Scientific Evidences
The scientific evidence that are produced and presented to the public are “although more research into the effects of RF radiation is being undertaken to answer unresolved questions, there is no convincing evidence that prolonged exposure to very low levels of RF radiation causes any adverse health effects.” (Anonymous, 1998, ‘Mobile phone base stations: is there a health hazard?)
This evidence that is presented to members of the public does not address their issues and did not provide them with guarantee of anything. It just merely mentions that there is no proof that mobile towers emitting radio frequency did pose as a threat to health issues.
“Scientists have known for a long time about the ability of RF radiation to cause heating, which can lead to severe health effects on the body such as fatigue, reduced mental concentration and cataracts, if exposed to very high levels. These effects are known as thermal effects, some of which can be created by subjecting a person to a warm environment.” (Anonymous, 1998, ‘Mobile phone base stations: is there a health hazard?) Similar problems are found with mobile phones too.
It is agree by Dr John Moulder that there are some possibilities that mobile towers cause adverse health effects however there are no scientific basis for the claims that have been made. (Moulder, J., 2002, ’Cellular Phone Antennas (Mobile Phone Base Stations) and Human Health’)
The truth is that there are there is an issue with the existence of radiation which society believed that it would have been the cause of adverse health effects through over exposure. The perception that mobile phone radiation can be accepted is because of the short term usage, whereas for the mobile towers, it is considered to be constantly exposed therefore unacceptable.
With the affirmation that “In recent years attention has been focused on the possibility that long term exposure to low levels of RF radiation may be responsible for serious health effects, such as cancer.” (Anonymous, 1998, ‘Mobile phone base stations: is there a health hazard?) Even when compared to television and radio frequency, which indefinitely emit more radiation than mobile phone towers, it is still insufficient to change the views of public members through this convincing proof.
People are reluctant to change their beliefs due to references of occurring cases on radiation. They want guarantee on their health safety in the long run. They want confirmation on the harmless effects on the mobile phone towers which have prove to pose a threat for a long period of time therefore scientific evidence is insufficient. Assurance is the key to change their beliefs of the threatening mobile phone towers.
Issues of Health Aspects
“EMR may prove to be a hidden problem and is one which will not go away. The Committee is aware that community fears about the unknown effects of EMR have been exacerbated by lack of access to detailed scientific and medical research into the potential effects of EMR in Australia.” (Anonymous, n.d, ‘Senate Committee Recommendations Reflect Community Concern on Towers’)
The main contribution towards members of the public still in continuation towards the health aspects of mobile phone and their antenna towers are, although they are partly concern about health aspects’, not being well informed is also a contributing factor to withholding their views on these wireless communication facilities threat.
Members of the public do not believe the scientific evidence as large quantity of resources and time are spent on research, therefore establishing the fact of the presence of a threat. The elements that substantiate public members of not trusting the scientific evidences are due to their buildup of strong beliefs through reading of articles and cases reviewed on the threats of these wireless communication facilities. Therefore these public members are not willing to assume the additional risks for future purposes and their family.
"Even the highest daily average level recorded for one of the sites was still three thousand times lower than the limit.” and "given the very low levels recorded and the relatively low power of these types of transmitters, it's highly unlikely that the radiofrequency radiation from base stations would cause any adverse health effects, based on current medical research." (Anonymous, 2000, ‘Low Emissions from Mobile Phone Towers’) The evidence that were presented to members of the public is not persuasive and does not provide them with assurance through verbal uncertainty like “highly unlikely”.
Further beliefs of these public members have taken into considerations, the risks that these mobile towers would bring. All the evidence researched and provided to them are all of short term basis, these people are concerns about the long term effects that these facilities might bring in. As they take into consideration that exposure is frequent as they are constantly exposed to radiation. They are concern for their family and their own health aspects. Main contributing factors are that the members to not trust the scientific evidence due to their knowledge of occurrence of events due to radiation. The ‘anchored’ fear in them does not enable them to accept the evidence easily with fear of personally experiencing it. Other minor contributing factors include the towers being unsightly.
