The health risks of TETRA - are you aware of this? I find it quite terrifying.

[WideWebWitch]

Interesting and sobering article in The Ecologist today about TETRA, which is a propsed new system to be used by the police as a communication device to replace walkie talkies. Here's the first paragraph:

"Costing £2.9 billion, the UK's new police communication system Tetra has been described by one independent scientist as likely to cause `more civilian deaths than all the world's terrorist organisations put together' The full piece is here - as he says: "If you live near a Tetra mast, then this story affects you directly. And considering that there will eventually be at least 3,200 such masts erected in the UK, there will be one near you."

Children from Littlehampton in Sussex had to be sent home from school with nosebleeds when the mast was turned on. More info from Tetrawatch, here . There was a list of action to take at the end of the article and I intend to take all of them. If anyone's interested I'll post details (this action list doesn't appear in the online version)

That is scary. I love the Ecologist. Zac Goldsmith for Prime Minister!

Yes I'm interested, particularly as I live near a division HQ, so they'll put one here! please post!

There was an article in our local paper about a policeman who developed cancer in his neck/ear after using this system.He sadly died & his colleagues & family are convinced that this system caused it.

Just read the article-that poor guy was Neil Dring.

He was only 38 too. So sad and, if his family are right, preventable. Will post the action stuff tomorrow.

(background: I worked for 7 years in the mobile radio industry writing software to optimise and test mobile radio networks. I'm not an expert on health stuff, but I was required as part of my job to understand how radio works and know what the current reasearch at the time was.)

The health risks associated with radio communications in general depend upon the distance between the transmitter and you and upon the power of the radio signal. i.e. a high powered radio signal near you is more dangerous than one far away or than a close low power one. There is also the frequency of the signal to take into consideration. A mobile radio network consists of two main bits: the mobile phone and the base station. The base station is typically sited on mast and handles multiple calls from people within it's "sphere of influence". A mobile phone typically is clamped to the side of your head whilst making the call.

The power emitted from the base station is much higher than that from the mobile. Thus you would not want to stand next to a basestation antenna whereas you are probably happy enough to put your mobile to your ear. In terms of "risk", there is not a lot of risk to health from using a mobile phone for shortish calls. I can't remember the guidelines now, but I personally wouldn't recommend using a mobile continuously for 4 hours, but I would be happy to make 4 hours' worth of calls over a 24 hour period for instance. You probably wouldn't want a basestation in your back garden, though one 300 yards away on top of a tall building would be much less of a problem (health-wise, that is... having a tall builing 300 yards from your back door is another problem!)

TETRA isn't a GSM mobile phone network though and does a number of things differently. At a guess, it transmits more power. I don't know for sure though and it could be some other feature of the TETRA system that is generating these health concerns. Certainly there are a number of reports in the media (e.g bbc news list ) that date back over the last two years.

As usual there aren't any hard and fast facts here, and clearly more studies need to be done as they were for GSM mobile phones. Certainly, I wouldn't want to be a guinea pig for this new system any more than I would have wanted a mobile phone in the first 3 years of their existance. Living near a mast is a problem as you don't control them putting one up. However you can get it taken down again if it affects you (e.g. this news item )

Mobile radio has always had health issues in the same way that cars have always had emissions issues. Personally. I would want to see lots of pressure applied to get more studies done rather than to ban the system. This is what happened with mobile phones and as a result the system has been changed to be safer. Getting TETRA safer is much more likely to happen than getting it abandoned.

RobA, thanks for your informative post.
I agree with your last sentence.
It would be start though, if the Police authority would admit that there are lots of questions to be answered and further research is required. Then the governement and the companies involved in producing this TETRA system should invest in such research and in further re-development/improvements to bring the user to an acceptable safe condition when using this particular radios. And ofc ourse to be considerate as to where they place the base(s) for the system.

Oh... here is a recent report by the NRPB. Of course, you might choose to assume that it's biased, but I'd point out that the chairman of the committee that produced this particular report was Sir Richard Doll of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund Cancer Studies Unit, Oxford which strikes me as reasonably likely to be impartial. (The other board members seem to have been equally impartial).

The main problem with the NRPB is how slow its wheels turn - that report is from 2001!

However, this report is much more recent, though doesn't study TETRA specifically.

RobA goes back to lurking

Branster, I agree completely.

In my experience it takes time for large organisations to admit to anything! I would guess that the fastest route is to get your MP to pressurise the police authority. (Pressurising this Government is a waste of time!) Certainly, no one commissions research into anything that might cost them money unless they have pressurised into it.

