Lots of concerns have been raised over health-fears related to mobile phone masts and even wireless Internet connections (WiFi). There is no evidence to substantiate these concerns but, the objections are not totally irrational.
The first thing to understand is why evidence matters. In the mid-17th early-18th century a philosophical movement developed called the Enlightenment. This concept was that rather than human beings using intuition to develop an understanding of their world they would use scientific process. This scientific process, or method, has three parts. The first part is to generate an idea or hypothesis. The second part is then to gather evidence by observation (experimentation being one method of observation) using a method that others can reproduce. The third part is that others repeat the methodology and see if they get the same observations (evidence). The third part serves as a means of either disproving the whole hypothesis or fine-tuning it. That is, they get very similar results but observe something more complex than was originally conceived.
This sounds all very dry. It is the basis of our society. So, if a crime is committed rather using trial-by combat (God will surely intervene on the side of the righteous) or intuition, that shifty looking bloke with one eyebrow must have pinched my DVD, a court requires evidence.
Rather than drilling a hole in someone’s head to let out the evil spirits that are causing a headache we take an anti-inflammatory like aspirin.
The starting point is the hypothesis. This means that something is observed and an attempt made to describe it. For example, when Galileo observed marbles rolling he described what was going on using the terms inertia and friction. By using a smoother surface the marbles rolled further. That is he formed a hypothesis following an observation and then conducted experiments to prove or disprove it.
Later, another party, Sir Isaac Newton, fine-tuned this into his first Law of Motion. This may be the stuff of nightmares for school children but that first Law of Motion changed the way people saw movement. It changed from being an intuitive one where things move because you make them to one where objects continue to move not because you push them but because you push in order to overcome forces that would stop them – friction. The less friction the less the push.
Yawn! What has this got to do with mobile masts. Well, once a society develops a way of thinking that is non-evidence based it does so at its peril. One of the most dis-honest and intellectually bankrupt concepts ever devised is the ‘pre-cautionary’ principle. This is a concept that would have had our forebears starve to death in a cave since they would have been too frightened to go outside to hunt or gather food. You cannot prove safety. Safety is a lack of danger. Something is safe until proved dangerous, not dangerous until proved safe.
By using observation evidence can be gathered as to the effect something has. Without use there can be no observation How long do you experiment looking for danger? How long do you deny yourself access to something beneficial (like a mobile phone) whilst trying to re-assure yourself it is safe?
The ‘pre-cautionary’ principle means no trains (trains crash) it means no aeroplanes (planes crash), it means no cars, it means no knives (people cut themselves or others) it means no plates (people can cut themselves if one breaks), etc.. Get the idea!
So this must mean that I disagree with the mobile must protesters – right? Wrong. All the above risks, from leaving caves for food to driving cars, also carry rewards. So by taking the risk of being eaten by a sabre-tooth tiger there is the reward of bringing home the mammoth. Certainly the erection of a mobile phone mast brings rewards – but not (at least not obviously) to those living near them.
The phone company obviously benefits. As does the council, in an odd way, by saving money rather than spending it. If a planning application is denied the company can always appeal to the government. That will incur costs as the council seeks to defend its decision. So by not denying permission the council saves money. The government, possibly the final arbiter, most definitely benefits. It raises taxes (VAT) on any calls made, taxes on income from employees of the company and more tax on corporation taxes on the company itself.
For those living near the mast there is the cost of a potential eye-sore and the effect on property prices of the (unsubstantiated) fear of health-effects. But no reward. Well there is one, mobile phone handsets have a transmitter themselves. The nearer a handset is to a base-station (mast) the less power this transmitter uses. Since the handset transmitter is closer to the individual than the mast is then this reduced output is a benefit. But it applies to everyone near the mast not just those that reside near the mast.
This is not that unusual. Children for instance bear a substantial cost from traffic whilst enjoying little reward.
A major contributor to the rise in childhood obesity is the motor car. Both playing in the street, a major way of children developing social skills, and walking or cycling to school are fraught with danger from motorists. A survey from the University of Birmingham, Archives of Disease in Childhood, showed that 49 per cent of primary school children walk to school now compared to 62 per cent in 1989. The number of children being driven to school having doubled in 20 years. Those children where there is more than one car in the family walk the least.
