Two years ago our parish council was seeking funds to help build a skate park on the village playing field. We learnt that a firm was offering £35,000 to purchase a small corner of the field to build a transmission mast for mobile telephones. This seemed a good offer, particularly since mobile phone reception was poor for some of the main networks. The Parish Council agreed this was a suitable offer and would help fund our new skate park. The start of each meeting of the Parish Council is always preceded by ‘democratic time’ - half an hour in which any parishioner can raise an issue for the attention of the Council. At the next meeting, one resident stated her opposition to a phone mast because she said she was ‘electrosensitive’ and that the signals from the mast only a mile from her house would produce headaches or even brain damage. Her objections were silenced when a councillor pointed out that the village already had two mobile phone masts in operation (of which she was unaware), and that these seem to have had no adverse effect on her.
The mast has now been built, and is about the same height as the local telephone poles. Mobile phone reception has improved and there have been no fresh reports of ‘electrosensitivity’ in the village. This is a consequence of the fact that this phenomenon probably does not exist. There is of course evidence that people blame microwave radiation for a wide range of symptoms, including even suicide. But several well-conducted scientific experiments have found that, like our local resident, people who complain of ‘electrosensitivity’ are unable to detect when a signal is or is not being transmitted. One study from 2005 is typical and is summarised by the NHS website here: https://www.nhs.uk/news/neurology/mobile-phone-mast-sensitivity-is-it-all-in-the-mind/. This used an experimental group of 44 volunteers who claimed to be ‘electrosensitive’ and a control group of 114 people. The experimental group reported symptoms when they were placed near to a mobile phone mast and told that it was ‘switched on’. When the tests were repeated with the sample not knowing whether the masts were switched on or off, there was no relationship between their symptoms and whether or not mobile phone signals were actually transmitted.
Of course, microwave radiation from mobile phone masts could have long-term effects on people even though their reports of short-term symptoms like headaches are unreliable. Fortunately, there have been several thorough research studies which have attempted to measure the health outcomes of exposure to mobile phone masts. Even better than individual studies are ‘systematic reviews’, which collect every relevant research study, rate their quality according to strict criteria, and come to an overall conclusion based only on the high-quality studies. The World Health Organisation has reported the results of a systematic review of this kind on the health effects of phone masts (https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/12/09-071852/en/). This looked at 134 studies, of which 117 were rejected as not being relevant or not meeting quality standards. A review of the remaining studies found no evidence of any health effects from mobile phone masts. It also confirmed that people claiming to suffer from ‘electrosensivity’ were unable to identify whether or not they were actually exposed to any such signals.
This is good enough for me, speaking as a retired medical researcher. But it raises the question why many people continue to believe that mobile phone masts damage their health. This is really two questions: why do people attribute the very real problems they may experience in their life (such as headaches or depression) to mobile phone masts, and what social circumstances sustain this belief?
It is common for people to seek explanations for adversity, including problems with their health. In the past, they often identified unseen magical forces such as witchcraft and the desire of local gods (or devils) to inflict punishment. Jews or other stigmatised minorities served as locally-identifiable devils. So in 1670, the Empress Margarita Teresa in Vienna blamed her miscarriages on the magical workings of the local Jews, who were promptly expelled from the City. Technology has provided a sequence of unseen forces, from electricity to television sets, and now mobile phones. Each at various times has been blamed for causing cancer or more minor ailments. Few people now worry about electric sockets or television sets interfering with their brains, but mobile phone masts are comparatively new and still being built, at least in country villages. So they have become the latest focus for anxiety.
It is a paradox that beliefs of this kind are sustained in the modern world by means of the very technology that they blame. The Internet, transmitted through wireless routers and mobile phone masts, has become the world’s largest human repository of fantasies and lies. Search for articles on ‘electrosensitivity’, and you will find websites devoted to the concept, often including impressive-looking studies proving their claims. How can a person without expertise in a specialist field distinguish one of these websites from scientifically-valid studies? The answer is that we struggle. What we can do is defer to an expert but be careful in our choices of expert. In particular, we should pay most attention to those who have relevant qualifications and training and who do not have a financial interest in one particular course of action. It is almost certain that a neurologist who has undergone a decade’s training in the science of the brain and its disorders knows more about the causes of headaches than some unknown person running a website on ‘electrosensitivity’. Likewise, more trust should be placed on the opinions of the world’s top climate scientists than an unqualified politician who has been funded by the oil and coal industry (even if he is President of the USA).
