This is the full transcript of Frontline Scotland's High Anxiety programme broadcast on 9 February.

---

Presenter Shelley Joffre: If you don't have one of these, then you'll soon be in the minority. The future, it seems, is mobile. And to make sure we all find it good to talk, the mobile phone industry is putting up transmitter masts across the country.

Music...

Shelley: A rude awakening for residents of the sleepy Renfrewshire village of Bridge of Weir. Last November Winnie Kerr awoke to discover workmen preparing to put a mobile phone mast right in front of her house. She and her neighbours are concerned the radiation from the mast may pose a long-term health risk.

Winnie Kerr: We saw somebody digging something right across here, and I came out and I said: "Excuse me, what are you doing?," and he said: "We are digging a hole for Orange Communications,"

I said: "But nobody has told me,"

He said: "That's what they do. They just don't tell anybody, they just do it."

The gentleman that was digging gave me a phone number to phone, which I did. I phoned the county council, and they said they would look into it. This lady in the county council said she'd look into it, which she did. And then she phoned back and said there's really very little we can do about it because the government had given them carte blanche to dig holes, as long as they're not higher than 15m, the poles are not higher than 15m.

And we objected because they didn't come and ask us, they didn't even say "please, may I do it", it was a fait accompli by them, and the government had given them carte blanche to dig holes anywhere they like in the country.

Shelley: How do you feel about that?

Winnie: Ridiculous. We feel that it could be put outwith this boundary, why put it amongst houses? But we've heard since that they can put it in a school playground; they can put it in a hospital car park. So they have got no thought to the general public. They can put holes where they like, and they don't ask "please". We're fighting hard because we want our own liberty.

Shelley: Why do you think they're so keen to place the mast here then?

Male: Because it's a matter of cost. It's for the contractors, ease of access. They don't have to pay contractors long lengthy fees to dig holes across ground. Therefore they'll just plonk the posts anywhere they can. Twenty yards up the road they could build it. They could erect this post with no problem at all for slight extra cost.

Shelley: Orange don't need to consult local residents or even get planning permission for the mast since it will be under 15m in height.

But local residents have found a unique way of making their views heard loud and clear. The hole for the mast has been filled in and a car has been parked over it. So workmen have been unable to complete the job.

Male:It has been very successful so far. We've also parked cars up and down the street, and we haven't seen the contractors since then. And long may that continue.

Shelley: So it sounds like you're making life quite difficult for them?

Male:As hard as possible.

Shelley: Another community, another battle. This time the residents of Arden in Glasgow are taking on mobile phone giants BT Cellnet. They put a mast right between the community's two primary schools a year and a half ago. Again, the mast is just short enough so as not to require planning permission. Local parents are furious.

Shelley: You all have children at these two schools, were any of you consulted about this mast going up?

Female: No, none us of, no.

Shelley: What do you think about that?

Female: I think it's ridiculous really.

Female: I just think it's a no-no. A mast between two schools is just... it's not on.

Shelley: They're determined to have the mast moved. But can they succeed against BT Cellnet, who need to pay shareholders and seven million customers.

Male: Yes, you can fight multinationals. You've just to keep on at it, and we're not going to give in until this mast is actually removed.

Shelley: There are four mobile phone networks in Britain, and competition between them is fierce. At the moment they each have enough masts to serve virtually the whole population.

But they need even more to cope with the increasing volume of calls. It's estimated there will eventually be a hundred thousand masts across Britain. So, why do so many have to be built so close to people?

Shelley: Both Orange and Cellnet declined our offer to take part in this programme. So, I'm here in London to speak to a representative of the industry as a whole.

Michael Dolan, Federation of Electronics Industry: Mobile telephony has to go where the phones are used. And the phones are used in areas of population. And so, in cities, for argument's sake there will be masts spread around that city in order to give the best coverage to the people who use the phones.

Shelley: They don't have to be near schools or residential areas, do they?

Michael Dolan: Well, if you're going to put them into a city in order to give coverage it's going to have to be in areas where people are, and where people use the phones.

Shelley: That's little comfort to the people of Arden. They are concerned that long-term exposure to the mast could harm their children's health.

Female: I think it's terrible our children should be subjected to radiation every day, I really do.

Female: See after school time, the kids play in the actual school at football, so they're getting subjected as well as in school, as well as playtime, as well when they come home from school. So, I think it's ridiculous, I think they should be removed.

Male: Our kids are in this school from nine o'clock in the morning till three o'clock in the afternoon, five days a week. Exposed to this radiation for that amount of time - six hours per day, five days a week - I don't think that it's going do them any good. It'll do them harm.

But until somebody comes out and actually admits that it does cause.... I believe personally that it does cause harm, because no radiation is going to do you any good.

Shelley: But we live with radiation all around us. So, is there anything to fear from masts?

