According to Adams (1997), there are three categories of risk; directly perceptible, risks perceptible with the help of science, and virtual risks where “scientist don’t know/cannot agree: BSE/CJD and suspected carcinogens” (Adams, 1997: 285). The type of risk we are analysing in this study is low-dose virtual risk, such as radiation from mobile phones, which completely evades human perceptive abilities. When scientists don’t know or and cannot agree about the ‘reality’ of risks, the public are free to argue from belief and conviction. Joost van Loon (2000) argues that whilst the language of science and politics still appropriates a basic distinction between real and imaginary risk, they are better understood as virtual risks. He continues to say that vulnerability is integral to the virtual risk society and the reality of virtual risks cannot be ‘fixed’ via a form of abstract logic or crude empirical observations. For Van Loon, virtual risks are always a media event and are reflexive in their mediation, that is, mediation has the potential to transform it and this leads us to a serious paradox--the more we know about the world, the more we know about risk, but the more we know about risk, the less we know about the world. “Central to understanding virtual risks are, therefore, notions of chaos and complexity” (Van Loon, 2000:173).
In 1993, The Consumer Medical Journal (TCMJ) in its Nutrition Health Review cited what it called “concerns of British authorities on exposure of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation used by mobile phones that may catalyse the effect of cancer-causing substances” (TCMJ, 1993: 7). The issue had a low profile in the media in the United Kingdom for some considerable time. In January 1998, Cancer Weekly Plus picked up the issue by looking into the support given by the World Health Organisation (WHO) for more research into the possibility that mobile phones, power lines, and radar might cause various diseases including cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. “Dr. M. Repacholi, told a news conference that perceived risks from new technologies had become a serious public health issue; ‘we have to know how big the risk is so that we can balance that with the benefits that come from technology’ he said” (Key and Marble, 1998: 27). According to Key and Marble, it is not possible to say conclusively that mobile phones cause cancer because mobile phones had only been around for less than 10 years and the incubation period for cancer is at least 10, maybe 15 years (Key and Marble, 1998). Another problem with cancer is that it is very notoriously difficult study with many separate events leading to tumour formation. One exposure of a human cell to carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) does not trigger instant cancer formation, instead, the probability of developing cancer which can take many years. In the same period (5th January, 1998) an Australian cancer specialist Dr. Andrew Davidson was more confident that mobile phone use reflects cancer increase. He said that “statistics charted a 50% rise in the incidence of brain tumour in Western Australia State between 1982 and 1992. ‘It is conjectured that the rise in incidence is related to the use (mobile) analogue phones in the late 1980s’ Davidson wrote” (Key and Marble, 1998: 26).
Risk continues to be a major focus of not only scientific and economic interest, but is now also a major subject of a whole variety of cultural, historical, social and political inquiries as well as being a prominent theme of social theories we generate to create the world (Giddens, 1998, Beck, 1992). As Anthony Giddens tactfully describes it, this apparently simple notion unlocks some of the most basic characteristics of the world we live in now. Risk analysis falls broadly into two groups: those who appeal to scientific evidence to criticise what they consider to be exaggerated, overblown or unfounded public fears, and those who turn their focus on and concentrate on sociological data to highlight people’s perceptions, in an attempt to justify a more precautionary outlook. Whilst most people acknowledge that risk contains both a material and a perceptual element, there is seldom a meeting between these methods (Burgess, 2003). The risk of mobile phone use is located in a wider context of risk as conceptualised in Giddens’s and Beck’s ‘risk society’ where risks and hazards are ubiquitous, global and increasingly invisible, transcending our current structures to deal with them. As risk are diffused and globalised, there is no escape (even for the journalist, scientist or politician); in Beck’s own words, “poverty is hierarchic, smog is democratic” Beck, 1992: 36). But Giddens is quick to point out that “risk is not a negative phenomenon-something to be avoided or minimised; it is at the same time the energising principle of a society that has broken away from tradition and nature” (Giddens, 1998: 63). With mobile phones as with others (e.g. GMFoods), the increasingly heated debate moves beyond issues of safety and calculation of risks into areas of ethical, political and other concerns. “Certain opinions may be contrary to a prevailing orthodoxy, political position or ideological hegemony, in which case there may be a reluctance to raise dissenting opinions for fear of retribution against those holding this opinion” (Bate, 1997: viii). As a consequence, the language and rhetoric of the debate has increasingly drawn upon styles and techniques beyond those of factual report and evaluation of evidence with which scientist are most familiar (implicating the media). “Accordingly, decision-making in these contexts cannot be left to the ‘experts’ but has to involve politicians and citizens” (Giddens, 1998: 59). According to Giddens, risks used to be calculated on the basis of past experience. In all new risk situations “We don’t have past experience to guide us, and even whether there are risks at all may be vociferously argued over” (Giddens, 1998: 59-60).
