48, No. 6, 1998, pp 357-360.

[158]       Hocking B, and Westerman R, Neurological abnormalities associated with mobile phone use, Occupational Medicine, Volume 50, No. 5, 2000, pp 366-368.

[159]       Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 113 [Hocking].

[160]       Peter D Inskip et al, ‘Cellular-telephone use and brain tumours’, The New England Journal of Medicine, 344 (2), 11 January 2001, pp 79-86.

[161]       National Cancer Institute, Questions and Answers for the National Cancer Institute Study of Brain Tumors and Use of Cellular Telephones, Press Release, 31 December 2000. See also, Dimitrios Trichopoulos and Hans-Olov Adami, ‘Cellular telephones and brain tumours (Editorial)’, The New England Journal of Medicine, 344(2), 11 January 2001, pp 133-134.

[162]       National Cancer Institute, Questions and Answers for the National Cancer Institute Study of Brain Tumors and Use of Cellular Telephones, Press Release, 31 December 2000.

[163]       National Cancer Institute, No Association Found Between Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Brain Tumors, Press Release, 31 December 2000.  Not in relation to this study, but in evidence to the Committee, Professor Mackenzie said: ‘... pulsed radiation should not be considered to be equivalent to continuous radiation of the same frequency and power level. It is important to distinguish between radiation which is made up of short, high-intensity pulses and radiation which is made up of a lower level of continuous radiation. That is the important thing that we need to flag at this time, that there is an actual difference between response to continuous radiation and that to a train of pulses of the same average power .... Analog, of course, is a heavily modulated continuous signal, but it is not very similar to the digital. The digital is much more intense over short time periods. The pulses are more intense and more widely spaced than in the analog system. So there could be a difference in the biological response to the two signals’ (Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 272 [Mackenzie]).

[164]       Johansen et al, 2001, Cellular Telephones and Cancer – a Nationwide Cohort Study in Denmark’, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 93 (3), February 7, 2001, pp 203-207.

[165]       A cohort study refers to a study which follows what happens to a group of people over a period of time.

[166]       Johansen et al, 2001, pp 203-207.

[167]       Danish cellphone study shows no cancer link, Reuters news report, Story No. 5178, 7 February 2001.

[168]       New cancer and mobile phone findings cautiously welcomed, AAP news report, Story No. 6757, 7 February 2001.

[169]       The EMR Safety Network International, Submission 111, p 2.

[170]       CSIRO, Submission 95, p 4.

[171]       The EMR Safety Network International, Submission 111, p 3.

[172]       Stewart Report, pp 85-86.

[173]       Stewart Report, p 60.

[174]       The EMR Safety Network International, Submission 111, Attachment 2. Cf. Dr David Black, referring to one study that investigated sleep disturbances, stated: ‘... the investigators for the ... study were prepared to commit themselves no further than to say that there seemed to be an association between the presence of the transmitter and sleep disturbances but emphasised that no urgent intervention was indicated’ (Submission 93, p 28).

[175]       Stewart Report, pp 53, 55.

[176]       The EMR Safety Network International, Submission 111, Attachment 2.

[177]       Royal Society of Canada Report, p 98.

[178]       Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 193 [Fist].

[179]       EC Report, p 36.

[180]       Stewart Report, p 77.

[181]       Stewart Report, p 63. The Royal Society of Canada Report concluded: ‘At the present time, no definitive conclusions can be reached regarding RF field exposure and effects in the eye. ... The unique properties of the eye make this an area which should be treated with caution and concern (p 102)’.

[182]       Stewart Report, p 80.

[183]       Stewart Report, p 97.

[184]       Royal Society of Canada Report, p 89.

[185]       Royal Society of Canada Report, p 88.

[186]       The Stewart Report, p 97. The Royal Society of Canada Report also noted that a follow-up study (Guberan 1994) ‘did not observe a difference in gender ratio between exposed and non-exposed pregnancies, nor was the result affected by intensity or duration of exposure (p 89)’.  See also Dr David Black, Submission 93, p 26, who stated: ‘[t]aken as a whole, this body of research does not identify any clear association between antenatal EMF exposure and either congenital malformations or spontaneous abortions’.

[187]       Dr Neil Cherry, Submission 146, p 13.

[188]       Dr Neil Cherry, Submission 146, p 13.

[189]       The Stewart Report, p 80. The Committee notes that Dr Cherry was critical of the approach taken by ICNIRP in its health assessment upon which its exposure guidelines are based, which he claimed ‘wrongly dismiss[es] the strong association between RF/MW exposure and miscarriage and congenital adverse effects’ presented in epidemiological studies. See The EMR Safety Network International, Submission No 111, Attachment 2.

[190]       National Council of Women of Australia, Submission 32, p 2. See also Mr Don Maisch, Submission 20, p 31; Dr Graeme Stringer, Submission 64, p 3; EMRAA, Submission 80, Submission Vol 7, p 1441. See also Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 7 November 2000, pp 191-192 [Johansson].

[191]       The EMR Safety Network, Submission 111, p 1.

[192]       The EMR Safety Network, Submission 111, p 1; EMRAA, Submission 80, Submission Vol 7, p 1441.

[193]       Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 1999, p 257 [EMR Safety Network International].