As road traffic has increased so more and more parents drive their children to school. This increases traffic and proves an incentive for even more parents to behave in this way. All of this means less and less activity for children.
The biggest killer of young teenagers, those between 12 and 15, is the motor car. It is at this age that young people generally stop being ferried to and from school and have to face Death Race 2000 for the first time.. 70 were killed in 2000 and 9,00 injured.
In the planning world this imbalance of risk (or cost) and reward is endemic. People living near the elevated section of the M6, as it trundles through Birmingham, bear a heavy cost and yet enjoy no reward. They will have their council tax reduced and their properties may have been bought for less than similar properties. But for both those who lived there when the M6 was built, or those that live their now, neither receive ‘rents’ from those using the M6.
Something of the order of 150,000 vehicles use the elevated section every day according to the Highways Agency. If those residents living within 200 metres of the M6 collected a ‘rent’ equal to .1% of the value of that traffic that would be, at a conservative calculation, £1.5 million per day. I say conservative because it assumes the average vehicle value to be £10,000 but the Highways Agency states that most vehicles using the toll road are light-vehicles so a great number of trucks use the M6. An Iveco 18E240 truck costs in the region of £36,000.
I’m sure that would ease objections somewhat.
The planning process is an economic tool. It seeks to allow investment to take place – but at a reduced cost. If the cost of purchasing ‘agreement’ from those affected by the proposal was factored into the cost of investment I wonder how many developments would take place. This is, in effect, a subsidy. Those who are relatively powerless are denied their fair rate of return be it on view, or noise level, air quality or general quality of life. And as any economist will tell you, a subsidy distorts the market.
The rise in the number of phone masts is a direct result of the introduction of third-generation (3G) handsets. That is those that can send pictures or videos. The government in 2000 auctioned off part of the radio spectrum they owned so that mobile phone operators could introduce this technology.
As part of the deal the 3G operators had to provide at least 80% coverage. The coverage of a 3G signal is less than a 2G. This coverage falls as the number of users grows. Hence the increase in masts. The Mobile Operators Association puts the number of masts required as an extra 50,000 by the end of 2007.
However, the problems phone operators have had since they paid an excessive amount (£22.5 billion) for this spectrum have been immense. Vodafone, the world’s largest operator, hasn’t made a profit since 2000. The fact that technology can do something doesn’t automatically mean that the market wants it. People do wish to talk or text each other but watching TV on a minuscule screen is not many people’s idea of fun.
Had the building of the M6 elevated section required ‘rental’ payments to be factored in then another route might well have been chosen. Cost was obviously of concern in its building. The desire to cut costs resulted in the improper use of steel works that have now corroded. The constant repairs to this section are effectively attempts to re-build it. The damage done to Birmingham’s image by this monstrosity has been immense.
In any event, by paying such ‘rents’ the need for lengthy and expensive planning enquiries may well be avoided Unfortunately, mobile phone masts do not fall into this scenario.
Paying rent may reduce objections but that would make them unprofitable. In 2006 Vodafone made only 4% of turnover from 3G technology. But what is a fair rent? Well, only the market knows. The cost, including ‘rent’, required for one motorway route can be compared with an alternative. The siting of masts is pre-determined by geography, alternative sites rarely exist.
Planning proposals for mobile masts do not result in planning inquiries, so no cost savings there.
Charging a ‘rent’ for mast sites couldn’t work as it would put residents in a monopolistic position – something economists also object to. In fact that is the only legitimate role of government in the economy – to intervene when there is market failure (a monopoly). They impose a solution on behalf of society.
In short, mast installations are, generally, unopposable. No council can seriously oppose the planning request from companies desperate to get a return on their licence investment backed by governments desperate for the tax revenues such investment generates. Also, there is the desire of the government is for a switchover to digital TV channels. This is certainly driven by the fact that it will free up yet more spectrum. This, I’m sure, they hope can be also effectively auctioned off. Failure of 3G would impact that auction enormously.
In conclusion, the evidence is that any risk from mobile-phone masts is very small, especially when compared to the normal risks people run – driving cars, eating meat, sunbathing or normal radio and TV masts. That these risks, such as they are, are exaggerated by the fact that those running them have no particular reward for it. That society as a whole, as measured by economic factors, benefits and, as with cars, the benefits to the wider society of mobile technology outweigh the costs to the minority. More masts will therefore be built.
