Mobile phone masts and their link to cancer

Wednesday 16th September 2009, 2:59PM BST.

From Madeline Bates.
I HAVE just been reading your ‘Cancer figures shock’ article and I am amazed.

Not at the figures, but at the causes given. While it is a fact that most throat and mouth cancers are caused by smoking, I don’t see how alcohol can be blamed for the levels of head and neck cancers, when there is an obvious cause staring us all in the face.

I am referring to mobile phone masts. This is a small Island of 45 square miles, yet you cannot move anywhere in Jersey without being zapped by the cancer-causing emissions from these monstrosities. These are a far more likely cause than alcohol.

People choose to drink and/or smoke, but a lot of innocent lives are being lost because of the presence of these masts.

Given the choice between enjoying good health or being available 24 hours a day to any Tom, Dick or Harry who knows your number, I know which I would choose.

Dr Susan Turnbull, Deputy Medical Officer of Health, responded as follows:
The highest risk of head and neck cancers (mainly lip, mouth, gums, tongue, throat, nose, neck) is from smoking and alcohol consumption, especially in combination.

Research evidence shows how the risk of these cancers increases in proportion to the amount of tobacco and alcohol exposure a person has had. Three out of four people with cancers in and around the mouth, for example, are explained by exposure to these substances.

Turning to mobile phone masts (base stations). Extensive research by our own Health Protection team (part of Public Health) tells us that there is no evidence that masts operating within recognised safety limits – as recommended by the UK-based Independent Expert Advisory Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) – present any risk to our population’s health.

The work of the IEGMP culminated in the Stewart Report (2000). It is a requirement for all Jersey masts to operate within the safety limits, both as a condition of their operating licence and a planning permit requirement for all new mast applications.

It is worth mentioning that the level of microwave radiation exposure from the use of a mobile phone is several factors higher than from a mast. The only established health risk from mobile phones is when they are used when driving – there is evidence demonstrating significant increase in driving accidents.

1
Brendan

September 17, 2009 at 3:36 pm

And what about mobile phones themselves..? Holding them to your head 8 hours a day cant be any good for you.

Report abuse
2
Leah Holmes

September 17, 2009 at 4:33 pm

Just goes to show that within the general population there is a very limited understanding of cancer and its causes.

People may not like being told that the luxuries they enjoy can cause cancer but there is a need to face up to facts if we want to see cancer levels drop.

It is the level of alcohol intake, no-one is saying ‘stop drinking completely’.

There are other concerns as well. My first incident, back when I was a trained first-aider, was an oesophogeal tear in a 24-year old woman, she spent 6 weeks in intensive care and came very close to death. She was particularly typical of today’s young professional women and thought nothing of her weekend ‘fun’. Cancer can at least be detected and (hopefully) treated, oesophogeal tears are often only detected once it is too late, and they are on the rise among young women! My colleague was extremely lucky that I was the first-aider on hand that day, the others would have happily sent her home to rest, I called an ambulance (despite her extreme objection).

Report abuse
3
Darren Le Geyt

September 18, 2009 at 7:22 am

In respnse to Dr. Turnbull’s statement:

“Extensive research by our own Health Protection team (part of Public Health) tells us that there is no evidence that masts operating within recognised safety limits”

I would like to ask where are these reports available? I don’t think that anyone in Jersey has seen them.

Report abuse
4
R B Bougourd

September 18, 2009 at 10:33 am

When will people realise that they may have been taken for a ride over this issue?

There was never any suggestion of danger until competition came into the cellular market – after the original players were sitting pretty and with the newcomers Orange and Mercury in the Uk taking all the flak.

Same thing happened in Jersey when Sure etc came on the scene.Nobody cared about JT aerials, mostly so discreet that they weren’t noticed anyway.

If you want to see how this anti competitive wheeze works take a look at the recent suugestion that a cheaper medical scanning service could be dangerous. Same old story.

Believe me you have to be very close, i.e. a few feet, to a cellular phone mast to even potentially be at risk compared with holding a transmitting device against your head.

Do some serious scientific study before woorying too much but do pay heed to the possibility that we have all been manipulated by commercial interests.

Report abuse