[194]       Mr Joe Friend, Submission 17, p 1; Mr Greg Eggert, Submission 14, p 1; Mr Leigh Tanner, Submission 18, p 1; Mr Noah Yamore, Submission 24, p 1; Ms Sandy Carr, Submission 26, p 2; National Council of Women of Australia, Submission 32, p 1; Professor Barry Boetcher AM, Submission 41, p 2; Mr Gary Schroder, Submission 50, p 1; Sunshine Coast Environment Council Inc, Submission 55, p 2; EMRAA, Submission 80, p 15, Gwenda and Tom Spencer, Submission 82, p 1; Betty and Trevor Shelley, Submission 87, p 1; The EMR Safety Network International, Submission 111, p 2; One-Tel Tower Committee, Submission 132, pp 1-2; Ms Nikki Carabetta, Submission 135, p 1; Mrs Ms Allen, Submission 136; Ms Diane Beaumont, Submission 138, p 7; Mr Alan K Tunnah, Submission 139, p 2; Sunshine Heights Kindergarten, Submission 140, pp 1-2; Mrs Leanne Noakes, Submission 144, p 1.

[195]       See for example, EMRAA, Submission 80, Submission Vol 7, p 1440.

[196]       Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 217 [Consumers’ Telecommunications Network]; Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 173 [Dalton].

[197]       Hyland, GJ, Potential Adverse Health Impacts of Mobile Telephony.  Memorandum, February 2000 (attached to Submission 111, The EMR Safety Network International, p 1768).

[198]       Mrs PR Richards, Submission 49, p 2; One-Tel Tower Committee, Submission No 132, p 2.

[199]       Consumers’ Telecommunications Network, Submission 101, Submission Vol 8, p 1635.

[200]       Stewart Report, p 98.

[201]       Royal Society of Canada Report, p 87.

[202]       Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, pp 118-120 [Hocking].

[203]       Royal Society of Canada Report, p 88.

[204]       Stewart Report, p 8.

[205]       Authors of the Stewart Report.

[206]       Stewart Report, p 38.

[207]       ARPANSA, Submission 128, Submission Vol 9, p 2046.

[208]       Dr David Black, Submission 93, p 30.

[209]       Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, pp 60-61 [Black].

[210]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 334 [Cherry].

[211]       Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 216 [Consumers’ Telecommunications Network].  See also, EMRAA, Submission 80, Submission Vol 7, pp 1456, 1462-1463.

[212]       Consumers’ Telecommunications Network (CTN), Submission 101, p 2.

[213]       Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, pp 114, 128 [Hocking]; Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 173 [Dalton]. Cf Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 327 [Moulder] who expressed confusion about the basis for the Stewart Report’s recommendation on mobile phone usage by children.

[214]       Dapto Residents Against Tower Health Risks, Submission 92, p 3.

[215]       Mr John C Bedford, Submission 3, p 1; Warrimoo Citizens Association, Submission 4, pp 1-3; Chris & Marie Kougellis, Submission 16, pp 2-3; Ms Sarah Wallace, Submission 31, pp 1-2; National Council of Women of Australia (NCWA), Submission 32, p 1; Ms Lyn Ward and Mr Mark Lamb, Submission 33, pp 1-2; Ms Helen Joyce, Submission 35, p 1; Ms Sylvia Douglas, Submission 38, p 1; Ms Stephanie Evans, Submission 39, p 1; Professor Barry Boettcher AM, Submission 41, p 2; City of Melville, Submission 42, p 1; Mr JW Purchase, Submission 46, p 1; Mr E and Mrs A Vassallo, Submission 48, p 1; Mrs PR Richards, Submission 49, p 2; Mr Gary Schroder, Submission 50, p 1; Town of Kwinana, Submission 53, p 1; Sunshine Coast Environment Council Inc, Submission 55, pp 1-2; Mr Nick McKillop, Submission 63, Attachment 5; Ms Helen McKillop, Submission 67, p 1; Mr CS Newton, Submission 70, pp 2-3; Castlemaine Optus Antennas Relocation Group (COARG), Submission 72, pp 1-2; Mr Harold Hird MLA, Submission 74, p 1; Ms Sonia Venditti, Submission 76, pp 1-2; Gwenda and Tom Spencer, Submission 82, p 1; Mr Paul Hunt, Submission 84, p 1; Mr Roger M Lilley, Submission 85, p 2; Maleny Residents’ Action Group, Submission 86, p 1; Betty and Trevor Shelley, Submission 87, p 1; The Maple Street Cooperative Society Ltd, Submission 90, p 1; Ms Ruth Parnell, Submission 94, p 1; Mr & Mrs Davies, Submission 97, p 1; Ms Sandra Jordan, Submission 104, p 1; Mr Richard Giles, Submission 112, p 3; Centre for International Research on Communication and Information Technologies (CIRCIT), Submission 114, pp 1-3; Ms Heather Anne Meyer, Submission 123, p 1; Dr J Phua, Submission 126, p 1; Sutherland Shire Council, Submission 130, p 1; Ms Diane Beaumont, Submission 138, p 7; Sunshine Height Kindergarten, Submission 140, p 1; Sunshine Action Group, Submission 141, p 1; Mrs B Humphries, Submission 145, p 2.

[216]       The Vaucluse Progress Association, Submission 5, p 2.  See also, Ms Sarah Wallace, Submission 31, pp 1-2; Telecommunications Officers Association Branch of the CEPU, Submission 66, p 3; Betty and Trevor Shelley, Submission 87, p 1; The Maple Street Cooperative Society Ltd, Submission 90, p 1.

[217]       Ms Sonia Venditti, Submission 76, p 2; Maleny Residents’ Action Group, Submission 86, p 1; Mr Roger M Lilley, Submission 85, p 2; Mr Stewart Fist, Submission 30, pp 2-3.

