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.