The mast has now been built, and is about the same height as the local telephone poles. Mobile phone reception has improved and there have been no fresh reports of ‘electrosensitivity’ in the village. This is a consequence of the fact that this phenomenon probably does not exist. There is of course evidence that people blame microwave radiation for a wide range of symptoms, including even suicide. But several well-conducted scientific experiments have found that, like our local resident, people who complain of ‘electrosensitivity’ are unable to detect when a signal is or is not being transmitted. One study from 2005 is typical and is summarised by the NHS website here: https://www.nhs.uk/news/neurology/mobile-phone-mast-sensitivity-is-it-all-in-the-mind/. This used an experimental group of 44 volunteers who claimed to be ‘electrosensitive’ and a control group of 114 people. The experimental group reported symptoms when they were placed near to a mobile phone mast and told that it was ‘switched on’. When the tests were repeated with the sample not knowing whether the masts were switched on or off, there was no relationship between their symptoms and whether or not mobile phone signals were actually transmitted.
Of course, microwave radiation from mobile phone masts could have long-term effects on people even though their reports of short-term symptoms like headaches are unreliable. Fortunately, there have been several thorough research studies which have attempted to measure the health outcomes of exposure to mobile phone masts. Even better than individual studies are ‘systematic reviews’, which collect every relevant research study, rate their quality according to strict criteria, and come to an overall conclusion based only on the high-quality studies. The World Health Organisation has reported the results of a systematic review of this kind on the health effects of phone masts (https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/12/09-071852/en/). This looked at 134 studies, of which 117 were rejected as not being relevant or not meeting quality standards. A review of the remaining studies found no evidence of any health effects from mobile phone masts. It also confirmed that people claiming to suffer from ‘electrosensivity’ were unable to identify whether or not they were actually exposed to any such signals.
This is good enough for me, speaking as a retired medical researcher. But it raises the question why many people continue to believe that mobile phone masts damage their health. This is really two questions: why do people attribute the very real problems they may experience in their life (such as headaches or depression) to mobile phone masts, and what social circumstances sustain this belief?
It is common for people to seek explanations for adversity, including problems with their health. In the past, they often identified unseen magical forces such as witchcraft and the desire of local gods (or devils) to inflict punishment. Jews or other stigmatised minorities served as locally-identifiable devils. So in 1670, the Empress Margarita Teresa in Vienna blamed her miscarriages on the magical workings of the local Jews, who were promptly expelled from the City. Technology has provided a sequence of unseen forces, from electricity to television sets, and now mobile phones. Each at various times has been blamed for causing cancer or more minor ailments. Few people now worry about electric sockets or television sets interfering with their brains, but mobile phone masts are comparatively new and still being built, at least in country villages. So they have become the latest focus for anxiety.
It is a paradox that beliefs of this kind are sustained in the modern world by means of the very technology that they blame. The Internet, transmitted through wireless routers and mobile phone masts, has become the world’s largest human repository of fantasies and lies. Search for articles on ‘electrosensitivity’, and you will find websites devoted to the concept, often including impressive-looking studies proving their claims. How can a person without expertise in a specialist field distinguish one of these websites from scientifically-valid studies? The answer is that we struggle. What we can do is defer to an expert but be careful in our choices of expert. In particular, we should pay most attention to those who have relevant qualifications and training and who do not have a financial interest in one particular course of action. It is almost certain that a neurologist who has undergone a decade’s training in the science of the brain and its disorders knows more about the causes of headaches than some unknown person running a website on ‘electrosensitivity’. Likewise, more trust should be placed on the opinions of the world’s top climate scientists than an unqualified politician who has been funded by the oil and coal industry (even if he is President of the USA).