[218]       Mr Neil J Boucher, Submission 118a, Submission Vol 11, p 2377.

[219]       Chris & Marie Kougellis, Submission 16, p 3.

[220]       Betty and Trevor Shelley, Submission 87, p 1.  See also Sunshine Action Group, Submission 141, p 2; EMF South World Pty Ltd, Submission 129, p 2.

[221]       Sunshine Action Group, Submission 141, p 4.

[222]       GJ Hyland, Potential Adverse Health Impacts of Mobile Telephony Memorandum, February 2000, (included in The EMR Safety Network International, Submission 111, Attachment 3).

[223]       Australian Radiation Protection & Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), Submission 128, Attachment K, p 3.

[224]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 347 [Cornelius].

[225]       ARPANSA, Submission 128, Submission Vol 9, p 2046.

[226]       Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 216 [Consumers’ Telecommunications Network].

[227]       Dapto Residents Against Tower Health Risks, Submission 92, p 2.

[228]       Consumers’ Telecommunications Network (CTN), Submission 101, p 1. See also AMTA, Submission 19, pp 17-18.

[229]       CTN, Submission 101, p 1.

[230]       CTN, Submission 101, p 1.

[231]       US Food and Drug Administration – Centre for Devices and Radiological Health. Cellular Phone Interference, 1 November 1995. Attachment C, Answers to questions on notice, AMTA, 31 January 2001. See also Rothman (2000), which refers to two studies that examined interference to pacemakers from mobile phones, one of which determined that the frequency of interference was dependent on the type of pacemaker and type and position of the phone (Hayes et al, 1997), while the other found no pacemaker interference from mobile phones used in Europe (Occhetta et al, 1999).

[232]       Ms Gillian Summerbell, Submission 62, p 1.

[233]       Deafness Council of NSW Inc, Submission 149, p 1.

[234]       Stewart Report, p 121.

[235]       Stewart Report, p 121.

[236]       Cellular Mobile Phones and Cardiac Pacemakers. Attachment B, Answers to questions on notice, AMTA, 31 January 2001. See also CEMEPHI, Submission 127, Submission Vol 9, pp 1950-1951.

[237]       The EMR Safety Network, Submission No 111, Attachment 3. See also, for example, Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 7 November 2000, p 194, where Professor Olle Johansson from the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, stated in relation to ‘human electromagnetic compatibility’: ‘Your mobile telephone should not alter the figures at the bank, change the equipment at the hospital or whatever, and it should not affect electronics in an aircraft. Therefore, they are in different ways shielded from each other. ... If you have a computer screen, a light tube or a mobile telephone, to what extent should we allow it to affect molecular and cellular events in our body?’

[238]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 318 [Moulder]. The Committee notes that the view that electromagnetic interference cannot be compared to adverse health effects from radiofrequency, was not supported by Dr Cherry, who stated: ‘My judgment is that that is completely wrong. The early studies show that oscillating signals interfere with the brain very significantly and can change EEG and can change calcium ions, and these change reaction times. That is a classical physics approach of resonant absorption. If a system can oscillate and an oscillating signal comes in, it can resonantly be absorbed (Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 332 [Cherry]).

[239]       Professor Olle Johansson, Submission 103, p 1.

[240]       See for example, Power to the People Action Group, Submission 109, p 1; National Council of Women of Australia (NCWA), Submission 32, p 2; Mr John Allen, Submission 65, p 1; Mr Tony & Mrs Lorraine Reeves, Submission 105, p 1; Power to the People Action Group, Submission 109, p 1; Mr Darryl Davies, Submission 116, p 1; Coomera Valley Progress Association, Submission 117, p 1.

[241]       Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 18 [Repacholi].

[242]       National Radiological Protection Board, ELF Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer. Report of an Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation, Vol 12, No 1, March 2001.

[243]       Mrs Leanne Noakes, Submission 144, p 2.

[244]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, pp 337-338 [Cherry].

[245]       See for example, Mr Greg Hutchison, Submission 108, pp 2-3. See also Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 6 [Repacholi]: ‘Individuals can be encouraged to take their own precautions if they have concerns about children. There was a lot of press following the Stewart inquiry about children being more sensitive. If people feel that this is the case – and there is no evidence for that, but it is a possibility – then hands-free kits or limiting times of calls are good ways to reduce exposures’.

[246]       See for example, Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, pp 148-151 [Litovitz].

[247]       See for example, Simon Fielding, OBE, Submission 119, p 2; EMF South World Pty Ltd, Submission 129, Submission Vol 10, p 2077; EMF Southworld Pty Ltd, Submission 129a, pp 1-2; Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 153 [Litovitz].

[248]       Stewart Report, p 44.

[249]       The Committee notes that Dr Litovitz was involved in this replication attempt. Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 367. The Committee also notes EMF Southworld’s explanation for this failure (Submission 129a, p 2).

[250]       Stewart Report, p 121. See also Mr Stewart Fist, Submission 30, p 2.

[251]       The Committee was advised of EMF bioprotection technology, which is not a shielding device, but claimed to eliminate non-thermal biological effects, based on work carried out by Professor Litovitz at the Catholic University of America. Official Committee Hansard, 8 September, p 67 [EMF South World Pty Ltd].

[252]       Referred to in Ms Ruth Parnell, Submission 94, p 2; EMRAA, Submission 80, pp 29-30.

[253]       Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 159 [ECTA]. See also, AMTA, Submission 19, p 23, which add that regardless of whether a hand-held or hands-free kit is used, all mobile phones are required to meet safety standards.

[254]       Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p160 [ECTA].