Aha, had just read them. Then, until more clear evidence , research is done, caution should ebe taken and I really, really hope that people who would need to use this sytem would be trained and advised on limiting exposure etc until all is known (if ever). As for those living near fixed bases...will have to see what happens.
It all has great implications and the scientific take on it doesn't make it very easy for my little brain, but I'm quite certain TETRA will evovle and it'll be used on a wider scale within the next decade.

Pressurising the Police authority, if successful, should lead to the Police pressurising the governement and manufacturers to invest in new research because the Police themselves don't have money for such things (whatever they get comes from the government). But, as already said, they need to accept that there is a big question mark.
Will have to look into it as I'm quite concerned for the wellbeing of primary users of these devices (am assuming is not just the police from what I've just read)

Thanks WWW... I too will be taking action. Scary.

It is just the police atm. The ambulance serves etc haven't taken it. RobA, thanks for that, interesting. The piece says the NRPB are really highly unlikely to be impartial though, do you think this research was? (Genuine question)
The action list is quite long so I won't post it tonight but will scan/type it in tomorrow.

OK, actions to take. Typed in from the article in The Ecologist:

1. Scour planning announcements in the local press for Tetra masts. Look for references to O2, MM02, Airwave
2. Copy this article and send it to your local councillors, asking for a response
3. Ask your council if there is any attempt in your locality to get Tetra masts approved as 'permitted development'. If so, get at least 5 local residents to send letters of objection, pref by recorded delivery to the named person from the company responsible and to your local authority's planning dept
4. Lobby your council generally. Although Tetra mast less than 15metres high do not usually need planning permission, some councils have blocked permission for them. Telecoms cos have gone to court, only to find the courts back the local authorities. Planning depts often say they cannot take fears over health risks into account when making their decisions. This is not so; there is legal precedent for health and perceived risks to health being accepted as material considerations (Skelt vs the First Secretary of State). Be aware that companies may put in 2 planning applications simultaneously for one mast site; both applications will need to be contested
5. Speak to local landowners. If local people wish to make claims for ill health or depreciation of property, they can claim against the owners of the land on which Tetra masts are sited but not the companies (like O2 for example) that own the masts. One landowner is being sued for 5.2m
6. Adopt Motorola's slogan 'intelligence is everywhere' and stay informed. Visit these websites for up to date information: www.tetrawatch.net mastsanity.org mastaction.co.uk powerwatch.org.uk starweave.com em-hazard-therapy.com
7. Inform your community with leaflets and public meetings. Form a local campaign and link up with other groups
8. Talk to local police and send them a copy of this article
9. If you are a Motorola or O2 customer, switch your phone to another company and tell Motorola and O2 why
10. Contact your MP and MEP. Green MEP Caroline Lucas has called for an EU wide ban of Tetra. If her declaration for a ban were to attract 313 signatures from MEPs, it would become the official policy of the European parliament, and Tetra would be stopped in its tracks
11. Contact the local press

And this isn't in the action points in the article but I'd add 12) Post this on any website where you think the members need this information.

"The piece says the NRPB are really highly unlikely to be impartial though, do you think this research was? (Genuine question)"

One of the unfortunate effects of this Government is a tendancy to assume that everything vaguely related to the Government is being "spun" and is untrustworthy. I think that this is unlikely and whilst I personally wouldn't trust this Government's policitians and "special advisors", I see no reason to tar every civil servant with the same brush.

Personally, I think that the people associated with the report are likely to want to keep their reputations. As an organisation, I don't think that the NRPB is any less "impartial" than an "independant" company like Coghill Research Laboratories. i.e. most organisations are biased to one degree or another. Some organisations are better at having checks in place to ensure that these biases are controlled.

I personally think that the NRPB as a regulatory organisation is unlikely to systematically set out to disinform the public, and is more likely to be "cautious" in accepting "facts" at face value and also to be "slow moving" when recommending changes. This is not necessarily a bad thing though as in my opinion, knee jerk reactions where laws and regulations are concerned is Not Good.

I quite like a lot of the suggested action points except the bit in 10 about getting it banned without a suggesting better alternative. I'm also a little concerned that the list of places to look at to stay informed and up to date appear to all be pressure groups. Whilst I'm sure all pressure groups try to be non-biased, I wouldn't want them to be my sole source of information any more than I would want the Government to be.

