A meeting of the parliamentary committee on social affairs held last week looked into the matter of harm caused by mobile masts

Now we all know that without these masts we would not have the comfort of our mobile phones, or at best would not be able to use them inside. But this does not mean that we should not take any action when faced with evidence of harm.

A presentation by Prof. Massa showed ample articles from the renowned Lancet asserting the incidence of leukaemia in children associated with electromagnetic fields generated by mobile phones, and especially mobile masts, with the latter having a higher concentration of energy. One gentleman raised his concern over a group of children suffering from leukaemia in Marsascala, his child having had the disease having to take a lot of time off school. One of the other children died. Is there any evidence? Only observational. But it is definitely time to map out the distribution of mobile masts superimposed on a map of the residence of children with leukaemia – especially clusters. If there is a correlation, no amount of ‘lack of evidence’ can rule out the association.

Naturally, when this was raised in parliament the Minister for Health had no option but to quote what our responsible official bodies tell him – that there is no evidence. But this argument is becoming weaker and those who quote non-updated studies, or do not look at other evidence or simply choose which international body to rely on, are carrying a moral, if not legal, responsibility.

The stakes are of course high and a lot of money is involved; where there is money there are politicians who are involved in balancing the cost/benefit ratio. Of course, one is not saying that we should ban mobile phones and remove mobile masts everywhere but Mepa rules must be followed and a case was made that many of these masts are in breach of certain regulations. I would advise those who witness these illegalities to take the case to the police rather than only to the parliamentary committee.

But the issue here is not about evidence. It is one of precaution. A precaution is not a form of prevention. Prevention relies on evidence, whereas precaution relies on a strong possibility in the absence of evidence. And more importantly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Clear EU and Unesco guidelines exist on how managers and politicians can apply the precautionary principle. In particular, Minister of Health please note, there is no need for evidence. To quote one of the guidelines, “the potential harm is sufficiently serious or even irreversible for present or future generation or otherwise morally unacceptable,” and “there is a need to act now, since effective counteraction later will be made significantly more difficult or costly”.

To wait until evidence is produced means that we have to wait for children to be diagnosed with cancer. This is the asbestos scenario being repeated. Despite being faced with facts, we waited until people got sick to act. Well, now people are sick, and someone somewhere is carrying the moral burden because in the face of facts and other scientific studies abroad they did not act.

In defining the meaning of ‘evidence’ we are missing the points. For something to become ‘evidence’ (what we call evidence-based medicine), studies are not sufficient. Evidence has to enter the medicine guidelines – such as the NICE guidelines. It takes time for this to happen but the World Health Organisation has expressed itself clearly. But when the studies are numerous in number (and they number in the hundreds) and are on reputed journals (can anyone question the Lancet, the BMJ or the New England Journal of Medicine?), then failure to act is morally (and legally) unacceptable. We have moved from precaution to prevention as the evidence is there – even if international standards have not yet caught on.

The stakeholders should meet and rather than discuss whether it is true, they should seek to resolve it. We can certainly use the three R’s: Reduce (the exaggerated numbers), Remove (the extra – companies can share), Replace (promote landline use – i.e. recognise the environmental hazard of every call). Perhaps it is time to introduce environmental measures and surcharges on mobile phones. We have children with mobile phones in their hands and parents who are not being educated about the risks involved.

A picture depicting two young girls at their bedroom window with a mobile mast in the background, only seven metres away, was presented. Whose permission was asked? Were people duly informed? We were told that people in charge of installing mobile masts often come in the early hours of the morning and claim that they cause no harm.

Pierre Mallia is Associate Professor in Family Medicine, Patients’ Rights and Bioethics at the University of Malta; he is also Ethics Adviser to the Medical Council of Malta. He is also former president of the Malta College of Family Doctors