[255]       Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 159 [ECTA].

[256]       ECTA, Submission 98, p 2.

[257]       ECTA, Submission 98, p 2. See also Mr Don Maisch, Submission 20(c), p 1; EMRAA, Submission 80, p 2; Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 408 [Doull].

[258]       ‘Scientists Believe A Ferrite Choke Clipped to the Wire of A Hands-Free Set Could Dramatically Lower Radiation’, Financial Times, 12 February 2001.

[259]       Stewart Report, p 117.

[260]       Stewart Report, p 118.

[261]       See for example, EMRAA, Submission 80, p 38; Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 215 [Consumers’ Telecommunications Network].

[262]       ACA, Submission 100, p. 11.

[263]       Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p 62 [Black].

[264]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 373 [Swicord].

[265]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 372 [Swicord].

[266]       Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 309 [McAlister].

[267]       Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, pp 310-311 [McAlister].

[268]       Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, pp 309-310 [Horton].

[269]       CSIRO, Submission 95, p 7.

[270]       Ms Yvonne Jayawardena, Submission 81, p 3.

[271]       The Committee notes the views expressed by the CSIRO: ‘Research has been sporadic. The results have been controversial and contradictory. It is not really surprising. Unless you have a properly structured and directed system of research, you will not overcome the initial problem of the undirected sporadic bits of research that are carried on, sometimes not particularly well ... If you do not provide adequate or proper resources, you are being extremely optimistic in expecting a decent outcome’ (Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 224).

[272]       See www.austmus.gov.au/consensus/

[273]       Repacholi 1998, included in The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Submission Vol 4, p 806.

[274]       Repacholi 1998, included in The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Submission Vol 4, p 806.

[275]       NHMRC, Submission 69, p 43.

[276]       NHMRC, Submission 69, p 44.

[277]       Supports communications among European scientific researchers through COST 244 Biomedical effects of electromagnetic fields initiative, originally proposed by the Faculty of Bioelectrical Engineering, University of Zagreb, Croatia, and adopted in October 1992. COST, European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research, was set up in 1971 and is a framework for R&D co-operation in Europe, involving 25 countries and the European Commission. COST Actions exist in over 15 research domains the largest of which is COST Telecommunications. See radio.fer.hr/mainpage.htm.

[278]       NHMRC, Submission 69, pp 22-23.

[279]       CEMEPHI, Submission 127, Submission Vol 9, pp 1923-1924.

[280]       See MMF, Submission 75, p 8. See also europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp5.html and www.iarc.fr/pageroot/UNITS/RCA4.html.

[281]       See www.doh.gov.uk/newsdesk/archive/december/4-naa-08122000.html.

[282]       Committee correspondence, Dr John Moulder, 17 February 2001.

[283]       National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Submission 69, Submission Vol 6, pp 1076.

[284]       National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Submission 69, Submission Vol 6, pp 1070-1072.

[285]       CEMEPHI, Submission 127, p 6.

[286]       Specific Absorption Rate.

[287]       CEMEPHI, Submission 127, pp 51-53.

[288]       NHMRC, Submission 69, Submission Vol 6, p 1073.

[289]       Mutations

[290]       In a living body as opposed to in vitro – in glass.

[291]       Mice genetically engineered usually to be susceptible to a particular type of disease.

[292]       NHMRC, Submission 69, pp 7, 11. See also Proof Committee Hansard, 2 March 2001, pp 400-401 [NHMRC].

[293]       Global System for Mobile Communications – a standard for mobile telephony which uses pulsed signals.

[294]       A strain of genetically modified mice engineered to be susceptible to a particular type of cancer.

[295]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 367 [Swicord].

[296]       Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p 52 [NHMRC].

[297]       The World Health Organization, Submission 56, Submission Volume 4, p 773.

[298]       Dr Peter French, Submission 37, pp 2-3.

[299]       Michael H. Repacholi, Antony Basten, Val Gebski, Denise Noonan, John Finnie and Alan W. Harris, ‘Lymphomas in Eµ-Pim1 Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 Mhz Electromagnetic Fields’, Radiation Research, 147, 1997, pp 631-640 at p 639.

[300]       Proof Committee Hansard, 2 March 2001, p 403 [NHMRC].

[301]       Gliomas are brain tumours of the glial cells, which make up the tissue that support nerve cells in the brain.  Primary gliomas are those that arise in the brain rather than those that begin elsewhere in the body and spread to the brain.

[302]       Brain tumours that develop in the protective membrane, called the meninges, that surrounds the brain directly underneath the skull.

[303]       Tumours that develop in the cells that produce the substance that protects the acoustic nerve.

[304]       Largest salivary gland situated near each ear.

[305]       NHMRC, Submission 69, Submission Vol 6, pp 1075-1076. The NHMRC also advised that research priorities identified in the report by the Royal Society of Canada may also be addressed in the latest round of EME funding proposals, including: laboratory-based studies of ocular effects and neurodegenerative changes, studies to identify the biophysical detection mechanism that detects RF radiation; as well as clinical studies to identify whether some people potentially are more sensitive to RF fields, and/or whether people vary in their response patterns to RF exposure of the brain activity (Submission 69, p 25).

[306]       Dr Michael Wooldridge, Minister for Health and Aged Care, ‘NHMRC research to throw light on the human effects of mobile phone use’, Media Release, 1 March 2001.

[307]       See also Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, pp 397-398 [Clarkson].

[308]       This study examined a sight disorder called age-related macular degeneration (the macula is a part of the retina).

[309]       See also Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 398 [Clarkson].