RobA, what concerns me is the following in the article: "Clearly, there is a real need for tougher regulation and testing of new technologies, but the government doesn't see it that way at all, and the person it has put in charge of its Better Regulation Task Force is David Arculus, who is also chair of MMO2. The fox is in charge of guarding the chicken coop."
and this: "Yet if you telephone the NRPB as a member of the press you will be told: 'Agnir concluded that it was unlikely that special features of the Tetra system posed a risk to health.' And the website of the Tetra Industry Group (whose members include O2, Motorola and Nokia) cheerfully says the group 'noted Agnir's conclusion that research published since the Stewart Report does not give cause for concern.'

Why? The government agency the Police Information Technology Organisation (Pito) candidly says of the Agnir report that 'the research was commissioned to reassure users of systems like Airwave that they do not pose a risk'. The report itself echoes this observation: one study, it said, 'could be of crucial importance in helping to reassure users of the safety of amplitude-modulated and pulse-modulated communication systems'. (The italics are mine.) Call me old-fashioned, but I rather thought that the job of an organisation called the National Radiological Protection Board might be to protect the nation from hazardous radiation; instead it seems to be protecting industry from hazards to its profits."

well, yes, the websites are biased. I suppose anyone who wanted the other side of the story could go to O2's website or get the official Home Office press release. Having trawled through a lot of news stories though yesterday once I'd read The Ecologist piece, I'm fairly (nom make that extremely) likely to believe that 11 children had nosebleeds and that residents of Dursley have had various health issues that they believe to be connected to Tetra masts. I just don't think people make stuff like this up.

We're having a BT mast put up next to our school that's going to be huge. I noticed the mention of BT in one of the articles and am even more concerned now.

Going to have to read up a bit more on these specific things before I can comment much. However browsing the BRTF pages, as far as I can tell the BRTF is only about ensuring that regulation in general is reasonable. It doesn't appear to have any power other than as an advisor to the government. Also, looking at what it's done, it doesn't appear to look at anything technical, such as pollution, radio, medical etc. I'm not actually sure what the point of it is at all!

Moving on to this bit: "Why? The government agency the Police Information Technology Organisation (Pito) candidly says of the Agnir report that 'the research was commissioned to reassure users of systems like Airwave that they do not pose a risk'. The report itself echoes this observation: one study, it said, 'could be of crucial importance in helping to reassure users of the safety of amplitude-modulated and pulse-modulated communication systems'. (The italics are mine.) Call me old-fashioned, but I rather thought that the job of an organisation called the National Radiological Protection Board might be to protect the nation from hazardous radiation; instead it seems to be protecting industry from hazards to its profits."

The report itself says this: "This report by the National Radiological Protection Board's Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation gives advice on possible health effects of Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA). It has been prepared at the request of the Government, as a conseqence of a recommendation by the Independant Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) in May 2000 that 'as a precautionary measure, amplitude moderation around 16Hz should be avoided, if possible, in future developments in signal coding'
The IEGMP recommendation was made because of the results of a number of studies on the effects of radiofrequency (RF) fields on the rate of loss of radiolabelled calcium from brain and other tissues. These studies, most of which were carried out in the late 1970s and early 1980s on isolated tissues, had suggested that when the RF signal was modulated at around 16Hz the rate of calcium efflux was increased. IEMGP concluded that although no obvious health risk was suggested, as a precautionary measure, amplitude modulation around 16Hz should be avoided if possible."

which is not the same implication at all as what the article says. I have to conclude that if you are implicitly anti-radio/tetra/government/whatever, then the phraseology used will be negative and if you are pro (like O2) then the phraseology will be positive. The nrpb's agnir seems to use detailed phraseology ad nauseum which doesn't appear to me be be particularly biased one way or the other. It looks like a boring report to read - 90 pages of which 4 are references. I haven't had time to read it all - will try to do so today/this evening.

"I just don't think people make stuff like this up."

Me neither. However, I don't think that there's necessarily a direct causal link without any other factors being involved. To me, it seems possible we are looking at a situation that if you are predisposed towards a weakness to radiological effects then TETRA may cause your symptoms to be more obvious. i.e. the same as every other medical/health thing - there's lots of catalysts and the interaction between them needs study before conclusions can be reliably drawn.

It's quite an interesting topic, so will read up some more on this. Finding "facts" that haven't been written up from a biased point of view is proving tricky though. Nothing I've read so far makes me want to change my view that banning tetra is counter-productive and that more saftey studies are needed and should be called for.