Mobile phone masts emit radiation every time they send a signal from one phone to another. But experts can't agree at the moment whether long-term exposure to this radiation is dangerous.

Dr Michael Clarke, National Radiological Protection Board: We are asked: "Do these masts pose a health risk?" and we have to say honestly, when we look at all the evidence, and considering the levels of exposure that members of the public get, even in the vicinity of these masts, we honestly don't see any evidence of an effect.

Dr Helene Irvine, public health consultant, Greater Glasgow Health Board: The level of radiation that comes off the transmitter masts is extremely low, and therefore I would expect the risk of disease in the future to be very low, if not negligible. But the problem here is that we don't how low it is.

We know that lots of people will be exposed because masts are increasing in number, and if a 100,000 are erected throughout the United Kingdom we could predict that several million people will be living rather close to masts. Even if only a small percentage of people are affected, even in terms of symptoms or developing disease, then in public health terms we could have a problem.

Shelley:Is there enough scientific evidence of biological effects to be concerned just now?

Dr Helene Irvine: Well I feel there is. If you have one of these at the end of your garden, or in the lamp post opposite your flat on the main street, you want to think that that radiation is inert.

You don't want to know that there are a lot of studies out there that show it does actually have effects on living systems, whether it's a human cell in a petri dish...or whether it's an animal model in a laboratory set-up. You want to know there is no chance of an effect on you because you have to live there.

And I think that's quite understandable that people then have concerns when they find there's been one erected opposite their flat, or in their child's school ground, and they weren't consulted on it, and they're not confident that they're being re-assured appropriately as to its complete safety.

Shelley: Most recent research has focused on the possible health risks from mobile phones. Phones bombard us with 10 times more radiation than masts because they're used so close to the body. But scientists are sharply divided on whether any of this radiation actually harms us.

Here in Seattle, in the United States, scientists have been investigating the biological effects of radiation from mobile telephones. Their studies in rats have produced results that could also have grave implications for human health.

In this laboratory rats were exposed to microwave radiation with bursts of 45 minutes at a time. The intensity was similar to the emissions from a mobile phone. Doctor Henry Lai, a world expert on microwave radiation, was alarmed by what he found.

Dr Henry Lai, University of Washington, Seattle: We found DNA damage in cells of animals exposed to microwaves. We also found that changes in chemicals inside the brain of animals. And we also found that animals exposed to microwaves have problems learning, and remembering things. The cell can become cancerous because DNA damage initiates cancer.

Shelley: The possibility that DNA damage and cancer could occur from mobile phone use is worrying in itself. But it also raises the question of whether long-term exposure to lower levels of radiation from masts could also cause these changes.

Dr Lai: Yes, there are reports of biological effects in the literature, within animals exposed to low intensity cell masts radiation. Mice exposed to low level, low intensity radiation for generations, they lost the ability to reproduce.

Shelley: Around the world there have been a number of studies which have suggested long term exposure to low level microwave radiation could be dangerous.

Scientists have found a range of biological effects including a decrease in hormone levels; changes in white blood cells; increases in blood pressure; variation in cell multiplication; DNA damage in human cells; and one study found an increase risk of cancer among people exposed to this radiation. None of this, however, has yet been proved conclusively.

Dr Lai: It will take a long time before we know, because....after say 10 years, and 20 years, and you see people....start have a high incidence of cancer in people who live close to cell masts then you would know.

Shelley: Do you think it's good enough to wait and see if that develops?

Dr Lai: Of course not, because when you're talking about human life I don't think it's a good idea to wait and see.

Shelley: Would you be happy, for example, to send your own child to a school that had a mobile phone mast on the grounds?

Dr Lai: Well if the phone mast is very close to the school, sometimes they put it up on the roof of the school beside it. I would be concerned, yes, because children will be in that building for a long time, like six or seven hours a day, and they're constantly being exposed to the radiation. And I don't see why they can not move the antenna away from the roof of the school.

Shelley: This is the Scottish headquarters of the National Radiological Protection Board. They set the guidelines for emissions from mobile phone masts. So, I'm going to find out their views on the controversy.

NRPB scientists monitor a variety of radiological levels in the environment. They produce guidelines on sun and radon exposure, and keep a close eye on the levels of microwave radiation emitted by mobile phones and transmitter masts. Thegovernment takes seriously their advice on all these matters.

Dr Michael Clarke, National Radiological Protection Board: We're here to answer the question, is there a health risk from these masts? And we have to say, we've looked at the evidence and our honest view looking at all the evidence is that there's no evidence.

Shelley: You feel you can say that with absolute confidence?

Dr Clarke: No, I can't give you an absolute guarantee. No one can do that. As I say, we have seen no firm evidence of any effect, and we say that. If you say an absolute guarantee, of course we can't give you an absolute guarantee, I wouldn't dream of it.