[310]       See for example, ACTU, Submission 89, pp 5-6; CSIRO, Submission 95, p 5; Mr Pranay Bhattacharya, Submission 107, pp 3-6; Ms Diane Beaumont, Submission 138, p 49, 53-54. The Committee also acknowledges the view expressed by Dr Cherry in evidence to the Committee when he stated: ‘When I started in this area, I found that there was so much available that it did not need to have new studies to show effects because they were already published, but many of them were misinterpreting the radiation patterns because they did not know the engineering (Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 333 [Cherry]). See also, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 343, where Dr Loy, ARPANSA, also indicated that further research in this field was required; Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 407 [Doull].

[311]       See for example, Dr Bruce Hocking, Submission 21, p 1; Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p 83 [Holt] and Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 115 [Hocking]. See also Mr Simon Fielding, OBE, who stated that ‘[i]t is important to note, however, that to demonstrate any conclusive link between these biological effects and any long term health implications will take many years of epidemiological research’ (Submission 119, Submission Vol 9, p 1832). The Committee notes the views expressed by Mr Neil Boucher who stated: ‘Most of the “research” that has been carried out on the health effects of electromagnetism are top down studies. That is people are assembled, with largely medical and statistical qualifications (and usually with little or no knowledge of electromagnetism itself), to look for epidemiological evidence of some health effect. The fact that nothing conclusive has been found to date testifies both to the relative insignificance of any effect (if it exists) and to the futility of the methods employed .... A bottom up approach done by suitably qualified people that looked at the effect of low energy (radio frequency) electromagnetism on simple atoms, then simple molecules and then moving on to more complex organic molecules would reveal any mechanisms for interaction and suggest what (if any) types of damage could be caused by the exposure, accounting in particular for the levels that are necessary to be relevant compared to external background radiation and radiation developed with the organisms themselves as they go about their daily business.’ (Submission 118, Submission Vol 11, pp 1826-1827. See also Mr Boucher’s evidence where he advocates initially research at the physics level rather than the ‘needle in a haystack approach of biology studies’ (Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p.79). See also Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 267, where Dr Peter French, cell biologist, stated: ‘The issue is that it is very difficult to go looking for epidemiology for disease when you do not know exactly what the disease is ... [What the] cell studies and the gene studies can tell us is what genes are affected. Those genes which are known have well-known connections to diseases and therefore that can provide the basis for an intelligent epidemiology study rather than a fishing trip...’ and Professor David McKenzie who added: ‘It is important to emphasise that a scientific approach is necessary. The mechanism has got to be identified before any substantial science can be done in this field. A viable mechanism has to be established by doing meticulous science, establishing that mechanism, working out what it could lead to and then looking for those effects in the population at large. A cell biology experiment is crucial here to identify and to prove the mechanism, identify possible links and then work on those links by looking at epidemiological evidence’. Cf Dr Holt who states in his submission: ‘For any advance to be made in the problems facing your committee recourse must be had to the knowledge directly derived from living people and not artificial conditions from experimental work’ (Submission 143, Submission Vol 11, p 2418). The Committee also notes the conclusion of the Royal Society of Canada Report (p 93): ‘...the epidemiological evidence [for non-thermal health effects] to date is inadequate for a comprehensive evaluation of risk, and does not support a hypothesis of an association between exposure to radiofrequency fields and risk of cancer, reproductive problems, or congenital anomalies. However, there is a need for additional, larger well-designed studies, to provide further information on these relationships’.

[312]       ACTU, Submission 89, p 4. See also Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 407 [Doull].

[313]       See CEMEPHI, Submission 127, Submission Vol 9, p 1962.

Chapter 3 - Allocation of Australian radiofrequency electromagnetic energy program funds

[1]           Committee on Electromagnetic Energy Public Health Issues (CEMEPHI), Submission 127, p 4.

[2]           ARPANSA, Committee on Electromagnetic Energy Public Health Issues (CEMEPHI), response to written questions on notice.

[3]           National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Submission 69, p 10.

[4]           Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p 50.

[5]           A strain of genetically modified mice engineered to be susceptible to a particular type of cancer.

[6]           Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 397.

[7]           The original application for this project proposed a large additional component, which had been kept under consideration for some time.  This was for a similar study to that currently under way, using another mouse variant (p53 mice).  The NHMRC advised that the Expert Committee believed there was no justification for the second variant of mouse until the first study had been completed.  So if there was something that came out of the pim-1 study that indicated that another variant mouse study was required, then the Expert Committee would consider it at that time instead of holding the money virtually in embargo for another two years.  NHMRC, Submission 69, p 8 and Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 396.

[8]           Electromagnetic Radiation Alliance of Australia (EMRAA), Submission 80, p 4.

[9]           Mr Stewart Fist, Submission 30, Appendix C, p 1.

[10]         National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Submission 69, Attachment 1, p 27.

[11]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, pp 322-323.

[12]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p 48.

[13]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 403.

[14]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 403.

[15]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p 36.

[16]         Professor Philip Jennings, Submission 122, p 1.

[17]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 230.

[18]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 173.

[19]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 96.

[20]         Electromagnetic Radiation Alliance of Australia, Submission 80, p 8.

[21]         Electromagnetic Radiation Alliance of Australia, Submission 80, pp 8 and 9.

[22]         Mr Stewart Fist, Submission 30, Appendix A, p 2.

[23]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 202.

[24]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 219.

[25]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 179.

[26]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, pp 227-228.

[27]         Holroyd City Council, Submission  44, p 1.

[28]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 224.

[29]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 225.

