Documents of the NRPB: Volume 15 , No. 5

Mobile Phones and Health 2004: Report by the Board of NRPB

Author(s):	n/a
Summary:	This report reflects the understanding and evaluation of the current scientific evidence as presented and referenced in the full report. The executive summary of the document is given below. Copies of this are available from the Information Office, priced £2.00 each. A report entitled Summary of Recent Reports on Mobile Phones and Health (2000-2004) is also available.
Price:	£27.00 ISBN 0-85951-548-6	Order
PDF download:	The full document (PDF, 1.62 MB, 118 pages)	Documents of the NRPB 15/5 (PDF, 1.6 MB)

Executive summary

BACKGROUND

1. There are currently about 50 million mobile phones in use in the UK compared with around 25 million in 2000 and 4.5 million in 1995. These are supported by about 40 000 base stations in the UK network. The majority of these base stations operate under the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM).
   
   
2. In less than ten years since the first GSM network was commercially launched as the second generation of mobile phones, it has become the world's leading and fastest growing telecommunications system. It is in use by more than one-sixth of the world's population and it has been estimated that at the end of January 2004 there were 1 billion GSM subscribers across more than 200 countries. The growth of GSM continues unabated with more than 160 million new customers in the last 12 months.
    
   
3. The revolution in communications continues world-wide. The third generation of mobile phones, 3G, is now being marketed in the UK and in many other countries and it is to be expected that further developments will become available in due course. In addition, there are many other telecommunications and related systems in use, all of which result in exposure of the population to radiofrequency (RF) fields.
    
   
4. The UK government has given strong encouragement to the development of mobile phone technology. Operators have been given support for the installation of the cellular networks and government has seen this as an important area for UK based firms to establish themselves as world leaders. There have also been extensive developments in security-related equipment that utilise radiocommunications systems.
    

PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS

5. The extensive use of mobile phones suggests that users do not in general judge them to present a significant health hazard. Rather they have welcomed the technology and brought it into use in their everyday lives. Nevertheless, since their introduction, there have been persisting concerns about the possible impact of mobile phone technologies on health.
    
6. This was appreciated by the UK government, which in 1999 took the early initiative of setting up the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) to review the situation. Its report, Mobile Phones and Health (the Stewart Report), was published in May 2000. It stated:

   " The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.

   " There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines.

   " We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.

   " We recommend that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available."
    

7. The Board notes that a central recommendation in the Stewart Report was that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available.
    
8. The Stewart Report was welcomed by government, the general public and by industry. Various subsequent reports from across the world have supported the main thrust of its general conclusions.
    
9. Since then, the widespread development in the use of mobile phones world-wide has not been accompanied by associated, clearly established increases in adverse health effects. Within the UK, there is a lack of hard information showing that the mobile phone systems in use are damaging to health. It is important to emphasise this crucial point.
    
10. Nevertheless, the following issues have to be taken into consideration.
     
11. First, the widespread use of mobile phone technologies is still fairly recent and technologies are continuing to develop at a pace which is outstripping analyses of any potential impact on health (see paragraphs 55-57, 84 and 85).
     
12. Second, there are data which suggest that RF fields can interfere with biological systems (AGNIR, 2003; IEGMP, 2000).
     
13. Third, because the use of mobile phone technologies is a fairly recent phenomenon, it has not yet been possible to carry out necessary long-term epidemiological studies and evaluate the findings. However, an increase in the risk of acoustic neuromas has recently been reported in people in Sweden with more than ten years' use of mobile phones. This study has been able to obtain long-term follow-up data and highlights the need for extended follow-up studies on phone users, as has been noted in a number of reviews (see AGNIR, 2003). Epidemiological studies, because of a lack of sensitivity, may miss any effects in small subsets of the general populations studied. This is a reason why the Board welcomes the large international cohort study proposed for support by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme (see paragraph 89). A recent German study has also suggested concerns.
     
14. Fourth, a recent paper has suggested possible effects on brain function resulting from the use of 3G phones, although the study has some limitations and needs replication. The Stewart Report had previously identified the need for research on brain function.
     
