Quoting from Senator Richard Alston, Minister
for Communications and the Arts, Senate speech of 5
March 1997 attacking Dr. Neil Cherry:
"The facts are that the United Kingdom
department of health recently published a national
study which concluded that people living close to
radio or television transmitting masts are not at
increased risk of developing leukemia. Dr Cherry
simply refuses to take notice of that. This man is
not interested in the facts."
Comments on Senator Alston's statement by
Professor Ivan Beale. Dr. Beale is a committee member
on the joint Australian/New Zealand Standards
Committee for the current RF/MW standard AS 2772-1
1990. Dr. Beale's reply (5/3/97):
"The UK study referred to by Senator Alston
was not published by the UK Department of Health. In
fact there are two studies, not one. The authors are
Dolk et al., and both are published in the American
Journal of Epidemiology, vol 145, 1997. In fact, both
studies found a decline in risk with increasing
distance from a transmitter, for adult leukemia.
Additionally, one study (Sutton Coldfield) found an
significantly elevated risk for adult leukemia within
2 km of the transmitter, whereas the other study
(multiple sites) did not. These findings seem
inconsistent with the Senator's statement.
"Several of Senator Alston's statements could
be fairly summarised as saying something like
this:" the responsible science-based view is
that there is no scientific evidence that
radiofrequency radiation associated with
telecommunications and broadcasting places the public
at risk for adverse health effects.
"My comment is this: Any competent literature
review would conclude that there is substantial
evidence of biological effects in animals and cell
cultures and of adverse health effects in humans, of
exposure to RF fields too weak to produce significant
heating. Protection standards have not been based on
this evidence because it is not yet sufficiently
coherent to yield thresholds for adverse effects. In
my view it is irresponsible to say that this evidence
is unscientific or unsubstantiated, and it is
irresponsible to say that this evidence proves that
the public are at risk.
"What is responsible, is to say that there is
legitimate reason for concern, and that we should
adopt a precautionary approach until such time as the
evidence is more coherent. It's a pity that the
debate reported in this Hansard was not more
responsible and balanced in its consideration of this
issue."