The ‘social constructionists’ approach to environmental risk issues also highlights the role of state/governments in constructing heightened reactions to risk. This approach, developed in the 1970s analyzes ‘claims’-the rhetoric used to define social problems and promote policy solutions; the ‘claim makers’ who advance these claims; and how ‘key players’ and institutions respond. It understands that perception need not have any direct relationship to the problem that it reflects and proceeds from the recognition that “nothing is a in risk itself…but…anything can be a risk” (Ewald, 1993: 199 cited in Burgess, 2002). Risks are constructed through the interaction of ‘claim makers’ positing a risk with other ‘players’ and influences. According to Burgess (2002), government responses have played an important role in the ‘social construction’ of risk perception and suggest that the character of state response itself has had an impact upon the profile of risk concern and subsequently the confidence with which risk claims have been advanced by campaigners; this factor explains the different evolution of the same issue in different countries. According to Burgess (2002: 177) Bate’s (1997) contribution is very useful in identifying influences that shape concerns but is principally concerned with factually challenging risk claims rather than unravelling how they were socially or politically constructed. He argues that despite the influence of social constructionists’ perspective in risk literature, the role of the state has not been extensively examined. Hood et al (1999 cited in Burgess, 2002: 178) identify variations in the form and extent of state regulation of health-related hazards but do not consider the most active of state policy on the evolution of a particular issue. The extent to which authority engages with and thereby potentially legitimises risk concerns, argues Burgess, is rarely actively considered. “Almost by definition, what is a risk ‘issue’ is itself determined by the extent and character of government reaction” (2002: 3). According to Ewald (1993), if a risk is perceived, then it is real and therefore even a ‘phantom risk’ can acquire a life of its own and justify the ‘precautionary’ response: “Risk has an elusive, insidious potential existence…if prevention is necessary, it is because danger exists” (Ewald, 1993: 221, cited in Burgess, 2002: 178). For Burgess, Ewald’s argument that precaution confirms the ‘reality’ of danger appears pertinent in the British mobile phone case. The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) was set up in order for the government response to be proactive given the “considerable amount of media interest, media concern…it is important that we…work very hard to keep ahead of public anxiety” (Tessa Jowell, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 1999: 1). According to Burgess (2002), in the absence of demonstrable effects, health concerns acquire external confirmation and validation and such confirmation can come through a variety of means. He argues that scientific research into ‘virtual’ risks are not susceptible to categorical refutation through scientific proof and “rarely have a revelatory character, but is concerned with the progressive shifting in the balance of probabilities…what’s more, contemporary ‘risk consciousness’ as reflected by the media appears uninterested in further confirmations of (relative) safety” (Burgess, 2002: 184). Whether or not such reactions gain a wider profile, depends on the receptivity of the media, which itself reflects dominant cultural concerns. It is therefore unlikely, in Burgess opinion, that the IEGMP would have been established were it not for the BSE legacy. Meanwhile, as health concerns acquired a political dynamics, the majority of the British continue to use mobile phones suggesting a pragmatic acceptance of risk in the name of utility and convenience. Evidently precautionary state policies may not exercise a decisive influence in the social construction of risk.
In his analysis of the media attention and its role in the alleged links between the use of mobile phones and the increase in brain tumours, Grant, Robin (1999), consultant neurologist, focuses on one event; “the Mobile Mystery”, Panorama, BBC1, Monday 24th May, 10.05pm. This programme has quite high viewer ratings and Grant explains how the programme used two case histories to illustrate the possible damaging effects of these proliferating ‘essentials’. One patient developed ‘band-like headache, mood swings, and memory problems and while other patient developed a brain tumour. Panorama used unpublished studies from Sweden and the USA to support the alleged link between phone use and brain tumours. “These were interesting findings, but there were many pitfalls in drawing a conclusion…No response was given on whether a dose-response relation existed regarding phone use” (Grant, 1999: 1496). In other words Grant, a renowned scientist, was not in the least impressed or convinced by the panorama media hype. The programme, despite the gaping loopholes in science, caused more widespread concern and response not only in Britain.