15. Fifth, populations are not homogeneous and people can vary in their susceptibility to environmental and other challenges. There are well-established examples in the literature of the genetic predisposition of some groups that could influence sensitivity to disease. This remains an outstanding issue in relation to RF exposure and one on which more information is needed. A number of people also report symptoms they ascribe to electromagnetic hypersensitivity arising from exposure to a range of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) encountered in everyday life. There is concern by an increasing number of individuals, although relatively small in relation to the total UK population, that they are adversely affected by exposure to RF fields from mobile phones (see also paragraphs 58-64).
     
16. Sixth, IEGMP considered that children might be more vulnerable to any effects arising from the use of mobile phones because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head and a longer lifetime of exposure. Data on the impact on children have not yet been forthcoming. The potential for undertaking studies to examine any possible effects on children, however, are limited for ethical reasons.
     
17. Seventh, there are ongoing concerns in the UK about the use of Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) by the police and the nature of the signals emitted as well as about exposures to RF from other telecommunications technologies.
     
18. Eighth, there remain particular concerns in the UK about the impact of base stations on health, including well-being. Despite current evidence which shows that exposures of individuals are likely to be only a small fraction of those from phones, they may impact adversely on well-being. The large numbers of additional base stations which will be necessary to effectively roll out the 3G and other new networks are likely to exacerbate the potential impact. People can also be concerned about effects on property values when base stations are built near their homes.
     
19. The Board believes that the main conclusions reached in the Stewart Report in 2000 still apply today and that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies should continue to be adopted.
     

PROGRESS MADE IN ADDRESSING PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS

20. The recommendation in the Stewart Report to adopt a precautionary approach was immediately accepted by government. It also endorsed many of the other recommendations in the Report. 
     
21. The Stewart Report made a number of other recommendations that were designed to provide more information about the operation of mobile phones and base stations and to address public concerns about this technology. This sought to allow individuals, local communities and local authorities to make informed choices about how the technology should be developed.
     
22. The responses to the recommendations in the Stewart Report are reviewed in the report by the Board and issues where further progress is needed have been identified (NRPB, 2004a). The key findings are summarised below.
     

Tightening of exposure guidelines

23. A recommendation in the Stewart Report was that, as a precautionary approach, the ICNIRP (1998) guidelines for public exposure be adopted for use in the UK for mobile phone frequencies. It was felt that this would bring the UK into line with other countries in the European Union. These guidelines have now been adopted by government for application across the UK and provide for a five-fold reduction in exposure guidelines for members of the public compared with the recommended values for people whose work brings them into contact with sources of RF fields (NRPB, 2004b,c).
     
24. The Board welcomes the introduction by government of tighter exposure guidelines for the general public.
     

Base stations

25. A wide variety of types of base stations make up the UK network. Macrocells provide the main framework of the system. Where there are areas of high demand, as in busy streets and shopping areas, microcells are used to infill the network and help to prevent 'lost' calls. Picocells may be installed in buildings or other enclosed areas to improve signal strength and to infill the network in areas of high demand for calls.
     
26. To allay public concerns about levels of exposure, the Stewart Report recommended that there should be an independent, random, ongoing audit of base stations and this has been carried out by the Office of Communications (Ofcom, previously the Radiocommunications Agency). Audits began in 2001 and the website 'Sitefinder', provided by Ofcom, which was launched in October 2001, gives information on the location and operating characteristics of mobile phone base stations throughout the UK. It is expected that by the end of 2004 nearly 450 sites will have been surveyed; progress in general has, however, been disappointingly slow. The Ofcom measurements indicate that exposures of the public from macrocell base stations are small fractions of exposure guidelines, although the information on its website is difficult to find. Similar conclusions on exposure levels have been reached by NRPB from surveys of around 60 base station sites. Exposures in proximity to picocells have been found to be no more than a few per cent of guidelines for the public.
     
27. The Board supports the ongoing audit of base stations and sees this as providing reassurance to the public that exposure guidelines are not being exceeded.
     
28. The Board recommends that the audit should continue, to include 3G base stations and address a wide cross-section of sites reflecting public concerns.
     