[30]         Proof Committee Hansard , Canberra, 2 March 2001, pp 399-400.

[31]         Mr Ray Winter, Submission 13.

[32]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 101 [Maisch].

[33]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 198.

[34]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 151 [Litovitz].

[35]         Mr Les Dalton, Submission 40, p 2.

[36]         Mr Les Dalton, Submission 40, p 2.

[37]         Mr Les Dalton, Submission 40, p 4.

[38]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 188.

[39]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 192.

[40]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 25.

[41]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 361.

[42]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p. 35.

[43]         National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Submission 69, p 6.

[44]         National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Submission 69, p 5; and overhead presentation at Committee Hearing, Canberra, 2 March 2001.

[45]         National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Submission 69, p 5.

[46]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p 51.

[47]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 227.

[48]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 401.

[49]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, pp 51.

[50]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 202.

[51]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 221.

[52]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 223.

[53]         Mr Stewart Fist, Submission 30, Appendix C.

[54]         Mr Stewart Fist, Submission 30, Appendix C, p 1.

[55]         Committee correspondence, letter from Robert Wells, CEO, NHMRC, dated 14 August 2000.

[56]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 193.

[57]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, pp 48-49; Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, pp 10-11; and Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 317.

[58]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p 49 [Clarkson].

[59]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 223.

[60]         Sydney Morning Herald, 18 December 2000, p 10.

[61]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 223.

[62]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, pp 225-226.

[63]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 225.

[64]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 400.

[65]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p. 48.

[66]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, pp 223-224.

[67]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 224.

[68]         Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 266.

[69]         Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 266.

[70]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, pp 265-266.

[71]         Electromagnetic Energy Public Health Issues Committee (CEMEPHI), Submission 127, p 16.

[72]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 2.

[73]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 2.

[74]         National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Submission 69, p 23.

[75]         Committee on Electromagnetic Energy Public Health Issues (CEMEPHI), Submission 127, p 16.

[76]         Includes $73,000 for the Measurement Program (part 1).

[77]         Mr Stan Stanfield, Submission 36, p. 1.

[78]         Mrs Leanne Noakes, Submission 144, p 3.

[79]         Electromagnetic Radiation Alliance of Australia (EMRAA), Submission 80, p 36.

[80]         Electromagnetic Radiation Alliance of Australia (EMRAA), Submission 80, p 4.

[81]         Electromagnetic Energy Public Health Issues Committee (CEMEPHI), Submission 127, p 14.

[82]         Committee on Electromagnetic Energy Public Health Issues, Fact sheet, What about telecommunications towers, and are there any health effects?, May 1998.

[83]         A worst case radiofrequency electromagnetic energy power flux density* prediction, based on the measurements from GSM base stations, was 0.178 microwatts** per square centimetre (0.178 T W/cm 2). This level is at least 1,000 times below the 200 T W/cm 2 exposure limit in the Standard. Also, the average radiofrequency exposure level from GSM base stations is considerably less at 0.0016  T W/cm 2 which is at least 100,000 times below the 200 T W/cm 2 limit of power flux density permitted by the Standard.

Measurements of the fixed site environmental radiofrequency electromagnetic energy power flux density levels indicate that, relative to the maximum exposure limit permitted in the standard, after adjusting the exposure limit with respect to the frequency of the signal, the highest environmental radiofrequency exposure was FM radio (0.0259 T W/cm 2), which is about 7,000 times below the 200  T W/cm 2 limit of power flux density.

[Line P, Cornelius W, Bangay M, and Grollo M, Levels of Radiofrequency Radiation from GSM Mobile Telephone Base Stations, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Technical Report 129, p 1, January 2000.]

* Radiofrequency (RF) power flux density is the rate of flow of RF energy per unit surface area expressed in watts per square metre (W/m2).

** A microwatt (TW) is a unit of power equivalent to one millionth of a watt (W).  (1 TW = 1/106 W)

[84]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 14.

[85]         Electromagnetic Energy Public Health Issues Committee (CEMEPHI), Submission 127, p 16.

[86]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 173.

Chapter 4 - Australian standard on radiofrequency fields exposure levels

[1]           Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p 56.

[2]           A watt is an electrical unit of power.

1 watt (1 W) = 1 000 milliwatts (1 000 mW) = 1 000 000 microwatts (1 000 000 TW)

1 W/m2 = 0.1 mW/cm2 = 100 TW/cm2

[3]           ARPANSA Radiation Protection Standard, Maximum exposure levels to radiofrequency fields — 3kHz to 300GHz, Draft for public comment, Schedule 1, Rationale, p 27.

[4]           ARPANSA Radiation Protection Standard, Maximum exposure levels to radiofrequency fields — 3kHz to 300GHz, Draft for public comment, Schedule 1, Rationale, pp 27 and 37; Annex 2, Coupling mechanisms between fields and the body, p 59,  and CSIRO Australia, Status of research on biological effects and safety of electromagnetic radiation: Telecommunications frequencies, June 1994, p 126.

[5]           ARPANSA Radiation Protection Standard, Maximum exposure levels to radiofrequency fields — 3kHz to 300GHz, Draft for public comment,  Annex 2, Coupling Mechanisms between fields and the body, pp 58 and 59; CSIRO Australia, Status of research on biological effects and safety of electromagnetic radiation: Telecommunications frequencies, June 1994, p 126.

[6]           AS/NZS 2772.1(Int):1998, Interim Australian/New Zealand Standard, Radiofrequency fields, Part 1: Maximum exposure levels—3 kHz to 300 GHz, Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, Appendix A, p 23.