Shelley: How concerned are you though about the scientific research that has shown biological effects from low level radiation over long periods of time?

Dr Clarke: Well,.there are reports and there are certain experiments which purport to show effects, and we take note of that. But they get a lot of publicity, sometimes front page of the newspapers.

We have to look at the whole picture, and you may have this one report of an effect, but then in the scientific literature there will be 10 reports to say that can't replicate that, or show no effect at all. And we have to look at that. That says to us - look, there's probably no effect, very probably no effect. And that's the basis of our advice. It's not that we dismiss it, but we have to look at the whole picture.

Shelley: If a health risk does emerge in the next 10 or 20 years that will be of little consolation to parents whose children went to school next to a mobile phone mast.

Dr Clarke Yes, and I've got to think here I'm sitting here saying on TV that there's no risk. So I wouldn't be doing this if I wasn't convinced myself by the evidence. But no-one can know everything. And if we did see evidence of an effect, if it became clear, we would say.

Shelley: But evidence of a health risk from mobile phone masts might only emerge when the damage has already been done. There are several examples from the recent past where the authorities waited for hard and fast scientific proof of a public health risk before they took action

.Dr Colin Ramsay, Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health: The one example, which I'm sure comes to many people's minds, is the example of BSE. That was a situation where in the mid-1980s there was significant uncertainty as to what the effects on human health might be. And a range of actions were taken at that time which were thought at the time to be adequate, but in retrospect it may not have been adequate.

And so there are some parallels in relation to the application of a deal of scientific uncertainty, and that in itself can be used as justification for saying if you have a situation amongst scientific uncertainty then you should adopt the most precautionary measures which are technically achievable, and realistic at the time.

Shelley: The Department of Health in London is currently reviewing the scientific evidence on the safety of mobile phone masts. In the meantime a precautionary policy would mean masts would not be sited too close to sensitive areas, like housing developments and schools until evidence of their safety is more conclusive.

The Scottish Parliament is currently considering whether this sort of policy should be adopted nationwide. Frontline has discovered that just over half of Scotland's councils have already taken this initiative on their own property.

Highland Council adopted a precautionary policy last year. But that's come too late for some residents who have already been forced to live alongside a mast.

Orange put up this mast on a playing field floodlight a year ago. It's right in the middle of a housing estate where 400 people live.

In spite of local objections, the 23-metre mast was given planning permission by the council. Worried parents now want to see it moved.

Dorothy Parker: How do you feel about the way the council's handled this?

Female (laughing):That's a very open question. Yes, not very well because they just went ahead and allowed them to put the mast up here.

And then when they realised that all the residents round about were totally against it they had an about face. Trying to take it away, but now it's here it's not going to be so easy to remove.

Dorothy Parker: So, how are you going to get rid of it?

Female: Well, I'm hoping the council are going to get them to get rid of it, find an alternative place for them to put the mast - which I'm sure that there is - away from civilisation.

Shelley: However, it's not that simple. Orange has agreed to find an alternative site, but at a hefty price.

Councillor Roger Saxon, Highland Council : Orange has asked for £140,000 approximately for replacing this mast and putting another one because they said this is a good location, and another location wouldn't give them the coverage. And they always wanted guarantees that we'd give them planning permission for these two new sites, one of which would be at a refurbished site, but, two brand new sites effectively.

Shelley: The council believes the price of securing a move is just too high. So, for locals it looks like the future's still orange.

Dorothy Parker: What do you think you can do now?

Female: You'll need to ask the council. It's their fault, it's their fault it's here. Orange got planning permission, they got it legally, and they're here legally. The problem is that the council gave them permission and they shouldn't have done. Therefore, it's their problem, they have to move it.

Dorothy: And they have to pay them?

Female: I think they should pay them, yes. No doubt it'll come out of our pockets. They'll probably find some way for us to pay for it. But it shouldn't be here.

Male: In fact, I personally think those in the council at that time who decided it should go up here should pay it out their own pocket, not out the public's pocket. That was a total mistake.

Female: There's not a precautionary policy in place in the Highland Region, with masts and council owned land. That shouldn't be there. OK, they might be fine, in twenty years time they might be no problem. But right now we don't know, and we're not being careful enough. We're taking chances and we shouldn't be taking chances with peoples lives.

(Orange advertisement):"Orange believe that your phone should work wherever you......that's why we're installing more transmitters in more places than any other digital network. Orange - the network that performs."

Shelley: Orange are happy with the coverage the mast provides but in a statement they told Frontline they are aware of local concerns.

However, they claim none of the alternative sites for the mast would provide coverage for the area as effectively as the existing site. So, they say two masts would need to be built to provide the same level of coverage.

The company has also commissioned an independent site survey to demonstrate that levels from the existing transmitter are well within NRPB guidelines. Even this though is not enough to re-assure local residents.