29. The Board also recommends that Ofcom ensures that the information on the surveys posted on its website is much more readily accessible, easily interpretable by members of the public, and kept up-to-date.
     
30. The Board notes that whilst the planning process applies to macrocells it does not obviously apply to microcells and picocells. It is important that as the networks develop there is a need for clarity in terms of legal responsibilities and regulations in relation to the installation of microcells and picocells and the availability of information about their deployment.
     
31. The Board recommends that monitoring of potential exposures from 3G base stations should be concomitant with the rollout of the network.
     

Mobile phones and SAR values

32. In September 2001 the European Committee for Electrical Standardisation (CENELEC) published a standard testing procedure for the measurement of specific energy absorption rate (SAR) from mobile phones. Information on all phones marketed in the UK, using this standard testing procedure, is now available.
     
33. However, it is still difficult for people to readily and easily acquire the necessary information so that comparisons of different phones can be made.
     
34. The Board welcomes the provision of information on the SAR from phones by all manufacturers using a standard testing procedure. This is an important contribution to providing information to the public about the potential for exposure and informs consumer choice. It recommends that comparative information on the SAR from phones is readily available to the consumer. The inclusion of comparative data on the SAR from phones in its promotional literature by at least one retailer is a welcome development. The public also need to be able to understand the merits and limitations of published SAR values.
     

Planning guidance on base station locations

35. IEGMP was concerned that anxiety about the presence of local base stations and resulting exposure to RF fields could affect peoples' health, including well-being. IEGMP also heard at open meetings that information about base station developments was frequently not provided to the local community.
     
36. A number of recommendations were made in the Stewart Report to improve the transparency of the local planning process and to improve the planning procedure. A specific recommendation was that permitted development rights for the erection of masts under 15 m should be revoked and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the normal planning process.
     
37. Following publication of the Stewart Report reviews of the planning process were put in place throughout the UK. Revised guidance that was issued aimed to provide for more discussions between operators and local authorities on the development of all proposals for telecommunications equipment and to minimise visual intrusion.
     
38. In Scotland and Northern Ireland the recommendation to require full planning approval for all base station sites has been essentially implemented, but this is not the case in England and Wales. In 2002 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) also issued a Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development. This was produced jointly by representatives of central and local government and the mobile phone industry. Its aim was to provide practical advice to ensure the delivery of significantly better and more effective communication and consultation between operators, local authorities and local people. A similar document was issued by the Welsh Assembly Government in 2003.
     
39. The Mobile Operators Association (MOA, 2004) has published 'ten commitments to best siting practice' and a report entitled Working with the Community to assist mobile telecommunications site acquisition staff in their interactions with local communities when seeking to site local base stations.
     
40. The Board notes that whilst there has been a plethora of documents about planning issues for base stations, public concerns have not abated.
     
41. The Board supports the government view that whilst planning is necessarily a local issue, the assessment of evidence related to possible health concerns associated with exposures to RF fields from base stations is best dealt with nationally.
     
42. Accepting that, the Board believes that it is timely for there to be set in place a much clearer and more readily understandable template of protocols and procedures to be followed by local authorities and phone operators across the UK. It is clear that at present the application of guidance is very variable and that the extent to which the underpinning facts are presented can also be variable. It recommends that there should be an independent review of the extent to which implementation of good practice guidelines by operators and local authorities is being carried out.
     
43. The Board considers that it is important that 'best practice' in relation to network development operates consistently across the country and that how planning applications are dealt with should be an open and transparent process.
     
44. The Board welcomes the ODPM Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development, that incorporates the 'ten commitments on best siting practice'.
     

Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA)

45. This emergency service radio system presently being deployed for use by the police in the UK uses a network of base stations to serve terminals that are either vehicle mounted (repeaters) or in the form of separate handsets (mobile terminals). This is a digitally based system and its operation results in power modulation of some of the RF signal at a pulse frequency of 17.6 Hz.
     
46. At the request of the Home Office, and following publication of the Stewart Report when concerns about the signals from TETRA were raised, AGNIR reported on the possible health effects of TETRA signals (AGNIR, 2001). The report described the operating characteristics of TETRA systems, the physical dosimetry related to signals from the handsets and base stations, and studies relevant to consideration of biological effects.
     