[7]           ARPANSA Radiation Protection Standard, Maximum exposure levels to radiofrequency fields — 3kHz to 300GHz, Draft for public comment, Schedule 1, Rationale, p 26.

[8]           ARPANSA Radiation Protection Standard, Maximum exposure levels to radiofrequency fields — 3kHz to 300GHz, Draft for public comment, Annex 2, Coupling mechanisms between fields and the body, p 59.

[9]           Australian Parliamentary Library, Current Issues Brief No. 26, 1996-97, Rod Panter, Science and Technology Group, 19 June 1998.

[10]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 281.

[11]         Standards Australia International Limited, Submission 133, Attachment 6, Preparing Standards, Standardization Guide No. 1, Standards Australia, Standards New Zealand, March 1996, p 3.

[12]         Standards Australia International Limited, Submission 133, p 1.

[13]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 281.

[14]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 282 [Blair].

[15]         Interim Australian/New Zealand Standard, Radiofrequency fields, Part 1: Maximum exposure levels - 3kHz to 300 GHz, Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, p 22.

[16]         Interim Australian/New Zealand Standard, Radiofrequency fields, Part 1: Maximum exposure levels - 3kHz to 300 GHz, Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, p 22.

[17]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 8.

[18]         Mr Alexander Doull, Submission 113, p 1.

[19]         CSIRO Australia, Telecommunications & Industrial Physics, Submission 95, p 8.

[20]         Mr Alexander Doull, Submission 113, p 1.

[21]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 387.

[22]         Standards Association of Australia, Australian Standard 2772 - 1985, Maximum Exposure Levels - Radio-Frequency Radiation - 300 kHz to 300 GHz, Appendix A, Rationale for the development of the maximum exposure levels for radio-frequency radiation, p 14.

[23]         CSIRO Australia, Telecommunications & Industrial Physics, Submission 95, p 9.

[24]         CSIRO Australia, Telecommunications & Industrial Physics, Submission 95, p 9.

[25]         Australian Communications Authority, Submission 100, p 6.

[26]         CSIRO Australia, Telecommunications & Industrial Physics, Submission 95, p 9.

[27]         Australian Communications Authority, Submission 100, p 6.

[28]         Electromagnetic Radiation Alliance of Australia (EMRAA), Submission 80, p 17.

[29]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 319.

[30]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 361.

[31]         Dr David Black, Submission 93, p 8.

[32]         Mr Dan Dwyer, Telecommunications Officers Association Branch, Communication Electrical Plumbing Union, Submission 66, Appendix 3, p 14.

[33]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 10.

[34]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 12.

[35]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 12.

[36]         Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA), Submission 19, p 10.

[37]         CSIRO Australia, Telecommunications & Industrial Physics, Submission 95, p 3.

[38]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 174.

[39]         Australian Communications Authority, Submission 100, p 6.

[40]         Dr David Black, Submission 93, p 7.

[41]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 370.

[42]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 13.

[43]         ICNIRP Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz), p 16.

[44]         The association of two circuits or systems in such a way that power may be transferred from one to the other.

[45]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, pp 379 and 380.

[46]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 229.

[47]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 339.

[48]         Mr Alexander Doull, Submission 113, p 3.

[49]         Dr David Mercer, Submission 51, Attachment, p 52.

[50]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 174.

[51]         CSIRO Australia, Telecommunications & Industrial Physics, Submission 95, p 8.

[52]         Ordinance relating to Protection from Non-Ionising Radiation (ONIR) of 23 December 1999 (as of 1 February 2000), 814.710.

[53]         root mean square

[54]         World Health Organization, Submission 56, p 3.

[55]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 361.

[56]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 16.

[57]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p 38.

[58]         CSIRO Australia, Telecommunications & Industrial Physics, Submission 95, p 9.

[59]         Interim Australian/New Zealand Standard, Radiofrequency fields, Part 1: Maximum exposure levels—3 kHz to 300 GHz, AS/NZS 2772.1(Int):1998, Standards Australia, Standards New Zealand, p. 2.

[60]         Standards Australia International Limited, Submission 133, p 2.

[61]         Standards Australia International Limited, Submission 133, Attachment 5.

[62]         Standards Australia International Limited, Submission 133, Attachment 5.

[63]         Standards Australia International Limited, Submission 133, p 3.

[64]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 282.

[65]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, pp 283-284.

[66]         Dr David Black, Submission 93, p 10.

[67]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 284.

[68]         Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), Submission 128, p 9; ARPANSA Answer to question on notice; Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA), Submission 19(a), Attachment E.

[69]         Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA), Submission 19(a).

[70]         Australian Communications Authority, Submission 100, p 7.

[71]         Professor Philip Jennings, Submission 122, p 1.

[72]         Radiation Advisory Committee of the Victorian Department of Human Services, Submission 106, p 2.

[73]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, pp 175-176.

[74]         Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 172.

[75]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 252.

[76]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 26.

[77]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 370.

[78]         The Maple Street Cooperative Society Ltd, Submission 90, p 2.

[79]         Telecommunications Officers Association Branch of the Communications Plumbing Electrical Union, Submission 66, p 9.

[80]         Ms Sarah Newsome, Submission 12, pp 1-2.

[81]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 344.

[82]         Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, pp 344-345.

[83]         Mr Alexander Doull, Submission 113, pp 3 and 4.

[84]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 222.

[85]         Telecommunications Officers Association, A Branch of the Communications Electrical Plumbing Union, Submission 66, Appendix 3, p 14.