[...] It is hard to imagine a link between Sir Isaac Newton (the farther of physics whom Einstein admired) and David Brent of the office, who is probably only admired by the management at The Carphone Warehouse. They rung me four times in the space of 24 hours to sell me broadband. This is despite being told on each occasion that I knew their service was rubbish and that there was no way on this earth I would have it. Being perfectly happy with Pipex. There is the obvious if forced observation that both knew of gravity, David Brent constantly falling on his face. There is a second (tenuous?) link that both observed the fact that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Where they part company is that Newton was able to rationalise this into a law of physics Brent is simply dumbstruck and flounders to handle the experience. A better similarity is between David Brent and Good Hope Hospital, or at least the management. Now, this isn’t just a cheap shot. Brent isn’t a bad person he is simply incompetent. And in fact it isn’t really Brent who is the true incompetent but the company he works for. When Brent finally gets the push, he is replace as office manager by the only person he seemed to have a rapport with – the ‘Team Leader’, Gareth Keenan. David Brent MKI is replaced by David Brent MKII. The company, rather than the office, is in serious trouble, So with Good Hope, its failings (which occur even when successful) are endemic to the system not the building. Let me explain. In February 2007 Good Hope announced it was full. Having managed to fill the car park the management had now managed to fill every bed (but not trolleys) in every nook and cranny of the building. Not perfect, but let the hosannas reign as targets were met or passed or nearly or something. Yeah, I know, more cynical carping. Look they’re doing better, not perfect, but hey get real. But like Brent this action is likely to have an opposite reaction that, as far as can be seen, the management of Good Hope and the NHS in general struggle with comprehending. Infection is likely, very likely, to spread. In Norway and Holland less than 1% of all bloodstream infections are drug resistant, while in Britain the figure is 44%. Figures compiled by the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System, which Dutch doctor Hajo Grundmann co-ordinates, show that Britain has higher rates of MRSA than all comparable European countries, including Germany, France and Spain, and is ranked with Cyprus, Malta and Portugal. As a doctor who has worked in Britain and Holland, Hajo Grundmann is well placed to offer an insight as to why the two countries are so far apart in the battle against MRSA. Grundmann, a consultant microbiologist, cites the differing levels of cleanliness between Britain and Holland, apparent to anyone entering the hospitals. Dutch hospitals, are generally modern and the design of the wards translates into the ability to isolate patients in single rooms, There is certainly a greater availability of beds. However, cleanliness explains only a proportion of the transmission of MRSA but it is important because it is a marker for diligence and commitment and shows that staff are taking their work seriously. Overcrowded British hospitals are a big contributor to infection. British hospitals have fewer single rooms and so isolating all infected patients is impossible. As a result, patients with MRSA need to be cared for on communal wards and risk passing on the bug. The proximity of beds, the high percentage of beds occupied at any given time and the rapid turnover of patients fuelled the high rates of MRSA in British hospitals. So by squeezing in more patients, especially by squeezing in more beds in ward, what do you think might happen. More to the point what does management think might happen? The inability to isolate patients due to lack of space and pressure to have wards open to keep waiting times down contrasts starkly with the drastic action taken to control MRSA outbreaks in Holland. Grundmann recalls an outbreak in a large Dutch hospital in 2003, affecting 28 patients. Managers reacted by closing two wards, including an intensive care unit, and spent 2m Euros (£1.3m) screening all staff and patients. Staff found to be carrying MRSA were sent home. Ironically, the process of screening patients for MRSA and isolating those found to be carrying the bug, a technique known as ’search and destroy’, was devised in Britain. But, in the mid-1990s when the MRSA rates began to soar, managers found it impossible to isolate all infected patients - there simply was not enough space. Yet this is against a backdrop of record levels of spending, sorry ‘investment’, in the NHS. The simple truth is that this money has been badly managed – but that should not be a surprise quite frankly. The NHS was founded on three assumptions of human nature that were profoundly false. That the American taxpayer would GIVE Britain money to establish a socialist state. That patients would not pursue their own interests at the expense of others. That health workers would not pursue their interests at the expense of others. It soon became obvious that these assumptions were false. The American government loaned Britain the money, at a low interest rate but still a loan. Prescription charges were introduced because, in the words of Nye Bevan the father