47. It was found by AGNIR that the signals from fixed TETRA base stations were not pulsed, whereas those from associated mobile terminals and repeaters were. It concluded that, "although areas of uncertainty remain about the biological effects of low level RF radiation in general, including modulated signals, current evidence suggests that it is unlikely that the special features of the signals from TETRA mobile terminals and repeaters pose a hazard to health". Nevertheless it recommended that further research was required.
     
48. The Board is aware that the Ofcom base station audit has included some measurements at TETRA base station sites and understands that these have demonstrated that exposures are low compared with guidelines. However, surprisingly, this information is not presently available on the Ofcom audit website.
     
49. For people who are occupationally exposed to RF signals from TETRA handsets the AGNIR (2001) report concluded that it is possible that exposure levels from some handsets can approach guideline levels for the public. The Board understands from the Home Office that these handsets are not in use in the UK.
     
50. The Board places high importance on accumulating knowledge of exposure levels and possible biological effects as the use of TETRA based technology develops and is implemented.
     
51. The Board welcomes the research programme that the Home Office has established. This includes an epidemiological study on police officers who are occupationally exposed to TETRA signals.
     
52. The Board also considers that information on the location and specification of installed TETRA base stations be included in the Ofcom Sitefinder website.
     
53. The Board recommends that TETRA base stations are audited in the same way as GSM base stations.
     
54. Until much more information becomes available the Board considers that it would be premature to rule out the possibility of health effects on users of TETRA based equipment and believes that a precautionary approach should be adopted.
     

Developing technologies

55. A variety of additional technologies are now being progressively developed and implemented in the field of telecommunications. New technologies include third-generation (3G) mobile telephony, wireless local area networks (WLANs), Bluetooth and ultra-wideband (UWB) technology, and radio-frequency identification (RFID) devices.
     
56. The Board considers that it is important to understand the signal characteristics and field strengths arising from new telecommunications systems and related technologies, to assess the RF exposure of people, and to understand the potential biological effects on the human body.
     
57. The Board also believes it important to ensure that the exposure of people from all new and existing systems complies with ICNIRP guidelines.
     

Sensitive groups

58. Populations as a whole are not genetically homogeneous and people can vary in their susceptibility to environmental hazards. There could also be a dependency on age. The issue of individual sensitivity remains an outstanding one in relation to RF exposure and one on which more information is needed.
     
59. IEGMP considered that children might be more vulnerable to any effects arising from the use of mobile phones. The potential for undertaking studies to examine any possible effects on children are, however, limited for ethical reasons. It was recommended in the Stewart Report that the use of mobile phones by children should be minimised and this was supported by the Departments of Health. Text messaging has considerable advantages as the phone is in use for only a short time, when the phone transmits the message, compared with voice communication.
     
60. The Board concludes that, in the absence of new scientific evidence, the recommendation in the Stewart Report on limiting the use of mobile phones by children remains appropriate as a precautionary measure.
     
61. The Board also welcomes an initiative by the World Health Organization in its EMF programme to focus attention on research relevant to the potential sensitivity of children.
     
62. Additionally, there is concern by an increasing number of individuals, although relatively small in relation to the total UK population, that they are adversely affected by exposure either to EMFs in general or specifically to RF fields from mobile phones. A European Commission group of experts termed the syndrome 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity'. Similar concerns have been raised in the past in relation to exposure to agricultural chemicals and other materials.
     
63. Members of the public who have written to the Department of Health in England in relation to RF exposure have reported a variety of distressing symptoms including dizziness, fatigue, chronic headache, irregular heart beat, nausea and vertigo, and loss of memory and concentration. These and other symptoms are reported to result from exposure to a range of EMFs, including RF fields, encountered in everyday life. Similar symptoms were reported to IEGMP at open meetings. Many people also consider that there are serious long-term risks associated with such exposures. In Sweden electromagnetic hypersensitivity has been addressed nationally, accepted as a physical impairment, and a scheme is in place to improve home and working conditions for people who consider themselves to be sufferers.
     