The study will now turn our attention to another media event; a current affairs programme on BBC Radio 4 Analysis: “Risky Business” was broadcast on Thursday 11, December 2003 at 20:30. Among the eight participants were Michael Meacher, former Environment Minister, Dr. Caroline Lucas, Green MEP, and interestingly Adam Burgess, Sociology Lecturer and author of “Cellular Phones, Public Fears, and a Culture of Precautions”. The discussion was about the “Precautionary Principles” and it revolved around mobile phone safety so it came as no surprise when presenter, Coyle, immediately placed mobile phones alongside designer babies, Frankenstein foods and global warming when she asked whether this means our approach to technology should ‘be better safe than sorry’. I am particularly interested in what Burgess had to say. From a sociological point of view, Burgess said we should treat cases singularly. He pointed out that the very fact that an inquiry has been held in a context of political consumer safety concerns seems to confirm the presence of a danger. But he asserts that as a sociologist he, unlike the others, is less concerned about financial consequences but the impact on “the fabric of life and the sense in which everyday culture is dominated by anxiety about the worst possible outcomes and that becomes the way in which we determine how we act. That seems to be an enormously potentially destructive thing about social interaction and about the way we live our lives” (full transcript on ). Although I do agree with his approach, I could not help thinking how, for decades, tobacco companies were insisting that their products were harmless. It is interesting to parallel the case of mobile phones and brain cancer with that of smoking and lung cancer. I often assume (rightly or not) that the media have a significant role to play in such matters by making us more aware than previous generations of the various risk issues we face. Certainly in the absence of political debate, the media do have a more prominent role, but what is overlooked is the extent to which it is the politicians, regulators and even the scientists themselves who instigate the issue.
Just when you think you have about heard all there is to know about the link between mobile phones and health, another issue pops up. “Toxins in household products and mobile phones may contaminate breast milk, experts claim” (Daily Mirror, Monday April 5, 2004). Eight women tested by the ITV’s Tonight with Trevor McDonald were all found to have traces of potentially harmful chemicals. They include flame retardants from phones, coolants and pesticides. Mothers were warned that babies exposed to these toxins could suffer growth abnormalities, learning difficulties and problems developing movement and co-ordination. But again opinion was divided when some experts argued that breast milk is still best. “Breast milk is important in terms of brain development. Babies who are breast-fed achieve an advantage over bottle-fed babies” said Dr Ruth Lawrence, but this again does not mean it is safe. Mothers were advised to cut chemicals at home by ditching super-strength cleaners and eat organic food.
We have observed that Sociologists suggest that our perception of risk is shaped by such factors as whether the risk is taken voluntarily, the extent to which it is understood, the fear it instils, our level of trust in authority and the impact the risk may have particularly on children. Thanks to science and new technology, we are able to measure toxins in at lower concentrations than had been previously possible, but alleged links between science and potentially harmful radiation still remains to be proved. But often, inability to satisfy curiosity makes people suspicious, so that informed debate is overtaken by fears of conspiracy. The public no longer trusts governments and scientists to manage climate change or botched food scares. If mobile phones are not safe then why are they on sale at all? If large profitable drug companies want to licence a new drug/product, they are required to carry out extensive, self-funded test. Journalist, in their use of language and imagery, therefore stand accused because most of their coverage is usually not about risk but blame anger and fear. Instead of being spectators, the media have become key players in politics; instead of following the agenda, the media are increasingly setting it.
REFERENCES
Adam, B, Beck, U & Van Loon, J (Eds) The Risk Society and Beyond; critical issues for social theory, London: Sage
Bate, Roger (Ed) (1997) What Risk, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann
BBC Radio 4 Analysis: Risky Business, Thursday 11 December, 2003; Available at (14/02/04)
Beck, Ulrich, (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage
Burgess, A (2002) Comparing national responses to perceived health risks from mobile phone masts, Health, Risk & Society, 4 (2): 175-189.
Burgess, A (2003) Cellular Phones, Public Fears and a Culture of Precaution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Daily Mirror, Monday April 5, 2004: 14
Giddens, Anthony (1998) The Third Way: the renewal of social democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Grant, Robin (1999) ‘Mobiles on Brains’ 29th May, BMJ: British Medical Journal
House of Commons Scientific and Technological Committee (1999) Minutes of Evidence, London: Stationery Office
(IEGMP) (2000) Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones report, Mobiles and Health (Stewart report), at (14/02/04).
Key, S. W and Marble, M (1998) ‘UN Backs Research into Mobile Phones and Health Risks’, Cancer Weekly Plus; 1/5/98, pg27
Key, S. W and Marble, M (1998) ‘Mobile Phones use Reflects Cancer Increase’, Cancer Weekly Plus; 1/19/98, pg26
Nutrition (Editorial, 1993), Mobile Telephones: A Cancer Risk? Health Review: Consumers Medical Journal, 1993 (65): 7
“Tonight with Trevor McDonald”, 8pm, ITV Monday April 5, 2004.