Base station emissions surveys - more information needed

The Malta Communications Authority has issued a statement regarding the results of the surveys carried out on mobile phone base stations, but more information is clearly required by the interested public.

The fact that for the first time in Malta someone has started to monitor the radiation levels of the base station antennas is a step in the right direction, so long as this is done in the most appropriate way.

The MCA stated that its objective is "to ensure that the radiation emitted from these antennas is within the ICNIRP guidelines".

The authority should know quite well, however, that these standards are almost outdated and have been put aside by many countries such as Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, China and Russia.

Such countries, through their experts' research, have found that besides the already recognised thermal effects of base stations, there are also the non-thermal effects which can cause serious harm to peoples' health.

The ICNIRP safety standards offer no protection against the non-thermal effects, since they were not considered when the standards were set in 1998. For this reason these countries took the initiative and tightened up their standards in order to reduce the risk.

The MCA seems to be happy with the measurements taken so far since they are in the five per cent region. But can the MCA explain what the 100 per cent represent in volts/metre or microwatt/square cm so as to avoid confusion for those who want to make their own calculations?

Is the authority aware that several international conferences have recommended a safety guideline of 0.6 volt/metre against the 41 volt/metre presumed Maltese standard?

And what about the so-called "slightly higher values of power levels found a few metres away from some antennas"? Would it not have been better for the MCA to give us the actual readings so that the public could have the real picture?

It was also reported that special attention was given to hospitals and schools. Can the MCA shed more light on this matter? Was it because such places are considered by many scientists as being very sensitive sites with higher risk to their occupants?

If the MCA thinks that by issuing such statements every now and then in the next three years until all surveys are complete the public is going to be less concerned, it can rest assured that it has the wrong impression.

Nowadays more and more people have loads of information available on the internet and are realising that there is a potential risk to their wellbeing when they are exposed to such low frequency microwave radiation, especially if they happen to have such antennas close to their children's bedrooms.

It would have made much more sense had the MCA chosen more transparent, unbiased and realistic methods of monitoring.