Radiation
Scientists, engineers and medical professionals have come together to counter public misinformation about radiation and health effects.
They say that the public discussion is confusing, with people left struggling to weigh up which claims to take seriously. Many people have become anxious about exposure to non-ionising forms of radiation, from mobiles, Wi-Fi and masts. The scientists also fear that people are now being encouraged to spend their money on all manner of unnecessary products that claim to protect from EMFs.
The scientists, working with Sense About Science, have identified some of the tools and insights that they themselves rely on, in the hope it might help to deliver to the public a clearer picture of what radiation is, what it does and what it can’t do. The guide published today, Making Sense of Radiation, offers some familiarisation with the areas of discussion and controversy, and helps people to question things they’ve heard or read about radiation.
In summary it says:
- Speculative stories about health risks and RF radiation often go uncorrected, leaving a trail of confusion that prevents public discussion and policy from moving forward.
- To counter this they wanted to share some insights, like the fact that different types of radiation exist, that ‘cancer clusters’ are unusual and that by picturing what radiation is like you see that the ‘electrosmog’ metaphor is misleading.
- Current research does not show that EMFs from mobile phones, masts and Wi-Fi cause harmful effects.
- The scientists had a look at a range of products claiming to protect us from EMFs and concluded that they exploited people’s fears, were unnecessary and generally did not do what they promised.
So why do they think it’s important to do this now?
Professor Jim Al-Khalili OBE, Professor of Physics, University of Surrey: “In an enlightened and informed society, it is absolutely crucial that certain scientific issues are discussed openly, so that misconceptions, half-truths and even views based on pseudoscience are addressed. The general public cannot be expected to make informed decisions on a whole range of issues that affect people’s daily lives if the basic facts about these issues are not available to them.”
Professor Anthony Barker, Consultant Clinical Scientist, Royal Hallamshire Hospital: “When potential problems are highlighted, such as health risks from overhead power cables or mobile phones, it is the duty of scientists to look into them. However, if after considerable research effort no plausible mechanisms or robust and replicable findings have been found, there comes a time when science and society should move on and focus their finite resources into areas that are more likely to reap significant benefits.”
Professor Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, Queen Mary College London: “In any field where we hope to have constructive debate about hazards and risks, the first step is to have reliable information. Most people have an uncertain understanding of what radiation is and do not have the knowledge that enables them to think of heat from a fire, light, or dental x-rays - types of radiation we have all experienced - in the same context. Many of us are unaware of ‘natural’ radiation, or with how our bodies deal with it. This document is intended to give those interested in these topics a background source of information that will help all of those not directly involved in the field to understand the issues more clearly.”
Professor Anthony Davies, Emeritus Professor, King’s College London: “Progress in science and engineering is totally dependent upon a foundation of evidence-based practical work, repeatable results and trust in the truthful reporting of, as well as having to be supported by a consistent theory. There are campaign groups that can promote their message only by a large-scale hiding of the truth (either consciously or through ignorance), which comes back to a need for a questioning public.”
Professor Elaine Fox, Head of the Department of Psychology, University of Essex: “By not paying attention to the scientific evidence a lot of unneccesary panic and anxiety is being generated. This is not unusual, of course, as generating anxiety about ‘unknowns (e.g., the effects may only be known in 20 years time) is a common way to raise awareness about an issue. With regard to the mobile phone issue, it means that some people may be persuaded to spend a lot of money unnecessarily. I think that, as with many of these issues, the level of fear and anxiety is easy to generate and then is easily maintained by the widespread mistrust of authority and political bodies.”
Dr Tim Fox CEng MIMechE, Environment Theme Manager, Institution of Mechanical Engineers: “The Institution of Mechanical Engineers believes that the public should have access to clear, impartial and factually correct information on subjects that relate to environmental issues. The availability of such information enables them to make informed decisions about their well-being, quality of life and personal security and it was on this basis that we contributed to the development of “Making Sense of Radiation”. We very much hope it helps to answer the public’s radiation related concerns.”
Dr Stephen Keevil, Consultant Physicist in MRI, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust: “Receiving misleading information causes unnecessary anxiety among people who genuinely believe, for example, that their (real) symptoms are due to EMF exposure and that this is being ignored by the Authorities. Pedalling misleading information is a cynical means for unscrupulous charlatans to make money from these people. All of this contributes to public mistrust of science and scientists.”
Professor Averil Macdonald, Professor of Science Communication, University of Reading: “It’s only fair that people should have all the facts, otherwise they risk being taken in by unscrupulous companies peddling useless or pointless products or being frightened to death - needlessly - by ill-informed articles in newspapers.”
Dr Eric de Silva, Imperial College London: “Today we are surrounded by more gadgets and technological amenities than ever before. Most of us know very little about how they operate and it is this lack of knowledge that scaremongers, purveyors of dubious products and headline-grabbing publications prey upon. This document serves as a much needed corrective to such confusion, replacing the hyperbole with clearly explained evidence-based science. Reading it, anyone can make a reasoned consideration of the facts and so be in a position to judge the merits (if any) of the many claims we are exposed to everyday.”
The guide Making Sense of Radiation is published by Sense About Science with the kind assistance of the British Institute of Radiologists, the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
For copies of the report please fill in this form or email publications@senseaboutscience.org
Coverage
Other comments on Making Sense of Radiation
“Our radiation fears are being exploited, charity warns”
“Firms ‘exploit fears’ over mobile radiation risk, says report”
Prof Elaine Fox was interviewed on the Today programme
Article in the london paper on Monday 13 October 2008: “How effective are radiation blockers?”
Comment piece by Professor Anthony Barker in the Daily Express, “Under the microscope” section, on Tuesday October 21 2008
Last updated: January 20 2009