of the NHS, ‘they (patients) weren’t even bringing the bottles back’. So very early on it ceased to be a universal health system free at the point of delivery but became an affordable health system that the electorate would support. Political, rather than medical, interests became the order of the day. It is probably worthwhile noting that the recent large sums of money are just that – recent. They didn’t materialise until after the 2001 election. During the election campaign a lady cornered Tony Blair in front of the cameras at the Queen Elizabeth and wanted to know why her partner wasn’t receiving adequate treatment for his cancer. Whilst it may be too simplistic to say that Mr. Blair is all presentation it is certainly true that he is very, very, very, very media savvy. Having won the election the good times rolled. It is worth noting that a similar complaint over GPs refusing appointments more than 24 hours in advance in order to fiddle their targets and get dosh has not been met with any response. Taxpayers are obviously a softer touch than doctors. In fact taxpayers are a softer touch than doctors, nurses, members of Unison, NHS managers, IT consultants and drug companies. All of whom have benefited enormously from this money. Problem is that bricks and mortar and patients can’t talk. Pay may have had to improve but the supply of beds needed to improve more. But we all know it’s the squeaky brake that gets the oil. Of course some building has gone. But that’s via PFI where effectively the private sector lends the government the money – it builds, the government leases. It would be wrong to blame the management of Good Hope for this sort of thing. The wages are centrally negotiated – or rather surrendered. An example of this ‘negotiation’ is that before the 2005 election Alan Johnson surrendered retirement benefits to public-sector workers that are unknown in the private sector (where the money comes from). But as education secretary he has given in over conditions on public-money for faith schools. He makes Neville Chamberlain look like Winston Churchill. This results in a situation Charles Darwin would have recognised. Those managers that have political rather than organisational and negotiating skills thrive. Having calmed one source of bad headlines with pay rises, in the case of doctors very large pay rises. The electorate were calmed by targets of getting waiting lists down. The fact that the resources didn’t exist to do this safely is meaningless. Any health-care system is imperfect. One where management can’t do the basics of wage control and quality is fatally flawed – you only have to look at British Leyland to see that. The NHS lurches from famine to feast and then back to famine. Governments pump money in as electoral pressure becomes unbearable. Rather than one-off spending on capital projects, the bulk of the money goes into wages. Once a building is built the flow of money can recede, with wages the only way to turn the tap off is to reduce headcount – just as has been seen in the NHS recently. The flow has to recede as government has over-allocated funds due to electoral pressure and, with time, that pressure moves elsewhere and the funds with it. Famine resumes with little or nothing to be shown from the feast. Without competition management has no need to address fundamental problems. With politicians as their masters, the NHS managers address the agenda politicians set The government’s PFI initiative (the private sector builds infrastructure and the government leases it) would, at first sight, seem a good way around this. The investment (rather than consumption in the form of wages) takes place and is ring-fenced from employees as the rent the lease demands has to be paid first. However, as the government (or civil servants) are so poor at negotiating with public-sector workers and private-sector consultants why should they be any better with builders? It is likely to be an expensive solution. But at least the patient may be better served. But it would be a funny world if a wry smile couldn’t be found somewhere. The seriously concerned members of SCRAM got themselves in a bit of a lather over wi-fi networks at Good Hope. I guess scrambled by name and scrambled by nature (see my blog on mast huggers). Of all the risks a patient faces in hospital, any imagined risk from wi-fi is completely, totally, utterly, incredibly negligible. Hope I got that over. What with medical mistakes, lost records (never know, a wi-fi network may help alleviate both of those – see Dr Larry Weed of Harvard on this), poor nutrition and, of course, infections – anyone concerned over wi-fi is worrying up a gum tree. I shouldn’t be so dismissive of wi-fi concerns; anything that causes people to lead their lives in such a way as to stay clear of hospital is good. The NHS is not the National Health Service it is the National Delivery of Drugs and Medical Procedures Society. All the NHS horses and all the NHS men frequently can’t put Humpty together again. We all know the answer, the real NHS service is provided by the likes of the fruit shops in Erdington and walking (driver, leave that car alone) . Because, whilst Newtonian physics got man to the moon and David Brent seemed constantly over the moon, I’m afraid expecting the NHS to get a grip on hospital-acquired infections is wishing for the moon. [...]