[86]         World Health Organization, Submission No 56, Appendix: Background Document Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, Cautionary Policies [Draft], p 5.

[87]         World Health Organization, Submission No 56, Appendix: Background Document Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, Cautionary Policies [Draft], p 5.

[88]         Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Submission 89, p 8.

[89]         CSIRO Australia, Telecommunications & Industrial Physics, Submission 95, p 8.

[90]         Telecommunications Officers Association, A Branch of the Communications Electrical Plumbing Union, Submission 66, Appendix 3, p 14.

[91]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 6.

[92]         Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 6.

[93]         World Health Organization, Submission No 56, Appendix: Background Document Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, Cautionary Policies [Draft], p 2.

[94]         World Health Organization, Submission No 56, Appendix: Background Document Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, Cautionary Policies [Draft], pp 2 and 3.

[95]         Dr David Black, Submission  93, p 14.

[96]         Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 292.

[97]         Australian Standard 2772—1985, Maximum Exposure Levels—Radio-Frequency Radiation—300 kHz to 300 GHz, Standards Association of Australia, p 2.

[98]         Australian Standard 2772—1985, Maximum Exposure Levels—Radio-Frequency Radiation—300 kHz to 300 GHz, Standards Association of Australia, p 5.

[99]         AS2772.1-1990, Australian Standard, Radiofrequency radiation, Part 1: Maximum exposure levels—100 kHz to 300 GHz, p 5.

[100]       AS/NZS 2772.1(Int):1998, Interim Australia/New Zealand Standard, Radiofrequency fields, Part 1: Maximum exposure levels—3 kHz to 300 GHz, p 5.

[101]       CSIRO Australia, Telecommunications & Industrial Physics, Submission 95, p 3.

[102]       DR 98627, Draft Australian/New Zealand Standard for comment, p iv.

[103]       Committee Ballot draft, p 27.

[104]       Australian Communications Authority, Submission 100, p 7.

[105]       Australian Communications Authority, Submission 100,  Attachment A, p 13.

[106]       Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 16 November 2000, p 307.

[107]       ACIF Draft Industry Code, The Deployment of Radiocommunications Infrastructure,DR ACIF C564, p b.

[108]       Electromagnetic Energy Public Health Issues Committee (CEMEPHI), Submission 127, p 20.

[109]       Australian Communications Authority, Submission 100, Attachment A, p 19.

[110]       Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), Submission 128, p 8.

[111]       Ms Gail Darby, Submission 34, p 1.

[112]       Warrimoo Citizens Association, Submission 4, p 1.

[113]       Maleny Residents’ Action Group, Submission 86, p 1.

[114]       Mr John Hyde, Submission 137, p 1.

[115]       Australian Communications Authority, Fact Sheet, Installation of telecommunications facilities — A guide for consumers, FSC 30 11/2000,  http://www.aca.gov.au/licence/fsc30.pdf.

[116]       Australian Communications Authority, Telecommunications Facilities, information for local government, December 2000, at http://www.aca.gov.au/licence/3352towe.pdf

[117]       Municipal Association of Victoria, Submission 148, p 4.

[118]       ACIF Draft Industry Code, The Deployment of Radiocommunications Infrastructure, DR ACIF C564, p b.

[119]       Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 2.

[120]       Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p 33.

[121]       Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p 35.

[122]       Sutherland Shire Council, Submission 130.

[123]       Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p 35 [Havyatt].

[124]       Telecommunications Officers Association Branch of the Communications Electrical Plumbing Union, Submission 66, p 8.

[125]       Consumers’ Telecommunications Network, Submission 101, p 2.

[126]       Consumers’ Telecommunications Network, Submission 101, p 2.

[127]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 384 [Bundrock].

[128]       Paul Slovic, Are mobile phones safe? Will people believe mobile phones are safe? at www.spectrum.ieee.org/publicfeature/aug00/prad.html

[129]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 366 [Joyner and Harrison].

[130]       Electrical Compliance Testing Association, (ECTA), Submission 98, p 2.

[131]       Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA), Submission 19(a).

[132]       Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), Mobile Phones and Health, 2000, p 119.

[133]       Australian Communications Authority, Submission 100, Attachment A, p 14.

[134]       Australian Communications Authority, Submission 100, Attachment A, p 14.

[135]       The Electrical Compliance Testing Association, Submission 98, p 1.

[136]       Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 157.

[137]       Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 13.

[138]       Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 159.

[139]       Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 September 2000, p 33.

[140]       Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), Mobile Phones and Health, 2000, p 119.

[141]       Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 158-159.

[142]       CSIRO Australia, Status of research on biological effects and safety of electromagnetic radiation: Telecommunications frequencies, June 1994, p 129.

[143]       Standards Australia International Limited, Submission 133, p 1.

[144]       BHP Structural and Pipeline Products [OneSteel Market Mills], Submission 77.

[145]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 347.

[146]       Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), Submission 110, p 3.

[147]       Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Submission 89, p 13.

[148]       Mr Don Maisch, Submission 20.

[149]       Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 13.

[150]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 August 2000, p 13.

[151]       Official Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 22 September 2000, p 98.

[152]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 341.

[153]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, pp 341-342 [Loy].

[154]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 342 [Loy].

[155]       ARPANSA/CEMEPHI, Overhead presentation at hearing on 2 March 2001, Canberra.

[156]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, pp 342-343.

[157]       Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 2 March 2001, p 343.

[158]       Radiation Protection Standard Maximum exposure levels to radiofrequency fields — 3kHz to 300GHz, ARPANSA, Draft for Public Comment, p 22.