Session Summary Policies on Personal Exposures from Mobile Devices

Transcription

1 Session Summary Policies on Personal Exposures from Mobile Devices Rapporteur- Siegal Sadetzki Chair - Anke Huss

2 Outline 1. Exposure limits from mobile devices (82%) 2. Provisions for information on RF exposure from mobile devices (SAR) (37%- on devices, packing box, information pamphlet, display shelf, internet websites). 3. Provisions for limiting use of mobile phones by children (1/3 respondents- age limits, information to parent, schools ) 4. Provisions of advice on reducing personal exposure to RF fields emitted by mobile devices (56%- what information, to whom & by whom). 5. Provisions for replying to concerns about health risks from RF exposure (60%- general information, public helpline, measurements...)

3 1. Establish exposure limits from mobile Practicality- devices- I There seems to be an agreement that precautionary limits may be cost efficient. ICNIRP based limits can easily be put to action by legislation. Limitation- A repeated comment was that exposure limits may raise concern if not based on scientific established health effects.

4 2. Provisions for information on RF exposure from mobile devices (SAR)-I Practicality- On one hand people commented that the public needs warnings for children and pregnant women and that as a national requirements, it should be made mandatory for manufactures to provide information. On the other hand, few people have mentioned that the SAR is less important than the way of usage (e.g. use of hands free devices). Limitation- Lay people do not understand SAR People are mainly interested in the price It is more than SAR another measure is needed

5 2. Provisions for information on RF exposure from mobile devices (SAR)-I Impact Public should be given information loud and clear to allow informed choice How to implement globally if national requirements differ? Many stakeholders making changes, the process is slow and outdated Rational Must be scientific based, people can decide for themselves

6 3. Handle the use of mobile phones by children- I Policy- need a policy from the WHO ( and my country will follow.. ). A need for school education programs. Practicality Involve the parents and schools and not only children. Very difficult Phones are changing and will become learning devices therefore, limiting use might limit school activities.. Impact- Activity might raise public concern.

7 3. Handle the use of mobile phones by children- I Rational When we talk about children we must use the precautionary principle- mainly through programs for educated use of mobile phones. There is no scientific rational There is a scientific basis (resolution 1815 EU ) Should we be allowed to expose public to untested and unregulated technology There is a need for a survey how children use phones Other ( on radiation induced damage- sleep disturbances, social impact etc.)

8 4. Provide advice on reducing personal exposure to RF fields emitted by mobile devices-i what is your aim????- In essence it is a bad activity if you do not want to raise concern but is a good activity if your plan is to raise concern in order to change behavior. Smart ideas on how to simplify and choose the correct channel were raised.

9 5. Respond to individuals concerned about health risks from RF exposure from mobile devices- I Limitation- supply simple information Information through the GPs and not only on the internet. Friendly information- animation movies on reducing exposure. People don t believe in official advices therefore pick trusted NGOs and GPs. Rational- Monitoring exposure- a good way to lower fears when involves communication activities with lay people. People must be informed when they want to know

10 6. Other items (proposed by participants) We need to elucidate the facts regarding the health effects. Hypersensitivity- should be taken seriously and the WHO should inform the GPs about it Take into consideration the possible health benefits (:mhealth monitoring etc) Pluralistic expert groups assessing risks (not only ICNIRP..). There is a scientific controversy