It is the closing factor that “the weight of national and international expert opinion is that there are no substantiated evidence that living near a mobile phone tower or using a mobile causes adverse health effects” (Anonymous, 2000, ‘Frequently Asked Questions: Mobile Telephony, Your Health and Regulation of Electromagnectic Radiation’)
Recommendations
As mentioned by Dr John Moulder, that “it is also important to be aware that there are many different designs of mobile phone base stations that vary widely in their power, their characteristics, and their potential for exposing people to RF radiation.” (Moulder, J., 2002, ’Cellular Phone Antennas (Mobile Phone Base Stations) and Human Health’) Thus the possible solutions that can be undertaken are to take the precautions in setting up the mobile phone towers. As with the preventive measures taken, it would enable effective low radiation being emitted.
It is important to educate and importantly to inform factual evidence and information to the public so as to allow understanding of the functions and would not create an issue towards the advancement of telecommunications. Another key factor is to inform public of standards and their functions, so as to inform public of the compliance of exposure limits that has been assured. My suggestions towards the solution are to encourage mobile phone companies to assure that they will follow the safety precautions, concurrently educating members of the public on these facilities and issues.
Conclusion
To conclude, the main reasons for proceeding with the security and safety precautions of installing mobile phone towers is on the truth that with consideration that communication technology would advance eventually without health issues being an obstacle, it is most beneficial that society reaps the benefits of technological enhancements that it offers. Explanations would have to be done on the money spent on research is to provide information with evidence rather than just researching on the threats. Other alternatives might not be feasible as it is the minds of the members that have to be persuaded rather than providing the factual evidence with no assurance.
My thoughts on this issue is that there would be secured assurance if public would have been informed that mobile phone towers are erected with cautiousness. It is beneficial to us to savor this communicating technology enhancement. However it is clear that no one would ever give in to these benefits without the health to enjoy it especially when it has proven that there are cases of a possible threat. With the evidence provided scientifically, it is insufficient to provide persuasive power to change a fear that has been ‘anchored’ in minds. This fear that is anchored are has increased reluctance to take risks therefore it is apprehensible of the reasons that why some members of the public are still concern on health aspects although scientific evidence is being provided.
References
Moulder, J., 2002,’Cellular Phone Antennas (Mobile Phone Base Stations) and Human Health’, in mcw.edu [Online]
Available:
(Accessed on 25th March 2002)
Sage, C., 2001, ‘Microwave And Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure: A Growing Environmental Health Crisis?’, in sfms.org [Online]
Available:
(Accessed on 1st April 2002)
Smith, J.E, 2002, ‘Telecommunications Bill Raises Constitutional Issues’, in blazing-trails.com [Online]
Available:
(Accessed on 1st April 2002)
Anonymous, 2000, ‘Low Emissions From Mobile Phone Towers’, in arpansa.gov [Online]
Available:
(Accessed on 4th April 2002)
Anonymous, n.d, ‘Senate Committee Recommendations Reflect Community Concern on Towers’, Volume 1, No.1 Article 3, in tassie.net.au [Online]
Available:
(Accessed on 28th March 2002)
Anonymous, 1998, ‘Radiofrequency fields: is there a health hazard?’, in health.sa.gov.au [Online]
Available:
(Accessed on 26th March 2002)
Anonymous, 1998, ‘Mobile phones: is there a health hazard?’, in health.sa.gov.au [Online]
Available:
(Accessed on 26th March 2002)
Anonymous, 1998, ‘Mobile phone base stations: is there a health hazard?’, in health.sa.gov.au [Online]
Available:
(Accessed on 26th March 2002)
Anonymous, 2000, ‘Frequently Asked Questions: Mobile Telephony, Your Health and Regulation of Electromagnectic Radiation’, in aca.giv.au [Online]
Available:
(Accessed on 20th March 2002)