While the jury is still out on the scientific evidence, Glasgow remains the largest council in Scotland without a precautionary policy.

There are 98t masts on council property across the city. The residents of Arden want the council to err on the side of caution and move their mast.

Male: If they can prove to us categorically that it does no harm at all, then we would have to accept that. But they cannot do that. They can only say there is no real proof that it does this harm, or that harm.

Male:If there is any danger at all the masts should be removed. If there's any child in this school, between the two schools, or the community that have contracted leukaemia, or any cancer-related diseases, and it's found out that it's through this mast the council will be held responsible by this community.

Shelley: Glasgow City Council say they gave notice to BT Cellnet last December to remove the Arden mast. They're now in discussion about relocation on a possible council site away from the schools.

Last year the council asked Greater Glasgow Health Board for their advice on whether to adopt a precautionary policy. So far though the council's not taken the advice they were given.

Dr Helene Irvine, Public health consultant, Greater Glasgow Health Board: My advice was to adopt a precautionary policy, that is to avoid erecting these masts in sensitive areas, and by that I was including schools, and residential areas.

I don't think it's a good idea to put a mast, for instance, between two houses on a residential estate, and we do see examples of that. I don't think it's a good idea to put one disguised as a lamp post just opposite somebody's bedroom on the high street.

And I don't think it's a good idea to put one on the side of a block of flats where it might actually be transmitting right through the brick wall and into the penthouse apartment of the person living on the top, and so on. I think that we need to arbitrarily introduce a stricter standard.

Shelley: We wanted to ask Glasgow City Council why they don't have a precautionary policy like many other councils. They refused to be interviewed, but told Frontline the council monitors emission levels from masts which are very low and well below any recommended guidelines.

The council awaits the findings and recommendations of the current inquiries by both the Department of Health, and the Scottish parliament.

Transmitter masts can be put up on any property - council or private - without planning permission, provided they're under 15m in height.

The government has so far kept restrictions to a minimum to encourage industry growth. But Frontline understands the Scottish Parliament is expected to introduce a precautionary policy nationwide, and legislation that would require all masts to have planning permission.

Dr Helene Irvine: Well I would be very pleased if the Scottish Parliament flexed its independent muscle, if you like, within the United Kingdom, and adopt as the norm precautionary policies in a whole range of areas, and obviously starting with the cellphone issue.

In Scotland there's an opportunity here to say we're going to have a precautionary policy; we're going to, for starters, require planning permission for all masts, not just those over 49ft high, or 15m high; and we're going to avoid putting them in sensitive areas, regardless of the lack of evidence or proof of a problem.

In my view it's a good idea, for instance, to exclude schools from the equation altogether because it's so difficult to reassure people that the mast is entirely safe. And it seems to be politically expedient and a lot more practical to just avoid putting them in areas where people are bound to get upset, and where you'll never be able to persuade people that they're entirely benign.

Shelley: The last century has seen a revolution in communications. But, the technology still has a long way to go.

Male (describing pc and modem): This is more like a full communications package rather than just a mobile phone.

Shelley: Next month the government will auction off new microwave transmission frequencies to the mobile phone networks. These will allow the industry to develop the next generation of mobile phones.

Soon you'll be able to access the internet, send music and video clips and communicate by e-mail all on your mobile phone. This will inevitably be supported by a massive expansion in the number of transmitter masts across the country.

Michael Dolan, Federation of the Electronics Industry: The community at large is asking for the coverage. As you know mobile telephony has brought great benefits to the whole of Britain, and also to Scotland, and brings great benefits to people. And in order to bring those benefits it is necessary to have the masts in areas where coverage is required.

Shelley: Are you suggesting that somehow we wouldn't be as advanced if planning regulations were stricter?

Michael Dolan: It's clear that if full planning did apply then there would be significantly increased work in terms of the local councils, and also there would be delays obviously in providing service to customers.

Shelley: Is it wise then to stand in the way of progress? The industry fears that too many restrictions on the siting of masts could leave Scotland a technological desert. Some health experts believe it is possible to protect the public without damaging business.

Dr Colin Ramsay, Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health: I think it's quite clear that the population themselves like this technology. Twenty-four million people now have mobile phones, so clearly people want to use it.

But I think people have to be aware that there's no such thing as a cost-free adoption of a new technology. What I'm suggesting is not hampering the industry but working with the industry to achieve technical solutions, but maintaining the exposure to the population to the absolute minimum of this radio frequency energy that we need to have.

Advert: "In future no one will be tied down. And in the future the skies will be clearer because the world of communications will be wire-free. Don't worry. The future's bright."

Shelley: But many people across Scotland are still worried. Despite what the glossy ads tell us no one can safely predict the future.

While uncertainty remains about the long-term health risks a growing number of people want to see restrictions on where masts are sited. Meanwhile the industry wants to advance their technology with as little red tape as possible. In the end though the choice is ours.