64. The Board considers that the issue of electromagnetic hypersensitivity needs to be carefully examined in the UK. It supports the strengthening of work designed to understand the reasons for the reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity of some members of the public.
     

Occupational exposure

65. Levels of exposure to RF fields can be higher through occupational exposure than for members of the public and sometimes approach guideline levels.
     
66. The Board welcomes the establishment of a register of occupationally exposed people at the Institute of Occupational Health, Birmingham. This should facilitate the determination of whether, occupationally, there are health effects from exposure to RF fields not observed in the general public.
     

Exclusion zones

67. A recommendation in the Stewart Report was that clear, well-defined exclusion zones should be delineated around base station installations within which exposure guidelines might be exceeded. Some improvements in signage are being made to provide for more consistency but the Board is aware that there is no automatic procedure to monitor the appropriate identification of exclusion zones.
     
68. The Board recommends that a formal inspection procedure should be put in place to ensure that exclusion zones are clearly identified.
     

Mobile phones and driving

69. The Stewart Report demonstrated that there is good experimental evidence that the use of mobile phones whilst driving has a detrimental effect on drivers' responsiveness. This translates into a substantial increased risk of an accident. The evidence suggested that the negative effects of phone use while driving were similar whether the phone was hand-held or hands-free.
     
70. The Board welcomes the intention of government to increase the penalty for the offence of using a hand-held mobile phone while driving by making it endorsable with three penalty points and an increased fine of £60.
     
71. The Board notes that the UK legislation on the use of phones in motor vehicles, making it illegal to use any hand-held phone, is tailored to the practicality of enforcement. The evidence remains, however, that the use of mobile phones in moving vehicles, both hand-held and hands-free, can significantly increase the risk of an accident.
     

Hands-free kits

72. There has been considerable interest in the extent to which hands-free kits could reduce the exposure of phone users. The Stewart Report contained a recommendation that independent testing should be available which would allow the effectiveness of such devices to be demonstrated and information provided at the point of sale. The Department of Trade and Industry has commissioned independent testing of various devices and this has shown their use results in a reduction in the exposure of the head by about 50%. However, a standard testing procedure is not yet available.
     
73. The Board recommends the development of standard testing procedures for measuring the effectiveness of hands-free kits for reducing exposure to RF fields.
     
74. The Board further recommends that test data should be available with such equipment at the point of sale.
     

Ombudsman

75. The Board notes that government has not seen it necessary to appoint an ombudsman with responsibilities relating to concerns about RF exposure.
     
76. The Board is aware of the significant role of ombudsmen in other service industries, such as water, electricity and gas, and considers that there is a useful place for such a role in the mobile telecommunications industry.
     

Communication, public information and consumer choice

77. The Stewart Report made a number of recommendations in relation to providing information to the public about mobile phone technology, including circulating leaflets to every household.
     
78. The Departments of Health, instead, have issued two information leaflets: one on mobile phones and one on base stations. Around nine million leaflets have been distributed through shops selling mobile phones, doctors surgeries, post offices and libraries, as well as being distributed to local authorities. These leaflets have also been published in Welsh by the Welsh Assembly Government and widely distributed throughout Wales.
     
79. The extent to which this information helps to inform public health concerns is not clear and the Board therefore welcomes the intention by MTHR to support a review of the effectiveness of information related to public concerns about mobile phone technologies.
     
80. The provision of information needs to use all the media with emphasis on ensuring that information on such issues as SAR and exposure guidelines are presented in a straightforward way. Whilst websites are valuable for providing information to the public, great care is needed in presenting the information and ensuring that it is readily accessible.
    
81. The Board welcomes the MTHR-sponsored initiative to review the effectiveness of information related to public concerns about mobile phone technologies.
     

NRPB

82. NRPB has put considerable effort into providing information that is available to the public on mobile phones and base stations. It has done this through improvements to its website, provision of leaflets, production of a video/CD that has been distributed to all local authorities, and presentations at public meetings throughout the UK. It has also extended its research programme on health-related studies and on dosimetry as well as base station surveys. It is encouraged to continue to develop and improve the approaches it uses to address issues of public concern.
     
83. The Board considers that both now and when NRPB becomes part of the Health Protection Agency, it must have a key role in communicating information on health issues related to emissions from mobile phone and related technology, based on sound scientific evidence.
     

Health-related research

84. Outstanding health-related concerns can be addressed by epidemiological (human health) studies, experimental investigations with animals, and the use of cell-based techniques. Dosimetric studies are important for understanding the exposure of people from various sources and human volunteer studies can investigate short-term interactions of RF fields, for example, with brain function. In the area of telecommunications, however, technological change is rapid and it is a challenge to carry out comprehensive research and to determine the possibility of any health effects.
     
85. Research into any health effects of exposure to RF fields is still in a developmental phase. There are analogies with work on the consequences of exposure to EMFs from power lines. In the early 1980s, the epidemiological studies on exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs lacked methods to directly assess exposure of individuals and instead surrogates for exposure were frequently used. Subsequently portable measurement equipment became available in the late 1980s/early 1990s and the quality of studies providing exposure-response information, for both occupational and domestic exposures, rapidly improved. Studies on RF exposure were in a similar position in the 1990s to those on ELF EMFs in the early 1980s. In recent years, however, considerable effort has gone into developing RF-related studies that combine high quality dosimetry with well-designed studies in experimental biology and epidemiology. Inevitably it will be some time before the present generation of studies comes to fruition. The MTHR programme in the UK has been at the forefront of this advance in RF-related research.
     
86. The MTHR programme was launched in February 2001 with an initial budget of £7.36 million funded by government and industry on a 50 : 50 basis. To date around 30 projects have been funded through MTHR with additional support from the Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, and industry. It presently has a budget of £8.8 million, all of which has now been allocated to the ongoing research programme. The RF-related research in the UK is complementary to further research being carried out world-wide, much of it co-ordinated through the WHO EMF programme.
     
87. The Board considers that the MTHR programme, which was first announced in December 2000, has set the standard for independent, high quality, health-related research on RF exposure.
     
88. The Board further recommends that government and industry should provide support for a continuation of the programme.
     
89. The Board particularly supports the need for further research, in the following areas:
    (a) an international cohort study of mobile phone users aimed at pooling and sharing experimental design, findings and expertise internationally,
    (b) an expanded programme of research on TETRA signals and biological effects,
    (c) effects of RF exposure on children,
    (d) investigation of public concerns about mobile phone technology,
    (e) electromagnetic hypersensitivity and its possible impact on health, including well-being, associated with mobile phone technology,
    (f) studies of RF effects on direct and established measures of human brain function and investigations of possible mechanisms involved,
    (g) complementary dosimetry studies focused on ascertaining the exposure of people to RF fields.

In developing the MTHR and other research programmes, care needs to be taken to prevent unnecessary duplication of studies whilst at the same time seeking to replicate significant findings.

REFERENCES

AGNIR (2001). Possible health effects from terrestrial trunked radio (TETRA). Report of an Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. Doc NRPB, 12(2), 1-86.

AGNIR (2003). Health effects from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Report of an Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. Doc NRPB, 14(2), 1-177.

ICNIRP (1998). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys, 74(4), 494-522.

IEGMP (2000). Mobile Phones and Health. Report of an Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. Chairman, Sir William Stewart. Chilton, NRPB. Available at www.iegmp.org.uk.

Mobile Operators Association, MOA (2004). Working with the Community. Handbook on mobile telecoms community consultation for best siting practice. London, Mobile Operators Association. Available at www.mobilemastinfo.com.

NRPB (2004a). Mobile phones and health. Doc NRPB, 15(5), 17-114.

NRPB (2004b). Advice on limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (0-300 GHz). Doc NRPB , 15(2), 1-35.

NRPB (2004c). Review of the scientific evidence for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (0-300 GHz). Doc NRPB , 15(3), 1-215.

ODPM (2002). Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development. London, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Available at www.odpm.gov.uk.

WAG (2003). Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development. Cardiff, Welsh Assembly Government.

Last reviewed: 1 September 2008